Tag Archives: bias in the media

Liberals To Tea Party Activists “Drop Dead”

Bookmark and Share   One week after highly demonized former Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin was featured at a Tea Party rally in Harry Reid’s backyard, the politically ailing Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, has begun to kick his Nevada reelection campaign into high gear. But the two events had very different moods. Despite the lefts desire to paint Palin as an unpopular and undesirable figure, at her rally there was an enthusiasm and energy that emanated from the approximately 10,000 anti-Reid protestors in attendance. Yet in one of Reid’s first rallies, there was a sense of desperation from the near 100 hundred people in attendance.

Such small and unenthusiastic turnouts are the best that one can expect when they possess a nationwide approval rating that CBS reports stands at 8%. That’s 3% behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi! Nancy Pelosi……3% behind her! Imagine that. So the small turnout for Reid’s campaign event is no surprise and it is also indicative of his own state polls which have him behind all of his possible Senate opponents by anywhere from 7% to as much as 15%.

These numbers are a reflection of Reid, his leadership, his policies and the process which, as the leader of the Senate, he has manipulated. People are not pleased by any of it and so the polls show it. And in Reid’s case, they are more than dissatisfied, they are angry. All except for the handful of Reid’s loyal supporters.

These supporters are a dedicated portion of the liberal-Democrat base.

These are people who are devout liberals, believe that the federal government is a service industry and rely heavily on the government for their survival. They are people who believe that we need more government, not less. They are largely Democrat forced union voters and they are essentially those liberals who vote the Party line no matter who is on the ballot.

But they are something else too.

These liberal Reid-supporting Democrats are also angry, and they are dangerous, violent, extremists.

How does one reach this conclusion?

Well, at Harry Reid’s campaign event, he began his remarks by referencing Sarah Palin and the anti-Reid crowd in attendance at the rally the week before. As he began those remarks in a way that was meant to belittle them, one of the loyal Reid supporters yelled out “let them drop dead.”

Clearly such a contemptuous outcry from Reid’s followers reflects a deep hatred for those who oppose them and their beliefs. One could say that it is similar to the terrorists of radical Islam. They too harbor the same feeling as the liberal Reid voter who called for those who think differently than her to “drop dead”.

Or is that in and of itself an extreme characterization of all liberals like those who support Harry Reid?

Personally, I think it is extreme. But by the standards of Democrats, it is not.

Last summer when lawmakers went home to their districts and met with constituents who were truly angry with the liberal agenda and how Democrats were ramming it through Congress, Nancy Pelosi stood before the Washington press corps and said that the anger out their worries her and in a reference to the assassination of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California and San Franciso Mayor George Moscone in 1978, claimed that she fears reliving such a climate again.

Then of course you have people like scandal embroiled Congressman Charlie Rangel who claimed that those protesting the government healthcare takeover reminded him of those who protested against civil rights in the 60’s. There is also Bawny Fwanks, who claimed that the people opposing the healthcare scheme spit at him because he is gay. Where he came up with that one bugs the hell out of me because I for one know that given the opportunity, I would not spit on Bawny because he is gay. I would spit on him because he is a disgrace to gays and a despicably corrupt, socialist member of Congress.

But between Pelosi, Rangel, Fwanks and Democrats et al, and those sectors of the media that is biased in their favor, all these conspiratorial concoctions are invented and exaggerated in a way that makes for great theater and is meant to marginalize those who disagree with their agenda.

But when is enough, enough?

If the media maintained any semblance of objectivity, they would have been reporting on the Reid supporter who interrupted the Senator at his campaign event to yell out “let them drop dead” and they would have done so with the same vim and vigor that they display whenever Democrats try to depict conservatives or Tea Party members as violent racists.

The truth is that, from the sound of it, the women who yelled out her crude remark at the Reid event, was an elderly women. Granted, she was probably not your typical blue haired, church going grandmother or Mayberry’s “Aunt Bea”, but she was a relatively harmless senior citizen who is not likely to be running with a bat in hand and breaking skulls and windows. But she did call for those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

That said, should that woman’s remark be swept under the rug as Democrats and the media have done? Had they not tried to falsely paint conservatives and Tea Party protestors as dangerous radicals, I would say “yes”. It should be ignored. However, unless one supports double standards, the remark can’t be ignored.

To apply the left’s standard to this situation, one would have to suggest that Reid voters and the liberal base that make up those supporters are “calling for violence”. You could say they are full of hate and contempt and that they are dangerous extremist who must be stopped.

Furthermore; should we ignore the fact that as the leader of the senate, Reid failed to put an end to that type of conduct and language?

There is no denying the fact that Reid heard the old biddies raspy and shaky voice as she yelled her uncalled for remark. So why did not this leading figure of the Democrat Party pause to say something like, “Now, now. There will be none of that. These are fellow Americans who simply disagree with us and such uncivil and untoward language has no place in political discourse”?

But no, not Harry. In fact you could say that his negative remarks about Sarah Palin and the people in attendance at the protest rally she spoke at, incited the aggressive reaction that he got from the bitter, decrepit spinster who wants all of those who disagree with her to “drop dead”.

The outrageous remarks of some bored old lady who was enticed to come to a Harry Reid campaign event because of free coffee and cookies, should not change the political landscape. It should not have a bearing on how much more debt our nation accumulates, how many I.R.S. agents it should take to implement healthcare or how we can prevent sworn enemies from obtaining the nuclear capacity to wipe sections of society off of the map. And the same should hold true of a handful of malcontents who may infiltrate a crowd of 50,000 or more people who come together to oppose some of the most transformative pieces of legislation we have ever known.

If this cycle of demonizing one another is to ever stop, perhaps liberals should stop printing labels and stop trying to pit white against black, rich against poor, men versus women, gay versus straight and all the other division that they pin their hopes for future success on. And perhaps it is time for them to live by one standard, not a double one. For if you think about, do you really think that a remark for the opposition to drop dread coming from an audience gathered to hear Dick Cheney would have gone unnoticed? Imagine for a moment, how many days such a remark would have grabbed the headlines if it was yelled out at an event featuring Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich?

The remark spoken to Harry Reid at a campaign event is less a statement than how it was handled. The fact that the right is not labeling the left as vicious and dangerous because of it, says something pretty decent of them but the fact that the media hasn’t hung it around the left’s neck like they do with Republicans and that Harry Reid did not denounce the remark says volumes of substantially negative political nuances.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE MESSIAH MODE AND BARACK OBAMA’S POLITICAL MADRASAS

In the Islamic faith a madrasa is a school for the study of the Koran and Islamic thought,. Many madrasas are wrongfully used to teach extremist Islamic views and indoctrinate the young into jihad against what they call, the great Satan, the United States.

When used as a training ground for terrorism, madrasas are dangerous. They perpetuate a corrupted interpretation of a religion and breed violence and hatred all in the name of Allah.

Such schools of propaganda are frowned upon and not only discouraged but fought against. Yet here in the United States a growing number of political madrasas are cropping up in the gymnasiums and classrooms of our own public schools. They have grown in number from California to New York and were inspired by followers of liberal messiah Barack Obama.

Liberals have been blinded by hatred for Republicans and motivated by their jealousy of Republican electoral victories.  That same hatred and jealousy has inspired them to spread their message through the basic educational institutions within the nation’s school systems.

Just a few weeks ago a college level teacher forced students to complete an assignment that ripped apart Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. A contrary approach that would have supported her speech by a student, who agreed with what she said, was unacceptable and did not fulfill the requirements of the assignment.

Shortly after that, low grade elementary school children were gathered together for days of rehearsal as they prepared for a choir performance that sang the virtues of Barack Obama.

Now in Missouri, another teacher was reprimanded for gathering students together for pro-Obama military like drills that shout out adoring chants for Barack. As you can see in the video, it is an eerie display of Nazi like military celebrations for Hitler.

In fact all of these public school activities and the training of children into liberal ideologies before thay have developed sense of personal independent thought are frightening. The biased indoctrination of youth by public school educators is appalling. The single digit aged kids singing in choirs for Obama is reminiscent of communist Chinese school auditoriums paying homage to Mao Tse Tung.

What I find most intriguing is the fact that the educators who are sponsoring these events are the very same people who refuse school prayer or the pledge of allegiance to be conducted in the public domain. They have thrown the ROTC off of campuses and refused to allow it as an option for children.  Yet they are more than happy to train school children to believe that Barack Obama is our savior and that he is the one person we must have faith in.

It is another example of liberal hypocrisy and a prime example of the same type of madrasa-like atmosphere that extremists use to brainwash children and draft them into jihad.

The problem, for me, is that this is still America. The Islamic jihad has not yet converted our population to their cause and the tactics that they use should not be adopted by American schools and educators. It is bad enough that many institutions of higher learning are dominated by liberal radicals like domestic terrorist and Obama buddy Bill Ayers who is now a Chicago professor. But the line must be drawn in our elementary institutions.

Liberals preach the virtues of tolerance and acceptance. They accuse all others who are not liberal of being

Class In Session At An Extremist Madrasa

Class In Session At An Extremist Madrasa

intolerant and prejudiced yet they have no qualms about brainwashing innocent children into promoting their own biases and intolerances. Just like the extremist madrasas promoting their sheep-like flock of terrorists.

All of this is a result of the very real messiah image that Obama has created for himself. An image that he, himself, believes and that his mindless, desperate, bitter, hateful followers agree with. For them Obama can do no wrong even though he has done nothing in his entire political career. For them winning is all that matters and for them no one is immune from their tactics to win, not even innocent children. It is dangerously similar to the bombing tactics of William Ayers or Hezbollah and it is unacceptable in a democracy, especially our American democracy.

It is time for Barack Obama to denounce such tactics and help to stem the prostituting of our youth in an attempt to promote a political agenda. Does he adore and endorse endorses these tactics the same way that Kruschev did when children from all over the former Soviet Union were collected and gathered in Red Square to sing his praises behind a backdrop of the latest military hardware? Or does Barack rejects such spectacles and tactics as an illegitimate and inappropriate parasitizing of children for political purposes? Having the messianic complex that he has of himself I think I know the answer to that question.

 

Here is a free puppy

Barack Obama is running down the street one day, and he sees a little girl who is giving away puppies that her dog just had.

He goes up to the girl and says, “Little girl, I think that it’s wonderful that you’re doing such a good thing.”

The little girl says, “Thank you, Senator Obama. Would you like a puppy? They’re Democrats.”

Barack declines and jogs onward. The next day Barrack jogs past the same girl and decides to talk to her again. “You know what, little girl? I think I’ll take one of those puppies after all, seeing as how they’re Democrats.”

The girl says, “I’m sorry Senator Obama, but they’re not Democrats any more. They’re Republican now.”

Barack says, “They are? How do you know? As a matter of fact, how did you know that they were Democrats at first to begin with?” 

She says, “Well, just after they were born they were Democrats, but now their eyes are open.”
Photobucket

 

2 Comments

Filed under politics