As per my last post, seems the hatred coming from the left is so close to the mainstream that it oozes from the website of the leader of the Democratic Party.  Now, someone blogging there is calling us “heirs of bin Laden” for opposing the President’s health care plan.

Jim Hoft links to a screed there, obviously by someone like Keith Olbermann, who took seriously this obviously sarcastic comment of a participant at a town hall for U.S. Representative Wally Herger  in Redding, California:

I have been known to say things that are fishy. I’ve even been known to attend Redding Tea Party dot com protests. And I want to say that I’m a proud right wing terrorist. (applause) I didn’t come prepared with a lot of notes tonight; I left them, actually, at home while I was looking for my birth certificate.

Burt Stead, the guy who uttered those words, admitted that with he did so in order to “poke fun” at things Obama Obama Administration officials have said and done.

But a left-winger blogging on the President’s behalf, missed the humor, reading Republican reaction as

Republican Representatives, Senators, GOP Party Leader, GOP Political Machine top personnel (e.g., Gingritch), etc etc etc — they’re ALL every one of them applauding and encouraging their zealot-horde by merrily referring to them as “Proud Right-Wing Terrorists”. Google it – I’m not pulling your leg. 

No, this guy’s not pulling our leg, but he is taking himself far too seriously.  A clever Republican was having a bit of fun.  And he and his counterparts on the left, so eager to demonize us, saw this “wing-nut” defining himself (with a straight face) exactly as they see us (with their faces reddening).

Please note that I changed the title to eliminate a confusing double negative.

Had an interesting exchange with Allen, (AKA the Angry Bear) another LA blogger I discovered through an Instalink.  Allen was debating whether or not to buy Shadow Complex, a new video game, created in cooperation with Orson Scott Card, a devout Mormon who has actively worked to block state recognition of same-sex marriages.  As this blogger notes, Card has not just opposed such recognition but also serves on “the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, an organization founded in 2007 to resist the legalization of gay marriage.“

Oh, and the Angry Bear is straight.

I e-mailed Allen telling him of my decision to patronize El Coyote despite the antics of some juvenile gay activists who demanded a boycott of the popular Hollywood restaurant because a prominent employee made a small contribution to the “Yes on 8″ campaign.  To be sure, the circumstances are different.

That said, I was delighted to discover a straight guy who leans right weighing the issues involved in purchasing a product from which an activist against gay marriage would profit.

In the course of our exchange, he articulated the reasons why he is less comfortable with the left than the right, distinguishing intolerant, name-calling left-wingers from their counterparts on the right.

. . . that’s why I have a bigger problem with liberals than I do with conservatives. Even when I agree with the cause (and when it comes to social issues, I’m pretty damned liberal), I loathe the tactics and the mindset, It’s not that the right doesn’t have lunatics and hatemongers, it clearly does, but it always seems to me like the left’s hate and desire to control others is closer to the mainstream of the progressive movement’s thought than those of the right.

The left-wing haters do seem closer to the mainstream of their “movement” than do their conservative counterparts.  I mean, just look at the roster of prominent Democrats who buy into their rhetoric (Ma’am Boxer, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Al Franken, to note just a few names in the Senate alone) and attend the confabs of the angry left blogs.

Make sure to this thoughtful blogger’s post (it’s not very long).  He offers some good insights into the nature of the left.

And keep an eye on his blog—particularly if you are a gamer.

I have long believed that those who use the “tea bag” smear (or any one of its variants) to describe those protesting the Obama Administration’s big spending/big government policies automatically discredit themselves as unable to comment honestly on our movement.  That term, a sexual slur, shows they would rather deride us than engage with our heartfelt opposition to the ever-increasing size (and ever-encroaching power) of the federal government.

I thought I had blogged previously on this subject, but, a few hasty* google searches did not yield the post I thought I had written (so since I recall typing it, I must have said it in an e-mail or in a comment to another blog).

That said, Glenn offered a more succinct expression of this notion:

when I hear someone use it [the term, "teabagger"], I know that nothing they say on the subject is worth taking seriously. Either they’re deliberately using it as a sexual slur, or they’re too ignorant to be worth listening to.

* (more…)

HARRY REID: Kennedy’s death “going to help us” on health care.

This is our 5,000th post *since we moved from Blogspot.  So, once again, kudos to our founder Bruce, the GayPatriot for founding this internet home for the American conservative.  Thanks as well to Nick and John for helping us reach that august number in August no less!

Given the relative youth of this blog (not even five years old), that means we’ve averaged over one thousand posts a year!

Not sure yet whether to raise a ruckus about this as have Rush and Glenn Beck, but it is something that merits greater attention.

First, given how much public protest the “so-called stimulus” and health care overhaul have generated, it would be foolhardy for the Administration to attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (as Beck suggests they intend to do).

But, then again, they may believe their own propaganda that these protests are as astroturfed as their own rallies.

That said, given the uproar we’ve seen at attempts by government to take over and increase federal control of the private sector, just imagine the uproar if government attempted to silence various voices on the right.

Perhaps, Rush and Beck are wrong and the appointment of this socialist-supporting official at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not herald increased state-control of the media as we’ve seen in the land ruled by a leader he lauds.   But, don’t you think the media should take note when the President of the United States taps a man who praises the censorious Hugo Chavez to the FCC–and with a brand new title, “Chief Diversity Officer” (whatever that means)?

Here’s what that officer, Mark Lloyd has had to say to about the Venezuelan thug who has shut down an opposition television station:

In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really had an incredible revolution — democratic revolution — to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government — worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country.

So,the Chief Diversity Office of the Federal Communications Commission in the United States defines closing down television stations and censoring opposition media as “taking the media very seriously”?

If the media in our country took their jobs seriously, they’d cover this appointment in greater depth.  Don’t they find it in the least bit troubling that a guy who praises a man who shuts down media outlets now serves in the American government office regulating communication?

Fortunately, what the MSM hasn’t done, bloggers have.

Did it begin with Ma’am?

I doubt my state’s junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, was the first, but she certainly helped set a trende when she misrepresenied and maligned those Americans, including her constituents in the Golden State, who are protesting Democratic attempts to increase government control over health care as too “well-dressed” to be sincere.

Then, Ma’am’s party leader in the Senate, Harry Reid called his constituents “evil-mongers. ” (Nevadans are among those protesting the President’s health care policies.)  And how he says he wants a business in the Silver State to fail.

Now, it’s New Hampshire Congressperson Carol Shea-Porter’s “curious re-election strategy,” having a retired policeman arrested at a recent townhall when he challenged the presence of union “enforcers” in the crowd (wonder what Rachel Maddow has to say about those fellows).  

This ex-cop wasn’t the only constituent who concerned her.  She has used the sexual slur, “tea-bagger” to slime her constituents protesting the President’s policies.

Here’s the video (which I post as per the advice of an Instapundit reader (“because nothing says ‘you don’t count’ like watching a hale, but older, tax-payer thrown out of a meeting by his elected rep“):

The folks at Now! Hampshire note how the Congressperson has changed since her election:

In four short years Carol Shea-Porter has evolved from a rabble-rousing, town hall disrupting anti-war activist who once had to be forcibly removed from a President George Bush event in Portsmouth to a Member of Congress who instructed armed security guards to remove a frustrated voter from her own town hall event in Manchester on Saturday.

Guess to Democrats, dissent is only patriotic when they’re out of power.  When they’re in power, it becomes treason.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Scott Spiegel writes:

The more I see ordinary citizens yelling, interrupting, and heckling lawmakers over this health care bill, behaviors that would all be extremely rude in social or business settings, the more I come to realize that their actions are perfectly acceptable in these townhall settings, because they are being ignored, talked down to, and forcibly ejected, and rightly fear that they will not be able to take advantage of the one opportunity they have to speak directly to lawmakers.

Emphasis added.

Yesterday, the Cincinnati Enquirer ran a story on how many citizens of the city where I was born joined with Massachusetts’ Senator Edward Kennedy to help ensure the immigration in 1978 of a girl suffering from a syndrome which Soviet doctors could not treat in her native Moscow:

Jessica [Katz] was born in 1977 in Moscow with malabsorption syndrome, a disease that prevented her from digesting milk or food. Soviet doctors could not cure the condition, and as their infant daughter grew ever weaker, her parents realized her only hope for survival hinged on treatment in the West.

My family played a small part in helping Jessica through her ordeal, visiting her in Moscow in the summer of 1978.  (My Mom is quoted in the article.) The fall after our visit, in large part due to Kennedy’s intervention with Soviet authorities, her family was allowed to leave the Soviet Union where they could build a new life in Boston and she could get treated for her syndrome.

I visited Jessica’s father Boris several times when I was in college.  As most Soviet emigrés, he had strong anti-Communist views and great respect for the then-President of the United States, Ronald Wilson Reagan.  And though the then-senior Senator from Massachusetts harshly criticized (and actively sought to thwart) the Gipper’s aggressive foreign policy, Boris refused to criticize Kennedy, always recalling how he helped secure his release.

He only had kind words for the late Massachusetts Democrat.

Just a reminder that while we conservatives criticize Kennedy’s many flaws, he did do a great deal of good, a very deal of good, by one family suffering under Soviet Communism. And that should count for something.

Wait a second, what happened to that new era of politics the President promised in his successful campaign for his current office? Hmm. . . and didn’t Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats in 2006 run against the Republicans’ “Culture of Corruption” as she dubbed it.

Indeed, after her party captured Congress that fall, she promised a more open and ethical legislature:

The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.

And just this morning, as I sip my coffee and wait for my niblings to wake up, I read that even as more “embarrassing revelations come to light” about Charles Rangel, the Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Pelosi’s Democrats move to save him.

Hope and change, my friends, hope and change.

UPDATE:  The Absent-Minded Chairman, Rangel hides income and assets.

FROM THE COMMENTS:   Gene in Pennsylvania writes, “Being a Democrat washes away all the other sins in the eyes of the state run media.”

LOCKERBIE BOMBER “set free for oil.”

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot): So it is now clear that UK PM Gordon Brown lied.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

My question now is what did President Obama know, and when did he know it?  And did Secretary of State Clinton kept out of the loop on this?

(Personal note: I was in the Syracuse University undergrad class of 1990 and lost three friends and classmates on Pan Am 103)

No sooner had I typed that I was posting my last piece, “perhaps more to provide fodder for commentary than anything else,” than I realized something I could blog on which would require little effort on my part and provide such fodder for our readers, some of whom I know delight in using our comments section as a forum for political self-expression.  :-)

And in appreciation of the support they have shown to this blog (and even to us personally), I thought I’d offer a video I found linked on Instapundit, baldilocks and Michelle Malkin.  I would dare say other blogs have linked/posted it as well.

This cop is trying to block display of a poster he finds distasteful ”because I just told you it couldn’t.”  So, basically because the cop doesn’t like the way the man expresses his political views.  

The policeman couldn’t identify a federal law, state statute or local ordinance which allowed him to block the public presentation of this poster.  He didn’t identify anything which gave him the authority to act, save his badge.

Let us hope his actions are just an aberration–and not a sign of things to come.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Leah writes, “I do hope this person contacts the police commissioner and find out what laws was this cop referring to”.

If I had a moment and were not on vacation, I’d find the post I wrote recently where I noted that one of the most frequent criticisms I receive is that I don’t address issues others bloggers are addressing.

Look, there are so many things I want to blog about.  In my various notebooks, I have endless lists of ideas for potential posts.  And sometimes I need remind myself that I can’t blog on every such idea.

I do consider many of the articles you forward to me and ideas you share with me, encouraging me to blog on them.  I get no shortage of e-mail from our readers (and critics), many with articles (or links) attached.  And then there are my own ideas.

Just a thought, perhaps more to provide fodder for commentary than anything else as I’m on vacation with my family now and needing to get to bed at a reasonable hour so I can get up early to have some more time with my nieces and nephew (oh, and their mother too (my sister)).

One of the things I love about driving cross country, particularly when I traverse the beautiful empty spaces of the American West, is the opportunity let me mind wander.   I listen to books on CD, then sometimes pause the narrative to let my mind wander.  This time, I brought along a digital recorder so I don’t have to risk losing my thought or unnecessarily slow by journey by pulling aside to record the idea a piece of paper.

And pausing from listening to the conclusion of a biography of Lincoln, William F. Buckley, Jr.’s reflections on the Reagan he knew, Tolkien’s recitation of some of his work and now a history of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware, I recorded notes about things to do, ideas for my dissertation, images for my fantasy epic and thoughts about politics.

And from those thoughts I may cull a few ideas for blog posts.  One such thought (which I recall from memory not recording as my digital device is in the car) is how in various ways Obama supporters “repeat” his attempt to push one of his initiatives by waving his 2008 victory in their face by saying “I won” as if electoral victory should serve to ensure legislative victory, closing all debate.

We see this in the media incredulity at the protests against Obama’s big government initiatives and in the anger of left-wingers that conservatives refuse to let a Democratic victory silence them.  And we see it on this blog in such comments as “The ‘national consensus’ on health care reform that you claim doesn’t exist is called the 2008 Presidential Election.”  As if an election means a national consensus has been forged on all the issues the victorious candidate addressed in his campaign. (By that line of thought, there’s a national consensus for a “net spending cut”).

Do these people really assume that because Barack Obama won the presidential election he is entitled to see enacted whatever legislation he proposes?  And that conservatives should just accept it because the candidate most of us supported and the party most of us backed lost last fall?

Now, as you consider this notion, please note the opening paragraphs to this post and the way I expressed it, as a question, not a conclusion.  I put the idea out there for your consideration.  And expressly included it in this blog’s Random Thoughts category.

——-

*except when ginned up by Republicans and the evil corporate interests who back them.

Since I’m traveling, I haven’t had time to get to catch MSNBC, so don’t know if Rachel Maddow has followed up on her August 19 show where she developed standard to show how a supposed grassroots rally was anything but.  The American Petroleum Institute (API) had sponsored the rally in question against climate control legislation.  She discerned a lack of spontaneity by showing how that business association had bussed in workers wearing distinct T-shirts and bearing pre-printed signs.

Now, we’ve got the Communications Workers of America (CWA) doing just that at a Long Island townhall.  Given Ms. Maddow’s commitment to uncovering the truth and to exposing astroturf wherever she may find it, surely she must have done a segment on the CWA’s attempt to infiltrate Congressman Tim Bishop’s townhall and intimidate concerned citizens, the Democrat’s constituents.

This is not the first time we’ve read about unions attempting to pack town halls.  Ironic that Democrats are doing this given that  they (and their allies) lash out at hundreds of thousands of Americans, calling their spontaneous expressions of opposition to Obamacare as astroturf.

Guess they just wanted to make sure there is some real astroturf there.  The MSM may not report their attempts to pack meetings, but it is seeping out.  It’s only going to intensify the backlash against those who would slime citizens for expressing their grievances.  This backlash is only just beginning–and not just against the big spenders in Washington.  The media’s going to feel the sting as well.

As per my last post, I don’t know how much time I’ll have for blogging in the next few days.  As this goes up, I’ll be somewhere in the Beehive State, either driving to the home of a good friend and his family or hanging out with said family.

From then it’s onto Colorado to spend some time with family, relaxing with my Dad in the Rockies, then visiting my brother at his new digs in Denver–and seeing assorted cousins and friends in Mile High City.  Will try to do some vacation blogging . . . .

And with my sister visiting my Dad and my step-brother ensconced in Denver, I’ll get to see at least three nieces and four nephews, only one of whom has met her newest cousin.

Since I’ll be in Denver for the better part of next week, would love to meet our readers who live in the Mile High City, so am planning a brunch on Saturday, September 5.

And if all goes well, ColoradoPatriot will be joining us as well.  E-mail me for more info.

(If you can’t make the brunch, but would like to meet, let me know and we’ll work something out.)

Not even two weeks ago, I dashed out a quick post, wondering if any left-wing blogs had covered the report of a Mississippi man “pleading guilty to posing as white supremacist on Facebook.“  Dyron L. Hart created a name and used “a white supremacists’ (sic) photo to pose as a white man who planned to kill blacks because Barack Obama had been elected president.“

Well, Mr. Hart’s got company.  And this guy’s done more than just threaten violence.  This young man acted it out, staging an attack on his own party.  24-year-old “Obamacare supporter Maurice Schwenkler” has been arrested “on suspicion of smashing 11 windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters” in Denver.

Amidst his roundup on the arrest and its implications, Glenn offers, “All I know is that while these folks are talking about violence on the right, it seems like the actual violence is coming from the left.”

No wonder left-wingers hae to stage these things; they need to realize the narrative they’ve created.

MORE NEWS ON THE RATHERGATE SCANDAL: Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.

A google news search yields only links to conservative and iconoclastic (how I define Gawker) blogs (as of 10:45 PM PST, 08/25/09).  I would dare say if this had been a detail at odds with the gist of a FoxNews exposé of a Democratic politician, we’d be hearing a lot more about it.

Edward Moore Kennedy, for over forty years the senior senator from the great state of Massachusetts and youngest brother of former President John F. Kennedy “died shortly before midnight Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77.“  This comes at a particularly sad time for his family; his elder sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver having passed earlier this month.

I share Michelle’s sentiments that “There is a time and place for political analysis and criticism.  Not now.“  There is indeed much for us conservatives to criticize about this man; he was a longtime champion of many causes and much legislation we and our allies have vigorously opposed while opposing bills near and dear to our hearts.

But, he was also a man dedicated to his home state, working closely even with Republican Governors when the Bay State’s interests were at stake.  And he often worked together across party lines, forging lasting friendships with his political adversaries.

When then-President George H.W. Bush was hospitalized during his term in office and then-Vice President Dan Quayle came under attack from the media as unqualified to serve should something happen to the President, Kennedy rose to defend his former Senate colleague–at a time when even Republicans sat silent.  In 1982, Quayle and Kennedy had teamed up to craft the Job Training Partnership Act.

And Kennedy became increasingly friendly with his Utah colleague, Orrin Hatch, as they served together on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He may have been a liberal, but, as the years passed, he did not treat his political adversaries as enemies, instead he saw many as colleagues who, though coming from different political and philosophical perspectives, were fighting the same fight, seeking to achieve the same goal–the welfare and well-being of the United States of America and its people.

He was, as we all are, flawed, but, in the hour of his passing, let us remember his strengths.  And they were many.

No wonder Log Cabin national continues to crumble (while many local clubs flourish). Instead of offering a conservative approach to gay issues, they continue to support the policies and ape the rhetoric of the increasingly left-wing national gay groups.*

In Log Cabin’s latest missive, they do the right thing in defending Vice President Cheney against attempts by a left-wing radio host to misrepresent his records, but use the wrong terms, telling us that that good man spoke out on “equality issues” while Vice President. He did no such thing. He merely registered his opposition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage then-President Bush backed.

Earlier this month, Log Cabin issued a release, calling for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and dubbing that interventionist legislation “pro-business.”

ENDA”s not pro-business, it’s anti-competition. It’s just an excuse to expand the scope of the federal government, a solution in search of a problem.   Indeed, in his organization’s very release touting ENDA, Log Cabin Republicans Spokesperson Charles T. Moran shows us what it’s unnecessary:

ENDA is reflective of policies already in place by the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in America, as well as supported by many small-businesses which form the backbone of the American economy.

Why do we need the federal government to tell businesses to do what they’ve already been doing volunarily?  Even during the supposedly dread (for gays) Bush era, an increasing number of private corporations enacted non-discrimination clauses, without pressure from the federal government. In 2008, 472 (94.4%) Fortune 500 had adopted such policies, up from 323 (64.6%) in 2003.

Most corporate executives recognize that in order to be competitive, they need an inclusive workforce.  Why should the government force all companies to do what many have already done, reducing the competitive advantage of companies that have sought to make employment in their workplace more attractive to gay men and lesbians?

Those businesses, small as well as large have enacted non-discrimination policies (as well as those offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees), because they know it’s good for business.  They didn’t do so because of a mandate from the federal government, but because they have learned responding to changing social conditions is good for business.

Let’s let businesses determine how to respond to the increasing social acceptance of gay men and lesbian.  They’ve been doing a great job so far.

Trying to dress up ENDA as “pro-business,” Log Cabin’s leaders betray a limited understanding of the free market.  This legislation works to the disadvantage of companies which have already reached out to gay and lesbian employees and clientele.

RELATED: The Hullabaloo over Microsoft.

* (more…)