The Political left

Custom Search

  

  

Undermining the Constitutional Republic

since the 1960s
 

   

 


help fight the media
  
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery . . .

The Left, Not The Right, Owns Political Violence

Michael Filozof says it took less than 24 hours for the political Left to seize upon the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the murder of six people on Saturday, to blame the political Right for the shooting.

Perhaps the most egregious example came from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who wrote, "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."  (The newspaper that published plagiarized and fabricated accounts of the "D.C. sniper" by affirmative-action hire Jayson Blair in 2003 is still publishing unsubstantiated suppositions without "proof," eh?)


"[Giffords'] father says that 'the whole Tea Party' was her enemy...," continued Krugman, "And yes, she was on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' list."  As if that was not enough, Krugman went on to invoke the specter of Tim McVeigh.

Well, we do have some proof now, and it's clear that the shooter was in no way connected to the Tea Party, the Republican Party, or any other movement on the political Right.  Law enforcement officials have revealed that suspect Jared Loughner was rejected by the Army, kicked out of college, appeared to have mental-health issues, was a reader of the "Communist Manifesto," and has been described as a leftist since high school by his friends.

But since Krugman and the other members of the Leftist chattering classes have brought up the subject of politically-inspired violence, maybe we ought to remind them of the Left's protracted association with political violence.

We could begin over a century ago when William McKinley was shot by Leon Czolgosz.  Czolgosz was inspired by anarchist Emma Goldman (today a darling of the academic feminists).  Goldman's lover, Alexander Berkman, attempted to assassinate Henry Clay Frick because Frick was a prominent capitalist.

But it wasn't until the 1960s (when Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Ho Chi Minh became idols of the American Left) that the Left really ramped up the violence.  Who can forget Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam?  Or Eldridge (rape is an insurrectionary act) Cleaver and his Black Panthers?  What about the bombings perpetrated by the Weathermen?  Former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers is, of course, a close associate of Barack Obama.  Ayers managed to escape prosecution (and proclaimed himself "Guilty as hell, free as a bird"), but his wife Bernadine Dohrn served jail time for her part in the violence.  Black radicals seized Cornell University at gunpoint in 1969, the same year the SDS and the Weathermen staged the "Days of Rage" riots.  Race riots took place in Watts in 1965 and nationwide in 1968; leftists rioted at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968.  John Kennedy was murdered by a communist, and Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian -- hardly men of the Right.

The 1970s weren't much calmer.  The Army Math Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was bombed by Leftist radicals in 1970.  Heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and took part in and a series of armed bank robberies by the left-wing Symbionese Liberation Army.  The SLA inspired Sarah Jane Moore to try to assassinate Gerald Ford -- less than three weeks after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, a disciple of Charles Manson, tried to kill Ford also.  And what about the shooting of FBI agents at Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement in 1975?

Since we're taking about violence against members of Congress, how can we possibly fail to mention the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan and the mass suicide of 900 people by the Leftist/Marxist Jonestown cult in 1978?

Does anyone recall that President Clinton pardoned members of the Marxist-Leninist inspired Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN?  Clinton also pardoned left-wing radical Susan Rosenberg, who was imprisoned for her role in the murder of two police officers and a security guard in a robbery in 1981.  She was offered a teaching job at Hamilton College, but public outcry forced her to decline the position.

More recently, we've seen anarchist and communist riots against the WTO in Seattle in 1999, and violent anti-Bush and anti-war protests.  In 2007 Leftist playwrights in New York created a stage performance about killing president Bush.

The politics of the contemporary Left is absolutely intertwined with either tacit or overt support for violence.  How dare the left-wing media attempt to pin the actions of a deranged individual in Tucson on the Right!  To do so is nothing less than a calumny, a slander, and a blatant hypocrisy.

Read It Again, John
Paul Mirengoff says -- I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session.  The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one.  For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution.  Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

Today, the day of the actual reading, the left was at it again.  At least two Democratic representatives, including Jesse Jackson's son, protested that the document read on the floor did not contain provisions of the Constitution that have been superseded by amendments.  In particular, Jackson was unhappy that the provision counting slaves as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and apportionment was "didacted" as he put it.

But if the purpose of the reading was to remind people of the contents of our fundamental law and to symbolize Congress' commitment to adhering to that law, then it makes no sense to read portions of document that no longer apply.  The reading Jackson and others wanted would make sense only if this were a history lesson.  But it was not.  History lessons are for speeches by individual members, each of whom has his or her own view about which aspects of history to emphasize.  What all members of Congress have in common is their oath to uphold the Constitution as it stands today.

The goals of Jackson and other leftists who supported him are plain enough -- to make America look bad and, simultaneously, to create skepticism about the quality of the Constitution as a whole.  How sound, the thinking goes, can the rest of the original document be if it originally contained a provision counting slaves as three-fifths of a person for some purposes?

Again, however, this sort of argument is the stuff of speeches, not of a reading of the document members of Congress are sworn to uphold.  But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for speeches by members of Congress that attack the Constitution.

That is why the reading exercise proved to be such a stroke of genius.  It gave the country a revealing glimpse of how the left really views the Constitution.  Would monthly readings be overdoing it?
Hanoi Jane Fonda Blames All The Wrong People
Noel Sheppard is reporting that Jane Fonda blamed Saturday's tragic shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona, on former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party movement.

Obviously possessing no facts about the alleged shooter, the liberal actress and left-wing activist tweeted the following moments ago:
   
         
Mind-Crushing Hypocrisy
 
    
Zip reminds us that on January 8th MSNBC guests Eugene Robinson and Josh Marshall, along with host Keith Olbermann, soberly assured their viewers that violent, political rhetoric is exclusive to the American right.  Two months earlier, on November 8th, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan called for a new American revolution and featured guest Ted Rall who advocates a violent overthrow of the government.
The Politics of Blood Libel
Glen Reynolds says that shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing.  To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the TEA Party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular.  Why?  Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant.  Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors -- "lock and load" -- and talked about "targeting" opponents.  But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics.  Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges.  When Democrats use language like this -- or even harsher language like Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" -- it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently.  But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés.  And former Gov. Palin and the TEA Party movement are more the targets than the source.

American journalists know how to be exquisitely sensitive when they want to be.  As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism.  "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?"

Set aside as inconvenient, apparently.  There was no waiting for the facts on Saturday.  Likewise, last May New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and CBS anchor Katie Couric speculated, without any evidence, that the Times Square bomber might be a TEA Part member upset with the ObamaCare bill.

So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around.  Where is the decency in blood libel?

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air.  Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists.  But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible.  Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves.  But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?
The Left, Not The Right, Owns Political Violence

Michael Filozof says it took less than 24 hours for the political Left to seize upon the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the murder of six people on Saturday, to blame the political Right for the shooting.

Perhaps the most egregious example came from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who wrote, "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."  (The newspaper that published plagiarized and fabricated accounts of the "D.C. sniper" by affirmative-action hire Jayson Blair in 2003 is still publishing unsubstantiated suppositions without "proof," eh?)

"[Giffords'] father says that 'the whole Tea Party' was her enemy...," continued Krugman, "And yes, she was on Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' list."  As if that was not enough, Krugman went on to invoke the specter of Tim McVeigh.

Well, we do have some proof now, and it's clear that the shooter was in no way connected to the Tea Party, the Republican Party, or any other movement on the political Right.  Law enforcement officials have revealed that suspect Jared Loughner was rejected by the Army, kicked out of college, appeared to have mental-health issues, was a reader of the "Communist Manifesto," and has been described as a leftist since high school by his friends.

But since Krugman and the other members of the Leftist chattering classes have brought up the subject of politically-inspired violence, maybe we ought to remind them of the Left's protracted association with political violence.

We could begin over a century ago when William McKinley was shot by Leon Czolgosz.  Czolgosz was inspired by anarchist Emma Goldman (today a darling of the academic feminists).  Goldman's lover, Alexander Berkman, attempted to assassinate Henry Clay Frick because Frick was a prominent capitalist.

But it wasn't until the 1960s (when Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Ho Chi Minh became idols of the American Left) that the Left really ramped up the violence.  Who can forget Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam?  Or Eldridge (rape is an insurrectionary act) Cleaver and his Black Panthers?  What about the bombings perpetrated by the Weathermen?  Former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers is, of course, a close associate of Barack Obama.  Ayers managed to escape prosecution (and proclaimed himself "Guilty as hell, free as a bird"), but his wife Bernadine Dohrn served jail time for her part in the violence.  Black radicals seized Cornell University at gunpoint in 1969, the same year the SDS and the Weathermen staged the "Days of Rage" riots.  Race riots took place in Watts in 1965 and nationwide in 1968; leftists rioted at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968.  John Kennedy was murdered by a communist, and Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian -- hardly men of the Right.

The 1970s weren't much calmer.  The Army Math Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was bombed by Leftist radicals in 1970.  Heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and took part in and a series of armed bank robberies by the left-wing Symbionese Liberation Army.  The SLA inspired Sarah Jane Moore to try to assassinate Gerald Ford -- less than three weeks after Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, a disciple of Charles Manson, tried to kill Ford also.  And what about the shooting of FBI agents at Wounded Knee by the American Indian Movement in 1975?

Since we're taking about violence against members of Congress, how can we possibly fail to mention the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan and the mass suicide of 900 people by the Leftist/Marxist Jonestown cult in 1978?

Does anyone recall that President Clinton pardoned members of the Marxist-Leninist inspired Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN?  Clinton also pardoned left-wing radical Susan Rosenberg, who was imprisoned for her role in the murder of two police officers and a security guard in a robbery in 1981.  She was offered a teaching job at Hamilton College, but public outcry forced her to decline the position.

More recently, we've seen anarchist and communist riots against the WTO in Seattle in 1999, and violent anti-Bush and anti-war protests.  In 2007 Leftist playwrights in New York created a stage performance about killing president Bush.

The politics of the contemporary Left is absolutely intertwined with either tacit or overt support for violence.  How dare the left-wing media attempt to pin the actions of a deranged individual in Tucson on the Right!  To do so is nothing less than a calumny, a slander, and a blatant hypocrisy.
Palin Must Be Assassinated
Aurelius ponders the continuing craziness that has been on full display for two days now.  Insane liberals are now calling for the "assassination" of former VP candidate Sarah Palin.  Since Jared Lee Loughner's assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, liberals have been desperate to link Loughner to Palin for no apparent reason.

Apparently liberals believe "evidence" and common sense be damned.  Not only do they not have evidence to link Loughner to Palin, but now crazed liberals are calling for the "assassination" of the former governor of Alaska.  Why?  I'm not sure, but liberals are angry and vengeful.

Once again this isn't an isolated incident, but many liberals are going nuts just to scream for the death of Sarah Palin.  Like this one on SodaHead:
    
    
Or this one from Reddit:
    
    
Or this disgusting post on Skeptical Eye, in which the author tells people to kill Palin:
    
    
And here are others Pundit Press discovered yesterday, along with other examples:
    
    
And, remember the two left-wing fairies that hung Palin in effigy?  Nothing to see here.  Move on.
    
    
And Sarah Palin doesn't have the remotest connection to the Tucson tragedy.

Related:  Michelle Malkin has an entire page devoted to the Progressive "climate of hate" -- an illustrated primer, 2000-2010.

Related:  Left Blames the Constitution for Assassination Attempt on Rep. Giffords.

Related:  The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
Ever Wonder What Happened To Barney Fife?
Fox News is reporting that heightened and "vitriolic" political rhetoric is being blamed by some for the kind of violence that landed Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in intensive care following a mass casualty shooting on Saturday, but others say a blame game is hardly appropriate or useful right now.  Democratic sheriff, Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, sparked much of the debate during a press conference Saturday evening in which he blamed talk radio and television for a decline in America.  The sheriff said:
    

"I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what (we) see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in.  And I think it's time that we do the soul-searching."

      

"I think we're the tombstone of the United States of America.  To try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with."

       
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was one who chimed in, saying, "I think the sheriff was right."  Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), the assistant minority whip, jumped on board, saying, "Words do have consequences.  And I think that we have to really -- this is nothing new.  I've been saying this for a long time now."

Yesterday, Dupnik, in this video, went way over the edge attacking Rush Limbaugh, saying:
    

"The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information.  [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences."

    
However, if there is any fault here, it is the sheriff's.

There are now accusations that Dupnik knew about previous threats by leftwing pothead Jared Loughner and did nothing to protect the Tucson community from this homicidal young man (video).  The Cholla Jumps blog says Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik's office.

The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident.  His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Sheriff Dupnik knows this tragedy lays right at his feet, and his office.  Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it.  He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda.

Dupnik and his office have had previous contact with the alleged assailant and failed to act.  Now he's covering his ass.

Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County, including the staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities, and local bloggers.  When Pima County Sheriff's Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system.  It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved.

Every victim of his threats previously must also be wondering if this tragedy could have been prevented if they had been more aggressive in pursuing charges against Loughner.  Perhaps with a felony conviction he would never have been able to lawfully buy the Glock 9mm Model 19 that he used to strike down the lives of six people and wound 14 more.

This was not an act of politics.  This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy.  The Pima County Sheriff's Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately.  This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik, and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.
What If The Shooter Were Named Muhammad?
Joe Kovacs says Rush Limbaugh is now posing a new question:
    

"Just ask yourself this.  If the shooter had been a 22-year-old named Muhammad, would we be hearing that Muslim talk radio and the Muslim Internet blamed for it?  "No, we'd have been told that we can't blame Muslims for the action of one kook."

    
Limbaugh spent all three hours of his program today focusing on coverage of the weekend massacre that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in critical condition and six others dead, and called attempts by many on the left to make the shooter seem influenced by those on the political right "sick."
    

"In continuing this template and narrative that the tea party and Sarah Palin, that talk radio and Fox News, are inspiring violence, they forget that, in the process of so doing, they are attacking what is now a majority of America." ... "They are accusing a majority of Americans of being accomplices to murder." ... It's all just surreal.  These people are making abject fools of themselves in open, public now."

"Whoever they think is the biggest threat of the moment is who's responsible for this.  When I heard over the weekend 'Sarah Palin,' I almost started laughing.  How utterly irresponsible and predictable.  Sarah Palin responsible for murder?  They say Sarah Palin's too stupid to put two sentences together.  Now all of a sudden Sarah Palin has all this ability of mind control.  Sarah Palin?  Talk radio?  People ought to be dropping like flies if that's the case.  I mean I'm in my 23rd year here, folks.  People ought to be dropping like flies, but they're not.  These are isolated incidents and in practically every one of them you're dealing with someone who's insane or deranged, or a schizophrenic or something."

I'm always amused at how it's never socio-economic causes or other influential items that cause behavior except when conservatives do it."

"I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the Obama regime or some FCC bureaucrat or some Democrat congressperson's already written up legislation to stifle and eliminate conservative speech and that legislation's sitting in a desk drawer somewhere just waiting for the right event to clamp down." ... "They can't beat us, and so they're going to do what they can to shut us down.  And even if they don't have popular political support for it, they will still try it.  That's what this is all about."

    
He also noted that if there's one side of the political spectrum that's more prone to violent acts, it's the left and not the right.
    

"Wherever there is mass violence, wherever there is mass murder, civil unrest or what have you, it's leftists.  "They're the ones who don't have jobs and who thus have the time."

     

Obama A Murderer?
During an interview with WOR talk radio host Steve Malzberg Wednesday, Columbia University professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill calls for a relaxation in political rhetoric while simultaneously calling George W. Bush and Barack Obama "murderers."

The liberal professor stands firm in his accusation of Bush, but when pressed with his characterization of Obama, Hill backs down, using a generalization to say the "U.S. government is responsible for murder."
The Entitled Party
Karin McQuillan says Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party think they are entitled to win.  From their narcissist-in-chief to screaming union organizers, they are puffed up with self-righteous zeal.  They must have health care to save the sick.  They must shut down Louisiana oil rigs to save the planet.  They must defend government unions to save the middle class.

Of course, each side thinks they are right.  Being right is no excuse.  You have to abide by the law.  You have to abide by elections.  You have to respect the courts and constitutional separation of power, or else we no longer live in a democratic country.  In our democracy, no one is entitled to win.  If you won't lose, you cannot have democracy.

What you have are the Wisconsin Democrat senators who are unwilling to abide by the election results that put them in a minority.  What you have is Reid and Pelosi, ramming ObamaCare through by breaking rules of procedure, in order to flout the 2008 election results.  What you have is the Obama White House, blocking Congress's right to confirm appointees, and openly ignoring federal courts.  What you have is the Justice Department announcing it will no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court.  Obama is now deciding which laws are constitutional.  What you have is a Democratic Party run amok, undercutting our democracy in the service of their own power.

The complacency, nay, the vociferous support, from Democrat leaders and the legacy media for this disregard for the rule of law reminds me of the old joke about the psychiatrist. A man is sent by his family to see a shrink because he thinks he's a chicken.  After months of treatment, he is still clucking.  The family asks the psychiatrist if he's told his patient he is not a chicken.  "No," the psychiatrist admits.  "Why not!" "Because I like the eggs."

The Democrats like the eggs.  They like getting imposing their will, whether it be ObamaCare, or the off-shore drilling moratorium, or the blockage of Wisconsin's elected government.  Are they really this short-sighted?  Don't they understand the damage to our democratic system by these anti-democratic precedents?  Do they really want to change congressional rules so that the House and the Senate version of bills no longer have to be reconciled, as they did to jam ObamaCare through by the fiction it was a finance bill?  Do they really want the Justice Department practicing selective enforcement of our laws ? Do they really want the Interior Department ignoring federal court orders?  Do they really want state senators refusing to accept that when you lose an election, the other side gets to pass their agenda?

Obama appointed extremists for important administrative positions, controversial and even creepy people, like Van Jones, whom he knew would not get past Congressional confirmation.  The checks and balances between executive and legislative branch were instituted by our founders for this exact purpose.  The executive nominates but Congress must confirm -- bedrock principles of American democracy.  Obama's answer: flout the law.  Call his appointees "czars" and bypass confirmation.  This is not legal and it is not democracy.  Do the ObamaMedia and Obama's fellow Democrats want presidents to have this unlimited power?  Do they really want to give up the safeguards of congressional confirmation by calling appointees czars?

Continue reading here . . .
Daily Kos And SEIU Partner
Michael O'Brien is reporting a top union and a top liberal blog announced Tuesday that they'll team up to sponsor polling through the 2012 elections.

Daily Kos and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said they will join forces to conduct issue and campaign polling in key states and races over the next two years.

The joint poll continues an effort by Daily Kos, a premiere liberal blog founded in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas, a contributor to The Hill, to take its advocacy a step further, and provide raw political information to readers, especially on races and issues of importance to that online community.

"Rather than sit around and have know-nothing pundits and politicians in DC tell us what the American people think, we prefer to ask them directly," Moulitsas said in a statement.  "And this partnership will allow us to conduct significantly more polling than any other media organization in the country."

"We continue to work to ensure our members have their voices heard in the political process and honest, objective polling plays an important role in identifying the issues that concern working families and the politicians that can best advocate for working people," added SEIU National Political Director Brandon Davis.

The SEIU/Daily Kos poll will use Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic firm that uses automated polling rather than live, over-the-phone survey methods.  Moulitsas contracted with PPP in June of 2010 after severing ties with Research 2000, which faced allegations of producing faulty poll results.

Daily Kos, like other liberal blogs, have taken an increasingly active role in advocacy, campaigns, and fundraising.  The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), for instance, has used Daily Kos as a medium to help raise over $500,000 to support recall efforts against Republican state senators in Wisconsin.

Now, where did we see the Daily Kos before?  And check out the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:
    

"The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is filling this void -- providing needed infrastructure and strategic advice early to progressive candidates so they can run first-class campaigns and win.  And when PCCC-endorsed candidates get elected by working hand-in-hand with the progressive movement, they'll trust the political instincts of progressives and be sturdy allies as we work with them to pass a bold progressive agenda."

    
These people sure are organized.  IT's really just one big movement with a lot of independent entities.  And they're all getting government money, and monies from outfits like the Annenberg Foundation.

These people are out of the closet and don't care who knows it.

Do the initials "PCCC" remind you of anything?  Click here . . .
Because He's A Black Liberal
  
    
In a stunning moment of honesty, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan admits the Left is scared to criticize Obama because he's a black liberal:
     

"There’s a bigger issue here because the political machine has been immobilized because it is a liberal black Democratic president who is in charge that the left by my opinion does not want to criticize even though he is exhibiting behavior that were it to be a right-wing older white man, the left would be holding vigils."

 

Obama's Peeps Plan The Destruction Of The Economy In May
    

Seven minutes, but you should listen to this conspiracy to destroy the American economy.  If Obama and Holder were Americans, these people would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned.

A former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, SEIU, is detailing a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.

Specifically, the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street’s grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The former SEIU official, Steven Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.

The Blaze procured a tape of Lerner’s remarks.  Many left-wing Americans will undoubtedly sympathize with and support them.  Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.

More info here . . .

Transcript here -- cursor down . . .
This Isn't Your Father's Democratic Party
    
    
The heated rhetoric and aggressive attitude of some Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin has surprised many, even revolutionaries, says a leader of the Communist Party USA.
The Wake-Up Call
Lizp4 asks, do you see now why the TEA parties have formed?  Have you finally seen the truth about the Democrats, Leftists, Socialists and their true motives?  Look at what happened after the democrats regained both houses of congress in 2007, and what has been imposed on us since then.  In four years, their total domination of POWER in this country has virtually brought it to its knees.

Passing laws "in order find out what's in them," without debate or votes, political correctness that would gag a skunk, giving up OUR Constitutional rights every time some noisy Muslim nitwit feels "offended" by EVERY single aspect of free American society, and committing national suicide by stabbing ourselves repeatedly in the heart with PC stupidity.

If there was ever a made-to-order scenario for the Marxists, today's American life would be it.  In my mind's eye, I see them watching the US news, rubbing their hands and gloating.  They never had to fire a shot to destroy the most powerful nation in the world.  All they had to do was stand back and watch us disembowel ourselves on the altar to political correctness.

Not content to let the democrat liberals have all the fun, the RINOs in congress have sold their souls to political correctness and craven greed in their desperate attempts to have their names inscribed on the monument to the destruction of this country.  They might even have had a good intention or two, which is the PC coin of the realm inside the beltway.  Their enabling ways have put them solidly in the camp of the Marxist-Socialists, no matter how much they protest that "the Democrats made them do it."

The newest liberal height of hypocrisy has to be the current resident's stand on drilling for American oil and gas, and his sanctimonious attempts to stall on permits, to refuse to open up the OCS for exploration and drilling, to release the resources of Escalante Grand Staircase in Utah; all in an effort to weaken America and her bounty, and to set aside as much of American land as possible for the "environment," so the animals can live and exist freely.  We sequester America's abundant resources from our own use in order to send our treasure and tribute to those who plan to enslave us, promising to become their best customer.

All of this, so we can turn America's beauty and bounty back over to the animals, yield our sovereignty to the UN, subside without clamor into Third-World status, and limp along with $5/gallon gasoline and electric cars we can't recharge because our power plants run on coal, which he has promised to abolish.  We demand windmills, then whine and complain when the noise drives us nuts, which is just before the ice chunks that form on the giant blades come screaming through our roofs and smashing through our windshields.

If there was EVER any doubt in anybody's mind about what the Leftists have in store for America, the above should put those doubts to rest.  Today's American life should be a screaming, frantic, ear-splitting wakeup call.  Wake UP, America!!
Obama, The God That Failed
Paul Kengor says the Left pinned its hopes and dreams on Barack Obama. He wasn't merely another politician, he was post-modern, post-racial, post-cultural, post-political. We were told Obama didn't need political experience. His international upbringing, his multi-national background, his inherent diversity and multiculturalism, his youthful hopping and groping from country to country, culture to culture, faith to faith, through Islam, Buddhism, asceticism, Christianity, Augustine, Aquinas, Graham Greene, Nietzsche, Rev. Wright, and whatever else -- heaped atop his overflowing innate brilliance -- would beget a new breed of political man, a supreme decision-maker worthy of the most vexing challenges. He was no George W. Bush; he was the anti-Bush.

All of this, of course, was twaddle, but it's sadly in keeping with the perverse political-spiritual sentimentality that plagues the Left. Liberals have a bizarre tendency to revere their political leaders as geniuses. They did so even with the Clintons and Al Gore. In handy contrast, they reflexively caricature their opponents, irrespective of stature or fact, as stupid. It's a very shallow thing to do, a triumph of emotion over logic; still, they do it incessantly.

Worsening the situation is the hard secularism of today's Left. Progressives are more agnostic and atheistic than ever. They tend to search for salvation in politics, which is a god that will always fail. In Obama, many of them hoped for some sort of political messiah, approaching levels of earthly omnipotence not possible by previous presidents.

This brings me back to the Middle East. Now, with great historic moments -- and perhaps opportunities -- afloat in Libya and Egypt, on the heels of Iran in June 2009, watching Obama unable to arrive at a clear sense of understanding, let alone direction or purpose, has liberals flummoxed. They wander in the desert without their Moses, who, in a much anticipated speech on Libya last week, at best muttered something about a humanitarian crisis; how utterly unsatisfying.

Remember, too, it was the Middle East that was supposed to be Obama's strength. He would be better than Bush, and precisely at the right place and time. Far from Barack Hussein Obama's middle name being a liability, liberals assured us it was his saving grace. Their faithful leader would know what to do, in a way that "Bush," Texas rube, was fully incapable.

Instead, Obama appears clueless on the small picture let alone big picture, as do the wise men and women he has surrounded himself with. Neither teacher nor disciples have answers.

Of course, those of us not suffering on the Left recognized liberals' grandiose blather about Obama as pure codswallop from the outset. Sadly, however, and not surprisingly, liberals duped enough moderates and independents to elect Obama president. And now America suffers en masse, as does, potentially, the worldwide "March of Freedom" that both Bush and Ronald Reagan trumpeted and pushed.

To be fair to Obama, he never billed himself as messiah; his acolytes did. He was the light that had been hidden under bushel. He needed to be chosen by the people so his light could shine before men. American wasn't the beacon, the Shining City -- Barack Obama was.

That brings me, in closing, to a Reagan analogy that provides a measure of just how tragically out of place Obama is at this historical juncture: When the Solidarity movement rose up in Poland in opposition to Soviet communism, Ronald Reagan knew exactly what to do. He was born for that moment; his entire life experience, from the First Christian Church in Dixon, Illinois to Hollywood to the White House, had prepared him. His international contacts (unlike Obama's) were soul-mates and the real deal, profound figures like Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher, who in the fullness of time had the proper understanding of nature, man, Providence. They possessed a shared comprehension of the big picture. The same was true for movements like Lech Walesa's Solidarity and Vaclav Havel's Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. Reagan knew what stood behind them and what opposed them. He got free elections within a decade, and the liars and thieves were tossed to the ash-heap of history.

And all along, liberals, naturally, called Reagan a moron.

There's a distinct intellectual vacuity among the American Left. I'm reminded of a Reagan quote regarding the distant-Left cousins of liberals: "Marxist-Leninist thought," Reagan informed, "is an empty cupboard."

So it is. And right now, we're seeing the Left empty. After burning down the house of Bush -- torching a good man with every weapon in the smoldering arsenal -- and assuring a Promised Land under Barack Obama, the Left appears naked, with no answers anywhere in the cupboard. No water-turned-into-wine, no manna from heaven, no Holy Grail. All that remains are false promises from a false messiah made in the Left's own image. From Iran to Egypt to Libya, there are no solutions. This wasn't supposed to be.
Bolder And Bolder
    
    
The Blaze has a video, Social Justice in School PART 1, that features Frances Fox Piven and assorted left-wing professors pushing for voting rights for non-citizens and borderless, one-world, anti-capitalism, government.
A Sick Joke
Alana Goodman says Noam Chomsky may have mused about the world’s reaction if President Bush had been assassinated in the same way that Osama bin Laden was, but an article at Cageprisoners picks up where Chomsky left off.  It gives a fictional account -- I hesitate to use the word "satire," though that seems to be what they were going for -- of Obama’s death.  By itself, the article is a clumsy exercise in moral equivalence that isn’t really worth commenting on, but the website topped off the piece with an extremely graphic image of Obama shot in the head.
    
    
It probably wouldn’t shock most people that Cageprisoners is run by a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Moazzam Begg.  But it may come as a surprise that the group has routinely partnered with Amnesty International, which was so taken by Begg that that it promoted him around the UK as a human rights activist.

This seems to be more than just simple naivety of Amnesty’s part.  The organization benefited significantly from its partnership with Cageprisoners, using Begg’s story as a centerpiece of its anti-Guantanamo Bay propaganda.  Amnesty has disingenuously presented him as a moderate for years, and this latest incident should prompt the group to publicly clarify its views on him.
"Audacity Of Hope" Set To Join Leftist-Islamist Flotilla
Gavriel Queenann is reporting that a ship flying US colors and carrying 34 passengers is set to joint this year’s Gaza-bound, IHH-sponsored "Freedom Flotilla 2" in June, the New York Times reported.
    
    
So-called "peace activists" on the first IHH flotilla in May 2010 ambushed Israeli naval commandos who boarded the ship in accordance with international law, attempted to take them captive, and seriously injuring several.  The commandos were forced to kill nine aggressors in order to rescue their imperiled comrades.

This year’s American vessel, named The Audacity of Hope, after Barack Obama’s best-selling book, is being organized by an American group called "US Boat to Gaza."  (Organization and individual endorsements)

Obama links to the Audacity do not end there, however.  Prof. Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and a friend from Obama’s time in Chicago, is among the supporters of an appeal launched by the group last week.

Continue reading here . . .
Comments . . .
***  
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011
All right reserved