Exposing The Democrat Smear Machine

During the past few days, the Democrat smear machine was exposed as never before.  Newspaper columnists, television pundits and leftist bloggers had engaged in a massive libel against the Tea Parties and conservatives.  Their Big Lie was that conservative thought and argumentation was a hateful inspiration to violence and was responsible for the shooting spree of a lunatic.

They were more than wrong:  they deliberately and purposely lied.  The Democrats have what J. Edgar Hoover once called "a transmission belt," a system of disseminating propaganda to the masses.  The idea is to poison the well of public opinion with massively repeated falsehoods.  If anyone out there is still politically neutral, they should ask themselves:  if the Democrats have such wonderful ideas and policies, why do they need to resort to such underhanded, dishonest and hateful means to gain power?

There are two very good posts today that further fisk the leftist meme of "conservative violence."  They are must-reads and are as follows:

The False Narrative of Tea Party Violence Attempts Suicide, by William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection; Jacobson writes:

The narrative that Tea Parties and conservatives and Sarah Palin are messengers of hate and violence has been exposed for what it always was, a lie concocted by a cabal of media elites, Democratic Party operatives and left-wing bloggers in order to stifle legitimate opposition to Obama's policies. 

Blame Righty:  A Condensed History, by Michelle Malkin; Malkin writes:

I agree with President Obama. When it comes to politicizing random violence, he and his supporters have been "far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than" they do. Recognition is the first step toward reconciliation. It's time to recognize the poisonous pervasiveness of the Blame Righty meme.

For the past two years, Democratic officials, liberal activists and journalists have jumped to libelous conclusions about individual shooting sprees committed by mentally unstable loners with incoherent delusions all over the ideological map. The White House now pledges to swear off "pointing fingers or assigning blame." Alas, the Obama administration's political and media foot soldiers have proved themselves incapable of such restraint.

Read both articles in their entirety at the links provided.

Actual Text of Sarah Palin's "Blood-Libel" Comment

MSNBC, The Washington Post, and other leftwing media are attempting to spin Sarah Palin's rebuttal of their attempts to link Palin to the Arizona shooting tragedy last Saturday.  As I noted earlier, they are focusing on her term "blood libel" in an attempt to discredit Palin's rebuttal.

So what did Palin say that was so horrible?  Decide for yourself.  Here is the exact wording that she used:

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

How is this statement untrue in any way?  It isn't.  See the complete text of her speech here.

Liberal Response to Palin's Speech: Obsess About the Term "Blood Libel"

Liberal media conspire and coordinate their response to current events like shady figures out of an Oliver Stone film.  You can tell this is true by the nearly identical response throughout the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere on any given topic.  This identical response is called "talking points" by Democrat strategists, and its purpose is to make the script seem legitimate and widespread.

The script to Sarah Palin's speech yesterday was to seize on her use of the term "blood libel."  Every chattering squirrel in the Democrat propaganda system began decrying the use of the term as wrong, inappropriate, antisemitic or outrageous.  The disingenuous and biased Washington Post claimed that "Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment."  Her speech, of course, didn't "backfire," but the liberal media want the public to believe that it did.  The Washington Post, like most of the liberal media, are attempting to influence events rather than merely report on them.

True, the term "blood libel" like the word "pogrom" had its origins in antisemitism and the slander of Jews.  That, however, does not restrict its broader use in situations that are highly analogous.  In fact, I used the term "blood-libel" to describe the Left's smears before Sarah Palin did, here, in the second to the last paragraph.

 As Legal Insurrection points out:

In fact, as Jim Geraghty of National Review Online documents, the use of the term "blood libel" in political discourse is common both on the left and the right to describe incendiary false accusations which tend to blame a person for inciting violence and making the person a target of violence.

Much like the use of the term "holocaust" (e.g., nuclear holocaust) is not used in the strict sense of The Holocaust, the use of the term "blood libel" does not offend the traditional meaning of the term.

The looser, more modern usage of the term certainly seems to fit here.

The Anti-Defamation League has stated that the term "blood-libel" is now used in common parlance to refer to those who are falsely accused.  

So why is the Left trying so hard to make an issue out of Palin's legitimate use of the term?  Simple:
1.  To redirect attention away from what Palin said by focusing on an irrelevancy;
2.  To dilute the impact of Palin's charge that she was slandered by the Democrat Left;
3.  To support the long standing leftist meme that Palin is stupid, insensitive and uninformed (and thus reduce her effectiveness in future political endeavors).

There you have it, folks:  another Democrat propaganda effort in full swing.  Be ye not fooled.

Violent and Hateful: Leftist T Shirt Features Rifle Scope on Sarah Palin

Surveyor Marks

Left Wing Hatred

Yesterday it was disclosed that the so-called "cross-hairs" in the Sarahpac map were actually a surveyor's mark, of the type that is often used on maps.  Today some leftists have posted the right side graphic as their response:  an image of Sarah Palin's head in a rifle scope, with the slogan, "Calm down!  It's just a surveyor's mark!"

Why do surveyor marks resemble the cross-hairs of a rifle scope?  Because surveyors use a scope of their own, with cross-hairs, as a tool for measuring the dimensions of land.  How do you tell which is which?  By the context in which it is used.  If such marks are on a map, it is likely they are a surveyor's mark.  If such a mark is on the face of a nationally known political figure, it is obvious the mark is intended to be a rifle's scope.  The image above right (used on a T shirt) is another leftist call for assassination, thinly disguised as a joke.  Who then are the purveyors of hatred and the advocates of violence?

Hat tip to Proof Positive.

Mark Levin Rebuts Chris Matthews; Describes MSNBC as a Failed Network

Chris Matthew, host of the TV program "Hard Ball," attributed the Arizona violence to the rhetoric of Mark Levin and Michael Savage.  In this audio file, Levin rebuts Matthews and calls his network "MSLSD."

Levin takes particular delight in describing MSNBC as an unprofitable and unpopular network whose ratings are in the tank.

Levin asks if anyone in the Loughner household ever listened to MSNBC or "Hard Ball."  If so, perhaps it was Chris Matthews himself who caused the Arizona tragedy.  Levin, of course, wasn't serious in proposing this possible scenario, but in demonstrating the utter subjectiveness of such self-serving allegations.

Listen to it here.

Sarah Palin Fights Back (Video); Answers Democrats' "Blood Libel"

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Must Read: the Left's Long Legacy of Hatred and Violence

Leftist Illustration Advocating Violence
Against Sarah Palin

Leftist T Shirt Advocating
Presidential Assassination

Michelle Malkin has documented the most recent examples of the Left's political hatred and advocacy of violence against Republicans and conservatives.  It is a long list and can be viewed here.

So-called "mainstream" newspapers like the New York Times continually impugn conservatives by insinuating conservative beliefs cause violence like the Arizona shootings; however, they offer no proof beyond insinuation and innuendo.  With the left, however, there is no insinuation, just the brazen advocacy of violence and hatred against those on the Right.  Graphic descriptions appear in leftist websites and rallies and are completely ignored by the leftwing "mainstream" press, most notably the New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times.

Leftist Poster Advocating Presidential Assassination

Of course, the real reason for making false accusations against conservative politicos is not to arrive at any fair semblance of the truth.  The real goal is to suppress conservative thought and political arguments.  The purveryors of the Left's blood libel are hoping that conservatives will self-censor, refrain from rebutting leftist arguments or making vigorous counter-arguments, for fear of being accused of causing violence.

The transparent hypocrisy of the liberal left is breathtaking in its sheer audacity.