Big Sis Portrays White Americans as Most Likely Terrorists

     Scary White Guy

Infowars.com has reported on the sorry state of the Department of Homeland Security.  In spite of the fact that the most likely terrorists are Muslims, "Big Sis," as the head of DHS has been called, is living in a parallel universe.  According to Big Sis Janet Napolitano, well-dressed white people are to be feared.  Infowars states:

As we highlighted last month, a longer PSA [public service announcement] recently produced by the DHS overwhelmingly went to significant lengths to portray white Americans as the most likely terrorists, despite the fact that the 126 people who were indicted on terrorist-related charges in the United States over the last two years were all Muslim.

Bizarrely, the majority of the people shown reporting suspicious activity to authorities were portrayed as non-whites.

That previous Infowars report on DHS "white people as terrorists" went viral:

Despite the DHS’ claims to the contrary, many saw the ad as being deliberately racially motivated. Some concluded that this was merely a nod to political correctness while others viewed it as part of a pattern of demonizing white middle class Americans – many of whom are furious with the federal government for all manner of different reasons - as the DHS increasingly targets its anti-terror apparatus against politically motivated citizens.

Instead of protecting Americans against Islamic terrorism, Big Sis instead uses the Department of Homeland Security to slander political opponents.  I can hardly wait to flush Big Sis along with the Master of Disaster who is her boss.

Read the Infowars article here.

Note to Liberals: You Are Responsible for Anders Breivik's Violent Rampage

Alex Pareene of Salon Magazine

I just read some silly screed by Alex Pareene at the foolish liberal website, Salon.com.  Pareene insists that Anders Breivik (the Norway shooter) is a Christian, and his article shows Breivik's face framed by the outline of a cross.

What was Pareene's point?  He doesn't say.  Perhaps it was to say that Christian terrorists are a danger to the world (a conclusion that is nonsense) or that Christian dogma can lead to acts of terrorism (again, sheer nonsense).  Pareene seems to be simply taking a potshot at Christians because liberals detest Christians and/or the Christian religion.  There is no point in identifying Breivik as a Christian unless his religious beliefs were a factor in his shooting rampage.  Clearly, they were not.  Breivik stated in his manifesto that he was not particularly religious.  He wrote:

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

The truth is, it was not Breivik's religion that caused him to murder 77 people last week; it was leftist politicians who convinced him that those who dissent from liberal orthodoxy will always be marginalized, stigmatized, ridiculed and slandered. He gave up on working through the political process, believing that process to be too compromised to ever be effective in reversing the damage caused by Marxism, multiculturalism and massive Islamic immigration.  He wrote:

An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratical struggle through dialogue has been lost. The cultural Marxists have institutionalised multiculturalism and have no intention of ever allowing us to exercise any political influence of significance. In theory we, the cultural conservatives of Europe, have become slaves under an oppressive, tyrannical, extreme left-wing system with absolutely no hope of reversing the damage they have caused. At least not democratically..

It is meaningless to participate in the democratical process when you are not allowed to raise important issues without being subjected to political and social persecution through stigmatisation and ridicule. It is time to acknowledge that we, the cultural conservatives of Western Europe, are deceiving ourselves to believe that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically....We have never and will never be allowed to ever exercise any influence. The cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites nationally and in Brussels have for the last five decades created a resilient system whose objective is to ridicule, persecute, harass and silence us. They will continue to systematically marginalise us until the day when we are no longer a threat to them.

So what did the liberals do after Breivik's shooting spree?  They proved him right in his conclusions stated above.  They began an extensive campaign to blame Breivik's anger on conservatives -- anger that the left itself caused.  In so doing, they did what Breivik claimed:  they slandered us in an attempt to stigmatize, ridicule, and ultimately, silence us.

It was this cynical, Machiavellian, dishonest and slanderous leftist propaganda that eventually pushed Breivik over the edge.  It is liberals and the left who are responsible for the killing spree that followed.

Melanie Phillips: "Hatred, Smears and Liberals Bullying Us Into Silence"

It should be crystal clear to all Republicans and conservatives that the left/Democrats have a "scorched earth" policy for conservative thought, arguments and opinions.  Conservative opinion must be shut down hard, with ruthless tactics if needed, to achieve a liberal monopoly on public discourse.

The situation is not improving as time goes on.  The Tuscon and Norway shootings, where people were killed by lunatics, have been blamed on conservative opinions and conservative personalities.  The reason is simple:  such blame gives the liberals a satisfying outlet for their hatred while denigrating their political enemies.

This is to be expected from the kook fringe of the far left, but such ruthless verbal warfare is not limited to them. Major newspapers, pundits and politicians join in, only too happy to poison the public opinion that has been increasingly against them.  Now Brit writer Melanie Phillips fights back with her post "Hatred, Smears and Liberals Bullying Us Into Silence."  It's worth your attention.

The Congressional Fight Over Debt Ceiling and Spending

Obama Wants More Fuel for the Fire

The Obama Administration spent trillions of dollars needlessly, running up the U.S. debt until it is close to the maximum allowed by law -- the "debt ceiling."  Obama is the stereotypical Democrat on steroids, with an obsessive, addictive and uncontrollable desire to spend, spend, spend, until Hell freezes over.

Obama has been sweating the debt ceiling, seeming to finally realize that his ruinous profligacy is endangering his chances for reelection.  This would be terrible, because if he is not reelected, how will he continue to destroy the financial future of generations yet unborn?

Ostensibly, the USA will default on its debts, for the first time in its history, on Tuesday of next week, unless the debt ceiling is raised.  If raised, then Obama can borrow more money to make debt payments and other payments.  If not raised, then  Obama may not be able to make payments, and people and nations holding US Treasury bills will be left holding paper they can't redeem.  China, foreseeing the incompetence of the Obama Administration, has been dumping its US Treasuries as fast as it can.

Of course, there are better solutions than allowing Obama to borrow even more money to continue his massive Ponzi scheme.  Obama could stop borrowing and slash spending.  All of the useless Departments (of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Labor, HUD, etc) could be ended and their budgets terminated.  To Democrats and some establishment Republicans, this would be like throwing a heroin junkie into a cell to go cold turkey, a sudden and painful withdrawal from his drug abuse.

So enters House Speaker John Boehner, Republican, who fastens together a bill that would allow immediate raising of the debt ceiling by $900 billion, coupled with spending cuts of $917 billion over some years into the future.  All House Democrats vote against it, because they already have their sleeves rolled up and the rubber tubing tied around their arms, and need their drug NOW.  More than 20 Republicans also voted against the bill, because they insist that the Democrat money druggies need to stop this abuse now, go cold turkey and slash spending.  Per the Washington Times:

Twenty-two Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the bill. Those Republicans argued that it didn’t go far enough in cutting spending, and was weaker than the version the House passed just last week.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that puts the future of my grandchildren and of generations to come in jeopardy,” said Rep. Paul C. Broun, Georgia Republican.

Boehner's bill passes the House by a vote of 218 to 210, in spite of this.  But it was all for naught, as the Senate quickly voted to table the House bill, effectively killing it.  The Senate is still controlled by Democrats.  The Dems are betting that, in a game of chicken with the Republicans, the latter will blink first.  Screw the future generations, the Dems are holding out for a better deal for themselves in the here and now.

So where do we go from here?  Well we can accede to the Democrats' blackmail and let them raise the debt ceiling to the skies.  This will allow American voters to see that the debt and spending disaster of the Democrats is also supported by Republicans, and thus cannot be used against the former in the national elections of 2012.  John Hinderaker of Power Line described the situation yesterday:

What the Democrats are trying to do, of course, is gain absolution for all of their fiscal sins by negotiating a cosmic deal with the GOP that, as I once put it, would put Republicans in the position of going over the waterfall holding hands with the Democrats. If Republicans are dumb enough to let that happen–which I doubt–then it will indeed be time for a third party.

Well said.  Sometimes I get the impression that the Republican Party is a giant conspiracy to elect Democrats.  If there is a way the establishment GOP can engineer a Democrat victory, they will find it.  Every one of those Republicans who support raising the debt ceiling should be issued a ceremonial mat and a hara kiri knife.

Meanwhile, the 22 Republicans who voted against Boehner's bill are heroes in my book.  They include Tom McClintock of California and Ron Paul of Texas.

Meanwhile, if you have a problem with any of this, please fill out the official complaint form here.

Related Post:  Declaring Victory?  Not Quite Yet

Kenneth Roth of Washington Post Weeps for Waterboarded Terrorists, Seeks to Prosecute Bush for Same

Kenneth Roth is the embodiment of dishonest liberal journalism. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday, he argues that Bush should be prosecuted for "criminality" and "torture" in waterboarding terrorists.

Roth argues from false premises, that waterboarding terrorists was both torture and criminal. He then quotes the popular myth that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded "183 times" in one month. Fox News investigated this claim some time ago and found that Mohammed was waterboarded only five times. Roth's repeat of this falsehood is irresponsible.  Further, he is nothing more than an Obama propagandist. He writes:

President Obama’s policy toward the Bush administration’s use of torture has been one of splitting the difference — Obama ordered an end to further torture but largely avoided investigating, let alone prosecuting, what Bush administration officials had done. For the Obama administration, the calculation was political: Stopping ongoing criminality by U.S. officials was non-negotiable, but delving into the criminality of his predecessor was deemed too costly. Obama had other priorities — fixing a devastated economy, enacting health-care reform — so dredging up the crimes of the previous administration was seen as too distracting and too antagonistic an enterprise when Republican votes were needed.

Notice Roth's dishonest argumentation: "Obama ordered an end to torture." But "torture" has not been proved, and Roth's statement sidesteps the need to substantiate this charge, hoping that the reader will simply take his word for it.

 Roth then says "dredging up the crimes of the previous administration," but no crimes have been proved or established. Again, Roth hopes the reader will simply accept his unproven premises.

I rebutted Roth in the comments section of the article, but my comments were quickly removed. Read Roth's dishonest propaganda here.

"Big Journalism" Goes After Media Matters, Who is Going After Fox, Rush, Etc

Meredith Dake at Big Journalism reports that Media Matters, a leftwing website, has vowed to "make war on Fox [News]."

Media Matters is a leftist political organization with ruthless schemes to smear conservative journalists and news outlets.  The problem with this is that they do it under the cover of a tax-free status, as a 501(c)(3) organization. A 501(c)(3) organization is a charitable organization, and donations to it are tax deductible.  Big Journalism wants to go after Media Matters for its political activities, which may disqualify the organization from its tax exempt status.

The prohibited political activities under the Internal Revenue Code focus on partisan activities such as the support of one party or one candidate over another.  It is unclear to me that Media Matters war on the First Amendment would qualify as a prohibited political activity.  What is clear, however, is that Media Matters is very political and very partisan, and may step over the line sometime, if they have not done so already.  Big Journalism tells what to look for and how to make a complaint to the IRS.

Read the Big Journalism article here.

Media Matters Founder David Brock: A Man Without Principles

Political Prostitute David Brock

David Brock is the founder of the far-left organization Media Matters.  Recently Brock told Politico that his organization is gearing for an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Who is David Brock?  I googled his name and found a 2005 article from Frontpagemag.com that describes Brock's history.  It is a sordid one.  The information below was extracted from this article.

Brock started out as a highly-paid investigative reporter for the conservative magazine, The American Spectator.  Brock did good work in exposing the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton and discrediting the liberal Anita Hill, who had defamed Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court justice.  Brock achieved widespread fame and acclaim as a conservative reporter and writer.

Brock then received a million dollar advance from Adam Bellow and the Free Press to write an investigative book about Hillary Clinton.  However, the task proved too much for Brock, as his earlier exposé on Bill shut down potential sources within the Hillary camp.  Instead, he wrote a superficial book exonerating Hillary from the Whitewater scandal and defending her against a number of other charges.

His book "The Seduction of Hillary Clinton" was released in 1996 and was a miserable failure.  The book received widespread criticism, even from the left, for Brock's whitewash of Hillary's role in Whitewater.  The Free Press lost millions and Adam Bellow was fired.  Meanwhile, Brock had invested his million dollar advance in expensive properties he could no longer afford.  He was desperate for some kind of bail-out, but few would now hire a failed author whose miserable performance had lost millions for his publisher.  Brock's reputation as an author was shot and he knew it.

Brock's economic survival needed a shrewd strategy and he came up with one:  he reinvented himself as an innocent who was deceived by conservatives, but who now saw the light of liberalism, and switched sides.  He wrote a book "Blinded by the Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," and became a hero to the left who could now point to Brock as an example of the duplicity and mendaciousness of the right.  Brock was living proof of Hillary's charge of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Brock apologized to Bill Clinton for Brock's American Spectator articles on "Troopergate."  Brock then slimed the Arkansas troopers he had befriended and who had supplied him with information on Clinton's use of troopers as pimps for Clinton's enormous sexual appetite.

My conclusions:  David Brock is an unprincipled actor whose only loyalty is to himself.  Like Arianna Huffington and Charles Johnson, he was willing to betray allies and friends, to sell out for fame and money.  His latest gambit to conduct "guerrilla warfare" against Fox News is only further evidence that Brock is a political prostitute whose main client is George Soros.  He is deserving only of profound contempt.

Read the entire Frontpage article here.

Pamela Geller Gets Played: Salon's Strategy Works

This morning Pamela Geller is angrily denouncing Christine O'Donnell, Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware.  Geller endorsed O'Donnell early on, and O'Donnell posted Geller's endorsement on her website.  Then this week, a leftist online rag called Salon attacked O'Donnell for posting Geller's endorsement, repeating a lot of vicious lies and exaggerations about Pamela Geller.  Someone in O'Donnell's organization got spooked and removed Geller's endorsment from the O'Donnell website.  Geller saw the removal and went ballistic.  The Salon strategy worked:  Geller and O'Donnell were transformed from political allies into political enemies and a nasty public fight ensued.  Both Geller and O'Donnell will come away from this with mud on their faces.

Saul Alinsky stressed the use of ridicule and other strategies for causing political opponents to lose their tempers; once these opponents lost their tempers, they would self-destruct in a very public way, neutering themselves politically.  Geller has made herself a shining example of how effective this strategy can be.  With her ego gored, Geller was transformed into an attack dog for the left.

The only question in my mind is this:  how could Pamela Geller allow herself to be so easily played?  This stratagem will be celebrated in the annals of the left for years as an example of the effective use of slander and "playing one against the other."

The left has become quite effective at turning decent people into public pariahs through out and out lies and propaganda.  The reason, of course, is to silence these people, or erode their credibility with the public, or lacking that, to merely punish them by invoking as much psychic pain as possible.  Fueled by hatred and immorality, the purveyors of "tolerance" are truly hypocritical, anti-democratic and completely ruthless.  They will destroy the life of a political opponent if they can, or cause that opponent to suffer for his conscience for a very long time.  Examples are plentiful:  Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Joe McCarthy, Kathleen Harris, Linda Tripp, Carrie Prejean, Tom DeLay, Robert Stacy McCain, to  name only a few.  (See my former post "How the Left Punishes Conservatives.")  Now you can add Pamela Geller to the long and growing list of "the Slimed."

Pamela should have confined her concerns to private communications with the O'Donnell campaign.  Denouncing O'Donnell's "cowardice and lack of character" two weeks away from the election is truly destructive to the conservative cause.   Pamela, it isn't all about you.

The Meg Whitman Maid Story Falls to Pieces (from Free Will)

See what immigration attorneys say about the Whitman maid controversy.  Free Will has the story here.

Free Will also covers Hugh Hewitt's interview of attorney Gloria Allred here, where Hewitt makes a complete jackass out of Allred.

Sean Hannity Spanks Democrat Bad-Boy Anthony Weiner

Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner made a complete ass of himself on the floor of the House this week, over a bill that didn't pass.  The bill was to provide health services to first responders of 9/11.  Some firemen  and policemen have incurred health problems from breathing the thick concrete dust from the collapse of the towers, and for other reasons.

Of course, most congressmen would vote for such a bill, if that was all the bill was about.  But Democrats like to stick other things into a bill that are more controversial.  In order to vote for the first responders, you would have to vote for a number of other things as well.  It is these "other things" that caused the bill to fail.  I don't know what those things are, I haven't read the bill.  However, it goes to show that passing the bill is not so straight forward as it seems at first glance.  (Update:  the apparent problem many congressmen have with the bill is that it will raise the corporate income tax to pay for it.  Corporate taxes are already too high and raising them will retard the recovery.)

Anthony Weiner is a raucous Democrat who tries to shout down all opposition and use bullying tactics to berate and intimidate his opponents.  Weiner, it seems, is a wiener.  However, he made the mistake of trying these tactics on the Sean Hannity show and got his ass handed to him.

The Blog Prof has the story and the video.  Good show, Sean Hannity!

Statehood for Puerto Rico? What Are the Democrats Up To Now?

Some strange stuff is going down over Puerto Rico.  PR is a protectorate of the United States, Hispanic in population, and has voted thrice to maintain its current status.  That means it has voted three times NOT to become the 51st state.

My sense of what's going on is this:

• The Democrats, in serious political trouble, are pressing their "Republicans are Racists" meme in order to galvanize their base for the November elections;
•  The Dems are misconstruing and misrepresenting Arizona's new immigration law, claiming it is "racist" against Hispanics, thus cementing the Hispanic vote to the Democratic Party;
• The Dems are now maneuvering some kind of vote on Puerto Rico to support this "Republicans are Racists Against Hispanics" propaganda.  If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it will almost certainly vote Democratic, giving the Dems a few more members in Congress; and if Republicans vote against statehood, it will give more "evidence" of Republican "racism."
• Any reduction of illegal immigrants in the U.S. will also reduce illegal voters, to the detriment of the Democratic Party.  Therefore, any efforts to suppress illegal immigration will be opposed by the Democrats.

The Democrats are always criticizing things that are "divisive," but they are the most divisive force in America today.  They attempt to create racial antagonism and foment class warfare in order to stay in power.

God Bless Arizona: More States Should Follow Their Lead

It's disgusting.  Liberals, leftists and the moron in the oval office are slamming Arizona this week.  Why?  Because Arizona voted in a law to enforce the federal law on illegal immigration.  Since the feds won't enforce their own law, the state of Arizona decided to do it for them.

Arizona had little choice.  The state is overrun with illegals (about 460,000 of them), the result of which is a soaring crime rate (e.g. car theft and drug dealing), and overwhelmed public services (such as schools and hospitals) that are forced to give free services to people who don't pay taxes.

Rush pointed out this morning that the Dems want those illegals for their vote-fraud potential, as the Dems are going to need every vote they can scrounge up come November.  Illegal votes will do just as well.

Some California lawmaker has asked Gov. Schwarzenegger to cancel all contracts and contacts with the State of Arizona; meanwhile, a Texas lawmaker has stated that Texas ought to adopt Arizona's new law as its own.

One thing has been very clear to me for years.  Democrats will readily destroy America in the long run for the right to rule it in the short run.  They are willing to sacrifice the future for the present.

On Right-Wing "Hate": Don't Take the Democrat Bait

Answer a question for me.  Will you agree to stop beating your wife?  Yes or no.  Why won't you answer?  Well there you have it folks.  Mr. Reader has REFUSED to stop beating his wife.  YOU CUR!  You LOWLIFE!  Have you no SHAME?

Hey wait a minute!  You might object to the question because it implies guilt on your part.  No matter how you answer it, you are found guilty.  It is a question designed to put you on the defensive, to make you sweat and look bad.

Democrat operatives know this trick well.  Consider this.

MoveOn.Org, is planning a rally outside of Republican headquarters tomorrow to "condemn the hate."  What hate?  First off, no one has proven that there is any problem with Republican "hate" that requires a rally.  MoveOn's rally is built on a false premise and they know it.  The schemes and subterfuges of the Left are so transparent it is positively embarrassing.  In the political arena, hate is prominent and vicious from the Left, but far more scarce and muted on the Right.  

MoveOn.org's gambit is not to "condemn the hate," but to insinuate into the public mind that conservatives are dangerous crazies who are boiling with rage, ready to go postal at any minute.  The falling popularity of Democrats and the success of the Tea Parties are not the result of widespread opposition to Obama's radical policies. No, they are the result of some baseless and inexplicable "hate."  

When Democrat pundits and reporters ask GOP and Tea Party leaders to "condemn the hate,"  they are really asking for a tacit admission that the charge is true, that "hate" is a major problem on the Right.  Conservatives cannot and should not give credence to the false charge.  They must not become unwilling stooges in the Left's bogus drama.

If you are new to politics, this latest initiative by the Left should prove instructive.  Politics are largely a mind-game and often the game gets dirty.  Don't fall for it.

Democrats Are Playing the Race Card Big Time

What does a Democrat do when the public is outraged at his party for passing an unpopular health bill?  What does he do when he knows he had better dust off his resume and begin looking for a new job come November?

Simple:  he does what Democrats always do in a tight spot, he starts screaming "RAA-AA-CISM!"

The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are now doing their best to paint Republicans as "racists."  It is their usual Saul Alinsky style dirty tricks.  They can't win an honest argument so they attempt to create a false controversy to divert public attention from the real issue of Democrat-imposed socialism.

After using extreme measures to pass their unpopular health bill, Democrats claimed that they were being "threatened" by Republicans, and that certain Democrats were insulted with racial or homphobic epithets.

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote that members of the Black Caucus were called the N-word 15 times by the Tea Party protestors in DC last weekend.  However, there is no video or other evidence that it happened even once.  No video evidence, in spite of Jesse Jackson Jr. earnestly scanning the crowd with two video cameras in an effort to collect some.

See Michelle Malkin's column today for full details, i.e. "Who's Perpetuating Lies, Stereotypes and Ignorance?"  Even better is her column "How the Left Fakes Hate:  A Primer."

It Begins: Democrats in NY-23 Allegedly Call Police on Hoffman Supporters

There are unconfirmed reports coming from leftist sources such as the NY Daily News and Crooks, Liars and Cowards that Hoffman supporters have been electioneering too close to polling places, and "yelling anti-choice stuff at voters."  It sounds like another Democrat dirty trick to me:  they are setting up excuses for their presumed loss in this election, like they did in Florida in 2000 when blacks were allegedly barred from getting to the polls (later proven to be untrue).

Hot Air responds to the charges here.

You're not fooling anybody, Democrats.

Meanwhile, a Hoffman supporter has his tires slashed.

A Note to Black Conservatives

I have noted, with happiness and satisfaction, the growing number of blacks who identify themselves and who blog as conservatives.  Since blacks and other minorities have long been a Democrat constituency, the left is concerned about it.   This is one of the reasons that they seek to categorize all Republican and conservative thought as somehow based on racism, white supremacy and race hatred.

Don't be fooled by these obnoxious phonies.  They don't mind keeping the black/white divide in full operation, with all its racial mistrust and suspicion.  The idea is to drive into the minds of black people, with constant repetition, their racial message to, at the very least, sow seeds of doubt.  Racial healing is bad for the Democrats; it must not be allowed to succeed, or they lose one of their primary bogey men.  The Rude News blog this week put it this way:  "The Race Card -- don't be a liberal without it."

Why do the Democrats do this?  Simple.  They don't have any strong counter arguments in support of socialism and appeasement, high taxes and huge government.  So they resort to slander.

If they can plant the seeds of doubt in your mind about your newly-chosen political loyalties, they will have won.  If you stay at home on election day they will have accomplished what they sought out to do.  Don't buy their race-baiting crap.  They are not your friends.

An Email from Sons of Confederate Veterans to Saber Point

I received this email from Ben Sewell, Executive Director of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, regarding my previous post.  He writes:

You did an exceptional job with this rebuttal.  Apparently, the Keith Olbermann show on MSNBC last night created a lot of today's hostility when he said Joe Wilson was an SCV member, supporter of the flag and the SCV was "a bunch of right wing racists."  I have a link to it if you are interested.  See it here.

He makes his reference to the SCV around minute 7:00 +

It turns out that Joe is a nickname for Representative Wilson, and he is a dues-delinquent member of the SCV.

I have gotten five or six hate emails today after not having received hardly any in the past year or so.  None of these people has any training in American history, most do not sign their names and just hurl profanity-laced epithets.  It makes my job feel very worthwhile.

Ben Sewell, Executive Director, Sons of Confederate Veterans

The Left's Tactics Against Sarah Palin Explained

Since Sarah Palin resigned, three new ethics complaints have been filed against her by Democrat activists. There is no real expectation by the complainants that Palin will be found guilty of any ethics complaints. The complaints are bogus and they know it. But the complaints waste Palin's time and money and insinuate into the minds of the public the taint of wrong doing. By taking away her time and resources, the Left undermines a future threat to their political dominance.

Why can't the Democrats just stick to the issues? The reason is given by Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals" (1971). Alinsky taught that to defeat your political enemy, you must personalize and polarize your attacks. He writes:

Tactics, Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

In conflict tactics, there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen."

Alinksky describes what he means by "frozen":

The forces for change must keep this in mind and pin that target down securely. If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible...you disregard... for the moment all others to blame.

Why pick a target at all? Whom do you pick? Alinsky explains:

Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target on which to center the attacks.

One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? [In Palin's case anyone has the power to file frivolous ethics complaints with no cost or penalty to themselves.]

Why "polarize" the target? Polarizing the target means demonizing it, denouncing it as evil and totally negative with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. In other words, gin up your membership's hatred of the target because hatred motivates. Alinsky writes:

The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as segregation or a major corporation or City Hall.

With this focus comes a polarization. As we have indicated before, all issues must be polarized if action is to follow...One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

Sarah Palin is the target du jour, and now you know how and why.

The good news is that, by resigning, Palin removed much of the Left's power to attack since she will soon no long be subject to Alaska's highly flawed ethics processes.

Democrats Steal Another Election: Al Franken Defeats Democracy

The Wall Street Journal nails it in the recent Minnesota Senatorial election that has been successfully stolen by the Democrats:

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire's team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn't been counted, setting off a hunt for "new" Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she'd discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Moral: there is nothing "Democratic" about the "Democratic" Party. They are in it to win power by any means necessary or possible.

Read the whole thing here.

Via: Serum de Liberte

How the Left Punishes Conservatives

This morning on the way to work I was listening to Lee Rodgers on KSFO radio out of San Francisco. He was discussing how the Left wants to punish conservatives for being conservatives. Miss Prejean is only the latest example...but if you don't embrace the leftist ideology, you are to be excommunicated from the human race, excoriated, censured, and ostracized.

In the worst examples, you are publically slandered, called a racist or an extremist. This is the method employed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Some conservatives in the public eye can't take the strain over a long period of time and seek to get back into the good graces of the mainstream media or the public. No one likes to be hated, insulted and marginalized. Many would rather give up the fight then to undergo such sadistic treatment at the hands of the Left. They seek to resume some semblance of a normal life in the safety of anonymity and the constraints of political correctness.

One of the minutemen who was monitoring illegal aliens in Arizona had such an experience. The SPLC branded him a racist. He was totally blown away that anyone would accuse him of that, and asked them to remove this epithet from their website. Some feminist lawyer for that group replied that they would not remove it, and that he was indeed a "racist." Why was he a "racist"? Because he and his group monitored the border with Mexico and reported bands of illgals crossing over to the Border Patrol. This made him a racist in their eyes. Or did it? In any case, it was an effectve way to maginalize him, put him on the defensive, and plant large seeds of doubt in the minds of the public. He has since left the group he founded and is somewhat apologetic for his past activities. He almost sounds neurotic now in statements he has made recently. He has been neutralized.

I wonder if something like this is what turned Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. As an outspoken anti-jihadist, he was regularly slimed by the left, ridiculed and painted as some kind of racist extremist. Today he has all but renounced the positions he once held and is busily attacking former allies in the struggle against militant Islam. Conservatives have abandoned him and his website in droves. Perhaps the pressure of the left's unceasing attacks finally had the desired effect. Some bloggers have wondered if Johnson has had some kind of breakdown. In any case, he has been neutralized.

During the Clinton era certain Republican women, like Kathleen Harris and Linda Tripp, were given a large dose of grief by the Left. Harris was described by a liberal columnist as looking like she "applied her makeup with a trowel." Tripp was treated even worse, insulted almost beyond imagination as to her personal appearance. Tripp later underwent plastic surgery and apologized for her prior appearance, saying she didn't realize how awful it was. She had been thoroughly punished for breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Left had gotten into her head and messed with it effectively.

Then there's the legal angle -- using the law to prosecute Republicans for politics. Tom DeLay was charged with "money laundering" by a ruthlessly partisan Democrat District Attorney in Texas who has misused his office to persecute Republicans in the past. DeLay was forced by the manufactured scandal to give up his seat because he was under indictment, and also so he could fight the charges. There still has been no resolution of the case. In any case DeLay's political career is over and his life may be ruined. He has not only been marginalized, but personally destroyed.

Our most recent example, of course, is that of Barack Obama who has said he will consider bringing charges against attorneys in the Defense Dept. who wrote favorable legal opinions on the use of aggressive interrogation techniques against captured Al-Qaeda terrorists. Now you can be prosecuted for simply providing a legal opinion that some Democrat may later disagree with -- and prosecute you for it.

This is truly dirty pool, but Dems should be forewarned: what you do to others can come back to haunt you. I can see Obama possibly being impeached down the road and tried for treason. It's unlikely, but it could happen, particularly if another succesful 9/11 style attack occurs on his watch.

Democrats believe that "politics is war by other means." And they are at war with America, with common sense and even common decency. Those who would mount an effective opposition had better have a high tolerance for slime, slander and abuse.

Robert Stacy McCain puts it all into perspective in his post today "Who's Purging Whom?" He writes:

Look, we've all been officially branded "Rightwing Extremists," so what's the point of this fearful, defensive, cringing quest for "respectability"?

Via: The Other McCain
Via: KSFO Radio

Via: American Power

Via: The Liberty Papers