Free Markets, Free People

violent rhetoric


Violence? A typical part of the leftist mantra

One of the interesting things I’ve observed over the years is how the left has sold the idea that the right has the monopoly on violence.  Yet, it is almost without exception that the examples of violent rhetoric always seem to emanate from the left.

Projection?

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (and imagine how a speaker at a right-wing rally would have been treated by the media if he had said something comparable) . This is one of the speakers at the “Occupy LA” event (video at link):

Occupy L.A. Speaker: “One of the speakers said the solution is nonviolent movement. No, my friend. I’ll give you two examples: French Revolution, and Indian so-called Revolution.

Gandhi, Gandhi today is, with respect to all of you, Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us. French Revolution made fundamental transformation. But it was bloody.

India, the result of Gandhi, is 600 million people living in maximum poverty.

So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class.

Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”

Ballot box?  We don’t need no stinkin’ ballot box.

When you use the French Revolution as a “good” revolution, you’re really appealing to blood, death, mayhem and frankly, anarchy.   Oh they dressed it up some with various bits of fluff designed to give legitimacy to their murder orgs, but in reality it was just that, organized murder of anyone the mob thought was a threat to their new found power.

It eventually burned itself out when it turned inward.  But it was indeed one of the most violent revolutions on record.   He’s right, there was a “fundamental transformation”, but not for the better and, later, it went back to square one for a while.

And of course the “fundamental transformation” this boob is asking for is to the failed ideology of socialism.  That means heavy and oppressive government, planned economies and ultimate failure.

But some people never learn from history – well except how to kill, maim and destroy.

Naturally, this idiot picked up that part of the lesson (and seems to revel in it) and ignores the rest.

A typical leftist sans sheep’s clothing.  Study him well – he’s just saying what many believe (and don’t expect this to show up in any report about violent groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center, because apparently they just exist on the right – just sayin’).

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO


Happy Independence Day–apparently it’s punch a Republican day too

I’m always amused when the left gets a little frustrated.  Somewhere in the “dance” that takes place with the give and take they often let their mask slip and let the inner beast out.

Many times its just a result of not getting their way.  For instance, New Jersey.  Known for its hardball politics, when the Democratic President of the Senate didn’t get consulted by the governor concerning the budget after claiming to have worked with Governor Christie on the parts of the budget together (obviously expecting political payback for doing so) the Governor apparently held to principle and using the power vested in him by the NJ Constitution used the line item veto to further “prune” the state budget.  Obviously his pruning took out some of the funding for programs that Sen. Sweeney felt he’d saved by cooperating previously.  Since that wasn’t the case, Sweeney lost his cool, went personal and launched a full ad hominem attack.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney went to bed furious Thursday night after reviewing the governor’s line-item veto of the state budget.

He woke up Friday morning even angrier.

"This is all about him being a bully and a punk," he said in an interview Friday.

"I wanted to punch him in his head."

I’ve always been of the opinion that the punk is the one who ends up attacking like that, suggesting violence, etc.  Now obviously you can argue that the politics of the past gave Sweeney the impression that cooperation would yield compromise.  Give a little on his side, get a little for his side.  But the belief that he’d get that was just that – a belief.  Obviously Christie felt he’d been clear about what his goals were and how he planned on accomplishing them.  Sweeney just as obviously thought he’d gotten around that by early cooperation. 

We often hear it said of Barack Obama that he is doing exactly what he said he’d do and we shouldn’t be surprised.  Apparently that argument is void in New Jersey.  Senate President Sweeney expects the old way of doing things – you know the way that has them in deep financial trouble – to prevail over the new way, i.e. a principled approach to running government and paying off the debt.  Obviously the guy who is doing what he said he’d do doesn’t agree with Sweeney. 

What a punch in the head, huh?

The other example is sort of just the mask slipping all by itself.  A self-inflicted wound so to speak  -and many times it’s on Twitter *cough*Wienergate*cough*.  For instance the Communications Director for the Wisconsin Democratic Party supposedly celebrating, one assumes, the “birthday” of Medicare.

Now there are a number of ways one could do that in 142 characters.   And an abundance of them would be perfectly acceptable, show one’s support for the program (if one supports it) and relay why the person writing the Tweet supports said program.  That’s if you’re not an idiot.   And that’s exactly what Graeme Zielinski comes across as in his Tweet:

 

a-july-4-message-from-dems

 

Nice to see Democrats in such fine form in the “civility” department.  Perhaps now we can see a cessation of all the hypocritical and condescending lectures from them about the need for civility in politics, huh?

Nah.

Happy 4th.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO


Pondering the “new civility”

As everyone knows, the “new civility” has been getting quite a workout since the Wisconsin thing has blown up.  Anyone who has kept up with it and read blogs covering it (like Althouse), know this hasn’t been an episode of peace, love and decorum.  It has been one of threats, violence and attempts at intimidation – not to mention a fairly unseemly tantrum. 

So, I have to wonder what happened to all the civility talk after the Giffords shooting?  Especially on the left.  It’s been rather quiet over there since Wisconsin has erupted.  And make no mistake about it, the threats, violence and attempts at intimidation, not to mention the frequent invocations of Goodwin’s law, aren’t figments of the imagination – they’re documented fairly thoroughly for anyone who wants to find them (unlike the MSM).

As the sort of cherry on top of the “new civility” sundae, here’s this email that was sent to every GOP senator (save the one who voted against the bill) by someone who is, and I dare you to tell me otherwise when you read it, deranged and apparently plans to visit violence on each and every one of them:

From: XXXX
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen

Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes
will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain
to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it
will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me
have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing
with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand
for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many
others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a
nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave
it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the
message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are
now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a
demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed
in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t
tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please
understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel
that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

I can only guess, by the sentence structure, single dense paragraph and spelling, that the person is product of public schooling, which explains why they’re so upset about those 300,000 people.  Some of those are Mr. or Ms. X’s teachers.

Apparently the person also signed the email indicating they may have had the opportunity to have each of those teachers for more than one year.

Regardless, this is not something I remember showing up at offices of politicians when the Tea Party was supposedly so “violent” and “uncivil”.  Maybe I missed it and someone will enlighten me.

And, of course, the new way of venting (“civilly” of course) and shouting out threats, Twitter, hasn’t been silent either.

I’m also wondering if the SPLC will designate the government unions of Wisconsin official leftist “hate groups”?  My guess is the SPLC will somehow find a way to claim they’re part of a militia movement or something.  Everyone knows militias are the ultimate evil – and right-wing fascists.  More likely, the SPLC will ignore it.

There is one consolation though – we won’t have to listen to any condescending, patronizing and smarmy lectures about “civility” anymore from the left. 

Will we?

~McQ


Embarrassing–edited clip used to contend Glenn Beck said something he didn’t

As I observe the "civil discourse" debate, I’ve pointed out the left seems peerless in their ability to be uncivil. And opinions like mine have sent the left scurrying to find some example that would rebut that conclusion – something so outrageous that it would force those on the right, like me, to abandon the premise and admit the right is just as bad.

And yesterday I thought they may have found it.   Today, not so much.  The subject is a segment by Glenn Beck.  Full disclosure – I don’t watch Glenn Beck.  I don’t listen to Glenn Beck.  So I was open to the argument that he might have said something that would indeed provide an example of the rhetoric some folks on the left were attributing to him. 

Here’s the snippet of a Beck segment that some lefty sites have been using to make their claim:

"Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.

"I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.

"You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

"They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

"Here is my advice when you’re dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say."

Oh my, Beck is saying "shoot them in the head" (assuming the “them” is the left and he’s instructing his viewers to do so). Well at least on the first quick pass. But then, when you read it for meaning, it just doesn’t quite add up. It is the way it is worded. It seems to be saying what the left claims it says, but not really.   You’re left not quite believing it.

Enter Patterico who does what apparently the left wasn’t able to do – or found inconvenient to do: obtain the entire segment’s transcript. Make sure you read it all.

In a word, it provides context. I know, what a concept, eh? And it completely demolishes the contention claimed by the left. They really didn’t want to look beyond the snippet of words they had. Context was inconvenient to their disingenuous claim. In fact, it flips it on its head.

When you read the entire segment, you suddenly realize who Beck is talking about – and it isn’t an incitement to the right to go shoot anyone in the head as the lefty sites insist.

As Dan McLaughlin notes the "you" Beck talks about is the Democratic leadership in Congress. And McLaughlin says:

I’m almost embarrassed for anybody gullible enough that they fell for this one.

Yup. I’m not surprised, naturally.  But I’d be embarrassed.  And that doesn’t even begin to address those who used this to try to spin it into something it isn’t.  In their case it isn’t about “embarrassment” but about their credibility. 

Of course I’d be interested to hear the opinion of those who eschewed context in this case to comment on something Paul Kanjorski said. You know Kanjorski – the former Democratic Congressman who had to temerity to publish a piece in the NY Times lecturing the rest of us on "civil discourse" in the wake of the Giffords’ shooting? A few months back, speaking of then FL candidate for governor Rick Scott, he said:

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida.

The context of the quote is he was upset that a guy who was involved with a company that was involved with one of the largest Medicare and Medicaid fraud scandals in history wasn’t in jail.  Legit bitch, but even in that context, does it excuse the language? I mean if you want to be internally consistent and all.

The left? Crickets.

And in the realm of inciteful and violent rhetoric, it kinda makes the Palin cross-hairs map seem, oh, I don’t know, silly in comparison, doesn’t it?

So?  So the left remains peerless in the rhetoric realm and are also adding to their lead in the “deceitful claims” department as well.

~McQ


Joe Scarborough–“right-wing rage” water carrier (update)

It appears that as President Obama tries to “move to the right” with his op/ed in the WSJ today, POLITICO is also engaged in such a move with the hiring of Joe Scarborough as the righty on the site.  It is meant, one supposes, to help “center them up”.  I guess.  Joe Scarborough hasn’t ever impressed me as a good representative of the right on his MSNBC show, so I’m not sure how he’s going to help POLITICO in that regard.  But hey, it’s their call.  Maybe they don’t want a real righty, just a pretend one.

Anyway, Scarborough has decided these last two days to carry water for the “right-wing rage” crowd.  Apparently if you don’t sound like mewling mush-mouthed compromiser, you’re in a rage and Joe is here to call you out on that.  So taking on the big boys and girls (Beck and Palin), Morning Joe – who’d love to have Beck’s ratings, I’m sure – announces that he gets it.  They weren’t responsible for the Tucson shooting.  However:

But before you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath. Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don’t connect in this case doesn’t mean you can afford to ignore the possibility — or, as many fear, the inevitability — that someone else will soon draw the line between them.

Uh, Joe … if the dots don’t connect in this case they don’t connect at all.  Got that?  It means whatever you’re babbling on about concerning their supposed “violent rhetoric” (yup, that’s a right-wing talking point isn’t it) is irrelevant.  They aren’t a part of that scene.  At all.  Nada, zip, zero to do with it.  Whatever their rhetoric it wasn’t a factor.

So I recommend you take a deep breath and back off.  There’s a possibility that a freakin’ meteor may hit the earth, however given how slight it is, I think I can afford to ignore that possibility.  At least until new information becomes available that says I should pay attention again, right?

Well, that’s kind of where you are with this act.  You’re spouting off about a “possibility” which has no real history to support it and certainly isn’t something that was a part of this most recent tragedy.

Scarborough goes a little schizoid after his nonsense above and acknowledges the right’s righteous anger at the way the media and the left immediately blamed the usual suspects on the right (Palin, Fox News and Beck) but then says:

Now that the right has proved to the world that it was wronged, this would be a good time to prevent the next tragedy from destroying its political momentum. Despite what we eventually learned about the shooter in Tucson, should the right have really been so shocked that many feared a political connection between the heated rhetoric of 2010 and the shooting of Giffords?

Well, yes, the right most certainly should have been shocked.  Ok, maybe not – after all we did watch the left melt down for 8 years – speaking of violent and vile, hateful rhetoric – but I haven’t seen anything to this point to even compare to that on the right.  So maybe the shock was how the left woke up in a new world in January of 2008 (along with Scarborough it appears) and suddenly discovered “violent rhetoric” exists – at least as they define it.  Most of the right, however, understands “violent rhetoric” as a lefty code phrase for “shut the right up”.

Of course the right’s “violent rhetoric” is, in comparison, a pale shadow of what the left pitched during the Bush years as has been amply demonstrated by any number of bloggers and right wing media types. 

So show me the history Joe – where there has been right-wing violence precipitated by “violent rhetoric”.  And no McVeigh doesn’t work – he stated unequivocally that the reason he detonated that horrific bomb in OK City was because of Waco – not Rush Limbaugh, not Fox News, not right rhetoric.  In fact there really isn’t much history of political assassination associated with “violent rhetoric” from the right in this country, is there?

And what sort of whack job associates a campaign stunt such as firing a “fully automatic M16” with her political opponent as a threat to Giffords – except you and the left, that is?  What you can’t break the context out on that?  It was a campaign event.  It was meant to draw people in to do something they’d find cool or enjoyable.  It wasn’t, pardon the word, aimed at Giffords, for goodness sake.

But waterboy Joe can’t leave it there, oh no:

And who on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence? As a conservative who had a 100 percent rating with the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America over my four terms in Congress, I wonder why some on the right can’t defend the Second Amendment without acting like jackasses. While these types regularly attack my calls for civility, it is their reckless rhetoric that does the most to hurt the cause.

Joe, you’re about as conservative is Barack Obama is centrist, but that aside, perhaps the right can’t defend the 2nd Amendment without acting like jackasses is because the real jackasses on the left are constantly trying to nullify it.  Sometimes you just have to be blunt about what’s happening.

As for the nonsense about not understanding why the right would be immediately associated with a shooting crime that’s simply a predisposition for the left that Scarborough wants to excuse. And it jumped right out there after Tucson embarrassingly enough, didn’t it Joe?

Facts, pal … facts.  That’s what matter.  And the fact of the matter is the right or its rhetoric had nothing to do with the tragedy in Tucson. Not what it has said, not its literature, not its stance on guns.  Nothing.

That’s the fact, sir.  And jackasses like you who keep this crap rolling based in nothing but your own “rage” need to be called out on it. “Civility” is just another in a long line of lefty attempts to shut the right up.  Racist is losing its sting so now the way to shut down debate, to shut your opponent up and to dismiss or wave away any argument they may make, is to call them “uncivil”.  That’s what the left is attempting.  Nice to see it has fellow travelers who claim to be from the right carrying water for them, Joe.

Great job.

UPDATE:  Ah, now I know why waterboy Joe is still ranting.  Ed Koch explains.  Ed Koch for heaven sake.

~McQ