Before You Start Believing the Left Wing Media

You should do your own research and find out who this wacko really was: a flag burning, Marx reading, flaming anti-semite, NOT a member of any group associated with or connected to the TEA Party or 9-12.

As Arizona Shooting Story Unfolds, Media Already Blaming Tea Party/Sarah Palin

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic.com was early to attempt to link lunatic killer Jared Loughner to the Tea Party, but he wasn’t the only one. The Washington Post’s Sandhya Somashekhar immediately attempted to color the story as an example of the “militant rhetoric” of the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin.

Liberals on Saturday blamed the tea party movement’s sometimes militant rhetoric — for example, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s advice to her supporters via Twitter, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD,” or Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) advocating “second-amendment remedies” for some of the nation’s problems. Palin had also posted a U.S. map depicting crosshairs over the states where she hoped to oust Democratic incumbents. That map no longer appears on the Web site of her political action committee.

Additionally, within minutes of the attack, hard left-winger Paul Krugman of the New York Times asserted that the reason Giffords was shot was because her seat was not turned over to Republicans. Despite that no political motive was at all known, Krugman immediately asserted that it was the fault of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
As to Andrew Sullivan, on his DailyDish blog for the Atlantic, Sullivan posted an unconfirmed and anonymous claim from “a reader” who claimed to have heard people in a store callously saying that they were glad that a Republican could be appointed to replace the wounded Giffords. This “reader” also claimed that one of them said, “Well, that’s to be expected when you’re so liberal.”

Sullivan’s disgusting attempt to smear conservatives went on even as it was emerging that the killer’s ideology seems incoherent and not legitimately anchored in the left or the right.

Sullivan’s next idiotic attempt to smear the right was to conjure a connection between a campaign photo for Jesse Kelly — who is a Marine and was Gifford’s opponent recently — to using “violence” to further his political career because his campaign photo showed Kelly as a Marine holding his M16.

How many political candidates hold an automatic rifle in their open crotch in order to demonstrate their ideological bone fides? The conflation of conservatism with the willingness to use violence depressingly deepens.

Then, when this hack finally noticed that the killer’s book list included the Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Sullivan tried to back track a bit saying that Loughner was, “Not exactly a Tea Party purist.”

Not exactly a Tea Party purist? Not a Tea Partier at all, more like.

The propensity of the leftists in the media, and in the government, to immediately blame all violence on the TEA Party, Palin supporters, and Glenn Beck is breathtaking. The speed with which they relaease all manner of false information within hours of the event is the most egregious violation of the public trust and shows a complete lack of any principles and makes me wonder if this was more than just a lone nut wacko.

Karl Marx and John Smith?

I just caught a conversation on Becks show. A lady called in and said she and her husband had been to Jamestown and saw a film that had Karl Marx in it. I got distracted and missed some of the call.

Anyone else know about this?

Quote of the Day

There's no such thing as 'capitalism'; Marx made that up. It's just another way of saying 'freedom'.

by ahem (commenter at Maggie's)

h/t Maggie's Farm

Sunday 19 April is Patriots Day

and Mark Alexander, one of the smartest individuals I've read to date, has some insight. I've excerpted some salient paragraphs, but you really should just make the jump and read the whole thing.

From the Patriot Post:

Right-Wing Extremists
By Mark Alexander

My fellow Patriot "right-wing extremists" (or as Barack Obama prefers to describe you, those "bitterly clinging to guns or religion"), it is no small irony that, in the same week the central government demands payment of any income tax they hadn't already withheld (read: "pilfered") from our paychecks for redistribution, we observe Patriots Day.

April 19th marks the 234th anniversary of the early morning ride of Paul Revere and William Dawes to Concord, Massachusetts, in order to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams that British troops were coming to arrest them and seize their weapons. Revere was captured but Dawes and Samuel Prescott, who had joined them along the way, escaped and continued toward Concord. Dawes later fell from his horse, but Prescott, who knew the area well enough to navigate at night, made it to Concord in time to warn the Sons of Liberty.

Protests had been taking place since 1765 over increased taxation and other indignities, resulting most notably in the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, when colonists boarded three ships in Boston Harbor and threw English tea overboard. The grievances against the imperial authorities were many, but they found their voice in one familiar phrase: "No taxation without representation."

In the early dawn of April 19th, Captain John Parker, commander of the militiamen at Lexington, ordered, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war let it begin here." And it did -- American Minutemen fired the "shot heard round the world," as immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson, confronting the British on Lexington Green and at Concord's Old North Bridge.

A year later, American Patriots formalized their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, and some 3 percent of the colonists took up arms to battle the well equipped British regulars for almost eight years, until victory was won.

In 1787, our Patriot founders codified a Constitution of Government for their hard-won republic. For almost 150 years, our Constitution stood true to its original intent, just as our Founders, and more important, "the people," had willed it. But
constitutional rule of law suffered repeated humiliation during the Great Depression, as FDR used the economic crisis as cover to implement "change," ostensibly at the behest of "hope."

The result was a "Living Constitution" for a Dying Republic.

In the 1930s, FDR launched myriad socialist programs and redefined the role of the central government. He proposed to pay for his folly through excess taxation, proclaiming, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." (Of course, that wasn't an "American principle," but a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist maxim, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.")

As more Patriots across the nation take a lesson from our Founders, and make the leap from tactical skirmishes to a unified strategic front, protests will become far more focused and effective.

If I might make a humble suggestion, insisting on the restoration of constitutional rule of law is a worthy unified strategic objective.

While most of my colleagues at the nation's premier think tank, The Heritage Foundation, have yet to be profiled by DHS as anarchists, their organization has done precisely what I believe every Patriot should do.

Though Heritage will remain on the front lines of the war of ideas, producing some of the best policy analysis available anywhere, they are renewing their strategic emphasis on "First Principles."

Their revised statement of purpose notes: "We face an education system that upholds mediocrity in the name of relativism; an ever-expanding and centralized government, unmoored from constitutional limits; judges openly making laws and shaping society based on pop-philosophy rather than serious jurisprudence; and growing confusion over America's legitimate role in the world, made all the more apparent by the fundamental threat posed by radical Islamists. At the root of all these problems is a pervasive doubt about the core principles that define America and ought to inform our politics and policy."

Obama IS a Socialist

Obama The Fascist: Leading Us Down the Road to Serfdom
by Edward Cline
(March 20, 2009)
[CapMag.com]

20 March 2009
The Wall Street Journal
New York, NY Editor:

Alan Blinder needs an education in collectivism in politics. He denies that President Barack Obama is a “socialist.” His allegation can be rebutted on several levels ("Obama Is No Socialist," March 20).

Obama is a socialist. Look at his career, his past political and social affiliations, and those of most of his cabinet and department appointees. Karl Marx couldn’t have assembled a better team. Of course, no one today is going to advertise himself as a socialist. The new euphemism for it is “progressive.” The original Progressives were socialists.

Blinder denies that Obama wants to nationalize the banks. Yes, he does. Buying a controlling or even minimal share in any private entity by the government, for the purpose of steering its purpose to serve “social” or government ends, is fascism. This is usually called a “government-business partnership.” Also, it is known as “national socialism.” It means working as a slave or a serf for the government, and the government determining one’s rewards and compensation.

Blinder denies that Obama wants to socialize medicine. Yes, he does. He wants to streamline our semi-socialized American health care industry and make it more “efficient.” To do that, the health care industry must be controlled. To control it, it must be taken over. That is called socialism. It means that doctors, nurses and specialists would work as slaves or serfs for the government, with the government determining their rewards and compensation.

Mr. Blinder is in denial that Obama is truly taking the country on the road to serfdom, and that Obama is making the most of it.

Regards,
Edward Cline