The American Reistance
Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz still blaming the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting?
For some unknown reason…this morning I stumbled onto the Media Matters website. I think I was following a link that I found on the Fox site about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and before I knew it…I was there. I’ve never been on this site but…let me tell you…it’s worth visiting if you need a good chuckle. Do any of you watch “The Five” on Fox? I watched it yesterday and one of the topics was about DWS and how she is a complete disaster for the DNC but a great asset to Republicans. Four of the five (not Bob Beckel) were laughing about the fact that every time DWS opens her mouth, it turns people away from the Democrat party. It was a really funny segment. Anyway…one of the things discussed was the comment she made this week while she was speaking in New Hampshire. An audience member asked her about the lack of civility in Congress and DWS’s answer contained remarks about the Tea Party. The left is highly insulted that Fox is claiming that DWS is (once again) blaming the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting. Media Matters claims that her statement was taken out of context.
Here’s the transcript of the question….
AUDIENCE MEMBER: The American people are losing faith in Congress. [inaudible] because of the lack of civility. What do you think can be done to bring that faith back and then we can start thinking that they’re doing their job instead of just fighting with each other?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, as someone who spent 19 years as a member of a legislative body, I really agree with you, that we need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody is so thrilled, as I am, to hear that, making tremendous progress.
But the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed.
And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.
After the 2010 elections, when you had the Tea Party elect a whole lot of their supporters to the United States House of Representatives and you had town hall meetings that they tried to take over and you saw some of their conduct at those town hall meetings, you know, in the time that I’ve been in my state legislature and in Congress, I’ve never seen a time that was more divisive or where discourse was less civil.
It’s one thing — I’ve always had people come to my town hall meetings, for example, and say that they don’t agree with me on something. And that’s fine. And you know, that’s what those town hall meetings are about, they’re for civil discourse and give-and-take. And I learn something when I hear from a constituent who doesn’t share my view, and hopefully they do also because we’re listening to each other and there’s a back and forth.
What the Tea Party has done is they have taken it to a different level, and so when they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you are the enemy. I mean, that’s really a place that politics in America shouldn’t go. And you know, when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar. Rather than just have a difference of opinion, accusations like that get hurled, and it brings the entire discourse down to a level that I think none of us want to see remain there.
So, I have done my part. I’ll tell you that President Obama, you’ve seen, he’s tried so hard to get the Republicans to work with him, to bring them to the table, to try to get them to compromise and find common ground, but when you have someone like Mitch McConnell, for example, the minority leader of the United States Senate, say at the outset of this Congress that his number one goal is not turning the economy around, not creating jobs, but to defeat Pres– Barack Obama, well, then how are we going to reach compromise if that’s the goal that drives them and all their decisions? Because then — we won’t.
Because if that’s their goal, then anything that they do to compromise gives President Obama a win, a success, and makes it less likely in their minds that they would defeat him. Unfortunately, I think what has driven the Republicans in Congress is their interest in only one job, Barack Obama’s, when Democrats have been fighting for American jobs.
And that’s the difference. And that’s going to be the choice that people have to make.
So…what do you think? She doesn’t come right out and say “The Tea Party is responsible for Gabby’s shooting.” but I believe that the insinuation is there. There is one thing that is obviously missing in her statement. Not one time does she mention the Occupy Wall Street movement and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she mention the Wisconsin teachers union thugs and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she give an example of any case of violence or uncivil behavior from the Tea Party.
Greg Gutfeld has such a way with words so I think I’ll let him sum it all up…
GUTFELD (co-host): So, in my mind, which is made of felt and potatoes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the best thing to happen to Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Seriously, I’ve had wedgies less irritating than her. And that can only chafe the Democrats. Case in point: Once again the DNC chair links the Tea Party to the Tucson mass murder. So, Frizzilla, I bet you think the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, has really changed. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/12]
So true!
Todd Palin gives Newt a Thumbs-Up
Todd Palin has thrown his hat in the ring…for Newt Gingrich. It may not be as explosive as an endorsement from Sarah but it’s the next best thing and some people are saying that Todd may be speaking for the entire Palin family so it could go a long way in helping Newt’s numbers…especially in South Carolina.
I am still baffled by the silence of the Tea Party. I read several articles today that said that the Tea Party wasn’t well organized on a national level and was fractured on who to throw their support behind. Most felt like Herman Cain was the man but, obviously, many were disappointed by how that turned out. There isn’t one central “leader” of the movement so different Tea Party groups are supporting different candidates. Some like Rick Santorum…some Rick Perry…some Newt Gingrich but none are publicly behind Mitt Romney. Perhaps the Tea Party, at this moment in time, will function best on a local level…helping to elect conservative candidates to the House and Senate. Who knows?
I think that having at least one Palin behind Newt will draw in some of the Tea Party crowd…hopefully.
I really like Todd Palin….a lot.
Bill Whittle’s Voter’s Guide to Republicans
Hat tip to Indy for sharing.
This would be an excellent piece to share with your Lefty friends on Facebook.
Obama To Get Indefinite Detention Powers Against U.S. Citizens
H/T Sodahead
Last week I wrote about a couple of traitorous additions to the Defense Authorization bill written in secret by John McCain (RINO-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI).
According to the ACLU and DownsizeDC.org, among other watchdog organizations, sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill give Obama—and every future president, if there are any—“the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world….The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
And (SURPRISE!) it turns out that Obama asked for that power himself.
How nice of our favorite backstabbing Constitution-shredding s0-called “Republican” John “Benedict Arnold” McCain to oblige him (may he rot in HELL, after losing a brutal primary fight that bankrupts him.)
But McCain wasn’t alone in his treachery.
Sen. Lindsey “Rights for Illegals, but Not American Citizens” Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
It is a sad commentary on Mr. Graham–a co-sponsor of the bill–that one can’t predict if that was praise or criticism without looking at the replay. Turns out, Senator Graham thinks it’s awesome that one person the the U.S. government can pick up a phone, make a call, and make you disappear, without charges, without trial, forever.
More gullible and/or partisan members of the DNC-controlled media have been trying to insist for the past two weeks that the law doesn’t apply to Americans here, in America. And The White House was claiming that Obama was going to veto the bill if it applied to American citizens (now, not so much.) But…
“Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
‘The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,’ said Levin. ‘This is the Supreme Court speaking.’
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so.”
I’ve tried to find out what happened to the bill in Conference Committee, but the general consensus in the Liberty blogosphere this evening seems to be that the bill is just as bad coming out of committee as it was going in.
This evening at 6:58 p.m., 90 Democrats and 193 Republicans voted AYE to give the most corrupt president in U.S. history the power to kidnap and detain Americans anywhere in the world, forever, just on the basis of his opinion that they’re terrorists.
I’m kind of at a loss for words here, which may be appropriate, since technically anything I say can now be used against me by the president of the United States.
The bill now heads back to the Senate. Now may be a good time to pick up the phone and let your Senators know what you think.
UPDATE: Here’s the web page you can use to contact your Representatives.
Thoughts? Comments? Last words? Condolences?
How did YOUR Reprehensibles Representatives vote?
“Isolationist” is the new “Polarizing”: A Foreign Policy Primer
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
Leithner says,
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
Ohio Obamacare Smackdown?
The polls closed almost two hours ago, and very early returns show that Ohioans are smacking down Obamacare by a 2 – 1 margin, with a YES vote on Issue 3, an amendment to Ohio’s constitution.
Click to Embiggen
But there’s bad news on Issue 2, a vote to reign in the power of government employee unions. Thanks to massive spending on a disinformation campaign, it looks as though Issue 2 is going down by the same margin– 2 to 1.
However, election results are coming in extremely slowly. Nearly two hours after the polls closed, 20 of Ohio’s 88 counties have reported ZERO results. Hmmm. Here’s a map:
Click to Embiggen
I’ll update this post with a final vote tally as the evening goes on.
UPDATE: 1:48 A.M.
Ohio Votes To Nullify Insurance Mandate
Liberals–including our former governor, Ted Strickland–are spinning this 2 to 1 landslide against Obamacare as a “totally symbolic” and “meaningless” vote, whereas the 2 to 1 landslide in favor of government unions (Issue 2), on the same ballot, during the same election, was a profoundly significant mandate.
Huh. Reeeeeally.
The big story is the grassroots effort that got Issue 3 on the ballot (a totally citizen-led initiative with ZERO paid petition circulators). This was a profound defeat of Obamacare and socialized medicine at the grassroots level.
Freedom Fighter Lech Walesa: No Solidarity with OWS Commies
Walesa can smell the Pee Party from Warsaw. H/T WeaselZippers
Freedom fighter Lech Walesa co-founded the Solidarity trade-union movement that helped free Poland from communist dictatorship in the 1980s. This fight against tyranny–in an era when people were routinely shot dead while trying to escape from East Germany to freedom in the West–earned Lech Walesa the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. (Insert your own Obama Peace Prize joke here.)
Associated Press reports that Walesa was planning lend his support to the Pee Party Pro-Tests alarmed Adam Andrzejewski (“an-drew-ski”), who is currently running for the Republican nomination for Governor in Illinois.
Andrzejewski reached out to the Lech Walesa Institute Foundation in Warsaw with details of the puppet masters behind the Pee Party: “anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti- free enterprise interests,” informing the anti-communist freedom fighter that “OWS folks are politically to the left of President Barack Obama,” said Andrzejewski on BigGovernment.com.
Walesa has declined to meet with the Soros-funded #OWS Pee Party Pro-Testers after learning that the pro-tests have been bought and paid for by the same brand of Marxists, communists and socialists he risked his life to defeat.
That is a thing of beauty.
In May, when Barack Hussein Obama visited Poland, President Walesa refused to meet with him.
That kind of says it all, doesn’t it?
