As some of you may be aware, New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse wrote a column a couple of days ago comparing the new Arizona immigration law to Nazi Germany, apartheid era South Africa, and states that “the system of internal passports was one of the more distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union”. (I would love to know what the “tasteful” features of life in the Soviet Union were.) Then, Ms. Greenhouse further states that “breathing while undocumented is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona”. Note to Ms. Greenhouse and the rest of the liberal elites—it is supposed to be a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in every state (hence the term “illegal immigrant”). That is why legal immigrants are supposed to carry their green cards with them everywhere at all times.

However, I don’t think that most liberals really grasp this fact, because a few days ago on MSNBC when Contessa Brewer was foaming at the mouth about the possibility of “families turning in families”, the headline on the screen read “Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant”. (Thank you Captain Obvious.) Not to mention, we’ve all seen liberals and members of the MSM get all lathered up in self-righteous outrage over the new AZ law—Richard Cohen of The Washington Post called it “the Anglos last stand”. And, of course, even Barack Obama weighed in calling the bill a “misguided piece of legislation that threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. ”

Now, my problem is not with President Obama calling the AZ law “misguided”. My problem is with Obama calling the AZ law “misguided” and then not proposing a solution of his own—or following John McCain’s advice and sending 3000 National Guard troops to seal the border (yeah, yeah, I know that McCain is late to the party—but, better late than never I always say). Someone needs to tell President Obama to take Thomas Paine’s advice and “Lead, follow or get out of the way”. And, since it’s quite obvious by now that Obama’s raison d’etre seems to be preening in front of the cameras and giving speeches rather than governing, I suggest that he get out of the way and let the grown-ups handle this one. Besides, dumping on “Jesusland” just to make your base happy is not leadership.

OK—I must admit that I’m not completely surprised by President Obama’s inaction regarding our border crisis, because, during the 2008 election, he did say that “we should teach our children Spanish”—therefore, Obama’s total indifference to the people of Arizona should have been somewhat predictable. However, I do find it quite annoying, to say the least, that President Obama would send out the SWAT team—in full riot gear—to intercept 30-40 grannies protesting his speech in IL (H/T Moe Lane), and yet he won’t send the National Guard to AZ to secure our border from invasion by the Mexican drug cartel, but I digress.

Now, I definitely would love the pleasure of responding to Ms. Greenhouse, but before I do, I would first like to explain just exactly how bad things are for the good people of AZ in order to establish that their fears are indeed legitimate, and not based on anti-Hispanic sentiment.

I assume that most of you who haven’t been living a rock have heard about Robert Krentz, but for those of you who haven’t, Robert Krentz was the Arizona Rancher who was recently murdered by an illegal immigrant that he was trying to help (his brother thinks that he was bringing him water). (Oh, and for all of you dog lovers like me, the illegal immigrant shot and killed Mr. Krentz’s dog as well.) Now, what makes this story particularly heartbreaking, was that Mr. Krentz was known as a good Samaritan who would bring illegal immigrants water and help injured ones cross the desert in 120 degree heat. Furthermore, Mr. Krentz continued to be a good Samaritan despite the fact that in 1999, his house was broken into (by illegal immigrants) and $700 worth of items were stolen. Not to mention, in 2007, his wife wrote a letter to Congress begging for help because she thought that her family’s lives might be in danger. (See embed below where Megyn Kelly explains how Krentz found 290 pounds of Marijuana on his property the day before he was killed.)

Oh, and here is Glenn Beck explaining how Phoenix, Arizona is now the second largest kidnap capital in the world after Mexico City—try putting that on your travel brochures. (See embed below—watch first two minutes to get the idea.)

And, here is Geraldo Rivera doing a story about how the lawlessness in Mexico (which Geraldo says is “more vicious than anything going on in Afghanistan or Iraq”) has spilled over into our country, and how the Mexican drug cartels have, literally, invaded Phoenix, Arizona. (See embed below—watch 2:20 to get the idea.) Furthermore, here is John McCain telling Bill O’Reilly that illegal immigrant smugglers are intentionally causing car accidents along the AZ state freeways.

And finally, here is the AP doing a story on how nine decapitated bodies were found in a Mexican border town just a few miles from San Diego (see embed below), and here is The New York Times doing a story on how people in Mexico City wear bullet-proof clothes.

(See Frugal Cafe for more details of border violence.)

OK—now I know what you all are asking: “How long has the violence on the border been this bad?” Well, at least since 2005. How do I know this? Because in 2005, Janet Napolitano who was then the governor of AZ, but is now Obama’s head of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a state of emergency and stated the following—

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday declared a state of emergency along Arizona’s border with Mexico, freeing up $1.5 million in disaster funds to help border counties combat booming illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Napolitano criticized the federal government for “moving too slow” on border security, evolving into a hot-button, election-year issue in Arizona and across the country.

“This is a federal responsibility, and they’re not meeting it,” Napolitano said. “I’ve just come to the conclusion (that) we’ve got to do what we can at the state level until the federal government picks up the pace.”

However, a couple of days ago when Senator Lindsey Graham asked Ms. Napolitano if our southern border was secure, she issued the following response—

“I believe it is as secure as it ever has been.”

Translation: “Now that I’m not the AZ governor anymore, it’s not really my problem or the Obama Administration’s problem. You hicks in AZ are SOL if you think that we’re going to help you. However, be prepared for us to demagogue on this issue and call you all “RAAAAACISTS!!” if you try to help yourselves.”

By the way, between Janet Napolitano’s botching of the panty bomber and, now, not foreseeing this disaster in AZ (when she is their former governor), how in the world does she still have a job? But, I digress.

Alright, now that I have established how violent our southern border is, and how Arizona’s security is threatened by illegal immigration, I would also like to discuss how much illegal immigration stresses out AZ financially—especially since AZ has almost a 10% unemployment rate. A few days ago, Pat Buchanan wrote an excellent column titled, “Whose Country is This?” where he explains how African Americans and low income Americans are most hurt by illegal immigration. He, then, further illustrated the financial burden that illegal immigration has been on Arizona’s schools, hospitals and public services when he wrote the following—

“Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.

Undeniably, making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally, and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” is here illegally, is tough and burdensome. But what choice did Arizona have?

The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.”

However, another great column about how Illegal immigration hurts America’s poor was written in 2006 by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof—it’s titled, “Compassion That Hurts”. (Yeah, I know. I couldn’t believe it either.) Here is a sample of some of Kristof’s column—

“I used to favor a program to allow in guest workers, thinking it would be good for them and also great for America by providing a source of low-cost labor — just as it was good for America to admit our own ancestors. And illegal immigrants overwhelmingly are hard-working people who keep the economy humming, so they deserve respect rather than xenophobic resentment and a marginalized life in the shadows.

But I’ve changed my mind on a guest worker program, because of growing evidence that low-wage immigration hurts America’s own poor.

It’s often said that immigrants take jobs that Americans won’t take. But look at employment statistics, and you see that even among maids and agricultural workers, only four out of 10 people are immigrants.

I can’t write about this issue without thinking of Elmer, a neighbor when I was growing up. He’s a high school dropout now in his 50’s, but when I met him in 1971, he was earning $26 an hour in a union job. He’s very hard-working, but for the last decade he’s been reduced to janitorial jobs paying not much over minimum wage. People like Elmer haven’t been heard from in the immigration debate, but they have the most at stake.”

Oh, and speaking of compassion, I don’t know what’s compassionate about allowing immigrants to die in the desert, which is what frequently happens when they are smuggled through the AZ desert. And, I don’t know what’s compassionate about paying them slave wages either (H/T Jaded).

[On a side note, this discussion about compassion has reminded me of a recent argument that my husband got into with another blogger. This blogger posted on a website that he loved illegal immigration, because he loved having someone who would clean his huge house for forty dollars. When my husband responded to him and explained to him that illegal immigration hurts the poorest Americans (and African Americans), the man responded by calling my husband a “RAAAAACIST!!”. Man, these people are so predictable, but I digress.]

Anyway, now that I have established how violent our southern border is, and how taxing illegal immigration is on Arizona’s services and job market, I would like to take a look at the infamous AZ law, before responding to Linda Greenhouse. A few days ago, Byron York wrote an excellent column where he clearly explained how all of this talk about about the AZ police “asking brown people for their papers” was literally crazy talk. In his column, York explained that the new AZ law specifically forbids racial profiling, that the AZ police have to already have pulled you over for another infraction of the law before they can ask for proof that you are in the country legally, and that if the person in question has a driver’s license, then that is considered to be sufficient proof of legal status. I have pasted some excepts of Byron York’s column below.

“The chattering class is aghast at Arizona’s new immigration law. “Harkens back to apartheid,” says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker. “Shameful,” says the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne. “Terrible…an invitation to abuse,” says the New York Times’ David Brooks.

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”

For example: “Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling,” says Kobach. “An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.” That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver’s license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver’s license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There’s no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver’s license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver’s license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it’s a burden, it’s a burden on everyone.”

OK—since I have not only successfully established that AZ is indeed in a state of crisis with regard to illegal immigration, but also established that the law does not turn AZ into a police state, I would like to, now, take this opportunity to respond to Linda Greenhouse.

Dear Ms. Greenhouse,

It has not escaped my attention that you and your liberal friends in the MSM have been huffing and puffing over the recent AZ law that—you know—does what the federal law is supposed to do, but refuses to do—i.e., shut down the border. In fact, just today, The New York Times wrote another scathing op-ed condemning the state of AZ. However, I can’t help but notice that you people seem to be high on over the top rhetoric, but low on actual solutions to a real problem.

I mean, just yesterday, I heard Megyn Kelly explain that AZ has roughly the same crime rate as NY, even though New York has SIX TIMES the population of AZ. Furthermore, a lot of these people who are currently committing crimes in AZ, are the exact same people who were kidnapping people, cutting off fingers, and killing kids when they previously lived in Mexico (and some of them are the Mexican police). (See embed below.)

But hey, I can understand why you and your ilk don’t want to seal the border. I mean, who cares if a few illegal immigrants might die crossing the desert, be taken advantage of and have to work for slave wages in the US, or possibly get kidnapped in Phoenix and get their fingers cut off or get killed—you guys might get some new voters who will vote “Democrat” if you make these guys citizens in, say, ten years. And in the meantime, you all get someone to clean your house and mow your lawn for real cheap (I know, good, cheap help is hard to find). Man, you guys really had a good thing going until those “bitter clingers” from AZ had to come in with their whole “law and order” nonsense. You would have to be a redneck and a Nazi to care if your state had been invaded by the Mexican drug cartel, right? And really, who cares about low income Americans, like Nicholas Kristof’s friend Elmer, who are worried about their jobs. We all know that they are just a bunch of ignorant bigots anyway.

So, since you didn’t offer any solutions to the problems that the good people of AZ (and the rest of the nation) face, I thought that I could offer some suggestions that you might agree with.

My first suggestion is called “Operation Canadian Buddy System”. I say that we come up with a buddy system with Canada where we send about 12-20 million low skilled workers, criminal gang members, drug smugglers, and hard-working individuals who have lost their jobs to Canada (this program is very similar to what the Mexican government has done to us). Now, of course, we don’t consult the Canadians about “Operation Canadian Buddy System”—that would be silly—we just do it. Hey, it would certainly solve a lot of our unemployment and crime problems. Now, when we send our citizens up there, we would give them maps (just like the Mexican government does to their citizens) and parkas (instead of jugs of water). And, if the Canadian government complains about all of the illegal immigrants that we are sending their way, we will simply just call them “RAAAAACISTS!!” and inform them that they are not “illegal aliens”—they are “undocumented workers”.

Wait—what’s that you say Ms. Greenhouse? You don’t think the Canadian government will fall for that for one second? You think that the Canadian government will deport all of those people the first chance that they get? Well, you are probably right. I mean, it’s common knowledge that both the Canadians and the Europeans have much stricter immigration laws than we have, and much stronger border security (and we know that liberals think that everything that the Europeans and Canadians do is superior to everything that Americans do). In fact, as George Will pointed out last week on “This Week”, we are the only developed nation (that shares a border with a narco state) that doesn’t secure its borders. Furthermore, the Mexican government (which has been quite vociferous in denouncing the AZ law), is notorious in how badly it treats its illegal immigrants, and has been cited several times by The Red Cross for human rights abuses (H/T Erick Brockway). So, Ms. Greenhouse, if the Europeans, Canadians and Mexicans would never put up with the chaos on our southern border, then, tell me, why are we?

OK—my second suggestion is called “Operation Let’s Send All of the Illegal Alien Criminals to Linda Greenhouse’s Neighborhood”. Well first of all, Ms. Greenhouse, it’s pretty obvious that most of the people that will be caught by this new law will be criminals, since there is no racial profiling and only way that a police officer will come into “lawful contact” with an otherwise law abiding person is through a traffic stop (and the law says that a driver’s license is sufficient documentation, and illegals without licenses will probably take the bus). Now, since you seem to not be bothered by open borders and think this whole sovereignty thing is silly, I say that we dump all of the drug smugglers, gang members, kidnappers and criminals, that are caught by this new law, in your neighborhood (don’t worry, we’ll send you a bullet proof blouse). Granted, some of your neighbors might protest a bit about having to pay higher taxes in order to support these people, having their hospitals over-run, having an increase of traffic accidents and kidnappings, and about not feeling safe when they go outside after dark. However, I say just respond by calling them “RAAAAACISTS!!”. (I’m telling you, the race card works on liberals every time.)

Wait–what’s that you say? You think that severed heads and multiple kilos of drugs in the hallway might ruin the whole feng shui of your building? Yeah, I tend to agree with you that those things would indeed drive down the value of a Manhattan flat—plus I heard that co-op boards can be a pain about such things. Well then, on to my next suggestion.

Finally, my third and final suggestion for dealing with the immigration crisis is called “Operation Give Your Job at The New York Times to an Illegal Immigrant”. OK—let’s be honest here Ms. Greenhouse. Since you don’t seem to be troubled by illegal immigrants taking jobs from poorer American citizens and driving down their wages, I thought that maybe you wouldn’t mind if The New York Times hired some illegal Mexican, Canadian or, say, Indian journalists who would work for half the price, and without any benefits.

Wait—what’s that you say? You like your job and don’t want to give it up and don’t think that your co-workers do either? And, you don’t think that your co-workers would want illegal immigrants coming in and driving down their wages? Well, I’ll be darned!

Well Ms. Greenhouse, you just exhausted all of my suggestions. The only other one that I have is the obvious one—for President Obama to send 3000 National Guard troops to secure our southern border. However, we both know that he’s not going to do that because it would upset the liberal members of his base too much (like you) and it would take away valuable time from his whole “Celebrity-in-Chief” act. Furthermore, the Senate Majority Leader seems to think that climate change is more important to pass this year than immigration. (Seriously?!) So, since neither you nor your president seem to have any solution to the crisis in AZ, I would suggest following Thomas Paine’s advice and just getting out of the way of the Arizonans and letting them do what they think is best—hey, at the very least you can withhold judgment and refrain from implying that they are Nazis or in favor of apartheid (especially since their new law seems to be working).

Oh, and one more thing. The fact that, as previously stated, Arizona has almost a ten percent unemployment rate, has roughly the same crime rate as New York, has the largest rate of kidnappings in America, and has had several policemen and a rancher recently murdered tells me that things are seriously out of control for Arizonans, and I wouldn’t wish their situation on my worst enemy. And, the fact that seventy percent of Arizonans support this law (and fifty-one percent of AZ Democrats do as well), and that the majority of Hispanics in Arizona support this law, tells me that these people are not “RAAAAACIST!!”—they’re desperate.

By the way, you know what’s so sad about this whole situation in AZ? If you guys in New York were in a similar situation where you were being invaded by drug cartels from a country “with more violence than Iraq and Afghanistan” (to quote Geraldo Rivera who is actually very pro-illegal immigrant and once sparred with Bill O’Reilly over the subject), we in the red states would not be judging you and implying that you were Nazis if you went all Giuliani on them—we would have your back and be demanding that the president and Congress do something to help you. I guess the difference between liberals and conservatives is that we believe in the whole “There are no red states or blue states—there is only the United States” thing all of the time—you guys only seem to believe it during an election year.

Have a nice weekend!

Sincerely, Susannah

PS—Ms. Greenhouse, the only part of your column that I liked was when you wrote that you were going to personally boycott AZ. I think that’s best for all parties involved. However, I don’t think that you will be missed. I mean, I can’t picture the people of AZ saying, “Omigod, our state’s on fire and we are the kidnap capital of America! It sure would improve things if we had a snooty liberal from NY down here to judge us.”

PPS—On a personal note, when my husband and I moved recently from GA to SC, I was following him in my car when a SC policeman pulled me over. The first thing that he did was ask for my driver’s license. (Were my civil rights violated?) The officer who pulled me over was African American. I make this point only to say that when he asked for my license, I didn’t accuse him of just pulling me over because I was white, or tell him “Your mama has my driver’s license”. I just gave the man my license, apologized for my crappy driving (he said that I was weaving—I probably was), explained that I was tired from moving all day, and then he let me go without giving me a ticket and even gave me directions. Now, if I had accused him of racism and and made the “your mama” quip to him, do any of you think that I would have gotten a beer summit with the president? Nah, I probably would have spent the night in the clink for being an @&shole—and I would have deserved it too.

As some of you are aware, last Friday, I wrote in a Live Wire for The Minority Report that Charles Blow of The New York Times was an idiot and a racist. (And, my girl Jaded was kind enough to put my Live Wire in a Red Hot on Redstate—thank you Jaded.) Normally, I believe that name-calling is the hobgoblin of puny minds, and I loathe people who carelessly toss around the term “Raaacist!!” without any proof. However, if you read Mr. Blow’s column, you will most probably agree that Charles Blow definitely deserves the title of “racist idiot”.

In Charles Blow’s ridiculous column, he discusses his impression of a Dallas Tea Party that he attended–and yet he spoke to no one else there (he admitted this fact on Laura Ingraham’s radio show). (If you are interested, here is a good promotional video of the Dallas Tea Party.) There were so many offensive things in Mr. Blow’s column, that I don’t even know where to begin—like when he wrote that seeing a black doctor, a Mexican immigrant and a Vietnamese immigrant on stage together reminded him of “a bizarre spoof of a Benetton ad”, or when he complained about how many white people were at the Tea Party. However, what I found to be particularly appalling was when Mr. Blow referred to the minorities speaking at the Dallas Tea Party as “a political minstrel show”. What Charles Blow implied by calling the Dallas Tea Party “a political minstrel show” is that African Americans and minorities should all think alike and be liberals—and if they dare to think for themselves or speak at a Tea Party, then they are “putting on a minstrel show” for the white man. Now, in his nasty column, Mr. Blow singled out Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel, an African American conservative comedian who was performing at the Dallas Tea party, as part of “the political minstrel show”.

By the way, someone needs to inform Mr. Blow that it is quite normal for a comedian to perform for an audience—it’s what they do for a living. Was Bill Cosby putting on a “minstrel show” when he used to perform for predominately white audiences? What about Oprah Winfrey? Her audience is mainly white as well. Oh, and what about MSNBC? As our own Lori Ziganto points out, their entire staff is white. So if a black pundit is a guest on MSNBC, is he putting on a “minstrel show”? But, I digress.

Anywho, Zo finally got around to responding to Charles Blow, and it was a sheer delight to see Zo tell that pompous New York Times columnist just how much his column blows (pun most definitely intended). (H/T to Aaron Gardner and Big Journalism for the video. Please read Aaron’s excellent column about the “minstrel show” incident here).

Man, that was a thing thing of beauty, wasn’t it?

Y’all have a good night. (I know that I will after seeing Zo hand Blow his you-know-what.)

OK—As some of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism”. In this diary, I discussed how Andrew Breitbart proved that the allegations from the DNC and the MSM that the Tea Party is fueled by racism and violence is one gigantic hoax. Furthermore, I also demonstrated how the left often resorts to acts of civil disobedience, threats, name-calling, and sometimes out-right violence, when they protest or try to suppress dissent. Some examples of this behavior are threatening voters with nightsticks, throwing food at people, posting death threats to Eric Cantor and shooting up his office, calling people “Raaaaaacists!!”, “hooligans”, “The Mob”, “Nazis” and writing in the WaPo that “I want to knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”

Our own Caleb Howe even covered the story of SEIU union thugs beating up an African American conservative (Kenneth Gladney) for handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, and then slapping the camera woman in the face (see embed below).

Moreover, I also embedded a video of the actual March 20th Tea Party protest (where the protesters were falsely smeared as “Raaaaacists!”) in order to demonstrate just how orderly and respectful our side is compared to their side when protesting.

Well, well, well—after viewing some of the more recent news stories that have been reported on over the last few days, I’m beginning to think that I was even more prescient than I realized in regard to liberals being more aggressive protesters than conservatives. (Not to pat myself on the back or anything—I’m just being honest.)

First of all, you had a video recently made public that showed some Harry Reid supporters throwing eggs at The Tea Party Express bus and at Andrew Breitbart—and one of Reid’s supporters even went so far as to threaten violence against Breibart, even though he was just standing around doing nothing provocative.

Second of all, you had Michelle Malkin reporting on what a bust the “Crash the Tea Party Movement” was (that was organized by desperate leftists that were going to try to infiltrate the Tea Party in order to make them appear racist, because all of their past attempts to smear them have failed). In her blog, Ms. Malkin even has a picture of some idiot walking around with a picture of a noose while other real Tea Party members are holding up signs pointing him out as an infiltrator.

Furthermore, our own Moe Lane reported that Politico interviewed an African American Obama supporter (who wore an Obama T-shirt to a Tea Party) saying the following regarding his experience at the Tea Party—

Brooks Alexander, a 23-year-old Olney, Md., hotel worker and Obama supporter who wore an Obama t-shirt to the evening rally, said infiltrators were being disrespectful.

“They’re doing a disservice not only to themselves, but to the people who are here trying to express their views,” said Alexander, who is African American and said he traveled to the rally to verify for himself liberal accounts blasting the tea party as racist.

“All my friends told me I was crazy to come down here in an Obama shirt,” he said. “Obviously I have political disagreements [with the tea party], but I cannot lie. I cannot say that people have been anything but nice to me. They have been shaking my hand. One guy told me I had a lot of [guts] for coming down here. I will definitely walk away from this with a new understanding of the tea party.”

Man, those Tea Parties sound like a real “scary”, “raaaaacist” bunch, don’t they?

However, speaking of scary, Michelle Malkin has reported that LA governor, Bobby Jindal’s campaign fundraising chief, Allee Bautsch, and her boyfriend were savagely beaten leaving Brennan’s Restaurant after the SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference). The Louisiana blog, The Hayride has all of the details, including multiple videos of people protesting the SRLC right outside of Brennan’s. Now, neither the Hayride, nor Michelle Malkin are 100% sure that the attacks were political in nature. However, the victims were horrifically beaten (Bautsch had her leg broken in four places and has had five screws put in it, and her boyfriend had his jaw and his nose broken), they weren’t robbed by the perpetrators, and there were numerous protesters surrounding the SRLC, so it’s fair to say that I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the attacks turned out to be political. (Put it this way—if this kind of attack had happened anywhere near a Tea Party protest, the MSM would be all over it and already jumping to conclusions.)

And finally, this video is a perfect compilation of left wing protests being contrasted with conservative protests. Watch it and tell me which group you honestly think is scarier.

Just a thought, but maybe the reason why smarmy, self-important liberals, like Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garafalo, feel so free to call us all “Raaaaacists!” and “teabaggers” (which is a vile oral sex term) is because they aren’t at all afraid of us, because they KNOW we aren’t violent or racist.

I mean, could any of you IMAGINE wearing a Palin or a McCain T-shirt to a left wing rally or to a protest group with people similar to the ones in the videos or the links that I provided for you? You would have to be certifiable to do that in my humble opinion. Furthermore, could you imagine what would happen to you if you called those left wing protesters a lude term like “teabagger”? At best they would throw food at you—at worst, you might end up in the hospital.
Y’all have a nice weekend.

…..Or that’s what the left used to say when George W. Bush was president. And, you know what? They were right. Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism. However, now that the Democrats are in power, they aren’t such big fans of dissent anymore—in fact, they’ve been doing everything in their power to quash dissent for the last year and a half. Furthermore, if you disagree with President Obama in any way, you are now officially a “RAAAAACIST!” (that’s spelled with five A’s). Want proof? Well, here goes….

I’m sure you all heard about the brouhaha that occurred during the past week. I’m, of course, talking about how a bunch of supposed evil, raaaaacist Tea Partiers attacked some members of the Congressional Black Caucus with racial slurs and how one was even spat upon. You couldn’t have missed it, because the media ran wild with this story, and there were op-eds galore—like this one from Colbert King comparing the Tea Party members to George Wallace, David Duke and the KKK, or this one from Derrick Jackson stating that the Tea Party uses hatred as a political strategy. Oh, and of course Frank Rich has a new column out where he states that all opposition to Obamacare is completely rooted in race hatred. Rich further states in his column that there was “nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank.” So, since the MSM seems so lathered up in self-righteous outrage over these supposed incidents, they must be true, right?

Well, Andrew Breitbart has written an excellent column where he calls all of these incidents into question. Below are some excerpts from Breitbart’s column and two videos of the actual event—-

As I have said over and over and over, the left has one trick that it will use again and again when its back is in the corner: shout ‘racist’ in a crowded country.

On Saturday, during the peaceful and patriotic tea party protest at the Capitol, the Democrats staged a series of symbolic acts meant to manipulate the media to do its bidding. The Congressional Black Caucus pulled the Selma card and chose to walk through the crowd in the hopes of creating a YouTube incident. This is what it looked like:

And this:

Saturday’s “never mind” moment will live in infamy as the Congressional Black Caucus claimed the N-word was hurled 15 times. YouTube video shows that at least two of the men in the procession were carrying video cameras and holding them above the crowd. They have not come forth with evidence to show that even one person hurled the vile racist epithet. The video also shows no head movement one way or another. Wouldn’t the N-word provoke a head turn or two? Is it really possible that in 2010, in a crowd of 30 or 40 thousand people — at the center of a once-in-a-lifetime media circus — not one person’s flipphone, Blackberry, video recorder or a network feed caught a single incident? And if not, then at least someone could have found an honest tea partier to act as an eyewitness — or the Congressional Black Caucus would have confronted the culprit(s). If that had happened, there would be an investigation to see if the perpetrator was a left-wing plant.

That’s how much the Democrats need a racist Tea Party moment. To stop it in its tracks. That’s why on Saturday they used the Congressional Black Caucus to try to manufacture the false appearance of one. And when they didn’t get it, they did what they always do: they lied.

[After watching that footage, I’m beginning to think that Frank Rich might need to be heavily medicated because he claimed that he “watched goons hurl venomous slurs at John Lewis and Barny Frank". I saw nothing of the sort in that footage, so Rich obviously suffers from frequent hallucinations, but I digress.]

Breitbart also reminds us how members of the MSM have willingly participated in similar hoaxes in the past—specifically MSNBC cutting off a Tea Party protester’s head in a shot, who was carrying a gun to a protest, in order to hide the fact that he was black.

But hey, none of those members of the CBC making those allegations have any past history of race-baiting. Oh, wait a minute. I forgot about John Lewis comparing John McCain to George Wallace. (You can watch John McCain’s impassioned response to John Lewis below.)

Oh, and I forgot about Jesse Jackson Jr. (one of the members of the CBC holding a camera while walking through the crowd) stating that Hillary Clinton “cried for her appearance, but not for Katrina victims”. (Wow, race-bating and sexism all rolled into one—you stay classy Mr. Jackson.)

And, who could forget James Clyburn making a huge deal out of Bill Clinton stating that it’s a “fairy tale” that Obama was ever going to pull the troops immediately out of Iraq, and insinuating that Clinton was speaking in some kind of racial code. (Last time I checked, we were still in Iraq, so I guess Mr. Clinton was right.) In fact, Clyburn even went to far as to tell President Clinton to “Chill”.

Well, Bill Clinton sure hasn’t forgotten about Clyburn’s accusations, because he basically admitted to Kate Snow that Clyburn played the race card on him (see embed below).

So, if these fine, upstanding gentlemen (my voice is dripping with sarcasm right now) would go so far as to play the race card on a president of their own party, compare a war hero to George Wallace, and imply that Hillary Clinton doesn’t care if black people in New Orleans drown, then do you really think that they’d have ANY compunction when it comes to lying about a bunch of nameless, faceless protesters?! I seriously doubt it.

Last summer during the town hall meetings, Jonah Goldberg observed the tendency for Obama supporters to be the boy who cried race in an excellent column that he wrote titled, “A Deck Stacked with Race Cards”. Here are some excerpts below—

No one should be surprised. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, liberal Democrats have to accuse their opponents of racism. Indeed, somewhat to their credit, fighting racism — alas, even where it doesn’t exist — is one of the reasons they became liberal Democrats in the first place.

From Day 1, Obama’s supporters have tirelessly cultivated the idea that anything inconvenient for the first black president just might be terribly, terribly racist.

This was always the nasty side of Obama’s implied hope for unity. Obama gave oxygen to the idea that disagreement with him amounted to obstructing his mission to “transcend race.” During the campaign, that meant anyone who got in his way was wittingly or unwittingly abetting racism (just ask Bill Clinton).

Anyway, the reason why the recent circus involving the CBC is so important is because Obama’s supporters, the DNC and the MSM (I know—they’re all one in the same) have used the race card, name-calling and every other dirty trick in the book in order to suppress dissent. Want proof? Well, here goes….

Here is Maureen Dowd implying that anyone who vocally disagrees with Obama is a “RAAAAAACIST!”. (I guess Jonah Goldberg was right). Here is NYT’s columnist Charles Blow calling the town hall protesters a bunch of “hooligans” who are “hooting and hollering” and “terrorizing legislators”, and then stating that “the Republican Party is no party of Einsteins”. And, here is a recent column from WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy in which he writes the following about the Tea Party protesters (H/T KOTM—his diary is excellent)—

I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

Oh, and how could anyone forget about the infamous and embarrassing DNC video that refers to concerned citizens as “The Mob” ? (Even Camille Paglia derided them for this idiocy.)

Hey, where‘s the love? I thought that being a community organizer was cool. Oh, but silly me. I guess it‘s only cool to organize the community and protest if you are an ACORN member threatening banks. I guess if you are protesting against The One, you are no longer a “community organizer“–you are a “hooligan“ or a member of an “angry mob” and you must be stopped.

Oh, and who could forget Barbara “Ma’am” Boxer calling protesters at the town halls “astroturfers“, because they are “too well dressed“? Our own Lori Ziganto wrote an excellent diary detailing this (and it contains the embed of the video of Barbara Boxer), but I feel the need to paste one of the more hilarious quotes below–

Unlike Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink cohorts, normal citizens actually attempt to look nice when, you know, going out in public. Even worse, we Right-Wing nutty nut women gasp shave our legs .. while showering no less.. AND wear bras. Sometimes we even comb our hair and put on make-up to look purty. It’s our Stockholm Syndrome, of course. We can’t help objectifying ourselves, obviously.

However, no mocking and deriding of the town hall/Tea Party protesters would be complete without the MSM routinely referring to us as “Teabaggers”. (In case any of you are wondering, the term “Teabagging” is a vile oral sex term.) I have embedded two videos below. The first one shows Anderson Cooper making the disgusting pun, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging”. The second one shows Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox laughing for a good seven minutes about “teabaggers”.

OK–please allow me to quickly put this into perspective for you. Can you imagine, for a moment, if conservative commentators were routinely referring to anti-war protesters or pro-Obamacare advocates as “C**kgobblers” (sorry for the vulgarity, but I was trying to make a point)? (Thank you Office Space.) I bet that liberals would be rioting in the streets, but I digress.

And finally, any diary about liberal suppression of dissent would not be complete without the example of Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling people “astroturfers” who attend town halls, and implying that they are Nazis by claiming that “they wear Swastikas” (the video is below).

However, what’s really funny about all of this, is that back in 2006, a bunch anti-war protesters heckled Speaker Pelosi at one of her own town halls, and she told them that their “advocacy is very American” and that she was “a fan of disruptors” (instead of referring to them as a bunch of teabagging, raaaaacist, Nazi hooligans).

However, last August, Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote an op-ed for USA Today where they referred to the town hall protesters as “un-American disruptors!” Hypocrisy much, Madame Speaker?

So now, given the lack of respect—as well as the outright intense animosity—clearly shown towards the town hall/Tea Partiers by the DNC and the MSM, I completely agree with Andrew Breitbart when he writes the following—

It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.

And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.

THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

In other words, if you believe that ANY footage verifying the CBC’s accusations actually exists, but for some reason the MSM isn’t running it, then I have a blind bird dog and some under-water real-estate to sell you.

Oh, and speaking of liberal suppression of dissent, today the WSJ reported that a bunch of Harry Reid supporters surrounded Andrew Breitbart and threw eggs at him, as well as the Tea Party Express bus. And yet, it’s those “violent teabaggers” that we are supposed to fear. Funny, huh?

Well, since I’ve clearly demonstrated how liberals love to suppress dissenting views, I would, now, like to show how “radical” liberals can get when they protest—and boy do they like to protest. Liberals are all for freedom of speech—as long as it’s their freedom of speech, of course.

Here is a video of Code Pink interrupting John McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I don’t remember any “teabaggers” interrupting Obama’s Speech, do you?

Oh, and here is a NYT’s column about a bunch of spoiled, bratty college kids at The New School turning their backs on john McCain and calling him a “war criminal” when he spoke at their graduation.

Furthermore, speaking of an “angry mob”, do any of you remember when Code Pink members, dressed up like transvestites at Mardi Gras (not that there’s anything wrong with that if you are a transvestite at Mardi Gras–there’s a time and a place for everything), and interrupted General David Petraeus’ confirmation hearing by screaming like banshees? These people could definitely teach the people attending health care town halls and tea parties a thing or two.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of “hooligans”, what about the video below of members of The New Black Panther Party engaging in clear-cut voter intimidation? By the way, Obama’s Department of Justice dropped the charges against these hooligans after the DoJ had already won. Ed Morrisey of Hot Air has the story (even the US Commission on Civil Rights was furious).

Just a thought, but do any of you really think that Obama’s DoJ would have dropped the charges against two Bubbas in Mississippi dressed in overalls and carrying baseball bats outside of a voting precinct (instead of wearing jackboots and carrying nightsticks)? I highly doubt it (and rightfully so I might add).

Oh, and here is a video of some liberal hooligans throwing a pie at Ann Coulter. I guess, in their world, throwing pies and eggs at people is OK, but waving flags is dangerous.

And finally, there’s this recent video of SEIU union thugs attacking an African-American conservative for exercising his freedom of speech by passing out flags that said “Don’t Tread on Me” (which shows a rattlesnake that was a favorite motto of Benjamin Franklin). The video also shows these “hooligans” “hooting and hollering” and then slapping the woman holding the camera in the face (H/T Caleb Howe).

On a side note, what I find to be very strange, is that what upsets liberals is so very different than what upsets the rest of us. They are bothered more by people protesting at town halls than they are by men with nightsticks threatening voters. They are bothered more by people waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags than by thugs beating up a guy handing out those very flags. And finally, liberals are angered more by people hurling imaginary slurs at congressmen than by people throwing actual Oreo cookies at Michael Steele, or by people shooting up Eric Cantor’s office (please read Amy Miller’s excellent diary) and posting death threats to him on You Tube (the FBI arrested that man today).

OK—Now that my curiosity is peaked, I thought that I would actually take a look at that infamous Tea Party rally on March 20’th where Congressional Black Caucus members were supposedly smeared.

Oh my eyes!! My eyes!! It burns, it stings!!! That was absolutely terrifying! They were waving flags—and singing The Star Spangled Banner! How will I ever get those awful images out of my head?! It would have been so much more reassuring if they were waving nightsticks, throwing food and slapping people.

However, if you really want to scare a liberal, show up with a baby. Babies are like Kryptonite to them (just ask Sarah Palin whose baby and pregnant daughter were perpetually smeared by the Daily Kos and the MSM). Below is a video of CNN’s Susan Roesgen freaking out on a guy at a Tea Party with a baby and berating the other protesters there. Roesgen says to the man in an accusatory tone, “You are here with your two year old”—like the man had committed some kind of sin by bringing his baby with him.

However, Ms. Roesgen took a COMPLETELY different tone with some anti-war protesters that she interviewed earlier in the year. Bias much, CNN?

OK—altogether now, say it with me—

“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”

“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”

“Babies and flags and Franklin—Oh my!!”

So, in conclusion, I think that what the DNC, the liberal MSM and the Congressional Black Caucus have been doing is utterly contemptible—simply put, they have been suppressing dissent by making people afraid to speak up. How have they been scaring people you ask? Simple. People have seen other people being regularly mocked by the media, the Speaker of the House, the DNC and other people in power, and naturally they become afraid to protest or speak their minds for fear of being smeared as a “raaaaacist teabagger”—or even of possibly being physically assaulted or losing their job. Just ask the guys over at The Hillbuzz. As our own Finrod thoroughly documented, The Daily Kos and The Democratic Underground have outed Kevin DuJan as the owner of the blog and are smearing him with the false charge that that he is a racist. They are even urging their readers to destroy his career and attack him physically—simply because his blog supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and John McCain in the general election.

I, personally, am against Obamacare because I have a chronic illness (chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuopathy), and am worried about healthcare rationing, overall decreased quality of care, and access to medical tests. I have written extensively about my illness in this diary here. I am also against Obamacare, because I am worried about the national debt, because the WSJ has reported that retirees benefits are already being cut, and because of what a disaster socialized medicine has turned out to be in England (see embed below).

However, even with all of my completely logical reasons for being against Obamacare, I have still been loathe to speak up in certain circles for fear of being labeled a “teabagging, redneck raaaaacist”. Well, NO MORE!! I refuse to be intimidated any longer. Our Founding Fathers, literally, laid down their lives for our first amendment rights. They told the British, in the words of William Wallace, “You may take our lives, but you will never take our freedom!!” Dammit, it’s my right, and the right of every American, to peacefully assemble and protest without feeling threatened in any way—anything less is un-American.

PS—To all of our liberal lurkers out there, if I happen to run into any of you at a protest in the future—and you are advocating for Obamacare—feel free to say “Hi” to me. I will not throw food at you, slap you, wave batons at you, call you vulgar names, or yell at you and your baby. I will simply say “Hi” in return and wish you well. Why? Because our Founding also fought for your first amendment rights as well and so, therefore, it is only right that I treat you and your opinions with respect—even if I vehemently disagree with you. Always remember that dissent—nay—defending someone else’s right to dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Obama lackey David Plouffe faced off against Karl Rove in the ongoing health care debate. Ladies and gentlemen, it was vicious—Plouffe didn’t stand a chance against Rove. In fact, Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely. For every campaign talking point that David Plouffe regurgitated, Karl Rove swung back hard with actual facts, figures, statistics and calculations. Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms. Rove must have sensed that he had Plouffe backed into a corner, because he went so far as to demand that Plouffe “stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts”. I guess the moral of the story is that when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, facts and cojones.

PS—I don’t know about you all, but after watching that train-wreck of a debate (for Plouffe anyway), I’m currently having visions of President Obama nervously pacing around the Oval Office and chain smoking while Rham Emanuel is simultaneously uttering creative and never before heard profanities. Have a happy Sunday!

Richard Cohen seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to Barack Obama. Last week in a column, Mr. Cohen lamented that Barack Obama has lost much of the “moral clarity” that he had when he was running for president. To be specific, Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“But to reread the speech is also to come face to face with an Obama of keen moral clarity. Here was a man who knew why he was running for president and knew, also precisely, what he personified. He could talk to America both as a black man and a white man — having lived in both worlds. He could — and he did — explain to America what it is like to have been a black man of Wright’s age and what it is like even now to be a black man of any age.”

Gee—I didn’t think that was a qualification to run for president (maybe a qualification to be a motivational speaker), but I digress.

Then, after admitting that he had been the one “In my set” to have some reservations about Barack Obama (even though he wrote nothing but glowing columns about Obama pre-election), Mr. Cohen wrote the following—

“Somehow, though, that moral clarity has been dissipated. The Obama who was leading a movement of professed political purity is the very same person who as president would not meet with the Dalai Lama, lest he annoy the very sensitive Chinese. He is the same man who bowed to the emperor of Japan when, in my estimation, the president of the United States should bow to no man. He is the same president who in China played the mannequin for the Chinese government, appearing at stage-managed news conference and appearances — and having his remarks sometimes censored. When I saw him in that picture alone on the Great Wall, he seemed to be saying, “What the hell am I doing here?” If so, it was a good question.

The Barack Obama of that Philadelphia speech would not have let his attorney general, Eric Holder, announce the new policy for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in criminal court, as if this was a mere departmental issue and not one of momentous policy. And the Barack Obama of the speech would have enunciated a principle of law and not an ad hoc system in which some alleged terrorists are tried in civilian courts and some before military tribunals. Where is the principle in that — what works, works? Try putting that one on the Liberty Bell.”

Furthermore, Maureen Dowd also seems to be experiencing some buyer’s remorse in regard to vigorously supporting Barack Obama. In a recent column (where she actually has some nice things to say about Sarah Palin), Ms. Dowd writes the following—

“If we could see a Reduced Shakespeare summary of Obama’s presidency so far, it would read:

Dither, dither, speech. Foreign trip, bow, reassure. Seminar, summit. Shoot a jump shot with the guys, throw out the first pitch in mom jeans. Compromise, concede, close the deal. Dither, dither, water down, news conference.”

Now, I find Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd’s change of heart towards President Obama to be a bit curious. I mean, anyone with a seventh grade education and a mouse could have found out that Obama would “dither” and “concede” when it came to Afghanistan and would go out of his way to project weakness to the rest of the world. I mean, Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, he openly bragged in debates about his willingness to meet with dictators and shut down Gitmo, and he never even held one hearing on Afghanistan as a Senator despite chairing a subcommittee on NATO, so I’m not sure what else these two could have expected.

However, I did a little digging into both Mr. Cohen’s and Ms. Dowd’s columns regarding President Obama, and what I found was quite interesting. In March of 2008, Richard Cohen wrote a column titled, “Taking the Call on Black Men” where he basically acknowledged that Hillary Clinton was more qualified to deal with national security issues, or the “3 AM call”, but that Barack Obama should be president instead, because he was more qualified “to take the call on black men in prison”. Why? Well, I’m not really sure. Mr. Cohen doesn’t say what Obama’s qualifications are in regard to dealing with disproportionately high levels of black men in prison, other than being black himself (which I don’t think is an actual qualification).

Furthermore, in November of 2008, right after Obama was elected president, Maureen Dowd wrote a column titled, “The Tracks of Our Tears” where she prattled on about how white people were finally talking to black people in Manhattan and about how she deigned to ask her “cute black mailman” what he thought about the election of Obama. (The Gawker mocked her boasting in that column that Gwen Ifil was her one black friend). Someone should inform Ms. Dowd that we bitter clingers in the south and middle America have been talking to black people long before Obama came along, but I digress.

So, now I’m going to be politically incorrect here and diagnose Richard Cohen and Maureen Dowd with a raging case of white liberal guilt. I mean, why else would someone so enthusiastically support a candidate that he or she has “reservations” about? Especially when said candidate’s campaign was, to quote liberal reporter John Heilemann, “a policy free zone”. It must be because of all of Barack Obama’s long years of legislative experience. Oh, wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama is an inexperienced neophyte with unsavory friends. Well, wait. Maybe it was the outstanding leadership on Afghanistan that Obama demonstrated when he was a US Senator. Oh wait a minute—I forgot. Barack Obama didn’t hold one hearing of his Senate subcommittee that he chaired on NATO forces in Afghanistan. Is it any wonder that he was “dithering” for so long about whether or not to send more troops into Afghanistan? Moreover, given the fact that both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd seem to have serious disagreements with many of Obama’s decisions, white liberal guilt seems to be the only logical reason for their past vociferous support of him (and trashing of everyone else who ran against him).

Now, to be fair to Mr. Cohen and Ms. Dowd, a plethora of reporters and pundits suffered from white liberal guilt when it came to covering Barack Obama. Recently, Chris Matthews made a flaming ass of himself when he suggested that racism is at the heart of Sarah Palin’s support. To be specific, Mr. Matthews said the following—

“Well, they look like a white crowd to me,” later claiming, “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.”

….[or High School Musical 4: The Beltway]

I’m sure that many of you have read David Brooks’ recent column in The New York Times (or should I say tirade), where he rants on and on about the evils of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. However, what Mr. Brooks also did in his column—either intentionally or unintentionally—was to display intense disdain for the listeners and viewers of the above entertainers and pundits when he wrote that those entertainers expressed themselves using “spittle-flecked furor” and that they “represent a mere niche of the Republican Party”. Robert Stacy McCain wrote an excellent blog about Mr. Brooks’ obvious disdain for conservatives titled, “David Brooks Hates You” that is a must read. But, I feel that David Brooks displayed another emotion in his dreadful column besides just hatred, and if you will bear with me, I would like to translate Mr. Brooks’ column by reading between the lines and deciphering what he really means.—

“For the life of me, I can not understand why all of those bitter, xenophobic, Bible-thumping clingers love O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity so much—particularly Limbaugh and Beck. I mean, why do hayseeds love those two chubby, former addicts more than me?! Don’t they all know that I am the favorite “conservative” of the liberal elites? Sure, O’Reilly , Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck might all have sky-high ratings and millions of listeners/viewers (and Beck has unheard of ratings for an afternoon slot), but I write for The New York Freaking Times!! And, I’m frequently on Meet the Press and PBS (shows so prestigious that they do not need actual viewers)—and people who listen to NPR love me (they can listen to me and get a free tote bag). That’s got to mean something. You see, I’ve got the much more sophisticated audience, so the Republican base should really appreciate me and listen to me more, instead of paying so much attention to what bloviators like Limbaugh and Beck have to say. But hey, all of us over at The Times realize that the Republican party is “no party of Einsteins”, so they really don’t know what’s best for them, do they? Oh well, you know what “they” say—a prophet is least appreciated in his own land.

Now, about Glenn Beck—God I hate that chubby, weeping Mormon, and all of his stupid viewers. Beck thinks that he’s so cool just because he was able to expose corruption in the NEA and ACORN, force Van Jones to resign, and inspire hundreds of thousands people to descend on DC in order to protest the Obama Administration’s big government programs. But so what? That’s nothing really. Don’t these bitter clingers who watch Beck know that I wrote “Bobos in Paradise”? Sure, nobody really read it, but all of the elite intelligentsia bought it to put on their bookshelves so that people who attend their cocktail parties would think that they were smart and well-read.

Furthermore, I am famous for my pearls of wisdom, such as saying that Sarah Palin isn’t ready to run for vice president because “experience matters” and calling her a “fatal cancer on the GOP” simply because she doesn’t think like me (see embed below). Now granted, Senator Obama had less real experience when he ran for president than Sarah Palin had when she ran for vice president. However, that’s really neither here nor there, because Barack Obama is much more like ME and runs in MY circles, whereas Sarah Palin does not—and that’s what those hayseeds who watch Beck, instead of listening to me, don’t understand. I mean, don’t they know who I think I am?

Also, I wasn’t a big fan of how Hannity, O’Reilly, and particularly Beck, yammered on and on about Van Jones until he resigned. (By the way, you all know that I really do have enough influence to get someone to resign if I wanted them to, right?) OK—so Van Jones may be a nutty 9/11 truther and a self-avowed communist, but he’s a friend of my colleague, Thomas Friedman. And besides, Van Jones is a lot like me in that we are both Ivy League educated elites. Furthermore, Jones also wrote a book that no one really read, but that elites like to display on their book shelves in order to create the impression being well-read. You know, come to think of it, maybe Thomas Friedman was on to something when he floated his idea of the US having a one party autocracy similar to that of China. I mean, it would be nice if me, Thomas Friedman and Van Jones ran things, because we know so much more than the troglodytes in the Republican base who listen to Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity, but I digress.

And finally, I am no fan of the way O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck relentlessly attack Barack Obama, because I have a serious man-crush on him. We have exchanged emails and I was extremely impressed by him. Unlike the Republican base who likes Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity better than me, Barack Obama understands me and respects me. He can even read my mind.

Maybe President Obama will invite me to go with him to the next big White House gala. That would be awesome! We could talk all night about me, and then HIM, and then me again. (I just hope Obama doesn’t ask Chris Matthews to go with him instead of me. I know—next time President Obama calls me, I can three-way call Chris Matthews and I can trick him into saying something bad about Obama, but I digress.) Then, all of those bitter hicks in the Republican base can see how cool I really am, and then they will be sorry that they never listen to me.”

—Translation: You’re David Brooks and you’re jealous.

(H/T to Stuart Schwartz of The American Thinker for the title.)

Three days ago, Glenn Beck ran the following story about a video that is currently being shown in schools across the country (see embeds below). The video is straight up liberal propaganda. For instance, the narrator uses a tank to symbolize our government, lies about how much of our tax dollars are going to the military, implies that capitalism is evil, lies about how much of our original forests are left, tells the children watching that, “We douse our pillows in neurotoxins”, and then states the following doozy—

“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us…to take care us us. That’s their job.”

Now, I know what you all are asking. Who made this video? Well, the narrator of the video is a woman by the name of Annie Leonard who is a former Greenpeace employee. However, as Glenn Beck stated above, this video is made by an organization called the Tides Foundation which is headed by a liberal activist named Drummond Pike. This organization is funded by George Soros and launders money from liberal donors to other liberal recipients in order to avoid a paper trail. Oh, and Wade Rathke is the Board Chairman of the Tides Foundation. Yeah, that Wade Rathke—the founder and chief of ACORN. By the way, that’s the same ACORN that Barack Obama’s campaign paid over $800,000 to and that Barack Obama worked for as a community organizer—and Obama represented them as their attorney in a 1995 motor voter case. And, finally, that’s also the same ACORN that, until recently, was scheduled to take part in the 2010 US Census and was scheduled to receive possibly up to eight billion dollars in the stimulus bill, and has received over fifty-three million dollars in federal funds over the years.

OK—now, I realize that liberals will reply to all of this information with the following retort—“Yes, this may all be true, but we can play this six degrees of Kevin Bacon game with any of the past presidents—all politicians have some sketchy friends.” To which I would reply, yes, most past presidents have had some sketchy friends (and I think that Beck can sometimes go too far with his conspiracy theories). However, no past president that I’m aware of has ever had any of their degenerate friends disperse propagandistic videos throughout the tax-payer funded public schools, have they?

However folks—this story about the above videos circulating in the schools is a big deal for several additional reasons (besides the obvious ones that I just laid out), the first of which is the Skool-Aid (H/T to our own $peciallist for the creative name)—i.e., the Obama Administration’s recent foray into public education. Our own Steve Foley and Caleb Howe have both reported extensively on this subject, and Michelle Malkin has as well.

Now, the typical New York Times reader would think that people who objected to Barack Obama speaking to school children are “RAAACISTS!” who had a problem with Obama telling their kids to “study hard and stay in school”—when, in fact, they were concerned about the Obama Administration’s ridiculously partisan lesson plan (which even Camille Paglia referred to as “imbecilic support materials”). Furthermore, he or she would not know that congressional Democrats investigated and held hearings when George H.W. Bush spoke to school children and that The Washington Post ran a scathing front page article about George H. W. Bush speaking to school children (and George H.W. Bush didn’t have the ridiculous “lesson Plan” that the Obama Administration had either). Below, Michelle Malkin walks us through some of the details of the Skool-Aid when she writes the following—-

Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”

*What is the President trying to tell me?

*What is the President asking me to do?

*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the speech, teachers will ask students:

*What do you think the President wants us to do?

*Does the speech make you want to do anything?

*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?

Now, in a vacuum, the Skool-Aid wouldn’t look all that bad—well I take that back. It wouldn’t look great, but it wouldn’t have been ghastly either. However, let’s not forget that the Obama Administration, and their sycophants in the MSM, actively bragged about Barack Obama’s youth outreach program. In fact, in a 2007 WSJ article, Elizabeth Holmes wrote the following about the Obama campaign’s youth outreach program (H/T Sourcewatch)—-

“Many of you can caucus in Iowa,” Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around [Iowa in September 2007] for the kickoff of the weekly ‘BarackStar’ nights held for teens at the campaign’s 31 field offices. ‘I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world.’”

The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.”

Obama, “driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal … has a proverbial seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. …

“So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign’s 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama’s appearances, building the campaign’s email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.

“Under the heading of ‘BarackStars,’ the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. …

“In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama’s team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. … ”

Teachers Elise Walz and Jenna Broghamer of West Lake High School in Iowa City “recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola — an annual event sponsored by the state’s veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.”

Furthermore, during the Democratic primary, several Democratic senators and high level Democratic politicians actively bragged about how their teenage children browbeat them into supporting Obama (in fact, I remember Claire McCaskill admitting on MSNBC that her seventeen year old daughter told her that she was a “slug” if she didn’t support Obama). At the time, The Washington Post wrote the following about this matter—

The youth movement behind Obama isn’t just bringing 18-year-olds to the polls — it’s also providing cover for their parents.

When Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, endorsed Obama earlier this month, she said it was the urging of her 18-year-old daughter that got her over the hump. When Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement on Sunday, she also invoked her children as a reason: “I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own,” she wrote in her New York Times op-ed. “As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.”

Tuesday came Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, who offered the most detailed attribution of all when she endorsed Obama during a visit to his grandfather’s hometown of El Dorado, Kansas — and which she then repeated during a big rally in Kansas City, Mo. She said that her two sons had been after her for a long time to endorse Obama, but for different reasons. Her elder, in law school, likes Obama for his message, “because he could bring people together”; her younger one likes Obama because he likes Michelle Obama. “He says that anyone who can get Michelle to marry him has to have something going for him.”

And finally, The AP recently wrote about how a political science professor from LaSalle University, named Mary Ellen Balchunis, thought that Obama should re-mobilize his youth support in order to pass his healthcare bill. The AP wrote the following about Balchunis’ thoughts with regard to young people below—-

Balchunis thinks the president could boost youth support on these and other issues — and get them influencing their parents, as they did in the election — if he mobilized and spoke directly to them, the way he did during the campaign. He could for instance, make use of the well-organized student groups that campaigned for him to push the issues of the day.

If he doesn’t, Balchunis thinks that also could have negative ramifications for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, because those young voters will lose interest and won’t bother to show up at the polls. That’s what happened, she says, after her own young generation was initially excited about Bill Clinton when he was first elected president in 1992. Then, just two years later, Democrats lost control of Congress.

So anyway, my point is that it’s ridiculously unfair for the Obama campaign to actively recruit high school students and bus them in for caucuses, for Democratic bigwigs to wax ecstatic about how their children nagged them into voting for Obama, and for political science professors to imply that Obama could get his mojo back if he started recruiting high school and college kids again (many kids in high school will be in college in 2012)—but then, for those same liberals to turn around an yell “Raaacist!” when parents are upset about their children having to write an essay, after the President’s speech, about what they and their parents can do to help President Obama. (Translation—“Kiddies, you can vote for me when you turn eighteen, and be sure to nag your poor parents into submission until then”.)

Moreover, the above propaganda video circulating through the schools that Glenn Beck recently played on his show further compounds people’s fear that the public schools are becoming a hotbed of liberal indoctrination for their kids—especially when teachers are making the children that they teach draw pro-Obama campaign art and sing in propaganda videos that would make Hugo Chavez proud (H/T Hot Air—see embed below).

Now, a second reason why the video (involving liberal propaganda in the schools) that Beck recently played on his show is a big deal is because of the recent scandal involving The National Endowment for the Arts. Glenn Beck also covered the NEA scandal in depth and I wrote about it in more detail in a diary here. The NEA scandal initially involved Yosi Sargent, the director of communications for the NEA, making a conference call to various artists encouraging them to participate in propaganda for the Obama Administration (the NEA is a tax-payer funded entity). Patrick Courrielche, a blogger for BigHollywood.com., told Beck that the NEA had sent out mass emails to many artists and bloggers, and that he had participated in a conference call with the NEA (that he recorded and that Beck played on his show) in which Yosi Sargent of the NEA said the following (see embed below)—

“We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally.”

And, Mr. Sergant also said this little gem—

“Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it.”

OK—now given the fact that the NEA is an independent agency of the United States federal government (independent being the operative word here), the NEA shouldn’t be bringing ANYONE together to “speak with the government”. In the words of George Will, “I don’t know how many laws that breaks”.

However, this was not the end of th NEA scandal. Patrick Courrielche has now reported that Buffy Wicks, from the White House Office of Public Engagement, was the one who actually hosted the conference call, and that Yosi Sargent gave his little pep talk after she spoke. Mr. Courrielche recorded Ms. Wicks saying the following—

” I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.” “We won.” “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.” “I hope you guys are ready.”

And then, Glenn Beck ran the story about the updated NEA scandal where he explained that Buffy Wicks used to be a union astroturfer who funneled hundreds and thousands of dollars to ACORN (see embed below).

Furthermore, Beck also added that Ms. Wicks is the lead White House official on Serve.Gov (an organization that is supposed to “encourage” volunteer work, though The Washington Times easily dispels that myth) which made that creepy “I Pledge” video (see embed below).

Oh, and now, Yosi Sargent has had to resign from the NEA, but Buffy Wicks still has her job of course.

Now you ask, how does the NEA scandal tie into the Skool-Aid and the recent school propaganda videos (that I embedded at the top of this blog)? Simple. All three are prime examples of how the Obama Administration, and far-left liberals in general, don’t really mind using propaganda and indoctrination—whether in the schools or using tax-payer funded organizations like the NEA—to push their agenda. Simply put, this is the same song, third verse.

And finally, there is one more reason why this propaganda video dispersed throughout the schools (along with the Skool-Aid and the NEA scandal) is a big deal. Several days ago, Glenn Beck did a story about Mark Lloyd, Barack Obama’s chief diversity czar for the FCC (I can’t quite figure out why the FCC needs a diversity czar). In the video that I’m about to show you, Mr. Lloyd is heard openly praising Hugo Chavez (but then again, Sean Penn routinely praises Hugo Chavez so this is really nothing new for the far-left), stating The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t go far enough (that’s the bill that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in order to curtail the conservative media), and finally, Mr. Lloyd states that, “We’re in a position to say who is going to step down so that someone else will get power”. Seriously, between Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Van Jones, and now, Mark Lloyd, has Obama ever met a nutter that he doesn’t like? But, I digress.

So, now we are singing the same song, fourth verse. In a nutshell, this song basically states that the government and its allies can engage in open propaganda and indoctrination in our public schools, manipulate our tax-payer funded institutions for political purposes (such as the NEA), while simultaneously curtailing our freedom of speech and deciding who gets hired and fired. I don’t know about you, but I think that this song sucks. I say that we stop singing it. In fact, what’s so scary about the tune that the Obama Administration, and its buddies, seem to be humming, is that when I, and honest people on both sides of the aisle read about the details, we can’t all help but exclaim, “This doesn’t happen in America! This kind of stuff only happens in other countries—like Venezuela.” Well you know what, this shouldn’t happen in America—not if we have anything to say about it. I say that it’s high time that we, the sane people of America, start making our voices heard, and start singing louder than the bozos behind the the Skool-Aid, the NEA scandal, and all of these propagandistic videos. Enough is enough. It is time to make our voices heard. Here is where I take my stand.