Liberals and violence: The pot calling the kettle black ~ By Erik Rush

Yet, while barbarity and amorality remain sacrosanct to progressives, they continue to whip their deluded base into a frenzied hatred of conservatives who, in the practical sense, are ordinary Americans with traditional values. They are preparing for war – literally – with this dark army, which they will find consists of the vast majority of Americans, when it comes down to the issues that matter.

When someone who is considered conservative cites a questionable act, practice, or position on the part of liberals, there are myriad examples available. But when Bill Maher says that the tea party is a racist organization, all he can point to is some genetic nightmare who got kicked out of a tea-party rally back in 2009 for bringing a racist placard.

And I have yet to hear a conservative talk about killing political opponents.

Erik brings up the term, "Projection," to make a very good point about liberals and violence that many of us may not have thought of without a degree in psychology. Erik was exactly right on when he described "Projection" as "a term used by mental-health professionals to describe the phenomenon of one accusing a perceived enemy of unsavory or amoral behavior in which they themselves are engaged." But I can add one more thing after seeing this when looking up the word on dictionary.com:

Projection:
11. Psychology

•  the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

• Psychoanalysis: such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.

The "psychoanalysis" part of that definition above seems to add even more sense to what is psychologically happening with "projection" as defined, and WHY liberals seem to be the ones suffering this mental health malady most often. In fact, does not "relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling" seem to explain how some liberals that are not suffering financially want to "share the wealth" of other tax payers that are well off? Guilt? You bet! The guilt could be that it's a known fact that many liberals (Democrats) give much less to charity than conservative Republicans! It's been "the pot calling the kettle black" all along since the Progressive movement began a century ago.

But, yes, it is assuredly a more disturbing picture now that Bill Maher projected his contention that "conservatives want to kill everyone with whom they disagree." Being that most liberals will definitely hate me now that I've expounded on Erik's column in this way, I may want to start watching my back.

Liberals and violence: The pot calling the kettle black

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

March 03, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Last month, comedian and progressive activist Bill Maher stated on national television that conservatives want to kill everyone with whom they disagree. Yes, Maher is an arrogant, imperious, condescending fool, but this is the sort of fare Americans are treated to on one of the most popular programs on television in 2011. A placard from one of the Madison, Wis., pro-union demonstrations read "Why do Republicans Hate People?"

I've been talking about projection for a long time; truth be told, to the best of my knowledge, longer than anyone I know of who's talking about it now. But that's quite all right – as long as the message gets out.

And it's a very important message, because it gives us insight into an enemy that is more dangerous than most Americans realize. Projection is a term used by mental-health professionals to describe the phenomenon of one accusing a perceived enemy of unsavory or amoral behavior in which they themselves are engaged. Unfortunately, most Americans don't know about projection, except perhaps in passing as a morsel from Psych 101 – and most definitely are not aware of what a staple it is in the arsenal of progressives.

In the past, when I've mentioned liberals' proclivity for projection, I said that I'd get really nervous when they started accusing us of wanting to kill people.

Well … now they're accusing us of wanting to kill people.

We're familiar with the misrepresentations: conservatives are intolerant, bigoted, divisive, homophobic, racist, sexist, greedy, hateful liars. But it is liberals who call for civil discourse and an end to inflammatory rhetoric, yet expect to be allowed to employ violent references, killing being among them.

As the reader may be aware, decades of this anti-conservative mantra alone have led millions to honestly believe that the things liberals have been saying are true. This should be of great concern to Americans, since people tend to harbor precious little quarter for those who want to kill them, because the instinct for self-preservation comes into play – you have no choice but to kill the one who would kill you first.

While it is fairly evident why this strategy is employed (to demonize conservatives), it is the left's history that is replete with violent mobs charging into the streets and murdering members of the opposition until attrition wins the day. This later gives rise to tyrants and/or despotic commissions that execute millions of ideological stragglers in purges.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Shut up and die ~ By Erik Rush

What adds insult to injury – or disaster to tragedy as the case might be – is the necessity that existed for political factions to capitalize on this horrible event. In the face of the incremental bloodless coup that is taking place in America, progressives' adversaries must exploit the left's reaction to the shooting. In addition to the obligatory damage control called for in order to neutralize the wholesale liberal propaganda being churned out by the establishment press, they have no choice but to draw attention to progressives' dogged and misplaced efforts to tie conservatives to Loughner's actions.

PHIL ELMORE

I do not want you to think that I am "blue-skying" you today, but I must tout two of the most important columns in a long time that were written this week: This one, by Erik, and the other being Phil Elmore's column, "Leftists' Horrible Paradox," both being published at wnd.com on Thursday, January 13. And why do I feel that they are so important? It is because they are both a call to the American people to wake up, unite, and not allow peaceful dissent to be suppressed or silenced by our government!

It almost makes me wonder if Erik and Phil somehow collaborated on these two columns! Once you have read them both, I believe that you will agree: Americans shouldn't be complacent when it comes to the the kind of divisive attacks that have been made on those of us that have peacefully dissented against what seems to be an arrogant abuse of government power and control in our lives.  Our future depends on having the freedom to nonviolently express our beliefs. Without that, no matter if you are on the Right or the Left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, tea-partier or Janeane Garofalo, Vicki Jackson or Bill Maher, none of us will be free.

And my bet will be that upon Gabby's full recovery, God willing, she would agree with both of these two patriots!

You see, they didn't expect us to fight. Americans who do have an idea of who we are and what our nation represents were supposed to shut up and die – or more accurately, to stay asleep, to lay down and just let the socialists have their turn.

Shut up and die

ERIK RUSH

By Erik Rush

January 13, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I recall an anecdote my father used to relate from time to time concerning a young man he'd seen on the way home from his job in Manhattan one evening during the mid-1960s. This man had been standing on a retaining wall, passionately preaching peace, love and tolerance to passers-by. What gave my dad pause always came at the end of the story, and had to do with this young orator's tone, his general comportment, body language and so forth.

He had looked like he wanted to rip someone limb from limb.

On Jan. 8, 2011, 22-year-old Jared Loughner shot 20 people at town-hall style meeting in Tucson, Ariz. Six were killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl. Gabrielle Giffords, a congressional representative, was critically injured with a gunshot wound to the head.

Regardless of what political leanings, if any, it turns out that Jared Loughner had, he did not pull the trigger for political reasons; he did so because he is dangerously deranged. This fact, more than any information yet revealed, stands out more than any other.

Within minutes of the tragic incident initially being reported, however, emissaries of the political left had convicted those on the political right – from prominent entertainers, commentators and politicians, to grass-roots activists – of either provoking or inspiring Loughner's attack.

All of this was exacerbated by the blatantly partisan and irresponsible blabbering of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. As though he were qualified to make the above diagnosis, this armchair psychiatric clinician chimed in with liberal politicians, activists and the establishment press, essentially blaming talk radio, conservative Internet publications, blogs and Fox News for somehow pushing the demented young man over the edge. Since then, the instances of prominent progressives taking to the airwaves to condemn the right have been nearly too numerous to mention.

Though it has long been and remains a wholly baseless claim, those on the left have long charged those on the right with advocating violence, fomenting civil unrest, employing "hate speech" and generally advancing a militant worldview. Thus, it was not surprising that the incident of Jan. 8 precipitated the left's attempt to make political gains out of it.

Earlier this week, WND's Bob Unruh detailed a few of many of the antagonistic terms and phraseology used by President Obama over the last two years. In October, ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., said that Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott should be put against a wall and shot. And just last week, one of Obama's idols, communist professor Frances Piven (whose methodology was used to bring about the financial implosion resulting from the subprime mortgage debacle) was calling for violent revolution in America.

So, who is employing inflammatory rhetoric?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Purveyors of hate ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

These ordinary people are organizing from the precinct level to counties, to states and into national groups. They fully intend to reject the Washington majority's plan to empower government far beyond its constitutional limits in order to nationalize the economy and enslave individuals.


People who insist on calling these American patriots "teabaggers" are, indeed, purveyors of hate.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly use the "N" word when they refer to black people? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate?

How do you describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call gay people "queers"? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate – or are they all of the above.

Obviously, people who insist on doing these things have no compassion or appreciation for people who are different from themselves. They have no tolerance. Most people condemn this behavior and find it appalling.

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call the people who attend tea parties – "teabaggers"?

These people are called: Anderson Cooper (CNN); Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Dylan Ratigan, Rachel Maddow, Anna Marie Cox, Janeane Garofalo (MSNBC); Bill Maher (HBO); ABC News; CBS News: Daily Kos; Huffington Post; and a host of other bloggers and TV personalities.

The people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly refer to tea-party participants as "teabaggers" suffer from the same character flaw that makes people use the "N" word and call gay people "queers." The character flaw that would allow someone to tie a hangman's noose on a tree in front of a black man's house or burn a cross on his front lawn is precisely the same flaw that allows a person to deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call someone a "teabagger" when they know it to be untrue.

These are the same people who preach tolerance – but practice hate.

These are the same people who never missed an opportunity to denigrate and demean President Bush, but rush to label Obama protesters as hate-mongering redneck "teabaggers."

By their deliberate, public repetition of the term "teabaggers" in reference to the participants of tea-party events, these people and institutions are condoning and perpetuating hate for those who hold a different political view. Moreover, their actions tell those who are influenced by them that it is normal and right to belittle and demean the people who are not "politically correct" as defined by the "in" crowd.

It is sad to realize that this attitude is learned in school, particularly in many colleges and universities. David Horowitz was shouted down at Emory University by students who suffer this same character flaw. Rep. Tom Tancredo met the same fate at the University of North Carolina. College kids have learned that it is perfectly normal and right to shout down or deny the First Amendment to anyone who holds a political view different from their own.

Is it any wonder that when this crowd gets to Congress they think it is perfectly normal and right to shut out opposing views? Democrats routinely reject amendments offered by Republicans, often with no discussion or debate. On President Obama's health-care bill, Democrats refused to even let Republicans into the room when key portions of the bill were being negotiated. Then they have the audacity to call Republicans the party of "No."

This is the kind of disingenuous political representation that makes ordinary people rise up.

READ FULL STORY >

Cross purposes ~ By Pat Boone

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Pat Boone Posted: December 05, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I've mentioned here before that each Veterans Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day, sometimes Thanksgiving Day as well, I make my way to the huge, beautiful Veterans' Cemetery in Westwood. I walk among the tens of thousands of markers and monuments, read the names and dates on many of them – out loud – and thank them for giving their very lives in the service of our country. I thank them for sacrificing their dreams, families and lives, so that we all might live ours. The vast majority of those monuments are crosses. Yes, there are quite a few with Jewish stars on them. I've seen a few Muslim symbols and even one Buddhist circular one, very pretty. I've seen no atheist markers. Since our colonial days, and through all our wars, the great majority of our fighting men and women marched into battle beneath our American flag and, whether it was visibly displayed or not, under a cross. It was, and is, a symbol of faith in God, a prayer for His protection and blessing and a fervent hope that He will somehow work on their behalf, to bring them home to their loved ones again. Most did come home, some wounded, some maimed for life, but still alive. Too many did not. But those who lost their lives fighting for our country, and for our cherished freedoms, died believing that the loving God symbolized by that cross would welcome them into eternal habitations. Their families were comforted in that same belief, and if the body was returned home, it was lovingly laid to rest – under a cross. I suspect that the young Jewish men and women in our military have had similar experiences, encouraged and strengthened, and finally comforted by the Star of David. Perhaps Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as well, by their symbols. I have no idea what atheists do in these circumstances. There is obviously no religious symbol to feed hope or comfort loss. There is no expectation of reunion, or afterlife, or anything. There is only death – and nothing. Perhaps that's why a growing number of atheists and the atheist-driven ACLU are so militantly and vehemently trying to remove all crosses from public life, off public buildings, out of sight and out of mind. READ FULL STORY >