The hysteria of 'violent' right wing ~ By Benjamin Shapiro

Benjamin Shapiro annihilates Frank Rich's attempt to compare those against Obamacare with Kristallnacht of the Hitler regime.

The hysteria over the "violent" right wing is just that – hysteria. The true danger here comes not from the grass-roots right, but from the Astroturfed left, which is being orchestrated and trained by the Obama administration and its media minions to attack Americans who still believe in America's founding principles.

By Benjamin Shapiro

Posted: March 31, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

One week after the passage of President Obama's quasi-socialized health-care scheme, 54 percent of likely voters support repeal. And according to Frank Rich, each and every one of those voters is a budding Nazi.

"How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht," Rich writes. "The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far."

It is Rich, naturally, who knows nothing about history; his ardent support of President Obama blinds him to the slander he has perpetrated on both Americans and Holocaust victims. Kristallnacht was a government-sponsored program of terror and murder in which 91 Jews were murdered, tens of thousands of Jews were thrown into concentration camps, 267 synagogues were razed to the ground, and Jewish businesses through German territories were destroyed and looted. It is despicable to compare one brick through a glass window with an organized campaign of slaughter and violence.

More than that, Kristallnacht was a case of the government persecuting its own citizens. It was not a spontaneous uprising of violent thugs, nor was it a Los Angeles riots-style melee. Kristallnacht was programmed from beginning to end by the Nazi regime. The basic truth is that socialized medicine – an attack on the private sector and on private individuals in the name of the collective – reflects Kristallnacht on a philosophical level far better than a nut hurling one brick through one window at Louise Slaughter's office.

Rich is simply parroting the Obama administration's latest meme: Tea partiers and anyone else who opposes the Obama program is racist, homophobic, un-American scum of the earth, violent in temperament and simple in mind. Rich, with all the subtlety of a nightstick upside the head, expresses the meme this way: "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House – topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman – would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play." In other words, if the president were white, the speaker of the House male, Sonia Sotomayor a white male and Barney Frank a strapping heterosexual, the Obamacare plan would have gone through like clockwork.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

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

Affirmative action president, affirmative action judge ~ By Erik Rush

By Erik Rush Posted: July 16, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking up the nomination of Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. In early June, President Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Court to fill a vacancy being left by Justice David Souter. The opening statements of Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings on Monday were enough to trigger projectile vomiting; these oligarchs made the nominee out to be a latter-day Helen Keller. Sotomayor is a Puerto Rican and a self-described "product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than her classmates. When affirmative action was in its nascent stage in the early 1970s, those who saw it for what it was and opposed implementation of related guidelines and policies were branded as racists. This standard operating procedure on the part of progressives (intimidation and invective directed at those who oppose them) is a technique that is still being used quite effectively today. For the record: Affirmative action is a policy or set of policies in which ethnicity or gender are considered in social institutional settings in order to advance equal opportunities for minorities or increase ethnic diversity. Generally, these policies addressed employment, education, public contracting and entitlement programs. Upon being nominated, Sotomayor was criticized not only for racist comments she had made in the past, but for a now infamous decision involving Connecticut firefighters that many considered to be racially biased. Critics offered that someone who made such tainted decisions was simply not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. Between the nomination and the time the confirmation hearings commenced, Sotomayor's would-be colleagues on the Supreme Court ruled the that white and Latino firefighters Sotomayor ruled against as an appeals court judge had been unfairly denied promotions because of their race. Would it be reasonable to suspect that a judge who was a beneficiary of affirmative action policies might – just might – make biased decisions on issues of race? Of course it would. Further, would it be reasonable to suspect that a judge who had made decisions deemed racially preferential (and thus overturned) by the Supreme Court might make other biased decisions on issues of race? Without a doubt. Yet, here we are. Common sense and any cogent notion of legal and moral obligation would dictate that such a person ought not be nominated, let alone confirmed. Unfortunately, America's collective intellect has been so distorted by perverse concepts of parity – including affirmative action and political correctness – that we have someone who is likely an affirmative action president nominating a racist, affirmative action judge to the highest court in the land, and all is right with the world. Democratic strategist James Carville, whom I believe just might be archaeologists' long-sought "missing link," lauded Sotomayor's nomination, likening it to that of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, presumably because they are both minorities with humble beginnings. [CONTINUE READING]

The 'perpetual mediocrity' nominee ~ By Craige McMillan

By Craige McMillan Posted: July 16, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for a position on the United States Supreme Court is a clear case of "dumbing down" the nation's highest court for the often-orated but factually bereft "benefits" of "diversity." When George W. Bush was slapped down for his cronyism in the nomination of Harriet Miers for a position on the same court, he responded with a degree of humility and nominated John Roberts for the position. No one has accused Mr. Roberts of lacking the intellectual firepower needed for the position. No one has suggested that elements of his character would prevent sound judging. And no one has pointed out more intellectually qualified candidates whom the president could have nominated. Is that the case with Sonia Sotomayor? Or is it simply that Judge Sotomayor's main "qualifications" for a position on the nation's highest court are her sex, her race and the fact that in previous decisions she has ruled from the bench in favor of perpetual mediocrity (also known as affirmative action and racial set-asides)? She decided that the city of New Haven was right to ignore qualified white firefighters for promotion, simply because no blacks passed the test and qualified. Nice. A real color-blind society. That ruling was typical of the inbred affirmative action crowd, which has now seen its offspring come to positions of power in the media, government and academia. Their policies result, far more often than not, in promotion of the unprepared and unqualified to positions of power over those who "worked hard and played by the rules," as Bill Clinton described much of America. But that's what affirmative action is all about, isn't it? That isn't what affirmative action was about when it started. It was designed as a temporary measure to give blacks a "leg up" in a hostile job environment, after years of preparatory opportunities were denied to them. That quickly deteriorated into an entitlement mindset, especially among the privileged liberals who administered these programs. And the entitlement grew into the present "punish white America" mindset that we so often see among the failures and flunkies riding in the most prominent seats on the affirmative action bandwagon. Ward Connerly has it right. He knows that today's affirmative action is nothing more than blatant racial set-asides that hurt black America far more than they help it. And America knows it, too; his initiatives pass in elections, but they are evaded by the flunkies on the bandwagon, who are far more qualified to be cleaning toilets rather than operating centers of learning. [CONTINUE READING]