The Left’s Selective Outrage – by Bruce Thornton


You know liberals are edging toward a full Jonestown-style meltdown when someone as smart as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman starts losing it. Last week Friedman worked himself up into a paranoiac frenzy over the tone of some of the criticism Obama and the Democrats have been facing recently.

Riffing off an analogy with the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a nationalist extremist, Friedman links that crime to the “poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, ‘God will be on your side’— and so he did.”

Friedman then notes the parallels with America today, similarities that “turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.”

The hypocrisy of this complaint, leaving aside the complete falseness of the analogy with Israel, is breathtaking even for the New York Times. First, though, consider the reductive psychological analysis typical of liberals, who see all behavior as the consequence of environmental factors outside the individual, rather than being the result of choice. Like those who see jihadist terrorists as mere reactors to Western crimes against Muslims, Friedman seems to think that Rabin’s assassin was programmed and triggered by heated political rhetoric. It does not occur to him that he could have been a free-agent choosing to act on his fanatical beliefs.

But Friedman’s point has nothing to do with this useless analogy. Rather, he wants the drama of Rabin’s assassination to serve as an emotionally lurid smokescreen for his partisan attempt to “delegitimize” Obama’s critics.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Little that we’ve heard so far from Obama’s conservative critics comes close to the vicious slanders and rhetorical violence aimed at George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the Republican Party for eight years, the aim of which was precisely the “delegitimation” that’s now got Friedman in a fit. If Friedman needs some reminders of Bush hatred, he can see the recent article in National Review by Jay Nordlinger. Here are some highlights:

  • Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee: “I hate the Republican and everything they stand for.” Politics, Dean said, “is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”
  • A New Republic editor wrote an article called, “The Case for Bush Hatred,” which started, “I hate President George. W. Bush.”
  • The premier of Michael Moore’s 2004 cinematic agitprop, Fahrenheit 9/11, which accused George Bush of attacking Afghanistan to profit his business friends, was attended by almost the whole Democratic Party establishment.
  • The Nazi analogy that these days so troubles the Democrats was a standard trope during Bush’s presidency (remember “Bushitler”?): Democratic Senator John Glen called the Republican campaign rhetoric “the old Hitler business.” Al Gore spoke of “squadrons of digital brownshirts.” Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, said that the Republicans’ “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side.”

Notice, too, that as Nordlinger points out, these comments come from “political and intellectual leaders, not the ordinary rabble, who were far worse.”

I wonder, did Friedman back then fret about whether this “poisonous political environment” could lead to violence against President Bush or further polarize the electorate? After all, many liberals were explicit about their desire to see the President dead:

  • CBS talk-show host Craig Kilborn showed Bush on screen with the caption “SNIPERS WANTED.”
  • In 2006, in an interview with Bill Maher John Kerry, responding to Maher’s suggestion that he could have gone to New Hampshire and found a gift for his wife and politicked for the primary and so “killed two birds with one stone,” retorted, “Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”
  • The same year, at the Queens College graduation ceremony, New York comptroller Alan Hevesi said that Democratic Senator Charles Schumer would “put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.”
  • In England, novelist Nicholas Baker wrote a novel about killing the President, and a TV movie, Death of a President, was broadcast.

Nordlinger recommends the blog for even more graphic visual evidence of the “poisonous political environment” of the Bush years, one that most liberal commentators either ignored or defended as “robust political speech” or humorous exaggeration.

The problem isn’t the rudeness or vulgarity or even violence of political speech, all of which are typical of democracies with freedom of speech. It’s the rank hypocrisy of liberals like Friedman who attempt to silence speech they don’t like by invoking scary scenarios of assassination. And let’s not forget the racial dimension of this newfound liberal sensitivity. From the beginning of Obama’s campaign, his supporters have attempted to short-circuit robust criticism by raising the specter of assassination by frothing racists­­, a trick akin to Jimmy Carter’s recent charge that criticism of Obama reflects inveterate American racism.

The truth is, political speech in democracies has been notoriously vicious going all the way back to ancient Rome and Athens, where orators and comic poets alike charged their political enemies with everything from homosexual prostitution and incest, to plundering the treasury and selling out their country to the enemy.

Give ordinary people the power of free speech, and most of the time they will use it without the delicacy or civility affected by elites. A politician who complains about the tone of his fellow citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment right is like a celebrity whining about paparazzi: If you don’t like it, get a different job. But don’t try to impose a double standard the purpose of which is to silence the political speech you don’t like.

  • warpmine

    Agreed, so what else could one expect from liberal hypocritical trash like Thomas Friedman. Even in this daunted age of information, one would expect more from those sniveling liberal elitist snobs Friedman represents. He fully demands that the regular folks be complacent on this matter and furthermore to be enlisted with selectively short term memories. I don't know whether or not he believes what he pontificates but certainly the man must have severe brain damage to expect the rest of us to head to his version of civil discourse if only because Obama is of his political persuasion.

  • Lee

    You can't accuse liberals of double-standards because liberals HAVE no standards. Thus, only conservatives can be branded as hypocrites.

  • bubba4

    I don't know what this stupid liberal is talking about. After all, when a comedian makes a joke about Bush, then everything is fair game. I was thinking about carrying around my gun and talking about watering the tree with blood…because if Obama doesn't like it, he can get out of politics…this is the way the game's played…right?

    As one of the lead fearmongering engines of this phenomenon, FPM has every reason to downplay the possibility that a fan will go over the edge with this bizarro world stuff and do something stupid. Horowitz is going all in on Beck and that is the most likely spring from which violence will flow.

    I hope nothing happens, but FPM is going out of it's way to give the OK. Here that takes the form of just saying “ridiculous…”liberals” are the violent ones…blah blah blah”…ok..have your fun while you can….sigh

  • 2maxpower

    I too am disappointed to hear Friedman write and talk like a true believer. He has not only called all those against the current administrations programs “racists” he now insinuates that they (the conservatives) are gun crazied murderers.

    I used to respect his writing and opinions. Not any longer as he has steadily gotten deeper into the morass of liberal duplicity.

    regards and thank you Bruce for writting and exposing these enemies of freedom.

  • therealend

    The last four assassination attemps aimed at American political leadders were against conservatives. George Wallace, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and GW Bush (didn't someone throw a grenade on the platform where he was standing while in the Ukraine?)

    As for angry rhetoric, I can go way back to 1995 when the Democrats were calling the Republicans NAZIs over the block grants for education. One member of Congress then described them as worse than NAZIs. Honestly, how can one be worse than a Nazi? Is that like a Nazi that sleeps less so he can get more hours of evil in during a 24 hour period or is it Nazi that somehow does the work of 2 ordinary Nazi's? Any answers?

  • trickyblain

    The fact is that the secret service has reported more death threats against Obama than at any other time in American history – up 400 percent from the Bush years. An elementary school was placed in lockdown as a result death threat's on it's principal, thanks to a Michelle Malkin propaganda piece aimed at getting lunatics fired up over a video. Fox News whitewashed the story by omitting “death threats” as the reason the school was in lockdown. Examples abound…

    Friedman is not ignoring the nuts on the left that posted insane things about Bush. He is correctly noting that the threats against our current president are greater in number, and that the Secret Service deems these as more serious. They are rooted from organized propaganda machines like Glen Beck, FPM and Malkin. Not that they directly would like to see the president killed – but those who would are a large part of their “success.”

  • WFB2

    “The fact is that the secret service has reported more death threats against Obama than at any other time in American history – up 400 percent from the Bush years.”
    What's your source for this assertion?

    “Examples abound…”
    Really? How about a few more just to prove your point.

  • PeterMcClelland

    That Michelle Malkin piece was factual, not propaganda. That still doesn't justify death threats in the principal's direction.

    If you could just state that the death threats directed at George Bush were wrong then you could cross the aisle from close-minded partisan to concerned citizen.

  • trickyblain

    Of course they were wrong. That's really not something I felt compelled to
    express because it seems obvious…

  • trickyblain

    I usually don't link to NewsMax as a credible source, but people around here
    like it:
    Other cites:

    You can also google ” secret service 400 percent”

    to preach this sermon. And you have probably never heard a sermon like this
    before. Actually, you probably have if you have been coming to church here
    for a while. But you know what? Here is my sermon, why I hate Barack Obama.
    That’s my sermon tonight, because Barack Obama is coming to town tomorrow

    Barack Obama is coming to town. And he is going to be here tomorrow morning.
    Who knew that he was coming to town? I didn’t know. I just found out
    recently with his health care and everything like this.

    And I’m going to tell you something. I hate Barack Obama. You say, well, you
    just mean you don’t like what he stands for. No, I hate the person. Oh, you
    mean you just don’t like his policies. No, I hate him….

    What goes around comes around. You love violence. You hate that which is
    right. You love to harm others. You love to hurt or kill the unborn or the
    innocent or the righteous. He is saying, God is going to bring that upon
    your own head, because whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    Now, turn back to Psalm 58 and let me ask you this question. Why should
    Barack Obama melt like a snail? Why should Barack Obama die like the
    untimely birth of a woman? Why should his children be fatherless and his
    wife a widow, as we read in this passage?

    Well, I will tell you why. Because, since Barack Obama thinks it is OK to
    use a salty solution, right, to abort the unborn, because that’s how
    abortions are done, my friend, using salt — and I would like to see Barack
    Obama melt like a snail tonight.——

    I've also called out people here who say that murdering the president would
    be “heroic.” If I have time, I can dig those up if you don't believe me.
    Example abound indeed.

    The point is that Friedman is right — there is a measurable uptick in
    militant lunacy. He is not dismissing vile comments from the left, he is
    reporting on the CURRENT quadrupling on the right.

  • USMCSniper

    Keep your religious psycho-babble. All organized religion is a blatantly dishonest attempt to arrive at a comprehensive view of the universe and our place in it as a species.

  • right fist

    Your right he didn't dismiss them, he just conveniently forgets to mention them in his articles, which makes him dishonest at worst and a hypocrite at best.

    The lefts violence far surpasses that of the right. Just look at the G20 riots, environmental protests, Bush-hate-fests, etc. Also, all of the modern day and present fascist nations began there regimes with lefty-socialism (aka WWII Germany, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so on and so on). More people have been murdered by the bloody hands of lefty/socialists and there failed policies than by any other natural catastrophe or war.

    Like all lefties, you are ignorant, don’t get it, or conveniently seem to forget these lessons of human history.

    So, maybe is not the president that is the problem but his socialist policies that are making people upset.

  • missing link

    Nice try. Liar.

    The first step to becoming a decent human being: Be honest with yourself.

  • trickyblain

    I am being honest with myself, douchebag. If you can't link to a post of mine where I even hint at such an idiotic statement, I expect a public apology at once. After all, being a decent person also involves admitting mistakes and not bearing false witness about something you are totally ignorant about. Looking forward to your gracious mea culpa.

  • WFB2

    Rev. Anderson notwithstanding I was unable to get anything substantial to support the “up 400%” assertion. This seems to be one of those circular arguments that leads back to a single questionable source. That source is Kessler's book (Re: your Newsmax citation). I went to Amazon and read about a dozen reviewer's comments on the book. Not one mentioned the “400%” issue. The people that liked the book did so because of its gossipy salacious revelations of (LBJ, JFK mostly) sexual exploits. More typically reviewer's panned the book:

    “I expected this book to be exciting and revealing, but it is nothing more than a list of facts and anecdotes. The writing style is childish, the flow is uneven, and Kessler seems to be looking for controversy with some very incendiary comments. He makes wild forecasts based on little evidence, if only to generate buzz. I'm very disappointed.”

    No one brought up the 400% data but several reviewer's remarked on Kessler's lack of documentation of what he wrote. Next I went to the UK Daily Telegraph reference but that just cited Kessler's claims with no independent verification or corroborating data:

    “According to the book, intelligence officials received information that people associated with the Somalia-based Islamist group al-Shabaab might try to disrupt Mr Obama's inauguration in January, when the Secret Service co-ordinated at least 40,000 agents and officers from some 94 police, military and security agencies.”

    Finally I googled “secret service, 400% and found a dozen or so articles all of which just referred back to Kessler's book as the source. The closest I got to any “smoking gun” was this

    “A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me [Rick Sanchez] today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration …”.

    That “close source” may well have been Kessler again. He's got a book to sell.

    Sounds like a bunch BS to me. Try again Tricky.

  • aloysiusmiller

    The Secret Service should be investigation these assassination porn addicts. Conservatives are living for the day of his concession speech on the evening of November 4, 2009 We wouldn't let anyone deny us this pleasure and we'll constitutionally and legally suffer his presidency until he isn't president anymore and then he won't matter.

  • aloysiusmiller

    I meant 2012.

  • trickyblain

    Sorry, but equating Nazis to the left won't fly – the term socialist is preceded by “National” – hitlers regime was based on strict social hierchy, racialsm and nationism – hardly traits associated with the left (outside the fantasy world of Internet rightwing revisonism) Was imperial japan leftist as well? What violence at anti-bush protests???
    In terms a Friedman- he's writing about CURRENT news – not last year or eight years ago. Is he hypocritcal for not mentioning death threats aimed at nixon as well?

  • trickyblain

    Fair points w. But I think you are missing the larger point. The
    author here is totally whitewashing the nutcases – denying that they
    exist and potraying Friedman as grouping all dissenters as potential
    murderers. Friedman is talking about a very real small minority.
    You've been here a while – maybe you've noticed that I condemn
    nutcases on all sides…most people here do the same…but there is
    that small minority nevertheless.

  • Name

    LOLOL! You guys think Friedman is “the left”? He was one of the biggest neoconservative cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Make up your minds!

  • tarleton

    Trickyblain…you are correct and so is Friedman….
    I am a conservative and I respect Horowitz and Thornton , but it's slowly dawned upon me that Obama will be lucky to survive three more years with this type of political climate
    There is a recuring leitmotif in American history of political assassinations , nearly always of the lone gunman/nutcase type
    What us conservatives don't need is a Mccviegh type maniac , who decides to save America from obama…..God help us ….anything but that….it would be devastating for Conservatives and race relations in this country for a generation
    Friedmans intuition is correct….there is danger for the duly elected President as he could be the most hated President since Lincoln…and we all know what happened to ''old Abe''
    The past is prologue to the present and political assassinations are part of the continuity of American history
    There is no other Western Democracy that has the malignant leitmotif of assassination like America…..I don;t think there has been any such events in Canadian ,Australian or British history ……I wonder what it is about America , that makes it so vunerable to this madness ?
    Of course , there are conspiracy theorists and haters on the Left , but they tend to be ''group thinkers'' and collectevists….unlike the conspiracy theorists on the Right ,who tend to be rugged individulists and DOERS…..Mccviegh was just typical of this crowd
    Furthermore , they tend to be very familiar with firearms and good shots too !
    The lone gunman in the crowd ,armed with a handgun is the real danger to the President…..someone like Hinkley , Sirhan Sirhan or that maniac who got Mckinley…….it could happen !!

  • tarleton

    Furtheremore…..the idiotic and embarassing '''birther '' story was just the type of bogus conspiracy theory that ettempted to ''delegitimize'' the duly elected President , by portraying him as an illegal alien and intruder from Africa….an illigitimate President, who was illegally elected……draw your own conclusions about that !
    Anyone familiar with the history of lynching in the ''south'' could intuit where this kind of malignant ''story'' could lead
    Friedman is all too correct in his concern about the delegitimizing of the first ''black'' socialist President

  • bubba4

    You have to excuse him…he is practicing Malkin tactics…and he's still a bit ham handed at it.

  • WFB2

    I accept the writer's larger point to be Friedman's attempt to delegitimize conservative criticism of Obama's agenda. The left first tried to do this by attributing all such criticism as racist – itself an inflammatory and illegitimate charge. This fell flat despite dark, demagogic warnings of potential race riots. So Friedman is chosen, or just decides, it's time to up the ante.The psycho Left is still trying to blame the JFK assasination on the Right despite all evidence to the contrary. It's stuck like a bone in their throat and all based on a neurotic mindset that reflexively projects all evil – real or imagined – onto the Right.

  • celtnik

    You just provided a perfect example of what the author noted in this piece,:
    “First, though, consider the reductive psychological analysis typical of liberals, who see all behavior as the consequence of environmental factors outside the individual, rather than being the result of choice.” So righty who flips out and commits acts of violence, which hasn't happened yet, will be blamed on FPM and Fox news. Neither one of these entities has the power of tax and regulate our business out of existence, nor seize our property or our firearms, or appoint czars to unconstitutional positions without being confirmed by the Senate. Don't you think these factors would collude to force any decent American over the edge? Probably not in your world I guess. Please, try to make a comparison between the 9/12 tea party protesters and the thugs in Pittsburgh destroying public and private property.

  • rnot

    I agree with you Lee. But there is more to it, they have been the bullys who have been name calling, bashing, and denigrating everyone who doesn't agree with them. And as with all bullys they cannot handle their own 'medicine' when shoved back at them.

    Liberals know that Obama is a loser and they will be the last to admit to it.

  • celtnik

    That's your argument for saying that the Nazis weren't socialist, because National was in front of it? That is just some kind of lazy piece of word play you're using instead of actually looking at the 25 points of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Are you telling me Hitler supported private property and gun rights? Or did he believe in wealth redistribution, socialized medicine, euthenasia gun control? Nationalism does not define a political system, it has to do with ones borders language and culture and is just as prevalent on the left, probably even more so. Why did Russia call WW2 the “Great Patriotic War”? Why did they force every nation from the Baltics to the Caucusas to the Kamchatcha peninsula to speak Russian? Why did they take them over in the first place? Oh, don't forget Stalin's pogroms against the Jews which started before Hitler's and lasted longer. Do you mean there was no hierarchy, or elite group of political ruling class in Soviet Russia, or Cuba?

  • trickyblain

    What's with the angry right? Always with the lame insults. Boring. At least
    be creative when insulting, makes for more interesting reading.

    I've explained here many times, in detail, that Nazis and most other
    totalitarian regimes do not fit neatly into left or right-wing boxes. Many
    folks here want to accept the fantasy put out by revisionists (such as Jonah
    Goldberg) that all evil deeds in modern history can be attributed to a pure
    form of leftism, while all that's good, bright and shiny comes from the
    right and conservatism. Don't talk to me about laziness while shoveling that
    line of bull. No dictatorship has a pure political form.

    So, Stalin had many right-wing characteristics. So does Castro. Why is that
    news? Why is that so hard to accept? Hitler had left-wing characteristics -
    but the Night of Long Knives (and his party's platform) indicates no love
    for international socialism. Nor did his support of Franco against the

    Left and right has it's roots in the French Revolution. Leftists have
    revolutions that cause internal chaos and a desire to overthrow existing
    social order before “starting over” – often starting at the year “0.” The
    right believes in glorification of the past and a conservative social order.
    They are often elected before seizing absolute power or come from a
    hereditary line. How a regime or dictatorship comes to power is usually how
    historians see it in terms of “right” or “left.”

    But once a dictatorship seizes power, it no longer becomes about left or
    right. It's all about maintaining and expanding that power using any method
    it sees fit. A totalitarian regime does not trouble itself with the pure
    politics, philosophy and ideals of Marx, Nietzsche or Heidegger.

  • Mick58

    What adolescent touchy-feely garbage. Everyone knows you can't have a revolution WITHOUT violence…

    Or maybe you'd rather talk them to death? That's why one stalwart figure in the Hussein Obama Junta said of the first Tea Parties: “We're not worried about the Teabaggers. All they do is march around and say 'No!'” Why aren't they the least bit concerned? There is no threat…no real threat of violence. Fast forward a few months and now Reid and Pelosi and other rad-libs are having anxiety attacks because the voices are getting louder and more numerous so they're trying to – in the best imitation of Hugo Chavez and others of his ilk – stifle opposition, demonize anyone who disagrees with them, and hold onto power.

    Were our Founding Fathers alive today, they'd storm the steps of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the White House, drag everyone out into the streets and hang them in the Capitol Mall.

  • celtnik

    Stalin didn't have right wing tendencies you windbag, what I am illustrating is that all the horrible things you project onto the right, started on the left. History also shows that most of the dictators throughout history have come from the left, including Hitler as well as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. Answer the question, which policies of Hitler would you consider “right wing”, i.e. states, gun and property rights, limited government? Those last few pages at the end of Goldberg's book, that is called a bibliography, hack. The burden of proof is on you. How is international socialism different from National Socialism, and how is it still National Socialism in Hitler's case after he invades half of Europe and imposes it on them.

  • trickyblain

    I'm not pushing all evil to the right — I'm saying that totalitarian
    regimes stat with ideologies that can be left or right wing, then morph into
    an unidentifiable mass of the two, where the “starting point” becomes
    irrelevant. Yes Mao and Pot came from the left. But Hitler and Mussolini?
    Yeah, fierce anti-communism, the idea of a master race, propping up Franco
    (or was he a leftst, too?) are all leftist traits. Anti-modernism (Jews were
    seen as “modern” thinkers) and anti-liberalism (again, Jews) are other
    right-wing characteristics expressed by Hitler.

    You are ascribing traditional, constitutional, American values to historical
    definitions of right and left wing. That's not a very scholarly way of
    going about it, and may (partly) explain your confusion. If you are basing
    your view of left and right on the idea of strong state power, than you
    consider the French monarchy as “left-wing” because it controlled the land
    and industry. Given that the term “right” and “left” derive from the Estates
    General, this concept is beyond absurd. Better a windbag than a douchebag.

    Even Goldberg does not try to deny what historians have held for the last 70
    years — that fascism and Nazism have right-wing roots. He just lamely tries
    to link them to contemporary “liberals.” For example, Goldberg says: To
    sort of start the story, the reason why we see fascism as a thing of the
    right is because fascism was originally a form of right-wing
    socialism….Originally being a fascist meant you were a right-wing
    socialist, and the problem is that we've incorporated these European
    understandings of things and then just dropped the socialist.”

    More evidence of you being in over your head on this argument is that you
    don't realize that the difference b/t national and international socialism,
    when anti-communism (communism/Trotskyism = international socialism) was a
    key pillar in the Nazi and fascist platforms. Hitler explains:
    –“In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in
    various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist
    Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be
    secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.”
    –“In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher
    plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to
    the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the
    destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms.”
    –“In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism,
    the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare
    the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and
    understanding of the public but also to take upon itself the responsibility
    of organizing its own defence against the terror of the International, which
    is intoxicated with its own victory.”
    –“Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for
    the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against
    Germany taking place in any part of the world the Jew is always the
    instigator. In peace-time, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist
    stock-exchange Press systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until
    one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the
    service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own

    Communists and leftist political dissidents were exterminated before the
    mass-murder of Jews even began.

    But I will leave you to your echo-chamber thinking — everything horrible,
    evil and vile over the course of human history is from the “left” and every
    thing good, proper and decent is from the “right.” It's easier that way.

  • celtnik

    yeah, what's that saying, all sound and fury signifying nothing. Right wing socialism? That is an oxymoron, just like left-wing labor. You may think Hitler and Mussolini were anti- communist, however Mussolini used to write for a socialist newspaper 'Avanti'; he learned communism from his radical grandfather.
    The Soviets also had their idea of he perfect man as well. George Orwell, an avowed socialist, lamented the fighting between the fascists and socialist during the Spanish civil war because he realized they were both fighting for the same things. The fight between the fascists and the communists was nothing than a continuation of old hatreds between the Germans and Russians. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy. Hitler modeled his prison camps after Stalin's, again the pogroms of the jews.
    F.A. Hayek notes:
    “…. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the onservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.”

    or Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:

    There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . .
    . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey
    unconditionally the orders issued by government. This is precisely how Hitler governed when he achieved dictatorial power. Right wing? You mentioned earlier about the teaching of Marx and Engels, who said this: “True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their
    property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: “Give back Alsace and Lorraine”.
    For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German
    nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?”
    Hitler, or Engels? Who does it sound like? How about this next one, this has to be Hitler, right?
    “This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our
    lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.” Nope, both from Engels,

    sounds like crazy “right-wing nationalism” doesn't it? You're the one in over your head boy.

  • mamapajamas

    Uhm… the fact is that MOST conservatives take one look at Joe Biden and fervently PRAY for Obama's good health.

    Obama is probably in more danger from Muslims who have realized that he is an Apostate. Obama was raised to be Muslim, but turned away and joined a Christian church as an adult. He probably did that for political expediency– my personal belief is that, in religion, the man is an agnostic at most– but many of the Muslim leaders in the ME are on record as offering opinions that Obama is a “stealth” Muslim, fooling the infidels. And, no, that isn't a personal opinion, Kadaffi is on record saying exactly that, which is where the rumors that Obama was Muslim originated.

    However, the fact is that in Islam, Apostacy carries a death sentence. When the fanatics begin to discover that he is NOT a “stealth Muslim” and is in fact an Apostate, he is in deep shit.

    THEY are more of a danger to him than any conservative I know!

  • celtnik

    I'm starting to understand. A guy can be a socialist, call himself a socialist, advocate socialist ideas, gain socialist followers, and then rise to power. But if he does anything bad or unpopular, then he's “not a socialist”, he's “a tyrant”, and I'm not allowed to use him as an example of a socialist anymore.

    Socialists, apparently, can only do good and nice things. Anything bad done by any socialist automatically kicks them out of the socialist club. So you can never use any bad socialist behavior to discredit socialists. Only good and perfect beautiful socialist behavior. The definition of socialists excludes all bad behavior and only includes utopian behavior. I understand now. What I understand is that it's a loaded definition, and a propagandandistic one, designed only to help socialists advance their cause. What I don't understand is why you buy into it and are promulgating it. Are you a socialist?

  • coyote3

    Well, let's say there is the general undefined, nutjob threat out there. In the absence of some overt action = actual violation of the law, what does anyone propose to do about it? That will be in interesting part. The answer is absolutely nothing, because if they do, that will do even more damage, and infuriate people who are on the fence, so to speak. So, in the absence of someone actually violating the law, this is going nowhere. Truth is, whether it is President Obama, or any other president, if someone “really” wants to kill him, he's dead.

  • tarleton

    No serious commentators or historians think anyone else but ''ossie rabbit '' Oswald shot Kennedy…..and Oswald was a strange bird among all strange birds and a communist to boot
    With the present President , it's different …he's a blackman and a socialist , something many on the Right hate…don't kidd yourselves , America is not quite over racism yet…there's still the dying embers and they're still dangerous

  • coyote3

    My, my, all this violence. I have seen it here, and still see it sometimes, but it is not directed toward some Negro. It is for the same reasons that it has been going on around here, snce they called it “frontera roja”, e.g. a pool hall/cantina/honky tonk fight, women, insults, and, of course, contraband (mojados, drugas, mujeres) you name it.

    If you have some insight regarding an organized, or unorganized threat to the President of the United State, you need to be talking to the USA, not blabbering. Of course that would require you to show that some law is being violated. Fact is, the president, any president, ought to take office with guy following him around hollering “DEAD MAN WALKING” over and over again. Fact is, if someone “really” wants to kill the president, and doesn't care about getting caught, the president is dead., The only issue then becomes do we spend the taxpayer money on a pine box, or do we do a “bandito funeral” with a shelter half and hole? The president, any president, as a man, is nothing special. That doesn't make killin him okay. It is murder like any other, we will get another one. I recall the day after JFK was killed, we were off from school. A guy named Bubba and I went deer hunting and I got a nice little Tejas deer, not my first, but it was good. Someone on the street in town, said “you know, the president was killed yesterday.” Bubba said, “yeah, I know, and I know we didn't kill em'”

  • bubba4

    You just provided a perfect example of what the author noted in this piece,:
    “First, though, consider the reductive psychological analysis typical of liberals, who see all behavior as the consequence of environmental factors outside the individual, rather than being the result of choice.”

    Um…the point is not to pre-blame someone, it's to warn that you should stop lying to people and trying to scare them or one of them might make the CHOICE to do something stupid.

    “So righty who flips out and commits acts of violence, which hasn't happened yet, will be blamed on FPM and Fox news.”

    Well…look what happened to that abortion doctor..Tiller I think was his name. You don't think you can rightly draw a correlation there? Believing in individual responsibility has nothing to do with it. Of course the murderer or bomber is responsible…but if you don't understand why the extreme rhetoric isn't a good thing then I can't help you. If you think I am pre-blaming then you are pre-excusing or being purposefully naive.

    “Neither one of these entities has the power of tax and regulate our business out of existence, nor seize our property or our firearms, or appoint czars to unconstitutional positions without being confirmed by the Senate.”

    What? What new taxes? What property has been seized? What firearms have been confiscated…the gun laws are completely loose. In Arizona, they passed a law that let's people walk around like cowboys if they want. “Czars” is just a nickname for agency heads. Bush had 47 of them….there is nothing strange or unusual about these positions.

    “Don't you think these factors would collude to force any decent American over the edge? Probably not in your world I guess.”

    Well these lies or exaggerations are a part of it. Climate of fear…

  • bubba4

    Your being dense and stupid about this and I think it's on purpose. Tricky clear said that he doesn't buy into the very new assertions by FPM and other that all bad things in history are “left” while “right” is angelic. While it's only one example of FPM's constant mangling of the political lexicon, it is an important one. This latest post is just to turn around an accuse him of the opposite….boy taking the time to talk to you looks like fun…:(

  • bubba4

    I think he posted the item about the increase of Presidental death threats as one example of a changing environment. You seem to make it all about that…so enjoy yourself.

    You get a little more ugly everyday…

  • celtnik

    One person, does not a patter make, referring the Dr. Tiller's murderer. What about John Malvo, Muslim extremist or the guy that killed the guard at the Holocaust museum, an avowed socialist, as was Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't forget the Unibomber was a rabid Al Gore fan. Can you prove "rhetoric" causes behavior? Furthermore, there are more taxes coming, The Joint committee on taxation just found out that under the Obamacare bill drug companies, medical device manufacturers and insurers would pay $121 billion over 10 years as a result of taxes in the Senate Finance Committee version. They won't pass those costs onto the consumer though will they, no. That's just for starters, we're going to have to feed the unions at GM some more since demand has dropped for autos after the cash for clunkers rip off. Who subsidized that by the way? Those are just a few examples, but it goes on. Oh, the Supreme Court will soon be taking up a case regarding whether or not the 2nd amendment will also apply to the states. As if it isn't already specifically listed in the Constitution as a right pertaining to all citizens, but since some leftist legislature is rightly scared of an armed citizenry it somehow now needs to be ruled on. "Climate of Fear", can you idiots post one comment with out those tired, old Hackneyed lefty talking points. Bush only had 26 czars, to get the Number 47 you have to count the number of people who held the same position. Nice try. Obama's got a lot more. That's not the point, which one of these departments are specifically listed in the Constitution i.e. Green jobs czar or some other such ridiculous nonsense.

  • celtnik

    I know what tricky said, and I told him he was full of it; I don't care what he buys into, he's a moron. Did you read my post? Idiots like you go around apologizing for the worst political system in history, which is nothing more that organized crime with an army, and has been responsible for more than 100 million deaths. Who is dense and stupid, useful idiot.

  • bubba4

    Now your using it on me. You're like an out of control garden hose.

  • bubba4

    “One person, does not a patter make, referring the Dr. Tiller's murderer.”

    No it doesn't. Good thing that wasn't the point I was making. The murder of this man is an example of Oreily, Beck and others not directly telling people to kill murder someone, but giving a small block of crazies all the ideas they need. If you believe in what they say…it is inevitable.

    “What about John Malvo, Muslim extremist or the guy that killed the guard at the Holocaust museum, an avowed socialist, as was Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't forget the Unibomber was a rabid Al Gore fan. Can you prove “rhetoric” causes behavior?”

    No, I don't think even when it's obvious it could be “proven” in a legal sense…but lets take Tiller for instance. His murderer wouldn't have known of his existence, much less have been told that Tiller was a monster who would murder any baby for $5000 and asking questions like “when will we put to stop to this?” There is ample video I'm sure if you google it.

    No health care legislation has been passed. Your taxes have not gone up. No property has been seized. No guns have been taken away. So everything you listed as possibly driving someone over the edge (besides Beck telling them the sky is falling and communists are polluting our precious bodily fluids)…all your examples are bullshit.

    All you have are vague fears about the future. If you don't understand what Cash for Clunkers was designed to do…I can't help you. Do you even understand the concept of stimulus. I swear most of you forgot that we almost went off a cliff a year ago.

    “Oh, the Supreme Court will soon be taking up a case regarding whether or not the 2nd amendment will also apply to the states. As if it isn't already specifically listed in the Constitution as a right pertaining to all citizens, but since some leftist legislature is rightly scared of an armed citizenry it somehow now needs to be ruled on.”

    Sigh. This is a challenge FOR the 2nd Amendment against a 27 year old law taxing handguns in the city of Chicago. For crying out loud…you don't even know what your own examples mean. You're too busy blaming your irrational fears on “lefty”.

    “Climate of Fear”, can you idiots post one comment with out those tired, old Hackneyed lefty talking points.”

    Um…ok…um…let's see…how about “Environment of Dread”…or “Atmosphere of Paranoia”…or maybe “Bizarro World of Violent Irrationality” it's not a talking point dumbass…it was a description.

    “Bush only had 26 czars”…”Obama's got a lot more. That's not the point”

    You're right…the point was you were saying they were unconstituitional or some such nonsense…I said it was an ordinary part of modern government….and all the recent Presidents had them. I await your non-sequitor response.

  • celtnik

    I understand the process of stimulus better than you do, government doesn't create stimulus, or jobs or demand or supply. Government doesn't have anything until it takes it from us, now they created a false demand for cars because they were handing out someone else’s money, then when the fund went bust all those automobiles made to meet the false demand are now just sitting around with no one willing to purchase them. Oh, the taxpayers are out another 2 billion or so, while destroying perfectly good cars in the process. That's okay, we're all stakeholders in GM now, but not really, you see the first piece of property Obama seized was two car companies along with a bank. Don't forget the VAT tax being considered to pay for the government takeover of health care either, which is essentially a takeover of you. The way you stimulate the economy is you let the people who actually produce things keep more of their money; of course this argument is probably lost on someone like you who doesn't understand basic economics. The reason we went off a cliff is because of too many government mandates telling lenders who they could lend to, usually people who couldn't pay the borrowed money back. And unemployment just hit a 26 year high and it's still going. The McDonald case challenges the banning of the registration of handguns, and requiring the handguns be registered prior to purchase, which essentially makes handguns illegal, which is unconstitutional. The case is also trying to overrule the unconstitutional theory of selective incorporation. Let's see, what else, oh you're still trying to blame Fox news for the Murder of Dr. Tiller, which means you still believe the whacked out notion that people are just helpless fools unable to make choices for themselves and that behavior is the consequence of environmental factors outside their control. And czars are unconstitutional, they don't represent departments, department heads are confirmed by the senate; Van Jones, John Holdren and the rest of the appointed Politburo haven't.

  • bubba4

    “I understand the process of stimulus better than you do”

    Government is the only entity capable of creating stimulus in a weak economy. Economy is about dynamics, and injections of money (even if it's borrowed) keep the economy moving so we don't go off the deep end and can adjust things so we have a future.

    Since a majority of pollution (from cars) is caused by a small minority of older vehicles (ones that are working you see…not on your front lawn on bricks) so it had a two fold purpose…remove the older cars while the creating a boost is sales to reduce inventory. Your problem is you haven't given these things much thought and you rely on FPM (and I can guess who else) to instruct how you think/feel about things.

    “That's okay, we're all stakeholders in GM now, but not really, you see the first piece of property Obama seized was two car companies along with a bank.”

    Riiiiight…except the government didn't “takeover” the companies. I don't think you really understand the economy of cars and the extensive web of contractors and vendors that support our bloated and abnormal industry. You can disagree that we should have saved the car companies…but you aren't doing that…you're trying to mischaracterize the program(s) for the purpose of false outrage or something.

    Look at you dumbass…they have managed to teach you that government regulation caused the economic crisis…holy smokes…welcome to bizarro world…where no one can learn their lessons because they just choose to believe something else.

    You brought up the McDonald case as Obama seizing guns or at least something scary coming in the future. You can't follow these thoughts from one post to the next can you. It's all a weird blur. I can chip away at your stupid assertions and you will just plow forward.

    “oh you're still trying to blame Fox news for the Murder of Dr. Tiller, which means you still believe the whacked out notion that people are just helpless fools unable to make choices for themselves and that behavior is the consequence of environmental factors outside their control.”

    I wasn't trying to blame them…as we established it would be difficult to prove in any legal sense..remember…that was in the last post. But Tiller was an example towards the other point about how hate and fear in the “media” suchs as Fox, FPM, Newsmax and others. You like running back to the idea of individual responsibility. Everything has to be black and white with you doesn't it….you just can't let things stray into the complexity of reality.

  • celtnik

    Government is the only entity capable of creating stimulus in a recession, really, that is the most economically illiterate statement I have ever heard. The last two recessions we had were reversed due to tax cuts. Do you understand the concept of money? Money is a tool of exchange and is only useful if there are goods and services being produced to back it; the government printing money and giving it to people who have produced nothing doesn’t stimulate anything, all it does is create inflation. As I said before, Government produces nothing, and the economy isn’t moving; nobody is buying or investing in anything, especially jobs, and retail sales are falling.
    “Riiiiight…except the government didn't “takeover” the companies. I don't think you really understand the economy of cars and the extensive web of contractors and vendors that support our bloated and abnormal industry”

    Why don’t you explain it to me? I don’t understand the economy of cars? I understand that we are paying to keep a company afloat that is producing cars that nobody wants, unless “government” i.e. the taxpayers are going to subsidize part of it. What did I just tell you moron, there was a false demand created by a government subsidy an now all the excess cars are just sitting on lots with nobody wanting to buy them. GM is broke, they are only running on the money of the taxpayer, we are subsidizing their manufacturing and the inflated wages and benefits of union employees. Furthermore, the unconstitutionality of the gun law registration requirements is something Obama and the democrats support, they have for years. How are you chipping away at my assertions when the Supreme Court is taking up the case? Obama repeatedly stated that he approved of the D.C. gun ban when it was in force; AG Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the dc handgun band and has publicly asserted that he doesn’t think the 2nd amendment protects your right to own a handgun
    “You like running back to the idea of individual responsibility. Everything has to be black and white with you doesn't it….you just can't let things stray into the complexity of reality.”
    Of course I believe in personal responsibility, that is what the civil society is based on. How can any idiot argue against personal responsibility? You don’t know the first thing about reality, most things are black and white pal, this nuanced, complexity of reality argument is just a stalking horse for lazy thinking dolts like you who want more government intervention in the lives of productive citizens who can take care of themselves. You really resent that don’t you?

  • bubba4

    You can't keep track of what you are arguing and you don't take responsibility for points you tried to make previously.

    I'll let you go back and read how and why the Supreme Court case is even in our conversation…because now you are arguing the point they are going to argue before the supreme court like I wrote the Chicago law and am fighting for it. You don't even remember under what context you brought it up to begin with.

    And I'll say this again because you are too stupid it seems to absorb it. When someone commits murder THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE…OK? If someone on TV has been stoking the fire and encouraging it….the murder is still responsible for his murder…OK? We were past that many posts ago. No matter what I say, you turn the argument into “who's responsible”. No one is arguing against personal responsibility, it's just you don't want to consider any other factors…you don't want to admit that people like Beck and Limbaugh have any effect on anyone. Fine.

    The world may be black and white but that's because your old and apparently a little senile. Have fun wallowing in your fear of the future…and telling everyone they're commies. I'm about out of patience with you.