Posts

Blaming the Tea Party for Mayhem: “Journalistic Malpractice”

ABC News’ Brian Ross speculated this morning that the alleged shooter who attacked a Batman premier in Colorado might be a member of the Tea Party. His suggestion — since retracted by ABC — continues a trend of media figures wrongly tying such tragedies to the Tea Party since 2010.

In February 2010, Joseph Stack became a Tea Partier for purposes of the media after he committed suicide by flying his small airplane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. New York Magazine, after reading his online suicide note/manifesto that day, immediately declared that “a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally.” The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart added that “his alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.”

Neither Capehart or NYMAG mentioned that Stack quoted the Communist Manifesto approvingly and denounced capitalism as a system that teaches, “From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” That would seem to put him at odds with the Tea Partiers, who often attacked Obamacare as a socialist government program.

A few months later, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the failed attempt to bomb Times Square was carried out by someone “with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” The would-be bomber, a Pakistani immigrant, said in court “If I’m given 1,000 lives I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah.”Most famously, politicians and media figures attacked Sarah Palin and the Tea Party after the Tucson shooting that wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, R-Ariz., and killed six others. Palin was faulted for having put “crosshairs” over Giffords’ district when she was targeting Democratic seats that might be vulnerable to Republican takeover. Even a year after the shooting, Democratic National Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., was willing to cite the shooting as proof that politicians need to “tone things down, particularly in light of” the Tucson shooting. “I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement,” she said.

Read more from this story HERE.

Publisher’s Note:  Please also read the Wall Street Journal’s excellent article, Extreme Prejudice.  It gives a brief background on the innocent Jim Holmes (he “is a 52-year-old Hispanic conservative who joined the Tea Party after becoming disillusioned with the Republican party. . . . He disconnected his telephone and says that he is worried about members of his family who might be contacted by the media”) and notes that

There was one other factor, and this is what makes the ABC error not just amateurish but sinister: the innocent Jim Holmes’s involvement with the Tea Party. For more than three years liberal journalists have falsely portrayed the Tea Party as racist and potentially violent. After the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., speculation immediately began that the suspect was a Tea Partier. Even after it was proved that he was not, the New York Times published a despicable editorial blaming conservatives anyway.

 

Video: Democrat Loses it on Tea Partier at Jewish Pro-Obama Event

Watch a Democrat completely lose his cool with a Tea Partier outside of a pro-Obama event at a Jewish Reform Congregation.  Just minutes earlier, a member of the Jewish Americans for Romney was chased off the property.  [Caution: profane language]

 

Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Why the “most honest 3 minutes on TV ever” is a lie (+video)

Have you seen this video yet?  You’ve got to check out the clip below.  It’s of a new show “The Newsroom”, on HBO, staring Jeff Daniels, and written and directed by the guy who gave us the idealized version of a democratic administration in “The West Wing,” Aaron Sorkin.

I know we are probably of like minds on this, but let me vent here. Indulge me.

In the clip below, the Jeff Daniels character sits on a panel at college event, when a student asks the question: “Why do you think America is great?” The woman to the left of Daniels gives a drab, center-left answer and the man to his right (portrayed as the conservative) simply states, “Freedom and Freedom.”

But then, Jeff Daniel’s character shocks the audience and the moderator by challenging the question itself.  He goes into an aggressive monologue about why America isn’t great anymore.  The audience is left with the choice of the partisan vagaries uttered by the two panelists, or Jeff’s speech on why we are no longer great, but used to be.  Watch the clip (caution: it contains profanity) and then see what your take is:


Ok, did you watch it?  No seriously, watch it now.

So here’s my take.  Firstly, my vote on the best answer goes to the guy who said “Freedom” twice. Simple, and effective, he nailed it.  The problem, as is so often the case, the left, and Sorkin in this case, are so full of themselves, so intent on satisfying their own intellectual ego, that there can be no truth, no solution, no revelation, unless THEY thought of it.

So we get a demeaning of the word “Freedom,” and a lecture from Daniels on, ironically, all things moral?!

Jeff Daniels is woefully ignorant (or rather Aaron Sorkin who apparently wrote the monologue) of what Freedom actually means, and is completely oblivious to things like socialism, government regulation, personal liberty, etc. and what they mean relative to that word “Freedom.”  He also seems blissfully unaware of immigration statistics and the enormous number of people still desperate to come to the US, as opposed to Canada, Belgium, Australia, or other western countries.

“War on Poor People,” that’s what we have? If so, blame the class warfare and welfare state created by those that Sorkin supports and adores as heroes on the left.  You want to start a “War on Poverty,” then deregulate, and reduce the tax burden on those doing the work and those starting the businesses that employ people.  Make a competitive environment for business, instead of casting them as the enemy, and you will have jobs and prosperity, and sense of self worth instilled in your citizenry.

You don’t “fight” poverty anyway, you increase prosperity. There’s a real difference — but the significance of that difference is lost on left wing idealists who live in Hollywood and DC and have no comprehension of starting and running a small business, and don’t have the time in their egocentric lives to even take an academic interest in the beliefs of those who founded, and made this country great, or who fight for its greatness still today.

Sorkin may or may not fit into that category of Hollywood and DC liberal, but his portrayal of folks I know and have worked with — like those in the Tea Party, loving patriots who cherish the Constitution — his assertion that they are the “problem” only serves to point out how truly upside down this line of thinking is.

He uses the language, and speaks of “morality” through his surrogate, Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels’ character), but has no idea what the word means.  There is no morality without God, and yet he scoffs at this notion and implies that America leads the world in ignorance because it has the most citizens per capita that believe in angels.

America may not be the greatest country in the world anymore — after the last presidential election, and in Alaska, the last senatorial election, I certainly have my doubts — but it’s not for any of the reasons that Sorkin sites. If Sorkin really wants to return to American greatness, maybe he should start at the start, and look at the men and words of its foundation, and search for the heart of what made us great, in the words and deeds of the men who fought and died creating and protecting it, instead of plying leftist propaganda in pseudo-intellectual elitist centrist wrapping, and calling it a return to the “good old days.”

The “good old days” weren’t always good, but their core values were: a country that cherished the rights of the individual over the rights of the state, that trusted God, not Government, as their ultimate arbiter of morality.  The people of that era weren’t great because they were informed, per se, as Sorkin asserts, they were great because they read the bible, feared God, and loved liberty.  It was those qualities that drove them to become informed.  But information without the will and the moral wisdom to act on it is useless.

Liberty gave them that will, and God that wisdom.  Sorkin can’t, or rather his intellectual elitist egotism won’t let him see that.

That’s my take. What do you think?

*****************************

Dr Walter Campbell is a lifelong Alaskan, former Marine, and physician.

 

Alaska Tea Party Goes after Leftist Senate Coalition

As the big field of Republican challengers jostles to get noticed against incumbent state senators, a common target has been emerging for many of them: the bipartisan coalition that has governed the Alaska Senate.

“It’s partially why I’m running,” said Mike Dunleavy, a tea-party backed Republican from Wasilla challenging Sen. Linda Menard, a first-term Republican and a member of the coalition. “I don’t believe the coalition represents the constituents. I think it represents itself.”

“Senate District K deserves to have a senator who stands firm on their principles by refusing to join a coalition that gives the Democrats control,” Jeff Landfield said in May when he announced he was taking on veteran Anchorage Sen. Lesil McGuire in the Republican primary. She’s also a member of the coalition.

And at a recent candidate forum sponsored by the Anchorage Tea Party, two other Republican senate candidates, Liz Vazquez and Bob Roses, signified in a panel question that they wouldn’t join a bipartisan coalition “similar to the one structured in the Senate.” Both are running in districts represented by incumbent Democrats who are part of the coalition — Hollis French and Bill Wielechowski.

To help defeat the “bipartisan” leftist coalition, please visit the Conservative Patriots Group and donate to their efforts.

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: neolibertariandotcom

Joe Says: Get Engaged; the Time is Short

For most of us, reviewing the news out of Washington or our local capitol inevitably leads to higher blood pressure or maybe even a recurrent nervous twitch.  It seems that no matter whom we elect, government is inexorably moving into every nook and cranny of our lives.  From dictating what light bulbs we can read by at night to requiring us to buy health care coverage, the scope of government seems unlimited.  And when we look up and down the political spectrum,our legislators appear to be walking in lock step, simply arguing around the fringes rather than challenging the proper role of government.

So what is a Constitution-loving patriot to do in the face of this increasing tyranny?  Get engaged!!!  What do I mean by that?  Instead of sitting idly by in your easy chair, forwarding an occasional Tea Party e-mail here and there, take a step outside of your comfort zone and put some skin in the game.

So how exactly is that done?  How can you make a difference?  Frankly,the sky is the limit in this political climate.  Using my 2010 U.S.Senate race in Alaska as a model, first recognize that someone apart from the political establishment, born into average circumstances, can stand up and effectively challenge the status quo.  That means you.

Yes, there are risks involved.  If you speak Truth about what your current elected officials are doing, expect lots of grassroots support but significant ruling class backlash.  The establishment will use every tool in their arsenal against you if they view you as a real threat.  Using my Alaska Senate race as an example, don’t be surprised if every newspaper, television station, and political leader attacks you, telling lie after lie to undercut your support amongst the undecided.  The more vicious the attack, the closer your message is resonating with middle-America.  Keep the faith.

And that means keep fighting even when we lose some of our battles.The Tea Party movement is exceptionally young – two or three years inmost states – but we have had exceptional impact; the House’s refusalto rubber-stamp a debt ceiling increase is one of several examples of our strength.

Yes, we have lost some high-profile races in 2010 but, given our ever-increasing numbers, refusal to be co-opted, and common-sense solutions, there is little question that we are well-positioned to rescue our country from approaching calamity.  Please answer the call of our Founders; you owe it to their sacrifice and the freedom of future generations.

 

Tea Party Caucus Leads GOP Charge Against Budget Crisis

The 2010 landslide election saw a revitalized Republican Party win 64 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives on a platform that rejected the fiscal policies of the Democratically controlled 111th Congress.  One attention-grabbing key to this success was a new political force: the Tea Party.

More than a few pundits were skeptical about how this force would play out when it became institutionalized in the new Congress as the “Tea Party Caucus.”  David Kurtz, writing for Talking Points Memo, called it “no small irony” that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) would form such an “insidery and cocooned” thing as a caucus in connection with a “supposedly grassroots, spontaneous, and defiantly outsidery … movement.”  Juan Williams of Fox News wrote off the caucus for a different reason, noting that “Tea Party freshmen are all about talk radio rhetoric, campaign slogans and reveling in the widespread discontent with American politics.  They have yet to display any capacity to govern.”

Have any of these criticisms proven true?  Thanks to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s BillTally “100 Day Report” on Congress, we now have numbers, not just words, to assess what has happened in the House since January and examine the validity of these concerns.

Since 1991, BillTally has analyzed the fiscal impact of every proposed piece of legislation.  The system then matches up legislation with sponsorship records for every lawmaker, showing what would happen to the federal budget if all bills supported by a given member of Congress—regardless of floor votes—instantly became law.  Thus, BillTally offers a unique, by-the-numbers look at Congress’ agenda.

After 100 days, BillTally results show the average Republican would cut a net of $63 billion from the budget and the average Democrat would actually increase the budget by $6.3 billion.  Both are sharp reversals from the same time in 2009, when the typical House GOPer was not backing a net agenda to cut spending, while the average Democrat was backing a much bigger boost in the budget.

Read More at Human Events by Douglas Kellogg, Human Events