Some Quick Thoughts On The Tax Day Tea Parties

I've been looking at the news and comparing the ways each network covered the Tax Day Tea Parties. Of course, left-leaning news outlets said every possible negative thing they could have said about the demonstrations, even things that were not true. It is those untrue items I wish to discuss here.

Item #1: The claim that Fox News orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events around the nation for a ratings boost.

The truth: Fox News simply covered the events, they did not orchestrate them. They presented the story in a fair, objective manner and were about the only network to do so. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all parroted the same lines over and over as if they were reading some talking points that someone handed to them.



Item #2: The claim that Rush Limbaugh orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events arouind the nation.

The truth: Rush may be the most popular talk radio host in the world right now, but I do not remember him ever putting forth one single idea or plan one little detail of any of those demonstrations. In fact, I don't even recall his name being mentioned at any of the 800 events.



Item #3: The claim that the rich orchestrated these Tea Parties in an effort to justify their own greed.

The truth: Well, I don't remember seeing very many rich people on the television or Internet news coverage of the Tea Parties. In fact, I saw mainstream Joe and Jane Average Americans. I saw parents with children. I saw small business owners. If there were any rich people in those crowds, they blended in quite nicely.



So, why am I bringing all of this up? Because these Tea Parties are not the end. There will be more demonstrations against the excesses of the current leftist-controlled federal government as time goes on. As Congress passes more "intolerable acts" and Barack Obama signs them into law, people will become more and more angry and demand that the government finally listen to them.

Now, far from trying to correct the above misconceptions, I actually want to see Old Media and groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org coninue to spread those lies. Why? Because it is a major advantage for our side if they do so.

As long as Old Media is assigning responsibility to the wrong crowd, the people who really did organize and mobilize these Tea Parties will be free to continue their planning and organizing unhindered and unfettered by distractions. They will be free to plan and organize new Freedom demonstrations for the coming 4th of July. Further, the more that the left attacks Fox, Rush and others, the more that the organizers and planners will know how big of an impact they really made.

So, to all the hate-mongers over on the left, please, continue shouting that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz put these things together. The more you convince yourselves of that, the more you will leave the real planners and organizers alone to plan and organize more. It is the best thing you can do for our side.

84rules

Tea Party Messages Resonate Loudly Among Average Citizens (Photos Included)

Thomas Jefferson once said, "When people fear the government, that's tyranny. When government fears the people, that's liberty."

The U.S. Government should take the time to understand what Jefferson said and to relate it to yesterday's Tea Parties.

Those tea parties were not the elite coming together nor was it the rich coming out in an effort to keep their money. It was Joe and Jane Average American sending a message to D.C. That message is: "We're fed up with your wasteful mismanagement of our money and your selling off of our children's future."

Look at the pictures below. They are randomly selected from the 800 or so tea parties that took place yesterday. You will not see fear of the government in these people's eyes. You will see anger; an anger that can only be placated on the day when politicians in D.C. do the right thing. It does not look like that day will come under Barack Obama or with a Democrat-controlled congress. But that day will come soon.

Contrary to what the libs are saying about these events, they were not organized by Fox News nor were they put together by Rush Limbaugh. These were not Republican operatives. These were common men and women coming together for a higher purpose. They were not called to come, they came of their own volition. This is more than just a grass-roots movement. What we saw yesterday was the beginning of the Second American Revolution.

There were no riots. Police officers who were sent to maintain the peace saw nothing but peace.

The pictures:

















It won't stop here. People are angry at what the socialists in Congress and the White House are trying to do. The people will win in the end.

Are The Democrats The Teapot Or The Kettle? Dems Wanted Bush To Fail For 8 Years

This is yet another example how the Dems and their media surrogates seem to think that we Americans don't have very good memories or that we are not smart enough to see the contradictions in their words and actions.

The recent flap over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wanted to see Obama's policies fail are more than enough proof of that. When Rush made his comments, the Obama White House panicked and tried to turn it into a national scandal. Unfortunately, like everything else Obama is trying to do, things worked out in the exact opposite manner. Ever since the Dems initiated their smear campaign, Limbaugh's ratings have skyrocketed.

Now, contrast this with how the media reacted when the Dems publically stated that they wanted President Bush to fail. Bill Sammon at Fox News has a very interesting piece about that. From his column:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted. The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails." Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

Well, the Dems certainly didn't disregard it. For the next seven years, the Dems were publically stating that they wanted President Bush to fail. Even Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, went so far as to give moral support to the terrorists by proclaiming that in Iraq, "The war is lost!"

It even showed up in a Fox News poll taken in 2006. 51% of Democrats said they wanted President Bush to fail. From that poll:



It gets even worse when former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote the following:

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. [...] In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush. When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

So, why do the Dems think it is okay for them to say that they want a Republican President to fail, but then cry foul when someone else publically says that they want a Demecrat President to fail?

We want to know: Are the Democrats teapot or kettle?

You can access the original articles on-line here:

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush To Fail
Bill Sammon
Fox News
March 11, 2009

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Fox News
August 10, 2006

NY Post Hate Trap
Craig Charney
Charney Research
September 24, 2006

Debbie Stabenow Wants 'Hearings' For Fairness Doctrine Censorship

Check out this exchange between Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and radio host Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place. BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable? SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

First, it is a well-known fact that attempts to bring back censorship under the guise of a "Fairness Doctrine" are nothing more than attempts to squelch the opposition's point of view.

But even more interesting is that Stabenow want hearings on the issue.

I say: "Bring it on!"

I'll bet that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and Mark Levin will have a five-way fist fight to see who will be the first to march into those hearings and rake those Senators over the coals.

The conservative talk radio hosts who do show up and testify will expose every hypocrisy and every double-standard people like Stabenow hold. For example, why does Stabenow want "fairness" brought to talk radio but is perfectly willing to allow programs like Today Show, Good Morning America, Larry King and newspapers like The Washington Post and New York Times, to continue to be biased towards the leftist-liberals?

That is exactly the type of hypocrisy that would be highlighted during these hearings.

Further, talk radio hosts will bring to the fore-front many stories that television and print media largely ignored. For example, why did the media give Obama a pass for his relationship with the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright but came down so hard on Sarah Palin for her main-stream religious views? Why was Obama not fully vetted by the media while an Army of reporters stormed Alaska looking for any dirt they could find?

These and other issues will come to light if Stabenow really does hold these hearings.

I say: "Let's do it! Let's start peeling back the onion!"

It would be one of the best things to happen in America in a long time.

You can access the transcripts and a video on-line here:

Sen. Stabenow Wants Hearings On Radio 'Accountability'; Talks Fairness Doctrine
Michael Calderone
The Politico
February 5, 2009

Tony Blankley Exposes The Arrogant Hypocrisy Of The Leftist Media And Its Dem Supporters

Look for many differences between the previous eight years and the next four years. Of course, you already knew to do that. But look at what issues are going to be tackled differently and why.

One of those issues is censorship and the manner in which Old Media deals with the Chief Executive. Tony Blankley's new book, American Grit, contains a chapter about just this and it would be a good idea to look into it further.

Writing for Town Hall, Brent Bozell takes us on a guided tour of that chapter and what it means:

He reminds us that during the Bush years, "the media blissfully endangered America's safety for the pleasure of striking a blow at a president it despised. ... Even when there's no allegation of wrongdoing, it seems that many newspapers today take a perverse pride in revealing U.S. intelligence secrets." It's these repeated actions by papers like the New York Times exposing and destroying our anti-terrorist programs (and in the case of the Los Angeles Times, tattling about how our government encouraged defectors from Iran's nuclear program) that cries out for censorship, Blankley argues. It's not enough to hope these newspapers will now cooperate with the Obama administration when it wants them to keep its actions secret.

In other words, leftist publications like the New York Times had absolutely no problem with endangering Americans by revealing our secrets when it would be an embarrassment to President Bush to do so, but they will help President Obama by keeping his darkest secrets safe.

More:

Blankley trenchantly recounts left-wing hacks like CNN's Jack Cafferty and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter finding the seeds of a "full-blown dictatorship" in the Bush White House, and snarling Joe Conason claiming Bush was headed toward an "authoritarian peril." Blankley dismisses these claims for showing "an embarrassing ignorance of the history of executive authority."

There were numerous shrill cries from the leftist media that the Bush Administration was engaging in some sort of censorship of the news. But it never happened. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. In fact, the evidence argues the opposite.

But what is real censorship? Let's take a look at the Presidents whom Barack Obama idolizes and see what their records on censorship were:

President Lincoln shut down dozens of newspapers and imprisoned their editors. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States government or the military." At least 75 periodicals were banned by the postmaster general. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover the power to censor all news or communications entering or leaving America. Blankley notes FDR repeatedly asked his attorney general, Francis Biddle, "When are you going to indict the seditionists?"

Let's see, Lincoln, FDR and Wilson. Yep, Barack Obama holds those three in high regard. Think the leftists at the NYT will report on this? Probably not.

But was there any kind of censorship during the Bush years?

By contrast, during those allegedly dictatorial Bush years, our national newspapers proudly published op-eds by founders and supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dictatorial censorship? Hardly. It was the working of a Free Press and President Bush allowed it to happen despite the shrill claims from the left and pathetic attempts at re-writing history.

What is Obama's view on this?

President Obama has already signaled that it isn't Hamas chieftains he wants to silence, but conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

Who do these leftists think they are kidding? Obama and his followers are clearly on the path of allowing America's enemies every chance to stand up and speak while simultaneously trying to censor private American citizens.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Tony Blankley's Untimely Cry
Brent Bozell III
TownHall.com
January 28, 2009

Voting Against Obama Does NOT Make One A Racist

One thing that infuriates me more than anything else is when someone falsely accuses me of something. Most recently, I, and several million other Conservatives, have been accused of being racist because we are not going to vote for a black candidate.

Well, here's a news flash folks. I am not a racist. I am voting against Barack Obama because he is a leftist Socialist and his policies will wreck the American economy. There is absolutely nothing racial in that point of view at all. So, please dispense with the false accusations and save them for the real cases of racism, okay?

The new charges of racism stem from the fact that Barack Obama has a relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers. Apparently, the Obama camp wants us to take the stance that mentioning this relationship is somehow racist.

Glenn Beck penned a column that captures my feelings on the subject. Writing for CNN, he notes the following about the Obama campaign and Democrats in general:

The defense on Ayers from the Obama camp is that they're not friends -- Ayers was "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," as Obama said. This strikes me as a strange argument from the same campaign that ran Spanish-language ads attempting to disparage McCain by highlighting his "Republican friends" like Rush Limbaugh. Besides the fact that Rush isn't a terrorist and had to be completely taken out of context in the attempt to smear him -- Limbaugh and McCain are best known for their adversarial relationship. Rush has spent the better part of a decade mocking him, most recently on the specific stance that was the focus of the commercial, immigration reform. If Rush qualifies as McCain's friend, then William Ayers might as well be Barack Obama's fiancé. But as The Associated Press claimed, even mentioning the association with Ayers, as Sarah Palin did in a speech earlier in the week, signifies a hidden "racial tinge." Is anyone else getting tired of this? Any and every time a question of Obama's history or record is asked, there is always someone to blame it on racism. Remember, William Ayers is a pasty white guy like me. Shouldn't the fact that Palin is criticizing a white terrorist show that it's not his color -- but his terrorism -- that she's not fond of? Instead, the AP tries to make the case that voters will think Obama is "not like us" since "terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims." Right, because nothing dredges up visions of radical Muslims with box-cutters like a guy named Bill. ... Charges of racism have even entered the financial meltdown. One recent criticism by conservatives has surrounded the Community Reinvestment Act. This act, passed in 1977 under Jimmy Carter and then strengthened by Bill Clinton, pressured mortgage companies to lend to those with poor credit and lower income. You might think that putting the government's endorsement of the loosening of lending standards under the microscope in the middle of a global financial crisis would be a no-brainer. Well, not to House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank: "The bizarre notion that the Community Reinvestment Act ... somehow is the cause of the whole problem, [conservatives] don't mind that. ... They're aware that the affordable-housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [and] the Community Reinvestment Act [aim to help] poor people. And let's be honest, the fact that some poor people are black doesn't hurt either from their standpoint." I guess when you're on record in July of this year saying "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under," the only thing you can do is play the race card.

Voting against Obama is not racist. It's American.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Commentary: Voting Against Obama Doesn't Make You A Racist
Glenn Beck
CNN
October 9, 2008

Decision Time And An Open Letter To McCain's Detractors

It's been almost a week since Mitt Romney bowed out and the vitriol against John McCain that has been coming from the right has steady flowed non-stop, almost to the point of becoming a sort of derangement syndrome. Frankly, the Dems couldn't have asked for a better scenario than that, especially since their contest may actually come down to the Convention and who has control over the superdelegates. Such a situation could tear the Dems apart and seriously hamper their efforts in the final two months before November.

Lt. Col. Oliver North reminds us that the same thing can happen to the GOP and that the voter turnout numbers in the Dem and GOP primaries are not encouraging. From his latest column:

My "colleagues" in the so-called mainstream media gladly roll their cameras and recorders for those who assert that "McCain is not a real conservative" or who say, "I can never support him," and the ones claiming, "I just won't vote this year." It is, for me, a disheartening display because I have, as we say in the Marines, "been there -- done that." After I won the 1994 Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Virginia, I naively assumed that all in the GOP would pull together behind my conservative candidacy. I clearly don't know much about politics. If I did, I'd be writing this from my U.S. Senate office instead of my home in Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains. But at the trade school John McCain and I attended in Annapolis, Md., they did teach me how to count. I lost by a narrow margin in a three-way race. Some of those who were with me then are among those who now say they won't support John McCain.

I remember that race. I couldn't vote in it because I was living in Maryland at the time but I do remember how it turned out. The same thing could very well happen to the GOP if we don't unite.

Lt. Col. North goes on:

Worse still, since this election cycle began last year, the Democrats have raised more money than the GOP, and in the primary balloting that began last month, Democrats have turned out more voters. These numbers matter because they reflect the energy and commitment of the opposing parties in this year's presidential contest.

And this begs a question: Where were all the GOP voters who claim they could only support a Conservative during these past primary elections and on Super Tuesday? It seems as if there are more anti-McCain Republicans than there were people who actually showed up to vote in the primaries! How did that happen?

For some reason, the more Conservative candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson had fewer supporters than the more liberal candidates McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani. Where were these Conservative "values voters" when the voting happened in places like Florida? I can't tell you where those people were when the polls opened, but I can tell you where they were not: voting or campaigning for a Conservative candidate.

Thus, my belief is that it is not one single person or one faction of the GOP that brought us to where we are now. We all share in this responsibility either by commission or by omission. Now, we need to deal with the reality of that collective responsibility.

Lt. Col. North is right: the most logical way to deal with it is to unite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Decision Time
Lt. Col. Oliver North
GOPUSA.com
February 12, 2008

---

And along this line of reasoning, we have an open letter from Jack Kemp to radio personalities Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and columnist Ann Coulter. Jack writes:

The mistakes he alluded to in his CPAC speech reflect humility going forward that is encouraging to those of us like me, Steve Forbes, Ted Olsen, former Sen. George Allen and other conservatives who wanted to see in him a genuine desire to work with, and listen to, some of the original Reaganites. ... Collectively, you have all pointed out some of his faults (and failures), but overall, McCain is a genuine American hero, an 82.5 percent conservative, according to the American Conservative Union, and a man whose courage and tenacity are well-chronicled. You gave him your best shots and he took it like a man. Now, as he heads toward the nomination, I urge you to continue to be critical, but to do so in measured ways that will not damage his ability to win in November against those who would weaken our nation's defense, wave a white flag to al-Qaida, socialize our health-care system, and promote income redistribution and class warfare instead of economic growth and equality of opportunity. With Supreme Court appointments to be made in the near future and attacks mounting on traditional family values, it's critical to our cause to have a candidate who can appeal to Reagan Democrats and independent voters who share our world view. The stakes are enormous, and I urge you to put the McCain candidacy into historical perspective and recognize that he isn't just a bulldog of the Senate, but that he can become the lion of the 21st century.

We all know what the alternative is. Is anyone seriously willing to risk that?

I'm not.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

An Open Letter To Rush, Sean, Laura, Ann, Mark, et al.
Jack Kemp
TownHall.com
February 11, 2008