the radicals in the Democrat Party shove a first step socialized
medicine bill down the throats of the American people (with polls
showing only 35% of Americans support the bill), with the assurance of
former President Bill Clinton that it will turn out to be a political
benefit in November. But, it didn’t happen that way. Today, less than
35% of the American people want a government takeover of health care.
hard to understand liberals, especially those of the far left variety
like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Conservatives clearly say that they are
for a smaller, less intrusive government, with lower taxes, more
personal responsibility, and personal freedom. Why can’t liberals
We think government needs to grow more powerful
and larger and raise taxes so that we can take care of
you. We think government can do a better job of taking
care of your retirement needs and your health care needs
when it’s run by fair minded, smart, well-educated people
like us. After all, we are the intelligentsia and have a
higher sense of social responsibility than the masses and
if you’ll just turn your life decisions over to us, we’ll do a
better job than you can do in deciding what kind of home
to live in, what to eat, what kind of car to drive, how many
children to have, what your children will learn, who should
get health care, and what you can listen to on the radio.
If liberals would openly state what they believe, it would not
only be a refreshing breath of fresh air, it would be honest.
Apparently therein lies the rub.
back to the health care debate. Some of the more seasoned pros in the
Democratic Party have sensed that the November 2010 elections might be
rough for the Democrats. They couldn’t debate the issue, because the
American people knew the facts and were on to them. So what else could
they do but to try and discredit the opposition?
on, Speaker Pelosi referred to the Tea Party folks as “Nazis” and
“racists” and said she feared “violence,” but that smear didn’t seem to
gain any traction. Then there was the undocumented accusation that some
who attended the Tea Party protest the day of the vote shouted out
racial and homophobic slurs. But when there was absolutely no
validation of such smears, that balloon went flat.
Bill Clinton decides to come to the rescue by trying to link the Tea
Party folks to Timothy McVeigh who bombed the federal building in
Oklahoma. Quickly, President Obama joined in using the occasion of his
commencement address at the University of Michigan to allude to the
possibility violence by his opponents—a dark, but clear reference to the
Tea Party movement. But before Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid could chime
in, something happened that seemed like a godsend. It was almost too
wonderful to be true. There was a powerful bomb planted in the heart of
New York City. Fortunately, it failed to explode. But even better,
from the liberals’ perspective, the surveillance cameras revealed that a
white male was apparently the culprit. What joy, what bliss, a white
male was to blame, hopefully an active member of the Tea Party
movement. White males are, you see, the worst, most awful problem in
the United States. They are, according to liberals, rude, uncouth, gun
toting, bitter, Bible thumping, and nationalistic (liberals don’t
believe in patriotism). Worst of all, white males consistently vote by
margins of 70% or more for conservative candidates for public office.
Quick, get out the tar and feathers!
early evidence, from the biased liberal perspective, was very
promising. You could almost hear the liberals praying (if it’s correct
to use “prayer” in connection with liberals) that it would turn out that
the bomber was a member of the Tea Party movement. How wonderful would
that be! To quote from the editorial section of the May 5th edition of
The Washington Times, “New York City Mayor Michael R.
prompted by CBS News reader Katie Couric, speculated that the culprit
was ‘homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a
political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.’”
Chris Matthews and their in-house “terror analyst” Roger Cressey spent
time discussing the likelihood that the bomber came from the “right
wing.” What ecstasy that would be!
the bubble burst like a huge bubble gum bubble and it put gooey stuff
all over the face of Katie Couric, Michael Bloomberg, Chris Matthews and
the whole left-wing gang who profile white males as the source of all
evil. Oh no! The bomber was Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American
citizen from Pakistan, trained by al Qaeda.
just could not be true. Before all the details came out, but after
they knew he was a naturalized citizen from Pakistan, CNN still referred
to him as a man from “Connecticut.” They were hoping against hope that
somehow Faisal Shahzad was a member of the Tea Party movement.
When asked three times by Steve Doucey of FOX and Friends
if Faisal Shahzad was a terrorist, Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, Janet Napalitano, continued to dodge the question.
Apparently within the White House and the leadership of Congress, only
white male Tea Party members are likely terrorists, while we must never
assume that Muslim males like those who flew the airplanes into the
Pentagon and the World Trade Center buildings and who plant bombs in
Times Square are likely terrorists.
When Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington at Yorktown the American band played the popular ditty, “The World Turned Upside Down.” It must have felt like that to Cornwallis and it would be equally appropriate today.
Obama and his liberal friends don’t quit sticking their head in the
sand and ignoring the real threat posed by radical Islam, the next bomb
will go off and hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives will be
lost. Perhaps the President should seek out the advice of his friend,
Bill Ayres, to better understand the mindset of those who plant bombs.