Once again, revising history, and having their baseless meme become the theme of the week. That would be the Left, beginning with “Heckuva Job” Sheriff Dupnik, who kicked off the “report” of the shootout in Tucson as being the result of rhetoric.

Oh, yes, you may not know this, but President Obama called Sheriff Dupnik to thank him. I just bet he did, since Sheriff Dupnik got the ball rolling blaming Gov. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and other Conservatives, for this heinous crime. There continues to be no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric had anything to do with this – in fact, quite the opposite.

Surprisingly, though, some of the bigger media outfits refuse to correct the original unsubstantiated claims against Palin, et. al. I am not kidding. People like George Stephanopoulos refuses to issue a correction. Sadly, pathetically, he is not alone. How about this one:

[snip] CNN’s Piers Morgan, who takes over longtime television newsman Larry King’s timeslot next week, tweeted, “This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications,” linking the map Palin made of targeted congressional districts for the 2010 midterm elections. [snip}

Or this from Candy Crowley to Dick Durbin:

[snip] CNN’s State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked Senator Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrat, “I guess that the undertow — and certainly it’s not an undertow on the Internet — but the undertow with politicians now speaking publicly is, well, the Republicans and the Tea Party and Sarah Palin have gone way too far in their rhetoric; it’s been violent rhetoric, and therefore this sort of thing happens. Are you making that direct connection?”

She asked Durbin that in response to Durbin saying, “we live in a world of violent images and violent words, but those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this and try to bring down the rhetoric, which I’m afraid has become pervasive in our discussion of political issues. The phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload,’ putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets, these sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response. And I think that we all have an obligation, both political parties — and let me salute the senior senator from Arizona, John McCain, whose statement yesterday was clear and unequivocal that we are not accepting this kind of conduct as being anywhere near the mainstream.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah. Way to walk back this fallacious meme there, George, Candy, and Piers.

Yet now, “Civility” has become the catch phrase of the week, used by Obama in the so-called “Memorial Service” on Wednesday night. Yes, it is being used as a way not to encourage civil debate, but to stifle any debate at all.

This is quite a coup. Especially as the House is getting ready to begin a new session, with their first order of business being the repeal of Obamacare. Now the discussion by the pundits is how the Republicans are going to handle this, will everyone be separated at the State of the Union, or will they break with tradition and sit all together, and on, and on, and on.

I am not opposed to civility in the least. I am a Southerner, after all, and many of us do still have manners down here. We know it is better to bite our tongues sometimes instead of giving a tongue lashing. But that is done out of respect, not out of a desire to censor. It seems to me that what is going on post-Tucson is more of the latter, than the former, especially given the way the entire discussion (if one can call baseless, horrendous allegations a “discussion”). For some reason, it only seems to apply to one side. Guess which one? Again, that is not being civil, that is silencing – there is a world of difference.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign speech in Tucson, I have to say this. I am beyond disgusted that the whole event has been framed as being about HIM, about what he will say, will this bump up his approval numbers, etc., etc. This service was SUPPOSED to be in honor of those whose lives were senselessly taken from them. Not about President Obama and if he could take yet another shot at “defining” his presidency. Because you know Fort Hood didn’t count.

And not that it should – I don’t think ANY funeral/memorial service should be used for this kind of political gain. It is disturbing how so many are comparing this speech to Clinton’s Oklahoma City bombing speech, a clear ideological attack on our government. Or Bush’s speech after 9/11, a clear, orchestrated, attack on our country. This heinous crime was neither of those things. Rather, it was the actions of one deranged man, who, by all accounts, had no ideological gripe.

Obama is getting praise heaped upon him for taking advantage of this horrible shooting by giving a campaign speech. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, the primary target of Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, DailyKos, and too many other personalities and blogs to list here., is getting nothing but scathing attacks for her attempt to defend herself from these scurrilous attacks. She is not supposed to speak out, she is not supposed to respond, she is supposed to shut up and go away. That was the point of these baseless assertions in the first place, to so discredit her, to claim, as Michael Daly did, that she had “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood on her hands…”

Ah, yes – so civil this discourse from the Left.

This is so disturbing to see how this tragedy has been shaped. My ridiculous “representative,” Jim Clyburn, had the audacity to play the race card in putting down Sarah Palin’s response. Oh, yes he did, and he was sexist to boot:

[snip] “You know, Sarah Palin just can’t seem to get it, on any front. I think she’s an attractive person, she is articulate,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. “But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what’s going on here.”

“I have some experiences that maybe she does not have,” he said. “When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. Let me just say, Clyburn is by far NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer, so for him, of all people, to make that assertion about Palin is just laughable. Clyburn continues to stoke the flames that the Tucson shooting had anything to do with Palin at all. That is not just wrong-headed, it is plain wrong to incite people against someone based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. Clyburn is the worst kind of “offender,” too, attacking her for her rhetoric while not minding his own. What a piece of work he is.

But Clyburn got what he wanted, with Obama’s willing assistance – to transform this tragedy to essentially be a put down of Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. The media is their willing accomplice, from Fox to MSNBC (not surprisingly, the viewers of MSNBC are far more likely to believe Palin, et. al, ARE responsible for what happened to Rep. Giffords and the other victims. And they claim Fox is biased? Spare me.).

To think this all started by an unprofessional sheriff placing blame where it didn’t belong, and a bunch of opportunists jumping on the bandwagon. Wow. And no amount of facts to the contrary will alter THEIR rhetoric. That is unethical, immoral, cruel, offensive, and hypocritical. But they got their way, so what do they care?

At least the majority of Americans see through this political ploy, yet it continues to be played up to the hilt by the media, and the politicians. Unfortunately, they are the ones with the loudest voices, and they won’t leave this alone until we all accept their lie as the truth…

There is no need to rehash the numerous assaults on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or those lumped together and labeled “Conservatives” (presumably, anyone who does not have a LD – Lefty Democrat – after their name), in the wake of the Tucson shooting. From the very first press conference with Sheriff Dupnik, rhetoric, presumably only conservative rhetoric, was blamed for this horrible tragedy. Many, many blogs, news organizations, and pundits, including the economist, Paul Krugman, jumped on the “Blame Palin!!!” bandwagon (though Mr. Krugman might do well to stick to his area of expertise). Yes, even as they claim, “we don’t have any evidence to support this yet, BUT it is all Palin and Limbaugh and Beck’s fault…”

Indeed, we have heard it all, from my ridiculous representative Jim Clyburn calling for the restoration of “The Fairness Doctrine,” which isn’t all that fair, to calls for limited Freedom of Speech (who gets to decide what can and cannot be said?), to insisting Palin used “Crosshairs!!!” on her map, akin to the bullseye used by the Democrats, but essentially meaningless in a culture that frequently uses military imagery (“war room,” “marshal our forces,” “hit the target,” etc.) as common parlance, particularly in the political arena. We heard it over and over again: it is all the fault of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Beck et.al, that this heinous act was committed in Tucson.

After all these blatantly false charges have been levied, what does Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin think Palin and the Conservatives should do about these offensive comments being hurled their way? Turn the other cheek. That’s right, he thinks they should do nothing about it, not stand up for themselves, not defend themselves, not retort, not say a peep. Ah, yes – that Freedom of Speech thing gets another gratuitous hit from those in the media.

Now I know people might think, me being a minister type and everything, that I would concur with Halperin’s assessment. I do not. There is such a thing as disparaging another person’s character, abusing them with words, bullying them, all of which has happened in the public arena, with the mindless assistance of the MSM. For someone to then expect that person, in this case, Palin, to just take it, remain silent, be mute, is an insult to the divine within the person who has been maligned. No victim of abuse, of lies, of rumor and innuendo, should be expected to take the abuse silently. No one. And that is just what he is asking Palin to do.

Thankfully, Palin refused to accept the silencing Halperin (and others) wanted to impose upon her. No. This morning, Governor Palin made a statement regarding the recent tragedy in Tucson, and the attempts to connect her to the actions of a madman:

Well said. And a very measured response, I might add. No wonder they are so afraid of her.

But of course, those on the Left are not happy with this statement, oh no. Piling on with Halperin is former Clinton/Gore advisor, Peter Mirijanian, who just this morning attacked this statement because Palin didn’t APOLOGIZE for what happened in Tucson. Not only that, she waited too long to come out with a statement (I guess he missed that she said she took time to reflect on the tragedy that had occurred). Most importantly, though, she didn’t grovel for forgiveness for the actions of someone who took matters into his own hands out of his own mental illness.

Again – there has been ZERO connection between what Loughner did in Tucson and ANY political rhetoric. None. Absolutely none. Yet that is not stopping some of these folks from continuing to demand Palin apologize.

But apologize for what? Seems to me, they are demanding that she apologize for her very existence. And once she has done that, she needs to be quiet, and just go away.

This is the same thing they did to Hillary Clinton, by people in her own party. This is the same thing too many women in this country endure: the powers-that-be wanting to silence us. If there is any correlation between what happened to Giffords and Sarah Palin, it is that they are both strong, outspoken women. And for that, Giffords has paid a horrendous price, though one from which we all hope and pray she recovers (thank HEAVENS doctors now think her survival is guaranteed).

Palin is paying a price, too, at the hands of those who claim they are now speaking out for civility. In their very claims, they are being uncivil, leveling false charges against a political opponent in an attempt to silence, demean, destroy her. But she will not be silenced. And for that, I salute her.

So, what do you think? Is Mark Halperin smoking something? What did you think of Palin’s statement? Is it a leap to make this about women? Let’s hear it!

UPDATE: So while those on the left are sanctimoniously calling for more “civility” in language, would you like to guess what the result has been of their followers toward Sarah Palin? If you guessed DEATH THREATS, you would be right. Below is a video compilation of some of the threats Palin has received. I warn you – this is NOT for the faint of heart:

Such “civil discourse,” indeed. This is just frightening. Talk about “unhinged” (President Clinton) and ratcheting up political discourse. If something happens to Sarah Palin, will Markos be apologetic? Arianna Huffington? Sheriff Dupnik?? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either…

Here is the All Star Panel discussing this very issue, and how the media is continuing to ratchet up antagonism against the right under the guise of moderating our rhetoric:

As Baier highlighted, I have seen a number of reports in which people are doing exactly as he suggested, “There is no evidence of this lunatic being influenced by Palin, the Tea Party, or Republicans at all, BUT let’s blame them anyway, and try to squelch free speech while we are at it.”

I wrote recently about my ignorant representative, Jim Clyburn, blaming the Tea Party/Palin/Republicans, AND wanting to cut back on Freedom of Speech. And all of this is under the guise of wanting to decreasing violence in speech.

Tuesday, Arianna Huffington, she of HuffPo creation, wrote a post, “Arizona Shootings: Our Moment of Silence Needs To Be Followed By More Than Just Lowered Voices.” I suppose I should have warned you in case you were drinking something at the time – my apologies. Anyway, in Ms. Huffington’s post, she writes this:

[snip] And while we don’t know all the facts yet and the story is still unfolding, we know enough to know that we need more than a little soul searching.

The fact that the gunman is clearly mentally unbalanced does not absolve us of the responsibility to consider the atmosphere in which the shootings occurred. “Shootings of political figures are by definition ‘political,’” writes James Fallows. “That’s how the target came to public notice; it is why we say ‘assassination’ rather than plain murder.”

And the atmosphere in which this horrible tragedy was born, nurtured, and carried to its wretched fruition is toxic. Of course, there are always going to be unbalanced people, just as there are always going to be viruses in our environment — but what most determines whether those viruses make us sick is the strength of our immune system. When it is stressed and compromised, infections can easily take hold.

And there is no doubt that our collective immune system is worn down, making us more susceptible to the kind of infection that turned that Arizona parking lot into a killing field. While there has never been a golden age in our democracy’s history, there have been many times in which our national immune system was much stronger. [snip] (Click here if you want to read the rest.)

This is not just scurrilous, it is the height of hypocrisy. Many of us remember all too well how our “immune systems” got weakened by vitriolic speech. A lot of it happened right there at Huffington Post to those of us who had the audacity to support Hillary Clinton over The One. We were bullied, berated, attacked, and essentially banished from the site for our refusal to capitulate on the best choice for president. Sure, there have been a few posts here and there in support of Hillary Clinton since Obama took office (do I really need to explain that one?), but the fact remains, this blog has been at the forefront of vitriolic rhetoric.

Just last month, in December, Huffington Post allowed the once-great Aaron Sorkin to post an almost unintelligible screed against Sarah Palin, laced with profanity, and twisted facts throughout. His attack on her was completely unprovoked. He just couldn’t help himself in his desire to attack, attack, attack, and demean this woman. And Huffington Post allowed him to do so. One month later, Huffington has the nerve to talk about “toxic” rhetoric? Spare me the sanctimony.

MoveOn.org has joined the chorus as well, asking its members to sign a petition to our Congress with this as the petition text: “I call for an end to all overt and implied appeals to violence in American politics. We must debate, not hate.” Are they for real?? The same organization who referred to General Petraeus as “General Betrayus” is now acting as if they are some honest broker in restoring civility to speech? Again, I remember just how they conducted themselves during the 2008, 2010 elections. They have no leg on which to stand in tryin gto claim this moral high ground.

Neither does Obama Sycophant, Jonathan Alter, who, in the spirit of Rahm Emanuel, wants Obama to make sure he makes political hay out of this horrible tragedy. His headline says it all, “Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?” Alter writes:

[snip] But silence will not be enough. This horrific event offers the president a chance to show leadership qualities that he’s inexplicably hidden away in some blind trust. The shootings and the resulting debate over the climate of incivility play to his strengths as a calm and rational leader. Just as Bill Clinton’s response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings helped him recover from his defeat in the 1994 midterms, so this episode may help Obama change—at least in the short term–the trajectory of American politics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Perhaps Alter was just mistaken that Obama ever embodied the leadership he is “inexplicably hidden away.” That was Alter’s mistake for making that leap based on little data, just like others have done with this tragedy. But even more disingenuous is this rampant implication by those on the left that they engaged in NONE of this vitriolic rhetoric. It is, again, scurrilous, for someone like Alter, who regularly appeared on Olbermann, trashing Clinton AND Palin, to now act like he and his cohorts were just meek little lambs in their political discourse. The hypocrisy is just staggering.

I cannot possibly go through all of the instances of the Left’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Primary in their blind desire to elect Obama. The unsubstantiated attacks, the theft of votes, the fraud perpetrated in the caucuses by the Obama camp, all with tacit approval by the DNC, along with the most misogynistic shirts, slogans, sayings, and ads put out by the Obama camp. And now they are trying to act like they were harmless in their rhetoric? It would be pathetic if not so infuriating.

And then there was what they did to Palin. This Primer by Michelle Malkin gives you just a quick glimpse into the “moderate” language of the left about this governor.

And now, these same people, who attacked these candidates, and their followers, relentlessly, are now blaming inflammatory rhetoric on the RIGHT as the primary reason this maniac tried to assassinate Rep. Giffords. Moreover, they would seek to limit our speech as a result of this attack.

We cannot, CANNOT, censor ourselves with an eye to not upsetting some deranged lunatic. That essentially allows the crazy people to determine our discourse, which is, in and of itself, crazy. It is over-functioning to a pathological degree to try and tiptoe around our nation in fear that someone somewhere may just lose it. That kind of walking on eggshells is a horrible way to live, and does, by its very nature, make us prisoners of our own making. We cannot stop talking, or writing, or protesting, or arguing, just because it might set some psycho off on a rampage. We cannot know what will be the next trigger, and we cannot live our lives in constant fear of “upsetting” someone so much they will go off the rails. It is a destructive path down which some would have us go.

And it will strip us of our very freedoms. I, for one, am not willing to give up my freedom to appease some nut-job. How about you?

In the aftermath of the shooting of 19 people in an attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., Countdown’s Keith Olbermann reminds Americans that “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.”

This is the man who wanted “a super delegate to take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.”

As Rev. Amy, Larry Johnson and Bronwyn’s Harbor have all noted, the current media feeding frenzy has little to do with a realistic dissection of events. Mr. Olbermann also ignores the years of violent rhetoric and spin that have been aimed at women and the devastating effect that has on all of us as a society. His outrage on behalf of a woman, namely Congresswoman Giffords, is only present because he can demonize another woman in the process, namely Sarah Palin.

While I am sensitive to violent rhetoric, having seen first hand how verbal abuse of women can lead to physical violence, before Mr. Olbermann aims more vitriol at his current favorite bogeymen, Palin and the Tea Party movement, he must first absolve himself of his own sins. He cannot do so. Surely many others of his ilk cannot either. Taking a senseless tragedy such as Saturday’s horrific shootings in Tucson and using it to obliquely further the ends of one political party over another is abhorrent.

As Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast noted, the rhetoric of violence is regularly part of our political and “journalistic” discourse: having someone in the “crosshairs,” “targeting” a vulnerable incumbent, “lock and load,” President Obama making comments such as “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun,” referring to his political opponents as “enemies”…This is nothing new. And as for Palin’s map of targeted districts in the 2010 midterms, it was a map she co-opted from democrats, who used the same technique years earlier. Politico just offered an article whereby a Democratic operative admitted to a concerted effort to blame the Tea Party for Saturday’s shootings. Even Mr. Kurtz admitted it was a ridiculous stretch to lay these horrible events at Palin’s doorstep.

Passion, protest or violence is not the province of any one group or party.

In 2008, Governor Palin was hung in effigy in my city and the mayor refused to have it taken down, defending the action by saying it was on private property even though the life-sized model hanging by a noose was clearly visible from the street. The Secret Service had to get involved in order to put an end to it. There were realistic images of Palin being tackled by a 280 lb. linebacker, other violent images featured Palin’s teeth getting knocked out. She was threatened by Sandra Bernhardt with gang rape if she dared step foot into Manhattan. The list goes on.

And what of Hillary Clinton? I remember seeing a blog post on a lefty website that called for “slitting her throat, throwing her into the trunk of a car, and dumping her body in the river.” Professor Kathleen Jamieson reported in her 2007 interview with Bill Moyers of PBS that Facebook sites with enormous followings depicted Hillary being violated by animals. She was accused of everything from the “murder of “Vince Foster” to wishing assassination upon Barack Obama. She, like Palin, was called every filthy name imaginable. Her supporters were as well. The tactic of insulting, physically threatening and calling innocent campaigners racist would seem to have “no place in our democracy” either.

Where was Mr. Olbermann’s outrage at the rhetoric of violence then? Since most of the vile behavior and commentary was coming from the Left – and even Olbermann himself – it is easy to understand why he remained silent.

I, too, believe that violent rhetoric is troubling and has no place in our discourse. But can it not be argued that the misogyny exhibited toward women day in and year out creates an atmosphere whereby a whacko like J. Loughner can go on a shooting spree – targeting a woman for assassination? Perhaps that seem like a stretch. But how is that any more of stretch than Democratic operatives looking to pin this tragedy on tea party members – although all evidence says that this disturbed loner was a Marxist. This young man had nothing to do with any group it seems, and for the media to jump to dangerous conclusions using half-baked information can only create the very atmosphere of violence they pretend they are wishing to assuage.

Both parties, along with the media, use irresponsible verbiage. It is sensationalistic, designed to sell copy and has been going on for years. According to an exclusive interview in Mother Jones today, the shooter had an obsession with Rep. Giffords and was possessed of his own violent fantasies and agenda. How was he following any one person’s political rhetoric in coming to the decision to do what he did? Further, while he may have targeted Rep. Giffords, he came loaded with several magazines for his semi-automatic weapon, clearly ready to execute as many people as he could, perhaps going out in a blaze of glory.

It would behoove the media to instead focus on an atmosphere that allowed a mentally unstable man to wander through life without proper medical attention while being given legal access to a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition.

The atmosphere of hate that Olbermann decries should upset him – he is one of the people who created it. It is disgraceful for any members of the fourth estate to sensationalize such a horrific event or worse, to use Ms. Gifford as a political football in order to ensnare and defeat others with whom they do not agree.

No doubt, you have already heard or read that many in the media made the leap that Gov. Sarah Palin is responsible for this assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, one of the truly good politicians. Yes, because Gov. Palin had a map with crosshairs for those districts to target in 2010, it is all her fault.

Never mind that the DLC had one similar, and its was up before Gov. Palin’s. Oh, no – pay no attention to that. It might momentarily impede the self-righteous, sanctimonious meme that it is all Palin’s fault. Can’t have that.

And never mind that Jared Lee Loughner is one seriously deranged dude, who had already been visited by police several times for making death threats. Or that, according to people who know him, he is actually a leftist-leaning liberal. We all know how much THOSE people, those Lefty communist-types do whatever Palin wants them to do, right? Right. Snort.

All of this was recently captured in a Facebook exchange I had with my Obot follower sister. It all started with me writing this “incendiary” comment. Okay, ready? It’s really provocative, so hold onto your seats:

What a senseless, horrendous, cowardly act, this shooting of Rep. Giffords, members of her staff, a Federal District judge, and innocent bystanders. My thoughts and prayers go out to those families who lost loved ones this day, including the parents of the 9 yr old girl, and Judge John Roll. I pray for the speedy and… complete recovery of Rep. Giffords, her staff, and others fighting for their lives after this attack.

I included a link to The Hill, “Politicians React To Shooting Of Rep. Giffords.” Perhaps that is where it started. Who knows? What I got was this exchange:

Sister, I’ve read some of the comments on the news sites about this, including “how dare you associate Sarah Palin with this shooting!” Um… maybe because on her website, she has Gabrielle Giffords depicted in a rifle’s crosshairs? Public figures, while not personally responsible for pulling the trigger[s], need to remember to communicate responsibly.

How many more shootings do we need to have happen before this country WAKES UP and says NO MORE?!

Me,And the DCCC had the same kind of map before Palin did, so it surely is not Palin’s fault, nor is it a Tea Party thing, as some have tried to claim. This was a deranged 22 yr old who opened fire on a crowd for whatever his own screwed up reasons were. The BIG question is how someone so completely unbalanced was able to purchase a gun. THAT is the issue, as opposed to trying to blame Palin for this despicable act.

Me, As I continue looking at reports on Giffords, I don’t understand why Palin is being blamed for this when Loughner was a far leftist, who claimed the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as his two favorite books. I doubt those are two of Palin’s faves. Wasn’t it Obama who instructed his followers, “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun“? Or a DailyKos blogger who wrote, just two days ago, that Rep. Giffords was “dead to” him? So, are they to blame? No. The one to blame is Loughner himself, not anyone else but him.
Sister, I’m on the DCCC mailing list, and I sure don’t recall seeing anything with gunsights on it, or talk about reloading.

And yes, how someone that unstable was able to buy a gun is a very good question!

Me, I’ll send it to you. It most definitely was. The DLC had one, too. Heck, DailyKos targeted Rep. Giffords in 2008. Again, to blame this on Palin is ridiculous – the kid was a far lefty, not exactly a Palin follower, I’d wager.

Seems like a reasonable wager, does it not? I mean, really – from all reports, this young man was not exactly the kind to dvr “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” or anything. Well, evidently, I am wrong:

Sister,Hitler was as far right as they come. And it doesn’t matter what Palin’s fave books are, it’s the words coming out of her mouth and the graphics on her website. (Those were just taken down today, a little late, if you ask me.)

…Palin is not the ONLY person spewing hatred, but in this particular case,
she did spew hatred directly at this particular Representative.

As did Markos at DailyKos. He targeted her back in 2008. And he’s pretty left-leaning. But I digress. I guess I should be amazed she conceded that Palin isn’t the ONLY one hate-spewing, though that continues to assert that Palin IS engaged in hateful rhetoric.

But wait, it gets better, albeit a bit repetitive (I know, I know, I should stop banging my head against the wall):

Me By all accounts, this young man was a far Leftist. That DailyKos targeted Giffords, even claiming she was dead to him two days before the shooting, that doesn’t figure in at all? Or Obama telling his followers, “if someone brings a knife, you should bring a gun”? Honestly, I don’t think it should – but you sure shouldn’t try and pin this one on Palin. (The DCCC had their bulls-eye one up for a long time, too – but I guess that’s different.)

Me, As for Hitler being “far right,” he advocated a centralized government, a National Socialism (hence, “Nazism).

And that, dear friends, got me this response from a childhood friend:

With all respect, somehow Hitler doesn’t come to mind as someone to defend. I think a take home from all of this should be a recognition that words have power. There is far too much violence and hatred in political speech these days. It serves no good and only weakens this country.

Defending Hitler? By defining what Nazism is?? That kind of “logical” leap defies, well, logic:

Me, Good grief…I am not defending Hitler. Don’t know how you made that leap. My sister said he was far right, which is incorrect, in her attempt to connect Sarah Palin to this murderer who listed Hitler’s book as one of his faves, as well as the Communist Manifesto. From all reports, Loughner is a liberal, so the attempted connection to Palin defies logic. That was ALL I was saying – I was not defending Hitler in any way, shape, or form…

So you see, ladies and gentlemen, if you try to point out that the person responsible for this heinous act is the one responsible, not Sarah Palin for some map she did MONTHS ago, you are a Hitler apologist.

Wow.

Thankfully, my friend just wrote back and said this:

My apologies. It read that way. My view, whether the shooter was far left or far right in the center of apolitical, the tone of political speech here has become increasingly bellicose, hateful and intolerant. Words have power. It creates… an atmosphere in which violence can occur. So no matter which “side” uses it, it creates and contributes to conditions for violent actions. Whether it influenced this guy, I hope this serves as a wake up call for the country to step back and change the way we talk to and about each other.

True that. Though, still, the machinations people go through to resist in any way not blaming Palin for this, which ends up with someone reading a simple definition as an apology for Hitler, is staggering. Good grief. That should tell them something, shouldn’t it? I know, stop banging my head against the wall.

It seems that people have completely lost sight of what is most important in all of this: a US Representative had an assassination attempt against her, one she has miraculously, so far, survived. In the meantime, though, a member of her staff was murdered, along with a Federal District Judge, John Roll, and several others. I just learned this morning, the 9 year old girl, Christina Greene who died, was born on 9/11:

[snip] A neighbor was going to the Giffords event and invited Christina along because she thought she would enjoy it, said her uncle, Greg Segalini.

Christina had just been elected to the student council at her school. The event, held outside a Safeway supermarket north of Tucson, was an opportunity for constituents to meet Giffords and talk about any concerns they had related to the federal government.

“The next thing you know this happened. How do you prepare for something like this. My little niece got killed-took one on the chest and she is dead,” Segalini said outside the girl’s house.

Christina was involved in many activities, from ballet to baseball, Segalini said.

“She was real special and real sweet,” Segalini said. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

So sad. It is a tragic, horrible, disturbing situation, resulting in a home-grown terrorist attack on one of the People’s representatives, and innocent bystanders. That there has become this extreme level of vitriol directed at Palin, or anyone else, is a failure to look at how we treat each other, the height of the vitriol we are willing to tolerate, the amount of hatred we are willing to spew at each other from the safety of our keyboards.

Rep. Giffords is the best type of politician. She listens to her constituents, and thinks for herself. I hope and pray for a full and speedy recovery for her, and all those who were shot during this rampage.

And for those whose lives were lost, my deepest sympathies and condolences to their families. This should never have happened, and we cannot allow it to happen again…

We have become so disconnected from one another, it is heartbreaking. I brought back the conversation that this should not be about Palin, but about Rep. Giffords and the others in this attack. Another friend, a retired military chaplain, wrote the following:

In the end I think we will learn that this was simply the deranged act of a very disturbed young man. It reminds me to “love GOD (higher power) with all my heart and soul, & to love my neighbor as I love myself. On these 2 commandments hang… all the law and the prophets.”
in many ways I think I (we) have lost love for neighbor because I (we) have wandered away from the ability to genuinely properly love myself (ourselves). Just a thought… In many ways I think fear and “terrorists of all kinds” are winning. I pray I am wrong!!!!

…One day at a time…NAMASTE

Amen to that.

And she said it to President Obama. But she wasn't talking about taxes per se. Not too long ago, the incoming governors had the opportunity to meet with President Obama.

During the course of the meeting, Governor-Elect Nikki Haley had a little chat with Obama on the issue of the new health care law (which, after Monday's ruling that parts of it were un-Constitutional may make this a moot argument). In this article, Obama Opens Door For S.C. Opt-Out, Haley Says, Haley lays out her argument to President Obama:

Haley said she told Obama that South Carolina could not afford the health care mandate, and that it would cripple small businesses.

"I respectfully asked him to consider repealing the bill," she said, to which he clearly stated he would not. "I pushed him further and said if that's the case, because of states' rights, would you at least consider South Carolina opting out of the program?"

Obama told her he would consider letting South Carolina opt out, she said, if the state could find its own solution that included a state exchange, preventing companies from bumping people for pre-existing conditions and allowing insurance pooling. [snip]

That is an important concession, is it not? And again, it may end up being meaningless, should the current health care law be struck down.

But then there was this:

[snip]Haley said she also asked the president if he would honor the federal government’s commitment on developing a nuclear waste repository. When he said he would not revisit opening Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, “I said, ‘Then give us our money back.’ ”

The site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was proposed to house more than 4,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste from South Carolina’s Savannah River Site. The state and Washington have sued over Obama’s attempt to kill plans for the storage site after decades of study.

“SRS has done a good job, but that was a temporary solution. It was never meant to be a permanent solution,” Haley said she told him. “The federal government has reneged on its promise, and the people of South Carolina want their money back.” [snip]

Oh, SNAP!!! My immediate response when I read this? “Dang!” And that was meant in the most positive way possible. I was impressed by her commitment to the state, but also her gumption in making such a statement to the President of the United States (even if it is Obama) upon her first meeting. Holy smokes.

Oh, and Obama’s response? Very Obama-like:

[snip]She said Obama pledged that he would have Energy secretary Steven Chu call her promptly. (The state has shelled out over $1 billion for the Yucca study.)

“I will wait for that phone call, and if I don’t get it, I will be calling, but I feel he was being genuine,” she said.

Haley described the tone as respectful and said she appreciated that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden allowed for open dialogue with the governors-elect, with no topic off-limits.

“It was a level of communication where we felt like we were being heard,” she said. [snip]

I am glad she felt that the incoming governors were being heard. But I also love that she is going to hold Obama’s feet to the fire in waiting for that phone call. For a state that continues to have double-digit unemployment, over a billion bucks would come in mighty handy about now.

Haley raises a good point. If the government is not going to make use of a program it has spent billions on, then hell to the yes, it should be returning our money.

As you may recall, Governor-Elect Nikki Haley was endorsed by Governor Sarah Palin. Haley was asked if she would endorse a candidate for president, to which she responded:

[snip] Haley said she will endorse a Republican candidate at some point before the first-in-the-South primary for the 2012 White House race.

“Absolutely!” she said. “But only after every one of them has had the opportunity to go out and meet with the constituents of South Carolina and hear their concerns. … What I want to do is let the people of South Carolina see them without any sort of emphasis on who I think is right.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Well, that will sure be interesting. I wonder if Sarah Palin runs, if Governor-Elect Haley will return the favor?

Governor-Elect Haley continues to impress with her cabinet choices, and on Monday, hosted a meeting of state leaders, including both US Senators, and US Rep. Jim Clyburn. Not only is Haley capable of speaking out for her state, she is also capable of diplomacy:

[snip]“There were no egos in that room,” Haley said at a post-meeting news conference with the delegation. “It was a group of people that understood South Carolina needed to come first and it was very much one of great spirit — great energy — in how we are going to get things done.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This kind of interaction does give me hope for this state, I have to say. And while Haley’s query to President Obama regarding the funds spent on Yucca Mountain clearly was state-specific, it very well may set a precedent. If she is able to get money returned to the state of South Carolina, surely other states can follow.

I must say, I am impressed with our Governor-Elect. Her strength and dedication will certainly pay off for this state, but hopefully, will be an asset for all governors in the country as they work together.

Oh, and President Obama? I’m with Nikki Haley – give us our money back, please.

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

YES!!!! By a vote of 7-3, the Peace and Justice Commission of Berkeley passed a resolution claiming Manning should be freed, and is a hero. The resolution now goes to the City Council:

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed. [snip]

Oh, boy. But wait, it gets better:

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

Now that should tell you all you need to know. I don’t know about you, but when my back is against the wall, if I had to choose between one of these yahoos and a Marine, I’d take a Marine any day of the week. But that’s just me.

Okay, now I know that there can be times when the release of sensitive information, whistle blowing, has resulted in positive changes. I get that. But to declare this soldier who stole classified information, information that is putting lives at stake (according to our Secretary of State, the director of the DOJ, and former President Clinton), does not a hero make. IMHO, that is.

So, how about those “no” votes? This is what one of them had to say:

[snip] Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three “no” votes.

“We’re just sitting here in Berkeley – we don’t know that Afghani informants aren’t being murdered because of these leaks,” she said. “Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I’m sorry, we really do have enemies, and it’s not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are.” [snip]

You’re damn skippy, Ms. Siegel. That’s my point. Not just for the Afghani informants, but for intelligence assets and US personnel around the globe.

In case you were wanted to know more about the resolution, it continues:

Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

Army officials had no comment on Berkeley’s resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Ah, yes – “courage.” Is that what we are calling treason these days? Providing classified information to a foreign national? Give me a break already. Manning isn’t exactly Karen Silkwood. He stole classified information, is cocky as hell about it all, and does not appear to be doing it in a “whistle blowing” kind of way, but more of a, “hey, look what I did!” kind of way. Big, big difference.

Not too long after I picked my jaw up off the floor from reading this article, I received the following email from Voters for Peace, with this in the Subject line: “ON BEHALF OF JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS.” Wow. You know I had to open it. The email reads:

Challenging U.S. Empire and its illegal and unjust wars are at the heart of our work at VotersForPeace.US.

This mission calls us to the active defense of journalist Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org and the courageous whisteblower(s) who are dealing the most powerful blow to U.S. Empire in recent memory with the continuous massive release of documents now rocking world capitals and dominating the global media.

In an attempt to intimidate and silence others, there is serious concern that the U.S. government will try to make Assange an example by manipulation of existing law or the creation of new laws retroactively applied charging him with crimes in the United States and pressuring other governments to extradite him to the USA.

We must create a culture where it is safe and supported to tell the truth about our government’s activities. We must encourage more people to have the courage to reveal what they know about the murder, torture and corruption committed in our name.

We must stand up to protect all whisteblowers and truth tellers in the face of a U.S. government which is increasingly unaccountable to citizens, to domestic or international laws, or to our Constitution.

Recall that The New York Times has admitted it checked every document it published with the government beforehand. We must say to the Empire, “We draw the line HERE. Step back. We will not sit silently while you make this journalist and good government activist into a criminal to drive fear into the hearts of any other who would oppose you. We will resist.”

Please consider signing this petition as an expression of your support for peace, justice, and democracy, www.WikileaksIsDemocracy.org.

Sincerely,

Linda Schade
Co-founder, Voters for Peace

WTH? The “U.S. Empire”?? Are these some of the same people involved in “Hacktivism,” trying to disrupt Visa, Mastercard, and the Palins own personal credit cards,a long with Palin’s PAC to support what they consider to be WikiLeaks free speech rights? (Ironically, they have a narrow view of free speech. It only applies to them, and not to those who, like Palin, oppose what Julian Assange has done. Perhaps they can look up the term “hypocrite” in Wikipedia to see if their picture appears there. Just a suggestion.)

Meanwhile, looks like the DOJ is finally getting its act together (seriously – how long have they had to look into possible wrong-doing?). According to the UK Independent, “Assange Could Face Espionage Trial In The U.S.” What a concept.

Now – about Bradley Manning – will he face additional charges? A court-martial, perhaps? Huh – I wonder what the people in Berkeley would do then? I shudder to think. How about you?

Wow – what a great guy he is, huh? Stealing classified information, making it public, then claiming free speech. Someone needs to explain that one to me – he is not an American citizen, and he wants protected speech for documents – classified documents – he STOLE? Well, Amazon, at the behest of Senator Joe Lieberman, shut down the site. Despite the (faulty?) claim of free speech, Amazon is a private company, thus able to allow or disallow whatever site it wishes. I reckon Mr. Assange didn’t think about that at the time. Oops.

Another thing he clearly did not think through was his call for Secretary of State Clinton to resign after his release of classified documents. Who the hell does he think he is, this thief, this alleged rapist, this holier-than-thou criminal, to tell our Secretary of State she should resign?

Oh, yeah – he said it, according to Time Magazine in this article, “Wikileaks Founder Assange Tells TIME: Hillary Clinton ‘Should Resign.’” His logic for such a claim? This:

Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, “should resign.” Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange’s organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like “the fall guy” in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. “I don’t think it would make much of a difference either way,” Assange said. “But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.” (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oh, please. Are you kidding me? The man who STOLE classified information, and then published it, thinks he is in ANY position to say what Secretary Clinton should or shouldn’t do? Spare me.

His implication of wrong-doing on her part is just laughable. Now, I’m no diplomat (obviously), but diplomacy on this level incorporates a number of methods unknown to those of us outside that reality. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that it is not all drinks and dinner parties. There is much that goes on behind the scenes to accomplish the goals that serve our nation, especially its security.

And while I am not authority on this topic, Larry Johnson, is. He knows something about this level of diplomacy, as a former CIA and State Department employee. He makes clear that the cables that allegedly demonstrate Clinton’s involvement did not originate from her, just as they did not originate from her predecessor, Condileeza Rice.

I think Assange’s attempts to discredit Secretary Clinton have accomplished quite the opposite. Clinton’s strongly worded response to the release of this information minces no words:

[snip] The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.

So let’s be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity…

So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.

Now, I am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight: There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Wow. It is precisely because of statements like that, and the authority with which she spoke, that even some Republicans were giving her props, like Christine O’Donnell on “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning:

Ms. O’Donnell makes a great point about Secretary Clinton (except that Assange is not a US citizen, thus not subject to a charge of treason, though a charge of espionage is not out of the question, as Gretchen Carlson pointed out). Clinton did show great resolve, great strength, and stood up for the nation against Assange.

O’Donnell also makes a good point about what the government is doing about these leaks. That echoes a post by former Governor Sarah Palin, who pointed out that isn’t like this is the FIRST data dump by WikiLeaks. Nope, it’s the THIRD, and what has the Obama Administration done about it? Essentially nothing. And there is more coming down the road, apparently. It begs the question, why? Why have these leaks been allowed to continue?

Which leads me back to this: just who the hell does Assange think he is divulging classified information, and why has he not been arrested already? Apparently, the UK knows where he is, but hasn’t arrested him on a paperwork technicality. Seriously? They can’t even bring him in for questioning?

And Secretary Clinton most definitely does not need to resign, thank you very much, Mr. Assange. This is not about Clinton and her work at the State Department. No, it is about this criminal, Julian Assange. He needs to be brought to justice and right now. Don’t you think?

You may have heard about a recent outbreak of trash-talking on Facebook between Willow Palin and a young man who allegedly went to school where the Palins do, Tre. Tre was talking smack about Willow’s mom after the premier of the TLC show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” (Palin’s show was the most watched premiere in TLC history, garnering 5 million viewers.) Willow took umbrage, and used a couple of homophobic slurs in her responses to him, calling him “gay,” and the f-word (the 6 letter one, that is). Apparently, Bristol weighed in, too, though did not use similar language.

Yikes.

Bristol regained her composure, though, and wrote this:

[snip] “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!”

Needless to say, this has raised a firestorm about Willow, and the Palins in general. The HRC has been one such organization to take aim at 16 year old Willow, though not everyone in the blogosphere is happy about that:

Some bloggers have said that as a minor, Willow should be off-limits. They also said the Palin cub was simply defending her “mama grizzly” in the inappropriate and misinformed style of a teenager.

“Willow Palin is a child, and she is not fair game,” Tommy Christopher wrote at Mediaite. “Willow and her Facebook playmates weren’t thinking about the rash of suicides related to anti-gay bullying, including young kids who were not, in fact, gay. They didn’t create a world where gay equals unequal, they are a product of it.” [snip]

Now you know I am not condoning anyone using that kind of language. Not even close. But, I do know that using those kinds of slurs are common with young people. That does not excuse it, but it is a reality, unfortunately. Heck, my own godson, who has TWO out lesbian godmothers, has been known to say things like, “that’s so gay.” He’s not the only one – other friends of mine have used that phrase to me, but claim it isn’t intended as an insult. Um, well, maybe not, but it is.

Anyway, that is all to say, Willow is 16. I said some pretty stupid stuff at 16, too, but I didn’t have it writ large on a national level. Again, not excusing it in any way, shape, or form, but I do see how it can happen. And how it is NOT a reflection on the parents themselves.

Two prominent gay and lesbian conservatives are furious with HRC and their attacks on Willow Palin. In this Daily Caller article, “Bigotry: The Selective Outrage Of The Gay Left,” Tammy Bruce and Christopher R. Barron go after HRC.

As an aside, you may recall that I was a long, long time member of the HRC – over 25 years – until they endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton. They had just presented Clinton with a huge award for her work on behalf of the LGBT community, and they endorse the man with the virulently homophobic associates – Meeks and McClurkin come to mind – instead. Wow.

Anyway, back to the article, and the response from these two GOProud members:

For days now, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which holds itself out as the “largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization,” has shamefully used the issue of anti-gay bullying as part of a cheap political smear against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. HRC, never shy about doing the bidding of the Democratic Party, issued a November 18th release blaring, “HRC to Sarah Palin: Two Days of Silence, Will You Speak Up?” Is this a release demanding Palin speak out about an issue of substance affecting gay people? No, this childish call-to-arms is about trash talk issued by a 16-year-old in a flame war on a social networking site.

The “controversy” surrounding inappropriate language used by the Palin daughters on Facebook shows again how selective the gay left is in expressing outrage over perceived “bigotry.”

Politicizing the serious issue of anti-gay bullying in order to score political points is morally reprehensible. Bristol apologized on behalf of herself and her younger sister — and that apology should be the end of the story, but it’s not because the real target of this faux outrage is Sarah Palin, a woman who represents an existential threat to both political machines.

No one is condoning the use of obscenities or derogatory terms, but no one who has seen the Facebook exchange in question can seriously claim this behavior had anything to do at all with “bullying.” It also has nothing to do with Willow Palin or the substance of what she wrote. Make no mistake; this is all about destroying Sarah Palin by friends of Obama and by any means necessary.

The irony here is stunning. The adults who run HRC are participating in a morally-reprehensible organized political hatchet job on a teenager all in the name of defending the victims of bigotry. [snip}

Can the case be made that the HRC is itself engaging in bullying against a child? And if so, it seems the motive is likely political:

[snip] The nature of the attacks on Palin reveals much about what motivates her critics. HRC’s press releases are ripe with misogynistic attacks on the Governor. HRC refers to the Governor as a “reality TV show star” — a transparent attempt to diminish Palin’s almost 20 years in politics. In a November 17th release, Joe Solmonese, the man at the helm of HRC, made a thinly veiled accusation that the Facebook exchange somehow showed Palin failed as a mother — “Anti-gay language by teenagers often starts at home…” [snip]

The authors discuss how that is not quite accurate – as I noted above, it is unfortunately far too common in our schools to use this kind of language. Sad, but true, even among those who should know better.

Bruce and Barron then target the Gay Left for their silence in regard to the homophobic, misogynistic tenets of radicalized Islam:

[snip] Last June, when President Obama delivered his much ballyhooed speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, he made no mention of the treatment of gays and lesbians living under Muslim regimes — even though in Egypt, the country where Mr. Obama spoke, gays have been subject to arrest and imprisonment for simply being gay. The reaction from the gay left? Nothing. No outrage, no harshly worded statements, and certainly no around-the-clock vigil waiting for an apology.

Last September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bravely took to the floor of the United Nations and criticized the treatment of gay people in Iran. After speaking with such moral clarity about the need to protect gay people from violence and death, if you expected praise from the gay left you would be wrong. Indeed, the powers that be at HRC pretended like Netanyahu’s speech never even happened.

The behavior of the gay left, and in particular HRC, is shameless and disgusting. Governor Palin certainly does not owe anyone associated with HRC an apology; indeed it is HRC who should apologize. They should apologize to Governor Palin for their vicious and unfounded smear, to the real victims of anti-gay bullying who they have cheaply exploited, and to gay people world-wide for the blind eye they have turned to the barbaric treatment of gays by radical Islamic regimes. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Interesting comparison, is it not? How is it that the Left now thinks its cool to support radical (not moderate) Islam that treats women as worse than chattel, and gays even worse than that, yet take on a teenager for some crap she wrote on Facebook. One could argue their priorities are a bit skewed.

Again, by no means do I condone the language used by Willow on Facebook. The level of bullying occurring in our schools is troubling, indeed, whether those children being bullied are gay or not. The outcome is the same.

Bristol Palin has apologized for her sister’s comments. They were out of line. But are her comments worthy of the ire of an entire organization, one that is going after a teenager? Is the HRC minimizing the very real, and troubling, number of suicides by gay teens by their demand? Are they targeting not Willow, but her mother? Will being told something is “so gay” ever be seen as POSITIVE? Perhaps that is for what we should be striving instead of being so upset when someone uses it in that kind of context (hey, I can hope, can’t I?)?

Maybe instead of the HRC focusing on some Facebook exchange between the daughter of a prominent Republican, they could push Obama to do more than give lip service to the LGBT community. Focus on repealing DADT. Focus on obtaining the same federal benefits for the LGBT community that the rest of the citizenry in this country enjoy. Push Obama to stop praising countries who treat their gay citizenry like criminals without mentioning same. You know, stuff like that.

And we need to do more sensitivity training in our schools – all of them. Our children need to know that this kind of name-calling is hurtful, regardless if the child is gay or not. It needs to stop. Adults need to stop using that kind of language, too (in a derogatory manner, that is). We need to teach our children that bullying is wrong no matter what. Period.

So, how about you. What do you think about this?

The midterm elections of 2010 brought back a familiar rage and sick, queasy feeling as I watched women on both sides of the aisle being devalued with sexist diatribes. The hateful rhetoric that defined much of the 2008 presidential campaign was not an anomaly. When debating the merits of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy detractors could no longer say, “I don’t mind electing a woman – just not that woman.” Such a phrase was nonsense after all. Plenty of women seem somehow to be that woman. Though not seeking political office, even Michelle Obama did not escape. Once called angry and emasculating, she now tills a victory garden in designer jeans and Lanvin sneakers. Sarah Palin, derided as reactionary and “disabled,” seems a terrifying prospect to the left and even some on the right.

But none can compete with the twenty years of skewering Hillary Clinton has endured. In 2008, the breathtaking atmosphere surrounding Hillary and Obama’s first solo debate captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but my joy in watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch.

Not content to take the word of the pundit class on Hillary’s character, I sought the reality under the damaging “divisive and polarizing” label that had long haunted her. Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments and tireless work ethic proved that she was not the harridan of pundits’ fantasies. I ignored my scattershot but steady career as an actor to work on Hillary’s campaign. That career was nothing fancy but I’d made a living in the business for many years. The only calling I have ever had or loved became an inconvenient distraction.

Did I want Hillary to win because she was a woman? No. Did I want her to win because I thought she had the best chops for the job? Yes. She was my candidate. But the long knives were out for Hillary, the media bias appalling. Her party turned a deaf ear and stood by as her policies were misrepresented, her character maligned, her womanhood degraded. The net result was to make me work harder.

Through my passion for Hillary’s candidacy, I evolved from actor and fearful news junkie to determined campaign grunt and citizen pundit. If you told me I would immerse myself in this effort, become a blog writer for the first time in my life, build a following on various political websites under the name “Ani” and write a book on the subject that I am currently working to get published, I would have said you were potzo.

In 2008, my reluctant odyssey into the world of politics forced me to examine the way women are treated in a post-feminist world. Especially women with high aims and hard heads. I questioned the bias against women in authority, the limitations women placed on themselves, my own preconceptions about party, my choice of career, and even some of my friendships.

The fever of that campaign is still with me for one reason only — as a society, we have learned nothing. We still practice the same behavior.

Speaking out on the internet, I raised my volume well past my comfort level. At the time, hiding my real name felt like a necessity. While I didn’t want my politics to interfere with my work as an actor, far more worrisome were the threats leveled at some of Hillary’s supporters. One friend received internet death threats. Another had someone vandalize her garage door painting “Hillary hag” on it for having a Hillary lawn sign in her yard. I read that a woman with a small Hillary sign in her car window was followed by a man in another car for blocks. When the man caught up with her, he screamed, “You can put up all the signs you want. That bitch will never be president.”

In a hostile atmosphere, so many of us whispered our support, as if it was somehow something to be ashamed of. Female columnists, even those touting Hillary’s qualifications often couched their commentary in cynicism, almost as a protective mechanism lest they be accused of being too soft for believing in her. Yet indulgent coverage of her opponent was not only common, but encouraged.

Woman have long been shamed for their sexuality, for being outspoken, for asserting themselves. Shirley Chisholm, who ran for president in 1972 said, “Tremendous amounts of talent are being lost to our society just because that talent wears a skirt” and “My greatest political asset, which professional politicians fear, is my mouth, out of which come all kinds of things one shouldn’t always discuss for reasons of political expediency.”

I no longer wish to hide. I want my name back.

As a blogger keeping my identity confidential, some readers on the internet who stood in firm support of my commentary trashed the profession they had no idea I had been part of for many years. Some of their statements repeated the bad rap Hollywood has long held: actors are vacuous, phony, amoral, and don’t know what they are talking about. To say that someone who lives in Hollywood is a brainless, lefty loony who hates America is just as unfair and baseless as saying those who live in red states are backward, uninformed hillbillies. These labels stop us from having a meaningful debate about much of anything. The behavior profits no one but politicians and special interests that pit us against one another, using our fears to fill their coffers, trotting out the same hot button issues every couple of years, never really intending to advance any cause beyond Election Day.

The stereotyping I witnessed, not only toward actors, but toward any and all defined groups, made clear how easy it was and is to practice contempt prior to examination. I felt a growing need to expand beyond my own circle, pushing back against those who would use demagoguery to keep otherwise likeminded people divided. I no longer trust labels or those doing the labeling.

Women are pitted against one another constantly in this same divide and conquer scenario. Yet Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin refused to have the catfight the media was aching to cover. Instead, both women took care to discuss each other in respectful terms. If women on the left and right could ever reach a truce on reproductive rights, the guys would never win another election until they stopped condescending to 52% of the population as one-issue voters.

The elections of 2008 and 2010 also instilled in me a deep need to understand where all the pent up hatred was coming from and why it was so easy to curse women for, well, being women.

Victoria Woodhull was a successful entrepreneur and activist who ran for President in 1872, almost 50 years before woman had the right to vote. The type of press coverage she received was not dissimilar to the tiresome focus on Hillary’s ankles, “cackle,” pantsuits and vocal quality. Kneecapping a woman with poisonous derision was an age-old practice simply refreshed with new verbiage in 2008.

In the early days of the presidential campaign, the Washington Post offered a story about “Hillary’s dip into new neckline territory”: “There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.” This tidbit was picked up by news outlets and pundits from here to Australia. Senator Clinton was discovered in her incriminating ensemble as she stood on the floor of the Senate discussing the burdensome cost of higher education. Her wardrobe had once again trumped her issue.

In February of 2009, the stock market had just lost half its value, two wars continued abroad, we had inaugurated a new president, and Congress was about to pass the $787 billion stimulus bill. CBS, along with other news networks, were wondering…”Will Jessica Simpson’s Curves Hurt Her Career.” On CNN, “Jessica Simpson spoke out in her first interview since getting slammed for putting on a few pounds.” A preposterous amount of attention was focused on this woman’s waistline. In the midst of numerous crises, we were offered bread and circuses.

In 2010, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was referred to as “the Senate’s hottest member” by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Was that better or worse than Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley being referred to as an “ice queen?”

If the objectification of women was not endemic to our culture, it would find no quarter with the American people and those practicing it would have to find something else to talk about. We, too, are part of the problem. We are daily reminded what the feminine ideal should be via airbrushed and otherwise “enhanced” images of beautiful women who grace magazine covers. It is also clear how easily any woman can be the target for humiliating treatment if for whatever reason, she does not match up to that ideal, physically, socially or politically.

A woman’s appearance can be used against her via demeaning images in novelty stores, airports, greeting cards, television ads and magazines. There is no escape: Hillary nutcrackers, Hillary’s head sticking out of a toilet. Hillary as dominatrix dolls. Hillary toilet paper. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews displayed a photo of Hillary with horns coming out of her head on his show. Imagine the backlash had he made President Obama the target of such treatment.

To complement David Letterman’s references to Sarah Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look,” there were Sarah Palin orifice-accessible blow up dolls and ‘naughty Sarah’ action figures. Photographs were manipulated on the internet. The naked Sarah Palin and the naked VP Dick Cheney having sex, her legs up over his shoulders, was the nadir.

Ridicule. A woman’s sexuality is abused as a weapon to demean and humiliate. It would appear the thinking is, “If I can screw it, I can own it.”

One of the worst weapons is laughter. We are encouraged to listen to an endless litany of put downs with good humor and complain about none of it. Yet over time, it must have an effect on the way society sees women and the way women see themselves.

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c_nt.”

–Bill Maher, HBO, “Real Time with Bill Maher”

Today, female candidates on average receive 40% less coverage on the issues and 350% more coverage about their appearance than their male counterparts. Calling a woman a whore is an old tactic and still an effective one. That more women candidates are facing these attacks head on doesn’t render them any more acceptable.

Nikki Haley, just elected the first female Governor of South Carolina overcame a phony sex scandal to win office. Current research indicates women do much better when they fight back rather than bear such accusations in silence. When women run, they tend to win almost as much as men do – but many don’t want to throw their hats into the ring if focus on appearance or character assassination will trump issues and qualifications.

Now that the midterm “shellacking” is done, media speculation has once again turned to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin – will either or both of them run? If so, when? And does another vicious, sexist hazing await?

The majority of the pundit class and newscasters have exhibited a disturbing unwillingness to discuss an issue that shows little sign of dissipating. While looking away now may be the more comfortable choice, sweeping this issue under the rug ensures an encore of the same behavior the next time a woman dares step to the plate.

Born into a family where abuse to women was the norm, I am more sensitive to the warning signs. My beautiful and tireless mother was devalued and shamed to devastating effect so that my father could maintain superiority in our home. There is a personal, profound cost to each of us as similar types of assaults continue to unfold on a national level. Until that personal cost and innate bias is acknowledged, examined and debated, little will change.

Will we arrive at the point where misogyny’s tool kit loses its power to manipulate? For all our sakes, qualifications and policy positions had best trump branding, stagecraft or a focus on ankle size. I look forward to the day when considerations of race, gender or age will neither advantage nor disadvantage someone who has the courage to stand for our country and represent our interests.

No, not Election Day, though yeah, that’s right around the corner (thank heavens). No, I mean my very last visit with my Physical Therapist. YAY!!! And he came about an hour earlier than usual, too, so that was good. Oh, what a relief. Not that I am done with physical therapy, not by a long shot. That is a lifelong event for me. But I no longer have to deal with Rico Suave (as he sees himself) on a regular basis. And no more political discussions with him, either.

Or so I thought. I had already been doing physical therapy exercises for about 1 1/2 hrs before Mr. Suave showed up, and then he had me do some more exercises. Our time together generally culminated in a walk up and down my (long)driveway, and this visit was no different. I was so relieved, having noticed he already had his glasses with him, and his clipboard, so clearly, he was going to leave as soon as we got back to his car.

Except we started talking about the state of education on the walk, and by the time we got to the car, he said,”Yeah, I wanted to mention something just a little bit political.” He then launched into his impressions of Nikki Haley, going on and on about her platform, though he threw in a dig about Sarah Palin saying that at least Nikki Haley is more eloquent than Palin. I told him that Palin really didn’t say she could see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, and mentioned that Palin’s dad was a teacher. That was all I could get out before he brushed it off, didn’t want to hear anything else (because really, why – he had already decided she was a moron, so why listen to anything that might contradict that?).

So, he talked on and on about what Haley wants, and when he took a breath, I said, “Well, what about Vincent Sheheen? What’s HIS platform?” His response? “I don’t really know, but, well, um, uh, probably neither one of them will be all that good” (or words close to that effect). Uh huh. And back to Haley. He made a point of watching Haley, looking for anything he could criticize (that she wants to cut taxes is one of the things on which he focused since SC schools are so crappy). But her male competitor? What was HIS stance on taxes and education? How the hell would the PT know? He just knew he was going to try and convince me not to vote for Nikki Haley. I hadn’t said anything about her one way or the other, so ALL of his pontificating was completely unsolicited. (For the record, Vincent Sheheen has talked about tax reform after being pushed by a small business owner on the rates small businesses pay.)

Imagine my, um, delight, when Mr. PT said he would drop by if he was out this way, and was going to keep my number. Oh, joy. That’s just jake…

While I am talking about SC politics, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the platform for the Democratic candidate for US Senator, Alvin Greene. He is happily campaigning along on this platform: the recession is all Senator Jim DeMint’s fault. Huh? Now, I am no big fan of DeMint’s but honestly, I had no idea the man was that powerful. And if he is, I am going to ask him to pick my lottery numbers for me so we can get that little place down in Montserrat on which I’ve had my eye. Want to know what is REALLY surprising? That DeMint is leading him by ONLY 37%!! Really? Not, say, 100%?? That is pretty scary, if you ask me. Just in time for Halloween!

Okay, I have said some unkind things about N.O.W. recently, all deserved, IMHO (like endorsing Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman), but they have finally realized that they were supposed to represent ALL women. Yep – they have now come out and condemned an online tabloid for running an anonymous article about Christine O’Donnell, US Senate candidate in Delaware:

[snip] O’Neill said that while NOW “finds O’Donnell’s political positions dangerous for women … that does not mean it’s acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

A bit backhanded “support,” but there you are.

Finally, I asked my good buddy, Divine Democrat, a Chicago suburg resident (who may be posting again at Bad Habit come November – YAY), about how things are playing out in IL with the two candidates running for Obama’s seat. She responded with the following (and I post this with her permission, and with a few edits for typos and space):

Well, elections in IL are always down and dirty so it’s never a surprise to us when the dirty tricks begin. I knew when Obama became President he would be bringing his dirty style politics to Washington with him and he hasn’t disappointed. The thing is, most people blamed it all on Rahm (who is a real sleezeball), but it wasn’t just Rahm, it’s Obama making the calls on the real sleezy stuff…especially if it’s sneaky and backroom style. For instance, that mess in FL with Clinton pressuring Meek to quit. On Greta Van Susteran last night, she was interviewing Crist and he said that he knew about it and that he had spoken to “someone in the White House” about it. Greta, bless her heart, tried to get him to tell who it was but he refused so she started rattling off names…but he said “no, it wasn’t him”. But the one name she didn’t mention was Obama, himself. I know it was him! That’s the way Obama works. I also know if she had mentioned Obama’s name to Crist that he would not be able to say “no” so convincingly. He’s a real sleezeball, too.

In IL, I don’t think Quinn has a chance in hell of winning the Governor race. Everywhere I go I see Brady signs. Oh..and Alexi Giannoulias will only win if the numbers are cooked (which they probably will be, I heard the dead vote will be coming out in droves). I also see Kirk signs wherever I go (although I haven’t been in the Chicago city limits since the last Sox game)…(Alexi) doesn’t look like he’s put in an honest days work in his entire life. Just like Obama, he’s had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

I can tell you this, if the Republicans do well in IL, say they take the Senator and Governor position, it won’t bode well for Rahm Emanuel when he runs for Mayor. Rahm will just be seen as another Obama lackey and Obama is not that well loved, even in IL…

I only wish Dick Durbin was up for re-election this term…I’d love to kick his ass out of office, too.

Divine Democrat made some more interesting comments about Rahm Emanuel in a follow-up email as I asked if the residency issue had been swept under the rug. She wrote:

No one in Chicago is really talking about the eligibility of Rahm, that was buried along with the rest of the corruption within the Chicago political hierarchy. I did hear something about the “Anybody but Rahm” coalition forming which first started within the City Council with aldermen who don’t want another “bully” mayor. It seems to be spreading to Latino and African American leaders. So, we’ll see, I guess. I still won’t count him out, though…I’m sure he’ll get enough Union leaders who will take a few of those aldermen to the back room for a beating…er, talking to.

Short of it is, that Rahm is not popular, but given his methods, one cannot count him out. Yep, we know all about those methods, don’t we?

Well, I’m going to stop rambling now go try and recover from my physical therapy. What is happening in your neck of the woods on the political front? I’d sure be interested to know…

UPDATE: So, not only did my PT give me a hard time about politics, with only his opinion counting, but he gave me his COLD, too! Sheesh! Talk about adding insult to injury…

Happy Halloween, folks! Just for fun, here’s a little toe-tapper for you to take your mind off my crazy PT, and the upcoming election. It’s a classic!

But there is one other “change” that has reared its ugly head since the Obama campaign began, and that is the war on women. You know, the “Bros Before Hoes” (a slogan and t-shirt), “Sarah Palin Is a C…” t-shirts, the Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers,” the “Life’s A Bitch, Don’t Vote For One” (in regard to Hillary Clinton) t-shirt, and on and on. We saw them all too often during 2008, with men (and some women) wearing them with glee.

Add to those displays the “comedienne” Sandra Bernhard threatening Sarah Palin with being gang-raped by black men (racist much, Sandra??) should she dare come to New York. Or Randi Rhodes, at a fundraiser for the Great Uniter, Obama, calling Hillary Clinton a whore. Oh, wait – I mean, “a big fucking whore.” N.O.W., Naral, Planned Parenthood, all supporting the man in the race (and as recently mentioned, the California chapter of N.O.W. endorsing the man in the governor’s race over the pro-choice woman, and supporting one of his aides calling her a whore).

And we cannot forget the blatant misogyny of many in the media since 2008. Three names sum it up: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and David Shuster. Need I say more? Not only did many in the media routinely make sexist, even misogynistic statements, but they routinely failed to cover the news, like the young men yelling at Hillary Clinton, “Iron My Shirt!” You and I both know damn well had anyone yelled out at Barack Obama, “Shine My Shoes!” we would be hearing about blatant racism in the campaign to this day.

All of which is to say, the misogyny is not limited to displays by men, unfortunately. Too many women are all too ready to throw their lot in with them. I suppose their “logic” is that they should join in lest they be treated the same way by these same men. Perhaps they think if they side against women, too, they will be spared the horrific treatment that is becoming all too acceptable. It is just a bit disturbing when it comes from groups whose sole purpose is to support women.

Taken together, it makes the story below not so surprising, sadly. Not that it isn’t emetic, mind you, but it is not surprising. Not after all we have seen since 2008, the t-shirts, the slogans, the flipping off by Candidate Obama of Hillary Clinton, the “sweetie” remarks toward a reporter, also by Candidate Obama, as well as the hint of PMS when he claimed Clinton might “get down periodically,” or Obama’s claiming that his challenge to the status quo “brings the claws out,” along with the general rage against powerful women, both Democratic and Republican for having the audacity to run against men. The nerve of these women, those who dared to run for president, or governor, or senator, or representative – how freaking dare they?

Those attitudes, both subtle and overt, have an effect. They are, as Obama likes to say, “Teachable moments.” But what these messages are teaching our young people is sickening. And that brings us to this from the Chronicle of Higher Learning, “Yale Fraternity Apologizes For Pledge Chants About Rape” (h/t to Pat Racimora):

The Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Yale University apologized on Thursday for offensive chants against women that were shouted by new recruits on Wednesday evening. The young men, blindfolded, were marched through a part of the campus where female freshmen live while shouting, “No means yes, yes means anal!,” among other inflammatory chants. The pledging ritual sparked an outcry from Yale feminists and the Yale Women’s Center and a commentary in Salon.

Yep. Yale. The Salon article states:

[snip] Now, DKE President Jordan Forney has been forced to apologize for this blatant sexual intimidation by calling it “a serious lapse in judgment by the fraternity and in very poor taste.” But this sort of hateful crap isn’t a “lapse in judgment.” It doesn’t innocently happen that you’re guiding male pledges by young women’s dorms in the dark of night chanting about anal rape. It isn’t a forehead-slapping slip-up, it’s a sign that you need major reprogramming as a human being. [snip]

I’ll say. But not just at Yale. Young men, and women for that matter, need reprogramming in general that treating women like this, whether they are young or old, is simply unacceptable. It is not okay to threaten young women with rape, just as it is not okay to threaten a political figure with gang rape or to attack a candidate based on gender and not on their political stance. The entire country could use some “re-programming,” including Obama. Now THAT is some change I can support, and the sooner, the better.

Women in this country deserve at least that much, don’t we?

And why would Malkin say such a thing in her post? This is why:

[snip] Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.

Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama’s teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago.

Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka.

Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: “I’m saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you’re likely to get burned.” Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?

[...]

In Illinois, Trumka told UMW members to “kick the s**t out of every last” worker who crossed his picket lines, according to the Nashville (Ill.) News. And as the National Right to Work Foundation, the leading anti-forced unionism organization in the country, pointed out, other UMW coalfield strikes resulted in what one judge determined were “violent activities … organized, orchestrated and encouraged by the leadership of this union.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah – just a bit. It goes on from there, and I recommend you read the rest.

The bottom line is this man, Trumka, who called for this level of violence, is now the head of the AFL-CIO, and hanging out with the President of the United States on a regular basis. There is something very wrong about that.

And how about Trumka’s recent target, Gov. Palin? Well, this is something that might surprise you – and then again, maybe not. Alert NQ reader Sybill highlighted just the kind of person Sarah Palin is. This video sure says a lot:

Right? About the only other person at that level I can see jumping in and doing something like this is – you got it – Hillary Clinton. Wow.

Another alert NQ reader, Yttik, provided the following video to close this out today. Given the attacks Tea Party members and Sarah Palin have been enduring since its inception, it seems a fitting end for someone who has come to represent the Tea Party movement. And it is toe-tapping good, too:

Dang straight. That’s “We, the people,” and we DO have a voice.

Thanks for the links and suggestions, folks. Talk about this, or anything else on your mind today!

Okay – I have to stop right there. Can I just tell you how much I resent it when men tell women how they should talk? That would be a big pet peeve of mine. So, from the get-go, I am already irritated with this man. You might be, too, after you hear what he has to say:

Am I right? What a piece of work Trumka is. Never mind that Palin resigned her position because of the incessant, ceaseless hounding by Democratic operatives filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, taking her time and money, as well as taking her attention away from the state for which she was supposed to be working. I imagine if someone hounded Trumka mercilessly for every word he had spoken, every deed he had ever committed, he, too, would have resigned his position, be it a mine worker or AFL-CIO president. But he has never experienced anything along those lines, not even close. Easy for him to pass judgment.

And passing judgment is exactly what he is doing. This seems to be the theme for the week with Vanity Fair publishing the worst kind of baseless smear masquerading as an article by Michael Gross on Sarah Palin, using anonymous sources, and operating from the most misogynistic point of view. Even her most outspoken detractors find this article sexist.

Just who is Richard Trumka that he feels he can arrogantly condescend to Sarah Palin and tell her to watch her mouth? Well, he’s an ally of Obama’s, for starters. I am sure that is not a surprise, is it? There is more to him, to be sure, as the following video highlights:

Yep – this frequent visitor to the White House also calls for a world-wide tax, and is a great “progressive” of the country. Great.

Well, as you can imagine, Gov. Palin didn’t exactly take his words lying down. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in its article by Dave Cook, “AFL-CIO President to Sarah Palin: “Change Or Be Linked With McCarthyism,” she had plenty to say back to Mr. Trumka:

[snip] Palin, Alaska’s former governor, responded to Trumka’s comments last week on her Facebook page. She noted that her husband is a proud former union member. Addressing his criticism of her language, Palin said, “It’s kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence. After all, we remember the violent attempts by [the Service Employees International Union] to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls. And unlike Trumka, I never threatened that any effort to break a picket line would lead to violence.”

Palin added, “I never called union members ‘thugs.’ You lie. I called some union leaders ‘thugs.’ And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oh, SNAP – I think Palin took this round, don’t you?

McCarthyism – good grief, how did Trumka possibly make THAT leap? No doubt, he expected a ratchet response from her, that she would tone down her rhetoric lest she be compared to someone of McCarthy’s reputation. She didn’t bite, and gave it right back to him.

Love her or hate her, that woman has more intestinal fortitude than most of her detractors could even imagine. What it really says to me is that they are afraid of her, hence the constant desire to tear her down, whether by the president of the AFL-CIO or some Vanity Fair writer.

We’ve seen this before. It is the MO of those who are threatened by powerful women. Hillary Clinton gets this a lot, too. Who can ever forget the treatment she received from her husband’s presidency through the 2008 election? Only now is she starting to get her due, after so many years of doing an incredible amount of work.

It begs the question: why? Why are these people so threatened by powerful women? Powerful men are treated like gods (just look at Obamessiah), even if they have done little or nothing to have that power. It often seems that powerful women must be torn down at all and any cost. If you can use their kids to do it, so much the better. It is a disturbing trend, one I cannot wait to see end. One day, some day…