The Asssociated Press is reporting that death threats toward our President-elect are the most ever recorded.
That's the difference between the rigthwing and their perceived "enemies"—"liberals" "lefties" et. al.
We have a president who has bankrupted our country, destroyed our economy and in fact the world's, lied us into a war that has caused seemingly endless death and destruction, ignored the Constitution and invaded our privacy, taken away centuries' old citizens' rights, divided the country in ways it hadn't been for decades, created an atmosphere of "them or us" throughout the world and here at home that has undermined any attempts to join with others to resolve some of our problems and in fact contributed to making them worse, single handedly destroyed our country's reputation making him the most despised worldwide public figure of our time as well as the most derided and for many of us the most embarassing, failed to achieve any of the goals he set for his administration before 9/11 and even more importantly afterward (except for helping make the rich richer and removing Saddam from power, and the latter goal of course was followed rapidly with the creation of a power vacuum for that country which is still creating problems, including the deaths of our troops, for us, and a power vacuum in the region, which has made Iran much more powerful than it has been in centuries, and as for the former, that helped lead us into the economic catastrophe we're in now), et-endlessly-cetera.
But death threats toward a President-elect who hasn't even taken office yet are greater than those against Junior.
Why?
Because those opposed to Junior are "liberals" "lefties" etc.—and now even moderate and centrist Republicans, or just realistic ones. And liberals don't solve problems with violence, unless it's the only solution left. But rightwingers reach for their guns at their first feelings of fear, either metphorically or literally.
And rightwing ideologues continue to foam at the mouth over imaginary crimes and "evils" credited to our President-elect and foment firghtened and vicious attacks on him, real and imagined.
Let's pray none of these frightened little misfits succeed.
PPS: As I began pointing out when they were happening in the 1960s and have continued to in some of my published prose and poetry (see my last book, e.g. MARCH 18, 2003), all the successful assassinations of political figures back then in this country only occurred for those who began to articulate a vision of redressing the injustices suffered by the poor and working class. As long as RFK for instance was about hardball politics, even his taking on the Teamsters didn't get him offed, but when he started talking about the poor, bam. Same with King and Malcolm X, as long as they focused on "race" no problem, but when they redefined the main issue as "class" and from the perspective of the poor, bam bam. I'm not saying there was a cabal of vested interests that made it happen, but then again...
Suffice it to say that among my many friends and acquaintances throughout the world, the ones crying the hardest over the economic turn of events these days, are usually those with the most. The rest of us, down here on fixed incomes or dwindling resources and no backup property or collateral to use for loans or to sell etc. are bracing for the impact or already feeling it and making do. But many of the wealthy with millions still in reserve are squeeling like, well you know the rest of that cliched simile.
My last thought is how come the kind of provocative instigation to hate and harm toward our President-elect that you still see and hear coming from some Fox commentators or Rush et. al. isn't illegal in some way, at least on the airwaves—though it should be true on the net as well, and yes, the Secret Service and other agencies are investigating any online or real world direct threats of physical harm, but I'm talking about those who instigate those kinds of threats through their lies and violent rhetoric. If you can't say a few foul words on the air, how come you can still spread lies about people, especially our President-elect, and make naked attempts to inspire plots to somehow (any how?) keep him from governing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the good doctor is on to something.
Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder
Posted: November 12, 2008
6:33 pm Eastern
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Another liberal dogma bites the dust.
Looks like Al Gore’s Global Warming Guru is wrong again. (Excerpts)
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever".
,,,,, detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Hi Mike,
I wonder if you noticed the name of the scientist, Dr. James Hansen, that the UN, Al Gore, Michael Lally and other Liberals predicated the “Man Caused CO2 Global Warming Imminent Disaster” that was about to hit planet earth. You used his work, as back up, to repeatedly hammer your old school chum and other conservatives for being Neanderthal, morally corrupt and generally lower than whale fecal matter. The Benedictines used to tell us that confession is good for the soul. May I suggest that intellectual honesty is good for the mind. Michael, do think it is time for you to admit that the debate is, at least, still on. One can be intellectual and personally honest and not accept what is at best a flawed theory. Even an old military, weatherman should be able to see that.
In case you missed my intent, it is to call you out intellectually as an Irish Liberal. I know it can be difficult if not impossible for a Liberal and worse still an Irish Liberal to recognize a fact that runs contra to his orthodoxy, but give it a try. You will be a better man for the effort.
really pining for attention out there jim ...
how does obsolescence feel ...
Post a Comment