Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Just Say 'No' To Questioning Obama

Dearborn’s Neo-Nazi Nativist Hatemongering Society is sponsoring a square dance for singles this Saturday . . .

Newt Gingrich was explaining this morning on Morning in America how the Left has already begun its new campaign to equate opponents of ObamaCare with racism, “rage,” and hatred for the poor. Gingrich says the clever thing about the campaign is that it’s not aimed at marginalizing opposition over health care, which already passed anyhow, but to help them reach their next goal—passing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Gingrich makes sense. I had already noticed a couple of things that fit into that pattern already this week. One was the phony “civil-rights” walk past tea party demonstrators by arm-in-arm Congressional freedom riders. The entire purpose of this seems now to have been to draw out negative remarks, (which never really happened) or an excuse to claim there were negative remarks, so that the Left could portray opponents as no better than a mob of rabid Klansmen.

On Monday, the Dearborn Press & Guide ran an editorial column by Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which, according to his bio, monitors “extremist activity across the United States.” (“Radicals vs. reality: Extreme movements flourish in the era of an angry nation”).

The substance it is how the “radical” conservatives, (e.g., Sarah Palin), are stirring up violent revolution among the three strands of the “volatile” right – “hatemongers, nativist extremist groups and so-called ‘Patriot’ organizations.”

Thanks as always, Press & Guide. I’m sure there’s no one in your sales territory who likes Sarah Palin, nor who dislikes the health-care plan; and if there is anyone like that, he’ll be grateful to find out he’s a hatemongering nativist.

Making creative use of the transitive principle, Potok shows how easy it is to prove that Sarah Palin criticizing Obama + Americans angry at the government = The Next Oklahoma City Bombing.

Potok kicks off by pointing out how Palin, “egged on by cheers and interrupted by standing ovations,” said in a speech to the National Tea Party Convention that “America was ready for another revolution.” She was referring, generally, to movements like the tea parties, and, by way of specific example, the recent election of Scott Brown, which she described as “the Massachusetts shout out revolution.” Nothing too bloody about the Massachussetts senatorial election, although DU had heard reports that Olbermann peed blood that night.

But Potok hears in Palin’s “provocative comments” a darker message, one echoing the “pervasive rage” [has this guy ever actually heard a Sarah Palin speech?!] reflected in polls showing large majorities of Americans are angry at the government. This anger, in turn, “hearkens back to the period around the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building,” which, he says, was “the culmination of political anger against the government. . . .”

Ergo, Palin’s speeches will lead to -- a second attack like that on the Murrah Building.

Potok wants to warn you that, “the fury is building again, this time over bailouts of banks and the auto industry, health insurance, the economy, government spending and the country’s changing demographics.” Potok and the Southern Poverty Law Center can keep close tabs on the “pervasive rage on the right” by measuring the dramatic growth of “radical groups,” which they directly equate with hate groups.”

Now, wouldn’t you think that determining what is and isn’t a hate group would require strict criteria? But Mark Krikorian on Monday cited a paper just published by a colleague of his about the SPLC’s efforts to use the rhetoric about “stopping hate” just to stop debate. Jerry Kammer, a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter, wrote that Heidi Beirich, research director of the [SPLC], acknowledged 'we do not have a formal written criteria.' Kammer continued”:

When a radio host asked her in late 2007 how an organization qualifies for the label, Beirich offered this explanation. "You qualify as a hate group if you treat an entire group of people for their internal characteristics, or their inherent characteristics, as less, or you demean them in some way." A definition this flexible and imprecise could summon the SPLC Hate Patrol to the door of nearly any group of football fans, political activists, or Apple computer enthusiasts. It is an invitation to just the sort of mischief that gives the SPLC's designation of FAIR [Federation for American Immigration Reform] the odor of a made-to-order, politically expedient smear. It was delivered in December 2007, the month before La Raza launched its "Stop the Hate" campaign.

When Potok gets around to describing what he has in mind by “hate groups,” he means primarily the “militias and the larger ‘Patriot’ movement.” Watch how he smears a huge section of the country:

[A]nger has fueled a pervasive rage on the right — a rage reflected, as the Southern Poverty Law Center just reported, in the dramatic growth of radical groups. Hate groups last year remained at record levels, despite the collapse of a major neo-Nazi group. Anti-immigrant vigilante groups soared by nearly 80 percent.

Radical group = hate group = neo-Nazi group = anti-immigrant vigilante group = murderer group.

And what’s the fuel for all these radical groups? People who are angry at the government!

How DARE you be angry at the government! This is AMERICA! We don’t DO THAT HERE.

Face it, Dearborn. We know you’re pissed off about what just happened in Washington Sunday. But why do you want to condemn children with cancer to horrible deaths? Why do you want to murder immigrants?


No comments: