The Tolerant Left
Vol: 102 Issue: 25 Thursday, March 25, 2010
Democrat Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Democrat Rep. James Clyburn held a press conference to complain that they have received at least ten threats against Democrat House members in the wake of their passage of ObamaCare.
Hoyer gave no specifics about who was threatened or what the nature of the threats are – indeed, they can’t even say for certain that there were ten threats. Hoyer repeatedly insinuated that Republican leaders need to speak out in their defense and condemn violence.
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver complained that he was spat upon and abused by protestors (dubbed “Tea Partiers” – actual affiliation unknown) but there were no arrests.
Cleaver says he told police he didn’t want to press charges. There is no independent confirmation the event even occurred. But if it had, why wouldn’t he press charges? A crime is a crime, is it not? Is Cleaver protecting the ‘tea partiers’?
Why would he do that? If it was so serious that he filed a complaint with the House leadership, why not file a complaint with the cops?
One might almost think Cleaver didn’t actually want the incident investigated. But that would be strange – unless either the incident never really happened – or the protestor was from the Far Left — who were also represented among the protestors and also opposed the bill, albeit for different reasons.
The righteous indignation expressed by the Democrat side has a hollow ring:
Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.
“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let’s do it the right way.”
A Republican aide also pointed out that over the years Republican members of Congress received their fair share of death threats during volatile times. Newt Gingrich after the 1994 Republican revolution and the late Henry Hyde during the Clinton impeachment in 1998 both received numerous death threats. And just last month, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) received death threats after his filibuster of unemployment benefits, according to a report in Roll Call.
It isn’t that Hoyer wasn’t aware of it – there have been more condemnations coming from the Right over the alleged death threats than there have been complaints from the Left.
Does anybody seriously believe that, had the vote gone the other way, that there wouldn’t have been rioting in the streets? Does anyone else remember the violence during the campaign? The jack-booted thugs carrying nightsticks outside polling places?
More typical are these incidents from the campaign trail when Obama was trying to build support for the controversial ‘card check’ measure that would force workers to reveal whether they vote in favor of unionizing — or if they voted against it.
◦In St. Louis, Missouri six were arrested for assault, resisting arrest, or suspicion of committing peace disturbances. At the same town-hall meeting, a black conservative activist was hospitalized and subjected to racial slurs.
◦In Tampa, Florida a fistfight broke out after constituents were barred from entering their town-hall meeting by union workers.
◦Looking to circumvent violence, police in Memphis, Tennessee were called to breakup several yelling matches.
There’ve been Tea Party rallies in practically every state in the Union. Literally millions of Americans have turned out en masse. The Tea Party rallies have received virtually no major media coverage. Why?
No violence. No angry ‘mobs’. There’s lots of anger, make no mistake about it. But no mobs. To my knowledge, out of all those millions of protestors in those hundreds, if not thousands of rallies, there has yet to be a single Tea Partier arrested for disorderly conduct.
It would be amusing if it were not so pathetic.
The Left is all about ‘tolerance’. Typical of the Left’s version of tolerance is this headline from the Huffington Post: “Racism and the Tea Party.”
In it, writer Melissa Webster relates the time she let a little black boy drown because she was too racist to perform CPR.
“Could I have saved him? I don’t know. I don’t know if it was already too late. All I know is I didn’t even try, and in that moment I knew, “You don’t kiss a black boy,” was wrong. It was all wrong, everything I had been taught, the bigotry, the intolerance, the superiority was just wrong. My profound moment came at a heavy price I wish for no one, because at eleven years old innocence shouldn’t be shattered by confronting racism, even when it is within one’s self. The racism shouldn’t have existed at all.”
The moral of the story is that Webster is qualified to pronounce judgment on all members of the Tea Party because they are as racist as she, and as a consequence, “somebody else could end up dead.”.
I’m not making this up:
“Because this Tea Party group, which has taken over conservative politics, has no sense of humility, no concept of the Constitution or the legislative process, and no flexibility in their ideology, my fear is this is just the beginning. At some point we’ll all be shocked because the violence gets worse, and as that eleven year old girl, raised in ignorance and fear, learned the hard way, someone could end up dead.”
(Perhaps one day, Mellissa Webster will move beyond her ignorance and fear — but for now, all we can do is pray for her.)
Meanwhile, the real world, in terms of provable acts of ‘violence’ committed by Tea Partiers, the only thing the Dems can cite is that a coffin was placed on a Missouri Democrat’s lawn, which Politico calls “another in a string of incidents against lawmakers after their vote Sunday on a health care overhaul.”
That ‘violent incident’ added to the list of those committed “against lawmakers” was a prayer vigil!
Carnahan spokesman Jim Hubbard told POLITICO Wednesday evening “We can disagree on important issues facing our country without resorting to this kind of thing. Russ Carnahan isn’t going to shy away from the importance of reform when 45,000 fellow Americans died last year due to a lack of health insurance.”
How dare they pray so violently! Oh, those murderously violent and intolerant Tea Partiers!
One can take lessons in what the Left considers ‘tolerance’ from the reaction of the Canadian Left to a planned speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa.
Canada’s international reputation is because it leans center-left politically, is much more open-minded and tolerant than it’s center-right American neighbors. But Canada defines ‘open-minded and tolerant’ in exactly the same way as does the American Left.
To be fair, most Canadians only know what they read in the Canadian media. What US news they do get comes primarily from CNN. So there is at least some excuse for their reaction. Since the liberals in government control almost all of what they see, hear and read, they don’t know any better.
For example, Fox News was barred from broadcasting in Canada until 2004 because the CRTC objected to its perceived “right wing bias”.
It wasn’t until the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) approved al Jazeera’s broadcast license that the CRTC approved Fox News – but only on premium digital cable.
For example, if a Canadian wanted to subscribe to Fox News, it comes as part of a ‘bundle’ called “Fact And Fiction.” (Click on ‘theme pack’) CNN, on the other hand, is on basic cable and has been carried in Canada since its first broadcast.
So when Ann Coulter was booked to speak at the University of Ottawa, there were threats of riots. The Canadian newspapers were filled with invectives about Coulter, most of which opened by saying, “we believe in free speech, but. . . .”
A typical letter to the editor is this one to the Calgary Sun:
“Ann Coulter should not even be allowed into our country, let alone speak to our youth. I saw a CNN clip and was disturbed. According to her, we Canadians should be grateful they (Americans) allow us to live on the same continent. (They tried to take our country once and got their butts kicked.) We all live in igloos, we all ride dog sleds! Not to mention she hates all French people! Change French to blacks and what do you have? The same thing, a racist pig! If the U of C allows her to speak, they should allow the Aryan Guard to speak.”
Well, the University of Ottawa did NOT allow Coulter speak. (I’ve no doubt the Aryan Guard would have encountered less opposition.)
Canadians say that they “believe in free speech”, but only such speech as is approved by the government. Canada’s liberal censorship laws are a cautionary tale for the US – but more than that, they reveal the true nature of liberal ‘tolerance.’
Canadian liberals aren’t any different than their American cousins. They want the same things; tolerance for themselves, censorship of opposing perspectives, kindness for all, provided they hold the ‘correct’ perspective, as evidenced by the “Ann Coulter is a racist pig” headline.
It isn’t just Canadians or American liberal Democrats. One finds the same kind of liberal ‘tolerance’ in most socialist countries – France, Germany, Holland, etc.
Geert Wilders is on trial in Holland for making provable statements of fact regarding Islam. In Germany, speech the government considers intolerant isn’t tolerated. The ‘intolerant’ speaker can be jailed in the name of tolerance.
Speech is either free, or it is not. Ideas are either tolerated, or they are not.
When somebody says, “I believe in free speech but . . .” it is as absurd as calling someone a ‘little bit pregnant’.
Claiming to be tolerant, but then imposing limits on what is tolerable sets the parameters for intolerance, not the other way around.
The hypocrisy on display here would stagger previous generations of both Americans and Canadians.
Freedom cannot exist on a sliding scale in which some people are more free than others.
Liberal Canadian newspapers today are filled with hate-filled invectives against Ann Coulter – accusing her of being an intolerant purveyor of hate.
Because Ann Coulter is not as open-minded and unprejudiced as they are.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.. . .” (2nd Timothy 3:1-4)