From the Tucson Blood Libel to the Operation Fast and Furious Massacre

It is currently close to a year after a large chunk of the media has falsely and shamelessly accused Rush Limbaugh, Tea Partiers, talk-radio, and Sarah Palin specifically, citing a map upon which she had placed cross-hairs at districts she felt were worthwhile investing energy during elections and which included Giffords’ district.

It mattered not that the blame for the horrific act rested solely on the shoulders of a deranged non-political lunatic whose obsession with his Democratic Congresswoman dated back to at least 2007, a time when Sarah Palin served as the Governor of remote Alaska. Once the fog had lifted and it became clear without the shadow of a doubt that the anti-Giffords Jared Loughner who committed the crime was as disconnected from the right and Sarah Palin as could possibly be, many thought the left would apologize or at least ensure to stick to the facts. However, the left has never tired of their obsession against Palin and continue to blame her for a deranged guy’s act.

Giffords has recently released a book and sadly chose to blame a proven innocent individual rather than supporting the truth. Her husband, whose doing the publicizing, spoke negatively of Palin during an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan despite the facts that the shooter’s motives were unrelated to politics and that the usage of targets on a map is an accepted act and had also been used by the Democrat Party.

The liberal tactic in blaming their opponents in the death of others despite their obvious innocence isn’t new. It has been played continuously throughout Bush’s presidency after the launch of the Iraqi war, with slogans like “Bush Lied, People Died” which blamed Bush in the deaths of civilians and soldiers instead of the terrorists who directed car bombs, roadside bombs, and other forms of violence.

Liberals have always been loyal to the ideology that “facts don’t matter especially if they contradict your message.” Thus, minor details such as that far more Iraqis have died during Clinton’s presidency due to Saddam’s systemic murders and gassing of entire neighborhoods than had been killed by terrorists during Bush’s presidency, simply had no significance upon the anti-war crowd. Heralding Bush as a hero who saved thousands of Kurds from unjust suffering simply contradicted their agenda and therefore remained unmentioned by the left. In contrast, Obama’s war in Libya was lauded by the left for its humanitarian and noble mission.

It is stunning to watch the leftists’ reactions once their political opponent can no longer be blamed, whether because of lack of evidence, evidence proving them wrong, or their nemesis no longer being in power. Instead of reversing the blame they’ve heaped upon their opponents and directing it towards the true guilty party, they either disappear without the slightest apology, or remain entrenched in their warped facts despite reality proving otherwise. 

This was seen after the details emerged as to who was responsible for the Tucson shooting. The left hadn’t redirected the hatred and anger they had expressed against Palin and the others towards Loughner, the guy truly guilty of the crime. Similarly, once Bush was no longer in office and their buddy Obama had taken over the reins, the death counts, protests, and chants have come to a mysterious end. These reversals indicate not only the falsehood of the original claims but tell us that these liberals have been knowledgeable of the true facts throughout their protests, yet nevertheless chose to proceed with the lies. How disgusting.

Additionally, the left personalize their hatred against political opponents and speak badly of the person/people instead of the ideology, and it often leads to improper behavior. It is therefore common amongst liberals to label their opponents as Hitler and Nazis, and joke of a longing to bring the life of a conservative to an end without receiving any criticism of the others. Since hating the person is deemed the norm in liberal circles, the media hasn’t found it necessary to protest the many death wishes made publicly against Palin and other conservatives since they too carry a personal hatred against conservatives and would have loved to see such threats followed through.

This is the polar opposite of the manner in which conservatives conduct themselves, and conservatives can be proud of their behavior. Conservatives strictly oppose the message and the ideology of the left without mocking or wishing physical ill for its messengers. The demands of fifty one conservative congress members, three presidential candidates, and many other influential conservative figures for Eric Holder to step down from his post as Attorney General is but one example of the exemplary behavior in which conservatives conduct themselves.

The American public in general and conservatives in particular were shocked to discover the details of Operation Fast & Furious, an operation led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in which firearms were sold to suspected gun smugglers in the hope to eventually trace the arms all the way up to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. Although it must have appeared novel to some in theory, reality proved the operation to be disastrous as they lost track of most of the weapons, only to have them repeatedly turn up at crime scenes and has been direct cause of the deaths of at least 200 innocent Mexicans and one U.S. Border Control Agent, Brian Terry. Since only 600 out of the 2,500 guns have been recovered and a majority of those were found only after having been used to commit violence, that death-toll is expected to at least double.

The conservative media deserves much respect and credit for their dedication to the truth, in only reporting information of which were absolutely accurate and of which evidence was available. Despite the information which traced the program directly to the Obama administration, there were no hasty assumptions and finger-pointing as liberals are want to do. Rather, they waited until they had absolute facts before placing any demands directly upon a single individual. What a contrast to Obama’s “I don’t know the details” but “the police acted stupidly” which then required a beer summit in order to undo the damage his hastiness has caused.

Those investigating the details demanded from the federal government two reasonable requests; transparency and responsibility. Transparency is necessary so that those who were responsible for this out-of-control program can be held responsible and removed from their post. 

The first individual of which responsibility has been demanded is Erick Holder, Attorney General, whose resignation has been requested by many conservatives in Congress since he was aware of this scandal yet did nothing to counteract it. For some unknown reason, the government has found both requests to be unreasonable. In the latest development, the grand jury indictment issued for Brian Terry’s murder was sealed last week by the Obama Administration, thus blocking the door for additional information to be released. As for responsibility, Obama has not yet demanded a resignation from Holder or anyone else.

The call for Holder to resign isn’t the result of randomly choosing one individual upon whom to pounce and throw some blame. Only after evidence surfaced which exposed Holder and the lies he’d said during the Congressional Hearings, did conservatives call for him to take responsibility for his irresponsible actions. Since the outcry was focused at the action and not the individual, it did not include any “jokes” which demanded violence against Holder. The only demand which has been placed upon Holder is resignation, something which should’ve been self-understood and self-enacted by Holder.

As an aside, it’s pretty ironic that the same administration who wishes to place additional restrictions upon the second amendment rights of ordinary Americans, and the president who has mocked the bitter folks who cling to their guns, hasn’t had any qualms in supplying guns to violent foreigners behind the backs of their government. 


  

Liberal Drone Attacks on America are Unconstitutional

Ron Paul and the far left of the liberal blogosphere are constantly criticizing the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan as unconstitutional.

In their involvement of the drones overseas, they overlook an entire fleet of liberal drones operating right here on our shores.

Although there are several different models and makes of the liberal drone, the most popular and most commonly spotted models are those under thirty, those that never bothered creating anything out of their lives, and those born with silver spoons in their mouths.

These liberal drones swoop down and attack countless people including employers, employees, successful executives, the rich, the happy, the religious, and those with values. People who’ve been innocently enjoying their lives until these liberal drones attacked and wrought damage on them and the entire country. 

Surprisingly, majority of these drones are financed and fly at the expense of those they attack. A large percentage of these drones – such as many college students -- receive free insurance, food, education amongst other freebies.

I therefore felt it vitally important to research the status of these liberal drones and the constitutionality of their attacks in the hope that the left will pick up the lead and take over, since the left is known for their deep love and defense of constitutional principles as seen in their fight against drone attacks overseas.

Liberal drone attacks is not a recent technology that has been invented only the lasts several decades.

Several hundred years ago hundreds of people traveled months on rickety boats across the unknown ocean in search for freedom and in escape of oppression from their current leaders. Although these people settled hundreds of miles away from their European homelands, the colonies were taxed and controlled by the English. 

As is well-known, the colonists protested the European dominance, dumped the tea over the Boston Harbor, and eventually won the war for independence against the mighty English.

Although the United States has won their freedom from foreign powers in 1783, it has faced and continues to face increasingly stronger and greater damage-causing attacks from within of liberal drones attempting to limit individual freedom.

Less than a century later, Abraham Lincoln, a staunch conservative, fought for the freedom of African Americans, against the liberals who fought the end of slavery, causing the war with the largest loss of American lives in the entire American history.

Today, over a century later, and the liberals are glossing over their support of slavery and segregation instead presenting themselves as the champions for the rights of all.

Not included in the “rights of all” is the economic sector of our country where companies actually dare make money whether through mining for coal, building nuclear plants, or drilling for oil and gas on American land and water. Of course, the liberals have donned their opposition to energy independence in the cloak of saving the planet, first from global warming and then from climate change.

Rather, “rights for all” is defined by promoting the drilling of oil and other energy producing efforts in other countries through billions of U.S. dollars thrown their way to support those efforts. How heartwarming!

The liberals then progressed to the health care sector of this great nation which was, and still is so far, the most advanced and sophisticated in the entire world, but is becoming increasingly more and more like the European models.

Knowing an open attack to destroy healthcare as it was known would expose their true intentions and lead to nowhere, they advanced in a stealthy underhanded manner. They first began with trial lawyers and lawsuits against doctors amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars which caused doctor fees and health care fees to rise dramatically.

Next, the interstate purchase of health insurance was banned, thus limiting people’s options, which led to skyrocketing healthcare policies with lesser services. Additionally, they increased the number of Medicaid recipients which drove the cost of private insurance over the roof sine the hospitals and health care centers were forced to overcharge the private insurance companies in order to compensate for the unpaid percentages of the Medicaid patients. 

Lastly, they turned a blind eye towards the millions of illegals smuggling across the borders to give birth to their children and use our emergency rooms for any and every illness. When common-sense conservatives promote the closing of the open borders and install a sense of order, the left then has the chutzpah to protest and fight for “the rights of all.”

And with insurance premiums suddenly unaffordable, the drones, in their fight for healthcare for all, were able to drop their 250,000 pound bomb of Obamacare onto the heads of the citizens without it being shot back at them.

Conservatives have recently begun a campaign to enforce voters ID in order to eliminate the massive frauds of duplicate votes, illegal votes, and dead votes occurring across the country. Of course, the liberals, champions of “rights for all” pounced upon it as racists, hateful, and un-American, as though cheating, stealing, and aiding criminals is the epitome of Americanism.

The liberals haven’t stopped with anything whether with demonizing Wall Street where people invested in stocks, lambasting speculators who set prices based on supply and demand, or private jet owners who actually value their time, have meetings to attend, and had enough of endless airport lines, TSA screenings, flight delays, lost luggage, and additional airline charges for every basic necessity.

In the current debates over spending cuts, the left wishes to cut one of the only expenses which the constitution clearly defines as a federal right, the right to build a military to defend this country. Of all the trillions spent in endless federal programs such as affordable housing (which caused the entire housing market to inflate out of control) many of which are questionably constitutionally correct, this constitutional right is what the left deems too expensive and want it should amount to a significant chunk of the spending cuts.

Indeed, the liberal drones have dropped their bombs in every corner of this great nation, without a hoot to the damage caused to those hit and injured. Neither do the higher ups controlling the drones care for the condition of the fleet of drones since they have a never ending supply of college graduates and illegals lining up to join their ranks. Young people who unfortunately never had the time and brains to research what’s truly right or wrong.

As Winston Churchill had said; "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." 

This is because liberals act upon emotion rather than logic despite it often causing damage and destruction. They will follow their feelings often against the good of their country, thus flying unmanned, without a pilot or brain leading the way. Instead of seeking to build businesses thereby increasing jobs and strengthening the economy, they weaken the economy, lower the value of the dollar, and destroy the health care system.

If socialism, communism, or European style democracy is what they wish for, why don’t they just take the entire fleet and fly to the country of their choice!

Munkatch’s response to Abie Rubin’s previous article on Weprin and Yossi Gestetner

Munkatch’s opinion on Abie Rubin’s article: "Why Yossi Gestetner is correct in his op-ed regarding Weprin".

I quote: "Taxes on items such as cigarettes are different than traffic or other ticketing...... If the politicians truly have the people’s safety in mind, then cigarettes should be outlawed just as many other dangerous substances are. Not that I support the banning of cigarettes, I simply want to point out that making money off it is wrong".

Imagine the scene: a homeless disheveled man, climbing over the railing of the Brooklyn Bridge, readying himself to finally end his life of untold misery, by simply jumping into the Hudson River. He lifts one foot over the railing and starts to lift the other, when suddenly a strong pair of hands grabs his ankle and pulls him to safety. The hands belong to a NYPD officer, who noticed this suicidal man during a routine patrol, and thus was able to save him from certain death. The cop is then hailed as a hero, and reporters are fighting over exclusive rights to interview him.

The above scenario happens all too often, and while people generally focus on the heroism of the rescuer, not much thought is given to the rescued, and his choice of abruptly ending his life.

From a moral standpoint, should a person be allowed to take his life or not? I have mixed feelings about this and neither liberals nor conservatives are consistent in their views.

The liberal viewpoint of more government will say: "we can't let him take his life, because we know better than him what's good for him". The problem with this view is that when it comes to abortions and end of life decisions, suddenly the government decides that after all, it is better to be pro-choice and have "the right to die".

The conservative viewpoint of limited government might say: "the government shouldn't be telling me what to eat, drink or smoke, I am smart enough to decide what's right and wrong for me, even if it kills me. It would therefore seem that we really should let this man end his life. Now, although this agrees with the view of pro-life, -meaning your own life, not your unborn child or sick grandfather, is this consistent with the Judeo-Christian moral values upon which this country was founded? Don't we all know that "one who saves one life is considered as if he has saved the whole word"?

Getting back to the article, should the government really outlaw cigarettes and dangerous substances? Or perhaps like alcohol, it doesn't hurt when taken in moderation. What is dangerous anyway? Who decides what is or isn't dangerous? And who are we to take away someone's right to hurt themself? Do we have an obligation to prevent pain and death? These are all questions to which I don't think there is a straightforward answer, and therefore, in my opinion, cannot be used in any argument, be it for or against restrictions on cigarette use.

It is interesting to note, that the recent death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Dr. Death, for his role in assisting suicides of more than 100 people, brought this issue somewhat to the front burner. Dr. Kevorkian was actually sentenced to 8 years in prison and prosecuted unsuccessfully 4 times. On the other hand, doctor-assisted suicide essentially became law in Oregon in 1997 and in Washington State in 2009. The practice of doctors writing prescriptions to help terminally ill patients kill themselves was upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In conclusion, perhaps that is why we tend to overtax cigarettes, as a way of finding some middle ground between these two very different perspectives.

Munkatch is a great Conservative and can be followed on twitter.



My response:

Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear and well written manner.
 
Conservatism values life and is therefore opposed to both abortions – which is taking another’s life, and jumping off the bridge – which is taking one’s own life. Smoking is a health issue, not a life or death issue. I know plenty of ninety year olds still smoking. If you believe – as the left does -- that you have to control the health choices one makes then it should be banned. And if you believe – as conservatives do – that one should have the ability to make their own health choices, then smoking shouldn’t be singled out with higher taxes.