Bill Maher: Poster Child For Left Wing Hostile Rhetoric

Bill Maher and Jay Leno - September 28
Bill Maher made his first appearance on The Jay Leno Show. Click on the link above and see sidebar on right for all the inflammatory rhetoric spewed by those on the left.

JAY LENO: Well, you know, it's like I keep hearing this talk about death panels. People use the word "death panel." But, you know, we've had death panels...

BILL MAHER: That's Sarah Palin. Wait a second...

LENO: Yes. True.

MAHER: Sarah Palin is the one who brought up death panel... And you know what, Sarah Palin? I got news for you, honey. If we were gonna get rid of useless people, you would be the first to know.

When we hear Bill Clinton talking about a vast right wing conspiracy and the president telling people that go to town hall meetings that they're rude, it makes us realize that speaking out and exercising our right of free speech is under attack.

However, when a right winger puts out a facebook post that asks "should Obama be killed," we on the right condemn that. It's wrong. You don't say stupid stuff like Michelle Bachmann should slit her wrists or ask whether you think the president of the United States should be killed.

There is a line that should be drawn when it comes to political discourse. You don't ever advocate, imply or infer that people you disagree with should be killed, whether it be by a death panel or a crazy loon.

As far as the right being able to say whatever inflammatory stuff they want to say, game on. The liberals own the board and we have to play their game. We can marginalize, we can fight with the most brutal of rhetoric if necessary. But you draw the line at what Maher said tonight.

I realize two wrongs don't make a right, and I don't advocate that anyone do anything to physically harm even the lowest of life forms on the planet, such as Bill Maher. But when you go on national television and tell somoeone that if there were death panels "you should be the first to go," don't expect it to be an easy ride after that.

Millions of American soldiers have died for our right to free speech. I hope what Bill Maher said tonight doesn't deter them from continuing to do that.



Bill Maher must hate women. In addition to sending Sarah Palin to the head of the line at the death panel, he also wants to choke Tila Tequila.

Keith Olbermann Unhinged

Unless you want to read me spewing the worst curse words man has ever come up with, I really have nothing to add to this story: Tasteless: Olbermann Guest Invokes 'Special-Needs' Children to Bash Palin

I refer you back to Watching Porn on MSNBC for the truth about Olbermann as explained by Lou Dobbs.

Keith Olbermann is the lowest form of scum in the journalism industry. His hate mongering and pandering to a brainless base is far beyond anything that anyone could have ever imagined.

Should Obamacare ever get passed, it will be consolation knowing that some day, Keith Olbermann's end of life care will be rationed by a bureaucrat.

9/11 blog: Who's Dangerous?

How is it possible that those who believe in freedom and limited government are enemies of the state? How is it possible that those who stand for the big regulatory government that create the flaws in our financial and health care systems want to be the ones to fix them? Are those who protest a lie more dangerous than the intellecttually dishonest and morally bankrupt people in power who enforce that lie?

The president calls citizens and prominent politicians liars. He accuses conservatives of being the cause of the health care "mess" and asks them to be quiet while he and his radical associates try to fix it by using the mess as an excuse to justify radical government takeover of things that were caused by government in the first place. Liberals consider their opponents "terrorists" or "an angry mob." They call ordinary Americans fringe extremists and accuse them of racism or religious hysteria when all other arguments against them fail. They think conservatives are responsible every time some whack job in America does something violent.

If one honestly observes the conservative movement in America, you will find doctors, lawyers, business owners, professionals, teachers and writers as well as hard working blue collar workers, struggling entrepreneurs and those down on their financial luck who are the overwhelming majority of the movement.

Yet, these people are portrayed as dangerous or a threat because they attend TEA Parties and exercise their constitutional right of free speech to speak out against a government that continues to encroach on the very values upon which this republic was formed. A lot of them even support, dare I say it, Sarah Palin.

So how does one "marginalize" Sarah Palin or anyone like her. Take a look at a new tactic being used by the left. Forget rumor and innuendo. Just outright lie. The left wing blogosphere isn't interested in the truth. They are interested in keeping their "messiah" in power.

Shannyn Moore writes in The Huffington Post:

The radical right, which celebrates the assassination of Dr. Tiller and protests their children hearing the encouraging words of a black president, love Palin. She does nothing to denounce their idiocy; she revels in it. I write about her now because of who she represents -- very dangerous people.

Ms. Moore! Was I in danger when I went to a Sarah Palin rally during the campaign? I knew I should have kept a closer eye on that senior citizen next to me with her grand children. Do I need to worry about some right wing extremist beating me up for having a "Don't Tread on Me" flag or biting my finger off because they disagree with my position on health care reform when I go to Washington tomorrow?

Whose dangerous, Shannyn? Trig Truthers or Birthers? Which is it? When Palin speaks, the reason why it looks like a word salad to you is because liberalism is a thought salad. Those kind of statements are understandable coming from people who don't understand the language of liberty.

Some guy killed a pro-life protester today, Ms. Moore. How many on the left are going to celebrate it?

There isn't any difference in the proportion of those who celebrated Dr. Tiller's death to that of those who want to go to Glenn Becks House and assault him. I saw crazed comments from both sides on Twitter yesterday. Does Barack Obama represent dangerous people? Two words, Ms. Moore: Van Jones. Why is he not denouncing the left for the crazed comments of its loons?

Why is your best buddy telling his viewers to dig up dirt on Glenn Beck? You don't think someone might get hurt there, yet you think people are going to get hurt because Sarah Palin doesn't believe in your ideology? Come on.

Oh and by the way, Ms. Moore, you're a liar.

Read it and weep:

"I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, 'What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today's event in Kansas?'

Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message."

Governor Sarah Palin (from facebook)

Shannyn Moore needs to print a retraction of her statement that Sarah Palin represents dangerous people. Ms. Moore, your hatred and negativity got the best of you today. It clouded your professional judgment and it adversely affected your writing. Do the right thing in your next blog.

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion about liberalism.

When liberals openly booed George W. Bush or dissented on issues they disagreed with, decorum was never an issue. Decorum only becomes an issue when Joe Wilson yells "you lie" to their president. It used to be okay to interrupt the president when it was George W. Bush delivering the speech.

The problem with liberalism is that if you're a leftist protesting a just war it's free speech, but if you're a conservative protesting out of control spending it's called "teabagging." I got it now. When you do it, it's okay. When we do it, it's not.
George H.W. Bush gave a speech to school children in 1991 and was accused by liberals of using school children for political gain. But Obama gives a speech to school children and we're a loons for keeping our kids out of school.

In the ultimate hypocrisy, Arianna Huffington, who's legion of bloggers have unleashed an all out smear campaign against Sarah Palin, has the set to write an article whining about how unfairly Van Jones was treated and that he is a victim of a smear campaign!

This is hypocrisy. This is why liberalism is intellectually bankrupt. It's also morally and culturally bankrupt.
Hillary Clinton may resign as Secretary of State to run for governor of New York according to rumors. That would make her a quitter and unsuitable for public office if you go by the liberal mantra. Oh wait, there is no real liberal mantra. They make the rules up as they go along and change them as the argument requires. The backflips and the contortions don't happen on the front end of liberal arguments, they happen on the back end. They argue from whatever side fits the outcome of their argument, unless of course they're losing and they just personally attack you to get out of it. Morally bankrupt? You betcha.

Culturally bankrupt? Charlie Sheen is a 9/11 truther. That's okay, though because he's not a birther. Janeane Garafolo accuses TEA party protesters of being white redneck racists. Tell that to the black guys I saw on Fox News' coverage of the TEA Party Express. Sarah Palin's a racist. Tell that to the black guy I met with the Sarah Palin for President sign at the 4/15 TEA Party in Richmond.

No good liberal argument goes without a selective picking of the facts that suit the moment. It's relativism vs. absolutism. Conservatives will tell you the sky is blue. As such, it is up to the liberals to twist enough facts to get enough suckers to believe its green.

Today conservative bloggers and tweeters are going after the terrorists who destroyed our buildings on 9/11/01. Liberal bloggers are going after the TEA partiers instead.

I wonder how much better a country we'd be if liberals spent as much time trying to defeat Sarah Palin as they should be in defeating al Queda. If only Shannyn Moore hated Osama bin Laden as much.

Palin's Relevancy: White House Takes Her On

UPDATE: Our leader and great American Heroine has unsheathed her sword: Sarah Palin: Response to the White House
END UPDATE


Since penning an op-ed piece for the Wall Street journal, Sarah Palin has once again become the target of the liberals. But add one prominent group of liberals to the list: the Obama Administration. Ben Smith of Politico reports:

...the White House has... chosen specifically to focus on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and evidently to make her the face of the opposition, or to respond to her ability to project herself into the debate. She is the only Republican named in the talking points.

While some liberals are in convulsions and others reacting like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" after having holy water thrown on her, many in the mainstream are watching the sparring match with questions about the left's depiction of Sarah Palin.

Having failed miserably at smearing her, portraying her as a lightweight and rebutting her political arguments, liberals and the Administration are making the grave mistake of elevating her to the level of their biggest threat. Not only is the left making the biggest mistake of this election cycle, they may end up helping Palin get to the White House in 2012 should the public perceive her as the opposition leader.

Liberals make themselves look simply childish and silly when, rather than writing intellectually honest and well though out rebuttals to Palin's papers on Obamacare, they are responding with sophomoric intellectual elitism, claiming that Palin is not writing her own work and that her ideas and statements are coming from ghost writers rather than herself.

It's normal, since Palin is writing a book, that she gets writing and literary advice in the process. This is common in the world of letters and not to be seen as something that diminishes the writer. Writers have editors whether they are authors or columnists. Many who write for a living or use their writing to bolster their resumes often have their work reviewed and grammar or structuring corrected. Would the liberals consider Palin unworthy because she uses "spell check" as a crutch?

The fact of the matter is Palin's positions are hers. Liberals tread into deadly waters when they underestimate her or personally attack her. Poli Gazette says "Progressives/liberals must be asking: What good are the malicious, dishonest smear campaigns if the target keeps coming back even stronger than before?"

Even in the legitimate political arena of ideas, liberals risk elevating Palin to a more relevant position than they would like to by mistaking how high up the food chain they should go in debating her. By not leaving the debate with columnists and bloggers and instead releasing a White House talking point making her the face of the argument merely crowns her as a queen. Those in public relations know that bad press is better than no press. The fact that now that the the pundits will be mentioning her name frequently tonight is more important than the content of their analyses.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin addresses this point on her Facebook Page:

One last thing: after President Obama's speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" in describing the proposals I put forward. That's how you'll be able to tell who the White House counted as "allies" worthy of receiving its talking points.

END UPDATE

Media lies began last night on Keith Olbermann's Countdown when Shannyn Moore stated that Republicans were running from Sarah Palin as fast as they can. This comment was made shortly before Jim Demint went on Greta Van Susteren and vigorously defended Sarah Palin's position, hardly the run or the distancing that Ms. Moore claimed on the frequently factless Olbermann show.

The President and his supporters are going to have to swallow their own medicine as they watch their "messiah" and his "press secretaries" and "ghost writers" over at MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Washington Post, The New York Times and Newsweek get drown out by the voices of average ordinary Americans in the blogosphere, on talk radio and on Fox News. Fox viewership continues to increase proportionally to the way President Obama's approval ratings are falling leading many to think that those losing confidence in the president are now moving to Fox for their news.

If the Administration was smart, they would ignore Palin and try to soft sell a series of smaller bills that first address concerns with the insurance industry and then move through the other issues individually. The public does not want big government. No matter what Obama tries to sell tonight, if it is government run, it will not get support. This is not only Palin's position, but the public's position as demonstrated in the poll numbers on health care reform.

Arianna Huffington Should Recognize a Good Smear Campaign When She Sees One

Arianna Huffington thinks Van Jones was forced to resign because of a smear campaign. It's unfortunate that Ms. Huffington missed this one. She's an intelligent woman who has run for president and is also a successful and capable businesswoman. But, repeating Van Jones' own words for all the world to hear is different than repeating others' negative words and rumors about someone. That's the difference between reporting the truth and engaging in a smear campaign.

A smear campaign, Ms. Huffington, is when you employ bloggers to distort the words and record of someone. Let's see if any famous smear campaigns come to mind. To quote my high school math teacher, "let's pick someone at random," Palin.

Here's how a smear campaign works:

Let's just say for argument sake that the Huffington Post had been front and center of a smear campaign that resulted in getting a governor of a large state to resign. A blogger, let's call her Shannyn Moore, relentlessly writes hit pieces on the Governor and draws attention to a small gaggle of fellow bloggers who drum up unsubstantiated stories about divorces, federal indictments and the maternity of a child. The bigger the lies, the better.

For it to be a smear campaign in the purest sense, you have to create a caricature of the subject and twist words and deeds to fit the caricature. If you have to play video clips of the subject's own words and reprint direct quotes from the subject which incriminate them to the charges you are making, that's not a smear campaign, unless of course you take them out of context.

Next, you have to remove the arena of ideas from a smear campaign and make it personal. Attack the shoes, the hair, the speaking style and maybe poke some fun at the kids, too. If you file a bunch of frivolous ethics complaints (which will all later be dismissed) to create a moment that makes it appear the subject is under attack for being unethical, you got a real winner.

Filing charges against Van Jones for being a communist would work in a good smear campaign. Playing a tape of him admitting he's a communist, well that's just truth. It doesn't qualify as "smear."

Lies are the most important ingredient to a smear campaign. Anyone can get the folks to believe the truth. But if you can get the folks to believe the lies, now you're talking talent here.

While I completely disagree with Huffington's politics, I just can't help being envious of her wordcraft. How I wish I could have written this about Sarah Palin:

Isn't it time we acknowledge that no human being with any passion and deeply held beliefs ever emerged flawless into the world? And that if every mistake, misstep, boneheaded decision, or error in judgment becomes an automatic disqualifier for public service, then we're going to be left with a political landscape filled with nothing but wrinkle-free, foible-free, passionless automatons who have never made a mistake because they never took the risk of having an original thought.

Yes, it is a very well written paragraph. I'm still trying to figure out why this sentiment isn't applied equally and fairly to those the Huffington Post has smeared.

"Contrary to the media caricature, the real Van Jones is a thoughtful leader who knows how to use words to move people to action. To stick him behind a desk, working out the details of tax credits for green jobs -- incredibly important though the job is -- was never the best use of his unique and abundant skills."

Hmmm, contrary to the media caricature... The more I replace Van Jones' references in Huffington's piece with Sarah Palin references in my mind as I read, the more I like the way the piece is written. But I can't help but wonder how Arianna Huffington could question media caricatures and disqualifying people for boneheaded moves when she allowed her blog site to be used in such a similar way in the relentless in the smearing of Sarah Palin. Isn't that intellectually inconsistent?

Shouldn't she be impressed with how Glenn Beck took down Van Jones instead of being outraged? Or maybe she's just a little green with envy that the Van Jones "smear campaign" was much more effective and took less time to complete than the one against Governor Palin.

If anyone should be impressed, it should be us with Huffington. Anyone can take down a government official by posting truthful videos and quotes where they damn themselves with their own words. It takes someone with a lot more savvy to do it with lies and innuendo, though.

Getting Van Jones' resignation was like shooting fish in a barrel. Getting Palin's resignation required a lot more creativity and distortion of the facts.

I still just don't understand how Huffington can be upset with Glenn Beck. Huffington stood by and watched her bloggers and readers fire point blank at Mrs. Palin. All Beck did was stand by and encourage his viewers to watch Mr. Jones fire point blank at himself. Was Beck's takeout of Van Jones too clean?

And I've never failed to be impressed by Van. He is a remarkable man. One of the things I've always found so impressive about him -- and something completely lost in the partisan mudslinging -- is his ability to build coalitions and create unlikely alliances. In pursuit of a clean energy future for America, Van has successfully brought together urban youth with clean-tech entrepreneurs,labor leaders with business leaders, civil rights activists with environmentalists. His skill in this area is exceptional, and much needed in America today.

Couldn't the sentiment expressed here be applied to Sarah Palin?

Replace some names and Ms. Huffington has a Pullitzer prize winning analysis of Sarah Palin:

Now, thanks to Glenn Beck [Shannyn Moore], we've got that voice back. No longer tied to his [her] desk with a sock in his [her] mouth, Van [Sarah] is now freed to do what he [she] does best: inspire and energize groups around the country.

If Glenn Beck [Shannyn Moore] had any sense at all, he [she] would have done everything in his [her] power to keep Van Jones [Sarah Palin] right where he [she] was.

But he [she] didn't. And for this we should all be grateful.

Here's the test Ms. Huffington should have applied when determining whether Van Jones was forced to resign because of the facts or whether he was forced to resign because of a smear campaign: replace the names with the circumstances.

If Sarah Palin was Van Jones, how would this have played out?

Consider what would have happened had Sarah Palin called Democrats "assholes," signed a petition stating 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush Administration, blamed black people for poisoning white people, admitted she was a separatist or a Nazi and told an audience that she wanted to do away with our republican system of government.

Would Ms. Huffington have defended Sarah Palin as vigorously as she has Van Jones if this was the case?

This is exactly why liberalism is an intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Using Levi to Revive Comatose Smear Campaign

In an upcoming Vanity Fair article, the left and the elite are going to try to revive a dying smear campaign against Sarah Palin by featuring an interview with aspiring nude gay magazine model Levi Johnston. Conservatives4Palin.com says "It brings me no pleasure to address a habitual liar, potential nude pin-up model, and puppet to Obama minions Rex Butler and Tank Jones, but Levi Johnston's (or is it Ricky Hollywood?) foray in to the world of essay writing deserves to be taken in proper context." And as such, let's put it in it's proper context: it's bullcrap.

It's laughable that the misnamed The Moderate Voice says "the picture he paints will most assuredly give ammunition to Palin’s many critics outside of and inside of her party (her rivals for the 2012 nomination will be grinning), lead to her angry response dismissing it as the word for a disgruntled former almost-family member, and cause her defenders to label it a lie and Vanity Fair as being out to get her."

Are you kidding me?

Do they serioiusly think that moderates, centrists, and independents are actually going to believe a punk kid who's negotiating a nude gay magazine shoot while his mother is in jail for drug dealing over an accomplished business woman who has been mayor and governor and who has run for the vice presidency of the United States? Come on, get real.

The premise of this story is designed to restart a comatose smear campaign against Sarah Palin.
The strategy is for Vanity Fair (no fan of Sarah Palin) to present Levi's words so that the rest of the mainstream media could pick up on it and run with it in such a way as to hurt Palin's image.

UPDATE 09/03/09:

Politico, MSNBC and the Associated Press (which was reprinted in newspapers and on websites throughout the country) all presented hit pieces written as straight news using only quotes from Levi's Vanity Fair piece without question or context. The Anchorage Daily News suprisingly wrote a journalistically correct article which featured context from both sides. CBS ran a piece criticizing Palin for her "death panels" commentary to try to keep the negativity going.

Examiner.com enhances my original thought: "Perhaps, as the liberal wing continues to court Levi Johnston they will realize the futility of having a nineteen year old run their most important personal attack campaign."

END OF UPDATE

It's getting desperate for the left and the elites when a punk kid dirt bag is all they got left in their bag of tricks to use as fodder in their pathetic attempts to smear Sarah Palin.

"Label it a lie?" It already is a lie. Besides, I don't buy Vanity Fair. I save money by using the store brand toilet paper. I can also use the printout of the The Moderate Voice article if I run low.

Sarah Palin pulled the plug on the smear campaign after resigning the governship of Alaska. While the "Alaska Bloggers" AKMuckraker, Celtic Diva and Just a Girl from Homer continue to smear Sarah as filler for their boring lives, no one's paying attention to them since Palin's not an Alaskan public official now. Other than Keith Olbermann who likes to play virtual footsie with Shannyn Moore, noone from that group really gets any press anymore, unless you count Gryphen for being exposed as the liar and sham that he is. The rest just have to accept the fact that now that Sarah Palin is on her way to international fame and fortune, they are left behind to wallow in their miserable lives in Alaska, whining in their vacuum about someone who is a million times more successful than they are.

To think that the left and the elites can revive a smear campaign against an evolving political behemoth while she is a private citizen is absurd. They've used everything in their arsenal; and, as so eloquently written on American Thinker, they wonder "as have so many others, what it takes to put a stake through her heart?"

What's next? Is some jealous radio host/writer going to make up some stupid lie that an international investment group is going to spend $100,000 to punk Sarah Palin?

They're running out of material. At the same time, she's only getting stronger.