“Hate Crimes” Debate is Entirely Driven by Politics

Posted 08/09/2012 | AMAC Authors

0

By: Christopher G. Adamo

The sheer ugliness of liberal political tactics was once again made plain for all to see in the wake of the Aurora Colorado movie theater massacre. True to Rahm Emmanuel’s axiom of never letting a crisis go to waste, liberals worked diligently to somehow link their favorite political scapegoats to the mindless slaughter of innocent moviegoers by James Holmes. Showing a callous disregard for the real victims, they sought with transparent exuberance to concoct this scenario.

Initially, it was ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross who sought to implicate the Tea Party in the mayhem by pointing out that they had found a James Holmes listed among the organization’s membership in Aurora. And while Stephanopoulos later recanted after the allegation was thoroughly debunked, the not-so-subtle suggestion remained that the Tea Party is rightfully suspect whenever a calamity of this nature ensues. Over time, continued baseless accusations might increasingly cement this notion in the minds of the general public.

Next on the chopping block were the advocates of the Second Amendment, without whom Holmes could not have armed himself and might today be peacefully employed on the staff of a daycare center. At least that is the conclusion we are supposed to draw from the allegations of every gun grabbing leftist who could find a microphone after the bloodbath. Unfortunately for the left, neither the imaginary correlations to the right wing nor the gun control arguments gained any traction, primarily because the liberals were too predictable in their exploitation and mischaracterization of the awful event and its mitigating factors.

Now the left is reenergized by the slaughter of innocent attendees at a Sikh temple in Milwaukee. Clearly Wade Michael Page, the “alleged” perpetrator, was mindless and indiscriminate in his rampage. And it is an unfortunate fact that sick and twisted individuals exist, and have been in our midst since the time of Cain. However, they are plainly not a reflection of the beliefs and aspirations of the average gun owner in this country. Nor do they embody the sentiments of conservative America in any manner. Yet it is guaranteed that those constituencies will be targeted in some manner for a share of the blame.

As is invariably the case after any event of this nature, talk among the liberal elite focuses on “political partisanship” and “incivility” as contributing factors. From Barack Obama to the Democrat leadership on Capitol Hill to the network anchors, the customary insinuation is that strident disagreements with the agenda of the political left has somehow inflamed the anger of these unstable individuals.

However, the starkly different reaction of liberals to other past events reveals the severity of their biases and prejudices, which are invariably at odds with traditional America, while ultimately supporting any entity that is unsympathetic to our nation. The most glaring example in recent years was the measured and restrained response to the mass killings at Fort Hood Texas by Muslim Jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan. Screaming “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great!) as he killed thirteen people and wounded twenty nine others, it is abundantly clear that he was impelled by a religiously motivated hatred of his victims. Yet the authorities involved were extremely dubious of voicing any implication that Hasan’s killing spree could be categorized as a “hate crime.”

In other words, the only “hate crimes” of note are those which the liberal establishment labels as such. And when the doublespeak is sifted and sorted, the ugly reality is that the left will wield the accusation of a “hate crime” extremely selectively, with the singular intention of putting certain groups on the defensive, and leaving others on the “moral high ground.” In every circumstance, the end goal is the advancement of the liberal agenda.

“Targeting” of opponents by Sarah Palin can therefore be condemned as inciting violence, while nobody on the left bats an eyelash if Barack Obama claims that the proper course of action is to “bring a gun” in order to prevail in a political contest. In the same manner, Attorney General Eric Holder can willingly abominate justice, ignoring the suppression of white voters by “New Black Panthers.” Yet absolutely nobody doubts that his response would have been drastically different and immediate, had the respective races of the perpetrators and victims been reversed.

Fortunately, real America is no longer willing to passively accept these situations or the liberal assessment of them. As rapidly as the ABC “news reporters” endeavored to ascribe blame for the Aurora nightmare to the Tea Party (and all of non-liberal America by implication), the increasingly agile network of grassroots conservatives were in high gear spotlighting the glaring hypocrisy and duplicity of the “mainstream” media. Thus, Stephanopoulos and ABC president Ben Sherwood were quickly compelled to retract their story.

In stark contrast to the liberal sanctimony offered as analysis of the Aurora episode and its contributing factors, other unrelated events during this same time period have yielded tangible proof of just who is truly motivated and consumed by hate. And as is becoming ever more obvious, it is the forces of liberalism and the counterculture who are the true purveyors of the hate they so stridently decry among their conservative political opposition.

The entire Chic-fil-A controversy erupted over efforts by two noted leftists to impose their perverse belief system on America through the intimidation and oppression of Dan Cathy, owner of the restaurant chain. Reacting angrily to Cathy’s assertion that the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel have attempted to implement a “Christianity Verboten” policy, vowing to prevent Chic-fil-A franchises from opening in their cities. In essence, these “tolerant” and “open minded” liberals are suppressing business activity by anyone who does not conform to their countercultural belief system.

As the political and media firestorm has unfolded, other renowned leftists joined in. Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray referred to the restaurant’s fare as “hate chicken.” In California and Missouri, Chic-fil-A buildings were vandalized, and in Tucson Arizona, a drive-thru worker was harassed and bullied by a protestor. Throughout all of the controversy, any criticism of the liberal venom and bile has been tepid and thoroughly overwhelmed by sanctimonious assertions that the Cathy’s restaurant chain deserves all of the abuse it receives.

Nevertheless, real America is pushing back in complete defiance of the presumed clout of the “politically correct.” Last Wednesday, Chic-fil-A restaurants throughout the country were filled to capacity with Americans who recognize the importance of maintaining marriage in its traditional sense, as well as standing against the warped, secularist precepts of a state imposed “religion.” Since that time, several notable political figures on the right, including Ted Cruz, the Republican Senate Primary winner from Texas, have made known their unequivocal support for everything Chic-fil-A has come to represent.

The left will undoubtedly continue to assert itself as the sole moral arbiter of the nation. But as time goes on, that claim appears increasingly ludicrous and vacant. The light of truth has been shined on its goals and intentions, and the abhorrent hypocrisy with which it pursues them. The people of the Heartland will have no more of it.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming. He has been involved in politics at the local and state level for many years. He has written for several prominent conservative websites, along with AMAC Advantage, the quarterly publication of the Association of Mature American Citizens. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

http://amac.us/hate-crimes-debate-is-entirely-driven-by-politics

Is El Presidente destroying our nation?

Obama Trashes Achievers Whose Triumphs Threaten Left's Vision

By THOMAS SOWELL

 Posted 07/19/2012 06:46 PM ET

• •  in

There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale.

The perseverance of Thomas Edison, as he tried scores of materials before finally trying tungsten as the filament for the light bulb he was inventing; the dedication of Abraham Lincoln as he studied law on his own while struggling to make a living — these were things young people were taught to admire, even if they had no intention of becoming inventors or lawyers, much less president.

Somewhere along the way, all that changed. Today, the very concept of achievement is de-emphasized and sometimes attacked. Following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard has made the downgrading of high achievers the centerpiece of her campaign against Sen. Scott Brown.

To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate."

Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them? People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?

At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow being subsidized by "the rest of us," whether in paying for roads or the educating the young.

Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like free loaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, because it is part of an "underlying social contract."

Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy on the left — one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled "The Promise of American Life."

Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a "promise" that American society was supposed to have made — and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of "social contracts" began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the left.

If talking in this mystical way is enough to get you control of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, why not?

Certainly someone who claimed to be part Indian, as Warren did when applying for academic appointments in an affirmative action environment, is unlikely to be squeamish about using imaginative words in a campaign.

Sadly, this kind of cute use of words is not confined to one political candidate or to this election year. The very concept of achievement is a threat to the vision of the left, and has long been attacked by those on the left.

People who succeed — whether in business or anywhere else — are often said to be "privileged," even if they started out poor and worked their way up the hard way.

Outcome differences are called "class" differences. Thus when two white women, who came from families in very similar social and economic circumstances, made different decisions and got different results, this was the basis for a front-page story titled "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do'" in the New York Times.

Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality.

http://news.investors.com/article/618821/201207191846/obama-belittles-achievers-because-achievements-threaten-the-left.htmh/t RM