If, as Erika Johnsen and Ed Morrissey over at HotAir insist on telling their conservative audience, their really are only 4 republicans talking about Impeaching Obama, then why are the Democratic spokesholes like David Axelrod and their pet Fifth Column Treasonous Media whores like Chris Matthews trying so hard to convince the American public that all of this impeachment talk is crazy lunatic fringe conspiracy talk?
Axelrod: Republicans are trying to delegitimize Obama just like they did Clinton
Yes, because that’s what it’s always about, everybody: These trifling conservatives’ personal contempt for a particular Democrat and their deep-seated desire to undermine him, and rarely-to-never about sincere qualms in matters of policy or the lawful administration thereof. So suggested David Axelrod, anyway, during an MSNBC segment bizarrely entitled “Impeachment Fever” — although, as Andrew Stiles noted at NRO, the grand total of Republican impeachment-mentions inciting this particular outrageous outrage from the MSNBC crowd comes to… four.
It looks as though Erika has joined Ed Morrissey’s merry band of Marxists wearing Conservative cloths. What she is doing here is attempting the same kind of Marxist propaganda and thought control that Ed so often engages in. She is attempting to tell her readers what they are allowed to think. Rather than asking why are douche bags like Matthews and Axelrod so worked up and trying to get in front of calls for Obama’s impeachment, she like Ed Morrissey is attempting to tell her readers, this is a subject you are not allowed to even consider.
Ed tried that the other days as well, though on a different subject. He was following the lead of Breitbart editor Joel Pollak in trying to tell their predominantly conservatives audiences that they were not allowed to discus the racist hypocritical double standard being used as a club against conservatives. Joel, in an act that straight up disgraced the memory of his former boss Andrew Breitbart wrote the following article, and then closed it for comments. Apparently Joel knew that his audience would not agree with him, so he exercised his god like dictatorial powers and ended any discussion before it even began..
The Racial Tit-for-Tat of Crime Reporting
Back when the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin story first exploded onto the national scene, with false accounts of a “white” shooter and edited 911 calls, we at Breitbart News made an editorial decision not to become involved in the racial tit-for-tat reporting that tempted many other sites. There was no reason to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the media and the so-called civil rights establishment regarding crimes where the racial labels were reversed, because the labels in the Martin case were wrong in the first place.
Ed’s version of this same propaganda crap was every bit as pathetic as Joel’s, perhaps the only difference is that Ed made the mistake of allowing his readers to comment on his bullshit.
Should conservatives resist the race tu quoque?
So says Breitbart editor Joel Pollak, a good friend of mine, who revealed yesterday that his site intentionally steered clear of the race discussion relating to recent crimes in Oklahoma and Spokane. While a good discussion of media malpractice is always welcome, the urge in using specific and unrelated cases usually leads people to take the arguments too far — a practice of the Left that Pollak would rather avoid (via Ace):
It is becoming harder for some conservative journalists to resist the tit-for-tat arguments when Sharpton et al. continue to pretend the Martin case was about race when everyone involved, including the prosecution, said that it was not. Even the Martin family, given the opportunity (before the verdict) to comment on the fact that there were no black jurors, said that they placed their faith in their fellow citizens and the judicial process. The fact that the racial argument has survived the trial and the facts is both sad and frustrating.
So the temptation to report the race of alleged perpetrators when the roles are reversed is now stronger than it was before–too strong for some conservative sites in the Christopher Lane murder, which reported initially (and inaccurately) that all three assailants were black. Yes, there is a crime problem in the black community. Yes, there is an failure among black leaders, from Obama on down, to do anything about it. That story doesn’t need new white victims to make it potent. This is a game without winners. I’d rather not play.
I spoke about this on my show this morning, in the final segment of the second hour. There are some issues that the Lane and Benton murders may have in common, mainly bored teenagers with little supervision and no engagement in core values — but those issues are not limited to any one community, nor are two incidents involving five teenagers a particularly good look at teens as a whole or an indication of broad cultural decline.
Last week, for instance, I wrote about the story of DHS manager Ayo Kimathi, who runs a website warning fellow African-Americans of a coming race war, complete with enemies list — including President Obama. The issue isn’t that DHS hired a racist, nor does one staffing decision indicate a broad problem with race in America. The public policy issue there was that Homeland Security apparently didn’t know that one of its managers was an extremist that publicly identified the President as an enemy of the people, an act that would probably be prominently featured in a DHS report on Tea Party extremism if Kimathi was part of that movement. I noted at the end:
I’m not “hesitating to be blunt” about race…[.] It’s rather obvious that Kimathi has an issue with race, but that’s not the public policy/performance issue here. Nor is it in any individual act of racism, either. Bringing up isolated incidents of racial animus and stretching that into a narrative about everyone else is what the Left has done for decades. Count me out of that nonsense.
Pollak is saying the same thing. Essentially, the argument from conservatives is self-defeating. We resist categorizing people by identity, and argue against the “society is to blame” explanation for crime and social ills. We preach individual responsibility and consequences. When we stray from that, even to score a few justified points on the media for their hypocrisy and bias, we risk turning individual incidents into “narratives” that aren’t really supported by the facts, and lose track of our philosophical compass. In my opinion, that’s too high a cost for too low a reward.
If you read the comments in at Ed’s article, you will see that the majority of his audience considered Ed and Joel’s actions pretty much on a par with Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who infamously attempted to surrender Europe to Adolph Hitler. Yes, a few of the brain damaged squishies tried to defend Ed, but the vast majority were having none of it.
The truth is pretty simple in both of these cases, the corrupt GOP leadership is taking, like Ed and Joel, a very Neville Chamberlain approach to Barack Insane Obama and his Marxist cabal. they (The GOP Leadership) utterly refuse to discuss Impeachment or the hypocrisy of the left’s racist attitudes, the Republican base and America’s conservatives on the other hand have no stomach for appeasement or surrender.
David Axelrod and Chrissy Matthews are desperately trying to get out in front of the impeachment issue because while the corrupt GOP Leadership is doing everything they can to avoid the issue, the republican base and conservatives are talking about it, screaming about it and demanding that their corrupt leadership take action. The same is true of the hypocritical racist issue, the republican base and conservatives are damned tired of the Democrats/Marxist and Fifth Column Treasonous Media’s hypocritical double standard being used as a weapon against them.
Ed Morrissey and Joel Pollak, along with the miserable excuse for a Speaker for the House John Boehner, have adopted a strategy. Never engage in any battle that the enemy has already told you you can never win. Combine that with their other strategy, of always taking the enemies advice on how to win your battles and it’s no damned wonder the GOP loses on every major issue.
80 percent of American citizen confess to being Christians to one degree or another, yet 3% of our population is dictating what the moral standards of the other 97% will be, 40% are Conservatives yet the 22% of liberals dictate the nations fiscal policies.
HUGH HEWITT reminds us that Obama is the worst President of the United States, but not because of his constant violating of the US constitution, not because of Operation Fast and furious, or Benghazi, or the IRS targeting conservatives or the NAS spying on average Americans, rather because 15,000 Democrat working for UPS are now receiving exactly what they voted for.
Is Obama the worst president ever?
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” — President Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
So said President Obama again and again through 2009 and 2010 as he sold Obamacare to the country. He promised. He put his personal integrity on the line. His word.
If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
How many UPS employees voted for the president in 2008 and again in 2012? Because on Friday, UPS announced it was dumping 15,000 spouses of UPS employees from their UPS health plans despite the president’s many, many promises to the contrary.
The UPS spouse-dump followed by a few days the news from New Jersey that Obamacare’s rollout there will end the low-cost, high-deductible plan that more than 106,00 Jersey folks liked and which presumably many of them would have preferred to keep.
Oh, and the cost of individual plans are set to rise on average 41 percent in Ohio, and another major insurance company, Anthem Blue Cross, has pulled out of the California market for small businesses.
Is Obama the worst president ever?
With this kind of Neville Chamberlain leadership, is it any wonder that Barack Insane Obama and his Marxist cohorts are being so successful at “Fundamentally Transforming” America into a Marxist Utopia?