WHO ARE THE POLITICAL HATERS?

Lately, the “unhinged left” have been accusing anyone with the label of Republican, Conservative, right-wing, “Tea Partier” etc. as being racists, bigots, advocates of violence and intolerant dolts and rednecks. That’s quite a slander and libel against a group of fellow citizens. Is it true?

The closer we get to the November elections, it seems that the more strident these outrageous charges are becoming against the people who are protesting the President and the agenda of the Democrats. They (the liberals) seem to see the writing on the wall that the Republicans are headed for a big victory and they just can’t handle it. They are really becoming unhinged.

Stories and anecdotes, made up of “whole cloth”, about bigoted, racist signs at the “Tea Parties”, calls for violence against Congressmen, the use of the “N” word against black people and a host of other unsubstantiated charges, are being articulated by liberals as “facts” when the “facts” don’t back them up.

Just recently, Congressman Bart Stupak, who was against the health care bill before he voted for it (does that sound familiar?), had some people in his camp claim that he was threatened because of the health care debate. These flacks implied that it was people who support the “Tea Party” philosophy who were making the threats. Let’s take a look at those charges. The threats supposedly were made prior to the actual vote in the House of Representatives when Stupak was against the bill because of the wording on the abortion issue contained in the bill. His withholding of support was what the “Tea Party” people were in favor of. Why would they threaten someone who seemed to be in favor of their political position? Most likely, it was the people in support of passage (the Democrats) of the bill who threatened him because they feared he might sabotage the passage of the bill. He (Stupak), as you now know, changed his mind just 4 hours before the actual vote after the pressure was applied by the White House and the Democratic leadership (Pelosi, Hoyer). So, the claim against the Republicans, Conservatives, and the “Tea Party” people were a “red herring” and a diversion to gin up support for the misguided bill and to malign the opposition. What a bunch of hypocrites the “loony liberals” are?

When it comes to trying to stifle free speech (the 1st Amendment), it has historically been the “left” who has engaged in that kind of disruptive behavior.

Conservative speakers at Colleges and Universities are routinely shouted down, and cream pies and raw eggs are thrown at them to keep them from offering their messages to the audiences. How many incidents have you heard of where liberals received that kind of treatment to keep them from talking? The list of conservative speakers who have encountered these “violent” hooligans, to name a few, are David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and the President of the “Minutemen”, the Israeli Counsel, and others too numerous to mention.

So, it’s not the “thugs” of the right that are the culprits, but the so-called peace-loving, tolerant liberal left that has caused most of the disruptions and personal threats against individuals. The people attending the “Tea Parties” and the town-hall meetings are mostly well-behaved, non-violent and angry and frustrated at what their government is doing to them. At all their gatherings, not one arrest was made for disorderly conduct. They have a right for redress against their government and they are the one’s that should be protected and not smeared by the “loony left” and the “lame stream media”. The fable about the “Boy who cried wolf” would certainly be apropos in describing the actions of the liberal left (or are they called “progressives” now?). No matter how you package it, is still wrong.

Written by Chuck Lehmann