Sweethearts Candy Blog's

Alex Pareene of Salon Magazine

I just read some silly screed by Alex Pareene at the foolish liberal website, Salon.com.  Pareene insists that Anders Breivik (the Norway shooter) is a Christian, and his article shows Breivik's face framed by the outline of a cross.

What was Pareene's point?  He doesn't say.  Perhaps it was to say that Christian terrorists are a danger to the world (a conclusion that is nonsense) or that Christian dogma can lead to acts of terrorism (again, sheer nonsense).  Pareene seems to be simply taking a potshot at Christians because liberals detest Christians and/or the Christian religion.  There is no point in identifying Breivik as a Christian unless his religious beliefs were a factor in his shooting rampage.  Clearly, they were not.  Breivik stated in his manifesto that he was not particularly religious.  He wrote:

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

The truth is, it was not Breivik's religion that caused him to murder 77 people last week; it was leftist politicians who convinced him that those who dissent from liberal orthodoxy will always be marginalized, stigmatized, ridiculed and slandered. He gave up on working through the political process, believing that process to be too compromised to ever be effective in reversing the damage caused by Marxism, multiculturalism and massive Islamic immigration.  He wrote:

An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratical struggle through dialogue has been lost. The cultural Marxists have institutionalised multiculturalism and have no intention of ever allowing us to exercise any political influence of significance. In theory we, the cultural conservatives of Europe, have become slaves under an oppressive, tyrannical, extreme left-wing system with absolutely no hope of reversing the damage they have caused. At least not democratically..

It is meaningless to participate in the democratical process when you are not allowed to raise important issues without being subjected to political and social persecution through stigmatisation and ridicule. It is time to acknowledge that we, the cultural conservatives of Western Europe, are deceiving ourselves to believe that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically....We have never and will never be allowed to ever exercise any influence. The cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites nationally and in Brussels have for the last five decades created a resilient system whose objective is to ridicule, persecute, harass and silence us. They will continue to systematically marginalise us until the day when we are no longer a threat to them.

So what did the liberals do after Breivik's shooting spree?  They proved him right in his conclusions stated above.  They began an extensive campaign to blame Breivik's anger on conservatives -- anger that the left itself caused.  In so doing, they did what Breivik claimed:  they slandered us in an attempt to stigmatize, ridicule, and ultimately, silence us.

It was this cynical, Machiavellian, dishonest and slanderous leftist propaganda that eventually pushed Breivik over the edge.  It is liberals and the left who are responsible for the killing spree that followed.

It should be crystal clear to all Republicans and conservatives that the left/Democrats have a "scorched earth" policy for conservative thought, arguments and opinions.  Conservative opinion must be shut down hard, with ruthless tactics if needed, to achieve a liberal monopoly on public discourse.

The situation is not improving as time goes on.  The Tuscon and Norway shootings, where people were killed by lunatics, have been blamed on conservative opinions and conservative personalities.  The reason is simple:  such blame gives the liberals a satisfying outlet for their hatred while denigrating their political enemies.

This is to be expected from the kook fringe of the far left, but such ruthless verbal warfare is not limited to them. Major newspapers, pundits and politicians join in, only too happy to poison the public opinion that has been increasingly against them.  Now Brit writer Melanie Phillips fights back with her post "Hatred, Smears and Liberals Bullying Us Into Silence."  It's worth your attention.

Obama Wants More Fuel for the Fire

The Obama Administration spent trillions of dollars needlessly, running up the U.S. debt until it is close to the maximum allowed by law -- the "debt ceiling."  Obama is the stereotypical Democrat on steroids, with an obsessive, addictive and uncontrollable desire to spend, spend, spend, until Hell freezes over.

Obama has been sweating the debt ceiling, seeming to finally realize that his ruinous profligacy is endangering his chances for reelection.  This would be terrible, because if he is not reelected, how will he continue to destroy the financial future of generations yet unborn?

Ostensibly, the USA will default on its debts, for the first time in its history, on Tuesday of next week, unless the debt ceiling is raised.  If raised, then Obama can borrow more money to make debt payments and other payments.  If not raised, then  Obama may not be able to make payments, and people and nations holding US Treasury bills will be left holding paper they can't redeem.  China, foreseeing the incompetence of the Obama Administration, has been dumping its US Treasuries as fast as it can.

Of course, there are better solutions than allowing Obama to borrow even more money to continue his massive Ponzi scheme.  Obama could stop borrowing and slash spending.  All of the useless Departments (of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Labor, HUD, etc) could be ended and their budgets terminated.  To Democrats and some establishment Republicans, this would be like throwing a heroin junkie into a cell to go cold turkey, a sudden and painful withdrawal from his drug abuse.

So enters House Speaker John Boehner, Republican, who fastens together a bill that would allow immediate raising of the debt ceiling by $900 billion, coupled with spending cuts of $917 billion over some years into the future.  All House Democrats vote against it, because they already have their sleeves rolled up and the rubber tubing tied around their arms, and need their drug NOW.  More than 20 Republicans also voted against the bill, because they insist that the Democrat money druggies need to stop this abuse now, go cold turkey and slash spending.  Per the Washington Times:

Twenty-two Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the bill. Those Republicans argued that it didn’t go far enough in cutting spending, and was weaker than the version the House passed just last week.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that puts the future of my grandchildren and of generations to come in jeopardy,” said Rep. Paul C. Broun, Georgia Republican.

Boehner's bill passes the House by a vote of 218 to 210, in spite of this.  But it was all for naught, as the Senate quickly voted to table the House bill, effectively killing it.  The Senate is still controlled by Democrats.  The Dems are betting that, in a game of chicken with the Republicans, the latter will blink first.  Screw the future generations, the Dems are holding out for a better deal for themselves in the here and now.

So where do we go from here?  Well we can accede to the Democrats' blackmail and let them raise the debt ceiling to the skies.  This will allow American voters to see that the debt and spending disaster of the Democrats is also supported by Republicans, and thus cannot be used against the former in the national elections of 2012.  John Hinderaker of Power Line described the situation yesterday:

What the Democrats are trying to do, of course, is gain absolution for all of their fiscal sins by negotiating a cosmic deal with the GOP that, as I once put it, would put Republicans in the position of going over the waterfall holding hands with the Democrats. If Republicans are dumb enough to let that happen–which I doubt–then it will indeed be time for a third party.

Well said.  Sometimes I get the impression that the Republican Party is a giant conspiracy to elect Democrats.  If there is a way the establishment GOP can engineer a Democrat victory, they will find it.  Every one of those Republicans who support raising the debt ceiling should be issued a ceremonial mat and a hara kiri knife.

Meanwhile, the 22 Republicans who voted against Boehner's bill are heroes in my book.  They include Tom McClintock of California and Ron Paul of Texas.

Meanwhile, if you have a problem with any of this, please fill out the official complaint form here.

Related Post:  Declaring Victory?  Not Quite Yet

Kenneth Roth is the embodiment of dishonest liberal journalism. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday, he argues that Bush should be prosecuted for "criminality" and "torture" in waterboarding terrorists.

Roth argues from false premises, that waterboarding terrorists was both torture and criminal. He then quotes the popular myth that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded "183 times" in one month. Fox News investigated this claim some time ago and found that Mohammed was waterboarded only five times. Roth's repeat of this falsehood is irresponsible.  Further, he is nothing more than an Obama propagandist. He writes:

President Obama’s policy toward the Bush administration’s use of torture has been one of splitting the difference — Obama ordered an end to further torture but largely avoided investigating, let alone prosecuting, what Bush administration officials had done. For the Obama administration, the calculation was political: Stopping ongoing criminality by U.S. officials was non-negotiable, but delving into the criminality of his predecessor was deemed too costly. Obama had other priorities — fixing a devastated economy, enacting health-care reform — so dredging up the crimes of the previous administration was seen as too distracting and too antagonistic an enterprise when Republican votes were needed.

Notice Roth's dishonest argumentation: "Obama ordered an end to torture." But "torture" has not been proved, and Roth's statement sidesteps the need to substantiate this charge, hoping that the reader will simply take his word for it.

Meredith Dake at Big Journalism reports that Media Matters, a leftwing website, has vowed to "make war on Fox [News]."

Media Matters is a leftist political organization with ruthless schemes to smear conservative journalists and news outlets.  The problem with this is that they do it under the cover of a tax-free status, as a 501(c)(3) organization. A 501(c)(3) organization is a charitable organization, and donations to it are tax deductible.  Big Journalism wants to go after Media Matters for its political activities, which may disqualify the organization from its tax exempt status.

The prohibited political activities under the Internal Revenue Code focus on partisan activities such as the support of one party or one candidate over another.  It is unclear to me that Media Matters war on the First Amendment would qualify as a prohibited political activity.  What is clear, however, is that Media Matters is very political and very partisan, and may step over the line sometime, if they have not done so already.  Big Journalism tells what to look for and how to make a complaint to the IRS.

Read the Big Journalism article here.

Political Prostitute David Brock

David Brock is the founder of the far-left organization Media Matters.  Recently Brock told Politico that his organization is gearing for an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Who is David Brock?  I googled his name and found a 2005 article from Frontpagemag.com that describes Brock's history.  It is a sordid one.  The information below was extracted from this article.

Brock started out as a highly-paid investigative reporter for the conservative magazine, The American Spectator.  Brock did good work in exposing the sexual escapades of Bill Clinton and discrediting the liberal Anita Hill, who had defamed Clarence Thomas in his confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court justice.  Brock achieved widespread fame and acclaim as a conservative reporter and writer.

Brock then received a million dollar advance from Adam Bellow and the Free Press to write an investigative book about Hillary Clinton.  However, the task proved too much for Brock, as his earlier exposé on Bill shut down potential sources within the Hillary camp.  Instead, he wrote a superficial book exonerating Hillary from the Whitewater scandal and defending her against a number of other charges.

His book "The Seduction of Hillary Clinton" was released in 1996 and was a miserable failure.  The book received widespread criticism, even from the left, for Brock's whitewash of Hillary's role in Whitewater.  The Free Press lost millions and Adam Bellow was fired.  Meanwhile, Brock had invested his million dollar advance in expensive properties he could no longer afford.  He was desperate for some kind of bail-out, but few would now hire a failed author whose miserable performance had lost millions for his publisher.  Brock's reputation as an author was shot and he knew it.

Brock's economic survival needed a shrewd strategy and he came up with one:  he reinvented himself as an innocent who was deceived by conservatives, but who now saw the light of liberalism, and switched sides.  He wrote a book "Blinded by the Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative," and became a hero to the left who could now point to Brock as an example of the duplicity and mendaciousness of the right.  Brock was living proof of Hillary's charge of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Brock apologized to Bill Clinton for Brock's American Spectator articles on "Troopergate."  Brock then slimed the Arkansas troopers he had befriended and who had supplied him with information on Clinton's use of troopers as pimps for Clinton's enormous sexual appetite.

My conclusions:  David Brock is an unprincipled actor whose only loyalty is to himself.  Like Arianna Huffington and Charles Johnson, he was willing to betray allies and friends, to sell out for fame and money.  His latest gambit to conduct "guerrilla warfare" against Fox News is only further evidence that Brock is a political prostitute whose main client is George Soros.  He is deserving only of profound contempt.

Read the entire Frontpage article here.

This morning Pamela Geller is angrily denouncing Christine O'Donnell, Republican senatorial candidate for Delaware.  Geller endorsed O'Donnell early on, and O'Donnell posted Geller's endorsement on her website.  Then this week, a leftist online rag called Salon attacked O'Donnell for posting Geller's endorsement, repeating a lot of vicious lies and exaggerations about Pamela Geller.  Someone in O'Donnell's organization got spooked and removed Geller's endorsment from the O'Donnell website.  Geller saw the removal and went ballistic.  The Salon strategy worked:  Geller and O'Donnell were transformed from political allies into political enemies and a nasty public fight ensued.  Both Geller and O'Donnell will come away from this with mud on their faces.

Saul Alinsky stressed the use of ridicule and other strategies for causing political opponents to lose their tempers; once these opponents lost their tempers, they would self-destruct in a very public way, neutering themselves politically.  Geller has made herself a shining example of how effective this strategy can be.  With her ego gored, Geller was transformed into an attack dog for the left.

The only question in my mind is this:  how could Pamela Geller allow herself to be so easily played?  This stratagem will be celebrated in the annals of the left for years as an example of the effective use of slander and "playing one against the other."

The left has become quite effective at turning decent people into public pariahs through out and out lies and propaganda.  The reason, of course, is to silence these people, or erode their credibility with the public, or lacking that, to merely punish them by invoking as much psychic pain as possible.  Fueled by hatred and immorality, the purveyors of "tolerance" are truly hypocritical, anti-democratic and completely ruthless.  They will destroy the life of a political opponent if they can, or cause that opponent to suffer for his conscience for a very long time.  Examples are plentiful:  Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Joe McCarthy, Kathleen Harris, Linda Tripp, Carrie Prejean, Tom DeLay, Robert Stacy McCain, to  name only a few.  (See my former post "How the Left Punishes Conservatives.")  Now you can add Pamela Geller to the long and growing list of "the Slimed."

Pamela should have confined her concerns to private communications with the O'Donnell campaign.  Denouncing O'Donnell's "cowardice and lack of character" two weeks away from the election is truly destructive to the conservative cause.   Pamela, it isn't all about you.

See what immigration attorneys say about the Whitman maid controversy.  Free Will has the story here.

Free Will also covers Hugh Hewitt's interview of attorney Gloria Allred here, where Hewitt makes a complete jackass out of Allred.