Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Liberal blogger wonders: Why does the MSM ignore death threats against Wisconsin Republicans, and why does the rest of the left condone those threats?

I am about to break one of my own rules here by linking to the moonbat blog Huffington Post.  I never link to the moonbat blogs, because they can generate their own traffic by trolling the dark, depraved cellars of mankind all by themselves.  That said, this time merits an exception.  Plus, it’s my blog, so I get to both make and break the rules here.  😆

Undoubtedly, this guy will now be threatened for breaking Commandment #1 among the left: “Thou shalt not stray from the leftist plantation, either in philosophy or in conduct, lest ye be persecuted.”  You must, must read the guy’s column!  Here’s an excerpt:

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren’t considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn’t just been one death threat, but a number of them.

[Examples here. Like I said, go read the column! – CL]

On the other hand, if you read conservative blogs or listen to conservative media, you know all about these threats because people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and websites like Newsbusters and BigJournalism have not only been talking about the death threats for days now but they’ve been talking about the mainstream and liberal media ignoring the threats for days.

Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It’s bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.

Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it’s stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn’t exaggerating — proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you’ve never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly et al have said about anything, you can’t in any good conscience say that they don’t have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.

He then goes on to make the case against public sector unions’ ability to collectively bargain by quoting the golden calf of the left: FDR! Ouch! He outlines the “bile and invective” he got from the left for doing this, which leads him to wonder:

Is this really what liberalism has come to in 2011? (Welcome to Realityville, pal. Liberal population here: 1. You’re all alone, dude. – CL)

Since working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn’t changed but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I’ve seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives… and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.

Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.

I doubt that he and I agree on very much of anything.  However, he is 100% dead on with this.  The MSM is a friggin’ joke for its embargo of these threats, and the left is losing what shards of credibility they have remaining (which, if recent elections are any indicator, is damning).  Kudos to one liberal for having the stones to say “Guys, can’t we for once be intellectually honest?”, even if his brethren answer with a resounding “Not a chance, pal!”

March 18, 2011 Posted by | hypocrisy, media bias, moonbats | 7 Comments

UPDATED: Police and firefighter union thugs try to extort WI businesses

UPDATES BELOW.

Need another reason why government employees should have NO collective “bargaining” rights?  Look no further:

Wow. Here is another reason public unions should not be allowed to collectively bargain with politicians running a local or state government. Union leadership – including those from law enforcement and firefighters – have sent letters out to local businesses demanding they publicly oppose the efforts of Wisconsin’s legislature and governor or face the consequences.

Not only are they suggesting they publicly oppose the fiscal-sanity measures in Wisconsin, they are flat out telling them they will publicly boycott businesses who do not proactively do so. From James Taranto’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

In the letter to Wisconsin businessmen, however, we see why so-called collective bargaining is particularly corrupting to the police. Although the letter explicitly threatens only an economic boycott, when it is written on behalf of the police–of those on whom all citizens depend to protect their safety–it invariably raises the prospect of another kind of boycott. Can a businessman who declines this heavy-handed “request” be confident that the police will do their job if he is the victim of a crime–particularly if the crime itself is in retaliation for his refusal to support “the dedicated public employees who serve our communities”?

SteveM shows an excerpt of one of those letters from the government union thugs to area businesses (emphasis added):

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

Cops to businesses who might support Walker:  Man, it sure would be a “shame” if you called 911 because you needed assistance and we “just so happened” to get delayed in responding to your call…wouldn’t it?

Firefighters to businesses who might support Walker: Man, wouldn’t it just suck to see your business go up in flames and it “just so happened” to take us too long to respond to the blaze?

B#stards.

UPDATE (03/18/2011 – 07:35 EST):  Seems that actual WI cops (the rank-and-file) are throwing the author of the extortion letter under the police cruiser.  The author of the extortion letter is James Palmer, the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Officers Association (WPPA). As Steven Spingola points out, Palmer isn’t a cop, nor has he ever been one…he’s a lawyer! As such, real cops are distancing themselves from Palmer and are publicly trashing the guy.

March 18, 2011 Posted by | shameful, unions, Wisconsin | 2 Comments

Twitter may get tax break in order to keep from moving, and tax break is being considered by…San Francisco?

Thanks to Donna for sending this big, juicy slab of irony my way.  From San Fransicko:

San Francisco’s best shot to prevent Twitter from migrating south faces a key vote Wednesday on whether to give the microblogging service a six-year tax break.

The growing San Francisco-based company has explored a move to Brisbane, where its business costs would be lower. San Francisco has a 1.5 percent payroll tax whereas Brisbane does not have one.

Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the mid-Market Street area where Twitter would move, has broken from predecessor Chris Daly’s stance and is advocating for the passage of legislation that would give Twitter a six-year payroll tax break if it decides to move into the building at Market and Ninth streets. The tax break would apply to all qualifying businesses that relocate to the portion of the Tenderloin and the mid-Market Street area that city officials hope to revitalize

I’m philosophically against cutting taxes,” Kim said Monday. “I’ve had to think about this long and hard. This is targeted enough. It’s specific enough. It’s short enough.”

OK, just to make sure I’m understanding this properly…

You are “philosophically against cutting taxes”, presumably because you believe that (a) government can better use that revenue than the person or business who earned it; (b) taxing businesses is somehow good for the economy; (c) tax cuts do not help the economy in any way; (d) letting a business keep more of the money it earned is morally repugnant; (e) tax policy has no impact on business decisions (such as hiring, firing, relocating, etc.) whatsoever; or (f) some or all of the above.

If you are “philosophically against cutting taxes” for any (much less all) of the aforementioned reasons, then on what planet does it make sense to extend the tax break for Twitter?  If it is truly believed that by Twitter getting this tax break they will stay in San Franfreakshow, which will in turn benefit the San Franistan economy, then doesn’t that completely shatter your “philosophy” of being against tax cuts of any kind?  It would if there were any sense of logic, consistency, or (in this case) irony in your body.

Folks, let that sink in for a moment: “Tax cuts are bad, bad things…which is why I’m going to support a tax cut for Twitter.”  Haven’t these economic illiterates been telling us since the JFK administration that “tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses don’t work”?

Well, she has a tough sell, based on the reactions of her fellow Board members:

Supervisor John Avalos said the proposal doesn’t seem fair given the financial struggles of residents in his district.

“Who are the [Twitter] investors?” he said. “Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth.”

There you go, pal.  You stick to your guns, sir!  And when Twitter moves out and takes their jobs, property taxes, etc., with them, you will have truly won the day!

March 18, 2011 Posted by | economic ignorance, irony, San Francisco, taxes | 4 Comments