A black Tea Party protester who was selling buttons and flags outside a meeting was viciously, brutally attacked by Service Employees International Union members in Missouri last August. Today, Gateway Pundit announces that the perps will face trial.
I didn't know that this incident happened until today. Where are the cries of racism? Where is the NAACP? Why aren't the lefties speaking out on behalf of a man who was beaten, stomped on, and verbally assaulted with racist remarks simply for professing his political beliefs?
Because he disagrees with them. The left loves to talk about how it champions racial equality, but they will not raise a finger to defend a black man who opposes them. This shameful, disgusting selectivity undermines everything that liberals "stand for". Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every other race-baiting mouth out there should be ashamed that they have let this incident pass in silence.
As for the SEIU: this incident is proof positive that big labor has still not moved away from its 1930s-style thug tactics. Union neanderthals use the same brutal tactics today that they did nearly one hundred years ago. The SEIU will do anything to stomp on those who don't enshrine the President that they stumped and cheated for.
The next time a liberal tells you that he or she supports free speech, laugh in his or her face.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
It's All About the Tea Party
The recent Tea Party convention, and its keynote address by Sarah Palin, loom large over the national discourse today. I will have more to say later, but I think it's fascinating that the conservative stalwarts of 2008 are now being pushed askew in 2010. Is the country banking hard right all of a sudden?
Labels:
John McCain,
Politics,
Ron Paul,
Sarah Palin,
Tea Party
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sudden Democratic Urges
Today's Boston Globe offers a depressing little tidbit about the current race for Ted Kennedy's open U.S. senate seat. It seems Martha Coakley, who is suddenly adamant that Massachusetts residents be treated to the full democratic process, refuses to debate Republican candidate Scott Brown unless third-party Libertarian candidate Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to those Kennedys) is included.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Here we have naked political strategizing disguised as populist insistence on fairness. Coakley says, "I'm a Democrat, we live in a democracy, and this is one of the treasures that we have...If people can get the votes and get the support, they're allowed to get their message out to voters. ... He has done what Massachusetts says he needs to to be on the ballot here. In that sense he puts himself out as a candidate.''
Do not be fooled by this stammering extollment of the virtues of the democratic process. Magnanimous Martha is simply trying to split the Tax Day Tea Party crowd away from Brown, as Kennedy will easily siphon their votes away. By insisting on Libertarian involvement in the debates, she can turn this into a 70-15-15 race, rather than a 70-30 one.
Technically, there is nothing illegal or unethical about any of this. Nor does it really matter. It is, however, laughably insincere and (to those who follow local politics) somewhat aggravating.
The Democratic Party of Massachusetts is the party that refused to let the gay marriage issue be decided by popular vote, dictating through legislation that legally enshrined gay marriage is the law of the land. It is the party that recently has seen quite a few of its members (including former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and State Senator Diane Wilkerson) tossed out onto their butts due to abuses of power and ethics violations. It is the party that hands out high-paying government jobs to its friends and supporters.
Yet now, it is the party telling us to consider our voting options, in the name of fairness and democracy! I wish that the lefties had been as accomodating when it was time to give gay marriage a popular referendum.
Labels:
Election,
Libertarians,
Martha Coakley,
Politics,
Scott Brown,
Senate,
Senate Race,
Strategy,
Tea Party
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)