By now everyone has read news and commentary coverage of some of the most exciting debate moments in recent history: the exchange that took place between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney concerning Romneycare. And perhaps many of you, like me, watched the debate and saw the exchange as it happened. If you did, I’m guessing those among you who are conservative found yourselves cheering for Santorum as he took it to Romney on what is surely the most dangerous aspect of a possible Romney candidacy—Romneycare.

It’s dangerous for the reasons Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have indicated  by predicting that Obama can’t wait to face Romney because Romney WILL NOT be able to go after Obamacare with any moral integrity. As soon as he brings it up Obama will just say: “All I know is that while you were Gov. in Massachusetts, you implemented the plan we followed in designing our Health Care reforms.” And that will end the debate on Obamacare.

Santorum proved this during the debate in Florida on Thursday night, by explaining that just as Obamacare requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the government, so too Romneycare requires Massachusetts citizens to do the same or pay a fine to the state. In other words, both plans carry a personal mandate which forces citizens to buy healthcare (or pay a fine) whether they want to or not.  And when Romney responded to Santorum by saying he was proud of what they’d done in Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts seemed happy with it too, Santorum offered a foretaste of the way Obama is going to take Romney apart on this issue. Said Santorum:

“What Gov. Romney just said is that government-run, top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts and he supports it. Now, think about what that means.”

Romney’s position here is simply indefensible, and although Santorum is the only one to call him out so clearly to this point, Santorum will certainly not be the last. And this is why Santorum kept saying, “We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election.” Dan Riehl made this point clear in his post on Big Government January 27, when he quoted Paul Begala as saying that on the issue of Romneycare v. Obamacare, “Mitt still doesn’t have a straight answer. Rick Santorum skillfully dissected Romney on the topic. If Romney is the GOP nominee, you can be sure Barack Obama will do the same.”

Which brings me to my central point: Namely, that for all the good Santorum did with his line of questions and his relentless regurgitation of the facts against Romney, he still passed on his chance to throw the knock-out punch.

(more…)

President Barack Obama has a problem, a problem much bigger than his plummeting poll numbers among black voters, the ever-worsening housing market, or the chronically high national unemployment numbers. Although these are all bad and must be weighing down on him—whether he admits it or not—they are minor compared to his deeper problem, which is his inability to handle criticism, his inability to handle the truth.

We first saw this when Obama was starting to run for president and he put reporters “on notice” regarding comments about the size of his ears. Since then we’ve seen it in the way he locks out reporters who ask hard questions and, most recently, in the way he appears to have lodged a complaint with Gov. Jan Brewer regarding her criticism of the way he has gone to war with Arizona to keep that state from defending its southern border.

If you’ll recall, in December 2006, after New York Times’ reporter Maureen Dowd had written about how Obama’s “ears stick out,” Obama tracked her down at a speaking engagement and said: “I just want to put you on notice. I’m very sensitive,” adding, “I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.” (Rush Limbaugh was then criticized for seizing on that comment and warning people that it demonstrated Obama’s skin was too thin for the rigors of the presidency. And in retrospect, Limbaugh was right.)

Perhaps you remember the April 2011 exchange that took place between Obama and Dallas news reporter Brad Watson, during an interview wherein Watson asked the president pointed, probing questions instead of the kind of light and fluffy stuff a CNN reporter asks when he or she gets the chance. For example, as the two sat face to face, Watson looked right at Obama and asked: “Why do you think you’re so unpopular in Texas?” And when Obama tried to make it look like he wasn’t that unpopular in Texas, saying he’d only lost in 2008 by a “few percentage points,” Watson countered: “Well, you lost by about 10%. 55 to 44.” And because Obama can’t handle criticism, he became noticeably bothered as the questions continued. When the short interview was over, an angry Obama whispered to Watson: “Let me finish my answers next time we do an interview.”

(more…)

Remember when Herman Cain was doing what no one thought he could do? He was beating Mitt Romney nationally, telling us that “9-9-9 means jobs, jobs, jobs,” promising to gut the EPA and repeal Obamacare, all with a southerner’s grin and a gentlemen’s manner. But as he pulled further and further ahead, and people actually wondered if he might upset Romney’s bid, a funny thing happened: there was an orchestrated attack on him based on rumors about a relationship he denied having with a woman nearly 20 years ago.

When that failed to stop him, the attacks were stepped up so as to include comments from less-than-savory characters who claimed to have actually seen Cain sexually harass that woman but who would not, or could not, provide details.  So the pile on game began, and rumors of Cain’s harassment of other women began to be floated. Some of those women were even paraded out before TV cameras in hopes of finally getting the American voter to turn on Cain. Who can forget watching Romney’s supporter-and-chief, Karl Rove, declaring Cain “finished” in late October then watching Gloria Allred parade out “a fourth accuser” for a press conference in early November?

Long story short, Cain eventually had to pull out of the race. And my point here isn’t to try and defend Cain, as much as it is to remind everyone of the tactics of the Republican establishment and their willing cohorts in the media who all want to see Romney get the nomination. (The establishment wants him to get the nomination because he’s an establishment guy and the media wants him to get it because they plan to watch Obama beat him in just the way Gov. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have predicted.)

Enter Newt Gingrich: He’s gaining on Romney not only in South Carolina but also in polls nationally. His Reagan-like statements at the GOP debate are being replayed again and again and praised for their conservative substance. So ABCNews is now debating whether or not to air an interview with his ex-wife, wherein she unloads on him.

(more…)

Yesterday, while reacting to the New Hampshire Primary results during his radio program, Rush Limbaugh made one thing clear: Ron Paul is hurting conservative candidates. And Limbaugh made it clear that Paul isn’t doing this by taking up all the conservative votes, rather, he did it by placing 2nd via the votes of people who have little to no interest in supporting Republicans in general. What this means it that once Paul has run his course and helped Mitt Romney win, the people who voted for Paul in the primaries will then either turn around and vote 3rd party or, in some cases, vote for Obama.

Here’s how Limbaugh put it:

The majority of people that voted for [Ron Paul] were not Republican….And what I’ve been told is that [of these] supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on [as most of them] were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, [and voted for Paul].

The key figure in this is that only 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. It’s important because it’s exactly half number given by Tea Party voters, 80% of which said they will support the nominee whoever he is. And this is what prompted Limbaugh to say “Ron Paul is a conservative killer.” It’s also why Limbaugh contends that Mitt Romney “wants Ron Paul to stay in” the race.

(more…)

Although Todd Palin has chosen Newt Gingrich as his candidate for 2012, Sarah Palin has yet to make any endorsements. One thing she has done, however, is warn that the establishment candidate—Mitt Romney—has been propelled through the race thus far by people who believe he’s beatable. In other words, while the Republican establishment is pushing him as their ideal candidate, the mainstream media has come alongside them to help push him too, albeit for different reasons.

Thus, while the Republican candidates were having their debate in New Hampshire on Saturday night, Palin was on FOX NEWS’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine” contending that President Obama wants “to face Mitt Romney in the general election.”In the process, she made it clear that this is why she believes the mainstream media is taking such a kid glove approach to Romney: they too see him as Obama’s best chance for victory.

On his radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh concurred with Palin 100%:

There is a story on the Drudge Report today from Sarah Palin in which Sarah Palin says that the White House wants Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. Now, not only did I tell you that the Broncos were gonna beat the Steelers, for months I have been telling you that the Democrats want Romney — and you all know it. You’ve been listening here and you’ve heard people call me and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, that I’m full of it, that they’re scared of Romney. “Romney is the only guy who can win.” And I have said, “No,” and I’ve stood tough, and I’ve said, “They can’t wait for him. What’s Occupy Wall Street all about but running against Romney? He’s the Wall Street guy on our roster — and then Romneycare,” and I’ve laid it all out. So here comes Palin, she says it, and makes news.

(more…)

Progressives are hoping to rock the vote in the 2012 Iowa caucuses… by voting for Ron Paul.

Photo source: waznmentobe.com

The reliably left-wing Mother Jones recently ran a story asking if Iowa progressives were Ron Paul’s wildcard in the race.  The story pointed to supporters like Francis Thicke, an organic farmer from Fairfield, Iowa, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for secretary of agriculture in 2010.

On Tuesday, Thicke announced his support for Paul ”to keep his voice for peace and his voice to reduce the military in the debate, because he will challenge the other Republican candidates.” Thicke promised his Democratic Party county chairman that he would vote for Obama over Paul without a doubt, because he doesn’t support dismantling the government. “This is a tactical thing” to expand voters’ awareness, Thicke told Mother Jones.

These tactical shenanigans might seem to echo “Operation Chaos,” the Rush Limbaugh operation that saw Republicans crossing over to vote for Hilary in the 2008 Democratic primary–except that Operation Chaos was largely applied to primaries, not to caucuses.

I’ve already written about Occupy the Caucuses’s Ed Fallon, a former Democratic candidate for governor-turned-progressive gadfly and arrested protestor. Fallon has listed his endorsements for the 2012 caucuses–and they include Ron Paul, among other “less extreme” Republicans (by which he means those more palatable to the left).

The Nation writes today that Fallon has been plotting to upend the caucuses by having progressives send an “anti-war, pro-civil liberties” message in the 2012 caucuses: (more…)

When Barack Obama was seeking the Democrat nomination in early 2008, warnings of his inexperience coupled with the fact that he was an ideologue were ubiquitous. Again and again, the facts were placed before us that Obama’s only claim to significant leadership was as a community organizer in Chicago. Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others repeatedly said that Obama would be a reckless President who lacked governing knowledge and who was ruled only by his desire to put America in its place.

And here we are. It’s late 2011, and the Organizer-in-Chief has proven that his only strength lies in his ability to organize those who hate America—hating both the economic system embedded in her and the ideals on which she stands.

To put it bluntly, “Occupy Wall Street” is Obama’s America. He has organized it, perhaps indirectly, but has done so nonetheless via his relentless venom for “the rich” coupled with his ongoing calls for more people to sacrifice and to “pay their fair share.” Of course, he doesn’t mean the hippies and freaks in the protests should pay their share. Rather, he is fostering a feeling of betrayal in them so they will continue to “rage against the machine.”

Look at it, folks–Obama’s America. Ain’t it great? It’s a place where law is disparaged (you can defecate on police cars), capitalism is hated (“eat the rich”), and people are entitled to take money from others even if the takers played no role in earning the money they crave (especially if they played no role in earning it).

(more…)

I was shocked (er, sort of) to learn that each month the Treasury Department sends out 80 million checks to various recipients. That’s a little over 25% of the population. I guess it’s no surprise, however, when you consider only half the households in our country pay any income taxes.

Lately, President Obama has been beating the scare drum, suggesting those most vulnerable will not receive their monthly checks unless we increase the debt ceiling.  But there’s a dirty little secret that no one in the mainstream media is willing to tell you: the Government, through Barack Obama, decides who gets paid and who doesn’t. And if you don’t get your check, then it means he decided you were not important. Blame him.

It’s all about priorities, and as the chief executive, Barack Obama takes the pot of money the Congress confiscates for him via taxes and divvies it up. He decides which of the 80 million checks get paid based upon the revenue he has at his disposal. There is money coming into the treasury all the time, and there will be money to pay some (but not necessary all) checks if/when we reach the debt ceiling.

(more…)

For many years, liberals have been gushing with enthusiasm over the prospect of a totally-green planet, one where CO2 emissions are a thing of the past (but wouldn’t that kill green plants?), wind turbines spin like glittering pinwheels in a parade (killing hundreds of thousands of birds each year), and electric cars line the roads (stopping every 40 miles for a recharge). To help ensure this dream becomes reality, President Obama pledged in his 2011 State of the Union address that he wanted to see one million electric cars on America’s roads by 2015.

Of course, the President’s pledge meant taxpayers will subsidize the progressive vision for a clean planet. The day after his State of the Union speech, liberal Democrats proposed creation of tax incentives to encourage people to buy electric vehicles.  What progressives consistently fail to understand is that government screws up each time its big shoes step into the private sector (can anyone say Amtrak?). When it comes to the markets, consumers and the private sector drive it forward or backward, not government. Winners and losers are determined by what people want, need, or desire, and not by what government wants for them.

This was played out recently with the announcement that Green Vehicles, a Salinas, CA electric car start-up company, was closing its doors. Barely two years into its Vision Quest to create an “electric valley” in the state, Green Vehicles ran into problems creating enough capital to survive (translation: nobody wanted to invest in or buy the sewing machine engine scooters). What makes the story most disturbing, however, is that the company’s start up was subsidized by California taxpayers, to the tune of $540K.

If electric vehicles were a winning, money-making idea, someone would have perfected the technology and sold millions of them by now. That’s how capitalism works.

(more…)

The current issue of The Economist contains a must read special report on the future of the news industry. While there is little in the way of groundbreaking news developments in the report, The Economist’s series of articles provides a condensed overview of the current and future states of the news media; an article of interest to everyone here at BigGovernment.com.

“Bulletins from the Future” celebrates the emergence of “’crowdsourced’ journalism,” which has “turned the news industry upside down, making it more participatory, social, diverse and partisan.” In “How Newspapers are Faring: A Little Local Difficulty,” the writers point out that the decline of print media is mostly an American and Western European phenomenon and in “Reinventing the Newspaper” they examine the new business models that “are proliferating as news organizations search for novel sources of revenue.”

“The People Formerly Known as the Audience” looks at the rise of social media and the impact they have on the news business. “The Foxification of News” partly bemoans and partly celebrates the ideological compartmentalization of the news business.”

A few thoughts. The series makes several references to Arianna Huffington but none of the proprietor and editor of this site. This is unfortunate not because she’s a liberal and Andrew Breitbart and Mike Flynn are conservative/libertarians. Rather, failing to explore what Andrew and his team have accomplished in terms of breaking real stories represents a missed opportunity. Taking nothing away from Ms. Huffington’s tremendous accomplishment, her website is really a highly SEO-ed liberal celebrity site with some reporting, most of it horribly biased, some of it good. Andrew and Mike have moved the needle on key stories and have forced “real reporters” to follow their lead.

(more…)

To any lucid observer of politics in America, it should be obvious that the two political figures whom the mainstream media (MSM), the Republican establishment, and the Democrat leadership currently despise more than any others are Gov. Sarah Palin and talk show giant Rush Limbaugh. In general, the reasons Palin and Limbaugh are despised is because they are both disciples of Ronald Reagan, they unabashedly view America as exceptional, and they refuse to back down even in the face of the most ridiculous shame tactics imaginable.

For example, shortly after Obama took office, Limbaugh told his listeners of the dangers Obama posed to this country, and then uttered the now famous words: “I hope he fails.” Members of the MSM went apoplectic, the Republican establishment, led by then RNC Chairman Michael Steele, criticized (and ostracized) Limbaugh for the comment, and the Democrats maligned Limbaugh by taking his words out of context and trying to convince everyday citizens that Limbaugh wanted this nation to fail.

Anyway, long story short: Limbaugh did not back down, and he’s still on the air every day to a growing audience but Michael Steele has been relieved of his duties as RNC Chairman. Moreover, the past two years of Obama’s rule have proven Limbaugh 100% correct in his analysis of the danger Obama posed to this country.

Or think about the way the same people have tried to shame Palin into silence.

(more…)

More than a month has passed since I published news about out-of-control agents from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service going after a couple in Nixa, Mo., for selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year. Today, I offer an update likely to upset those who’ve been following the case of John and Judy Dollarhite.

On May 24, the Dollarhites were cautiously optimistic about their prospects after the USDA appeared to be rethinking their plan to levy up to $3.9 million in fines after some public attention — via more than a dozen posts here, at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and elsewhere as well as notice by Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh — was cast on the matter. Now, it appears they had good reason to be cautious.

On June 21, I learned from Clay Bowler, the Springfield, Mo., blogger who was first to break the Dollarhite’s story, that the couple had received a foll0wup letter from the USDA. Based on the content of Bowler’s post about the USDA letter which stemmed from his conversation with John Dollarhite, I fired off an inquiry (below) to USDA APHIS Spokesperson David Sacks late that same afternoon:

Dave,

I understand John Dollarhite received a post-inspection letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, offering him a settlement based on a handful of conditions. Thought I haven’t yet seen the letter, I understand it requires the Dollarhites to do the following:

After confirming, denying or clarifying the information above, please explain the authority under which USDA officials believe they can issue such an expansive set of requirements and explain how those same officials plan to respond to the huge public outcry that is certain to follow when the contents of the new letter become public.

Sincerely,

Bob McCarty

Sacks responded almost 24 hours later:

(more…)

Join Andrew Breitbart and Melanie Morgan for Troopathon 2011, today from 4pm to Midnight EDT!

Troopathon brings together famous celebrities from radio, television, the movie, musicians, journalists, and more to create a one-of-a-kind event with one purpose – to support our troops on the front lines in the war on terror and honor their service and sacrifice for our nation. Guests include: Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Mark Levin, Kelsey Grammer, Former President George H.W. Bush, Gary Sinise, Dennis Miller, Former Ambassador John Bolton, Greg Gutfeld and many more!

Click here to send your care package or call 866-866-6372.

Online video chat by Ustream

On Thursday June 23rd celebrities from Hollywood, radio, and TV will gather at the Nixon Library for a one of a kind event with a special purpose: to support our troops on the front lines in the war on terror and honor their service and sacrifice for our nation.

Troopathon 2011, as it is called, has the focused goal of sending as many care packages as it can get sponsored during an eight hour event. It its first year (2008) Troopathon brought in over $1.5 million for care packages for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. A $25 donation buys and delivers one care package.

One of the scheduled speakers is war hero and marine Nick Popaditch. Nick (a frequent guest on FOX’s “Red Eye”) was the tank commander and platoon sergeant in Baghdad during the historic fall of the statue of Saddam.

Recently Nick and his wife April joined me to talk about Troopathon and the significance it has for our troops serving in the Middle East. The YouTube video of the interview is below:

Troopathon Facts:

What: Troopathon 2011, the largest care package drive in America in support of our troops.

When: Thursday June 23rd, 4pm-midnight EDT / 1pm-9pm PDT

How You Can Watch: Right here at the Bigs!

How To Donate: Donation page.

Hosts: Andrew Breitbart and Melanie Morgan

Who Will Be Participating?: Several famous celebrities including actors Jon Voight, Gary Sinise and Robert Davi, media personalities Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, SE Cupp, and many others including yours truly. (more…)

***UPDATE: The DNC just released a video that makes my case perfectly. CNN asks a series of dumb questions that have little to do with the important issues of the day and the DNC exploits this with a viral-video mocking  our candidates for ignoring the most important issues of the day.

If you think this is by accident, you haven’t been paying attention:

—–

ABC’s Jake Tapper sees through this but unfortunately there’s only one Jake Tapper.  END UPDATE

Laugh at Democrats all you want but their decision during the last election to stay away from Fox News’ debates was brilliant. No one at Fox would’ve been unfair, but they most certainly would’ve asked tougher questions than anyone in the MSM. That’s not a cowardly decision on the Democrats part, it’s a tactically brilliant decision. Why would anyone interested in winning an election willingly put themselves in a less than ideal situation? Unfortunately, the only people who can answer that question are those currently running for the GOP nomination.

Nothing is more important than getting our failed president out of office in 2012 and therefore nothing is more important than nominating someone who can win. This is why the number one quality we should be looking for among our otherwise superb field is someone who understands that when it comes to removing Barack Obama from office, the MSM is the existential threat of 2012 — not the President. In a just world, Obama would have almost no chance of winning re-election, but we don’t live in a just world. We live in a world where Obama’s MSM Palace Guards have set their phasers to kill and intend to take out any threat to Their Precious One without prejudice.

And so last night when I saw our esteemed candidates voluntarily lined up like so many ducks in a MSM shooting gallery, I died a little bit inside.  It’s a trap, GOP!, and you can laugh at moderator John King’s questions all you want but I’m guessing that’s exactly what the MSM wants us to do. That way we don’t see the Matrix of what they were really up to. Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air:

(more…)

In just a bit over two years, Barack Obama has exponentially expanded the size of the federal government and the number of Americans dependent upon it for their well being. He has taken over our healthcare system, two of our largest automobile manufacturers, and overseen spending that has placed our national debt at over $14,000,000,000,000. Gas prices are up sharply – more than 100% increase in per-gallon-price since Obama took office – yet his solution to such prices is characterized by a continued reliance on OPEC, coupled with a de jure ban on offshore drilling and a de facto ban on the expansion of onshore drilling (in places like the western states and Alaska).  Unemployment is at 9%, illegal immigrants are largely getting a pass, the housing slump continues, and inalienable rights are quietly being attacked “under the radar.”

At times like this, when the American people feel their wallets and bank accounts squeezed more tightly at every turn, it’s only natural to wonder how things might be different if we were to take the reins of power out of Obama’s hands in 2012 and put them in the hands of someone else.

And what if that ”someone else” was Sarah Palin?

In other words, what would it be like to live under government according to President Palin?

For starters, there would be a vast reduction in the size of government instead of an exponential growth of the same: the record spending spree would stop. Palin has said repeatedly that she supports “cutting taxes and shrinking government,” that we need to “go back to what Reagan did in the early 80s, [and] stay committed to those common sense free market principles that work.” As she said during her speech in India in March of this year: “We need job growth. And that won’t come from ‘top-down government planning’…[but] from the ‘Free Market Ingenuity’ of ordinary American entrepreneurs.”

(more…)

When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee ran for President in 2008, he did so in the guise of a conservative. But those of us who listened closely to his speeches heard a message that was far from compatible with the ideals of limited government and expanded liberty: two benchmarks of conservatism by any measure. Instead we heard Huckabee openly support a nationwide, federally mandated smoking ban, and expanding the powers of the federal government to mandate limits on carbon emissions via cap and trade.

Because of the exponential growth things like a national smoking ban and cap and trade legislation would cause in the size of government, Rush Limbaugh often warned that Huckabee was a “populist” rather than a conservative. In other words, Huckabee had a good grasp on how to give speeches in the vernacular of heartland America, but his solutions to the problems faced by those same people rested in an expansion of government for which the constitution made no provision. (Like Clinton, Huckabee could feel our pain, and like Obama, he could ease that pain via government intervention.)

And believe it or not, Huckabee’s record on taxes (and tax increases) is even more dismal than his record on smoking bans and cap and trade legislation. While Governor of Arkansas, he literally begged state legislators to support tax increases on the citizens of that state.

When Arkansas faced what FOX NEWS’ Carl Cameron described as “general revenue shortfall in the state budget,” a desperate Huckabee stood before the state legislature and told them he’d found a way to meet Arkansas’ near $100 million shortfall:

“There’s a lot of support for a tax at the wholesale level for tobacco, and that’s fine with me. I will be very happy to sign that, because it’s a revenue stream that will…help us meet that 90 to 100 million target.

Some have suggested [a tax on] the retail level of tobacco. If that ends up being your preference I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge on the income tax. That’s acceptable: I’m fine with that. Others have suggested perhaps a sales tax. That’s fine.

Yet others have suggested a hybrid [tax] that would collect some monies from any one or a combination of [these] various ideas. And if that’s the plan the House and Senate agree upon, you will have nothing but my profound thanks.”

Not only was Huckabee’s support for any and every tax scheme imaginable antithetical to the conservative mind, but the way he groveled before the legislature was shameful: not at all indicative of a leader.

(more…)

As he sits behind bars awaiting trial, Jared Loughner is undoubtedly relishing every moment of the ruckus that he managed to stir up with his deadly rampage in Tucson.  In addition to murdering six innocent human beings and wounding more than a dozen others in an act of sheer evil, the deranged gunman has set off a media and political frenzy that refuses to abate.

By various accounts, this is precisely what Loughner was hoping for. As his close friend Bryce Tierney told Mother Jones, “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening.” Ironically enough, then, many of those now engaged in the shameless finger-pointing are inadvertently advancing the goals of the madman, by fulfilling his desire to create an environment of mayhem in society.

Deploying the most acerbic members of its verbal firing squads, the left has launched volley after volley of vitriol in recent days in an effort to score some political points and paint conservatives as extremists.  But in so doing, they are merely extending the damage inflicted by Loughner into the sphere of public discourse, thereby undermining the very same foundations of civilization that the gunman himself was targeting. (more…)

(Continued from yesterday)

Recap: Radical funder George Soros’s $1 million gift to Media Matters, a left-wing character assassination machine, underwrites its campaign to stigmatize conservative ideas. For weeks Eric Boehlert of Media Matters attacked Glenn Beck because a disturbed viewer plotted to shoot up the offices of the left-wing Tides Foundation. The shooter, Byron Williams, failed, but in December when a fan of Media Matters, the late Florida school board shooter Clay Duke, wreaked havoc, Boehlert and Media Matters remained silent.

Soros is also bankrolling a documentary that celebrates left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. Even worse, you too are bankrolling the film through your taxes.

A trailer for the left-wing film Better This World suggests that it depicts David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder as idealistic activists who, according to the official blurb, “set out to prove the strength of their political convictions to themselves and their mentor.” In fact McKay and Crowder are convicted domestic terrorists who manufactured instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

You can be sure that if it was right-wing terrorists who were plotting to attack the Democratic National Convention, whoever foiled the conspiracy would be immortalized in film, literature and song as a savior of democracy.

“If you flip the equation around and it had been a group of conservatives threatening to use force to prevent those on the Left from meeting, everyone would expect the government to infiltrate them and they would also expect the FBI to stop them and charge them with crimes,” said Brandon Darby, who helped the FBI thwart the planned attack. (Darby’s essay on political violence appeared on Big Government over the past weekend. Read it here.)

The movie, which is expected to be released this year, attacks Darby, a true American hero who undermined the conspiracy by alerting the FBI. Filmmakers Katie Galloway and Kelly Duane de la Vega twist the facts to argue that Darby, a former revolutionary activist, manipulated McKay and Crowder into becoming would-be mass murderers.

It’s an easily disproved lie. During sentencing, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis went out of his way to make a specific legal finding that McKay obstructed justice by falsely accusing Darby of inducing him to manufacture the incendiary devices.

McKay and Crowder had made homemade riot shields and were ready to use them in St. Paul to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center. The goal was to shut down the democratic process by preventing GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

(more…)

(Continued from yesterday)

Recap: Radical philanthropist George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters for America, a well-funded slander shop that roots out “conservative misinformation.” It’s all part of his campaign to suppress conservative ideas that stand in the way of pushing America even farther to the left.

The left has been hyperventilating about Beck ever since he moved from CNN to Fox News in early 2009 and quickly became the Obama administration’s most vociferous high-profile critic. In particular, liberals could not abide Beck righteously fulminating against the shadowy Tides Foundation, a pass-through entity that allows wealthy individuals to give to radical causes anonymously.
Eric Boehlert, a so-called senior fellow at Media Matters, seized an opportunity when a deranged would-be shooter named Byron Williams jumped into the headlines last year. After a shootout with the California Highway Patrol, Williams said he had been on his way to shoot up the San Francisco offices of Tides in hopes of sparking a revolution. Williams was never actually much of a threat to Tides. When police pulled him over on a Sunday when the Tides offices were closed, the inept insurrectionist was drunk.

Media Matters argued that Beck had blood on his hands because Williams claimed Beck’s program was one of his favorite TV shows. Boehlert blogged that Beck “has routinely smeared the low-profile entity [i.e. Tides] for being staffed by ‘thugs’ and ‘bullies’ and involved in ‘the nasty of the nastiest,’ like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a ‘mass organization to seize power.’” Williams “wasn’t able to open fire inside the offices of the Tides Foundation, an organization ‘nobody knew’ about until Glenn Beck started targeting it.”

Aside from the rhetorical flourishes, Beck had provided a more or less accurate picture of the Tides Foundation, its sister groups, and many of its grant recipients.

As Trevor Loudon wrote in the October 2010 Foundation Watch, “The Tides Foundation and Tides Center are the radical left’s best kept secret. Together they provide tens of millions of dollars annually to some of the most extreme, destructive charities in America. Their money has gone to an assortment of questionable groups including ACORN, Media Matters for America, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.” (The Center was profiled in the September 2006 Organization Trends.)

According to David Horowitz’s online encyclopedia of the left, DiscoverTheNetworks.org, the Tides family of foundations has also funded the violent anarchist group known as the Ruckus Society, United for Peace and Justice (a group headed by pro-Castro activist Leslie Cagan), the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), three of whose executives have been indicted for terrorism-related activities, and the National Lawyers Guild.

(more…)