Libs are not only dumb but dangerous

A common liberal complaint against the Bush administration is its supposed
trampling of civil liberties. The Patriot Act, wiretaps, and Guantanamo
supposedly have undermined our freedoms - or so we are warned ad nauseam by
liberal watchdogs. True, we have not received any detailed analysis or
cost/benefit ratios of how many deadly terrorist plots have been
circumvented by these new controversial measures. The administration's past
defense of tough interrogations abroad of suspected terrorists sounded to
many a lot like an endorsement of torture-light. In any case, as the danger
of another 9/11 fades after almost six years, the public seems to be backing
off from such anti-terrorism measures - at least until another such mass
murder takes place on our shores. But at least the Patriot Act passed both
houses of Congress with wide public support. In contrast, there are a
variety of other assaults on personal freedoms, due process and the sanctity
of the law that left-wing moralists not only ignore, but often seem to
endorse - as if the liberal ends should justify illiberal means. First,
take illegal immigration. Not only have we neglected to enforce federal
immigration statutes, but also local communities, due to pressures from
Hispanic lobbyists and tacit approval from employers, have passed local
codes barring arrests of suspected illegal aliens. Tens of thousands of
regional and local government officials, along with law enforcements, have
taken the law into their own hands by simply deciding not to enforce it.
Both employers and aliens - the former for profit, the latter with the
expectation of ethnic solidarity and support - have simply flaunted the law
with impunity. We don't talk about massive fraud in our Social Security
system due to false names and numbers used by illegal aliens, but only in
pragmatic terms of whether such flagrant disregard ultimately puts more into
the system than it takes out. The result is one of the most grievous
examples of civil disobedience in our nation's history - with 12 million de
facto exempt from the law. In fact, we haven't seen state and local
government defy federal laws in such blatant fashion since the Jim Crow days
when the states of the Old Confederacy were openly resurrections. Second,
every bit as dangerous as wiretaps are prosecutors who manipulate the law,
either for personal, ideological or political reasons. And here too
reappears a pattern in which perceived political liberalism seems to trump
adherence to the spirit of the law. In the so-called Duke rape case, now
disbarred District Attorney Michael Nifong withheld evidence in his holy
crusade to convict three innocent Duke Lacrosse players - in hopes of
appeasing the lynch mob of local black activists and self-righteous
university professors. But even before evidence was adduced - all
exculpatory to the defendants - liberal forces had tried and convicted the
falsely accused in the media in furtherance of their own leftwing race,
class, and gender agendas. In the case of Valerie Plame, a special
prosecutor was selected to find out who outed supposedly covert status at
the CIA. The common liberal allegation was that administration lackies had
stooped to hound a CIA employee for the anti-war politicking of her husband
Joe Wilson. But very early on in Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's
investigation, two inconvenient truths emerged. Ms. Plame was not a covert
agent as envisioned by the original mandate of the special prosecutor. And
second, the culprit who disseminated knowledge of her employment in with the
CIA was almost immediately revealed - former State Department official
Richard Armitage. But no matter. Armitage was out of office and had voiced
misgivings about the Iraq war. Thus his early conviction would have earned
little public attention, but might instead have ended the investigation
before it could snowball in the daily press. So Fitzgerald barreled ahead
anyway on a new mission to satisfy the partisan lust for high-value scalps -
hoping to find some top administration official guilty of something else in
the growing labyrinth of competing testimonies. Presto! Scooter Libby,
Chief of the Vice President's staff was found to have offered contradictory
evidence, and thus convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. We tend
to think of smooth Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald as far more professional
than the buffoonish Nifong. Maybe. But as was true of Nifong in the Duke
rape case, Fitzgerald knew of information that might be fatal to his case -
that early on Richard Armitage confessed to the leak - and yet neither
apprised the public nor shut down his investigation. Prosecutors pick and
choose what charges to bring. When they either act unprofessionally or
beyond their mandates, they have enormous, unchecked powers to undermine the
very legal system that employs them. Everyone has their own particular
complaint about the modern Supreme Court's propensity to legislate new
rather than interpret existing laws. But two years ago this June, they
dismantled much of the constitutional protections of the right to hold
private property.
In the Susette Kelo case, the court gave state and local officials unchecked
rights of eminent domain to expropriate her house. The property was not
condemned for a necessary bridge or public highway. Instead it was seized
for "urban redevelopment" - even when the property in question was not
blighted, and the
urban renewal project was of questionable viability. City officials were
delighted. Their stock and trade have been to confiscate properties, sell
them in sweetheart deals to wealthy insider developers - and paper over the
entire shanigan with utopian rhetoric about helping the underclass. Fourth,
most recently Democrats have discussed reinstating some sort of "fairness"
doctrine aimed at regulating talk radio. They are furious that the likes of
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Michael Savage
and a host of other conservatives dominate the AM airwaves - while Air
America, Jerry Brown, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and other liberals have
failed utterly to carve out a comparable audience in the marketplace of
ideas and entertainment. Once again, liberal civil libertarians are not so
liberal about free speech when it is a matter of the public not buying into
their own progressive agendas. We should remember that the public is free to
choose - and advertisers respond accordingly - about what they wish to hear.
Apparently, whiny sermons by nasal-droning elites about the illiberal nature
of the yokel middle class is exactly what most on their way to work do not
wish to endure. Of course, conservatives likewise lament the imbalance of
left-leaning public radio and television, the major networks such as NBC and
CBS, the predominantly liberal print media, universities, the entertainment
industry, and foundations. But the difference is that for the most part they
are not calling for the government to mandate "fairness" by empowering
federal bureaucrats to curb the liberal biases of these institutions. It is
stereotypically easy to identify authoritarians who seek restrict civil
liberties during war in the name of "national security." But it is much
harder to take on crusading special interest groups, district attorneys,
court justices, and liberal Senators who ignore, twist, or subvert our
constitutional freedoms under the liberal clarion call of helping
minorities, stopping the war, or championing the underclass. If we are to
lose our civil liberties, it won't be all of sudden due to Patriot-Act
zealots in sunglasses and lattops, but rather insidiously and incrementally
by egalitarian professors, moral crusaders, muckraking journalists, and
government utopians all unhappy that constitutional justice is too little
and too late for their ever impatient desire to ensure heaven on earth.

No one is reading your crap so give it up, moron.

Gladiator wrote:

> No one is reading your crap so give it up, moron.

And it's not even HIS crap!
I would have some respect for his point of view if it was actually
representative of his thoughts. Unfortunately, cutting-and-pasting the
text from the latest 'talk radio' rant is apparently all the dork can
manage.

Hey, Mitch! Do you want to know who the REAL traitors are? They are
people like you! Yea, really!!

You and your kind have done a fantastic job of radically polarizing the
US. You're reduced democratic debate to the shrill screech of Coulter,
the "Shut up" frothing of O'Riley; anyone who hesitates to salute Rush
with "Mega Dittos" is lambasted as "one of those retarded liberals."
Reasoned debate and intelligent discussion of complex issues has
completely vanished. In it's place we have a grossly dysfunctional
behavior: Dare to disagree with someone and they leap at the
opportunity to tell you how much "You must hate America!"

"Oh, really? Gee, thanks for sharing."

Sorry, Mich, but people like you, people who mindlessly parrot your
'heroes' words, and adopt their strident contempt for ANY opposing
viewpoint, are destroying the social fabric of this country. YOU are
the ones guilty of 'Treason!' (I was just devastated to learn that
Ann's book was not an auto-biography! <Sniff!> )

-Greg (Just another middle-of-the-road american.)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:23:11 -0700, Greg Campbell
> wrote:


>You and your kind have done a fantastic job of radically polarizing the
>US. You're reduced democratic debate to the shrill screech of Coulter,
>the "Shut up" frothing of O'Riley; anyone who hesitates to salute Rush
>with "Mega Dittos" is lambasted as "one of those retarded liberals."
>Reasoned debate and intelligent discussion of complex issues has
>completely vanished. In it's place we have a grossly dysfunctional
>behavior: Dare to disagree with someone and they leap at the
>opportunity to tell you how much "You must hate America!"

Yea, and that's how the Nazis rose to power. Kind of scary that people
like Mitch are allowed to breed.

Now that I used "the" word that should be the end of this thread.