Name Dropping Gets You Nowhere

CannonIn my final post about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “Rightwing Extremism” assessment, I made reference to something that was quoted in the report, and I want to make a few clarifications.

At the bottom of page five, the assessment reads,

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

  • During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

In short, the government wants you to think that the threat of recent gun control legislation will push many “rightwing extremists” over the edge creating a heightened level of extremist paranoia, weapon stockpiling, and hostility toward the goverment. They go a step further in their attempt to instill fear by referencing the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Many people remember the events that occurred at Waco but few people I have spoken too remember much about Ruby Ridge. Those who do remember it, usually can’t remember why they do, but they know something bad happened there.

Let’s take a look at the history of events which occurred at Ruby Ridge in August of 1992 and try to ascertain why our government would still be referencing the events there, 17 years after it happened.

Continue reading

Eyes Are Opening

For the past year, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. He promised to bring hope to American families across the country. He inspired people to turn out on election day and it worked. The majority of citizens in the United States believed him and they elected him the 44th President of the United States. Now, after one of the most prolonged and vicious election cycles in our nation’s history, people’s eyes are beginning to open, albeit a tad bit late.

When the news broke that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was trying to “make a deal” or sell Barack Obama’s soon to be vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder, Mr. Obama re-assured the American people that he had nothing to do with the scandal that was unfolding in Chicago. He said he was absolutely certain that no one close to him was involved in the alleged plot by the governor.

Mainstream media was quick to jump on the Blagojevich story, bringing all of that Chicago corruption to the forefront and into the living rooms of millions of American families.

When it comes to the media, there is nothing as juicy as a scandal, especially when corrupt Chicago politicians are involved, and they just couldn’t wait to get people’s minds off of the economy, the possibility of an automaker bailout, and the constant reminders that our nation was in the midst of a deep recession.

They turned all of their attention to the developing scandal, but they never banked on the possibility that their chosen one, Barack Obama, just might not be telling the truth.

Continue reading

Seriously Thinking About Pigs

I just got done listening to Barack Obama make remarks about this whole ‘lipstick on a pig’ fiasco. He started his remarks by implying that the McCain campaign has taken this and twisted it.

Sorry Barry O, this had nothing to do with the McCain campaign. It had nothing to do with any political organization. It has to do with you and you alone. This is no made-up controversy orchestrated by your opponent. Oh sure, you dropped the ball and they are running with it now, but the fumble was yours, and you need to deal with it.

Stop boo-hooing about being “swift-boated” on this, because you weren’t. If anyone “swift-boated” you, you did it yourself when thousands of people actually heard the words come out of your own mouth. They heard your tone, they heard your inflection and they took your comment as it sounded. You just didn’t expect the backlash to be so strong.

Am I wrong?

When you made the pig comment the crowd listening to you (your own supporters) erupted in laughter. They knew what you meant, I think we all did. Are you saying your own supporters are stupid? Did they all take what you said the wrong way?

My mother, a lifelong Democrat, heard your remarks and thought they were “very crude and rude”. My wife, also a lifelong Democrat, heard your remarks and thought “that was very rude and uncalled for”. Were they wrong? I don’t think so.

But, it doesn’t stop there. Thousands of people around the nation took offense to your comment. This was apparent by the sudden blogstorm that hit the internet. Conservatives, Independents, and Liberals all knew what you meant. Now you say you didn’t mean it that way?

Maybe that is true. If it is, people need to do some serious thinking.

Should we trust you to be President when your words might not mean what you say?

Can we afford to take a chance on you saying something that might get lost in translation when addressing something that’s really important?

How can we be sure that everything else you have said over the course of this campaign wasn’t misconstrued or taken the wrong way?

Your comment was rude, it was crude, it was uncalled for, and you knew better. As a Harvard graduate I think you know how to speak, and I’m pretty sure you know what those words mean when they leave your lips. Unless of course you’re denying that now too.

Hate Is Hate, No Matter How You Spell It

Barack Obama said something today that his spokesman now says was just “an old expression”. In a speech to his supporters in Lebanon, Virginia, he was referencing the McCain/Palin campaign when he said,

“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

No matter how you try to spin it, he called Sarah Palin a pig. There is no doubt about it. Last week during the Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin asked,

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

Are we supposed to believe that he was simply using “an old expression”? That’s bullshit, let’s get real. We’re all adults here and we all know what he meant when he said it.

The Obama campaign is still fixated on Sarah Palin. While introducing Joe Biden at a campaign event in St. Louis, Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan said,

“There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”

Now, are we seriously supposed to believe the lipstick line was just a coincidence? Give me a break. Barack Obama was clearly calling Sarah Palin a pig and there ain’t no sugar coating that one. If the “lipstick on a pig” comment wasn’t completely rude and uncalled for, I have no idea what is.

The media has given this guy a pass on everything has said and done since day one and it’s time it stopped. His comment was hateful, rude and demeaning toward Sarah Palin and he should apologize. With her track record of reform, I am sure she has been called much worse, and it’s pretty clear she can handle her own, but he should still apologize.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a second. If someone had made a disparaging remark about Barack Obama or used an “old expression” when referring to him, the media would be all over it and people everywhere would be demanding an apology. So what’s the difference here?

Isn’t it funny how some people can point out the hate they see outside their window, but they are blind to it when it faces them in their own mirror?