Mission Not Accomplished: 57% of Americans Don't Blame Political Rhetoric For Gifford's Shooting

Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.

Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Clinton: Come On, Byrd Being in KKK Isn’t a Big Deal, He Only Did It to Get Elected

While in Charleston, West Virginia, Bill Clinton tried to explain away why we should just ignore that the late Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK:



Um, Bill, It is hard to believe that Bobby didn’t join the Ku Klux Klan back in 1942, a full four years before that he ever ran for anything, only to help himself get elected to office in a southern state. Furthermore, he recruited others to join them. One don’t actively urge other people to join an organization that one doesn’t believe in at all, and he raised in the ranks up to an Exalted Cyclops of that terrorist organization, as well. It doesn’t seem like he just had a “fleeting relationship” with the KKK.

Are we, also, supposed to forget that he, along with many other Southern Democrats, filibustered and arguing AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours? Is that how he “spent his life making it up”, Mr. President? Now, it is true that there are no perfect politician, but come on, this is more than just a slight oversight. It was a pattern of conduct that lasted decades.

He seemed pretty adamant about his disdain for blacks. He even went so far as to send a letter to the then-Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi expressing his contempt for blacks:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

Come on stopped trying to put sugar on this and calling it candy.

Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too

The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Indeed!

Why Can't They Stop? Bill Clinton Calls Opponents of Democratic Healthcare Reform: "Teabaggers"

Why can’t liberals and Democrats stop talking like teenage boys? It is beyond juvenile. It's definitely unpresidential. First, Obama referred to conservatives using juvenile terminology. Apparently, Bill Clinton couldn’t resist, either:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Bill, given your history, don’t you think you’re the last person that should be using sexual metaphors?

Let’s get to his overall point:

"The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it's not exactly what you want," Clinton told Democrats. "When you try and fail, the other guys write history."

He expounds on this point later in the interview:

Clinton’s overall message was one the Obama administration has tried to make: not passing a bill is worse than passing one that’s not perfect. "So it’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for, I’m gonna support,” Clinton said he told the senators. “I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America. The worst thing to do is nothing.”

Everyone can agree that something has to be done, but I disagree that "nothing" is the worst that can be done. They can pass this bill and make things worse. It'll raise the national debt even higher, lowering the quality of health care by running driving out the competition, not adequately addressing tort reform, etc.

I agree that we must act, move, and start the ball rolling, and do what is the right thing for America, but we can't do something just for sake of doing something. Does the plan have to be perfect? No, but it can't be rushed into without giving all sides adequate consideration. The Democratic leadership hasn't done that, not even from within their own party.

CNN Reporter Appalled by Obama/Hitler Comparison, Flashback: Linking Bush/Hitler, Eh...Not So Much

"In (her segment) (Susan Roesgen) sought out another TEA Party participant who had a mocked-up sign in which President Barack Obama is melded with Adolf Hitler.  She immediately began arguing with this gentleman as well; amongst the things she angrily said were "Why be so hard on the President of the United States with such an offensive message?" and "Do you realize how offensive that is?"

While I agree with her that it is over the line to like Obama with Hitler, that isn't the point of this post. Newsbusters has dug up an old video of her covering a anti-Bush protest in New Orleans where someone made a float with W's head with devil horns and a Hitler mustache, and all she could say about it was this:

"City officials aren’t the only ones wondering when federal money will materialize. Catholic school girls marched on Jackson Square. They and their teachers say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

This "look-alike" was the previously mentioned Bush head. Where was her outrage then? There was a stark difference in her demeanor between her confronting the "tea" protestor and her commenting on the Bush float.

Your honor, this is exhibit A in the investigation as to why CNN gets beat by Fox every single day and time slot for the past few years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/04/16/cnns-anti-government-tea-party-reporter-obama-hitler-offensive-bush-hi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Maher: US Troops Will Have to Learn to Rape Themselves

My Thoughts

How this could be considered comedy? How could some in his audience or his guests even laugh? I don't even know. This is an example of liberals truly feel about the military. This is as insulting as Obama trying to make the wounded vets pay for their own war injuries. Horrendous and detestable doesn't even come close to describing how disrespectful this is to all vets past, present, and future.