Liberal Political Violence - John Hinderaker Reminds Us About 2008

This morning we have this post by John Hinderaker over at Powerline in which he reminds us of the violence perpetrated by left-wing "protesters" at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN back in 2008. This wasn't any sign waving and chanting for attention. People went to the hospital and it's a wonder no one was killed, yet it was barely remarked upon by the MSM.

The Democrats have tried to change the subject away from their health care debacle by claiming that conservatives are threatening violence against them. Their complaints are pathetic where they are not out-and-out lies (e.g., Clyburn and Lewis), and they have taken a lot of well-deserved criticism. It is liberals, not conservatives, who rely on ad hominem attacks, outrageous allegations and violent imagery. We talked about this on our radio show today, and several callers reminded us of a particularly sorry episode of liberal violence that, for some reason, has not gotten much attention: the 2008 Republican convention in St. Paul.

I attended the convention and remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters very well. They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.

These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats' own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures? I don't think so. We haven't seen that sort of hate campaign since the Democrats went after Abraham Lincoln. It seems unlikely that none of the "protesters" who tried to commit murder were inspired by those liberal voices.

Yet, hardly anyone seems to be aware of the violence that took place in 2008. At most, the story was treated with a ho-hum attitude in the press. For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago. Yet today, we can hardly imagine what would happen if a group of tea partiers were to drop sandbags off a highway overpass, trying to kill motorists below. Liberal reporters' heads would explode. But this is exactly what anti-Republican Party protesters did in 2008, and no one cared. To my knowledge, not a single Democratic politician condemned this anti-Republican violence or attempted in any way to distance the Democratic Party from it.

Keep that in mind next time you hear a Democrat whining about the Republican effort to "fire Nancy Pelosi."

Remember this the next time you see reports about "violent" Tea Party protesters. The MSM has chosen sides (a long time before now actually) and there is a narrative to be advanced. They aren't reporting the real story. They've become a part of it. Thank goodness they no longer control it.

(via Instapundit)

"Anger is a Right", According to Greg Gutfield

The Instapundit today linked to a piece by Greg Gutfield, "Anger is a Right", on how the usual suspects in the MSM are characterizing the reaction by the citizenry to the passage of Obamacare (which incidentally has already wiped out about $2 billion in shareholder equity at a mere handful of companies in less than a week since it was signed into law. My thoughts on corporations are here. But I digress.). The post is very amusing, and right on target. I just had a slightly different take-away than the Instapundit did. Here's the part that caught my eye:

"We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I'm not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They're winners, sadly. I'm talking about progressivism. The reason why I'm angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry - is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser's doctrine.

For two hundred plus years we've kicked ass, and we're now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we've kicked." [my emphasis]

Read the whole thing (as the great man would say).

An Open Letter to Steny Hoyer - Roger L. Simon Gets It Exactly Right

Roger L. Simon has posted an open letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer over at Pajamas media. It's pitch perfect:

Dear Congressman Hoyer,

I have read your statement asking Republicans to condemn threats of violence that have been made toward Democratic representatives in the aftermath of the passage of the health care bill.

I am a registered Democrat, but since I have voted (mostly) Republican in recent years, let me assure you that I unequivocally condemn those threats and any possible acts of violence taken in response to the bill. That is not even remotely the way to settle such political disputes. Such things must be handled at the ballot box.

That said, and for similar reasons, I also unequivocally condemn the actions of the Democratic Party in running roughshod over the clear will of the American people. Every poll taken in proximity of the vote showed our citizenry in substantial opposition to the global health care reform being pushed through Congress by you, Speaker Pelosi and the administration.

And yet, in the grand tradition of totalitarian regimes everywhere, you employed “any means necessary” to make sure your ends were achieved, bribing and threatening your fellow Congressmen and women, etc. It is small wonder that our people are angry. It would be amazing if it were otherwise.

You have reaped a whirlwind by subverting a democracy. Now you must deal with it. The Democratic Party is no longer “progressive” or “liberal.” It is reactionary. And you and your cohorts have forever defined yourselves as reactionary politicians.

Violence is to be condemned, but so is the desecration of a great democracy.

Sincerely,

Roger L. Simon

I too condemn any threats of violence (though I've yet to see any of the Democrat claims in this regard substantiated) but at the same time, why are the Democrats surprised by a reaction of that sort. They just pulled off a major power grab, taking over 1/6th of our economy and severely curtailing the freedom of the People and the States with no apparent constitutional authority to do so. We aren't a passive people. Let's hope the courts get it right this time (I'm looking at you, Anthony Kennedy) and overturn this monstrosity.

(Via Instapundit)

UPDATE: Also via Instapundit we have this post by John Hinderaker at Powerline. Read it all, but here's a good take-away: 

The fact is that, unlike conservatives, modern liberals have had little quarrel with political violence. This is best demonstrated by their support for card check legislation, the entire point of which it to abolish the secret ballot so that union goons can use the threat of violence to extend union power and thereby enrich the Democratic Party. (If you doubt the truth of that proposition, try to think of another reason why the Democrats want to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.) The beating of Kenneth Gladrey by union goons--more specifically, the lack of any interest in it by anyone in the Democratic Party, the media, or on the Left generally--shows how hypocritical the Democrats' current pacifism is. If the day ever comes when conservative groups start hiring goons, we can take the liberals' purported fears of violence more seriously.

Why It's Good to be King, or Why Government Workers Are Feeling No Pain

Via Instapundit we have this post from Donald Sensing, "Government's new motto: It's good to be king!". In it, he talks about some recent stories in the Washington Times and USA Today (links from Donald's post) that show how the average government worker now makes more than the average private sector worker, by a significant margin, has better benefits and almost iron-clad job security and why this is important. Here is the main point:

"First, government at almost all levels is growing like unchecked cancer, and spending along with it. Last month's deficit of $221 billion was 37 percent larger than the entire year's deficit of 2007 of $161 billion. But government does not produce wealth. Government is funded only by reducing the wealth of the country. Government must be funded, of course, but every dollar exacted from the people is a dollar lost to economic activity. Government does buy things, of course, but except for the military there is no economic activity the government does that is not or could not be done in the private sector. Quite simply, the government has no money of its own." [emphasis mine]

Read the whole thing, of course.

Related: Keynesian Economics and the Wizard of Oz

Does the Constitution Allow the Federal Government to Regulate Healthcare?

Judge Andrew Napolitano says no:


(h/t Bob)

Quote of the Day from Samizdata

Samizdata is providing me with plenty of  blog-fodder today. In fact, I'll call the latest post there the  Take Me to Your Lizard Quote of the day.  Here's a great insight on the nature of the internet from Brian Micklethwait:

"The internet adds up to a brilliant bunch of reviewers, a brilliant bunch of critics, and a brilliant bunch of editors, brilliant meaning whatever you think brilliant means. It corrects errors. It draws your attention to things that on your own you would have entirely missed. It plants numerous flags and banners in that "wasteland". It filters data relentlessly, to suit all intellects and tastes. A "wasteland of unfiltered data" is exactly what it is not."

That is exactly how it functions for me.

Read it all, of course.

Schlitz Beer and the Consent of the Governed

No really. There is, believe it or not, a connection as Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds demonstrates in this Washington Examiner column. 

"In fact, when I think of the federal government's brand now, I think of Schlitz beer. Schlitz was once a top national brew. But, in search of short-term gains, it began gradually reducing its quality in tiny increments to save money, substituting cheaper malt, fewer hops and "accelerated" brewing for its traditional approach.

Each incremental decline was imperceptible to consumers, but after a few years, people suddenly noticed that the beer was no good anymore. Sales collapsed, and a "Taste My Schlitz" campaign designed to lure beer drinkers back failed when the "improved" brew turned out not to be any better. A brand image that had been accumulated over decades was lost in a few years, and it has never recovered.

The federal government, alas, finds itself in much the same position. The political class sold its legitimacy off in drips and drabs. As "smart politics" has come over the past decades to mean not persuasion but the practice of legerdemain, the use of political deals, cover from a friendly press apparat and taking advantage of voters' rational ignorance, the governing classes have managed to achieve things that would surely have failed had the people known what was going on."

Read the whole thing (as Glenn would say himself).

Wisdom from Lysander Spooner

Today's Quote of the Day over at Samizdata is from Lysander Spooner, 1808-1887, the American individualist-anarchist, entrepreneur, politcal philosopher, abolitionist, etc. It's a short, to-the-point quote and you should go on over and read it. However, there is a quote I like even more offered in the comments by John W.

"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands... In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."

I couldn't have (and haven't) said it better myself.