Currently, the media is (still) fawning over Obama, comparing him to Lincoln for meeting with rivals and reaching across divides to build his cabinet. In Ann Coulter's recent column she says: "I don't recall the media swooning when President George W. Bush reached out to rivals, such as Sen. Teddy Kennedy, who was asked to co-write Bush's education bill. In fact, the way I remember it, Bush is liberals' most hated president ever (only because they can't remember George Washington or they'd hate him, too)." While this is a good example of the selective liberal lens being applied, there are others as well.
- I recently saw a "pin" on Facebook that said "People who compare Obama to Hitler are douchebags." Now, aside from offending the douchebag lobby, haven't liberals been comparing Bush to Hitler for, say, 8 years. When the Nazis were rising to power they used strongarm tactics to silence the media and get their propaganda published. It was Obama's campaign, not Bush's or McCain's, who censured a Florida radio station for violating the unwritten rule that the media shall not ask tough questions of Obama's policies. It's the liberal media who launched full scale investigations, some illegal, into the background of Joe "the plumber" who merely asked a question about an Obama policy that he felt was going to affect him greatly (and Obama sought him out, not the other way around!). One lunatic on a San Francisco radio station even said he wanted Joe killed. It is Obama who wants a national civilian security force just as well trained and well funded as the military, but has yet to explain what exactly they will do. Hitler formed a civilian defense force, well funded and trained, to skirt the Versailles treaty that banned Germany from having a military. Look how that turned out. The point here is that liberals are hypocrites. It's OK to compare republicans to Hitler, but to dare to do so to the anointed liberal-in-chief makes one a "douchebag." Do as I say, not as I do.
- Tolerance is a central tenet of liberal theology...as long as it's the conservatives who have to be tolerant. If you're liberal, it's OK to beat an elderly woman who supported prop 8 in California and form a wall so media and help can't get to her. It's OK to vandalize churches, force people from their jobs and disrupt church services to voice dissent about prop 8. Gay marriage has been voted down in 30 states (31 if you count California voting it down twice) but the vocal minority can't accept the results. One dissenting opinion I read on a blog said the violence that is now spreading is the natural result that comes from "living under the jackboot of oppression." (Note the Nazi reference!). Gays can do pretty much anything they want in this country except get married. There are civil unions and legal trusts that give them all the same rights as a married couple, with the exceptions of getting spousal benefits from an employer. This, while inconvenient, is not oppression. The millions of women in Africa who undergo forced genital mutilation are oppressed. Gay people who cannot marry are inconvenienced. There IS a difference, and it does not warrant violence. Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52% to 48%. This is roughly the same margin that put Obama in office, so I guess it's OK for the anti Obama crowd to go wilding until that decision is overturned? Good to know.
- Abortion activists oppose any law that requires ANY restriction on abortion, including common sense rules like parental notification for minors seeking abortion or a waiting period before the abortion is performed. One can't get a tattoo without parental consent unless over age 18. One cannot buy a handgun unless there's a waiting period and a significant background check. There is, by some calculations a murder commit ed every 22 minutes in America. If you do the math (((24 hours *60 minutes)*365 days)/22 minutes) you get 23,891 murders per year. Not all of those murders are commit ed with handguns. There are approximately 1,200,000 abortions performed every year. Which kills more people, abortion or hand guns? Which one is more tightly regulated?
- Free speech is another thorn in the side of the liberal. Being debated today is the "fairness doctrine." (with liberals, anything that restricts freedoms will be labeled "fair"). As defined in Wikipedia, the Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. The FCC abolished it in 1987. Today, conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, and Fox News trounces the competition daily, and this is a concern for the liberals (who own print "journalism" almost exclusively and own every other demographic on cable and network TV, aside from FNC). The liberals have Air America, which is a commercial failure. This is the free market at work. Nancy Pelosi's book was outsold by Tori Spelling and Ernest Borgnine's autobiographies. Not subject to the fairness doctrine, but again, the free market at work. The reason conservative talk radio and FNC dominate is because that's what the people WANT to listen to. Force stations to put other formats on the air and people will change the station. The solution is to reinstate the so called "fairness doctrine." If you can't beat 'em, shut 'em up. To the liberal, that's what free speech is all about. Where's the ACLU on this one, defending private broadcasters from the tyranny of government?