Dear News Media, you suck

Dear News Media,

yourlossYou suck. Whatever happened to journalism? Fact finding? Truth before reporting? You’re nothing more than sleazy lawyers hanging out in hospital parking lots looking for unsuspecting clients. I stopped watching your sensationalist ‘news’ a long time ago and I refuse to start again until you grow the fuck up.

Dear Law Enforcement officials, you’re stronger than they are. Don’t cave into the news media and government officials when they beg and threaten you for inaccurate crumbs to feed to the tabloid media machine. Just say no.

Dear Law Enforcement and First Responders, we love you. We’re so sorry that you have to see such terrible things. We hope our love and support is enough to get you through each day. There is no one we trust more than you.

Dear Mr. President, don’t tell the people that we will do everything we can so that this terrible tragedy doesn’t happen again. You can’t prevent them. No one can. If someone wants to harm others they will. It’s not pretty but it’s the truth.

Dear Families in Newtown, we are all thinking of you. We are all sending our love and support. We are so sorry. We know it can never be enough.

Dear America, nothing is black and white. You should know that by now. It’s not something we can fix by saying if we take away A then B will never happen. Life doesn’t work that way.

Stop trying to place blame everywhere except where it belongs.

It’s not non-religious people vs. religious people. It’s not gun owners vs. non-gun owners. It’s not Democrats vs. Republicans.

It’s just people. We need to care more. We need to pay more attention to our kids. We need to help each other.

And not just when tragedy strikes.

I’m sure my words aren’t new. I’m sure my words will anger some. But, they are my words and I will stand by them.

My heart breaks for these children. The same age as my own son. I had the luxury of waking him for school this morning. I didn’t want to let him out of my sight and I cried after I put him on the bus. If you knew me, you would know that was rare.

My comfort is this, for every [insert deviant type here] out there, who wants to harm others to fill whatever hole they have in their lives, there are thousands of good people doing the right thing for others without wanting a thing in return.

Maybe one day the news media will report those stories.

This was blogged by my daughter. She makes me proud!

Advertisements

Krauthammer On Reid: This Is As Low As You Can Go – Political News Video

 

Krauthammer On Reid: This Is As Low As You Can Go – Political News Video.

 

“The hypocrisy of Democrats on this! You remember, it’s Democrats and liberals in the media who take endless pride in having opposed McCarthyism. The essence of McCarthyism is to use a high place – high office – to make innuendo, unsubstantiated charges, and then destroy other people by means of doing that.”

 

NAPOLITANO: Bad days for freedom – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Bad days for freedom – Washington Times.

Government is free to violate our civil rights at will

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Presently in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or substantial benefits from the government. Presently in America, nearly half of all adults pay no federal income taxes. Presently in America, the half that pay no income taxes receive the bulk of their income courtesy of the government, but ultimately from the half that do. This money is extracted involuntarily from the paying half by a permanent bureaucracy that extracts and gives away more each year no matter who is running the government. The recipients of these transfer payments rely upon them for subsistence, so they have a vested financial interest in sending to Washington those who will continue to take your money and give it to them.

It is no wonder that we are now saddled with the micromanagement of health care by the same bureaucratic mindset that mismanages the U.S. Postal Service and everything else the federal government runs. It should not be surprising to know that presently in America, half of the people actually want the government to take care of their needs. The same was the case under communist regimes, but here those folks vote.

Hence, we have laws that force us to be charitable to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cellphones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.

As of the last week in June, the government has a vast new power that was brought to us by the Supreme Court’s latest attack on personal freedom. Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases – whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution – and it may punish noncompliance with that command, so long as the punishment is calleda tax.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s whimsical query during the Supreme Court oral argument on the health care law about whether Congress could make him eat broccoli suddenly isn’t as funny as it was when he asked it, because the answer is: It can fine him for not eating broccoli, so long as it calls that fine a tax.

Quick: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.

How did we get here?

We got here because voters and the government we elected, and even the courts the popular branches appointed and confirmed, have lost sight of first principles. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a part of our humanity, and when we fought and won the Revolution under that premise, and when the first Congress enacted that language as the first federal law, this became the irrevocable recognition of the natural law as the basis for our personal freedom and limited government. Since our rights come from our humanity, they don’t come from the government.

But you would never know that from looking at the government. In New York City, where I work at Fox News Channel, we are all embroiled in two disputes this summer over the constitutional role of the government in our lives. The mayor, a self-made billionaire who likes donuts and has bodyguards but wants to tell others how to live in private and in public, is trying to ban soda pop in containers larger than 16 ounces and wants the police to be able to stop and frisk anyone on a whim – and all in the name of health and safety. He is actually banning freedom.

Imagine Jefferson being told what to eat or stopped and frisked on a whim. And then imagine the Supreme Court telling him that he must pay a tax if he fails to comport his personal, private behavior as Congress – which doesn’t believe in privacy or personal freedom – commands.

Here is how you can tell that these are bad days for freedom: Does the government need your permission to violate your rights, or do you need the government’s permission to exercise them? The answer is painfully obvious.

Presently in America, what are we going to do about it?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is the author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

NAPOLITANO: Can Obama rewrite federal law? – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Can Obama rewrite federal law? – Washington Times.

President has usurped Congress’ role by altering immigration rules

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the U.S. military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyberwarfare – computers – to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the United States as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics – like race, gender or the place of birth – it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president can refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it. This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence – except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here – he has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics for immigration law, such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner – by constructing the requirements the government will impose – the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them – hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution – not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president – he will be a king.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times.

Use of military surveillance drones overhead would be un-American

By Andrew P. Napolitano – Washington Times

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel, where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if – had they existed at the time – King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as someone who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel insidetheUnitedStates and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. Any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” Note the primacy of intelligence-gathering over protection of freedom, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence-gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence, the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones – some as small as golf balls – to watch us, listen to us and record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Mitt Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Obama’s ‘Stronger, Safer and More Respected’ Delusion – Chuck Norris – Townhall Conservative Columnists

English: SOUTHWEST Asia -- Security Forces Air...

English: SOUTHWEST Asia — Security Forces Airmen with the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing, pose for a photograph with Walker, Texas Ranger star, Chuck Norris who is currently visiting troops in Southwest Asia. Before becoming a celebrity, Mr. Norris was a Security Forces member in the United States Air Force. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Tia Schroeder) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama’s ‘Stronger, Safer and More Respected’ Delusion – Chuck Norris – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

On May 23, President Barack Obama told more than 1,000 jubilant, uniform-prepped-and-polished graduates of the U.S. Air Force Academy that the world has a “new feeling about America.” He declared: “I see it everywhere I go, from London and Prague to Tokyo and Seoul to Rio and Jakarta. There’s a new confidence in our leadership.” If only it were true.

Obama boasted, “We can say with confidence and pride: The United States is stronger, safer and more respected in the world.”

“Stronger, safer and more respected”?

“Stronger,” as in Obama’s plan to initiate more than $500 billion in automatic cuts to the defense budget over a decade, starting next January. Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the Democratic-controlled Senate voted May 24 to authorize another reduced spending package for the Pentagon.

“Safer,” as in the report card from the Bipartisan Policy Center, including many of the original 9/11 Commission members, which reported on national preparedness 10 years after those catastrophic terrorist attacks: “Our country is undoubtedly safer and more secure than it was a decade ago,” but “we fail to achieve the security we could or should have.” The report concluded that the federal government has failed to meet nine of the 9/11 Commission’s 41 recommendations.

“More respected,” as in The Washington Times’ report that according to a poll by even two left-leaning groups, “a majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than two years ago and believe President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security.”

In February, Gallup reported that “Americans continue to express much greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the United States’ position in the world, and their views have improved little since hitting a low point in 2008.”

Why do we have such a weak, unsecured and disrespected U.S.?

Maybe a significant reason is that Obama paraded U.S. weaknesses and mistakes to the world in his 2009 “apology tour.” (Check out http://bit.ly/JIG7J1 to see The Heritage Foundation’s report on the top 10 decries of America by Obama.)

Sandwich all of those apologies and countless others since then with the apology in March for the unintentional burning of Qurans in Afghanistan and we have a perfect recipe for America’s global disrespect and dissolution.

Mr. President, you don’t build national or leadership strength, safety and respect by groveling and groping.

If you want examples of how America could become “stronger, safer and more respected,” then look no further than to our amazing, exemplary, courageous U.S. military personnel — especially those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and republic, including some of the people I met on my two trips to Iraq. They are the ones who truly create the good U.S. qualities and deserve the credit for them.

One thing we can say for sure: Though the federal government and this administration have weakened our standing in the world and despite the lack of leadership by the commander in chief, our dedicated service members are responsible for strengthening our republic. To all who have served or are serving our great country, I salute you!

My father fought and was wounded in World War II, in the Battle of the Bulge. I served in the U.S. Air Force in Korea. I am also an honorary Marine. My brother Aaron served in the U.S. Army in Korea. And our brother, Wieland, served in the Army in Vietnam, where he paid the ultimate price June 3, 1970. Wieland was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star with “V” device (first oak leaf cluster) for his heroism. His name is etched among those of more than 58,000 other fallen service members on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. (Go to http://bit.ly/JQd0Nt to watch my 91-year-old mother speak about Wieland in her interview on Fox News Channel’s “Huckabee.”)

It’s fitting for a soldier like Wieland that Memorial Day falls every year a week or so before the anniversary of when he gave his life for the cause of freedom. Though we didn’t win the Vietnam War, my brother did not die in vain, just as the case is with other service members today.

Whether they be for our freedom or another’s, the words of Jesus are true for all: “There is no greater love than this: that a man lay down his life for another.”

About such patriots, Gen. George S. Patton was right: “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook’s “Official Chuck Norris Page.” He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CHUCK NORRIS

MoveOn.org video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

MoveOn.org video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com.

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at MoveOn.org says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

A web page at Colorlines goes even further, giving words they say are more acceptable.

“The epithet ‘illegals’ promotes a culture of intolerance and violence toward foreign nationals, undocumented immigrants, and people of color,” the site says, suggesting:

  • Undocumented immigrants
  • Unauthorized immigrants
  • NAFTA refuge

The “Drop the I-Word” campaign describes itself as a “public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur ‘illegals’ from everyday use and public discourse.”

“The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration,” the site adds.

The site goes so far as to call the word “racist,” claiming it “affects attitudes toward immigrants and non-immigrants alike, most often toward people of African, Asian, and Latin American descent.”

“Silly me, I always figured it was used to describe someone who is in America illegally,” notes a post at Weasel Zippers.

On Friday, attorney Jay Sekulow discussed the issue on Fox News’ Hannity, and called MoveOn.org’s effort “the politics of hate,” in essence vilifying an entire group of people who recognize that people who are in the country illegally are “illegal aliens.”

One cannot help but think of George Orwell‘s classic 1984, in which he wrote of the destruction of words in an effort to eradicate “thoughtcrime.”

It seems the left, incapable of defending the indefensible, would rather win with the debate by banning words, basically making them illegal.

NAPOLITANO: Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up? – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Can the Secret Service tell you to shut up? – Washington Times.

New law protecting officials from hearing criticism is unconstitutional

By Andrew P. NapolitanoThe Washington Times

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you.

Certain rights, such as thought, privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don’t need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, including those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here’s the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value?

When the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment, they lived in a society in which anyone could walk up to George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson on a public street and say directly to them whatever one wished. They never dreamed of a regal force of armed agents keeping public officials away from the public, as we have today. And they never imagined that it could be a felony for anyone to congregate in public within earshot or eyesight of certain government officials. Yet, today in America, it is.

Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. It permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.

Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government. The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. Because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well.

Permitting people to express publicly their opinions to the president only at a time and in a place and manner such that he cannot hear them violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to useful speech – unheard political speech is politically useless. The same may be said of the rights to associate and to petition. If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered.

Political speech is in the highest category of protected speech. This is not about drowning out the president in the Oval Office. This is about letting him know what we think of his work when he leaves the White House. This is speech intended to influence the political process.

This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and just three members of the House voted against it. The president signed it in secret. It is more typical of contemporary China than America. It is more George III than George Washington.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to assure open, wide, robust, uninhibited political debate – debate that can be seen and heard by those it seeks to challenge and influence, whether it is convenient for them or not. Anything short of that turns the First Amendment into a mirage.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst on Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

The Left’s Many Double Standards – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative

The Left’s Many Double Standards – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative.

Today’s liberals would have you believe they occupy the moral high ground on every political and cultural issue. But have you ever taken inventory of their double standards?

The left’s inconsistency in applying their principles based on the party affiliation of those they’re judging, gives fuller meaning to the concept of moral relativism. The only thing that’s consistent is their reliable inconsistency, whether in the area of economic, social or national defense issues.

Let’s consider just a few examples:

— When “bimbo eruptions” threatened to derail Bill Clinton‘s campaign, his hit squad, the commander in chief of which was Hillary Clinton, eviscerated every accuser, inventing tales to destroy their character and distorting the facts of what occurred. When Ken Starr accused Bill Clinton of lying under oath, liberals turned their venom on him, accusing him of sexual perversion just for delving into the subject.

When Republicans argued that Clinton’s serial sexual exploits, some of which had then occurred quite recently, demonstrated poor character, Democrats defiantly dismissed his actions as irrelevant to the performance of his presidential duties. These guardians of the fairer sex — watchdogs of government corruption — didn’t care that Clinton’s taking advantage of an intern in the Oval Office was a quintessential case of sexual harassment, given the power disparities between his station and that of Monica Lewinsky’s. They even defended Clinton’s perjury concerning the matter. Some argued that it was almost virtuous that he chose to lie under oath and protect his family rather than take the easy way out and come clean.

Today, liberals are in high dudgeon and probably higher conspiracy over sexual harassment allegations against Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain that supposedly occurred 14 years ago. CNBC’s GOP presidential debate moderators pointedly asked Cain and one of his rivals Mitt Romney, whether a man guilty of such conduct had the requisite character to be president of the United States.

— Democrats maligned former President George W. Bush’s economy for the better part of his two terms, despite the robust growth, unemployment below 5 percent and a 2007 deficit less than 10 percent of what it is today. They tell us that President Obama’s horrendous economy, on the other hand, is not even his fault.

— Frustrated with their inability to succeed in talk radio and the resulting loss of their decades long national media monopoly, liberals have resorted to demonizing conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel, saying they habitually engage in hate speech of a sort that gives rise to violence. Following the Oklahoma City bombing, Bill Clinton himself shamelessly suggested there was a causal connection between that heinous crime and conservative talk. That there was no proof of such a connection didn’t deter him and his ideological colleagues even slightly.

Similarly, when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, liberals immediately jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that the shooter had been stirred into violence by conservative hate speech and particularly, a bulls-eye image from Sarah Palin. Discovering that the shooter was anything but right-wing didn’t keep President Obama from framing his Tucson speech around the theme of civility in our political discourse. If he’d talked about European demographic trends in Late Antiquity, his speech couldn’t have been any less relevant. But it would have been less politically inflammatory and exploitive.

Relevance aside, did Obama follow his own gratuitous admonitions to avoid embittered partisan rhetoric? Obviously not. He has repeatedly demonized Republicans both before and after Tucson, his favorite theme being class warfare. Just last week, he branched out from the politics of greed and envy and preposterously accused Republicans of blocking his recklessly wasteful environmental initiatives because they want dirty air and dirty water.

— On a related matter, Democrats have slandered genuine grassroots Tea Partiers as lawless, racist, AstroTurf scofflaws who are sometimes even domestic terrorists, despite the Tea Partiers’ peaceful, respectful behavior, no evidence of racism and almost no arrests at any of their events. Liberals pejoratively labeled them Tea Baggers and mocked their legitimate protests against the unprecedented spending of the Obama administration. But when leftist Occupy Wall Street protesters have truly been organized from above, have engaged in lawless and violent behavior leading to many arrests and have spewed anti-Semitic bile, liberals, including President Obama himself, have lionized them and identified with their cause.

— When President Bush attacked Iraq with the Democrats’ approval, based on a perceived and possibly actual national security threat, liberals savaged him as a lying warmonger. But when President Obama attacked Libya, let alone Egypt, without any discernible national security interest and without Congress’s endorsement, liberals hailed his foreign policy acumen.

— Democrats vilified Bush for enhanced interrogation techniques and domestic surveillance against terrorists, but now glorify Obama for his literal assassinations of terrorist leaders, and they look the other way as he continues many of the Bush era anti-terrorism strategies.

I’ll stop here, even though I’m not yet halfway through my list.

UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama’s not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate (via Village of the Banned)

UPDATED 9/2/11: Obama's not so Fast and Furious Scandal: ObamaGate Obama/Holder:  Gun Runner Inc. UPDATED FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 Demand for More Answers in Fast and Furious Scandal Just hours after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, federal officials tried to cover up evidence that the gun that killed Terry, was one the government intentionally helped sell to the Mexican cartels in a weapons trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious. The revelation comes just days after a huge shake-up of … Read More

via Village of the Banned