Let's Ask Again: 

Which Side Is It That Keeps Calling 

For Certain People To Shut Up, 

& Trying To Remove Them From The 

Public Square?

If you think the Conservatives are trying to get radio show hosts banned and taken off the air, or demanding booksellers pull certain books off the shelf, or trying to drown out speakers on college campuses they disagree with, you haven't been paying attention.  


Conservatives WANT Liberals to keep talking. We WANT them to keep saying stupid crap - how else are we going to have fun with them?  


You think we WANT these people to shut up? Far from it! 

We love you guys right where you are. Keep talking!

The Liberal move to silence those they disagree with is getting more prevalent than ever.  


Disagreeing with someone and arguing with them is NOT an attempt to silence.  It's a BS dodge to try to pretend someone disagreeing with you is some kind of personal attack that is trying to 'silence' your voice.  

I will now travel about the country giving speech after speech 

in one widely viewed public forum after another about the chill wind 

trying to silence me.

This is the same crap Tim Robbins pulled when talked about that 'chill wind' that was blowing across America trying to silence those who didn't support the War on Terror.  

Waitaiminute...most C&W fans actually LIKE President Bush?!

The Dixie Chicks claimed people suddenly not wanting to buy their records was an attempt to 'silence' them for speaking their minds about President Bush.  


Me not giving you any more of my money for expressing a political viewpoint I disagree with is not silencing you.  The Dixie Chicks are free today - and always have been - to say whatever they want about any politician.  


You are entitled to your opinion but not to other people's money if they decide to spend it elsewhere.


Liberals who espouse unpopular opinions that then whine when the free market comes into play and people don't buy their records, see their movies or whatever are pathetic.  


You set out to prove to the vast majority of Americans that you have nothing but contempt for what they love & revere and then expect me to have sympathy for your pocketbook when the consequences of that manifests itself?  You let it be known you consider over 60% of your audience that doesn't share your views to be beneath you, contemptible morons and religious bigots and then you want to bawl about your declining market share?  


Here's a buck:

Buy a clue.  


Liberals do not want diversity of opinion on the subjects nearest and dearest to their hearts. They want one publicly expressed monolithic viewpoint that is allowed to be aired in public - THEIRS.  This is why Political Correctness is their method for trying to control public discourse. They don't want other viewpoints disagreeing with their own.  

'elp! 'elp! Ah'm bein' repressed by a Conservative who is 

daring to argue against the approved GroupThink narrative!

Conservatives want an honest argument.  Liberals keep trying to figure out a way to get the other guy to shut up.  


It's always "Your policy is wrong, it won't work and here's why..." versus "Just STFU and go away. Now."


Take Dan Savage. It's HIS viewpoint on Gay Marriage or the highway. There's no room for other viewpoints and even discussing it in a way that shows you disagree with him just identifies you as a bully who needs 'treatment'.  


It's hilarious that those who keep screeching that Conservatives are trying to silence them will then turn around and demand that those disagreeing with them need to STFU, join efforts to get talk show hosts thrown off the air & spam Twitter accounts to get them suspended.  

Mass reporting of Conservative accounts on Twitter for spamming & getting them suspended is the latest attempt by losers who can't handle actual disagreement to silence their opposition: 


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/04/30/Left-Manipulates-Twitter-ban-Conservatives-Buzzfeed-shrugs


Ever wonder why Conservatives don't invest time in trying to silence their opposition? It's because unlike them, we actually DO believe in free speech.  For EVERYBODY. Even Liberals we disagree with.  


That's why we're winning and we'll continue to win the Culture War.  They can't handle the competition so they want a monopoly.    


UPDATE! George Will reminds us again how the Left goes about trying to limit the speech of others through campaign reform legislation: 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/taking-a-scythe-to-the-bill-of-rights/2012/05/04/gIQAs3XL2T_story.html

It Didn't Get Better, So 100 Members Of Dan Savage's Audience Left

I feel better about the future of this country after watching this video below.

Here's what happened: The Obama White House appointed uber-Left wing gay activist Dan Savage as some kind of 'anti-bullying' czar. He created an anti-bullying organization called the 'It Gets Better' Project. Dan was invited to give a speech at NSPA/ JEA's annual High School Journalism convention this week.  

Little bit unclear on the concept there, eh Dan?

Only during his speech Savage went into a foul-mouthed diatribe directed at Christians & the Bible that was so over-the-top that calling it 'XXX-rated' wouldn't quite do it justice.  

Watch how scores of High School students reacted to this: 

[Again, I am not joking. His language is truly awful here. If NSFW language offends you, watch with the volume down and just view the student's reaction]

Wait, they're leaving??!! They can DO  that??!!!

It looks like Dan Savage thought he had a captive audience, that these students would just sit there and take it no matter how offensive and outrageous his speech got.  

He had to know more than a few of the kids in that audience were Christians.  Were they supposed to just sit there and take it or something?  

Newsflash to Liberals: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU START SAYING WHAT YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE. 

There are plenty of people that will not voluntarily sit there and listen to your BS.  

Without captive - or stupid - audiences Liberalism wouldn't survive.  It also can't flourish in a free market, which is why Air America died but NPR still hangs around suckin' on the government tit.  

Savage's reaction is priceless.  He begins verbally BULLYING the students who are walking out on him.  South Park has now become reality! 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/412197/bullying-needs-to-be-stopped-now

Perfect Microcosm of What's Wrong

With The Media Today

Little microcosm of what's wrong with media today:  


First the story that goes viral on a wrong 1st impression: 


http://deadspin.com/5905250/worst-people-ever-catch-foul-ball-refuse-to-give-it-to-a-crying-child-are-vilified-by-michael-kay

An unfortunate scene unfolded in Arlington tonight as a pair of Rangers fans caught a foul ball tossed into the stands by Mitch Moreland in the eighth inning of Rangers-Yankees, then refused to give the ball to the toddler sitting next to them—instead choosing to pose for pictures and generally behave like douchebags.

Yankees play-by-play man Michael Kay—capturing the thoughts of America for probably the first time ever—chided the couple for "rubbing it in the kid's face," and since this couple deserves to be publicly shamed for being dicks to a little kid, here they are. [YES]

Then the actual facts catch up to provide the context about what actually happened: 


http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/27/11428418-crying-baseball-tots-mom-he-doesnt-get-everything-all-the-time?lite

Three-year-old Cameron Shores burst into tears when he narrowly lost out on catching a foul ball tossed into the stands to a couple sitting next to his family at a Texas Rangers-New York Yankees game. The couple, Shannon Moore and Sean Leonard, became instant viral video villains when the footage hit the 'net. 

But sometimes a picture isn’t worth a thousand words. Sometimes stories require context. The Shores told their tale of baseballs lost and baseballs gained on TODAY Friday.

“I felt sorry for Cameron and for the other couple because they were made out to be such horrible, cold-hearted people and I didn’t get that impression from them at all,” said Cameron’s mother, Crystal. “They were very sweet and they talked to Cameron a lot."

The couple was attending their first baseball game and are getting married Saturday. They actually offered the toddler the ball, but his parents turned down the gift.

Of course, the offering of the ball to the toddler, and the parent's turning it down happened before the cameras got focused on them.  


We live in an age where people will 'instantly' tell you they 'know' what is happening based on very flimsy - or even no - evidence at all.  This one was quickly corrected.  No harm no foul!


Hey! Can anybody think of another example where the media rushed out a first impression of a story that turned out to be wrong?  

You Know Why Obama Is Going 

To Lose In November?

No, not just because he can't run on Hope! And Change! because he has an actual record now.  Another reason: 


Because this kinda BS is even funnier now than it was then:  

 

This is why the whole 'Obama Slow Rapping the News' on Jimmy Fallon's show was so lame and hilarious.  His handlers actually seem to think the celebrity President schtick is still going to work. 

This isn't really working, is it? 

UPDATE: Bing Search! Yadda yadda yadda!!!!! OMG!!! No pics....etc. etc. Yes I know it was here a minute ago. See Update II:

UPDATE II:  I've just been informed by a reliable source that Bing uses a very very slow algorithm and thusly pics of Obama's Fallon appearance will likely begin showing up sometime in....the middle of May.  No kidding?  Well we learn something new everyday.  

Time To Get Behind

Mitt

You know you really want to!

You know, Mitt Romney wasn't my first choice to run against Obama this year.  Hell, he wasn't even my 2nd, 3rd or 4th.


No, that was Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Scott Walker & Haley Barbour.  Mitt was way down there, 6th or 7th on my list.


But here's the thing: Of the people I wanted, 3 of them didn't even run. The one that did flamed out early - and spectacularly.

Sorry about that, Brian.

Romney ran.  He went to all the debates. He visited the states, lobbied and campaigned for the votes.  He won fair and square.


I know a lot of people talk about how Romney is being 'forced' on us by the GOP establishment.


If your guy decided not to run in the first place, or simply lost out to Mitt in primary after primary, let's remember what causes someone to win a primary: most of the Republican voters voted for the winner.


In 2008 we complained a lot about a system that limited our choices so that we ended up with John McCain.  The Tea Party and Conservatives swore that 2012 would be different!

I'd like to take this opportunity to again apologize for daring to 

run against That One.

And what happened?  We've ended up with Mitt Romney staring at us across the dance floor, waiting for us to make the first move.


We had Bachmann and Cain in the early going, nice Conservative credentials there, but they washed out early.  It's hard to take Gingrich seriously because he talked such a bold Conservative game in 1994 and by 1998 had pretty much transformed himself into Jim Wright II.  So much so that Conservatives abandoned him and his own party voted him out.  Watching Newt trying to recast himself as a Washington outsider & staunch Conservative was funny until I figured out many people were actually taking him seriously. 


Newt is the BIGGEST of the Big Gov. Republicans.  He IS GOP Washington Establishment, with a capital 'E'.  People desperate for an anti-Romney are glossing over Newt's problems.  


And Ron Paul? Please. We're not trying to nominate a Personality Cult figure who has 0% chance of beating Obama in the general election in November. On foreign policy alone Paul is disqualified from serious consideration. 


Every other week it seemed like some new candidate was surging to become the Not-Romney that would rally the Conservative base.  Gingrich, then Santorum.


It's been a long primary season thus far, and a lot of people were hoping for a better choice.  OK.  That's fine.  But it looks like it's gonna be Mitt.


I am not thrilled to death that it will likely be Mitt Romney's name opposite Obama's on my ballot this November.


But I gotta tell you something: From what I've seen of Mitt's record, and from what I've seen of him on the campaign trail, I will tell you something without reservation:


He'll be 10x the President Barack Obama is.


Don't buy into the 'Romney = Obama' doom and gloom some are pushing. I know feelings get hurt when your guy doesn't win the nomination - and I also know some of this is actually coming from Democrats who hope to suppress the turnout in November so they can keep it closer and get Obama that second term.


The Tea Party is still less than 4 years old.  Just because we didn't change the system enough in 4 years to get better choices in our field of candidates is no reason to whine about giving up or staying home.  


You thought this was going to be a brief fight? That we'd have whipped the bastards up there in Washington by now? If so, you were DREAMING, my friend.  


Make no mistake, we've already changed much together, but this fight isn't close to being even halfway over.  Just because a battle didn't have the kind of victory we wanted if the 'wrong' kind of Republican enters the White House this Nov. is no reason to quit the #War.

I'm Really, REALLY Looking Forward 

To Learning An Awful Lot About 

Mormonism The Next Six Months

How about you?

What do you mean I don't talk about Mormonism enough?

Today the 1 hour of CNN I watched devoted about 40 minutes to discussing Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, and as Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pastor Joel Osteen & members of Romney's church, the chevron at the bottom for most of this read "Romney's Leadership As A Bishop - He rarely mentions his past role in Mormon church."


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/24/tsr-dnt-snow-romney-mormon-bishop.cnn


Yes. Like he's hiding it or ashamed of it or something.  So CNN must investigate, because Romney will not talk about his religious faith enough! 


Excuse me, wasn't the narrative that Rick Santorum just crashed and burned after a big surge in Iowa because he wouldn't stop talking about religion and social issues?  


And now Romney's ties to Mormonism need to be endlessly discussed and investigated because it's SUSPICIOUS that Mitt isn't pulling out the Book of Mormon and pounding on it on the campaign trail? 


Hey Old Media? Just a thought here. Could you at least TRY to make it not so obvious what you are doing here?  


In case anybody doubts CNN has 'Mormonism On The Brain' syndrome: 

The OTHER 

Obama Re-Election Strategy!

I don't have to tell you what that makes you

if you don't vote for me, right?

I already posted earlier about a key strategy the Left will use to try to drag Obama's ass over the finish line in November.  The 'Romney = Obama So Don't Bother Voting Or Might As Well Vote For Obama!' schtick we're going to see for the next 6 months. 


Now that that's been covered, lets' talk about the OTHER big strategy they will use: 
"A vote against Obama proves  you are a racist!"


Yes, it's deja vu all over again, to quote Yogi Berra. 


http://minx.cc/?post=328693


First, look at this question Chris Matthews asked on MSNBC's Hardball: 


Chris Matthew on MSNBC's Hardball Last Thursday

"Is there going to be a reluctance on the part of the voters, and the political community that talks politics, as we get into November, about dumping the first African President, the first African-American President? Is that going to be something that just ratchets people -- Waaait a minute here, this guy's gonna knock out the first guy that ever got aboard?

OK, shorter version, courtesy of Ace:

"When are the people not on MSNBC going to be more overt in their support of Obama?"

The other day Bernie Goldberg addressed what Matthews had to say:

Bernie Goldberg Rips Race-Obsessed Chris Matthews

Noel Sheppard, intrepid blogger at Newsbusters, observed last week after Matthews said this, that: 

In 2008, America's media fell in love with the idea of the first black president and as such decided to completely ignore any vetting process of candidate Obama that would have given voters a sense as to whether the junior senator with the completely undistinguished legislative record was up to the task.

Now, four years later, the same folks might just possibly push the idea that despite his shortcomings and failures in his first term, Obama should be reelected because it would be somehow wrong for the first black president to get dumped.

Martin Luther King Jr. once dreamed of an America where his kids "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Does that mean absolutely nothing to liberal media members anymore?

It's becoming pretty clear what the strategy is going to be. Voting for Obama in 2008 meant you weren't racist.  And - SURPRISE! - voting for him in 2012 is ALSO the only way to prove you're not a racist!

Think for a moment how insulting this is to people's intelligence.  Liberals are all about race, class and gender politics to the point that people are told to stop making evaluations of leaders on the basis of any thing other than class, sex, and skin color. 

You can't vote out Obama for being an incompetent doofus because he's the First Black President! 

You can expect 6 months of this right alongside of 'Romney = Obama'.  

The Morning Rant:

It's Not Us...It's Them

Chuck Colson, the evangelical Christian leader who first came to national prominence as a member of the Nixon Administration died yesterday.  


Some of the comments I saw at CNN's news story on Colson's passing showed that many Leftists will not let an opportunity go by without expressing their true nature.  


http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/21/us/chuck-colson-obit/index.html

Liberals think it's OK to vent the vilest, most personal, most over-the-top expressions of hatred at some people and then turn around and lecture others about being civil in their public discourse.  


Sometimes I see Conservatives wondering if maybe we provoked these people or something.  Maybe if we were nicer they wouldn't do this.  


That's misunderstanding the problem.  You could be the nicest, politest, soft-spoken person they've ever met and it wouldn't matter. Your Conservative beliefs 'prove' to them you are full of hate, and therefore you are a 'fair game' target for the most vile personal attacks they can creatively think up.  It's not your conduct, it's your BELIEFS that are so deeply and personally offensive to them.  


Plus you can't overlook the fact that they are so full of hate and resentment and envy towards people they disagree with politically since they react to everything on such a deep personal level that they end up projecting that same hate onto their target.  


They really don't see themselves being full of hate even though they can spend HOURS hurling the most hateful speech they can think  up at others.  


This is why they can spend long minutes hurling the most vile, misogynistic, putrid hate-filled words at someone like Michelle Malkin and then turn right around and - seriously now, with a straight face - demand you watch your tongue and be polite or you will offend their delicate sensibilities and prove you are not fit for a polite conversation.  


I kid you not. They really do this. I've seen it.  


Why? Because they are PATHOLOGICAL.  And they proved it again yesterday: 


[Twitter Rant, so you read it from the bottom up!]

Many of the comments at CNN lampoon and make fun of the idea of Chuck Colson changing at all as the result of being born again and following Christ.  The idea of  a true religious conversion is an anathema to the Left and most treat it like some kind of cosmetic make over.  

Even religion has to be PC for the Left; in their minds everything is political - even science.  There are no boundaries for them, lines that can't be crossed for the glorious Cause.  

This is why they lack all sense of decorum or proportionality for their hatreds.  And why they never really understand how most of the rest of the country views them: Loud, angry, perpetually pissed off hate-filled ranters who then want to lecture others about how to behave in public.  

In case anybody missed it, here's my Love Letter To The Left: 

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/03/dear-left-open-letter-to-kind-caring.html

UPDATE:

One of the commentators pointed out that Andrew Breitbart had some harsh criticisms of Ted Kennedy that he made on Twitter just after the late Senator's death.  

So - moral equivalence here?  Does that take the wind right out of my sails, if Breitbart celebrates the death of Ted Kennedy?  

Well let's take a look.  Talking Points Memo had a nice summary of  Breitbart's comments: 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/26/57997/breitbart-kennedy-twitter/?mobile=nc

Early this morning, news broke that Sen. Ted Kennedy had passed away after serving in the U.S. Senate for nearly 50 years. Soon after, conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart began a sustained assault on Kennedy’s memory, tweeting “Rest in Chappaquiddick.” 

Over the course of the next three hours, Breitbart unapologetically attacked Kennedy, calling him a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.” “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement,” wrote Breitbart in one tweet.
When Politico’s Michael Calderone highlighted Breitbart’s attacks in an article called, “Not all Kennedy critics hold fire,” a pleased Breitbart tweeted:

When a fellow conservative tweeted to Breitbart asking him not to treat Kennedy like they believe some on the left treated the passing of Tony Snow and Ronald Reagan, Breitbartresponded “How dare you compare Snow & Reagan to Kennedy! Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death? This isnt lib v con.” Despite his claim that his attacks weren’t about “lib v. con,” Breitbart repeatedly justified them in ideological terms. 

“Look, this man was granted absolution for nothing. Class, life station played a part but PARTY was everything. GOP couldnt get away with it,” complained Breitbart in one tweet. “IF a GOP possesses 1/100 of human failings of T. Kennedy he/she is TOAST,” he claimed in another. “In this moment I cant but recognize absolute backwardness of media & society. Bush=EVIL. Ted Kennedy=SAINT. Im gonna keep fighin’, folks,” Breitbart said in another tweet.

Now, let's look at what was said there. Ted Kennedy died and Andrew Breitbart brought up:

1. Chappaquiddick

2. called Kennedy a villain, fat, a lying bastard, a prick, and a pile of excrement.

3. called Kennedy a bully

4. claimed death did not grant Kennedy sainthood

Public decorum and civility does demand you cease political attacks during the mourning period, and Breitbart obviously violated that here.  Even if the guy was a total prick, you're not supposed to publicly say so during the mourning period.  

But let's note what Breitbart DIDN'T say here:

1. He didn't say he was GLAD Kennedy had died.

2. He didn't say he hoped Kennedy was burning in Hell and in agony. 

3. He didn't say he was disappointed Kennedy didn't suffer more before dying. 

4. He didn't say he had hoped Kennedy would die sooner.  

He was simply refusing to say NICE things about Kennedy's character and his legacy, which is what many people were doing even if they didn't think Kennedy was a nice man or  thought much of his legacy harmed the country.  

In other words, Breitbart continued to say the exact same things about Kennedy in death that he had said of him in life, and he was pointedly doing it right after the Senator's demise, but this is a far cry from saying he was glad Kennedy was dead.  

Now somebody pointed out in the comments that he could go to plenty of sites on the internet and find comments on blogs supposedly of Conservatives celebrating the death of Liberals.  

First of all, both sides have their extremes. Far be it from me to deny when Kennedy died there were commentators on some Conservative blogs that said things like "I hope he's burning in Hell screaming in agony."  I saw posts like that.  Yes, it happened.  

The point is not that both sides don't do it, it's that Conservatives don't tolerate it, don't condone it, and their LEADERSHIP doesn't engage in it or encourage it. It's kept to a small premium on the Conservative side.  On the Left, not only do the top leadership and most popular bloggers do it and encourage it, they'll do it proudly.  It's a badge of honor among the Left to boast about how happy you are that some major life tragedy has struck a prominent Conservative.  

It's not just hordes of random, anonymous commentators on the Lefty blogs that chortle over Reagan, Tony Snow, Breitbart, or Colson dying.  It's the leaders.  

They'll stand up in public and say "I wish this Conservative would die."  Then when some prominent Conservative does die, they say openly "Good riddance. Should have happened sooner."  

There is  no moral equivalence here.  Conservative leaders do not get up in public and say "I hope this famous Liberal dies soon."  And when they do die, they don't go around chortling in public "Oh he's dead? Awesome.  About time.  Why didn't this happen years ago? Hope he's burning in Hell!"

You know what I've learned from my experience? Most of the anonymous commentators on Conservative blogs that post the really hateful stuff about Liberals aren't even really Conservatives.  They're the extreme Libertarian types that make common cause with Conservatives on some issues, but they aren't Conservatives themselves.  Libertarian blogs don't really exist or get much traffic, so these people end up going to the Conservative blogs to post. 

I've seen this on the Ann Coulter message board I've hung out at since 2003.  Every election year like clockwork all the Ron Paulbots show up, start attacking a lot of what Conservatives believe, especially on social issues, but then as the election heats up they want us all to line up and march behind The Evil Gnome and help get him into the White House.  

And when Conservatives on the board don't volunteer to swell Paul's numbers, the knives come out and they will start saying the most hateful things.  "Vote for Ron Paul or you hate the Constitution!", etc. etc. 

Which is funny, having watched them for the past year lampoon, mock and argue about basic Conservative values and beliefs, they then act all offended when we won't get behind their candidate and buy their totally absurd talking point that Paul is some kind of Conservative.  

I've seen them post racist posts, hateful posts, and while they attack Conservatives, they save most of their spleen for Liberals and I have seen them say pretty vile stuff.  

But Libertarians aren't leaders in the Conservative movement.  They don't run the popular Conservative blogs or the New Media.  

Their counterparts on the Left have been shown so many times wishing Conservatives would get cancer, get sick, drop dead, or high-fiving each other and gloating over actual deaths, do I really need to drop a long laundry list in here to prove it? 

Conservatives will also police themselves.  Even Breitbart was warned by other Conservatives when he refused to 'play nice' after Kennedy died, that he was crossing a line.  

On the Left, they actually seem to play "Can You Top This!" with people vying to see who can put up the most over-the-top hate tweet about the latest Conservative to suffer a tragedy.  The deluge of hate tweets happen because the top people on that side don't crack down on it.  

This is because the Far Left honestly and truly sees Conservatives as evil.  They genuinely want bad things to happen to evil people, and rejoice when they do.  We think they're misguided and wrong.  They think we're the New Hitlers.  We want them to wise up.  They want us to die.  Literally.  

And a Chuck Colson dying gives them an opportunity to reveal the depth of the hate they have for Conservatives, especially Christian ones.  

Remember Just 3 Short Years Ago?

You know what? 2009 wasn't that long ago. Remember when Rush Limbaugh got the chance to join a group putting in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams?


Any sports fan worth his salt will remember the huge controversy that erupted 3 years ago when it was revealed that radio show host Rush Limbaugh was part of a group that was seeking to buy control of the NFL's St. Louis Rams.


Rush was so excited by that.  But the Left went moonbat crazy at the idea of Rush being part owner of a football team.  They went after him, trying to sabotage the deal.


But after a week nothing was sticking.  They railed about a supposedly 'virulent racist' being 'allowed' to become part owner of a sports team where most of the players would be black.


But nobody cared much.  The Left needed a hook.  They needed something to draw attention to the issue and frame it their way, something that would generate the required amount of OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE!!!11!


So do you know what they did?  Do you? You'll get mad if I tell you.  Should I?


They went out and found what was obviously a fake quote and publicized it incessantly in the media.  They HAD  to know this quote was bogus.  10 seconds rational thought would have demonstrated that.

This totally bogus Rush quote was one where he - live on the air with his audience listening, of course - he said James Earl Ray should have gotten a medal for assassinating Martin Luther King, Jr.


Anybody with two brain cells to rub together would know this quote was fake.  Millions of people listen to Rush's radio show.  If he had ever said ANYTHING like this, the entire country would have heard about it by the end of the day.

Don Imus, a far less popular radio host with a far smaller audience can go on the air and call female basketball players a derogatory racial name and the entire country will hear about it before that day is over. 


But we're supposed to believe Rush could say live on the air that MLK's assassin should have gotten a medal and nobody heard it or commented on it.


There is no way many of the people that pushed that quote in the media for weeks did not know it was not a true quote.


BUT IT WAS WORKING.  Once they started using this racially inflammatory bogus quote, constantly injecting it into the story, it really took off at last.  Every single time some new media outlet picked up the quote and ran with it, Rush was marginalized some more.

It killed the deal exactly as those pushing this lie knew it would. IT WORKED. THEY GOT THE RESULTS THEY WANTED.


After the fact, after the issue was over and they had the scalp they wanted, they could admit what they had done: 


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/rush-limbaugh/

That didn't mean they did so gracefully: 

Now we HAD a New Media in 2008.  But we were SO SLOW back then.  We really were.


They saddled that lie about MLK and rode that horse for all it was worth for almost a full month, and by the time we got our own horse saddled, the race was over.  Nothing we could do.  It didn't matter any more.


By the time we could cross the finish line waving the evidence, 'Wait, the MLK quote is BOGUS!", they just laughed at us, didn't they?

Fake quote, you say? Ah well - too late! Losers!

"Oh, is it?" they mocked.  "We stopped Rush with a bogus quote? Really?! F**KING AWESOME!!"


That's how it's gone for years.  We watch the false narrative get introduced and run around the track unopposed, dominating news cycles for weeks, maybe months.


And by the time we could get out there and show what really happened?  "Ah, too late, suckers! We've moved on. That is SO last month! You're still talking about that? Lame!"


Nothing Rush had actually said would cause the amount of outrageous outrage that would be necessary to achieve the outcome they wanted to see. So they deliberately publicized a fake quote. It worked like a charm, and they got the result they wanted.


What difference does 3 years make?  We're not rushing into the room a week after the issue was decided waving our evidence any more.


What's happening now?


THEY ARE STILL FIRING THEIR HORSE OUT OF THE GATE AND WE'RE RIGHT BEHIND THEM.


It doesn't go down like it did just 3 years ago, does it?  Now they can't ride that horse for a month, a week or even a full day.


NBC puts up an edited tape of Zimmerman's 911 call and gets caught on it in a matter of hours.


ABC News puts out a grainy low resolution video of Zimmerman's arrival at the Sanford PD and tries to use it to claim he has no injuries and cast doubt on his story of a physical altercation with Martin.


Time and again so far this year the Old Media has been forced to walk back, retract, apologize and even fire people for trying to pull their old tricks.


You realize how AWESOME this is?  Their misinformation, distortions and omissions in an attempt to frame issues and slant them how they like can't even make it 24 full hours now.  Much less the weeks/months they used to get.


To get the full impact they hope to get from politicizing things like TrayVon Martin's death, they need at least a week or two of unchallenged narrative-riding.


They aren't getting it any more.  And don't think they haven't noticed it.

Well they better get used to it.  Because this was Andrew Breitbart's vision. This is where he was trying to get things through those years of hard work he put in.


A New Media that runs shoulder to shoulder with the Old Media, that can at last leap to instantly answer when the Old Media tries it's old tricks.  A New Media that can now not only get the real facts out while the issue still matters, it can cross the finish line first, even force the Old Media out of the race by disqualifying them for breaking the rules.


This is what's happening now. This is what the Left is going to learn again and again over the next 6 months up to the election, and then beyond:

This isn't 2009 any more.  We're READY for you now.  It's #WAR.