Hate Speech, Gabby Gifford and Democrat Hypocrisy

With the left falling all over  themselves trying to demonize Trump for his numerous off the cuff and non-politically correct comments, the left can not help itself railing against hate speech, even though it is so much the pot calling the kettle black. All one needs to do is look at the hateful and racist comments by Black Lives Matter, which is the only group in these contemporary times, who's real hate toward the white race and the police who's rhetoric has actually resulted in the shooting death of numerous police officers; just like slavery and eugenics,  real hate always comes from Democrats.

The Democrats' cry of Trump hate speech, has resulted in the left trying to lead us back to 2011when Democrats tried to reason that the wounding Rep Gabby Giffords and shooting deaths of 6 others by  a paranoid schizophrenic, was the result of political rhetoric by Sarah Palin, which they demonized as hate speech (apparently hoping that their trumping up of Sarah Palin hate speech was soundly debunked by facts of the case).  For one thing the murderer not only had a long standing hatred of Rep.Giffords, but also President Bush (43). The point being that the hate speech against President Bush while in office was legendary in it's vitriol; Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate 
(5) Bush Derangement Syndrome: Before it fades into history, the liberal hatred of President Bush should be recalled. Codepink, Michael Moore, rap stars and Hollywood comedians hurled vitriol against the President. A movie was made about his assassination. But as an example of violent rhetoric, special attention should be given to remarks made by New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who later apologized for describing fellow Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer as “the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

 
The idea that any political rhetoric led to the shooting of Gabby Gifford is in itself hate speech by the left. The truth is the murderer of 6 people, that also shot Gifford was a paranoid schizophrenic who had threatened to kill Gifford 4 years prior the the shooting and of course well before Sarah Palin's political rhetoric. Further the same murderer also killed judge John Roll (nominated by President George H.W. Bush), a individual liberty/ limited government (Constitutional Liberal) that was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This placed Judge Roll in direct opposition to the Obama Juggernaut, as he had already forced the rewriting of a far less intrusive Brady Bill than originally written (weakening the federal DOJ bullying for states to conform to the Brady Bill) and had already given a 'preliminary ruling' against a case that would have permitted Holder's Federal DOJ to seize citizens' assets without cause. Judge Roll has also received many death threats, usually from the left, which led to the belief by many that Roll was just as possible a target of the shooter as Gifford. Was Judge John Roll the actual target of the Giffords' shooting?
 
Perhaps those making that charge have forgotten the hatefulness and violent words coming from their own. Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate
"(1) Palin Derangement Syndrome: The Left’s obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin is well-chronicled and is often accompanied by violent rhetoric. Let these three examples suffice: (1) Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, said on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens; (2) Another New Hampshire Democrat, Timothy Horrigan resigned from the state legislature after writing this gem on Facebook: “Well a dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one.. . . she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’t commit any more gaffes”; and (3) foul-mouthed comedian Sandra Bernhard warned Palin she would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she tried coming to New York."

Fast and Furious; Not a Bush Operation

Operation Fast and Furious may be the downfall of Obama. In 2006 the Bush administration used an Operation called Wide Receiver to try and track US guns to those in the Mexican Cartel s that were looking to buy them; this was done in coordination with the Mexican Government. Here the guns were closely followed to their destination in Mexico to arrest the buyers while carefully tracking and seizing the guns as evidence; the procedure is called a controlled delivery and is a very common law enforcement tactic. Although arrests were made and no guns were lost, the Bush administration determined the plan was not productive enough and stopped it toward the end of 2007, or a year before he left office.

In 2009 the Obama administration initiated a program Fast and Furious (funded by the Obama stimulus) with seemingly the same goal as Wide Receiver, however there were significant differences in how it was run. First the guns were not tracked but allowed to “walk”, meaning about 2000 guns were allowed to disappear and fall into the hands of murdering Cartels with no one tracking the guns or identifying suspects or making arrests. There was also no coordination with the Mexican government who rightly complained of what seemed like a sudden flood of illegal weapons into Mexico from the US. The big lie that is being spread by the pro-Obama machine is just like Fast and Furious, Bush  (Operation Wide Receiver) let guns walk also; this never happened. Congress is now investigating this debacle and  has found Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt and the President has now invoked Executive Privilege to keep DOJ documents on Fast and Furious from the Congressional investigation. www.nationalreview.com and www.americanthinker.com

The question now is what the President is trying to hide. Whatever it is it may produce another Constitutional crisis mush the same as Watergate. In my opinion I believe the there are three issues about Fast and Furious, any of which if made known could result in the downfall of Holder and President Obama. The first is the number of arms has been greatly understated. In May of 2009 President Calderon remarked to AP, We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico. Let me express to you that we've seized in this two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from United States, and I'm talking from missiles launchers to machine guns and grenades. In this short statement, it appears that there is much more that meets the eye in Fast and Furious. First President Calderon described the weapons as “machine guns” (he has previously described the weapons as military grade). The fact is machine guns or military grade small arms are not generally available in American guns shops. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, requiring a laborious background check and history. Even if someone qualifies for an automatic weapon in the US, the price is usually cost prohibited for anyone other than a hard core collector. As an example a civilian semi-automatic AK-47 can cost $800 to $1000; the same military grade AK-47 will cost near $5000. However if you buys a military grade AK-47 from a international arms dealers they are about $100-$200@. Because of this there is simply no way 25,000 military grade weapons could even be collected in the US never mind smuggled into Mexico. The only supply that large would have to come from the US Military itself or bought from an international gun dealer and made to look like they came from the US. One can imagine a Contragate style operation where US intelligence agents sold military grade weapons to Mexican Cartels in exchange for intelligence on Iran (it is believed that Iran has plotted with Mexican Drug cartels to carry out political assassinations).

The big lie by the Democrats, by the likes of Eric Holder, Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi is blame Bush for Fast and Furious; that Fast and Furious was a Bush legacy operation. It's a lie, they know it's a lie, but as usual President Obama will take no ownership or responsibility for anything and the democrats just play along. Socialism is based on the the concept on the infallibility of government; that actions and information of and from government should never be questioned and should be accepted as necessary as truthful. This is what we are getting from the President and his ruling subordinates, their attempt to re-write history even as it's being made.

Keynesian Economists and Drug Addicts

One of the main Blame Bush talking points is that the economy was in such bad shape after the Bush meltdown, that it will take more than the last 18 months to turn the economy around; and there is some truth to this. The problem is Obama seems to be going in the same direction that Bush was going in when the economy failed. While the sub-prime banking failure pushed the economy over the edge, the economy was already suffering a slow down that caused Bush to institute a $300 billion stimulus plan. The cause of the economic slowdown was primarily the rising cost of oil, which had risen to from $45 a barrel at the end of 2006, to $80 a barrel at the end of 2007 (it would continue to rise to $135 a barrel in 2008). So one could argue that the recession and banking meltdown, while closely related at the time, are now two different problems. And with the banks repaying the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money and oil prices at least the same as 2007 levels, it would seem the economy was ripe for a Keynesian stimulus. The problem is Keynesian economics is a farce and stimuluses don't ever work.

President Obama poured over $800 billion into the American economy as a stimulus with almost nothing to show for it. He said this stimulus would be dealt out to shovel ready projects to get the economy going again. But what became obvious almost immediately, was the money instead disappeared into state coffers, unemployment insurance and left wing projects dreamed up by the Apollo Alliance (the liberal think tank that wrote the stimulus bill). This left even the heavily partisan Paul Krugman, to denounce in several of his Op-Ed pieces that the stimulus wasn’t a stimulus. Paul Krugman said that the $800 billion stimulus needed to be much larger and used more for stimulus projects, such a repairing and building infrastructure, such as a rail tunnel so workers in New Jersey will have less traffic when they drive to and from New York, even though both states have unemployment rates over 10%. While Krugman has not given a specific figure, one can suppose that he is talking trillions of dollars; this would be added to the $2.5 trillion debt left by 8 years of Bush Administration and the additional $2.5 trillion in debt already attributed to President Obama in his first two years. And of course, if a theoretical $1.5 trillion 2nd stimulus did not kick start the economy, than Krugman would say it’s because it was also not big enough. I would like to borrow a line from Krugmaniswrong.com who deconstructs every Paul Krugman Op-Ed piece. “They convince themselves that if only they had “more” everything would work perfect. Two types of people in this world have that mentality. Keynesian economists and drug addicts.”

But in a rare refreshing moment, President Obama in a recent interview with the New York Times, conceded that the shovel ready projects his stimulus was supposed fund, not only didn't exist, but there is "No such thing as shovel-ready projects". But it does make one wonder, then where did all the money really go? All that is necessary now is for the President to realize that government cannot create jobs; that borrowing large amounts of money to stimulate the economy and loan to bankers, makes about as much sense as cutting taxes without cutting spending, and simultaneously fighting two wars. And finally, while cutting taxes is not the answer to everything, increasing taxes is certainly the way to increase unemployment, especially raising taxes on the top 2% who are the ones that will most likely fund most of the new jobs. But I may be asking for way to much.

Idealism vs Economic Theory

At some point, no matter what your opinion, you have to ask yourself three questions. #1 What exactly did Bush do to screw up the economy that we need to reverse? I mean, we blame Bush for the economy, so there must be something he was doing that he alone (or with the Republicans) was doing; some of which I covered this in my recent article, It Wasn't All Bush You can still “blame Bush,” but a more important question is(#2) , What are we going to do about it? And the #3 question is, after 20 months of Obama’s economic recovery plan, with no evidence that the economy has recovered at all, is it reasonable to ask, is Obama’s plan a failure? Should we be looking to do something else? Certainly, if you interject $500 billion into the economy and loan $800 billion to the banks, it is going to have a temporary and positive effect on the economy; and it did. But the economy is slipping back into what some are falsely calling a double dip economy. But this double dip recession appears to be the same recession less the temporary affects of the stimulus; as Ron Paul said, “You can’t have a double dip recession if the first recession never came to an end.”

Presidents like to posture that they are following some economic strategy; Reagan had “supply side”economics and Obama has Keynesian theory. But what usually happens, due to perceived political necessity like Reagan or a re-distributive ideology as with Obama, these strategies become political road kill. When Reagan compromised with the Democrats and allowed high deficits along with his tax cuts, he simply redistributed taxes as debt (and his key economic adviser David Stockman resigned). This is not to condemn what occurred, it just wasn’t supply side economics. The same with President Obama, the key to his economic reform is a Keynesian stimulus to prime the economic pump. But the President’s stimulus was not injected into areas of the economy that would result in any jobs. Rather the stimulus was written by the ultra-left Apollo Alliance to fund those areas of the economy that met with their political agenda. Even Paul Krugman had to agree, “..for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all.” While FDR also ran up the debt and may have extended the Great Depression, at least he had something to show for it. Where are all the work projects? Where are the dams and bridges and highways? Where are all those “shovel ready “jobs?

The Whitehouse said they saved 3 million jobs, but there are still 8 million jobs lost! Because a Keynesian stimulus is not designed specifically to create jobs, the stimulus simply disappeared in the $34 trillion of private dept. What Keynesian theory has never dealt with before are such large amounts of private debt. People are willing to maintain a rather high debt levels if they are employed, but these safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, are recognized by the unemployed as temporary. So rather than breaking us loose from the "liquidity trap," people are paying off debt and increasing their savings, hoping for the best but preparing for the worst; contrary to Nancy Pelosi saying that unemployment insurance will stimulate the economy and create jobs. This is the fatal flaw that eventually shows itself with Keynesian theory; the inability to factor in unanticipated human behavior. But even with this, the President never gave the stimulus a chance; it was more important for the Apollo Alliance to fund its progressive agenda, than to create jobs or improve the economy, which makes this the coming attraction for Cap and Trade.