Rhetorical Question

What if the Catholics begin rioting? 

What if Catholics scale the walls of the Embassies in, say, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia and torch American Flags?

What if Catholics kill the Ambassador in Andorra (Andorra is 94% Catholic, by the way)?

What if Catholic protests break out in Germany, Great Britain and much of Europe?

What if the rioters and others claim that the protests are because of Bill Mahar's movie "Religulous?"

Will the FBI bring Bill Mahar in for questioning?  Will the government scour his records looking for criminal activity? 

Will CNN publish his home address, directions to his home, his movements?  

Will CNN News announcers denounce and ridicule the movie? 

Will the Obama Administration contact You Tube and ask that clips form Mahar's "Religulous" anti-Catholic movie be pulled from the service?

Will the The Pentagon call the executives at LIONSGATE (the Studio responsible for "Religulous") and ask them to remove their financial support and repudiate the film?

And, while all this happens, will virtually all so-called Liberals and progressives remain silent?

The War On Conservative Women

STORY ONE: Michelle Malkin: The war on conservative women


STORY TWO: B. Daniel Blatt: Where was liberal outrage when female Republicans were slurred?


I have no problem with outrage or passion. I rarely condemn hate speech, as is obvious from my last two blog entries.  Instead I've been merely pointing out that one side's "hate speech" is often the other side's "careful analysis of the facts" or "instructive discourse."


What has me upset is the selective call for civil discourse from the left when they are by far the worst purveyors of horrific, outrageous and slanderous hate speech.  In my experience the right is often measured, logical and fair in their criticism, refraining from hyperbole.


Let me be clear. Rush Limbaugh was guilty of extreme over-the-top slander and hyperbole, but he is the exception.  But I've not condemned Limbaugh and I've not condemned Ed Schultz and I've not condemned Bill Maher.  They all have points they were attempting to make.


By the way, Maher took to Twitter yesterday to defend Rush Limbaugh. Kudos to Bill Maher for that.  You can follow Maher on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/billmaher


But, if you dare to read them, the two above referenced articles will make your skin crawl. The decumented hate speech by well known, major Liberal, Progressive and Democratic personalities is stunning.  And it's simply never condemned. 


I'm outraged by President Obama's press conference yesterday where he used his daughters as justification to attack Rush Limbaugh then, later in the same press conference, had the gall to say he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility.  This, of course, prevented the reporter from asking the obvious follow-up question, "Will you condemn similar hate speech on the left?"


I'm a Democrat and a pretty far left liberal.  The chances of my voting for President Obama in 2012 are damned near close to zero.  

The Cesspool of Hate and Hypocrisy

STORY ONE: Larry Doyle - The Jesus Eating Cult of Rick Santorum
STORY TWO: Michelle Malkin - Devastating: Andrew Breitbart R.I.P.
STORY THREE: White House enters controversy over Limbaugh comments on Georgetown student

The top link above STORY ONE takes you to an op-ed essay in The Huffington Post by Larry Doyle, a work he now claims is satire.  I had intended to write today's blog entry entirely about the strange logic and blatant hypocrisy of Doyle's hate filled screed.  


But then Andrew Breitbart died and any small point I might have wanted to make about hate speech on the Internet exploded in my face.  In fact Breitbart's death created a nuclear explosion of hatred in the blogosphere and the Twitterverse.  My small essay was reduced to radioactive dust.


Just when I couldn't imagine the discourse becoming any more toxic, enter Rush Limbaugh with his laser guided venom filled missiles lighting the ionosphere.  Mere Bloggers and Twitters are no match for El Rushbo, whose "talent is on loan from God."  I know that's true because Rush said so.  


Just how powerful was Rush's poisonous attack?  So toxic the President of the United States himself felt compelled to weigh in and condemn El Rushbo.  Thank you President Obama for making the point I wanted to make.


Why am I thanking President Obama? Not for defending Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, who, in fact, never needed any defense.  But instead for providing the highest example of our hypocrisy toward hate speech.  


Obama proved the point I wanted to make: HATE SPEECH IS ONLY HATE SPEECH WHEN IT COMES FROM THE OTHER SIDE.  President Obama condemns Rush Limbaugh who called Sandra Fluke a "slut."

ANDREW BREITBART & BILL MAHER LOOKED
REMARKABLY ALIKE. COULD THEY HAVE BEEN TWINS?

However, there is one man on earth who is consistently more vile, more vulgar and much more of a misogynist than even Rush Limbaugh and that's Bill Maher.  Maher's famous televised attacks last year attacking Sarah Palin went far beyond the mild term of "slut,"  preferring to use the words "dumb Twat" and "Cunt" instead.  Maher doubled down, refusing to apologize for his remarks and upped the anti to make even more vile comments.  


Did President Obama condemn Maher?  Did Obama call Sarah Palin and give her his sympathies for the rough nature of political debate in this country?  Nope.  Instead Obama happily accepted a $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) donation from Maher.


THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT MOST FOLKS CAN ONLY SEE HATE SPEECH WHEN IT'S SPRINGS FROM THE OPPOSITION.  THEY NEVER SEEM TO RECOGNIZE IT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, EVEN IF IT SPRINGS FROM THEIR OWN PEN, KEYBOARD OR MOUTH.


In STORY ONE above, Doyle writes one of the most disgusting essays every written about any religion in order to teach conservatives a lesson that they should respect Islam.  It's a lot like a father who beats the living crap out of his son in order to teach him not to be a bully.  As we say on Twitter, #EpicFail.


And in STORY TWO Malkin illustrates how folks condemn Breitbart's "hate speech" by using even more vile and disgusting hate speech themselves.  If they really hated Andrew Breitbart's hate speech, why did the imitate it so precisely?


And finally from STORY THREE: President Obama, if you really hate the lowering of civil discourse, why can you only ever seem to condemn it in your opponents, yet accept huge donations from serial haters on your side of the political spectrum?


__________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM 3/4/2012:    As my friend Lee pointed out (see his comments to this post), Rush Limbaugh has apologized to his listeners and to Sandra Fluke.  It must be noted that Rush has been under intense pressure from a left wing campaign to boycott all his advertisers.  As of this morning seven advertisers have cancelled their sponsorship of Limbaugh's program.  


I have edited my original blog entry to correctly reflect these recent developments.  I also plan a follow-up post on this issue, especially in reference to Carbonite, one of Limbaugh's ex-advertisers.