Was The Attempt To Blame Palin For Tuscon Shootings A “Fast And Furious” Cover up?

By Gary P Jackson

After seeing the report by John Hayward back in June, I thought someone would look at things and ask questions, but alas, no one has. I guess it’s up to me.

For those not familiar with the “Gun Walker” AKA “Fast and Furious” scandal, let me give you the Readers Digest version:

In 2009, not long after President Barack Obama took office, his people started a propaganda campaign that pounded home the idea guns manufactured in the United States were ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, and other assorted thugs. The claims were, most gun violence in Mexico came from weapons traced back to the United States.

In fact, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón used the same talking points the White House was using, when he spoke before a joint session of Congress, and in interviews. This was a highly choreographed affair, and the world’s media did their part by breathlessly reporting it all with headlines like: US Guns fuel violence in Mexico. All cited a Congressional report, created by a then democrat controlled House and Senate.

In fact the BBC is still reporting:

A US Congressional report suggests some 70% of firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes in 2009 and 2010 and submitted for tracing came from the US.

Here’s the thing, we now know all of these guns in question came from the United States government. That’s right, The Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had been putting these weapons directly in the hands of Mexico’s drug cartels and violent gangs.

Why would they do this? The claim is they were running some sort of sting. The truth is more disturbing. It seems The Obama regime cooked this all up as a way to finally disarm the American people, a time honored goal of the democrat party for the better part of 100 years.

The idea was to make it seem guns simply couldn’t be effectively regulated, and since there was no way to make sure guns couldn’t fall into the hands of bad people, the only cure was to take everyone’s guns away. Anyone who’s paid attention has seen all of the renewed talk of gun regulations by democrats, even though the Supreme Court recently affirmed the American people’s God given right to own and maintain fire arms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

We now know this treasonous scheme goes all of the way to the Oval Office. Attorney General Eric Holder is in on the deal, as are ATF supervisors and even members of the FBI. Congressman Darrell Issa, of California is currently holding hearings into the matter. Suffice it to say, this set up makes Iran-Contra look like a Sunday afternoon at the local gun show. It’s big and should not only lead to resignations and prison time for all involved, if the link to Obama himself can be well established, impeachment.

That brings us to the Tuscon shootings. As John Hayward reported:

After Gun Walker automatic rifles were found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder, an agent testified that “there was a sense like every other time, even with [Representative Gabrielle] Giffords’ shooting, there was a state of panic, like, oh, God, let’s hope this is not a weapon from that case.” There was more panic when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata was shot while sitting in his car in Mexico.

To the relief of the ATF, it does not appear that Gun Walker weapons were used in either the Giffords or Zapata shootings, but that doesn’t make Agent Terry any less dead. The House Oversight Committee concluded his death was “likely a preventable tragedy,” and the Gun Walker project “contributed to the increasing violence and deaths in Mexico“… a result met with “giddy optimism by ATF supervisors hoping that guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico would provide the nexus to straw purchasers in Phoenix.” Hopefully the Mexican government will be relieved to know its citizens died for a good cause.

Read the entire report here.

As our readers know, Jarred Lee Laughner, a left wing loon who had been stalking Congresswoman Giffords since 2007, went to an event she was holding in Tuscon and not only shot Giffords, but injured 12 more people, and killed 6, including 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green.

What has always bothered me is how quickly the left started blaming Sarah Palin for all of this. Local EMS were still at the scene and authorities on the ground were still trying to sort things out, when Markos Moulitsas, who runs the Daily Kos was tweeting it was Sarah Palin’s fault. Within the next few hours the entire left had seized on this.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, whose men recently killed a war hero by mistake, was on the air, and full on crazy, blaming Sarah Palin, and Conservatives, en masse. It wasn’t long before the entire Tea Party, along with Sarah, were accused of mass murder. The blood libel carried on for weeks.

The left focused on “crosshairs” on a map of districts targeted by SarahPAC as areas the Republican Party could win. These were districts the McCain/Palin campaign had won handily in 2008. Congresswoman Giffords district was one of them.

We’ve talked about all of this before, and pointed out that Moulitsas’ own website had put a bulls-eye on Giffords, a “blue dog democrat” also targeting her for defeat, and calling her a sell out.

HillBuzz reported that just days before the attack, one of the Kos bloggers, who lives Tucson, wrote that Giffords was “dead” because she didn’t vote to make Nancy Pelosi House minority leader.

Back to the effort to indict Sarah Palin and the entire Tea Party for mass murder. We know the White House coordinates everything with the corrupt media. The folks at MSNBC’s Morning Joe have bragged about getting texts from the White House while they are on the air. Others have admitted the collusion as well.

Anyone with half a brain, seeing that everyone was using the same talking points, knows there was a coordinated effort to blood libel Sarah and the millions of Tea Party members. We all learned how the media works when the infamous JounoList scandal broke.

At the time, most of us just though this was the left being their normal, evil self. Now, knowing more facts, one has to ask, was all of this done to cover up the Gun Walker affair? To hopefully avert everyone’s attention IF the gun Laughner used was one of the ones the Obama regime had put out there? Was all of it a “Fast and Furious” coverup?

Think about it, those involved were scared the gun was one of theirs, and at the time, didn’t know any more about all of this than the rest of us did. Even once Laughner was caught, there was still a serious question of where his gun came from. How hard would have been for the people involved to contacted Eric Holder, who is up to his eyeballs in this, and in turn Holder contact Obama, and then do what they do best by never letting a good a good crisis go to waste?

Look, I have no proof here, this is all speculation on my part. But the effort to blame Sarah Palin immediately, and then eventually the entire Tea Party, was just too well coordinated. It could be the left was just doing what it always does, but these new facts raise a lot of questions.

Hopefully someone with a larger megaphone than I have will ask the same questions. Even if I turn out to be totally wrong, I sure would love to find out the truth. Wouldn’t you?

Advertisement

Caroline Glick : The Aim Of Blood Libels

By Stacy Drake

Caroline Glick wrote a powerful piece for the Jewish Press in which she discusses the recent attacks of Governor Palin, the similarity of the level and nature of those attacks to what Israelis have endured, and the real meaning of the silence from members of the governor’s own party in the wake of these horrible events. She writes:

For Israelis, the American Left’s assault on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement in the wake of Jared Loughner’s murderous attack in Tucson was disturbingly familiar.

Just as the American leftist media and political leadership immediately sought to blame Palin, the Tea Party and conservative media personalities for Loughner’s actions, so in 1995 their Israeli counterparts accused the Right – from then-opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu to various rabbis to the two million Israelis who protested against the so-called peace process with the PLO – of being responsible for Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination.

Just as Palin and her fellow conservatives are accused of inciting the schizophrenic shooter to pull the trigger, so Netanyahu and his fellow rightists were accused of inciting the sociopathic Yigal Amir to plot and carry out his crime.

And just as it doesn’t matter to the American media elites that Americans conservatives engaged in no such incitement, and that Loughner himself seemed motivated to act by a mad obsession with grammar, it didn’t matter to their Israeli counterparts that Amir’s closest associate and the man responsible for the most incendiary anti-Rabin propaganda was Avishai Raviv – a government agent.

Palin’s characterization of the Left’s appalling assault on her and her fellow conservatives as a “blood libel” was entirely accurate. Moreover, as her previous use of the term “death panels” in the healthcare debate brought clarity to an issue the Left sought to obscure, so her use of the term “blood libel” exposed the nature of the Left’s behavior and highlighted its intentions.

By warning about “death panels,” Palin highlighted the fly in the ointment of government healthcare. Government control will induce scarcity of healthcare and government rationing will necessarily follow. That rationing, in turn, will be undertaken by panels of government officials empowered to decide who gets what care. Her remark focused the debate on the flaws in the program in a way no other had.

In the case of her use of the term “blood libel,” Palin exposed the Left’s attempt to criminalize conservatives and make it impossible for conservatives to either defend themselves or pursue their alternative policy agenda. A blood libel involves two things: First, an imaginary crime; second, the accusation that an entire group of people is guilty of committing that crime that never occurred.

Classically, of course, blood libels have been used against Jews. Anti-Semites accused Jews of killing non-Jews for ritual use of their blood. Jews had murdered no one and Judaism has no ritual involving the use of human blood. Yet, repeatedly entire communities were criminalized and persecuted based on these blood libels.

By criminalizing the entire community based on false allegations regarding a never-committed crime, anti-Semites made it impossible for Jews to go on about our lives. If we sought to deny the charges, we gave them credibility. If we ignored the charges, our silence was interpreted as an admission of guilt. And so no matter what we did, the blood libel firmly attached the stench of murder to a completely innocent Jewish community.

Just as its Israeli counterpart did in the wake of Rabin’s assassination, so the American Left seeks to attach a sense of criminality and violence to the American Right in order to make it socially and otherwise unpalatable to support or otherwise identify with it.

By calling the Left out for its behavior, Palin exposed its agenda. But the logic of the blood libel remained. Trusting the public’s ignorance, and the liberal Jewish community’s solidarity, the leftist media in the U.S. immediately condemned Palin for daring to use the term, hinted she was an anti-Semite for doing so, and argued that by defending herself, she was again inciting violence.

Many conservative thinkers and politicians have long viewed Palin as a liability. By remaining in the spotlight, they allege, Palin is helping the Left. They argue that the media have already destroyed her ability to communicate with non-conservatives. Since she is viewed as a conservative leader, by failing to shut up she is making it impossible for other potential leaders whom the media don’t despise to connect with the swing voters they will need to unseat Obama in 2012.

While alluring, this position does more than harm Palin. It renders the 2012 election irrelevant.

It matters not whether these conservative thinkers support Palin. What matters is that by telling her not to defend herself from libelous attacks, they are accepting the Left’s right to criminalize all conservatives. If she is not defended against a patently obscene effort to connect her to a madman’s rampage in Tucson, then conservatives in the U.S. are signaling they really don’t want to control U.S. policy. They are saying that if a Republican is elected in 2012, he or she will continue to implement Obama’s radical policies.

In certain ways, Palin is a revolutionary leader and the Tea Party movement is a revolutionary movement. For nearly a hundred years, the Left in its various permutations has captured Western policy by controlling the elite discourse from New York and Los Angeles to London to Paris to Tel Aviv. By making it “politically incorrect” to assert claims of Western, Judeo-Christian morality or advocate robust political, economic and military policies, the Left has made it socially and professionally costly for people to think freely and believe in their countries.

What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the U.S. and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left’s opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.

The same can be said of the Tea Party. The reason it frightens the Left, and the Republican leaders who owe their positions to their willingness to accept the Left’s basic agenda, is because it does not accept the Left’s policy platform.

Today in Israel the Left is running a campaign to protect foreign-financed, anti-Zionist, Israeli registered NGOs from public scrutiny. All politicians who support an effort to publicly expose these groups’ foreign funders are demonized as “anti-democratic” and “fascist.”

Fearing the Left’s assault, Likud ministers Dan Meridor, Michael Eitan and Benny Begin as well as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have sided with these radical, anti-Zionist groups against their transparency-seeking Knesset colleagues. And all four men were congratulated for their commitment to “democracy” and “liberal norms,” by the media.

It doesn’t matter that the Left’s accusations against those demanding transparency are completely ridiculous and libelous. It doesn’t matter that the Left’s campaign exposes a deep-seated fear of the very democracy it fraudulently claims to value. What matters to these Likud politicians is that the media place them above their unwashed colleagues.

[…]

The Left’s campaign against Palin is not just about Palin. If she is discredited for standing up to blood libels then no one in the U.S. or anywhere else can expect to succeed in moving past the failed and dangerous leftist policy agenda. But if she is defended, a world of possibilities opens up for all of us.

You can read this great article in it’s entirety here

The Media Owe Sarah Palin an Apology

By Stacy Drake

Last night, after Governor Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity, the left desperately sought something from the exchange to feign outrage over. Some seemed to latch on to a sentiment expressed by Anderson Cooper during his show, when he said:

“She seems unwilling to apologize or back off of anything.”

Then later:

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard her back off anything she’s done.”

Telling isn’t it? Anderson Cooper wanting Governor Palin to “back off.” That aside, it is absolutely outrageous to suggest that she owes anybody an apology after last week. Everybody knows that the media starting throwing the blame for the horrible massacre in Tucson upon her shoulders immediately after the incident took place, and before ANY facts where known. A massacre that took the lives of six people, including a nine year-old girl.

The media then spent the next few days after the shooting, egging her on from their anchor chairs, asking “where is she” and “when is she going to apologize!” After an appropriate amount of time had passed, she respectfully and rightly defended herself and others who the media had smeared with a manufactured blood libel. A truth the press has tried to absolve itself of by discrediting the term “blood libel” on the basis that is has a historical root belonging to a different religion than that of the governor’s. Their efforts to do so have been ridiculous and nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

The left is attempting to get Governor Palin to apologize, for no other reason than to get some of the mud they have thrown at her to stick. By apologizing for anything in relation to what happened in Tucson, Governor Palin would solidify the linkage the media created, between her and the killings. The press would love nothing more than to be exonerated for their cruel and disgusting, politically charged, exploitation of this tragedy.

Governor Palin has no doubt been put through a lot over this entire ordeal. She stated during the interview with Sean Hannity, she and her family have been receiving death threats. She has be maligned as an accessory to murder, along with the Tea Party, and certain talk radio hosts. She never said or did anything to provoke such a heinous crime, but then again, she never has done anything to merit the amount of hatred the left throws her way either.

She doesn’t owe anyone one an apology. The media, and the Democrat party owe apologies to everyone they linked to the blood spilled in Arizona. Most importantly, they owe an apology to the victims and their families for making a political circus out of their grief. Sadly, nobody will be receiving any apologies from the press or the left because to do so would solidify the reality of what they have done.

NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind: Vilifiyers Of Sarah Palin Are Engaging In Blood Libel

By Gary P Jackson

From Vos Iz Neias

New York – Statement By Assemblyman Dov Hikind in defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”

“As someone whose grandparents were slaughtered in the Holocaust; whose parents survived the horrors of Auschwitz; and as the Assembly representative of the largest contingency of Holocaust survivors, I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.“

H/T: Benyamin Korn at JewsForSarah.com

Ed Koch: Sarah Palin Has Defeated Her Harsh And Unfair Critics.

Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

~ Ed Koch

By Gary P Jackson

Former New York City Mayor, Ed Koch, has joined in with other [liberal] Jewish leaders standing with Sarah Palin as she has been attacked by the rabid left and their media partners.

Being a liberal, he has to get his shots in, but this is strong support and what civility looks like. [emphasis mine]

As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the “Morning Joe” show, which I watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed) to embark on the shooting and killing spree.

[ …. ]

While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term “blood libel.” That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge – blood libel – is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.

Today the phrase “blood libel” can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

[ …. ]

Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don’t agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin’s name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she “scared the hell out of me.” My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.

I repeat my earlier comment that she “scares the hell out of me.” Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I’ve never met her, but I’ve always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don’t believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others – men – to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

You can read more here.

Obviously we disagree with Mayor Koch on his assessment of Sarah’s politics, and just as he is “scared” of Sarah’s politics, we are angered by the destruction his party has caused to America. And unlike Koch’s “fears” the devastation brought on by the democrat party is real.

Something tells me, since the two have never met, Koch would find he and Sarah would agree on more things than they disagree on.Hopefully at some point the two will meet-up and have a chance to talk about it all.

One must applaud Koch. It takes a strong person to go against the grain, knowing they are from a party that doesn’t take dissent kindly. We live in a heated atmosphere. The American people are very angry. We have a radical leftist in the White House, and for four years we had a radical leftist Congress. Their policies have America on the edge of the abyss.

While it’s hard to contain this anger, Mayor Koch reminds us it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Flashback: President Ronald Reagan Violently Attacked By Democrat “Peace Activist”

By Gary P Jackson

Included in the above video are 3 news stories from April 13, 1992 when an anti-nuclear weapons “peace activist” violently attacked former President Ronald Reagan, smashing an award he had just been given, with pieces of that award hitting the Gipper.

In a week where we have seen Sarah Palin endure a blood libel, resulting in death threats from left wing loons, watching this video reminds us that violence from democrats is nothing new at all.

Our Friday News Round-Up hand plenty of examples of violent democrats, dating back more than a century. We reported on the VERY corrupt democrat Congressman, Paul Kanjorski saying of the now Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, “Put him up against the wall and shoot him!” during the 2010 campaign.

We also reported as the new year rolled in, democrat icon Francis Fox Piven is calling for a violent revolution in America.

The video below is Code Pick lunatic Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz attacking the Secretary of State Condi Rice at a hearing in 2007. Ali-Fairooz, has red paint on her hands, signifying blood, and was allowed to get right in Condi’s face before being stopped by security. By the way, the Code Pink protesters were given access to the hearing by democrat legislators.

Code Pink, which claims to be a group of “peace activists” supports both Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist groups that are enemies of America and all free peoples.

In the past week we have seen Sarah Palin, and all Conservatives, attacked by the left. It is our duty to continually point out who the truly violent people are, and where their ideology lies. It’s the democrats and the poisonous rhetoric they preach that incites violence. And it’s their followers who then act on that violent rhetoric.

A Reminder Of Who The Corrupt “Journalists” Are

By Gary P Jackson

With the democrat’s blood libel against Sarah Palin, it’s a good time to remind people who their media partners are. Last year the JournoList scandal broke, as e-mails revealed their was a conspiracy among some of the nation’s top “journalists” and members of academia to shape the news to fit the left wing narrative, as well as a concerted effort to harm Sarah Palin, and protect Barack Obama. To hide his radical past, and shady associates, from the American people.

We wrote numerous articles at the time, including: Journolist Media And Academic Members Exactly What You Expected: Communists, Socialists, And George Soros Stooges.

Here are the 151 known members of the JournoList conspiracy. See how many you recognize as contributors to the blood libel of Sarah Palin, and the attacks on all Conservatives, for the actions of a left wing mad man.

1. Spencer Ackerman – Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect

2. Thomas Adcock – New York Law Journal

3. Ben Adler – Newsweek, POLITICO

4. Mike Allen – POLITICO

5. Eric Alterman – The Nation, Media Matters for America

6. Marc Ambinder – The Atlantic

7. Greg Anrig – The Century Foundation

8. Ryan Avent – Economist

9. Dean Baker – The American Prospect

10. Nick Baumann – Mother Jones

11. Josh Bearman – LA Weekly

12. Steven Benen – The Carpetbagger Report

13. Ari Berman – The Nation

14. Jared Bernstein – Economic Policy Institute

15. Michael Berube – Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University

16. Brian Beutler – The Media Consortium

17. Lindsay Beyerstein – Freelance journalist

18. Joel Bleifuss – In These Times

19. John Blevins – South Texas College of Law

20. Sam Boyd – The American Prospect

21. Ben Brandzel – MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign

22. Shannon Brownlee – Author, New America Foundation

23. Will Bunch – Philadelphia Daily News

24. Rich Byrne – Playwright

25. Jonathan Chait – The New Republic

26. Lakshmi Chaudry – In These Times

27. Isaac Chotiner – The New Republic

28. Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic

29. Michael Cohen – New America Foundation

30. Jonathan Cohn – The New Republic

31. Joe Conason – The New York Observer

32. Lark Corbeil – Public News Service

33. David Corn – Mother Jones

34. Daniel Davies – The Guardian

35. David Dayen – FireDogLake

36. Brad DeLong – The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley

37. Ryan Donmoyer – Bloomberg News

38. Adam Doster – In These Times

39. Kevin Drum – Washington Monthly

40. Matt Duss – Center for American Progress

41. Gerald Dworkin – UC Davis

42. Eve Fairbanks – The New Republic

43. Henry Farrell – George Washington University

44. Tim Fernholz – American Prospect

45. Dan Froomkin – Huffington Post, Washington Post

46. Jason Furman – Brookings Institution

47. James Galbraith – University of Texas at Austin

48. Kathleen Geier – Talking Points Memo

49. Todd Gitlin – Columbia University

50. Ilan Goldenberg – National Security Network

51. Arthur Goldhammer – Harvard University

52. Dana Goldstein – The Daily Beast

53. Andrew Golis – Talking Points Memo

54. Jaana Goodrich – Blogger

55. Merrill Goozner – Chicago Tribune

56. David Greenberg – Slate

57. Robert Greenwald – Brave New Films

58. Chris Hayes – The Nation

59. Don Hazen – Alternet

60. Jeet Heer – Canadian Journolist

61. Jeff Hauser – Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign

62. Michael Hirsh – Newsweek

63. James Johnson – University of Rochester

64. John Judis – The New Republic, The American Prospect

65. Foster Kamer – The Village Voice

66. Michael Kazin – Georgetown University

67. Ed Kilgore – Democratic Strategist

68. Richard Kim – The Nation

69. Charlie Kireker – Air America Media

70. Mark Kleiman – UCLA The Reality Based Community

71. Ezra Klein – Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect

72. Joe Klein – TIME

73. Robert Kuttner – American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute

74. Paul Krugman – The New York Times, Princeton University

75. Lisa Lerer – POLITICO

76. Daniel Levy – Century Foundation

77. Ralph Luker – Cliopatria

78. Annie Lowrey – Washington Independent

79. Robert Mackey – New York Times

80. Mike Madden – Salon

81. Maggie Mahar – The Century Foundation

82. Dylan Matthews – Harvard University

83. Alec McGillis – Washington Post

84. Scott McLemee – Inside Higher Ed

85. Sara Mead – New America Foundation

86. Ari Melber – The Nation

87. David Meyer – University of California at Irvine

88. Seth Michaels – MyDD.com

89. Luke Mitchell – Harper’s Magazine

90. Gautham Nagesh – The Hill, Daily Caller

91. Suzanne Nossel – Human Rights Watch

92. Michael O’Hare – University of California at Berkeley

93. Josh Orton – MyDD.com, Air America Media

94. Rodger Payne – University of Louisville

95. Rick Perlstein – Author, Campaign for America’s Future

96. Nico Pitney – Huffington Post

97. Harold Pollack – University of Chicago

98. Katha Pollitt – The Nation

99. Ari Rabin-Havt – Media Matters

100. Joy-Ann Reid – South Florida Times

101. David Roberts – Grist

102. Lamar Robertson – Partnership for Public Service

103. Sara Robinson – Campaign For America’s Future

104. Alyssa Rosenberg – Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive

105. Alex Rossmiller – National Security Network

106. Michael Roston – Newsbroke

107. Laura Rozen – POLITICO, Mother Jones

108. Felix Salmon – Reuters

109. Greg Sargent – Washington Post

110. Thomas Schaller – Baltimore Sun

111. Noam Scheiber – The New Republic

112. Michael Scherer – TIME

113. Mark Schmitt – American Prospect, The New America Foundation

114. Rinku Sen – ColorLines Magazine

115. Julie Bergman Sender – Balcony Films

116. Adam Serwer – American Prospect

117. Walter Shapiro – PoliticsDaily.com

118. Kate Sheppard – Mother Jones

119. Matthew Shugart – UC San Diego

120. Nate Silver – FiveThirtyEight.com

121. Jesse Singal – The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly

122. Ann-Marie Slaughter – Princeton University

123. Ben Smith – POLITICO

124. Sarah Spitz – KCRW

125. Adele Stan – The Media Consortium

126. Paul Starr – The Atlantic

127. Kate Steadman – Kaiser Health News

128. Jonathan Stein – Mother Jones

129. Sam Stein – Huffington Post

130. Matt Steinglass – Deutsche Presse-Agentur

131. James Surowiecki – The New Yorker

132. Jesse Taylor – Pandagon.net

133. Steven Teles – Yale University

134. Mark Thoma – The Economists’ View

135. Michael Tomasky – The Guardian

136. Jeffrey Toobin – CNN, The New Yorker

137. Rebecca Traister – Salon

138. Tracy Van Slyke – The Media Consortium

139. Paul Waldman – Author, American Prospect

140. Dave Weigel – Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent

141. Moira Whelan – National Security Network

142. Scott Winship – Pew Economic Mobility Project

143. J. Harry Wray – DePaul University

144. D. Brad Wright – University of NC at Chapel Hill

145. Kai Wright – The Root

146. Holly Yeager – Columbia Journalism Review

147. Rich Yeselson – Change to Win

148. Matthew Yglesias – Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly

149. Jonathan Zasloff – UCLA

150. Julian Zelizer – Princeton University

151. Avi Zenilman – POLITICO

Depraved: Obama Turns Arizona Memorial into A Political Campaign Rally … T-Shirts And All!

By Gary P Jackson

I’ve been to a lot of memorials and funerals in my life, so many that every time I attend one, I swear it will be the last until my own. I’ve never been to one that was marketed like a sporting event, with slogans, t-shirts, special logos, and had a pep rally atmosphere.

Last night’s event in Arizona was the Wellstone Memorial on steroids, complete with nifty slogans and T-shirts.

People actually thought the funeral for Senator Paul Wellstone was the lowest the democrat party could ever sink in their continuing efforts to exploit tragedy and suffering, but that was before America was introduced to Barack Obama’s democrat party.

For those not familiar, Fred Barnes started off his piece about Wellstone in the Weekly Standard by saying:

A memorial service for Paul Wellstone becomes a DNC pep rally as the Democratic party reaches a new low.

You can read more here.

Of course, I don’t know why this is either surprising or remarkable. Before the first responders even arrived on the scene to tend to the wounded, prominent democrats, and their left wing media partners, chose the event to conduct a blood libel against Sarah Palin, accusing her of mass murder, and viciously attack the entire Conservative movement.

This was before any victim had received medical attention, or anyone even knew who the real mass murderer, Jared Lee Loughner, was.

The left has used the tragedy from the second it happened as some sort of opportunity to bash political opponents as stir up hatred among their followers. Besides inciting the zombies who hang on their every word, the left hoped to use this tragedy to silence their critics through legislation, and take away many First and Second Amendment rights.

It’s despicable, but as we have been reminded since the tragic events on Saturday, this is who these people are, and it’s who they have always been.

I’ve been to a lot of memorials and funerals in my life, so many that every time I attend one, I swear it will be the last until my own. I’ve never been to one that was marketed like a sporting event, with slogans, t-shirts, special logos, and had a pep rally atmosphere.

Pat Dollard broke the story:

Step right up, ladies and gentleman, the tragedy campaign tour starts right here…Indians, poetry readings, visual aid gimmick made out of public letters, he’s managed to turn a memorial service into a three-ring circus…a logo and slogan for a memorial service? Really?

And “Together We Thrive“?

Just another coded political slogan for his upcoming political “tragedy agenda“, having nothing to do with mourning or a tribute to the victims, and worse, clearly, he’s debuting his replacement slogan for “Yes We Can“.

Jonathan Alter recently advised Obama to treat this shooting like any other crisis that can be capitalized on for political gain. “Never let a good crisis go to waste“, reminded Alter. Well, I guess Obama took his advice.

This is just the warm-up. Here’s an update:

This post originally went up in the early evening of January 11. In it, in the headline above, and the commentary below, I revealed that this alleged memorial service was a total sham, a political rally disguised as memorial service.

I debuted what was to be the slogan and logo, as you can see. What’s worse, and what I will be writing about in a forthcoming post, is that Obama’s speech was a declaration of war on America, Conservatives in particular, promising a broad push on gun rights, free speech and even an expansion of government health care.

The rest was obligatory, phony “mourning“. Because the Conservative intelligentsia don’t how to de-code Obama’s speeches (it’s very basic, really), and because they continuously make the fatal mistake of thinking that he’s ever sincere when saying anything conciliatory, they continuously are sucker-punched by this guy, and find themselves on the defense, and catching up.

Pat has the complete details of this shameful display here.

Sorry Fred, you only though the democrats hit rock bottom with Wellstone. As the past week has shown, they were no where near it. They are gettin’ there though.

This Is Lauren B., Who Wished Sarah Palin Was Shot Instead Of Congresswoman Giffords

By Gary P Jackson

The blood libel against Sarah Palin has borne fruit, and we reported on the left wing violence that has been stoked by democrats and their media allies. In our report we noted that numerous loons took to Twitter to call for Sarah Palin’s death, as a result of the hate ginned up by the democrats and their media. We also noted the loons, once they realized they were being watched, their hate was being documented, and the implications to all of this, cried to You Tube about a “violation of privacy” and You Tube took the video down.

Of course, this is BS, as Twitter is an open public forum.

No matter, the creators who documented the vile hatred hosted the video on another site as well. One the left can’t shut down. You can read more and view the hate speech for yourself here.

Now, courtesy of BigFurHat we have more info on one of the violent democrats:

The imbecile, RedHeadOnFire2, the dunderhead who claims her privacy was violated after she broadcasted her asinine thoughts to the world, is in this video. What a dunce.

Here, let me violate this asshole’s “privacy ” a little more-This is Lauren B., who wished Palin was shot instead of Giffords:.

“My name is Lauren, I’m 21 years old and a psych major at UOP. Follow my tweets!”

Psych major, eh? Will you be in the chair or on the couch? I say couch.

And as Grayscape points out – she has ONE WORD to get right in her One Word Project and spells it wrong.

The Soviets used to call people like Lauren B. “useful idiots“. They are mindless zombie drones who believe whatever left wing crap the progressive movement throws at them, and are all too eager to do the radical democrat’s bidding for them. Of course the leaders view these lemmings as expendable. Mere pawns in a dangerous game.

This vile little liberal chick may want her friends to think she is some sort of “loving” and “caring” progressive, but her diseased soul has now been exposed. The world can now see who Lauren B., a psych major at UOP, really is. 

Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin is right about a ‘blood libel’

Sarah Palin wearing her trademark U.S.-Israel flags pin

~ Benyamin Korn

By Gary P Jackson

In Sarah Palin’s powerful video address to the nation she spoke of the blood libel she has been targeted with in the wake of the mass murder in Arizona. As we reported, this blood libel has borne fruit.

Of course, the left went insane, knowing that people will understand EXACTLY what Sarah was talking about, and their media allies couldn’t wait to carry their water. The left protests she was not “allowed” to use the term, as it was “offensive” to Jews, …. or something. .

Benyamin Korn offers up examples of the use of the term, and stands in support of Sarah:

Statement of Jewish American for Sarah Palin regarding Gov. Palin’s use of term ‘blood libel’

Sarah Palin got it right.

Falsely accusing someone of shedding blood is the definition of a blood libel – whether it’s the medieval Church accusing Jews of baking blood in Passover matzos, or contemporary Muslim extremists accusing Israel of slaughtering Arabs to harvest their organs – or our political partisans blaming conservative political figures and talk show hosts for the Tucson massacre.

In medieval Europe, beginning with the Norwich blood libel of 1144, such accusations were used to incite mob violence against Jewish communities. Blood libels also appeared in the Arab world, as recently as the infamous Damascus blood libel of 1840.

In more recent times, prominent voices in the American Jewish community have characterized extreme and irresponsible attacks on Israel or Jews as “blood libels,” even when those libels did not necessarily result in violence.

For example, the Anti-Defamation League has said that a Swedish newspaper’s claim that Israeli soldiers murder Arabs to harvest their organs was a “new blood libel” (Sept. 14, 2009); that an Abu Dhabi Television cartoon of Israel’s prime minister drinking Arab blood was an “anti-Semitic blood libel skit” (Nov. 19, 2001); and that a Syrian diplomat’s remark that Israeli children sing songs about drinking Arab blood is similar to “the ancient blood libel against Jews.” (June 14, 2010)

Likewise, former New York City mayor Ed Koch has said that anti-Israel accusations made by Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks were “comparable to the age-old blood libel used by anti-Semitse to incite pogroms in Europe.” (August 17, 2006)

Beyond the Jewish community, the term “blood libel“ is periodically used by political partisans of all stripes. During the 2000 Florida vote recount, for example, Congressman Peter Deutsch said that some Republican accusations against Democratic nominee Al Gore were “almost a blood libel.“* Newsday editor Les Payne said in 2008 that criticism of African-American journalists’ coverage of the Obama candidacy were a “blood libel.”** Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin said that John Kerry’s 1971 testimony about alleged war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam was “a blood libel.”*** Alex Beam of the Boston Globe said that anonymous Globe staffers who accused former colleagues of privately making racial slurs were “making charges that amounted to ‘blood libel.’”****

“Blood libel” does not refer exclusively to accusations against Jews. It does not refer only to medieval episodes that resulted in pogroms. It is a term that has been, and continues to be, legitimately used in contemporary American political discourse by all sides. Governor Palin’s use of the term is accurate, reasonable, and squarely within the bounds of accepted political discourse. It is her opponents’ attempts to falsely connect her to the Tucson massacre which is inaccurate, and unreasonable, and beyond the pale of civilized discourse.

* Cited in National Review Online, January 12, 2011

**Associated Press, July 28, 2008

***National Review Online, September 8, 2004

****Boston Globe, January 14, 2005

More to come ….