Democrats Demanding R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Liberals in the state run media and on the web are all abuzz about the behavior of the Republicans during the Polarizer in Chief's speech last evening. Danielle Belton had this to say on her blog;

"Much of the Republican side of Congress sat through the speech grumpily looking like sad rabbits, sitting on their hands. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Blackberry in hand, texted throughout the speech. Some Republicans waved papers at the president. One Joe Wilson of South Carolina took it a disrespectful step further by actually shouting out "You lie!" at the president after Obama said the healthcare plan would not cover illegal immigrants. That was shocking in the sense that it is rare for a politician to directly call another politician a liar to their face, but it was a dangerous precedent in that Wilson did this during a joint session of congress to the President of the United States while he was speaking......it was an pretty big sign of disrespect to the office of the president."

In was Democrats who first broke the disrespect barrier in 2005 when, during President Bush's State of the Union speech, house Democrats shouted "No!" and booed the President.



Joe Wilson (R-SC) called the White House to apologize for calling the President a liar, but was he right? Well, technically, no. Persons receiving benefits under HR 3200 "must be lawfully present in a state in the United States.” However, on principle, Wilson is correct. Hr 3200 contains no provision for verification of the legal status of any recipients. The Democrats are leaving the door open for illegals to obtain benefits, while honestly being able to say that language in the legislation itself prohibits it. The Patriot Page stands behind Rep. Wilson's assertion that the President lied on this issue.

As to the other perceived inappropriate behavior exhibited by Republicans during the speech, it really could have been worse, and if the Democrats continue to follow their current course, it will be. Personally, I would have paid good money to see every Republican in that chamber stand up, fold their arms, and turn their backs on the President; and remain in that position for the duration of the speech.


UPDATE:

Check out the racist comments of MSNBC's David Shuster Thursday night;




Hat Tip: Black & Right

Change! At What Price?

I am not a native Virginian, but as I was in the process of moving to Virginia, I thought that it would be great to live under a state flag which read, "sic semper tyrannis' (thus always to tyrants). Of course, I did know that a motto alone does not insulate a people from the tyrannical designs of evil men, or from those who do their bidding. On Aug. 25 Jim Moran (D-VA) held a town hall meeting at a public school in Reston, VA. Opponents of nationalized health care organized a protest in which they exercised their constitutional rights to peacefully assemble and to demand redress of grievances. Many were carrying signs. One protester was carrying the sign shown at the right of this page. Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr., who was assigned to crowd control duty at that location, apparently was offended by the sign.

Watch the video of the incident, which seems to have been taken by the individual with the sign. Pay particular attention to the exchange at the end of the clip.



"This use to be America", the protester says. "It ain't no more", responds the officer.

As I write this, the President has just finished his speech on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. The speech was his typical Obaminable mixture of platitudes, distortions, lies, and damn lies. Amid cheers and boos coming from the right and the left side of the chamber, the President showed once again, that he is the great 'polarizer in chief'. The purpose of this speech was to motivate and embolden the Democrats in Congress to ram this 'national socialist measure' down America's throat.

Back in 1996, as election day approached, some conservatives were saying that "America needed four more years of Bill Clinton" in order to push Americans further to the right. They of course could not have foreseen the 'Lewinsky scandal' which shifted attention from what Clinton was doing from his office, to what he was doing in his office. Now, I am hearing murmurs from some conservatives suggesting that we need the Democrats to shove this health care bill through on their own, and thereby destroy themselves. The future, as always, is unforeseeable. Even if events unfold as expected, playing politics with dangerous pieces of legislation is morally repugnant. Yes, the Democrats may pay for it in the short term, but the American people will be those who suffer in the long term. The price is far too great. God, forbid it.

Van Jones: What Was the WH Vetting Process?

In typical Democrat 'damage control' fashion, Van Jones, Obama's 'Green Red Jobs Czar', announced his resignation shortly after midnight today following what he called a "vicious smear campaign against me." Interpretation; "Oh, boo hoo, I'm a victim of those mean Weepubwicans." For Democrats, this kind of defense is easier than growing a set.

In fairness to Van Jones, we will examine his 'vicious smear campaign' defense. It was Van Jones who decided to deal with his disappointment over the Rodney King verdict by becoming a self professed communist. It was Van Jones who said;

"I met all these young radical people of color– I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'

It was Van Jones who decided to found the Marxist organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM). It was Van Jones who established the racially biased 'Green For All' and 'Color of Change' organizations. It was Van Jones who said of the Columbine massacre;

"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them!" "Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."

It was Van Jones who called Republicans, "assholes". It was Van Jones who chose to sign a petition charging the U.S. government with masterminding the 9/11 attacks. And, it was all of the aforementioned acts by Van Jones which caused the outrage in which Glenn Beck, patriot and 'all around good guy', played a minor role.

Now that Van 'the commie' Jones has finally resigned, pundits on both sides of the aisle are asking what went wrong with the White House vetting process. It is really a rather stupid question! I mean, what are the choices?

A). The FBI overlooked all of the aforementioned issues in Jones' background.

B). The White House was aware of Jones' background and approved his appointment despite them.

C). The White House was aware of Jones' background and approved his appointment because of them.

Let me know what you think. At the top of the sidebar you will find a poll concerning this question.