PREPARING THE TURKEY SHOOT

IT'S QUITE EASY TO SEE who's causing liberals and Marxists the most pain. They sputter and spend an enormous amount of time and resources in an effort to demonize those who cause them so much agony. We can easily observe that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh cause liberals to suffer severe, chronic heartburn and draw full migraine headaches they can't wait to share with their neighbors.

Paragons of American liberty Micheal Savage and Mark Levin also pierce the frothing leftist "message" balloons, but who's counting mighty eagles now that the chirping chickens are indeed coming home to roost...

Rodeo clown or not, Glenn Beck at his most outrageous is no louder than those two hilarious party-sniffers Chris "Leg-tingling" Matthews and the salacious King of Rage, Keith Olberman. The reason Beck has captured the right wing zeitgeist so thoroughly is that he is providing a valuable service by connecting the long string of dots no one else wants to connect.

Unlike the increasingly feckless Bill O'Reilly, Beck is showing incredible stones by being one of the very few individuals willing to snatch back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz that characterizes this administration.

Which brings us to that old leftist canard—Global warming, Man-Made or Political Rubbish? The "real" facts show that more and more climatologists are stepping from the shadows of the Al Gore-scare to contradict the rush to blame man on global warming, or even to admit that dangerous unnatural warming is even occurring across the planet.

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen mocked man-made global warming fears in a July 2, 2009 radio interview on WRKO's Howie Carr program. Lindzen noted that man-made climate fears were "divorced from nature" and he said the scientific foundation for climate fears is "falling apart."

"How did we get a population that can be told something that contradicts their senses and go crazy over it?" Lindzen asked on the program. Lindzen recently co-signed an open letter to Congress with a team of scientists warning: "You Are Being Deceived About Global Warming. Earth has been cooling for ten years.'

When asked about climate fears, Lindzen dismissed the notion that "ordinary" Americans are buying into former Vice President Al Gore's climate views.

"We are too smart for that. You look at the polls, ordinary people see through this, but educated people are very vulnerable," Lindzen quipped. Lindzen also noted that people are being told that if they change a lightbulb, they are "saving the Earth", they are "virtuous, they are smart."

"Now you are told if you that if you don't understand global warming is going on, you are dumb, but if you agree to it, you are smart," Lindzen explained.

That sounds familiar.

TO CURRY THE CONSERVATIVE RESISTANCE

SINCE THE SALAD DAYS of ABC's "Politically Incorrect," which minted countless right-wing pundits and best-selling authors, conservatives have rightly assessed the HBO version of the Bill Maher show as R-rated and shockingly hostile to their worldview. So most opt out.

I totally see why. But I think that's exactly the wrong strategy.

The problem with the withdrawal approach is that it cedes the popular culture debate to the other side. We figure talk radio, a certain cable news network and some independent Internet venues will allow for us to get our ideas out to the masses. Well, those few outlets are greatly outnumbered. They are also isolated and targeted for destruction by the activist left. The sitting president (using taxpayer money) is now leading the charge.

In my neighborhood at least, this strategy of avoiding engagement with the other side isn't working out so well.

People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"

This army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens, and we must take it on head-on.

One must get a copy of John Ziegler's "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" to understand the extent to which the traditional media have become an organized enemy aimed at conservatism, its leaders and its institutions. It was the tag team of entertainment (Tina Fey) and news (Katie Couric) that worked to take Sarah Palin down.

We can't win the political war until we take on the Hollywood and mainstream media battles.

By not going on "The View" and the Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert and Maher shows - or even David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon, etc. - we are allowing them to define us into a very distorted and ugly caricature. Our most articulate voices, likable faces and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go with the media flow. (Our baby sitter has an Obama bumper sticker on her car, yet admits she knows nothing about politics.)

Upon walking off the stage after Friday's show, I felt like I had gone 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and Roberto Duran. But when I got back to my dressing room, my BlackBerry was filling with messages from people I've never met, many of whom disagree with my politics but were compelled to praise my willingness to enter the lion's den.

One that struck me in particular best illustrates why we must enter even the most unfriendly environments to explain our point of view:

"My political views would probably be best described as a liberal Democrat and I am writing to let you know that I was dismayed at your recent treatment on 'Real Time with Bill Maher.' I felt that you were given very little meaningful ability to speak; when you requested evidence to back up the claims that were being made, you received none and when you were requested not to interrupt by Prof. Dyson (and politely heeded his request) you were then constantly interrupted. As a side note, I have watched the show for several years and have never witnessed the audience applause to be so intrusive and so obstructive to meaningful debate. I suspect that you don't care much about what occurred and likely anticipated it. I definitely care, not least because it has been my opinion that the 'shouting down' tactics and lack of respect for evidence have been characteristics of the right more than the left in US politics in recent years. Overall, I still believe that, but what occurred on the show has given me much pause for thought. Please continue to engage in sincere debate with ideological opponents and please continue to exercise a higher standard of manners."

The next morning, the Starbucks barista recognized me and said he was a liberal. Go figure! Yet he also said my critique of Professor Dyson's knee-jerk use of the race card struck a chord. He also complimented my on-air demeanor.

My trajectory from left to right began with a similar seed of doubt. Coincidentally, it was the race issue and how the media mistreated Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings. It's no coincidence I made that a central argument on the show, too.

We must plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the groupthink liberals in our dumbed-down and activist media culture. Yes, "Real Time With Bill Maher" is a hostile work environment for conservatives. But so is Hollywood - writ large. When conservatives withdraw from media and the entertainment business because they are intimidated or don't want to get down and dirty, we lose even more, valuable political ground.

Even though Mr. Dyson filibustered in a poetic jargon only a linguistics student could decipher, and Mr. Maher glared at me in his trademark smirk, and the audience booed my every utterance, I left knowing I won the rigged bout simply by showing up.

Andrew Breitbart is the founder of the news Web site www.breitbart.com and is co-author of "Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon—the Case Against Celebrity."

LIKE IT OR NOT HERE THEY COME

"Paranoia means having all the facts."
—William S. Burroughs

ONCE UPON A TIME, LIBERALS PRIDED themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Micheal Barone nails this essay—The Coming Liberal Thugocracy.

Read it all

NIXING THOSE TROUBLING FACTS

"THE NOTION THAT THE US is imperialistic is absurd. Have we invaded Canada or Mexico (and don't even try that ridiculous Atzlan notion)? Did we annex West Germany after WWII? Every other superpower in world history has expanded their borders through invasion and conquest? The Romans did. The British did. We haven't. We stopped at California in the 1840's. We're the exception. We could invade Mexico and be in South America in a week. That's what imperialists do. Shows how clueless and/or dishonest liberals are. Don't let the facts get in the way.

"What a pathetic joke academia has become. I had a mix of liberal and conservative professors in the early 1980's at a small Catholic college outside of Boston. Where's the diversity on campus now?"

Quoted from a comments section on Front Page for its peculiar and rather quaint notion that America is getting a bad rap. Of course I agree with those sentiments, although I understand why the battleground is bloody. It's bloody because all the marbles are up for grabs. Its the syzygy of race, religion, and riches, the contemporary Three R's that cries out for a solution, a solution anyone with a POV seems prepared to shred in its fervor to create this NEW ONE in its own image.

But back to the purported imperialism of America. I might also add how utterly imperialistic it is that we give billions of dollars in foreign aid, and run up huge trade deficits with most of our major trading partners in an attempt to what? conquer them? I agree that America's cultural dinner table needs to be reined back to our own bunkhouses. But while we're on this topic, let's be damned sure that we insist that the Arabs and other misguided Islamists, Communists, and Assorted Gutter Fascists must do the same.

And now, let's parse the polarization that the American ideal has created with a few words from David Horowitz, yes, THAT David Horowitz:

"One of the best justice's in the country is black female Janice Rogers Brown. But she loves the Constitution and the Democrats would never, ever confirm her to the HIgh Court. How about Hispanic justice Miguel Estrada? President Bush nominated him for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Democrats filibustered his nomination to death. Estrada finally pulled his name from consideration. The democ-rats aren't for women or minorities, they're for leftists first and always. Ask these people. Ask Judge Robert Bork. Ask all the women Bill Clinton molested about how much support they got from the Democrats and the NOW organization."

Sad really. The grand experiment postulated by our venerable founders seems to be coming to a gutwrenching end, catching pernicious hell from both ends of the loaded barrel, and while many of us dare to transcend this latter day madness, we seem powerless if not ruthlessly apathetic to muster the courage and seize the moment to right ourselves.

PRAISING THE NEW YORKER BACKFIRE

THE SIZZLING B&M OBAMA FAMILY CARTOON points out the total fraud that is known in the media ghettos as Political Correctness. Political Correctness is NOT about tolerating diverse viewpoints; it is actually a ploy by stealth fascists to push their agenda without being questioned about said agenda. And this agenda quite obviously does not include tolerance but is a totalitarian fixed idea, a hardline agenda with zero tolerance for opposing viewpoints.

The lynchpin of the "politically correct" belief system insists that the white male dominated culture is responsible for EVERY misdeed that society has committed. It's a metaphysical relief to watch the liberals get gored with their own ox. They created this monster, now they have to sit there and take it without complaint.

What the American people need (and should want) is a President who is confident and decisive in the face of adversity, not someone who whines, points fingers and responds defensively to mistakes and criticism with "that's not what I meant" or "stop picking on me and my wife."

Obama looks good and sounds good when he's well prepared, but his off-the-cuff performances get worse as time goes on, which explains why he rejected unscripted townhall meetings with John McCain in favor of unchallenged, prepared speeches in large-capacity venues. There's no doubt that our darling Obama is young and hip, so if the American people want a rock star standing between them and the bad guys, he's the candidate for whom to vote.

I'd like to see another New Yorker front page. The one that would top the Obama front page would have a picture of Yeshua the Nazarene on the left side and a picture of Mohammad on the right side.

It is hard to imagine that we might be on the verge of electing a president that everyone will be afraid to criticize. As a candidate we have already seen everybody tip toe around Obama it can only get worse if he is elected. Everyday the list gets longer of things that are off limits to discuss when it comes to Obama. If he is elected it will be like living in a nation with a Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein as president whom no one dares to challenge or criticize. God help us!

I would leave it to the New Yorker editors to decide the degree of clownish representation of both individuals. It would be very interesting to see the response from Christians vs Muslims. These are the two largest religious groups in the world. How would each respond? How many Christian terrorists are in the US? How many Muslim terrorists are in the US? Would this bring them out? It's worth the test.

Obama talks about his love and respect for basic American beliefs, like working hard and loving one's country, in one of his TV ads. As the New Yorker flap illustrated, authenticating that claim is one of his biggest challenges.

BLEEDING HEARTS LIBERALS WITH TIGHT FISTS

The following article is from the desk of conservative columnist George F. Will, who takes a swipe at the liberal constituencies in our midst. Before we stoop to fiscal stereotyping, a quick glance at the money-raising abilities of his year's presidential hopefuls show another non-intuitive trend as both of the current Democratic candidates continue to out-trawl Republican candidate John McCain. Now read about liberal charity:

Residents of Austin, home of Texas's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

Read it all.