It is truly hard to fathom that the level of discourse by the mainstream media, political pundits, and white house spokespeople reflects most Democratic sentiment. While both the Republican and the Democratic parties have their extremist factions, the new standard for what is acceptable political discourse is disheartening. I don’t think that our English language allows for much more extreme or exaggerated language than what we are currently witnessing. It is as though those who shouted that patriotism means to speak out against your government suddenly have amnesia. The belief appears to be that those who oppose this administration’s policies should be silenced, if it were actually possible, by the mouthpieces who employ propaganda and Saul Alinsky tactics to a degree that is stunning.
For example. The New York Times’ editorial board recently labeled conservative TEA party candidates “insurgents.” An example provided in the article was the Republican candidate Joe Miller from Alaska. The editorial board stated that Miller is a “Republican insurgent from the far right” due to the “misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message.” However, an NRA endorsed candidate is not outside the mainstream, particularly in Alaska. I think most of us realize that they do a little hunting in Alaska! As for Miller being an “insurgent” since they labeled him “anti-immigrant”: most Americans are against illegal immigration. They are not opposed to legal immigrants. Supporters for open borders in America are a minority and will not see that position supported with legislation any time soon. Open borders policies have been very destructive in Europe and they are being rolled back in countries such as France. Failure to support immigration by legal means that follow America’s rule of law is in itself an extremist position.
The recent Time magazine cover asked the insinuating question, “Is America Islamophobic?” This incendiary article ignited the indignation of many including Judith Miller. A recent Pew poll established the fact that a majority of Americans support the right of Muslims to worship freely, and that Americans believe the majority of Muslims in America are peaceful. It also showed that crime against Muslims has not increased significantly and does not even compare to the frequency of anti-Jewish hate crimes. The recent controversy over construction of a mosque at ground zero has simply offended the sensitivities of those in the community who were directly impacted by the 9/11 terrorist attack such as NYC firefighters. It also raised questions about its funding which remain unanswered by the Imam who is the organizer of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf. However, no one denies the fact that Muslim Americans have the Constitutional right to build new places of worship.
Yet another concrete example of the outlandish commentary offered by the mainstream media, politicians, and political pundits abounds in discussions of Arizona’s new immigration law. Arizonans are portrayed as racist simply because they want to enforce the Federal immigration laws that are already on the books. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that 70% of likely Arizona voters support the new legislation.
On almost every issue that we face in America today, the consistent pattern in all of these examples is the overwhelming support from Americans for traditional views and positions. Independents and moderate Democrats are becoming more vocal in their objections to the distortions and misrepresentations being hurled against mainstream Americans. The shrill cries from the left are out of harmony with the majority of Americans. While any minority has the right to express their views and protest to any extent they choose- today’s voices from the Left doth protest too much. Take a look at this excerpt from Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post article and decide for yourself.
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
— Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
— Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
— Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
— Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
(Excerpt from Charles Krauthammer, “The Last Refuge of a Liberal,” Washington Post, August 27, 2010)