Get Connected
  • facebook
  • twitter
Print

In defense of Obama’s hate speech

CHRIS Cillizza of the Washington Post began a report with six descriptions of Republicans by President Obama at his press conference on Tuesday.

"Ransom."

"Extortion."

"Deadbeat."

"Hostage-taking."

"Blow the whole thing up."

"Insane."

Now who would not want to negotiate with such a smooth talker who can articulate his position in so few words?

Obama is 52 with the vocabulary of four 13-year-olds.

However, such nasty, mean-spirited and uncivil words are the new normal for liberals under this regime.

You had better bet that conservatives defend the president's right to hate speech, because they believe in the Constitution.

They also hope the public eventually will catch on.

But by spewing such filth, the president made clear he does not consider Republicans to be human.

Much of his ugly verbiage is projection.

For example, Sen. Obama said President Bush running a $400 billion deficit was unpatriotic in 2006.

President Obama's deficits are triple that.

However, his leadership reflects his followers.

Obama's rhetoric is the mainstreaming of online comments that were anonymous in the 1990s.

To be sure, conservatives also indulge in such bad behavior, but liberals are super sensitive and wish to ban whatever liberals think is hate speech.

Columnist Michelle Malkin compiled a list of words that liberals have called racial code.

The list includes angry, Chicago, Constitution, experience, golf, privileged, professor and five other equally benign comments.

Of course, Malkin who is of Filipino heritage has faced real racist venom from the left.

The cognitive dissonance between the words of liberals and their calls for civility is so obvious that even the liberal Daily Show with Jon Stewart noticed.

The show skewered columnist Froma Harrop for calling Republicans terrorists while at the same time she chaired the civility project of the National Conference of Editorial Writers.

Harrop's argument is that these terrorists aren't civil.

She later complained that "So much of my careful reasoning ended up on the cutting-room floor, but it was fun."

The piece went on for six minutes with much of it long pauses where Harrop refused to acknowledge her double standard.

Yes, we are too stupid to understand the nuance that it is civil for a liberal columnist to call political opponents terrorists but it is racist to when a tea party extremist calls Obama a former professor.

Extremist is an interesting word.

Throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, liberals bragged that the budget was balanced under President Clinton — an event that occurred only after Republicans forced the issue through two government shutdowns.

But under President Obama, advocating a balanced budget is extremist — and likely racist as well.

Of course, we cannot call real terrorists "terrorists."

The Obama administration called Nidal Hasan's killing of 13 people at Fort Hood (a gun free zone) "workplace violence."

Indeed, the man who turned a community organizer into state Sen. Barack Obama — Bill Ayers — is an unrepentant terrorist who believes he should have blown up more things in the 1970s.

But calling him a terrorist gets one labeled a name-caller.

Tea party? Open season.

The insensitivity of liberals toward others while being overly sensitive about themselves is reminiscent of that nursery rhyme.

Georgie Porgie, Puddin' and Pie,

Kissed the girls and made them cry,

When the boys came out to play

Georgie Porgie ran away.

Surely the president's apologists will be able to twist that reference into racial code, maybe with a dollop of sexism, too.

Surber is an editorial writer for the Daily Mail. His email address is DonSurber@DailyMail.com.


Print

User Comments