Once again, a leftist uses her child as a prop to harass a conservative. Needing to prove a political point, the lesbian mom get that she’s harming a child in the process.

Here’s a gay mom using her son to pester Michele Bachmann, something the child clearly doesn’t want to do. And even if he wanted to, doesn’t have the notion of consequences, i.e., could look back when he’s an adult and have formed a different opinion. Kathy Shaidle has an opinion on this “bullying.”

The Left has a real problem using children for their own coercive purposes.

D.C. mom uses children as human shields [video] at Occupy Wall Street protests. This one in D.C.

Hollywood activists get kids to sing creepy pro-Barack song.

An artist made kids cry for anti-Bush art. (This is really despicable.)

Here’s a union “goon” using his son as a human shield in Portland, Oregon.

Oh, don’t forget this sweet girl used by her dad to block traffic. This is particularly upsetting, too.

And really, these are just the examples I can think of off of the top of my head. There are probably more and you’re welcome to share them in the comments.

The point is that leftists have no problem using children to achieve political ends. They force them against their will and without consent to engage in behavior that is dangerous.

Totalitarians of all stripes are the same, though.

Here’s some Palestinians using their children as human shields.

It’s disgusting whenever it’s used.

A coup.

A dictatorship.

Is there a rhetorical war? Yes. Are the leftists intent on “remaking America” blisteringly angry? Yes. Are the Silent Majority stirred? Yes.

Does that mean people are going to scoop up their arms and aim for dirty hippies or dudes in Brooks Brothers suits (both most likely liberals, but let’s just play along with stereotypes for a minute)? Please. As troubled as America may be economically, as difficult as life might be for people and businesses, it seems that we have a long way to go before civil war, dictatorship or coups occur.

People need to chill.

Racism: They’ve pulled the trump card too many times. Obama finished the narrative with his presumption of guilt with the arresting officer of his old buddy Yale professor Skp Gates.

Sexism: Between tossing Hillary Clinton like a used dinner napkin and treating Sarah Palin like the sexy high school librarian from a porno, the Left pretty much killed their credibility for loving women and equality.

“It’s for the children”: Uh, right. Tell the kids in D.C. trying to get a decent education that. Tell the 13 year old Roman Polanski rape victim. Tell the kids starving in the third world or dying from malaria because leftists won’t use DDT.

We love the poor. How about, “we love to tax the poor”. There have been tax increases already–on cigarettes that disproportionately affect the poor. Cap-n-Trade? Hurts the poor. GM buyouts? Creates poor people. School unions underperforming? Hurts the poor.

With Democrats running things, people have had just teensy taste of what liberalism does for and to a country and its people. Fundamentally all the “help” talk is really “we-don’t-think-you-have-what-it-takes” talk. Under the guise of helping, people feel disempowered and condescended to.

The health care debate revealed a callous disregard for the aging. It also showed the left’s collectivist tendencies: people aren’t viewed as individuals but as a group that either helps or harms the government’s desire for “fairness”.

Basically, the Democrats look mean and uncaring. In California, they care more about a smelt than people losing their property and livelihoods.

Anyway, the upside to their horrible positions and the nasty ideology at the foundation? When in power, it’s so much more difficult to lie. Oh, they can lie, but the policies and actions speak for themselves. People can see the truth. Ultimately, that’s good for America. Americans need to decide if they want that sort of America. Thankfully, they’re saying “no”.

For all the talk of violent mobs, crazies, Nazis, terrorists and the rest of the nasty rhetoric, TeaPartiers are a rather benign bunch. Oh yes, there’s an errant sign here or there, but perspective is in order. When you get over a million folks together, there’s bound to be a crazy. The key is to exert peer pressure to keep the crazy in check. Conservatives have been wise to exert that pressure.

The only people it serves if some deluded individual goes nutty is the neo-liberal left. They would love nothing more to point to one nutter and paint the whole movement with those actions while they enjoy a positive agitating reputation even with real terrorists in their midst. Yes, the hypocrisy is galling.

Matt Lewis addresses this hypocrisy:

.. While I would never suggest such a thing, logic seems to dictate that if Panetta believes Cheney’s warnings mean he is “wishing” for a terrorist attack, then Pelosi’s warnings might also mean she is “wishing” for violence. After all, it is reasonable to assume that Democrats would benefit from her being proven right. (Again, this according to Panetta’s logic — not mine).

The truth is that if anyone has incentive to avoid political violence — particularly anything specifically aimed at the president — it is conservatives. As Glenn Beck recently said, “just one lunatic, like Timothy McVeigh, could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for, because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency. “

Ace wrote a thought-provoking piece last week and I’ve been ruminating on it since. He says:

Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought — such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush… well, bonus, eh?

But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won’t put any evil thoughts (or more likely — reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.

And it’s that few we worry about.

So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it’s convenient for her and another when it’s not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.

In this particular case — at least regarding the general claim she’s making — she’s right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.

Of course, this is self-evident. I agree.

What I wonder is this: What is “extremist rhetoric”? Ironically, almost anything Glenn Beck says is viewed as “extremist rhetoric”. In fact, anyone who disagrees with neo-liberal orthodoxy is considered an extremist.

Carrie Prejean? Extremist gay hater.

Glenn Beck? Extremist Obama hater.

Rush Limbaugh? Extremist race baiting hater.

Mark Steyn? Extremist Muslim hater.

Ann Coulter? Extremist self and women-hating hater.

Michelle Malkin? Extremist illegal alien hater.

Glenn Reynolds? Extremist Tea-Party loving hater.

When center-left Obama-voting Democrats like Ann Althouse are accused of hating, really who isn’t a hater?

I’m sick of the p.c. rhetoric police. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and all the whacked out lefty pundits can say anything. The word is a tool and a sword. They wield it with impunity and want the conservatives to stay muzzled.

So, somewhere between psychotic, crazy loud-mouth libs and meek muzzled, passive, submissive conservatives there’s a balance. Incite violence? No. Stir to positive action, yes.

Yes, violence serves the Left. So does a silent majority. They’ve had it both ways for too long.

Here’s a couple thoughts:

1. The libs must be completely freaked out. They are obsessing over the details.
2. If they obsess over the details they can ignore the big picture–which is that a lot of Americans are unhappy at the intrusion and scope of the government.
3. If the Left had organically amassed this many people it would have been called…oh, the Civil Rights movement.

And of course, the left is screaming racism. Where are the black people, they ask? Well, interestingly, that 15% of the U.S. population is overwhelming still please with the President’s work. Also, black voters voted almost exclusively for Barack Obama.

If 3% of blacks voted against Barack Obama and say .5% of them are outraged at the President’s policies, what would that be in real numbers? Not too big. And actually, I can think of a bunch of unhappy black anti-Obama folks right off the top of my head. Are they racist?

Are the white Independents and Democrats who voted for President Obama but are now disaffected, racists? There were those sorts of people at the DC march. Are they racist?

The racist card is utter balderdash. Barack Obama ran as a moderate and is governing like a hard core liberal bent on creating a soft socialist American state. That’s his whole “remake America” and “change” rhetoric. That’s how he wanted to change America.

Most Americans who voted for him, thought he meant it when he was talking about “bringing responsibility back”. They thought wrong. They feel duped. Now, they’re angry.

When black people were angry at President Bush, were they racist? When white liberals were angry at President Bush were they racist? When President Bush lost the middle and a chunks of the right, were those people racist? I mean, they hated the policies of a white guy.

The racist argument needs to stop. And the numbers fight is hilarious. There were a lot of people in DC and around the country making it known that America is going the wrong direction. How much is a lot? Well, enough to scare the liberals senseless. But that doesn’t take much.

Something happened last week that underscored this phenomenon. News outlets like the New York Times and NBC and ABC evening newscasts refused to cover the revelations surrounding President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones. When those revelations of Jones signing a 911 “Truther” petition, calling Republicans a—holes and claiming white polluters were poisoning black communities reached the point that Jones was forced to resign, some of those news outlets had to cover the resignation. What should cause them embarrassment and damage any shred of credibility they have left as reliable news sources is that many of them had neglected to inform their audiences of any of the events leading up to the resignation.

As Andrew Breitbart put it, “For most people in this country, the resignation was the first they had heard of Van Jones. For this sin of journalistic omission, there’s institutional media blame. Bias is too tame a word for the utter shamelessness on display: Only Republican scandals – real and imagined – matter.”

Please read the whole thing. Lorie joined me to discuss thoughts on Obama speaking to the little children. Both Lorie and I are political writers and bloggers and mothers. We, along with Michelle Malkin, are a rare breed. There are few women political bloggers. There are fewer still who have school age children. Much of what I’ve read and heard people say even on the Right regarding the President’s speech has sounded theoretical. Lorie brings the “real” on this topic.

We also talk about Obama’s cult of personality and the press’ collusion with his policy objectives. Van Jones becomes exhibit “A”. We then play an imagination game of sorts. As in, imagine a conservative had said that “black people are out to poison white people” or some iteration thereof.

Then, I had Michael P. Leahy on to talk about his new book RULES FOR CONSERVATIVE RADICALS. Michael started the Top Conservatives on Twitter website along with Rob Neppell who helped with the coding. Get that book. He talks about using Alinsky-ite tactics in a Judeo-Christian ethic.

Finally, we end with some behind-the-scenes fun. It’s always a fight to pick music and Twitter participants helped decide the “angry hippie” music we used–spirit of the times and all that.

Special thanks to @MelissaMoore who did this weeks coverart.

Download MP3

To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!

When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.

Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.

That Camille Paglia is always so noteworthy simply reveals how the Left marches in ideological lock-step. There should be lots of thinking people on the Left pointing out shortcomings here and there, but no. So the always interesting Ms. Paglia says:

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

Pardon me, but that’s rather obvious criticism and the only place we’re hearing it is on the Right. Why?

Do thinkers on the left have no intellectual integrity? Are they incapable of criticizing their own ideas? Have they no compunction to question?

That’s what is really interesting about Camille Paglia. She seems to be a rare breed of cat. That’s too bad.

The Republicans, still coveting MSM approval that will never come, ignore the grassroots folks as ineffective and irrelevant. Well, the people are getting a little more relevant. Republicans aren’t being spared anyone’s wrath, either.

And the big spenders on the Right? WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY? I’m getting nothing. Other bloggers get zip–except for well-earned ad revenue. And even then, it’s not making people, save a very few, any sort of living. And the people showing up to these get togethers? They get paid squat. Nada.

I mean, look at these activists. Beholden to no one, coming out to protest and to demand accountability from their elected officials. They are being so ripped. If the Right meant business, they’d do it this way.

P.S. While I’m mostly making fun of this whole situation, the fact remains that the Right side of the movement needs to start putting their money where their mouths are. The Left can screech about astroturf, but that is entirely a Leftist phenomenon. Ironically, the Right puts all their money into traditional media and trying to win influence among people who just don’t care about the message. They need to get outside of D.C., and help get some of the grassroots people funded so they could quite their day-jobs and help spread the message full-time. The Left spent loads of money winning hearts and minds–mostly people working on the ground. Well, people have families. They need income for their efforts.

Some of the Tea Party folks were passing the plate at meetings–the activists themselves were funding….themselves. And then there are online activists who eek out a living or have to do other jobs to keep working–but only part time. Full time bloggers could be doing harder news and getting the stories out. We need more of this. And there are those willing to do it.

The Right needs astroturf money. Badly.

You are so sick of the debates. You have a freaking life after all. You have a mortgage. You have kids you worry over. You have a job, if you’re lucky. You like sports. You like your family. You like your car. You like your country. You believe there is a God and after this short time on earth, if there’s any justice, bad guys will pay and good guys will ultimately win. You’re an American. Imperfect, sure, but mostly decent.

It is simply unfathomable that someone would would see that life and think it is bad. It is difficult to comprehend that someone or a group of people would see this life as evil. And yet, many do.

The traditional suburban family, job, kids, house, SUV, sports, dogs, etc. are viewed with suspicion and pure hatred by some. Americans are viewed as wasteful, consumptive, selfish, stupid, parochial simpletons.

The solution to the “problem” of the average American, then, is to help the American live a better life…by force, if necessary. Doctor Zero of Hot Air’s Greenroom has a must read piece titled “The Aggressor State“. He says:

Because liberalism defines itself as transformative, it is very comfortable with aggression. This posture serves them well with a public that believes “progress” is inherently positive. The business of building the modern super-state has been a sustained attack, using cultural pressure, legislative power, and the blunt instrument of loyal voting blocs to beat Middle America into submission. The goal of the Left is to convince the middle class to give it the power to do things they would never be depraved or dishonest enough to do themselves. Ordinary people refer to the “redistribution of wealth” as “theft.” If a man wearing a tailored suit and power tie came to your door one day, and offered to take care of your health, in exchange for surrendering all control over your medical decisions to a board of faceless strangers – who also demand unlimited control over every part of your life that might conceivably impact your health – you’d slam the door in his face and call the cops. If you caught someone writing himself a $4000.00 check from your checkbook, and he explained he needs the money as tribute to his Church of Global Warming so they can save the world from an imaginary evil, you’d shoot first and call 911 later. The mission of the Left is to convince people that all of these outrages become virtuous when elected officials perpetrate them. After all, “they won.” [Emphasis added.]

But those who view American life with contempt know that a direct assault on the American character won’t work. It must be subtle. The arguments must infer that your neighbor, the small business owner whose company earns more than $200,000 is evil, not you. The insurance company is evil–hell, you know the pain in the ass insurance companies can be. The talk show host is evil–well, crud, Mr. Big Mouth Talk Show Host sure can be annoying sometimes. Then anyone who thinks mandatory union membership seems oppressive is evil. Then people who like their incandescent lights are evil. The circle begins to expand. Like a consuming Venn diagram, suddenly, all Americans, even you, are inside the circle of evil.

How did that happen?