Video: Repugnant Debbie Wasserman Schultz Still Blaming Tea Party For Tucson

What. a. bimbo.

Almost a year ago, on January 14, 2011 to be exact, I wrote The Tucson Massacre’s Hall Of Shame: Liberals Who Used Tragedy To Smear The Right, where I cataloged all of the shameless liberals who jumped at the chance to implicate an entire movement, and their leaders, (most notably Sarah Palin) as accessories to the crime.

See – by the 14th, enough was known about the assailant, Jared Loughner, that to the degree he held any political positions at all, we knew,  they were on the kook left – emphasis on kook. He didn’t like the government’s grammar! It was obvious that Loughner was not a tea party member/follower/supporter in any capacity what-so-ever, and he probably had no idea who Sarah Palin even was.

So – a whole year ago, I was mocking this cavalcade of cretins  for their obtuse slanders – and here we have the leader of the Democrat party today,  trying to revive the old smear — because what?  It was such a winner for them a year ago? It didn’t make the ones who did it look like bottom feeding slime, at all?

She dares impugn the tea party after we’ve witnessed months of Obama/Pelosi/Wasserman-Shultz endorsed occupiers infesting parks all over the nation, increasing the levels of filth, stench,  vermin and crime wherever they go? Oh, and I almost forgot  — incivility. 

When the LA arson suspect was caught on January 2nd,  I complimented the right-wing blogosphere for their restraint. The fact of the matter is – I know a lot of us were thinking, “maybe it’s an occupier…” because they’ve been so prone to destructive behavior, especially on the left coast. But nobody went there because it would have been irresponsible to do so – and stupid, because we would have ended up with egg on our faces like the idiot left did after they insisted on blaming ‘tea party incivility’ for the Tucson shooting.

But the shameless left seems to be impervious to eggs…

Here is what Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to say about the precious occupiers, last October:

“We understand their frustration, we applaud their activism and hopefully they’re going to help get the Republicans in Washington’s attention so we shift the Republican’s focus from just Barack Obama’s job, to everyone’s job,” she said of the protesters.

Once again, via The Jawa Report, here’s a side by side comparison of the Tea party vs OWS:


The craven dishonesty and hypocrisy of some people- it’s almost too much to bear.

MORE: 

As Michelle Malkin ruefully noted:

They just couldn’t help themselves.

This weekend’s one-year anniversary of the Tucson massacre passed quietly and respectfully.

And then femme-a-gogue Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to open her big mouth.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Video: Dead People Allowed to Vote in NH Primary

I don’t know how this can be—voter fraud is a myth – Dems say:

There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states.

The argument liberals run with is weak, but it’s all they’ve got – Democrats are too helpless and stupid to get photo I.D.s, and we can’t even prove voter fraud happens, anyhow.

Well, James O’Keefe shows you how it happens. Att: Eric Holder:

Via Daily Caller:  

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Video footage provided exclusively to The Daily Caller shows election workers in New Hampshire giving out ballots in the names of dead voters at multiple voting precincts during the state’s primary election on Tuesday.

The bombshell video is the work of conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas.

Voters in the Granite State are not required to present identification to vote. O’Keefe’s investigators were able to obtain ballots under the names of dead voters at polling locations Tuesday by simply asking for them, he said.

“Live free or die,” an election worker told one of the investigators in the video. “This is New Hampshire. No ID needed.”

WATCH:

Continue reading at The Daily Caller

SEE ALSO:

Keith Koffler, WHD, who  wonders why Republicans can’t tap into some of that Zombie vote:

An outfit called Project Veritas – run by James O’Keefe, who made the videos that brought down ACORN – ran a little experiment in New Hampshire Tuesday and found that without voter ID requirements, dead people were offered a rare opportunity to participate in the political process.

Because you see, Mssrs. Obama and Holder, states want voter ID laws not to prevent minorities from voting, but to PREVENT THE DECEASED FROM VOTING.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been waging an increasingly aggressive campaign of late against state mandatory voter ID laws.

Because he’s concerned about discrimination. Against zombies.

Dead people have long been a major Democratic constituency, given that Democrats mostly control the big cities where such voter fraud – and other types – tends to occur.

Hat tip: Brian B.

Disgusting – Nutroots Trying To Turn Chris Christie Remark Into Something Dirty

Right after I posted video of Chris Christie flaming an occupy heckler at a Romney campaign event in NH, Sunday, I got two similar comments within minutes of each other.

  1. Jess in Syracuse Says:
    January, 8, 2012 at 11:45 pm   editCan someone explain the meaning of Christie’s remark. It doesn’t really make sense in context. Was he implying something sexual there?
  2. Nick in Gettysburg Says:
    January, 8, 2012 at 11:58 pm   editOkay, I am lost on this one. How does he mean “Go down”. I feel like there was a vague sexual connotation there but perhaps that’s just me. Any video on what happened in between there Deb? The jump cut confuses me. How much time passed between “really?” and the punchline?

These two stuck out like sore thumbs because I don’t normally get many comments  on my posts unless I get major linkage, or it’s being heavily retweeted, and neither had happened, yet.

And the context of Christie’s remark wasn’t unclear at all. Here is what the governor said:

When he was interrupted during his remarks by Occupy protesters shouting, “Christie kills jobs! Christie kill jobs!” Christie deadpanned, “Really?”

“Somebody’s going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart,” Christie rejoined from the stage as the chanting continued from a cluster in the audience. “There’s this confusion that’s out there because if she was in New Jersey … she would know that we created 60,000 new private sector jobs.”

I  immediately suspected that something was up, as indicated by my response:

nicedeb Says:
January, 9, 2012 at 12:12 am   edit

Apparently the nutroots are trying to turn this into something sexual. How not surprising.

Uh – no – he was clearly modifying the expression “You are going down” – (as in “LOSING”) as they were being escorted out.

Get your minds out of the gutter.

Others have surmised that in this context, going down, meant “happening”, as in “what’s going down?” What it obviously wasn’t was “an offensive oral sex joke”.

Now, via Ann Alhouse, we find: A Slate resident feminist hears Gov. Christie talking about oral sex when he’s obviously not.

What a joke! Christie — responding to hecklers who used the words “going down” in connection with jobs — said: “You know, something may be going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart.” Torie Bosch calls this “an offensive oral sex joke” and acts amazed that Christie put video of it on his YouTube site as if he were “proud” of it “rather than recognizing it as flagrantly demeaning, even misogynistic.”

Now, obviously, the words “going down” mean happening, especially when the subject of the verb isn’t a person and when there’s no object preceded by the word “on.” That is, to refer to oral sex, he would have something closer to “somebody‘s going down on something tonight.” Moreover, if one were inclined to make an oral sex joke when the word “jobs” is already in the mix, you’d jape about “jobs.”Going down? Oh, there will be some going down tonight, and there will be jobs, maybe not the kind of jobs you want, but there will be jobs.

I later commented after one of the commenters persisted:

nicedeb Says:
January, 9, 2012 at 9:12 am   edit

No, it really wasn’t questionable, at all. The thought never entered my head. He’s the Governor of NJ – a married, Catholic man with 4 kids, who thinks the show, Jersey Shore, is in poor taste. He wouldn’t shout out some crude sexual remark in front of a Republican audience.

He didn’t say “going down on” he said “going down” – a common expression with no sexual overtones whatsoever. None.

I think it’s very odd that I got two comments in a row on that same idiotic theme.

I had suspected that the  “confusion” was a  calculated smear designed to associate an effective Republican with something nasty. Now, I’m sure I was right.

As Smitty says:

Once Postmodernism gave up on the Truth as such, or any fear of judgement for this sort of hellish distortion, the only thing remaining was raw hunger for power. Someone like a Bosch need only land a bit of stench on Christie to be effective. Even a discounted story is still a lodestone about the neck, or my name isn’t Herman Cain. Funny how these sexual abuse allegations vanished in a puff of pure pettifoggery once he departed the Presidential race.

SEE ALSO:

John Nolte of Big Journalism sees how it is: Mainstream Media Launches Smear Campaign to Neuter Chris Christie:

The corrupt MSM is desperate to see Obama reelected and this phony attack on Christie is a way for the MSM to try and make the  New Jersey Governor a liability for Romney. Also, the women’s vote will be a big factor in 2012, so this is also a way for the MSM to try and affect that.

Solyndra, Fast and Furious, lavish White House Hollywood parties, lavish vacations, a golf fetish, underemployment, and on and on and on…

There are so many under-reported stories surrounding this failed president, but the MSM would prefer to use their time and resources to attempt to toxify anyone capable of landing a glove on Their Precious One.

GOP Should Just Say No To Biased Debates

Brent Bozell is in high dudgeon over these atrocious debates – as well he should be:

Sitting through the Republican debate on Saturday night with ABCs George Stephanopoulos was just painful, from beginning to end. Some of it was just political Ambien. But when it was finally over, there was just one question: Who in the GOP in his or her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to “moderate” a primary debate like this — ever?

The only thing that can be said in defense of that horrible decision was turning to NBC the next morning and seeing “moderator” David Gregory be even more slanted in his questioning. ABC slanted the ideological questions in their debate by a ratio of 6 questions from the left to each 1 from the right. The NBC ratio was 8 to 1.

Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble and fall on their faces on national TV?

In the ABC debate — an event held for Republican voters presumably to decide who is reliably conservative enough to win the nomination — ABC asked three questions from the conservative perspective and 20 from the left (25 were ideologically neutral). Twelve of the 48 questions, or 25 percent of the night’s total, were devoted to promoting contraception and gay marriage, so trite and repetitive that finally the audience booed them down.

I’ve been wondering the same thing. It’s a Republican primary. Why would our candidates agree to hold their debates on hostile ground? Don’t they have a say in the matter? Why not say no to ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS if they can’t hold a debate in a fair, unbiased manner? Perhaps they think that it would be spun that they are too afraid to answer tough questions. But the ideological questions weren’t tough – they were just stupid – contraception and gay marriage are not the top issues of the day. The questions were  designed to make Republicans look foolish, or outside the mainstream.

I was talking to a friend about the primary race, the other day, and asked her what she thought of Rick Santorum. She thought he was focused too much on social issues like contraception, when there are much more important issues to worry about.

Rick Santorum is not obsessed with contraception. Reporters are obsessed with asking him about contraception, which makes him look like he’s obsessed with contraception. And because of that – it’s become a campaign issue. Nice work, LSM.

And although support for gay marriage has increased over the years, opposing it is not outside the mainstream. 

Rasmussen polled voters to find out what the most important issues on their minds were going in to the 2012 election season. Keep in mind – these are all voters, not just Republican voters:

Economy 80%
Health Care 67%
Gov’t Ethics and Corruption 65%
Taxes 60%
Social Security 60%
Education 60%
Immigration 49%
National Security/War on Terror 48%
Afghanistan 24%
War in Iraq 19%

Yet 25 percent of  questions asked at the ABC debate were about contraception and gay marriage?

I’m with Don Surber, who concluded his post about ABC’s debate bias:

In the fall, Republicans should not allow anyone from ABC to moderate any debate because the network was unserious and insincere on Saturday night.

I would add NBC, as well.

Linked by Conservative Commune, thanks!