When the Left Attacks…

What an amazing 24 hours.  The federal government has sicced it’s hackers and cronies on the American People and Conservatives everywhere.

Here are the Conservative sites that have been hacked that we are aware of at the moment:

As well, Twitter, Facebook and Live Journal were all attacked with an insidious ddos bot and have been up and down all day.

AS I stated before, Lady Libertas is not a fan of tin foil and I joke about the black choppers, but the Reality is that our very foundation of the Constitution and the First Amendment are also under attack.  The White House is soliciting snitches about misinformation which should read as simply any dissenting opinion.

As well, the White House has dispatched their Union Thugs to confront Conservative Americans who are exercising their FIRST AMENDMENT.  Although we have been accused of violence – other than raised voices and anger, no violence has been offered.  Today, a Tampa resident was attacked at a Town Hall in Tampa where ACORN and SEIU showed up.


Glenn Beck has had multiple sponsors pull out – Progressive Insurance, Proctor&Gamble, Lexis-Nexis and this attack was sponsored by http://www.colorofchange.org.  Let me share who colorofchange.org was co-founded by – VAN JONES – the new GREEN CZAR.  So now the Czars have made their first move to restrict our voices and freedom.


PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL FOX TO SUPPORT GLENN BECK  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html

So this member of the angry MOB is now MORE ANGRY…and DETERMINED…



PLEASE Email me or leave a comment with any additional attacks that were missed.

This entry was posted in activism, Czars, LeftLoons, Media, Rant and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to When the Left Attacks…

  1. Erica Coyle says:

    Yes, they are out of control, its not only the town hall meetings that they are attacking us at, but on social sites like twitter. I was just attacked by a black woman who threatened me, stated,”we could bring our tea baggin a**** out west, that she has something for us.” That is a direct threat that I took seriously, they have to be stopped! Our fundamentals rights are in danger of being extinct!

    • Antaia says:

      Erica – We have to expect the attacks to escalate – they are empowered by the fact that the White House is supporting this. SO much for Obama being the Unifier – LOL – talk about divisive and ugly…

  2. Greg says:

    I have emailed Fox as well in support of Glenn’s program. I plan to change products away from P&G’s product line.

  3. Steve says:

    C’mon admit it – you just hate black people and are really pissed that one is now in the Whitehouse.

    • Antaia says:

      Bringing up race to try and embarrass people into withdrawing from a debate is a lame tactic, Steve. I am not a racist and never have been. In fact, one of the only things that I do not find offensive about Obama is the color of his skin. so as we say in Twitterverse, #FAIL.

  4. Pingback: Recess Rally | All Days Long

  5. Kat says:

    I think it’s more than supporting — it’s active.

    Barack Obama, himself, has issued a Call to Action, 8-5-09, to his minions.

    Message from the President: “This is the moment our movement was built for.”

    This is also found on barackobama.com.

    He is telling his minions & thugs to seek the people who oppose his agenda.

    • Antaia says:

      absolutely – you are correct. A White House that is willing to create a Civil War – how interesting.

    • Antaia says:

      OK – I just read that frigging letter and I AM PISSED. Why is he still behaving as a candidate and NOT THE PRESIDENT? Because we disagree, we no longer have a President? *Lady Libertas spontaneously combusts*

      • Lars Olsson says:

        Can I inquire what, specifically about Obama’s letter (which I received via email when it was first sent out, by the way) is objectionable to you?

  6. Lars Olsson says:

    Oy. I don’t even know where to start with this one.

    “At the top” is probably the best solution in such a case, though, LOL. So, without further ado (and not necessarily in order), let’s begin:

    I can’t speak for the list of conservative websites that were down during the time-frame you’re referring to, since a) I was on vacation and thus not paying particular attention to much of anything in the political sphere, and b) I don’t tend to frequent those websites anyway. But I’ll stipulate that all of those sites were down when you say they were down. My response would be: so? DDoS attacks are very common; they’re one of the main reasons that virtually all serious companies who maintain any sort of web presence whatsoever hire a full-time IT staff. I don’t know offhand how many such attacks Twitter specifically has had to fend off since its inception, but my guess would be that this isn’t the first time they’ve run across this sort of mischief/attack.

    Facebook was also affected, but in every story I read on the subject, Facebook was mentioned as almost an afterthought, and the text of the article specified that Twitter was the primary target. None of the sites you mentioned were referenced in any of the articles I read. That doesn’t mean they weren’t attacked, just that they weren’t large enough to make the papers if indeed they were also attacked on the same day. However, within 24 hours, the New York Times and various other news outlets were reporting that the attack had likely come from a Russian hacking syndicate and was directed primarily at the work of one man, a professor from a college in Georgia (not the U.S. state) – because of his views on the recent ongoing Russia-Georgia conflict. Still other experts maintained that this DDoS attack was motivated by nothing more than the usual motivation for such attacks – hackers trying to secure “bragging rights” for having done a particular deed. Either way, though, the notion that either the White House or even any sort of loose-but-shadowy consortium of “lefty” bloggers or tech-geeks initiated this attack to knock tea-partiers off their organizing game with respect to the health care townhalls is little more than one small step above abject paranoia.

    Unfortunately, near-paranoia seems to be nearly de rigueur in too many conservative circles these days. Take the whole notion of “Obama Death Panels” which has been on the front pages of nearly conservative blog in the past week or two. Sounds bad, yes. In fact, it sounds downright awful. So awful that – when we take into account the inconvenient fact that it’s also entirely false, I have to wonder whether its inherent awfulness wasn’t actually the primary reason it was dreamed up and is being so assiduously spread as a rumor. The section of the bill which is used as the basis of this canard is the one which dictates compensation for providers to give “end of life” talks with people and – critically – often their families. This notion concerns advanced directives, living wills, and the like – and they’ve been gaining in use and popularity in recent years, well before Obama became a candidate for President. Working in the medical field as you do, I’m sure you’re aware of what these are and how they’re used. What HR 3200 specifies is not that any specific group of people must undergo such conversations, it lays out conditions under which people may avail themselves of such conversations. But, more importantly, it specifically provides compensation for doctors and other providers who offer these conversations as a service. Such conversations happen every day already…but often, they are not specifically covered by insurance. These few pages changes that by specifically providing compensastion. And the five-year figure is a limit (so it cannot be abused more frequently), not a mandate. In short: it’s a way to encourage people who might be at risk of dying from their medical condition(s) or from simple old age to think about the idea of designating a health care proxy (usually a family member, and NOT, as has been falsely asserted, a “government bureaucrat”), and of thinking about end-of-life decisions, so that their wishes can be respected if/when that time comes. Specifically, the bill states (p. 430):

    The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items –

    (i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse-less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

    (ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

    (iii) the use of antibiotics; and

    (iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

    (emphasis added by me) – In other words, this is no different from similar conversations which are occurring every day in this country. I am my mother’s health care proxy, for example. And while she and I had an extensive conversation regarding it, I never spoke with her personal physician. But my mother told me that she had had such a conversation with her doctor, and I’m guessing – based on nothing more than a deep personal knowledge of how many questions my mother tends to ask about things – that it was a fairly lengthy and involved conversation. My mother would likely not have let her doctor go if she felt she did not understand all the potential choices and ins-and-outs of what was possible with regard to end-of-life care. HR 3200 simply codifies this and provides compensation to doctors and other certified health care professionals who provide such counseling services to their patients. It does NOT mandate or set up “death panels” which determine a person’s usefulness to the state, and then decide who lives and who dies. Nevertheless, we keep hearing this canard aggressively foisted on us at nearly every town hall where the tea party groups and other organizations who have gotten their talking points sent to them by Dick Armey’s “Freedom Works” or “Americans United For Prosperity.”

    Unfortunately, that’s not all we’re hearing a lot of lately, either. We’re also hearing a lot of angry and eliminationist rhetoric. And not, as you suggest, from what you perceive as “the other side,” but, again, from the tea party/AUFP/FW side. I couldn’t be 100% sure from the video of the man with the torn shirt at the Tampa event that you posted, because he is not speaking very loudly and there is a good deal of ambient noise, but I didn’t hear him claim anywhere in that clip that Obama forces or ACORN or anyone else had done this to him. Heck, you even wrote it up as a man getting attacked at a rally “where ACORN and SEIU showed up,” not that either of those groups had done the attacking. Maybe that was just unspecific word choice on your part, but I haven’t seen anything that proves one way or the other how this man’s shirt was torn. On the other hand, we have a great deal of evidence about some of the rhetoric being used by the AUFP/FW/tea party forces. Have a look at this.

    My previous response to one of your earlier posts which concerned violent and eliminationist rhetoric was about exactly what was discussed in that clip: the notion that, when any group begins to label its opponents as akin to the worst regimes or groups in history, it makes it much easier to dehumanize those opponents as something less than human, or at the very least, as a group which needs to be dealth with in the harshest possible terms. After all, what was done TO Pol Pot, Hitler, etc? Mr. Schaeffer, in the clip I provided, knows whereof he speaks. I’ve no doubt that any recent right-wing writings concerning him have nothing but contempt and bad things to say about him, but if you can be bothered to dig into the archives a bit, you’ll see what a huge influence both his father and he had on what is today loosely called the “religious right.” I don’t believe, BTW, that these current events are being organized in any significant way by what’s thought of as the organized religious right, I merely bring that up to demonstrate that Mr. Schaeffer has spent plenty of time at the highest levels of the organized right-wing (religious or not) in this country. Also – let me repeat for the record again, that I did not then and do not now suggest that you were using such language in your post. But many of the people with whom you enthusiastically align yourself are using it – consciously. Last word on that subject from me: I couldn’t agree more with the notion put forward in that clip that using the holocaust or the Nazis as a metaphor (or other infamously brutal regimes, but especially that one) is among the worst and most reprehensible of techniques for many reasons. The biggest one, I’ve already described: that, if it works, people feel like normal rules of conduct don’t apply towards those who’ve been successfully labeled as “Nazi-like,” and that can result in very real violence or abuses. But that’s not the only reason it’s among the most despicable political tactics. Only slightly less repugnant is the fact that the Nazi period in history was so ruinous and yet so fixed to a specific period of time, that to attempt to relate it to or compare it to current events, is to besmirch the memory of not only those who died under Hitler’s regime, but also of those who fought – and in many cases, died – in the effort to beat it down and discredit it.

    OK, next issue: Glenn Beck’s sponsorship. Frankly, GOOD. Why? For exactly the same reasons I mentioned above. Glenn Beck has been one of the primary voices (along with Rush Limbaugh and a few others) on the right who have consciously and systematically ginned up the level of fear, violent rhetoric and eliminationist sentiment. Public figures, especially political office- holders, are certainly fair game for criticism and commentary. Even mocking or ridicule. But they are also both our elected leaders and real individuals, and when it goes from opposing or belittling them to even joking about murdering them, it’s a problem. I don’t even like when people suggest that they wish this or that public figure would expire of natural causes or an accident, because even that legitimizes the idea that it’s OK to talk of wishing people dead. I’m sure we’ve all thought it at one time or another – or maybe even keep a mental “better off dead” list. But there’s a distinct difference between HAVING such thoughts occasionally, and talking about them in a casual or enthusiastic manner in public. And that goes about ten- thousand-fold for influential pundits or newspeople, whose words are consumed daily by hundreds of thousands of viewers or listeners or readers throughout the country. Done in concert, it goes much farther than you or I could ever go towards legitimizing a culture of discourse which treats these things as no big deal – or at least not worthy of reproval. And that, in turn, leads people at the fringes who might already be none-too-stable, to commit acts of violence such as we saw Jim Adkisson do in a Unitarian Church last year in Tennessee, or Scott Roeder do in Omaha to Dr. Tiller recently, or Richard Poplawski do to several policemen in Pennsylvania just a few months back. These events all had at least one thing in common: they were all done by unstable people who specifically either admitted or actually bragged about using right-wing eliminationist rhetoric and thinking as part or all of their rationale/excuse for doing what they did. I guarantee you that Scott Roeder did not see George Tiller as human – or if he did, then as a human whose life was not worth allowing to continue, because….actually, it doesn’t matter what the reason is, though you and I both know what it is. I can at least understand the rage of a husband or brother of a slain person being great enough, in the moment, that he would want to kill his loved one’s murderer. But Roeder hadn’t lost anyone to Tiller; Tiller never wronged him. Roeder’s only animus against Tiller was philosophical and abstract. I say that not to diminish the strength of Roeder’s feelings on the matter of abortion, but to underscore just how dangerous is any rhetoric which either subtly or overtly condones and encourages people to think that their opposition to or hatred of a given person or group is justified because that person or group is somehow subhuman or monstrous.

    In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide last decade, it was determined that, while the chief cause of the ethnic cleansing which took place was generations of conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the proximate cause of the slaughter – i.e., why it had bubbled to the surface at this particular time in this particular way, had been the constant bombardment of hate speech on a pirate radio station operated by Hutus, which kept up a steady stream of anti-Tutsi propaganda which pervasively referred to them as cockroaches, dogs and the like. I’ve no idea how embeddded into the culture of Rwanda the atrocities of Hitler and the National Socialists is (although I’d bet it’s less than in Europe and America), but it’s worth pointing out that alongside such slurs, “Nazi” wouldn’t have seemed out of place, either. Oh, and also? Use of similar language was also part and parcel of Nazi propaganda used to describe Jews in the ’20s and ’30s. My point is that, while Glenn Beck is as free as any other American to say what he wishes, that freedom does NOT extend to a guarantee of his being able to say it from the large and well-distributed platform/megaphone which a nightly show on FOX provides him. If enough of Beck’s advertisers can be played tapes of Beck’s worst rants and thusly convinced that such speech is not the kind of speech with which they wish their products to be associated, then his show will lose those sponsors, regardless of Beck’s ratings. If this happens often enough, FOX – which is just as much a profit-driven enterprise as CNN or MSNBC – will eventually take notice. What form their notice-taking will manifest in, is anybody’s guess. But if Beck were suspended, told not to discuss certain topics, or even fired, it would constitute neither a violation of his first amendment rights (he would still be free to stand on his local street corner and rant without fear of government intervention), NOR would it be particularly unusual. A few years back, Michael Savage had a short-lived show on MSNBC (putting the lie to the notion that they hire only liberals much more convincingly than the presence of Alan Colmes on FOX puts to rest the notion that FOX hires only conservatives). He was fired from that job because he told a caller, on-air, that he “should get aids and die” after finding out the caller was homosexual. David Shuster (a liberal, also on MSNBC) was suspended without pay for two weeks for asking why the Clintons “pimped out” their daughter Chelsea. Rush Limbaugh himself was famously let go from his ill-fated turn as a sportscaster at ESPN after his racist rant about Donovan McNabb being an “affirmative action” quarterback. In short, boycotting news or opinion outlets which have a large megaphone to address the public is nothing new. Sometimes, it’s successful, often, it’s not. But in no case of which I’m aware, does it represent a denial or violation of first amendment rights; it’s merely the use of economic leverage to convince a for-profit corporation that their best business interests lie elsewhere than in continuing to support – and, tacitly, to suggest they agree with – controversial hosts or commentators. Nothing more. And few deserve it more than Glenn Beck these days. He has, recently, repeatedly stoked the “stock up on guns, Obama’s coming for ’em” rhetoric which was Richard Poplawski’s direct reasoning for going postal on those cops in Pennsylvania. Beck has ballyhooed the “FEMA concentration camps” nonsense – initially by saying that he’d tried to “debunk” them, but just couldn’t, and Beck has also “jokingly” (as in the above clip) on more than one occasion, referred to killing or harming public figures (read: Democrats) with whom he disagrees. If a few thousand calls and letters to various large corporations which have been sponsors of Beck’s program can convince some of those sponsors to recognize the ugliness of his words, so much the better, I say: perhaps it will persuade Beck to think twice before letting just any comment fly out of his gob on live international TV.

    Last thought: before you’re too quick to dismiss as “FAIL” any words which suggest that racial dislike might play a part in some people’s opposition to seemingly anything Obama does or says, consider your own first commenter in this very thread, who said she’d been “attacked by a BLACK woman who threatened” her. Note: this was on Twitter. That means that Ms. Coyle was never in any personal, physical danger from her alleged attacker, under any circumstances. I use the word “alleged” attacker not to suggest that I doubt Ms. Coyle’s account of her victimization, but merely to highlight the fact that it is hearsay which none of us can verify. But in no case (short of some truly brilliant gum-shoe work on the part of Ms. Coyle’s attacker) would she have been in any real danger. And – most importantly of all – you have to ask yourself why it’s relevant that the descriptive adjective “black” was used at all. There’s a famous old joke that goes: “on the Internet, no one can tell you’re a dog” (usually over a picture of a dog at a keyboard). It’s a joke, but the point is that we’re all equal on the ‘net. Even assuming that Ms. Coyle is correct about her attacker’s skin color (say, because the woman had put up a picture), why is it important? I would have been expecting to see “jerk” or “moonbat” or any of a number of other pejorative epithets used by Ms. Coyle to describe her contempt for her attacker. But “black?” You have to ask yourself why it’s relevant to include that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s