Thanks For The Laugh New York Times!

In the next edition of the New York Times after president Obama's speech in Arizona about the recent shootings there, its editors gave Obama a hearty at-a-boy for telling those divisive conservatives to stop the rhetoric.

Apparently it never occurred to them that president Obama was talking to THEM at least as much as to conservatives. Leading up to the president's speech, the NY Times had led the charge of many liberal bastions of the liberal version of truth in quickly condemning conservatives in general for those killings. Never mind that there was no such link to what motivated that mass murderer ... before or after(!) the dust settled on that cowardly act.

Turns out that the murderer's friends have since all said he had no interest in 'talk radio' or Fox ... never listened to them and had no interest in what they had to say. That doesn't matter to the NY Times and other media and persons operating in the far left zone. To them, conservatives are guilty because they WANT them to be. Guilty even when later proven innocent. They'll mold whatever unfortunate event into a conspiracy that fits their 'conservative rhetoric is the cause of everything bad' narrative. Several congressional Democrats also took the same position as the Times. THIS is the key thing the president was addressing but they've become so rabid with hate they've became blind to the fact(!) that the president was talking about THEM!

Everyone understands there is too much divisiveness in America. We're too polarized politically. What the NY Times and other bastions of liberal truth, especially that on the far left, don't get is that they started this conservative push-back that started about a year and a half ago.

The first Tea Party gathering in resistance to the liberal swing of congress didn't happen until:

1. AFTER the leaders of both houses of congress and the president's administration SAID(!): "we won so we get to do it OUR way".
2. AFTER the Democratic party had shut Republicans completely OUT of the congressional processes and rammed through major legislation without allowing Republican participation, much less Republican amendments.
3. AFTER the Democratic party had effectively rendered Republican citizens voiceless in congress ... effectively disenfranchised half of Americans who no longer had a voice into the legislative process or important legislation.

The Tea Party got most invigorated:

1. AFTER president Obama told Americans in that conservative movement to "sit down and be quiet".
2. AFTER the president and congressional Democrats began pushing through a health care reform that 2/3 of Americans opposed.

There is no precedent for the president's demand to peacefully participating Americans to "sit down and be quiet". Peaceful protests were not only unwelcome in America but the nation's top law enforcer told(!) these protestors to stop.

So, to the NY Times and others on the left who believe likewise:

1. Do you not understand that our loss of representation at the hands of your representatives in congress PRECEEDED our protests?
2. Do you not understand that this loss of freedom and representation is quite a big deal?
3. Do you not understand that you created the divisiveness, not us, by blocking us out of our country's democratic process? Isn't it divisive for congress and the president to say "we won so we get to do it OUR way"? Isn't is divisive for the president to tell those protesting the 'we won' narrative to "sit down and be quiet"? All that preceeded our 'rhetoric'. C'mon be rational for a second!
4. Do you not understand that this nonsensical divisiveness by Democrats in congress and the White House is unconstitutional in principle if not in fact?
5. Do you not understand that the degree/extent of our opposition is IN DIRECT proportion and IN RESPONSE to the loss of freedom and representation we had experienced BEFORE we began protesting? It wouldn't be entirely illogical to argue that our peaceful protests are tame by comparison to the harm caused by the loss of freedom and representation.
6. Do you not understand that WE have taken away no one's rights (as you have) by our actions?
7. Do you not understand that Obama is supposed to be the president of ALL The People, not just the far left?
8. Do you not understand that 'rhetoric' is protected by the constitution even when it's vigorous?
9. Do you not understant that how others react to it is their responsibility? (Probably not since you all seem to think that bad stuff is always someone else's fault.)
10. Do you not understand that our 98% peaceful (although vigorous) opposition is IN RESPONSE TO what the far left had PREVIOUSLY done to our freedoms and rights?
11. Do you REALLY expect us to sit quietly by in the face of all that?
12. Do you REALLY think as you claim that our protests and vigorous 'rhetoric' started only in the vacuum of our own doing?
13. Do you REALLY not understand that you DID start the divisiveness, not us ... that if you and your representatives had not done what they did this wouldn't be happening?
14. Do you REALLY not understand that the goal of our protests and opposition is to stop the divisiveness YOU started and to restore a fair balance in our federal government that you took away?

We will defend our rights and freedoms only as vigorously as necessary to re-establish them now that the far left has taken some away. No one should be surprised at Americans doing that. After all it's why we have a constitution in the first place. As long as we're not rioting, it's NOT un-American nor, certainly, unconsitutional to protest even vigorously when fundamental rights are being infringed upon. In fact, it's entirely American to do so.

Thanks for the laugh New York Times. You're a source of great amusement to us.