CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Flying Shoes, and More Double Standards from the Loony Left

Oct 26, 2010

There is never a shortage of leftist moral outrage. They are forever pontificating about some great perceived evil. Yet a closer look at both their rhetoric and their actual lives reveals some alarming double standards. Indeed, what they preach against the loudest is often what they are most guilty of.

Indeed, there is so much leftist hypocrisy going on that a whole book can be written about all this. And it has. Back in 2005 Peter Schweizer wrote Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday). In it he documented case after case of double standards and glaring hypocrisy of the radical leftards.

He offers enough ammunition to fully sustain his case, whether it is the duplicity of Hillary Clinton, the phony ideology of Michael Moore, or the rank hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy. It is clear that these characters are all quite selective in their moral outrage, and rank hypocrites who really do need to be ignored altogether.

A more recent example would include Avatar creator James Cameron. He rails against capitalism and supposed man-made global warming, and tells us that we are “going to have to live with less”. Yet he owns three monster mansions in California, plus a hundred-acre ranch, a helicopter, a fleet of cars and motorcycles, a yacht, and much, much more. But incredibly he demands that all of us mere peons make radical sacrifices so that we can save the planet.

However, I refer to a classic case of leftist hypocrisy on last night’s Q&A, the ABC TV interview program. Former Prime Minister John Howard was the sole guest, doing an admirable job of calmly and respectfully answering the questions of leftist host Tony Jones and the overwhelmingly leftist audience.

It was despicable the way the ABC totally loaded the decks against him, including blind-siding him by allowing a disgusting video question from convicted terrorist David Hicks. Howard rightly answered by saying we should not make heroes out of Taliban accomplices who have pleaded guilty to their crimes.

But the highlight of the evening was when yet another “peace activist” and anti-war protestor threw his shoes at John Howard. He was probably high on LSD or something, as both shots missed by miles, but it was another clear case of leftist duplicity.

John Howard was most gracious and polite about the whole affair, not like the long-haired juvenile who had to be escorted from the ABC studio. It was a glaring contrast between the ugly face of the loony left and the calm and rational voice of articulate conservatism.

So here we go again, another “peace lover” who can only express his point of view by resorting to violence, intimidation and harassment. This is so typical of the leftists. And I should know. I have been there and done that. Back in my radical days as a hippy and student activist, I did the very same things.

We talked heaps about peace, but really did not give a rip about real peace. We shouted “Give peace a chance” as we hurled bricks, shouted abuse, and caused mayhem everywhere. The radicals were quite happy to torch cars, bomb buildings, attack police and destroy universities, all in the name of “peace”.

So what we witnessed last night was simply more of the same. But wait, there’s more. The hypocrisy of the leftist mainstream media is also something to behold – and gag on. How many in the MSM are going on about how the emotional reaction to the Iraq war must still be so high.

Of course President Bush faced a shoe-throwing assailant in Iraq in 2008. Yet all these media leftists can go on about is how strongly people must feel about this issue. For example, on Lateline last night, just after Q&A, host Leigh Sales asked Barnaby Joyce about the episode:

“Just finally, the former Prime Minister John Howard had a pair of shoes thrown at him when he was on the Q&A program tonight. Does it surprise you that three years after his defeat – more than three years – he still attracts such vitriol?”

Notice how she managed to frame the question, as if Howard deserved it! Somehow Howard was responsible, and people almost have a right to hate him. Just imagine if a conservative hurled his shoes at Julia Gillard. The MSM would be all over him like a rash, pointing out how ugly, violent and irrational the conservatives are.

They would have a field day with this. But because it was a lefty who did it, he is already getting hero status, just as convicted terrorist David Hicks has received from the leftwing media. The double standards are as apparent as they are appalling.

Of course all of this is not to suggest that the loony left is alone guilty of such hypocrisy. Conservatives can be guilty as well. But it seems that the secular left especially has made a fine art out of this. It happens with such monotonous regularity that one has to wonder if double standards are in fact inherent in the worldview of the radical left.


www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/shoes-thrown-at-john-howard-during-qa/story-e6frf7l6-1225943456831

[854 words]

15 Responses to Flying Shoes, and More Double Standards from the Loony Left

  • To see John Howard skillfully and confidently express his reasoned position in the midst of an antagonistic left leaning audience was an inspiration. It made me realise how good freedom of speech really is. Even though some of that audience wouldn’t want to admit it they would have left that place with an undeniable respect for JWH.
    Anthony McGregor

  • That leftists use our public broadcaster as a de facto organ of leftist ideology is the ultimate hypocrisy. The harder they strive along their dead end (leftist approach to family http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf ) the higher they lift themselves up as beneath contempt.
    Martin Snigg

  • How much more evidence do people need?

    Hamilton Baptist Church Riot
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WObJ1EkWGsA

    Violence against those who uphold Christian marriage
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJNrtv_aF18

    Gay shadow leader of the House of Commons inciting murder
    http://www.politics.co.uk/printerfriendly.aspx?itemid=1291861

    Violent shutting down of debate
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html

    Death threats
    http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/western_isles.htm

    Violent invasion of Churches
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=5yXaPFwBdkA&feature=related

    Death threats
    http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/lady_young.htm

    Gay propaganda -The head of the Advertising Standards Authority is the gay Lord Chris Smith who has HIV
    http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2006/gay_rights/gpa/advert.htm

    European Fascist Movements are Led by Homosexuals According to Gay Journalist
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5C6rIBWXeZsJ:www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050609.html+communism+fascism+and+homosexuality&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    Yet again the source of gay terror is revealed. When will people wake up and know the enemy ? Linda Kimball says,

    ‘Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying. They are the psycho-political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left. These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria’s ‘cultural terrorism’ tactics. In the words of Beria, “Obedience is the result of force…Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force.” (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin’s right-hand man) Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters’, otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs bear the imprint of these psychological ‘obedience’ techniques. These people-in some cases literally afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers— have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another. At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written:
    “I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!”‘

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8tN_5L1YzxIJ:www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html+terror+cultural+marxism&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    David Skinner, UK

  • Seemed like Q&A had set up the Hicks thing beforehand and were out to denigrate John Howard.

    Time the ABC was permanently shut down.

    But what a classy performance by Howard. Makes one wonder where all the other elder statesman are who can demonstrate such great character in a sea of grubs.

    Rob Withall

  • Bill, how did Barnaby Joyce respond, out of interest?
    Jane Petridge

  • Thanks Rob

    Yes, I don’t doubt for a moment that it was an ABC set-up job. They would have invited him on to do that very thing. I have had it happen to me repeatedly by the ABC and other leftists MSM outlets.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Jane

    This is how he replied:

    “Oh, well, he’s a dynamic character, he was one of the greatest prime ministers this nation will ever see. And people who are dynamic and people who have presence will always have the people who love them and the people who dislike them, and every crowd’s got a fool and you had one there in your studio tonight.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Yes Bill I believe John Howard is our unsung hero. The spin of the left – they were out to demote him on every breath they uttered. He had to go to America to receive recognition for what he did.
    I think our country is sill strong despite the leftist blundering, all because of John’s strong leadership in running our country at the time.
    Rhonda Haunitis

  • Very good article there Bill.
    I thought the “shoe throwing” inspired by the ABC was much like their usual activities – quite juvenile. I had heard that the boofhead thrower did not get his shoes back. If correct, that’s one bit of great news. Also I prefer to name the MSM the Shame Stream Media, because they are quite corrupt. I have pointed out in other publications the fact that there is a common theme attached to those hate sessions, particularly against politicians or those in the public arena.
    I might ask “What do these people have in common? John Howard, Barnaby Joyce, Tony Abbott, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter (radio & TV commentator in the USA). Previously in the news Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Dan Quayle? I could continue, but there are enough examples there to make the point. You’ll notice that they are either mocked as jokes or are given nasty nick names by the Left. OK that is a common thread, used as a weak weapon against them. But the main common thread they have or had – They were or are PRO-LIFE and that drives the LEFT nuts, or should I say nuttier.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • I am concerned by the fact that no one seems to take the young man’s point that the invasion of Iraq was exactly that, an unprovoked invasion. If China decided that we had weapons of mass destruction likely to be used against China and then ordered a “pre-emptive strike” how would we view that? Let’s reflect on that honestly.

    If a child in the schoolyard told me he or she battered another child first because of a belief that the child might attack them I’d know who the real aggressor was.

    Also lost in all this is the fact that there were authoritative voices ,at the time ,stating that the supposed WMD did not exist.To me it seems politically naive not to consider the possibility that the coalition ,and particularly America, chose to believe what could be used as an attempt to justify the unjustifiable — namely the invasion of a sovereign nation. If Iraqis had risen against their ruler and called for international help that would have been a different case. When Hitler invaded Poland uninvited it was because he intended to impose his ideology on that nation. I see no difference here . We have not rushed to overthrow Mugabe nor others like him and should ask ourselves why not. To attribute motives of complete altruism to ourselves is arrogant and dishonest I believe.

    I consider John Howard to have served this nation well and admired his grasp of many issues and confident responses under pressure in the Q&A program. I particularly approved his incisive response to the David Hicks question. He was unprepared to allow a self-confessed serious criminal to be repatriated in circumstances which would have allowed him to go free.At the same time I hold no brief for Howard’s canonisation and a little humility over some of his mistakes would have earned him greater respect.

    Anna Cook

  • Thanks Anna

    Sorry, but I could not disagree with you more here. In both cases we had a just war situation. Both Hitler and Saddam were aggressors, and in both cases the free world united to defeat these aggressive dictators (have you forgotten the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?). And in both cases a large coalition worked together to end the tyranny. And you are also quite wrong about the WMD, as the new Wiki-leaks documents have just demonstrated.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill, I’ve just spent a little time looking at what’s available on the internet re the wiki -leaks you mention and opinion there seems very divided on what is actually revealed by the leaks. Without seeing the documents it appears,to me, impossible to claim that “Bush was right” as some are arguing.
    On balance, it seems, the leaks reveal that what was found in no way compares to what was claimed to exist.
    Some make the point that calling what was found WMD stretches the definition.
    I concede that the original gulf war could probably fit the criteria to qualify as a just war. Perhaps it should have been pursued to a different conclusion.
    I remain very cynical about how much of the truth will be in the public domain in our lifetimes and stand by my earlier comments. I think on this one {for a change} we must agree to differ !
    Thanks for all your wonderful work for the Kingdom of God. I pray daily for yourself and four other spiritual warriers, who are also in the front lines, and intend to continue while you remain there {whether I’m here or with the Lord}.
    Anna Cook

  • Anna,
    if responsible leaders of nations [this excludes Hu’s thugocracy cruelly oppressing our brothers and sisters in China] were to wait until all critical facts are verified before acting, then their nation’s enemies would have a decisive advantage. And what should we make of Richard Butler’s contemporaneous, positive assessment of Saddam’s WMD? [Most pertinently, Butler had been there as an on-the-spot UN Weapons Inspector, and has no conspicuous record of favoritism for “conservative” leaders.]

    As usual, Bill’s judgements in fields far from his professional qualifications are very solid.

    Gerard Flood

  • When I was young I had a favourite pair of black patent shoes…I used to hide the fact that they had small holes in the soles of both feet…my Dad was so proud if he had have known he would have made me take them off! How ironic.. shoes are now being thrown…no value! Gosh!
    Jane Byrne

  • It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein boasted he had weapons of mass destruction. I remember an Iraqi general speaking on TV after Saddam was defeated saying that his boss had most of the weapons transported overland to Syria just before his defeat. The media went silent on that almost immediately. Also what was all that poison gas Saddam used to murder thousands of Kurds?- weapons of mass destruction of course.
    It always astonishes me, that the Left is forever making excuses for America’s (and our) enemies?
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

Leave a Reply