Hold the presses.

It ain't true.

Apparently, a 20-year-old college student, Ashley Todd, invented the whole thing.

"Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM when the man approached her from behind, put a knife with a 4- to 5-inch blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away."

That usual suspect... a black man. Surprised? Nah... Todd then alleged that "he then sat on her chest, pinned her hands down with his knees and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife."

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth..." Bryant said.

 So the attack never happened.

(Stop for a moment and exercise your powers of observation in the picture. What's become of college lately?)

Anyway, ignore all of that for a moment.

For the sake of argument, let's say this attack really did happen and everything that Todd alleges is true. In fact, let's also pretend that the Pittsburgh police caught the suspect and he confessed to the attack and the attack was politically motivated.

What should the response of liberals and democrats be?

Should we say suspend  judgment and say, well we don't know what Todd could have said to incite such violence? Should we blame Todd for inviting the attack? I mean we could not see what Todd had said, so perhaps she had said something in which begged this man to attack her. In fact, she deserved it.

No.

The proper response would be to condemn this person and an attack like this.

Liberals have no need to play Team "D" at the expense of common sense and respect to people rights.

However, some do (Amy Hemmer ... Amy Hemmer) because they must play Team "R" at all costs.

Lesson today: Do not defend the indefensible.

When you do, you've only exposed yourself as the hypocrite that you thought you gotcha'ed.

One would think in today's virulent and seething partisanship that a lefty like myself would actually prefer the hatred by the Rightwing of the Clinton's and anything liberal in the 1990's. In some way's the hatred against Clinton was less destructive and did not have the mantel of executive power to perpetuate it to its constitutionally destructive ends. Sure Clinton had a little military adventurism and Monica, but he didn't lie to invade Iraq, trash the bill of rights, illegally spy on American citizens, okay the use of torture, let the CIA set up secret prisons, radicalize the Department of Justice, raise the national debt, inflate the size of government, etc…….

The primary difference between Bush-era conservatism and Clinton-era conservatism was that the hypocrisy was hidden and we (I) took their conservative rhetoric hook-line-and sinker and I "a dreaded Liberal".  I actually took the Newt Gingrich's and Bob Barr's at their word. You know what they said, "Fiscal Responsibility, Personal Responsibility, Against Nation Building, Smaller Government, etc……"  In the Bush-era, all of these "so-called conservative" standards that they pushed were all a lie (BTW - Newt and Barr were having affairs of their own during the Clinton Impeachment).

Now, I never turned into a conservative unlike that opportunist cry-baby Charlie Sykes in the mid 90's, but at the time and still at this time some of what they said was right. The one ethic I took most to heart is the ethic of "Personal Responsibility". In a way, the late Clinton period tempered my Liberalism, which I am glad I went through. This period allowed me to actually realize that Bill Clinton as President was wrong, now I don't think his lying about Monica was impeachable, but it was ethically and morally despicable. I will not defend his actions at the time. Nor will I defend Jim Jeffords for taking Bribes, nor will I defend Eliot Spizter, I will not defend politicians or leaders on the left for being hypocrites and liars. I will not defend or rationalize Obama's FISA vote, nor his faith based initiative. In my view they are wrong. I will not defend somebody just because of their political label and party affiliation.

Today this hypocrisy is no longer subterfuge, all of the excuses and scapegoats have been used, all the anger and hatred has become a caricature in popular culture, critics have been beaten into the dirt and lives ruined, the deliberate use of misleading or wrong information to obfuscate reality, the use of seething hateful tactics to destroy ANYBODY who disagrees, to defend blindly these "so-called conservative" ethics, while not living by those standards and ethics themselves. The virulent blind defense of Bush and Republican Corruption is antithetical to the conservative standard of personal responsibility I was reminded constantly by conservatives in the 1990’s.

The conservative standards of personal liberty and responsibility mean nothing in the Bush-era, with this zealotus rage to crush a "liberal" by any means necessary, to defend what irresponsible, criminal, and anti-constitutional actions carried out by the Bush Administration. The win-at-any-cost and power-for-powers-sake philosophy has effectively destroyed what conservatism was supposed to mean in the 1990's. For instance, Kosovo: even though I disagreed with the Republicans in congress they were still loyal opposition and the conservative standard was against Nation Building, and they still were not traitors. Today, Nation building is fine because Bush is president and 9/11 happened???? Hunh??

This hypocrisy is out in the open due to the zealous hatred of critics, the willingness to close eyes and minds to reality, and the willingness to trample over conservative standards for the blind defense of Bush and Republican corruption.

So when I hear people declare themselves as "conservative", I have to ask what kind of conservative?

The one that uses 9/11 as an end-all-be-all excuse for trampling on the bill of rights and constitution and torture or the zealot who's hatred for anybody with a different point of view  manifests itself with personal attacks and dehumanization of that person. Or the kind that states "Liberals are as bad as terrorists" or that "Liberals are destroying America!"  When I hear these words it is funny in a tragic way, but also impels me to hold these "so-called conservatives" responsible for their actions, hold them responsible for their words.

So this is were it stands, if a statement is made against liberals that has extreme implications, you better be able to back it up with evidence and be able to take responsibility for what you write. 

Freedom of speech does not free people from the consequences of the content of what they say. At least this is something I keep hearing from “so-called conservatives.”

_________________

Note: Guest blog by lcl.com post Liberal Hammer