Over the years, I've had fun ridiculing nonsensical phrases that get bandied about by the left, such as "POVERTY IS VIOLENCE."

But it never occurred to me that anyone would attempt to link skepticism to violence until I saw this editorial by Rush Limbaugh:

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.

But what about the skepticism I have expressed about Bush, and other Republican leaders? Doesn't that count as "violence"?

And in light of this latest meme, I'm wondering about violent anti-Obama skepticism like this tirade by Alexander Cockburn, with the following highly inflammatory title:

"Obama-nation would be abomination!"

If I didn't know it was the title of an article by the famous Stalin apologist Alexander Cockburn writing in the leftie rag that just smeared Ann Althouse, I'd swear that it was cribbed from WorldNetDaily.

The article goes on to refer to Barack Obama as "the slithery junior senator from Illinois" about whom Cockburn said,

I've never heard a politician so desperate not to offend conventional elite opinion while pretending to be fearless and forthright.

In his advance to the high table, Obama is diligently divesting himself of all legitimate claims to being any sort of popular champion. Instead, he's just another safe black, like Condoleezza Rice (whom Obama voted to confirm). The Empire relishes such servants.

Obama had his finger stuck in the wind, as always. He bends to every breeze, as soon as he identifies it as coming from a career-threatening quarter. This man is no leader.

Surely there's no double standard for skepticism, is there?