Vocal Minority

Article of Note: Hey NJ Teachers, Was It Worth It?

Recommended by a friend and VM reader:

Big blunder cost New Jersey teachers years of goodwill
By Kevin Manahan, May 27, 2010

Read article here.

Vitriol Vaca, Hatred Hiatus, etc. UPDATED 6/4/10

Friends,

Regrettably, family commitments and a busy work schedule have made it necessary for me to take a break from blogging indefinitely. I must also admit to a bit of blogging burnout, having been at this virtually non-stop since November, 2007.  

If something comes up in the news that I feel the need to comment on, I'll certainly post something. In the meantime, have a super summer and keep your eye focused on November midterm elections! Surely, when things get less hectic and the typing fingers get itchy, I'll be jumping back into it.

Please browse the VM archives, leave comments, and visit my friends on the blogroll!

Thanks for reading.

- EricTheRed

Video of the Day (5/23/10): Rep. McClintock (R-CA) Smacks Down Mexican Prez and Applauding Dems

This speech delivered on the House floor Thursday is delicious. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) gave a much-deserved smackdown to Mexican president Calderon for his highly inappropriate critique of Arizona, as well as to Congressional Democrats for validating Calderon's out-of-line statements and thereby shamefully undermining their own country's sovereignty:

I

On a related note, a big congrats to "Proof" at the Proof Positive blog. When Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media posted a story on McClintock's speech, it was his blog to which linked for the video. It's satisfying to see a fellow "lil' " blogger get this spike in traffic over the weekend:

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: Obama Cr@ps on Daniel Pearl's Memory with Meaningless "Act"

The ever-insightful Mark Steyn hit it on the head with this National Review article from this weekend [bolds mine]:

May 22, 2010
One of Those Moments
Mark Steyn

The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. …

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder … the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception. …

“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”

He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same. …

As far as I’m concerned, Barack Obama crapped on Pearl’s memory. First, this whole “free press” is a freaking joke. Steyn is right in noting Pearl’s murder had nothing to do with a free press. It had to do with the threat by radical Islam to freedom, period. This is a lesson that President Hope&Change and his feckless gaggle of blame-America-first cronies like Hillary and Posner still haven’t learned.

Second, Obama craps on Pearl’s memory by referring to his brutal on-camera beheading a “loss.” How insipid and callous can one get?

Thirdly, as Steyn points out, how can Obama insist on caring about Daniel Pearl when he and his America-hating terrorist-coddling AG Holder have defied all reason and historic precedence to give his beheader taxpayer funded attorneys to be defended him in civilian freaking court!

Finally, as Steyn also notes, by taking on this “one world” stance, Obama is exposed for his typical blame-America-first mentality. He apparently believes that the killing of Daniel Pearl could somehow have been prevented if only the U.S. engaged the Muslim world and the rest of those other countries it—read: Bush!—isolated for too long.

How can anyone argue that Obama gives one whit about Daniel Pearl and the real reasons he was killed? I’ll bet Barack Obama never even saw the video of Pearl’s beheading. I only saw it once and that was enough to make me almost need to run to the bathroom and puke. He is not only completely ignorant, but also truly cold-hearted and devoid of any character whatsoever. I have absolutely no respect for this empty-suited and empty-hearted shadow of a human being that now occupies the Oval Office.

UPDATE: A slightly tweaked version of this article appears in this morning's (Monday, May 24) Washington Times.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on Mexico's Laws and on Our Destructive President (5/19/10)

Here's more on the talk radio circuit and the visit of Mexico's president Calderon.

Last Wednesday, Mark spent the first hour of his show reading selected portions of Mexico's immigration laws and its Constitution. In a nutshell: Mexico's requirements and all-round attitude toward immigration, legal and illegal, are light years more "racist," restrictive, and indifferent towards human rights than Arizona's.

But you won't find discussion, let alone criticism of Mexico's laws by a single liberal/Democrat. That includes President Hope&Change and his feckless gaggle of Keystone Kops like Holder and Napolitano, as well as the sycophantic drones in the mainstream media.

After reading and discussing Mexico's immigration laws, he plays clips of both Calderon and Obama alike tearing apart the United States. That's the blood-boiling hypocrisy we have to deal with in this fading republic of ours, where those in the highest positions of power have actually encouraged anarchy against rule of law, and who have giddily stood with a foreign visitor as he trashes their own country in their presence.

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

levin2010-05-19_pt1_80kbps.mp3

levin2010-05-19_pt2_80kbps.mp3

Listen & Learn: Laura Ingraham on Mexican Prez's Hypocritical USA-Bashing (5/21/10)

Earlier this week, when Mexican president Calderon visited the U.S., Democrats once again showed their "patriotism." First, Democrats in Congress actually stood and applauded when Calderon stood in the Capitol and bashed the state of Arizona for (gasp!) enforcing laws that the federal government (including the Congress before which he stood) refused to. 

Second, while Calderon bashed the U.S. for its alleged racism and human rights violations, President Hope&Change stood there in approving silence.

But don't question their patriotism.

In response to this egregious display of chutzpah by Calderon and of America-hatred by the Democrats, the conservative talk circuit had a lot to say.

First, here is the witty and comedic Laura Ingraham on Friday's show:

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

 

ingraham2010-05-21_80kbps.mp3

2010: The Year We Make Comeback - Djou Betcha! (HI-4)

USA Today reports this morning [via Drudge]:

GOP wins House seat in Obama's home district

HONOLULU (AP) — Republican Charles Djouhas won a Democratic-held House seat in Hawaii in the district where President Barack Obama grew up.

The special election is the latest triumph for the GOP as it looks to take back control of Congress.

Djou's victory was also a blow to Obama and other Democrats who could not rally around a candidate and find away to win a congressional race that should have been a cakewalk. The seat had been held by a Democrat for nearly 20 years and is located in the district where Obama was born and spent most of his childhood.

Djou received 67,274 votes, or 39.5%. He was followed by state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and former U.S. Rep. Ed Case— both Democrats.

Republicans see the victory as a powerful statement about their momentum heading into November.

This is indeed a significant win. Judging from what I heard from Djou when he was interviewed on the Mark Levin show two Fridays ago, he’s a great guy to have in Congress. 

Let’s watch the Democrat-media complex spin this one. If they’re not too busy still partying from winning Pennsylvania-12, that is.

Video of Djou’s victory speech is posted at Hot Air Pundit.

Video of the Day (5/22/10): Reading

H/T reader and guest blogger benjaminTheDonkey:

Liberal Media Bias: Stephanopoulos Tries, and Fails, to Play "Gotcha!" with Rand Paul

I don't normally watch MSM news. But this morning I just happened to be taking out a videotape (I know, old school!) that my kids were watching when Democrat mouthpiece disguised as an anchor George Stephanopoulos brought on Kentucky's new golden child Rand Paul.

What followed was an ass whooping I haven't seen on mainstream TV for a while. The entire segment, it seemed, Steph was interested in one thing and one thing only: playing "Republican gotcha!" And with every question (or more accurately, Democrat talking point being used as a question) Paul refused to play Steph's game. Instead, he through it right back in his face, which was showed more and more consternation as the interview went on.

The video clip is below. Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters has the transcript and commentary. My favorite parts are here, which were delivered by Paul with an air of coolness reminiscent of Bill Buckley:

Good morning, George. Good morning, Robin. When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory. I thought I got a honeymoon from you guys in the media.

… I’ve been trashed up and down one network that tends to side with the Democrats. For an entire 24 hours I’ve suffered from them saying, “Oh, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.” But, that’s never been my position. So, really, this is a lot about politics. This is about, you know, look. We’re up 20 points in Kentucky. Democrats are going to have a tough time winning down here. So, they’re going to make up a lot of stuff and go forward with that. …

… What I say is that I’m against repealing the Civil Rights Act. I’m against repealing the Fair Housing Act. I’ve never campaigned on that. It’s not part of our platform. And so, what these are red herrings that people are trying to bring up because the Democrats are way behind in Kentucky and are going to have a tough time beating us down here. You know, I mean, if you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Senator Byrd. And we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. You know, make him, call him to task for something he actually did, as opposed to calling me to task for something that they insinuate that I might believe that is not true. …

… So, the thing is, what’s going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democrat National Committee. They also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. You know, I’ve just been trashed up and down. And they’re saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. Never been my position. And something I think is basically just politics. …

Right on, right on!

Notice that ABC did their bit to smear the Tea Party, with which Paul is affiliated, by putting on screen the caption: “Tempest for the Tea Party: Candidate Defends Comments on Race.” These liberal hacks still can’t get off this “Tea Party = racist” thing.

I will readily admit to not being a big fan of Ron Paul, and have even heard from some people he has an anti-Semitic streak. But I know precious little about his son and didn't want to prejudge him. All I know is what I witnessed on ABC-TV News this morning was music to my ears. He stood up to the media, refused to accept the premises implied by these politically-loaded questions, and made Stephanopoulos look like a damned fool. We need more people doing this, as long as the mainstream news networks will have them.

Quote of the Day (5/19/10): El Rushbo on Yesterday's Dem Win in PA-12

Well, it’s not a quote, it’s more of a monologue. And it’s a great one. Here’s Rush today responding to the media spin on the Democrat’s win in Pennsylvania-12 yesterday:

[Rush from yesterday] Let me tell you something: Do not play a drinking game today or tonight if you have to take a drink every time the media says, “These primaries are not a referendum on Obama.” ‘Cause you are going to get smashed and you may die of alcohol poisoning. They may have to run you to the hospital tonight. Do not get into that. Play the drinking game all you want but do not sign up to take a swig, unless you want to kill yourself, every time the media says “not a referendum on Obama.”

RUSH: And some people are still drinking today because the media hasn’t let up. We have a sample montage, it’s a referendum on everything but Obama:

ANDREA MITCHELL:…a referendum on Arlen Specter. CARL CAMERON: a referendum on the 80-year-old Specter.  JONATHAN HOENIG: …a referendum on government.  MICHAEL SMERCONISH:…a referendum of sorts on organizational politics.  CYNTHIA McFADDEN: …widely viewed as a referendum on Washington’s incumbent.  PAUL BEGALA: …a referendum on Mitch McConnell.  DYLAN RATIGAN: …referendum on the status quo.  STUART VARNEY: This is a referendum on debt and spending. STEVE BROWN: …a referendum on Rand Paul and his views.  GRETCHEN CARLSON: …a referendum on the national debt.  IAN BREMMER: The referendum is on 17.2% real unemployment. 
ANDREA MITCHELL: I don’t see all of those races as a referendum, at all, on Barack Obama.

… If Obama was the big winner last night, or if you want to say that this was not a referendum on Obama, then all Democrats in the House and Senate who are up for reelection should run on Obama’s agenda, they should run on Pelosi’s agenda, they should run on Harry Reid’s agenda.

In other words, all of you Democrats, because this is a big victory for Obama last night, all you Democrats running for reelection, go ahead and run on more spending.

Go ahead and run on more tax increases!

Go ahead and run as an advocate for bigger government!

Go ahead and run on the fact that 10% unemployment is something worth celebrating!

Go ahead and run on record high foreclosures!

Go ahead and run on your support for Porkulus stimulus bills and 20% budget increases!

You Democrats up for reelection, you run on attacking Israel.

Run on your support for amnesty for illegal immigrants. …

You want 10% unemployment, you want an ever growing government, you want more bailouts for everybody in the world paid for by us, you want to attack Israel, you have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Go ahead and run on it. Go ahead and run on your support for amnesty.

Go ahead and run on the fact that Arizona is troublesome.

Go ahead, you Democrats, you run on it, and you people in the media that support the Democrats, go ahead and give them this advice! …

Obama’s the big winner? The Democrat Party is gonna sweep to victory now because of what happened in Pennsylvania 12? Fine, then have them proudly run on this agenda. Have them proudly run on who Barack Obama is.

Run on this laser-like focus that you have on job creation. Run on all of the new homes that are not being bought. …

You want to run on the Obama agenda? You Democrats and you members of the media go out there in unison and start attacking the people of Arizona. Attack the Arizona law. Stand up for amnesty. Be honest about what you believe in and what you’re doing. If the Obama agenda is it, if it’s the big winner last night, then by all means bring Obama in to campaign for you. Bring Obama in to fund-raise for you. Like he did Arlen Specter, like he did Coakley in Massachusetts, like he went in for Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Wherever he’s gone, he’s 0-for-4, maybe now 0-for-5 [and like he did for Jon Corzine in NJ - ETR].

All of what I have said is what the Democrat Party stands for. There’s a huge disconnect in this country: Liberalism versus Americanism.

By the way, did Mr. Obama tell Felipe Calderon to stop drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Did I miss that? He didn’t do that? Interesting. So the Mexicans do not have to stop drilling for oil; we do. Okay, run on that, too, Democrats, run on that, shut down every rig, no more drilling offshore. No more drilling for oil anywhere. Run on it.

Bring in Hugo Chavez to speak up for your agenda and your campaign.

Bring in Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua. …

Ten percent unemployment is the new norm? That’s great; you run on it.

You see, those of you in the media, you’re not fooling anybody. You’re not fooling us and you’re not fooling the wise and intelligent people of this audience. We know what you’re going to say and do before you do it. You have telegraphed your moves. We know who liberals are. We know how liberalism as opposed to Americanism functions. We know how you’re gonna report on a specific story. We know what you’re gonna ignore. 

So you look at Pennsylvania 12 and now you’ve got a job to do. You’ve gotta somehow convince everybody that Pennsylvania 12 means that everybody’s been wrong about this coming November sweep for the Republicans. Yep, that one election … That’s a 2-1 Democrat district. Critz would not have won if Democrat voters actually believed what he was saying, and if I’m wrong, and if they did believe what he was saying because they want to believe it, then it’s really over for the Democrats.

So I don’t know how you win either way you analyze this. But you keep at it. And as you analyze it, we’re going to make sure you eat your words come November.

What he said.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (5/19/10)

May 19, 2010 | American Spectator
Liberals Gone Wild
By Peter Ferrara

Even though the Constitution does not include the words “separation of church and state,” liberals have long treated that concept as a hallowed fundamental doctrine of constitutional law. But no more. With the recent introduction of new Senate cap and trade legislation, ultraliberal supporters Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and others have now completely abandoned that doctrine in their quest to establish global warming dogma as the official, established religion of the United States.

Under that legislation, everyone in America will be forced to tithe to the new religion through higher prices for electricity, gasoline, natural gas, coal, home heating oil, jet fuel, food (especially meat), and every product produced or transported with such energy sources. Indeed, prices will soar high enough to reduce fossil fuel use and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions back to the per capita levels of 1870!

The legislation will further force Americans to engage in ritual sacrifices to the established religion, slashing back on powerful, roomy cars and SUVS, air conditioning, heat, PCs, laptops, big screen TVs, cell phones, iPods, backyard barbecues, manufacturing jobs, and traditional American prosperity. They will be forced to worship the modern, hip, pagan dogma with smaller “carbon footprints.” If they do not profess their true belief, they will be shouted out of public life as troglodyte “deniers,” just as those who did not faithfully maintain membership in the established Church of England were disqualified from holding public office.

But if they do faithfully follow the global warming catechism of cap and trade, they will be rewarded with the eternal salvation of a reduction in the projected rise of global temperatures of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, based on the UN’s own climate models. Hallelujah! Praise the AlGore! ...

*     *     *     *     *

May 19, 2010 | American Thinker
I Think, Therefore I Profile
By Carol Peracchio

… Whatever you do, the elites tell us, don’t profile! But is that even humanly possible? In my earlier work in hospital nursing, we profiled from the minute we clocked in for our shift. We didn’t call it profiling, of course. When I worked in the ICU, we called it “assessment.” In the ER, it’s known as “triage.” …

Profiling saves lives. Many years ago I was working nights in an ICU at a county hospital. One of our patients, a young gang member, had been shot by a rival gang. We were warned that members of that gang were threatening to come to the hospital to “finish the job.” During that shift, I was very grateful that hospital security was actively profiling everyone who came into the hospital, looking for young males of a specific race who fit the profile of that gang. The last thing I and my co-workers wanted was for a gang member to sneak in while security was questioning the elderly wife of the patient in the next bed.

The way I understand the Arizona law, police officers are expected to verify the immigration status of people they encounter during the performance of their jobs. All sorts of media, entertainment, and political stars are working themselves into a tizzy, positive that cops all over Arizona are going to start hassling random Hispanics, demanding to see their papers. As President Obama says, “If you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, your going to be harassed[.]”

I find this scenario ridiculous, because if the job of policeman is anything at all like the job of a nurse, then they don’t have time to start hassling toddlers getting ice cream. Arizona is plagued with drug cartels and kidnappings, much of it tied to illegal immigrants. Believe me, the cops are busy enough. Besides, I have a feeling that the police are just as talented at profiling as nurses are. For the cops, appropriate profiling is a matter of survival. Listening to that profile instinct during a routine traffic stop can mean life or death. …

*     *     *     *     *

May 18, 2010 | Daily Caller
How’s that apology thing working out, Mr. President?
By Ken Blackwell

As a candidate, Barack Obama wowed the world. He went to Berlin and gave a speech at their victory monument. It was a curious venue for such a speech. But a million Germans came out to hear him. It was a phenomenal scene. No one remembers what he said there, but it was quite a show. A year later, when he returned to the continent, as president, he spoke at Normandy. No one can quite recall what Obama said, but everyone remembers what Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above—above the world, he’s sort of God.”

If you are hailed as a “sort of God,” it’s no wonder that your head gets turned. You don’t want to seem puffed up, or succumb to the sin of pride. So you start apologizing. Not for yourself, but for your country. America has been arrogant, you tell the world. America has tried to go it alone. America has not sufficiently respected the rest of the world. And you bow. You bow a lot. …

What we are seeing is a nation standing into danger. We are watching as the United States is publicly and internationally humiliated. Our idol worship of an inexperienced and ill-equipped leader has blinded us to the mounting dangers in a world of dangers.

It would be hard to say which specific foreign policy of the Obama administration is worst. Iran sanctions? Russian relations? Attacks on Israel for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem? Trashing the special relationship with Britain? Insulting the Canadians in their own capital? Failure to secure the border with Mexico? We have an entire menu of foreign policy disasters to consider. Maybe if your perspective is from above it all, standing up there as sort of God, it looks better. For those of us with our feet firmly on the ground, it looks less heavenly.

*     *     *     *     *

May 18, 2010 | NewsReal Blog
Our Current Government: A Bunch of Radicalized Slackers
BY LORI ZIGANTO

… Our current leaders have apparently given up their “laser like focus” on creating or saving jobs. That hasn’t been working out so well for them, being completely ignorant in the ways of business. Instead, they now appear to be focused on creating or saving a whole bunch of slackers. This is not the first time Pelosi has said it either. She uttered much the same drivel back in March, prior to the passage of the health care bill that had to be passed before we could see what’s in it:

“Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

That’s right. Working is for stuffy old fuddy-duddies and inartistic Philistines. Plus, the kids these days don’t know how to protest; we need more drum circles, man.

I couldn’t put my finger on exactly why this irked me so much. I mean, even more so than usual. I knew it couldn’t just be the putrid stench of entitlement mentality emanating from Pelosi, although that was, of course, a major part of it. I finally realized what it was; it reminds me of the tree squatters at Berkeley. College kids, full of smug ™, who think they are so much better and smarter than you, all while mooching off of their parents and bringing their laundry home for mommy to do.

The recent vile and infuriating apology to China – CHINA, of all places – for Arizona’s new immigration law fits much the same mold. Jay Nordlinger, of National Review Online, had a similar thought:

I hope I have read that incorrectly, or am interpreting it incorrectly. Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new immigration law in Arizona? Really, really? …

Do you ever get the idea that our government is a bunch of left-wing undergraduates come to power?

Yes. Because that is exactly what they are.

Obama is just like the new breed of hipsters who are on food stamps so they can shop at the oh-so-hip Whole Foods. Arugula is a right! And have you seen the price of it? No wonder they have made 26 year old adults comparable to children, who must remain on their parents’ insurance policies. They are still children. Left wing radical children, but children nonetheless. It’s mean to expect people to act like adults and work for things! Obama, and his administration, have persisted in that left-wing undergraduate vein, only they are dangerously now in power. …

*     *     *     *     *

Jewish World Review | May 19, 2010
The ‘Unintended Consequences’ of Liberalism 
By Arnold Ahlert

The essence of liberal bankruptcy can be reduced to two words: unintended consequences. Quite simply, the unintended consequences of liberalism are the result of people behaving like people actually behave—instead of how liberals believe they should behave. Perhaps the most egregious example of the left’s terminal disconnect from reality is health care “reform.” Two news stories reveal what happens when common sense loses out to ideological idiocy.

The first story comes from the Congressional newspaper The Hill. Apparently it has dawned on some people that adding 32 million people to the health care rolls—note I said people, as opposed to American citizens—might engender some unintended consequences with regard to their impact on “emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity, according to experts on healthcare facilities.”

“Everybody expected that one of the initial impacts of reform would be less pressure on emergency departments; it’s going to be exactly the opposite over the next four to eight years,” said Rich Dallam, healthcare partner at NBBJ, an architectural firm which designs healthcare facilities.

Not everybody, Mr. Dallam. Only the clueless liberals in Congress and the White House who foisted this package on the substantial majority of Americans who wanted no part of it. …

*     *     *     *     *

May 17, 2010 | American Thinker
The Left’s War on Free Speech
By Bruce Walker

… All this devotion which the left pretends to have for free speech is just like every other profession of values by the left: it is pure fraud, smirking lies, and measured injustice. Consider the position that Elena Kagan has taken toward free speech. She wrote in 1996 that free speech could be restricted if it directly or indirectly incited people to do harm, and Kagan noted the famous example of someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. She equates that with the notorious “hate speech” invented by the left. …

The left displays a very curious attitude toward the rights of different sorts of speakers. “Hate speech” is almost always directed against the lonely individual conservative, who has no wealth or power to protect him. Conservatives have been noting for forty-one years that government licensed television network channels lie about conservatives, defame conservative leaders, and construct crude caricatures of conservatives as a group. Worse, for most of those forty-one years, the networks scrupulously avoided criticizing each other for ideological bigotry, acting like a true monopoly. The left defended the right of multi-billion dollar corporate giants to savage the lives of conservatives by malicious mendacity. The left never said a word about these mammoth business empires hurting the public.

So when does the left get concerned about opinions reaching tens of millions of Americans? When someone like Rush Limbaugh takes the largely ignored and financially modest medium of A.M. talk radio and, against a torrent of abuse and many boycotts, finds a profoundly resonating voice among the conservative majority of America. Then—only then!—the ancient “Fairness Doctrine” rears its peculiar head. When the identical triplets of CBS, NBC, and ABC had the same news, the same entertainment slant, the same everything—which meant conservative ideas and beliefs were scrupulously purged, the left thought the Fairness Doctrine something akin to censorship. Only when the other side gets heard does the doctrine have meaning.

The left is utterly wedded to thought control. Like all sibling totalitarianisms, the left in America is addicted to power and repelled by truth. The creation of officially defined oppressors and officially defined victims determines who has rights and who does not. The totalitarian narcotic of “Social Justice,” the drug of choice for Hitler, Stalin, Father Coughlin, and Sir Oswald Moseley, dulls the people into a twilight land in which “Freedom is Slavery” and free speech too.

*     *     *     *     *

May 19, 2010 | National Review Online
The U.S. Department of Blame America First
By Michelle Malkin

Assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner is probably not the first Obama State Department official to badmouth America in front of foreign delegations. He was just dumb enough to get caught.

Last week, the former head agitator at the transnationalist outfit Human Rights First trashed our country’s human-rights record to Chinese government officials.

Posner is an unrepentant open-borders radical who has long fought immigration enforcement and vociferously opposed post-9/11 counterterrorism measures to detain enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. He was active in supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, an American-sovereignty-undermining tribunal that would trump U.S. judicial authority over war crimes and “crimes against humanity.” …

The Arizona law is indeed being “debated in our own society” — mostly by a parade of willful ignoramuses from Homeland Security Department secretary Janet Napolitano to Attorney General Eric Holder to State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, all three of whom have gone on television to attack the Arizona law and then admitted that they have yet to read the legislation. ...

Have a blessed day!

That's Right, China, America Does Have a Discrimination Problem

Like many other sentient Americans, I was absolutely disgusted upon hearing that ASSistant Secretary of State Michael Posner apologized to China—China!—for alleged American human rights violations, most notably the Arizona illegal immigration bill and its “potential discrimination.”

In response, “Snarky Basterd” at the Feed Your ADHD blog lets loose with this delicious rant:

… America has a discrimination problem when a candidate for the U.S. Senate flat out says the American people aren't, “let me be clear,” smart enough to understand legislation that has removed their ability to make their own health care decisions , especially since we read every page of all 7 competing bills long before she opened her fork-tongued mouth.

America has a discrimination problem when freshman (and soon to be unemployed)Congresscriminal Alan Grayson stands in the middle of a family restaurant and screams at his constituents simply because they don't agree with him.

America has a discrimination problem when Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Dickhead, Nevada – but not for long! ) refers to peaceful American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free speech as “'evil-mongers' using 'lies, innuendo and rumor,' to drown out rational debate .”

America has a discrimination problem when the Wicked Witch of Congress calls these same people Nazis and later admits that she would have no pangs of regret about arresting any one of them who refuses to buy health insurance .

America has a discrimination problem when the men and women who shed blood and relinquish their personal freedom in the service and defense of this country are considered potential “right-wing extremists ” and enemies of the Regime.

America has a discrimination problem when an American citizen supports the head of an Islamic terrorism organization that would prefer that all Jews gather in Israel so he and others don't have to hunt them down to complete a second Holocaust .

America has a discrimination problem when Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano say on camera they haven't read a bill that enforces their own immigration laws, while endlessly bullying a governor who has decided that if they won't do their jobs she will, while a public school teacher openly advocates revolution against the United States of America and the leftwing media and federal government (I know: there's a difference?) stand by, quiet as church mice.

America has a discrimination problem when the pResident of the United States dismisses a powerful movement of fed up people, who are black and white and young and old and liberal and independent and libertarian and conservative and rich and poor and all persuasions in between, as “folks waving tea bags around ," or, even more representative of the Liar in Chief's “civility,” lovingly demonizes us as “that wing" of the Republican Party, the “tea-baggers.”

America has a discrimination problem when the threat of a boot on the throat is the perfect phrase to describe the people who dangle our nation's future for ransom over a cliff overlooking an abyss.

Absolutely brilliant. May I also add:

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames confrontations involving police on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts. (Remember Skip Gates?)

America has a discrimination problem when the Democrat-media complex immediately blames a terrorist attack (botched or successful) on conservative white Christian males, without having any of the facts.

America has a discrimination problem when its citizens voted for a person to be the leader of the free world not on the basis of his character (of which he has none) but primarily because of his race.

America has a discrimination problem when all its political and media elite do when discussing a prospective cabinet member or SCOTUS nominee is fixate on their gender, race, ethnicity, and/or sexual orientation, rather than whether they are qualified and principled to successfully do the freaking job.

Liberal Hypocrisy: H.S. Grads Must "Show Their Pa-puhs!" Before Meeting Obama

The other day President Golden Calf made a real a-hole statement at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner:

“We all know what happens in Arizona when you don’t have ID: ‘Adios, amigos!’”

This outrageous disrespectful swipe at the law-abiding Arizona not only makes Obama look even more unpresidential than he already is, but also exposes him as the third member of his administration (after Napolitano and Holder) who has clearly not read the freaking 10-page bill. [UPDATE: Make that fourth]

In light of this issue is this latest case of blatant sanctimonious liberal hypocrisy:

Before greeting President Hope&Change at their graduation, seniors at Kalamazoo Central High School will have to “Show their pa-puhs!”

The White House appears to be laying the groundwork for President Barack Obama to shake the hand of each senior at Kalamazoo Central High School’s commencement ceremony next month.

Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed. Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of the president, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday.

K-Central seniors also were told Friday that graduation tickets will come from the White House, and the tickets will have bar codes to heighten accountability and prevent them from being sold. “Any irregularities can be traced back to the student who was given the ticket,” Boehme said. …

Wow, that sounds pretty harsh, pretty tough, pretty controversial. Isn’t all of this restrictive high-tech stuff the violation of someone’s civil rights?

“Students are feeling reassured that not a lot of things are going to change ... outside of having the big man there,” Boehme said. ...

The “big man”? He’s the president, not a king, you moron. He’s our public servant, not the other way around. Loser lib.

There will be no tickets available to the general public for the ceremony. …

Well that doesn’t sound fair, does it?

Doug Powers writing at Malkin quips:

It’s too bad somebody can’t convince these guys to at least pretend that the borders are simply one big entrance to meet the president. The Obama administration is so against checking papers that they’re even refusing to check the paper upon which Arizona’s immigration law is written, but K’zoo Central grads will have to present their papers nonetheless.

I’ll give $10 toward the college fund of the first graduate who, when asked for his or her citizen status, replies “Him first” and sends the whole school into emergency Birther lockdown.

Yeah, that would be cool.

Freaking hypocrites, all of them.

Quote of the Day (5/18/10): Jonah Goldberg on Ideology

We are taught to believe that ideology is the enemy of free thought. But that’s not right. Ideology is a mere checklist of principles and priorities. The real enemy of clear thinking is the script. We think the world is supposed to go by a familiar plot. And when the facts conflict with the script, we edit the facts.
— Jonah Goldberg, May 18, 2010

Pic of the Day (5/18/10): Conscientious Students = Future Tax Slaves

Posted by a Facebook friend.

 

Agree or disagree?

Worst. Administration. Ever. Napolitano Hasn't Read AZ Bill Either

What's Spanish or Arabic for "un-freaking-believable"?

Let me get this straight: we are constantly told that Liberals are just so much smarter than everyone else, yet, they keep chiming in on subjects that they haven't bothered to learn the facts on. Remember when Obama said the Cambridge PD "acted stupidly"? Most failed to read the Stimulus and ObamaCare bills, and even said they couldn't understand it if they did. Henry Waxman said he didn't read his own Cap & Tax legislation. Then you had Eric Holder, the top cop in the nation, who expounded about the evils of the Arizona illegals bill, yet, admitted he didn't read it. Now we have Janet Napolitano, the person in charge of homeland security (sic), who admits the same (see Real Clear Politics for the video) 

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn't read the Arizona immigration law, but passed judgment on it anyway. "That's not the kind of law I would have signed," she declared.

"I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said. Is there anyone in the Obama admin. who is capable of actually enjoying some literary pursuits prior to holding forth? I guess they are simply too busy partying and ruining America, while running around the world apologizing for our greatness. Oh, and losing allies and partners.

Read more at Pirate's Cove.

Does anyone understand just how freaking incompetent and politicized this administration is? Fire Holder and fire Napolitano.

Then impeach this criminally negligent failure of a president who said the other day, "You all know what happens if you're in Arizona with no I.D. Adios amigos!"

D!ckhead.

Why I Left Liberalism #18 - Willful Ignorance: No Love for the Founders

James Lewis at American Thinker takes on a liberal Salon writer who doesn’t understand American history and mocks conservatives for their so-called “fetish” with the Founders.

May 16, 2010
Why Conservatives Love the Founders
By James Lewis

A Salon writer wonders, “What’s the conservative fetish with the Founding Fathers?”

It’s because we read history, my sadly ignorant friend. So did the Founders.

History is full of Obamas, and the people who idolized such power-hungry self-glorifying narcissists. The Founders understood human history in their very bones, because they read history from the Bible to the Roman Empire, Europe’s bloody and tyrannical history, and the Americas. If you want to understand Obama, just look at any idolized hero in Latin America: Chavez, Fidel, Bolivar, Juan Peron. Look at European monarchs. Look at Napoleon.

They are all the famous Man on Horseback, the hero of the hour who instantly turns into a tyrant. Even today Latin America is bedeviled by its own Obamas, who all demand to be idolized and worshipped. Obamas are a dime a dozen.

The Founders knew about abuse of power by arrogant and ignorant narcissists, over and over again in human history. …

The Founders understood that liberty had to come in stages. Only tyrants claim to create instant paradise. Practical statesmen work step by step. They created the intellectual and legal framework for the liberation of the slaves. When Abraham Lincoln came along, Americans were willing to fight a terrible war to free the slaves, even if more than half a million people had to die. Read the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and you can see the real campaign for human liberty, not the fantasy version liberals entertain today. Liberty is bought very dearly, in blood and suffering. (And it was Christian Abolitionists who created the campaign to liberate the slaves.) …

America’s wars of liberation were real, not frauds like the Marxist ones. We brought liberty to Europe in World War I, in World War II, and in the Cold War. We brought liberty to American slaves in the Civil War. No other nation in history can claim anything close to that.

The Founders created the first land of liberty in human history. To be sure, they learned a great deal from British political thinkers like John Locke and Edmund Burke, and from the classical writers. They demanded for themselves the rights that were (theoretically) granted to Englishmen of their time. Meanwhile the French Revolution led to massive bloodshed and twenty years of bloody war to conquer Europe. Napoleon was another Obama idol. …

Karl Marx was just a throwback to all the slave-taking empires in history. Marx was born in Prussia, and idolized the chief propaganda philosopher of Prussia for his own “philosophy.” (That was Friedrich Hegel.) Marx wanted a militaristic state, run by an elite of Marx followers, who would indoctrinate all the workers to march in lockstep to the Central Commander. Is that what you want? It’s what Obama is creating for the United States today.

Read a little history, my poor friend, and you will see Obamas everywhere you look. Lenin was an Obama (and the Obama campaign deliberately used Lenin imagery for its propaganda). Stalin was an Obama. Mussolini was an Obama. Napoleon was an Obama. Putin is an Obama. Ahmadinejad is an Obama. Saddam was an Obama.

America never had a rock star president until the Obama campaign. George Washington made very sure no one would suspect him of being an Obama. Lincoln never claimed to be an Obama. None of our presidents have paraded themselves as Obamas—not until Obama came along and brought the psychology of self-glorifying narcissism to these shores. And the Left snapped to and saluted Obama, worshiped at his feet of clay in that ancient and corrupt way that humans have known for millenia. …

Conservatives love the Founders because we read history. We know that you don’t read history. Obama doesn’t know history.

That’s why you liberals scare us.

Worse than not knowing history, the Left is very adept at rewriting history. Obama, with his incessant blaming the Bush administration for everything that liberal Democrat policies have caused, is a case in point.

High Schooler Objects to ‘Sicko’ Final Exam, Says Teacher Called Her A ‘Teabagger’ in Front of Class

There’s nothing wrong with the fact Debra Blessman kept secret from her students the name of the film she would require them to watch and analyze during finals week at Francis Howell High School. Today, however, the teacher might be wishing she had not kept her superiors in the St. Charles, Mo., school district in the dark about her plans to base final exams on the Michael Moore film, "Sicko" ...

Read more at BobMcCarty.com.

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!!!

Quotes of Note: El Rushbo on Obama Making Everyone Else Pay

After finally catching up on the Friday podcasts, I was amused by this rant by El Rushbo. It’s in response to President Hope&Change getting on his soap box to castigate BP for the oil spill in the Gulf and demanding that they pay for the damage. Rush found just a little bit of irony in both Obama’s anger and his demands:

The original monologue runs several minutes and across one commercial break. I abridged it as sensibly as possible:

Here is a guy … demanding results from everybody else, saying, “They’re going to pay for it! BP, yep, they’re going to pay for it!”

Well, who’s going to pay for the damage this regime is doing to every sector of this country?

Who is going to pay for the damage done to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Who is going to pay for the damage done to the private sector?

BP can’t hold a candle to the Obama regime when it comes to destruction! These people, every day, blaze a trail of it from the moment they get up ‘til the moment they go to bed.

Who’s going to pay for the damage that liberal policies have done to businesses, to homes, to home values, to jobs? … Obama is running a government that wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year. He’s running a government that is destroying private property, destroying home ownership, destroying jobs. And he’s concerned about who’s gonna pay for the damage in the Gulf? …

The audacity of this guy to point to British Petroleum and Transocean, when he is single-handedly destroying what was the engine of prosperity, never known anywhere else but the United States of America in this whole world. Who’s gonna pay for the failing public schools? …

Who is going to pay for the damage being done by illegal immigration? …

… [Y]ou can look at BP if you want, and you can look at the spill and you blame ‘em all you want, but liberalism and socialism have done more damage to more people than any oil company, than any insurance company, than any coal company, or anyone or thing in the private sector could ever do.

The lives ruined, the homes lost, the jobs destroyed, the happiness destroyed, the contentment destroyed, the dreams of a nice future literally destroyed by this regime and their ideology: socialism, liberalism, statism, whatever it is you want to call it. Nobody regulates the regulators! Nobody regulates the politicians. Where are the congressional hearings on what Obama is doing, has done, or will do about the spill? Where are those hearings?

Too bad Obama’s not mad at 10% unemployment.

I’d like to see him get mad at illegal immigration. I’d like to see him get mad that our southern border is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Instead, he’s mad at the state of Arizona for trying to protect itself. He’s mad at people for using the term “Islamic terrorism.” …

You talk about taking dreams away, making prosperity for your children and grandchildren even tougher to attain if this stuff isn’t reversed and rolled back! 

And then we have Obama in a fit of pique yesterday saying the Republicans drove the car in the ditch and they’re not getting the keys back? …

He’s not angry about what the United Auto Workers did to the auto industry. He didn’t care who paid for that. He just nationalized them.

Too bad he’s not angry at the National Education Association for destroying education in this country.

Too bad he’s not angry at the government of Mexico and its role in promoting illegal immigration.

No, who’s he mad at? Me! He’s mad at me and anybody else who criticizes him. 

He’s not mad at Iran.

He hates the Tea Party, calls ‘em “tea baggers.” He doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Look at his enemies list, and most of it—most of his enemies—are to be found within the United States border.

Right on, right on, right on!

End the Occupation! - A Tale of Two Pieces of President-Critical Artwork

Ahhh, remember the days when “dissent” was patriotic? They don’t exist anymore, now that President Hope&Change is in charge. At least that’s the message in some of our public schools.

Warner Todd Huston at Publius Forum reports:

    

2005 Kid’s Bush/Hitler Art Gets Award, 2010 Kid’s Obama/Commie Art Gets Censored
By Warner Todd Huston

It is, as we all know, the year 2010 and the era of Obama has fairly begun. Accordingly the commissars of good art taste in our schools have spoken: no kid’s artwork that makes The Obammessiah out to be a commie will be allowed. Interestingly there was another time, another year when things were different. In 2005, as it happened, another kid’s Bush-is-Hitler artwork received a wonderful award for it’s inventiveness. How times have changed, eh?

Back in those hoary years of 2005 when the evil, evil Bush was destroying the world, our schools were happy to host kid’s art that made Bush out to be one of the worst human beings in history. Bush-is-Hitler was so acceptable to our schools that Jeffery Eden, a 17-year-old student, was celebrated when he created his award-winning Bush diorama that, juxtaposed “Hitler quotes with statements by Mr. Bush, Nazi swastikas with American flags, desert-colored toy soldiers with olive plastic figures.”

Young Mr. Eden’s “work” was so wonderful he was awarded a “silver key at the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards.” His Charelstown, New Jersey teacher, Lynn Norton, was so proud of him she gave the budding Leonardo an “A.”

Eden’s “work” was less than worthy as art being exclusively a political statement. All it consisted of was some photos cut out of a magazine and a couple of kid’s toy soldiers pasted on a hunk of cardboard. Junk as art, really. Yet these Bush hating school thugs were overjoyed at this hack-work.

But, that was 2005 when dissing a president was all the rage in our schools. Today is another era, apparently, for today a child in Hallsville, Missouri has had his piece of art pulled because it depicts Obama surrounded by symbols of communism certainly associating Obama with that evil, failed ideology.

Art teacher Brittany Williamson said that her student simply wanted to “get a reaction” with his CommieObammie painting. She thought the painting was quite well done, too. Art wise, she is quite right, too. Compared to the 2005 garbage, this CommieObammie piece is technically good. But school administrators were not so sanguine. …

So, here we have a wonderful juxtaposition of how our schools treat presidents. Unsurprisingly it looks like what we have here is the idea that Bush/Hitler is goood, but Obama/Commie is very, very baaaad. Should we be surprised that our left intoxicated schools excoriated Bush and were consequently happy to allow students to wallow in Bush Derangement Syndrome while they are now so sycophantic for Obama that they will allow no criticism at all?

I guess there is no reason to be surprised as it seems pretty much par for the course for our fetid elementary school systems, but it is worth noting nonetheless.

Here’s how the Providence Journal defended the 17-year-old Bush-hater back in 2005. as a glowing puff piece disguised as an objective news article:

Youth defends prize-winning Bush/Hitler art
Now on display at Alperts in Seekonk with other high school art, the student’s work is causing some controversy.
10:41 PM EST on Tuesday, February 8, 2005
BY MARK REYNOLDS

Jeffrey Eden devised his award-winning project less than 30 minutes after his high school art teacher asked him to express a thought or two in a three-dimensional way.

So, in the wake of last year’s polarizing election and the war in Iraq, the 17-year-old built an abstract scene comparing President Bush’s war policies with Adolf Hitler’s pillage of Europe.

The student’s diorama-like assemblage juxtaposes Hitler quotes with statements by Mr. Bush, Nazi swastikas with American flags, desert-colored toy soldiers with olive plastic figures. And so on. …

… [I]t has earned the Charlestown student a silver key at the Rhode Island Scholastic Art Awards.

It has also tested the contest’s commitment to an overriding principle: that students should be encouraged to express their own thoughts through art.

The piece, titled “Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself,” triggered a complaint soon after it was displayed with other award-winning entries at Alperts Furniture Showplace in Seekonk last week. …

“We don’t censor art,” said the store’s owner, Hershel Alpert. “We’re not in the business of censoring art.” …

He thinks they show that the work is comparing Hitler and President Bush—not equating them.

“I felt I was clear about what I was trying to get across,” he said. “I believe those who misconstrued the artwork didn’t take the time to really read into it.”

His teacher, Lynn Norton, believed he got his point across. She gave him an A.

Compare that glowing sympathetic story to this much more neutral article on the anti-Obama work [bolds mine]:

School pulls student art after complaints
By JODIE JACKSON JR.
Thursday, May 13, 2010

A painting depicting President Barack Obama next to a hammer and sickle symbol hung for nearly two weeks at Hallsville High School. It was taken down Monday after complaints.

HALLSVILLE — Art teacher Brittany Williamson said her student simply wanted to “get a reaction” with his painting that depicted President Barack Obama with a hammer and sickle symbolizing communism.

“That’s the whole purpose of art — to get a reaction,” Williamson said.

Although Williamson thought the Hallsville High School sophomore’s painting was “an amazing piece,” it received not-so-amazing critiques from some school staff and visitors who complained to Williamson and Superintendent John Robertson. The painting was taken down Monday after being displayed for nearly two weeks.

Robertson said the piece was removed because it could have been construed to reflect an official position of the school district.

“The district really can’t express political views,” Robertson said, explaining that he talked to Williamson and the student about the issue. “I told him as an artist he certainly has the right to express his opinions but we didn’t have to hang it up.”

Williamson said she did not want the student to remove the artwork but that other teachers had asked her to take it down. The student has since taken the painting home.

Robertson said if the painting had been a part of a display that was politically themed, “that would be a whole, total different thing.”

“It was the only” political “piece that was up,” Williamson said, “so it made it look like the school felt that way.”

Williamson said the student artist — whom the school would not identify — “took it upon himself” to tape the painting to a window of the school’s copy room.

“No matter how I feel toward President Obama, it’s an amazing piece for a high school student,” she said. Williamson said her student “always seems to do something right on the edge.”

Supreme Court rulings seem to side with the school district on whether to abridge a student’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

Doug Abrams, an associate professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said the courts have determined that students have First Amendment rights, “but if the administration believes that exercise of those rights would disrupt the school’s learning environment, then the administration can abridge the exercise of those rights.” …

To summarize:

• Anti-Obama art: No expressions of political speech on school grounds!
• Anti-Bush art: A right of free speech, not to be impinged on! No censorship!!!

• Anti-Obama art: It could be construed as being the official position of the school district. (Wha?)
• Anti-Bush art: ???

• Anti-Obama art: People (including teachers) complained, so it must come down.
• Anti-Bush art: Screw people who complain! This is free speech!!!

• Anti-Obama art: Give this student an award!
• Anti-Bush art: It has to be shut down because it could disrupt the school’s learning environment (in other words, it can hinder the faculty’s job of indoctrinating their students with liberal politics.)

END THE OCCUPATION! LIBERALS OUT OF THE SCHOOLS NOW!!!