Vocal Minority

Some New Vids: The Great One and a Great American

Everyone should watch this video taken at the Reagan Library last Friday. It is Mark Levin at last Friday's book signing -- Levin's last for his latest book "Ameritopia."

There is also this young up-and-coming great American by the name of Kira Davis. She's the one whose "Apology" video went viral last month. Here she is again doing a "Smart Phone Smart Minute". Go get 'em, Kira!

Who's Really Anti-Choice? (Giving Liberals a Taste of Their Own Medicine)

Did you ever see that bumper sticker that says, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

Think of the inanity of that statement. To the pro-abortion crowd, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is no different than whether or not to see a movie or whether or not to purchase an iPhone. Don't like a certain movie? Don't see it! Don't want an iPhone? Don't buy one! What logically follows, they believe, is: Don't like abortion? Don't have one! It's simply a personal choice (that five lawyers in black robes one day decided was a constitutional right) and no one has the authority to "force" a woman what to do with an unborn child. 

But the main difference is that seeing a movie or buying a piece of electronics doesn't involve the destruction of an innocent tiny human. In fact, when those who are pro-abortion argue their position, the baby is the farthest thing from their mind, if it enters their mind at all. The baby necessarily doesn't factor in; it's just a dispensible clump of cells until the very second every inch of her body enters the world.

Not only does the pro-abortion crowd willfully ignore the inhumane gruesomeness of an abortion -- if you don't think it is willful, consider the hellstorm that ensues every time it is suggested young people actually be shown footage of an abortion being performed -- but they also mischaraterize the position of the anti-abortion position. They would have us believe that those who are anti-abortion are actually anti-woman, i.e., they want to control women in general and impose their rigid traditionalist "patriarchical" views on them. This is why those against abortion are also often called "anti-choice": such people supposedly don't want women to be able to make any choices for themselves, including abortion. 

While these descriptions might be politically advantageous, they are wholly inaccurate. If people who were anti-abortion were anti-woman or anti-choice, why is there no other area in which such people seek to restrict women's behavior? Where are those anti-choice types who are trying torestrict a woman's choice to have a career or stay "in the kitchen," for example? Where are all those Neanderthals attempting to restrict women's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.?

There aren't any. But when those who are pro-abortion call their opponents "anti-choice," that is the message they are trying to convey. When pro-abortion liberals call anti-abortion conservatives "anti-choice," it makes my skin crawl. Conservatives are not anti-choice, we're just anti-abortion. And for good reason. Abortion is murder, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how many lawyers in black robes declare it a constitutional right.

My purpose in bringing this all up was to try to give liberals a taste of their own medicine. Because if there is any group of people in this country that is truly anti-choice, it is the American liberal/Democrat. What if we took that abortion bumper sticker and fashioned it to defend conservative positions:

Don't like guns? Don't get one!

But liberals/Democrats generally hate guns, and because it is they who are truly anti-choice, they have done everything in their power, including ignore the Constitution, to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.

You know how liberals scoff at abstinence programs, claiming they're not effective? You know how hell-bent they are from keeping abstinence out of schools' sex ed curricula in favor of promoting "safe sex"? They're always telling us that young people are going to have sex anyway and that instead of making the unreasonable demand that they abstain, adults should instead teach them how to do it safely. Well, why then do liberals insist on "gun abstinence," i.e., gun bans and gun control laws? If they were consistent, they would favor "safe shooting"? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, people are going to shoot guns. Why not simply educate them as to how to properly and safely use them?

Oops, there I go looking for logic and consistency in liberalism!

How about these:

Don't like SUV's? Don't drive one!

Don't like incandescent light bulbs? Don't use them!

But most of the liberal/Democrat left are devout practitioners of the religion of environ-mental-ism. And while constantly decrying the creeping theocracy allegedly being foisted upon the American people by the "religious Christian right," the religious environ-mental-ist left gleefully foists upon us their religion. Thus, it's not enough for them merely to dislike certain types of cars, the incandescent light bulb, coal-powered electricity, toilets with enough water in them to actually flush correctly, (and if  you live in California, the plasma T.V.!). Having bought into the hoax of man-made global warming climate change, the anti-choice left has succeeded in or is currently attempting to ban those items which allegedly contribute to it. 

This one is for all the liberal/Democrat food fascists out there:

Don't like trans-fats / salt / sugar / soda / Happy Meals? Don't consume them!

Yet in cities like San Fran and NYC nanny state busybodies have not only made it a point to avoid these items, but they have made it illegal for you to decide whether or not to eat them. On food, these liberals/Democrats are anti-choice. They clearly never thought that what you eat is a "personal choice between you, your partner, and your doctor" like a certain other thing ...

And speaking of NYC, here's one more:

Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them!

O.K., I know what you're thinking. Smoking pollutes the air and makes it uncomfortable for people around them to breathe. Fair enough. That's what smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants used to be for. That's what outside is for. In other words, there are plenty of places where smokers can engage in their disgusting habit without disturbing others who want clean air.

But in many places around the country, all public establishments and even outside venues like parks are non-smoking. Even bars, where smoking is to be expected and tolerated? Yes, even bars. Even cigar clubs, whose raison d'être is to be a place where people come to ... um ... smoke! Yup. Some states even ban people from smoking in their own homes and cars if there are children close by. 

On smoking, liberals are vehemently anti-choice. Restaurant and bar owners don't even have the choice whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments, if that's what their clientele prefers. The anti-choice left has made that decision for them.

There are plenty more examples out there but I think you get the point: When it comes to being anti-choice, liberals beat conservatives hands down. Want to choose your food, your toilet, your light bulb, your car, whether or not to bear arms or a place to smoke? To the anti-choice left the answer is: "Oh no, you don't. Those things are (or should be) illegal! Prohibited! Banned! Fined! Taxed!"

But suggest that there shouldn't be abortions and these very same people will rise up with their stupid clothes hanger in hand and shout, "How dare you impose your views on others, you fundamentalist anti-choice zealot!"

Then they'll drive away in their tin can of a hybrid car with a bumper sticker on the back that reads, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

You think they'll ever stop being blinded by their own self-righteousness to notice this hypocrisy?

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Destroys Time's Stengel on Constitution Article (6/23/11)

Meant to post this one sooner but, you know, summer, kids, family, etc.

Anyway, I had hoped that The Great One would deconstruct the disastrously flawed main article from the upcoming issue of Time magazine. Sure enough, he spent last Thursday addressing it part by part.

The article in question was about whether the Constitution is relevant anymore and was written by Time's managing editor who, despite his having been the CEO of something called the National Constitution Center, is amazingly ignorant of one of the nation's seminal documents. I posted about it too on Friday, after it appeared on-line

These 24 minutes are crucial to absorb for those who are battling clueless Constitution-hating leftists who use it only to enslave, not liberate, Americans from the yoke of big government. There is a war out there, my friends. We need to be properly armed.*

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

* It's a metaphor, brain-dead liberals. Get over yourselves.

Liberal Media Bias: Time Mag. to Constitution: Drop Dead

To quote a certain president, “let me be perfectly clear”: Liberals hate the Constitution because it obstructs their ability to control and manipulate the populace. They only care about the Constitution when a liberal activist judge concocts completely new meanings out of it, such as “the separation of church and state” the “right to privacy (i.e., abortion) or the right for foreign illegal enemy combatants to get civil protections, habeas corpus rights, etc. Probably the only document liberals hate more than the Constitution is the Bible, but that’s another topic for another blog post.

The latest embarrassment comes from the editor (!) of Time magazine. With maddening disrespect, the July 4 issue of Time will feature the Constitution being put through a paper shredder and the question posited: Does the document still matter?

Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller reports:

You probably think that just because a bunch of dead white guys wrote down some boring words on a piece of parchment or whatever, way back in the olden times of powdered wigs and wooden teeth, that means we all have to follow those words. That’s why you’re too stupid to write for Time! TheDC’s Jeff Poor reports: “On Thursday on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks if the document still matters. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore. ‘Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think. People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center.’” Okay, so maybe Stengel doesn’t do much driving. Or thinking, for that matter. But you get his point: The rules only count when you don’t have to shred them to get what you want. Compounding the embarrassment for Stengel: He used to be the CEO of the National Constitution Center! Too bad he never got around to actually reading it.

This is blatant ignorance on display, even for an editor of a major magazine. The Constitution isn’t meant to police us. It isn’t even meant to be a guardrail for us. The genius of the Constitution is that it is essentially a traffic cop for the government, not for the people. Stengel ostensibly—like many liberals, including President Hope&Change—mixes this up. And they say Sarah Palin is stupid?

Treacher links to John Pitney, Jr. at NRO’s The Corner blog, who writes:

In a Time article on the Constitution, Richard Stengel writes: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”

Yes, it does. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, James Madison explained the original understanding of the document in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

But don’t mention that to Richard Stengel and the liberal know-it-all’s at Time. The Tenth Amendment is pretty far in. Maybe the former CEO of the freaking National Constitution Center just never made it that far in.

Or, more likely, Stengel—again, like many liberals—simply wants to ignore the blatantly obvious. The Constitution does limit the power of the federal government and Stengel doesn’t like that. Like a good liberal, he wants the government to control your freedom of speech via unconstitutional “hate speech” laws, your freedom of religious expression by invoking the non-existent “separation of church and state,” your right to assemble via false documents about national security threats by “right-wing extremists,” your private property via excessive taxation and eminent domain abuses, your quality of life such as the EPA controlling the water level in your toilet, the type of lightbulbs you use, the type of car you drive, the health care you desire, your right to bear arms via unconstitutional gun control laws, etc.

Doug Powers of  The Powers That Be blog adds:

The real answer to the question “does the Constitution still matter” is an unqualified “yes.” But don’t take my word for it. Here’s part of a conversation between Stengel and Howard Kurtz from December of 2010 concerning Time’s publication of Wikileaks documents:

KURTZ: But Rick, you say right here in your editor’s note in “TIME” magazine that these documents released by WikiLeaks “harm national security,” and that Assange meant to do so.

STENGEL: Right. I know. But there’s no way around that.

I mean, I believe that’s Assange’s intention. I believe on balance that they have been detrimental to the U.S. But our job is not to protect the U.S. in that sense. I mean, the First Amendment protects us in terms of releasing this information which does enlighten people about the way the U.S. conducts foreign policy.

If the Constitution did not limit the size and power of government the First Amendment would be moot. Would Stengel be satisfied if the federal government had claimed it had a right to edit parts of his Wikileaks story on the grounds that “the First Amendment matters, but not as much anymore”?

Of course the Constitution matters. Implying that it matters less in every area of life other than journalism is an ultimately self-defeating position, as the “free press” may someday discover thanks to “living Constitution” advocates.

It’s a bad idea to consider the Constitution to be a “guard rail” and then give the government the size and power to move it wherever they like (and probably subsequently brag about how many jobs it saved or created).

Exactly.

So when you don’t like the Constitution because it prevents the liberal know-it-alls to impose their godless agenda on society, what do you do? You question whether the whole damn thing is relevant anymore.

It’s bad enough when the run of the mill zhlub liberal does it. When it’s a prominent politician or the editor of a major national magazine, I weep for my country and fear for my children.

 

Theme of “Together We Thrive” T-shirt came from Obama’s Organizing for America

Disgusting. From Judi McLeod at Canada Free Press [via Ethel Fenig at the American Thinker blog]:

In the controversy of the pep rally/rock concert style Memorial for those who lost their lives in Saturday’s Arizona tragedy, the mainstream media reported that the “Together We Thrive: Tucson & America” T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKale Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration.

Yet the “Together We Thrive” slogan dates back to a post to Obama’s own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described “globalist” John Berry IV.

University of Arizona brass did not originate the “Together We Thrive” T-shirt.  They merely recycled it for Obama—and recycled it in time for what should have been a dignified Memorial for the dead.

If you were a mourner who took home a “Together We Thrive” T-shirt have a look at the bottom of your shirt.  “Rocking America and Rocking the Vote” is a common theme of the DNC,  and it’s right there on your Memorial T-shirt memento.

Welcome to the era of Obama, where cheering and standing ovations, for the first time in history, became part of the Requiem for the Dead. ...

It doesn't get any more shameful than this. And is it any wonder that the same media who are now bashing Sarah Palin for her supposedly inappropriate use of "blood libel" are covering up this despicable fact?

Conservatives in the Crosshairs

From Roger Kimball at National Review Online.

... The effort by [NY Times' Paul] Krugman and others to invest [Loughton's] actions with political import — more precisely, their efforts to blame others for this horrific episode and thereby garner political capital for their side — was itself an act of fantasy, alternately repellent and mendacious.

This has been amply pointed out by the second inundation from that cataract of commentary: the many pieces from the other side of the aisle pointing out the fact-free nature of left-wing paranoia sweepstakes. Several pieces specialized in the game of compare and contrast. Byron York, for example, was one of many who pointed out that if you’re a Muslim fanatic who mows down 13 people at Fort Hood while chanting “Allahu Akbar!” the watchword is caution: Let’s not jump to conclusions here. He was just a “lone extremist.” Islam is a religion of peace. Etc. But just let the lunatic be a white boy from the heartland and, bingo, field day. Sarah Palin. Culture of hate. The whole nine yards. As Jennifer Rubin noted, “You can almost hear the disappointment from the left that he was a pothead rather than a Tea Partyer.” (See this roundup at Instapundit.)

The irony — or maybe it’s just good old-fashioned hypocrisy — is that while Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, the Daily Kos, et al., stridently bewail “the culture of hate,” their own rhetoric is much more intemperate than that of their opponents. Moreover, as several commentators have pointed out, it takes only a comparative visit to some Tea Party rallies, on the one hand, and some anti-Bush or anti-Palin rallies, on the other, to register a wide discrepancy not only in rhetorical tone but rhetorical substance. At one you are likely to see signs decrying socialism, big government, Obamacare, high taxes, etc. At the other you are likely to see signs advising you that “Bush = Hitler,” proclaiming the imperative “F*** Bush,” etc. Really, it is instructive to compare the rhetorical temperature, and general drift, of the two sides. One complains about various policies.  The other complains about “a culture of hate” while at the same time wallowing in it. (One commentator to my PJM column supplied this sobering roundup.) ...

 

End the Occupation! - Global Warming Propaganda in ... My Town

This summer we enrolled our older one in a local half-day recreational camp. They use one of the public elementary schools in our town.

Walking down the hallway after dropping him off at the classroom, I noticed this poster hanging on the wall:

Note the URL at the bottom of the poster: Energystar.gov/kids. 

Dot-gov? 

Yup. This is a government-run—and therefore, taxpayer-funded—website that has evidently gotten together with the federal “Energy Star” program and whoever owns the rights to Dr. Seuss’ “Lorax.”

And lookie, the EPA is involved too! And you know if the EPA’s involved, there’s good clean non-political fun and learning going on!

When I got home, I visited the website and found a whole bunch of games and guidelines for kids to save the earth from global warming. (Whatever happened to “climate change”? Not scary enough?) There was a page that provided activities for the parents at home, as well as lesson plans for teachers. Check out the screenshot of this page:

You see what I circled? There are materials available not only in English but also Spanish. Why indoctrinate our young skulls full of much with political propaganda in one language when we can do it in two? Um … instead of spending all this money for this global warming crap, doesn’t the government think they should spending it on teaching Spanish-speaking kids to learn English??? 

No, it’s apparently more important that they remain second-class government-dependent drones who believe in man-made global warming climate change. Sick.

Or is this material available Spanish so that it can be used at home for those parents who have no interest in learning English, but are extremely devoted to learning about global warming climate change?

Presumably these posters hang in every public school in my New Jersey town, whose property taxes keep going up and up and up to fund our schools for the children. And to think, just months ago educators in my town and others across the Garden State were filling the streets in protest of our governor Chris Christie who dared to curb funding to public schools because of the state’s budget crisis.

I would think if we’re spending money on global warming posters and a gov-run website already paid for by us taxpayers, the schools have too much money already.

Can you imagine if there were posters hung in public schools asking kids to help the NRA and, say, Yosemite Sam defend the Second Amendment and your constitutional right to self-defense?

Doubt it. Because that would be political!

In fact, I recall a news story from just two weeks ago about an 8-year-old boy outside of Providence, R.I. He was banned from donning his camouflage cap because attached to the cap were little plastic soldiers with ... wait for it ... guns:

Boy’s Toy Soldiers Violate School’s No-Gun Policy

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (CBS) - Christan Morales says her son just wanted to honor American troops when he wore a hat to school decorated with an American flag and small plastic Army figures.

But the hat ran afoul of the district’s no-weapons policy because the toy soldiers were carrying tiny weapons.

“His teacher called and said it wasn’t appropriate because it had guns,” Morales said.

Morales’ 8-year-old son, David, was assigned to make a hat for the day when his second-grade class would met their pen pals from another school. She and her son came up with an idea to add patriotic decorations to a camouflage hat.

Earlier this week, the Tiogue School in Coventry sent the cap home with David at the end of the day after concluding it violated a zero-tolerance policy for weapons. ...

Nice. But how much do you want to bet that on the hallway walls of that school you can find posters encouraging them to fight global warming?

That's our public school these days: Zero-tolerance policy for weapons, even those in the hands of plastic toy soldiers! But global warming propaganda can be—nay, is government-sanctioned to be—plastered all around like a freaking swarm of locusts.

So what should I do? Become one of those annoying parents who go to school board meetings and complain?

Any other parents out there who have seen taxpayer-funded indoctrination in their public schools?

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

Liberal Hypocrisy: Guess Who Used "Target" Imagery on Their Maps? [UPDATE: 1/8/11]

UPDATE: Jan. 8, 2011 - To the geniuses who are hell-bent on blaming today's Tucson shooting on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, read this and weep.

*    *    *    *    *

In addition to slandering the Tea Party on a daily basis, the Democrat-media complex has had another target in their sights: Sarah Palin.

About a week ago, the leftocracy, was all atwitter due to Sarah Palin having this map on her Facebook page:

 

The icons placed on strategic Congressional districts throughout the U.S. were interpreted as cross hairs or gun sights. Devonia Smith at the Examiner says they’re neither; they’re surveryor’s symbols:

 

So what exactly sent libs into a tizzy? Well, take out your fully functioning brain for a minute, and replace it with a liberal brain. Now do the calculation:

Cross hairs = Guns = Violence
= Sarah Palin is threatening violence against Democrats!

Google “Sarah Palin” and “cross hairs” and you will see libs from politicians to the network shows to the mainstream editorial pages castigate Sarah Palin’s “despicable” ad. I even got into an argument with more than one liberal Facebook friend over the inoffensive (to most sentient human beings) ad. One of them even insisted Palin should be arrested. Amused, I responded: Arrested for what? Because of liberal politicians you support, we can’t even profile at the airport or engage in “warrantless wiretapping” or engage in any other preventative measure to capture radical Islamic terrorists. We need to wait until they’ve actually blown up an airplane or building before we do anything. But this liberal Palin-hater wants her immediately arrested for allegedly “inciting violence” by using crosshairs on strategic Congressional distrits on a U.S. map. (Again, the liberal brain.)

The targets, obviously (to most sentient human beings), were symbolic. Hell, I’ve put politicians’ faces inside gun sights on my own blog as symbolic political targets. (Alas, neither Paul Krugman, Howard Kurtz, Anthony Weiner, nor Chris Matthews have discovered my blog!)

When Palin’s ad came out, the leftocracy went on and on about how she “crossed the line!” By the way, isn’t it funny how the right is always “crossing the line”? But for some reason calling Bush a Nazi and a war criminal; denouncing our troops as stupid, uneducated, hick dupes and cold-blooded murderers; calling the Iraq War “lost” while our troops were in harm’s way; publishing a full-page NYT ad reading “General Betray-Us;” the NYT adorning its front pages with classified information that hampered our war effort; and giving an endless forum for anti-American opportunists like Cindy Sheehan were never considered “crossing the line”? ‘M just sayin’.

Anyway, the British-health-(s)care-loving Paul Krugman wrote:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual … you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials … to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

John at Verum Serum gladly accepted that challenge:

Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office. …

But wait, there’s more!

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?

 

Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican.”

You’ll never guess where I found this map. That’s right, it’s on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) website. They launched the site and the map on February 23rd of this year, making it just over a month old. And yet Van Hollen was quoted by Politico just today denouncing Republicans for “pouring more and more gasoline on the flames.” Right back at you, pal. ...

You have to be kidding me! The leader of the DCCC is condemning Sarah Palin for “crossing the line” with this supposed violent imagery when his own committee did the same thing only a month ago!? [CORRECTION : Last Feb, not this Feb]

The knee-jerk “OMG, Sarah Palin scares me!” mentality of the leftocracy is so old and tired. But with regard to this latest outrage there’s only one way to describe them:

Hypocrites.