Vocal Minority

Quotes of Note

When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren’t they worried about the impact of what they’re doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?

I think I know part of the answer. It is that they’ve never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don’t have the habit of worry. They talk about their “concerns”—they’re big on that word. But they’re not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa’s lap.

They don’t feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—”strongest nation in the world,” “indispensable nation,” “unipolar power,” “highest standard of living”—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.

We are governed at all levels by America’s luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they’re not optimists—they’re unimaginative. They don’t have faith, they’ve just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don’t mind it when people become disheartened. They don’t even notice.

— Peggy Noonan from her opinion piece “We’re Governed by Callous Children” in yesterday’s WSJ.

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

This one also originates from the WSJ. It’s from an editorial El Rushbo wrote in October, 2005. Over the weekend, while stumping for Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23, Veep Biden declared, “I know what all these folks [= Republicans] are against. … But I don't know what they’re for.” In response, Rush pulled his piece out of the archives and read the above paragraph, which he assures is all Biden needs to know:

What makes this paragraph so brilliant is that it aptly defines not only what conservatives/Republicans are for, but also what liberals/Democrats are against.

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo Says the Era of Reagan Will—And Must—Never Be Over

After playing a couple clips from Ronald Reagan’s aforementioned 1964 speech, Rush explains that Reagan’s message is timeless and necessary because it is the message of our founding. In the second half of the clip Rush explains how prophetic Reagan was. While doing so he reads Thomas Sowell's latest article, "Dismantling America," which reads in part:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers — that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government — people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year — each bill more than a thousand pages long — too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question — and the biggest question for this generation.

Like I said yesterday, how prescient Reagan was, even during his presidency in the 80’s.

Rush2009-10-28

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (10/1/09)

First, at National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson gives it to us straight on the current lethal state of international affairs:

October 1, 2009
Three Dangerous Stooges

Last week, three dictators — from Iran, Libya, and Venezuela — delivered lunatic hate-speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Why do these anti-Semitic dictators feel so free to damn America from downtown New York? Why do their abettors spurn our requests for help? And why do creepy regimes plot to get nukes, and fund terrorists? Easy. They do not fear, much less listen to, an indebted and energy-hungry America that either needs their cash or oil — or both.

Next, at American Thinker, Randall Hoven has all you need to know about ObamaCare, but were terrified to ask:

October 01, 2009
Nothing for Everyone

Just about all of us want some kind of health care reform. But different people want different things from that reform. One trouble with crafting legislation that would make some people happy is that it would make other people unhappy. But the proposals put forth so far by Democrats, and supported by President Obama, have the unique gift of satisfying virtually no one. ObamaCare, inasmuch as there is such a thing, is bound to disappoint you, no matter what you'd like to see in health care reform.

Next, David Horowitz at Front Page Mag castigates the mainstream media for being so busy fear-mongering about predicted right-wing violence that they’ve failed to report about all the actual left-wing violence that has been taking place:

Serious Fascists in America

There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process.

Also recommended: Peter Wehner’s Commentary post, which is cited in the above article.

Finally, the Weekly Standard has published the eulogy William Kristol delivered for his father last week:

Irving Kristol, 1920-2009
10/05/2009, Volume 015, Issue 03

In 1994, my father wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled "Life Without Father." It dealt with the subject of the family and poverty and welfare--with my father drawing for his argument, as he so often did, on a combination of social science, common sense, history, and personal experience. In the course of the article, my father briefly discussed his father, Joseph Kristol--who, he wrote, "was thought by all our relatives and his fellow workers to be wise, and fair, and good. I thought so too."

So have Liz and I always thought about our father. To us, he was wise, and fair, and good. I honestly don't think it ever occurred to us that we could have had a better father. So as we enter the rest of our life--a life without our father--we are overwhelmed not by a sense of loss or grief, though of course we feel both, but by a sense of gratitude: Having Irving Kristol as our dad was our great good fortune.

Have a blessed day!

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/21/09)

Matthew Vadum at American Spectator continues his yeoman’s work in covering the ACORN scandal:

ACORN’S Useful Idiots
9.21.09

… ACORN does not have “a history of honorable service to the dispossessed and impoverished.”

This is a common misconception on the left where the group is viewed as having roughly the same moral rectitude as the late Mother Teresa. It is thought of as unassailable because it is believed to be doing good. The fact that it is so regularly attacked by conservatives and Republicans causes the left to cheer even louder for ACORN.

But the evidence shows that ACORN does not mean well, and that any good the group may happen to do for people is purely incidental.

Next, former Asst. Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey has this American Thinker piece on the current administration’s un-American engagement in dissent suppression:

September 21, 2009
Suppressing Dissent is Un-American

The major outlets for both information and dissent today are talk radio and the internet. Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission’s new “Diversity Czar” is a disciple of “Rules for Radicals” Saul Alinski and an admirer of Hugo Chavez. Lloyd describes freedom of speech and the press as a “distraction”. He proposes whipping private radio companies into line by threats to their license renewal or by taxing them so heavily that they would be driven out of existence.

If that doesn’t worry you, consider Senate Bill 773 which would permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector non-governmental computer networks during a so-called cyber security emergency, however that may be defined.

Dissent is not un-American, but trying to intimidate and, squelch free speech is. As the editor of the Morning Journal wrote in an August 9 column, “You had better keep a close eye on this White House. Because the Obama White House apparently has its eyes and ears out on the streets watching, listening and ready to ‘flag’ anyone who doesn’t sing their tune.”

Next, Evan Coyne Maloney at Big Government analyzes the rules defining Obama’s “post-racial” America:

ACORN, Kanye West and the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism

To understand the mindset of the politically correct, there are a few rules of racial relations that you need to know. These rules establish the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism:

1. If a person is a member of a group guilty of past racial oppression, that person has no moral standing in relation to anyone in any group that’s ever been a victim of that oppression.
2. A member of an oppressor group is always assumed to be guilty in relation to a member of a victim group.
3. An oppressor can only avoid presumed guilt by making a display of his or her sympathy for the oppressed.
4. Members of victim groups can lose their moral standing by expressing a preference for individual rights as opposed to group rights.
5. Advocating on behalf of a victim makes one almost as unassailable as being that victim.
6. Coming to the defense of an oppressor is even more repugnant than being that oppressor.

This thinking is so common these days that many prominent liberals–from New York Times columniststo former presidents–believe that criticism of President Obama can only be motivated by racial bigotry.

Finally, in a half-joking, half-serious piece, Brian Darling at Human Events thanks President Obama:

Thank You, President Obama
09/21/2009

I love President Barack Obama. No kidding. I love the guy. Barack Obama is the best community organizer of conservatives since Ronald Reagan.

Not even conservative icon Sarah Palin, had she been elected Vice President, could have put together hundreds of town hall meetings with conservatives turning out and decrying the socialist aspects of the liberal health care bills.

Have a blessed day.

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/16/09)

It’s one week after S.C. Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” during President Hope&Change’s health (s)care pitch. David Limbaugh at NewsMax doesn’t buy the Dems’ outrage for a second and calls them on their own well-documented hypocrisy:

Memo to Dems: Spare Us the Phony ‘Lie’ Outrage
Tuesday, September 15, 2009

While Democratic leaders are wagging their fingers at the Republican Party’s alleged descent into incivility over Wilson’s unplanned, indignant outburst, they have a very short memory about their own party-wide monopoly on incivility, as they savaged Bush throughout his presidency. I researched and wrote a 400-plus-page book documenting the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of these hypocritical scolds in 2006, in case you need a refresher course.

Unlike Wilson, these offending Democrats have never apologized for their outrages. Did Rep. John Murtha apologize for prejudging and slandering our battlefield Marines who were later vindicated? Did Sen. Harry Reid ever apologize for calling Bush a liar? Al Gore? John Kerry? Has suspected tax evader Rep. Charles Rangel apologized for his conduct while devising new ways to confiscate even higher taxes from honest, hardworking Americans who actually pay their taxes?

Did Sen. Dick Durbin retract the substance of his remarks in comparing Gitmo to the gulag? Did House leader Nancy Pelosi repent for defaming the CIA?

There’s plenty more where that came from.

Speaking of government-run health (s)care, Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation and Unfit for Command) has a scoop at WND about Congress’ plan to push an immigration bill that will unequivocally make illegals eligible for government-run health care:

‘Obama to make illegals eligible for health care’ 
Upcoming immigration bill seen as ‘backdoor’ to bring millions into plan

September 15, 2009

The Obama administration intends to “backdoor” illegal immigrants into its proposed health-care plan by passing an immigration reform bill that would give legal status to as many as 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., charged Radio America talk-radio host Rodger Hedgecock today in Washington, D.C.

Calling comprehensive immigration reform the Obama administration’s “second act,” Hedgecock said illegal immigrants initially would be excluded from the healthcare plan but would have access to it once comprehensive immigration reform is passed by Congress.

On a still related note, Armstrong Williams at the Washington Times discusses the current race-baiting, which he regards as a sign of pure desparation on the part of the Dems:

The ‘race-chasers’ strike again
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

It’s the oldest play in the book: Ignore the message; attack the messenger. Drop an “-ism” and watch his or her opponents scatter. What next? Is every criticism of the president now subject to a racial filter? Are we to ask every opponent of the president, “Is there hatred in your heart when you say that?”

If so, then maybe the health care debate is increasingly about race—just in a way that no one is talking about. If the rousing fact of an American black president gives Democrats license to deliberately confuse every contested issue by merely labeling and dismissing their critics as racists, then the national debate will be short-circuited—because of racism. Who could have thought that racial issues would become worse—not better—with Barack Hussein Obama as our president?

Finally, at Townhall Michael Medved outlines the many ways left and right differ and concludes that’s it all boils down to attitude toward America:

The Real Political Divide: Attitudes Toward America
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

[L]iberals and conservatives differ dramatically and profoundly. This is not to say that all liberals hate America, or that all conservatives glorify their country unreservedly. But in questions of emphasis the contrast couldnt be more clear: the left stresses Americas failures, shortcomings, hypocrisies, and embarrassments while the right trumpets the nations achievements, blessings, and distinctive advantages. Nothing enrages liberals more than the conservative tendency for jingoistic flag-waving and super-patriotism; nothing bothers conservatives more than the liberal habit of blaming America first and concentrating on historic guilt and present problems.

Have a blessed day!

More Footage of Racists at 9/12 D.C. Tea Party

Oh whoops. Never mind. It's black San Diego radio host Mason Weaver [h/t Bob's Bites]:

Yet all the lib Obamatons have is "Racist! Racist! Racist!" These are the people who keep saying they want honest debate. Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

"Conservative Woodstock" Is Exactly Right

Amazing shots from Looking at the Left [h/t Atlas Shrugs]

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (9/8/09)

First, this piece by Brian T. Schwartz at Pajamas Media is sure to rustle some liberal feathers:

Health Care Is Not a Privilege … Nor Is It a Right
September 8, 2009

… Health care is not a right. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce. A “right” to health care violates the rights of those who produce it.

“Health care” consists of diagnoses and treatments by highly-trained medical professionals. It involves sophisticated products, instruments, and tests designed and developed at great investment, effort, and cost by scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. That is, people produce health care.

Nor is medical care a privilege. A privilege is something authority figures permit us to do at their discretion. No one considers auto repair to be a right, but it’s absurd to consider it “a privilege.” No one grants you the “privilege” of having money to repair your car. Rather, if you want to own a functioning car, you must take responsibility to finance its repair by earning wealth. The same goes for medical treatment. As Mark Twain said, “the world owes you nothing” — adults must take responsibility to finance medical treatment they want. People who choose to become parents are also responsible for paying for their children’s medical treatment.

There’s no right to health care, just as there’s no right to happiness. But the pursuit of happiness is a right. Similarly, everyone has the right to pursue medical treatment through voluntary exchange with those who produce it. We also have the right to protect ourselves against medical expenses as we see fit. Low-premium catastrophic insurance is just one option. Others include more costly comprehensive health plans, paying a retainer at a cash-only clinic, or obtaining membership in a health care co-op or health care sharing ministry. Yet when politicians seek to guarantee health care as a right, they decide what qualifies as appropriate medical treatment. Whether you get the treatment you want depends on the discretion of authorities. That is, health care becomes a privilege. […]

Second, on the theme of the president addressing the nation’s schoolchildren, Byron York at the Washington Examiner reminds us [h/t Malkin]:

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
09/08/09

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech—they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president’s school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president’s political benefit. “The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props,” the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. “And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’”

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. […]

Next, the brilliant Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics expresses his thoughts on Obama umpteenth speech on government-run health (s)care, which takes place tomorrow:

What Obama Says vs. What He Does
September 8, 2009

… No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation’s medical care before the August recess—for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years—more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? […]

Gregory Gethard at Front Page discusses the resignation of Van Jones, the “Red” Czar:

The Fall of the Red Czar
Tuesday, September 08, 2009

No thanks to the establishment media and Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration’s “green jobs czar” Van Jones is out of a job.

Jones resigned this weekend in the wake of revelations, initially ignored by the press, that he has a long record as a political radical, a background that includes his association with the so-called “Truther” conspiracy theorists who claim that the September 11 attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government.

Now that Jones has stepped down, the media has rallied to his defense, depicting Jones as the victim of a “vicious smear campaign” by foes of his environmental politics – a charge echoed by the administration’s Democratic allies. The less palatable truth is that Jones is a racial provocateur and opportunist who tried to capitalize on the administration’s sympathy for the “green” agenda to bring his own brand of socialist and black radical politics to national prominence.

Although apparently missed by the Obama administration’s screeners, Jones’ intention to use environmentalism as a way to push his socialist agenda can clearly be seen in his remarks at the “PowerShift ‘09” youth conference in Washington. Described as an attempt to bring together young people united in support of climate change and other green policies, PowerShift ’09 quickly became a forum for Jones to push his radical views on a captive audience. […]

And finally, Jay Nordlinger at NRO is on liberal hypocrisy watch with more on imagined right-wing hate vs. actual left-wing hate:

When protest is uncool, &c.
September 8, 2009

They say that “hate” is rearing its head, and that President Obama and the Democrats are the victims of it. Let me make a couple of predictions: I predict that the chairman of the Republican National Committee will never say, “I hate the Democrats and everything they stand for. This [politics, basically] is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.” Howard Dean said that about the GOP: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. . . .” I predict that an editor of a conservative magazine will never write a piece called “The Case for Obama Hatred,” beginning, “I hate President Barack Obama.” A New Republic editor did this, about Bush. And there is increasing worry about assassination: that someone will take a shot, not just at the president, but at the first black president, which would be extra-catastrophic for the country. A few protesters have carried signs urging violence against Obama, or smacking of violence. Let me make some more predictions: I predict that a network talk-show host will not show a video of President Obama giving a speech and put the following words on the screen: “SNIPERS WANTED.” Craig Kilborn of CBS did that to George W. Bush. […]

For many more examples, see my post from last week here.

But Don't Question Their Patriotism: Obama's Hate-America Marxist Appointments

I could have sworn that when President Hope&Change put his hand on the Bible on Inauguration Day, he promised to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Then why is it that all these unelected, unaccountable “czars” he picks are openly America-hating Marxists who look upon that very Constitution with contempt?

First, as mentioned yesterday, President Hope&Change’s unelected, unaccountable, untouchable FCC “diversity” czar Mark Lloyd is an avowed America-hating Marxist who has openly expressed his aversion to the First Amendment of the Constitution Obama is supposed to protect and preserve:

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press … This freedom is all too often an exaggeration … At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

Mr. Lloyd has also praised Marxist thug dictator Hugo Chavez (who not coincidentally routinely suppresses free speech in his own country, particularly in the media).

And now this morning at American Spectator, Matthew Vadum has a lengthy but important article following up on the desecration of 9/11 by two hate-America Marxists appointed by President Hope&Change:

Obama’s Desecrators of 9/11
8.31.09

President Obama is counting on two Marxists who blame America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks to help turn Sept. 11 from a day of solemn remembrance into an unseemly celebration of radical environmentalism and Big Government.

The two men charged with this politically correct exercise in desecration and icon-smashing are the boorish, self-absorbed Rev. Lennox Yearwood and the comparatively suave, articulate Van Jones. Jones is adept at concealing his radicalism; Yearwood is incapable of doing so. […]

MSNBC’s foremost left-wing bloviator, Keith Olbermann, summed up this ugly perspective the week after the Republican Party convention last year by accusing the GOP of turning 9/11 into “a brand name” and “a Republican campaign slogan.”

Olbermann is hardly the only progressive to take this view.

Similar accusations have been hurled at the GOP by MoveOn.org and by one of its major donors, liberal über-philanthropist George Soros who accused the Bush administration of exploiting the “politics of fear.” Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore said President George W. Bush “use[d] the deaths of Sept. 11…as a cover for his right-wing agenda.” Vice President Joe Biden, former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Al Gore, former Sens. John Edwards (D-NC) and Tom Daschle (D-SD), former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, and a parade of left-leaning public figures all leveled the same charge.

But Yearwood and Jones go much further than the conventional liberal Bush-bashing. They have both made it clear that they believe the attacks of 9/11 were America’s fault.

Can we question President Hope&Change’s patriotism now?

Oh, I’m sorry. Only Tea Partiers are unpatriotic. Only ObamaCare opponents are unpatriotic.

This is more than a coincidence. It’s a pattern. And a disturbing one at that. My question for all you Obamaniacs is, Do you not see it or do you just not care?

Another "Angry Right-Wing Obama-Hater" Story Gone Dreadfully Wrong

What a bad couple weeks it’s been for President Hope&Change, the Democrat leadership, and the mainstream media which have blindly followed them off their self-created cliff.

Let’s take a tally here:

• The anti-ObamaCare protesters have been accused by the Democrat leadership and compliant media to be “Astroturf,” i.e., organized corporate shills rather than grassroots citizens. Yet it turns out that just the opposite has been true: ObamaCare supporters have been exposed as having been organized, transported by bus, and snuck in through back doors into crowded Town Halls by ACORN, unions, and other groups politically and financially benefitting from Obama’s policies.

• The anti-ObamaCare protesters have been accused by the Democrat leadership as violent, unhinged, fear-mongering racists. The ever-dutiful Obamedia projected this smear, including stories of how Obama’s physical safety is more threatened than ever and declaring, “The militias are coming! The militias are coming!” Yet, the only instances of physical violence so far has been by ObamaCare supporters against opponents. Victims have included a protestor in Tampa, a black conservative in a wheelchair in St. Louis beaten up by SIEU members, a man at the same St. Louis meeting being slapped by a woman.

• The little girl at the New Hampshire Town Hall who was allegedly chosen at random to ask Obama a question about all the “mean signs” outside turns out to be a plant (Kudos to the Boston Globe). She is the daughter of a Democrat Party volunteer and donor who even attended one of the Obamas’ inaugural balls.

• A poster of Obama with the Hitler moustache that showed up at the John Dingell Town Hall was fodder for the Democrat political elite and the mainstream media as they decried the dangerous direction “extremist” right-wingers were taking the health care debate. Voilà, turns out the poster was being carried by a Democrat union plant who was caught on video handing out pro-Dingell literature that the same event.

• The Community-Organizer-in-Chief—demonstrating he doesn’t like it when the community organizes against him—sets up a snitch line at the White House’s website, which he is forced to take down once his staff is caught on TV with their feet in their mouths when asked simple questions like “The emails are being deleted, right?” and “Why were so many people receiving unsoliticited email from the White House about making donations and joining the pro-ObamaCare bandwagon?”

• And now, we find out yesterday evening that the creator of the infamous Obama Joker poster that first showed up in Los Angeles is not a racist conservative, but a 20-year-old Chicagoan of Palestinian descent and a Democrat (whose presidential candidate of choice was Dennis Kucinich) [h/t NewsBusters].

I just need to ask a question:

How much more freaking  P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C  can you Democrats in Washington and mainstream media be!?

If I Wrote for Letterman, Leno, etc. ...

During a speech Monday in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building this afternoon, one of President Obama's glass TelePrompters came crashing down onto the wood floor, shattering into several pieces.

A startled Obama said, “Oh, goodness. Sorry about that, guys,” making it the first time he apologized for anything other than America.

Ba-dum-bum!

To Hell and Back, a.k.a. Watching Rachel Maddow, Day 1

Yesterday was day 1 of a week-long bet I made with my lefty-lib friend Leah: I watch a week of Rachel Maddow, and she listens to a week of El Rushbo. Then you, dear readers, get to follow the commentaries and critiques.

Here’s my commentary for Maddow’s Monday show:

Segment 1: Secret CIA Program Kept Secret from Congress

Maddow was drooling over revelations that Dick Cheney might have been responsible for a secret CIA program that he kept secret from Congress.

On this entire issue, all I have to say is this: The left likes to bring up the interrogation and “torture” stories, yet they always leave out the most important aspect, i.e., who was being “tortured,” i.e., Terrorists! The worst of the worst. We never liberals/Democrats discuss what scum these detainees are and how they live every breathing moment in a Islam-inspired mission to kill us. All we hear about is how immorally torturous and dangerous (and now secretive) Bush and Cheney were. That’s why the Republicans still get higher approval ratings than Democrats on national security. Republicans are more concerned with kicking terrorist butt, capturing and killing the enemy as much as possible. Democrats are more concerned about getting our enemy habeas corpus rights and access to our civilian courts—unprecedented in American history—and Geneva Convention protections, even though as unlawful enemy combatants they are uneligible for them.

They got 5-star hotel treatment at Guantanamo – Islamically correct meals, prayer rugs, Korans, reports that detainees were treated better there than in their own homelands not in jail.

By focusing on the Bush administration and trying to punish them for alleged practices, Dems are essentially protecting and defending our sworn enemies. And God forbid I should ever suggest that libs/Dems ever side with our enemies. Right, Michael Moore, Lynne Stewart, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ward Churchill, etc.?

The Wall Street Journal article Maddow cites when mentioning the secret CIA program was an assassination program is here.

Let me state this as clearly as I can: I am glad that the CIA was considering this al Qaeda assassination program and that Cheney and co. had the wherewithall to hide it from Congress. Even as we speak, the Democrat Congress and Senate are demonstrating they are more interested in scoring political points by bashing the Bush administration rather than keeping our country safe. It was clearly a national security decision and thank God Cheney made the choices he made.

Segment 2: Sotomayor Hearings

Intrigued by Rep. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) description of the hearings as “fighting for the vision of what a US. Supreme Court judge should think like and look like.” Sounds like, like most of the Democrats, he’s just looking to fill a gender/ethnicity quota.

Maddow asks him to clarify if he is saying that Republicans are trying to use her gender and race (ethnicity really) against her. His roundabout answer is yes. He adds Repulicans have tried to set as what’s normal and as a benchmark the white male. Almost exclusively white male 6 out of 8 (75%? That’s hardly “exclusively”). This is race-baiting pure and simple. Having followed conservative criticism of Sotomayor for months, not once has her gender or race been a factor. For liberals/Democrats like Maddow and Whitehouse to suggest it is offensive and insulting (not to mention old and tired.)

Whitehouse then has the gall to say Sotomayor would bring a different perspective and reps for some reason have a problem with that perspective of six white men should not be a problem. This is a gross distortion of Sotomayor’s actual 2001 statement that a “wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion” than a white male. She didn’t say different, she said better. She didn’t say perspective, she said conclusion. This twisting of words to suit Whitehouse’s charge that the GOP is racist and they want no one but white males on the SC is loathsome.

Reality check: It was Republican Ronald Reagan who nominated the first woman, Sandra Day O’Connor to the SCOTUS.

Reality check – It was Republican George H.W. Bush who nominated black Clarence Thomas to the SCOTUS, and Democrats ridicule and bash him to this day.

Reality check – It was Republican George W. Bush who nominated Hispanic Miguel Estrada to the D.C. circuit court. Democrats, knowing that circuit court is a stepping stone to the SCOTUS, deliberately blocked Estrada’s appointment specifically because he was Hispanic and they didn’t want to give Bush the success of a Hispanic appointment. Actual emails between Democrats plotting this are found in the appendix of Mark Levin’s 2006 book “Men in Black.”

So Whitehouse is playing the race card against Republicans and has to resort to lies and ignoring facts and history to do it.

Rep. Whitehouse thinks like a racist – it’s all about about skin color. He says nothing about rule of law or upholding the Constitution. After commercial, there’s a clip of Dick Durbin (D-IL) kvetching how most SCOTUS justices have been white males. Again, it’s all about color of skin, nothing about content of character. All about fulfilling quotas, nothing about honoring rule of law, judicial restraint, or following the Constitution.

P.S. Why did she say “conservative Washington Times newspaper” but simply “New York Times,” “Newsweek,” and “Slate,” three famously liberal publications.

P.P.S. Liz Cheney kicks ass!

Re: The Jeff Sessions smear. Maddow says that Sessions

(1) called the NAACP un-American and communist-inspired. This is not inaccurate: both organizations have socialist-communist roots and associations.

(2) said KKK OK until he found out they supported pot-smoking. If Sessions actually said this, it was a stupid schmuck comment and I obviously don’t condone it.

(3) said a DOJ lawyer was a disgrace to his race because he represented African-Americans. Again, if Sessions said this, it was a stupid schmuck comment.

All I found on-line was left-wing sites/blogs claiming Sessions made these statements, but no sources confirming them. If Sessions said what Maddow accuses him of saying, then he’s a schmuck. If he didn’t say these things, then Maddow is just being a mud slinger.

Enter Dahlia Lithwick, liberal contributor to Newsweek and editor of the liberal Slate. She says the GOPers opposing Sotomayor aren’t considering her 18-year record and how she interprets the law, but instead focusing on a couple of statements.

Again, this point of view is 180 degrees off of reality: Republicans (more accurately, conservatives) have been discussing her record for months, from her approach toward Constitutional interpretation, 60% overturn record to the recently overturned Ricci case. Neither Maddow nor Lithwick bring this up. I believe the reason the left, including Maddow, are ignoring her record because it’s dismal. They have nothing but to accuse Republicans of stoking race, which they are not doing.

Segment 3: Nuclear Plant Meltdown?

What a surprise, Maddow doesn’t like nuclear energy.

I never even heard of this Ventura meltdown. As far as I’m concerned, if Jane Fonda didn’t make a movie about it, it didn’t happen!

Segment 4: Sarah Palin

Citing a recent NY Times article (again, not labeling it as liberal), she says part of Sarah Palin’s supposed downfall in Alaska was her “picking fights with her critics and responding when critics picked fights with her.” What the hell should have Palin done??? Lie down like a doormat while liberal/Democrat women and men smear her and her family? Or maybe she should have launched a website called FightTheSmears.org like our thin-skinned president. Please.

Troopergate – was a complete non-scandal blown out of proportion by liberals like Maddow. If Maddow was so disturbed by Palin’s overstepping her authority by firing the trooper, she should be especially disturbed by Barack Obama’s sudden firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

General Observations / In conclusion

I will give Rachel Maddow this: She isn’t totally unbearable to watch, because her manner and delivery are very calm. She doesn’t become unhinged and pop blood vessels like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann. I actually might watch more of her after this week-long bet.

The show is completely one-sided. Every one of Maddow’s hosts were liberal Democrats. In contrast, Fox News commentator shows always invite guests with opposing viewpoints. In fact, the video clip of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) commenting on Cheney’s allegedly secret CIA program comes from an appearance on Fox News. Not a convenient truth for those on the left who consider themselves fair and balanced while accusing Fox of slanted right-wing commentary.

Until tomorrow!

Quote of the Day (7/10/09) [UPDATED]

"The United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. Let me be clear, those days are over."

- President Barack Hussein Obama

Aren't you proud we have a president who loves and cherishes his country so much? 

Worst. President. Ever.

UPDATE:

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Exposes How Your Tax Money Funding Radical Left Orgs for Decades (6/19/09)

Ya know how investigator general Gerald Walpin was just fired by Barack Obama curiously after he discovered the misuse of funds by prominent Obama-supporter, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson? Well, how's this for misuse of funds?

Mark's opening monologue in the first hour of Friday's show was bone chilling. He retells how, as a young law school graduate in the early 80's, he was part of an organization that discovered how tax dollars were being laundered through front groups to reach counter-revolutionary left-wing organizations, one of them being ACORN and other groups run by radical 60's leftists such as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. During the investigation Levin himself discovered thousands of copies of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," which were being distributed to community organizers all over the country--on on the tax-payer's dime. Levin helped see to the defunding of these organizations.

Now, with the help of Alinsky's chief apprentice Barack Obama in the White House, these organizations are back with a vengeance. Why else, Levin asks, would Obama have sought to allocate billions upon billions of stimulus money to ACORN and other such groups? It seems Barack Obama is a Trojan Horse that the Alinskyites have been waiting for for decades. It sounds to me like the biggest infiltration of America's enemies into the highest levels of government since the days of Alger Hiss.

Listen and learn from The Great One [I edited out commercial breaks, long silences, and any other moments of extraneous talking]:

(Google Chrome users click here)

Thoughts for Memorial Day

A friend emailed this oldie but goodie for Memorial Day [UPDATED: typos fixed and author cited]

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

preacher, 

who has 

given us freedom of religion.

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

reporter, 

who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

poet, 

who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

campus organizer, 

who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

lawyer, 

who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the 

SOLDIER, not the 

politician, 

Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the

SOLDIER 

who salutes the flag,

who serves beneath the flag,

and whose coffin is draped by the flag,

who allows the protester to burn the flag.

It is the 

SOLDIER 

who serves under the Flag,

and whose coffin is draped by the flag,

who allows the protester to burn the flag.

- Charles M. Province

ETERNAL REST GRANT THEM O LORD, AND LET PERPETUAL LIGHT SHINE UPON THEM.