"This was a mass of confusion, hypocrisies, lies, and distortions, and a failed attempt by a failed president to attach himself to America's greatness when he wouldn't recognize it if it slapped him upside the head!"
That pretty much sums up Rush's analysis of President Hope&Change's SOTU STFU speech on Tuesday:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
Mark Levin's much-anticipated book "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America" came out yesterday.
Quite frustratingly, it was not easy to find at our local "big name" book store. You had to walk a good 2/3 the way in to find it hiding among others at the "new non-fiction" table. But that's all right; it's already #1 on Amazon as of this writing and is sure to be at the top of the NY Times bestseller list.
After laying out the historical and philosophical foundations of "utopianism," Mark argues how, using utopianism as their model, our current government has brought us to a post-constitutional America. This dovetails nicely with the observation by William McGunn in yesterday's WSJ that more and more regular Americans are becoming interested in the Constitution. He writes:
Yes, in the Bush years the air was also thick with accusations that the Constitution was being "shredded." We now know that the professed concern for the Constitution was fake. We know it was fake because the same Bush claims of executive authority in war that provoked such apoplexy in our pundits, professors and politicos have for the most part been embraced by Mr. Obama—all to the distinct sound of silence.
Today we have a wholly different order of constitutional complaint. Where the accusations against Mr. Bush were led by prestigious law faculties and law firms, those against Mr. Obama reflect a more popular hue. Where the indictments of Mr. Bush were largely limited to war policy, those against Mr. Obama's extend broadly to all areas of policy: foreign, economic and social. And where critics of Mr. Bush were obsessed with outcome, the discontent with Mr. Obama has been magnified by the uneasy sense that he is changing the fundamental rules of the game.
This awakening started with the tumultuous legislative path to Mr. Obama's health-care victory. Along the way, Americans watching were given an education in words like "cloture" and "filibuster," and saw the leaders of the Democratic House and Senate consider a maneuver whereby the House would "deem" the Senate version of the health-care bill to have passed without having to vote on it. That left a bad taste.
It proved only the beginning. Since then, Mr. Obama's aggressive disregard for any constitutional limit on what he wants to do has come to define his approach across the board. ...
Here's Terry Jeffrey at CNSnews.com interviewing Mark about the book, which, based on what I've read so far, I completely recommend!
And here's an article on it by Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator.
UPDATE: I've read the first couple of chapters already and admit skimming some of it, not because of Mark's writing, but because the subject matter is, IMO, a little dry. Don't get me wrong -- I don't underestimate the importance of understanding Plato's Republic and Mark does do a good job of providing a "conservative cliff's notes" of it. It's just not the most interesting stuff in the world; I'm expecting the second section of the book, the section that focuses on the U.S. and current politics, will be markedly more exciting.
Oh yeah: Here's yet another interview Mark gave to Jason Mattera at Human Events: Part I Part II
The Great One announced the title of his new book on yesterday's show: "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America."
Hope it's as brilliant has his previous ones.
It's to be released on January 12 (which is El Rushbo's birthay, I believe. Coincidence???)
Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.
This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:
I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.
But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?
I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.
OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …
Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:
I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.
No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.
This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.
But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …
The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.
The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.
The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.
Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.
Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.
In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …
So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:
1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.
By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).
Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”
2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.
On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.
3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.
On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.
4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.
5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.
By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.
6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.
The actually violent, physically threatening OWS? Politico reports:
“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”
Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.
Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.
What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”
No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)
7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.
I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.
Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force!
8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.
9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at least four which have occurred at OWS rallies.
10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].
So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.
Yom Kippur y’all. I is outa here!
Well, not in so many words. But he might as well have, cuz that's what he meant. Upset by the stunning loss of his Dem boy in NY-9 to Republican Bob Turner, here's what that sleazeball Waxman (D-Lala Land) had to say about his fellow Jews [h/t Red State]:
There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”
Get it? So not only did NY-9's Jews vote for the Republican because they're stupid (i.e., they don't understand Obama's Israel policy) but because they're selfish and greedy, ostensibly for wanting to “protect their wealth.”
Actually, Waxman is partially right: The constituents of NY-9 may want to protect their wealth -- but in the same way that a mugging victim wants to protect his. But as a Marxist-socialist limousine liberal Waxman phrases it as if it’s a bad thing, i.e., they’re being selfish and don’t want to “pay their fair share,” blah blah blah.
It’s the same old canard: People vote Republican because they’re stupid or selfish. My liberal Democrat cousin recently called me both. So it’s really no surprise, except this time it’s a Jew talking about other (presumably Democrat-voting) Jews. He’s lashing out because his fellow landsmen are wising up abandoning is hateful party and its failed platform.
Don’t you find it funny, though, that Democrats have all these pet “victim” groups … until, that is, they abandon the Democrat plantation. The Democrats have been perfectly content acting as protectors of American Jews from all the bogeymen of the Republicans. Then, as soon as Jews vote against them, they’re smeared and accused of being stereotypical selfish money grabbers.
That’s the same way they treat blacks: They’re little helpless pets who and the Democrats believe they’re the only ones protecting the welfare of blacks from those raaaaacist Republicans who want them “hanging from a tree.” Until, that is, a black person wises up and leaves the Democrat plantation. Then they’re smeared as stupid Uncle Toms and house slaves.
I’ve also seen them do that to seniors: One minute they’re poor helpless victims of eeeevil Republicans who want to steal their Medicare and Social Security and who want to push them over the cliff, wheelchairs and all. Then, as soon as you see Tea Parties filled with seasoned Americans who don’t want to see their children’s and grandchildren’s lives ruined, the Democrats smear them as selfish, crotchety, angry old people.
This is all done for political gain (= votes) of course. It is quite clear that Democrats don’t give a crap about Jews, blacks, or senior citizens. All they care about is their vote.
Henry Waxman included.
Related reading: Jew vs. Jew by “Robin of Berkeley” @ AT
UPDATE 9/17: Barry Rubin at Pajamas Media weighs in:
Let’s consider this statement. The first part is correct: More Jews are voting against Democrats and will vote against Obama, but the majority will continue to support them. The problem comes in the second part, and an accurate reading teaches us several things.
First, the Democratic Party has taken a sharp turn to the left and much of which passes for “liberalism” nowadays is in fact a radicalism that opposes traditional liberal ideas. American liberalism has never been systematically or doctrinally anti-capitalist, much less anti-American.
There is a vast scam going on that represents the current left’s success in doing what the Communist Party tried to do in the 1930s. That’s why many liberal — and especially Jewish — intellectuals have turned against what’s happening now. Even many of those Democrats and Jews in general who vote for radicals-pretending-to-be-liberals do so with deep doubts.
Hey, Mr. Waxman, I’d love to vote Democrat, but I can’t because your party and president advocate and implement policies that endanger the United States, destroy the economy, create unemployment, and destabilize the world. They also damage Israel’s security, Middle East stability, the struggle against revolutionary Islamism, and even build anti-Israel views and hatred among many American supporters of your side. If you want my vote, get rid of Obama and change your policies.
Instead, what we’re getting is the manipulation of habit and fearmongering to make Jews — and others — think of conservatives and Republicans as a blend of country club antisemite, Nazi storm trooper, and religious fanatic. The administration and its supporters are doing everything possible to spread hate, fear, and arrogant snobbishness toward fellow Americans.
Wow, has it really been since April since I posted a Rush audio clip?? My apologies.
Rush doesn't have on many guests, but yesterday he had on Florida Tea Party fave Senator Marc Rubio (R-FL) to discuss some statements he recently made about Obama and the debt ceiling talks. Rubio, like Congressman Allen West (also R-FL), is a liberal's worst nightmare because he's both a minority (his parents fled Cuba) and a solid conservative. If this young man runs for president one day, he'd have my vote.
Anyway, here's Rush interviewing Rubio during hour 2 of yesterday's show. The second clip is a bonus: After concluding the discussion, Rush analyzes an appearance Obama made on CBS News with Democrat tool Scott Pelley. This would be the interview in which Obama infamously stated that he couldn't guarantee if Social Security and other guvmint checks would be able to go out August 3 if the Republicans didn't agree to raise the debt ceiling.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
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.
On Monday (tax day!) Rush spent a good portion of the show talking about Obama's economically-illiterate and ideology-driven "tax the rich" speech as well as the DBF* media's equally illiterate and ideological tax day coverage, such as that from dinosaur left-wing propagandists Bob Schieffer and Christiane Amanpour
Rush then lays out the facts about the distribution of income tax payment in the United States. Most important is his conclusion: The reason Obama and the hard left that have taken over the Democrat Party are so hell-bent on raising taxes on "the rich" is not to balance the budget, not to reduce the deficit, and not to make sure children don't starve and seniors don't die (at the hands of those eeeevil Republicans). It is only to redistribute wealth and to buy votes with other people's money.
Don't believe him? The following 30+ minutes are a must-listen for everyone left, right, and center who needs to understand the truth.
For convenience, here are the articles Rush cites:
AP: Nearly Half of US Households Escape Fed Income Tax - Stephen Ohlemacher (April 7, 2010)
But then ...
AP via ABC News: Super Rich See Federal Taxes Drop Dramatically - Stephen Ohlemacher (April 17, 2011)
and (same article, different title!):
AP via Washington Post: For Richest, Federal Taxes Have Gone Down; For Some in U.S., They're Nonexistent
Wall Street Journal: Their Fair Share (July 21, 2008)
WSJ: Where the Tax Money Is. Obama Targets the Middle Class While Pretending to Tax Only the Rich (April 18, 2011)
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
Recent Comments