Vocal Minority

End the Occupation! Teacher Threatens Arrest of Obama-Criticizing Student

Reported in the Blaze today, complete with a recording by a fast-thinking student:

Teacher: “You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Student: “I’ll say what I want.”

Teacher: “Not about him, you won’t!” ...

Student: “Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

Teacher: “Because he was sh-tty.”

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

 

Meet the F.O.C.ers*: AG Eric Holder's "Disenfranchised Minority Voter" Lie

It's the most ridiculous and uncontroversial issue in the world, but leave it to a liberal/Democrat to make it serious and controversial. According to them, demanding an official picture I.D. to vote "disenfranchises" poor people, particularly poor minorities.

How? No freaking idea.

But this, apparently, is why most Republicans -- nay, most Americans -- believe that voter I.D. is just plain common sense.

Because it is.

Think of all the things you have to do in your lives that require an official photo I.D.: from driving a car to boarding an airplane to renting a video to borrowing a library book to buying a bottle of liquor or pack of cigarettes. I've never heard of a single example of a minority, poor or otherwise, complaining about being barred from any of these activities because access to such I.D.'s were financially or otherwise prohibitive.

Yet for some reason, the notion that engaging in the very important civic activity of voting should require a proper state issued and most likely free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) voter I.D., is raaaacist. Right?

Wrong, according to liberal/Democrats who never waste a moment poisoning an important issue with wholly unsubstantiated claims of discrimination against minorities and other poor people.

As the 2012 presidential election approaches, Eric Holder, arguably the most despicable and politically abusive Attorney General in U.S. history, is playing the worn out race card to prevent states from implementing voter I.D. An editorial in last Friday's WSJ reads in part:

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities. ...

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.

Of course it's not good enough for Holder, or any liberal/Democrat because the whole issue is based on a lie. In other words, they're all F.O.C.

Directly related to this lie about "minority voter suppression" is another thing Democrats are F.O.C. about: Voter fraud. This crime, libs/Dems will tell you, is a Republican tactic. You all remember the Bush-Gore fiasco of 2000, right? How did Bush ultimately win? Republican voter fraud. But that wasn't enough. When Bush won decisively in 2004 against John Kerry, how did the Dems explain that? Republican vote fraud.

Yet, the vast majority of election fraud convictions of recent years has been committed byDemocrats. Just last week four Democrats in New York state pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 primary. And the week before that, the chairman of Indiana's Democrat Party resigned as investigations into voter fraud in the 2008 presidential primary got underway. 

And in 2010, Obama's tight buds at ACORN -- i.e., Democrats -- have been convicted in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Washington state, and elsewhere.

And need we rehash the way the bitter partisan Democrat Al Franken squeezed his way into the Senate for Minnesota in 2008?

Make no mistake: Democrat opposition to voter I.D. is all because it makes voter fraud significantly more difficult to get away with. And Democrats need fraudulent votes to win elections. They need felons to vote. They need illegal immigrants to vote. They need dead people to vote. And they apparently need Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler to vote as well. All the while accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud!

So pardon me for saying so, Eric Holder, but you and your race-baiting minions of liberals/Democrats are F.O.C.

*F.O.C. = Full of cr@p (But you probably figured that out by now)

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Muslim World with Obama vs. Bush

Rhetoric:

Remember that lib/Dem narrative that George W. Bush caused all the world's Muslims to hate us and that Obama's election was supposed to "restore" America's "moral standing" in the world, particularly with Muslim nations? Well how has that worked out?

Reality:

[h/t the Bad Rachel blog]

Yeah. Real nice.

 

 

 

Quote of the Day (9/10/11): 9/11

"One of the lessons of 9/11 is that evil is real. And so is courage."

- George W. Bush, Shanksville, PA, Sept. 10, 2011

Then & Now: Jay Carney vs. Jay Carney

Then:

A Vacationing Bush Works Hard for His Photo-Ops

The image-makers who advise George W. Bush got what they wanted this week: a photograph, taken by the Associated Press and published in seemingly every newspaper in the country, of the President lifting a telephone pole as he "helped maintain" a nature trail in Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park.

-- Article in Time magazine by contributor Jay Carney on then-President George W. Bush, August 16, 2001. [h/t Mark Levin]

Now:

[I] don't think Americans out there would begrudge that notion that the President would spend some time with his family. It is also, as I think anyone who has covered in the past, either in this administration or others, there is no such thing as a presidential vacation. The Presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication and get regular briefings from his national security team as well as his economic team. And he will of course be fully capable, if necessary, of traveling back if that were required ..."

-- Jay Carney, White House secretary, on Barack Obama's upcoming Martha's Vineyard vacay, August 10, 2011.

Any questions?

P.S. Love how these mainstream media types go through the revolving door of the Democrat Party and the media (or academia)? I'm sure when he's done with this White House gig, Carney will have a nice cushy well-paying job back in the mainstream media. As the "Great One" would say: They're an incestuous little bunch, aren't they?

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: Jon Stewart Goes "Amos" on Cain; Liberals Laugh

Bernard Goldberg says everything I've been thinking ever since Jon Stewart mocked Herman Cain to a rolling-on-the-floor (presumably mostly liberal) audience. First, he correctly points out the blatant double standard:

Let’s say a white guy goes on television, puts on an exaggerated Amos ‘n Andy “black voice” and proceeds to make fun of a black man whose politics the white guy doesn’t like. Actually, let’s say he goes beyond merely making fun of the black man. Let’s say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid. Does that make the white guy a racist?

The correct answer is … it depends.

If the white guy is Rush Limbaugh and the black man is Barack Obama, then of course the white guy is a racist — according to liberals.

But if the white guy is Jon Stewart and the black man is Herman Cain, the conservative businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, well, then, that’s another story.

The other night Jon Stewart went on his show, and while he didn’t put on blackface makeup and start tap dancing he did put on a “black voice” and proceeded to mock Mr. Cain in a way that would never be tolerated if a conservative had done it.

Yet liberals didn’t scream “racist” the way they do when they see some guy at a Tea Party rally or when conservatives so much as look askance at Barack Obama. Instead, they laughed. For them, it was a regular riot when Jon Stewart, someone they adore, made that conservative black guy sound like a dopey character in a minstrel show.

But why isn’t Jon Stewart a bigot, when Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly would be tagged as racists if they had done the very same thing? That’s easy. Because Jon Stewart is a liberal and liberals aren’t racists. It’s a physical impossibility. Only conservatives are racists. And if you don’t believe me, ask any liberal.

Yes, this is really, really dumb, but liberals really, really believe it. This delusion stems from a deeply held belief that liberals are not just right about the issues and conservatives just wrong. It goes way beyond that. Liberals believe they’re morally superior to conservatives. And morally superior people are never racists. Racism is the domain of morally inferior people — you know … conservatives. 

Then Goldberg discusses why liberals like Stewart dislike Herman Cain:

But we all know what Herman Cain’s real sin is, why liberals think he’s fair game. He’s a black man who has strayed from the liberal plantation. And that is something liberal elites — the supposed benefactors of black people in America — have a tough time dealing with.

Finally, a strategy in response to liberal criticism of black conservatives:

On the O’Reilly Factor recently, I told Juan Williams who was sitting in for Bill, that conservatives should do what liberals have been doing for years — they should play fast and loose with the word “racist.” They should promiscuously call every liberal who criticizes Herman Cain — or any other conservative black man — a racist. Not because it’s true, but precisely because it’s a lie.

Let’s see how those superior liberals feel when they’re the ones being slandered, when they’re the ones being maligned as racists simply because they oppose a black man’s conservative policies. Let’s see if they recognize that they’re the ones who perfected this form of slander, by calling conservatives racists simply because we disagree with President Obama’s liberal policies.

So, is Jon Stewart a racist for doing his Amos ‘n Andy routine to make fun of Herman Cain? Yes! Absolutely! And I will say that over and over again, every chance I get — even though I don’t believe it. And I won’t stop until my liberal friends finally get it. 

I’ve thought of doing precisely this for quite a while. If liberals’ everyday speech comprise of phrases like “that racist George W. Bush!” or “that sexist Rush Limbaugh!” when neither such character assassination is warranted, why can’t conservatives do the same to liberals?

After all, not only did Jon Stewart pull the Amos n’ Andy routine that would’ve gotten any conservative fired in about six-and-a-half seconds, but notice he also accused Herman Cain of not knowing how to read, or at least not liking to read. Can you imagine if a <i>conservative</i> suggested that a black person had a problem with reading? He would be fired in <i>four</i>-and-a-half seconds! But, as Goldberg argues, Stewart gets away with that too because he’s a liberal and liberals by default aren’t racists.

To quote an old Bill Cosby routine: Right!

Incidentally, Stewart is so intelligent (like Obama) that he either misunderstood or misrepresented Cain’s demand for three-page Congressional bills. Cain was making a very reasonable and cogent argument; only a liberal like Stewart wouldn’t get it. Why he or his audience even thought that bit was funny is beyond me. It would almost be as stupid as if a liberal misunderstood or misrepresented the “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution. Oh, wait …

So from now on, perhaps I will say “that racist Jon Stewart!” And also “that racist Joe Biden.” Not only did he call Obama a “clean, articulate” black man—as opposed to an ebonics-speaking thug lookin’ like a fool with his pants on the ground—but he also said you couldn’t go into a 7-11 without an Indian accent. This is the man Obama picked as V.P.!?

From now on, I could easily speak of “that sexist Bill Maher” and “that sexist Bill Clinton.” And I’d be much closer to the truth. Rush Limbaugh has never called a woman a “tw@t,” let alone a stupid one, as Maher did recently before a laughing (and presumably mostly liberal) audience. He certainly hasn’t faced credible accusations of sexual assault by several women over the span of a decade, as Clinton has.

To conclude, then, I’d say I agree with this entire Bernie Goldberg article except for one thing: When he threatens to wantonly call liberals racist he says he does it because he knows it’s a lie. If I were to start doing it, it would be because I believe it’s the truth.

P.S. Herman Cain did appear on Fox & Friends and said he didn’t think Jon Stewart’s comedy “act” was racist. I think Cain is giving him too much credit.

 

 

 

 

 

The ABC’s of Barack Obama’s Complete and Utter Stupidity (Part II)

Part I here

When you add up all the mistakes [Obama has] made—not slips of the tongue, but real errors in statements and speeches he could read from the ubiquitous teleprompter—they make quite a number.
— El Rushbo, June 24, 2011.

And with that, we continue our ABC’s of Obama gaffes and epic fails:

N is for nittaly lions, which is what President Genius called Penn State’s mascot. (It’s supposed to be nittany lions.)

O is for Olympics. President Genius took the time to fly himself and his massive ego to Copenhagen in order to personally make a pitch for Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics. The International Olympic Committee was apparently so impressed that Chicago didn’t even make the final cut. How do you say “egg on face” in Danish?

P is for profit and earning ratios. That is what the smartest president evah said at a meeting with British PM Gordon Brown in March, 2009. What he presumably meant to say was “price to earnings (P/E) ratio.” It is Econ 101 and if George W. Bush or Sarah Palin said this it would be national news for weeks.

This is the man in charge of the economy of the entire nation, folks. It would almost be like thinking the U.S. Constitution contains the right to abortion, the separation of church and state, and the ability to impose government-run health (s)care via the commerce clause.

Oh, wait ...

Q is for quantative easing (and Q.E. 2!), which has been argued to be a disastrous dollar-destroying idea. Among the most prominent economists against Q.E. was Nobel-Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz. Q.E.2 was even less popular.

Q is also for cinco de quatro. This was the phrase uttered by the nation’s most brilliant president—who chastises Americans for supposedly being averse to learning foreign languages—when trying to say in Spanish “Fourth of May”.

R is for Otto Raddatz, an Illinois businessman whose name The One invoked while pushing government-run health (s)care in September, 2009. According to Obama, Raddatz had died earlier that year because his insurance company denied life-saving treatment and pulled his coverage. In truth, while Mr. Raddatz’s treatment (a stem stell transplant) was delayed, the insurance company never dropped him. The treatment he did receive extended his life another three-and-a-half years. So either President Brilliant got all his facts wrong and misspoke or he misrepresented the facts like a sleazy lawyer in order to sell his Obama(doesn’t)Care. You decide.

S is for Sanford and Son. A week before The One was elected he referenced the 70’s black sitcom “Sanford and Son.” Attempting to channel Foxx’s character Fred Sanford having one of his famous fake heart attacks, Obama yelled, “I’m comin’ to join you, Weezy.” Umm, that would be Elizabeth, genius. Weezy is from “The Jeffersons.”

How in the world can a black guy mix up “Sanford and Son” and “The Jeffersons”!? If a white Republican like Sarah Palin made that error, they would accused not only of stupidity but also of racism for not knowing enough about black sitcoms. I could just see Maureen Dowd at her little word processor at the NY Times building typing: “To Sarah Palin, all those black T.V. shows look the same to her.”

T is for Teleprompter, without which Obama’s shows his inability to string together two complete sentences. It is also an electric mask without which Obama’s radical America-hatred, Marxism-socialism, terrorist-sympathizing anti-Semitism is exposed for all the world to see.

T is also for tornado. While campaigning in May 2007 he said, “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed.” The actual death count: 12.

U is for umbrella. Cue the picture:

Nuf said. Imagine if this was Bush?

V is for The View. Every morning on ABC TV viewers are treated by three ultra-liberal women (and one quasi-conservative—you know, for balance) gushing like giddy schoolgirls about the smartest president the universe has ever known. When it comes to their treatment of Sarah Palin, however, suddenly they’re the bitches from “Mean Girls.” Seriously, almost nowhere on TV is there such uninformed, unfettered hate and vitriol. But for some strange reason these cackling hens are feted by the media and Hollywood.

W is for wee-wee’d up. Nobody ever really made a big deal about this, but think about it: What the &*#$ is this phrase supposed to even mean???

Sorry, don’t have anything for X, Y, Z, but if you have any ideas, please share!

Convicted Texas White Supremicist Soon to Meet His Maker. What's a Liberal to Do?

This is what we might call a "liberal's paradox".

Anybody recognize the name Lawrence Russell Brewer? That's one of the three racist human debris who in 1998 chained James Byrd, Jr., a black man, to a pickup truck in Texas and dragged him to his death.

It's been reported today that Brewer, who had been given the death penalty, will be executed for this crime later this year:

A judge in Jasper County signed an order on Tuesday that sets Sept. 21 as the date 44-year-old Lawrence Russell Brewer will be put to death by lethal injection for killing James Byrd. Three white men chained the 49-year-old black man to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him to death on a country road near Jasper.

Brewer was one of the three convicted in the June 1998 case that shocked the nation for its brutality. Partner John William King also was sentenced to death and is awaiting an appeal. A third man, Shawn Berry, received life in prison.

Incidentally, and unsurprisingly, Democrats milked this horrible race-related murder for all the political points they could score. First and foremost, in 2000, then-Texas governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush was accused of racism by the Democrat-media complex for opposing a state hate crime law which was proposed following this crime.

(Bush was, in my view, absolutely correct in opposing such legislation, since hate crime legislation has nothing to do with stopping crime and everything to do with stifling speech that liberals/Democrats disagree with simply by labeling it "hate speech". Another flaw with hate crime legislation is that it deems the murder of one human being as more serious than that of another simply by virtue of the color of their skin. That is no way to ensure a color-blind society where everyone is equal before the law, but it is a surefire way for liberals/Democrats to win the votes of Americans whose stance on such issues is based in raw emotion rather than rational critical thinking. Indeed, in 2009, a Democrat president and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate managed to pass nationwide hate crime legislation, in honor of Byrd (as well as of homosexual University of Wyoming student Mathew Shepard.)

To add insult to injury, although Bush opposed hate crime legislation for Texas, he was criticized for governing a state that allowed the death penalty -- which is exactly what Brewer and a second perpetrator was sentenced with in 1998! (So remember kids: when you're a Republican, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!)

And so now, 13 years after this heinous crime, Brewer is finally going to get his final punishment. But what is a liberal to do?

What a moral dilemma for the anti-capital punishment crowd. On the one hand, if they applaud the death of Brewer, then that will expose their hypocrisy by suggesting they're really only against capital punishment when it's one of "their own" they're trying to save. It will also conflict with the position of the sanctimonious moral superior types who a month ago chastised those cheering OBL's death. 

On the other hand, if they stay consistent with their stance on the death penalty and plead for this man's life, they might be criticized for defending the life of a racist who violently murdered a black man.

Don't get me wrong. This racist piece of trash deserves what's coming to him. If his execution were televised, I'd watch it and cheer.

But let's see what the liberati do ...

Liberal Media Bias: Constantly Expecting "Unexpected" Economic News [UPDATED 5/31]

Here's a topic that I'm glad someone has written about. Michael Barone at National Review Online provides numerous examples (hat-tipping Instapundit) of dire economic news is always "surprising" or "unexpected" by the so-called experts incessantly cited by the DBF* media. Barone notes this is the trend at least when at least when a Democrat is controlling the purse strings.

Consider:

“New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed,” reported cnbc.com May 25.

“Personal consumption fell,” Business Insider reported the same day, “when it was expected to rise.”

“Durable goods declined 3.6 percent last month,” Reuters reported May 25, “worse than economists’ expectations.”

“Previously owned home sales unexpectedly fall,” headlined Bloomberg News May 19.

“U.S. home construction fell unexpectedly in April,” wrote the Wall Street Journal May 18.

Barone cites a question asked by an Instapundit reader:

“How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? At some point, shouldn’t they be required to state the foundation for their expectations?”

His answer:

One answer is that many in the mainstream media have been cheerleading for Barack Obama. They and he both naturally hope for a strong economic recovery. After all, Obama can’t keep blaming the economic doldrums on George W. Bush forever.

No argument there. How else do explain, for example, how during the Bush years the DBF media actually tried selling 4.7% unemployment as bad news, while nauseatingly spinning Obama's dreadful unemployment rates as happy news?

But I have a better question: How long will the American people keep calling these perpetually surprised experts "experts"? They clearly don't know what the hell they're doing, but we're paying them a whole lot of money to do it!

I like to play the horses. When handicapping races, I often read up on any insights the professionals have, and then bet accordingly. But if those experts are constantly wrong about their picks -- granted, even the best betters have slumps -- I seriously consider not taking their advice anymore. After all, it's my money!

So why does this nation of 300+ million people -- individuals and businesses, employers and employees, college students and retirees, singles and families, etc. -- accept having to base their financial decisions on "experts" that are constantly wrong?

I don't know who these "experts" are or what they did to earn their pedigree, but please keep them the hell off my TV, out of my newspaper, and -- for the love of G0d -- as far away Wall Street and D.C. as possible!

P.S. Of course, that's not to say all media economists are clueless. I'm a big Larry Kudlow fan myself. 

DBF* = Democrat-b*tt-f**king

UPDATE 5/31: Well slap me on the ass and call me Sally! Look at this news article from CNBC that came out just hours after this original post [h/t El Rushbo]:

'Double-Dip' in Housing Prices Even Worse Than Expected

Pic of the Day (5/10/11): Vindication

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Sets the Left Straight on the Killing of bin Laden (5/2/11)

I don't know about you but I've spent way too much time and, unfortunately, wasted effort taking on giddy Obama-worshipers who, like Obama himself have yet to give the Bush administration one shred of credit for the OBL capture n' kill, when the plain truth is Bush and co. deserve most of the credit. That plus the fact that the same people heaping praise on Obama were the same people demonizing Bush for implementing the very tactics that Obama used to catch bin Laden.

The Great One did his share, coming right out the gate swinging on his Monday evening show. Here are two hours from condensed into 38 minutes. Obama and the left have been shameful; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been vindicated. And neither Mark, nor I, is going to let any WOT-protesting leftist forget it.

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

 

A War Gone Missing

Peter Heck at American Thinker notices the mainstream media has focused on everything under the sun this past week -- except a certain war President Hope&Change started in Libya.

I'm hoping someone can help me.  I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing.  I've looked for it on all the major networks and cable outlets (excepting Fox News), as well as all the major newspapers.  Although I've found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama's Libyan War is officially missing in action. ...

In Iraq they trumpeted every death, every setback, every struggle as part of their ongoing effort to defeat President Bush. But now, confronted with the perfect example of American presidential ineptitude, a flailing Commander-in-Chief leading a confused, bizarre military operation with no real purpose, they wag the dog.

And though flagrant media bias comes as no surprise, this sin of omission is particularly galling given the indignant drumbeat of negativity that defined their coverage of previous military conflicts. It is the clearest example yet of how desperate the leftist media is to get President Obama re-elected. ...

Biggest Story of the Day to Be Unreported by the MSM: Afghanistan Deaths

From CNSNews.com:

At least 858 U.S. soldiers have died in the Afghanistan war since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. That equals 60.13 percent of the 1,427 American soldier fatalities so far in the ongoing 10-year war in that country.

For March 2011, there were 26 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, including 4 non-combat related fatalities. That brought the total combat and non-combat deaths for 2011 (January, February, and March) to 70. Those fatalities include 57 combat-related deaths and 13 non-combat deaths.

For the 858 U.S. deaths since Obama’s inauguration, 791 have been combat-related. This means that for the 1,241 combat-related deaths that occurred since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001, about 64 percent happened in the two years since Obama took office ...

OK, Dems. Where's the outrage?

Thank G0d for the alternative media.

 

Reason #47354 I Will Never Rejoin the Reform Movement: Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss

Let me preface this post by emphasizing that I know URJ president Eric Yoffie personally. Although we are friends, we are quite aware of each other’s political differences. This post is in no way an attack on his character but merely a strong disagreement with his positions and, by extention, those of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). Likewise, although I do not know his presumptive successor Rabbi Jacobs personally—we might have met once a few years ago—I’m sure he is a decent human being and my issue is with his positions and not his character. That said …

From where I stand, the Reform Movement has been in need of a change. Even the NY Times admits that the movement was “facing a recent decline in numbers and an uncertain future despite its stature as the largest movement in American Jewry.”

I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m sure some of that decline is due to the continuing secularization of today’s youth, as well as the long-standing problem of Jews marrying non-Jews and their subsequent abandonment of the faith. But I have a sinking suspicion that there is another reason membership in the Reform Movement is dwindling.

Ever since the URJ took a public stand opposing George W. Bush’s War in Iraq in 2005, I’ve been amazed how many right-leaning (and Bush-supporting) Reform Jews have come out of the closet to speak their mind. And ever since the new Moshiach was elected president in 2008, those numbers have climbed even more.

Then there’s the conservative Reform Jews who have “come out” to me personally, but not to the public. With still school-aged children needing religious education and the requirements to become a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (at age 13), they begrudgingly remain members, paying dues to a synagogue that in turn pays its own dues to a national organization that promotes positions 180 degrees opposed to your own.

Other Jewish righties I know have in fact left our local Reform synagogue, chosing to educate their children at a local Chabad, or keep Jewish learning in the home. Myself, I left the Reform Movement over a year ago, with no intention of returning anytime soon. Not a month goes by where I witness this and other Reform synagogues are awash with left-wing/Democrat programming and propaganda.

Oh, Reform clergy, educators, and committee-people will insist that they’re apolitical, open-minded, and tolerant of all views.

Really? Visited the website of the URJ’s Religious Action Center (RAC) lately? Pick an issue: environ-mental-ist issues, abortion (excuse me, “women’s rights”) environ-mental-ist issues, oil, environ-mental-ist issues, government-run health (s)care, environ-mental-ist issues, 2nd Amendment rights, environ-mental-ist issues, welfare and poverty programs, environ-mental-ist issues, radical Islamism (oh, did I mention environ-mental-ist issues?). Every one of these topics is—coincidence of coincidences—identical to that of any far-left Democrat Party member. If it didn’t threaten their 501c3 status, they probably could just link to the DNC’s website and get it overwith.

Start 'em young!

This is not what I signed up for. If I wanted to teach my children to be good little lefties and walk in unswerving lockstep with the Democrat Party agenda, then the nearest Reform congregation is for you. If you want to meet Al Gore, far-left Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz [Would you believe the very day after I wrote this blog post, Wasserman Schultz was appointed by Obama as DNC chair!], and any liberal Jewish Hollywood celebrity, then the RAC is the place to be.

But if you want to hear from Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, David Horowitz, Aaron Klein, Caroline Glick, Congressmen Eric Cantor or Michelle Bachmann, forget it! At this Centre of tolerance and open-mindedness, non-lefties need not apply.

So, with more and more righty Reform Jews being bothered by the URJ’s political agenda, who do they choose to replace outgoing President Rabbi Eric Yoffie? Meet Rabbi Richard Jacobs from Westchester County, NY. I’m sure Rabbi Jacobs is a very nice, decent fellow. But what are the main priorities of the incoming president of the nation’s largest Jewish organization?

For Jacobs, that means embracing environmentalism, helping in places like Darfur and Haiti, and speaking out in support of the Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. He speaks with pride of his synagogue’s green initiatives, noting that its Ner Tamid, or Eternal Flame, is solar powered. He is chairman of the New Israel Fund’s pluralism grants committee, which promotes religious and social pluralism in Israel. He is a board member of the American Jewish World Service, with which he visited Darfur refugees in Chad in 2005. He wears a green Darfur bracelet on his wrist.

Darfur nad Haiti? Wonderful. Religious and social pluralism in Israel? Of course, I get it.

But environmentalism? Green initiatives? Going solar? (I actually know a Conservative temple that is going solar, so it’s not just the Reform movement). This is a priority? Oy vay. I’m all for conservation and recycling, but the man-made global warming climate change hoax has completely taken over this movement!

Supporting the mosque near Ground Zero? Oy! Why don’t we just surrender to all the world’s radical Muslims and cut off our own heads? Dhimmitude on display, brought to you by the URJ. 

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Liberal Lie #14: The Right Is Violent, the Left Is Civil - Katherine Windels

Oh, you never heard of Katherine Windels? That means the nation’s most prominent Democrat politicians and mainstream media—those bastions of the New Civility—have done their job of suppressing the inconvenient truth that yet another instance of violence from the left.

For weeks now, the cheerleading mainstream media has sympathetically portrayed Wisconsin’s union protesters as some sort of modern day oppressed plebs. Yet, most intelligent American people saw them for what they were: Spoiled, overpaid, over-privileged, foul-mouthed thugs who think they have a “right” to siphon as much as they can get from already cash-strapped Wisconsiners. Americans who were paying attention saw the violent and destructive protests, complete with damaged property, as well as signs comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler and recently-ousted Egyptian dictator Mubarak for the sin of lightening the load of the Badger State taxpayer.

Speaking of vitriol, violence, destruction, and profanity, one very scarcely reported event was a certain vivid death threat emailed to 15 Republican Wisconsin state senators. It read in part:

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. ...

How could this have happened? After all, throughout January, we were informed that this was the era of the New Civility. This after we were told that the right-wing rhetoric, particularly that of the evil Sarah Palin, supposedly prompted a mental case with no recorded past of following conservatives to shoot a Democratic Arizona Congresswoman whom he had been stalking since 2007 (when the aforementioned Ms. Palin was an unknown governor from the distant state of Alaska.)

Well, in case you didn’t know about this, it was reported on Thursday that the author of this electronic death threat was found [h/t Sister Toldja]:

Katherine R. Windels, 26, of Cross Plains faces two felony bomb scare counts along with two misdemeanor counts of sending a computer message threatening injury or harm.

Now, if you check out the profile of Ms. Windels (an early childhood teacher who at 26 still lives with her parents), you will see a rather attractive young lady who presumably wouldn’t hurt a fly. So why would such a woman write such terroristic messages to 15 public officials?

Because that’s what hard leftism does, my friends. It turns decent and kind human beings into extremist thugs. With all the talk from our most prominent figures—from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama—about how much of a threat right-wing rhetoric is to the nation, here we have a bone fide example of how left-wing rhetoric caused a pretty 26-year-old public school teacher threaten to murder 15 human beings and their families.

Does anyone other than me see the gross irony of it all? For years we are told that the millions of people who listen daily Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc. are all being turned into little Timothy McVeighs (and no one never even bothered to prove that McVeigh was a right-wing talk-radio listener, but hey, why ruin a good politically-motivated myth?)

But in fact, it’s been the complete opposite. Only left-wing rhetoric has created violence in this country as of late:

• It’s left-wing socialist class-warfare rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that incite angry mobs to shatter store windows; vandalize private businesses and banks; and hurl paint , firecrackers, and lightbulbs filled with ammonia at police, just this past week in London’s Trafalgar Square.
• It’s left-wing socialist class-warfare rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that incite angry mobs to break store windows, vandalize buildings, and torch police cars during last June’s G20 summit in Toronto.
• It’s left-wing socialist class-warfare rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that caused union thugs and protestors of other liberal stripes to converge upon the private residences of individuals they don’t like and terrorizing their families trapped inside. Such victims have included Karl Rove, AIG executives, and, most recently, John Boehner and Wisconsin state Republicans.
• It’s left-wing environ-mental-ist rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that caused one James Jay Lee to hold hostages at the Discovery Channel’s Maryland headquarters because its environmental programming wasn’t alarmist enough in his view.
• It’s left-wing environ-mental-ist rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that inspired “Unibomber” Ted Kaczynski to hold hostages.
• A combination of left-wing socialist class-warfare and environ-mental-ist rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—incited someone to send a mail bomb to an oil executive during the height of the BP oil spill, injuring his wife when she opened the package.
• It’s left-wing anti-war rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that caused the streets of major cities around the country to be fouled by the most vicious and hateful slurs toward George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condaleezza Rice.
• It’s left-wing anti-war rhetoric—amplified and propagated by prominent liberal politicians and compliant mainstream media—that prompted “peace activists” to commit violence towards our brave military, such as vandilizing military recruitment centers, banning ROTC’s on college campuses, and even fragging (the act of subordinate military personnel to shoot their own superior officers.)

In my opinion, Katherine R. Windels did a stupid thing. And she should be punished for it. But let’s not pretend her actions are not the result of a mindset created by constant bombardment of left-wing ideas: Hatred toward “the rich,” hatred toward “traditional values,” hatred toward the Founders and Founding Documents, hatred toward war (unless it’s a war started by a Democrat).

In short, Windels is the result of what happens when left-wing rhetoric goes unchecked.

Vicki at Frugal Café blog notes that, as of this writing (Saturday afternoon 4/2), CBS News and CNN have reported on the story, but neither they nor the Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel Journal or Green Bay Press-Gazette bothered to mention Windel’s occupation as a pre-school teacher (and, thus, the presumed association with/membership in a public union). Do you think for one second that if the perpetrator’s third cousin’s college roommate’s business partner’s former live-in nanny had a fetish for raspberry zinger you wouldn’t see the phrase “Tea Party” blaring in these news stories? Puh-lease.

Tom at the Bizzy Blog notes that AP has the story but relegates it to the local section. And the mainstream media wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

Other blogs discussing this story: Conservative Underground, Freedom Eden, Gateway Pundit, Malkin

My Defense (Kinda) of Glenn Beck's "Reform Judaism = Radical Islam" Comment [UPDATED]

Sooo, Glenn Beck is in the cross hairs (yes, cross hairs; can you handle that?) of the Jewish left again. The other day he made what even he considered an inept comparison between the Reform Movement and radical Islam. (He apologized the next day.)  The meat of the comparison: They are both more political movements than religious ones.

The Reform Movement's Religious Action Center (RAC) is has spoken out in protest, as has the ADL. I can understand that.

But let me say this in Beck's defense: One of the reasons I and countless other Jews have left the Reform Movement is precisely because it has become too political. The fact that the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) even has the RAC -- whose sole purpose is to organize, advocate, and lobby for primarily liberal/Democrat causes -- is proof that Beck's controversial statement has more than a kernel of truth to it. The Religious Action Center is in fact a political action center; the dues of every URJ-member congregation in the country goes partially to them, and synagogue members are encouraged to have a direct relationship with them. In fact, this very weekend hundreds of Reform Jewish teens are traveling to Washington D.C. to visit the RAC, learn about liberal/Democrat political advocacy, and then meet with their representatives in order to lobby for liberal/Democrat causes. 

I myself have expressed to the president of the URJ my concern for the existence of the RAC as an arm of the URJ, but to no avail. And I'm certainly not the only one. Leftist politics (often under the guise of the innocuous description "social action") pervades the Reform Movement -- from rabbis' sermons to synagogue-wide programs and speaker events, and especially youth programming.

The Reform Movement is obsessed with the political issue of global warming climate change, to the point that my region's youth organization have both a Social Action chair and Green chair. (A "Green" chair isn't religious; it's political. Period.)

As I wrote in this post back in 2007, the URJ invited two former members of Bill Clinton's administration as guest speakers at their recent Biennial Convention. No conservatives/Republicans need apply. Reform Jews also gathered at both the national and local level to oppose the war in Iraq.

Oh, did I mention that not once but twice hundreds of Reform rabbis participated in a conference call with President Obama to discuss pushing his policies to their congregations?

So, the point Beck was awkwardly trying to make -- that the Reform Movement is more a political movement than a religious one -- is valid and worthy of discussion. But his critics have missed that point because he made the mistake of comparing them to a group of violent extremists. And I do understand the critics' objections.

I do find it a little hypocritical, though, that liberal Jews are upset with being associated with something unpleasant, given their history of celebrating or engaging in the smearing of conservatives, Christians, the Tea Party, and other politically opposed groups.

As I mentioned above with the link, Beck has apologized for making the ill-advised analogy. That was very big of him. I doubt many of the supposedly tolerant and open-minded liberal Jews who hated him even before he made Tuesday's comment will even accept his apology -- not even on Yom Kippur, when we are commanded by G0d not only to apologize for our mistakes but also to forgive those who have transgressed against us. That's their problem.

But I'd like to ask such Jewish brethren: Now do you know how it feels to be unfairly smeared and compared with human monsters? How many of you have referred to those with whom youdisagree as Nazis, extremists, anti-choice theocrats, etc.? Beck admitted that his statement about the Reform Movement was ignorant. How many of you, dear Reform Jews, have referred to devout Christians in general or to specific adherents like George W. Bush or Sarah Palin in the same way, with no sense of remorse?

Where were you when back in 2001 some Democrat Congressman or Senator (don't remember who, don't care to look it up) called religious Christians "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party"?

I recommend you take stock of of your own glass houses before throwing any more stones at Glenn Beck.

Then I suggest we call this a "teachable moment" for all and move on.

UPDATE 2/25: Sure enough, one Reform Jewish Facebook friend's status reads "Dear Glenn Beck. I do not accept your apology." Do I know how to call it or what?

UPDATE 2/26: Yet even more of my tolerant, open-minded Reform Jewish FB friends continuing to bash Beck post-apology. Pathetic yet predictable.

 

White Political Ralliers Call for Lynching of Black Justice (Sorry MSM, No Tea in this Blend)

Christian Hartsock at Big Government has this disturbing video of a rally in Palm Springs.

These left-wing rallyers, comprised of members of Common Cause, Code Pink, Greenpeace, and other usual suspects, were dissatisfied of the SCOTUS's Citizens United decision. In fact, they are so dissatisfied, many were happy to go on camera and express their desire to hang or lynch Justice Clarence Thomas and even "send him back to the fields." The other right-leaning justices are threatened with physical violence as well, as are Glenn Beck, Fox News, etc.

Hartsock quips:

In post-Tucson America, where for the past few weeks a chorus of voices on the left have amplified their attacks on the “racist tea party,” “racist conservatives,” “racist Republicans,” and their “violent, irresponsible rhetoric” to the degree of accomplice-to-murder accusations, I figured a left-wing rally such as this would also be a demonstration of the left’s ideal, self-proclaimed rhetorical composure.

And having done extensive video coverage interviewing demonstrators in over fifty tea parties in forty-five cities in twenty-five states yet finding a total of zero instances of the “racist” and “violent” stigmas the left relentlessly assures us are true, I certainly didn’t expect to find almost every imaginable instance at one single “progressive” rally. ...

Not only that, but there was really nothing different there than what we saw at "peace" rallies during the Bush years. With posters and with spoken word, opponents of the liberal protesters were asked to be shot, hung, beheaded, tortured, you name it.

But that was when a Republican president was in office. That was when saying such things was celebrated, even patriotic.

The rules changed at 12:01 on January 20, 2009 when the same crowd that boo'ed the Bushes as they exited the White House began their campaign to label the slightest critic of the Obama agenda as racist, uncivil, inciting violence, blah blah blah.

Here's another thing: There are SCOTUS decisions that each "side" will disagree with. G0d knows there are plenty that the right could have done without. Roe v. Wade, anyone? Yet I can't recall a time when anti-abortionists demanded the violent deaths of the Justices who supported that decision.

You might be thinking: Yeah, but what about all the abortion doctor murderers!? I can say right at the onset that I do not in any way condone such vile acts, but I still wouldn't conflate a handful of extremist abortionist killers with crowds numbering in the thousands inciting this kind of violence.

Soooo, how much you want to bet that not one mainstream media outlet will air this racist, uncivil, and violence-inciting event?

Bush Derangement Syndrome vs. the Obama Hate Machine

From Trevor Thomas at American Thinker.

In a recent column, David Corn bemoans what his friend Jonathan Alter refers to as the "Obama Hate Machine (OHM)." Corn concludes, "That's an appropriate name for the right-wing attack network that will throw any charge it can concoct -- regardless of the facts -- at the president."

This from the man who, in 2004, penned The Lies of George W. Bush, where, in the introduction, he declares, "George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. He has mugged the truth-not merely in honest error, but deliberately, consistently, and repeatedly." ...

Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’

From the Daily Caller: Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War

Stupid Lies Democrats Believe / Left's Culture of Hate

I haven't been in hiding, dear readers. Just been away this week on business. But this article compelled me to come out of the woodwork with this piece from Larry Elder, and one from Dennis Prager. It's in response to the Democrat-media complex's insistence that there's something wrong with the 70% of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque, rather than with them:

What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
By Larry Elder

… Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:

“The rich don’t pay taxes.” False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes. Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.

“The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts.” MSNBC’s insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: “Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn’t even affect you.” False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich—a policy it favors—would “cost” about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich—a policy it opposes—would “cost” about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury “lose” more money from the non-rich than it would “lose” from the rich?

“The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.” CNN’s liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, “The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.” False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion—a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007—the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various “stimulus” programs, bailouts and ObamaCare—outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.

“Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.” Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are “not sure.” False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.

“George W. Bush ‘stole’ the 2000 election.” False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.” …

*      *     *      *      *

The Left’s Culture of Hate
By Dennis Prager

… In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.

This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say “There are good people on both sides of the issue” because we actually believe it.

Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left’s need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.

I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, “Islamophobic” or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other. …

Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?

Because leftism holds these beliefs:

1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.

2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure. …

Ain't it the truth.

Be back next week.