"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 past weekend was quite busy for the GOP candidates. One debate Saturday night, facilitated by lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist George Stephanopoulous and another one Sunday morning with lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist David Gregory.
Each debate had its key moments, but the one that made the most news was when Stephanopoulous posed to Mitt Romney the hypothetical question whether a state has the Constitutional right to ban contraception, citing the landmark Griswold vs. Connecticut case from 1965. It was a completely irrevalent but extremely loaded "gotcha" question that was clearly posed to paint Romney and any other candidate who took the bait as some sort of privacy-hating sex-obsessed turn-back-the-clock neanderthal.
Fortunately neither Romney nor anyone else took the bait and in the end it was Stephanopoulous who looked like the fool.
Here's the Great One discussing this truly embarrassing moment and delivering an exegesis on the Griswold case and the heralded "Right to Privacy". This is truly a listen and learn clip so sit down and take it all in:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
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???)
This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.
Well, the issue went to federal court and the judge ruled on the side of ... the assistant principal.
Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
Did you ever see that bumper sticker that says, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
Think of the inanity of that statement. To the pro-abortion crowd, choosing whether or not to have an abortion is no different than whether or not to see a movie or whether or not to purchase an iPhone. Don't like a certain movie? Don't see it! Don't want an iPhone? Don't buy one! What logically follows, they believe, is: Don't like abortion? Don't have one! It's simply a personal choice (that five lawyers in black robes one day decided was a constitutional right) and no one has the authority to "force" a woman what to do with an unborn child.
But the main difference is that seeing a movie or buying a piece of electronics doesn't involve the destruction of an innocent tiny human. In fact, when those who are pro-abortion argue their position, the baby is the farthest thing from their mind, if it enters their mind at all. The baby necessarily doesn't factor in; it's just a dispensible clump of cells until the very second every inch of her body enters the world.
Not only does the pro-abortion crowd willfully ignore the inhumane gruesomeness of an abortion -- if you don't think it is willful, consider the hellstorm that ensues every time it is suggested young people actually be shown footage of an abortion being performed -- but they also mischaraterize the position of the anti-abortion position. They would have us believe that those who are anti-abortion are actually anti-woman, i.e., they want to control women in general and impose their rigid traditionalist "patriarchical" views on them. This is why those against abortion are also often called "anti-choice": such people supposedly don't want women to be able to make any choices for themselves, including abortion.
While these descriptions might be politically advantageous, they are wholly inaccurate. If people who were anti-abortion were anti-woman or anti-choice, why is there no other area in which such people seek to restrict women's behavior? Where are those anti-choice types who are trying torestrict a woman's choice to have a career or stay "in the kitchen," for example? Where are all those Neanderthals attempting to restrict women's freedom of speech, assembly, etc.?
There aren't any. But when those who are pro-abortion call their opponents "anti-choice," that is the message they are trying to convey. When pro-abortion liberals call anti-abortion conservatives "anti-choice," it makes my skin crawl. Conservatives are not anti-choice, we're just anti-abortion. And for good reason. Abortion is murder, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how many lawyers in black robes declare it a constitutional right.
My purpose in bringing this all up was to try to give liberals a taste of their own medicine. Because if there is any group of people in this country that is truly anti-choice, it is the American liberal/Democrat. What if we took that abortion bumper sticker and fashioned it to defend conservative positions:
Don't like guns? Don't get one!
But liberals/Democrats generally hate guns, and because it is they who are truly anti-choice, they have done everything in their power, including ignore the Constitution, to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.
You know how liberals scoff at abstinence programs, claiming they're not effective? You know how hell-bent they are from keeping abstinence out of schools' sex ed curricula in favor of promoting "safe sex"? They're always telling us that young people are going to have sex anyway and that instead of making the unreasonable demand that they abstain, adults should instead teach them how to do it safely. Well, why then do liberals insist on "gun abstinence," i.e., gun bans and gun control laws? If they were consistent, they would favor "safe shooting"? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, people are going to shoot guns. Why not simply educate them as to how to properly and safely use them?
Oops, there I go looking for logic and consistency in liberalism!
How about these:
Don't like SUV's? Don't drive one!
Don't like incandescent light bulbs? Don't use them!
But most of the liberal/Democrat left are devout practitioners of the religion of environ-mental-ism. And while constantly decrying the creeping theocracy allegedly being foisted upon the American people by the "religious Christian right," the religious environ-mental-ist left gleefully foists upon us their religion. Thus, it's not enough for them merely to dislike certain types of cars, the incandescent light bulb, coal-powered electricity, toilets with enough water in them to actually flush correctly, (and if you live in California, the plasma T.V.!). Having bought into the hoax of man-made global warming climate change, the anti-choice left has succeeded in or is currently attempting to ban those items which allegedly contribute to it.
This one is for all the liberal/Democrat food fascists out there:
Don't like trans-fats / salt / sugar / soda / Happy Meals? Don't consume them!
Yet in cities like San Fran and NYC nanny state busybodies have not only made it a point to avoid these items, but they have made it illegal for you to decide whether or not to eat them. On food, these liberals/Democrats are anti-choice. They clearly never thought that what you eat is a "personal choice between you, your partner, and your doctor" like a certain other thing ...
And speaking of NYC, here's one more:
Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them!
O.K., I know what you're thinking. Smoking pollutes the air and makes it uncomfortable for people around them to breathe. Fair enough. That's what smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants used to be for. That's what outside is for. In other words, there are plenty of places where smokers can engage in their disgusting habit without disturbing others who want clean air.
But in many places around the country, all public establishments and even outside venues like parks are non-smoking. Even bars, where smoking is to be expected and tolerated? Yes, even bars. Even cigar clubs, whose raison d'être is to be a place where people come to ... um ... smoke! Yup. Some states even ban people from smoking in their own homes and cars if there are children close by.
On smoking, liberals are vehemently anti-choice. Restaurant and bar owners don't even have the choice whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments, if that's what their clientele prefers. The anti-choice left has made that decision for them.
There are plenty more examples out there but I think you get the point: When it comes to being anti-choice, liberals beat conservatives hands down. Want to choose your food, your toilet, your light bulb, your car, whether or not to bear arms or a place to smoke? To the anti-choice left the answer is: "Oh no, you don't. Those things are (or should be) illegal! Prohibited! Banned! Fined! Taxed!"
But suggest that there shouldn't be abortions and these very same people will rise up with their stupid clothes hanger in hand and shout, "How dare you impose your views on others, you fundamentalist anti-choice zealot!"
Then they'll drive away in their tin can of a hybrid car with a bumper sticker on the back that reads, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
You think they'll ever stop being blinded by their own self-righteousness to notice this hypocrisy?
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.
It’s supposed to be common knowledge that Sarah Palin is stupid, right? Why? Palin-haters can’t tell us. There’s no actual data to back that up, other than out-of-context statements, completely made up quotes and purported “gotcha” moments. These debunked gaffes then get transported instantaneously throught the leftosphere from Daily Kos to the NY Times to MoveOn.org to MSNBC to the script writing rooms of “Saturday Night Live” and around and around again. All this before the slightest bit of fact checking even starts—if it ever takes place at all.
Remember the “Bush Doctrine” thing? Sarah got it wrong in her interview with Charlie Gibson in September, 2008—or did she? Charles Krauthammer, the very coiner of the phrase “Bush Doctrine,” corrects both Gibson and the heretofore unapologetic Times:
“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.’”
— New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
Wrong. …
Strike one.
At a Tea Party Express event last October, Sarah said, “party like it’s 1773.” This sent the leftocracy in a jaw-dropping tizzy. “1773???” thought Markos “Kos” Moulitsas, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, and everyone in between. Only an idiot wouldn’t know the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776! Except Stupid Sarah wasn’t referencing the Declaration; she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which occurred in … wait for it: 1773.
Strike two.
Just this past month the leftocracy thoight they nailed Stupid Sarah when she retold a part of the history of Paul Revere’s ride. Everyone in the Democrat-media complex thought she got it wrong. Except she got it right; all her critics were wrong. To the LA Times’ credit, they corroborated Sarah’s account. Some of her earlier laughing critics ignored the correction, others actually surmised Sarah got it right by accident. Whatever.
Strike three.
And many strikes in between.
Sarah Palin is like the Road Runner and her jealous, hateful detractors Democrat-media complex are all Wile E. Coyote. Always thinking, “All right, now we got her! Look, see how stupid she is!? We told you she’s an idiot!” And then the self-lit bomb explodes in their faces. They’re left standing there with a “WTF?” look on their blackened, hair-singed faces, while Sarah races past them unscathed going, “Beep beep!”
The irony of all this is that for most of the Palin-bashers, their idea of an absolute brilliant God-like genius is President Obama. But the funny thing is that there is just as little evidence of Barack Obama’s intelligence as there is of Sarah Palin’s stupidity. In fact, if liberals actually lived in a reality-based world rather than in their fantasy “liberals are smart and good; conservatives are stupid and evil” world, they would realize that Sarah Palin actually knows what the hell she’s talking about, while Barack Obama is a complete idiot with a capital I.
And to drive this point home, “Mr. Pinko” at IOwnTheWorld.com released a fantastic video montage roughly entitled “Sarah Palin is an IDIOT” but actually documenting over 9 minutes of the stupidest most embarrassing gaffes of the Genius-in-Chief himself.
In this vein, I’d like to present the ABC’s of Barack Obama’s Complete and Utter Stupidity. Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is too stupid and unserious to be POTUS has no business whatsoever wanting Barack Obama anywhere near Washington, D.C. While many of the gaffes are in the video above, some are not. Some letters are for people who are regular bashers of Sarah Palin, but vocal worshipers of President Golden Calf.
ABC’s of Barack Obama’s Complete and Untter Stupidity
A is for Austrian, which Obama thinks is a language.
B is for breathalyzer, which is what Obama mistakenly called an inhaler for asthma. Incidently, he did immediately correct himself, replacing “breathalyzer” with “inhalator.”
C is for corpsman, which Obama pronounced as “corPSe man” twice in the same speech.
D is for the set of 25 DVD’s Obama gave to British PM Gordon Brown in March, 2009—a lame gift in and of itself—which couldn’t be played in a British DVD player because they were the wrong region. (Can you imagine if George W. Bush did that???)
E is for Europe, which Obama thinks is a country, not a continent.
F is for Fifty-seven, which is the number of U.S. states the most brilliant man ever to be POTUS says he’s been to. That was in May, 2008, so it’s possible Obama’s been to more than 57 states by now.
G is for Skip Gates, the black Harvard professor who exposed the racial chip on his shoulder when he was apprehended by a white Cambridge police officer for breaking into what turned out to be his own house. When asked to comment on it by the media, Obama exhibited his supposed brilliance in law by saying that he didn’t know all the facts, then immediately concluding that the police officer acted stupidly.
H is for Haaaavard. Apparently Obama is so brilliant and prolific that Harvard has his transcripts and written works under lock and key. How’s that for transparency?
I is for inefficiencies. In July, 2009, while selling the disastrous government-run health (s)care bill that has since been shoved down our throats, Obama said, “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” Whoops.
I is also for Israel. In July, 2008, Obama said, “Let me be absolutely clear: Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” OMG, could you imagine if Sarah Palin said something like that!?” Actually, at the time of the 2008 election, MSNBC’s David Shuster reported about a McCain aide who blogged that Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent. But by the time the story went viral, it turned out the blogger was not a McCain aide and the Palin-Africa story was a hoax. But remember, it’s Fox that’s a crappy lying “news” source.
J is for Joe Biden. Anyone who would pick this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance to be Vice President—a man who said J-O-B-S was a three-letter word, who told a man in the audience to stand up before realizing he was in a wheelchair, and who explained to an incurious Katie Couric that when the stock market crashed, FDR (who was not president at the time) got on TV (which was not invented) to address the American people—is by all measures himself a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.
K is for Karl Benz, inventor of the first gasoline-powered automobile in 1885-86 in Germany. Our genius president apparently did not know this. When addressing in his first address to Congress in February, 2009, said, “I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”
L is for Emma Lazarus, author of “The New Colossus” poem which is engraved on the pedastal of the Statue of Liberty. In a speech at American University last July the purported smartest POTUS in U.S. history not only screwed up the poem, but also royally messed up on the history of the poem and of the Statue of Liberty.
I’ll bet you didn’t even know the Karl Benz or Emma Lazarus gaffes? But I’ll bet you do know about Sarah Palin messing up the history of Paul Revere, right? See how the Obama-worshiping mainstream media works?
And that brings us to …
M is for the Mainstream Media. As documented by many, such as Bernard Goldberg, the liberal MSM has been in the tank for Obama since he appeared on the national stage. If you don’t know most or even some of the gaffes listed above, you can thank the Obama-ass-kissing media for that. They are the reason these huge whoppers by Obama have been hidden while tiniest little misstatement from Sarah Palin is amplified to the hilt and paraded as evidence of the woman’s stupidity. Also, because the MSM have been cheerleaders not only for Obama but for all his failed policies—from the Stimulus Bill to QE/QE2 to his takeover of GM and Chrysler to Obama(Doesn’t)Care to Cash for Clunkers to his Middle East foreign policy—they are just as stupid and clownish as the president they so admire.
M is also for Memorial Day. On that day in 2008, Obama gave a speech during which he said he saw many of the honored fallen heroes in the audience: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”
Apparently embarrassed by the claim that he sees dead people, his trusty official campaign blogger erased this gaffe from his website. As Aaron Klein reported at WND, the website transcript reads: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”
Part II here.
Only 11% confident in Congress? Awww.
Recent Comments