Vocal Minority

Liberal Fascism: School Fined $15k for Operative Soda Machine

Jonathon Seidl at The Blaze reports:

A Utah high school is learning the hard way that the government is serious about nudging students away from food it doesn’t want them to consume. Davis High School in the Salt Lake City area is having to fork over a whopping $15,000 in fines to the Feds because it accidentally sold soda through a vending machine during lunch.

Federal law requires the school to turn off its soda machines during the lunch period, which is 47 minutes a day. And Davis High school did turn off the machines in the lunch room. However, the school didn‘t realize that there was another machine in the school bookstore that wasn’t being turned off. And when the food police realized it, the school was hit with a $0.75 fine per student for the duration of the offense.

Now the school is going to have to cut money to fine arts programs to make up the cost.

This one's for the "keep your laws off my body!!!" crowd.  Why do I say this? Because that's how illiberals debate the abortion issue: "My body, my choice!!!" they shout in self-righteous indignation. Maybe they shout it so loud so as to drown out the sound of the tiny living heart beating inside them, but anyway isn't it funny that for the same illiberals, "my body, my choice!!!" doesn't seem to apply to busybody leftist food fascists fining schools in Utah, banning Happy Meals in San Francisco, or outlawing trans-fats and salt in New York City.

You're hypocrites, all of you.

This is what happens when the federal government gets drunk on its own power. Now ask yourself: Did you vote for this and, more importantly, will you again?

 

Liberal Media Bias: NY Slimes Gives Opinion Space to ... [UPDATED 3/24]

Bill Maher?

It seems the perpetual offender is not edgy enough to be given space on the Opinion page to challenge the demand that "offenders" need to apologize.

I will say that Maher is right in general: People need to stop being offended, and the so-called offenders should not worry about apologizing.

But let's make no mistake here: The very culprits in creating a culture of the perpetually offended ARE the very people who write for the NY Slimes! I.e., the politically correct illiberal left! 

It's the illiberal left that has created the free-speech-eroding culture of political correctness, supported "hate crime" legislation, cheered on campus "speech codes," and welcomed "The New Civility."

And now the NY Slimes, the media mecca of illiberal leftism is giving a forum to an illiberal leftist to decry such practices? Who the hell do they think they're fooling? You think the Slimes writers are even going to follow Maher's advice?

But here's the kicker. In the middle of the op-ed Maher writes:

The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right.

Hey Maher, go f**k yourself. 

And for that I will not apologize.

UPDATE 3/24:

At least the NYT was intellectually honest enough to post this response by two Democrat women to Maher's inane piece:

We’re both women who have worked in Democratic politics and the media for decades and find Bill Maher’s misogynist treatment of women candidates deeply disturbing. Coincidentally we both hail from Alaska — where women are treated as equals — so perhaps our threshold for this kind of behavior is less than here in the Lower 48.

Mr. Maher has implicitly attempted to tie his own demeaning attacks on women to the unrelated issue of partisan-motivated fake outrage, which we agree is tiring. While others have been held to account for their sexism, Mr. Maher remains unrepentant for his attacks on women in public life.

How can we expect women to run for office when they are essentially told to “lighten up about” and accept misogynist attacks? The Women’s Media Center has found that such attacks on women candidates have a measurable negative effect on how voters view them.

Our message to Mr. Maher and his ilk is: Please start apologizing.

PENNY LEE
KIRSTEN POWERS
Washington, March 23, 2012

You go, girls.

Some New Vids: The Great One and a Great American

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

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

Despotism and Tyranny ... They're Heeere

Two great pieces at AT today address the continuing reckless and unconstitutional power grab of the Obama administration.

Citing other columnists and great patriots in American history, Lee DeCovnick writes:

Thomas Jefferson reaches out over the centuries to counsel us that,  "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." The requirement for such forceful change will results from a cascade of bitter failures within our social and governmental institutions. We are not at that fork of history. However, thoughtful conservatives must look toward some uncomfortable duties, a start of redress, to stem our current slide into tyranny.

That initial redress starts today when each one of us begins to reach out, one on one, to our liberal neighbors, co-workers, friends and family. We must patiently discuss today's headlines within the context of the Declaration of Independence. By educating and reminding them of America's self-evident truths, unalienable rights, and that our government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, we open minds and give substance to the looming icebergs of tyranny, dead ahead.

Redress also means that Congress must start doing its job. Congress should follow the Constitution by actually writing the laws in public view, rather than fob them off on the Executive agencies. And Congress must de-fund and forever decertify the existence of the czars. Or else we must vote these damn Congressional monarchists out of power. These ideas are less radical then those written in the Declaration. To believe otherwise renders us all silent passengers on that "long train of abuses and usurpations."

Americans, Lincoln and Jefferson's people, may have but a single Constitutionally mandated opportunity to avoid a further "rupturing of the American conception of sovereignty, in which the president is our servant, not our ruler." November 6^th, 2012 will become a crucial day of national reckoning, not unlike that warm July day in Philadelphia, two hundred and thirty-six years ago.

Next, J. Robert Smith blows huge gaping holes in the left's defense of the "contraceptives for Catholics" mandate:

You've got to hand it to liberals.  They stick to a script.  On the contraception-Catholic Church flap, the script is that most Catholic women favor contraception (and, one guesses, abortion-inducers).  Ergo, the Catholic Church should buckle under and accept President Obama's mandate.  Conscience and religious liberty (and a little thing called the 1^st Amendment) just don't stack up against what a majority of Catholic women want -- or what liberals say they want.  You know, vox populi and all that.

So if vox populi is good enough for the Catholic Church, why not for liberals and the Democratic Party -- or more exactly, for policies favored by both?  Like ObamaCare.  ...  

Liberal talking heads, like little wind-up toy soldiers, have been all over the airwaves, yakking about the supremacy of "women's health" and what a majority of Catholic women are supposed to want.  (Isn't it nice how liberals always appoint themselves spokesmen for others?  Call it the Jesse Jackson syndrome.  The Reverend Jackson has an unerring talent for showing up and speaking on behalf of people who never asked him to.)

If liberals are all fired up about majority rule, why shouldn't they apply that principle to ObamaCare? ...

But that's not how majoritarianism works, evidently.  See, where liberals can use majority sentiment to justify and advance their statist polices, well, by all means.  Hence, efforts to bulldoze the Catholic Church and mangle the 1^st Amendment are cloaked in a concern for what a majority of Catholic women desire.

When a liberal policy aim fails to muster a majority, tough luck.  ObamaCare is what Americans need, whether they want it or not.  Liberals insist on it.  And what could average Americans possibly know about what's good for their welfare?  If liberals and government can't run other people's lives, what purpose is there for either?

Take another issue: federal spending.  According to Gallup, a lopsided majority believes that Washington spends too much.  No need for more or higher taxes, either. 

November 6, 2012 cannot come soon enough.

 

Liberal Fascism: HHS Now Inspecting, Regulating Pre-K Lunches (in N.C.)

This was the first story out of the gate when El Rushbo came on today:

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead
By Sara Burrows Feb. 14th, 2012

RAEFORD [North Carolina]— A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

Now, as close to perfect as El Rushbo is, there are two things he seemed to overlook in his commentary that followed. First, at least the way he presented it, this seemed to be a federal mandate, but the Division of Child Development yada yada yada is actually a division of the North Carolina state HHS Dep't. The article didn't specify one way or another whether this mandate was being imposed by a state or federal department, but I really think it's the former.

Not that this can't eventually go nationwide; in fact, as soon as the Obama administration finds out about this, they'll be giddy to get it started in your state too!

Which brings me to the next thing Rush missed, because he's not Jewish: Two of the required items in pre-K lunches are one meat item and one milk item. This can pose a problem for Jewish institutions with pre-K programs if they observe kashrut (the Jewish dietary laws prohibit the mixing of meat and dairy products.)

Now, all of last week I was in quite a heated debate with several Jewish and non-Jewish Facebook friends about the Obama mandate that forces Catholic institutions to provide free contraception for their employees. Some Obama-worshiping Jewish liberals did agree with me that the contraception mandate was a governmental overreach. Others, however, were not fazed by it at all. One friend who's very pro-choice abortion called this blatant violation of the First Amendment a "non-issue."

These were the same people, by the way, who just a week before were caterwauling about Susan J. Komen rescinding their donation to Planned Parenthood. That was a problem for them. The contraception mandate was not. See what liberals consider as priorities?

So, what would such people say if they woke up one day to find the Obama administration forcing Jewish pre-K programs to adhere to their USDA requirements, thereby violating their own religious beliefs?

I know what I'd tell them: First, I'd call them hypocrites. Then I'd tell them not to say I didn't warn them.

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo Destroys Obama's SOTU STFU Speech (1/25/12)

"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)

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Deconstructs Obama's KS Speech (12/6/11)

My apologies for being so late on this one. A week ago I posted a 20+ minute sound clip of El Rushbo's take on Obama doubling down on Marxist class warfare at a Kansas high school on the 6th.

But I couldn't with good conscience delete my podcast of Mark Levin cutting through the crap without first providing a portion of it here. So here's the Great One doing what he does best:

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo Deconstructs Obama's Latest Marxist Speech (12/7/11)

On Tuesday the 6th, President Hope&Change doubled down on his Marxist-socialist ideology. He actually declared that the United States in its 235 year existence does not and has never worked, that the free market is "a license to steal," and that an activist government that taxes, spends and regulates more is the only way to "preserve" the middle class.

Rightfully, the conservative punditry lambasted him. Even the Washington Post -- not exactly a right-wing rag -- criticized him not actually on his sentiments but on the veracity of some of his statements, earning him 3 "Pinocchios" on their political Fact Check page.

Here's Rush the day after the speech, doing his best to control his anger, tearing apart this disastrous, wholly anti-American speech (Yes, I said anti-American. Whaddaya think of that!?)

[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]

(Download clip here)

(Download clip here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And speaking of NYC, here's one more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Justice: Obama and the Left's Not-So-Hidden Agenda

From Lloyd Marcus at AT.

... Patriots, the concept of social justice (government making everyone's life equal) is insane, absurd, and evil.  It completely nullifies the human spirit, ambition, freedom to be all one can be, and American exceptionalism -- all the things which have made America great.

In typical mindless "make himself feel good" fashion, a lib once told me, "Everyone deserves to live in a mansion."  While sounding compassionate, his statement is idiotic.

When I was 9 years old, my family moved into a brand-new government-funded housing project -- an eleven-story building.  As per my recollection, most residents trashed the building.  Only a handful displayed gratitude, pride of ownership, and respect for their homes.  Poverty-minded "gimme" parasites would turn a mansion into a ghetto.

As I said, the concept of social justice, government attempting to manufacture equal overcomes, is totally un-American and just plain nuts.  And yet, this is obviously Obama's agenda.

Please take a moment to comprehend the extreme consequence of Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform America."  Think of the unmitigated gall and arrogance in his statement. ...

 

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: Tree Pruning Fines in Charlotte, NC

First they came for the tree pruners [h/t Deudge] ...

Albemarle Road church fined $100 per branch for excessive tree pruning
By Brittany Penland, Correspondent
Posted: Saturday, May. 28, 2011

Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.

But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees.

"We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.

The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.

"I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."

The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.

"When they are nonrepairable, when they have been pruned beyond repair, we will ask them to be replaced," Johnson said. "We do that for a number of reasons but mainly because they are going to come back unhealthy and create a dangerous situation down the road."

Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said. ...

Since 1978? Jeez.

By the way, how do I know the "Charlotte Land Development Division" are liberals?

Belive me. I know.

Liberal Fascism: White House shuts out Herald scribe [UPDATED 5/19]

Welcome to the era of Hope n' Change: Boston Herald shut out of Obama's Boston fundraiser visit today. Why? He doesn't like the "biased" way they report [h/t Drudge].

First Amendment? What First Amendment? Oh, the First Amendment that Obama and the liberal fascists invoke when a radical Muslim imam wants to build a mega-mosque on top of the ruins of Lower Manhattan's infidels? That's fine.

G0d Almighty get this radical f**ker out of my White House.

UPDATED: From today's Boston Herald:

Video of the Day (4/21/11): Eco-Hitler Youth Come to D.C. -- at the Invite of Your Favorite Dem Leaders

Yes, you read that right: Eco-Hitler Youth. What else do you call 10,000 teenagers brought to D.C. rallying in the streets donning green helmets, gas masks, and ... what is that at 0:50? underwear? bathing suits? spandex?

What else do you call youths who make statements like these:

"[W]hat we need is a complete revolution -- social, economic, political, cultural ... The change becomes we force it. And I don't think that's about going to lobby politicians, to be honest. It's about blockading en masse."

"It's a revolution. It's a climate justice revolution." 

"This is our revolution that we have take hold of."

And just who brought these mind-numbed robots to D.C. for this gathering? Why, members of our liberal America- and capitalism-hating leadership, of course. These instigators include the Obama White House via the EPA, former VP and world's first enviro-billionaire Al Gore, former disgraced whatever czar and avowed Marxist Van Jones, and sitting Congressperson and former House freaking Speaker. See:

"You need to know: the EPA is counting on Power Shift." -- EPA Speaker

"Hello, Power Shift, and thank you! ... Thank you for your leadership. I hope to see you again on Capitol Hill." -- Congresswoman and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, addressing the attendees of Power Shift on an enormous screen, eerily similar to Big Brother in 1984.

People, can you wake up, please? 

Think about it: power shift = revolution. (It's slightly clearer than the faux cross hairs on Sarah Palin's obscure election map that supposedly caused a deranged stalker who most likely never even heard Palin to shoot at a Democrat Congresswoman in Tucson.)

Here's a three minute video [h/t Breitbart] of these young skulls full of mush displaying a level of stunning ignorance and dangerous stupidity that only decades of liberal "education" could produce:

This is truly the most frightening display of indoctrination of the stupid and easily malleable by dangerous radicals since the Hitler youth and Soviet pioneers. Hell, these teenagers are being encouraged to become this era's Hitler youth and Soviet pioneers. (But remember, it's the Tea Party that's "extremist", it's conservative Republicans that are "radical," it's the likes of Beck and Palin and Limbaugh that are poisining the public discourse. Riiiight.)

Oh, sorry, too vitrolic and mean-spirited? Tough! Get your head out your freaking tuchas and pay attention to what's going on for once.

ACLU v. Religious Liberty

This is one of the better expositions on Freedom of Religion and the ACLU's assault on it. From J. Matt Barber at American Thinker.

... To be sure, the "main function of the ACLU" is entirely counter-constitutional.

A shared objective between both Communism generally, and the ACLU specifically is the suppression of religious liberty; principally, the free exercise of Christianity.

Karl Marx, high priest of the ACLU's beloved cult of Communism, once said: "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."

Even the ACLU's own promotional materials overtly advocate religious discrimination: "The message of the Establishment Clause is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."

Utter hokum.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- a mere 10 words -- says nothing of the sort. Its message is abundantly clear, requiring severe distortion to stuff within the ACLU's Marxist parameters. It merely states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That's it.   

Now let's break it down. What do you suppose the Framers of the US Constitution -- a document expressly designed to limit the powers of federal government -- intended with the word "Congress"? Did they mean State government? Municipal government? Your local school district? Your third grade teacher?  

Of course not. They meant exactly what they said: Congress. As in: The United States Congress! It takes someone with a distinctly disingenuous ulterior motive to derive anything else.  

Now what did they mean by "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?"   

Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson -- often touted by the left as the great church-state separationst -- answered that question. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause was singularly intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively "establishing," through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).

Or, as Jefferson put it: "[T]he clause of the Constitution" covering "freedom of religion" was intended to necessarily preclude "an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States."

How far removed we are today from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The ACLU is largely responsible for creating the gulf between the Constitution's original construction and its modern misapplication. ...

 

Paul Krugman and The Know-Nothings

From James Lewis at American Thinker, a real scathing and no-holds-barred of the intellectual moronic-ness that liberals like Krugman project:

Paul Krugman recently was quoted as telling the world he doesn't follow contemporary conservative news commentary. Krugman's open contempt for the dominant political philosophy of the Western Enlightenment, including most of American history, is incredibly revealing. It's not just one New York Times guru of Political Correctness. No, I've run into Krugman's mental lockbox among "educated" people all my life, people with advanced degrees who just mouth the platitudes of the left. In all their education they never learned to open their minds. 

It is pathetic. Intellectually, Paul Krugman has just run up the white flag. That's how we have to see the self-censorship of the left. In a free marketplace of ideas they can't survive. It's our job to restore the free media and give Americans a choice again.

*     *     *     *     *

Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them.

Until the organized left decided to purge our schools and universities of our own Western traditions, "conservatism" was called "liberalism," because it celebrated liberty of thought, liberty of speech and religion, freedom of association, and free ownership of productive assets, including the fruits of one's own labors. Today China, India and Russia have thrown off their Marxist shackles and their economies are suddenly thriving, and we can still see the wonders of South Korea right next to the Stalinist nightmare of the North. 

But Paul Krugman, economist extraordinaire, just doesn't get it. What is it you don't get, Professor Krugman? ...

*     *     *     *     *

The left doesn't  need official censors because they carry their own censors in their heads. But just to make sure, they also work to block the free flow of information to everybody else. That must be why the media have to witchhunt Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas on a regular basis, a smart conservative woman and a smart conservative black man. It's why they have to keep smearing good and decent people. If their own followers ever figured out the scam the media couldn't compete. 

Liberals are constantly telling their obedient flocks what not to listen to, like Fox News. I've never heard a conservative radio host tell the audience not to read the New York Times. Who would listen to that?  We stay astonished by the Mind-locked Media, to see what kind of disinformation they pump out every day. The liberal media provide daily mind-food for conservatives, just like the old Kremlinologists who would look at air-brushed photos of Soviet apparatchiks standing on top of Lenin's tomb, to see who was in power and who got purged.

We criticize their ideas, while they go on poisoning the wellsprings. That's why they fell for global warming fraud and for con artists like Bernie Madoff. If you have no conscience and want to make a million bucks, try selling GM Volts to liberals. But sell them an expensive accident policy at the same time, for the inevitable moment when their motor buggy gets crushed on the freeway. You can get them coming and going, if you have no conscience. If you do have a conscience you can only tell the truth and hope.

Leftist censorship often seems like a source of power for the left, but it's also a great weakness, because reality keeps finding them out.  Ever since he took office Obama has looked stunned that nothing works the way he expects. Maybe that's why he's playing so much golf, to get away from all the bad news. Baffled. Why don't the Muslims and Israelis do what I tell them? Why doesn't the economy rebound from my "stimulus"? He doesn't get it. The more things get out of control, the more confused he feels. It wasn't supposed to be this way. ...

Lots more where that came from.

 

The Totalitarian Minority

From Lance Fairchok at American Thinker.

... Wisconsin was Democrat political theater at its finest.  Milking the civil rights movement for every drop of sympathy, the Rev. Jesse Jackson recited his tired rhyming shtick on the steps of the state house, conflating the conflict there with a time of actual injustice.  Ironically and sadly, Students for a Democratic Society demonstrated in solidarity with a privileged minority of "haves" to undermine the democratic process.  The courses taught by their well-compensated professors left out critical analysis.  A bonus for the unions, they got naïve teenage foot soldiers and bearded graduate students to shout and rampage and shove democracy aside for nothing.  Real thugs are so expensive.

"You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

The mass-produced signs used by demonstrators and the statements used by leftist pundits and political apparatchiks, held the predictable moral rhetoric intended to convince the public that theirs was a fight against tyranny.  Yet, the people placed Republicans in power in Wisconsin in a free and fair election.  Democrats fled to Illinois when they could not defeat the governor's necessary and long overdue austerity measures, within the rules of a democratic legislature.  So beholden to union special interests they abandoned their responsibility to the states citizens, an act of political cowardice that has become the Democrat standard.  Their actions show they do not respect or accept the duties and constraints placed upon citizen legislators within the constitutions of the nation and their state. 

Elections are either won or lost within our political system, there is no other alternative.  Those who win have the approval of the majority of citizens for the policies and legislation they have promised to enact.  That reality usually prevents what happened in Wisconsin.  It assumes both sides accept that the rule of law is in the best interest of all.  A setback means a legislator struggles harder or reassesses, working to bring about the legislation they feel is best for the constituency whose interests they represent.  If they lose, they do not refuse to play or unleash foul-mouthed thugs on the institutions they so recently spent into insolvency.  No Democratic Republic can operate for long when one side sabotages the process when they do not get their way.

The public sector unions are saying clearly and loudly that they deserve privileges and status denied the vast majority of the citizens whose taxes pay their inflated salaries, and implicit in their violent rhetoric is the threat that if they do not get their way they will burn the statehouse down, even kill their political opponents.  They further let us know that their privileges should come off the backs of those whose labors are much greater and whose rewards are far less, peasants to their royal status, "have-not" to their "have."  This is the truth of the national debate under the Democrats.  President Obama, the great divider, is a stooge of union bosses.  The latter care nothing about citizens not members of their union. ...

 

Obama Issues GW Rules in Jan., Gives GE Exemption in Feb.

It's good to be the king. It's also good to KNOW the king: Bush (supposedly) took care his "oil buddies." Here's Obama taking care of his energy buddy Immelt.

From Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner:

Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.

This week, the EPA issued its first exemption ...

It's the same shtick he's pulling with all the ObamaCare exemptions, 40% of which are unions. A sitting president is picking winners and losers based on political connections and ideology. If this isn't despotism, I don't know what is.

What say you?

Shut Up And Die! (a/k/a How Tolerant the Left Really Is)

From Erik Rush at WND:

... It is incontrovertible that inciting violence is, and always has been, the domain of the political left. It is they who fomented violence during the 1960s, and who used violence and murder throughout the last century on every continent on the globe to achieve their political ends.

They will now attempt to use the Tucson tragedy to place Americans in a position where, if we do not capitulate to their renewed calls for gun control and the stultification of free speech, it will be inferred that we are just fine with members of Congress, judges and little girls being gunned down in the street.

What adds insult toinjury– or disaster to tragedy as the case might be – is the necessity that existed for political factions to capitalize on this horrible event. In the face of the incremental bloodless coup that is taking place in America, progressives' adversariesmustexploit the left's reaction to the shooting. Inadditionto the obligatorydamagecontrol called for in order to neutralize the wholesale liberal propaganda being churned out by the establishment press, they have no choice but to draw attention to progressives' dogged and misplaced efforts to tie conservatives to Loughner's actions.

For the left, the cause and target mustbe guns, talk radio, free speech, etc. It must be because they are losing, and they are desperate. The outrageous, groundless rhetoric to which we are being exposed by the left is a product of their desperation.

You see, they didn't expect us to fight. Americans who do have an idea of who we are and what our nation represents were supposed to shut up and die – or more accurately, to stay asleep, to lay down and just let the socialists have their turn. Why? Simply because they want it.

And that's just not a good enough reason, in my book.

 

‘Civil Rights’ Gone Wild

From Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online.

Extremists in the Civil Rights Division are pouncing on other school policies as well. When it was first formed in the 1960s, the division pursued cases of real discrimination — cases where, for example, black students were harassed or intimidated or provided with intentionally inferior education. These days, the division believes that prohibiting boys from wearing makeup, nail polish, and high heels is sex discrimination. ...

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

From Paul Skousen at The Daily Caller.

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. . ...