So many imaginary villains and so little time.
So many imaginary villains and so little time.
I've been disturbed, but not surprised, by the Obamedia's coverage of gas prices. The same media who blasted George W. Bush on a seemingly hourly basis for the gas prices of the time -- which was a fraction of what they are now! -- are providing cover for their messiah on fuel costs and are doing virtually nothing to challenge his most inane excuses for them.
Last night, unable to sleep and not interested in anything on the tube, I turned on the local NJ talk station and sure host Ray Rossi was discussing the skyrocketing gas prices. When he announced on the website was a poll asking whether these prices would affect Obama's reelection chances, I went to check it out:
My gas station just went up 10 cents a gallon in one day!
Things aren’t good, expecially since prices nationwide are closing in on $4 a gallon, according to a AAA survey out today.
Why is that?
Well, there are any number of reasons.
Seems as though every time we turn around, there’s a new reason given.
A few weeks back, Lou Dobbs told Bill O’Reilly that it had to do with the global market, and the fact that even though we drill as much as we do, we still export the refined product overseas to other emerging economies.
Now we hear from Tom Kloza, who’s the chief analyst at the Oil Price Information Service in Wall Township saying…. it has everything to do with April 1st and some terminals switching from winter gasoline which is a lot cheaper than summer grade fuel” .
He also goes on to say that “oil got up to close $130 a barrel and now it is coming down a bit now that countries are making contingency plans for dealing with tensions in Iran…all leading to the crude market internationally is calming down a bit.
Ok, I won’t hold my breath for that.
Here came the poll:
But with all that, do you feel this will not only hurt at the pump, but hurt the President’s chances of reelection.
What say you?
The Posse wants to know.
Will rising gas prices hurt President Obama's chances of reelection in the fall?
Now, before voting (in the affirmative), I was expecting to see results in the 50/50 area. After all, NJ is a blue state and at least half our residents are still in love with modern history's most failed president. Needless to say, I was surprised by the results (clipped the morning after at 8:00 AM):
It should be noted that this, of course, is an unscientific poll. It's also extremely important to note that one was allowed to vote more than once, and that non-NJ residents were able to vote. So, for all I know, someone who really dislikes Obama and doesn't even live in the Garden State hit the top choice several times. But ... the callers to last night's show were primarily NJ residents and critics of Obama outnumbered supporters by about 2-1.
What do you think?
El Rushbo has mentioned this many times in the past, and today it is worth repeating: The Democrat Party rewards failure.
For instance, when Howard “Yaarrrrrgggghhhh!” Dean lost the 2004 presidential candidacy to John Kerry, he was rewarded by being made the DNC chair, at which post he boosted the integrity of his party by accusing the Republicans of being racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc., etc., who want women back in the kitchen and blacks in the back of the bus. (This illustrious tradition, incidentally, is now continued by the new DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, but that’s another story for another blog post.)
Another example is when Hillary lost the nomination to President Hope&Change in 2008. For this she was rewarded by being appointed to Secretary of State, a position she shows to be grossly unqualified for on a frequent basis.
These are just party-internal failures. But what happens when the failures of Democrats translate to big problems for the American people at large?
Arguably the most egregious example of this is Al Gore. Soon after the man who “used to be the next president of the United States” lost the presidential race in 2000 to W., he began embarking on his man-made global warming climate change campaign full force. Within just a few years, Gore had become a celebrated “ambassador for the planet” to the Democrat-media(-Hollywood-academia) complex. For this role Gore is now worth hundreds of millions of dollars and currently sits in a humongous Tennessee mansion with multiple plasma screen TV’s, SUV’s private jets, and an Oscar award for a movie deceptively billed a documentary.
And what do we, the American people, get? We’re being threatened by draconian, oppressive environ-mental-ist regulations. We have toilets that need to be flushed three times because there’s not enough water in them anymore. A gaggle of unaccountable lawyers in black robes known as the Supreme Court has declared CO2—a gas exhaled from every breathing creature and needed by plant life to survive—a freaking pollutant. In just a few short months the incandescent lightbulb will be banned. The oil and coal industry, which fuels our entire economy and ensures our comfortable modern lifestyle, is under governmental attack. Our children from grade school through college are being indoctrinated to “go green” and to demonize anyone who refuses to hop on the environ-mental-ist bandwagon.
Another salient example of the liberal/Democrat being rewarded for failure and concomitantly having disaster upon our nation: The many members of President Hope&Change’s economic advisory team. All these people who have gone in and out of this position like it’s a revolving door from academia to Obama’s Washington and then back to academia again. These people are, we are told, the best and the brightest. They hail from, we are also told, the most prestigious universities in the nation, for which parents pay tens of thousands of dollars to send their children to be educated by them.
But look at the economy right now. Has it improved one whit since Obama took office in January, 2009? No, just the opposite. Has the employement rate improved since then? No, just the opposite. Has federal spending been reined in? No, just the opposite. Have the debt and the deficit been reduced? No, just the opposite. Has the nearly trillion dollar “stimulus” package worked? No, just the opposite?
Yet the architects of every failed scheme and policy imposed by Obama at the advice of this crack squad of economic geniuses are still considered geniuses. They are still revered as experts despite the utter destruction they have wrought on this nation and its economy. And every one who has left the Obama administration is welcomed back with open arms by the prestigious universities they had left. To do what? To teach Marxist-socialist crap to unwitting college students. And get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year plus cushy benefits to do it.
Isn’t being a liberal/Democrat great? Get paid craploads of money to teach young people wrong things.
This week Obama’s current economic advisory chair, Austan Goolsbee, announced his resignation. This utter failure came from the University of Chicago School of Business where Michelle Malkin reports “He also pulled in a University of Chicago salary of $465,000 and additional wages and honoraria worth $93,000 …” This is in addition to “assets valued at between $1,146,000 and $2,715,000.” So, at least Goolsbee is good about making money for himself, just not for everyone else. So much for the liberal/Democrat claim to care about the little guy, spread the wealth around, pay your fair share, blah blah blah. The disgustingly rich Goolsbee joined Obama’s advisory committee when the employment rate was at 6%. He’s leaving when it’s at 9.5%, to return to a job that will pay him nearly a half a million dollars.
Isn’t being a liberal/Democrat great?
Here’s El Rushbo yesterday announcing the exit of Goolsbee:
So a failed economic advisor quits so he can return to academe and teach young skulls full of mush how to destroy jobs and run up the deficit. And we wonder why the country's in trouble. Failed liberals in government go back to their overpriced universities to teach liberalism to young skulls full of mush who don't know squat about the real world. These failed intellectual idiots are running what's called higher learning. … Goolsbee is fleeing his abject failure and is being welcomed with open arms back into the American academy. What is the old saying, those who can, do, and those who can't, teach.
Indeed. (Not to say all teachers aren’t capable of being doers. It just seems there are too many of them in our hallowed university classrooms, and definitely too many who are invited to join failed Democrat presidents’ failed administrations.)
But in the aforementioned Malkin piece demonstrates, Goolsbee is merely the last in a long list of intellectual morons who had a high-paid cushy university job before coming to Washington, who certainly had a well-paying job while totally screwing up things in Washington, and then return to that same high-paid cushy university job after fleeing Washington. There’s Christina Romer (UC Berkeley), allan Kreuger (Princeton), and Larry Summers (who would have still been president of Harvard had he not violated a sacrament of feminazi political correctness). Other geniuses who didn’t come from / return to academia but nevertheless are still sitting pretty in well-paid positions of various sorts: Peter Orszag and (Biden advisor) Jared Bernstein.
Isn’t being a liberal/Democrat great?
Why do Goolsbee, Romer, Summers, Orszag, and Bernstein even have jobs? If ours is truly a nation where success is rewarded, and not failure—and these days it is definitely not—then Goolsbee, Romer, Summers, Orszag, and Bernstein should be hanging their heads in disgrace and unemployed. Why do these people even still have jobs, let alone prestigious and high paying ones? Why would anyone who runs a university even want these people within 100 yards of a single student???
Why does Al Gore even have two dimes to rub together? Why are the names Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton not simply relegated to the ash heaps of American history?
Because liberals/Democrats take care of their own. It’s not how well you do; it’s what you believe, and it’s how much you do to further the agenda of the Left. Success be damned. And the American people be damned.
Related reading: Goolsbee Gone: Obama’s Economic ‘Dream Team’ Evaporates (Richard Pollock at Pajamas Media)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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:
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.
Related reading and updates at bottom.
The country still grieves yesterday's heinous shooting of a Democrat Congresswoman and others, many of whom died. But, true to form, liberal mainstream media types -- from the NY Times to the Washington Post to CNN to ABC News to Reuters to CNN again to CBS to CNN yet again -- has been blaming the shooting on the supposed violent rhetoric of the Tea Party movement. Sanctimoniously accused in particular was Sarah Palin, whose nine-month-old U.S. election map on Palin's website containing "cross hairs" (actually surveryor symbols but let's not quibble).
It's a typical template and the lefties who run the media wasted no time in running with it. Facts have been stubborn things for the liberal media for a long time now, but every time an emotion-provoking incident happens like this in the U.S., the first to get blamed without one shred of a shred of a shred of evidence is the Right.
Of course, even as the smoke is still clearing, we are finding out the shooter is a pot-smoking 22-year-old who has verbally or electronically expressed his hatred of the Constitution, his support of the burning of the flag, and his love of books like Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. In other words, this guy is just about as far from a Palin-loving Tea Partier as one can imagine. He's a lefty through and through.
But the left must push its politically expedient lie, truth and facts be damned, so as of this afternoon, the blame-Righty media template goes on.
I truly weep for my country, especially because Sarah Palin released a public statement:
My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.
On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.
Not only did Palin even need to do this (but that's what a decent human being with Judeo-Christian values does) but liberals like the perpetually incorrect NY Times' Paul Krugman dismissed her statement as insincere and even hypocritical.
But now I've been seeing here and there public statements by prominent conservatives and Tea Party types emphasizing that the Right doesn't condone violence.
I say to any conservative/Republican commenting on the shooting: Do NOT go this route. By saying you condemn violence, you legitimize the wholly illegitimate supposition that we might. That is B.S. The Right has NOTHING to explain or apologize for.
Jared whateverhisnameis -- just like the Fort Hood shooter and the Times Square would-be bomber and the D.C. Holocaust Museum gunman and the D.C. snipers -- is not what would be considered a conservative Palin-loving Tea Party-type.
In fact, just the opposite. The instigators of violence in this country has been primarily the Democrat-supporting Left.
How many of you know that Ted Kaczynski (a/k/a "The Unibomber") and, much more recently, the would-be bomber of the Discovery Channel headquarters in NYC was overtly influenced by Al Gore's global warming literature?
Probably very few of you. And for that you have the complicit mainstream liberal media to thank.
How many of you realize that every time a violent incident occurred at a Tea Party or town hall, virtually every time the violent act was being perpetrated upon a conservative/Republican by a liberal/Democrat?
Probably very few of you. And for that, again, thank the mainstream media.
How about the violence that always occurs at G8/G20 summits, most recently last June in Toronto, by capitalism-hating left-wingers?
How many of you know that in our own White House sits a man who uses violent rhetoric constantly?
How about the oil executive whose wife was seriously injured by a mail bomb last July during the BP oil spill -- you know, when lefty Democrat Barack Obama was talking about "putting his boot on people's throat" and trying to figure out "whose ass to kick"?
Speaking of the Commander-in-Chief, a Facebook user wrote this of about the current head of the proverbial snake:
The media and democrats want us to focus on the nation’s “caustic political climate” after the tragedy yesterday. Maybe they should start with President Obama. He may be the worst offender.
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
If the media really wants to improve the “caustic political climate” they may want to start at the White House.
Damn right. But notice that the media Left isn't focusing on any of these overtly incendiary statements. Just some 9-month-old map of the woman they hate with a level of evil very rarely seen.
Before concluding with this post, here is Amit Ghate at Pajamas Media from March 2010:
Force and Violence: How the Left Blurs TermsThe left’s modus operandi is to denounce the open use of “violence,” while promoting and condoning every other form of force. ...
... It’s telling that [NY Times' Frank] Rich harkens back to the “good old days” of the 1960s. Not merely because its drug-addicted, anti-reason hippies are his intellectual mentors, but because they’re the ones who popularized the idea that overt violence resulting in bodily harm is the only true form of crime.
Rich’s “radicals” proudly engaged in rock-throwing student riots, forcible sit-ins, and other expropriation and destruction of private property. More importantly, they actively suppressed evidence of Stalin’s horrors, materially supported the reigning Soviet dictators, and unabashedly exhorted Mao Zedong to continue his “experiments” with the “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution.”
Clearly their actions involved — and sanctioned — various degrees of force; small but still significant in the case of sit-ins, of historic proportions in the case of Communism. Yet none of this concerned them because, in their view, attacking property or compelling someone to act under threat of force is not “violence” and thus not objectionable. You can take a man’s property, oust him from the cities, order him onto collective farms, and force him into hard labor, but as long as the threat of force is so overwhelming that he can’t resist, there’s no “violence” and no foul. Lives are shattered and destroyed, but the left approves because there’s either no actual blood spilt or, in the case of Communism, the rivers of blood are carefully kept off camera. (Clearly leftists will countenance anything in the name of making men slaves to the State.)
The left’s modus operandi then, is to denounce the open use of “violence,” while promoting and condoning every other form of force.
Indeed, under the left’s influence and urging, government now exerts force against its own citizens in myriad and ubiquitous ways. It forcibly takes our tax dollars to fund public schools — leaving us with little choice or means to give our children the education we consider best. It decides which drugs can and can’t be tested; how approved drugs are to be marketed; and which patients, no matter how willing they are to take a risk, qualify for experimental drugs, etc. It regulates commerce and trade in issues ranging from trivial to critical. Just ask any businessman how many arbitrary rules he must heed every single day — under punishment of fine, closure or even jail. Everything from the placement of signs, to interview questions, to campaign contribution limits — even pricing! — is dictated to businessmen.
So while leftists may recognize the evil of a thug shooting an innocent victim dead, they simultaneously champion laws that prevent a person from buying the life-saving medicine she needs. The pain and suffering leftists cause by unleashing governmental force leaves them unfazed. As long as their victims remain nameless, and the proceedings are carried out behind closed doors (preferably by some bureaucracy or committee to give them “legitimacy”), the left is happy to use force to advance its agenda.
More about the Left's disgusting attribution of violence to the Right, and their own use of hateful rhetoric and violence to achieve their own ends, has been discussed before. And it must continue today.
So, this is one conservative who refuses to even accept the premise that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or conservative talk radio, is remotely responsible for violence such as that which occurred yesterday in Tucson. The blood resulting from violent rhetoric and bitter hatred is a predominantly left-wing/Democrat phenomenon. The trail of blood left by the Democrat Left -- unlike that of tilting windmills erected by the Right -- is documentable and factual.
UPDATE 6:15 PM: Tom Lifson at the American Thinker's blog writes:
Politico quotes an anonymous source it identifies as a "veteran Democratic operative":
"They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," said the Democrat. "Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people."
The game being played is obvious to anyone with eyes. Democrats are nakedly exploiting tragedy to harm the tea parties. For shame.
Shameless yes. But not surprising.
Business Pundit: Sarah Palin Crosshairs: Kill the Myth;
Tony Lee @ Human Events: Mainstream Media: Conservatives Responsible For Giffords Shooting;
Black & Right: MoveOn Email of the Day;
Red State: The Ends Justify the Means
For most of Rush's show yesterday, he naturally discussed Tuesday's elections and their implications. But then in the second hour he went into a monologue in response to a seemingly innocent exchange between President Hope&Change and ABC News' Jake Tapper at yesterday's press conference (Obama's first in months, Rush noted.) Tapper asked that, now that the Republicans have taken the house, would he be willing to compromise on at what amount of income taxes would be raised.
Obama's non-answer answer notwithstanding, the question itself sent Rush into a tizzy, because he realized that the government has no Constitutional authority to determine any of this and he laments that nearly all of us have submissively fallen for the premise that they do.
Here's the clip, and the transcript from his site below. It's quite fantastic, a must-hear. One might even argue it's Rush's first call to arms for November 2012.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
… Jake Tapper, ABC, asked Obama about the compromise that he might make on extending the Bush tax cuts. Right now, of course, the tax cuts will eliminate, stop for everybody, $250,000 or more, and maybe everybody’s taxes will be raised. But believe me, there’s no tax cuts on the table. And Jake Tappersaid, (paraphrasing) “Would you compromise and say people who make a million dollars a year will not see their tax decrease, tax cut sunsetted?”
And I started thinking, where’s all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year, where does all this start? What right does Obama have to sit there and proclaim that people who earn X are gonna be punished with Y, people who earn less than X won’t be punished with Y?
Do you notice how easy it is to fall into the premise trap that the left sets? Looked at within the prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out—the Declaration, the Constitution—in nowhere in any of our founding documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for it. It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who didn’t.
Where does all this talk start? Because all this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty, a direct attack on freedom and it creates class envy and resentment and anger between the classes, between people of different income groups.
So all of a sudden we’re faced with a possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn $250,000 a year or more. Well, why are we even discussing it in the first place? What did those people do? What is the magic? Who sets arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year? Why are they targeted?
And look how easily people fall into the trap of debating the premise, when the real question is when is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending, for the irresponsible position they put this country in? When are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our liberty and freedom? The question is not: Should people who make $250,000 or $500,000 or one million for some reason pay a higher burden of supporting the folly and the irresponsibility of people like Barack Obama and most people in government?
Why are we even debating the premise if we really believe in liberty, if we really believe in freedom? Why do we acknowledge a premise that states: The successful are gonna get punished, the successful are gonna pay the price? Where is it written that the people who create the problem get to demand that people who had nothing to do with creating the problem solve it, but first get blamed for it, because that’s really what’s happening here. People who are making $250,000 or $500,000 or a million, according to people like Barack Obama, and in fact most people in Washington, are somehow to blame for our deficit, somehow to blame for this out-of-control spending, somehow to blame for this generational theft.
What did they do? What did the people earning $250,000 do to create this problem? What did the people who earn a million dollars do to create the problem? What did the people who earn $500,000 a year do? What have they done that resulted in this irresponsibility in Washington? Nothing! The people who earn $250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country’s economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages!
The federal government, the state government cannot and does not create wealth. All it can do is destroy it. All it can do is confiscate it. And what we’re doing is discussing the proper level of servitude. What is your price? What are you going to have to pay for the irresponsibility and for the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama? What level of servitude will you have to bear the responsibility for something you had nothing to do with? At what level are we going to proclaim: You are more guilty than another citizen based on how much you earn? Where in our founding documents, where in Natural Law, where in the Constitution are these principles written?
So when Jake Tapper stands up, “Are you willing to compromise, Mr. President? Are you willing to compromise, maybe go $500,000 a year they get to keep the Bush tax cut, maybe a million?” And Obama, as the all-knowing, the all-whatever, “Yeah, I’ll think about it,” as though he has any right to. Who is Barack Obama to be able to say that any citizen in this country has to pay more to support his mistakes because of what they earn. And why do so many of us fall into the trap of thinking: Yeah, that’s fair? Why are so many people willing—accidentally, purposefully—to squander and give up their liberty and freedom so that they do not have to feel the guilt?
What is the price of your freedom? You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they would give up their freedom. Americans would give up their lives before other people would have to give up their freedom. Americans would give their lives so that others might be free.
Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any Democrat, I don’t care, any Democrat, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay?
Who made them the deciders on what we should eat?
Who made them the decider of what kind of lightbulbs we have in our homes?
Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive?
Who made them the deciders on what kinda house we live in?
Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can’t turn our lights on?
Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom?
Who gave them that power? It doesn’t come from the Constitution! The Constitution does not say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which lightbulb they have, what foods they can and can’t eat, and what lights they can’t turn off or on at what time of year. The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this. The Constitution does not envision this kind of usurpation of freedom. The Constitution does not envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights or overall liberty or freedom. It has to have been a political party looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says, ignoring it in order to implement their policy.
So now we have a guy who is the least qualified in any room he walks into being asked a question by an equally incompetent reporter, “Mr. President, are you willing to compromise, people that earn $500,000 a year will be able to keep more of what they earn, will you even go as high as one million?” And I’m watching this, who the hell are either of you people to decide this? How did I end up as an American with a guy who doesn’t even like my country telling me how I have to live? How did that happen? How did I end up with a guy who does not even respect the founding documents of this country, how did I end up—how did we all end up—with that kind of guy telling us how immoral and unjust we are? How did this happen?
It happens because people for whatever reason are willing to sacrifice, and maybe not even know it’s happening, little bits of their freedom and liberty now and then, under the auspices of “it’s a good cause,” or it’s in the name of “compassion,” “fairness.”
Well, I want somebody to tell me what is fair about one incompetent having the right to systematically destroy my country. I want to know where the fairness is in that.
I want to know why in hell anybody is even thinking about much less talking about compromising with this man. I want to know why anybody who believes in the Constitution wants to discuss compromising individual freedom or liberty with this man. Because that’s what the compromise is. When people say that we must compromise with Obama, we are saying we must compromise on our freedom. …
There's a little more in the clip but you get the point. Right on, right on, right on!
Yesterday the 15th, Mark was at his best. In the first hour he had on Christine O'Donnell, who in a debate earlier this week out-debated her Senatorial opponent Chris Coons (D-DE). During the second hour he brought on Sharron Angle who in Thursday's debate mopped the floor with Harry Reid's tuchas. These are two of the smartest, talented, pro-America, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty women running right now. And the Left has bashed both of them, most recently mocking O'Donnell as a witch on "Saturday Night Live."
The Democrats are a bunch of misogynists. Sexists. Anti-woman. They've bashed and demonized Angle, O'Donnell, Meg Whitman running for governor in California, and of course Sarah Palin. (Not to mention the fact that these women have achieved their successes without riding on the coattails of some man—like Hillary Clinton, Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi, or Michelle Obama.)
So how can one not come to any conclusion other than that the Democrats are misogynist sexist woman-haters?
(Hey, I'm just using the left's own twisted logic right back at them.)
And while we're on the topic, there are 38 blacks running for national office this year as Republicans. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Democrat-run media giving these candidates any positive coverage, if any at all! Conclusion: Liberals/Democrats are racist.
When the liberals/Democrat calls their opponents "racist"—be it establishment blue blood Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Partiers—they say it on the basis of us disliking one black person: Barack Obama. They, on the other hand, have not lifted one finger to support or endorse any black GOP candidate running in 2010. This must mean they are more racist than conservatives/Republicans by a factor of 38.
(Hey, I'm just using the left's own twisted logic right back at them.)
But now back to Mark. Below is the monologue he began the entire show with. His central question is, "(Putting aside the military) What is it that the government does well?" He then goes through a list of massive liberal government programs and policies that have been dismal money-wasting failures. By the end, the answer to his question is quite clear: Not only does government not do anything well, but they have been quite detrimental to our economy and to our society as a whole.
If you're going to pass along any sound clip to friends or family before they vote next month, this is the one. Take it away, Great One:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
The BP oil leak disaster turned out to be, in the grand scheme of things, not quite a disaster. Rush predicted it wouldn't be from the very beginning. Instead of becoming hysterical, he used calm reasoning and common sense while analyzing the situation. He relied on the resiliency of the planet and the ocean. He put things in historical context.
And for this he was lambasted by the Democrat-media complex, being called heartless, cold, even an "obnoxious anti-environmentalist."
As is usually the case, Rush is vindicated. The oceans and its inhabitants are healing quicker than any of the "experts" thought. That's not to say that some beaches weren't damaged and some ocean life didn't perish. But all in all, the disaster was nowhere nearly as bad as originally reported.
You thought wrong. Like every other "crisis," the BP oil leak turned out to be an overblown Democrat-media-generated concoction. For the media, it was a perfect "If it bleeds it leads" opportunity. And for the Democrat Party, not least President Golden Calf himself, it was the perfect chance to tighten the screws on the oil industry.
So now with the oil industry halted by Big Guvmint, not to mention the tourism industry along the Gulf and the Florida coast, will the scaremongers be punished?
On the contrary, the members of the Democrat-media complex will pat themselves on the back and move on to the next overblown crisis.
Here's Rush on the Gulf oil crisis that wasn't. These 20 minutes were taken from the first two hours of Friday's show:
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
Not only are liberals culture-less, class-less, and crude, but they're making children that way too:
Do these people really expect us to think they're enlightened or better than us (or BP) because they're shouting the F-word every other word? Including elderly women? And single-digit-aged children?
El Rushbo was on a roll yesterday. The first hour was just a series of monologue after brilliant monologue. The audio clip below contains four of those segments, edited, as usual, for long silences, commercial breaks, and other extraneous parts.
In the first segment, Rush wonders out loud why liberals are perpetually unhappy. And rightly so. Here we have a black president, a Democrat House and Senate, the eeeeevil private sector being tarnished and torn while the government gets bigger and bigger, government-run health (s)care passed, plus all of their favorite countries are being coddled, and hated countries being scorned. We are living in a virtual liberal utopia, so why are they still unhappy? Listen to the clip to find out.
The second segment, beginning at around 5:20, is my favorite: a Limbaugh-esque reply to Obama advisor David Axelrod. Axelrod recently made the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the GOP wants to “turn our country backward.” In response, Rush does the unexpected: He agrees with him!
The transcript of the response is here, for anyone who wants to copy it and share it online or by email. It’s that good:
“Recently, Obama advisor David Axelrod stated that America would be going ‘backwards’ if they allowed the GOP to take the majority in 2010”? Well, let me tell you something: I don’t know about you, folks, but I would love to go backwards! I would love to go back about a year and a half.
I’d love to go back when people’s houses had value, and the expectation was that the value would increase every year.
I’d love to go backwards to when we had a 4.7% unemployment rate.
I would love to go backwards to where our taxes were lower.
I would love to go backwards where our health care was affordable and excellent.
I would love to go backwards when our investments had a good chance of growing.
I would love to go backwards when people’s children could get jobs with their expensive college educations.
I would love to go backwards when we had leaders motivating and inspiring young people to seek the world, to seek their dreams.
I would love to go back to that period of time. It’s just a year and a half ago and beyond. Who wants to live in an era where the president and the first lady tell college graduates to screw it? Don’t get into the money making professions. Oh, yes, Mr. Axelrod, I would love to go back!
I would love to go back to a period of time when my president actually liked my country.
I would love to go back to a period of time when my president respected my country and my president was proud of it.
I would love to go back to a period of time where my president was not trying to destroy things that he thinks have been unfair for 20 or 30 years or 230 years.
I would love to go back to a period of time where my president did not look at the United States as the problem in the world.
I would love to go back, Mr. Axelrod, to a period of time where we had leaders who could the United States was exceptional and could indeed be the economic engine and the freedom engine of the world.
I would love to go back, and we don’t have to go back very few, Mr. Axelrod. Just 18, 19 months. Oh yes, I would love to go backwards, Mr. Axelrod.
And speaking of going backwards, isn’t that what Axelrod wants to do? Doesn’t Axelrod want to go back to the sixties? Aren’t he and his buddies perpetually trapped in the idealism and the promise of the 1960s? Perhaps we could say they would love to go back even further, to the time of Marx. Anita Dunn might like to go back to the time of Mao Tse-tung in the 30’s and 40’s! Some of the great dictators of all time are the professed inspiration for many members of the regime. So, yeah, we’re not the only ones that want to go backwards.
Told you it was classic.
Next, at around the 8:24 point, Rush talks about the death of longtime N.Y. Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in a way that he himself admitted was going to drive the liberati into apoplexy, mainly (1) As a capitalist, Steinbrenner knew when to die: before the death tax is reinstated in 2011, and (2) For a “cracker,” Steinbrenner sure made a lot of African-Americans wealthy.
Finally, at around the 10:00 mark, Rush discusses some polls—including a couple in the Washington Post of all places—that reports on the growing disillusionment with President Obama among voting blocks which are very important to the Democrats, including independents, environmentalists, the young college-educated, Hispanics, and Jews.
Enjoy these 14 minutes of brilliant broadcast excellence!
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
Posted at 10:55 AM in Articles of Note, Barack Obama, Congress, Economy/Taxation, Education, Election 2008, Environment/Global Warming, Foreign Policy, Health "Care", Hollywood/Celebs, Hypocrisy/Double Standards, Immigration, Jewish Issues, Israel, and Anti-Semitism, Liberal Fascism, Listen & Learn, Oil/Energy, Race/Ethnicity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Yup, I couldn't stay away from the blog for too long. Told you I'd post if something important came up. And it did.
Last week, I got into a political debate with a co-traveler. I had just spent nearly week at a conference with several hundred fellow Jews -- all of them (as far as I know) liberal Democrats. Despite promising myself I would not get into politics at this event, I was admittedly chomping at the bit to get into some "trouble." Well, a group of us were waiting at the airport for flights back East when one friend -- who was so offended by my right-of-center Facebook comments she actually admitted to resorting to blocking my posts altogether. (I know, liberals are oh-so tolerant and open-minded. Blah blah, f**king blah.)
Anyway, she followed up that admission with the question of how I can support the Tea Party, when some of them are just so crazy. (Yes, that was her word.) I wasn't going to go off on this person right there in front of other friends and colleagues, so I responded simply that all parties have "crazies." "Look at Barack Obama," I said plainly, "and all the czars and cabinet members he's appointed, and what about his Supreme Court nominees."
"But those people don't really have any authority," some objected.
"Oh, really?" I pressed. "Obama's czars, etc., were not elected by the American people, yet they have virtually unlimited and unchecked policy-making power."
That was really the end of that debate. For my friends, there was really nothing else to say. The conversation ultimately turned to right-wing talk radio and how offensive and hateful Rush Limbaugh supposedly is. I asked my interlocutor if she ever actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. Of course, she did not but she assured me all she needed to know was the clips played for her on her favorite hosts (on MSNBC and NPR, naturally). With an involuntary rolling of the eyes, I insisted those liberal commentators are very adept at taking Rush out of context. They have to. There's no other way to marginalize and polarize him.
But anyway, back to my temporary return this evening to blog-hood. I was catching up on the past two weeks of talk radio when I got to Mark Levin's show Thursday. The first hour was devoted to a vote by the Senate to give the EPA -- an unelected unaccountable organization -- unconstitutional regulatory powers, namely, to create and enforce policies related to carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called pollutants. The vast majority of yay votes came from 53 Democrats (No surprise there).
Aside from the fact that Mark's entire report made my blood boil, I couldn't help recalling the conversation with my liberal Jewish friends at that Midwestern airport. To them, certain Tea Party politicians were "crazy." What about the 53 Democrats who just crapped on the Constitution for the umpteenth time, by giving an unelected body legislative and executive powers. Because of these Democrats, Mark explains, energy costs and everything related to energy (which means just about everything you can possibly think of) is about to go through the roof.
So here's 15 minutes of the Great One Mark Levin telling it like it is. I dedicate this clip to my liberal Jewish friend who has blocked my posts on Facebook because she's too offended to read anything that doesn't jibe with her MSNBC-NPR-filtered reality. I'm sure if any one of those two stations actually report what the Senate did on Thursday afternoon, you would have no problem with it anyway. It's OK to cr@p on the Constitution, as long as you're doing it to further the Leftist agenda.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
I don't normally watch MSM news. But this morning I just happened to be taking out a videotape (I know, old school!) that my kids were watching when Democrat mouthpiece disguised as an anchor George Stephanopoulos brought on Kentucky's new golden child Rand Paul.
What followed was an ass whooping I haven't seen on mainstream TV for a while. The entire segment, it seemed, Steph was interested in one thing and one thing only: playing "Republican gotcha!" And with every question (or more accurately, Democrat talking point being used as a question) Paul refused to play Steph's game. Instead, he through it right back in his face, which was showed more and more consternation as the interview went on.
The video clip is below. Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters has the transcript and commentary. My favorite parts are here, which were delivered by Paul with an air of coolness reminiscent of Bill Buckley:
Good morning, George. Good morning, Robin. When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory. I thought I got a honeymoon from you guys in the media.
… I’ve been trashed up and down one network that tends to side with the Democrats. For an entire 24 hours I’ve suffered from them saying, “Oh, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.” But, that’s never been my position. So, really, this is a lot about politics. This is about, you know, look. We’re up 20 points in Kentucky. Democrats are going to have a tough time winning down here. So, they’re going to make up a lot of stuff and go forward with that. …… What I say is that I’m against repealing the Civil Rights Act. I’m against repealing the Fair Housing Act. I’ve never campaigned on that. It’s not part of our platform. And so, what these are red herrings that people are trying to bring up because the Democrats are way behind in Kentucky and are going to have a tough time beating us down here. You know, I mean, if you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don’t you bring me on with Senator Byrd. And we’ll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. You know, make him, call him to task for something he actually did, as opposed to calling me to task for something that they insinuate that I might believe that is not true. …
… So, the thing is, what’s going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democrat National Committee. They also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. You know, I’ve just been trashed up and down. And they’re saying things that are untrue. And when they say I’m for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it’s absolutely false. Never been my position. And something I think is basically just politics. …
Right on, right on!
Notice that ABC did their bit to smear the Tea Party, with which Paul is affiliated, by putting on screen the caption: “Tempest for the Tea Party: Candidate Defends Comments on Race.” These liberal hacks still can’t get off this “Tea Party = racist” thing.
I will readily admit to not being a big fan of Ron Paul, and have even heard from some people he has an anti-Semitic streak. But I know precious little about his son and didn't want to prejudge him. All I know is what I witnessed on ABC-TV News this morning was music to my ears. He stood up to the media, refused to accept the premises implied by these politically-loaded questions, and made Stephanopoulos look like a damned fool. We need more people doing this, as long as the mainstream news networks will have them.
After finally catching up on the Friday podcasts, I was amused by this rant by El Rushbo. It’s in response to President Hope&Change getting on his soap box to castigate BP for the oil spill in the Gulf and demanding that they pay for the damage. Rush found just a little bit of irony in both Obama’s anger and his demands:
The original monologue runs several minutes and across one commercial break. I abridged it as sensibly as possible:
Here is a guy … demanding results from everybody else, saying, “They’re going to pay for it! BP, yep, they’re going to pay for it!”
Well, who’s going to pay for the damage this regime is doing to every sector of this country?
Who is going to pay for the damage done to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Who is going to pay for the damage done to the private sector?
BP can’t hold a candle to the Obama regime when it comes to destruction! These people, every day, blaze a trail of it from the moment they get up ‘til the moment they go to bed.Who’s going to pay for the damage that liberal policies have done to businesses, to homes, to home values, to jobs? … Obama is running a government that wastes hundreds of billions of dollars a year. He’s running a government that is destroying private property, destroying home ownership, destroying jobs. And he’s concerned about who’s gonna pay for the damage in the Gulf? …
The audacity of this guy to point to British Petroleum and Transocean, when he is single-handedly destroying what was the engine of prosperity, never known anywhere else but the United States of America in this whole world. Who’s gonna pay for the failing public schools? …
Who is going to pay for the damage being done by illegal immigration? …… [Y]ou can look at BP if you want, and you can look at the spill and you blame ‘em all you want, but liberalism and socialism have done more damage to more people than any oil company, than any insurance company, than any coal company, or anyone or thing in the private sector could ever do.
The lives ruined, the homes lost, the jobs destroyed, the happiness destroyed, the contentment destroyed, the dreams of a nice future literally destroyed by this regime and their ideology: socialism, liberalism, statism, whatever it is you want to call it. Nobody regulates the regulators! Nobody regulates the politicians. Where are the congressional hearings on what Obama is doing, has done, or will do about the spill? Where are those hearings?
Too bad Obama’s not mad at 10% unemployment.
I’d like to see him get mad at illegal immigration. I’d like to see him get mad that our southern border is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Instead, he’s mad at the state of Arizona for trying to protect itself. He’s mad at people for using the term “Islamic terrorism.” …
You talk about taking dreams away, making prosperity for your children and grandchildren even tougher to attain if this stuff isn’t reversed and rolled back!
And then we have Obama in a fit of pique yesterday saying the Republicans drove the car in the ditch and they’re not getting the keys back? …
He’s not angry about what the United Auto Workers did to the auto industry. He didn’t care who paid for that. He just nationalized them.
Too bad he’s not angry at the National Education Association for destroying education in this country.
Too bad he’s not angry at the government of Mexico and its role in promoting illegal immigration.
No, who’s he mad at? Me! He’s mad at me and anybody else who criticizes him.
He’s not mad at Iran.
He hates the Tea Party, calls ‘em “tea baggers.” He doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Look at his enemies list, and most of it—most of his enemies—are to be found within the United States border.
Right on, right on, right on!
Oh boy, is Rush Limbaugh in trouble. This time he’s gone too far!
For at least two days earlier this week the lefty media and blogosphere have been abuzz with two different statements that he made w.r.t. the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
First is Rush’s claim that environmentalist wackos blew up the oil rig on purpose in order to show the country that off-shore drilling is too detrimental to the environment and should be immediately stopped. Chris Hayes of The Nation, Anderson Cooper on CNN, Joy-less Behar of ABC and somewhere else, Stephen Colbert on MSWTF, some Brown chick. And that’s just folks talking on TV. The lefty e-zines from Mother Jones to the Atlantic are discussing it too. Oh yeah, and Chris Matthews on his show reported that Rush suspected the Obama administration of sabotaging the oil rig to advance their environmentalist agenda.
Except for one small problem: Rush never said any of those things. He was merely wondering out loud (on April 29 and some other subsequent days) why the Obama administration sent SWAT teams out there to investigate the exploded oil rig and that perhaps they suspected some sort of sabotage.
As to Chris Matthews statement that Rush was implicating the Obama administration itself, he was clearly confused by the fact that while discussing Obama’s decision to send SWAT teams, he noted that the sequence of events was quite curious: The oil rig exploding on Earth Day, the administration taking over a week to respond to the crisis while the oil gushed, and then sending SWAT teams out there (not before they sent attorneys). If anything, Rush was questioning the type and timing of the adminstration’s response to the rig explosion, and not that the administration plotted the explosion itself!
Here is exactly what Rush said on April 29:
RUSH: Wow. All right, so SWAT teams, we’re sending big sis down there, Janet Napolitano, to look at all the valves and stuff, make sure they’re properly greased. He-he-he-he. Ahem. And Lisa Jackson is doing the same thing. So obviously the regime is open to the idea that this is not an accident. The regime is open to the possibility that this could well have been on purpose. Don’t forget, the original Earth Day, 40 years ago, was inspired by the river in Cleveland catching fire. Forty years later, the day before Earth Day this year, the Gulf is on fire. Coincidence? Jury’s still out. The regime is on the case, soon to tell us what happened.
I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. Since they’re sending SWAT teams down there now this changes the whole perspective of this. Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.
You will note that Rush himself admits that he never even suspected foul play until the administration announced it was sending out a SWAT team. Why would one be sent out to an explosed oil rig unless the Obama administration suspected criminal or terroristic involvement? But the Obamedia from Matthews to Colbert to Behar twisted Rush’s words and/or put new words in his mouth in order to impugn him.
I don’t think Rush is wrong at all to think out loud about the timing. His prediction of anti-oil rhetoric was borne out when eventaully folks like the loony RFK, Jr. and Ahhnold the governator were declaring, “That’s it. No more oil drilling! It’s too dangerous.” Plus, all this was set against the background of the c(r)ap-and-tax bill.
This is a conspiracy theory lefties should appreciate! Compared to all the conspiracies propogated by the Democrat-media complex about the Bush administration and 9/11, the Bush administration and the War in Iraq, and the Bush administration and Hurricane Katrina, this one is a no-brainer.
Again, like Rush I’m not accusing the Obama administration of plotting the explosion although I am questioning both the type and timing of their response. And I’m wondering—as Rush did—whether or not this curious sequence of events is coincidental.
Anyway, Rush is in trouble with the mainstream media for another thing: for the claim that is oil is natural just like water is (!) and for saying we shouldn’t do anything to clean up the spill because the ocean will do it itself.
How callous. How uncaring.
Except for one small problem: Rush didn’t say those things either (the second part, that is - that we shouldn’t do anything about it.)
Here is what Rush said, also on April 29:
Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer has just sent me something. I’ve been wondering about this. He must have been reading my mind. We’ve got 5,000 barrels a day being spilled from the rig, and Dr. Spencer looked into it. … There’s natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil—and the ocean’s pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. …
You do survive these things. I’m not advocating don’t care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.
So there you have it. Two items that the Obamedia has gone batty with for days impugning Rush for saying, except he never said them.
Nope, no liberal media bias here!
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
In the first hour of Friday’s show, Mark made the case that the upcoming resignation of SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens may have dire consequences for the future of the country.
Convinced that Stevens’ resignation was deliberately timed (in order that an ultra-leftist president to fill with a like-minded judge), Mark recalls some of the nation’s most disastrous and Constitution-twisting decisions made by a mere 5-4 SCOTUS vote. Two of them were the doing of Justice Stevens himself:
(1) The decision to allow the EPA to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide, a newly-declared pollutant, and
(2) the decision to grant terrorist detainees held at Camp G’tmo certain civil rights they were not entitled to, which interfered with President Bush’s legitimate war-making powers and which to this day jeopardizes our national security.
Mark argues that a left-wing ideologue like our current president would no doubt nominate justices that would make Stevens look conservative by comparison. Therefore, as a plan of action, he demands that Congressional Republicans do everything possible to block any Obama nomination. He warns them, as well as us his audience, not to gratuitously play “nice guy” just to curry favor with the Democrats or media. He argues that if Republicans need to filibuster or obstruct, then they should do so with full force—reminding us that the precedent for such actions was set by the Democrats, such as the “Borking” Ted Kennedy in 1987 and the pompous Chucky Schmucky Schumer during the Bush years.
In short: If Obama gets an ultra-liberal activist justice on the Supreme Court, it would another huge nail in the coffin of this nation. This is a time for Republicans to show their backbones, even more so than during the government-run health (s)care ordeal. They must block at all costs!
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Thanks to the Tea Party Patriots group on Facebook:
Last night I came across an entertaining news analysis and commentary site on the web, called AlterNet.com. The “alter” must be short for “alternate universe” because damn. If you want to learn what a hero and patriot the recently deceased Howard Zinn was; how a Texas Board of Ed is currently trying to “infuse textbooks with ultraconservative ideology” (unlike their hero Howard Zinn, whose footnote-deficient Marxist diatribe called “A People’s History of the United States” is presumably juuust fine!); or the latest hate-fostering racist escapades of the righty du jour, then this site is for you.
Actually, the only reason I found this site, is because they found me. In a piece posted this weekend, yours truly had the honor of being cited among a handful of righty blogs whose skeptical position vis à vis man-made global warming climate change “may be funny, but it’s also very dangerous.”
Here is what was written by contributor Daniela Perdomo about us funny and dangerous cynics:
The Right’s Inability to Grasp Climate Change May Be Funny, But It’s Also Very Dangerous
The so-called Snowpocalypse has brought out the funny bone in the right-wing media, but their inability to correctly draw causal connections is very dangerous.
February 12, 2010 | By Daniela Perdomo
Climate change conspiracies are hardly new, but the so-called Snowpocalypse in Washington D.C. has returned them front-and-center to every single right-wing media outlet. …
For years since climate change has been accepted fact among the bulk of the international scientific and environmental community,
Wrong. Just because Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio say it is doesn’t make it so. Ask these 700 scientists with climate- or environment-related PhD’s whether it’s accepted fact.
many people have contended that global warming is a farce brought on by a New World Order (often embodied by the relatively powerless United Nations) to construct a world government that will undermine American sovereignty
I guess Ms. Perdomo missed the recent Copenhagen “climate conference” where much less time was spent discussing the reliability of the science than was spent bashing the United States, bashing capitalism and applauding socialism, drawing up international treaties designed to end prosperity in America, and concocting schemes that would siphon billions of our hard-earned dollars and redistribute it among poorer nations deemed the supposed victims of American disproportionate carbon output.
and make us all slaves to Al Gore and his green business cronies, who will be swimming in our green—our hard-earned cash …
Ms. Perdomo, again, is apparently ignorant of the fact that Al Gore has been lobbying Congress on behalf of a company he co-owns for them to enact draconian c(r)ap-and-trade regulations that would make him the world’s first carbon billionaire—with a “b”; this would be in addition to the $100 million Gore has already made off the global warming racket.
Of course, this completely ignores evidence that the last decade was the warmest ever on the meteorological record,
Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. First of all, “on the meteorogical record” means since the late 19th century, which is a blip of a blip of a blip on the timeline of Earth’s history. Secondly, we’ve been coming out of a mini-Ice Age since around 1850 so any increase in climate temperature since then is the convenient result of that fact. And third, climate scientists have corrected and NASA itself has admitted that the 1990’s were not the warmest ever; rather it was the 1930’s. In fact, five—i.e., half—of the hottest ten years on “meteorological record” took place before 1950. (This is what’s known in the field as “an inconvenient truth”)
and that while in the long-run we can expect winter squalls like the one that just ravaged the Beltway to be far more uncommon, in the meantime, all this snow may very well be the result of warmer air supercharged with moisture that will result in snowstorms rather than in torrential winter rains, as long as the temperature remains below freezing. In fact, precipitation of all kinds is up—way up. A recent study by the U.S. Global Change Research Program found that levels of very high precipitation from Maine to D.C. rose by 67 percent from 1958 to 2007; the Midwest has seen a 30 percent increase. Global warming holds that weather of all sorts—warm and cold—will be extreme, as we trend to an overall hotter planet.
And strike three, yer out. I defy Ms. Perdomo to find a single qualified climate scientist (not a hysterical environmentalist activist or governmental bureaucrat busybody posing as a climate scientist) who will attest that, if such increases have indeed existed, they can be remotely attributed to human activity. To do so is to aver that such “extreme” weather events never happened before around 1980. Which is complete and utter nonsense.
But this logic doesn’t sit well with Matt Patterson, a blogger at Pajamas Media, who accuses the Environmental Protection Agency of fear-mongering by classifying carbon-dioxide—“literally our very breath”—as an atmospheric pollutant,
Apparently Perdomo sees nothing disconcerting about a politically entrenched organization (and a cooperating activist Supreme Court) declaring a pollutant that which comes out of every exhaling mouth and which is food for the planet’s vegetation.
and scoffs at “any possible downsides” to the global warming conspiracy: “[O]h my God, I might have to walk over a few feet to keep from drowning.” Clearly he hasn’t seen a photographic projection of Manhattan submerged under water in the not-too-distant future; nor has he heard of the plight of island nations like the Maldives, which is expected to be underwater sometime within the century.
Oh yeah, because those Hollywood-esque scenarios and photoshopped images are really the stuff of hard facts that respectable climate scientists believe.
While Patterson suggests we are more likely entering an ice age than experiencing global warming, Patrick J. Michaels at the National Review Online, thinks the snowstorms in D.C. were much ado about nothing. “[T]here are those who insist that it snowed more than when they were little,”writes Michaels, a former state climatologist for Virginia. “That’s partially a matter of physical perspective, as 20 inches of snow on the ground looks a lot bigger to a three-foot child than to a six-foot adult.” Cute.
Most right-wingers are in Michaels’ camp—they really do believe nothing is happening. Emblematic of this is a Washington Times editorial titled “Snowmageddon is nigh,” which reads: “Those who value freedom should thank Mother Nature for her sense of humor, undermining the case for global warming one flake at a time. So although we’re quite tired of shoveling, we say, ‘Bring on the blizzard.’” (Did you catch the “flake” pun?)
How exactly does Perdomo know that Michaels is a right-winger? Because he writes at National Review? Fair enough; she’s probably right on that. But why does she dismiss his credentials due to that likelihood? Michaels isn’t merely a “former state climatologist for Virginia.” He held that position for nearly three decades, and is currently the senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. In addition, he is a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Oh, did I mention he is a contributing author and reviewer of the U.N. IPCC, as well as the author of four books on climate change? But (unlike what adorns Al Gore’s stunning résumé) Patrick Michaels’ impeccable credentials don’t mean a whit to left-wing ideologues like Perdomo because he’s presumably (gasp!) a right-winger!
Now comes the good stuff:
Ah yes, freedom. That’s what it all comes down to, for many of these folks. Over at Vocal Minority, a blog dedicated to “exposing liberal ignorance,” a climate change believer is considered analogous to “Islamic radicals [that] will put you to death for apostasy.” Similarly, the “global warming alarmist punishes her non-believers first with smears, lies, and verbal attacks; then moves on to taxes and surcharges, and ultimately imprisonment.”
I guess I should be flattered that VM was included in this article. But what’s insulting is that Ms. Perdomo didn’t even refute my statement. She just assumed I was out of my gourd and therefore felt no need to. O.K., so let me back up the statement with which she takes issue:
(1) Smears, lies, and personal attacks:
May 11, 2004: Rajendra K. Pachauri, the presently-embattled chair of the IPCC equated the thinking of “skeptic environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg with that of Adolf Hitler.
June 19, 2006: Al Gore appeared on two news-talk shows. On one he called scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as “part of a lunatic fringe,” and on the other he said, “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”October 6, 2006: U.K. environment secretary David Milibrand said “Those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century.”
January 17, 2007: The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen suggests that meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of catastrophic AGW and compared skeptics to Holocaust deniers.
Those are pretty harsh words, considering Cullen just smeared the founder of the company that employs her: John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, thinks that Al Gore’s catastrophic AGW theory is hooey:
March 26, 2007: Jonathan Chait of Newsweek dismisses conservative/Republican catastrophic AGW deniers as tools, shills, and puppets of the energy industry.
July 7, 2007: At “Live Earth” RFK, Jr., bellowed, “The next time you see John Stossel or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity —these Flat Earthers, these corporate toadies, lying to you, lying to the American public …”
July 16, 2007: Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) threatened to launch a campaign to smear and end the career of climate skeptic Marlo Lewis: “Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”
December 4, 2009: Just before embarking on his trip to Copenhagen, British PM Gordon Brown called climate skeptics “flat-earthers.” Again environment secretary Miliband opens his mouth and called them “climate saboteurs” who are “dangerous and deceitful.”
(2) Taxes and surcharges:
Let’s start with the carbon tax. HowStuffWorks.com describes it with smiles and giggles:
While cap-and-trade seems to have won over most politicians, many economists and consumers prefer carbon tax for its simplicity and impartiality.
Oh sure, it’s simple and impartial. So is chopping off the tongue of anybody who says something some politician deems unfit for society. And I’d like to see these consumers who actually like being taxed for carbon use. Puh-lease!
Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
Um, no. What it does do is put government-mandated restrictions on your freedom, your prosperity, and your overall quality of life. Having to fork out more of your hard-earned income in carbon taxes for electricity and gas is just the beginning. Everything you buy will be significantly more because of the energy companies use to manufacture their products, the gas trucks use to transport that product to your local store, and the electricity retail stores use to operate and sell what you buy. (All those costs inevitably get passed on to the consumer.) Furthermore, while you’re paying more on your own energy and gas bills and on products you buy, you’ll find your paycheck being less and less adequate. The carbon taxes your employer has to pay will be conpensated for by means of lower salaries and raises for you.
All this for the imagined purpose of “saaaaving the plaaaanet.” Then, decades from now, after enslaving ourselves to this lifestyle, we will notice that the planet hasn’t gotten one degree cooler, but our government has become an unstoppable authoritarian behemoth 180 degrees out of phase with what our Founders envisioned.
That’s what a carbon tax would do.
But there’s more:
November, 2004: Politicians from California, Oregon, and other states consider GPSing your car so they can tax drivers by the mile (in addition to taxing your gasoline, of course. What, you think politicians are going to eliminate one tax just because they’re planning to add another one?)
September, 2009: Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) proposes to add 50-cent tax per gallon of gas, as well as eliminate mortgage tax deductions on “McMansions,” homes that are 3,000 square feet and larger. (The average U.S. home is around 2,300 sq. ft.).
Then there’s c(r)ap-and-trade looming over our heads. Which by all measures would be a death knell for this once-magnificent republic.
(3) Imprisonment (oh, and I forgot execution):
September 19, 2006: A contributor at Grist.org writes: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
July 7, 2007: At the afformentioned “Live Earth” event, RFK, Jr. declared that AGW skepticism was “treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”
November 12, 2007: Yvo de Boer, director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change said: “Failing to recognize the urgency of [catastrophic man-made global warming] and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible.”
January 31, 2008: At a climate conference in Montreal, environmental scientist (and a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association) David Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act. … It’s an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years.”
June 23, 2008: NASA’s James Hansen called for trials for oil firm chiefs for “high crimes against humanity and nature,” and “actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.”
March 2, 2009: At a Capitol Climate Action rally, RFK, Jr. (who’s a lawyer, by the way), said that the CEO of a certain energy company “should be in jail… for all of eternity” and called energy companies “criminal enterprises.”
June 5, 2009: Joe Romm, who served in the Clinton administration and whom U.S. News and World Report named one of the “top 8 Washington players on energy and the environment” and “Influential Liberal Climate Change Expert” wrote on his website that “It is not my wrath you need fear when there’s an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”
* * * * *
So there you go, Ms. Perdomo. Ample evidence that my statement about lies, smears, taxes, imprisonment, and even execution is 100% accurate.
I’m not sure which is more funny and dangerous: that the instances listed above are real, or that Perdomo dismisses them or at the very least is unaware of them.
Related reading: This useful compilation by Marc Morano at Climate Depot