Vocal Minority

Death Panel Rejects Breast Cancer Patients' Avastin Pleas

Oh that death panel.

Progressivism Masquerading as Education

From Arnold Ahlert at JWR.

This country is in serious trouble. We are producing legions of semi-educated kids with marginal abilities in math, reading, history and Constitutionalism. We're being forced to import engineers and scientists because we don't graduate enough people with those abilities domestically. American students are getting clobbered on international tests, scoring below some students from Third World countries. Three-out-of-four high schools graduates from some states require remedial courses in reading and math before they can do college level work.

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Hollywood Hatred for Sarah Palin

These Hollywood celebs are shameless. And sexist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/29/sarah-palin-critics-the-undefeated

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

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

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

The correct answer is … it depends.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Goldberg discusses why liberals like Stewart dislike Herman Cain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote an old Bill Cosby routine: Right!

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

President Quixote's Legacy: Confused, Ill-Educated and Not Too Bright

From Monty Pelerin at AT.

Christie Signs Pension and Health Reform Bill Into Law

Katie Pavlich at Town Hall's Tip Sheet blog reports:

Another win for New Jersey, taxpayers and private sector complete.

Gov. Chris Christie today signed into law controversial legislation that will force public employees to pay more for their pension and health insurance.

Christie, who signed the bill flanked by a bipartisan cast of mayors, said passage of the bill is his biggest legislative victory since taking office.

"It is important moment for the state of New Jersey, for its citizens, its taxpayers and New Jersey has once again become a model for America," Christie said at the bill signing.

Starting on Friday, public employees across all levels of government will pay an additional percent of their pay into the pension system.

Employees will begin to pay more for their health insurance when their contracts expire. For those without contracts or with contracts that have already expired, the increased payments could begin as soon as January, when new health insurance plans are expected to be completed.

The legislation will save at least $132 billion dollars over the next 30 years. Christie said the legislation will not only save the state billions, but is an assurance to government workers that they will have a pension to collect when they retire.

"This is an important moment for New Jersey, for its citizens, its taxpayers and New Jersey has once again become a model for America."

Thank you, Chris Christie, for doing what New Jerseyans sent to you to Trenton to do! Keep it up.

 

Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation

I'm planning to talk more about this topic later but for now Walter E. Williams delivers a typically spot-on analysis of liberal black race-hustlers and their (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the "three-fifths" clause in the Constitution.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Destroys Time's Stengel on Constitution Article (6/23/11)

Meant to post this one sooner but, you know, summer, kids, family, etc.

Anyway, I had hoped that The Great One would deconstruct the disastrously flawed main article from the upcoming issue of Time magazine. Sure enough, he spent last Thursday addressing it part by part.

The article in question was about whether the Constitution is relevant anymore and was written by Time's managing editor who, despite his having been the CEO of something called the National Constitution Center, is amazingly ignorant of one of the nation's seminal documents. I posted about it too on Friday, after it appeared on-line

These 24 minutes are crucial to absorb for those who are battling clueless Constitution-hating leftists who use it only to enslave, not liberate, Americans from the yoke of big government. There is a war out there, my friends. We need to be properly armed.*

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

* It's a metaphor, brain-dead liberals. Get over yourselves.

Blacks Hit Hardest By Obama’s Liberal Agenda

File this by Jerome Hudson at Human Events under most important story unreported by the DBF* media.

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

Pavlov's Voters

June 27, 2011

Pavlov's Voters
By Carol Peracchio

... "Pavlov's dogs" has become a metaphor for the concept of conditioned reflexes, or the situation where animals (and humans) learn to connect a stimulus to a reflex.  Pavlov's dogs drooled at the sound of a bell.  Humans also experience conditioned reflexes.  Let's say your female boss frequently comes by your desk and berates you.  After a few weeks, just the clacking sound of a woman's high heels in the hall outside your office is enough to induce a rapid heart rate.  It's an involuntary reaction.

I believe that the principle of conditioned reflexes can explain many of the tactics of the political left.  The elite of both political parties, along with the mainstream media, are convinced that the repeated application of certain words, phrases, and symbols (stimuli) will elicit an involuntary response (reflex) in the electorate, who will thus automatically vote in a predetermined approved manner.  To the left, we are all Pavlov's Voters.

For example, last week saw the rollout of the presidential campaign of a heretofore obscure former Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman.  I listened to analysis of his speech by the mainstream media.  Without fail, every one of them highlighted the fact that Governor Huntsman had launched his campaign in the exact same spotwhere Ronald Reagan stood in 1980 to kick off his bid for the White House.

Obviously the left considers this bit of stagecraft of the utmost importance.  But why?  As far as I know, Governor Huntsman was not a particular Reagan enthusiast before last week.  And his speech was the polar opposite of Reagan's speech at that site in 1980, as Rush Limbaugh highlighted on his show.  Then it struck me.

The left believes that the mere mention of Reagan's name (the stimulus) will elicit a conditioned response in conservative voters.  It goes like this:

Political stimulus: Politician says "Reagan" several times while speaking in the same place Reagan spoke.

Political conditioned reflex: Conservatives vote for said politician.

Ding, ding, ding!  This is how the left views the great unwashed electorate in America.  We're mere Pavlovian mammals, bereft of reason and higher brain function, helplessly responding to the political stimuli placed before us.  For Democrats, staying in power is a cinch -- merely say the right words or show the right images, and voters will automatically respond. ...

It always worked so well.  But since the rise of the Tea Party, a large swathe of the electorate is rejecting the inevitability of the political stimulus/conditioned reflex.  Liberals keep ringing the same old bells, but conservatives just aren't responding the proper way.  Here are two recent scenarios illustrating the failure of Pavlovian politics:

Ding, ding, ding!

Political stimulus: Nancy Pelosi led the Congressional Black Caucus through thousands of Tea Party protesters to the Capitol to pass the hated health care bill.

Predicted conditioned reflex: Angry white protesters would hurl racial epithets at black Congress members, all conveniently captured on video to be played over and over on the nightly news.

Actual response: Angry protesters merely yelled, "Kill the Bill!"  (Although one well-hydrated protester accidentally sprayed a congressman with saliva.)

Ding, ding, ding!

Political stimulus: Public employee unions told voters in Wisconsin that should Governor Walker's anti-collective bargaining legislation stand, teachers, firefighters, and policemen will lose their jobs.

Predicted conditioned reflex: Voters, scared to death of fire, crime, and dumb kids, would overwhelmingly vote out an incumbent conservative judge and the legislation would be declared unconstitutional in the State Supreme Court.

Actual response: The conservative judge was easily reelected to the court, and the legislation was upheld.

It's amazing to watch the left as predictable Pavlovian voters become desensitized to their stimuli.  As their usual political tactics remain ineffective in moving the polls, their rhetoric and demagoguery is becoming shrill and apocalyptic.  ...

The good news in the Democrats' ever-increasing rhetoric is that they are possibly inadvertently desensitizing their own voters.  According to Pavlov's research:

An important principle in conditioned learning is that an established conditioned response (salivating in the case of the dogs) decreases in intensity if the conditioned stimulus (bell) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (food). This process is called extinction.

So keep it up, Democrat politicians!  Keep ringing those bells, media!  According to science, Pavlov's Voters just may be facing extinction.

By Insulting Palin, The New York Times Gives Itself a Black Eye

By Insulting Palin, The New York Times Gives Itself a Black Eye
June 23, 2011
by Anita Finlay ("Ani")

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, offered his version of a poison pen letter to Sarah Palin in his piece entitled Sarah Palin’s Tom and Jerry Problem. In it, he claimed that “If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote.” He is sure “most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea” of a Palin presidency. But it is more accurate to say that they recoil at anyone they cannot control. Palin has always been a wild card. When elected Governor of Alaska in 2006, successfully taking on big oil and corruption in her own Republican Party, she was considered a liberal darling. How times change.

In his editorial, Mr. Keller may as well have called Palin an ignorant rube. I’m surprised he didn’t refer to her as one of the “flyover people.” Yet his behavior may not be helping the cause of elitists like himself, or the Democratic Party, for that matter. When even actors, and Obama supporters, like Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore tweet their disgust at big media’s witch hunt of Palin via their scouring of her 24,000 e-mails as Governor – so called “journalists” are in far more trouble than Palin is. “Journalist” credibility and respect are slowly whittling away to zero.

Keller wishes to pretend that journalists are a small part of Palin’s problem – but their sense of entitlement is the entire problem. The media picks our presidents. The very idea that we are not waiting with baited breath to find out who they think should be the Republican placeholder designed to be beaten by their already anointed President is infuriating to them.

Keller talks about the “profound and mutual lack of respect that is not quite like any I recall between a candidate (or pretend candidate) and the press” and in so doing forgets the horrid lack of respect that Hillary Clinton endured in her historic 2008 run for the presidency. At the time, I wrote to the New York Times public editor complaining of their coverage, accusing them of being little more than biased fishwrap. Of course, they exonerated themselves, claiming their bias was insignificant at best. Poppycock!

Their earlier behavior toward Hillary was not lost on Palin. Why should she work to earn the respect of a group that has already made their minds up about her and lives to catalog and celebrate her every misstep?

Mr. Keller offers barely veiled angry and petty complaints about her contempt for the media, but then again, he never had anyone going through his garbage, as Palin did when 30 lawyers were commissioned to head to Alaska during the 2008 campaign to dig up dirt on her. I also doubt he experienced what it would be like to have an infant of his own with Down Syndrome be publicly excoriated and ridiculed. Let’s look at this Keller comment:

The evidence of Palin’s scorn for what she calls the lamestream media is abundant, but I was struck by the gratuitous quality of one remark she tossed off during that Rolling Thunder rally in Washington the Sunday before Memorial Day. When an NPR reporter asked what had brought her to the event, she replied, “It is our vets who we owe our freedom — not the politician, not the reporter — it is our vets, so that’s why we’re here.”

While Mr. Keller is irritated she did not make a more gracious statement, Mrs. Palin is spot on. Powerful politicians in cushy surroundings with large expense accounts and reporters angling for seven figure book deals, often trading accuracy for access, do not matter as much as the brave men and women putting their lives on the line for their country.

Keller also opines that “one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome. Her best defense against being found shallow is a strong offense.” Keller ignores that our own President has a penchant for personally criticizing anyone who dares to criticize him, yet I doubt Keller would ever accuse the President of suffering from “imposter syndrome.” The rest of Mr. Keller’s article pretends at patience, making allowances for Palin the way one would a slower or weaker adversary. Oh, pity her. It’s the best she can do, poor dear. Ah, yes, let’s try ridicule.

He criticizes her characterization of Paul Revere’s ride, but a pack of historians have come out to back up her version. He conveniently ignores how many males, including our current President and Vice President, have made inaccurate statements bordering on the nonsensical only to be given pass after pass on their mistakes. Keller quotes her low poll numbers, compelled to condemn the woman he insists has no chance in the race. He says journalists find her “confounding” and “frightening” and yet he cannot resist picking at the scab. He complains about her peculiar “bus tour” and yet she has not declared as a Presidential candidate. The press is under no obligation to follow her. He and his media cohorts make their own misery and then blame her for it. Sound familiar?

In what he describes as their “use-hate relationship,” Keller demands that Palin acknowledge big media’s importance rather than bypassing traditional media outlets by reaching out to the people directly via facebook, twitter and her own books. Mr. Keller is almost whining: “Damn it – pay attention to me! Make me relevant.” She has got him pitching fits. And he is not alone. Even CNN had to admit that the recent research project to bust Palin through her email correspondence has backfired in the media’s faces – showing her to be “a hardworking and capable executive.”

If I find someone confounding, frightening, unprepared, irrelevant, or otherwise unworthy, I just cross the street. Why spend so much column ink to rip someone to shreds if you are so sure she can never get anywhere? This is not logical. And they call women hysterics…

Keller states that “[t]he press, I think, returns her antipathy in part because she makes us feel ridiculous.” But no one can make you feel anything, isn’t that so? If he feels ridiculous, he would do better to look in the mirror rather than blaming a woman who is currently a private citizen for his troubles.

Mr. Keller ignores the larger dilemma – big media is rendering themselves irrelevant. Sarah Palin is just capitalizing on a trend. As long as we continue to see this sort of condescension or level of scrutiny not equally meted out to both men and women, or to both sides of the aisle for that matter, media outlets will continue to see their numbers decline.

That is Mr. Keller’s real “Tom and Jerry Problem.”

 

Liberal Media Bias: MRC Notable Quotables (Vol. 24, No. 13)

Brent Bozell's Media Research Center is indespensible. Here's the latest digest of Palin-bashing vs. Michelle-worshiping, values-hating vs. Weiner defending embarrassments from the DBF* media.

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

Feminists Decry a False War On Women and Ignore Worldwide Gendercide

Actual feminist Lori Ziganto at Human Events has this blood-curdling story about the trend of female fetuses being destroyed just because they're female. The so-called feminists who incessantly accuse conservatives/Republicans of waging a "war on women" (Debbie Whatsername Schultz anyone?) are OK with this, because to impose the slightest limitation on abortion is completely out of the question to these murderous fascists. This is the twisted lib logic you have to accept when you're a leftist "feminist": Murdering 163 million baby girls in the womb precisely because they're female is an expression of woman's "reproductive rights" (Can I tell you how much I hate that soulless expression?). But suggesting prohibiting the practice of gender-based abortion is waging a WAR ON WOMEN!!!

Pass the Tylenol.

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

Part I here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, wait ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U is for umbrella. Cue the picture:

Nuf said. Imagine if this was Bush?

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

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

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

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

It’s supposed to be common knowledge that Sarah Palin is stupid, right? Why? Palin-haters can’t tell us. There’s no actual data to back that up, other than out-of-context statements, completely made up quotes and purported “gotcha” moments. These debunked gaffes then get transported instantaneously throught the leftosphere from Daily Kos to the NY Times to MoveOn.org to MSNBC to the script writing rooms of “Saturday Night Live” and around and around again. All this before the slightest bit of fact checking even starts—if it ever takes place at all.

Remember the “Bush Doctrine” thing? Sarah got it wrong in her interview with Charlie Gibson in September, 2008—or did she? Charles Krauthammer, the very coiner of the phrase “Bush Doctrine,” corrects both Gibson and the heretofore unapologetic Times:

“At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.’”
— New York Times, Sept. 12

Informed her? Rubbish.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong. …

Strike one.

At a Tea Party Express event last October, Sarah said, “party like it’s 1773.” This sent the leftocracy in a jaw-dropping tizzy. “1773???” thought Markos “Kos” Moulitsas, PBS’s Gwen Ifill, and everyone in between. Only an idiot wouldn’t know the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776! Except Stupid Sarah wasn’t referencing the Declaration; she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which occurred in … wait for it: 1773.

Strike two.

Just this past month the leftocracy thoight they nailed Stupid Sarah when she retold a part of the history of Paul Revere’s ride. Everyone in the Democrat-media complex thought she got it wrong. Except she got it right; all her critics were wrong. To the LA Times’ credit, they corroborated Sarah’s account. Some of her earlier laughing critics ignored the correction, others actually surmised Sarah got it right by accident. Whatever.

Strike three.

And many strikes in between.

Sarah Palin is like the Road Runner and her jealous, hateful detractors Democrat-media complex are all Wile E. Coyote. Always thinking, “All right, now we got her! Look, see how stupid she is!? We told you she’s an idiot!” And then the self-lit bomb explodes in their faces. They’re left standing there with a “WTF?” look on their blackened, hair-singed faces, while Sarah races past them unscathed going, “Beep beep!”

The irony of all this is that for most of the Palin-bashers, their idea of an absolute brilliant God-like genius is President Obama. But the funny thing is that there is just as little evidence of Barack Obama’s intelligence as there is of Sarah Palin’s stupidity. In fact, if liberals actually lived in a reality-based world rather than in their fantasy “liberals are smart and good; conservatives are stupid and evil” world, they would realize that Sarah Palin actually knows what the hell she’s talking about, while Barack Obama is a complete idiot with a capital I.

And to drive this point home, “Mr. Pinko” at IOwnTheWorld.com released a fantastic video montage roughly entitled “Sarah Palin is an IDIOT” but actually documenting over 9 minutes of the stupidest most embarrassing gaffes of the Genius-in-Chief himself.

In this vein, I’d like to present the ABC’s of Barack Obama’s Complete and Utter Stupidity. Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is too stupid and unserious to be POTUS has no business whatsoever wanting Barack Obama anywhere near Washington, D.C. While many of the gaffes are in the video above, some are not. Some letters are for people who are regular bashers of Sarah Palin, but vocal worshipers of President Golden Calf.

ABC’s of Barack Obama’s Complete and Untter Stupidity

A is for Austrian, which Obama thinks is a language.

B is for breathalyzer, which is what Obama mistakenly called an inhaler for asthma. Incidently, he did immediately correct himself, replacing “breathalyzer” with “inhalator.”

C is for corpsman, which Obama pronounced as “corPSe man” twice in the same speech.

D is for the set of 25 DVD’s Obama gave to British PM Gordon Brown in March, 2009—a lame gift in and of itself—which couldn’t be played in a British DVD player because they were the wrong region. (Can you imagine if George W. Bush did that???)

E is for Europe, which Obama thinks is a country, not a continent.

F is for Fifty-seven, which is the number of U.S. states the most brilliant man ever to be POTUS says he’s been to. That was in May, 2008, so it’s possible Obama’s been to more than 57 states by now.

G is for Skip Gates, the black Harvard professor who exposed the racial chip on his shoulder when he was apprehended by a white Cambridge police officer for breaking into what turned out to be his own house. When asked to comment on it by the media, Obama exhibited his supposed brilliance in law by saying that he didn’t know all the facts, then immediately concluding that the police officer acted stupidly.

H is for Haaaavard. Apparently Obama is so brilliant and prolific that Harvard has his transcripts and written works under lock and key. How’s that for transparency?

I is for inefficiencies. In July, 2009, while selling the disastrous government-run health (s)care bill that has since been shoved down our throats, Obama said, “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” Whoops.

I is also for Israel. In July, 2008, Obama said, “Let me be absolutely clear: Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.” OMG, could you imagine if Sarah Palin said something like that!?” Actually, at the time of the 2008 election, MSNBC’s David Shuster reported about a McCain aide who blogged that Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent. But by the time the story went viral, it turned out the blogger was not a McCain aide and the Palin-Africa story was a hoax. But remember, it’s Fox that’s a crappy lying “news” source.

J is for Joe Biden. Anyone who would pick this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance to be Vice President—a man who said J-O-B-S was a three-letter word, who told a man in the audience to stand up before realizing he was in a wheelchair, and who explained to an incurious Katie Couric that when the stock market crashed, FDR (who was not president at the time) got on TV (which was not invented) to address the American people—is by all measures himself a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

K is for Karl Benz, inventor of the first gasoline-powered automobile in 1885-86 in Germany. Our genius president apparently did not know this. When addressing in his first address to Congress in February, 2009, said, “I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

L is for Emma Lazarus, author of “The New Colossus” poem which is engraved on the pedastal of the Statue of Liberty. In a speech at American University last July the purported smartest POTUS in U.S. history not only screwed up the poem, but also royally messed up on the history of the poem and of the Statue of Liberty.

I’ll bet you didn’t even know the Karl Benz or Emma Lazarus gaffes? But I’ll bet you do know about Sarah Palin messing up the history of Paul Revere, right? See how the Obama-worshiping mainstream media works?

And that brings us to …

M is for the Mainstream Media. As documented by many, such as Bernard Goldberg, the liberal MSM has been in the tank for Obama since he appeared on the national stage. If you don’t know most or even some of the gaffes listed above, you can thank the Obama-ass-kissing media for that. They are the reason these huge whoppers by Obama have been hidden while tiniest little misstatement from Sarah Palin is amplified to the hilt and paraded as evidence of the woman’s stupidity. Also, because the MSM have been cheerleaders not only for Obama but for all his failed policies—from the Stimulus Bill to QE/QE2 to his takeover of GM and Chrysler to Obama(Doesn’t)Care to Cash for Clunkers to his Middle East foreign policy—they are just as stupid and clownish as the president they so admire.

M is also for Memorial Day. On that day in 2008, Obama gave a speech during which he said he saw many of the honored fallen heroes in the audience: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

Apparently embarrassed by the claim that he sees dead people, his trusty official campaign blogger erased this gaffe from his website. As Aaron Klein reported at WND, the website transcript reads: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

Part II here.

Liberal Media Bias: Time Mag. to Constitution: Drop Dead

To quote a certain president, “let me be perfectly clear”: Liberals hate the Constitution because it obstructs their ability to control and manipulate the populace. They only care about the Constitution when a liberal activist judge concocts completely new meanings out of it, such as “the separation of church and state” the “right to privacy (i.e., abortion) or the right for foreign illegal enemy combatants to get civil protections, habeas corpus rights, etc. Probably the only document liberals hate more than the Constitution is the Bible, but that’s another topic for another blog post.

The latest embarrassment comes from the editor (!) of Time magazine. With maddening disrespect, the July 4 issue of Time will feature the Constitution being put through a paper shredder and the question posited: Does the document still matter?

Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller reports:

You probably think that just because a bunch of dead white guys wrote down some boring words on a piece of parchment or whatever, way back in the olden times of powdered wigs and wooden teeth, that means we all have to follow those words. That’s why you’re too stupid to write for Time! TheDC’s Jeff Poor reports: “On Thursday on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks if the document still matters. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore. ‘Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think. People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center.’” Okay, so maybe Stengel doesn’t do much driving. Or thinking, for that matter. But you get his point: The rules only count when you don’t have to shred them to get what you want. Compounding the embarrassment for Stengel: He used to be the CEO of the National Constitution Center! Too bad he never got around to actually reading it.

This is blatant ignorance on display, even for an editor of a major magazine. The Constitution isn’t meant to police us. It isn’t even meant to be a guardrail for us. The genius of the Constitution is that it is essentially a traffic cop for the government, not for the people. Stengel ostensibly—like many liberals, including President Hope&Change—mixes this up. And they say Sarah Palin is stupid?

Treacher links to John Pitney, Jr. at NRO’s The Corner blog, who writes:

In a Time article on the Constitution, Richard Stengel writes: “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”

Yes, it does. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, James Madison explained the original understanding of the document in Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

But don’t mention that to Richard Stengel and the liberal know-it-all’s at Time. The Tenth Amendment is pretty far in. Maybe the former CEO of the freaking National Constitution Center just never made it that far in.

Or, more likely, Stengel—again, like many liberals—simply wants to ignore the blatantly obvious. The Constitution does limit the power of the federal government and Stengel doesn’t like that. Like a good liberal, he wants the government to control your freedom of speech via unconstitutional “hate speech” laws, your freedom of religious expression by invoking the non-existent “separation of church and state,” your right to assemble via false documents about national security threats by “right-wing extremists,” your private property via excessive taxation and eminent domain abuses, your quality of life such as the EPA controlling the water level in your toilet, the type of lightbulbs you use, the type of car you drive, the health care you desire, your right to bear arms via unconstitutional gun control laws, etc.

Doug Powers of  The Powers That Be blog adds:

The real answer to the question “does the Constitution still matter” is an unqualified “yes.” But don’t take my word for it. Here’s part of a conversation between Stengel and Howard Kurtz from December of 2010 concerning Time’s publication of Wikileaks documents:

KURTZ: But Rick, you say right here in your editor’s note in “TIME” magazine that these documents released by WikiLeaks “harm national security,” and that Assange meant to do so.

STENGEL: Right. I know. But there’s no way around that.

I mean, I believe that’s Assange’s intention. I believe on balance that they have been detrimental to the U.S. But our job is not to protect the U.S. in that sense. I mean, the First Amendment protects us in terms of releasing this information which does enlighten people about the way the U.S. conducts foreign policy.

If the Constitution did not limit the size and power of government the First Amendment would be moot. Would Stengel be satisfied if the federal government had claimed it had a right to edit parts of his Wikileaks story on the grounds that “the First Amendment matters, but not as much anymore”?

Of course the Constitution matters. Implying that it matters less in every area of life other than journalism is an ultimately self-defeating position, as the “free press” may someday discover thanks to “living Constitution” advocates.

It’s a bad idea to consider the Constitution to be a “guard rail” and then give the government the size and power to move it wherever they like (and probably subsequently brag about how many jobs it saved or created).

Exactly.

So when you don’t like the Constitution because it prevents the liberal know-it-alls to impose their godless agenda on society, what do you do? You question whether the whole damn thing is relevant anymore.

It’s bad enough when the run of the mill zhlub liberal does it. When it’s a prominent politician or the editor of a major national magazine, I weep for my country and fear for my children.

 

The Food-Stamp Crime Wave

From James Bovard at today's WSJ:

The number of food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007. Not surprisingly, fraud and abuse are rampant ...

Inflation climbs to 3.6% in May. Palin was right!

Of course she was. Again. And President Golden Calf and the perpetually surprised Ben Bernacke and the whole team of economic "experts" are wrong. Again.

Howard and Raymond Richman explain at American Thinker.

Obama Era Economic Stagnation Explained by Lemonade and Cookies

C. Edmund Wright at American Thinker relays two stories of small-town U.S.A. economics -- and how it related to the country at large under President Hope&Change. In one instance, children in deep blue Maryland were stopped from selling lemonade for charity and their parents were fined $500. In the red state of Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill allowing making it legal to sell one's baked goods out of their home.

The bureaucratic mindset regarding lemonade in blue-state Maryland stands as a microcosm of the Obama administration.  The Bethesda authorities' penalizing of the kids' drink stand is simply a micro-version of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)'s attempt to prevent Boeing from opening up their massive Dream Liner plant in North Charleston, SC.  It's also much like the EPA running Shell Oil out of Alaskan waters after Shell had invested four billion dollars in exploration in those waters.  These are the same battles as the Maryland lemonade stand, just on a scale of billions of dollars.  It's the idea that central planners and government statists know what's best for our economy and our population.  It's the thinking that the cumulative decisions made by free peoples and free enterprises acting in their own best interests cannot be trusted without bureaucratic supervision.

This is chilling the business climate everywhere.  Entrepreneurs are on strike, à la Atlas Shrugged, and for the same reasons.

People in business are very sensitive to the government-knows-best mindset too.  They can practically smell it.  Many started their own businesses for the express purpose of being independent and having control of their own destinies.  In short, liberty is often the entrepreneur's main motivation.  Accumulating money is of course part of that, because property is a necessary ingredient in the liberty equation.  People motivated by independence are obviously going to avoid situations that invite government interference.  Under the Obama administration, running a business now invites just that. ...

Is it any wonder businesses have their money "on the sidelines" now?  Of course not.  To take a chance now would be business malpractice.  You don't have to understand complex labor law in Washington or the science of environmental law in Alaska to get this.  It's simple common sense.  The best economic lessons always are, since economics is nothing more than human nature in action.

 

 

SCOTUS Okays Congressional Cutoff of ACORN Funding

There is a G0d. From Matthew Vadum at Big Gov't.