Vocal Minority

Vitriol Vaca, Hatred Hiatus, etc.

It's one of those busy times. Will be back blogging in mid-August. In the meantime, feel free to browse the archives and visit my friends on the blogroll.

- ETR

Allen West Versus The Death Eaters

From John Hawkins at Human Events.

End The Occupation! Why Johnny Can't Locate Iraq

A little over a year ago, I posted about discovering man-made global warming climate change propaganda at a public school in my town. A poster using Dr. Seuss characters to indoctrinate kids to help "save the planet" was displayed prominently in the foyer of the school. I noticed this poster last July at that school where my then-4-year-old was attending rec camp.

One year later I am happy to report that this poster no longer graces the walls of that school.

That's the good news.

Now for the bad news ...

On the way to pick up my son, now 5, from the same school today, I had New Jersey 101.5 on. On that station they were reporting about a recent study showing that U.S. students are embarrassingly non-proficient in geography. My blood was boiling while I listened to this. It was only a few weeks ago that were reporting that U.S. students score dismally in history!

When people hear news like this, there are always different explanations and excuses. Liberals will blame conservatives for fostering anti-intellectualism, for pushing the dominance of religion over science, and for our incessant and callous attempts to reduce spending on education (three arguments which are completely and utterly without substance, but then again, what liberal argument is? OK, yes, conservatives do want to lower education spending, but not because we're callous but because we're practical, and also because money does nothing to improve the schools but rather enriches greedy powerful public teachers unions and their political butt buddies.)

I prefer the conservative side's explanation as to why, despite throwing billions and billions into the public school system year after year, U.S. students seem to grow stupider and stupider: Liberals who have dominated the schools for decades now have replaced merit with self-esteem, cold hard facts with political correctness and propaganda.

What a coincidence that I heard this latest story about poor U.S. academic performance just minutes before picking up my son from camp. After I checked him out, he led me to the cafeteria where he had some art projects to pick up. As soon as I entered the large room, I immediately saw a disturbing trace of the recently completed school year. The following humongous hand-cut and colored letters appeared on the wall:

M U L T I C U L T U R A L     D A Y

Is it really any wonder why our children know less than they should? Our public schools are too busy filling their impressionable minds with garbage like man-made global warming climate change and multiculturalism. The proof is right there in a Crayola rainbow. 

Liberals sanctimoniously lament the anti-intellectual culture allegedly spread by conservatism. But they ought to look in the mirror. The public school system has been run by liberals for nearly 50 years. The money keeps flowing more and more each year, and our children seem to learn less and less.

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

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character

From the man who I believe deserves an honorary rabbinical degree, Dennis Prager.

One Obama Presser, 36 Obama Lies and Deceptions

From Charlie Brannan at  AT.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Obama's Crony Capitalism

Did you hear about the Democrat president who keeps claiming he's for the "little guy" and vows to protect them from those eeeeeeevil rich people?

The NY Times reports on Obama's latest little fundraiser:

Twenty-seven fund-raisers collected more than $500,000 each in contributions for President Obama and the Democratic Party in the past three months, helping Mr. Obama collect a record haul of campaign cash as he starts his re-election effort.

The list of Mr. Obama’s biggest bundlers, which was posted on the president’s campaign Web site on Friday, is filled with celebrities and the well-connected, like Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood mogul; Andy Spahn, a close friend and consultant to Steven Spielberg, the moviemaker; and Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue.

More than 200 other people scooped up tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each in contributions for the president. Collectively, they raised at least $35 million for Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee, or about 40 percent of the $86 million he reported for the quarter.

For the "little guy" my @$$. Like most Democrat politicians, Obama is a Soviet-style crony capitalist: He claims to be for the "little guy" but is bolstered financially by the uber-rich who get their own "I'm better than everyone else" rewars in return.

Not amused by this blatant display of hypocrisy, Rick Moran at AT writes:

Obama is the candidate of the rich. Or at least, those rich people who have learned that supporting the president brings benefits like health care waivers for their companies, exemptions from regulations, and nice little perks like an overnighter at the White House.

 

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo Interviews Marc Rubio (7/12/11)

Wow, has it really been since April since I posted a Rush audio clip?? My apologies.

Rush doesn't have on many guests, but yesterday he had on Florida Tea Party fave Senator Marc Rubio (R-FL) to discuss some statements he recently made about Obama and the debt ceiling talks. Rubio, like Congressman Allen West (also R-FL), is a liberal's worst nightmare because he's both a minority (his parents fled Cuba) and a solid conservative. If this young man runs for president one day, he'd have my vote.

Anyway, here's Rush interviewing Rubio during hour 2 of yesterday's show. The second clip is a bonus: After concluding the discussion, Rush analyzes an appearance Obama made on CBS News with Democrat tool Scott Pelley. This would be the interview in which Obama infamously stated that he couldn't guarantee if Social Security and other guvmint checks would be able to go out August 3 if the Republicans didn't agree to raise the debt ceiling.

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

(Download clip here)

(Download clip here)

Video of the Day (7/12/11): Laura Ingraham Smacks Matt Lauer Down

In the far left corner, in Commie-pinko shorts with a yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left corner and that stupid circular Obama logo in the middle: The Today show's Matt Lauer.

And in the far right corner, wearing a Wonder Woman-like outfit of red, white, and blue: conservative pundit Laura Ingraham.

Matt: Left hook:

President Obama talks about shared sacrifice. Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?

Laura: Ducks. Right jab to the gut:

Is his shared sacrifice the fact that he canceled his Montana vacation last weekend? ... Even the Associated Press yesterday said the President was dancing around using the words 'tax increases.' The numbers don't add up. Taxing the upper 1% or 2% income earners in this country does not get us to the math. We have to shrink government. Putting more burdens on the people who actually create jobs. Hey, like NBC. We don't need to do that.

Matt: Shaken up. Left jab:

I think everybody agrees that there's got to be some changes on [the Republican] side. 

Laura: Weaves. Right upper cut to the chin:

Matt, when Washington starts sacrificing instead of actually increasing the salaries of individuals within the executive offices of the presidency, when they start sacrificing, we can talk about the real meaning of sacrificing the American people.

Matt: Shaken up. Bleeding. Left punch:

A recent Gallup poll said only 20% of Americans think that spending cuts are the only thing that should be on the table when it talks about this. So they're talking about increasing revenues ... they're talking about raising taxes on the 1%, on corporations, even the corporate jets, which is only a few hundred million dollars.

Laura: Counterpunch:

Matt – right, that was a scam and that was a lie. The fact that the media allowed him to get away with that for five seconds was absurd.

Matt: Down for the count.

And this was all before they started discussing Laura's new book!

And the winner is ... Well, see for yourself:

(Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters has a full transcript of the above interview.)

Matt Lauer is a Democrat tool with a capital freaking T. A Democrat useful idiot of the umpteenth degree. You can see the disdain dripping from his jowls with those "I'm such a smart liberal" glasses looking down at Laura thinking he's going to take her out with the Democrat talking points on his cheat sheet.

Laura doesn't miss a beat. The author of the brand new book "Of Thee I Zing" countered every liberal/Democrat talking point with conservative/Republican truth, facts, and reality. Works every time.

G0d bless you, Laura Ingraham. And Matt, why don't you just crawl back to your liberals-only martini party in the Hamptons and lament how those eeeeevil Republicans aren't paying their fair share.

And someone send Obama a tweet that he better get another butt buddy over there at the Today show. Matt Lauer just ain't cutting it.

Failing Liberty 101

Walter Williams has an article out this morning that makes me cry inside:

The ignorance about our country is staggering. According to one survey, only 28 percent of students could identify the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Only 26 percent of students knew that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. Fewer than one-quarter of students knew that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Discouraging young Americans from identifying with their country and celebrating our traditional American quest for liberty and equal rights removes the most powerful motivation to learn civics and U.S. history. After all, Damon asks, "why would a student exert any effort to master the rules of a system that the student has no respect for and no interest in being part of? To acquire civic knowledge as well as civic virtue, students need to care about their country." Ignorance and possibly contempt for American values, civics and history might help explain how someone like Barack Obama could become president of the United States. At no other time in our history could a person with longtime associations with people who hate our country become president. Obama spent 20 years attending the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled sermons, which preached that "white folks' greed runs a world in need," called our country the "US of KKK-A" and asked God to "damn America." Obama's other America-hating associates include Weather Underground Pentagon bomber William Ayers and Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn.

The fact that Obama became president and brought openly Marxist people into his administration doesn't say so much about him as it says about the effects of decades of brainwashing of the American people by the education establishment, media and the intellectual elite.

I agree with Williams that the only way so many Americans could have voted for Obama in 2008 is due to ignorance of their own country, history, and founders. Liberals like to claim that they are intelligent and respect scholarship, whereas conservatives are unintelligent slack-jawed hicks who can't even perform basic math. But it's actually quite the opposite. After at least two generations of Americans being  they have been un-, mis- or mal- educated by the hate-America liberals who infested our institutes of learning at all grade levels, we have an electorate of ignorant liberals who hate a country they do not even understand. Isn't that pathetic?

Only someone who hates this country would vote for Barack Obama. Because Barack Obama and everyone he associates with and has brought into his administration hates America. And it took 2+ generations of liberal indoctrination masquerading as "education" to get enough of those ignorant liberals to come out the schools and vote for this human wrecking ball of a Marxist America-hater. (Yes, if you voted for Barack Obama, you hate this country. Don't glare at me with your jaw on the floor. Putting him in office was equivalent to putting innocent orphans in the custody of a murderous child-rapist. A'ight??? Can you handle that? Well, tough. Because it's the truth and the evidence is all around us, so thanks for nothing!)

And the situation is not going to change until America-loving, Constitution-respecting conservatives take back the schools, the media, and other institutions of power.

 

 

 

 

Here's Stimulus Money Well Spent ...

As usual, WSJ's James Taranto hits one out of the park:

Remember the "stimulus," or, as it was officially titled, the Recovery Act of 2009? It was President Obama's first major legislative initiative, enacted the month after he took office with only Democratic votes in the House and just three Republicans in the Senate (one of whom was a Democrat by that summer). The price tag was huge, some $800 billion, or 50 times the size (in nominal terms) of the stimulus Bill Clinton proposed at the outset of his presidency. Congress killed the $16 billion Clinton stimulus because it was too expensive.

Unemployment that January was 7.6%, and Obama's economic advisers warned that it could rise as high as 8% without the stimulus. With the stimulus, it rose as high as 10.2% in October 2009. Last month's rate was 9.2%, still 1.2 points higher than the level the stimulus was supposed to prevent us from ever reaching. By contrast, in January 1993 unemployment was 7.3%. Without the Clinton stimulus, it had declined to 6.5% by the end of that year.

Oh well, at least school janitors in Nebraska have "diversity manuals," as the Omaha World-Herald reports:

The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive. . . .

The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that "channel wealth and power to white people," that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should "take action for social justice."

The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and "ableism," defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities. . . .

The Omaha school board approved buying 8,000 copies of the book--one for every employee, including members of the custodial staff--in April.

Your tax dollars at work! Or rather, your tax dollars will be at work for years paying the interest on the money the federal government borrowed from the Chinese to pay Omaha's diversity-manual bill.

Now, one might reasonably object that this is but an anecdote. The law of averages makes it a certainty that some of the stimulus money found its way to less utterly appalling uses than this one. What it didn't do, however, was accomplish its stated objective: keeping unemployment from rising above 8%. ...

It's a common refrain among those who lust to increase government's size and power: Every failed measure justifies more of the same. Poverty programs make it harder to escape poverty? We need more poverty programs! Racial preferences heighten racial division? We need more racial preferences! And a diversity manual for every janitor in the country! When ObamaCare ends up driving the costs of medicine up and the quality and availability down, you can bet the people who created that monstrosity will claim it failed only because it didn't go far enough.

Let's generalize this into the First Rule of Liberalism: Government failure always justifies more government. As Obama said today, complaining about Republican pressure to cut spending: "I'd rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes--like new programs." Fortunately for the country, the voters don't always agree.

Fortunately is correct. The 2012 elections can't come soon enough.

It's time to re-aim our pitchforks

Violent rhetoric, oh sorry, I mean a really interesting article today from Mark Steyn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And speaking of NYC, here's one more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Lloyd Marcus at AT.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him

Amen Brother. From Jerome Hudson at HUMAN EVENTS.

End the Occupation! Education Black Panther-Style in Wash. State

From Big Government: Kyle Olson's latest installment of Indoctrination Fridays.

End the Occupation! Liberals out of the Schools NOW!!!

Liberal Fascism: The Upcoming Edison Light Bulb Ban

Deroy Murdock enumerates the pitfalls we face if Congress succeeds in this umpteenth example of fascistic governmental overreach into our private lives.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain banks on his common sense

A pretty fair article on Herman Cain from the L.A. Times.

The Boy President

By Alan Caruba at CFP.

Lynching Palin, Cain, West, and Bachmann

From James Lewis at AT.

Articles: Obama's Class Warfare Harms America

From Steve McCann at AT.