Vocal Minority

Vid of the Day: Reagan's 1985 Thanksgiving Address

To think only 25 years ago there was a president who actually acted presidential; who cherished the nation's founding and traditions, not trash and vow to "fundamentally transform" them; who spoke proudly and openly about G0d, not delete from his speeches and represent a party that boos G0d; who spoke of the American people as one family, not divide them as voting blocs of oppressed victims whom he can pit against other voting blocs to foment anger, resentment, and vengeance.

You think Obama would even say anything like this unless being forced to and with a teleprompter?

To anyone born after 1988, I recommend you learn all you can about Reagan and his time.

But Don't Question Their Patriotism: Occupiers in L.A. Stomp on the American Flag

h/t Weasel Zippers. As San Fran Nan would say, G0d bless them.

.

Liberal Media Bias: Time Lumps Middle Eastern Protesters with Occupy Thugs

Glad I'm not the only one who is slightly disgusted by Time naming "the protester" the Person of the Year.  Jack Cashill at AT writes:

Yesterday, Time Magazine named the "Protester" its person of the year.  Lumped in this category were sundry Tunisians, Libyans, Greeks, Russians, and -- the without which not of Time's interest -- those Americans "who occupy public spaces to protest income inequality."  Not surprisingly, Time championed this protest: "Everywhere, it seems, people said they'd had enough."

At Time Inc., not all protesters are created equal.  Last year, when it had a chance to give that "diffuse collection of furies and frustrations that calls itself the Tea Party" its due, Time named Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "Person of the Year."  It was an obvious slight, especially since the Tea Party protesters actually knew what they had "had enough" of.  In November of 2010, their efforts led to something tangible -- namely, the gain of 63 Republican seats in the House and the loss of Democratic control.  That obviously did not impress Time in the way Time would hope to be impressed.

Equally troublesome, but less obvious, is Time's disregard for the individual protester whose cause does not hew to the progressive party line.  I have gotten to know several of these people well.  Up close, through their travails, I have been able to see just how media bias shapes not only the fate of the protesters, but also the flow of history.

As might be expected, Time Magazine did not choose to cite the one serious protester who served real jail time in 2011.  That would be Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.  Unknown to Time readers, Lakin spent five months in prison at Fort Leavenworth before his release in May of this year.  His crime -- his real crime, that is -- was to challenge Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to be president.

Lakin never claimed to know where President Obama was born or whether he was eligible.  The problem, as Lakin saw it, was that no one knew.  As an Army officer, one sworn "to support and defend the Constitution," he felt an obligation to pursue the truth. ...

Cashill is absolutely right. How dare Time equate Tunisians, Libyans, as well as Syrians, Iranians, and Egyptians -- people who have been literally oppressed and who have actually lost lives -- with the spoiled bratty entitled pieces of excrement of the Occupy movements. Makes one's blood boil. Seriously. 

Also infuriating is, as Cashill documents, Time's dismissal of the Tea Party two years ago. Just another liberal rag pushing a liberal agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

(Download clip here)

(Download clip here)

Jeff Jacoby: Making Americans

From JWR:

On the one hand, newcomers streaming to the United States found out quickly that they were expected to become honest-to-God Americans. That meant learning English, getting a useful job, embracing America's democratic values and institutions, and eventually taking the oath as new citizens.

On the other hand, immigrants weren't obliged to shed their ethnic pride, or to drop the foods and customs and festivals they brought with them from their native land. They were free to be "as ethnic as they pleased." ... The goal of assimilation was not to make all Americans alike; it was to get newcomers, however dissimilar their backgrounds and cultures, to believe that they were "irrevocably part of the same national family." ...

As my fellow 4^th-graders and I belted out the lyrics to ... "P-I-L-grim fathers landed here on Plymouth Bay" -- we probably assumed that Mrs. Feigenbaum was just getting us ready for the Thanksgiving assembly. She knew, of course, that she was doing something far more important. She was getting us ready to be Americans.

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on H.S.'s Ban of Wearing Flag on Cinco de Mayo (11/11/11)

This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.

Well, the issue went to federal court and the judge ruled on the side of ... the assistant principal.

Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

For Jon Stewart: 10 Major Ways OWS Is NOT Like the Tea Party

Ya know, sometimes the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart gets it right. In fact, I’ve even commended him on this blog when he does.

This, however, is not one of these times. Wednesday night he wondered out loud why conservatives were criticizing the Occupy Wall Street protests now going on nationwide, arguing:

I don’t get it! Here’s a group of Americans, disenchanted, railing against big government bailouts, angry because they played by the rules, worked hard, now they’re in debt from student loans and they’re unemployed… I mean, look, if this thing turns into throwing trash cans into Starbucks windows, nobody’s going to be down with that. We all love Starbucks.

But these protesters, how are they not like the Tea Party? Alright, some of them, you know, smoke and have pants made out of pot. So call them the THC Party. Aren’t these folks real citizens with real problems? Aren’t they also speaking for America?

I guess an adequate proficiency in criticial thinking skills was not a requirement for Stewart’s position at Comedy Central.

OK, Jon, really? You actually need it explained to you how OWS is not like the Tea Party? Other than at the former they’re smoking lots of weed. Fine …

Of course, I’m not the first one to note the obiously stark contrasts between OWS and TP. Wednesday morning, even before Stewart’s broadcast, my girl Ann (Coulter) wrote:

I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.

No one knows what the Wall Street protesters want—as is typical of mobs. They say they want Obama re-elected, but claim to hate “Wall Street.” You know, the same Wall Street that gave its largest campaign donation in history to Obama, who, in turn, bailed out the banks and made Goldman Sachs the fourth branch of government.

This would be like opposing fattening, processed foods, but cheering Michael Moore—which the protesters also did this week.

But to me, the most striking difference between the tea partiers and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd—besides the smell of patchouli—is how liberal protesters must claim their every gathering is historic and heroic. …

The modern tea partiers never went around narcissistically comparing themselves to Gen. George Washington. And yet they are the ones who have engaged in the kind of political activity Washington fought for.

The Tea Party name is meant in fun, inspired by an amusing rant from CNBC’s Rick Santelli in February 2009, when he called for another Tea Party in response to Obama’s plan to bail-out irresponsible mortgagers.

The tea partiers didn’t arrogantly claim to be drafting a new Declaration of Independence. They’re perfectly happy with the original.

Tea partiers didn’t block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama’s unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare.

Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning.

In the two years following the movement’s inception, the Tea Party played a major role in turning Teddy Kennedy’s seat over to a Republican, making the sainted Chris Christie governor of New Jersey, and winning a gargantuan, historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections. They are probably going to succeed in throwing out a president in next year’s election. …

So, if I may humbly pick up where Coulter left off, here are just a few way that OWS is completely different from the TP:

1. The Tea Party’s key demand is to restore the size and reach of government to that enshrined by the Framers in the Constitution. The Tea Party wants lower taxes, less regulation, less federal spending, and less intervention by the federal government into citizen’s private lives and businesses. To reiterate, the Tea Party’s rule book is the U.S. Constitution; they want to restore America to what it was supposed to be, as prescribed by the Framers. Thus, the Tea Party’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely American.

By stark contrast, the demands of OWS are for more taxes, more regulation, more federal spending (on them, of course), and more government intervention in people’s private lives and businesses (not theirs of course, just those of the eeeeevil rich).

Have you even seen a reference to the Founding Documents at an OWS? Of course not. Then there would be no room to display to Marx and Lenin literature. If you listen to any of the myriad demands of OWS attendees, it is clear they seek a revolution (their words, not mine) and start from scratch based on a Marxist-socialist model. Thus, OWS’s goals are spec ifically and uniquely un-American. They are not, as Jon Stewart ridiculous suggested “speaking for America.”

2. The Tea Party consists predominantly of the nation’s producers, those who own businesses and employ people, older citizens who have worked their entire lives to secure a home and retirement but who are seeing the value of their investments plummet and the financial security of their offspring diminish. They are, as Obama likes to say, “working Americans.” They value success and don’t want to see it punished—by the government or anyone.

On the other hand, The so-called occupants of Wall Street are primarily aging hippies, avowed Marxists and socialists, professional protesters like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and tattooed, multiple-earringed, rainbow-haired twentysomethings who in all their years of college apparently never learned one single damn thing about how the economy works. They resent success and exist precisely to see it punished.

3. One can safely guess Tea Partiers are mostly members of the 53% who pay some sort of the share of the nation’s income tax burden. From them you’ll hear messages of personal responsibility, hard work, and absolute moral standards that are essential for a prosperous civil society.

On the other hand, despite their martyr-like “99%” moniker, it would be safe to say that OWS participants are part of the 47% of Americans who receive rather than contribute to the income tax burden of the U.S. They are members of your quintessential entitlement generation, having been reared in a liberal-dominated educational system rooted in self-esteem, multiculturalism, and a “whatever feels right is right” code of morality. Their sense of personal responsibility is as developed as the horns growing out of my Jewish head.

4. Whereas the Tea Party was falsely accused of being corporate-funded conservative-media-backed “astroturf,” when it is a legitimely grassroots movement, there’s evidence that OWJ has big-powered and big-moneyed support, including unions and Hollywood useful idiots like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon.

5. As documented by Brent Bozell and the folks at NewsBusters, the peaceful assemblies known as the Tea Party have been fallaciously depicted by the mainstream media as violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs.

By stark contrast, the actually violent, angry, dangerous, and extremist mobs called OWS have been championed by the MSM as the nation’s most beautiful display of democracy in action. The blatantly biased culprits include the NY Times, CNN, NBC, the NY Times again, NBC again, ABC and the NY Times yet again.

6. The Tea Party was (and still is) relentlessly smeared by the highest officials in the federal government. A prime example is Nancy Pelosi. Keeping his own hands clean, Obama gleefully allowed then-House Majority Speaker to swing mercilessly at them. First, she accused them of being “astroturf” being funded by big-moneyed people. Then, she likened them to Nazis and spun public tales about seeing swastikaaaaahs. She mocked them in March, 2010, as she emerged from the Capitol building upon the passage of the Obama(S)care bill, wielding that huge gavel and cackling like the Wicked Witch of the West as she walked through an understandably angry crowd. She also said the Tea Party’s supposedly violent rhetoric reminded her of the social unrest that occurred in San Francisco in 1978, the year gay mayor Harvey Milk was murdered.

The actually violent, physically threatening OWS? Politico reports:

“God bless them for their spontaneity,” Pelosi told reporters. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Queen Nancy also said, “The focus is on Wall Street and justifiably so,” Pelosi said. “The message of the American people is that no longer … will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.”

Actually, the focus on Wall Street is not justified, San Fran Nan. Rather, the correct message is that the recklessness of you and your fellow Democrats in Congress and the White House is what has caused massive joblessness on Main Street.” That was the message of the Tea Party, of course, and you have spent the past two years smearing and libeling them.

Veep Joe Biden has also recently smeared the Tea Party as “barbarians at the gate” in the presence of none other than the Community-Organizer-in-Chief himself. That was at the same event where Union thugster Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., said they needed to “take the sons of bitches out” and that those present were Obama’s army that were ‘ready to march,” also to Obama’s approval. So much for that New Civility Obama preached about this January in Tucson.

What about the malcontents at OWS? Yesterday Obama incredibly legitimized them by declaring that they “expresses the frustrations that the American people feel.”

No, that would be the Tea Party, you a-hole. (Oooooo, someone better let AttaaaaackWaaaaatch know I just called the president an a-hole!)

7. As far as I know, no one at a Tea Party has called for the targets being beheaded (compliments of Hollywood actress and “comedienne” Rosanne Barr) or eaten.

I don’t believe a Tea Partier has suggested people kill their parents either, as did this clearly frustrated gay guy at OWS. While the Tea Party is accused of violent, hateful rhetoric despite no substantive evidence, the violent rhetoric of OWS is boldly on display.

Hell, even their name contains “occupy,” which is a military term meaning to overtake by means of physical force! 

8. As far as I know, no throng of Tea Partiers has blocked traffic or overtaken bridges, nor have they started brawls with police and gotten pepper-sprayed and arrested on masse. This, of course, has been happening nationwide at OWS protests.

9. As far as I know, no Tea Partiers have blamed the Jews for our economic mess or hurled antisemitic slurs at people, such as at least four which have occurred at OWS rallies. 

10. As far as I know, none of the lovely ladies of the Tea Party movement have gone topless or in bras to make their points. If, however, you’d like to see young ladies publicly brandishing their bras or bearing their breasts for their cause, please head to your nearest OWS protest [h/t Mike Haltman at the Political Commentator].

So there you are, Jon Stewart. Merely ten of the myriad ways Occupy Wall Street is nothing like the Tea Party. Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.

And for those of you at OWS who need a job, there might be a spot for you over at Comedy Central. Apparently, having a properly functioning brain is not a job requirement.

Yom Kippur y’all. I is outa here!

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.

 

 

 

 

Video of the Day (7/4/11): Reagan Speech on July 4, 1986

Well, it's the 4th of July, when liberals/Democrats pretend to love America for just one day (including our president, unfortunately).

A Facebook friend posted this speech that then-President Ronald Reagan gave on July 4, 1986. It was delivered on the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy in front of the Statue of Liberty (to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the statue.)

Reagan had many great speeches; I'd definitely consider this one of them. The beaming pride with which he speaks of America's freedom, history, military, and gift to the world.

The text is here, for those of you who'd rather read it than watch it.

My G0d, how far have we come ...

On this Independence Day, Great Britain unveiled a bronze statue of Reagan in front of the American embassy in London. He deserves it.

Happy 4th! G0d bless America! (Oh sorry, does that sound too Republican?)

 

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: Not Letting the Gov't Siphon Away Your Income = Un-American

Ahh, remember the good old days (the 2000's)? Deranged leftists would take to the street by the tens of thousands likening Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice to Nazis. Radio and TV talk show hosts, newspaper editorialists, university professors, and even prominent Democrat politicians would join in a chorus that called the Bush administration war criminals, terrorists, and imperialists who sent children to die in order to enrich their oil buddies. They called our troops stupid, uneducated, cold-blooded killers, torturers, and likened them to the worst characters in recent world history. At "peace" protests, they burned American flags, hung them upside down, dragged them along the street, and even performed bodily functions upon them.

You might also recall that the slightest criticism of this absolutely detestable and inexcusable was met with, "How dare you question my patriotism!?!?" and "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!!!" Hillary Clinton, channeling Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, courageously declared to a screaming crowd, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"

Of course, no one was calling unpatriotic those who were legitimately debating and disagreeing with the Bush administration. Just the ones described above. And Hillary knew it.

So, from January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2009 it was verboten to accuse anybody of being unpatriotic or un-American.

Not to worry, folks, because leftists, being the inconsistent result-oriented bunch that they are, have found something for which they can freely accuse others of being un-American: not wanting to pay any more than they already do in taxes.

The most recent case in point. On "Inside Washington" on taxpayer-funded PBS, some leftist drone by the name of Mark Shields declared that the (relatively!) low taxes we have today are "fundamentally un-American."

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters retorts [emphasis mine]:

Imagine that. People not being taxed more than they currently are is fundamentally un-American.

Would our Founding Fathers agree with Shields's sentiments?

Hardly.

What folks like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison would say is that almost half of the public not paying taxes while the other half shoulders all the burden is what's un-American.

But liberals like Shields don't see it that way.

For them, taxation is a means to redistribute from those that have to those that don't, a concept our Founding Fathers would have been appalled by.

Of course, one quite imagines Mr. Shields and his accountants do everything in their power to make sure his tax burden is the lowest they can get away with.

I doubt they think that's un-American.

My sentiments exactly.

So let me be among the first to say to Mark the Marxist Shields in all sincerity, "How dare you question my patriotism!?"

 

 

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Sets the Left Straight on the Killing of bin Laden (5/2/11)

I don't know about you but I've spent way too much time and, unfortunately, wasted effort taking on giddy Obama-worshipers who, like Obama himself have yet to give the Bush administration one shred of credit for the OBL capture n' kill, when the plain truth is Bush and co. deserve most of the credit. That plus the fact that the same people heaping praise on Obama were the same people demonizing Bush for implementing the very tactics that Obama used to catch bin Laden.

The Great One did his share, coming right out the gate swinging on his Monday evening show. Here are two hours from condensed into 38 minutes. Obama and the left have been shameful; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been vindicated. And neither Mark, nor I, is going to let any WOT-protesting leftist forget it.

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: Every Liberal Happy About the bin Laden Killing

Melissa Clothier says it well in this article at Red State:

Liberals don’t believe any of their own ideological garbage enough to actually live it. They just believe it enough to try to make your life hard by making you live it.

If they really believed their pap, they’d be crying tears for Osama Bin Laden. They’d be pining away for the injustice. They’d weep for the rule of international law and Geneva conventions that were violated. They would be wearing their pink shirts in front of the White House and yanking out their boobies in outraged protest at the gross violation of a sovereign nation’s borders.

But they don’t believe it. And they’re not crying. And those lack of tears tell you everything you need to know about the emptiness of the left’s ideology and rhetoric. It’s useful for political purposes. It’s useful to beat up Republicans. ...

Yup.

 

Liberal Lie #14: The Right Is Violent, the Left Is Civil - More Liberal Tax Day "Civility"

What lowlives. How do you who consider yourself a liberal/Democrat look yourself in the mirror when this is what your brethren do openly and proudly?

Yesterday I linked to a video of liberals/Democrats counterprotesting a Tea Party in Olympia, Washington. They were making obscene comment after obscene comment, including fantasizing about wiping their a** with the American flag. (But don't you dare question their patriotism!)

But there was more "civility" as only the liberals can display elsewhere in the country. In Madison, Wisconsin, where the amazing and courageous Sarah Palin delivered a dynamite, hard-hitting speech, counterprotesters booed during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner:

Then, while a pretty brave 14-year-old girl spoke at the podium, the oh-so tolerant and civil protesters booed her, and one guy called her a f**king brat and others yelled "Koch suckers":

Thank goodness for all the video cameras and cell phones. Otherwise most of this garbage wouldn't even see the light of day, right?

The unshakable Andrew Breitbart didn't overlook the irony of being in Madison, the center of left-wing violence and extremism back in February, and told his heckling detractors in attendance to "go to hell":

But wait, there's more. The lib/Dem contigent who converged upon a Portland, Oregon Tea Party, were evidently so threatened about a black American who had the nerve to leave the Democrat platation, that they hurled racial epithets at him while he spoke at the podium, including "token black guy," "Uncle Tom," and "house n*gga":

 

So cut the crap about this era of New Civility, liberals/Democrat. You are full of it, and always were.

And the issue isn't even that these lib/Dem lowlives never got that memo on civility back in January when Sarah Palin and eeeevil conservative radio was despicably blamed for "inciting violence" in Tucson, Arizona. It's that the call for "civility" by President Hope&Change and other prominent figures were hollow and insincere to begin with. Liberals/Democrats have acted inexcusably uncivil, intolerant, and violent toward conservatives before the terrible shooting in Tucson, and they continued to be so after. The calls for civility had one purpose and one purpose only: To try to shut conservatives up, to try to stifle their free speech by public assembly and on the airwaves. It was a free speech power grab, pure and simple.

No proclaimers of the New Civility nor their audience had the slightest intention to be any less intolerant or violent than they have been. We saw it when union thugs trashed Madison, Wisconsin; we saw it when leftist loudmouths like Bill Maher hurled not one, not two, but three misogynist epithets at Sarah Palin; and we saw it when opportunistic Democrat demagogues like Reid, Schumer, Wasserman Schultz, Slaughter, Sharpton, and Jackson libeled Republicans who had to audacity to try to rein in out-of-control government spending.

Stay classy, liberals/Democrats.

Oh yeah, and to the DBF* media: Nice work on that crack reporting on all this left-wing violence and extremism. NOT.

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

Liberal Lie #14: The Right Is Violent, the Left Is Civil - "Peaceful" Liberals in Olympia, WA

UPDATE: More lib/Dem "civility" here.

While those supposedly extreme (that's what Chuck Schumer's peeps told him to call them), violent, bigoted Tea Partiers rallied across the country this weekend, here's video footage of "peaceful" liberals counterprotesting in Olympia, Washington [h/t Breitbart via Gateway Pundit].

Warning: Major verbal and visual profanity.

Yup, liberal Democrats calling people they disagree with "f**king homos." Hmm, will the mainstream media even touch this one? (Cue the crickets chirping.)

Oh yeah: And don't you dare question their patriotism!

Our Dangerous Attorney General

I was just talking with a fellow Jewish conservative last week about the detestable AG Eric Holder. This guy hasn't met an Islamist or other non-white thug he hasn't defended, at the expense of our own nation's security and laws.

From Human Events.

Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Iraq Vet Heckled at Columbia

This disgusting incident was reported in the NY Post over the weekend: 

Wounded Iraq veteran jeered for speaking in Columbia University ROTC debate

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."

Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds. ...

You can't blame the poor young skulls full of mush, can you? After all, isn't Anti-Americanism a bona fide field of study at Columbia? (Sure seems like it.)

I wonder if these punks would've treated Ahmedinejad this way.

Maschek has more bravery and integrity in the nail of his pinky toe than any of these anti-American cretins or their Commie professors. And they know it.

But don't you dare question their patriotism!

Related reading: Mike at Political Commentator.

Liberal Lie #14: The Right Is Violent, the Left Is Civil - Sorry Palin-Haters, the Tucson Shooter Was a Lefty

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.

More examples of when the Right was blamed for Liberal violence from Legal Insurrection [via I Hate The Media].

Before concluding with this post, here is Amit Ghate at Pajamas Media from March 2010:

Force and Violence: How the Left Blurs Terms

The 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.

Related reading:
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

WikiLeaks: Was the Obama WH Involved?

A skeptical reader writes to Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs:

... Now, we have the 2nd set of Wikileaks  (involving literally hundreds of thousands of documents), which this Government has known was coming for some time now.  I DID read most of these documents this time, and I can tell you this one thing and that is his:  Mr. Julian Assange (along with some 22-year-old Private in the US Army) did not do this alone.  I realize that computer hackers are good at what they do: Mr.  Assange DID NOT get his hands on literally 100's of thousands of Documents from the U S State Department, etc., without someone in upper levels of Government (with Obama's WH), and Holder's Justice Department, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear.  It simply cannot be done.  You will not see any serious investigations by Holder's (traitor to his core)  I consider Obama, as well as Holder guilty of Treason of the highest order. Of course, I consider B. Hussein Mohamed Obama to be America's number one enemy.

Basically, this would have NEVER happened under a Reagan Administration.

We all know that Obama's goal is to fundamentally change America, and bring it to its knees.  We also know that George Soros' number one goal is to destroy our Republic.  If I am not mistaken  Mr. Soros is a member of The Open Society Organization as is Mr. Assange.  I believe the WikiLeaks (parts 1 and 2) were orchestrated by GS.  How would Julian Assange manage to release all these Top Secret Documents, which basically spills the beans on what America thinks about everyone of our enemies and our Allies wiout the help of someone with very deep pockets, if you get my drift. How does  Assange stay alive, where does he get hismoney. Who pays for his lawyer.   Some guy from Australia, aided by a private in the USARMY does this.  Simply cannot be none.   Obama (with GS's help)  allowed this to happen. ...

Whoa. Those are pretty serious allegations.

Think we'll ever find out if they're true?

End the Occupation! - California Public School Bans Student from Displaying U.S. Flag

Yes, people. At a California public school displaying a United States flag is now off limits due to the fake excuse of potentially inciting “racial tension.”

DENAIR, Calif., Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Officials in a California school district said a middle school student was told to take a U.S. flag off his bike to avoid “racial tension.”

Denair Unified School District Superintendent Edward Parraz said Cody Alicea, 13, was told not to fly the U.S. flag from his bike while at Denair Middle School after complaints from other students, KCRA-TV, Sacramento, Calif., reported.

“(The) First Amendment is important,” Parraz said. “We want the kids to respect it, understand it, and with that comes a responsibility.”

Gee, by that logic, shouldn’t the leftoids have been telling Rauf the Radical Imam ix-nay on the osque-may near Ground Zero, in order to avoid “racial tension”? (I know, I know, I know. How silly of me to try to find logic, principle, and consistency in liberalism!)

Parraz said racial tensions boiled over at the school this year around the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

Then why didn’t you ban Cinco de Mayo, Mr. Parraz? If your goal is to avoid “racial tension,” then you should have. (I know, I know, I know. How silly of me to try to find logic, principle, and consistency in liberalism!)

“Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they’ll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don’t really want,” Parraz said. “We want them to appreciate the cultures.” …

First of all, it’s bad enough when some prepubescent Miley-Cyrus-worshipping, texting-addicted, Justin-Beiber-obsessed schoolgirl says, “you know … you know … you know” twenty times in one sentence. But really, this is a district superintendent?

Second, here’s what I would do if there are Hispanic students at this school who might become racially incensed at the sight of an American flag: I would sit them down in a room, tell them that they are in the United States of America. And in this country we have freedoms. And at the top of that list is freedom of speech, and especially the freedom to display the flag of one’s own country.

If you have a problem with any of this, then that is your problem, not theirs. American citizens will not have their free speech rights denied because you have an unhealthy chip on your shoulder. If you still have a problem with it, then go home, grab your ungrateful parents who clearly didn’t instill love for this the best and freest country on the planet, and go the f**k back where you came from! (And take your worthless superintendent with you!)

And just to be really snarky, I’ll tell them all this in English!

Oh, I’m sorry, was that too insensitive? Too intolerant? Too mean-spirited? Tough. Get over yourself. It’s the truth and the sooner you realize it, the better you’ll be.

P.S. By the way, this incident happened yesterday, i.e. Veteran’s Day.

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

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Calls This Election Day "A Rebellion" (11/1/10)

Before anyone takes 8 minutes to vote today, take 8 minutes to listen to these powerful words.

As he is quite often, "The Great One" was all fired up last night. On the eve before Election Day, Mark reminds us how far from its original Founding this government has strayed and that we have the moral duty to cut this serpent off at its head before it is too late. He calls the predicted destruction of the liberal Democrat monopoly over the federal government an honest, lawful, responsible rebellion by the American people. Someone else (P.J. O'Rourke?) called today a "referendum." Either one works, in my opinion.

For anyone who is a staunch conservative, this opening monologue from yesterday's show will be music to your ears.

For those not really into politics and who kind of sit on the fence, I hope to G0d these words speak to you before you vote.

And for you planning on voting for the liberal Democrat today: Please, for the love of everything that is holy, wake the hell up.

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

Download clip here