Vocal Minority

Liberal Media Bias: Romney Bashing ... in a Music Article

Coming out of blogging hibernation to post this discovery of Mitt Romney-bashing -- 5 months after the fricking election -- in an on-line pop music article.

The site is called Pop Dust. And this snippet comes out of an article about the 10 richest musicians of all time:

3. Bono: $600 million

Paul Hewson is known as much for his global diplomacy and forays into venture capital as U2’s music. His investment in Facebook’s IPO—via his Elevation Partners private equity firm—didn’t make him a billionaire, but U2’s “360 Tour” grossed nearly $800 million between 2009 and 2011, making it the biggest tour ever. (2005-06’s “Vertigo” tour is fifth on that list.) Combine that with Bono’s many investments (including private equity stakes, a clothing line, and a five-star hotel), the fact that the band owns all the rights to its own music, and Bono’s Romney-esque tax-dodging investment schemes, and the numbers add up quickly.

This perfectly exemplifies what El Rushbo talks about often: the low-information voter, consuming culture and news from low-information writers who stealthly (and not-so-stealthly) inject fallacious political commentary into their wholly non-political articles, T.V. shows, etc.

Bono has made millions for not only himself but has also provided a product desired by millions of customers (his fans) not to mention created jobs for thousands of "employees", i.e. everyone who works for him, for U2, marketers, retailers, ticket sellers, shirt makers, etc. etc. etc. Yet because he dared move his business away from a high-taxing business-unfriendly environment to a low-taxing business-friendly one, he's a scheming tax dodger. Get it?

That's not being a "tax dodger," leftists. It's calling being smart with your hard-earned money! What you're doing is like calling someone a shoplifter because they chose to buy a grocery item at supermarket X because they were selling it cheaper than supermarket Y. Of course, when you're of the ilk that believes that you're not paying your fair share and that the Government is owed your money, then when you make smart decisions by seeking out low-taxing environments you're smeared as a scheming tax dodger.

And what else works with the LIV? Word-association guilt-by-association games. You all know the game: A psychologist tells you to say the first thing that comes to your mind when (s)he says x. So what are LIV writers, and, as is presumed, their LIV readers, supposed to think when they hear "multi-millionaire tax-dodging investment schemer"? President Hope&Change's Republican arch-enemy Mitt Romney of course!

So, just like Mitt Romney whose candidacy ended almost 5 whole months ago, Bono is using unethical unfair schemes so that his "numbers add up quickly."

And that, my friends, is how you create and inculcate the low-information voter.

Obama's Revenge: Day 1 (1/21/13)

Well, here we are. The beginning of the End. On November 2, just four days before the election, President Hope&Change said to a crowd booing at Mitt Romney, "Don't boo. Vote! Voting is the best revenge." That's exactly what they did.

And so yesterday was Day 1 of what can be called the era of "Obama's Revenge."  Here's one of many things that occurred toward that end:

Not only was it the first invocation in inaugural history delivered by a non-clergy member, but "Under G0d" was axed from the invocation. Can't have us acknowledge G0d when Government is the supreme ruler, after all. Not when the thousands of delegates at the DNC convention in September boo'ed G0d.

No one should make light of this. The most totalitarian regimes of modern times are either radical secularist, removing G0d with voracity (Obama's G0dless America) or radical Islamic. Both are intrinsically tied together in that they both have the same goal: To eradicate Judeo-Christian values and influences from the world.

The Left: Where Greed Meets Envy

The other day I was contemplating why the Ten Commandments has "Thou Shall Not Covet." Murdering, stealing, committing adultery, honoring parents, observing the Sabbath, not taking G0d's name in vain, etc. -- those are all actions. Coveting is not an action; it's a feeling, an emotion. Then it dawned on me: A lot of the world's human evils stems from the emotion of covetousness (= envy).

I've also made the observation that to be an illiberal/Democrat is to willingly violate the Tenth Commandment. Virtually all Democrat policy is motivated by envy of others, and is sold by Democrats to the American people by appealing to their base feelings of envy.

Lo and behold ... From today's American Thinker: The Left: Where Greed Meets Envy.

Libs are the true aggressors in culture wars

From Jonah Goldberg at JWR.

The real motive behind this backlash [against Susan J. Komen For the Cure] is to make it very clear: You must choose a side -- ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy. As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism's moral vision. You're either with us, or against us -- which means we shall be against you.

KOMENIZE: The Tolerant Left Invents New Word to Celebrate Its Perceived Victory for Abortion

From the Hillbuzz blog:

Today I spotted the first usage of the word “komenize” — which the Tolerant Left has coined to describe targeting a charitable organization that does something they disagree with in an orchestrated and sustained effort to annihilate its fundraising efforts.

It’s debatable whether this is what’s really happening at the Susan G. Komen Foundation right now, but it’s a great example of how effectively the Tolerant Left commandeers language and how quickly it manipulates zeitgeist and culture for its own aims.

Conservatives are incredibly foolish to cede ground to Leftists on anything — but that’s exactly what conservative writers and pundits do every time they use the word “liberal” to describe a “Leftist”. That’s like calling a cockroach a “hug-a-bug” or saying “undocumented worker” instead of the more accurate term “illegal alien” (or, even better, the portmanteau of “crimmigrant”).  There needs to a new word invented for how monstrously stupid it is to ever agree to the Tolerant Left’s favored verbiage and say “Pro-Choice” instead of what it really is — Pro-Abortion — when Leftists go out of their way to say “Anti-Choice” instead of “Pro-Life”. ...

And from a Hillbuzz reader:

Just when you think the Left couldn’t be more evil . . .

Let’s recap: A organization that kills innocent human beings for a living, along with its radical supporters, were so offended by the elimination of a voluntary contribution by a non-profit dedicated to curing breast cancer that was a whopping 0.07% (that’s zero-point-zero seven percent — less than one tenth of one percent) of their annual budget that they set out to destroy the non-profit, all the while claiming that they weren’t the ones politicizing the issue and that they were being bullied. And the Leftist media supported them all the way, including hiding the Planned Parenthood CEO’s lies about them doing mammograms. Now Komen is distrusted and disliked by both sides.

The only good news is that others will think more carefully before getting involved with Planned Parenthood. Oddly enough, people who kill babies for cash have some unpleasant traits.

 

 

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

"This was a mass of confusion, hypocrisies, lies, and distortions, and a failed attempt by a failed president to attach himself to America's greatness when he wouldn't recognize it if it slapped him upside the head!"

That pretty much sums up Rush's analysis of President Hope&Change's SOTU STFU speech on Tuesday:

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

(Download clip here)

(Download clip here)

Homeless Long Island Teenager Is Intel Competition Semifinalist

CBS's NYC affiliate reports:

Samantha Garvey has good reason to be the recipient of high fives and congratulations from the faculty and students in the hallways at Brentwood High School.

The 17-year-old senior says she cannot believe that she is one of the semifinalists in the highly prestigious Intel Science Competition, in part because she lives in a Bay Shore homeless shelter with her parents, brother, and twin sisters.

“I am currently homeless. Like I’ve said, this motivates me to do better. I do well and I pursue my passion because it’s what I have and it’s a way out, you know, and it’ll lead to better things,” Garvey told WCBS 880 reporter Sophia Hall.

That last paragraph is the key. The young lady and her family are clearly going through rough times, but there’s no bitterness, resentment, envy, or sense of entitlement in her face or words.

The real tragedy is that country doesn’t seem to have enough Samantha Garveys.

 

 

The Left's Rights Scam

By Steve McCann at AT.

The United States will never solve its fiscal or societal dilemmas until its citizens, led by principled leaders unafraid to tell the truth, understand what "rights" are and that life is inherently inequitable and difficult.  Government, which is made up of fallible human beings, cannot make life fair and guarantee equal outcomes; it can only provide a framework to enable the individual to pursue those goal.  The history of mankind has shown that to do otherwise condemns that nation to an inevitable collapse in which all its people pay the ultimate price.

Mark Levin Unveils New Book Title!

The Great One announced the title of his new book on yesterday's show: "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America."

Hope it's as brilliant has his previous ones.

It's to be released on January 12 (which is El Rushbo's birthay, I believe. Coincidence???)

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

Liberal Anti-Semitism: OWS, Installment #2 [WARNING: Language]

The Blaze [via Zombie via Urban Infidel]  reports last night on a couple more anti-Semitic incidents from OWS. The following transcript shows the two Americas that exist right now: The hard-working, socially responsible, and productive (represented by the Jewish man) and the slovenly, entitled, and unproductive (and foul-mouthed):

Jewish man wearing a yarmulke: I work 65 hours a week.
Protester: You probably live in the Hamptons ‘n’ some shit.
Jewish man: I live in the Hamptons? I live in Brooklyn…I work 62 hours a week. Do you work 62 hours?
Protester: You know what’s funny? Your people own schools and fuckin’ government buildings, but your wives are on welfare. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand that. I met a public assistance officer. And they were Jewish, but their husbands own fuckin’ everything.
Jewish man: I work 62 hours a week. How many hours a week do you work?
Protester: I don’t work. How about them apples?
Jewish man: So why don’t you get a job?
Protester: I don’t need a fuckin’ job.
Jewish man: Why not?
Protester: You don’t need paper! We can grow our own fuckin’ food. We can shoot our own fuckin’ animals. We can do all that shit. We can build our own fuckin’ houses.
Jewish man: How do you get the materials?
Protester: We can just take it from the Earth! You come from the Earth. This comes from the Earth. Everything comes from the Earth, you dumb motherfucker! Like seriously. Technology comes from the Earth, protons, neutrons, electrons.
Jewish man: Is this a real conversation? Is this a real conversation?
Other OWS protester: He’s making points. But he’s making points.
Jewish man: What are the points?
Protester: I don’t need a point. It comes from here (indicating the ground). It came from here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s here for free! Why we gotta pay for it? It’s bullshit. This is bullshit.

Yet another instance is exemplified by this discussion:

Anti-Israel protester: War — that’s the only thing you understand. Them people in Palestine, you killing ‘em so bad that they gotta strap themselves up with bombs, and go take buses into Israel and blow themselves up and die. Ain’t an Israeli person going into Palestine, strapping themselves up with a bomb, and killed one Palestinian person. They gonna shoot them with guns, they gonna shoot them with [fire]. They ain’t got no heart, because they don’t have no righteousness. There’s no love for that. You got to really be about what you’re saying to sacrifice your life. C’mon, don’t tell me that they’re about that. C’mon, man, don’t talk to me about that, Israel. When you said that, I got to stop you, because what you’re saying is the lies. Actual lie. They’re not about peace. Israel is doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to the Jews. Bottom line. They’re doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Germans did to them.
Anti-Israel protester #2 (pointing to pro-Israel protester): You don’t want to hear the truth. You don’t like the truth! Ha ha!
Anti-Israel protester: You think we about lies? You think I came out here on my day off to just hear some lies? I came out here to bear witness to the truth. You can’t be talking lies in front of the people. C’mon, man. Talking about ‘Israel is about peace.’ It ain’t about peace. They’re about destroying people. If they had ovens, they’d put the Palestinians in ovens. And you know it.
Anti-Israel protester #2: That’s why the Jews come into existence.
Anti-Israel protester: Ain’t nothing about peace when you come to Israel. Israel is totally about war and destruction. And you know it. …
Arabic-speaking man: Can she ask you a question? She’s a journalist from the Middle East, and we cover these stories here.
Middle-Eastern journalist woman: [Asks question in Arabic.]
Arabic-speaking man: [Translating her question] Has there [been] anyone that has responded to what you’re calling for?
Anti-Israel protester: Everybody agrees with what I said. Every word I said, everybody agrees with it.

Absolutely no coverage of this by the mainstream media. Could you imagine if anything remotely like this occurred at a Tea Party!

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!

Maybe It Was a 'Love Crime'

From Fred Kopp at American Thinker, on the ridiculousness of "hate crime" laws and the vicious flash mob in Milwaukee:

In the future, when the detritus of American jurisprudence is mined for clues about what went wrong, the advent of hate crimes will rank right up there along with prohibition and affirmative action. A murder is a murder. An assault is an assault. A robbery is a robbery. Each crime must be prosecuted for what it is. Any fatuous "enhancement" because of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, disability, or any other liberal "protected class" serves only to diminish those victims who do not meet such criteria, and falsely elevate those who do. It is a slap in the face to our bedrock principle of "equal justice under law," and a violation of our sacred American contract.

Meanwhile, back at the state fair, Milwaukee police watch as black thugs single out white fair goers to attack. The blood is real, the pain is real, the screams are real, but is it a hate crime or not? WHO CARES? I contend that the blood, the pain and the screams are quite real enough for an arrest. Any manufactured motivation beyond simple criminality cannot accurately be determined, and any attempt to do so is justice denied, or worse.

One hapless Deputy Police Commissioner says, "You can't simply look at the race of the offender and the race of the victim and say it's ethnic intimidation. It may be, but we're not sure. Does it give us pause? Yes, it does."

But that's the wrong question. The question is, "Has a crime been committed?" No pause is necessary. There should be an immediate arrest. The commissioner has been unfairly saddled with a vague, unenforceable pseudo-legal concept that should be none of his concern. His job is to acknowledge that a crime has occurred and to make an arrest. It should not include psychoanalyzing some underlying, totally subjective, social excuse for bad behavior.

Liberals would have us believe otherwise. They find hate in everything. In fact, they love hate. They think that they are doing us all a favor by tacking on enhanced penalties for criminals who, they determine, have some mythical axe to grind against their victims because they are, in some slight way, "different." If I were asked to dream up a narrative more ridiculous, I'm sure that I could not. ...

 

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?

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.

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 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 ...

The Stuuuupidest Bumper Sticker Ever

Yesterday I parked at a Starbucks and while walking to the place noticed a car (no, it was not a Prius) with the stupidest bumper sticker ever. Actually it had two: The first was that COEXIST one which is also stupid. Because the problems we have today aren't because of Christians fighting with Muslims fighting with Jews fighting with Buddhists fighting with Shintos fighting with Zoroastrians fighting with athiests. The problem is freaking Muslims and left-wing socialist-Marxist secular-"progressive" athiests.

But I digress. The other bumper sticker was the real stupid one. It said, "It won't kill you to learn Spanish."

Really???

How about, "It won't kill you to either (1) learn the language of the country you have chosen to immigrate to or (2) go the %$*# back home.

Oh, was that too harsh? Too insensitive and mean-spirited? Tough! Come on!

Actually, it's not insensitive and mean-spirited at all. It's well known that people who come over to this country and don't learn the language are much more likely to be less financially sound, less educated, and less involved in American society at large. Learning the language of your new country opens up doors otherwise closed to you.

Then again, such people end up more dependent on government and expect handouts, and therefore wind up a reliable Democrat voting bloc.

And you wonder why Democrats (and many Republicans!) don't like declaring English the official language of the U.S. It has nothing to do with decency or sensitivity and everything to do with politics.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Muslim Violence Is Our Fault; Non-Muslim "Violence"? Also Our Fault.

What is it like to go about life thinking like a liberal/Democrat?

Last year Florida Pastor Terry Jones merely threatened to burn a Koran. The result? Days of murderous Muslim violence. This time, Jones actually burned a Koran. The result? Days of murderous Muslim violence.

But only to a liberal is it not remotely obvious that these days Muslims are always inflamed, as Aaron Goldstein at American Spectator correctly notes:

… So once again the Muslim world is inflamed. But then again when isn’t the Muslim world inflamed? Of course, most of us remember the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses. While Rushdie is still walking this earth more than two decades after the fatwa was issued, the same cannot be said of Hitoshi Igarashi. If his name isn’t familiar it ought to be. Igarashi was the man who translated The Satanic Verses into Japanese and because of it he was stabbed to death in July 1991. And in case you think the Muslim world has forgotten about Rushdie, there were renewed calls for his death in 2007 when it was announced he would be knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.

Remember when authorities in Sudan accused an English schoolteacher named Gillian Gibbons of blaspheming Islam because the children in her class named a teddy bear Mohammed? She was sent to jail and was due to receive forty lashes until international pressure was brought to bear against the Sudanese government, which released her from jail and deported her back to Britain.

Remember the Danish cartoon controversy? In January 2010, nearly four years after the cartoons of Mohammed were published in Jyllands-Posten, a Somali man broke into the home of Kurt Westergaard, the man who drew Mohammed, with the intent of killing him. Fortunately, Danish police were able to thwart the attack and Westergaard was unharmed.

Theo Van Gogh wasn’t so lucky. In November 2004, he was murdered in broad daylight in the streets of Amsterdam because of his documentary film Submission,which documented violence against women in the Muslim world. Remember what Van Gogh’s murderer,Mohammed Bouyeri, said to his mother in a Dutch courtroom? Bouyeri said to her face that he felt no sympathy for her because he deemed her a non-believer. Van Gogh collaborated on this project with former Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali who to this very day is under 24 hour protection?

Speaking of violence against women in the Muslim world, it was in January of this year that a 14-year-old girl named Hena Akhter was executed in Bangladesh for having been raped. Yet in the eyes of Sharia law and the Muslim village council who upheld it she was nothing more than an adulterer who brought dishonor to both her family and to her village. …

To this list, Arnold Ahlert at JWR reminds us, we can add former Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris, who became the target of a death threat following her satiric “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” idea. Ms. Norris is currently in hiding in our own country because of Muslim death threats.

Despite all these facts, the liberati have all blamed Jones for this latest incitement of violence. Some are even intent on violating his First Amendment rights to stop him. On Sunday’s Face the Nation the loathsome Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said:

Ten to 20 people have been killed. We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.

Um, excuse me, Mr. Reid, but you might want to reread the First Amendment. It’s in the Constitution, that document which you swore to uphold a number of times already.

To make matters worse, RINO Lindsey Graham-nesty (R-SC) joined in the Jones-bashing:

I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.

Imagine if this was said when Bush was president! You could people like … well, Harry Reid, screaming that the Bush administration was trying to squelch people’s First Amendment rights!

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t approve of what Jones is doing. But I’ll be damned if I approved of opportunistic politicians (as well as the increasingly feckless Gen. David Patreaus) blame him for extremist Muslim violence and then try to infringe upon his Constitutional rights.

Secondly, I am sick and tired of animals known as “radical Muslims” being absolved for murderous violence while Christians and Jews (particularly in America) are being blamed for inciting violence halfway around the world. You see, both Richard Cohen of the NY Times and Joe Klein of Time Magazine argue that Jones’ burning of the Koran is the moral equivalent of the murder of innocent human beings! As Allen Estrin writes at Dennis Prager’s website, this is what passes as sophisticated liberal thought. (In fact, Prager talked about this yesterday on his show; I believe he said it will be the topic of his next article.)

OK, libs. Let’s apply your utterly convoluted logic to other situations:

When a deranged fundamentalist Christian murders an abortionist, then by twisted liberal logic, it is the act of abortion that is to blame for this completely understandable act of murder. But when such despicable acts occur (and believe me, a vast vast majority of pro-lifers disapprove of murdering abortionists), the Democrat-media complex chastises the murderer and even campaigns for bigger protection for abortionists!

In this country there are lots of things done that are offensive to Christians and/or Jews. Remember the taxpayer-funded work of “art” called “Piss Christ”? Or the one with elephant dung smeared all over a the Virgin Mary. When Christians merely complained—no one murdered anyone and no one set anything on fire or bombed any buildings, just complained—it was the “artists” with whom the liberati sided. Offended Christians were told to get over it, that this was a free country and that the religiously offensive pieces of art were protected under the First Amendment.

With Jews it’s kind of a PC-determined craps shoot. If some artist, celebrity, or college speaker offends the sensibilities of Jews (especially if it’s an anti-Israel message), then the liberal left will be among the first to support the rights (if not the actual sentiment) of the offending party. But if righty Glenn Beck says something that liberal Jews don’t like or Sarah Palin invokes—gasp!!!—“blood libel,” the liberati will be first in line to slap a gag order on them, citing First-Amendment-violating “hate crime” laws.

This curious double standard even applies to non-religious situations. When violence is committed upon the right (e.g., the recent violent protests in Madison, Wisconsin), the liberati will circle the wagons around the perpetrator and believe (either privately or publicly) that the victim deserved it. But when a liberal/Democrat merely faces opposition from the right—think Tea Party rallies—the reaction is completely the opposite: You think for one second that had there actually been Tea Party violence or racist attacks after the signing of the disastrous ObamaCare bill last March that the liberati would have blamed Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for inciting the violence? Hell, no.

So, why in the (very rare) instances of Christian violence do the liberati blame the perpetrators and excuse/support/protect the victims, but in the (very frequent) instances of Islamic violence do they excuse or support the perpetrators?

Why in the (very rare) instances of right-wing violence do liberati blame the perpetrators and excuse/support/protect the victims, but in the (very frequent) instances of left-wing violence do they blame the victims and excuse or support the perpetrators?

Because liberal logic is not based on principle, but on politically correct dogma and politically-motivated result. Only in the twisted liberal minds of Richard Cohen, Joe Klein, Harry Reid, and Lindsey the RINO is a Christian’s symbolic burning of a book responsible for or even equivalent to the wanton Muslim murder of innocent human beings. As long as Muslims are the liberal victim du jour, they will excuse every possible horrific act, from bombing to beheading to stoning to genital-mutilating to raping to burning and—for some college professors and even Obama’s longtime pastor and friend Jeremiah Wright—hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. Everything will be explained away as being our fault.

For this reason alone we must ensure that liberals of this mindset must be prevented from occupying the remotest posts of power.

Mental in America

At CNBC [h/t Drudge] it reads in bold letters: Nearly 1 in 5 Americans had mental illness in 2009

Yeah, they're called Democrats. (Ba-dum-bum!)

Alternate punchline: In Washington, D.C. only, the ratio becomes 1 in 2. (Ba-dum-bum!)