Vocal Minority

Obama's Revenge: Day 17 (2/6/13)

Remember the good ol' days when George W. Bush was demonized as an imperial president abusing his executive power by doing ... well, G0d knows what?

Remember how the Democrat-media complex were apoplectic with rage about how he and his Cheney-Rumsfeld junta "rushed" us to war supposedly without Congressional authorization?

Remember how they were nuts about his violation of countless sections of the Bill of Rights when he passed the Patriot Act? How worried they were that both American citizens and enemy combatants wouldn't be afforded Due Process rights.

And remember how they protested in the streets demanding the closing of Club Gitmo, where poow poow innocent tewwowists were getting tortured by Bushie's evil henchmen? 

And remember how they compared Bush to Hitler and other historic tyrants for "warrantless wiretapping"? How worried they were that both American citizens and enemy combatants wouldn't be afforded privacy rights.

That was then. This is now.

Of course, Bush's offensive in both Iraq and Afghanistan were initiated with complete Congressional authorization.

As president Obama himself has renewed the Patriot Act with nary a peep from the Bush-haters.

Despite being one of his primary campaign promises in 2008, Obama has yet to close Club Gitmo, again with nary an objection from the Bush-is-Hitler crowd.

And what of those Due Process rights the Left is so interested in protecting?

It has been known for a while, despite White House obfuscations and obstructions, that Obama has been sending unmanned drone aircraft to the Middle East to kill individuals suspected to be Al Qaeda or other dangerous terrorists. Fine by me.

Except some of these targets have been American citizens who for one reason or another became radicalized and became fighters for jihad. Again, I couldn't care less if these cretins' time on earth was suddenly curtailed. But if they are still American citizens, why are they not being arrested and given their Constitution-secured Due Process rights?

The White House hasn't told us. Even worse, now that a White House memo has been leaked, the administration is actually defending the practice.

Oh, but it gets better. These drones have not only been used in the Middle East. Drones have been spotted flying low on U.S. soil. Which has led about a dozen states, with blessing from the ACLU -- thanks, guys. Where the *^#@ have you been? -- to look to ways to restrict drone use over their skies. 

Oh, but it gets even better. Turns out, the U.K. Guardian has reported some major U.S. news outlets, the same outlets who lambasted George W. Bush for nearly his entire presidency for being an imperial president, has purposely kept a lid on the story. 

US news organisations are facing accusations of complicity after it emerged that they bowed to pressure from the Obama administration not to disclose the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia despite knowing about it for a year.

Amid renewed scrutiny over the Obama administration's secrecy over its targeted killing programme, media analysts and national security experts said the revelation that some newspapers had co-operated over the drone base had reopened the debate over the balance between freedom of information and national security.

On Tuesday, following Monday's disclosure by NBC of a leaked Justice Department white paper on the case for its controversial targeted killing programme, the Washington Post revealed it had previously refrained from publishing the base's location at the behest of the Obama administration over national security concerns.

The New York Times followed with its own story on the drone programme on Wednesday, and an op-ed explaining why it felt the time to publish was now. ...

The NY Times, huh? The same NY Times that couldn't wait to splash anti-Bush anti-war propaganda on their top-fold front pages.

The same NY Times that sensationalized the non-story called Abu Ghraib. 

The same NY Times that couldn't wait to disclose classified information on its front pages despite admonitions from the Bush White House. 

The same NY Times that worked to put a sympathetic face on the hardened terrorists supposedly tortured by Americans at Club Gitmo.

The same NY Times that gave the detestable MoveOn.org a discount on a full-page ad smearing then-General David Patraeus. 

The knowingly sat for over a year on revelations that the Obama White House had been using drones to assassinate American citizens overseas. 

The late great Andrew Breitbart didn't call them the "Democrat-media complex" for nothing.

Three questions, by the way:

(1) Why is this story being reported in a non-American newspaper?

(2) Why is the White House defending the use of drone assassinations, and if there's nothing wrong with it, why did they and the news outlets that propagandize for them keep it from the public for over a year?

(3) Don't you find it funny that this is all coming out after the election? Hmmm????

Liberal Media Bias: NY Times on Recess Appointments

Oh, the NY Times. The Newspaper of Record. The Old Gray Lady. Standard bearer that sets the bar for all other media. Conveyer of truth, balance, objectivity, and "all the news that's fit to print."

Right!

So, what is the NY Times' position on presidential recess appointments?

Well, it depends on who the president is!

Here is what Damon Root at Reason dug up:

In January 2006, The New York Times published an unsigned editorial attacking “the grandiose vision of executive power” displayed by President George W. Bush, who was then battling Senate Democrats over the fate of several controversial nominees to federal office. “Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments—a constitutional gimmick,” announced the Times.

Of course, Bush's recess appointments were NEITHER a grandiose vision of executive power NOR a constitutional gimmick. It was completely and wholly within Bush's right to make any appointments he wanted between the end of the 110th Congress and start of the 111th. The notoriously Bush-hating rag the Times just didn't like anything Bush did: They propagated the lie that the War in Iraq was illegal and unconstitutional (and immoral). And you may remember how the entire DBF* media reacted to Bush's firing of eight U.S. attorneys, while not objecting to the previous president Bill Clinton's firing of all 93! Same double standard.

Also, Bush didn't not make any more recents appointments not because the bitter partisan Democrat-majority Senate and House pulled that stupid gavel stunt, but because the Constitution didn't permit the president to make any other such appointments.

Now fast forward to the present. Last week, a D.C. Circuit Court -- hardly a bunch of right-wing extremists! -- unanimously declared unconstitutional President Hope&Change's recess appointments last January, including three to the hyperpartisan National Labor Relations Board. (Yes, the same NLRB that recently bullied Boeing for the audacity of trying to set up shop in a right-to-work state!) Why? Because (A) there was NO transition between two Congresses and (B) Congress was NOT in recess; Obama just waved his magic wand and declared it so! 

So, how does the same NY Times react to the D.C. Court's ruling:

In an unsigned editorial titled “A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery,” theTimes blasted the D.C. Circuit for placing limits on Obama’s authority. “With no sign that Republicans are willing to let up on their machinations, Mr. Obama was entirely justified in using his executive power to keep federal agencies operating ...” 

Got that, everyone? Bush's completely legitimate recess appointments: "a grandiose vision of executive power" and "constitutional gimmick." Obama's completely illegitimate appointments: "justified executive power" being undermined by "Republican chicanery" and "Republican machinations".

Nope! No liberal media bias here!

What a freaking joke.

Some New Vids: The Great One and a Great American

Everyone should watch this video taken at the Reagan Library last Friday. It is Mark Levin at last Friday's book signing -- Levin's last for his latest book "Ameritopia."

There is also this young up-and-coming great American by the name of Kira Davis. She's the one whose "Apology" video went viral last month. Here she is again doing a "Smart Phone Smart Minute". Go get 'em, Kira!

Liberal Fascism: HHS Now Inspecting, Regulating Pre-K Lunches (in N.C.)

This was the first story out of the gate when El Rushbo came on today:

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”
State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead
By Sara Burrows Feb. 14th, 2012

RAEFORD [North Carolina]— A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

Now, as close to perfect as El Rushbo is, there are two things he seemed to overlook in his commentary that followed. First, at least the way he presented it, this seemed to be a federal mandate, but the Division of Child Development yada yada yada is actually a division of the North Carolina state HHS Dep't. The article didn't specify one way or another whether this mandate was being imposed by a state or federal department, but I really think it's the former.

Not that this can't eventually go nationwide; in fact, as soon as the Obama administration finds out about this, they'll be giddy to get it started in your state too!

Which brings me to the next thing Rush missed, because he's not Jewish: Two of the required items in pre-K lunches are one meat item and one milk item. This can pose a problem for Jewish institutions with pre-K programs if they observe kashrut (the Jewish dietary laws prohibit the mixing of meat and dairy products.)

Now, all of last week I was in quite a heated debate with several Jewish and non-Jewish Facebook friends about the Obama mandate that forces Catholic institutions to provide free contraception for their employees. Some Obama-worshiping Jewish liberals did agree with me that the contraception mandate was a governmental overreach. Others, however, were not fazed by it at all. One friend who's very pro-choice abortion called this blatant violation of the First Amendment a "non-issue."

These were the same people, by the way, who just a week before were caterwauling about Susan J. Komen rescinding their donation to Planned Parenthood. That was a problem for them. The contraception mandate was not. See what liberals consider as priorities?

So, what would such people say if they woke up one day to find the Obama administration forcing Jewish pre-K programs to adhere to their USDA requirements, thereby violating their own religious beliefs?

I know what I'd tell them: First, I'd call them hypocrites. Then I'd tell them not to say I didn't warn them.

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)

The Great One's Latest Book Is Here! [UPDATED]

Mark Levin's much-anticipated book "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America" came out yesterday.

Quite frustratingly, it was not easy to find at our local "big name" book store. You had to walk a good 2/3 the way in to find it hiding among others at the "new non-fiction" table. But that's all right; it's already #1 on Amazon as of this writing and is sure to be at the top of the NY Times bestseller list.

After laying out the historical and philosophical foundations of "utopianism," Mark argues how, using utopianism as their model, our current  government has brought us to a post-constitutional America. This dovetails nicely with the observation by William McGunn in yesterday's WSJ that more and more regular Americans are becoming interested in the Constitution. He writes:

Yes, in the Bush years the air was also thick with accusations that the Constitution was being "shredded." We now know that the professed concern for the Constitution was fake. We know it was fake because the same Bush claims of executive authority in war that provoked such apoplexy in our pundits, professors and politicos have for the most part been embraced by Mr. Obama—all to the distinct sound of silence.

Today we have a wholly different order of constitutional complaint. Where the accusations against Mr. Bush were led by prestigious law faculties and law firms, those against Mr. Obama reflect a more popular hue. Where the indictments of Mr. Bush were largely limited to war policy, those against Mr. Obama's extend broadly to all areas of policy: foreign, economic and social. And where critics of Mr. Bush were obsessed with outcome, the discontent with Mr. Obama has been magnified by the uneasy sense that he is changing the fundamental rules of the game.

This awakening started with the tumultuous legislative path to Mr. Obama's health-care victory. Along the way, Americans watching were given an education in words like "cloture" and "filibuster," and saw the leaders of the Democratic House and Senate consider a maneuver whereby the House would "deem" the Senate version of the health-care bill to have passed without having to vote on it. That left a bad taste.

It proved only the beginning. Since then, Mr. Obama's aggressive disregard for any constitutional limit on what he wants to do has come to define his approach across the board. ...

Here's Terry Jeffrey at CNSnews.com interviewing Mark about the book, which, based on what I've read so far, I completely recommend! 

And here's an article on it by Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator.

UPDATE: I've read the first couple of chapters already and admit skimming some of it, not because of Mark's writing, but because the subject matter is, IMO, a little dry. Don't get me wrong -- I don't underestimate the importance of understanding Plato's Republic and Mark does do a good job of providing a "conservative cliff's notes" of it. It's just not the most interesting stuff in the world; I'm expecting the second section of the book, the section that focuses on the U.S. and current politics, will be markedly more exciting.

Oh yeah: Here's yet another interview Mark gave to Jason Mattera at Human Events: Part I  Part II

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin Schools Stephanopoulous on the "Right to Privacy" (1/9/12)

The past weekend was quite busy for the GOP candidates. One debate Saturday night, facilitated by lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist George Stephanopoulous and another one Sunday morning with lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist David Gregory.

Each debate had its key moments, but the one that made the most news was when Stephanopoulous posed to Mitt Romney the hypothetical question whether a state has the Constitutional right to ban contraception, citing the landmark Griswold vs. Connecticut case from 1965. It was a completely irrevalent but extremely loaded "gotcha" question that was clearly posed to paint Romney and any other candidate who took the bait as some sort of privacy-hating sex-obsessed turn-back-the-clock neanderthal.

Fortunately neither Romney nor anyone else took the bait and in the end it was Stephanopoulous who looked like the fool.

Here's the Great One discussing this truly embarrassing moment and delivering an exegesis on the Griswold case and the heralded "Right to Privacy". This is truly a listen and learn clip so sit down and take it all in:

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

Download clip here

Download clip here

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 Media Bias: Is There Anything the NY Times Gets Right?

It's bad enough NY Times lets editorialists like Paul Krugman rant hypocritically about Republicans being against science, or that Frank (Ain't That) Rich and Moron (oh sorry, Maureen) Dowd have free reign to write their own nonsensical screeds. But the bigger problem is that their news writers also inhabit a fact-deficient leftist bubble. 

Mona Charen has an article out today aptly called "Don't Confuse Us With Facts; We're The New York Times". She writes in part:

An Aug. 31, 2011, story by Al Baker covers a federal judge's ruling that a case challenging the New York Police Department's, NYPD, "stop and frisk" policy can go forward. But the story is so one-sided that it practically topples over as you're reading it.

The suit was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR, a leftist outfit that sued Reagan over Grenada and El Salvador, represented performance artist Karen Finley in a suit against the National Endowment for the Arts, represented a Palestinian "immigrant activist," and so forth. The New York Times naturally omits this history. The suit alleges that the NYPD's policy is based "not on reasonable suspicion of individuals but on racial profiling."

The judge (who sounds like she might have done a stint at the CCR during some time in her career), declined to dismiss the case, saying, "This case presents an issue of great public concern. Writ large, that issue is the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos who become entangled in our criminal justice system, as compared to Caucasians." Note the passive voice. Like flies in a spider's web, they become "entangled" in the criminal justice system.

The New York Times' story then duly repeats statistics offered by the CCR's Assistant Legal Director, Christopher Dunn. "In 2010, city officers made more street stops — 601,055 — than in any previous 12-month period." Proving what exactly? The story editorializes: "As a practical matter, the stops display a measurable racial disparity: black and Hispanic people generally represent more than 85 percent of those stopped by the police, though their combined populations make up a small share of the city's racial composition." ...

With the exception of the glancing reference to Kelly's explanation, The New York Times never provides the most relevant statistics regarding minorities and violent crime, which concern not the percentage of blacks or Hispanics in the population, but the percentage of those who commit violent crimes. City Journal's Heather MacDonald supplied them:

"Blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city's population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city's population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies."

So I guess the CCR and its stenographers at the NYT are right: There is a disproportionate amount of blacks and Hispanics being stopped than Caucasians -- Too many whites are being stopped and too few blacks and Hispanics are.

But as liberals whose brains have been smashed in by the PC hammer, they get the facts bass-ackwards.

Kind of how they get it completely bass-ackwards with the tax burden in this country. While the NY Times propagates the Democrat lie that "the rich" pay disproportionately too little income tax at the expense of "the poor", the inconvenient truth is the complete opposite.

And also kind of how they completely get the whole "Islamophobia" thing 180 degrees wrong. While the NY Times propagates the Democrat lie that Muslims in America are experiencing disproportionately high instances of hate crimes, the inconvenient truth is that -- even though virtually every terrorist act in the past decade has been committed or attempted by Muslims -- they have a disproportionately low percentage of bias crimes. It is, rather, American Jews who suffer a proportionately high level of hate crimes, which, in fact, are committed quite regularly by American Muslims. Go figure!)

Notice a trend? If you do, and you happen to be a NY Times subscriber, I would suggest demanding your money back. If only journalistic malpractice was an actionable offense ...

 

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 I)

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

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

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

Informed her? Rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong. …

Strike one.

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

Strike two.

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

Strike three.

And many strikes in between.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that brings us to …

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

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

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

Part II here.

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

From Paul Skousen at The Daily Caller.

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. . ...

 

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: Embassy Terrorist Walks. Thanks, Eric Holder

From IBD: 

Fire Eric Holder

War On Terror: The acquittal of a Gitmo detainee of the murder of 224 people shows the stupidity of civilian trials for those at war with us and the blind incompetence of an administration that believes in them. ...

Firing would be too good for him. Holder needs to be brought up on some sort of criminal charges. Maybe aiding and abetting. I'd bet money that Holder and the rest of Obama's hate-America cabal wanted this terrorist to get off.

While subbing Thursday for El Rushbo Mark Steyn discussed this infuriating story, saying:

Ladies and gentlemen, the terrorists have won. The government of the United States cannot get confessed jihadist murderer Ahmed Ghailani convicted on any of the 224 murders he was charged with because they decided to shower him with all the protections of the civilian justice system. But the very same government has decried that your private parts and those of your children, grandmother, and all 300 million sets of American genitalia are up for grabs without any probable cause.

Yup. These people, from Holder to Napolitano, need to go. 

Make no mistake. Democrat-enforced political correctness will be killing thousands of Americans very soon. How could it not? This rot-infested government of ours is digging our graves for us.

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: Senate Approves Kagan

And the deliberate and willful demolition of the United States of America continues:

Senate approves Obama nominee Kagan to top court
WASHINGTON | Thu Aug 5, 2010 4:32pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court won Senate approval on Thursday, his second appointment to the highest U.S. court that decides abortion, death penalty and other contentious cases.

The Democratic-led Senate voted largely along political party lines, 63-37, to confirm the former Harvard Law school dean as the fourth female justice in U.S. history and the 112th high court member. ...

Remember these names: Snowe, Collins, Graham, Lugar and Gregg.

Those are the five RINO's who sold out the country and voted with the Democrats to put another nail in the coffin of this republic and its Constitution.

What Are Obama's Critics For? Plenty

One thing we’ve heard a lot since President Golden Calf took office is that his opposition represents the “Party of No.” There’s no principled reason (as one liberal friend phrased it last year) for this stubborn opposition. As long as Obama is in power, the GOP is mainly going to say “No” on everything. Even as recently as last week, Obama accused nay-voting Republicans of obstructing change. This was as he signed into law the Dodd-Frank bill—named after the two crooks who were directly responsible for the housing crash and who, as is the rule in the Democrat Party, were rewarded by given the privilege of spearheading the wreck-tifying 2,400-page piece of cr@p.

And when Obama’s critics (a.k.a. regular Americans) aren’t being called “the Party of No,” they’re being accused of not being for anything. “They’re not for anything, these tea-bagging racist Republicans! They’re just against everything! Against hope! Against change! Against little cute kittens and puppies!” Etc.

Don’t believe the hype. For one thing, I’ll be the first to admit the “Party of No” moniker is essentially accurate. But the reasons are hardly unprincipled, or even racially charged as we’ve heard ad nauseam. The GOP for the most part says “No” and even “Hell, no!” for very principled reasons: Because it’s the right thing to do. Plain and simple. The failed “stimulus” bill? Hell no! The disastrous liberty-sucking health (s)care bill? Hell no! And now the economy-squeezing financial de-form bill? Hell no again.

As long as this human wrecking ball of a president is in office, and as long as the Democrat Party controls Congress, I am proud to be a member of the Party of No.

Now let’s get to that “We’re not for anything” meme. That’s a lie. We are for lots of things. And it’s not—as Obama’s sycophants will have you believe—putting blacks at the back of the bus and women back in the kitchen blah blah blah. What we conservatives/Republicans/tea partiers are for is restoring America to be closer to its founding principles. Why? Because they worked! Not perfectly, naturally; nothing human-made is perfect. But light years better than this Marxist utopia the Obamaniacs in power have in store for us, that’s for sure.

If you have been wondering what us on the right are actually for, or you are on the right and have had a frustrating time explaining it to a lefty, this piece ought to help you out. This conservative manifesto as it were was written back in February:

Why I am a Conservative
February 22, 1:32 PM | Philadelphia County Conservative Examiner

I am a Conservative because I believe in American Exceptionalism; I believe that Democracy and the rule of law is man’s best hope on Earth and that our way of life must be defended. … I believe that in the absence of American as the defender of Freedom, the world would dissolve into chaos, leaving Totalitarianism to rule the day and enslave the people.

I am a Conservative because I believe in Open and Free Market Capitalism, and that Capitalism is the engine for economic growth and a nation’s prosperity, not wealth redistribution. …

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the 2nd amendment. I believe that the 2nd amendment is essential if we are to protect the First. …

I’m a Conservative because I am a Citizen of the United States of America, not the world. I believe America is a sovereign nation and that our national security decisions should reflect our interests, not the United Nations. …

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the US Constitution and that it is the Ultimate and Supreme authority on all laws enacted to govern the country. I believe that when a Judiciary becomes rogue and forgets it constitutional role as a Reviewer of Law, and not an Author, that court should be brought under control by the Congress or Abolished …

I am a Conservative because I believe in the provisions of the 10th amendment. I believe that all powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution to the Federal government belong to the states and thereby to “We the People”.

I am a Conservative because I believe in America. America is a place where anything is possible if you work hard and apply your natural gifts and talents. America is a place where a child can grow up on welfare to become the Leader of the Free World. America is country where your place in society is not cemented at birth because of a less than desirable socio-economic status. In America, the “Dream” is still possible.

I am a Conservative because I understand that 2+2=4, no matter what the State says.

I am a Conservative because I believe it is immoral to steal from one man and give to another. I consider it theft for the government to seize the assets, through taxation and regulation, of private business ventures and use the funds as a piggy bank for social experiments. …

I am a Conservative because I believe in fiscal sanity and a mandated balanced federal budget; if everyday people must cut expenses to balance their home budgets, the federal government must be required to do the same.

I’m a Conservative because I believe in the freedom of choice in education. I’m a proponent of merit pay for teachers that produced results and penalties for ineffective teachers who don’t. I believe parents should have the choice to remove their children from failing public schools, and with State and Federal assistance be able to send their children to private institutions. …

I am a Conservative because I believe America’s greatness is ahead of us, not behind. I believe that if the federal government would get out of the way of the American spirit of Ingenuity, Americans will pull the nation out of this recession and into a real recovery. …

I am a Conservative because I understand that the only way to save the bankrupt system of social security is to privatize it.

I am a Conservative most of all because I believe in individual liberty and the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Click on the link at top to read it in full. It really is a great piece.

By the way, the author of this manifesto? His name is Jamal Greene. “Jamal”? That’s not a typical name for an Obama-opposing tea-partying racist white cracker.

That’s because this Obama-opposing tea partier is in fact a black man. Well slap me on the @$$ and call me Sally!

Stick that in your hash pipes and smoke it, you pathetic race-baiters at NAALCP, MSNBC, and NYT.

Pic of the Day (7/22/10): Gallup Poll Not Too Good for Left

Only 11% confident in Congress? Awww. 

 

 

Liberal Racism

American Thinker's "Robin of Berkeley" discusses scenes from Obama's "post-racial America": A window-bashing, store-looting, car-torching riot in Oakland, and the halting of litigation against the New Black Panthers by the DOJ.

Liberal Racism.