Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Crazy Racist Tea-Bagger Attacks Innocent Black Comedian

Oh, my bad. I screwed up the headline. I meant it to read Crazy Racist Comedian Attacks Innocent Tea-Partier.

The New York Times bestselling author of the explosive new book, Hollywood Hypocrites: The Devastating Truth About Obama’s Biggest Backers, Jason Mattera, had his crew’s camera snatched and hurled by comedian Chris Rock when he asked the star why he has called the Tea Party racist.

Mattera's new book is available here. It sounds like a hoot.


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Looking for a conservative news portal? BadBlue is "like Lucianne or Drudge but more comprehensive"

That's a direct quote from Ace of Spades' Maetenloch, describing the new conservative news aggregator BadBlue.com.

BadBlue automatically monitors over 500 blogs, news sites and web periodicals and ranks each of their stories based upon social media mentions and other factors. Stories are exhaustively reviewed in near real-time, 24 hours a day, to determine which make the front page:

Especially fast-moving stories are highlighted in color. Let's take a closer look at a couple of examples:

Here we've highlighted two stories. The top story ("Just posted: The #Sharptontapes: MSNBC's hate-monger lets loose...") is blue, which means it's rising quickly in popularity on the social networks. The source of the story ("Malkin") is Michelle Malkin's popular site and is followed by its popularity (53) and the number of clicks (in this case, the story is brand new and hasn't received any clicks). The second story ("Is Obama Running Against Sarah Palin?") comes from the Power Line blog and also has a popularity ranking of 53. It's received 21 click-throughs.

You can chart the popularity of each story by clicking on the story's permalink icon (the small ∞ symbol) or any of the popularity numbers. Here's the popularity of a story from the award-winning Shark Tank blog.

The permalink page also has a comments section.

By clicking on the site name (e.g., "Malkin" or "Power" in the above examples), you can get a list of the most popular stories from each site. Here's an example using the blog Creeping Sharia:

The executive summary?

It's news for conservatives. Always fresh. Always relevant. 24 by 7, 365. Or 366, in this case. It's BadBlue.


Saturday, March 10, 2012

10 disasters America will face if Obama is reelected

Anyone who plans on sitting out this election -- no matter who the GOP candidate is -- has only themselves to blame for the collapse of this society. Think I'm overstating things?

Marc Thiessen explains the simple math:

I asked a number of conservative thinkers what they feared most from a second term, and compiled this list of the top ten disasters that would befall America if Obama were re-elected this fall

1. Obamacare will not be repealed.

2. The unprecedented levels of spending in Obama’s first four years will become the new floor, as America sets new records for fiscal profligacy and debt.

3. Job creators will face massive tax increases, and more Americans will come off the tax rolls—resulting in fewer citizens with a stake in keeping taxes low and more with a stake in protecting benefits.

4. Government dependency, already at record levels, will continue to grow.

5. Four lost years in dealing with the entitlement crisis will become eight—digging us into a hole from which we may not be able to emerge.

6. Obama, unworried about the impact of gas and electricity prices on his reelection, will finally wage the regulatory war on fossil fuels the Left demands.

7. He will unleash the Environmental Protection Agency to impose crushing new burdens on U.S. business.

8. His administration’s assault on religious freedom will go on and expand to new areas.

9. The Defense Department will be gutted, with cuts so deep that America will no longer be a superpower.

10. Obama could have the opportunity to appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices, ending the Roberts court in all but name for a generation.

In short, Obama's reelection guarantees a debt-fueled depression; much higher real unemployment (not the propaganda marketed by media); single-payer health care and medical rationing; blackouts and brownouts as his EPA continues shutting down electric generation capacity; and an America in decline as China becomes the world's largest economy.

It's what Derrick Bell and Jeremiah Wright wanted, after all.


Friday, March 09, 2012

California to Texas Translation Guide

R. F.:

Due to the large number of jobs moving from California to Texas, the Lone Star State has compiled a "Californian to Texan" translation guide.

CALIFORNIA TEXAS
Arsenal of Weapons Gun Collection
Delicate Wetlands Swamp
Undocumented Worker Illegal Alien
Cruelty-Free Materials Synthetic Fiber
Assault and Battery Attitude Adjustment
Heavily Armed Well-protected
Narrow-minded Righteous
Taxes or Your Fair Share Coerced Theft
Commonsense Gun Control Gun Confiscation Plot
Illegal Hazardous Explosives Fireworks for Stump Removal
Nonviable Tissue Mass Unborn Baby
Equal Access to Opportunity Socialism
Multicultural Community High Crime Area
Fairness or Social Progress Marxism
Upper Class or "The Rich " Self-Employed
Progressive, Change Big Government Scheme
Homeless or Disadvantaged Bums or Welfare Leeches
Sniper Rifle Scoped Deer Rifle
Investment For the Future Higher Taxes
Healthcare Reform Socialized Medicine
Extremist, Judgmental, or Hater Conservative
Truants Homeschoolers
Victim or Oppressed Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing
High Capacity Magazine Standard Capacity Magazine
Religious Zealot Church-going
Reintroduced Wolves Sheep and Deer Killers
Fair Trade Coffee Overpriced Yuppie Coffee
Exploiters or "The Rich " Employed or Land Owner
The Gun Lobby NRA Members
Assault Weapon Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine)
Fiscal Stimulus New Taxes and Higher Taxes
Same Sex Marriage Legalized Perversion
Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs

Monday, March 05, 2012

What Would Breitbart Do? Rally for Rush! #WWBD

Jeffrey Lord's latest must-read in the American Spectator is a call to action to defend free speech, inspired by Andrew Breitbart's example. It traces the advertisers that have abandoned Rush's program, many after decades of support. Lord notes that only a pathetic 21 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberals. And he rightly observes that disenfranchising 79 percent of Americans is a decidedly flawed business strategy.

The time to be bullied is OVER. You hear me? It's OVER.

Here's how we're going to fight back against "The Cowardly Seven", as I like to call the advertisers who abandoned Rush over calling Sandra Fluke a "slut", when a more apt description for her is "a lying plant".

Sleep Train: This gutless company says it has been advertising with Rush for 25 years. They should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely ashamed...
This is the e-mail for Sleep Train's customer service: customerservice@sleeptrain.com. This is the 800 phone number for Sleep Train: 1-800-919-2337. This is the 800 fax number for Sleep Train: 1-866-293-5719.

Legal Zoom: The Co-founders of this company are Brian Liu, Brian Lee, Eddie Hartman & Robert Shapiro... The address for e-mails is here. The Corporate Headquarters phone number is: 1-323-962-8600. The fax number is: 323-962-8300.

Citrix: Mark B. Templeton is the President and CEO... The contact info for the Citrix Corporate Headquarters is... Toll Free Phone: 1-800-424-8749, Phone: 954-267-3000, Fax: 954-267-9319.

Quicken Loans: Quicken, under the leadership of its Founder and Chairman Dan Gilbert.... has gone the extra mile to antagonize the 40 percent. It has this statement on its website: Due to Rush Limbaugh's continued inflammatory comments -- along with the valued feedback we have received from our clients and team members -- Quicken Loans has suspended all advertising on the Rush Limbaugh radio program.

Note: Quicken is so skittish the above message appears for mere seconds before vanishing. It took repeated tries to copy verbatim the simple, highly provocative message above.

The Quicken contact info is found on this page of their website. Note: The company has an online chat function on this page. Also: Phone, Client Relations: 1-800-863-4332.

Pro-Flowers: Their contact info is here.

Carbonite: ...contact info here...

...DO YOU GET the picture? The American Left -- whether it pops up in the form of Media Matters, Color of Change, MoveOn.org, Texans for Truth or other groups -- is determined to shut off conservative dissent from their agenda by whatever means necessary. Fueled in part by money like that they received from David Friend of Carbonite. To do this they are quite specifically going after conservative talk radio hosts and television commentators one by one by one. The fact that David Friend of MoveOn.org/Carbonite is there to stick it to Rush is all the better. The fact that Ed Schulz called Laura Ingraham a slut is one big no-big-deal to Sandra Fluke herself when she wants air time on with Mr. Ed. Why should David Friend care if Ms. Fluke doesn't? So, Carbonite continues as Mr. Ed's sponsor, sluts be damned.

As noted earlier, what began with Don Imus, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck has just hit Pat Buchanan... Now, they want Rush's scalp...

In his last speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) just weeks ago, Andrew Breitbart stood at the podium and said: "Conservatives used to take it and we're not taking it anymore."

...By doing what they have now done, these one-time sponsors of Rush Limbaugh's show have now startlingly indicated that they are signing on with anti-First Amendment thugs.

We've got work to do, friends. It's time to Rally for Rush.

And, please: pass it on.


Hat tip: R.L.

Photo: Gas Pump Sticky Note Campaign Makes a Comeback

Wanda:

If you're having trouble reading the note, here's what it says:

Hey there voter!

Do you remember that on Inauguration Day (Jan. 20th) 2009, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was about $1.78? How's that "Hope & Change" working out for you?

Anyone but Obama
Nov. 2012

I would have added: "Can you imagine what another four years of Obama will mean for gas prices?"


Related: Gas Pump Sticky Note Campaign Makes Its Way to Grocery Stores

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Carbonite caves in to the Left's efforts to silence Rush Limbaugh $CARB

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is closely following the Left's efforts to silence Rush Limbaugh through advertiser boycotts.

Liberal groups have seized on a strategy I didn’t think would be effective, but has had some success, to go after advertisers of prominent conservative media personalities. ... ...Media Matters explicitly seeks to bring down Fox News and investigate its executives, and Fox News advertisers have been targeted by groups like Color of Change, which has targeted Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Andrew Breitbart.

Now Rush Limbaugh advertisers are the target because of an analogy he used... [and the controversy] distracted from the attack on religious freedom which is the heart of the controversy.

As has become the pattern, Rush’s advertisers immediately were attacked and threatened, and several gave in quickly, like Quicken Loans and Sleep Number, pulling their advertising.

No advertiser was more associated with Rush than Carbonite, an online computer back up company. Rush often would read Carbonite’s ads himself, and would tout their service.

Carbonite initially took a principled position, asserting that it advertises on both conservative and liberal shows, and that its advertising does not constitute an endorsement of what any particular host says... Indeed, Carbonite still advertises on the show of Ed Schultz, who makes unhinged attacks on the Tea Party and conservatives daily, and called conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham a slut (for which he later apologized).

...Saturday night, the CEO of Carbonite issued a statement withdrawing advertising from Rush’s show notwithstanding that earlier in the day Rush has issued an apology... This is an attempt find something, anything, to force Rush off the air. Ms. Magazine has launched a campaign do do just that by going after Clear Channel Communications, whose stations carry Rush’s program.

Today's Leftists have a totalitarian mindset. They despise free speech.

Unable to win in the marketplace of ideas (remember Air America?), the would-be despots of the hard Left instead try to silence the voices of those with whom they disagree.

The Statists, the Marxists, the progressives -- what ever name you prefer to call the hard Left kooks that now dominate the Democrat Party -- would be at home in the Soviet Union, or North Korea, or Venezuela. They are an appendage of centralized government and bent on retaining their white-knuckled death-grip on power.

Their anti-American efforts must be stopped. And Carbonite is as good a place to start resisting these regressives as any.


Update: Dan Riehl has more details on Carbonite's P.R. debacle (hat tip: BadBlue.com).

For those voting on Tuesday: we have a country to save

If Constitutional Conservatives and Tea Party Activists are to stop Mitt Romney in Ohio, it's imperative they support Rick Santorum.

NBC/Marist Poll: Santorum Has Small Edge in Ohio


A new NBC News/Marist poll in Ohio shows Rick Santorum just ahead of Mitt Romney among GOP primary voters, 34% to 32%, followed by Newt Gingrich at 15% and Ron Paul at 13%.

"A Romney win, following his victories last week in Michigan and Arizona, would cement his front-runner status and keep him on his path (no matter how rocky it's been) toward capturing the GOP presidential nomination. But a Santorum win would signal that his close second-place finish in Romney's native state of Michigan wasn't a fluke, and it would likely ensure that this Republican nomination battle remains competitive -- perhaps through April and maybe even June."

To be clear, I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a Mall Santa in order to defeat Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends voting on Super Tuesday...

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends voting on Tuesday: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.


Saturday, March 03, 2012

BREITBART IS HERE

The irreplaceable iOwnTheWorld has the idea (note: the site appears to be either too busy or under DDOS attack at the moment, but special thanks to Atlas Shrugs for relaying the idea).

Okay, we are flying by the seat of our pants here. We’re going to do this frenetically and impulsively, just like my idol Andrew Breitbart, I’ve negotiated a deal with Anthem Studios to have these opened up for ordering. I will have the link asap.

Just to be clear, this is going to be done at cost, which includes labor, shipping and materials. More details to follow.

The owner of Anthem Studios was a friend of Andrew Breitbart and he just showed me the most beautiful picture of his wife and himself with Mr. Breitbart. This project is in good and well-intentioned hands.

UPDATE 2: I smell a prairie fire. Some biggies have e-mailed and are of the opinion that Breitbart, in death, has more impact than most in life.

I will be working on the different files and formats necessary to get this rolling. I will update again later.


As soon as I get an order link, I will relay word.

Update: T-Shirt Order Page Is Here

Oh. And Breitbart is here, you leftist miscreants.


Friday, March 02, 2012

Got Slut? The Left Launches a Coordinated Attack Against Rush Limbaugh

If a ringer goes in front of Congress and demands that I pay for her birth control, then obviously she must suffer from nymphomania. Because contraceptives don't cost a heck of a lot of money. And, if she's truly needy, there's -- what -- a Planned Parenthood in every neighborhood?

I mean, she wants free contraceptives, but what about cancer patients? Should we be subsidizing Sandra Fluke's sex life? Or should we be spending that money on cancer research or other real women's health issues?

• Someone named "Sandra Fluke" -- if that is her real name -- testified in front of Congress in support of a "contraception mandate". That is, she publicly demanded free contraceptives as a matter of "women's health" and was treated to a liberal media smucker-fest.

• Well, it turns out Fluke, positioned by the media as a 23-year old law student, is actually a 30-year old "reproductive rights advocate".

• Rush Limbaugh, like any right-thinking American, was offended:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

And he's right. Where are the advocates for cancer patients? How about heart attack victims? Or is the major "women's health" problem in this country access to contraceptives?

• Never ones to let a crisis go to waste, the totalitarian loons on the left -- who despise free speech -- began demanding that advertisers boycott the Limbaugh show. A couple of them actually caved, including advertisers Sleep Number and Sleep Train.

Turns out I need to buy a new bed and was thinking about a Sleep Number mattress. No more. They can go find some hippies to buy their products.

• Senate Democrats -- with no pressing matters to which to attend like the economy or the debt or passing a budget -- began circulating a petition and raising money for free condoms their campaigns.

• In response, Rush announced he was waiting for Bill Clinton to call Sandra Fluke to see if she is okay.

• And just a few hours ago, President Obama (with little else to do, since there are no looming economic or foreign policy crises) joined in the attacks: Obama considers Limbaugh’s remarks “reprehensible,” according to White House spokesman Jay Carney. He said the president called Fluke to “express his disappointment that she has been the subject of inappropriate personal attacks” and to thank her for speaking out...

Meanwhile, Iran still is moving ahead with their plans for nuclear terrorism, gas prices are poised to hit $5/gal. and real inflation is moving toward 10%. And Obama wants free contraceptives. Happy to see that Democrats have their heads screwed on straight.


Thursday, March 01, 2012

Think Big, America [Chris Muir]

Chris Muir of Day By Day:


Hat tip: Fausta's Blog.

Andrew Breitbart's Legacy Codified at CPAC: "I will march behind who ever our candidate is"

If there is one thing that we can take from the shocking, tragic, and premature passing of Andrew Breitbart, it is that we must put aside our petty differences to defeat the Marxist Left.

Just a few weeks ago, Breitbart delivered a rousing speech at CPAC, the transcript of which was produced by none other than Biff Spackle.

Right now, my Twitter feed is already calling me a big fat homosexual. Hello, children at home. No, your Dad's not gay. That's how the Left rolls.

Everybody asks me: why do you retweet? Why do you do that? ...In fact, there's probably no one in the world I respect more than Professor Hugh Hewitt and the other day he took me aside. He said, "I don't think you should do that, Andrew." Well, Professor Hewitt, on this issue I disagree.

Because they've held over our heads -- with contempt -- the false narrative of their innate tolerance. The least tolerant people you'll ever meet in your entire lives -- I know it, I live it every day. And I retweet it to remind them that I know exactly who they are.

...This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in my war against the institutional left.

This is not your mother's Democratic Party... duh! John Podesta and George Soros? This is not your mother's Democratic Party You know whose party it is? ...I have a thesis about who we're fighting against on the hard left... [In college] I had no idea these [left-wing academics] people were actually serious about the malarkey they were teaching. The post-structuralist, politically correct garbage.

Unfortunately in 2004, the radical Left [executed] a coup d'etat of the Democratic Party. And basically kicked a person -- that four years was called 'the standard-bearer of decency in the Democratic Party'. And that person was Joe Lieberman.

That was the end of the Democratic Party. And in 2010, the DLC went under.

There's no such thing as a moderate Democrat. And so what do we get now, in Barack Obama?

In this election we're going to vet him


I've got videos, by the way, and in this election we're going to vet him. I've got videos. This election we're going to vet him. From his college days, to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what 'hope and change' was sold in 2008.

The videos are going to come out. The narrative is going to come out: that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver pony-tails [left wing academics] back in the 1980s, like Bill [Ayers] and Bernadine Dohrn who said "one day, we're going to have the presidency.'

And the rest of us slept while they plotted and they plotted and they plotted. And they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge, from real capitalists, who gave it to their children and their children's children [who] then became communists. We've got to work on that...

Barack Obama is a radical and we should not be afraid to say it. And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine's salon... it became self-evident to me that [Obama enjoyed] many a meal there... And don't tell me, ABC, CBS and NBC that I can't posit that theory, because it is a self-evident truth. Just like it was a self-evident truth that he was with Jeremiah Wright. And just as it was a self-evident truth that when he was at Harvard, he was advocating for the worst of the worst to join the faculty. Radicals. Radicals at "Beirut on the Charles".

And that who's in the White House. And that's who's outside right now [the Occupy movement] telling you that you don't have a right to be here. They would squelch your free speech just as easily as they do at Harvard, Vassar, Yale, Wesleyan - they're a bunch of totalitarian freaks.

The media can no longer be called objective journalists


And they pal around with our friends in the mainstream media. I always thought the media leaned to the left... but when they act like a Provost at a politically correct university and tell people to shut up, [then] no longer can they be called objective journalists. They're playing for the other side.

They've been part of demonizing good and decent people. They tried to defeat the Tea Party and when they failed, just like when they tried to create a [leftist] Rush Limbaugh and they failed with Air America, they want what they can't have. They wanted what they could not have and what did they create?

They created the "Occupy Movement". What is the Occupy Movement, you may ask? It's a natural, organic group of people -- you've never seen before in your life. Wait a sec-- these exact people protested against you at the GOP Welcoming Committee in 2008-- and two of them were arrested for planting Molotov cocktails. [These] are radicals against the police, radicals against you, exactly like Occupy, the same exact people, the same people who organized "Camp Casey" in Crawford, these are the same exact people who went down the highway at the end of the summer when Katrina happened, created Occupy New Orleans.

It's the same radicals, they've been in your life since 'Senator Obama' became part of your vocabulary. They are at war with you. They attack you. They throw eggs at you. And -- guess what? -- the media looks the other way. You're domestic terrorists, you know. Janet Napolitano warned me about that.

Yet when this group emerged, what happened? ...This is my thesis: the anti-war movement was never about anti-war. It was a Saul Alinsky community-organizing tool to get Barack Obama and the Left elected. It went away immediately.

The Occupy Movement is the Definition of Un-American


And the mainstream media created a narrative... Time Magazine's "Person of the Year... this is the anti-war movement! How do I know this? Because if I told this to ABC, CBS and NBC, they'd tell me it's a conspiracy theory -- that it's just a bunch of organic people. There's no organization going on, even though we have the emails to prove it. Or the undercover videos of Natasha Leonard of The New York Times organizing with the radicals. No, that didn't mean anything!

Bernadine Dohrn pointed out to me when I was snarkily asking 'What ever happened to the anti-war movement?', she let loose an affirmation of everything I know to be true. She said, "Well, that's not true... it's more or less what Occupy Wall Street is." And the mainstream media refuses to tell you that these are the same shock troops that have been ... instigating [against] us, instigating riots against the police, these people are the definition of un-American.

I don't care who our candidate is


You want a unity speech? I'll give you a unity speech. I don't care who our candidate is.

I haven't since the beginning of this... ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!

And that's what the Tea Party is.

We are there to confront [the radical left] on behalf of our candidate!

I will march behind who ever our candidate is. Because if we don't, we lose.

There are two paths! There are two paths! One is America, the other is Occupy! One is America, the other is Occupy! And I don't care, and along the way... I've realized over the last three years that the Republican Party and the conservative movement is not what ABC, CBS and NBC put on the screen.

They try to portray you in the worst possible light... and when I travel around the United States meeting people in the Tea Party who care -- black, white, gay, straight -- anyone that's willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you're not in that bunker 'cause you're not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you. You're on the other side.

Rest In Peace, Andrew Breitbart. You will be missed.


Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Taranto obliterates the "Santorum as unelectable extremist" meme

James Taranto pounds the final nail into the coffin off the ludicrous contention that Rick Santorum is "unelectable". The last major Republican candidate to receive that kind of label was the "too old", "too crazy", "too stupid", "too conservative", and "too warlike" man named Ronald Reagan.

This column has recently become skeptical of the view--nearly universal on the liberal left but common as well among conservative elites--that Rick Santorum is "unelectable" or far less likely than Mitt Romney to defeat President Obama in November. A new USA Today poll reinforces our skepticism.

The survey, conducted by Gallup, included two samples of registered voters: 1,137 from a dozen "swing states," all of which Obama carried in 2008, and another 881 nationwide. The swing states included six that George W. Bush carried twice (Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia), three that Bush carried once (Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico), and three that last went Republican in 1988 or earlier (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

The findings: Santorum leads Obama in the swing states, 50% to 45%, and nationwide 49% to 46%. This gives him an edge of three percentage points over Romney, whose swing-state lead is 48% to 46% and who ties the president nationally at 47%.

To be sure, this is only one poll, and the election is still more than eight months off. One possible explanation is that voters are less unfavorably disposed toward Santorum because they don't know him as well as they know Romney, and that once they learn how hard-core the former senator is on social issues, they'd bolt for Obama if Santorum becomes the nominee.

Writing in BusinessWeek, Bloomberg columnist Clive Crook offers another explanation for Santorum's appeal, while also arguing that it is limited by social issues:

Santorum combines this proletarian stance--unusual in a hard-right conservative--with more familiar elements of GOP populism: patriotism, reverence for family, hard work and self-reliance, hostility to big government, and proud religiosity (to a fault, in his case). If not for the extremism on sexual politics, it would be a potent blend even beyond the Republican Party's social-conservative core.

The trouble with this is that, as we've noted, "the extremism on sexual politics" is in substantial part mythical--and the propagation of the myth doesn't seem to be hurting Santorum. The timing of USA Today's survey (Feb. 14-21 in the swing states and Feb. 20-21 nationwide) coincides with a media hysteria in which the former senator's critics have frequently exaggerated or distorted his views to make him appear more extreme than he is. If he wins the nomination, he will have several months to explain himself to an electorate in which extreme social liberals constitute a small minority. And by that point, conservatives and Republicans who are now joining in on the "extremist" attacks would have an interest in setting the record straight.

Say, I've been out of the country for a while. How'd that Bob Dole and John McCain as "electable moderates" thing work out for the GOP?


Related: Time to Take a Stand

Monday, February 27, 2012

Confirmed: Obama Slashes Health Care Funding for Seniors and the Military; Spigot to Public Sector Unions Still Wide Open

Of course, members of the armed forces and senior citizens aren't required to contribute to a proxy for the Democrat Party, but I'm sure that's just coincidental:

Exhibit A - Tricare costs would jump in budget plan:

Pentagon officials will continue pressing in 2013 for significantly higher Tricare fees for military retirees, including older retirees covered by Tricare for Life, as well as higher drug co-pays for all Tricare beneficiaries.

The Defense Department’s proposed 2013 budget calls for annual enrollment fees for retirees in Tricare Prime to rise next year by 30 percent to 78 percent... depending on military retirement income.

Exhibit B - Paul Ryan: Obamacare is Real Medicare Killer:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says contrary to what Democrats are saying, it is Obamacare — not his budget plan — that will kill Medicare... “Obamacare kills Medicare as we know it,” Ryan said. "Obamacare raids $500 billion from Medicare to spend on Obamacare, puts in place a [15-member] board to ration Medicare."

Exhibit C - Obama’s budget calls for federal pay raises; workforce size stays flat:

President Obama wants to give raises to people collecting federal paychecks... The White House budget plan released Monday would increase federal civilian pay by a modest 0.5 percent... The budget proposal also projects that federal employment levels will remain essentially flat in fiscal 2013, growing by 0.1 percent, or 2,400 employees, to 2.1 million from the 2012 estimated level.

Exhibit D - Obama budget slashes military spending, sends 'savings' to domestic agenda:

President Obama sent an annual budget request to Capitol Hill today that does little to reduce the deficit but dramatically cuts military spending anyway. Even though last year’s debt ceiling deal was supposedly agreed to in order to reduce America’s crushing debt burden, Obama is apparently planning to use half of the cuts in war spending to “help finance a major six-year, 50 percent increase in transportation spending.”

Defense cuts in the name of debt reduction are really for increased domestic spending. This is not a surprise. Last summer, President Obama made his priorities clear: social spending trumps national security...

Executive Summary


Obama's priorities are: (a) stealing redistributing money from seniors, the military and the intelligence community; and (b) spending those funds on public sector union wages from which mandatory union dues are deducted.

Those dues, in turn, end up laundered into Obama's campaign coffers.

Which explains his priorities. Not health care. Not national security. Not seniors. Getting reelected. First, last and everything in between. That is his priority.


Sunday, February 26, 2012

To My Friends in Arizona and Michigan: It's Time to Take a Stand

Before I begin this rant, let me make my stance regarding Mitt Romney perfectly clear.

I will walk on broken glass to vote for Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or a radioactive goat over Barack Obama in the general election.

That said, did the Tea Party go away? Did it disappear into the ether after the GOP's crushing victories in the 2010 midterms? Did it shatter after a million internecine battles?

Or is it merely simmering at a low boil while grassroots groups canvas for its primary favorites?

To my friends in Arizona and Michigan

The time for action is now. The situation our country faces is too dire and the stakes too high to sit on the sidelines. You may, as I do, feel the fatigue of negative attacks, experience anger at the proctological scrutiny of your favorite candidates, or disgust at the blatant bias of the Democrat-media complex.

But you must, like an Olympic athlete, put all of that aside and vote on Tuesday.

If I could vote in one of your states, I would be casting my vote for Rick Santorum. Praised by no less a set of conservative luminaries like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sarah Palin, Santorum has been a consistent conservative throughout his career.

Architect of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, a proponent of the original Balanced Budget Amendment and an expert at national defense issues, Santorum's appeal is far wider than legacy media would have you believe.

This election will be about the future of America

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

You can cherry-pick the man's record all you want, but Santorum's record is one of consistency.

Santorum has a legislative record...

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.

So, to my friends in Arizona and Michigan: I urge you to consider supporting Rick Santorum for president. Send a message to Washington: the era of big government is over. The time for action is now.

We have a country to save.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Curiously juxtaposed headlines o' the day

Spotted at BadBlue.com:

Ann Coulter asks, "What's their problem with Romney?" The word their means, oh, about 95% of the Tea Party and Constitutional Conservatives in the U.S.

Jimmie Bise, Jr. at Sundries Shack more than adequately answers Ann's question with "Romney’s Plan: No Spending Cuts. No Tax Reform. No Bueno.."

Eh, case closed, bailiff.


Monday, February 20, 2012

In defense of Rick Santorum: no matter what Obama and the media say, this election is going to be about freedom, not contraception

This election will be about the future of America.

Do Americans want a nation flooded with food-stamps and welfare payments, a European-style decline, and an out-of-control president who flouts the very Constitution upon which he took an oath to uphold?

Or do they want a return to founding principles, fiscal discipline and respect for the rule of law?

Tonight on Fox News, Brit Hume asserted that Santorum's social conservatism would be "poison" in a general election. The media, willing accomplices to the Democrat Party, will be more than happy to paint the former Pennsylvania senator in that light.

But this is a false premise.

Faith, Family and Freedom

This election will be about founding principles, the most important of which are faith, family, private property rights and individual liberty. Those tenets were foundational to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Our rights are God-given, not offered in a bill by some bureaucrat in Washington. How can someone articulate the nature of American exceptionalism without a grounding in our founding document and our highest law?

The "Great Society" proved the defective nature of the Democrats' philosophy. Even if they were inspired by altruistic desires, Democrats have utterly destroyed the two-parent family, especially in the urban core.

Dozens of studies have proven that easy access to food stamps and welfare payments inflate the percentage of single-parent families. And single-parent families are linked directly to violent crime: in fact, no matter what race you are, you have the same chance of going to prison if you are raised in a single-parent household.

As for private property rights and the rule of law: the Constitution means what it says. To the extent that temporary politicians dismiss the genius of the Framers; strip away the bonds on the federal government placed explicitly upon it; and confiscate more and more private property in pursuit of a Utopian, benificent state that can't be and never was; they are corrupt and lawless. A government that takes your private property for purposes other than those specifically enunciated in the Constitution is operating outside of the law.

These lines are crystal clear and it will take an articulate conservative grounded in the founding principles to draw the sharpest contrast between the European nanny state that Obama seeks and the kind of government our Framers created.

Social Issues and the Media

In a debate, when some left-wing hack like George Stephanapolous kicks off the proceedings by asking about contraceptives, Rick Santorum should respond as follows:

"Are you having problems getting contraceptives, George? Is someone proposing to ban them? I reject your question. This country faces existential threats economically and from nuclear-armed terror states. I respectfully request that you prioritize your questions in terms of importance to all Americans and not just your personal issues in getting access to contraceptives. So let's start off the debate with a question about something truly important to all Americans."

Legacy media is doubly irrelevant. Not only do most Americans dismiss the notion that journalists are "unbiased arbiters", but they also realize that journalists have a dog in the hunt. Newt Gingrich used this approach effectively to shred several left-wing debate moderators and that template still applies.

The Duplicity of Karl Rove

The "big-government Republican" label is a meme promulgated by the same folks who twisted the arms of GOP senators to support President Bush. For Karl Rove to criticize Santorum for anything is laughable.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

So the man who led the only successful reform of an entitlement program -- the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- is in favor of "big government"?

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President.

What this election will be about

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin -- all of whom have praised Santorum effusively -- can't all be wrong.

This election won't be about access to condoms. It's going to be about freedom. What it means to be an American. And Rick Santorum would be an outstanding choice as president.


Related: Rick Santorum for President Website

Let's Go Back to the Replay: How Bob Casey Beat Rick Santorum in 2006

What happened in Washington? Millions of jobs lost. The largest deficit ever. An arrogant government out of touch. "Pennsylvania deserves a senator in touch with Pennsylvania... we need someone fighting for fair-trade laws, that don't give away our jobs... someone who will stand up against the partisan politics in Washington... someone who's fiscally responsible... who balances a budget, just like you do, every day of your lives. We can do better in Washington, and we will. I'm Bob Casey, and I approve this message." --Transcript of Bob Casey, Democrat for Senate Ad, 2006

The midterm elections held on November 7, 2006 resulted in a massive victory for Democrats, allowing them to capture the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures and governorships from the GOP.

Senator Rick Santorum was one of the victims of the sweeping Republican loss, falling to Bob Casey by a double-digit margin.

Wikipedia describes some of the major reasons for the national power shift, which included "the decline of the public image of George W. Bush, the dissatisfaction of the handling of both Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq, Bush's legislative defeat regarding Social Security Reform, and the culture of corruption, which were the series of scandals in 2006 involving Republican politicians."

As for Santorum himself, The Washington Examiner notes that:

The biggest policy reason for Santorum's loss was his outspoken support for the war in Iraq. By November 2006, the war was going badly and threatened to turn into a full-scale catastrophe. President Bush resisted calls to change course and had not yet settled on the troop surge that would ultimately rescue the situation from disaster. While Santorum's Democratic opponent, Bob Casey, called for a different course, Santorum stuck with the president, and with the war.

"As other Republicans attempt to steer away from Iraq and terrorism, Sen. Rick Santorum argued yesterday that America must stop 'sleepwalking' while 'evil enemies' plot the nation's destruction, making foreign policy a focal point in the final days of his campaign," the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on October 27, 2006. Santorum made the finale of his campaign into a so-called "Gathering Storm" tour, in which he mixed support of the war with calls for continuing vigilance in the war on terror. In making the war such a central part of his campaign, Santorum stubbornly kept the focus on the weakest part of his candidacy.

The voters clobbered him for it. In Pennsylvania exit polls, 61 percent of voters said they disapproved of the war. Santorum lost among them, 15 percent to Casey's 85 percent. Among the largest sub-group of war opponents, the 42 percent of voters who said they strongly disapproved of the war, Santorum lost seven percent to 93 percent. That by itself was enough to doom any hopes for a third term.

That Mitt Romney criticizes Santorum for losing an election -- primarily for his support of the Iraq 'Surge' that the Massachusetts Governor also backed -- is disingeuous at best. Romney didn't run for reelection in 2006.

In this morning’s debate on NBC, Rick Santorum questioned Mitt Romney’s decision not to run for reelection when he was governor of Massachusetts... “Well, if his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts why didn't he run for reelection?” Santorum asked. “I mean if you didn't want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record--if it was that great, why did you bail out?”

...Had Romney accomplished the majority of the “100 things [he] wanted to do” in office, or enough of them to be satisfied? Had he decided, at that point, to run for president in 2008 and that the best way to do that would be outside the governor’s mansion in Boston? Or had Romney looked at the poll numbers, which were declining throughout the second half of his term (he was spending a lot of time in Iowa and New Hampshire around then), and concluded that he couldn’t win reelection against a popular Democrat?

A review of Bob Casey's television ads paint a clear picture of his approach to defeating Santorum. In short, he ran to the right of Rick Santorum, promising:

• Fiscal responsibility

• A balanced federal budget

• Stronger border security

• Less centralized government in Washington

Bob Casey beat Rick Santorum in 2006 the way all Democrats win in the rational 46 states (California, Hawaii, Illinois and New York not included): He lied. He lied early, often and about everyone and everything.

Fiscal responsibility? While endorsing Barack Obama, voting for out-of-control federal spending, Obamacare, and supporting amnesty for illegal immigration?

How's that working out for you, Pennsylvania?

The Casey game-plan for victory over Santorum has about as much relevance for the Obama campaign as salads have for Michael Moore. Which is to say: none at all.


Friday, February 17, 2012

Conservative News Made Simple

Need an easier and faster way to read the most important stories from all of your favorite blogs and news sites?

BadBlue.com monitors Twitter to determine which news stories are most important, based upon retweets and discussion. It runs 24-by-7 monitoring hundreds of blogs and new sites.

While it may look a bit like the Drudge Report, there are many differences. For instance, you can find the top stories that are trending now, over the last 24 hours, the last week, or even the last month.

You can also track the popularity of each story over time. Here's an example:

Need a list of stories from each news source? Here are the top stories from Ricochet.com:

Check it out. And if you like it, bookmark BadBlue and follow its updates on Twitter at @BadBlueNews.

Now conservatives have a real news portal.


Monday, February 13, 2012

Pew: Santorum Passes Romney Nationally

It's Mitt Romney's worst nightmare: a true conservative that has energized the small-government wing of the Republican Party.

Rick Santorum’s support among Tea Party Republicans and white evangelicals is surging, and he now has pulled into a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. In polling conducted Feb. 8-12, 30% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters favor Santorum while 28% favor Romney. As recently as a month ago, Romney held a 31% to 14% advantage over Santorum among all GOP voters.

Santorum is now the clear favorite of Republican and GOP-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, as well as white evangelical Republicans. Currently, 42% of Tea Party Republican voters favor Santorum, compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum holds an almost identical advantage among white evangelical Republican voters (41% to 23%)...

...Three months ago, a slim majority (53%) of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said Mitt Romney was a strong conservative. Today, 42% see him this way, while the number who say he is not a strong conservative has jumped from 33% to 50%.

This growing skepticism about Romney’s conservatism is most pronounced among Tea Party Republicans. Among Republican and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the Tea Party, just 29% say Romney is a strong conservative, down from 51% three months ago. Fully 68% of Tea Party Republicans say Romney is not a strong conservative...

Santorum is a Constitutional conservative praised by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin -- to name but a few -- and, most importantly, is a man who has stood by his principles through thick and thin.

He didn't cut and run when he backed the surge in Iraq. He didn't shrink from leading a successful entitlement reform (the 1996 Welfare Reform Act). He's voted the right way on almost every important issue for conservatives.

If you have an extra five-spot (or ten of 'em), Rick Santorum can use your support.


Hat tip: Memeorandum.