This past Wednesday through Saturday, The American Conservative Union sponsored the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. CPAC was open to all conservative activists who wanted to attend. This year, I had the honor of being a credentialed blogger for CPAC, and, thus, was able to sit in the bloggers’ lounge that was sponsored by Freedom Works. Tabitha Hale, the brains behind the bloggers’ row who put the whole thing together, really outdid herself. (All attendees should participate in a quiet “golf clap” for Tabitha.)
Folks, I had a blast this past week. Seriously, if any of you ever get the opportunity to attend CPAC, I highly suggest going. In fact, there are three very good reasons to attend CPAC next year (or any similar national conservative activist conference in the future). So, without much fanfare and ado, let’s get right to it.
Even as we “politicos” wrangle over policies and issues, we are still losing the debate on conservatism. This article brought that home.
Partisan politics is a deadly weapon that is destroying the fabric of one of the greatest societies in history. It’s frustrating to watch Americans slowly losing their grip on true freedom. It seems that we’re either free to be liberal or free to be conservative. How does choosing between these two failed ideologies give us real freedom at all? (emphasis mine)
The bolded words is where the writer went wrong. He has confused conservative with Republican. I can understand his mistake. Most people make the same mistake. However, the reason most conservatives vote Republican is that fact that we lose less freedom and at a slower pace than if we were to vote for the Democrat instead.
He doesn’t understand that conservatism isn’t a political ideology but a way of living in that freedom he is in such fear of losing. Conservatives are individuals and believe in individual freedom and come at our decisions in individual ways knowing there is no “one size fits all” solution to any problem whether it’s on a personal or national level. Not even state to state. Continue reading →
[This diary is my reporting on Tim Scott’s Tuesday night victory party. I’m sorry that it’s so late, but I had a medical board exam on Thursday and Friday that I had to travel to Atlanta, GA to take, and I just got back late Saturday night.]
As many of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Tim Scott MUST Win–This Is Not Negotiable!”. In this diary, I explained that if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond (in the SC District 1 Republican Primary), it would be disastrous for the state of South Carolina, and for the Republican Party. Why? Because the spectacle of a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American candidate losing to an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” (and I realize that this might not be entirely fair to Paul Thurmond, but who said that life was fair?) would be just too big of a spectacle for us to overcome. Furthermore, in this diary, I explained that, the MSM was closely watching this race. Also, I mentioned that the mocking and humiliation that SC received with regard to the Nikki Haley circus, via Jon Stewart and the rest of the MSM, would be cubed if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond. (See embed below–go to 4:30 in to see SC bit. H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)
So, now that we are are down to the wire, I thought that I would play a little game of compare and contrast with the resumes of the final two candidates.
Tim Scott has served thirteen years on the Charleston County Council–and, he has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years where he is currently the first black Republican state legislator since Reconstruction. Mr. Scott has impeccable conservative credentials, because he is just one of eleven candidates to have been endorsed by The Club for Growth (who also endorsed Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey). Michael Barone also acknowledged that Tim Scott was the most conservative candidate in the SC District One race, when he wrote the following–
“Interestingly, Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. If elected governor she would be the second Republican governor of a Southern state, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, to be the child of immigrants from South Asia. Who’d a thunk it? And when you’re putting your mind around that, consider that the leader in the Republican primary for the open South Carolina 1 seat relinquished by retiree Henry Brown is Tim Scott, who may be the most conservative and assuredly is the only black Republican in the South Carolina legislature. He led Paul Thurmond, son of the late Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond, by a 31%-16% margin; in third place with 14% was Carroll Campbell, son of the late Congressman and Governor Carroll Campbell.”
Actually, Tim Scott won by 32%, but the rest is correct.
Now, as far as charisma goes, Tim Scott has it to spare–in fact, he has it oozing out of every pore. I have embedded two videos below of Tim Scott. The first one is his excellent advertisement that points out that he wrote the anti-Obamacare legislation in the SC House of Representatives. The second video is of a speech that Mr. Scott made before RNC members in Myrtle Beach, SC–and it is just made of awesome (watch the first 12 minutes of it if you don’t have time to watch the entire thing–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott is and what he is about).
OK—I’m sure that most of you remember New York Times columnist Charles Blow’s infamous “minstrel show” column—you know, the one where he complained about how many white people were at the Dallas Tea Party. In that awful column, Blow also wrote that the minorities who spoke at the Dallas Tea Party were “putting on a minstrel show” for the white man, and he accused them of trying to prove to the predominately white crowd that they were “the good ones”. Now, I remember being absolutely outraged after reading Blow’s “minstrel show” hit piece—but, I think that was only a natural reaction. I mean, after all, his column was outrageous. So, being in a state of shock and outrage, I wrote a diary responding to Charles Blow where I called him a “racist idiot”. (I feel no remorse about that diary—Blow definitely earned the title.)
Now, Mr. Blow wrote another column this past Friday that was equally as outrageous as the “minstrel show” one. In this column titled, “Trying to Outrun Race”, Charles Blow, again, accused the Tea Party of Racism (big surprise there) with little facts to back up his assertion, and he also called the Tea Party “a Frankenstein movement”. (Classy, huh?) However, this time around, for some reason, I just wasn’t as livid as I was after initially reading the “minstrel show” column. What I felt more than anger was simply boredom. I mean, the guy is just so predictable—he says the same things over and over and over again. In other words, in order to be outrageous, the element of surprise has to be there. I think that Robert Stacy McCain summed up Charles Blow perfectly when he wrote the following—
The Tea Party movement is anti-Obama;
Obama is black;
Ergo, the Tea Party movement is racist.
However, if you will permit me, I would like to read between the lines and sum up what Mr. Blow really meant when he wrote his last two columns (and what he is really trying to say in every column that he will write for next six months)—
“God, I hate those bitter, gun-clinging, racist, redneck “Deliverance” cast members that attend those stupid Tea Parties. When I was attending the Dallas Tea Party, I felt like I was trapped in an episode of “Hee Haw”. In fact, I hate them almost as much as those Uncle Toms that get up and do a minstrel show for those teabaggers in order to get their approval. I don’t know who is worse.
Yeah, yeah, I know that I caught some grief for writing that the minorities speaking at the Dallas Tea Party were “putting on a minstrel show”, but hey, I’m a brilliant writer for The New York Times (they must think that I’m brilliant, because I’m really a graphic designer, and yet they let me write about politics—I know, it’s a great business model), so I have to call it like I see it. And, I know that I also caught some grief from Laura Ingraham when I admitted on her radio show that I didn’t talk to a single person at the Dallas Tea Party (remember—I am not not a journalist after all), but hey, why should I lower myself and go converse with those troglodytes? They’re all a bunch of stupid hillbillies and Uncle Toms. They don’t like Obama, so it’s only logical that they are all racists or self-loathing blacks, right? Besides, they are totally unlike me. I am an enlightened beacon of tolerance who would never judge a person by their appearance without getting to know them first. They wouldn’t know a true racist if he was staring at them in the mirror”.
So, I bet you are now asking yourself if Frank Rich ever apologized to the DC Tea Party protesters for slandering them? No such luck. Instead, he wrote another column where he admitted that no video had ever shown up of anyone shouting racial slurs at black congressmen, but still managed to insist that the Tea Party movement was based on racism none the less. Now, I bet you are wondering on what evidence did Mr. Rich base his insightful deduction that the Tea Party is based on racism? Well, in his column Frank Rich claimed that the Tea party is racist because Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell decided to bring back Confederate History Month. Now, I agree that might have been a kind of tone deaf and insensitive move on Governor McDonnell’s part (and McDonnell has since apologized for not mentioning slavery as part of Confederate History Month). However, I don’t know what in the world Bob McDonnell and Confederate History Month have to do with the Tea Party. That’s a whole six degrees of Kevin Bacon that I simply can not follow.
And what’s more unbelievable, is that Frank Rich has become so predictable with his race baiting, that he’s even starting to bore liberals with it (and my friends, that’s quite an accomplishment). Liberal Daily Beast columnist, Lee Siegel, wrote the following about Frank Rich and his perpetual obsession with the Tea Party—
“Frank Rich portrays them as democracy’s most powerful nemesis in just about every column he writes. “
“They’re racists, concludes the ever sanctimonious Frank Rich, and you come away from one of his complacent squibs feeling that you’ve met the enemy, had him analyzed and explained to you, and now you—and all decent-minded people—have your work clearly cut out for you.”
Anyway, it’s been my experience in life that people will forgive you for being stupid (stupid people are at least entertaining); however, they will not forgive you for being boring.
Now, since I’ve already analyzed what Charles Blow was really thinking when wrote his nasty columns, please indulge me and allow me to crawl into Frank Rich’s head as well—
“OK—I freely admit it. I am totally unqualified for this job (I am really a theater critic, not a political analyst), and I see racist people. Now, the reason why I see racist people is because all of my liberal friends at The New York Times, who claim to know so much about politics, tell me that everyone outside of Manhattan and Hollywood is a racist (even Massachusetts voted for a teabagging pick-up truck driver). As previously stated, I really know NOTHING about politics or about people who don’t run in my narrow circles, so I just assume that my colleagues are correct. Furthermore, my colleagues at The New York Times and my liberal readers really seem to love it when I scream “RAAAAACIST!!” in every column, so I say if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Besides, “Cats” ran on Broadway for almost twenty years—so, if they could run the same show night after night for that long, and people didn’t tire of it, then I should be able to write the same column week after week.”
“Oh, and one more thing. I have a serious man-crush on Obama. I mean, the man just radiates awesomeness; therefore, racism HAS to be the only reason why someone could not like him. It couldn’t possibly be his policies (which I really don’t know much about anyway), because everything he does is just so magical. No, if someone doesn’t like Obama, it MUST be racism dammit! Well, I’m telling you that there are racists all around America (heck, America is a racist country—my friends all tell me so), and so I’ve made it my raison d’etre to root them out.”
“There are racists on my floor, there are racists at my door. There are racists at the bar, there are racists under my car. There are racists under my bed, there are racists in my head. There are racists here and there, there are racists EVERYWHERE!!”
“I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I Am—but, I really don’t like eating them with RAAAAACISTS!!”
So, in conclusion, yes, I used to get outraged whenever I read one of Charles Blow’s or Frank Rich’s slanderous columns—now, I just feel like I’m in the movie “Groundhog Day”, because they both write the same columns over and over and over again. I’m sorry, but I can’t help but be reminded of Chris Rock’s stand up when he jokes about how exasperating it is to listen to someone tell the same story over and over again—
“Hey, honey, did I tell you about the time I….”
“Yeah, you told me about that time you…!”
“Okay, well, then, honey, did I tell you about the time I….”
“Yeah, you told me about that time you…”
“Well, how about the time I…..”
“YEAH YOU TOLD ME ABOUT THAT TIME! NOW, WHY DON’T YOU GO OUT AND GET KIDNAPPED OR SOMETHING SO YOU HAVE A NEW STORY TO TELL ME!”
Please don’t get me wrong—I am NOT hoping that Charles Blow or Frank Rich will get kidnapped. Unlike them, I am not dripping with hatred. I just wish that they would totally lie and make up a story about getting kidnapped, so that I wouldn’t have to read the same boring and predictable drivel every weekend in The New York Times. However, knowing those two, they would probably even find a way to screw that up and make it boring by race-baiting. I can see the headline of their columns now—“I was Kidnapped by a Pregnant, Racist Teabagger Wearing a Sarah Palin Shirt who was Screaming Racial Slurs”. But, I digress.
Anyway, my point is that after much soul-searching, I realized that I actually feel sorry for Charles Blow and Frank Rich (gasp). They are, literally, pitiful. I mean, it must totally suck having to walk around with that much hatred for your fellow man (and fellow Americans) bottled up inside of you. Oh, and one more thing—it must really suck to be that boring. Come to think of it, I also feel sorry for their friends and family. Could you even imagine having to hang out with either one them for an extended period of time and having to listen, repeatedly, to them rail on about how the Tea Party is a racist militia group that’s trying to ruin America?!
And, what’s more is that what makes these guys even more pathetic than they already seem, is that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are pathetic. They think that they are awesome! I hate to unleash my inner mean girl here, but they seem like the kids in high school who think that they are so cool, but don’t realize that everyone is either laughing at them or feeling sorry for them. (The video that I embedded below totally reminds me of Charles Blow and Frank Rich—and pretty much the entire New York Times op-ed page with the exception of Ross Douthat. I think that it should be their theme song.) Tonight, before I go to bed, I am going to say a prayer for Charles Blow and Frank Rich. First of all, Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. And second of all, these guys need all of the prayers/help that they can get because they are just brimming with hatred, which is extremely unhealthy—oh, and they are really, really BORING!
PS—Thanks for reading. You guys are DEFINITELY AWESOME!!
This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, Obama lackey David Plouffe faced off against Karl Rove in the ongoing health care debate. Ladies and gentlemen, it was vicious—Plouffe didn’t stand a chance against Rove. In fact, Rove ate his lunch—and that’s putting it politely. For every campaign talking point that David Plouffe regurgitated, Karl Rove swung back hard with actual facts, figures, statistics and calculations. Plouffe was basically reduced to a rubble of transparent Obamaisms. Rove must have sensed that he had Plouffe backed into a corner, because he went so far as to demand that Plouffe “stop throwing around epithets and deal with the facts”. I guess the moral of the story is that when all is said and done, pixie dust and unicorn farts are no match for real knowledge, facts and cojones.
PS—I don’t know about you all, but after watching that train-wreck of a debate (for Plouffe anyway), I’m currently having visions of President Obama nervously pacing around the Oval Office and chain smoking while Rham Emanuel is simultaneously uttering creative and never before heard profanities. Have a happy Sunday! 🙂
The script has become old and worn from overuse and the lines have been memorized by those who hear them, more so than those who act the parts for our benefit. The patrons are mutinous demanding better for their money but the actors seemed locked into this one play unable to step out of it to engage in another.
“My vote today,” she [Landrieu] said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, “should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end.”
How many times have we heard this same claim, yet, 97% of all bills that are approved in cloture become law. The actor indicates he hears the mutinous crowd, promising something different, but as the final act ensues we hear once again the same tired lines that echo in our memory like a too real nightmare proving to the patrons they were not heard at all.
Note: This is quite likely one of the shortest posts I’ve ever written but does anything more really need to be said?
Three days ago, Glenn Beck ran the following story about a video that is currently being shown in schools across the country (see embeds below). The video is straight up liberal propaganda. For instance, the narrator uses a tank to symbolize our government, lies about how much of our tax dollars are going to the military, implies that capitalism is evil, lies about how much of our original forests are left, tells the children watching that, “We douse our pillows in neurotoxins”, and then states the following doozy—
“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us…to take care us us. That’s their job.”
OK—now, I realize that liberals will reply to all of this information with the following retort—“Yes, this may all be true, but we can play this six degrees of Kevin Bacon game with any of the past presidents—all politicians have some sketchy friends.” To which I would reply, yes, most past presidents have had some sketchy friends (and I think that Beck can sometimes go too far with his conspiracy theories). However, no past president that I’m aware of has ever had any of their degenerate friends disperse propagandistic videos throughout the tax-payer funded public schools, have they?
However folks—this story about the above videos circulating in the schools is a big deal for several additional reasons (besides the obvious ones that I just laid out), the first of which is the Skool-Aid (H/T to our own $peciallist for the creative name)—i.e., the Obama Administration’s recent foray into public education. Our own Steve Foley and Caleb Howe have both reported extensively on this subject, and Michelle Malkin has as well.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan dispatched letters to principals nationwide boasting that “This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school.” But the goal is not merely morale-boosting. According to White House event-related guides developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Teaching Fellows, grade-school students will be told to “listen to the speech” and “could think about the following:”
*What is the President trying to tell me?
*What is the President asking me to do?
*What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
After the speech, teachers will ask students:
*What do you think the President wants us to do?
*Does the speech make you want to do anything?
*Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
Now, in a vacuum, the Skool-Aid wouldn’t look all that bad—well I take that back. It wouldn’t look great, but it wouldn’t have been ghastly either. However, let’s not forget that the Obama Administration, and their sycophants in the MSM, actively bragged about Barack Obama’s youth outreach program. In fact, in a 2007 WSJ article, Elizabeth Holmes wrote the following about the Obama campaign’s youth outreach program (H/T Sourcewatch)—-
“Many of you can caucus in Iowa,” Mr. Obama told scores of high-school students, via conference call, from around [Iowa in September 2007] for the kickoff of the weekly ‘BarackStar’ nights held for teens at the campaign’s 31 field offices. ‘I hope you realize how much power you have, potentially, to change the world.’”
The Obama campaign is also actively cultivating teachers, along with high-school principals, using them for entree to the youngest voters. Sometimes Obama aides try to hunt the adults down at home, begging for classroom time.”
Obama, “driven both by necessity, and his particular appeal … has a proverbial seat at the cool kids’ lunch table, with his appearance on the cover of Vibe and having met with the likes of rapper Ludacris. …
“So Rachel Haltom-Irwin, the campaign’s 25-year-old Iowa Youth Vote director, attends many of Sen. Obama’s appearances, building the campaign’s email database. At a stop in the tiny town of Guthrie Center, she approached the student band and passed around a sign-up clipboard.
“Under the heading of ‘BarackStars,’ the field offices hold weekly gatherings tailored toward teens and hand out information packets to be distributed back at school. …
“In Storm Lake, a picturesque town in northwestern Iowa, Sen. Obama’s team invited high-school teachers to bring students to a midweek event. The district accepted the invitation and provided a bus to transport 60 students. … ”
Teachers Elise Walz and Jenna Broghamer of West Lake High School in Iowa City “recently hopped one of many campaign-hired school buses to the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola — an annual event sponsored by the state’s veteran Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. In presidential campaign season, the event draws the top Democratic contenders.”
Furthermore, during the Democratic primary, several Democratic senators and high level Democratic politicians actively bragged about how their teenage children browbeat them into supporting Obama (in fact, I remember Claire McCaskill admitting on MSNBC that her seventeen year old daughter told her that she was a “slug” if she didn’t support Obama). At the time, The Washington Post wrote the following about this matter—
The youth movement behind Obama isn’t just bringing 18-year-olds to the polls — it’s also providing cover for their parents.
When Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator, endorsed Obama earlier this month, she said it was the urging of her 18-year-old daughter that got her over the hump. When Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement on Sunday, she also invoked her children as a reason: “I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own,” she wrote in her New York Times op-ed. “As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.”
Tuesday came Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, who offered the most detailed attribution of all when she endorsed Obama during a visit to his grandfather’s hometown of El Dorado, Kansas — and which she then repeated during a big rally in Kansas City, Mo. She said that her two sons had been after her for a long time to endorse Obama, but for different reasons. Her elder, in law school, likes Obama for his message, “because he could bring people together”; her younger one likes Obama because he likes Michelle Obama. “He says that anyone who can get Michelle to marry him has to have something going for him.”
And finally, The AP recently wrote about how a political science professor from LaSalle University, named Mary Ellen Balchunis, thought that Obama should re-mobilize his youth support in order to pass his healthcare bill. The AP wrote the following about Balchunis’ thoughts with regard to young people below—-
Balchunis thinks the president could boost youth support on these and other issues — and get them influencing their parents, as they did in the election — if he mobilized and spoke directly to them, the way he did during the campaign. He could for instance, make use of the well-organized student groups that campaigned for him to push the issues of the day.
If he doesn’t, Balchunis thinks that also could have negative ramifications for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections, because those young voters will lose interest and won’t bother to show up at the polls. That’s what happened, she says, after her own young generation was initially excited about Bill Clinton when he was first elected president in 1992. Then, just two years later, Democrats lost control of Congress.
So anyway, my point is that it’s ridiculously unfair for the Obama campaign to actively recruit high school students and bus them in for caucuses, for Democratic bigwigs to wax ecstatic about how their children nagged them into voting for Obama, and for political science professors to imply that Obama could get his mojo back if he started recruiting high school and college kids again (many kids in high school will be in college in 2012)—but then, for those same liberals to turn around an yell “Raaacist!” when parents are upset about their children having to write an essay, after the President’s speech, about what they and their parents can do to help President Obama. (Translation—“Kiddies, you can vote for me when you turn eighteen, and be sure to nag your poor parents into submission until then”.)
Moreover, the above propaganda video circulating through the schools that Glenn Beck recently played on his show further compounds people’s fear that the public schools are becoming a hotbed of liberal indoctrination for their kids—especially when teachers are making the children that they teach draw pro-Obama campaign art and sing in propaganda videos that would make Hugo Chavez proud (H/T Hot Air—see embed below).
Now, a second reason why the video (involving liberal propaganda in the schools) that Beck recently played on his show is a big deal is because of the recent scandal involving The National Endowment for the Arts. Glenn Beck also covered the NEA scandal in depth and I wrote about it in more detail in a diary here. The NEA scandal initially involved Yosi Sargent, the director of communications for the NEA, making a conference call to various artists encouraging them to participate in propaganda for the Obama Administration (the NEA is a tax-payer funded entity). Patrick Courrielche, a blogger for BigHollywood.com., told Beck that the NEA had sent out mass emails to many artists and bloggers, and that he had participated in a conference call with the NEA (that he recorded and that Beck played on his show) in which Yosi Sargent of the NEA said the following (see embed below)—
“We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally.”
And, Mr. Sergant also said this little gem—
“Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it.”
However, this was not the end of th NEA scandal. Patrick Courrielche has now reported that Buffy Wicks, from the White House Office of Public Engagement, was the one who actually hosted the conference call, and that Yosi Sargent gave his little pep talk after she spoke. Mr. Courrielche recorded Ms. Wicks saying the following—
” I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.” “We won.” “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.” “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.” “I hope you guys are ready.”
And then, Glenn Beck ran the story about the updated NEA scandal where he explained that Buffy Wicks used to be a union astroturfer who funneled hundreds and thousands of dollars to ACORN (see embed below).
Furthermore, Beck also added that Ms. Wicks is the lead White House official on Serve.Gov (an organization that is supposed to “encourage” volunteer work, though The Washington Times easily dispels that myth) which made that creepy “I Pledge” video (see embed below).
Now you ask, how does the NEA scandal tie into the Skool-Aid and the recent school propaganda videos (that I embedded at the top of this blog)? Simple. All three are prime examples of how the Obama Administration, and far-left liberals in general, don’t really mind using propaganda and indoctrination—whether in the schools or using tax-payer funded organizations like the NEA—to push their agenda. Simply put, this is the same song, third verse.
And finally, there is one more reason why this propaganda video dispersed throughout the schools (along with the Skool-Aid and the NEA scandal) is a big deal. Several days ago, Glenn Beck did a story about Mark Lloyd, Barack Obama’s chief diversity czar for the FCC (I can’t quite figure out why the FCC needs a diversity czar). In the video that I’m about to show you, Mr. Lloyd is heard openly praising Hugo Chavez (but then again, Sean Penn routinely praises Hugo Chavez so this is really nothing new for the far-left), stating The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t go far enough (that’s the bill that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass in order to curtail the conservative media), and finally, Mr. Lloyd states that, “We’re in a position to say who is going to step down so that someone else will get power”. Seriously, between Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Van Jones, and now, Mark Lloyd, has Obama ever met a nutter that he doesn’t like? But, I digress.
So, now we are singing the same song, fourth verse. In a nutshell, this song basically states that the government and its allies can engage in open propaganda and indoctrination in our public schools, manipulate our tax-payer funded institutions for political purposes (such as the NEA), while simultaneously curtailing our freedom of speech and deciding who gets hired and fired. I don’t know about you, but I think that this song sucks. I say that we stop singing it. In fact, what’s so scary about the tune that the Obama Administration, and its buddies, seem to be humming, is that when I, and honest people on both sides of the aisle read about the details, we can’t all help but exclaim, “This doesn’t happen in America! This kind of stuff only happens in other countries—like Venezuela.” Well you know what, this shouldn’t happen in America—not if we have anything to say about it. I say that it’s high time that we, the sane people of America, start making our voices heard, and start singing louder than the bozos behind the the Skool-Aid, the NEA scandal, and all of these propagandistic videos. Enough is enough. It is time to make our voices heard. Here is where I take my stand.