Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Pelosi: I’m not Speaker, and it’s George Bush’s fault

Seriously (video at link).  The woman’s gone off the deep end.

January 7, 2011 Posted by | Pelosi | 2 Comments

MSM flipping out that the House read the document they’ve sworn to uphold and defend

From Time’s piece called “The Cult of the Constitution” (hmmm, wonder where they stand on the Constitution?):

After much hullabaloo, the 112th Congress kicked off its second day as promised: by reading the Constitution aloud on the House floor for the first time ever, per a chamber historian. Except not all of it. The bipartisan recitation omitted several critical passages, including the three-fifths compromise.

There’s a reason that the Three-Fifths Compromise wasn’t read, you dolts: it isn’t in the Constitution anymore!  That’s like calling Charlie Crist a Republican, though he isn’t anymore.  Subsequent amendments rendered the Compromise moot and thus stricken from the text.  Amending the Constitution without judicial activism is possible?  Who knew?

Picking up on the meme is the Washington comPost, titled “Notable passages of Constitution left out of reading in the House”.  As Ace puts it:

What the article actually describes: The “notable passages” left out of the reading are the parts of the Constitution which are no longer part of the Constitution — that is, the parts which have been replaced/written out by subsequent amendments, and are therefore not in fact “part of the Constitution,” except in a purely historical way. In the same way that two legs may be said to be part of the history of a one-legged man.

If the left actually read the Constitution, as it exists today, they might be better informed in slinging their stones.  Not that being better informed ever stopped them from opining stupidly before, so why start now?  Hell, Phil Hare got booted from office by telling everyone he didn’t care what the Constitution had to say about ObamaCare.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

January 7, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, media bias | 3 Comments

Democrat strategy for 2012: Vote for us, so we can make the massively unpopular Pelosi YOUR House Speaker again!

Friggin’ brilliant move by the Ostrich Party, no?  From Guy Benson:

House Democrats’ tone-deafness never ceases to amaze.  First, after sustaining a historic drubbing shellacking in November, they willfully (and overwhelmingly) chose to retain one of the least popular politicians in the history of the republic as their leader.  Now they’re gearing up to make restoring her Speaker’s gavel the centerpiece of their 2012 push.  Surefire winner

Message from Dems to Normal America: You’re welcome.

January 7, 2011 Posted by | Pelosi, shameful | 1 Comment

Quote of the day, “Obama’s blackness” edition

Yeah, I’m gonna go there:

The story of Barack Obama’s rise is familiar enough not to warrant repeating. What is unusual about Remnick’s version is that he tells it through the lens of race. As an American boy growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii in the aftermath of the civil rights movement, Obama was in a confusing position. He looked black, but he didn’t know any blacks. He was descended from slave owners but not from slaves. Most disorientingly, Hawaii—where he was brought up by his white grandparents—lacked even those lingering remnants of racism, the exposure and expunging of which was, by the 1970s, the main preoccupation of the burgeoning establishment that had grown out of the civil rights movement.

In a way that strikes Remnick as both “touching” and “awkward,” Obama began “giving himself instruction on how to be black.” He wrote letters to his father that went unanswered. He sought out military servicemen to play basketball with, in hopes of learning their slang. In college, Obama read deeply in black literature and history. He gravitated towards community organizing in poor black neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. At law school he took a lot of classes in civil rights law, and then spurned a lucrative career track to take up civil rights work at Davis, Miner, which Remnick calls “a classic liberal ‘good-guy’ firm.” As a lecturer at the University of Chicago, he taught a course (by all accounts superb) called Current Issues in Racism and the Law. He sought out as a mentor the fiery advocate of “black-liberation theology,” Jeremiah Wright.

As Maetenloch puts it:

He was born only half black, didn’t grow up in a black family, and didn’t really know any black people until he was nearly an adult, yet now he’s considered the epitome of the successful American black man. This was not an accidental transformation.

Yet 53% of the American public were duped, especially the 95%+ of black Americans who voted for him, thinking “He’s one of us.  He gets us!”  I have never understood why skin pigmentation had anything to do with fitness for public office in any capacity.

January 7, 2011 Posted by | bigotry, Obama | 1 Comment

GOP House will introduce bill to eliminate “czars”

Not a bad way to kick off the legislative year, no?  Excerpt:

A group of House Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday to rein in the various “czars” in the Obama administration.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 28 other House Republicans introduced legislation to do away with the informal, paid advisers President Obama has employed over the past two years.

The legislation, which was introduced in the last Congress but was not allowed to advance under Democratic control, would do away with the 39 czars Obama has employed during his administration.

The bill defines a czar as “a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President” who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation.

Yes, I know Bush and Reagan also used czars.  I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now.  The Constitution doesn’t permit czars, period.

Exit prediction: Reid won’t let this get to the Senate floor, which is odd, if you think about it.  This bill basically reinforces the Senate’s right to advise and consent when it comes to appointees, which you would think the Senate would appreciate and embrace.  But Reid is such a partisan hack that he doesn’t mind ceding Senatorial authority to a Democrat president.  I don’t have to wonder what his reaction would be if the president were a Republican.

January 7, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, corruption | 2 Comments