Rubio talks American tradition & Obama's foreign rhetoric

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) hit the nail on the head in his succinct message to his colleagues today...

"America does not have a tradition of class warfare, it's never been part of our nation.  In fact, one of the things that distinguishes us from the world is that Americans have never believed that you somehow have to take money away from somebody else in order to be better off.  On the contrary, we've always looked to advance the cause of everyone in the belief that we can all be prosperous and in the hopes of growing the economy that way.  That's the American tradition, and that serves our nation well."

"Unfortunately you wouldn't know that from the speech yesterday, a rhetoric that was quite frankly deeply disappointing.  The idea that if we raise taxes, as the President said, "on millionaires and billionaires," raise taxes on oil companies, raise taxes on private owners of jets, that that's somehow going to make a difference in America's debt in terms of having a real impact is not only misleading, I think quite frankly its disappointing.  It's class warfare, and it's the kind of language that you would expect from a leader of a third world country, not the President of the United States."

He softened that description a bit from an earlier iteration, choosing "a leader of a third world country" on the Senate floor, instead of "a left-wing strong man," which he told National Review this morning.  However, both still make the point, and both have targeted accuracies to them.

More alarming, Rubio says, "From [the speech] you can only take two things: either the president doesn't truly understand the nature of the problem that we face, or he's decided this is a political issue and not a policy one."  We all know it to be the latter, particular when he blames his opposition for the very politicizing that HE initiates!  Republicans are actually trying to correct the economic policy in Washington, not on the backs of the taxpayers, big or small, but in the pockets of Big Government's spending sprees; while Obama and Democrat's only solution to the bill that THEY continue to run up is to raise taxes on the job creators, big or small.  So Obama falls back on the only tactics he knows: "misinform, discourage, undermine, and mislead" as 'Harlan' from Garland, TX called into Rush this morning to point out...that is to say, the tactics of the classic Marxist. Here's a nice juncture to bring in that brief conversation:

CALLER:  And it doesn't matter to him whether every word that comes out of his mouth is a flat-out lie, whether he knows it or anybody else knows it, he doesn't care, 'cause what's he's trying to do is misinform, discourage, undermine, and mislead.  I remember listening to Ronald Reagan, one that you played, where he announces his candidacy.  And Reagan was always encouraging.  I remember hearing him on TV, and I --

RUSH:  Harlan, let me ask you a question.  You sit there and you say that Obama is trying to misinform and discourage and undermine, mislead.  Why?  Why would he want to do that to people?

CALLER:  Because I think he wants to undermine any kind of encouragement.  He wants to discourage, because discouragement feeds this --

RUSH:  Why?  How does he benefit from that?

CALLER:  Because it gives him power.  It's a classic Marxist --

RUSH:  Exactly right.  The more discouraged you are, the more defeated you are, the more hopeless you feel, you'll turn to Obama for your solution.  Harlan is exactly right.  Exactly right. 

Now, back to Rubio.  He went on to suggest "a simpler tax code, a managable and sane regulatory environment, and of course a government that doesn't spend money it doesn't have," emphasizing that these solutions have worked before and will work again, and urging the President to lead. 

But really, the truth about Obama lies within the conclusion of NRO's interview with Rubio, “Three years into his presidency, he is a failed president.  He just has not done a good job. Life in America today, by every measure, is worse than it was when he took over.  When does it start to get better?  When does the magic of this president start to happen?”  I think we can all answer that one.

Ron Johnson’s budgetary common sense

After speaking of the dysfunction and brokenness of Washington, freshman Senator Ron Johnson (WI) laid out in the clearest of terms how the federal government could learn a common sense solution from American families who budget everyday and make it work: 

"A budget is a number.  We should first pick one number, and then a set of numbers that won't let America go bankrupt.  So let me start the process by throwing out a number: $2.6 trillion.  This is $800 billion more than we spent just 10 years ago.  The $2.6 trillion, that is the amount that President Obama in his budget said the federal government would receive in revenue next year.  If we only spent that amount of money, we would be living within our means.  What a concept, huh?"  He continued by detailing a process for those who wish to request additional spending beyond his proposed budget, "If we want to spend more than $2.6 trillion, members of Congress, members of this Administration, should go before congressional committees and openly justify what they want to spend, how much they want to borrow, and how much debt they're willing to pile on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.  They should explain just how much of our children's future they are willing to mortgage.  The American People deserve to be told the truth."

How sensible.  Of course, statists can't comprehend in these terms, because they spend not just next year's revenues, but into the next 5 and 10 years' revenues, perhaps beyond, those revenues they spend NOW, which is the sole reason they want to raise them NOW!  In other words, it's not to pay towards any significant debt reduction, although that's what they hope we believe they're attempting to do, it's because they've overspent so badly that they need to pay for what they've already passed (i.e., bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare, etc.).  This is the same debt that they'll continue to accrue, because too many in Washington – primarily Democrats at this time, but both parties had this problem throughout the last decade – have no intention of decreasing the Keynesian spending.  And where they don't have it to spend, they've borrowed it.  Then it snowballs into borrowing to pay back borrowing.  Nope, not a functional family plan at all, which is why listening to the common sense of Ron Johnson would do wonders for Washington.

Hell-bent on tax hikes won’t solve our debt problems

Obama opens up the theme of the day: blame Republicans, and when all-else fails, blame Congress (disregard their aggressive spending spree over the past 2 ½ years at ‘my, my, my’ direction), when they won’t agree to a tax hike in exchange for a debt ceiling hike.

As put in a Republican Redefined critique, “I’m certain you know what to expect herein, but just in case you’re curious or lazy and don’t feel up to watching… Republicans want to keep “tax cuts” for “millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, hedge-fund managers, and corporate jets.“ Democrats want to send your kids to college and take care of your grandma.” Right, never mind promoting class envy, breaking the bank and buying off votes to achieve the Democrats’ want, those are just semantics.

And look at how else Obama approaches this by basically saying, ‘If you guys can’t accept the Democrat desire for tax hikes, we’re gonna have to make some cancellations, starting with your summer vacation’...

(An aside for all the Bachmann naysayers, Malia is actually still 12...just a mistake not worth mentioning, right?) Now, I’ll be the first to admit that these guys are paid too much for too little service, but extortion from the top leaves a lot to be desired from our golfer-in-chief.

That same Republican Redefined piece points to a portion of a CBS News report to dissect Obama’s own admission when he says “If everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows…” that is to say, “If Democrats are willing to take on their spending and entitlement programs…” And when Obama says that “Nobody wants to see the United States default,” T. Christopher, author of this piece, questions, “Couldn’t one make the argument that Democrats do in fact want the US Government to default on its debt if they don’t get their terms met in negotiations? If it’s blame-Republicans-day, couldn’t one also make the argument that Democrats and their stubbornness to make spending cuts or come to the table on entitlement reform are – at the very least – equally to blame?”

A National Journal piece dubs Obama’s news conference as a ‘kids vs. corporate jets’ speech, surmising that if it accomplished anything at all, “it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.” Elaborating on the ‘kids vs. corporate jets’ synopsis, Obama audaciously said, "If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships. [It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I've said to Republican leaders, 'You go talk to your constituents and ask them, "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?” ‘ “ Basically, ‘Kids, good; jets, bad; do what I say, and vote for me again!’ As Ron Fournier said in this piece, “Obama is naive only if he thinks a single news conference is going to change the political paradigm.”  But beyond naive, he's also a walking contradiction, for just a few months after Congress scolded all those auto execs for flying their corporate jets to those hearings in Washington back in '09, Congress approved tax breaks in the stimulus package, that he signed off on, to help buy those very same kind of...can you guess it?  Yes, 'corporate jets'!   Furthermore, he flies his corporate jet all over God's green world!  So now he's a contradictory hypocrite.  And let's not even get into Princess Pelosi's RETIRED flying behemoth...

Departing from Obama’s speech this morning, Lawrence Lindsey wrote a poignant WSJ article yesterday, The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think, concerning how even normalized interest rates will raise debt-service costs by nearly $5 trillion over a decade, dwarfing the ‘savings’ from any budget deal currently being negotiated. And a key provision of this assessment is that there’s no way to raise taxes high enough, even beyond what Obama and the Democrats might favor, to cover the extensive debt problem that we’re facing.

“The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years.”

He goes on to explain that under the administration’s current policies and projections, debt holders should be far more concerned about a return on their principal in 10 years than any short-term bondholder’s payment, meaning that the government will assuredly keep the principal, just as they did with GM and Chrysler investors, stealing their money. Then afterwards, it’ll be your private pension plans, which they’ve had their eyes on for years now.

But before they raid our modest treasures, they currently have the debt ceiling debate to muscle through, and James Pethokoukis weighs in on precisely Why the GOP shouldn’t go wobbly on taxes when it comes to these negotiations:

"It’s up to House Speaker John Boehner now. Democrats, the media and Wall Street will be pounding him to agree to raise taxes as part of a debt ceiling deal. But now is no time for Republicans to go wobbly. Here’s why the GOP should stick to its guns until Aug. 2 – and beyond if necessary: 1. The last thing the economy needs is a tax hike. 2. Tax revenue isn’t the problem. Spending is. 3. The key to boosting tax revenue is faster economic growth."

As Pethokoukis concludes, “Bottom line: Higher taxes would hurt the economy, wouldn’t solve the debt problem and aren’t really needed anyway.”

Too bad Lindsey and Pethokoukis aren’t ranking members of Congress, huh? Perhaps their words, as well as many others, will have some resonance with our legislators, one can hope anyway. But one thing is for certain: Even if the GOP holds the line on taxes, but opt to make phony cuts, putting anything REAL off until later, inevitably, nothing will really have happened, and the slide of our decline will continue. That’s why NOW, more than ever, it’s time for a Balanced Budget Amendment, NOT higher taxes!

Oh, ye of little faith…in a conservative woman

Not only picking up where I left off a few posts back, but also where Krauthammer and Will left off several months back with dismissiveness towards principled conservatives, preferring the establishment types deemed worthy to win over those mysterious independents who they understand little about, a couple of Fox News staples (yes, that’s right, I said FOX NEWS), Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, have picked up their cohorts reigns of marginalization and focused on their latest conservative target of criticism in the woman who could be our first female president, Michele Bachmann.

By now, I’m sure everyone’s seen the notoriously shrewd questioning, in that familiar ‘civil’ tone, in which Chris Wallace pompously asked Michele Bachmann if she was a ‘flake’.



Where the hell is the excitement over this lady possibly being the first female president of the United States of America, as compared to Obama being the first black president?!   Too much to ask from a 'fair and balanced' guy?  Nonetheless, one can imagine the uproar this caused with viewers, as it should have. And so much so that Wallace later had to release a statement dubbed an ‘apology’. Since, Bachmann has stated that Wallace actually called her and apologized, but also showed that she had thick enough skin to handle it, as her response in the interview displayed. Nonetheless, you can imagine how this has set off many conservative pundits.

Ed Morrissey released a Hot Air piece blasting Wallace and the rest of the media for “the same old double standard applied to Republicans” that somehow seems to bypass the Democrats. He admits that Bachmann has made some gaffes, “but given Obama’s track record both before and after his election to the presidency, it would take a superhuman effort to vault into his league. And the media still mainly ignores Obama’s gaffes, which have grown into the hundreds, without a single outlet ever asking Obama if he is a “flake” on that same basis.”

David Limbaugh  approaches the topic by questioning what Chris Wallace was actually driving at?

Indeed, there is an enormous elephant in the room of GOP presidential politics, which is that despite their individual popularity, both female contenders, Bachmann and Sarah Palin, are dismissed in many circles as cartoon characters.

I'm the last person who wants to inject identity politics into any equation, but I can't help but wonder what role, if any, their gender may be playing here -- not just that they're females but also that they're attractive ones.

Though I doubt these are major factors for most people, they are for some. In fact, a number of females have suggested that other women react negatively to Palin -- and presumably to Bachmann, as well -- specifically because they are women.

In other critics I detect a type of soft sexism leading to a stronger reaction to their gaffes than to, say, Obama's. They regard their mistakes (or supposed mistakes) as disqualifying while casually overlooking far worse errors from the Harvard-educated Obama. Bachmann and Palin are panned as inexperienced and lacking gravitas despite their records and accomplishments, and Obama is treated as a heavyweight despite his miserable record and voluminous verbal blunders.

But much bigger factors driving the media narrative against Palin and Bachmann than their female attractiveness are their common personal and ideological characteristics. They are both fearless, combative, energizing and [absolute] conservatives. Don't get me wrong; they are two very different people, but these shared qualities make them especially contemptible to the left and to certain elitists on the right.

He went onto to express how both Bachmann and Palin are far more qualified and equipped to serve as president compared to Obama, and sending a message to some conservatives who “believe that Palin and Bachmann are unelectable or not particularly qualified for one reason or another," saying that "even here, I think we are allowing the liberal media to control the narrative.”

And of course Mark Levin had more than a few words for Chris Wallace in his show yesterday, starting with his opening monologue, which focused on the way conservative women are treated by the media, and went on to devote most of the first hour to this discussion. Mark says, “We can now come to expect from the media these types of ridiculous questions and statements to conservative politicians. They do this so they can score points with others in the establishment media. When is Chris Wallace going to ask Obama if he's a Marxist since some people think he is?”



Then to compound the issue that much more, Brit Hume joins in with a ‘sigh’ and a release when asked about Bachmann’s candidacy. Referring to her as "vulnerable" multiple times throughout the interview, and declaring that this will hurt her with those independents (there it is again), Hume did have one good thing to say about her, and I’m paraphrasing: “Well, she’s better than Palin.”



Brit, “in the end” independents turned away from McCain! Palin actually brought votes to that ticket in ’08.  Were you paying attention?

Juan Williams, filling in for O’Reilly, went on to play a clip of Washington Post columnist Colby King calling Michele Bachmann 'Barbie with fangs', to which Hume dismissed as noneffective, just a personal attack with no substance. Yet, Hume turns right around and referred to a Washington Times piece that essentially makes a presumptive claim that because she mistakenly confused John Wayne’s birthplace with the families hometown of Waterloo (both of which reside in Iowa), Bachmann must have somehow gotten this John Wayne confused with the John Wayne Gacy that stayed a brief stint in Waterloo before moving to Illinois and starting his killing spree.  WHAT?! That’s right, the media’s hatred for this conservative woman tells them that since she mixed up cities, she must be mixing up ‘The Duke’ with ‘the serial killer’. That’s rational, right? WRONG! Nevertheless, Brit Hume repeats it.  Luckily, Hannity followed afterwards, and presented an opportunity for Bachmann to have the last word as to her purpose for even invoking the name of John Wayne in the first place, which Hume missed as well.

What Wallace and Hume have done is the epitome of what David Limbaugh refers to in allowing the liberal media to control the narrative. Why else would some of the thought-to-be legitimate reporters and commentators mimic the liberal biases of the mainstream media by questioning the validity and intelligence of conservatives, while accepting some of the utter nonsense and false claims that we hear spewed from the mouths and minds of statist Democrats, in turn fueling the flames of the Left? This is truly more of a mystery than the independents! Perhaps if they could see fit to drop some of the sexist undertones, acknowledge that all conservatives of gender, or ethnicity for that matter, are capable of beating the very beatable Obama, and stop looking for some establishment automaton of perceived perfection to win the People over, then they could see clearly that the principled conservative is just as legitimate as the statist liberal, and dare I say more so, much more. And this may be going too far for them already, but maybe, just maybe, they can come to understand that even a consummate conservative woman can win and win BIG!

Bachmann makes her formal presidential bid in Iowa

Returning to the town of her birth the day after an Iowa poll shows her neck-and-neck with that Romney fellow, Michele Bachmann announced, "I stand here in the midst of many friends and many family members to announce formally my candidacy for president of the United States.”



Invoking our rich history, our trust in God, our families and our neighbors, not government, Bachmann went on to address our biggest obstacles we face as a nation.

“We simply cannot kick the can of our problems down the road, because our problem are quite frankly today, our problems are not tomorrow.  We can’t continue to rack up debt and put it on the backs of the next generation. We can’t afford the unconstitutional healthcare law that will cost us too much and deliver so little. We can’t afford four more years of failed leadership here at home and abroad. We can’t afford four more years of millions of Americans who are out of work and who aren’t making enough in wages to support a family.  We can't afford four more years of a housing crisis, where we continually watch the value of our home devalued in front of our eyes, and we literally see it become impossible for people to purchase a home.  We can’t afford four more years of foreign policy with a president who leads from behind and who doesn’t stand up for our friends like Israel and who too often fails to stand against our enemy.  We cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama.”

Bachmann said she came to Waterloo today to announce that "We can win in 2012 and we will win" as her appeal grows with people from all walks of life, who find agreement in part, if not wholly, with the pillars of conservatism, which Bachmann confesses her devotion to all: peace-through-strength conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and yes, even the media-vilified tea party movement, to which she described as "a very powerful coalition that the Left fears.  And they should, because make no mistake about it: Barack Obama will be a one-term president."

Concluding with a poignant message, Bachmann proclaimed, "Together we can do this.  Together we can reign in the corruption and the waste that has become Washington, and instead, we can leave behind a better future for the next generation of Americans.  Together we can make a better America, if we stick together.  Together we can bring the promise of the future. Together we can; together we will."

We can nominate a female or black principled conservative who can beat Obama!

The phenomenon of identity politics has been a disingenuous practice that’s played out over the broad lifespan of politics. One of the main tools that we’ve seen particular advancement in, especially from the current political realm, is the use of the mainstream media, who have more brazenly, and more consistently, rallied for liberal-turned-statist Democrats (perhaps they always have, but that’s another topic) over Republicans, whether of the establishment brand or principled conservative. They’re feverish zeal is felt with that much more intensity and exuberance when it comes to taking down those principled conservatives who don't fit their contrived molds, and who threaten the very fabric of their support for statist ideology, with politicians who strive towards a complete remake of American society.

There have been a couple areas that we’ve witnessed excessively nasty sniping: the particularly venomous attacks aimed at our conservative women, and the overreaching marginalization or irreverent dismissiveness towards black conservatives. Perhaps these two categories are treated as such because many in the liberal media have determined that the vast majority, if not all, female and black demographics (and the same could be said of Hispanics), should be unquestionably voting for their Democrats, particularly for all the special interest and government subsidies that the Left has lured and ensnared these groups with for so many years. They feel that these votes have essentially been bought and paid for! And this practice has extended to the point that even some defeatist Republicans and media pundits have bought into the notion that such first principled conservatives, which the media has come to readily dub ‘the far right’, can neither win these groups over, nor ever beat the extremely beatable Barack Obama, or a combination of both. And much of this rationale, we’re told by these same media elites no less, is particularly dependent on those mysterious independents, who both the media and establishment fail to grasp actually share, with a huge abundance, our conservative values! These stereotypes promulgated by the media, and bought into by our own, MUST end in order to save our nation.

Some interesting discussions took place on Rush Limbaugh’s show this past week that delve deeper into the discriminatory actions of the mainstream media in their efforts to monopolize elections in this country, particularly the presidential race, and maintain victory for statism, both in its champions and its enablers.

The discussion surrounding our conservative women, specifically in regards to our female presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, ensued with a gentleman, who, although claiming conservative principles, was too wrapped up, like many, in the idea of beating Obama at any cost, even at the cost of abandoning that principle which he laid claim to… Rush proclaims, “Yes, we can nominate one of us." (condensed quotes):

CALLER: I agree we should not nominate candidates who are either near RINOs or middle of the road because we need a return to conservative values. But given how leftist Obama is and the need to beat him, doesn't it make marketing sense to at least position the Republican more to the center and to the right of Obama in the campaign rather than the far right? Stated differently, the farther we go to the right, the more votes we risk losing. And, frankly, as a conservative, and I think there are a lot of people out there like me, I'd vote for almost anyone against him, so my vote's not at risk, and yet the independents' votes might be.

RUSH: Well, give me a definition, if you will, of far right. Give me a person who is far right.

CALLER: In my view the far right candidate out there right now is probably Michele Bachmann.

RUSH: And you think she's too far right to get the nomination?

CALLER: I think that a lot of independents would not vote for her.

RUSH: Why?

CALLER: Not only for her ideology but also for other reasons.

RUSH: Well, no, what other reason? I can't read your mind.

CALLER: She's a female.

RUSH: Oh. Okay. We're not ready for the first female president, particularly a right-winger?

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: Why? What does that mean?

CALLER: Well, I think it's a double standard. I think if you're, as in a lot of other things, if you're a Democrat or a liberal and you're a female, that's a plus. Look how the female Republicans are treated by the media and by virtually everyone who isn't a conservative, they're --

RUSH: Okay, now, let me just ask you a couple quick questions. This is what I ran into last night. "We gotta focus on winning. Whatever it takes, we've got to get rid of Obama."

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: And the assumption is -- and I think it's incorrect -- the assumption last night, the assumption in your call is that a conservative is not gonna win, 'cause that's what you mean by conservative. When you say far right-winger, I know what you mean. You mean a conservative. And my point of view is that if we don't nominate one of those, we can kiss it good-bye. If we try to go Obama light to please these mythical independents, we lose.

CALLER: Yeah, if we lose the election, I think we lose the whole country.

RUSH: No. I'm telling you I disagree with you. If we nominate the person you want, we lose. If we nominate a watered down anything because we're afraid to be who we really are, 'cause that turns people off --

CALLER: I wouldn't like it, but I would hold my nose like I did the last time and still vote for the Republican. Where else am I gonna go?

RUSH: Well, look, we find ourselves in a real dilemma here in this country. On one side of our mouth we say we gotta get rid of this guy or we're gonna lose the country and then we want qualifications on saving the country. Now, either you are for the Constitution or you're not. Either you are for traditional values that have defined the institutions and traditions that have made this country great. Either you are for them or you're not. You are either for capitalism or you are not. You know, when we start calling ourselves what the left calls us, when we start saying we can't nominate one of us too far to the right, we are responding to the characterization that the left places on us, and we are accepting this assault and legitimizing it by responding to it.

Where's it written that a woman would not appeal to independents? I think that a woman could appeal to the so-called independents. That's another thing I've been told. "Rush, you ought to act like you love the independents. You ought to act like they're your favorite people, that way they'd do what you want. You ought to, Rush. If you criticize the independents, Rush, they're just gonna run away from the Republican Party." I don't criticize 'em; I criticize the way they are characterized. At any rate, we've been there, done that. I just think a woman would appeal to these so-called independents.

The fact that media liberals trash our women doesn't mean they can't attract votes, but I'll tell you, that's what so many of our people think. I can't get away from it. I can't get away from people who think Palin's a guaranteed loser, and they're cool with it. I take it to the logical next step and say, "You're telling me we're gonna have to nominate somebody the media doesn't dislike. We're gonna have to nominate somebody the media doesn't criticize. Sorry, it isn't gonna happen." There are a lot of contradictions in what people tell me. Now, let's say this. If we had nominated Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter rather than Ronald Reagan, what do you think the outcome would have been? Remember, Ronaldus Magnus was said to be too far to the right. Ronaldus Magnus, the Republican mainstream, he's just too far out there. He's the guy that did the Goldwater speech, you know, come on. This guy's too unstable. We want this guy in charge of nuclear weapons? We had Republicans saying that.

Right, okay, so let's go out and find the equivalent of Gerald Ford to put up against Barack Obama, and you tell me what happens. You just tell me. Go out and find your favorite moderate, put 'em up against Obama, and you tell me, what's the outcome? This notion that traditional conservatism, fealty to the founding of this country can't win is preposterous. I think it's responding in total defense to the left, exactly how they want us to.

And Rush is exactly right about that. We must not legitimize these liberal claims about conservatives! A conservative principled woman can absolutely attract votes…that’s why McCain received as many as he got before he destroyed his own campaign, it was all about Sarah! And the threat that she poses to the liberal establishment, and who women are supposed to vote for, is precisely why the media hordes attack her so. An interesting article appeared last week in The American Spectator questioning if Sarah Palin is Michele Bachmann’s ‘Goldwater’…definitely worth a look at!

Let’s move on to a demographic that we’re told is not even supposed to exist: the black conservative. How this is surmised is astonishing, seeing that it was the Democrats that maintained dominion over a pre-civil war slave-trading South and continued to support segregation afterwards until the Civil Rights movement, which many Democrats opposed as well, brought relief and the truth of equality instilled in our Declaration (but that’s also a topic for another discussion).

The effort to marginalize and openly mock our black conservative candidate, Herman Cain, is in full force with the liberal media, that is, whenever they do decide to mention him. Over the span of a few callers, Rush discusses how the American Left lives to destroy black conservatives and “Why the Left hates Herman Cain.” (condensed quotes):

CALLER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I wanted to get your opinion on why Herman Cain isn't getting more attention in the media, whether it's TV or print media. Half the time they don't even list him as a candidate for president, and the polls that they're, you know, reflecting, you know, various newspaper articles... I mean, when you see him at these Republican debates, I know that some of the time Fox has on that device that measures, you know, the audience response? And he seems to be getting the highest numbers. He seems to be, you know, very smart gentleman that a lot of people like. Yet he's not getting the media attention that I think that he very well deserves. I mean, if Herman Cain didn't go to the CNN Republican debate, I don't even know if his name would have ever been mentioned on CNN.

RUSH: Well, the best answer that I can give you when you're talking about people like CNN and others, I just think it's no more complicated than they don't think he can win. I'll bet you if you could get the producers, the assignment editors, the people behind the scenes that you never see who are responsible for what stories get covered -- the people who are out there assigning, "Okay, Biff. I want you to go follow Herman Cain around a couple days. See what Herman Cain's doing" -- those assignments aren't being made because I don't think these people think Herman Cain has a chance. I don't think they even think he's a serious candidate.

CALLER: It's a little bit like what you were talking about earlier, substance versus, you know, the Mitt Romneys of the world who have the perfect (garbled) hair.

RUSH: Yeah, there's no question that that's a component, too, absolutely.

CALLER: I mean, he's definitely got some substance. It's unfortunate that the Republican Party is reducing itself to looks alone and whether or not somebody can read off of a teleprompter. (giggles)

RUSH: Well, I don't know that the Republican Party has done that. Remember, the people telling me that that's what it's gonna take are Republicans. They were telling me that's what the Republicans better start doing. They better stop worrying about somebody who's pure, true, and blue on policy and substance; they better find somebody who can lie and is good-looking, cause that's what people want. The people are not deep, they're shallow, and they don't start paying attention 'til two days before the election (or three, maybe two weeks) and that's when you go after 'em big time. You don't waste any campaign money now. You don't waste a whole lot of time on debates. You wait 'til people are really paying attention, and you just hit 'em with good looks and say whatever you have to say to get elected. That was the theory I heard last night, and the theory was that's what Republicans don't do and that's why they lose. It's what the Democrats do do, and they win.

CALLER: Then nobody goes to the polls to vote anyway, so (giggles) it's very unfortunate.

RUSH: Well, not true. Presidential races, the turn out has been pretty large last three, four times around.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: You know, I'm like you. I heard that theory, and I know there's an element of truth to it to some people. The fact that that might describe a majority of voters, that's not pleasant to contemplate. But your question about Herman Cain. I don't know if you've ever watched golf on television, but I'll give you a little analogy. During the Masters, Rory McIlroy was leading the tournament, and he was blowing everybody away (just as he did recently last weekend at the US Open). On Sunday, after the front nine, he had a meltdown, and they stopped covering him altogether. You couldn't get a single shot of Rory McIlroy. They stuck with the leaders. I was watching it, and I wanted to see McIlroy. I wanted to see: How is he handling this? And the people I was watching with said, "Eh, he's out of it, Rush. They haven't got time to show you people who aren't gonna win." I said, "Well, I would like to see how he's dealing with this." But Rory McIlroy went from three days of start-to-finish coverage like Tiger used to get, and the minute he dropped out of the lead by two strokes, you never heard of him. It's just the way the media is.

CALLER: So, are you telling me that the media determines who's gonna win over a year before the election and then decides --

RUSH: No. No. No, no, no, no. I'm telling you that that's why they're not covering who they're not covering now. Not that they're right. I'm not telling you that they're right.

CALLER: -- if they're not covered by the media? That's what the unfortunate part is because I think Herman Cain has a lot to offer and he's got a lot of substance.

RUSH: Yeah, I agree, but it's not their job to get him coverage.

CALLER: But they're covering people that -- they're covering candidates that -- didn't even attend some of the initial Republican debates.

RUSH: Right. They're covering candidates that they hope will embarrass the Republicans. They're covering candidates that they hope will make people not inclined to vote Republican.

CALLER: That's my point, that the liberal media --

RUSH: Well, that's because media is not fair and balanced. The media, they're part of the Democrat political apparatus.

CALLER: They're always very shortsighted, in my opinion.

RUSH: Well, for them, yeah, but it is what it is. So if Herman Cain is to get noticed, he's gonna have to do something himself that gets him noticed -- and here comes the old debate. You do it with substance or you do it with, you know, walking around wearing women's underwear. Heck.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, I don't want to mention any names out there 'cause I frankly don't particularly like the names I would have to mention. They're already making fun of Herman Cain and the way he talks on television. They're already doing that. Now, they never did that with the Bamster, as you know. It was just the exact opposite. Obama, oh, my God, look at the crease of his slacks. Oh, my God, what a smart guy. David Brooks said he was destined not just to be president, he was gonna be a great one because of the crease in his slacks. And we're supposed to rely on that, conservative columnist for the New York Times. That's the criteria which we are supposed to accept Obama being qualified. "Smart guy, very serious candidate, Rush, very, very serious, a man of incredible depth, you can hear it. He's incredibly nuanced. He's elegant in the way he speaks, very, very eloquent and elegant."

I remember the commentators were marveling at the way Obama spoke and put syllables together. I can just tell you they're out there making fun of the way Herman Cain talks, just like they make fun of everything else about Palin. They make fun of everything about Palin. They make fun of Romney about being a Mormon and being a cookie cutter Ken doll. I don't know what they're making fun of Pawlenty for but they're making fun of Pawlenty, but they're not making fun of Obama. Herman Cain, if I had to say, Herman probably represents everything the news media says does not exist. Herman Cain is articulate; he is very highly successful; he is a conservative Republican who is black; and that is what they tell you doesn't exist, and that is a primary problem that Herman Cain has.

You identify yourself as a black conservative and you may as well be admitting that you're a whore or a prostitute, an Uncle Tom, you've been bought off, whatever, you aren't real. It's not possible for a black person to be conservative. The way the media and the left look at this country, a black person who is conservative is a black person who would agree with the whole notion of slavery and would wanna be a slave owner. That's how bad it is that is how devoid and distanced from reality that they are. But I mean the media will not even admit that somebody like Herman Cain can exist. Look what they do to black Americans who identify themselves as conservatives.

Now, if you want to talk genuine intelligence, if you want to talk real depth of education, Shelby Steele, writer, professor, economics, stuff appears in the Wall Street Journal. Thomas Sowell, a brilliant economist, philosopher, an incredibly deep individual. Our sometimes guest host, Walter Williams, ditto. These people don't exist. They are black conservatives. They are traitors. They don't deserve any legitimacy at all as far as the media is concerned, as far as the left is concerned. They don't even deserve respect. Legitimacy of any kind. And, of course, it's the height of unfairness. That's what it is. And that's one of the hard, cold realities of politics. It is what it is, and you have to deal with what it is day in and day out.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

CALLER: Longtime listener, first-time caller. I think you have left your putt a little bit short on your analysis of Herman Cain, though, and why the media is ignoring him. I agree with your first premise, hey, they don't think he's gonna win so let's ignore him. But I think the overriding factor is the traditional media sees the world through this prism of liberalism and they can't see straight and they see a black man with conservative, articulate values as a threat to Obama, and that's why they're ignoring him. Can you imagine Obama and Herman Cain having a debate with the topic of race in the United States or minorities in the United States, Cain would school Obama just like Netanyahu schooled him on the Palestinian issue.

RUSH: You may have a point. I hope you're right about that.

CALLER: I think that's exactly right. This is how these people think. I know how they think. I told your screener this. Obama went to Occidental College for two years.

RUSH: Well, yeah, I know how they think, too. And in a lot of cases they're not really threatened by some of our nominees. In other cases they are. I hope you're right about that with Cain. You could well be, too.

The fact is, these conservatives of strength, who move beyond the stereotypes placed on their principles, their party and themselves, are as capable of absolutely reinvigorating the conservative movement, despite what the mainstream media tells you you’re supposed to think about them.

And as far as the view of the establishment towards pandering to independents, they undermine the independents admiration for honesty, integrity and principle. If our guys need any further reassurance, just look at how many independents voted for The Gipper! And he didn’t exactly restrain his conservative convictions.

We’ve seen, and have come to know, exactly how leftist Democrats loath Reagan, but we’ve also heard moderate Republicans tell us that ‘the era of Reagan is over’ too. Both want us to believe that his brand of strong, unabashed conservatism can’t win, despite two landslide victories. Yet, when it’s time to get votes, they ALL, Republicans and Democrats alike, invoke Ronald Reagan. The two candidates that I’ve discussed above do more than merely invoke Reagan, they seek to live by the conservative principles that Reagan followed, passed down by the conservative fathers before him.

So when we have a statist in the White House that only 3 in 10 say they will vote to re-elect, don’t tell me that this isn’t a golden opportunity to witness the much needed fruits of another conservative ascendancy! Now is not the time to buy into the defeatist product that the liberal media and establishment would sell us. Republicans, conservatives, independents, even disenchanted Democrats, we can nominate a principled leader, despite any limitations that the media would impose on our candidates. I'm not say that we must vote for a black man or a woman, but I am confessing that along with the gloves, it’s time for us to take their blinders off as well to make the BEST choice for 2012!

Democrat economic plan: ‘blame Republicans’

Reuters reports that debt talks have collapsed today after Republicans walked out over Democrats’ unrelenting desire to include taxes in any form of a budget deal, thwarting the efforts to focus on spending cuts, and casting overall doubt on Washington's ability to reach a deal that would allow the government to keep borrowing and avoid a debt default. Not that Reuters might understand that ‘borrowing’ has been part of the spending problem.

Representative Eric Cantor, said participants had identified trillions of dollars in potential spending cuts but were deadlocked over tax increases sought by Democrats. "Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue," Cantor said in a statement.

House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, said Democrats must take tax hikes off the table. "These conversations could continue if they take the tax hikes out of the conversation," Boehner said.

Hopefully, the GOP leadership will stick to their guns this time, demanding required spending cuts; but on the other side of the aisle, what kind of ‘negotiations’ are Democrats pursuing? Tax hikes. And if they can’t get them with the usual gimmicks, this time a temporary payroll tax holiday for employers, alongside the usual empty promises of spending cuts, then they’re ready to return to their default economic plan: blame Republicans for everything! And now they’ve ramped up the rhetoric: Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the economy to bring down Obama! I guess it’s easier to conflate theories about Republicans, who are attempting to contain and decrease our national debt, over admitting to the fact that the liberal economics of ‘spend-and-spend-some-more’ in the name of stimulating the economy simply don’t work.

Nonetheless, while Democrats are busy blaming the GOP for all their economic woes, polls show that Americans aren’t buying it. And how could they when we’ve got Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitting that he’s at a loss as to what’s causing the economy’s soft patch? At a ‘loss’? How about Bernanke’s party and president’s job-killing, over-regulated and hemorrhaging, Big Government policies that are stifling economic growth? Couldn’t be that, could it? ‘No’ says Bernanke, he sticks with the statist’s Keynesian approach and joins in on railing against Republicans, “I don’t think sharp immediate cuts in the deficit would bring more jobs,” while reinforcing his desire to raise the debt ceiling without any preconditions for containing the debt.

I’m just gonna default to what DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz reminded us of a week ago: the Democrats own the economy NOW. And A Hollywood Republican article supplies us with a detailed deed of ownership to put the shape of what they’ve done to America’s economy in crystal clear perspective:

Democrats own a 9.1 percent unemployment rate.
Democrats own a 16 percent unemployment rate for African Americans.
Democrats own the fact that the average unemployed person has been out of work for 39.7 weeks.
Democrats own inflation, which just hit a 2-1/2 year high.
Democrats own the rising core inflation (up 1.5 percent versus the expected 1.4 percent in May).
Democrats own the weakening of the average hourly earnings (when adjusted for inflation earnings have dropped to 1.2 percent).
Democrats own the rising food costs.
Democrats own rising gasoline and energy costs.
Democrats own the weak dollar (dropping over 6.5 percent in value in 2011).
Democrats own the 32nd straight month the federal government has been in the red.
Democrats own a housing crisis that is now worse than the Great Depression.
Democrats own the $14 trillion in debt ($1 trillion in just the last 7 months).
Democrats own the possibility of a debt downgrade.
Democrats own the misery index… now at a 28 year high.
Democrats own the stagflation that has just arrived.

Take that to the 2012 ballot box.

Obama ‘nation builds’ his political platform

What did 'I, I, I' think about Obama’s Afghanistan troop withdrawal speech? I, I, I…me, me, me…al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda…no mention of Patraeus, huh? Oh yeah, our ‘extraordinary’ military! Damn George Bush, I killed Osama bin Laden. Bloviation and platitudes abound. Basically, we’re pulling out and leaving it up to a corrupt government that is sure to return to the Taliban’s grasp…deal with it! Make an empty nod to ‘our founding’, placate the base, and end with more platitudes.

 

As a Global Post report puts it quite accurately:

 

In the end, there were few surprises in the long-awaited speech that U.S. President Barack Obama delivered Wednesday. It followed a carefully constructed narrative that has been in the works for at least the past year: the United States, after successfully completing its mission in Afghanistan, will bring the troops home.

 

"Most analysts predicted that the bulk of the “surge” troops — the 33,000 soldiers that Obama promised to send in his West Point speech in December 2009 — would stay until the end of 2012. Instead, they will all be withdrawn by the end of next summer, just in time to feature prominently in the fall presidential campaign.

 

If this sounds cynical, it is. The president’s speech, like much of the rhetoric surrounding the Afghan war, was a triumph of misdirection — the smoke-and-mirrors approach to public diplomacy."

 

The political toying with Afghanistan over the past decade has not only cost us in American blood and money, but has instilled no confidence in its people who hoped for change.

"The president’s announcement of a faster-paced withdrawal will most likely increase the panic among ordinary citizens, while relieving some of the pressure on the militants.

Obama promised that “this is the beginning — but not the end — of our effort to wind down this war,” and reassured Afghans that the United States would build “a partnership with the Afghan people that endures.”

Of course the U.S. president must tend to his constituency, which was the central theme of his speech: “America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.”

But his “responsible peace” will provide little comfort to Afghans facing a perilous and uncertain future."

In the final hour of Wednesday’s show, Mark Levin also took note of the politicization, coining it “a very odd speech”:

“First of all, the deadlines he put in there, they’re political. By September of next year, we’re pulling out all these troops? So he’s playing to his base. That is very unfortunate, very unfortunate. We’re bombing the hell out of Libya, and we’re withdrawing from Afghanistan a significant number of troops. If you can figure that out in some coherent way, I’d love to hear from you, because I think this is a mess, an absolute mess.

And I’ve also been reading articles today where we have people on the ground, telling reporters, on and off the record, that they are not at all sure that the Afghan military is up to the task; so I certainly hope that all these gains that we’ve had and all the blood spilled doesn’t turn out to be a truly horrific waste of somebody’s father or mother or son or daughter, because he’s timing these things on political grounds.”

Levin went on to express his confusion with Obama as to when we should use our military and when not. “I have no idea what his comprehensive approach is to national security, none.” But reminded us, “Never let us forget, this is the place from where we were attacked.” Levin surmised that this was a political/anti-war speech, except, “on the one hand, we’re pulling out of Afghanistan, on the other hand, we’re involved in Libya. I don’t get it.” After returning from the break, Levin went on to explain why we’re even in Afghanistan, and what his strategy would have been, which is what ‘war’ used to be about...defeating an enemy!

”Anybody know why we’ve been in Afghanistan? Yes, we’ve been in Afghanistan for our own national security purposes. We’re not trying to help build that society in some ways just because that’s the sort of thing we do. We’re trying to build it, because we were attacked from there, and the Taliban can’t wait to overrun that country with its hordes and take it back. And what if they do that and al-Qaeda re-establishes itself? That’s the concern. I don’t have a simple answer; I don’t pretend to be a general. I did say, and have said over the years, if it were me, I’d have been sending our big bombers over there to flatten the place, and I’m serious about that, instead of sending troops to go up into those treacherous mountain areas and valleys and so forth. Let their ‘soldiers’, let their terrorist die. But we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. We don’t bomb countries to Kingdom Come. I don’t know why, I mean, if we’re at war, the purpose of war is to defeat the other side, right?

But all that said, I think we have an absolutely, inexplicable foreign policy, and an absolutely, inexplicable use of our military when it comes to this president, when we use it and when we don’t…So let’s just be clear. The reason we’ve been in Afghanistan is for our own national security purposes. We would never have gone there if there hadn’t been a 9/11.”

Make no mistake, this war has been a cluster-you-know-what within a few short years, perhaps even months, after its commencement, with primary ‘thanks’ to political tinkering throughout, from those on Capitol Hill, most of who know nothing of combat or have forgotten, all the way up to some of the top brass who seem to be more interested in posturing alongside their political colleagues in Washington than reigning Hell upon the enemy. And all to what avail? To the expense of our heroic soldiers, whose hands have been tied at so many turns. I have total faith in the American soldier, but the question that begs to be answered is directed towards our American government: are we capable of actually launching an effective war effort anymore? Because the lenience and clouded objectives that we’ve shown our enemies over the past few decades is quite unsettling, and now Obama’s opportunistic resetting of the goalposts on the Afghan front, while maintaining an unclear, and essentially unlawful, Libyan presence, doesn’t render confidence either.

As one Levin caller so succinctly described about Obama’s speech, “I found it amusing in kind of a frightening way how he tells us that he’s never going to relent in his pursuit of al-Qaeda, seconds after he just told us exactly how he’s going to relent in a step-by-step systematic approach with dates and amounts of troops he’s going to withdraw, pretty much laid out exactly how he’s going to relent." Just short of handing over the entire game plan to our enemy! Then the caller affirms Levin’s previous discussion, “I think I know why we went into Afghanistan. To kill terrorist!”

The ‘right’ economic action evades statists (UPDATES)

The CBO reports today that ‘without action’ (meaning real debt reduction, not simply raising the debt ceiling), the national debt will exceed our GDP by 2021.

The national debt will surge to 101% of U.S. GDP, a measure of the economy's size, in 2021, the CBO said. That's up from last year's 10-year forecast of 87% of U.S. GDP in 2010. The higher, projected, 10-year total would add about $2 trillion to the national debt, if action is not taken on Capitol Hill and by the White House to reduce it before then.

In addition, the CBO -- Congress' official nonpartisan budget tabulator -- underscored the negative consequences both a large budget deficit and a huge national debt would have on the economy, commercial activity, and, ultimately, U.S. citizens.

"Large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would lower income growth in the United States," the CBO report said.

Further, the rising national debt level "would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis for the United States" the CBO added, repeating a warning it made in July 2010.

The piece goes on to illustrate the divide between Democrats, who’d accept watered-down deficit reduction proposals that include tax increases which would cripple an already struggling citizenry, and Republicans, who have proposed the arduous, but necessary, cuts required to resurrect our fiscal footing, arguing that “the deficit and national debt largely stem from excessive government spending, not inadequate revenue.”

And the statist Democrats want the American People to believe that if those Republicans who won’t submit to an unaccountable increase in the debt ceiling, meaning without significant spending cuts, the same spending cuts that are REQUIRED by the CBO’s account to avoid another fiscal crisis, they, Republicans, will be the ones who ‘cause’ a default? Au contraire…folks, when accounting for this brand of reckless inaction, the ones responsible for not only a default now or the not-so-distant future, but a catastrophic collapse, will be the ones who obstruct the responsible action of significantly reducing our debt and deficits, making cuts across the board. Yes, for the Republicans, that will include defense budgets; but likewise, for the Democrats, that will include entitlements (which exceed defense spending).

The endless handouts and wealth redistribution of the welfare state is a utopian concept alone, because the reality of such a society simply can’t survive its own existence. Compounded by a jobless situation that is in dire straits and has earned the dubious right of being compared to any time since the Great Depression, as well as a $450 billion glitch in the Obamacare legislation that grants the perfectly able-bodied American eligibility for Medicaid payouts, which the chief actuary equates to 'food stamps for the middle-class', it is time for Washington, and the the growing dependent class, to understand that self-reliance, while perhaps not as posh, is more beneficial to individual liberties than addictive dominion.

UPDATES:  Oh look, Reuters reports that the Democrats came up with an idea...SPEND MORE MONEY!  What tha...what money?!  This is their idea after the CBO gives this damning report, on top of a Medicare trustee confirming today that Democrats' inaction will result in eating away workers' contributions and ending the program altogether for the coming seniors that have planned for it in a mere 13 years?  How's that for 'Mediscare'?!



Congressman Paul Ryan tells National Review that our window of opportunity to avoid falling off the credit cliff is closing rapidly!

"The shadow of an oncoming debt crisis is hindering job growth today and threatening our fiscal and economic future. The latest warning came today from “The Long-Term Budget Outlook”...This year’s news is grim. We are on the verge of leaving the next generation with an unsustainable debt burden and a less prosperous nation.

Despite the current leadership deficit in Washington, I am optimistic that we will avoid the most predictable crisis in our history. Americans are well-aware of the dangers of out-of-control spending and rising debt, and they have been for some time. They are demanding leaders who will be honest about the solutions required.

...our window of opportunity is closing quickly. Let’s work together now, before it’s too late, to put America’s budget on a sustainable path, grow the economy, and leave the next generation with a better country than the one we inherited." 

Simultaneously, The American Spectator reports that conservative lawmakers, including Mike Lee, Jim DeMint and Rand Paul, held a press conference on the Hill today supporting the Cut Cap Balance Pledge, which provides an allowance for a debt limit increase, or I should say the LAST ceiling increase, only under the conditions of serious spending reductions, enforceable spending caps, and a strong balanced budget amendment to set the current and future congresses on a sane fiscal path.  This action will provide an automatic lowering of the debt, thus responsible economic governance at last!

Jon Huntsman, you are NO Ronald Reagan

The media's great white hope announced his run for the presidency today.  And in this RINOs effort to sway the electorate, Jon Huntsman attempts to mimic Reagan's 1980 campaign kickoff before the Statue of Liberty.  However, Huntsman proves that he's NO REAGAN with his distinctively McCain-like moderate brand of preachy civility...



How are we to believe this pantywaist imposter, who can't even call himself a conservative, is like Reagan, when we KNOW quite the opposite?  Here's the REAL DEAL who had no inclination to restrain his conservative conviction...


Part 2 is located here.

Jon Huntsman, you sir are NO Ronald Reagan!  Reagan drew a bit more of a crowd too, Mr. Huntsman...he actually had a MOVEMENT behind him, sir, not simply a lacky media!

ADDENDUMS: Craig Shirley and Bill Pascoe stated it ever so poignantly in their Daily Caller piece today: "He's the GOP's Barack Obama."  And Michelle Malkin's lead story on Tuesday morning, entitled Jon Huntsman: McCain on Wheels, gives a scathing review of the media-manufactured candidate.

Levin on “one nation under God”

Here’s a partial transcript of Mark Levin’s Monday monologue addressing that disturbing NBC edit, not once but twice, witnessed this weekend:

"We either watched or heard about a major sporting event broadcasted by NBC where a so-called ‘patriot segment’ was carefully produced and edited to specifically removed the words “one nation under God” from the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by a classroom of young children. So poisonous is the secularism promoted by our government that it now seeps into all corners of our society, even in a televised gold tournament purporting to promote a scene on patriotism."

Mark continued to delve deeper and this is where he shines as one of America’s true modern patriots…

"Now let me be clear about something. The fact of our history, the FACT of our history, is that this nation was founded as stated in our Declaration of Independence under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” If you reject that, you reject the Declaration of Independence and our founding. It doesn’t mean you have to believe in God, or believe in anything, but that’s the core of the nation’s existence. It provides further that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” They’re not created by men or governments. They’re involatile because they’re God-given natural rights; otherwise, men and governments can deny them.

The Constitution does NOT separate church and state. It prohibits the establishment of a theocracy, that is, of an official state religion. But the dominant religion in America is and always has been, since the earliest settlers, Christianity. There is no question whatsoever that the Judeo-Christian tradition have and do influence America’s laws and policies, period.

Absolutely, Mark!  And might I add, the words "separation of church and state" do not exist in the Constitution, Declaration, or any governing document...Jefferson never meant for his personal letter to go beyond those Danbury Baptists to which it was addressed, and definitely never meant for the Court to grossly misinterpret its meaning (to which its progressively twisted wording is now attributed); else, he would have sought its insertion into law in the first place and done so in clear, concise language. This brilliant Founding Father did neither.  Mark continues...

Those who yearn to come to this nation, and those who have come to this nation, escaping tyranny and persecution, seeking liberty and opportunity, but now insist that the cultures and societies they escaped supplant that which exists here would do well to remember what I am saying. And those born here, who believe the liberty and rights they enjoy come from the government or some socialist economic model would also do well to remember what I am saying.

To reject “under God” regardless of your religion, if you have a religion, or if you believe in anything higher than yourself, is to reject this nation’s founding.

From where do unalienable rights come if not from a higher being? If they come from man, then they’re not unalienable. Neither government, nor politician, can create unalienable rights. They can help preserve and protect them, but they do not grant them. That is the point. And we do not surrender our very existence to mere mortals. We do not surrender our very existence to politicians, to government bureaucrats. And if you do not agree with what I am saying, it is of no matter; because thanks to the millions of us who understand this, you are still free to enjoy the benefits of this nation, which was founded EXACTLY as I described.

But if it is your intention to transform our society by destroying its nature and purpose, then you will face our resistance. We understand that it’s unalienable rights and natural law that you have in your sights as you continue to campaign to dismantle this magnificent country and society, and we have no damn intention of rolling over."

After the break, Mark continued with a much-needed lesson on the U.S. Constitution, particularly for one CNN host, Fareed Zakaria, who, like many on the Left, would love to change, or as he says, “modernize” for the 21st century. The runtime on this is approximately 18 minutes, but every bit is well worth the listen. Levin supplies a brilliant overview of some of the essentials involved in the establishment of our constitutional republic that I’d encourage all to listen to, learn or refresh themselves with. I certainly found it to be a satisfying rebuttal to those who’d shred its content, as well as its context.

As Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters commented, “Bravo, Mark! Bravo!”