Children sing “God bless America.” Leftist hecklers shout “You’ll burn in Hell!”

**Posted by Phineas

What is wrong with people? Unbelievable:

The event was held outside Public School 90 in Coney Island, N.Y., where school principal Greta Hawkins decided to axe Lee Greenwood’s hit from a kindergarten “moving up” ceremony while keeping Justin Bieber’s chart-topping “Baby.”

Some were offended by the principal’s decision, prompting Rep. Bob Turner, who is running for the U.S. Senate, to organize the event on Tuesday morning.

Shortly after the ceremony began, chaos ensued.

“You Republicans come go to a Republican area and do that, we don’t do that here,” one protester said. “This is ridiculous, this is sad. This is so crazy. This is sad.”

“Excuse me sir, can you let the kids sing please?” a man presumed to be a Turner staffer interjected.

The heckler immediately screamed “No!” and added “The kids don’t even know what they’re singing! They got something you tell them to say! It’s ridiculous! It’s sad, sad, sad. Y’all are going to burn in hell! You all burn in hell! Shame on you! Shame on you!”

Yes because having the kids sing a patriotic song about their wonderful country is a horrible, awful, sinful thing to do.

Must be more of that “new tone” we keep being lectured about by the Left.

via Brian Faughnan

EDIT: Changed the headline from “Democrat” to “Leftist,” since the article only quoted Rush Limbaugh as saying they were Democrats, not the participants themselves. Pretty sure they were Lefties, though.


(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

AstroTurf Alert: Some Michigan Anti-Romney “protesters” were paid to demonstrate

Via BuzzFeed (hat tip to Phineas):

DeWitt, Mich. — The protesters popping up at Mitt Romney’s rallies throughout Michigan Tuesday look like run-of-the-mill grassroots liberals — they wave signs about “the 99 percent,” they chant about the Republican’s greed, and they describe themselves as a loosely organized coalition of “concerned citizens.”

They’re also getting paid, two of the protesters and an Obama campaign official told BuzzFeed.

At the candidate’s afternoon stop outside a bakery in DeWitt, a group of about 15 protesters stood behind a police barricade, a few of them chanting in support of Obama. Asked why he was protesting, a man dressed in a grim reaper costume pointed a reporter to a pair of “designated representatives” standing in the shade.

“I can’t talk, you gotta get one of those people over there to talk to y’all,” he said. “They’re the ones who can talk to reporters.”

Neither of the representatives agreed to give their names, but two protesters said they were getting paid to stand outside of the rally, though their wage is unclear: one said she was getting $7.25 per hour, while another man said they were being paid $17 per hour.

Meanwhile, about 50 feet away, another protest had been organized by local Democrats in conjunction with the Obama campaign. A campaign official told BuzzFeed they had nothing to do with the other group — which he said he believed they had been sent by the labor-backed “Good Jobs Now” — and confirmed that they were being paid.

Oh well. At least they have jobs …

Veepstakes: Rubio not on Romney’s short list for the veep slot? (UPDATE: YES WE ARE, SAYS ROMNEY)

Intriguing – via ABC News (hat tip):

Even before the Republicans chose a presidential nominee it was widely assumed that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., would be at the top of anybody’s list of vice presidential candidates. The reasons are obvious: Not only is he young, charismatic and wildly popular with conservatives, but he could also help Republicans win a key state (Florida) and make inroads with Hispanics.

But knowledgeable Republican sources tell me that Rubio is not being vetted by Mitt Romney’s vice presidential search team. He has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.

Although it is possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process, it has been nearly two months since Romney named his long-time aide Beth Myers to run his vice presidential search. The fact that Rubio has not been asked to turn over any documents by now is a strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.

Does this mean Rubio fans who wanted him to be Romney’s eventual pick should give up hope? Maybe not, says Ed Morrissey:

Check the calendar.  It’s June.  It wouldn’t take long for the committee to vet Rubio if they decide he’s worth a look for the short list, and Romney won’t announce his pick until just before the convention.  They could have a profile of Rubio ready by the middle of next month at the latest, assuming that the immigration order announced by Barack Obama on Friday pushed Team Romney into reaction mode.


Rubio insists that the White House not only never reached out to him on immigration policy, they attempted to deliberately obstruct his progress on finding a bipartisan compromise on the issue.  The Obama administration clearly fears Rubio’s power on immigration (and probably foreign policy and the economy as well).  They may have feared most that he would succeed on immigration reform and make himself into a powerful VP choice for Romney.  But that sells Rubio short.  After all, he just arrived in the US Senate, and has plenty of time to build his own career rather than get lost as someone else’s VP.  A term in the Senate and perhaps one as governor of Florida would put Rubio in position to lead a ticket rather than be a second banana.

I like the guy and, like Ed,  think more experience under his belt would be immensely helpful before considering a national ticket, but I would not be unhappy if Team Romney did eventually vet and pick Rubio.  That he gets under the skin of Democrats to the degree he does and threatens their stranglehold on one of their key voting blocs is more than enough reason for me to support him.

Your thoughts?

Update – 6:37 PM:  Via WSJ:

HOLLAND, Mich. — Mitt Romney said Tuesday that Sen. Marco Rubio is “being thoroughly vetted” as part of his vice presidential selection process, dismissing an earlier report that the first-term Florida Republican wasn’t being considered as his running mate.

“The story was entirely false,” Mr. Romney told reporters at an impromptu gaggle outside an ice cream stand. “Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process.”

The comments mark an unexpected departure for a candidate — and a campaign — that has refused to discuss the selection process or any of the people being considered as the vice presidential nominee. The statement follows a story by ABC News that Mr. Rubio isn’t being considered for the post. The story was sourced to unnamed advisers.

“There was a story that originated today apparently at ABC based upon reports of supposedly outside unnamed advisers of mine,” Mr. Romney said. “I can’t imagine who such people are. But I can tell you this: they know nothing about the vice presidential selection or evaluation process.”

As they say, stay tuned …

Obama’s threat to constitutional liberty

**Posted by Phineas

Our new national mascot?


Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy posted an article at PJMedia yesterday that begins by excoriating President Obama for saying, in his announcement that his administration would no longer enforce a portion of federal law, that the children of illegal immigrants, though not born here, were “Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.” McCarthy takes Obama to task, because “the paper” the president dismisses is our social contract: the Constitution and the laws enacted under it by a democratically elected legislature, a constitution and laws which Obama has sworn to uphold to the best of his ability.

If that were the end of it, this would be merely an incident in which we would shake our heads at the supposed constitutional scholar’s cavalier attitude toward the Constitution.

But there’s much more. Using this as a jumping off point, McCarthy describes the more fundamental danger Obama’s politics (and, by extension, those of the broader progressive movement) pose to constitutionalism and the rule of law: A Nation of Paper, Not of Men.

Obama is not merely failing to enforce the immigration laws. He is destroying the system on which our liberty depends, a system he swore to safeguard. This oath was a solemn one, of far greater consequence than, say, a pitcher’s oath to testify truthfully to Congress about steroid use — an incident over which the federal government has spent millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to convict Roger Clemens of a felony, notwithstanding the utter absence of any federal interest in the integrity of professional baseball.

We are entitled to conclude Obama defrauded the American people in taking his oath of office. He prefaced the oath by unabashedly declaring his intention to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He followed the oath with a series of usurpations designed to do just that. This highlights another mendacious aspect of Obama’s pandering to the hard Left on illegal immigration and, symmetrically, on election fraud (the policing against which he similarly obstructs).

The president says the young illegal aliens he has in mind are “Americans” except on paper. But who is Obama to say what an American is? By his own self-heralding, he is here to transform the United States. His mantra is “change.” He has stacked his Justice Department and the rest of the Executive Branch sprawl with progressive operatives whose obsession is to transmogrify America culturally, economically, and politically — to alter our very nature. When Obama talks about someone being “an American” or something being one of “our values,” he is not talking about the America that is; he is invoking the authoritarian, collectivist, redistributionist, post-sovereign, transnational America of his design.

It ought not matter whether we agree or disagree with Obama’s policy objectives on immigration — or the glut of areas from the use of force to labor relations to state sovereignty to socialized medicine to debt to diet, etc., on which he presumes to dictate rather than honor the law. Our social compact as a body politic demands that policy objectives be pursued within a system of divided powers in which the prerogatives of the president and of the federal government are strictly limited. Obama rejects this bedrock principle. Therefore, we must reject him.

(Emphases added.)

A creature of Chicago’s toxic mix of Leftism and gangster government, the end state of “Obamaism” is the transformation of the United States into a personalist authoritarian regime –a “banana republic”– in which the Leader has almost unfettered power. McCarthy hones in on the heart of the problem: the attitudes behind the policies, attitudes that admit of no real limits to government power, attitudes that transform the citizen into a client dependent on his patron’s favor. It is, at its core, the polar opposite of the Founders’ vision of the role of government.

It is the vision of the tyrant.

We can’t know how far Obama would take us down this road, should he win a second term, but he will try to take us as far as he can, whether with a pliant Congress, or bypassing them through the vast administrative powers of the presidency, or simply declaring it so even when he doesn’t have the authority.

It is the nature of the tyrant.

The transformation of America the left hopes for won’t come about through military coup or canceled elections (those are fantasies from the fever swamp), but through administrative action and, as in ObamaCare, the passage of laws that trample on our natural rights. Gradually, bit by bit, as we adjust in each case to the “new normal.” Per McCarthy, we must reject that and we must reject Obama, lest we acquiesce by our inaction and inattention.

And it is in this upcoming November, I firmly believe, that we will deliver that rejection with unmistakable clarity.

RELATED: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered a speech at AEI the other day on how the Obama administration and others threaten the First Amendment. I think you’ll find it well-worth watching.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)