There was a time when Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs was a voice that could be trusted, but not anymore.
This is not to say that she is never right, because there are some times when she nails it spot on. But there are also times she gets it dead wrong and there are many blind followers who take her word for everything she ways without verification.
She often publishes posts about events that the MSM would never dare to report, and that's a good thing. We need people like her to do this more often. But there are moments when she runs with stories that are inaccurate. There are times when she presents a remarkably slanted perspective, without doing enough research before she hits the send button.
This hurts her credibility greatly.
Here is one example: Mitch Daniels "Honored" by Notorious Jew-Hating, Supremacist Organization AAI
You really don't have to read much more of her post to see where she is going with this. But if you took Geller's word as gospel, you might be tempted to jump to the same weak conclusion she has.
It's hard to know where to begin to dismantle this absurd presentation, but let's start with Gov. Daniels.
Daniels is the grandson of Christian Syrian immigrants who were purged from their homeland by Muslims in the early 1900s. While he is of Arab descent, he is Christian and American. Many other Syrians were purged from their country at that time, many of them settled in Indiana, many have made great contributions to this nation.
Some became businessmen and entrepreneurs in the spirit of the American dream. Others worked in coal mines and other forms of hard physical labor. Most of them sent their children to school and admonished them to study hard, so they could make something out themselves they would have never had the chance to do in their old country.
Like other ethnic immigrants, the next generation became doctors, lawyers, teachers, and some made their parents' small family businesses even bigger. So to most intelligent rational people, it should come as no surprise that one of those families has now produced a governor.
Let's look at the award Geller froths about in her erroneous fit, the Najeeb Halaby Award for Public Service.
Najeeb Halaby Jr. was a second generation Syrian-American with multiple degrees and was a test pilot in the US Navy in WWII. His father cam here from Ottoman Syria in the late 1800s, they were Christians. His daughter became Queen Noor of Jordan, but Halaby was an American through and through.
For this reason, it should come as no surprise that there is an award that bears his name, one that was awarded to another American of Arab descent who has made great achievements in the state that elected him to straighten what was a horrible mess.
This brings us to the organization that gave the award to Daniels, the American Arab Institute. (Before we go further... please notice the order of that title, American comes first.)
It was formed by James Zogby, brother of the pollster and Christian American of Arab descent.
Yes, it is a liberal, left-leaning organization that probably disagrees with 90% of Daniels' conservative policies. Yes, it has been a staunch critic of many of the state of Israel's policies. It is political in nature, not theological. It does not promote jihad, it does not call for the eradication of Israel. It does call for a two-state solution, one that Israel is willing to accept but the Palestinians have not yet signed onto, due the growing influence of radical jihadist organizations like Hamas.
It is not CAIR, it is not ISNA.
I am sure that just as the AAI does not agree with the lion's share of the Daniels' policies, he doesn't agree with theirs either.
Geller's blog isn't the only one jumping out of their skin about Daniels right now.
Red State just had to follow suit and get on the pathetic bandwagon without knowing the facts, along with Geller. But at the least the major premise of this blogger's argument was made on policy. His assumption is dead wrong, but the mention of the award was an afterthought.
Daniels is a strong fiscal conservative. Not going to TEA party rallies does not mean he stands against the TEA Party principles of limited smaller government. He has spent the last 6+ years slashing spending, balancing the budget, creating a business friendly environment that has led to increases in jobs, and did it without punishing the rich. Does that sound like a RINO?
And as for the Jew-hating tendencies that Geller wants uninformed people to believe, here is a speech you may want to watch before you let her get you sidetracked into believing a lie.
This is Daniels receiving the Man of Achievement Award from the Anti-Defamation League:
Bottom line: Daniels is not anti-semitic, not a RINO.
He just doesn't cater to the reactionary crowd that Geller associates herself with. And if you want Barack Obama to be sitting in the WH for four more years, just let people like her hijack this dialogue and distract from the important issues of the day. She has done a fine job of reporting many things in the past and my hat goes off to her for that. But this is not about her, it is about what is best for this nation.
It is not fair to categorize this man as a Jew hater for accepting an award from an organization that represents his heritage. Doing so takes a play right out of the Democrats' playbook, which will play very well into their hands in 2012.Doing so, exposes a terrible hypocrisy and severely cripples the GOP's chances of presenting a united front against an out of control government.
But the most important thing to learn from this is tolerance and acting within the boundaries of rationality. Lumping every American of Arab descent into the mold of Islamic jihad is not fair, and not what I want this nation to become accustomed to doing. I know many and have worked with them over the years, they bleed red, white, and blue, just like any American. Even like Pam Geller.
(Hat Tip for the video, and the inspiration to write this long-winded post comes from Advance Indiana.)
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Down Playing, Minimizing, And Lying
One cannot help but notice something when they read this story. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a political one) to figure out what this biased account of the top gaffes of 2010 is about:
Racism, pure and simple -- There is only one black man on that list.
I know Richard Steele is sometimes an idiot and certainly what he said was not true. And I don't think much thought went into the choice to make him GOP Chairman, either. But as flippant as I am being and as sorry as it was, the writer of this list is wrong on two fronts.
1. She puts Blumenthal's lie and classifies it as a gaffe, so as to minimize the severity of of the event. A gaffe is a mistake, Blumenthal intended to lie right through his teeth. She wants you to think he simply misspoke on something little like whether he served in Vietnam or not.
2. If she wants to classify lies as gaffes, she left some more significant ones out of her short list -- some big whoppers that she selectively chooses to ignore.
She left out Charlie Rangel telling people he has always played by the rules. She left out the blatant misrepresentation of a Congressional candidate's words in an ad for his own re-election.
If she wants to look at true gaffes, there are some she could have replaced Blumenthal's lie with, starting with Harry Reid's report on job loss. She could have had a field day with Biden, who had too many to count.
She also left out the one about Rick Sanchez and his "cotton-picking president" remark. And his typical scripted anti-Semitic "Jews control the world" moment that got him fired.
I could go on, but you get the drift. There are so many it's not really funny.
The silly gaffes we can overlook. But when we have public figures who state something falsely, minimize the severity of given truths, or deliberately communicate racist statements, should we minimize them as mistakes?
This is but one way people can break the moral fiber of a civilization. They minimize wrong behaviors, which only serves to positively reinforce them. They want you to think it's no big deal. As long as you can justify it with some measure of victimhood, it's okay.
They were tired, they were not thinking straight. They are the targets of a smear campaign by their opponents. It makes no difference what the subject, there is always a "justifiable" excuse for the deceits, and they will use anything possible to distract from the lies they tell.
But the sad thing is, we tolerate it. We accept this as a core value of politicians and this wannabe journalist Holly Bailey facilitates it, with this poor effort she calls a list.
Well, I say it's time to change the way things are being done. It's time to start holding these people accountable. These left leaning, excuse masking, no principled media types can write all of the crap they want. But we need to call directly on the liars to stop.
After the New Year, the moment the new Congress is sworn in, we need to reaffirm to our elected officials that we are still paying attention. We need to put them on notice that in two years there will be another election and they will be fired, if they do not start to change this corrupt culture that has been become known as Washington. We didn't reject the last Congress only to replace them with another group of corrupt members with Rs behind their names.
And..... we should be prepared to do it without blinking an eye. It's our nation. We live here in the full force of the incompetent decisions these bottom feeding liars have made for us, without our full consent.
Racism, pure and simple -- There is only one black man on that list.
I know Richard Steele is sometimes an idiot and certainly what he said was not true. And I don't think much thought went into the choice to make him GOP Chairman, either. But as flippant as I am being and as sorry as it was, the writer of this list is wrong on two fronts.
1. She puts Blumenthal's lie and classifies it as a gaffe, so as to minimize the severity of of the event. A gaffe is a mistake, Blumenthal intended to lie right through his teeth. She wants you to think he simply misspoke on something little like whether he served in Vietnam or not.
2. If she wants to classify lies as gaffes, she left some more significant ones out of her short list -- some big whoppers that she selectively chooses to ignore.
She left out Charlie Rangel telling people he has always played by the rules. She left out the blatant misrepresentation of a Congressional candidate's words in an ad for his own re-election.
If she wants to look at true gaffes, there are some she could have replaced Blumenthal's lie with, starting with Harry Reid's report on job loss. She could have had a field day with Biden, who had too many to count.
She also left out the one about Rick Sanchez and his "cotton-picking president" remark. And his typical scripted anti-Semitic "Jews control the world" moment that got him fired.
I could go on, but you get the drift. There are so many it's not really funny.
The silly gaffes we can overlook. But when we have public figures who state something falsely, minimize the severity of given truths, or deliberately communicate racist statements, should we minimize them as mistakes?
This is but one way people can break the moral fiber of a civilization. They minimize wrong behaviors, which only serves to positively reinforce them. They want you to think it's no big deal. As long as you can justify it with some measure of victimhood, it's okay.
They were tired, they were not thinking straight. They are the targets of a smear campaign by their opponents. It makes no difference what the subject, there is always a "justifiable" excuse for the deceits, and they will use anything possible to distract from the lies they tell.
But the sad thing is, we tolerate it. We accept this as a core value of politicians and this wannabe journalist Holly Bailey facilitates it, with this poor effort she calls a list.
Well, I say it's time to change the way things are being done. It's time to start holding these people accountable. These left leaning, excuse masking, no principled media types can write all of the crap they want. But we need to call directly on the liars to stop.
After the New Year, the moment the new Congress is sworn in, we need to reaffirm to our elected officials that we are still paying attention. We need to put them on notice that in two years there will be another election and they will be fired, if they do not start to change this corrupt culture that has been become known as Washington. We didn't reject the last Congress only to replace them with another group of corrupt members with Rs behind their names.
And..... we should be prepared to do it without blinking an eye. It's our nation. We live here in the full force of the incompetent decisions these bottom feeding liars have made for us, without our full consent.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Handshakes And Hypocrisy
Isn't it utterly amazing that this is such an issue?
To begin with, we must ask ourselves why the President is visiting this sexist culture that makes such a big deal over a little handshake with the First Lady? It's not like he groped her.
See what you think:
Where is the liberal outrage at this? Why are feminists supporting a man who extols and praises Muslim theology, which is misogynist by its very nature? I would say, their silence is a very telling thing. It demonstrates a lack of principles, which is one major reason people are sick of leftists and their approach to governance.
The sad thing in all of this is, Indonesia is supposed to be one of the more MODERATE Muslim nations on the planet. All of this money spent to make a show for the world.... and all we have is this moment of hypocrisy to show for this feeble attempt at restoring what they believe to be credibility, and goodwill.
At very least, I hope they get a lousy T-Shirt for their efforts. Meanwhile, we get to pay the bill.
To begin with, we must ask ourselves why the President is visiting this sexist culture that makes such a big deal over a little handshake with the First Lady? It's not like he groped her.
See what you think:
Where is the liberal outrage at this? Why are feminists supporting a man who extols and praises Muslim theology, which is misogynist by its very nature? I would say, their silence is a very telling thing. It demonstrates a lack of principles, which is one major reason people are sick of leftists and their approach to governance.
The sad thing in all of this is, Indonesia is supposed to be one of the more MODERATE Muslim nations on the planet. All of this money spent to make a show for the world.... and all we have is this moment of hypocrisy to show for this feeble attempt at restoring what they believe to be credibility, and goodwill.
At very least, I hope they get a lousy T-Shirt for their efforts. Meanwhile, we get to pay the bill.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
As The Cookie Crumbles
Nothing like a good soap opera to piss off the masses. And as in most soaps, there are instances in real life when people just cannot leave people alone, when they can't get their way.
One such instance is the flap going on about a vendor's refusal to take a special order from a gay activist group for rainbow colored cookies, for "National Coming Out Day". The vendor's name is Just Cookies and they lease a space in the municipally owned facility called the City Market.
What actually transpired is a little unclear to this author. One story said the order was for rainbow colored cupcakes. Other media outlets reported the order was for cookies. It does make a little difference when you think about the name of the store, in question. The very name says "just cookies" and only an idiot would think that cupcakes would be on the menu.
But now the stakes have been raised higher and the story gets better.
Now that the thing has been blown out of proportion by the militant wing of the local gay community, the order has become irrelevant. It has become an issue on whether the store has the right to refuse a special order based on what the order represents or is bound by city ordinance to produce anything that a protected special interest group demands, when they demand it.
In Indianapolis, the city ordinance is clear that gays are a protected group. But the co-sponsors of that ordinance have supported the bakery's rights by clarifying that the ordinance protects against discrimination in matters of housing, education, and employment. Nowhere in the wording is there any implication that a business must sell special ordered cookies with rainbows on them. Nowhere in the wording does it imply a business must be compelled to support any political cause that is against their personal belief system.
So according to the militants who want to use this as a political issue by using government to do their bullying for them, the bakery should lose its lease. These people are no different than other opportunists who want to create a crisis, when one does not exist.
There was no reason the organizer who tried to place the order couldn't have ordered the cookies and decorated them anyway they wanted. If the owner had then refused, there may have been more ground to stand on in their complaint. Or, they could have just said "thank you" and called another bakery. But instead, they wanted to take a page out of the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson playbooks and seek media attention so they could advance their cause free of charge.
Imagine a world where any business owner would be forced to produce whatever a potential buyer wants, for fear of being labeled a bigot, a racist, or a hater of any kind. We are getting close to that world now. What has started out as a noble quest for equality, fairness, and justice for people who have been historically wrongly discriminated against has now become a quest for empowerment. Instead of seeking out real instances of wrong treatment, they are more than content to manufacture and exaggerate them.
Doing this only diminishes any cause's credibility and risks missing a real instance that needs to be addressed and corrected. Maybe the old children's fable of "the boy who cried wolf" should be retaught and reviewed at the upper levels of education, instead of the crap they are putting out now.
One such instance is the flap going on about a vendor's refusal to take a special order from a gay activist group for rainbow colored cookies, for "National Coming Out Day". The vendor's name is Just Cookies and they lease a space in the municipally owned facility called the City Market.
What actually transpired is a little unclear to this author. One story said the order was for rainbow colored cupcakes. Other media outlets reported the order was for cookies. It does make a little difference when you think about the name of the store, in question. The very name says "just cookies" and only an idiot would think that cupcakes would be on the menu.
But now the stakes have been raised higher and the story gets better.
Now that the thing has been blown out of proportion by the militant wing of the local gay community, the order has become irrelevant. It has become an issue on whether the store has the right to refuse a special order based on what the order represents or is bound by city ordinance to produce anything that a protected special interest group demands, when they demand it.
In Indianapolis, the city ordinance is clear that gays are a protected group. But the co-sponsors of that ordinance have supported the bakery's rights by clarifying that the ordinance protects against discrimination in matters of housing, education, and employment. Nowhere in the wording is there any implication that a business must sell special ordered cookies with rainbows on them. Nowhere in the wording does it imply a business must be compelled to support any political cause that is against their personal belief system.
So according to the militants who want to use this as a political issue by using government to do their bullying for them, the bakery should lose its lease. These people are no different than other opportunists who want to create a crisis, when one does not exist.
There was no reason the organizer who tried to place the order couldn't have ordered the cookies and decorated them anyway they wanted. If the owner had then refused, there may have been more ground to stand on in their complaint. Or, they could have just said "thank you" and called another bakery. But instead, they wanted to take a page out of the Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson playbooks and seek media attention so they could advance their cause free of charge.
Imagine a world where any business owner would be forced to produce whatever a potential buyer wants, for fear of being labeled a bigot, a racist, or a hater of any kind. We are getting close to that world now. What has started out as a noble quest for equality, fairness, and justice for people who have been historically wrongly discriminated against has now become a quest for empowerment. Instead of seeking out real instances of wrong treatment, they are more than content to manufacture and exaggerate them.
Doing this only diminishes any cause's credibility and risks missing a real instance that needs to be addressed and corrected. Maybe the old children's fable of "the boy who cried wolf" should be retaught and reviewed at the upper levels of education, instead of the crap they are putting out now.
Monday, May 24, 2010
More Great Resume Padding Lies
Connecticut AG Blumenthal wasn't the first resume padding politician, and it's doubtful he will be the last. For more lying liars and their lies, go over to I Hate The Media and see what forked-tongues can dream up when they are too stupid to get their lies straight.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Feds Exempted BP From Study
As the blame game is playing out, we can see that the Feds and the leftists in power are doing their share of finger pointing in the oil spill. As it stands right now, they seek to use this as an excuse to deny new offshore drilling.
But in case you haven't heard, here is something to ponder:
Emphasis on the date was added my me. But as you can plainly see, this cannot be blamed on the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has complete ownership of this fiasco.
Naturally, BP or any other company would lobby for an exemption. But does it make any sense for the the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to use this as a fundraising opportunity, when it was an agency under the supervision of the Democratic Administration responsible for this oversight?
Here is the e-mail they sent out:
The Obama Administration did not keep a boot on the throat of anything.
As has been the case so many times before this, they were sleep walking. It's just another example of why America must throw out the Democratic Congress, this year.
Someone needs to be awake on guard duty. And from countless events in this realm, and in the world of Homeland security, it is becoming more and more clear that Obama will not be the one to do it.
Addendum:
Maybe there is a logical explanation for why BP was exempt from this impact study. It is being reported that, evidently, BP has given a goodly sum of cash to Obama and the Democrats in the past.
Isn't it great to not have an oilman in the White House, anymore? Isn't it great that special interests no longer have influence in Washington?
But in case you haven't heard, here is something to ponder:
The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.
The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.
Emphasis on the date was added my me. But as you can plainly see, this cannot be blamed on the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration has complete ownership of this fiasco.
Naturally, BP or any other company would lobby for an exemption. But does it make any sense for the the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to use this as a fundraising opportunity, when it was an agency under the supervision of the Democratic Administration responsible for this oversight?
Here is the e-mail they sent out:
[H]ere's a perfect example of why we must keep fighting:
Last week's deadly oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico has unleashed an oil spill that threatens livelihoods, pristine beaches, and wildlife along America's coast. The spill could eclipse the damage done by the 1989 Exxon-Valdez disaster.
The Obama administration has vowed to "keep a boot on the throat" of BP to ensure the corporation is held accountable for the spill. But Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh has a different plan. He said there's no need to clean up the spill because "the ocean will take care of this on its own," and that oil is "natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."
Sign our petition. Stand with President Obama to hold BP accountable for this disastrous spill. Rush Limbaugh is entirely wrong: This oil will not clean itself up. Corporations must be held accountable for their actions....
The Obama Administration did not keep a boot on the throat of anything.
As has been the case so many times before this, they were sleep walking. It's just another example of why America must throw out the Democratic Congress, this year.
Someone needs to be awake on guard duty. And from countless events in this realm, and in the world of Homeland security, it is becoming more and more clear that Obama will not be the one to do it.
Addendum:
Maybe there is a logical explanation for why BP was exempt from this impact study. It is being reported that, evidently, BP has given a goodly sum of cash to Obama and the Democrats in the past.
While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.
Isn't it great to not have an oilman in the White House, anymore? Isn't it great that special interests no longer have influence in Washington?
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Add Liar To Ed Schultz's Resume
We know he is a hypocrite, he proves it every time he speaks. But now we can add belligerent liar to his professional commentator's portfolio. Notice how he does his best to ridicule Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation, and call make him out to be a liar while lying, himself:
Mr Istook really cleaned this loud-mouthed idiot blowbag's clock, and solicited his other guest to take potshots at him too. But how does Ed Schultz respond when he is respectfully challenged?
Watch this classic display of sophomoric behavior by Eddie:
Looks like Ed can't debate without overbearing his way through something. And when he cannot control the outcome, he's weak and his arguments are easily shown to be faulty.
After seeing this overt dishonesty and hypocrisy, it's also easy to see why Ed has almost no viewers.
Hat Tip on the first video: I Hate The Media.
(The second video is so old, I have no idea where I found it.)
Mr Istook really cleaned this loud-mouthed idiot blowbag's clock, and solicited his other guest to take potshots at him too. But how does Ed Schultz respond when he is respectfully challenged?
Watch this classic display of sophomoric behavior by Eddie:
Looks like Ed can't debate without overbearing his way through something. And when he cannot control the outcome, he's weak and his arguments are easily shown to be faulty.
After seeing this overt dishonesty and hypocrisy, it's also easy to see why Ed has almost no viewers.
Hat Tip on the first video: I Hate The Media.
(The second video is so old, I have no idea where I found it.)
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Racism In The Tea Party
By now, we all know how the Congressional Black Caucus manufactured lies about a recent Tea Party Protest. And...we have all heard from the MSM and other progressive hacks about how the Tea party is fueled by racism, because we have a black president:
Maybe they should listen to this video from a Tea Party event last year, before they run their oral cesspools:
And if that is not enough, watch this one:
Well....I cannot imagine that either of these gentlemen would have been invited, nor would they have accepted the invitation to speak at a Tea party rally, if it were riddled with racists. I cannot imagine that black conservatives are not very fond of bigots, can you?.
I would say to Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garafalo, and the rest of the lot that they are fools of the highest order. But in one respect, i must say that in doing so I will offend all of the fine upstanding fools in this world.
If anger is so wrong, why do they allow themselves to appear so utterly enraged when discussing people who simply disagree with the Democrats' policies? After all, they did win the election didn't they?
My guess is they are just plain angry by nature, as well as ignorant. And it's kind of hard to fix both of them, simultaneously.
Maybe they should listen to this video from a Tea Party event last year, before they run their oral cesspools:
And if that is not enough, watch this one:
Well....I cannot imagine that either of these gentlemen would have been invited, nor would they have accepted the invitation to speak at a Tea party rally, if it were riddled with racists. I cannot imagine that black conservatives are not very fond of bigots, can you?.
I would say to Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garafalo, and the rest of the lot that they are fools of the highest order. But in one respect, i must say that in doing so I will offend all of the fine upstanding fools in this world.
If anger is so wrong, why do they allow themselves to appear so utterly enraged when discussing people who simply disagree with the Democrats' policies? After all, they did win the election didn't they?
My guess is they are just plain angry by nature, as well as ignorant. And it's kind of hard to fix both of them, simultaneously.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Mike Malloy - Hypocrite At Large
Okay. I have heard enough of this crap. I have had my fill of listening to bastards like this:
It is plain to most intelligent people who have integrity and those who thirst for truth. Good people cannot condone this kind of behavior, on either side of the spectrum.
It is plain to most intelligent people who have integrity and those who thirst for truth. Good people cannot condone this kind of behavior, on either side of the spectrum.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Presidential Prevarication
Pathological liars make such a habit of lying, they often forget the lies they tell. Now, I wouldn't be so bold as to say that President Obama is a pathological liar. But after watching this video, I must wonder just what kind liar he is:
These things are a bit perplexing, especially when the President is now said to be pushing the Nuclear Option of Reconciliation on Healthcare.
So let's review.
We cannot establish that President Obama is a pathological liar. But we can say with a certainty that he is a liar, if he presses forward with the prospect of Reconciliation. My guess is he is so desperate to fulfill his goal of transforming this nation into a European style entitlement model that he really doesn't care what he once said.
My grandmother once had a saying, "promises are like pie crust, easy made and easy broken". She wasn't an educated woman by any standard, but she was wise and knew the concepts of life well. If she were alive today she'd no doubt see another fine example of her often used cliche, that is, if the events of the past year hadn't killed already by now.
UPDATE:
Desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes. It appears that Obama is doing everything he can to sell this lemon and promising the world to do it.
Politik Chikago is alive and well.
These things are a bit perplexing, especially when the President is now said to be pushing the Nuclear Option of Reconciliation on Healthcare.
So let's review.
We cannot establish that President Obama is a pathological liar. But we can say with a certainty that he is a liar, if he presses forward with the prospect of Reconciliation. My guess is he is so desperate to fulfill his goal of transforming this nation into a European style entitlement model that he really doesn't care what he once said.
My grandmother once had a saying, "promises are like pie crust, easy made and easy broken". She wasn't an educated woman by any standard, but she was wise and knew the concepts of life well. If she were alive today she'd no doubt see another fine example of her often used cliche, that is, if the events of the past year hadn't killed already by now.
UPDATE:
Desperate times call for desperate measures, sometimes. It appears that Obama is doing everything he can to sell this lemon and promising the world to do it.
Politik Chikago is alive and well.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Great Un-Change
From President Obama's Weekly Radio Address on February 28:
Touching, isn't it?
Once again, let's fast forward to today and see where we are:
Obama Backs Off-Shore Drilling....In Brazil.
If we use our analytical and critical thinking skills, we can fully realize just why this is happening. Note the timing of this announcement, right after George Soros has repositioned himself in Petrobas.
Isn't that special? But that's not all. It seems that some firms tied to Obama are benefiting from the big Democratic push for healthcare reform.
I may be getting older and my memory may occasionally fail, on the little things. But on things that carry a huge impact in my life and those lives around me, I remember quite well.
It seems to me that I vividly remember Obama saying multiple times during his campaign last year, how he wanted to "change the way business was being done in Washington". Put that with the generic slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" and we can fully realize the fallacy that has materialized before us. (And it becomes clearer everyday.)
Many who grace this blog's pages knew back then this entire "change" campaign was a big lie. We proclaimed it from the highest rooftops of our blogs. As for those who thought we were all delusional, there aren't many things that can be said to evidence their claim now. The proof is before us and it shines bright in the night for all to see.
The only change that has occurred in this administration is, the special interests are different. If anything, we are as fixated on corruption as we have ever been and maybe even more so. Chicago and corruption have more in common than the letter "C".
So in reality change has eluded us. As we the people have been sold lemons being promoted as well-oiled high-tech machinery, we have seen the folly and it has seen us.
The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November.
Touching, isn't it?
Once again, let's fast forward to today and see where we are:
Obama Backs Off-Shore Drilling....In Brazil.
The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
If we use our analytical and critical thinking skills, we can fully realize just why this is happening. Note the timing of this announcement, right after George Soros has repositioned himself in Petrobas.
His New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, sold 22 million U.S.-listed common shares of Petrobras, as the Brazilian oil company is known, according to a filing today with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Soros bought 5.8 million of the company’s U.S.-traded preferred shares.
Isn't that special? But that's not all. It seems that some firms tied to Obama are benefiting from the big Democratic push for healthcare reform.
President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.
Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama's 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama's campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama's campaign, and Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work there.
I may be getting older and my memory may occasionally fail, on the little things. But on things that carry a huge impact in my life and those lives around me, I remember quite well.
It seems to me that I vividly remember Obama saying multiple times during his campaign last year, how he wanted to "change the way business was being done in Washington". Put that with the generic slogan of "Change We Can Believe In" and we can fully realize the fallacy that has materialized before us. (And it becomes clearer everyday.)
Many who grace this blog's pages knew back then this entire "change" campaign was a big lie. We proclaimed it from the highest rooftops of our blogs. As for those who thought we were all delusional, there aren't many things that can be said to evidence their claim now. The proof is before us and it shines bright in the night for all to see.
The only change that has occurred in this administration is, the special interests are different. If anything, we are as fixated on corruption as we have ever been and maybe even more so. Chicago and corruption have more in common than the letter "C".
So in reality change has eluded us. As we the people have been sold lemons being promoted as well-oiled high-tech machinery, we have seen the folly and it has seen us.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Another Fine Astroturf Illustration
Maybe you haven't seen this one from another Sheila Jackson Lee town hall meeting. Note how her cell phone is put away and is listening to a constituent that just happens to be doctor:
Or is she?
Well, it turns out her name is Roxana Mayer. She is not a doctor but plays one in townhall meetings for moonbat House Representatives. But all is not lost, I suppose. She may very well have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express that night, seeing how she was bussed in from another district. She was accompanied by an Obama operative in the Houston area, Maria Isabel.
So, I guess writing Keith Olbermann and asking him to make these two the worst people in the world for one evening will be a waste of time.
Or is she?
Well, it turns out her name is Roxana Mayer. She is not a doctor but plays one in townhall meetings for moonbat House Representatives. But all is not lost, I suppose. She may very well have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express that night, seeing how she was bussed in from another district. She was accompanied by an Obama operative in the Houston area, Maria Isabel.
So, I guess writing Keith Olbermann and asking him to make these two the worst people in the world for one evening will be a waste of time.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Reckless
Sounds like a great title for a movie, starring Bruce Willis. Right? Well, it's more like an appropriate adjective for this current government.
Here, a fine specimen of recklessness, John Conyers shows why he is a typical bottom feeding politician from Detroit (which is comparable to one from Chicago):
Earth to Conyers:
Why bother to read it? Then, why bother to write it? Why bother to vote on it? What if it contained language that eliminated your district and put you out of a job. But you wouldn't know that unless you read the bill, would you?
I doubt he is reading this, so let's consider something else, shall we?
Not only are these snake oil peddlers arrogant in their assertions, they are hypocritical as well. Take a moment and listen to this interview of Obama, from 2004:
Another instance of it only counts, when I say it counts.
Look, these people are tromping on the people and counting us as ignorant peasants, who have no say in what they do. Most of them are quite content to posture for the cameras, attend meetings, and look important. They do not care about the lasting impact their votes have, on the people they represent. If they did, they would take the time to weigh every action they take, carefully and deliberately.
Here, a fine specimen of recklessness, John Conyers shows why he is a typical bottom feeding politician from Detroit (which is comparable to one from Chicago):
Earth to Conyers:
Why bother to read it? Then, why bother to write it? Why bother to vote on it? What if it contained language that eliminated your district and put you out of a job. But you wouldn't know that unless you read the bill, would you?
I doubt he is reading this, so let's consider something else, shall we?
Not only are these snake oil peddlers arrogant in their assertions, they are hypocritical as well. Take a moment and listen to this interview of Obama, from 2004:
Another instance of it only counts, when I say it counts.
Look, these people are tromping on the people and counting us as ignorant peasants, who have no say in what they do. Most of them are quite content to posture for the cameras, attend meetings, and look important. They do not care about the lasting impact their votes have, on the people they represent. If they did, they would take the time to weigh every action they take, carefully and deliberately.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Hypocritical Reactions
Most of my readers disagree with my views on abortion, so I figure it's usually best left alone most of the time. But this Tiller murder has some far-reaching implications, it is not without some potentially serious consequences, and they need to be made known so we can fully understand the reality of the matter.
Let me say first that while I am pro-choice for some purposeful reasons, I don't like late term abortions at all and think they should be illegal. In spite of the reprehensible nature of this procedure, I also deplore cold-blooded murder.
Two wrongs never make a right. I don't care what the wrongs are, they never cancel the other out. I cannot get happy about the man getting killed, no matter how objectionable his acts were. It is not our place to play judge, jury, and executioner, nor is it our place to play God.
The fallout from this heinous act does nothing to further the cause of eliminating late-term abortion. None.
What it does do is give the Left more ammunition to label those who disagree with them, as domestic terrorists. Daily Kos wasted no time in trying to tie Sarah Palin into the mix and HuffPo certainly used the opportunity to paint average abortion foes as fomenters of this kind of senseless violence. HuffPo's Feldman wasted no time in his opening parargraph:
Maybe he didn't hear the instant condemnation of this act, by mainstream abortion foes. The National Right To Life organization immediately issued this statement. How many rabid political spin artists who support late-term abortions even bothered to read it? Probably very few.
As you may guess, these are not the only instances of illogical rhetoric. There are simply too many to link to in one post and still keep a cogent flow to it. And so it is, we can only conclude the intense irrational backlash is hypocritical in nature.
Here, we have a group of people who (simply as a matter of moral conscience) oppose the killing of a viable fetus in the last trimester, counting me as one. Similarly, we have a group of people who oppose war (for the very same reason).
Most of the time the ones who are against war are NOT against abortion. So, I am at a loss to explain this, except that there are two different standards in play, for those on the Left. The reason is plain and simple, those who go to war knew the possibility when they enlisted, aborted fetuses have no choice.
Not only that, if we are going to make an argument that abortion foes are terrorists because their rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. Tiller, shouldn't we equally make the connection between those who oppose war and this senseless murder, which is having significantly less coverage from the media?
Note the difference in the way this is portrayed:
Note how the political and religious motives were mentioned, but immediately downplayed in the next sentence. One man, acting on his own and not part of a larger conspiracy, killed an innocent man for political reasons. The largest majority of anti-war activists would never condone such a thing, would they?
But Kos didn't mention it, neither did HuffPo (at least not that I could find). Here we have an instance where the moment a whacko kills one of their heroes, the toxic waste flies unabated.
This is another prime example of the worst kind of hypocrisy, called political motives and intentions.
Let me say first that while I am pro-choice for some purposeful reasons, I don't like late term abortions at all and think they should be illegal. In spite of the reprehensible nature of this procedure, I also deplore cold-blooded murder.
Two wrongs never make a right. I don't care what the wrongs are, they never cancel the other out. I cannot get happy about the man getting killed, no matter how objectionable his acts were. It is not our place to play judge, jury, and executioner, nor is it our place to play God.
The fallout from this heinous act does nothing to further the cause of eliminating late-term abortion. None.
What it does do is give the Left more ammunition to label those who disagree with them, as domestic terrorists. Daily Kos wasted no time in trying to tie Sarah Palin into the mix and HuffPo certainly used the opportunity to paint average abortion foes as fomenters of this kind of senseless violence. HuffPo's Feldman wasted no time in his opening parargraph:
The violent killing of yet another American doctor at the hands of yet another right-wing political activist forces us to ask a crucial question: Why does the right-wing anti-abortion movement in America repeatedly give rise to people who see murder as a legitimate form of protest?
Maybe he didn't hear the instant condemnation of this act, by mainstream abortion foes. The National Right To Life organization immediately issued this statement. How many rabid political spin artists who support late-term abortions even bothered to read it? Probably very few.
As you may guess, these are not the only instances of illogical rhetoric. There are simply too many to link to in one post and still keep a cogent flow to it. And so it is, we can only conclude the intense irrational backlash is hypocritical in nature.
Here, we have a group of people who (simply as a matter of moral conscience) oppose the killing of a viable fetus in the last trimester, counting me as one. Similarly, we have a group of people who oppose war (for the very same reason).
Most of the time the ones who are against war are NOT against abortion. So, I am at a loss to explain this, except that there are two different standards in play, for those on the Left. The reason is plain and simple, those who go to war knew the possibility when they enlisted, aborted fetuses have no choice.
Not only that, if we are going to make an argument that abortion foes are terrorists because their rhetoric inspired the murder of Dr. Tiller, shouldn't we equally make the connection between those who oppose war and this senseless murder, which is having significantly less coverage from the media?
Note the difference in the way this is portrayed:
A man with "political and religious motives" killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center, police said. The shootings were not believed to be part of a broader scheme.
Note how the political and religious motives were mentioned, but immediately downplayed in the next sentence. One man, acting on his own and not part of a larger conspiracy, killed an innocent man for political reasons. The largest majority of anti-war activists would never condone such a thing, would they?
But Kos didn't mention it, neither did HuffPo (at least not that I could find). Here we have an instance where the moment a whacko kills one of their heroes, the toxic waste flies unabated.
This is another prime example of the worst kind of hypocrisy, called political motives and intentions.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The Specter Of Hypocrisy
As most of us know by now, Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties.
Big whoop.
Without a doubt, it has caused a few jaws to drop. But I fail to see why anyone would be surprised. Along with RINOs Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins the Senators from Maine, he voted for the Obama shopping spree that effectively put my five-year old grandson into debt.
Specter has been left-leaning for longer than many people realize. He replaced a Rockefeller Republican named Richard Schweiker and like former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker from Connecticut, he has historically voted moderate to liberal -- all the while retaining the Republican label.
So when Specter, Snowe and Collins all chose to vote for one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States of America, it validated what many have already believed to be true. It showed who they really were and confirmed that they are not to be counted on to uphold good fiscal policy.
Let me say, it doesn't irritate me that Specter changed parties. Others have done so before him, and I suspect that others will do so again in the future. But what does bother me is the way he went about it. He has tried to make it clear, by saying his change of heart is about principle, not politics. And that would be okay, if I thought he could be believed.
Here's why I don't believe him:
In a March 17th interview, he denied having any plans to change parties:
He claimed he was concerned about preserving the balance of power. But when he realized that he could not win a primary fight, he sold out his affiliation very quickly and seemingly did it without any regard for his previous statements and denials.
Another flashback tells the story of Specter. Some of you may remember that he was highly critical of Jim Jeffords for bailing out on the GOP, back in 2002.
He wanted to change the rules after Jeffords left at such a critical juncture. But today, when it's he that wants to pull a stunt like this, he doesn't even blink an eye.
After putting the March interview alongside this little tidbit, it clearly shows me that he is no different than any other hypocrite I have ever seen, heard, or known. Why is hypocrisy such a despicable trait, in my book? Well, let's consider this little quote from the late Hannah Arendt:
Hits the nail hard, doesn't it? Because it demonstrates a motive, an intention, and a conscious decision. It's not a mistake in judgment, it comes from an impure mind and heart. It is greatly motivated by self-interest.
How about this one from Raisa Gorbachev?
(Ouch.)
So if lies and other forms of deceit are by-products of hypocrisy, why do we tolerate such radically evil character (especially when it is demonstrated so openly)?
Who knows?
But the last laugh may yet be on Mr. Specter.
A Quinnipiac University poll shows Tom Ridge as a formidable candidate in the general election, before any campaigning starts. To which I can only say: Run Tom, run.
(HT on the Ridge Poll -- Chuck Thinks Right)
Big whoop.
Without a doubt, it has caused a few jaws to drop. But I fail to see why anyone would be surprised. Along with RINOs Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins the Senators from Maine, he voted for the Obama shopping spree that effectively put my five-year old grandson into debt.
Specter has been left-leaning for longer than many people realize. He replaced a Rockefeller Republican named Richard Schweiker and like former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker from Connecticut, he has historically voted moderate to liberal -- all the while retaining the Republican label.
So when Specter, Snowe and Collins all chose to vote for one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States of America, it validated what many have already believed to be true. It showed who they really were and confirmed that they are not to be counted on to uphold good fiscal policy.
Let me say, it doesn't irritate me that Specter changed parties. Others have done so before him, and I suspect that others will do so again in the future. But what does bother me is the way he went about it. He has tried to make it clear, by saying his change of heart is about principle, not politics. And that would be okay, if I thought he could be believed.
Here's why I don't believe him:
In a March 17th interview, he denied having any plans to change parties:
He claimed he was concerned about preserving the balance of power. But when he realized that he could not win a primary fight, he sold out his affiliation very quickly and seemingly did it without any regard for his previous statements and denials.
Another flashback tells the story of Specter. Some of you may remember that he was highly critical of Jim Jeffords for bailing out on the GOP, back in 2002.
Now that Arlen Specter has stunned Washington by switching parties, it's instructive to take a look back at Specter's own reaction with Sen. Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP to give Democrats a majority in 2002.
Ironically, Specter proposed a rule change to prevent Jeffords' actions from being repeated.
"I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in mid-session, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting," Specter said. "[I]t is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator."
But similarly instructive is Specter's emotional response to Jeffords' decision, a response that indicates Specter was well aware of the damage he would do to his party with his own switch.
"For 13 years, Jim Jeffords has been one of my closest friends in the Senate and he still is," Specter said on the floor of the Senate. "We have had lunch together every Wednesday for years….He had never given any hint to me of such a move."
He wanted to change the rules after Jeffords left at such a critical juncture. But today, when it's he that wants to pull a stunt like this, he doesn't even blink an eye.
After putting the March interview alongside this little tidbit, it clearly shows me that he is no different than any other hypocrite I have ever seen, heard, or known. Why is hypocrisy such a despicable trait, in my book? Well, let's consider this little quote from the late Hannah Arendt:
What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.
Hits the nail hard, doesn't it? Because it demonstrates a motive, an intention, and a conscious decision. It's not a mistake in judgment, it comes from an impure mind and heart. It is greatly motivated by self-interest.
How about this one from Raisa Gorbachev?
Hypocrisy, the lie, is the true sister of evil, intolerance, and cruelty.
(Ouch.)
So if lies and other forms of deceit are by-products of hypocrisy, why do we tolerate such radically evil character (especially when it is demonstrated so openly)?
Who knows?
But the last laugh may yet be on Mr. Specter.
A Quinnipiac University poll shows Tom Ridge as a formidable candidate in the general election, before any campaigning starts. To which I can only say: Run Tom, run.
(HT on the Ridge Poll -- Chuck Thinks Right)
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Sunday Reflection: Leadership
From the" look at who has the audacity" department, comes this little essay by, one, John F. Kerry.
He has a point, I cannot argue with him on this. He is spot-on, dead right.
But when we consider how Congress treats themselves to lavish parties and retreats, his words don't take on nearly as much weight, In fact, it pretty much negates everything he has said.
I often wonder something. What ever happened to leading by example, not asking others to do what you cannot or are not willing to do yourself? I have been in leadership positions at various times of my career, sometimes a bit reluctantly. But the thing that always stands out in mind about how to be a good leader is a song.
In Basic Training, we had several marching songs. Many are not fit to print at a family blog. The one that applies most in this case is the one that has this line:
Everyone of those men that were screaming at us for every last little thing, went through the very same thing when they started out their careers. Every last one, there were NO exceptions. So, it can be truthfully said that they had us do nothing that they had not done, or would not be willing to do, if it needed to be done.
Today, we cannot honestly say there is any evidence that this is the case, in the highest levels of our government or in some cases, even below. Haven't we had enough, yet? If so, when are we going to act? When will hold these crooks, these hypocrites accountable? I'd like to see them back in the private sector, wouldn't you?
Last week, when American taxpayers learned that a bank receiving Troubled Asset Relief Program funds had thrown a lavish bash and spared no expense to celebrate with the bands Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire, I introduced legislation based on a simple concept: if a company accepts bailout funds from the taxpayer, it can’t waste money on lavish parties, expensive dinners and Tiffany trinkets.
The reaction in some quarters suggests that I had attempted -- like a modern-day Dean Wormer in “Animal House” -- to ban fun of any kind, or that the wheels of commerce and marketing would grind to a halt.
He has a point, I cannot argue with him on this. He is spot-on, dead right.
But when we consider how Congress treats themselves to lavish parties and retreats, his words don't take on nearly as much weight, In fact, it pretty much negates everything he has said.
I often wonder something. What ever happened to leading by example, not asking others to do what you cannot or are not willing to do yourself? I have been in leadership positions at various times of my career, sometimes a bit reluctantly. But the thing that always stands out in mind about how to be a good leader is a song.
In Basic Training, we had several marching songs. Many are not fit to print at a family blog. The one that applies most in this case is the one that has this line:
Trainee trainee don't be blue,
Your Drill Sergeant was a trainee too.
Everyone of those men that were screaming at us for every last little thing, went through the very same thing when they started out their careers. Every last one, there were NO exceptions. So, it can be truthfully said that they had us do nothing that they had not done, or would not be willing to do, if it needed to be done.
Today, we cannot honestly say there is any evidence that this is the case, in the highest levels of our government or in some cases, even below. Haven't we had enough, yet? If so, when are we going to act? When will hold these crooks, these hypocrites accountable? I'd like to see them back in the private sector, wouldn't you?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Election Over. Bipartisanship Dead.
After years of GOP rule, the Democrats are now in a position to run over the opposition without much resistance. As we see in the stimulus package story, they are bound and determined to run this thing as close to a trillion dollars (without going over) as they possibly can. And in the process, they are trying to push the faces of the GOP into the mud, while they do it.
Nancy Pelosi, the idiot Speaker who cannot count a census, is chief among the bullies. This article pretty much outlines the spirit of Democrats everywhere.
Of course, it was Pelosi, who went on a crusade back in 2004 for House minority rights. Remember this story?
The emphasis added is from me, but let's trouble shoot this a second.
If you are a Democrat (particularly a younger one), you may be tempted to present the argument that the GOP didn't respond to Pelosi's request back then; subsequently, all bets off now that the Dems are in control. After all, it was they who won, right? You may say that the Dems are giving the GOP a dose of their own medicine.
But if you are younger or suffer from selective memory loss, you may need to be reminded of the 30 year reign of terror the Dems had over the House. Just think back or pick up a book about the Carl Albert, Tip O'Neill, and Jim Wright eras. The Democrats had no trouble shooting down any productive ideas from Republicans during that era and cutting them out of any meaningful role in the system.
But the larger question I'd like to raise is, if it's unfair when one side does wrong, why is is fair when the other side does it? Seems to me that Pelosi would remember how she felt during all those years she felt like a nobody, with no rights to have any meaningful input. Now she wants to turn the tables on those that made her feel that way.
Nancy the Mindless Hypocrite is now vacationing in a upper class resort, warning people in the Senate not to tamper with her work and to ignore the calls for a spirit of bipartisanship, in a bill that is designed to help us all avoid catastrophic results from a tanking economy. Poor people are starving everywhere, just waiting for relief.
But if you will excuse her for a moment, she has an appointment for a seaweed body wrap. She has to stay young looking, you know. She will be back feeding the hungry, after that, her cucumber facial, and her nails appointment.
Nancy Pelosi, the idiot Speaker who cannot count a census, is chief among the bullies. This article pretty much outlines the spirit of Democrats everywhere.
In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as “process” arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.
Of course, it was Pelosi, who went on a crusade back in 2004 for House minority rights. Remember this story?
House Democrats' anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber's top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a "Bill of Rights" for the minority, regardless which party it is.
In keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
For decades, the party in power has used House parliamentary rules to limit the minority party's ability to amend bills and shape debates. But Democrats -- in the minority for 10 years after four decades of control -- say Republicans have gone to unreasonable lengths in recent years. GOP leaders dispute this, but congressional scholars and even some rank-and-file Republicans agree in whole or in part.
Pelosi's document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: "Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority" have silenced Democrats and choked off "thoughtful debate." She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.
The emphasis added is from me, but let's trouble shoot this a second.
If you are a Democrat (particularly a younger one), you may be tempted to present the argument that the GOP didn't respond to Pelosi's request back then; subsequently, all bets off now that the Dems are in control. After all, it was they who won, right? You may say that the Dems are giving the GOP a dose of their own medicine.
But if you are younger or suffer from selective memory loss, you may need to be reminded of the 30 year reign of terror the Dems had over the House. Just think back or pick up a book about the Carl Albert, Tip O'Neill, and Jim Wright eras. The Democrats had no trouble shooting down any productive ideas from Republicans during that era and cutting them out of any meaningful role in the system.
But the larger question I'd like to raise is, if it's unfair when one side does wrong, why is is fair when the other side does it? Seems to me that Pelosi would remember how she felt during all those years she felt like a nobody, with no rights to have any meaningful input. Now she wants to turn the tables on those that made her feel that way.
Nancy the Mindless Hypocrite is now vacationing in a upper class resort, warning people in the Senate not to tamper with her work and to ignore the calls for a spirit of bipartisanship, in a bill that is designed to help us all avoid catastrophic results from a tanking economy. Poor people are starving everywhere, just waiting for relief.
But if you will excuse her for a moment, she has an appointment for a seaweed body wrap. She has to stay young looking, you know. She will be back feeding the hungry, after that, her cucumber facial, and her nails appointment.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Coverage Of The 2009 Inauguration: Another Example Of Liberal Media Hypocrisy
On January 20, 2005, the liberal entity also known as Salon published this piece by Eric Boehlert, a former Salon contributor.This article criticizes another one, which had been published in the NYT only four days prior.
The tone of the Salon piece is quite critical, as are the words. The argument is not unreasonable in some respects. But in others, it fails the test. So to start the thinking process, let's look at this snippet from the Salon piece:
Despite the sniping partisan tone (which one would can expect from this publication), I don't find it unreasonable to question why there was even the slightest hint of a frivolous celebration. In a time of war, I find nothing wrong with holding more modest significant government events, the inaugural ceremony included. It could have been done quietly, without a parade, without an inaugural ball, and certainly without spending a fortune.
But if the criticism was good back then, when it was George Bush on center stage, one would think it is only reasonable to apply this same standard, to the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama.
Enter, this article from the DC Examiner.
It is even being reported abroad that this one is going to break the bank.
Now, a reasonably ethical person who has the slightest hint of integrity would expect another critical op-ed piece castigating this inauguration, in the same manner the one in 2005 was. Right?
Well, here is the opinion page of today's Salon, and frankly I find nothing that even brings up the 2009 inauguration. What you will find includes (but are not limited to) the following articles:
Remember this: Up to this point on Jan. 15, there's still time for them to do it. But I doubt they will and I will be greatly surprised if they do.
We certainly will not see Boehlert have the guts to do the same in this instance. He is well-known as a senior fellow from Media Matters, a current writer for the Huffington Post, and author of the book, Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush. In other words, he is nothing more than a Bush-hating, leftist hack.
Again, I must stress, we expect this kind of thing out of the liberal media. But what is most disturbing is this article from the AP.
See the double standard? What's worse now is, not only are we still at war, the economy is in shambles too. This is twice the problem that GWB faced in 2005; yet, some of the people that stand to make some money are talking the glam and the glitz up, for their own selfish greedy reasons. And they say Republicans are full of greed.
Back then, it was a waste of money in dire times. But now, it's good to do this because it creates a spirit of optimism. You can call it whatever you want, I call it hypocrisy.
The tone of the Salon piece is quite critical, as are the words. The argument is not unreasonable in some respects. But in others, it fails the test. So to start the thinking process, let's look at this snippet from the Salon piece:
This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance.
Despite the sniping partisan tone (which one would can expect from this publication), I don't find it unreasonable to question why there was even the slightest hint of a frivolous celebration. In a time of war, I find nothing wrong with holding more modest significant government events, the inaugural ceremony included. It could have been done quietly, without a parade, without an inaugural ball, and certainly without spending a fortune.
But if the criticism was good back then, when it was George Bush on center stage, one would think it is only reasonable to apply this same standard, to the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama.
Enter, this article from the DC Examiner.
In 2005, with an estimated 300,000 in attendance, the second inauguration of President Bush cost the city more than $17 million, some of which was reimbursed with federal funds. This year, officials estimate nearly five times that many people for the swearing in of President-elect Barack Obama.
It is even being reported abroad that this one is going to break the bank.
Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history.
The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.
But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m.
Now, a reasonably ethical person who has the slightest hint of integrity would expect another critical op-ed piece castigating this inauguration, in the same manner the one in 2005 was. Right?
Well, here is the opinion page of today's Salon, and frankly I find nothing that even brings up the 2009 inauguration. What you will find includes (but are not limited to) the following articles:
Why The US Has Already Lost In Afghanistan, by Ann Jones.
Greening The Stimulus, by Bill McKibben.
Al Franken Stole The Election? Prove It Or Shut Up, by Joe Conason.
Remember this: Up to this point on Jan. 15, there's still time for them to do it. But I doubt they will and I will be greatly surprised if they do.
We certainly will not see Boehlert have the guts to do the same in this instance. He is well-known as a senior fellow from Media Matters, a current writer for the Huffington Post, and author of the book, Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush. In other words, he is nothing more than a Bush-hating, leftist hack.
Again, I must stress, we expect this kind of thing out of the liberal media. But what is most disturbing is this article from the AP.
So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?
To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.
"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.
"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.
And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.
See the double standard? What's worse now is, not only are we still at war, the economy is in shambles too. This is twice the problem that GWB faced in 2005; yet, some of the people that stand to make some money are talking the glam and the glitz up, for their own selfish greedy reasons. And they say Republicans are full of greed.
Back then, it was a waste of money in dire times. But now, it's good to do this because it creates a spirit of optimism. You can call it whatever you want, I call it hypocrisy.
Friday, August 22, 2008
In Their Own Words
Evidently, Nevada Senator Harry Reid "can't stand John McCain". This revelation comes to us courtesy of the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
This is the same Reid who said in 2002 that President Bush was approaching the Iraq situation in the right fashion and voted to authorize the use of force; the same one that later told us the war was lost.
So who really knows how Harry Reid feels at this juncture. He has turned out to be one of the biggest liars in the history of the US Senate.
But there are some Democrats that like and respect John McCain:
What a world we live in.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on Wednesday after the former Democratic vice presidential nominee accepted a speaking slot at next month's Republican convention in Minnesota.
"He has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does," said Reid, who said Lieberman called Tuesday from the Republic of Georgia to alert him to the move.
"I told him last night, 'You know, Joe, I can't stand John McCain.' He said, 'I know you feel that way,' " Reid said.
This is the same Reid who said in 2002 that President Bush was approaching the Iraq situation in the right fashion and voted to authorize the use of force; the same one that later told us the war was lost.
So who really knows how Harry Reid feels at this juncture. He has turned out to be one of the biggest liars in the history of the US Senate.
But there are some Democrats that like and respect John McCain:
What a world we live in.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Backing Up The Accusations Against Obama's Backers
Over at Advance Indiana, we see who Obama's real backing comes from now that he has thrown Pfleger, Wright, and Rezko under the bus to further his quest for the Presidency.
To see the entire list, you'll have to read the post. But let me cue you all in on a little secret. You can cross reference the list Mr. Welsh provides us, with this one. Just take a moment to explore this site and see from whence the Obama funding cometh.
Note this:
Wandering back to the AI list, we see something most interesting (emphasis is mine):
But this isn't all. Once you have completed reading the AI list, check out this, this, this, this, and this.
In all of these instances, multiple family members have given to Obama's campaign. In these specific instances, positions have been filled and favors have been granted.
Now in most cases, one cannot get too smug about such information. All politicians have contributors and many use their family members to donate for personal gain, influence, and the paying back of favors. It is not exclusive to Obama. But we mustn't forget something, here. Obama says he is a different kind of politician, he says that wants to change the way Washington does business. He wants to reform the culture and bring back integrity to the government. And yet, he commits the same offenses as those he lectures and chastises, who happen to be part of the Washington clique.
From this little exercise, it's openly apparent. He is not different, he does not represent the change that so many have come to believe he represents, and if he is elected he will owe favors to some shady characters who are not the least bit consistent with the values he claims to have. It's no wonder why Mr. Welsh, my friend Mustang, and so many others are questioning Obama's claims and his sincerity.
I hear numerous praises about how the Obama camp's presentation is far greater than any in history. It's all in the packaging, they'll say. But when that presentation is based on falsehoods and lies, the presentation becomes null and void. And the presenter becomes nothing more than another snake oil salesman trying to peddle his wares to an unsuspecting public that is looking for some kind of miracle cure, for our ailing culture and government.
Despite this hypocrisy, one must admit that on the surface, it is pleasing to the ear and it does look good on paper. It moves people to believe in something. But in the end, it deceives and manipulates the weak, it exploits those that have become dependent. Hence, it will not stand the test of intelligent argumentation and it certainly will not deliver the outcome many are expecting.
It's all about change when you hear Sen. Barack Obama addressing his faithful, and they cling to every word he says the way a Scientologist accepts the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. Fortunately, there are some of us in the blogosphere offering a reality check on the guy. After Obama's long-time friend and political supporter was found guilty on multiple counts of corrupt influence, Obama said he was saddened and it wasn't the man he knew. He's offered similar explanations when the weird and racist rantings of his spiritual advisers became known. The Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet tells us that Obama invited his closest friends, political fundraisers and advisers to travel with him to Minneapolis to bask in victory Tuesday night. So let's take a look at who these folks are.
To see the entire list, you'll have to read the post. But let me cue you all in on a little secret. You can cross reference the list Mr. Welsh provides us, with this one. Just take a moment to explore this site and see from whence the Obama funding cometh.
Note this:
Goldman Sachs - $571,330
Wandering back to the AI list, we see something most interesting (emphasis is mine):
And then Obama named three persons to a search committee for his vice presidential running mate. It includes Eric Holder, Jim Johnson and Caroline Kennedy. As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Holder gave a green light to and aided former White House counsel Jack Quinn in obtaining a presidential pardon for Marc Rich, the biggest tax cheat in American history. Johnson lives on the top floor of Washington D.C.'s Ritz-Carlton Hotel. The quintessential beltway insider, Johnson's wealth and political power are closely related. He's served on all kinds of corporate boards, including United Health and Goldman Sachs, and all that that implies.
But this isn't all. Once you have completed reading the AI list, check out this, this, this, this, and this.
In all of these instances, multiple family members have given to Obama's campaign. In these specific instances, positions have been filled and favors have been granted.
Now in most cases, one cannot get too smug about such information. All politicians have contributors and many use their family members to donate for personal gain, influence, and the paying back of favors. It is not exclusive to Obama. But we mustn't forget something, here. Obama says he is a different kind of politician, he says that wants to change the way Washington does business. He wants to reform the culture and bring back integrity to the government. And yet, he commits the same offenses as those he lectures and chastises, who happen to be part of the Washington clique.
From this little exercise, it's openly apparent. He is not different, he does not represent the change that so many have come to believe he represents, and if he is elected he will owe favors to some shady characters who are not the least bit consistent with the values he claims to have. It's no wonder why Mr. Welsh, my friend Mustang, and so many others are questioning Obama's claims and his sincerity.
I hear numerous praises about how the Obama camp's presentation is far greater than any in history. It's all in the packaging, they'll say. But when that presentation is based on falsehoods and lies, the presentation becomes null and void. And the presenter becomes nothing more than another snake oil salesman trying to peddle his wares to an unsuspecting public that is looking for some kind of miracle cure, for our ailing culture and government.
Despite this hypocrisy, one must admit that on the surface, it is pleasing to the ear and it does look good on paper. It moves people to believe in something. But in the end, it deceives and manipulates the weak, it exploits those that have become dependent. Hence, it will not stand the test of intelligent argumentation and it certainly will not deliver the outcome many are expecting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)