Obama disappointed me today by doing what everyone said he would, allow 9-11 Truther, Whitey-hating, Communist, and all around idiot Van Jones, the "Green" jobs Czar, resign.
Jones, of course, like all good liberals and little communists, decided it wasn't his fault. All those crazy things he had said (and sung) that were inconveniently captured on You Tube (just one example) were the result of a “campaign” of “lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Michelle Malkin warns us to "Get ready for the coming media/left-wing martyrdom of Jones."
Watching Juan Williams (designated left-wing defender on Fox Sunday News), we saw the Left's alternate explanation of why Jones's statements and subsequent exit are not damaging to Obama - his position just wasn't that important, he really was just a low level staffer. Huh? The position was specially created for him. Spare me this one.
One of fave bloggers, Gateway Pundit, along with Glenn Beck really pushed this story, and are to be thanked for exposing and ridding us of one radical in the White House. If you get your news from the legacy media, tomorrow you may be reading about the whole thing, but for those who seek the Truth, they've been on this thing for a week.
Odds are, the most transparent administration in history (there's a laugher!) was lied to by Mr. Jones in his job interview - you know, the 63 question questionnaire where they actually ask (Question 61), "Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used – even unfairly – to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?"
I guess it's plausible that Jones didn't think being a Communist or a whitey-hater would be something that could embarrass this crowd.
Anyway, Van Jones is just another radical exposed. How many more lurk in the current administration?
end...
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Beers for Torture! I'm in!
Jeffrey H Smith, former general counsel to the CIA (during the Clinton administration) wrote an op-ed last week in the Washington Post giving six reason why the CIA interrogators should NOT be prosecuted.
This necessarily prompted the predictable responses from those opposed to torture, enhanced interrogation, or any technique providing useful information from the enemy.
However, one writer, Patty Healy, of Fairfax, VA (here's to you, Patty!) dissented and cleanly summed up my views:
"I am sorely disappointed that the names of the interrogators were redacted in the recently released memos about interrogation techniques. The more I read about what they did to protect our country, the more I would like to buy them a beer."
(H/T: Brother-in-law and actual reader of the Washington Post.)
end...
This necessarily prompted the predictable responses from those opposed to torture, enhanced interrogation, or any technique providing useful information from the enemy.
However, one writer, Patty Healy, of Fairfax, VA (here's to you, Patty!) dissented and cleanly summed up my views:
"I am sorely disappointed that the names of the interrogators were redacted in the recently released memos about interrogation techniques. The more I read about what they did to protect our country, the more I would like to buy them a beer."
(H/T: Brother-in-law and actual reader of the Washington Post.)
end...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why Hate Crime Legislation Should be Opposed
Since nearly most crimes involve some kind of "hatred" I have never felt there was a specific need for "hate" crimes legislation.
In passing these types of laws, our lawmakers are elevating certain victims to a higher status than others, therefore making a mockery of "all men are created equal."
While liberal politicians pass these off as applying equally when they are pitching them to the electorate, they are rarely applied equally in practice, regardless of how heinous the crime, nor how obvious the "hatred."
Furthermore, for most people prosecuted under hate crimes statutes, they usually would have received the same punishment under existing statutes. So, hate crimes legislation does little other than offer DA's an opportunity to grandstand and favored groups an opportunity to decry the hatred of some vile group (more often than not - that reviled group is some form of white, racist, homophobic redneck).
Anyway, because of the favored status of certain groups, these laws tend to diminish truly horrific crimes.
I wanted a maximum audience to read about a particularly horrific crime. A crime that is truly borne of hate, but, because it was not committed against one of the Left's favored interest groups, it will never receive any media attention beyond the locality where it occurred.
I pondered cutting and pasting the details here, but, they are so horrific, I don't want anyone who isn't forewarned to read them.
For all of you who have children between the ages of 16-24 especially (or will have them), this story will make you sick, and hopefully, make you mad as well.
Link here, but you were warned.
end..
In passing these types of laws, our lawmakers are elevating certain victims to a higher status than others, therefore making a mockery of "all men are created equal."
While liberal politicians pass these off as applying equally when they are pitching them to the electorate, they are rarely applied equally in practice, regardless of how heinous the crime, nor how obvious the "hatred."
Furthermore, for most people prosecuted under hate crimes statutes, they usually would have received the same punishment under existing statutes. So, hate crimes legislation does little other than offer DA's an opportunity to grandstand and favored groups an opportunity to decry the hatred of some vile group (more often than not - that reviled group is some form of white, racist, homophobic redneck).
Anyway, because of the favored status of certain groups, these laws tend to diminish truly horrific crimes.
I wanted a maximum audience to read about a particularly horrific crime. A crime that is truly borne of hate, but, because it was not committed against one of the Left's favored interest groups, it will never receive any media attention beyond the locality where it occurred.
I pondered cutting and pasting the details here, but, they are so horrific, I don't want anyone who isn't forewarned to read them.
For all of you who have children between the ages of 16-24 especially (or will have them), this story will make you sick, and hopefully, make you mad as well.
Link here, but you were warned.
end..
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Liberals bashing Liberals? John Stewart takes Pelosi down.
I know thinking people knew Nancy Pelosi's various explanations for what she knew, and when she knew it, about enhanced interrogation techniques were tortured.
Turns out, Comedy Central's John Stewart has noticed, too, and he posted this video, chronicling Nancy's ride through the torture wasteland:
end...
Turns out, Comedy Central's John Stewart has noticed, too, and he posted this video, chronicling Nancy's ride through the torture wasteland:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Waffle House | ||||
| ||||
end...
Ann Coulter on Carrie Prejean
Unless you've been under a rock this week, you know that the first runner up in the Miss USA pageant (owned by perpetually bankrupt Donald Trump), Miss California, Carrie Prejean, had the audacity to hope that her views of gay marriage (shared by the Liberal Messiah, Obama) would be accepted by Liberal America, personified by the vile, stupid, vapid, and disgusting Perez Hilton (not sure I really understand how this guy came to fame, but apparently, it has something to do with drawings of penises).
Anyway, Ann Coulter opines, as always with biting wit, in her column today on this.
The best passage from the Conservative Liberals Most Love to Hate:
"Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.
"This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being 'basically good' people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil."
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I didn't.
end...
Anyway, Ann Coulter opines, as always with biting wit, in her column today on this.
The best passage from the Conservative Liberals Most Love to Hate:
"Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.
"This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being 'basically good' people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil."
I couldn't have said it better myself, so I didn't.
end...
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Palin Email, Liberal double-standard
Remember the email glitch that allowed Republican staffers to see Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee's emails?
Apparently, no one in the media does, either.
Although there was never anything illegal done, GOP Staffer Manuel Miranda (I don't make this stuff up) was reading the Dems emails, and passing them to right-leaning news outlets (The Washington Times most notably). These emails provided a smoking gun into the Dems tactics on Bush's Judicial nominees, and revealed some rather unflattering tactics the Dems planned to use (and did use). Things like painting nominees as racists, extremists, etc. You know, the usual stuff. All these emails did was prove it was a concerted, organized effort.
Anyway, even Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said of Miranda's actions that they were “improper, unethical, and simply unacceptable.” Miranda resigned, and a criminal investigation of him was initiated. Of course, the criminal investigation went nowhere. Miranda was also the subject of a Senate investigation.
Anyway, the Dems at the time were less concerned about the content of their memos, which showed just how in the tank they were with special interests groups, and much more interested in the "improper" reading and leaking of the emails.
Funny, that now the talking points are all about Palin's use of private email for public business and little care about the hacking, which may very well violate federal law.
end..
Apparently, no one in the media does, either.
Although there was never anything illegal done, GOP Staffer Manuel Miranda (I don't make this stuff up) was reading the Dems emails, and passing them to right-leaning news outlets (The Washington Times most notably). These emails provided a smoking gun into the Dems tactics on Bush's Judicial nominees, and revealed some rather unflattering tactics the Dems planned to use (and did use). Things like painting nominees as racists, extremists, etc. You know, the usual stuff. All these emails did was prove it was a concerted, organized effort.
Anyway, even Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said of Miranda's actions that they were “improper, unethical, and simply unacceptable.” Miranda resigned, and a criminal investigation of him was initiated. Of course, the criminal investigation went nowhere. Miranda was also the subject of a Senate investigation.
Anyway, the Dems at the time were less concerned about the content of their memos, which showed just how in the tank they were with special interests groups, and much more interested in the "improper" reading and leaking of the emails.
Funny, that now the talking points are all about Palin's use of private email for public business and little care about the hacking, which may very well violate federal law.
end..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)