Now that we know it was Obama and the Democrats who inserted a provision in the economic stimulus bill that protects CEO bonuses, the question is, when are they going to be held accountable?
So far, the people who ran on the theme of accountability and openness in government have exhibited none.
And this is my subject of discussion today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
It is the height of sleaze and hypocrisy to condemn CEO bonuses when you are the very ones who made sure those bonuses were protected in the first place.
Be sure to click on the link, read, and share. Thanks.
Showing posts with label Democrat hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat hypocrisy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Leahy Follies
In a truly stunning development (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek), Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT, has announced the formation of a 'Truth Commission' to investigate possible crimes committed by Bush Administration officials with regard to the war on terror.
Leahy is the very one who said during investigations of the Clinton Administration during the 1990s that such things are a waste of time and money and should therefore not be done.
Apparently, for 'Leaky Leahy' (he earned that nickname when he illegally leaked classified documents) that depends on who is being investigated.
Leahy was willing to give Bill Clinton a pass. He is not willing to do that for George W. Bush. But then, we have come to expect such stark hypocrisy on the part of Democrats once they get in power.
When confronted by a reporter for Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Leahy said he was only trying to 'find out the truth.'
Sure, Senator. We already know the truth about you.
Leahy is the very one who said during investigations of the Clinton Administration during the 1990s that such things are a waste of time and money and should therefore not be done.
Apparently, for 'Leaky Leahy' (he earned that nickname when he illegally leaked classified documents) that depends on who is being investigated.
Leahy was willing to give Bill Clinton a pass. He is not willing to do that for George W. Bush. But then, we have come to expect such stark hypocrisy on the part of Democrats once they get in power.
When confronted by a reporter for Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Leahy said he was only trying to 'find out the truth.'
Sure, Senator. We already know the truth about you.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Dems' Convention Opens to Myriad of Problems
As the Democratic National Convention gets underway in Denver this week, it would seem that the Dems are opening their grand meeting to a myriad of problems and contradictions.
The most glaring of these contradictions is the fact that the City of Denver and the Democratic leadership opened a Gitmo-style jail near the convention site to 'detain' protesters.
One can only assume that some if not most of these protesters will be detained without charges being brought against them. Once again, is that the aroma of Gitmo I smell? You know, the one that the Dems condemn for being supposedly 'unlawful?'
Most of us were under the impression that since the Dems have made it their business to appeal to those who claim freedom of speech and expression is the paramount human right, they would welcome any and all protests.
After all, these are the very people who screamed bloody murder when the Bush administration made it a practice of moving protesters out of the line of fire whenever the President's motorcade passed by, although the protesters were merely moved to another location rather than jailed.
By taking these tactics to the extreme, the Democrats seem to be sending the mixed message that protesters are to be encouraged as long as they don't protest the Democrats. If they do, they go to jail.
Almost as glaring a problem as the Denver Gitmo Prison for protesters at the Democratic Convention is the fact that Barack Obama lacked the intestinal fortitude to do the one thing that would have nearly insured him the Presidency--choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
Hillary won millions of votes across the country and is much more popular than Obama with the very demographic groups that he needs to win. She garnered almost as many delegates as he did.
Prudence and wisdom would dictate that the top of the ticket would choose the most popular of his/her opponents in order to maximize voting potential and unite the Party. This is why Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush in 1980 and why John Kennedy chose LBJ back in 1960.
But not Obama. Hillary is obviously too much for him--too much of a threat--too strong a personality--to suit Barack and his wife, Michelle, who loathe Mrs. Clinton.
And then there are the protesters from within the Democrats' own ranks. One such protest held on Sunday turned violent when a group of ultra-Leftwing activists led by Cynthia McKinney roughed up a Fox News crew. Other network news crews were left unharmed, but apparently the group feels that since Fox is perceived as 'conservative,' then despite all the participants' rhetoric about 'free speech,' 'peace,' and 'nonviolent protest' it is perfectly acceptable to throw those ideals out the window when dealing with, well, people who disagree with them.
Last but not least are the countless corporate sponsors--an entity that Democrats claim to hate with a passion but love when it's time to get bankrolled. Corporate entities will be in Denver by the dozens, throwing lavish parties, complete with free food and spirits, all in an attempt to gain some leverage with some of the most powerful people in Washington.
So much for 'campaign finance reform.'
And perhaps this is the most blatant hypocrisy of all.
The most glaring of these contradictions is the fact that the City of Denver and the Democratic leadership opened a Gitmo-style jail near the convention site to 'detain' protesters.
One can only assume that some if not most of these protesters will be detained without charges being brought against them. Once again, is that the aroma of Gitmo I smell? You know, the one that the Dems condemn for being supposedly 'unlawful?'
Most of us were under the impression that since the Dems have made it their business to appeal to those who claim freedom of speech and expression is the paramount human right, they would welcome any and all protests.
After all, these are the very people who screamed bloody murder when the Bush administration made it a practice of moving protesters out of the line of fire whenever the President's motorcade passed by, although the protesters were merely moved to another location rather than jailed.
By taking these tactics to the extreme, the Democrats seem to be sending the mixed message that protesters are to be encouraged as long as they don't protest the Democrats. If they do, they go to jail.
Almost as glaring a problem as the Denver Gitmo Prison for protesters at the Democratic Convention is the fact that Barack Obama lacked the intestinal fortitude to do the one thing that would have nearly insured him the Presidency--choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
Hillary won millions of votes across the country and is much more popular than Obama with the very demographic groups that he needs to win. She garnered almost as many delegates as he did.
Prudence and wisdom would dictate that the top of the ticket would choose the most popular of his/her opponents in order to maximize voting potential and unite the Party. This is why Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush in 1980 and why John Kennedy chose LBJ back in 1960.
But not Obama. Hillary is obviously too much for him--too much of a threat--too strong a personality--to suit Barack and his wife, Michelle, who loathe Mrs. Clinton.
And then there are the protesters from within the Democrats' own ranks. One such protest held on Sunday turned violent when a group of ultra-Leftwing activists led by Cynthia McKinney roughed up a Fox News crew. Other network news crews were left unharmed, but apparently the group feels that since Fox is perceived as 'conservative,' then despite all the participants' rhetoric about 'free speech,' 'peace,' and 'nonviolent protest' it is perfectly acceptable to throw those ideals out the window when dealing with, well, people who disagree with them.
Last but not least are the countless corporate sponsors--an entity that Democrats claim to hate with a passion but love when it's time to get bankrolled. Corporate entities will be in Denver by the dozens, throwing lavish parties, complete with free food and spirits, all in an attempt to gain some leverage with some of the most powerful people in Washington.
So much for 'campaign finance reform.'
And perhaps this is the most blatant hypocrisy of all.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Couric/CBS Goes Bonkers Over Craig Scandal
Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News went bonkers over the Craig scandal, showing a graphic containing pictures of all of the Republicans in Congress who have been implicated in scandals over the past several years.
Never has CBS done a similar thing to highlight Democrats in Congress who have been implicated in scandals. And there have been plenty.
As most Liberty Sphere readers know by now, from time to time we do a quick survey of what and how news gets reported on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Couric's years at the NBC Today Show solidified her credentials as one of the most liberal talking heads in the business.
And with the new evening news producer, who made a name for himself at CNN as one of the most unreliable, biased, and agenda-driven news producers in the business, we wanted to see just how far CBS would go to slant the news it presents on its evening broadcast.
Rarely has CBS News given a fair shake to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who adhere to traditional American values. A perfect case in point is the Craig scandal.
When Couric reported the news that Senator Craig from Idaho had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in an airport bathroom sting operation, the graphic shown behind her contained the pictures of all of the Republicans in recent years who have had their difficulties with scandal.
Yet when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer, along with charges that he peddled his influence in Congress to benefit foreign governments--for a price, of course--there were no graphics or pictures of all of the Democrats who have been implicated in scandal over the past few years.
And the names of these Democrats read like a Who's Who among the most powerful and influential persons in Washington--Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, not a single outlet of the mainstream media even bothered to mention that Dianne Feinstein engaged in awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses--a practice that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband, which is against the law.
This major scandal was swept under the rug by the Democratic leadership in Congress and the mainstream media. The closest the story ever came to being reported in a major media outlet was when the Capitol Hill newsletter called 'The Hill' ran the story a couple of months ago.
Does this excuse Senator Craig's hypocrisy and behavior? No way. But it does provide yet one more example of how the liberal mainstream media machine attempts to portray Republicans as those dastardly poor examples of ethics while casting the Democrats as the innocent little angels.
Perhaps, though, the public simply isn't buying it. With public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress at the all-time low of just 16%, maybe the public has wised up to the underhanded, slanted tactics of CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN to sway voters with one-sided news stories.
All I can say is, it's about time.
Never has CBS done a similar thing to highlight Democrats in Congress who have been implicated in scandals. And there have been plenty.
As most Liberty Sphere readers know by now, from time to time we do a quick survey of what and how news gets reported on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Couric's years at the NBC Today Show solidified her credentials as one of the most liberal talking heads in the business.
And with the new evening news producer, who made a name for himself at CNN as one of the most unreliable, biased, and agenda-driven news producers in the business, we wanted to see just how far CBS would go to slant the news it presents on its evening broadcast.
Rarely has CBS News given a fair shake to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who adhere to traditional American values. A perfect case in point is the Craig scandal.
When Couric reported the news that Senator Craig from Idaho had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in an airport bathroom sting operation, the graphic shown behind her contained the pictures of all of the Republicans in recent years who have had their difficulties with scandal.
Yet when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer, along with charges that he peddled his influence in Congress to benefit foreign governments--for a price, of course--there were no graphics or pictures of all of the Democrats who have been implicated in scandal over the past few years.
And the names of these Democrats read like a Who's Who among the most powerful and influential persons in Washington--Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, not a single outlet of the mainstream media even bothered to mention that Dianne Feinstein engaged in awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses--a practice that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband, which is against the law.
This major scandal was swept under the rug by the Democratic leadership in Congress and the mainstream media. The closest the story ever came to being reported in a major media outlet was when the Capitol Hill newsletter called 'The Hill' ran the story a couple of months ago.
Does this excuse Senator Craig's hypocrisy and behavior? No way. But it does provide yet one more example of how the liberal mainstream media machine attempts to portray Republicans as those dastardly poor examples of ethics while casting the Democrats as the innocent little angels.
Perhaps, though, the public simply isn't buying it. With public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress at the all-time low of just 16%, maybe the public has wised up to the underhanded, slanted tactics of CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN to sway voters with one-sided news stories.
All I can say is, it's about time.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A Conversation Between John and Hillary
The following is a fictitious encounter. Any slight resemblance to the actual characters is purely intentional.
Setting: A back corridor on Capitol Hill
Characters: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman
McCain: Uh, Hill, you know, ever since that incident in Europe several years ago, you know, when you and I had that contest to see who could drink the most booze without either giving up or passing out?
Hillary: Yeah, John, I remember the first part of it, but the end of it is a bit fuzzy.
McCain: Well, I don't remember a thing about the end of it, ahem, but that is besides the point.
Hillary: (Laughing) Yeah, you little twerp, I beat the socks off ya!
McCain: (Not laughing) As I said, that is not the point, but maybe, in a way it IS the point.
Hillary: Just what IS your point, John?
McCain: Well, Hill, ever since that time, I have been quite concerned...you know, about your ability to consume a copious amount of alcohol and never miss a beat, until you've had enough to fill the Atlantic Ocean.
Hillary: So I can hold my liquor and you can't! You jealous?
McCain: Hillary, please. I'm trying to be serious here as your friend.
Hillary: Ok, Ok...you think I have a drinking problem, don't you.
McCain: Well, it did cross my mind.
Hillary: And you are just now bringing it up? This must have something to do with that deal I offered you the other day...ya know, you switch over to the Democrats, and I will offer you the opportunity to be my running mate?
McCain: Oh, no no. I'm not too keen on that offer, Hill, as much as I appreciate the thought. I want to be President. I have the experience and the maturity. I would not be interested in being Vice President. I'm just concerned about your health more than anything.
Hillary: (Rolls eyes) Ohhh, John, get over it. I have had a drinking problem on and off. I get help. But sometimes I relapse. You know Bill and me. We both have our problems. When HE relapses, though, he buries his head under the sheets...in a manner of speaking...with the nearest bimbo he can find.
Uncontrolled laughter breaks out among the two.
Hillary: When I relapse I only hide and hibernate for about three or four days, then everything is back to normal. Well, hell, it only happens three or four times a year, I swear.
McCain: Hmmmmm. Well, glad to hear it isn't so bad, after all, Hill. Hey, I have a meeting to attend. Talk to ya later.
McCain: (Walks down the corridor thinking to himself) 'Three or four times per year'...wow...at least four weeks out of the year I will be President, maybe even more! Hmmmm. Making mental note to reconsider that offer.....
Hillary: (Walks in other direction down the corridor thinking to herself) Ha! Now I've got him! Worked like a charm. Now, let's see what that vast freakin' rightwing conspiracy and the rest of the Republicans do with my dream ticket! (Snickers) I STOLE one of their own candidates! What complete clowns!
Hillary bumps into Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman: Oh hi, Hillary, glad I bumped into you. I wanted to tell you that I am seriously considering switching to the Republican Party. They are practically making me an offer I can't refuse.
Hillary: Joe, I trust your judgment. Just carefully think it through before deciding. Now, I gotta run...have one of those damn meetings, ya know.
Hillary mutters to herself as she walks away: Asshole.
Setting: A back corridor on Capitol Hill
Characters: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman
McCain: Uh, Hill, you know, ever since that incident in Europe several years ago, you know, when you and I had that contest to see who could drink the most booze without either giving up or passing out?
Hillary: Yeah, John, I remember the first part of it, but the end of it is a bit fuzzy.
McCain: Well, I don't remember a thing about the end of it, ahem, but that is besides the point.
Hillary: (Laughing) Yeah, you little twerp, I beat the socks off ya!
McCain: (Not laughing) As I said, that is not the point, but maybe, in a way it IS the point.
Hillary: Just what IS your point, John?
McCain: Well, Hill, ever since that time, I have been quite concerned...you know, about your ability to consume a copious amount of alcohol and never miss a beat, until you've had enough to fill the Atlantic Ocean.
Hillary: So I can hold my liquor and you can't! You jealous?
McCain: Hillary, please. I'm trying to be serious here as your friend.
Hillary: Ok, Ok...you think I have a drinking problem, don't you.
McCain: Well, it did cross my mind.
Hillary: And you are just now bringing it up? This must have something to do with that deal I offered you the other day...ya know, you switch over to the Democrats, and I will offer you the opportunity to be my running mate?
McCain: Oh, no no. I'm not too keen on that offer, Hill, as much as I appreciate the thought. I want to be President. I have the experience and the maturity. I would not be interested in being Vice President. I'm just concerned about your health more than anything.
Hillary: (Rolls eyes) Ohhh, John, get over it. I have had a drinking problem on and off. I get help. But sometimes I relapse. You know Bill and me. We both have our problems. When HE relapses, though, he buries his head under the sheets...in a manner of speaking...with the nearest bimbo he can find.
Uncontrolled laughter breaks out among the two.
Hillary: When I relapse I only hide and hibernate for about three or four days, then everything is back to normal. Well, hell, it only happens three or four times a year, I swear.
McCain: Hmmmmm. Well, glad to hear it isn't so bad, after all, Hill. Hey, I have a meeting to attend. Talk to ya later.
McCain: (Walks down the corridor thinking to himself) 'Three or four times per year'...wow...at least four weeks out of the year I will be President, maybe even more! Hmmmm. Making mental note to reconsider that offer.....
Hillary: (Walks in other direction down the corridor thinking to herself) Ha! Now I've got him! Worked like a charm. Now, let's see what that vast freakin' rightwing conspiracy and the rest of the Republicans do with my dream ticket! (Snickers) I STOLE one of their own candidates! What complete clowns!
Hillary bumps into Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman: Oh hi, Hillary, glad I bumped into you. I wanted to tell you that I am seriously considering switching to the Republican Party. They are practically making me an offer I can't refuse.
Hillary: Joe, I trust your judgment. Just carefully think it through before deciding. Now, I gotta run...have one of those damn meetings, ya know.
Hillary mutters to herself as she walks away: Asshole.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Dems Choose Debate Sponsors--Snub Fox
Washington, DC (TLS). The Democrats, continuing with their obvious cowardice at the prospects of facing Fox News, have chosen instead to allow CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC/MSNBC to host their next six debates...an obvious snub of Fox.
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?
Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.
What idiots.
CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.
Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.
Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
LIBERTY ALERT!! PELOSI TO SHUT DOWN HOUSE REPUBLICANS
Washington, DC (TLS). For the first time since 1822, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is attempting to shut down the minority in the House by changing what is known as 'the germaneness rule.' which allows the minority Party to thwart proposed legislation by calling into question the germaneness of a bill and gives the minority the right to the Motion to Recommit.
This would effectively shut down the minority Party on the floor of the House.
Stung by a series of missteps, embarrassing defeats, and a low approval rating among the public, Pelosi and the Democrats are apparently ready to use draconian techniques to silence their detractors.
Wow, what a democracy....
Read the full report here by Matt Drudge:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
This would effectively shut down the minority Party on the floor of the House.
Stung by a series of missteps, embarrassing defeats, and a low approval rating among the public, Pelosi and the Democrats are apparently ready to use draconian techniques to silence their detractors.
Wow, what a democracy....
Read the full report here by Matt Drudge:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Saturday, April 21, 2007
HILLARY CAUGHT RED-HANDED IN FELONIES!
Washington, DC (TLS). Federal campaign laws were passed for the specific purpose of keeping corruption out of the electoral process, not that they have succeeded. No greater example of the fact that certain politicians continue to drip with corruption is the latest 'smoking gun' video of Hillary Clinton and her scheme with a major donor.
This donor plans to release the video showing Hillary clearly engaging in the committing of felonies with regard to campaign contributions.
Here is the full story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320
This donor plans to release the video showing Hillary clearly engaging in the committing of felonies with regard to campaign contributions.
Here is the full story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320
Friday, April 20, 2007
Alec Baldwin Verbally Abuses 11-Yr.-Old Daughter
Washington, DC (TLS). Alec Baldwin, the Hollywood Leftist elitist who stated he would 'move out of the country' if George W. Bush were elected President, has been caught red-handed engaging in severe verbal and emotional abuse of his eleven-year-old daughter.
I am still waiting for Baldwin to make good on his word to move out of the country.
It's been seven years now. Perhaps it is time for us to usher him out.
Baldwin referred to his own flesh and blood as a 'pig.' And this is not the worst of it. At the end of this article you will find a link to a site where you can hear each and every word of Baldwin's violent rage against his daughter on a voice mail message he left for her.
Warning! This taped excerpt contains vile language and should not be listened to by under aged persons.
So, why do we publicize such things on The Liberty Sphere? Simple. You have a right to know what the self-righteous, particularly the bleeding-heart Liberal hypocrites, are actually doing and saying behind closed doors. They hold the rest of America to a standard they are not willing to abide by themselves.
Baldwin is a despicable human being. And when you hear what he said to his own daughter, you will in all likelihood agree.
To hear Baldwin's abusive rampage against his daughter, click here:
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter
I am still waiting for Baldwin to make good on his word to move out of the country.
It's been seven years now. Perhaps it is time for us to usher him out.
Baldwin referred to his own flesh and blood as a 'pig.' And this is not the worst of it. At the end of this article you will find a link to a site where you can hear each and every word of Baldwin's violent rage against his daughter on a voice mail message he left for her.
Warning! This taped excerpt contains vile language and should not be listened to by under aged persons.
So, why do we publicize such things on The Liberty Sphere? Simple. You have a right to know what the self-righteous, particularly the bleeding-heart Liberal hypocrites, are actually doing and saying behind closed doors. They hold the rest of America to a standard they are not willing to abide by themselves.
Baldwin is a despicable human being. And when you hear what he said to his own daughter, you will in all likelihood agree.
To hear Baldwin's abusive rampage against his daughter, click here:
http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
COWARDS! Dems Ditch Fox Debates AGAIN
Washington, DC (TLS). For the 2nd time in two months, the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination have pulled out of debates sponsored by Fox News.
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.
This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.
But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'
Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?
B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.
Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'
What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.
Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.
In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.
Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.
My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'
Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'
What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?
I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.
Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.
If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.
Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.
It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.
In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Dealing with the Feinstein Scandal
Washington, DC (TLS). Senate Democrats are no doubt in quite a quandary at this hour, in spite of the fact that they are on a rather lengthy Easter break. Although the news has barely caused a ripple in the mainstream media, here comes the Internet news sources, bloggers, and a few secondary newspapers swarming around the scandal involving Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and her war profiteering scheme with her husband.
First, let us put this scandal within its proper context. Democrats, the Liberal variety in particular, have made it their trademark to be anti-war. San Francisco is where Feinstein cut her political teeth, having once served in the city government. And everyone knows that San Francisco has become the nation's number one hotbed of rabid, putrid ultra-leftwing extremism.
This is the area that refuses to allow ROTC recruiters in public schools or to allow a major U.S. battleship, which has been placed in retirement, to find harbor.
Feinstein, along with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, are the heroines of the extremist Left. And, as such they tow the Party line on all the hot-button issues--gun control advocacy, abortion-on-demand, tax-and-spend expansion of government power, and most important of all, the vilification of American military power and prowess.
War is an evil symbol of American imperialism, according to the true believers of the extreme Left. Nevermind that the present war was declared on us first and that Iraq was a centerpiece of its propagation. Even Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam was training, funding, and giving safe haven to Islamic terrorists--that is, until she started running for President.
Feinstein, therefore, has walked the walk and talked the talk on the hot-button issues. Until now.
There have been hints all along that perhaps Feinstein was not the true believer everyone thought. She admitted before a Senate panel in 1995 that she had bought and carried a concealed handgun in the 70s when she and her family were being threatened by a terrorist who had planted a bomb outside her daughter's window.
Somehow, miraculously, the bomb did not detonate.
Yet Feinstein has consistently been one of the most avid and rabid anti-gun bigots on Capitol Hill, voting regularly to deny to ordinary citizens the right she exercised when she and her family were threatened with harm.
Now we discover that the quintessential Liberal Democrat from California, the anti-war crusader from San Francisco, is up to her neck in a war profiteering scandal of draconian proportions. While publicly decrying the military and the war, Feinstein was making cozy with U.S. military officials concerning construction projects and overseeing the process by which her husband's companies would receive billions of dollars' worth of government construction contracts for the military.
In short, as Chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Feinstein personally approved billions of dollars' worth of government contracts that were awarded to her husband's companies.
While our men and women were being shipped overseas to fight the War on Terror, which Feinstein harshly denounced, she and her husband were padding their pockets off of U.S. involvement in the war.
Publicly she blasted President Bush's War on Terror. Privately she profited mightily from that very war.
The question that is before the Senate, therefore, is what to do about it. If the brief history of Democrat control of Congress is any hint of what they will do, the answer is nothing at all. After all, Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is himself waste-deep in scandal due to the receiving of illegal campaign funds. In spite of the fact that he gave the money back, it was still against federal law.
Senator Blowhard is responsible for the death of a young woman, but he walked away free as a bird and never suffered ANY repercussions from it.
Senator 'Leaky' Leahy leaked classified information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee--a major breach of national security. Yet the worst thing that ever happened to him was to resign from the committee.
And this is just in the Senate. If we go over to the House, we find even more glaring corruption on the part of the Party that purported to 'restore integrity to government.'
The problem, however, is that after these cases hit the news over and over, the public finally begins to get the message that something is terribly amiss. The news of the Feinstein scandal is simply too much, too big to ignore. If the Democrat leadership allows this to pass by without even as much as an investigation, then the whole country will know without any doubt whatsoever that the Democrat Party is all talk and no substance.
The thing is, they already know it. The latest polls show that approval of Congress has slipped back into the 25% range--much worse than President Bush's approval numbers.
With Feinstein's war profiteering scheme making the headlines--and sooner or later the big guns in the media will be forced to make it a headline--the public will have even more reason to lose faith in Congressional Democrats.
Feinstein needs to go. She should either resign from her seat or be expelled from Congress.
First, let us put this scandal within its proper context. Democrats, the Liberal variety in particular, have made it their trademark to be anti-war. San Francisco is where Feinstein cut her political teeth, having once served in the city government. And everyone knows that San Francisco has become the nation's number one hotbed of rabid, putrid ultra-leftwing extremism.
This is the area that refuses to allow ROTC recruiters in public schools or to allow a major U.S. battleship, which has been placed in retirement, to find harbor.
Feinstein, along with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, are the heroines of the extremist Left. And, as such they tow the Party line on all the hot-button issues--gun control advocacy, abortion-on-demand, tax-and-spend expansion of government power, and most important of all, the vilification of American military power and prowess.
War is an evil symbol of American imperialism, according to the true believers of the extreme Left. Nevermind that the present war was declared on us first and that Iraq was a centerpiece of its propagation. Even Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam was training, funding, and giving safe haven to Islamic terrorists--that is, until she started running for President.
Feinstein, therefore, has walked the walk and talked the talk on the hot-button issues. Until now.
There have been hints all along that perhaps Feinstein was not the true believer everyone thought. She admitted before a Senate panel in 1995 that she had bought and carried a concealed handgun in the 70s when she and her family were being threatened by a terrorist who had planted a bomb outside her daughter's window.
Somehow, miraculously, the bomb did not detonate.
Yet Feinstein has consistently been one of the most avid and rabid anti-gun bigots on Capitol Hill, voting regularly to deny to ordinary citizens the right she exercised when she and her family were threatened with harm.
Now we discover that the quintessential Liberal Democrat from California, the anti-war crusader from San Francisco, is up to her neck in a war profiteering scandal of draconian proportions. While publicly decrying the military and the war, Feinstein was making cozy with U.S. military officials concerning construction projects and overseeing the process by which her husband's companies would receive billions of dollars' worth of government construction contracts for the military.
In short, as Chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Feinstein personally approved billions of dollars' worth of government contracts that were awarded to her husband's companies.
While our men and women were being shipped overseas to fight the War on Terror, which Feinstein harshly denounced, she and her husband were padding their pockets off of U.S. involvement in the war.
Publicly she blasted President Bush's War on Terror. Privately she profited mightily from that very war.
The question that is before the Senate, therefore, is what to do about it. If the brief history of Democrat control of Congress is any hint of what they will do, the answer is nothing at all. After all, Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is himself waste-deep in scandal due to the receiving of illegal campaign funds. In spite of the fact that he gave the money back, it was still against federal law.
Senator Blowhard is responsible for the death of a young woman, but he walked away free as a bird and never suffered ANY repercussions from it.
Senator 'Leaky' Leahy leaked classified information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee--a major breach of national security. Yet the worst thing that ever happened to him was to resign from the committee.
And this is just in the Senate. If we go over to the House, we find even more glaring corruption on the part of the Party that purported to 'restore integrity to government.'
The problem, however, is that after these cases hit the news over and over, the public finally begins to get the message that something is terribly amiss. The news of the Feinstein scandal is simply too much, too big to ignore. If the Democrat leadership allows this to pass by without even as much as an investigation, then the whole country will know without any doubt whatsoever that the Democrat Party is all talk and no substance.
The thing is, they already know it. The latest polls show that approval of Congress has slipped back into the 25% range--much worse than President Bush's approval numbers.
With Feinstein's war profiteering scheme making the headlines--and sooner or later the big guns in the media will be forced to make it a headline--the public will have even more reason to lose faith in Congressional Democrats.
Feinstein needs to go. She should either resign from her seat or be expelled from Congress.
Monday, April 02, 2007
News Blackout on Feinstein Scandal
Washington, DC (TLS). Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, is embroiled in a scandal of gargantuan proportions, yet you won't hear about it on network news broadcasts. It has not made headlines in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Los Angeles Times.
This is due to the fact that she is in the right Party to get away with major scandal without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Suppose this had been Dennis Hastert, or Trent Lott, or even John McCain. Every major news organization would be milking this story for all its worth. Headlines would blare across the bottom of the TV screen. The NYT would place the news in bold, block letters across the front page.
But the Feinstein scandal? Nary word. Nada. Naught.
Senator Feinstein has been caught in a profiteering scheme involving her husband and the U.S. military. Feinstein and her husband, Richard C. Blum, were the direct beneficiaries of billions of dollars' worth of military construction contracts awarded to Blum's two companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
The clincher, however, is that Feinstein herself, as the Senior member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, had personal oversight of the awarding of military construction contracts. She personally approved awarding her husband's companies with these lucrative government contracts...a clear violation of ethics at the very least, and potentially a violation of the law.
For six years Feinstein engaged in the practice of awarding these contracts to her husband's businesses, until two rather small news agencies blew the whistle on the practice, resulting in Feinstein's immediate resignation from the subcommittee.
Conflicts of interest of this nature are against the law. The question, therefore, is, will Feinstein be investigated by the Senate? Will she be resoundingly condemned by the Senate for this breach of the public trust? Will she be forced to resign?
Remember, Senator Trent Lott was forced to step down from his post as Senate Majority Leader for merely complimenting an old man (former Senator Strom Thurmond) on his 100th birthday. Many were calling for his resignation from the Senate entirely.
Lott committed no crime and there were no conflicts of interest or ethics violations.
Yet Senate Democrats wanted his head, in spite of the fact that ex-Klansman Robert 'Sheets' Byrd sits in the Senate enjoying the respect of his colleagues.
Feinstein's lapses of ethics are serious. They should have serious consequences. The question is, when will the national media begin reporting this bombshell of a story? Are they waiting for D.C. to get its statehood so that two more Democrat Senators can immediately be added to the roster, meaning that they can afford to lose one?
This case is simply one more example of the blatant and despicable hypocrisy of the mainstream media. Let the news blackout on Feinstein's corruption end NOW. The nation deserves to know the whole truth about the rank stench of corruption emanating from Democrats in Congress.
This is due to the fact that she is in the right Party to get away with major scandal without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Suppose this had been Dennis Hastert, or Trent Lott, or even John McCain. Every major news organization would be milking this story for all its worth. Headlines would blare across the bottom of the TV screen. The NYT would place the news in bold, block letters across the front page.
But the Feinstein scandal? Nary word. Nada. Naught.
Senator Feinstein has been caught in a profiteering scheme involving her husband and the U.S. military. Feinstein and her husband, Richard C. Blum, were the direct beneficiaries of billions of dollars' worth of military construction contracts awarded to Blum's two companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
The clincher, however, is that Feinstein herself, as the Senior member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, had personal oversight of the awarding of military construction contracts. She personally approved awarding her husband's companies with these lucrative government contracts...a clear violation of ethics at the very least, and potentially a violation of the law.
For six years Feinstein engaged in the practice of awarding these contracts to her husband's businesses, until two rather small news agencies blew the whistle on the practice, resulting in Feinstein's immediate resignation from the subcommittee.
Conflicts of interest of this nature are against the law. The question, therefore, is, will Feinstein be investigated by the Senate? Will she be resoundingly condemned by the Senate for this breach of the public trust? Will she be forced to resign?
Remember, Senator Trent Lott was forced to step down from his post as Senate Majority Leader for merely complimenting an old man (former Senator Strom Thurmond) on his 100th birthday. Many were calling for his resignation from the Senate entirely.
Lott committed no crime and there were no conflicts of interest or ethics violations.
Yet Senate Democrats wanted his head, in spite of the fact that ex-Klansman Robert 'Sheets' Byrd sits in the Senate enjoying the respect of his colleagues.
Feinstein's lapses of ethics are serious. They should have serious consequences. The question is, when will the national media begin reporting this bombshell of a story? Are they waiting for D.C. to get its statehood so that two more Democrat Senators can immediately be added to the roster, meaning that they can afford to lose one?
This case is simply one more example of the blatant and despicable hypocrisy of the mainstream media. Let the news blackout on Feinstein's corruption end NOW. The nation deserves to know the whole truth about the rank stench of corruption emanating from Democrats in Congress.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Senator Feinstein in Major Ethics Scandal
Washington, DC (TLS). Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California, has resigned from her post as senior member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after it was learned that she regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's two companies to do construction work for the U.S. military. These contracts were worth billions of dollars.
This means that the Senator was engaged in a clear conflict-of-interest, and thus is in violation of ethics regulations concerning the awarding of government contracts.
Feinstein was personally involved in the approval of multi-billion-dollar contracts that directly benefited her husband.
As the ranking member of the subcommittee, Feinstein established cozy relationships with military officials while funneling to her husband's companies lucrative government contracts to do construction at military facilities.
Feinstein joins the growing ranks of corrupt Democrats who gained a majority in November supposedly to 'restore honesty and integrity to Congress' after those evil Republicans corrupted it.
However, the Democrats have proved that all it took was a mere 3 months to show the nation that they are more corrupt than the Republicans.
John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, admitted to breaking federal campaign finance laws, but avoided any repercussions after he promised 'not to do it again.'
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, took illegal campaign contributions, but avoided any repercussions after he gave the money back.
Rep. William 'the Refrigerator' Jefferson sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, in spite of the fact that over $100,000 of dirty money was found in his freezer.
Nancy Pelosi wanted to appoint a Congressman to a Chairmanship in spite of the fact that he was once expelled from Congress for breaking the law.
Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy violated the law in leaking classified information while a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee--for which Leahy was forced to resign from the committee.
This is not to mention that Scooter Libby faces significant jail-time in a federal penitentiary for supposedly 'outing' a covert CIA agent although everyone already knew who she was and what she did, in spite of the fact that it was Richard Armitage, not Libby, that first provided the information.
Armitage was not indicted.
Yet Sandy Berger stole documents from the U.S. government, later shredding those documents, and has yet to face any significant repercussions for his crimes. Those documents detailed the Clinton Administration's inaction on loads of intelligence information that indicated the U.S. was the target of a major terrorist attack--documents that were supposed to go to the 9/11 Commission for scrutiny but which were mysteriously taken and shredded by a member of Bill Clinton's inner circle.
Word has come this week that Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting with all her might to stay out of court on charges of possible illegal campaign contributions that found their way into her coffers.
Add to all of this the fact that the Democrats gave us the very first Muslim Congressman, who was endorsed by the terrorist-front-organization CAIR, and insisted that he swear in on a copy of the Koran. Congressman Ellison, ironically, tried to get a terrorist released from prison back in the late 70s and early 80s--a terrorist that had attempted to murder Diane Feinstein's daughter by placing a pipe bomb underneath her window.
It is this very same Senator Feinstein who testified before Congress in 1995 that she had armed herself with a concealed handgun in the aftermath of the bombing attempt, although she is one of the fiercest anti-gun bigots in Congress. It seems that Feinstein's view is that average citizens should not have the same rights and privileges of America's left-wing ruling class.
Today's revelation, which by the way was NOT reported on the three network news programs, shows that Feinstein personally benefited from her work on the Senate subcommittee that oversaw the awarding of military construction contracts. This makes her as corrupt as Conyers.
The Executive Branch of government is given the power by the Constitution to hold investigations, including investigations into Congressional corruption. Under Constitutional law, the three branches of government are EQUAL. Perhaps it is time for the Bush administration to open investigations into mass corruption in Congress.
I can think of at least a dozen who should be expelled from the body outright.
Read more on the Feinstein scandal here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932
This means that the Senator was engaged in a clear conflict-of-interest, and thus is in violation of ethics regulations concerning the awarding of government contracts.
Feinstein was personally involved in the approval of multi-billion-dollar contracts that directly benefited her husband.
As the ranking member of the subcommittee, Feinstein established cozy relationships with military officials while funneling to her husband's companies lucrative government contracts to do construction at military facilities.
Feinstein joins the growing ranks of corrupt Democrats who gained a majority in November supposedly to 'restore honesty and integrity to Congress' after those evil Republicans corrupted it.
However, the Democrats have proved that all it took was a mere 3 months to show the nation that they are more corrupt than the Republicans.
John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, admitted to breaking federal campaign finance laws, but avoided any repercussions after he promised 'not to do it again.'
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, took illegal campaign contributions, but avoided any repercussions after he gave the money back.
Rep. William 'the Refrigerator' Jefferson sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, in spite of the fact that over $100,000 of dirty money was found in his freezer.
Nancy Pelosi wanted to appoint a Congressman to a Chairmanship in spite of the fact that he was once expelled from Congress for breaking the law.
Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy violated the law in leaking classified information while a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee--for which Leahy was forced to resign from the committee.
This is not to mention that Scooter Libby faces significant jail-time in a federal penitentiary for supposedly 'outing' a covert CIA agent although everyone already knew who she was and what she did, in spite of the fact that it was Richard Armitage, not Libby, that first provided the information.
Armitage was not indicted.
Yet Sandy Berger stole documents from the U.S. government, later shredding those documents, and has yet to face any significant repercussions for his crimes. Those documents detailed the Clinton Administration's inaction on loads of intelligence information that indicated the U.S. was the target of a major terrorist attack--documents that were supposed to go to the 9/11 Commission for scrutiny but which were mysteriously taken and shredded by a member of Bill Clinton's inner circle.
Word has come this week that Hillary Rodham Clinton is fighting with all her might to stay out of court on charges of possible illegal campaign contributions that found their way into her coffers.
Add to all of this the fact that the Democrats gave us the very first Muslim Congressman, who was endorsed by the terrorist-front-organization CAIR, and insisted that he swear in on a copy of the Koran. Congressman Ellison, ironically, tried to get a terrorist released from prison back in the late 70s and early 80s--a terrorist that had attempted to murder Diane Feinstein's daughter by placing a pipe bomb underneath her window.
It is this very same Senator Feinstein who testified before Congress in 1995 that she had armed herself with a concealed handgun in the aftermath of the bombing attempt, although she is one of the fiercest anti-gun bigots in Congress. It seems that Feinstein's view is that average citizens should not have the same rights and privileges of America's left-wing ruling class.
Today's revelation, which by the way was NOT reported on the three network news programs, shows that Feinstein personally benefited from her work on the Senate subcommittee that oversaw the awarding of military construction contracts. This makes her as corrupt as Conyers.
The Executive Branch of government is given the power by the Constitution to hold investigations, including investigations into Congressional corruption. Under Constitutional law, the three branches of government are EQUAL. Perhaps it is time for the Bush administration to open investigations into mass corruption in Congress.
I can think of at least a dozen who should be expelled from the body outright.
Read more on the Feinstein scandal here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hypocrisy of the Leftwing Speech Police
Charlotte, NC (TLS). The Leftwing hack called 'the Daily Kos' has been mounting a campaign to get advertisers to pull their ads off of Ann Coulter's website for using the term 'faggot' in a recent speech. The Liberty Sphere and a few other brave souls came to Coulter's defense in the face of a wall of criticism, even among some conservatives.
As it turns out, the Daily Kos has used the term 'faggot' more than once in reference to various and sundry human beings whom the Koz obviously thinks are beneath contempt.
In fact, there is widespread hypocrisy on the matter of so-called 'hate speech' on the part of the Leftwing, which consistently takes on the role of the speech police when it comes to conservatives, although they rarely live up to their own standards.
Here all about it in this CNS News Service commentary on the subject:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html
As it turns out, the Daily Kos has used the term 'faggot' more than once in reference to various and sundry human beings whom the Koz obviously thinks are beneath contempt.
In fact, there is widespread hypocrisy on the matter of so-called 'hate speech' on the part of the Leftwing, which consistently takes on the role of the speech police when it comes to conservatives, although they rarely live up to their own standards.
Here all about it in this CNS News Service commentary on the subject:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070309a.html
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Democrats' Deceptive Script
Washington, DC (TLS). The Democrats have their talking points well-memorized. The script is ready to be rolled off of silvery-tongued orators of the Left as they blast the Bush Administration's foreign policy and demand retreat and change for change's sake.
Kenneth Timmerman at Front Page Magazine has blown the lid on the deceptive script and exposed it for the sham that it is. In the following article you will discover a page from the Democrat play-book--a strategy of double-talk, newspeak, smoke and mirrors, and deliberate dishonesty.
Click here for Timmerman's article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27184
Kenneth Timmerman at Front Page Magazine has blown the lid on the deceptive script and exposed it for the sham that it is. In the following article you will discover a page from the Democrat play-book--a strategy of double-talk, newspeak, smoke and mirrors, and deliberate dishonesty.
Click here for Timmerman's article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27184
Monday, February 26, 2007
Democrats Set to Expand 'Hate-Crimes' Legislation
Washington, DC (TLS). Democrats in Congress are set to expand the so-called 'hate crimes' legislation by broadening the definition of what constitutes a hate crime to include unlawful acts against gays. The proposed legislation will more than likely be tied to a bill that would target bias against gays in the workplace.
Certainly any decent American citizen wishes no harm to befall anyone of any stripe in this country. No decent, law-abiding citizen would want to see anyone become the victim of crime or discrimination on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, or religion. But the question is, do we need yet another federal law that aims to categorize crime as if a so-called 'hate crime' is worse than any other crime? In addition, the legislation that is being proposed does not use the term 'discrimination,' which is against the law anyway. The term is 'bias.' And that, as they say, is a 'whole different ballgame.'
Bias is a subjective term with as many varied definitions as there are people. If, for example, the mainstream news media doesn't even recognize their abject bias in everyday news reporting, then obviously we are not all using the same definition. How do we know, for example, that an employee was passed over for a promotion because he/she was gay? Gay persons may well believe that this is the reason due to something as innocuous as overhearing an employer state his or her opinion on the subject of homosexuality. It never occurs to extremist activists that one can have personal opinions about the behavior of others without that opinion necessarily adversely impacting relationships in the workplace.
It is extremely difficult to prove 'bias.' Thus, the question arises as to why such legislation should even be considered in the first place.
But remember who presently controls Congress. There is the answer.
In addition, it has been nearly a decade since Congress first proposed so-called 'hate crimes legislation,' the result of proposals by the Clinton Administration and its apologists in Congress. When the term was first used to refer only to specific crimes against persons of color, many of us at the time cried foul. What, exactly, makes a hate crime any worse than any other crime?
A case can be made that a significant portion of most crimes committed in this country are the result of some form of hate. The Left exhibits a shockingly noticeable blind spot in this regard with all of today's emphasis on 'understanding the psychological motivation' of those who commit crime. One would think that the psycho-social profiling of criminals that is routinely conducted today would lead advocates of social policy to conclude that not only are violent criminals driven by a highly troubled and traumatic childhood, but that this troubled background also leads to a deep-seated hatred for society in general and individuals in particular who represent for the criminal the source of all that's wrong with the world.
Yet, one never hears the crimes of, say, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, referred to as 'hate crimes.'
The fact of the matter is that the Left in this country is very selective in what behaviors it considers to be 'hate driven.' Usually the one criterion that is used is the group to which the victim belongs, as in the victim's racial group, or religious group, or, in this case, the homosexual community. Thus, the focus of those who push for the 'hate crime' designation is not at all upon the nature of the crime but the group to which the victim belongs.
This is tantamount to the government compiling a list of 'protected groups,' much as environmentalists within government designate certain animals as part of a 'protected species.' The entire notion would be laughable if it were not so true.
Government has no business deciding that certain groups are so sacred that anytime an individual within that group is the victim of a serious crime it is thus to be viewed as a 'hate crime.' When government engages in this practice it is doing the very thing that supposedly these discrimination and 'anti-bias' laws are supposedly designed to prevent. One group is singled out over another and given extra protection. This means that, at the end of the day, when a Black man or a Muslim male of Middle Eastern descent chases down and runs over white students with a vehicle, such an act is not considered a 'hate crime.'
Yet this act is every bit as driven by hatred as tying a gay man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him through the rough.
The overall, arching question that occurs to me is, when will all of this end? How many more expanded definitions must Americans endure? What other behaviors will the Left decide to include in the definition of 'hate crime'?
Remember, the very same people who push the concept of 'hate crimes' also gave us the term 'hate speech.' The speech police thus scan the communication habits of Americans to make sure that no one utters one of the dreaded 'hate words' that have come to be demonized in our society, as if real hatred is a matter of speech to begin with.
In fact, a case can be made that individuals and societies who are prevented from venting their deepest truest feelings eventually burst forth in a fury that causes the speech they use to pale in comparison.
With Democrats in control of Congress, it is entirely plausible that someone will think of adding crimes committed with a gun to the definition of 'hate crime.' Thus, using Barack Hussein Obama's logic when he was in the state legislature, if you use a 'banned handgun' to prevent an intruder into your home from murdering you and your family, not only would you be charged with having an illegal weapon but you would be charged with committing a 'hate crime' against a criminal with your weapon.
None of this is logical, my friends, I realize. But, when have these people EVER been logical?
Americans need to simply drop the term 'hate crime' from our vocabulary entirely, and politicians who promote such balderdash should be ashamed of themselves. No violent crime is worse than any other. In fact, in the final analysis, it doesn't even matter as to the 'motivation.' When bodily harm comes to innocent citizens, the motivation is not an issue at all. The issue is catching the perpetrator and making sure he/she pays to the fullest extent of the law.
Certainly any decent American citizen wishes no harm to befall anyone of any stripe in this country. No decent, law-abiding citizen would want to see anyone become the victim of crime or discrimination on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, or religion. But the question is, do we need yet another federal law that aims to categorize crime as if a so-called 'hate crime' is worse than any other crime? In addition, the legislation that is being proposed does not use the term 'discrimination,' which is against the law anyway. The term is 'bias.' And that, as they say, is a 'whole different ballgame.'
Bias is a subjective term with as many varied definitions as there are people. If, for example, the mainstream news media doesn't even recognize their abject bias in everyday news reporting, then obviously we are not all using the same definition. How do we know, for example, that an employee was passed over for a promotion because he/she was gay? Gay persons may well believe that this is the reason due to something as innocuous as overhearing an employer state his or her opinion on the subject of homosexuality. It never occurs to extremist activists that one can have personal opinions about the behavior of others without that opinion necessarily adversely impacting relationships in the workplace.
It is extremely difficult to prove 'bias.' Thus, the question arises as to why such legislation should even be considered in the first place.
But remember who presently controls Congress. There is the answer.
In addition, it has been nearly a decade since Congress first proposed so-called 'hate crimes legislation,' the result of proposals by the Clinton Administration and its apologists in Congress. When the term was first used to refer only to specific crimes against persons of color, many of us at the time cried foul. What, exactly, makes a hate crime any worse than any other crime?
A case can be made that a significant portion of most crimes committed in this country are the result of some form of hate. The Left exhibits a shockingly noticeable blind spot in this regard with all of today's emphasis on 'understanding the psychological motivation' of those who commit crime. One would think that the psycho-social profiling of criminals that is routinely conducted today would lead advocates of social policy to conclude that not only are violent criminals driven by a highly troubled and traumatic childhood, but that this troubled background also leads to a deep-seated hatred for society in general and individuals in particular who represent for the criminal the source of all that's wrong with the world.
Yet, one never hears the crimes of, say, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, referred to as 'hate crimes.'
The fact of the matter is that the Left in this country is very selective in what behaviors it considers to be 'hate driven.' Usually the one criterion that is used is the group to which the victim belongs, as in the victim's racial group, or religious group, or, in this case, the homosexual community. Thus, the focus of those who push for the 'hate crime' designation is not at all upon the nature of the crime but the group to which the victim belongs.
This is tantamount to the government compiling a list of 'protected groups,' much as environmentalists within government designate certain animals as part of a 'protected species.' The entire notion would be laughable if it were not so true.
Government has no business deciding that certain groups are so sacred that anytime an individual within that group is the victim of a serious crime it is thus to be viewed as a 'hate crime.' When government engages in this practice it is doing the very thing that supposedly these discrimination and 'anti-bias' laws are supposedly designed to prevent. One group is singled out over another and given extra protection. This means that, at the end of the day, when a Black man or a Muslim male of Middle Eastern descent chases down and runs over white students with a vehicle, such an act is not considered a 'hate crime.'
Yet this act is every bit as driven by hatred as tying a gay man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him through the rough.
The overall, arching question that occurs to me is, when will all of this end? How many more expanded definitions must Americans endure? What other behaviors will the Left decide to include in the definition of 'hate crime'?
Remember, the very same people who push the concept of 'hate crimes' also gave us the term 'hate speech.' The speech police thus scan the communication habits of Americans to make sure that no one utters one of the dreaded 'hate words' that have come to be demonized in our society, as if real hatred is a matter of speech to begin with.
In fact, a case can be made that individuals and societies who are prevented from venting their deepest truest feelings eventually burst forth in a fury that causes the speech they use to pale in comparison.
With Democrats in control of Congress, it is entirely plausible that someone will think of adding crimes committed with a gun to the definition of 'hate crime.' Thus, using Barack Hussein Obama's logic when he was in the state legislature, if you use a 'banned handgun' to prevent an intruder into your home from murdering you and your family, not only would you be charged with having an illegal weapon but you would be charged with committing a 'hate crime' against a criminal with your weapon.
None of this is logical, my friends, I realize. But, when have these people EVER been logical?
Americans need to simply drop the term 'hate crime' from our vocabulary entirely, and politicians who promote such balderdash should be ashamed of themselves. No violent crime is worse than any other. In fact, in the final analysis, it doesn't even matter as to the 'motivation.' When bodily harm comes to innocent citizens, the motivation is not an issue at all. The issue is catching the perpetrator and making sure he/she pays to the fullest extent of the law.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
TOO LATE TO STOP IRAN'S NUKES
Washington, DC (TLS). According to a report issued by the European Union, it is already too late to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
In a shocking admission of diplomatic failure, the report states that attempts to engage Iran in talks concerning its nuclear weapons program have not been successful, and at this stage in the process, there is nothing that can be done from a diplomatic standpoint to stop them from building nuclear bombs.
The report, published in the Financial Times of London, states that the dire situation will most surely be used as proof that nothing less than a military strike against Iran can thwart their headstrong march into becoming one of the world's nuclear powers. The day when Iran will have the bombs is drawing very near, and the only thing that has stopped them thus far has been delays caused by technical limitations.
The Liberty Sphere has twice called upon President Bush to launch a major military offensive against Iran in order to prevent the extremist Muslim stronghold from building nuclear weapons. This report given to the EU is ample proof that no amount of diplomatic pressure or consultation will stop the Iranians from following through with their plans to develop missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. When they get this capability, not only will Israel be in mortal danger but the entirety of the European continent as well.
The nations of Europe are already expressing dismay over the looming prospects for a nuclear Iran. Sensing the danger that is ahead, the European community has sought various means to engage Iran in diplomatic consultation. The fact that these overtures have failed gives ample warning to the entire world that only a military solution will suffice, and that any delay in implementing this military solution will bring the world one step closer to a nuclear holocaust.
No matter what the Democrats in Congress say, it is time for President Bush to act to take out Iran's nuclear plants. And while we are engaged in this exercise, we must also take out the top levels of government in Tehran. While Congress is twiddling their thumbs, engaging in denial, and sticking their heads so deep into the sand that they go straight through to China, the world is getting close to a nuclear doomsday. Stupidity and timidity in the face of such a sobering threat cannot be tolerated. The President is Commander in Chief. It is time to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities and disable its government. This can be done in a clean, short-term operation that does not require a declaration of war.
After all, President Clinton did the very same thing in Bosnia and on a limited basis in Iraq during the 90s...all without U.N. approval. Only Democrat hypocrisy would lead to their condemnation of President Bush if he did the same thing.
Read the original story in the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html
In a shocking admission of diplomatic failure, the report states that attempts to engage Iran in talks concerning its nuclear weapons program have not been successful, and at this stage in the process, there is nothing that can be done from a diplomatic standpoint to stop them from building nuclear bombs.
The report, published in the Financial Times of London, states that the dire situation will most surely be used as proof that nothing less than a military strike against Iran can thwart their headstrong march into becoming one of the world's nuclear powers. The day when Iran will have the bombs is drawing very near, and the only thing that has stopped them thus far has been delays caused by technical limitations.
The Liberty Sphere has twice called upon President Bush to launch a major military offensive against Iran in order to prevent the extremist Muslim stronghold from building nuclear weapons. This report given to the EU is ample proof that no amount of diplomatic pressure or consultation will stop the Iranians from following through with their plans to develop missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. When they get this capability, not only will Israel be in mortal danger but the entirety of the European continent as well.
The nations of Europe are already expressing dismay over the looming prospects for a nuclear Iran. Sensing the danger that is ahead, the European community has sought various means to engage Iran in diplomatic consultation. The fact that these overtures have failed gives ample warning to the entire world that only a military solution will suffice, and that any delay in implementing this military solution will bring the world one step closer to a nuclear holocaust.
No matter what the Democrats in Congress say, it is time for President Bush to act to take out Iran's nuclear plants. And while we are engaged in this exercise, we must also take out the top levels of government in Tehran. While Congress is twiddling their thumbs, engaging in denial, and sticking their heads so deep into the sand that they go straight through to China, the world is getting close to a nuclear doomsday. Stupidity and timidity in the face of such a sobering threat cannot be tolerated. The President is Commander in Chief. It is time to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities and disable its government. This can be done in a clean, short-term operation that does not require a declaration of war.
After all, President Clinton did the very same thing in Bosnia and on a limited basis in Iraq during the 90s...all without U.N. approval. Only Democrat hypocrisy would lead to their condemnation of President Bush if he did the same thing.
Read the original story in the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)