Six Astounding Examples of Left-Wing Hypocrisy

July 18, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Remember, kiddies: It’s “do as I say, not as I do.”

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Last month, I nailed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their gross hypocrisy on the death tax.

But that’s just one example. Today, we’re going to experience a festival of statist hypocrisy. We have six different nauseating examples of political elitists wanting to subject ordinary people to bad policy while self-exempting themselves from similar burdens.

Our first three examples are from the world of taxation.

Here are some excerpts from a Washington Timesreport about a billionaire donor who is bankrolling candidates who support higher taxes, even though he structured his hedge fund in low-tax jurisdictions specifically to minimize the fiscal burdens of his clients.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist who is spending $100 million to help elect Democrats this fall, is rallying support for energy taxes that could impact everyday Americans. But when he ran his own hedge fund, Mr. Steyer sought to help wealthy clients legally avoid paying…

View original 1,129 more words


Income Inequality and Guilt-Ridden Leftists

June 6, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

In other words, “You have been successful, and for your sins you will be punished!” And then the policies they advocate create the inequality they purport to hate. Genius.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

Our leftist friends have decided that income inequality is a scourge that must be addressed.

That might be a noble goal if they were motivated by a desire to improve the lives of the less fortunate.

Based on their policy proposals, though, it appears that the main goal is to punish the so-called rich. And they’re so fixated on that objective, Margaret Thatcher pointed out, that they’re willing to make the poor worse off.

And what’s especially bizarre is that rich leftists are among the biggest cheerleaders for these policies. Heck, I’ve even debated some of these limousine liberals, as you can see here and here.

But maybe their feelings of self-loathing and guilt are justified. After all, it seems that statist policies are actually associated with higher degrees of income inequality.

Let’s see what Steve Moore and Rich Vedder discovered when they looked at evidence…

View original 584 more words


Pelosi channels Whoopie Goldberg on the #VAscandal: It’s not really a scandal-scandal…

May 29, 2014

Oh, brother.

While her minions race to the microphones to denounce VA Secretary Shinseki before the voters take out their wrath on them, House Minority Leader (1) Nancy Pelosi took the softball question lobbed to her by Vox’s Ezra Klein (2) and explained that, yes, the poor treatment of veterans was scandalous, but she wasn’t sure if it really was a “scandal:”

Gee, Nancy, it sure seems to me that VA administrators and employees manipulating federal records to hide the poor treatment of veterans and win themselves some bonuses amounts to a scandal. Maybe even a criminal matter. What else do you need? Oh, wait. I know.

An (R) after the president’s name.

via The Right Scoop

Footnote:
(1) And a person very much responsible for creating that minority. Thanks, Nancy!
(2) He who thinks the Constitution is too old to understand.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why Obama’s polls will never tank with limousine liberals

May 27, 2014
"My will is enough!"

“Ruler of the New Versailles”

Historian Victor Davis Hanson writes at PJ Media about Obama’s poll numbers and why they’re not likely to hit the dismal late-term numbers of, say, George W. Bush or Harry Truman, in spite of the man’s obvious incompetence. While he discusses Obama’s support among minorities and the cover given him by  a protective media, it’s what he wrote about a third group, wealthy liberals, that I want to share:

 3) The well-off are indifferent to the Obama record, interested only in its symbolic resonance. Doctrinaire liberalism resonates mostly with the very wealthy. We see that by the voting patterns of our bluest counties, or the contributions of the very affluent. In contrast, Republicanism is mostly embedded within the middle class and upper middle class, while liberalism is a coalition of the affluent and the poor.

The result is that the Kerrys, Gores, and Pelosis are dittoed by millions of the affluent in Malibu, Silicon Valley, the Upper West Side, the university towns, Chicago, academia, the arts, highest finance, corporate America, foundations, the media, etc. Their income and accumulated wealth exempt them from worries about economic slowdowns, too much regulation, higher taxes, or the price of gas, electricity, or food. That under Obama gasoline has gone from $1.80 a gallon to $4.10 is as irrelevant as it is relevant that he has so far not built the Keystone Pipeline. That the price of meat has skyrocketed or that power bills are way up means little if global warming is at last addressed by more government.

For the liberal grandee, there is a margin of safety to ensure that the California legislature takes up questions like prohibiting the sale of Confederate insignia or ensuring restrooms for the transgendered or shutting down irrigated acreage to please the delta smelt. In their view, Obama represents their utopian dreams where an anointed technocracy (1), exempt from the messy ramifications of its own ideology, directs from on high a socially just society — diverse, green, non-judgmental, neutral abroad, tribal at home — in which an equality of result is ensured, albeit with proper exemptions for the better educated and more sophisticated, whose perks are necessary to give them proper downtime for their exhausting work on our behalf.

In other words, unlike the rest of us, the liberal elite can actually afford the society they want to impose on us all. For our own good.

And of such times are populist revolts born.

Footnote:
(1) Seems like VDH and I were thinking along the same lines. As usual, though, he says it a lot better than I.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Today’s progressive hypocrisy: Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) war on women

April 8, 2014
Dick Durbin

Hypocrite

Continuing their quest to find something, anything at all, to distract people from the failures of Obamacare and to rally their increasingly dispirited base, Democrats and the MSM have turned to harping on “pay equality,” the idea that women are paid less than men for comparable work. A recent news article propaganda piece in The Huffington Post reported that a study showed women earning 77 cents for every dollar a man earned. Even though this study has been shown to be shoddy and tendentious, and even though the White House admitted the 77-cent figure is wrong, loyal troops such as Dick Durbin have gone onto the Senate floor to loudly proclaim the need for a “Paycheck Fairness Act” to address this horrific discrimination.

Maybe Senator Durbin should start with his own staff:

Durbin took to the Senate floor on Tuesday to preach on the importance of passing legislation aimed at solving the gender pay gap.

“How serious is equal pay for equal work to working people across America?” said Durbin, “I think it’s critical.”

The average female salary is $11,505 lower than the average male salary in Durbin’s office, according to an analysis of Senate salary data from fiscal year 2013 that showed that more than two-thirds of Democratic Senate offices pay men more than women.

Four of the five highest paid staffers on Durbin’s staff are men, according to the analysis.

Of course, it’s hard to gain access to that pay, when women don’t have access to the higher-paying  jobs, themselves. As the Free Beacon points out, none of the Senate Democratic leadership has a female chief of staff.

Why do Dick Durbin and Harry Reid hate women?

PS: To be clear, Durbin and his colleagues couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about “paycheck equality” or any of the other “Look! It’s Elvis!!” issues they’ve been throwing against the wall. But they’ve seen the electoral train wreck headed their way, thanks to Obamacare, and they’re looking for anything that might soften the blow. Hence, too, Harry Reid’s “Koch conspiracy” insanity. It’s pathetic, really.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Minimum Wage: West Virginia Democrats exempt themselves

February 28, 2014

500px-Flag_of_West_Virginia.svg

Weird, isn’t it? If having the state mandate higher and higher wages for everyone is such a good idea, why on Earth would WV House Democrats vote to exempt themselves from a law being imposed on everyone else?

Last week, the Democrat controlled House in West Virginia passed legislation raising the state’s minimum wage to $8.75 an hour, $1.50 higher than the federal minimum wage. The action is part of a nation-wide effort by Democrats to make a minimum wage increase central to their platform for the midterm elections. The increase didn’t effect all workers, though. Democrats exempted many of their own staff from the wage hike. Businesses may have to pay the higher wages, but the legislature will avoid many of the consequences. 

Why, it’s almost as if West Virginia Democrats didn’t believe in private what they were preaching in public.

But we all know that can’t be.

via reader Lance

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Though outraged, @AETV is happy to take “flyover folks’” money

December 20, 2013

My blog-buddy ST has already eloquently written about the intolerant, anti-Christian, anti-Southern bigotry behind A&E’s craven capitulation to liberal fascist pressure groups over “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson’s comments about sin and sinners, including homosexuality (1). Apparently, paraphrasing St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians is now enough to get one banned from television (2).

While ST has covered that angle admirably, I noticed something else. Last night I was watching a couple of episodes (coincidentally, I only started watching the day before this brouhaha exploded) of Duck Dynasty and stayed tuned in to catch another show called “Rodeo Girls.” As you can tell from the title, this show is not about a group of post-modern urban hipster liberals sitting around in their jammies, drinking hot chocolate and talking about healthcare. No, it’s about young, attractive women who compete in the rodeo circuit. (3) And the cultural similarities to Duck Dynasty got me wondering about the rest of A&E’s shows. (I don’t usually watch the network.) Let’s take a look at their line-up, shall we?

First, Duck Dynasty. Note that, as of today, Phil is still featured:

A&E Duck Dynasty

Next, American Hoggers. Just screams “Manhattan metrosexual,” doesn’t it?

A&E American Hoggers

Then we have “Crazy Hearts, Nashville.” A little country, a little sex:

A&E Crazy Hearts

But wait! There’s more! “Rodeo Girls!” Bikini-clad cowgirls riding stallions. (4) Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be lunching with Anna Wintour real soon.

A&E Rodeo Girls

Finally, we have “Storage Wars, Texas.” I wonder what they think of gun control and the individual mandate?

A&E Storage Wars

Notice a pattern? All these show involve people from what is disparagingly called “flyover country,” those lands beyond the pale the denizens of which the urban progressive elites like to patronize and treat like sub-normal children. And yet these are more than half the shows A&E has featured on their site. It seems pretty obvious that A&E is happy to promote shows featuring unsophisticated mouth-breathing hicks and earn money from the unsophisticated mouth-breathing hick audiences that watch, just so long as none of them express their unsophisticated mouth-breathing views.

Or maybe A&E’s honchos misread their audience:

Living in the echo chamber of the MSM’s ivory tower may well wind up costing A&E and their owners quite a bit.

Footnotes:
(1) To clarify, while I disagree with my esteemed co-blogger, Phil Robertson, and St. Paul about homosexuality being a sin, I respect their beliefs and wouldn’t want to ban them from the public square. Unlike A&E.
(2) No, I don’t think this is all that comparable to what happened to Martin Bashir. He spewed scatological, unhinged, hate-filled words at Sarah Palin. Phil just expressed his opinion in answer to a question, cited Scripture, and said it was up to God to judge. Huge difference.
(3) Watch out, Jessica! That Anthony is no good for you! (BTW, last night’s episode was set in Red Bluff, California. Not all of us are “L.A.” or “San Francisco” elitists.)
(4) Sigmund Freud, call your office.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Pat Condell on progressive feminism and Islamic misogyny

October 13, 2013

The great Pat Condell pretty well covers it: as long as so-called feminists continue to turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of women under Islam, “progressive feminism” is nothing but an Orwellian joke.

Preach it, Brother Pat:

If you’re curious about the assertions Condell makes about the treatment of women under Islam, he provides a list of references in the “About” section under this video on YouTube. Be sure to hit the “Read more” link to see them.


#Shutdown follies: Let’s evict the President’s mother-in-law

October 7, 2013
"Hit the road, Mrs. Robinson"

“Hit the road, Mrs. Robinson”

Since the administration has deemed it important to evict the elderly from their privately owned homes on federal land, perhaps we should kick nonessential personnel out of the federally-owned White House, too. Not Obama, of course; for all I dislike him, he is, sadly, essential.

His wife’s mother, however, is another matter:

Michelle Obama has referred to her mom in a stump speech, talking about her residence in the South Side of Chicago. Perhaps it’s time to head back. Maybe it would be asking too much for the president and his immediate family to vacate his federally-provided residence for the duration of the shutdown, but if Obama is willing to interpret the law to evict the aging and elderly from private buildings and businesses which may sit on federal land but which do not require federal services, then it’s well past time to end the hypocrisy and send Robinson to a nearby hotel. Presumably Obama can afford it, far more than those he seems intent on having the government harass under a tendentious and mendacious reading of the law.

If it’s good enough for 78-years old Joyce Spencer and her 80-years old husband, Ralph, it’s good enough for Marian Robinson (1), who, I’m quite sure, is living there at public expense. (2)

Footnote:
(1) Petty and vindictive? Nah. I’m just demanding equal treatment for all. I leave the mean-spirited bit to Obama. He’s a natural.
(2) Please. With the nouveau riche pretensions of the Obamas, do you really expect them to be reimbursing the government for the cost of her room and board?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Benghazi: One year later, and they don’t give a damn

September 12, 2013
"Forget honor. What about justice?"

“US consulate, Benghazi. Remember?”

Yesterday was not only the anniversary of the September 11th, 2001, attacks on the United States, but it was also the first anniversary of the massacre in Benghazi, where our ambassador and three other Americans were slaughtered by al Qaeda-aligned Muslims waging jihad.

At NRO’s Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty notes that the crowd that once shouted “Bush lied, people died!” doesn’t seem to care all that much about blatant, obvious lies coming from the Obama administration:

Don’t they care that our ambassador and his team were sent to a facility with ludicrously insufficient security?

Don’t they care to know whether something could have been done that night to save those men, and if so, why a rescue mission wasn’t launched? Look at a map. This is a Libyan city on a coast, facing the Mediterranean, south of Europe and all of our NATO allies. Less than a year earlier, we had been running a major multinational combat operation right there…

Don’t they care that the explanation offered by our government was false? These folks who screamed “Bush Lied, People Died” from 2003 to 2008 now shrug about lies about how and why Americans were killed.

Don’t they care that despite Obama’s pledge that “justice will be done,” no one has been caught, jailed, or executed for their role in the attack?

No, actually, they don’t. That’s because most of the Left (with a few exceptions) didn’t really care about war in Afghanistan and Iraq; what mattered then was the party of the president and the majority in Congress. What mattered was power at any cost, putting the parochial political interests of the Democratic Party ahead of the nation (1) and, yes, truth itself.

Now that there’s a (D) after the president’s name, well… that’s different! Libya? Four dead Americans? Jaw-dropping incompetence? People died, Obama lied? (2)

Meh.

Footnotes:
(1) I will never, ever forgive that wretch Harry Reid (D-NV) for undercutting troops in the field by claiming “The war is lost” just as the Surge operation was about to begin in Iraq.
(2) Not only Obama, but Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, and so many more….

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Man-of-the-people President to celebrate Labor his way

August 30, 2013

Because nothing says “fighting for the middle class” more than headlining a fundraiser where a single plate costs more than many people make in a year:

President Obama will travel to Los Angeles on Sept. 9 to recognize organized labor.

Obama will appear at the AFL-CIO convention, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday.

That night the president will also appear at a $32,400 per plate Hollywood fundraiser held at the home of Marta Kauffman, the co-creator of the sitcom “Friends,” according to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation.

The White House is billing the appearance at the labor convention as the latest in the president’s summer-long middle class economic tour, according to the Los Angeles Times.

I bet the servers at this shindig will feel real honored by all the attention, as they’re passing out plates of surf-and-turf to Hollywood stars, Democratic pols, and union bosses.

The Democratic Party has come a long way since Jackson’s day.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Syria: The New York Times goes foaming-at-the-mouth Neocon

August 29, 2013

So, this was the headline in an op-ed in yesterday’s times:

syria NYT hypocritical headline

And speaking as a Neocon… “amateurs!”

I eagerly await the Times editorial denunciation of the Times op-ed writers.

Can one die of an irony overload?

via Instapundit


Eric Holder’s racialist hypocrisy

August 28, 2013

Remember when Eric Holder threatened to seek civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the wake of his acquittal in the killing of Trayvon Martin? Remember how he sued states,  claiming that their voter identification laws harmed the civil rights of minority Americans? Remember how he sued Louisiana for providing school vouchers, charging that they reinforced segregation?

Well, you can forget it, if the victim is White.

A woman who said she was brutally attacked by a group of black teenagers in Pittsburgh’s North Side Sunday said the girls savagely beat her while calling her racial slurs.

(…)

Police said Slepski was savagely beaten after the girls threw a bottle at her car on Concord Street and she stopped to confront them.

“I was mad. I knew they were younger. I thought they were in their early 20s. I got out and said, ‘What is your problem?’” Slepski said.

All four African-American girls then called her names before getting physically violent.

“They yelled, ‘Shut up white [expletive].’ The other said, ‘Get that white [expletive],’” Slepski said.

Slepski said she tried to get back into her car but the girls grabbed her by the hair.

“The one punched me in the head and I was on a set of concrete steps and my head hit the concrete so hard,” said Slepski. “Then they all got on top of me and all their hands were in my hair. They kept telling each other to, ‘Kick her in the head. Kick her head in the concrete.’”

Writing at PJMedia, Christian Adams, who’s made a second career out of tracking Holder’s dedication to racial injustice, says Holder is no better than the old segregationists:

Well here’s an easy case Eric. It won’t be too hard to prove a violation of 18 USC 249 or 18 USC 245 in this context. No outrageous self-defense defenses here.

But like in all the other similar cases you refuse to prosecute, the victim here wasn’t one of “your people.” Ginger’s parents didn’t endure the sort of garbage that your wife’s parents did down south. So she isn’t entitled to equal protection of the law, right?

Make no mistake, Ginger isn’t the only victim who won’t get justice from Justice, just because of her race. Neither will the parents who were beaten at the Wisconsin State Fair. Nor will the parents in Ohio who saw thugs come on their lawn shouting racial slurs before they beat them.

In the United States, we like to say Justice is blind, holding all equal before the law. In Eric Holder’s America, however, Justice peaks out from under her blindfold to check your skin color, first.

RELATED: Adams has written an excellent book on Holder’s Department of Injustice.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Congress and Obamacare, then and now

August 15, 2013

Ain’t it the truth?

congress-obamacare-waiver

via California Political Review

Background: Congress gets its own Obamacare waiver. You, on the other hand, are stuck with it, peasant.


Blacks killed in Chicago, July 1st to July 14th, 2013

July 16, 2013

When a single African-American male was killed by a Hispanic man acting in self-defense, the event became national news for over a year. We were told by the major media that this showed how violent and racist a society American still is. And yet, for the 2,236 Blacks killed in Chicago, which has strict gun control, since 2007, we don’t hear all that much outrage from that same major media.

From the excellent site Redeye, here are the names, ages, dates of death, locations, and cause of death for African Americans killed in President Obama’s hometown in the first two weeks of July, 2013.

Ernest Carter, 35
Read more
7/14/13 4000 W. Cullerton St.
North Lawndale
Gunshot
Blake Lamb, 22
Read more
7/14/13 1600 W. Jonquil Terrace
Rogers Park
Gunshot
Joseph Brewer, Jr., 16
Read more
7/14/13 10500 S. Oglesby Ave.
South Deering
Gunshot
Tommie Bates, 24
Read more 
Follow-up coverage
7/12/13 700 N. Central Ave.
Austin
Stabbing
Jeremy Morris, 25
Read more
7/12/13 6800 S. Paxton Ave.
South Shore
Gunshot
Gizzell Ford, 8
Read more 
Follow-up coverage
7/12/13 5200 W. Adams St.
Austin
Strangulation
Jeremiah Brown, 27
Read more 
Follow-up coverage
7/11/13 6300 S. Kedzie Ave.
Chicago Lawn
Gunshot
Darryl Green, 17
Read more
7/11/13 5600 S. Damen Ave.
West Englewood
Gunshot
Marlon Young, 39
Read more
7/10/13 8700 S. Throop St.
Auburn Gresham
Gunshot
Marquise Chandler, 20
Read more
7/8/13 400 S. Pulaski Rd.
West Garfield Park
Gunshot
Georgina Randell, 30
Read more 
Follow-up coverage
7/8/13 1600 S. Drake Ave.
North Lawndale
Gunshot
Ed Cooper, 15
Read more
7/8/13 600 N. Lawndale Ave.
Humboldt Park
Gunshot
Ramone Godfrey, 19
Read more
7/7/13
3:30 p.m.
HW352063
4700 S. Ashland Ave.
New City
Gunshot
Vehicle
Patricia Martin, 40
Read more
7/7/13
12:01 a.m.
HW350899
10000 S. Princeton Ave.
Roseland
Assault
Residential Yard
Terry Patterson, 48
Read more
7/6/13
5:50 p.m.
HW350944
2800 W. Flournoy St.
East Garfield Park
Gunshot
Street
Jerimiah Milsap, 24
Read more
7/6/13
7:31 a.m.
HW350172
1000 W. Maxwell St.
Near West Side
Gunshot
Street
Shavonte Howard, 20
Read more 
Follow-up coverage
7/5/13
2:47 p.m.
HW347672
5600 S. Western Ave.
Gage Park
Gunshot
Vehicle
Elliott Frazier, 26
Read more
7/5/13
6:23 a.m.
HW348705
7400 N. Paulina St.
Rogers Park
Gunshot
Street
Marlon Obanner, 31
Read more
7/4/13
9:38 p.m.
HW348220
6200 S. Marshfield Ave.
West Englewood
Gunshot
Residential Yard
Steve Mabins, 21
Read more
7/4/13
1:32 p.m.
HW347770
600 S. Francisco Ave.
East Garfield Park
Gunshot
Street
Theodis Young, 36
Read more
7/4/13
12:19 p.m.
HW347684
7300 S. Wabash Ave.
Greater Grand Crossing
Gunshot
Apartment
Ernest McMullen, 26
Read more
7/3/13
7:24 p.m.
HW346938
6600 S. Champlain Ave.
Woodlawn
Gunshot
Vehicle
Rayford Brown, 24
Read more
7/3/13
6:51 p.m.
HW346859
2400 E. 79th St.
South Shore
Gunshot
Street
William Jones, 26
Read more
7/3/13
1:16 p.m.
HW346348
8700 S. Loomis St.
Auburn Gresham
Gunshot
Street
Damani Henard, 14
Read more
7/3/13
1:02 a.m.
HW345748
5000 W. North Ave.
Austin
Gunshot
Street
Ashley Hardmon, 19
Read more
7/2/13
10:14 p.m.
HW345588
1300 N. Lamon Ave.
Austin
Gunshot
Street
Terrence Graves, 23
Read more
7/2/13
5:55 a.m.
HW344421
800 W. 99th St.
Washington Heights
Gunshot
Street
Stephon Miller, 18
Read more
7/1/13
8:30 p.m.
HW343994
10400 S. Green St.
Washington Heights
Gunshot
Street

And about these, not a word from the President, the Attorney General, the MSM, civil rights “leaders,” or the rest of the race-grievance industry.

These victims don’t fit “the narrative,” you see.

via The Diplomad

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Nancy Pelosi, a racist hypocrite?? Say it ain’t so!

March 21, 2013

I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent explanation why a White Democratic congressman under investigation gets unstinting support from the House Democratic leadership, while Black Democratic congressmen also facing investigation are asked to step aside.

Back story: Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ) has been credibly accused of using campaign funds to fund personal trips. He has received strong backing from Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and Nancy Pelosi has promoted him into the caucus leadership. Representative Andrews is also White.

Don’t think the Black Caucus hasn’t noticed the difference in treatment its members receive:

“It bears notice that Pelosi appointed Mr. Andrews to a leadership position in the midst of this investigation,” the [chief of staff of a Congressional Black Caucus member] said. “That is in direct contrast to the approach taken with similarly situated members of the Black Caucus, who routinely faced pressure to step away from leadership posts during investigations.

“Her commitment to fairness will be tested in how she responds to this announcement.”

Dude, considering the Black vote always goes 90% for the Democrats and your caucus never seriously threatens to bolt, why should she “respond?” You’ll give the hypocrite what she wants, no matter how hard she backhands you. And until you start acting on the real interests of your constituents, instead of mindlessly parroting the Democrat-Left agenda, nothing is going to change.

Besides, Nancy is a San Francisco limousine liberal. Therefore, any charge or even hint of bigotry on her part is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the Democratic Party as a whole has been pure as the driven snow on race.

Just ask them.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


DHS: “We can buy assault weapons to protect ourselves; you can’t. Hah-hah!”

January 28, 2013

Since the Newtown school massacre, there have been renewed calls for bans on so-called “assault rifles.” There was a march in D.C. this last weekend, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Nannystate) introduced legislation to ban all sorts of weapons, mostly based on cosmetic factors that scare lefties, but make no difference in the weapon’s lethality. One of the most common arguments made is that you “just don’t need” such a weapon to defend yourself. (1)

But those are the rules for peasants such you and me. If you work for the Department of Homeland Security, well, that’s different:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Let’s keep this straight, shall we? When you want an AR-15 for home defense, you’re a dangerous, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bible and Constitution (and wife) beating radical who finds his manhood enhanced by getting your hands on an “assault weapon.” And should you want a magazine that holds ten or more rounds… You’re just fantasizing about shooting up a mall, aren’t you?

But, when the DHS wants its agents to have similar weapons… Those aren’t “assault weapons,” silly! Those are for “personal defense!” And, unlike you, they really do need high-capacity magazines! Ten rounds? Bah! Let’s go for 30! And the option for full auto-fire!

Why? Well… because, it’s not the same thing, you bitter-clinger!

In all seriousness, I have no problem with DHS buying weapons for its agents’ personal defense; they do dangerous work in the service of the nation. But shouldn’t ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to make the same choices for themselves and their families?

Scratch that. It’s not “have the right,” which implies a debatable question or request. No, Americans have that right as an inalienable natural right that preexists government, and the Second Amendment is a recognition of that right, not a grant.

So, if the managers of DHS can decide that they and their people need these weapons for their personal defense, shouldn’t the government acknowledge that individuals have that same right?

via John Kass

Footnote:
(1) With the usually unspoken corollary: “And you don’t get to make that choice for yourself, either.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#GunControl : Seriously, don’t annoy Mary Katharine Ham

January 15, 2013

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) made that mistake, flip-flopping repeatedly on 2nd Amendment issues (running for office as pro-guns, now talking about what to ban), and Ms. Ham has had quite enough. An excerpt from right after Manchin proudly proclaims he doesn’t have an “assault weapon:”

Well, as long as Sen. Manchin doesn’t have an “assault weapon” why not just ban them? Because “things the junior senator from West Virginia owns” is the historical guideline our Founders used to determine what products a free people would retain access to. Manchin was the governor of the state of West Virginia, but his home state thankfully escaped his reign without major gun control. The state earns an admirable 4 of a possible 100 points from the Brady Campaign on the gun control scale. I guess Manchin’s conscience couldn’t operate fully on the issue of guns until after he’d used the NRA’s endorsement to get elected, found a national tragedy to demagogue, and found out the Beltway had his back.

Sarcasm and scorn. Because calling someone a “hypocritical opportunist” just doesn’t quite cut to the bone.

(Of course, it would help if I spelled her name right the first time… D’oh!)


Fighting for good union jobs, Obama administration buys…. foreign cars

January 10, 2013

I’m sure UAW will understand:

President Barack Obama’s administration, which set a goal of buying only alternative- technology vehicles for its fleet by 2015, cut purchases of hybrid and electric models by one-third last year and bought mostly Asian brands.

About 54 percent of the 1,801 alt-fuel vehicles purchased by U.S. government agencies last year were built by Hyundai Motor Co. (005380), Toyota Motor Corp. (7203), Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (7211) and Honda Motor Co., according to data obtained under a Freedom of Information request from the U.S. General Services Administration, which coordinates most vehicle purchases.

The Korean-made hybrid version of the Hyundai Sonata unseated Ford Motor Co. (F)’s Fusion hybrid as the top-selling alternative-technology vehicle purchased for the federal fleet. U.S. hybrid purchases in previous years were made almost exclusively from domestic automakers.

The problem is that they’re trapped by their own Green ideology: committed to “alternative fuel” vehicles, they have to buy from foreign companies because there aren’t enough models produced in the US. (And some have a bad habit of catching fire…)

But try to explain that to the northern auto worker who’s facing layoffs from declining sales. Wasn’t the whole point of the bailout and partial nationalization to save their jobs, no matter what the cost to the taxpayer? Shouldn’t the Obama administration “buy American?” (Including fire-proof suits?) Shouldn’t the US autoworkers being wondering what in heck they’re getting in return for their blind loyalty, votes, and millions in dues funneled to Democrats?

(And I’d be glad if they did start asking those questions, since it might provide some much-needed enlightenment.)

Honestly, I’ve no problem with the government buying cars from whatever source, just as long as they’re getting the best deal for our tax money. (Of course, by definition that leaves out almost anything that’s “Green,” because of the heavy government subsidies required to make them competitive in the marketplace.)

I’m just amused at the knots the administration ties itself in, shafting one client group to please another. One of these days, all those patronage balls the Democrats are juggling are going to come crashing down.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Demand a Plan! (To end celebrity hypocrisy)

December 31, 2012

Actually, I don’t know if they’re hypocritical so much as clueless, but the result is the same: yet another deep, meaningful campaign in which a bunch of vapid airheads go in front of a camera and repeat slogans over and over, hoping to brainwash you into submission, like a bunch of zombies.

This time, however, someone took that video and remixed it with interesting results:

So, celebs, does your plan include your own movies? Shouldn’t we be talking about the 1st amendment, as well as the second? Don’t your films promote the dread “gun culture” and glorify violence? If we’re going to restrict Americans’ rights to self-defense in the name of public safety, shouldn’t your films be subject to censorship for the same reason?

Or maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with the person, not the tool or the medium.

But that’s probably too difficult for for a bunch of zombies to understand.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,867 other followers