Dear Mr. President: Paying your fair share begins at home

January 26, 2012

President Obama spent much of his recent State of the Union address declaring that the rich need to pay their “fair share” of taxes. (1)

Maybe he should have given that speech to his staff, first:

How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Because how unfair — indeed, un-American — it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet’s secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate.

Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

(Emphasis added)

On a scale of 1-10 on the Public Secrets Hypocrisy Meter(tm), this hits an “11.” But, coming as it does from the administration of the most cynical, fork-tongued president since Richard Nixon, it also isn’t surprising.

May I suggest that Congressman Issa’s Oversight Committee, in the moments when it isn’t digging into Operation Fast and Furious, summon these federal employees to explain to Congress why they are not obeying federal law and paying their fair share?

Meanwhile, have a look at the rest of Andrew Malcolm’s article; it seems tax evasion is a favorite sport for federal employees.

LINKS: More from Moe Lane and Hot Air.

Footnote:
(1) As determined by Obama and his allies, of course.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear Facebook: you have a problem with hypocrisy

April 12, 2011

This blog was banned for “abusive content,” but a page promoting Sarah Palin’s death is still up after repeated complaints? (Click to enlarge)

Really, Facebook?


A liberal explains the difference between Libya and Iraq

March 25, 2011

It’s simple! Obama is awesome!!

Makes perfect sense.

via Jonah Goldberg

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Big Green: BP, GE and the World’s First Carbon Billionaires

October 13, 2010

In this third installment of PJTV‘s series on the alliance between environmentalist groups, government, and big business, Joe Hicks and his guests look at who stands to profit from all the Green Statist legislation and regulations the “save the Earth” crowd want to enact. Taking a star turn in this is one of Public Secrets’ favorite global hypocrites, the Goracle himself, Al Gore. Enjoy.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Barack Obama: so hypocritical, it’s almost grotesque

October 10, 2010

Recently, President Obama joined in a campaign by the Democrats and other left-wingers  to vilify the US Chamber of Commerce by accusing it of using foreign money to fund its political operations:

Referring to a study by the liberal group ThinkProgress that – correctly – notes that the US Chamber of Commerce has some funding sources abroad, including foreign corporations and American Chambers of Commerce around the world (or “AmChams”), the President said, “just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations.”

The president then took this step, saying, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads come from.”

Chamber officials say that money coming from foreign donors cannot be used for political activity under the 1907 Tillman Act, and that the charge is false.

Forget whether the charge is correct or not. Ignore the fact that this is a desperate, xenophobic smear job by a party facing a massacre at the polls.

It’s the hypocrisy that’s jaw-dropping, given that Obama’s own presidential campaign winked at foreign money. Michael Barone explains:

Glenn Reynolds nails this one: the Obama Democrats’ campaign riff against foreign donations to Democrats is bogus—and according to the New York Times, no less. This looks like a matter of projection, since it’s well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals. Here’s the Washington Post on this back in October 2008: Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed. Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.”

Go read the rest of the article and follow the other links back to reports from 2008 on the Obama campaign and odd donations. Here’s another. Obama and the Democrats engaged in rampant cheating regarding foreign donations, and now they have the gall to falsely accuse the Chamber of Commerce of doing what they themselves did?

Just another day of Life Under Alinsky Rules:

“Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”

And, we should add, “Lie about it and hope the rubes fall for it.”

RELATED: Of course, in 2008 the Obama campaign was just following the precedent established by Clinton and Gore.

UPDATE: And here’s the cherry on top: The President’s chief political adviser, David Axelrod, says he doesn’t have to produce proof – it’s up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove their innocence. Wow. Just shameless.

UPDATE II, 10/11/10: Ed Morrissey calls Obama’s baseless accusations “McCarthyism” and a form of tyranny. He’s right.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Mexican president is a rank hypocrite

June 21, 2010

On his recent visit to the US, Mexican President Felipe Calderón took several occasions to sanctimoniously lecture Americans about the “evils” of Arizona’s SB 1070, a law the directed state law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. He even did so in an address to a joint session of Congress:

The contentious issue of Arizona’s immigration law has been a key issue for Calderon during his U.S. visit. The measure, which will allow law enforcement officers to ask for proof of legal residency of anyone who is being investigated for a crime or a possible legal infraction, has drawn widespread criticism in Mexico.

“I strongly disagree” with the measure, Calderon told members of the House and Senate. “It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree,” but also introduces the “terrible idea” that racial profiling is acceptable.

Calderon also had a message for undocumented Mexican migrants currently in the United States: “I want to say to the migrants — all those who are working really hard for this great country — that we admire them, we miss them, [and] we are working hard for their rights … [and] for their families,” he said.

And their remittances, which are Mexico’s second-biggest source of revenue. Funny he didn’t mention that…

Anyway, what makes our distinguished visitor such a stinking hypocrite is Mexico’s treatment of its own illegal immigrants across its southern border. William Booth of the Washington Post has the story:

As the Mexican government condemns a new immigration law in Arizona as cruel and xenophobic, illegal migrants passing through Mexico are routinely robbed, raped and kidnapped by criminal gangs that often work alongside corrupt police, according to human rights advocates.

Immigration experts and Catholic priests who shelter the travelers say that Mexico’s strict laws to protect the rights of illegal migrants are often ignored and that undocumented migrants from Central America face a brutal passage through the country. They are stoned by angry villagers, who fear that the Central Americans will bring crime or disease, and are fleeced by hustlers. Mexican police and authorities often demand bribes.

Mexico detained and deported more than 64,000 illegal migrants last year, according to the National Migration Institute. A few years ago, Mexico detained 200,000 undocumented migrants. The lower numbers are the result of tougher enforcement on the U.S. border, the global economic slowdown and, say some experts, the robbery and assaults migrants face in Mexico.

The National Commission on Human Rights, a government agency, estimates that 20,000 migrants are kidnapped each year in Mexico.

While held for ransom, increasingly at the hands of Mexico’s powerful drug cartels, many migrants are tortured — threatened with execution, beaten with bats and submerged in buckets of water or excrement.

“They put a plastic bag over your head and you can’t breathe. They tell you if you don’t give them the phone numbers” of family members the kidnappers can call to demand payment for a migrant’s release, “they say the next time we’ll just let you die,” said Jose Alirio Luna Moreno, a broad-shouldered young man from El Salvador, interviewed at a shelter in the southern state of Oaxaca.

Luna said he was held for three days this month in Veracruz by the Zeta drug trafficking organization, which demanded $1,000 to set him free. He said he was abducted by men in police uniforms and taken to a safe house with 26 others.

Read the whole thing and keep it in mind for the next time some unctuous Mexican official tries to lecture us about our treatment of illegals. Hell, illegals who make it to the US should be given a prize for surviving Mexico.

(via Fausta)

RELATED: How Mexican law discriminates against even legal immigrants.


Winner, “Hypocrite of the Year”

June 8, 2010

Okay, okay. There’s a lot of competition for this award, especially in politics and celebrity circles, but this has got to be one of the finalists:

Bill Clinton calls Louisiana senator ‘sinner’ in fundraising letter

Former President Clinton has sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee under his own name warning that Republicans are trying to “derail’ President Obama’s agenda.

Not much unexpected there.

But along with the letter, Clinton has included a flyer from the DSCC that’s bound to raise eyebrows.

“DSCC funds go towards efforts to unseat far-right Republican senators like admitted sinner David Vitter…” the flyer says, referring to the Louisiana senator who admitted patronizing a prostitution service when he was in the House.

Bill Clinton decrying someone else for being a sinner? Bill “Blue dress” Clinton? William Jefferson “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton?? What was the DSCC thinking?

Someone check the exchanges, because I think he just cornered the market on brass.

What’s next? Eliot Spitzer denouncing someone for the sin of lust? John Edwards lecturing on fidelity? Barack Obama on not blaming others? Wait. Scratch that last one

Wow.

(via Ben Domenech)


Is the Tea Party movement racist?

May 7, 2010

Reason.TV lets both sides speak for themselves; you decide who the foaming-at-the-mouth bigots are:


Obama and the new civility

April 21, 2010

At NRO, Victor Davis Hanson celebrates the new civil tone in our public discourse brought about by the ascension inauguration of Barack Obama:

At last there is a return to civility. If we were confused in recent years as to whether “hate” was a permissible word in public discourse — as in the outburst of Democratic national chairman Howard Dean, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” or the infamous essay by The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait that began, “I hate President George W. Bush” — we now accept that such extreme language in the public arena is not merely uncivil, but is an incitement to real violence. The use of the word “hate” at last has become “hate speech.”

With Rep. Joe Wilson’s improper outburst to President Obama — “You lie!” — we also have at last come to appreciate that those in Congress have a special responsibility not to use incendiary language to defame our government officials. That’s why we now lament Rep. Pete Stark’s slur of George W. Bush from the House floor as a “liar” — the same Rep. Pete Stark who said of our troops that they had gone “to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”

But since 2009 Americans have finally learned that our soldiers are sacrosanct and must not be smeared — as in Sen. Richard Durbin’s characterization of American military personnel as synonymous with Nazis, Stalinists, or Pol Pot’s murderers; as in the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s comparison of American troops to Saddam’s lethal jailers; as in Sen. John Kerry’s smear of our soldiers as acting in terrorist fashion. Evocation of Nazi or Brownshirt imagery particularly coarsens the public discourse; it demonizes opponents rather than engage them in real debate. So we can all concur now that Sen. John Glenn, Sen. Robert Byrd, and former vice president Al Gore spoke quite improperly when they compared their president’s governance to that of the Third Reich.

Although a progressive, if put to the question* of how what was once patriotic dissent could now become sedition, might answer “But that was different.”

*(Note to certain readers: that is not a euphemism for the rack, in this case. Sorry. 😦 )


The media finally notices the bigotry of the Left?

April 11, 2010

Recently, a series of vicious and bigoted phone messages left for an African-American professor who was opposed to ObamaCare drew media attention. At Big Government, Bob Parks vents his disgust… at the media:

When I read Monica Crowley’s piece on Big Government, I must admit to being thoroughly disgusted.

Not because she posted racial-slur laden voicemails sent to Dr. Christopher Metzler, Associate Dean of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University because of his opposition to ObamaCare. No, I am disgusted because for years the mainstream media has invited black conservatives on their radio and television programs to be an opposing voice to the black liberals who are often sought as the voice of black America. We’ve told them (off the record) of the response we normally get after our appearances.

We know what the headlines would read if something were said to annoy Al Sharpton. But it took racist phonecalls to a dean to invoke outrage.

I know many other black conservatives have endured the racial slurs from the left for decades, and the media has never had our backs.

Parks then goes through a long list of racist attacks by the Left against Black conservatives that the media has ignored.

(Argh. Hit “publish” instead of save draft. The rest of the post follows….)

The question is why this happens. Why does the media regularly ignore churlish behavior originating on the Left that they gleefully expose when it comes from the Right?

For some, I’m sure, it’s ideological: the American mainstream media largely skews Left, and they’re supporting their allies. For example, look at the extensive effort of Dan Rather and other figures at CBS to smear President George W. Bush in order to help Senator John Kerry just before the 2004 election. (An overview of the scandal: Rathergate)

For others, though, I think it’s just the self-perception of virtue causing a form of blindness: “Our side is the good side; they’re the racists. We just can’t be guilty of the same thing. When we characterize Condoleezza Rice as Mammy, or Michael Steele as Sambo, that’s legitimate satire.” This refusal to see fault in one’s own side is the more common reason I think, and something not limited to the Left.


Virtuous Greens more likely to lie, cheat, and steal

March 16, 2010

Maybe I should have written “sanctimonious” rather than “virtuous,” but… whatever. A study reported in the UK’s Guardian newspaper shows that our moral superiors in the “save the Earth” movement are also more likely to steal and then lie about it:

When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to “green” type.

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the “licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour”, otherwise known as “moral balancing” or “compensatory ethics”.

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write.

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

Why am I not surprised?  Waiting

(via the always thoughtful and moderate James Delingpole)


A gigantic hypocrite, eh?

March 6, 2010

About a month ago, we reported on Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada who suddenly fled the Canadian single-payer health-care system to seek treatment for a heart ailment in the United States. We wondered at the time was his reason was.

It’s simple, he’s an elitist hypocrite:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a “minimally invasive” surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

“This was my heart, my choice and my health,” Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

“I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics.”

Good for you, Danny. I’m sure your constituents will understand while they have to languish on a wait-list for needed treatment or even participate in a lottery to get an appointment with a doctor, because the Canadian system you vehemently defend rations care for those who can’t jet off to Miami.

But don’t think it’s a reflection on Canadian health care:

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province’s health care system.

“I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people,” he said.

“We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who’s doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week.”

Danny, buddy. Do you notice something off here? If your system didn’t ration care, you wouldn’t have had to flee across the border! Don’t you think it somewhat telling that the free-market system to the south had just the guy you needed available right away?

Wouldn’t it be nice if all Canadians could enjoy that level of service?

I guess Newfie pols are more important than Average Joe Canuck.

Oh, folks, lest I forget: Danny plans to get the Canadian health service to pay for his medical vacation in Miami:

Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.

“If I’m entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would,” he said.

Jerk.  Waiting

(via International Liberty)

LINKS: More at Sister Toldjah.


Congress, Obama renew Patriot Act

February 28, 2010

Funny, I thought this was another of the evil BushChimpHitler’s attempts to destroy our civil liberties by playing on our racist fears. Yet the enlightened progressives who now govern the nation renewed it without any changes:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

Back then, the Left was screaming as if the Patriot Act had authorized an American Gestapo; I can recall the American Library Association practically wetting itself in hysteria over a provision that allowed the government to subpoena records, something that civil lawyers have been able to do for ages. That and other provisions of the Patriot Act that constituted reasonable measures in a time of war and terrorism became the focus of endless political demagoguery and histrionics.

So, its reauthorization has lead to similar protests, right? No. As Susan Anne Hiller points out at the article linked at the top, the mainstream media and the Left (but I repeat myself) are dead silent:

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

(…)

The Democrats had the numbers to make changes, but another civil war would have ensued.  In addition, it appears that when these controversial legislative pieces are passed by the Democrats, it makes it all better.  No more outrage from the MSM and the far-left, because the rules of war and engagement are clearly different because, you know, the Democrats are in charge.

In other words, “that was then, this is now.”

Waiting


John Edwards embarrasses even sleaze-bags

January 26, 2010

Sure, he’ll admit admit little Frances Quinn is his child by Rielle Hunter… after a year of lying about it. But pay for his toddler’s dental work?

Forget it.

And this walking, talking pustule came close to being vice-president and had a reasonable chance at the Democratic nomination for president? Excuse me while I go find the nearest church and light several candles in thanks for us not being stuck with the living incarnation of Elmer Gantry.

(Via Ace. Sure, it’s the Enquirer. But, remember, they were right all along about the affair and illegitimate child.)


So, let me get this straight

October 14, 2009

The NFL has a problem with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh over racist quotes that were fabricated and falsely attributed to him, yet they have no problem with convicted dog-torturer Michael Vick?

WTF??  Raised Eyebrow

I rarely think defamation suits are worthwhile, but I hope Limbaugh goes after the promoters of these slanders against him. This has been disgraceful.

LINKS: More at Exurban League, which wonders why the NFL tolerates misogynist Sunday Night Football host Keith Olbermann. Mark Steyn wants to see the proof. Legal Insurrection recommends Al Sharpton for NFL commissioner.


When are bonuses not evil?

August 26, 2009

When Congress decides to pay retention bonuses to its own staff, of course.

That’s different, you see.


Good advice

July 30, 2009

From Victor Davis Hanson, some words of wisdom for America’s elite hypocrites:

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Millionaire Gore is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because it lacks their own taste, rare insight, and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was “messing” with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Al Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Professor Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more a Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less badly he feels about his own chauffer and tax avoidance?

Here’s a little advice for all of America’s aristocratic critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives — and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

Read the whole thing. Applause


But it’s OK when Obama does it

July 22, 2009

For eight years, the Bush administration was excoriated for holding confidential meetings between the White House – specifically Vice-President Dick Cheney- and oil-industry executives. But now when the Obama administration does the exact same thing with health-care execs, why, it’s no problem:

The still sort-of-new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group’s request for a list of healthcare industry executives who’ve been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is suspicious of the influence of health industry lobbyists and company officers, it received a letter from the Secret Service citing an Obama Justice Department directive and denying access to visitor logs under the “presidential communications privilege.”

Sound familiar?

Remember the holy hullabaloo in the early Bush years when Vice President Dick Cheney met in the White House compound with energy industry officials and refused to release a list of those executives and the frequency of their visits? That controversy was propelled by critical Democrats and was before Obama’s brief Senate tenure.

Read the whole thing. The LA Time “Top of the Ticket” politics blog* mentions other Obama-Biden promises for new transparency after the dark years of BushHitler and Darth Cheney, promises that turn out to have had, as is typical for Barack Obama, expiration dates.

Now, I’m not criticizing the claim of the Executive Branch to have confidential discussions and to receive advice that’s held in confidence. No presidency could function if every communication, remark, memo, and sneeze were made public. At the least, others would be afraid to give controversial opinions, lest they be pilloried in the press. And opposition members of Congress, hungry for press exposure and to take the administration down, would be irresistibly tempted to go on fishing expeditions, demanding document after document, witness after witness, again threatening to paralyze the Executive.

No, presidents have a need for secrets and confidential meetings, and the pubic does not have an absolute right to know. (Really. What right did the public have to the planning discussions for D-Day, for example?) However, it’ yet another example of Team Obama’s hypocrisy that they so harshly criticized George W. Bush for doing exactly what Barack Obama now claims as executive privilege. And that “say one thing, do another” is something Obama seems be doing at a pace sure to leave his predecessors in the dust, confident in their assumption that we’re either too stupid to notice or just don’t care.

*(Which, I have to admit, does a darned good job, contrary to what I’ve come to expect from the Times)

LINKS: Sister Toldjah, Just One Minute, QandO, In the Agora, The Agitator.

(via Memeorandum)


Hypocrisy follies

August 19, 2006

One of the many news items I missed while away on vacation was the scandal caused by the Leftist German author Guenter Grass’s revelation in his forthcoming autobiography that he had served in the Waffen SS at the end of World War II. Grass, of course, has been a notorious critic of Germany when he feels it does not deal honestly with its Nazi past, and he’s also been unafraid to rip the US a new one when he feels it necessary. Now perhaps we know why. Could it be a case of overcompensation for his own shame? I think that’s likely. Austin Bay has an article that, I think, covers l’Affaire Grass best.

Of course, hypocrisy isn’t the province of the Left, much as it might seem to be these days. Anyone with any sort of memory can recall cases of stuffed-shirt conservative preachers caught with their hands in the …er… cookie jar of illicit sex, or voices of virtue who are revealed to have drug problems.

What fascinates me is how these people time and again make their problems far worse for themselves by hiding it and then attacking others for having the very same problem. In my opinion, Grass’s criticism of Reagan and Kohl for visiting the Bitburg cemetery would have had more moral force, not less, had he said "I was once one of those monsters and I know what evil you are honoring with your presence! How dare you?" Instead, this "oh, by the way, I was a Nazi stooge" admission forever taints his criticisms and weakens his moral standing.

Shame is often the explanation for this kind of hypocrisy, but it’s no excuse.