Archive for the ‘hypocrisy’ Category

Obama’s massive middle class tax hike

March 16, 2009

Our Dear Leader is planning “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”
This is a plan to tax medical benefits. As part of our Dear Leader‘s plan to socialize the medical industry here in the United States. Step one: fleece those with medical insurance to raise money to screw them.

The hypocrisy is pretty thick:

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

Blatant, overt racism

February 25, 2009

No surprise that it is coming from the left and there will be no media outrage over it.
Two members of the extreme far left media, who have freely admitted their extremist political bias, made flat out, unequivocal racist comments about the non-white governor of Louisiana.

First it was Helen Thomas making racially charged and negative comments about “Slumdog Millionaire” in reference to the Governor, who is of Indian decent.

Then it was Chris Matthews of the “Obama Network” using racist language to describe the governor’s speech.

The only thing more outrageous than this flat out racism from members of the press is the silence of the far left who bring the charge of racism against any perceived slight against our Dear Leader.

Attention Code Pink

February 18, 2009

Our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama is sending an additional 17,000 US military personnel to Afghanistan. This is just the first wave, “The new forces represent the first installment on a larger influx of U.S. forces widely expected this year.”

I except your principled, non-partisan protests to start out side the White House and the Obama’s Chicago home without delay.

How serious is that crisis?

December 12, 2007

This Is London reports:

The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change – before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe.

It’s hard to take them seriously when they don’t even attempt to practice what they want to inflict on the rest of the world.

Leftist Purtains

June 8, 2007

If attacking his wife is the best the left can come up against Fred Thompson, political comedians are in for full employment for a while.

Via Ace is Dr. Helen’s view on this case of sexual prudism from the the so-called “liberal” left:

When I look at my husband with affection, am I leering?

I guess not since I’m a woman and can do no wrong except for being a right-leaning libertarian. However, if you’re a man, particularly a Republican man, who looks at his wife with affection, you are now accused of “leering”–especially if you are Fred Thompson.

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. And she is not alone, there are many other women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment–not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman–not even in pictures–with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men’s sexual rights, some “feminist” women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

Ace then nails the liberal duckspeak on the subject:

Feminists continue insisting that it’s empowering to fuck everything that moves, except your actual husband, who must be sexually punished as a state-sanctioned enforcer of The Oppressive Patriarchy.

Old, Hateful, Barbaric Rule: Women must keep their eyes averted when speaking to their superiors, men

New, Empowering, Enlightened Rule: Men must keep their eyes averted when speaking to their superiors, women

There’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.

Honestly, The Feminists Who Put Out (TM) are really ruining their “pro-sex street cred” by constantly nattering on about everyone’s base sexual impulses.

Why don’t you all just chill out, pop open a bottle of wine, and dig on the cool grooves of kd lang and leave the rest of us alone?

Am I to understand it’s wrong for Fred Thompson to leer at his wife, and yet the lefty feminists have no problem with Bill Clinton leering at 22-year-old Monica Lewinksy’s thong, nor turning her into a Human Humidor?

Tolerant liberal in action

May 28, 2007

Except, they are not tolerant if you dare to disagree with them.
By way of Hot Air, is this New York Post story:

Yesterday, Rosie’s chief writer, Janette Barber, was allegedly escorted from the building after she was caught drawing moustaches on photographs of Hasselbeck that hang in the “View” studios.

The Post’s Adam Buckman reports ABC confirmed in a statement only that “photographs at ‘The View’s’ offices were defaced. Rosie O’Donnell was not in the building. ABC Legal and Human Resources are investigating the matter.” Barber is an old friend of O’Donnell who worked with her years ago on “The Rosie O’Donnell Show.”

There were also rumors O’Donnell was so angry after her argument with Hasselbeck that she trashed her dressing room, although ABC denied the tantrum.

That’s one damn big footprint

May 9, 2007

Jim Manzi points out the hypocrisy of liberal democrat “activist” Laurie David:

So all-in, her stated lifestyle changes have reduced her carbon footprint by about 10 tons / year.

A lot is often made of the fact that she “sometimes” flies in private jets. According to TerraPass, a Gulfstream G4 generates 8,785 Lbs of carbon per flight hour. Let’s assume Laurie David took one roundtrip flight last year between LA and NY. Assume 10 hours of flying time = 87,850 Lbs = 44 tons.

So, so far she’s in the hole by about 34 tons if you assume one r/t private flight.

But hey, she’s started to cut way down on toilet paper.

The logic doesn’t follow…

May 4, 2007

But then it rarely does with extremist liberals…

The attack of the Gulfstream Liberals

April 23, 2007

By way of Ed Driscoll and Libertas, comes the story of how “Gulfstream Liberals” have one set of rules and another for the “little people” (also know as the Breck Boy‘s “Other America“).
Case in point, Hollywood Trophy Wife Laurie David:

Even worse is David’s chic but hypocritical environmentalism at her summer home in Martha’s Vineyard. She was issued a “notice of apparent violations” for building a 26-foot-long barbecue station, stone-and-concrete bonfire pit, and outdoor theater on an environmentally sensitive patch of their 14-acre North Road property without the proper permits. They were also cited for tearing up protected vegetation to make way for a lush, sodded lawn, among other crimes against nature.

The commission has since ordered her to remove the offending structures and restore the area to its previous state. All these violations were allegedly done to prepare for a political fundraiser hosted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (another faux Green). Alas, there’s no such thing as cheap environmentalism on the Vineyard.

Laurie David has been labeled a “Gulfstream liberal” by Eric Alterman, himself a proud member of the Left and a regular columnist for the Nation. He recognizes that Ms. David’s brand of environmentalism is nothing more than a facade, a distraction from the financially secure yet intellectually boring life of the fabulously wealthy. But this hobby has dire consequences for the rest of us. By transforming her politics into a religion, and by demonizing all who question her positions, including the author Michael Crichton, who actually is a Harvard trained scientist and physician, Laurie David makes the environmental movement seem bizarre and more than a bit ridiculous.

Update: Ace jumps in with both feet:

…this is the moral sin form of hypocrisy, advocating a standard and seeking to impose it on others — against their will — when one flagrantly ignores that standard oneself, without even making a pretense of attempting to comply with it.

Fact: Laurie David could easily reduce her own “carbon footprint” more than anyone but the top 10,000 richest people on earth simply by scaling back her lavish “lifestyle choices.” She could do far more to reduce “greenhouse warming” by merely living as a member of the lower upper class rather than the upper upper class.

Fact: Laurie David refuses, outright, to do so.

Fact: And yet Laurie David demands all of us reduce our standards of living by a few rungs down the class ladder.

If Laurie David cannot even manage to reduce her consumption levels from “stinking rich” to merely “filthy rich,” how exactly can this harpy demand that the middle class begin living like the working poor, and the working poor like the destitute?

Follow the Money!

April 8, 2007

Keep in mind that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body first and foremost.
Doug Ross has a good round up of key data on them, including their principle driving goal, scamming money.

Recall that the IPCC is “a political body and not a scientific panel.” It has commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. In fact, a great many scientific livelihoods rest upon the promotion of the IPCC’s curriculum.

But that’s only the beginning of the story.

The Carbon-Offset Market: “Fraudulent” and “Fictitious”

A set of meetings in March (“The Vienna Energy Efficiency and Climate Meetings” – March 19-22, 2007) offers another clue. Much of the discussion related to the growth of the carbon offset market. Panelists represented a variety of companies set to profit from “carbon offseting,” including the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), Point Carbon, EDF Trading, Capital Carbon Markets, and Natsource.

Carbon offsets are a currency that supposedly allow organizations and individuals to “make up” (offset) their carbon-dioxide emissions.

What Al Gore and the rest of the IPCC bureaucrats won’t tell you is that wanton profiteering appears to be at the very heart of “carbon offsets.” Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a “scam”, “fantasy”, “fiction”, “nonsense”, “fraudulent” and worse.

In a 2001 report, a UK-based environmentalist group called The Corner House labeled the carbon-offseting scheme a “fantasy.” And even earlier, in May of 2000, a presentation at the Agrarian Studies 2000 Conference at Yale University denounced the carbon offset market in extremely stark terms:

…This [carbon-offset] market is being put together not so much by states as by a burgeoning international web of technocrats, multilateral agencies, corporate alliances, brokers, lobbyists, consultants, financiers, think tanks, lawyers, forestry companies and non-government organizations…

…the [biological climate-change equivalents, or carbon sequestration credits] commodity to be traded in this new market is fictitious…

In fact, what did IPCC officials do around the time they were finalizing their reports? They formed businesses to take financial advantage of their ‘findings’. Among the IPCC panel members set to benefit from earlier IPCC reports on warming were Richard Tipper, Mark Trexler, Pedro Moura-Costa, Careth Phips, Sandra Brown, and Peter Hill. Tipper, for example, formed a consulting company just months after being appointed to one of the UN’s climate panels.

The World Rainforest Movement investigated these bizarre financial ties and concluded that the IPCC report “must now be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption.”

And solar energy portal Ecotopia reports that members of the IPCC “…had vested interests in reaching unrealistically and unjustifiably optimistic conclusions about the possibility of compensating for emissions with trees… [and] should have been automatically disqualified from serving on an intergovernmental panel charged with investigating impartially the feasibility and benefits of such… projects.”

In other words, IPCC members were poised to profit from carbon-profiteering from the very outset of their reporting.

Read the whole thing.