Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Monday, October 1, 2018

The Newest Weapon of the Left - "Credibly Accused"

When one hears the phase“credibly accused” you might automatically assume that the allegation being made have been examined and there is at least some credible amount of circumstantial evidence that the allegation is true.  Today, what “credibly accused” has come to mean that there is absolutely no corroborating evidence, no independent corroborating witness, no contemporaneous documentation and, most importantly, no way of verifying the allegations. It’s a phrase that reveals less of the accusations veracity than it does about the person using it and his/her animus toward the accused. It simply means the person reporting the allegation just *wants* it to be true. So it’s nothing more than an attempt to pronounce guilt without having to contend with bothersome issues like, ya know, the presumption of innocence or the need for evidence before destroying a hated target’s life and reputation.

The danger of “credibly accused” metastasizing out of the world of politics is very real. This week saw hundreds of law students from Yale and Harvard come out to endorse “credibly accused” as their preferred standard of justice. This is no accident; “credibly accused” is a close sibling to the star chamber adjudication system, much loved by University Administrators, feminist and radical minority student activists.

What should terrify every American is the fact that any number of these student activists, if current trends hold, will end up on the bench. Including the Supreme Court. Imagine; people who do not believe in the presumption of innocence, the right of the accused to confront his accuser, to present witnesses, to have access to counsel, charged with safeguarding Americans’ civil liberties. Scary, isn’t it? And after deciding that sexual assault defendants being stripped of these rights is in keeping with the Constitution, is there any guarantee that’s where it will stop? Which is why “credibly accused” needs to be shown for the evil it is now.

This becomes even more important when we read about things like this: On Saturday, Georgetown University distinguished associate professor C. Christine Fair, who's profile describes her as "Scholar of South Asian pol-mil affairs, inter-sectional feminist, pitbull apostle, scotch devotee, nontheist, and resister" went on a violent, graphic tweeter rant
“Look at thus [sic] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps.” 
“Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.” 
It’s not enough to simply rally and support Brett Kavanaugh, because this is about so much more than him. It’s about everybody’s father, uncle, brother, son, grandson, nephew, friend, etc. and the creation of a world in which their lives can be destroyed on a single person’s word. The Democrats and their toadies in the media need to be made to understand exactly what it is they have unleashed.

(The Blaze)
(Campus Reform)
MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage!

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

I Have To Admit, I'm Really Enjoying Watching All These Creepy Uppity Leftist Get Eaten By Their Own

The Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi broke the news on Tuesday that NPR senior vice president for news Michael Oreskes was accused of inappropriately kissing two women on the lips while discussing job prospects in a previous job as Washington bureau chief at The New York Times. NPR suspended Oreskes.  Then NPR media reporter David Folkenflik added an internal NPR accusation from 2015 on Tuesday night’s 'All Things Considered' radio program. This morning NPR president Jarl Mohn said he asked for Oreskes to resign “because of his inappropriate behavior.” 

This accusation from 2015 is certainly embarrassing to say the least for NPR considering they took so much pride in being in the forefront of pushing the unsubstantiated sexual-harassment charges of Anita Hill against black conservative Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991 when it looked like he would be comfortably confirmed to the Supreme Court.  On top of that, Jill Abramson, a prominent NY Times reporter in the Hill-Thomas hearings who also wrote a book on the attempted media lynching of Thomas was fully aware of Oreskes' actions while at the Times, but chose to remain silent. So much for feminist advocacy, eh?

The left continues to expose itself (pun intended) as the hypocrites we have always known they are, while by the light of the fire they join in on an orgy of eating their own. Meanwhile, better make some more popcorn......


Monday, October 2, 2017

Democrats Fly Into Action To Politicize Las Vegas

DT - Not content with turning the Puerto Rican victims of Hurricane Maria into political pawns, a growing number of Dems are doing the same with those killed or injured during the rampage by a crazed man named Stephen Paddock.
"Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again." — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
Then there was the fanatical Trump hating Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy who was quick on the draw to blame Congress (translation: Republicans and Trump) for not moving quickly enough to roll back the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding Americans. Murphy:
"Congress needs to get off its ass and do something about gun violence" — The Hill (@thehill) October 2, 2017
Murphy’s fellow Democrat Richard Blumenthal took a rare break from conspiracy mongering about the Russians to also demand that Congress act to stop the violence by the flawed logic that taken to its faulty conclusion would ensure that only criminals were armed and citizens were at their mercy:
“Although many details of this mass shooting remain unclear, one thing is certain: yet again, we are watching in horror as another American community is torn apart by the terrible devastation wrought by a gunman. Still, Congress refuses to act. I am more than frustrated, I am furious.” - The Hill.
Murphy and Blumenthal fancy themselves as some sort of national authorities on the drive to confiscate the guns of Americans simply because their state was the one in which the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders took place, thereby giving them free reign on exploiting victims to push their vile and unconstitutional agenda.

They will soon be joined by even more members of their party like maggots on fresh roadkill for whom disarmament is a winning issue, right up there with race-baiting, transgender bathrooms and incredible yarns of the Kremlin infiltration of the highest levels of the United States government. Expect Trump and the NRA to take the bulk of the attacks because the Democrats are no longer driven by reason, they are just lashing out blindly, instinctive actions of the basest animal instincts of their psyches which have been eaten by terminal TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and the fury over a lost election.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

The Godfather Goes All Humanitarian and Stuff ??

It's so easy sometime to see through liberal intentions. And when it's the entertainment elite with Millions in the bank asking for money for a cause, you can bet there is something in it for them, or they themselves are just donating their pocket money while pleading for you to give till it hurts. It's always about someone else's money.

After Hurricane Irma devastated the Caribbean island of Barbuda actor Robert De Niro, you know, the good liberal who wants to punch Donald Trump, quickly set up a meeting at the United Nations to plead for relief money for the Caribbean island.  During the meeting, De Niro hailed Barbuda as an “unspoiled beauty, a paradise found” but added, “we have a humanitarian crisis, an entire island destroyed.”

According to the Hollywood Reporter De Niro told the meeting:
 “We must act together to help the most vulnerable. The recovery process will be a long, hard road. … Working together with all of you, Barbuda can rise to be stronger and be more resilient.......”
De Niro probably hoped that the public and the media would view his meeting as an example of his good liberal humanitarian activism, but otherwise not look too closely. After all, the people of Barbuda were hit hard by the storm, with 90 percent of the island’s building damaged by Irma. But unluckily for De Niro, the public quickly discovered his true interest in the Barbuda–and it’s far from altruistic. 

As it turns out, Barbuda is home to the future Paradise Found Nobu Resort. The owner of the luxurious multi-million dollar getaway? Robert De Niro.

De Niro and his business partner James Packer bought the property in 2016 and have pumped millions into the former K Club, an exclusive destination known to be frequented by world elites like Princess Diana of Wales. The new, updated resort was still under renovation when the hurricane hit.

But even as he sat there pretending to care about the people of Barbuda, they don't seem don’t care much for him. When he first bought into the giant resort, the people of the island opposed his plans to gobble up hundreds of additional acres to be added to his luxury resort plans.  It appears that De Niro strong-armed the island’s government to bend to his will.

De Niro, who has a net worth of $200 million, now wants the nations of the world to write Barbuda a check for the repairs? The question is: how much of  of his concern is really for the people of the island , and how much is for the movie star’s resort?

Thank You MJA for the Linkage!

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

NBC News Officially Resigned as News Agency

Once a semi-respectable older sibling to their retarded step-sister MSNBC, the floating turd known as NBC News has finally grabbed the handle and flushed themselves down the drain of the vintage media.

In a network produced promotional video, titled “Dear Mr. President,” NBC uses children in a blatantly negative video that paints Donald Trump as divisive and racist. Not one single child has anything respectful to say. This is a type of video that once was unthinkable, and a video that would have never been made during Barack Obama's administration, regardless of what he did or said.

In the video, one young black girl says “Most of my family is black. I'm afraid that you're gonna hurt some of us blacks.” Another non-white youngster says "You are here, attempting to white-wash America.” These are not the words of children. It is the power of a scripted propaganda machine.

It should come as no surprise that this NBC News video uses children to advance talking points. It is a shameful display that no journalistic organization with any semblance of integrity would have even released. But then again, we are talking about NBC.

Monday, August 3, 2015

2016 Dems Need a Mythical War on Voting Rights

When the Voting Rights Act was adopted in 1965, America was a segregated nation. Many states, especially in the South, had discriminatory voting laws that worked to prevent African-Americans from voting. Despite furious opposition from the Jim Crow caucus within the Democratic Party, a bipartisan Congressional majority enacted the law. That began the process of redressing this historic injustice that was part of the unfinished legacy of the Civil War that had concluded a century earlier.
We’ve come a long way since then. Jim Crow is but an awful memory and blacks not only vote in most of the South at the same rates that whites do but also can look to a large Congressional Black Caucus whose existence is largely due to subsequent court interpretations of the Act that created minority-majority districts. But for the left, it’s always 1965 and a revival of Jim Crow is just around the corner. That’s the gist of the cover story of last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, “A Dream Undone,” that takes it as a given that minority voting rights are not only under attack but about to disappear.
That this is palpably false is self-evident since efforts to single out blacks and prevent them from voting simply do not exist anywhere in the nation. Why then devote space to a nonexistent problem? 
The Times is singing from the Democratic Party hymnal heading into 2016 as Hillary Clinton attempts to scare African-American voters who are somewhat apathetic about her candidacy into turning out in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama. But if Democrats want to frighten their party’s base into thinking Jim Crow is on its way back, they’ll have to do better than arcane disputes about voter ID or early voting laws.
The conceit of Jim Rutenberg’s lengthy essay is that there is a clear continuum between the death rattle of the segregationists south that began to die in the early 1960s and today’s Republican Party.  One of the greatest victories of the struggle for Civil Rights was the way it transformed the white South from a bastion of racism to one in which racial equality was taken as a given Race exists as an issue in the America of 2015, but comparisons with 1965 aren’t merely misleading, they are flat out falsehoods. That is especially true in the South, where blacks vote and hold office in numbers that are largely commensurate with their share of the overall population. 

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Fiction of "Net Neutrality".

by Robert Janicki
There is no such thing as Net Neutrality and it could not be further away from the truth.  Net Neutrality, as a concept, has been created by liberals and is anything but neutral and it is as corrupt as a concept could be.  It's a false facade created to stifle free speech and in particular the speech and ideas of the political right.
Like all liberal attempts, Net Neutrality purports to be the answer to a problem that, upon closer inspection, simply does not exist.  Net neutrality as proposed by the Chairman of the FCC will actually slow down internet speeds as it ostensibly seeks a social outcome of egalitarianism between all internet users.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.
As it stands now, an individual can pay an internet provider for the internet speed they want and need and pay the price that meets their needs and objectives.  Individuals, today, have a wide choice of internet providers with an even wider choice of services from which to choose.  With Net Neutrality, internet speeds will be leveled to equalize speeds between all customers.  It is simply an attack on an individual's right to freely choose in the open market place, what they want in internet speeds and related services. 
Net Neutrality, by all accounts of those in the industry, will slow down the dissemination and transfer of information without regard for the rights of individuals.  It is a most serious and egregious interference and attack by government on the First Amendment that can be imagined at the present time.
To think that a federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, with a committee of five politically appointed members can actually take control of the internet and regulate it at their whim, is a monumental blow to individual liberty and freedom.  
As Net Neutrality purports to give greater access to individuals, in reality it will limit access by individuals and increase the power and strength of the oligopoly of the major internet carriers as they squeeze out smaller competitors.   The major internet providers will thus have the capacity to raise prices on all customers without having to maintain and improve internet communications technology for their customers.  Net Neutrality is a destroyer of competition.  It is competition which produces a better product or service, not government regulation.

Friday, October 10, 2014

No Racist Intentions Found...... Must Be Racism Somewhere!

Judge Appointed by Obama Administration
Rules Texas ID Law  Racist  

The surprise timing of the ruling could spare an estimated 13.6 million registered Texas voters (dead or alive) from needing one of seven kinds of photos identification to cast a ballot in a state with historic voter fraud. 

From issuing fines for traffic citations in Municipal court 
to a lifetime appointment to the Federal Bench..... 
HuffPo - A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Thursday, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens that creates “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”
In a 147-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama confirmed to the bench in 2011, ruled that the law passed by Texas legislators and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) took an “unorthodox” approach they knew would have a disparate impact on minority voters. The law requires voters to produce a state-issued identification before casting a ballot.
While Ramos found no “smoking guns” of racist intentions in passing the legislation, she said the state legislature's 2011 session was “racially charged.” She concluded that the sponsors of the measure “were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate.”
The underpinnings of our Judicial system are being rotted away by political correctness and affirmative action appointees to the bench.

 How Democrats Win Elections

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

A Kindly Old Billionaire and Supreme Hypocrite

by Robert Janicki

Billionaire Warren Buffet, often called the Oracle of Omaha for his business acumen, has, once again, blown his cover as a common man of the Midwest.

Early on, Buffet jumped on President Obama's bandwagon to criticize those companies that relocate their headquarters outside the United States in order to reduce their tax liability.  Obama, with Buffet right behind him, has castigated corporations for moving their headquarters out of the Unites States and characterized them as unpatriotic, although what they are doing is completely legal.

Bear in mind that the corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 35% and advances to over 40% when state and local taxes are included.  The 35% U.S. rate, in comparison, is the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  Also note that those companies that move their company headquarters out of the United States are not avoiding any corporate taxes for their operations in the U.S..  They are simply avoiding taxes on those profits earned outside the U.S., which they are currently obligated to pay to the U.S. Treasury.

Fast forward to the latest Buffet hypocrisy.
"In May, billionaire Warren Buffett blasted the very corporate “tax inversion” schemes his firm Berkshire Hathaway is about to finance as part of Burger King relocating its headquarters to Canada to lower its tax burden."

Buffet is Chairman of the Board of investment goliath Berkshire Hathaway and its largest investor.  It's reported that Berkshire is about to spend $3 billion dollars to buy a significant portion of Burger King, which is moving to Canada, to enjoy their lower corporate tax rate.

Someone please tell me why Warren Buffet is not a hypocrite for supporting and profiting from a corporation seeking to reduce its tax liability in the U. S. by moving it headquarters outside the U.S., all the while joining President Obama in condemning such actions?