Posts Tagged ‘hypcrisy’

Democrats Ask Why Hasn’t KY Clerk Been Fired In Gay Marriage License Case? SAME REASON YOUR OBAMA HASN’T BEEN FIRED.

September 2, 2015

Democrats and liberals – otherwise known as “pathological rabid hypocrites” – are demanding to know why the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to sign gay marriage certificates hasn’t been fired.

The same damn reason your false messiah hasn’t been fired, you moral cockroaches.

Democrats say “If Kim Davis doesn’t want to certify same-sex marriages, she should quit her job.”  They say the law is on their side.

So where the hell were you moral roach hypocrites when the “law” very clearly stated that marriage was between ONE man AND ONE woman and Barack Hussein Obama refused to honor a law that had been passed by both the House and the Senate and signed INTO LAW by President William Jefferson Clinton???

We see that the “ACLU wants Kentucky clerk in contempt of court over denying gay marriage licenses.”  So I suppose what that means is that it is an act of “contempt” not to follow the law.

So where WERE you holier-than-thou Pharisees when you were cheering wildly as Barack Hussein Obama should have been held in contempt, impeached and forcibly removed from office from blatantly violating the law of the land that you are now so upset is being violated???

We can go back more than four years to see Obama:

Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA

You had the law of the land, you had somebody refusing to follow the law of the land.

Obama issued one of his Führer’s Directives and the same people who are now purple apoplectic with rage cheered wildly.  Because you lawless Nazi thug-punks were drunk with the power of being able to ignore any damn law you didn’t like and flat-out making your OWN laws when the actual laws of the land demanded or imposed something you didn’t like.

Politico described Obama’s policy.  Here it is:

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

And of course, Obama has played this lawless game over and over again.  For example, our Roach-in-Chief publicly stated at least TWENTY-TWO TIMES that he would be a lawless, unconstitutional, anti-democratic fascist thug EMPEROR to impose “laws” by executive order on illegal immigration.  And then did the very thing he said he legally was banned from doing.

I think of the sanctuary cities whose very intent is to fly in the FACE of federal laws on the books.  I think of Obama demonically refusing to do a damn thing to protect the border states against illegal immigration, and then suing them when they tried to enact their own laws arguing that laws pertaining to immigration status or borders are solely under federal jurisdiction.  Unless, of course, that is, unless Democrats do the opposite version of the same damn thing Obama went on the warpath to prevent Republican states from doing.

But of course it’s different when Obama flagrantly ignores the law, dontchaknow.  Being a lawless political fascist thug is a GOOD thing when Obama does it.

So fine.  In Kentucky a clerk has the SAME DAMN STRATEGY and all of a sudden it is this horrible thing and she needs to lose her job and be held in contempt and have her fingernails torn from her clutching hands while she screams in pain.

And all she’s doing is following YOUR policy strategy, Democrat.

In the Los Angeles Times editorial, the Times stated the following that I at least appreciate for the sake of candid acknowledgment:

Where ‘God’s authority’ ends

For Democrats, there is no real point where God’s authority should BEGIN, and it should as sure as they will burn in hell for eternity be ENDED immediately and at every point where it in any way, shape or form intersects with their wickedness.

The Times admits that:

Historically this country has been generous toward individuals whose religious beliefs make it difficult for them to comply with the law.

And then immediately counters with a “but”:

But the accommodation must stop at the point at which a public official refuses to discharge her legal duty by invoking “God’s authority,” as Davis has done.

The God of the Bible’s authority should END, they tell us; what should NOT end and what should not even be interfered with is the authority of THEIR god, the omnipotent human state, as it grows more and more and more powerful.

Unless, of course, someone other than one of THEIR high-priests-of-Satan are at the helm of that government.

Shouldn’t the same smarmy-pharisaical Lost Angeles Slimes editorial board have also said:

But the accommodation must stop at the point at which a public official refuses to discharge his legal duty by invoking his OWN “God authority,” as Obama has done.

Pathologically dishonest, hypocrite Democrats keep playing the “God game” where they invoke religion or God or even the Bible to pervert these when they can twist them into supporting their ideology.  Oh, yes, you pathologically dishonest hypocrite lying liberal Democrat:

Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush
By  Eamon Javers
06/09/09, 04:09 AM EDT
Updated 06/09/09, 03:12 PM EDT

He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity. […]

What is always fascist and wrong for thee is always right and good for me, Democrats believe as a matter of their religion of fascist emperor worship.

You listen to twisted liars like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and you’d think that Jesus was a fervent socialist when JESUS NEVER SAID A SINGLE WORD AFFIRMING THE EXPANSION OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT.  And when in fact it was human government that violated its own “laws” to put Jesus to death.  Just like Jesus was NOT a homosexual and Jesus HATES abortion murder.  And then these same Democrats ban religion from intruding into their unholy human government all the other times because all of the above flat-out refute everything-the-hell-they’re-doing and every-reason-the-hell-why-they’re-doing it.  Religion is a tool that demonic Democrats cynically exploit to impose their godless way even as they scream out against any who would legitimately follow its actual teachings.  Which is why Democrats have demanded that Christians be barred and banned from being able to exercise their religion and their religious freedom in every practical way imaginable, even as they impose THEIR religion of secular humanism time and time and time again.

And yes, atheism and secular humanism ARE religions:

Atheists Score Major Win In Federal Court
by Jack Jenkins Nov 3, 2014 9:59am

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

Mind you, you can google the phrase, “Religion is man’s way to reach God; Christianity is God’s way to reach man” and find that many Christians reject that CHRISTIANITY is a “religion.”  But it is only Democrats’ atheists and secular humanists who get to play both sides of the field and represent themselves as NOT being a “religion” whenever it suits them as they tear down “religion” but they ARE a “religion” whenever it suits them as they apply the “if you can’t beat them, join them” in order to be a “Fifth Column and destroy religion from within” tactic.

Meanwhile they get to impose their atheist and secular humanist RELIGIOUS VALUES all over the damn place as they impose their tyrannous religion on everybody else.  All while loudly asserting that they’re somehow “protecting us from religion.”

Because to be a “Democrat” is to be a “moral cockroach hypocrite.”

When you’re screaming in hell, Democrat – and one day, soon, mark my words, you WILL BE screaming in hell – I just want you to remember that you’re not burning in hell for your blatant abandonment of MY morality.  No, you’re be burning in hell for your OWN hypocrite double-standards where what was right became what was wrong because you’re a twisted pervert and what was wrong became right because you’re a twisted pervert.  You’re going to burn in hell by your OWN standard, applied to YOU by the very God Whose authority you dedicated your life to trying to end.

So I’ll tell you what’s going to happen here: that poor virtuous Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis, is going to be persecuted and punished in the name of “the law” by the same lawless thug system that has been running roughshod over the law for the past six damn years.  And our “justice” system is going to do it, because:

“The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted.” — Habakkuk 1:4

Which is why I am now calling “judges” INjustices.  They have nothing to do with “justice” any more.

God announced that He was going to bring HELL to such a wicked nation.  Start reading from verse five on to see that.  And He’s preparing this country for the same fate.

But don’t worry.  Democrats have ended God’s authority.  The God of the Bible is now powerless, they triumphantly assert: only godless, wicked human government is omnipotent and has the divine right to crush any obstacle in its unholy path.

 

Obama As Joker And Typical Hypocritical Liberal Outrage

August 7, 2009

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush.  Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

Joker_Bush

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker.  Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

And how long did you think it would take for some leftist goon to depict it as an act of racism? I mean, after all, we ALL know there is a long historic association between “the Joker” and the negro, going all the way back to when Cesar Romero played the role on the the campy Batman program in the 1960s.

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role?  No one I know, anyway.  And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism.  I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”  When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back.  The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster … or not

11:50 AM, August 5, 2009

Joker There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush.  Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it.  But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama?  Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.”  It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives.  So it’s okay.  You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes.  The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds.  “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist.  Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not.  Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.”  Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist?  You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.”  If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif?  Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis?  What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it?  Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way?  Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire.  And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is.  If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost.  So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

And secondly, I would submit to you that there very much IS a context.  And that context is that President Obama, like the Joker, is “changing” society in what will be an incredibly destructive way.  Like the Joker, who loved to mar traditional societal representations with his own image, Obama is out reshaping and distorting and perverting our society into his own, yes, socialist image.  I can’t help but think of that elderly woman who got so tired of seeing Obama that she sold her televisions.

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.”  And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings.  Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care.  An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others.  They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.