Posts Tagged ‘liberal hypocrisy’

Do You Want To See The True Ugly Form Of Liberal Progressivism? Just Take A Glance Into Harvey Weinstein’s Shower.

October 12, 2017

Let’s just first understand that Harvey Weinsten, liberal progressive Hollywood gazillionaire, is one of the foremost contributors to everything liberal and everything Democratic Party.

What Weinstein was doing in his shower and in his bedroom and pretty much everywhere else was INFAMOUS in the circle of the Hollywood hypocrite circle.  But the same people who huffed and puffed in horror at every allegation of conservative or Republican scandal refused to lift a finger to actually take any kind of courageous stand for what they dishonestly and hypocritically profess to stand for.  For examples, hard-core leftist celebrities such as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Russel Crowe did everything they could to cover up for Weinstein, even killing a reporter’s story back in 2004.

Let’s just call this what it is and always HAS been: “stunning hypocrisy.”  But oh, no, the truth is being reported by Faux News, so let’s put on our tinfoil hats and keep believing the leftist lies instead.  “Faux News'” rivals exposed themselves a long time ago: I still remember watching MSNBC and then CNN and hearing the panel on both stations reporting that the U.S. economy was going to tank into oblivion the night Trump was elected.  I just wanted to see some liberal butthurt and I saw it in spades.  And these same liars keep making up fake”news” at a pace that makes your head spin.

This police recording made back in March of 2015 ought to make anyone with a functioning moral conscience puke.  But before I get to that, let’s consider that the same mainstream media people who ILLEGALLY released the audio of the off-camera conversation between Donald Trump and an Access Hollywood reporter somehow managed to hold on to the Weinstein story that revealed far more disgusting behavior from a liberal for YEARS.  It is simply a fact that the media is so rabidly biased it is beyond unreal.  And let’s stop and reflect a moment on how this media machine works: every single time anyone who ever did or ever stood for anything scandalous (e.g. how they connected David Duke To Donald Trump in spite of the fact that the latter had never even HEARD of him) who can be even remotely connected to the Republican Party or the “right” (and the media that has jumped on the term to create an arbitrary false equivalence between this “alt right” and conservative Republicans) every single Republican or conservative has a hundred microphones thrust in their faces and they are forced to comment on and denounce this individual and his or her hate.  They do it all the damn time.  But it is ALWAYS one-sided.  And so even though Hillary took tens of thousands of dollars from Harvey Weinstein, even though Obama took tens of thousands of dollars from Harvey Weinstein, even though he was a mega-giant donor to liberal and leftist causes, the same “reporters” who “report” hit pieces tainting the right and the conservatives and the Republicans with a broad brush every single chance they get won’t do the same with Weinstein and the left that he supported.

NYU Professors – you know, the SAME NYU that shouts down Republicans routinely warned female students not to intern with Weinstein’s company.  This wasn’t something that was only known about at the highest and most inner circles.  This was common knowledge that Weinstein was a thug rapist and a living, breathing, showering PROOF that liberalism equals hypocrisy.  I mean, how about this one: Weinstein had pledged the USC School of Cinematic Arts $5 million to fund an endowment for liberal filmmakers!  So he could have more women to rape, I guess.  But somehow no reporter was up to sniffing out the story???  So somehow the same mainstream media that has missed literally hundreds of cases of leftwing fascist hatred for the 1st Amendment free speech guaranteed by our Constitution also managed to repeatedly just miss doing a story on the decades of abuse and even RAPE committed by a liberal against women and especially women of color.

It wasn’t that they didn’t know.  It was that the didn’t CARE.  And it was that they didn’t WANT to know.  Because he was one of them and not very different from them.  The theme of “the casting couch” is as old as Hollywood, and every single Hollywood  rat bastard liberal plays this rat bastard game and it is common damn knowledge.  And that is because these rat bastards donate money to liberal causes the way the Catholic Church used to accept money to pay for “indulgences” for the forgiveness of sins.  As if God would forgive sins if the sinner paid a bribe to a corrupt priest.  And so caught in his own disgusting scandal, Weinstein promised he would support gun control and go after our 2nd Amendment.  Because that had always worked for him before.

Listen to Weinstein work what I have a feeling he thought was his magic:

Here is the full transcript of the exchange between Harvey Weinstein and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez that took place on March 27, 2015 (and hmmm, that name sounds like not only a woman but a MINORITY woman and yet somehow I’m not hearing anything about the disgusting, despicable treatment from liberals toward minorities):
Weinstein: I’m telling you right now, get in here.
Gutierrez: What do we have to do here?
Weinstein: Nothing. I’m going to take a shower, you sit there and have a drink.
Gutierrez: I don’t drink.
Weinstein: Then have a glass of water.
Gutierrez: Can I stay on the bar?
Weinstein: No. You must come here now.
Gutierrez: No …
Weinstein: Please?
Gutierrez: No, I don’t want to.
Weinstein: I’m not doing anything with you, I promise. Now you’re embarrassing me.
Gutierrez: I know, I don’t want to. I’m sorry, I cannot.
Weinstein: No, come in here.
Gutierrez: No, yesterday was kind of aggressive for me.
Weinstein: I know —
Gutierrez: I need to know a person to be touched.
Weinstein: I won’t do a thing.
Gutierrez: I don’t want to be touched.
Weinstein: I won’t do a thing, please. I swear I won’t. Just sit with me. Don’t embarrass me in the hotel. I’m here all the time. Sit with me, I promise —
Gutierrez: I know, but I don’t want to.
Weinstein: Please sit there. Please. One minute, I ask you.
Gutierrez: No, I can’t.
Weinstein: Go to the bathroom.
Gutierrez: Please, I don’t want to do something I don’t want to.
Weinstein: Go to the bathroom — Hey, come here. Listen to me —
Gutierrez: I want to go downstairs.
Weinstein: I won’t do anything and you’ll never see me again after this. OK? That’s it. If you don’t – if you embarrass me in this hotel where I’m staying —
Gutierrez: I’m not embarrassing you —
Weinstein: Just walk —
Gutierrez: It’s just that I don’t feel comfortable.
Weinstein: Honey, don’t have a fight with me in the hallway.
Gutierrez: It’s not nothing, it’s —
Weinstein: Please. I’m not gonna do anything. I swear on my children. Please come in. On everything. I’m a famous guy.
Gutierrez: I’m, I’m feeling very uncomfortable right now.
Weinstein: Please come in. And one minute. And if you wanna leave when the guy comes with my jacket, you can go.
Gutierrez: Why yesterday you touch my breast?
Weinstein: Oh, please. I’m sorry. Just come on in. I’m used to that.
Gutierrez: You’re used to that?
Weinstein: Yes, come in.
Gutierrez: No, but I’m not used to that.
Weinstein: I won’t do it again. Come on, sit here. Sit here for a minute, please?
Gutierrez: No, I don’t want to.
Weinstein: If you do this now you will [unintelligible]. Now go. Bye. Never call me again. OK? I’m sorry, nice to have — I promise you I won’t do anything.
Gutierrez: I know, but yesterday was too much for me.
Weinstein: The guy is coming. I will never do another thing to you. Five minutes. Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.
Gutierrez: I know — but, it’s kind of, like, it’s too much for me. I can’t.
Weinstein: Please, you’re making a big scene here. Please.
Gutierrez: No, but I wanna leave.
Weinstein: OK, bye. Thank you.

What I most marvel about, I suppose, is how this turd actually turns everything around on Ambra.  SHE’S the one “embarrassing” HIM.  SHE’S the one making “a big scene.”

Re-read the transcript this way, with the understanding that Ambra Battilana Gutierrez was the villain of Harvey Weinstein’s narrative.  He was the reasonable one and she was the one embarrassing him, making a big scene when she should have just submitted to his morally superior agenda.

That is the ugliest part of the liberal shower.  Because like Harvey Weinstein, these are the ugliest human beings of all, mass baby murderers and degenerate sexual perverts surrounded by armed bodyguards and living in palatial estates, every single one of them, and yet just like what they did to Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, these vile hypocrites use the same rhetorical tactics to make decent, hard-working Christians and conservatives the villains of their narratives.

Harvey actually believes that he’s still a “good guy” and after all, “we all make mistakes” and we deserve “second chances”:

“Guys, I’m not doing OK, but I’m trying. I gotta get help guys. You know what we all make mistakes, second chance I hope,” he said in a video obtained by TMZ before climbing into his SUV.

“I’ve always been loyal to you guys,” he continued, addressing photographers. “Not like those f—ing pricks who treat you like s–t. I’ve been a good guy.”

And he IS a good guy.

For a liberal, anyway.

The left is everything the Pharisees of Jesus’ time and the Catholic Church of the Crusades and the Inquisition were.  They are the self-righteous purists, the ones who judge and condemn everyone who fails to see things their way.  They are so righteous and so pure, of course, that their sanctimonious ears cannot tolerate anything evil, and so they violently beat and scream down anyone who has any different message from them.

Can you be a horrible Christian?  Of COURSE you can.  But what does it mean to be a lousy atheist?  A lousy secular humanist?  I mean, are they violating God’s laws when they do what they do?  Nope; they mock God because they are fools.  As a Christian, I have the Word of God to judge my conduct by and others can judge my conduct by the same divine measure.  But all the left has for their moral foundations are constantly evolving opinions from the worst class of arrogant, sanctimonious, preening liberal hypocrites.

Like I said, I stand on the Word of a holy God and I am judged according to how I measure to that divine standard.  As a Christian, I acknowledge that I am a sinner and that sin matters and that I will burn in hell for my sins unless I fall on my knees and confess my sins and lay them on the cross of the divine Son of God who took my place and paid for them.  And the Word of God assures me that when I do that, I become a new creature in Christ and the Holy Spirit comes into my life and helps me to live up to what God calls upon me to become.  And so the message of the cross is that sin is very real and part of the nature of every single human being, that forgiveness is possible, and that we can be transformed into new creatures.

What is the moral message of the left?  What is their foundation?  Upon what solid, timeless rock do they stand other than their own opinions???

Liberalism stands for nothing but greed and power while pretending that they care about the women and the blacks and the Hispanics and all the other people they trample over.

Advertisements

Why Liberals Are Quintessential Hypocrites As Illustrated In Three Recent Stories

August 25, 2014

Okay.  You’d probably better sit down for this because I’ve got a newsflash: liberals are suing to get their way [GASP]:

Federal judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional
By Maura Dolan
A federal judge has ruled California’s death penalty unconstitutional
Long delays in California executions violate Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, judge rules
July 16, 2014

A federal judge in Orange County ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, ruled on a petition by death row inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to die nearly two decades ago.

————

FOR THE RECORD

July 16, 1:16 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney was a federal judge in Los Angeles. He is a federal judge in Orange County.

————

Carney said the state’s death penalty has created long delays and uncertainty for inmates, most of whom will never be executed.

He noted that more than 900 people have been sentenced to death in California since 1978 but only 13 have been executed.

“For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California’s death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution,” Carney wrote.

Carney’s ruling can be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of  Appeals.

Carney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the delays have created a “system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determine whether an individual will actually be executed,” Carney said.

In overturning Jones’ death sentence,  Carney noted that the inmate faced “complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether” he will be executed.

The “random few” who will be executed  “will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary,”  Carney said.

“No rational person,” Carney wrote, “can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society.”

Natasha Minsker, a director of the ACLU of Northern California, said Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time that a federal judge had found  the state’s current system unconstitutional. She said it was also “the first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in 1995 sentenced Jones to death for the 1992 rape and killing of Julia Miller, his girlfriend’s mother. Jones killed Miller 10 months after being paroled for a previous rape.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said only that her office was reviewing the decision.

Okay, so let’s understand what the liberal judge said to this point: the death penalty is “unconstitutional.”  Why?  Because the delays in jumping through all the “due process” hoops took so long that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Okay, so – shocker alert here – liberals don’t like the death penalty so they love to rule that it is “unconstitutional.”  It doesn’t matter that the damn death penalty was being implemented before, during and after the Constitution was written.  It boils down to this: if liberals don’t like something, that thing is “unconstitutional,” because the “Constitution” is a “living, breathing document” that only means whatever the hell a liberal wants it to mean at any given moment.  So the death penalty is “unconstitutional” for the same reason that being opposed to the MURDER of more than fifty-six million innocent babies is “unconstitutional” or being for marriage as it has been defined for all of human history up to now is “unconstitutional.”

But keep in mind that at the center of the liberal judges reasoning is that the lengthy delays in jumping through all the due process hurdles creates “cruel and unusual punishing.”  I mean, like if you could just snuff out these rabid dogs faster, it would be okay.

Okay, this will stun the hell out of you: liberals are suing on a different matter to get their way at the same moment they’re suing here.  Consider their reasoning for this lawsuit:

US sued by immigrant rights groups over expedited deportation process
Coalition says Obama administration policies to deal with influx at border is unfair to women and children who flee to safety
theguardian.com, Friday 22 August 2014 16.48 EDT

A coalition of immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s expedited deportation process, claiming that it is unfair to women and children who flee Central America to seek safety in the US.

The groups claim the Obama administration’s new policies have created a “deportation mill” at a new government family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

“As the attorneys on the ground in Artesia have told us, the government is implementing a new expedited removal system which presents procedural obstacles that make it incredibly difficult for these women to even articulate their claim,” said Trina Realmuto, staff attorney at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

The National Immigration Project, American Immigration Council, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center filed the suit, MSPC v Johnson, in the US district court for the District of Columbia on Friday. They claim the Obama administration’s policies are unfair and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and US constitution.

Advocates say women in these facilities do not receive proper counsel or time to file asylum claims, which are known for taking time to process.

[…]

Okay, so liberals – who rabidly hate the death penalty because deep down they KNOW that they frankly deserve it so damn much themselves – claim that it’s “unconstitutional” because of the lengthy time to pursue all the due process hurdles.  I mean, it’s “cruel and unusual” to make somebody go through that many appeals (that liberals themselves turned into a farce that drags on for years and years).  But at the same time, since they are open-borders loons who want to overwhelm and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America using the votes of illegal immigrants to do it, they claim the very opposite thing with immigration.  “It’s taking too long to execute criminals so the death penalty is bad” becomes “it’s not taking long enough to process tens – soon to be hundreds – of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In other words, liberals will literally sue you for zigging and they’ll sue you for sagging.  You can’t win with these hypocrite demoniacs.

Liberalism is circular reasoning that begins with, “I want x” or “I don’t want y” and then plays whatever rhetorical games are needed with the law to get what it wants.

They are not decent people who are driven by any code of ethics.  The ends justify the means for them every bit as much as it did for the Nazis or for the Stalinists.  And they will twist and pervert the system any way that is needed to force it to give them what they want.  Or else they’ll violently riot.  Because in their hearts they are FASCISTS.

We’re seeing it play out in Ferguson, Missouri as we speak: liberals aren’t interested in “justice” or “fairness.”  They want what they want and damn whatever laws or regulations or Constitution that gets in their wicked way.  So the Democrat governor calls for “aggressive prosecution” of a police officer even before a grand jury determines that there should even BE a prosecution:

Missouri governor way out of line
He has made a powder keg situation worse
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:00 pm

The governor of Missouri has become a textbook example of what a politician should not do or say during a crisis that is a racially-explosive powder keg just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

And really that’s being very kind to Jay Nixon. His words in an address on Tuesday night to Missouri residents — and therefore in this case the nation — were incredibly biased and spoken with an almighty know-it-all tone. Those words were outrageous.

Ferguson, Mo., is that powder keg because of the shooting of a young black man by a six-year veteran police officer on Aug. 9.

No one — absolutely no one — at this point can definitively say what happened leading up to the confrontation between 18-year-old Michael Brown, who is black, and officer Darren Wilson, who is white, nor can anyone relate accurately what transpired in the tragic couple minutes of the incident that claimed Brown’s life.

That’s the job of those investigating the situation, including a grand jury that convened on Wednesday.

Nixon on Tuesday night said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the case.

That’s not even subtle. He clearly said that there needs to be an aggressive prosecution of Wilson.

Only problem right now, governor, he hasn’t been charged with anything in the case and his side of the story hasn’t even been officially heard yet.

However, the governor of Missouri has charged the police officer with his words and given marching orders to prosecutors to go after him in court with every legal weapon in their arsenal.

The loss of Brown’s life in Ferguson is simply sad and dreadful. But in the name of justice let the process run its course to a conclusion wherever it goes.

As for the governor — what an horrendous abuse of his power

Democrats are people who side with vicious thugs who grab and intimidate business owners and commit strong arm robbery before striding down the middle of the street and punching cops in the face who get in their damn way.

And to quote Eric Holders Department of Injustice, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”  It doesn’t matter what “justice” is.  Justice is a totalitarian witch who is only “blind” because rabid hatred and contempt for everything that stands in the way of dictatorial liberalism MAKES her blind.  And bitter and wanting to burn and loot as well.  But don’t you EVER bring a lawsuit against a black in Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice.

The left wants the prosecutor in the Ferguson, Missouri case – whose been in office for 20 years and who was just re-elected only DAYS before the shooting – thrown off the case.  Because they want to jury-rig the outcome and get what they want.  THAT’S “justice” to the left: we get what we want and we destroy all obstacles in the way of getting what we want.  Or else we riot.

They’re claiming that since St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s father was gunned down by a black man that he’s biased.

Well, I’ll agree that if the prosecutor had said stuff like, “This is personal to me,” or else if he’d said “I’m here for the police,” or if he’d vowed to protect white people, etc., etc., he should be tossed.

But do you know who DID say crap like that coming from the opposite direction?  Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder.

Oh, yes, this matter is “deeply personal” to Eric Holder.  So let’s throw objectivity out the door and let our biases soar:

[…]

Of Holder’s arrival, USA Today writer Kevin Johnson observes that for the AG the situation in Ferguson is “deeply personal.” Johnson quotes as having told Ferguson residents at a community meeting yesterday:

I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

This of course is nothing new for Holder, who has made race an issue throughout his tenure as the nation’s top cop. As Jeff Dunetz reminds us, Holder has allowed his own skin color to interfere with his judgment as head of the Department of Justice, so why should his handling of the Freguson investigation proceed any differently?

Johnson has another quote by Holder, made to a group of community leaders assembled at a local community college. (As an aside, the AG certainly did a lot of speechifying on his first day in town). He said:

The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now. The world is watching because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it, and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.

Holder is assuming, like the mobs pillaging the town nightly, that racism is involved here. That is not just premature and reckless. It is blatantly outside the scope of the law. It is reminiscent of the very revealing comment about “empathy” made in 2007 by candidate Barack Obama, who said

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges. [Emphasis added]

Empathy and compassion are positive traits. But they have no business in a court of law. Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law and are sworn to render verdicts dispassionately, based on evidence and testimony. That is why justice as wearing a blindfold.
Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/08/21/holder-personal-thats-problem/#hHJ1v68WGF2fbIQw.99

Imagine the hellstorm had Bob McColloch said the racial equivalent: “I am the Prosecutor of St. Louis County, but I am also a white man.  I can remember when my daddy was murdered by a black thug…”

The NAACP is in this racial stew up to its neck.  Just imagine if “NAACP” stood for “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People.”

Just imagine if our society were actually FAIR and blacks got back the racial bullcrap they’ve been pissing at the rest of America for a change.

I can’t say for sure, but I’ve got a feeling that the black community would very quickly be willing to return to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” vision.  You know, the one where we’re all equal and nobody gets to be treated any different than anybody else rather than the one we’ve got where blacks get to be as racist as hell is hot while denying they’re capable of racism because they’ve got the most arbitrary and self-serving definition of “racism” in the entire space-time universe.

Eric Holder says he is “here for the community.”  By which he really means the vicious mob that’s been rioting and looting and burning.  He spent HOURS with the Brown family and with the same community rabble-rousers that his boss Obama came from.  But not one nanosecond with the cop who was viciously punched in the face before he was forced to go through a life-or-death struggle for his service weapon while he laid on his back in his own squad car with a giant thug on top of him.

Just imagine how you would feel if you were in a courtroom literally fighting for your life and the judge walked over and hugged your opponent just before taking the bench and calling the court to order.  That’s what’s going on here.

So the same left that demands McCulloch resign, recuse himself, be dismissed, whatever because of the threat of bias LOVES bias.  As long as that rabid bias is distorting legal reality to suit their race agenda.

So if the left can’t get McCulloch forced out, what’s their next move?  Delegitimize the grand jury in advance and threaten to riot if they don’t get their way.

A Democrat State Senator put her call for a race riot in the form of a “prediction”:

“If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur.”

Well, I mean, yeah, given the fact that you and your race-baiting pal Al Sharpton are going to go out and foment racial violence the way you do whenever you don’t get your way.

I want you to understand what’s going on here: one side – the conservatives – want a government that will basically leave them the hell alone.  They want a LIMITED federal government.  They want a federal government bound by the separation of powers.  They want laissez-faire free market capitalism, rather than liberal crony capitalist regulations that benefit one politically-chosen side and punish the other.  They want individual liberty and individual personal responsibility.  The other side wants more and more and more government.  They want a president who is “sort of God” who will run roughshod over the Constitution to impose his way by raw force.

One side wants life; the other side wants more abortion-murders than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, in the bloodiest war in all of human history combined.  One side wants marriage as all of human history has defined it; the other side wants the perversion of homosexual sodomy.  One side wants individual liberty and individual personal responsibility; the other side wants a totalitarian nanny-state that will redistribute the wealth the way they want to reward their friends and punish their enemies.  One side wants freedom according to the spirit that our founding fathers created America to be; the other side wants totalitarian government slavery in the mode of European socialist leaders like Hitler and Stalin.  And that side that wants all these evil things will break any law, violate any regulation, interfere with justice in any way, to GET their way.

The only way to have a fair fight here is if BOTH sides were out to use the raw power of government and the courts to get their way to crush and to rule over the other.  But only the rabid left is doing that.

Which is why America is doomed and which is why the Antichrist is coming just as the Bible told us the ultimate big-government totalitarian dictator would come.

Just realize that we are dealing with an ideology in the left that defines “justice” as “we get our way no matter what” and “injustice” as if we don’t get our way we’re going to start rioting.”

 

Obama’s Visit To Hollywood Dream Works Shows That His Dream Doesn’t WORK

November 29, 2013

So Obama goes to überliberal Hollywood, home of the überrich white hypocrites who get paid millions, shirk on their taxes, take every tax dodge known to man on the taxes they DO bother to pay, while self-righteously declaring that the Middle Class should suck it up and render to Obama what is due to him (i.e. everything, because of course we owe everything to Obama and his big government State).  And the Los Angeles Times celebrates the moment with its title, “Obama visits DreamWorks, calls Hollywood a ‘bright spot’ of economy.”

Mind you, these are the people who make movie after movie making themselves rich glorifying gun violence only to tell us that we have to give up our guns – the same guns that Hollywood liberals and their Hollywood-Liberal-in-Chief rely upon to protect themselves while doing every damn thing they can to deny that protection to everyone else.

Which is why examples of Hollywood hypocrisy abound.  And so:

The American Federation of Musicians is fighting mad at their Hollywood paymasters. What could separate these two institutions of liberalism? Cash, of course. AFM is upset that Marvel’s Iron Man 3 decided to go abroad to use foreign musicians for cheap. John Acosta, vice president of AFM Local 47, summed up the case against Marvel: “Marvel is unfair to musicians because they take tax breaks from states but when it comes to doing a score for their movies, they outsource the work overseas. We’ve been protesting and raising the alarm about this over two years since Iron Man 1 and we feel those jobs belong in the US.”

For years, individual states have been reaching out to the film industry in an attempt to woo Hollywood dollars. Recognizing the business-hating climate of Los Angeles, even liberal governors are trying to outcompete the Hollywood locals by handing out tax breaks and incentives

To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite who says, “What I want to impose upon thee is not good for me.”  So I’ll follow the example of my hypocrite Democrat Party and pass a “health care reform” law that screws everybody else but vote myself safe from it’s grasp.

But there was this admission buried in the back of the LA Times article even as it attempted to glorify President False Messiah:

Obama’s visit and upbeat message about the entertainment industry come at a  time of widespread anxiety among the middle-class crew members in Southern  California who work behind the scenes on films and TV shows.

Many have seen job  opportunities and incomes dwindle as work has migrated to other  states and countries that offer film productions tax breaks and incentives better than  those available in California.

“Some indicators suggest that activity in the entertainment industry is up,  but that has not translated into jobs here in California,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist with the Los Angeles  County Economic Development Corp. “In fact, the number of industry-related jobs  locally and in California has shown little improvement since the recession, even  as industry employment nationally has increased modestly over the past couple of  years.”

More than 50 visual effects workers held a rally outside the studio to call  attention to the plight of California’s visual effects industry, which has been  hard-hit by layoffs, foreign subsidies and the outsourcing of jobs.

DreamWorks itself, which employs 2,200 people, laid off about 350 employees  earlier this year after a decision to shelve production of the movie “Me and My  Shadow,” but that layoff was not tied to outsourcing.

“This is not an attack on DreamWorks Animation or Obama, but we do not have  jobs coming to us. They are all going to other countries,” said Tom Capizzi, a  longtime visual effects employee who in February lost his job at Rhythm &  Hues. “It’s having a huge impact on the workers of Los Angeles.”

Obama was in L.A. on the last leg of a three-day West Coast tour to raise  money for Democratic House and Senate candidates. His itinerary included two fundraisers Monday night, one at the home  of athlete and entrepreneur Magic  Johnson and another at the home of Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, who is  chairman of Spanish-language channel Univision  Communications Inc. On Tuesday morning, the president attended a Democratic  fundraiser at the Hancock Park home of Marta Kauffman, co-creator of the  television show “Friends.”

What happens when a socialist president imposes high taxes?  Hollywood liberals put their money in foreign projects so they won’t have to pay out their wazoos, that’s what happens.

It’s only wrong when the Koch brothers do it, though, in the minds of sanctimonious, self-righteous, pathologically hypocritical liberals.

Liberal-dominated California is too morally stupid to ever understand that high taxes equal low growth and low growth equals no damn jobs.

That’s the beauty of ObamaCare right now: all the quintessentially self-centered liberals who were fine with somebody ELSE getting royally screwed are now appalled – APPALLED! – that they’re the ones getting screwed, too.

Liberal labor unions are the worst (because they’re the most liberal, and the more liberal you are, the more despicable and depraved a human being you are): they are beyond outraged that they would have to suffer the results of their own damn FASCISM that they worked so hard to impose on everyone else.  How DARE you not exempt them???

Every liberal who votes that SOMEBODY ELSE pay higher taxes is nothing more than a hypocrite who is willing to undermine American productivity so they can feel warm inside.  They would do better to just pee in their pants instead; that way they can have all the feeling of “warmth” they want without inflicting their childish stupidity on everybody else.

If you want an industry to be able to succeed, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES so they can actually keep their profits.  If you want the American people to be allowed to prosper, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES.

It is so damn simple: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

‘The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Let it be on YOUR sons and daughters’: The Fascist, Hypocrite Heart Of The Left

September 23, 2013

We’ve got a little situation in liberal-dominated journalism and liberal-dominated academia at the same time epitomized in these words:

#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.

— David Guth (@DWGuth)

There’s an analogous situation going on in Kenya right now, and let’s complete the analogy by altering the tragedy to put it in “NRA” terms.  The children of non-NRA members are being released; the children of NRA members are being killed execution style:

al-Shabaab at Kenya Mall “We only want to kill non-Muslims”

al-Shabaab gunman – ‘All Muslims leave… we only want to kill non-Muslims’: Gunmen massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they are Muslim.

One witness who was embroiled in the situation claimed that the gunmen told Muslims to stand up and leave and that only non-Muslims would be targeted when they opened fire at the upmarket mall of the Westlands district around midday.

At least two dozen people, wounded and dead, were wheeled out on stretchers and in shopping trolleys by security guards, while others were seen walking out of the building, clutching bloodied clothing around their injuries.

Locals and tourists who were out shopping on the sunny Saturday in Kenya ran screaming from the building and cars were left abandoned as attackers threw grenades and fired AK47s.

Over the course of an hour people streamed from the building, at least half a dozen covered in blood and clutching small children to them.

The Kenya Red Cross Society now says that 22 have been reported dead and at least 50 wounded.

Via Live Leak

The death toll is up to 68 as last I’ve heard reported.

Another title of the terrorist atrocity in Kenya can be re-phrased thus:

“If they found me, I’m the child of an NRA member, so I’m dead.”  Survivors reveal how gunman executed non-liberals…

And there are other similar attacks exemplifying David Guth’s liberal fascist hatred going on TODAY.  What was it Obama said about Christians in Pennsylvania who were clinging to their guns and their BiblesWhy not just treat ’em all the same:

Angry and scared, Pakistan’s beleaguered Christian community has demanded proper protection from the government as the death toll from the attack on an historic Peshawar church reached 85.

As mourners continued to bury the dead from Sunday’s double suicide blast assault, Christians protested in cities across the country, blocking roads and burning tyres as they called on the authorities to act.

“People are so angry. They are asking for protection from the government,” said Sohail Johnson of the Sharing Life ministry in Lahore, who had travelled to Peshawar in the aftermath of the attack. “We all feel insecure in Pakistan. The law enforcement agencies and the government have failed us. We are not even able to celebrate our Sunday service for two or three hours.”

Hundreds of Christians had just left a service inside the All Saints Church and were gathering on the lawns outside for a free meal when two suicide bombers approached the crowds and detonated their devices. People were torn apart by the explosives, which are believed to have included ball bearings.

Oh, you don’t have to worry.  I mean, Obama promised that he’d won the war on terror and that al Qaeda was on the run and decimated and everything.  So I must just be making all of these murders up, I guess.

Getting back to Professor David Guth and his liberal hatred, I’ve said this many times before: the essence of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you take the hypocrite out of a liberal, he or she simply dematerializes altogether.

Liberals are people who define themselves as “tolerant” and define those who disagree with them as “intolerant.”  And then they tell you that it’s okay to be intolerant to intolerant people.  Here’s an example of such a quote in a liberal screed celebrating the death of Jerry Falwelll:

I’m intolerant toward intolerant people.  I’m also bigoted against bigots.  I see no contradiction in that.  There’s no requirement in my morality to give equal consideration to reprehensible positions.

Posted by: Amy | May 16, 2007 10:35 AM

That may sound reasonable to you.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is a game that ANYBODY can play.  All you have to be is an abject hypocrite and voilà: you’ve defined yourself as “tolerant” and anybody who doesn’t think you’re “tolerant” is ergo sum INTOLERANT.  And of course it is a good thing to be intolerant to intolerant people, so you can attack them and purge them and even kill them without mercy.

Mind you, liberals by way of the ACLU are the SAME people who forced Holocaust surviving Jews to “tolerate” a Nazi parade through their town of Skokie, Illinois.  They have no problem forcing OTHER people to be tolerant toward intolerant people.  Just like they have no problem forcing other people to pay higher taxes while they refuse to pay their own taxes.

So the Obama Department of Justice dictates that you must be OPENLY FOR gay marriage.  Why?  Because “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”  That’s why.  In Obama’s God damn America, there is no freedom to disagree, because 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality has been criminalized.  And it is a crime to have a conscience that in any way disagrees with Obama.  Even though even Obama disagreed with Obama just a few years ago in order to get himself elected.

It aint just in Kenya and in Pakistan where Christians are specifically targeted for not agreeing with the government, you see.

What can I say?  That was then, and this is now.  And now that Obama has all the guns – or at least is trying to GET all the guns – he gets to make all the new rules.

There is nothing new under the sun, the Bible tells us.  This has been done before, as I shall point out below: the Marxists did it, the Nazis did it, and now the new left is following the old left and doing all the same things.

I’ve done some thinking about how liberalism operates in the last few days.  Liberals are people who demand that America can’t be allowed to profile the actual terrorists who have committed the actual terrorist attacks – and thus we must create a giant bureaucracy that treats EVERYBODY like a terrorist in a totalitarian way.  Liberals are people who demand that the mentally ill who commit all the mass murder shooting sprees must not be singled out in any way – and thus we must treat EVERYBODY like a mass-murdering psycho and take everybody’s guns away and leave everybody defenseless apart from a giant totalitarian bureaucracy to protect all of us herd animals.  Liberals are people who demand that we can’t be allowed to hold anyone individually responsible for their incredibly poor and destructive life choices – and thus we must create a giant welfare bureaucracy to redistribute benefits to people who won’t work for them.

And all the while they are demonizing and slandering anybody who disagrees with them.

Tolerance historically referred to the practice of putting up with disagreeable behavior by other people because, while you disagreed with said behavior, you respected those people as being fellow human beings and recognized their right to be different.  Liberals got their foot in the door seizing advantage of that attitude.  But when they got inside the door, they proceeded to slam it shut on anybody who might disagree with THEM.  That was how liberals came to take enough power to proceed to systematically purge out nearly all the conservatives from academia and journalism in the first place.

It’s why Helen Thomas, one of the most lauded “journalists” in modern times, said:

I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

She was one of the “tolerant” ones, you see.  And the little fact that she was a rabid anti-Semite Jew hater is besides the point.  Because liberals are people who see the speck in your eye while ignoring the giant log stuck in their own eyes.

David Guth – as a journalism professor – is a member of not one, but THE TWO MOST INTOLERANT CAREER FIELDS in the world today.

We can examine how the Nazis allowed and even ENCOURAGED anything – and I mean ANYTHING – that undermined the old regime and its underlying value system, only to become hard-core reactionaries against anything that threatened their rule.  Allistair Hamilton, in his important work, The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, wrote:

“Fascism, the Fascism of the intellectuals above all, had its origins in sheer rebelliousness, in an anarchistic revolt directed against the established order” [p. xx].

As an example, the Nazis were every bit as determined to destroy the influence of Judeo-Christianity and its morality as the modern left and the Democrat Party is today.  And when they succeeded, those who sowed the wind reaped the same whirlwind that Americans are reaping now.  Nazi fascists were incredibly avant-garde in their pursuit of a new value system until the NAZIS became “the established order.”  And then they destroyed anyone and anything that threatened their “established order.”  And as a result, many thinkers and artists became casualties of the very ideology that they themselves had been completely instrumental in advancing (just as the leftist labor unions are learning they are casualties after working so hard to advance the socialist takeover of the American health care system).

Jonah Goldberg captured the reason behind this intellectual and ideological hypocrisy in these words:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.”

The modern left have created a society – following the tradition of their previous leftist Marxist and fascist intellectual ancestors – in which the people were treated as herd animals whose thoughts and actions were directed toward a common goal by a few who had absolute power to impose their will to power.  Everyone and everything is expendable in the pursuit of this government-owned collective and anything that threatens it will be ruthlessly attacked with all the means the government collective has at its disposal.

And if you disagree, well, you must either serve the collective or the blood as a result of pretty much anything that happens is on your hands and you – or at least your children in the warped mind of David Guth – should die.

That’s what liberalism did during the days of the French Revolution which swiftly degenerated into the reign of terror, and it’s what liberalism did in the days of Marxism which swiftly degenerated into Stalinism and Maoism, etc. etc.  And it’s what liberalism continues to do today.

And, of course, that was why the very first thing the Nazis did was to confiscate all the guns so only the regime had them.  Because he who has the might gets to make the rules.  And the American society founded upon the idea of individual liberty and the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defend that individual liberty don’t mesh with fascist takeovers.  So your gun has got to go.

As we speak, Barak Obama is out demonizing his Republican opponents as “playing politics” while the “politician-in-chief” implicitly declares himself incapable of such a sin as “playing politics.”  He says that the Republicans are evil for refusing to compromise when he himself refuses to compromise and literally called House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he was not going to negotiate even the slightest detail of anything with Republicans.

We are watching fundamental hypocrisy on such a vast scale that it is simply beyond unreal.

And to the extent that it works, well, the blood WILL be on our hands and on our children’s heads.

Postscript: A parent was arrested and sentenced to ten years for speaking out at a public school event where Obama’s Common Core was being shoved down their throats.  He said, “Don’t stand for this!”  Don’t be sheep!  Don’t be cattle!” as they hauled him away for trying to ask a few important questions.

According to the dictates of fascism, you ARE sheep, and yes you WILL sit there like cattle.  Or the stormtroopers will be coming to drag YOU away, too.

Postscript: In Überrliberal Chicago, the government is literally demanding the National Guard be called in to deal with the incredible violence by all the Democrat voters there.  Don’t think for a second that these liberal fascists will allow law-abiding citizens to protect their own children.

Crap like this doesn’t happen where people are allowed to defend themselves.  That’s why the gang bangers locate in areas where liberals have rendered them defenseless.

Ah, liberalism, where you can create an ocean-full of problems and then blame Republicans for the ensuing flood.

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

August 26, 2013

I made the mistake of searching for intelligent life in the Los Angeles Times’ editorial section and found this gem:

Re “Why get off welfare?” Opinion, Aug. 22

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers. When arguing taxes, conservatives insist that cutting them will encourage small businesses to create jobs, providing a broader taxpaying base, while increasing taxes will reduce jobs and therefore reduce the amount of taxes going to government.

In his article, Michael Tanner argues that if benefit payments were lower than wages for entry-level jobs, it would encourage the poor to seek work.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Jack Berens
Alta Loma

Let’s just put the first hoity-toity, sanctimonious, self-righteous sentence together with the very last to see what’s wrong with this argument:

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Oookay.  Apparently, Mr. Berens is astonished at the “singularity of economic solutions” proposed by conservatives.  Which is a fancy way of accusing conservatives of thinking alike.

So what does Mr. Berens proceed to do, you know, after displaying his naked contempt for “the singularity of conservative thought”???  Why, prove that all damn liberals think alike and document the “singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberal thinkers,” that’s what.

Increase the minimum wage.  Why, no lefty has ever proposed THAT novel concept before.  THAT’S not demonstrating “the singularity of liberal thought,” now, is it?  As long as you’ve got the IQ of a poached egg it’s not, anyway.

For the record, the LA Times published six responses to the Tanner editorial.  One of them was from a conservative (actually five liberals’ to one conservative is about as “fair” as the LA Times is capable of ever getting, so there’s not much point complaining about that).  So five liberals write in – and four of the five call for higher wages.  And the fifth had a couple of other “singular” liberal economic solutions in demanding more government intrusion into education, more government intrusion into child care and more government intrusion into transportation.  So I think I have good grounds just in the LA Times editorial section in pointing out that this Jack Berens is revealing the singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberals even as he attacks the very same thing from conservatives.

The biggest problem with liberals isn’t that they are completely wrong (although that is a major problem with them); the problem is that liberals are abject hypocrites who routinely demonize conservatives for doing the same damn thing that they are doing even when they are at that very moment doing that thing themselves as Jack Berens does here.

Actually, if one were fair or honest (liberals being incapable of either), one would realize that the “singularity of solutions” thing is rather absurd.  Of COURSE there’s a singularity of thought among conservative thinkers… THAT’S WHY WE CALL THEM CONSERVATIVES!!!  If they DIDN’T have the same solutions, they wouldn’t be conservatives anymore than if liberals didn’t have the same damn solutions, they wouldn’t be liberals.  Do you see my point???

I mean, what a dunderheaded argument the LA Times saw fit to print.

Jack Berens’ problem is that he’s a hypocrite who can’t help shaking his fist in the mirror and shouting, “YOU are an idiot!”

I just despise that king of self-righteous hypocrisy.

Here’s another thing that’s wrong with Berens’ “solution”: How do you increase the minimum wage?  By using the raw, naked power of government to FORCE businesses to pay a higher wage.

Now, let’s see: are liberals doing a real good job creating jobs?  Well, if you’ve got that poached egg IQ, I’m sure you think they are.  The rest of us aren’t seeing a whole lot of jobs being created.  And then we’re further stunned to learn that seven out of every eight jobs Obama has “created” in his presidency are part-time jobs rather than the full-time jobs people need to actually earn an actual living.  And ObamaCare has massively accelerated that terrible trend.  And will continue to do so.

Hell, even ObamaCare shills are only hiring their workers part-time so they won’t have to pay the cost of health care that ObamaCare would force them to pay if they didn’t hire part-time.  The damn irony is just too thick here.

Who is going to be forced to pay workers more?  Does Jack Berens believe that every single employer in America is a “conservative economic thinker”???  Does he not realize that plenty of LIBERALS who hire people are paying their workers the same revolting wage that Jack Berens demonizes conservatives for paying???

Why are liberals paying this despicably low wage?  They could pay as much as they want to pay.

The reason is pretty damn simple, kids: both conservatives and the liberals who actually have to live in the real damn world alike are paying what they can afford to pay to retain the quality of help that they need.

Jack Berens is basically saying, “I think other people ought to pay more.”  Which is the PROTOTYPICAL “economic solution proposed by liberal thinkers.”  Let’s force other people to spend their money the way we liberal fascists think they should spend it.  Never heard that line of reasoning before.  Boy, this Jack Berens fellow is anything BUT an example of liberal “singularity,” aint he???

Just how in the world do you think forcing businesses to pay higher wages will incentivize them to hire more workers???  And if employer X and employee Y both agree on a certain wage, then just who the hell made liberals’ Adolf Hitler by giving them the power to interfere with that agreement and say, “Nein!  Employers must be forced by government socialism to pay MORE than they are willing to pay!”

I can document that I put my money where my mouth was in this minimum-wage-employement debate.  In that 2009 article, I made a prediction: I predicted that increasing the minimum wage would decrease the number of minimum wage jobs.  And I was right, right, RIGHT just as liberals were wrong, wrong, WRONG.  As I proved.

This idea that liberals can use the raw fascist power of a totalitarian state to dictate what businesses and individuals do is as naïve as it is evil.  Businesses have a way of doing whatever the hell they can to not be the social experiment stooges that liberals continuously want them to be.  Frankly, the lower-skilled a job, the less valuable a worker is to his/her employer, and therefore the smaller the margin that an employer can pay for what is by definition a marginal job to begin with.  The job simply isn’t worth enough to an employer to want to – or be able to afford to – pay more.  And if government tries to force them to pay more, they will simply not offer the damn job.

And of course, the Tanner article was precisely about the fact that liberals really don’t WANT jobs to begin with: they want to be parasites.  They want to be freeloaders.  The want to be entitlement suckers.  They want to be welfare/food stamp addicts.  And they want government to have the fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian power to decide who wins and who loses, who pays and who doesn’t pay, who has to be forced to pay for ObamaCare and who gets a damn waiver from ObamaCare, and that sort of thing.  So it frankly doesn’t bother them if they kill jobs and hurt poor people who want to work.

Which, of course, is precisely what is happening now as businesses are tripping over themselves to kill the idea of “full-time employees” in order to avoid the ObamaCare hell mandate (i.e., the mandate to go to hell mandated by ObamaCare).

Being A Democrat Means Never Holding Barack Obama Responsible for Anything After Coming Unglued Over Bush For Everything

February 12, 2013

This is just too funny.  Buzzfeed should give Benny Johnson a raise or a company car or something:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them
Obama’s national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left.
posted on February 11, 2013 at 1:44pm EST
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed Staff

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Obama had promised to end Bush’s hawkish foreign policy and the “war on terror’s” detention and interrogation regime.Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime. View this image ›

But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama’s record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor’s in those areas.
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.

1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.

Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.View this image ›

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.View this image ›

You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush’s surge policy:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they were really more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office. View this image ›

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this: View this image ›

So you would think Democrats would react like this:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are much more like this.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

3. President Obama’s drones and special operators are working down “kill lists” of suspected terrorists.

President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists. View this image ›

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list. View this image ›

Al-Awlaki [an American citizen] was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.

If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But now they are more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.View this image ›

If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes. View this image ›

Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.

So the Democrats should be like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are a lot more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.

Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.  View this image ›

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama’s security watch.

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.

Image by Andrew Burton / Reuters

When Bush did this, Democrats were like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Now:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Image by John Moore / Getty Images

When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them<

8. And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

But now they are much more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

“We may not be so different, you and I.”

"We may not be so different, you and I."View this image ›

Image by Courtesy of the Bush Center, Houston Texas.

We could add in stuff like the debt, the deficit and the debt ceiling.  But who’s counting?  Not the mainstream media, that’s for sure.

It is amazing how hypocritical the Democrat Party and the liberals who form their core truly are.  They are bad people and bad people always prefer lies just as they are always hypocrites.  You cannot have an honest argument with people who say one thing,do another – and then say something completely different without ever having acknoweledged how dishonest they were from the beginning.

In order to have a fair and honest debate, you simply have to have both sides have integrity.  We don’t have that as long as we have liberals with any power.