In this post:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/06/black-tea-party-activists-called-traitors/
we find the story of TEA Party members of African American descent. In the story we find the following quote:
----
Black members of the movement say it is not inherently racist, and some question the reported slurs. "You would think — something that offensive — you would think someone got video of it," Bazar, the conservative blogger, said.
"Just because you have one nut case, it doesn't automatically equate that you've got an organization that espouses (racism) as a sane belief," Johnson said.
Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, suggested a bit of caution.
"I'm sure the reason that (black conservatives) are involved is that from an ideological perspective, they agree," said Shelton. "But when those kinds of things happen, it is very important to be careful of the company that you keep."
---
Let me get this straight -- a black supporter of the limited government espoused by the TEA Party movement is counselled by a leader of the NAACP that they should be "careful of the company they keep" because of allegations that some members of a group of millions have possibly said some rascist things. Of course, there is no proof -- no video or audio of a public display that occurred the day before a momentous vote on an unprecedented health care bill. The events supposedly occurred toward congressmen -- people followed by aides and entourages. There were many opposition people and press present and there is not one video or audio tape in an era when everyone has phones capable of such.
Yet the NAACP supports the actions of a President who spent 20 years listening to the most vile hatred be spewed by Jeremiah Wright -- a man who calls himself a Pastor. His speech shows him to be an avowed anti-semite and hater of most people who are not like him either in color or belief. Yet this same NAACP misses the incredible hypocrisy that refuses to condemn the President for listening for 20 years. This pastor was a father-surrogate and spiritual mentor both organizationally and for his family personally. His comments are readily available on tape, video and print.
So let me get this straight -- a conservative is supposed to run for the hills at the mere whiff of taint by a person somewhere, somehow, with no proof of either action or allegiance possibly saying something that might be offensive for fear of harming their own image by the company they keep. But a liberal is allowed to frolic with people who bathe in hatred, document what they say, disseminate it, push it, and persevere in it for 20 years. They are allowed to be photographed with said person, sup with them, and consult with them. And yet, their affiliation is to be ignored and is considered "just ducky".
Wow. If that image doesn't belong in the dictionary as the definition of "hypocrisy" I don't know what does.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Executive Order Banning Federal Funds for Abortion a Ruse
See this reference:
http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010/03/21/draft-executive-order-on-abortion-funding-does-it-address-senate-accounting-trick/
I decided a while ago that those who said you could tell the truth by who screamed loudly and who didn't had a great idea. When NARAL and Planned Parenthood lauded the healthcare bill instead of castigating it, I knew that Bart Stupak had either been had or was always after the green and that the executive order wasn't fit to use for toilet paper.
That being said, I was a bit surprised that Commandant President signed it anyway. Why take the chance? I've now decided it was an exercise in stroking his monumental ego and a wry lawyer joke akin the the kind of games played by ER nurses ("yup, he's a gomer (get out of my emergency room)").
In this case, it's a way to say "let's see if these idiots catch on to how smart I am as a lawyer -- this isn't just unenforceable (because laws trump EOs -- it doesn't even do what it pretends to do" (cue the maniacal laughter). You can see the above link for details, but I believe the author is on to something.
The EO purports to ban the use of "appropriated funds" for providing abortions. This could perhaps trigger (in an ideal world) a huge backlash whereby the 70% of the country who does not favor killing live babies on dark tables in coat closets (as BO voted to allow while an Illinois Senator) withhold portions of their tax revenues as a form of protest. After all, they can't jail all of us, right? Well, here is yet another end-around. The money to fund abortions comes from (follow me here), the insurance companies -- not the federal government. Now maybe semantic differences matter a whole lot is sneaky lawyerly places like Washington DC or New York City, but where I live in the heartland, I don't care if you do put lipstick on a pig and call it Mary, I'm still not going to kiss it.
No sir, out here, if you force me to buy insurance under threat of fines or imprisonment, I call it what it is -- a government action -- and let's use a different word, it is awfully similar to a TAX. Yup, I see right through that. Now if you dictate to the insurance company I have to do business with what they can offer (a policy that covers abortion), then 2 things become true -- first, that insurance company just got taken over. I really don't care if you pretend to call it something different. Just like we now have Government Motors where we used to have GM, we will now have GI (Government Insurance -- you like the gastro-intestinal reference too? Because that's what it's going to feel like. So those formerly private company employees are government employees, GI is another arm of the government, and the GI product that kills babies using money I am coerced and threatened to pay them is still using my money to fund something I find morally objectionable. And that, is what a very wise man named Thomas Jefferson called tyranny.
So, go ahead and enjoy your little in-joke Mr. Obama. You can pretend you pulled the wool over us with your clever tricks like the magicians use, your sleight-of-hand and misdirection, your arcane use of legalese. But we here in the heartland see right through you. And I'm still hoping for a change -- the change that throws you and your Socialist cronies right out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.
http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010/03/21/draft-executive-order-on-abortion-funding-does-it-address-senate-accounting-trick/
I decided a while ago that those who said you could tell the truth by who screamed loudly and who didn't had a great idea. When NARAL and Planned Parenthood lauded the healthcare bill instead of castigating it, I knew that Bart Stupak had either been had or was always after the green and that the executive order wasn't fit to use for toilet paper.
That being said, I was a bit surprised that Commandant President signed it anyway. Why take the chance? I've now decided it was an exercise in stroking his monumental ego and a wry lawyer joke akin the the kind of games played by ER nurses ("yup, he's a gomer (get out of my emergency room)").
In this case, it's a way to say "let's see if these idiots catch on to how smart I am as a lawyer -- this isn't just unenforceable (because laws trump EOs -- it doesn't even do what it pretends to do" (cue the maniacal laughter). You can see the above link for details, but I believe the author is on to something.
The EO purports to ban the use of "appropriated funds" for providing abortions. This could perhaps trigger (in an ideal world) a huge backlash whereby the 70% of the country who does not favor killing live babies on dark tables in coat closets (as BO voted to allow while an Illinois Senator) withhold portions of their tax revenues as a form of protest. After all, they can't jail all of us, right? Well, here is yet another end-around. The money to fund abortions comes from (follow me here), the insurance companies -- not the federal government. Now maybe semantic differences matter a whole lot is sneaky lawyerly places like Washington DC or New York City, but where I live in the heartland, I don't care if you do put lipstick on a pig and call it Mary, I'm still not going to kiss it.
No sir, out here, if you force me to buy insurance under threat of fines or imprisonment, I call it what it is -- a government action -- and let's use a different word, it is awfully similar to a TAX. Yup, I see right through that. Now if you dictate to the insurance company I have to do business with what they can offer (a policy that covers abortion), then 2 things become true -- first, that insurance company just got taken over. I really don't care if you pretend to call it something different. Just like we now have Government Motors where we used to have GM, we will now have GI (Government Insurance -- you like the gastro-intestinal reference too? Because that's what it's going to feel like. So those formerly private company employees are government employees, GI is another arm of the government, and the GI product that kills babies using money I am coerced and threatened to pay them is still using my money to fund something I find morally objectionable. And that, is what a very wise man named Thomas Jefferson called tyranny.
So, go ahead and enjoy your little in-joke Mr. Obama. You can pretend you pulled the wool over us with your clever tricks like the magicians use, your sleight-of-hand and misdirection, your arcane use of legalese. But we here in the heartland see right through you. And I'm still hoping for a change -- the change that throws you and your Socialist cronies right out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)