Free speech is totally awesome to liberals…as long as it’s not Conservative speech.
Free speech is totally awesome to liberals…as long as it’s not Conservative speech.
The fact that even one person would sign something this idiotic is scary.
Unbelievable piece from Hot Air :
When it comes to enforcing the environmental laws concerning certain species of federally-protected birds, the Obama administration and their environmentalist allies have been impressively diligent in charging oil companies, coal plants, and power stations when said birds get tangled up in their power lines or drown in their waste pits; in the past five years, prosecutors have managed to wrack up tens of millions of dollars in fines and settlements from various businesses, including oil and gas companies, for these egregious offenses.
When it comes to winds farms, however, the federal government has been oddly negligent in enforcing these same laws — which is weird, seeing as how the American wind industry kills hundred of thousands of birds every single year. The Associated Press reports that the Obama administration has yet to levy any fines or file any suits against wind companies, and that Congress is picking up on the rather glaring enforcement discrepancy:
It’s a double standard that some Republicans in Congress said Tuesday they would examine after an Associated Press investigation revealed that the Obama administration has shielded the wind power industry from liability and helped keep the scope of the deaths secret…
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
From Jim Geraghty at National Review: “Scarborough, Todd Wonder Why Democrats Are Shrugging at IRS Scandal”
TODD: Why aren’t there more Democrats jumping on this? This is outrageous no matter what political party you are, that an arm of the government, maybe it’s a set of people just in one office but, mind you, that one office was put in charge of dealing with these 501c4s and things like that.
SCARBOROUGH: Why didn’t the president say something on Friday afternoon?
TODD: I don’t know. Maybe they were distracted by Benghazi. Maybe they made the decision they didn’t want it to be about healthcare. I raised this question – where is the sense of outrage? And the only pushback was, Jay Carney spoke about this at the press briefing and he was pretty strong. I have to say it didn’t sound very strong to me. I don’t know if the White House realizes. I think this story has more legs politically in 2014 than Benghazi.
John Hayward has an excellent piece over at Red State titled Benghazi hearings in the Mirror Universe on the testimony by whistle-blowers in the Benghazi hearings on Wednesday of this week, and the attempts by the media to bury it.
It’s amazing to watch the media bury yesterday’s explosive testimony on Benghazi. Just imagine for a moment that today is the day after a veteran career diplomat – the top man on the ground in Libya after the murder of the ambassador – testified that a Republican administration told him not to cooperate with Democrat congressional investigators, shook him up with a menacing phone call from the top political “fixer” for a Secretary of State widely viewed as a leading 2016 presidential candidate, demoted him under cloudy circumstances so they could portray him as “disgruntled”… and then spent eight months loudly boasting of their enthusiastic, transparent cooperation with Congress. Imagine the media coverage – from the glowing profile of Gregory Hicks as a new whistleblower demigod in the pantheon of good-government heroes, to the hows of outrage that noble truth-seeking Congressmen were thwarted by the machinations of a shadowy White House bent on preserving its electoral viability, no matter the cost to public transparency or national security…
…Remember how reporters were grazing through the rubble and finding important documents, such as Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ journal, while the FBI was still bottled up in Tripoli? Remember how the Administration kept falsely claiming the “crime scene” was under control, even though it wasn’t? You sure would remember that if Barack Obama was a Republican, because the media would be busy stitching together montages of all the false Administration claims and comparing them to Hicks’ testimony from yesterday…
…In the Mirror Universe where this is a Republican scandal, you can bet your bottom dollar that the media would never have stopped asking why Stevens was so poorly defended, and why there was no plan in place to mount an effective rescue operation. Instead, they let Obama apologists get away with talking as if they knew exactly how long the attack would last…
…Above all, a Republican administration’s claims of “transparency” would lie in ruins after yesterday’s hearings. That’s an incontrovertible conclusion for anyone who paid the slightest attention to the testimony. There were very specific allegations about Administration interference with congressional investigations, and no one has attempted to refute them. There is no way to square this whistleblower testimony with the notion of an honest White House and Secretary of State working with Congress and keeping the American people informed. That would be a huge story for the media today, if they were not primarily interested in ignoring all that bombshell testimony, so they can push the Obama-approved line that Benghazi is old news. Just try to imagine them performing such a service for a Republican president.
It is amazing to watch these people in the media who claim to be “journalists” give cover to a Democrat Administration in a scandal that involved the death of 4 Americans, a cover up, intimidation of whistle-blowers and a continuous misleading of the American people. We’ve gotten to the point in our country where the only time that Democrats, or the media, cares when someone dies is when it helps them politically (think Sandy Hook). But, in defense of the media, it is probably how most of them are taught at “Journalism” School.
Rule #1: if it harms a Democrat, it’s not news
An interesting piece from a former Left-winger and her journey to the realization that the Left was not on the side of “truth, reason and justice”:
For the Left, I am the target of deepest hatred.
For my trenchant views, expressed in this newspaper, they call me ‘insane’, ‘reactionary’, ‘racist’, a ‘Nazi’, a ‘shroudwaver’, a ‘witch’ and a ‘warmonger’.
I have been accused of ‘unmatched depths of ignorance and bigotry’ and being the ‘queen of mean’.
It was even suggested (in a particularly extreme spasm of hyperbole) that I eat broken bottles and kill rats with my teeth.
This resort to crude insult against anyone who dares to challenge their shibboleths is typical of the Left.
It doesn’t argue its case. It simply tries to shut down debate by bullying its targets and labelling them as extremists and enemies of humanity in order to frighten people away from listening to them.
But they reserve a special loathing for me. This is not just because I refuse to be cowed.
It’s because I was once one of them, one of the elect, a believer.
The scales began to fall from my eyes. I came to realise that the Left was not on the side of truth, reason and justice.
Instead, it promoted ideology, malice and oppression. Rather than fighting abuse of power, it embodied it.
Increasingly, I saw how journalists on highbrow papers write primarily for other journalists or to impress politicians or other members of the great and the good.
She hits the nail on the head here:
But I believe my experience is symptomatic of what has happened to British society and western culture as a whole over the past 30 years.
Our cultural and political elites have simply turned truth and justice inside out and, with argument replaced by insult and abuse, taken leave of reality itself. They have destroyed rational discourse, polarised opinion and thereby undermined the possibility of finding common ground.
The result is that there are two Britains — the first adhering to decency, rationality and duty to others, and the second characterised by hatred, rampant selfishness and a terrifying repudiation of reason.
Here is a bit of a reminder of what Obama claimed he was going to do back when he was a candidate. It appeared as though he was well aware of the problem of money in politics. He was going to “Change” all of that and do away with “business as usual” in Washington D.C.
Yeah, not so much:
President Obama announced Thursday that Penny Pritzker, an ex-national finance chair for the Obama campaign, will lead the Commerce Department. If confirmed, she will be the richest cabinet secretary in U.S. history. The president already skipped over her for the nod once.
The New York Times said of Pritzker in 2008, “Ms. Pritzker’s family is renowned for finding ways to avoid paying taxes on its wealth. The Pritzkers were pioneers in using tax loopholes to shelter their holdings from the internal revenue service, and many of their dealings have never been made public.”…
…On Wednesday, the president named another campaign bundler, Tom Wheeler to head up the Federal Communications Commission. Wheeler spent two decades as a lobbyist representing the two industry groups that represented every single cable company, and every single cellphone provider.
All of this comes after Obama turned his campaign team into a new lobbying, advocacy and fund-raising organization called Organizing for Amercia (OFA) that has reportedly been selling access with the President in return for large donations of at least $500,000. A move that has even drawn criticism from left-wing groups.
The president of the United States should close down his new lobbying, advocacy and fund-raising organization, says a left-wing group that has long sought to reduce the role of donations in politics.
“If President Obama is serious about his often-expressed desire to rein in big money in politics, he should shut down Organizing for Action and disavow any plan to schedule regular meetings with its major donors,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, which helped pass the 2002 campaign finance law.
“With its reported promise of quarterly presidential meetings for donors and ‘bundlers’ who raise $500,000, Organizing For Action apparently intends to extend and deepen the pay-to-play Washington culture that Barack Obama came to prominence pledging to end,” Edgar said.
I guess the moral of the story is that you shouldn’t be President if you are rich, out of touch and take advantage of tax loopholes, but you CAN be appointed to Obama’s cabinet.
Watching Obama become what he once despised has been very interesting to watch.