Archive for Hypocrisy

While I Have Your Attention…

Speaking of the UN (as we were below, last night):

Testimony before the UN Human Rights Council, delivered by UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer, 18 June 2014, during the Interactive Dialogue with the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry on Syria.

In November 2011, well into Syria’s atrocities, UNESCO elected the Syrian regime—unanimously—to its human rights committee.

I ask the commission: what message did the UN send, when—up until only a few months ago—it allowed the Assad regime to sit as a judge of petitions submitted by human rights victims from around the world?

But Mr. President, it didn’t stop there. On February 20th of this year, as Syria’s Juhayna news trumpeted with glee, that country, that mass murdering regime, was “unanimously re-elected as Rapporteur of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization.”

In fact, as we meet, that committee—with Syria as its Rapporteur—is in session this week in New York, debating the future of Gibraltar, the Falklands, Bermuda, French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

So while Assad’s forces starve Palestinians to death in Yarmouk, his representative sits on a UN podium telling democracies like Britain, France, the U.S. and New Zealand how to treat their populations—all in exercise of his UN-elected mandate to end the “subjugation, domination and exploitation of peoples.”

But Mr. President, it didn’t stop there. In March, this Council undermined its own credibility on Syrian human rights, by adopting a resolution entitled “Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan” — a resolution drafted by Syria itself.

The U.S. delegate commented at the time: “To consider such a resolution—while the Syrian regime continues to slaughter its own citizens by the tens of thousands—exemplifies absurdity.”

It’s rare that diplomats use plain language, but “exemplifies absurdity” comes pretty close to describing the United Nations. It also exemplifies cruelty, corruption, venality, racism, hypocrisy, and five out of the Seven Deadly Sins.

We will now let the subject of the UN slip back into the septic tank whence it came.

Comments

Back to Baghdad

As Mr. Incredible said, “No matter how many times you save the world, it always manages to get back in jeopardy again. Sometimes I just want it to stay saved, you know?”

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders believe he does not need authorization from Congress for some steps he might take to quell the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency sweeping through Iraq, the Senate’s top Republican and Capitol Hill aides said after the president briefed senior lawmakers Wednesday.

Still, the prospect of the president sidestepping Congress raises the potential for clashes between the White House and rank-and-file lawmakers, particularly if Obama should launch strikes with manned aircrafts or take other direct U.S. military action in Iraq.

Obama huddled in the Oval Office for over an hour to discuss options for responding the crumbling security situation in Iraq with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Speaking to reporters as he returned to the Capitol, McConnell said the president “indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for steps that he might take.”

Pelosi concurred with the president, saying in a statement after the meeting that Obama does not need “any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today.”

Last summer, Obama did seek approval for possible strikes against Syria, but he scrapped the effort when it became clear that lawmakers would not grant him the authority.

However, administration officials have suggested that the president may be able to act on his own in this case because Iraq’s government has requested U.S. military assistance.

“I think it certainly is a distinction and difference worth noting,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday of the comparisons to the Syrian situation.

In addition, an authorization for the use of military force in Iraq, passed by Congress in 2002, is still on the books and could potentially be used as a rationale for the White House acting without additional approval. Before the outburst of violence in Iraq, Obama had called for that authorization to be repealed.

I think we should go after ISIS. But how is it that Obama doesn’t need authorization from Congress? And how is it that Congress is so compliant? It was Obama himself who closed the book on US operations in Iraq; it was Obama himself who wanted any future operations unauthorized. And it was Nancy Pelosi who felt the original authorization was illegitimate when she voted against it. Even as a state senator, Obama argued against going into Iraq—it’s how he beat Hillary.

Perhaps there’s a clear legal argument to justify Obama’s claim. But that doesn’t mean he and Pelosi and all the other moonbats don’t have to eat their words. Just don’t tell Michelle. She deplores binging on empty calories and junk food.

Comments

How Many Nuclear Power Plants Does it Take to Illuminate a Light Bulb?

Trick question: they’ve outlawed light bulbs!

And nuclear power plants.

But if you want to make a global warm-monger pant in anticipation (not that you would), show him this graph:

A life-cycle footprint measures the negative impact of human activities on the environment. It’s the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide, or CO2.

Better than solar (which fries birds that fly through its concentrated beams), better than wind (which minces birds and bats), better even than burning biomass (like aborted fetuses)—better than all of them is good old clean nuclear power.

As the issue of global warming continues to capture the focus of America and the world, it is vitally important to look at the role nuclear can play in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that continue to pollute the air and damage our ecosystem.

Nuclear energy is the most “eco-efficient” of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species and air resources.

Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere by causing ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain. Nor does nuclear energy produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming.

Electricity generated by nuclear avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S. The 2,100 tons of nitrous oxide (N2O) avoided by Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is the amount of N2O, released in a year by 110,000 passenger cars.

Me, I don’t give a crap about so-called global so-called warming. It’s junk science, peddled by junkie scientists (addicted to government graft). But there are plenty of people out there who do, or claim to. Why do I have to praise the benefits of nuclear power? Where’s Bill McKibben on the issue? Why isn’t Al Gore screaming about it?

The boy can scream when he wants to!

Has anyone seen Memphis? He looks like he ate it.

Comments

“This is the Business We’ve Chosen”

If you haven’t been following the Donald Sterling kerfuffle in the NBA, skip this post. I won’t waste your time or mine to fill you in.

But here’s my take. Advocates for privacy and free speech are rightly troubled by how this story broke (private conversations leaked to the press), but that’s not really the point.

A league that’s 80% black can’t have an owner with a slaveholder mentality. There would be such outrage (justified, in my view) that the league would cease to function. Players would strike, fans would boycott, advertisers would cancel, etc. The NBA is a huge business, but it’s also a 30-member gentlemen’s club. Donald Sterling wasn’t suspended by the Commissioner (Adam Silver—not Nate, as previously identified), or not by him alone. He had the backing of his board of directors, if you will, the 29 other owners. Think of the scene in The Godfather when the Five Families get together to divvy up the criminal pie. Before anybody gets whacked, it comes before the commission for approval. That’s why Silver spoke so confidently of having owner support. Whether it was their bidding or his insistence out of high moral dudgeon, they already approved (either unanimously or by an adequate margin) the death sentence.

Is it enforceable? Ask me in three years, after the lawsuits have been settled or adjudicated. Requiring someone to divest himself of his own property is a tall order, but NBA owners aren’t like gas station owners or butcher shop owners. I don’t know what their bylaws say, but I bet they have at least a legal leg to stand on.

Now for the hypocrisy. Sterling’s record on race was no secret. Look him up on Wikipedia. Yet free agent black players (Chris Paul most notably) and coaches (Doc Rivers) signed his contracts and took his money. They only proved Sterling’s ugly point that he clothed, fed, and housed black people as owner (team, not slave). The taped conversations are hard to ignore, to be sure, and arguably worse than housing discrimination and employment discrimination (no they’re not), but for the newly outraged to discover their outrage only now is a little rich. It’s no defense of Sterling to say so.

And as long as we’re cleaning the NBA of its bad apples.

More bad apples.

More bad apples.

More bad apples.

PS: I’m sure there’s plenty of repetition among all those bad apple lists, but theres also plenty of bad apples.

PPS: More bad apples.

PPPS: Donald Sterling never called them “ni**er”.

Comments (1)

Global Warming Melts Resolve

Try not to let this story destroy your faith in the Global Warming Crack-Pot-ocracy:

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests.

Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.

He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.

Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.

Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’. He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.
He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC.’

Excuse me if I’m not surprised. The sentiment is not original to me, but I’ve often said that I’ll start to take the Global Warm Mongers seriously when they start acting seriously. I’m one of those loathsome skeptics year hear so much about, one so low on the evolutionary scale I’m on a first-name basis with pond scum (though I have to address serial child molesters as “Your Eminence”). But these guys claim to be convinced. They’ve bought in.

If I were a cynic, I might wonder if these unnamed government types were just after the power this alleged crisis might grant them, not any actual solution to the alleged crisis.

Comments (1)

Happy Earth Day!

Didn’t we just have an Earth Hour? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to combine the two?

In any case, tell us what you’re doing for Earth Day. President Obama, care to start?

@markknoller
Follow
No Earth Day observance for Marine One which kept its powerful engines idling about 15 minutes waiting for Pres Obama to board.
10:31 AM – 22 Apr 2014
89 RETWEETS 28 FAVORITES

I don’t have a chopper at my disposal, so maybe I’ll just tumble my dryer on high heat for an hour with nothing in it.

That’s quite enough acting out of you, thank you very much.

Comments

There’s Always Algae!

Try not to let this destroy your faith in the “green energy” industry:

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.

We’ve been telling you all along that burning corn for fuel drives up the price of corn for food, but we just figured starving Africans were a fair price for lower CO2 emissions. According to Al Gore, anyway. But now…gee, I don’t know.

And if that doesn’t destroy your faith in the “green energy” industry, how about this?

Billionaire hedge fund operator and “green” energy magnate Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million in the 2014 election cycle to help Democratic candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline and who favor “green” energy over fossil fuels. Steyer claims to be a man of principle who has no financial interest in the causes he supports, but acts only for the public good. That is a ridiculous claim: Steyer is the ultimate rent-seeker who depends on government connections to produce subsidies and mandates that make his “green” energy investments profitable. He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan, which is building a competitor to the Keystone pipeline.

But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.

Call me a cynic, but I’m beginning to think that all these guys screaming bloody murder about saving the planet are just full of… hot air.

Comments

Nice University Ya Got Here

Shame if it burned down.

From all that global warming, I mean:

Six months after announcing that Harvard University would not divest its endowment’s holdings from the fossil fuel industry, its president, Drew Faust, unveiled several new initiatives Monday to strengthen the university’s commitment to environmental sustainability and renewable energy.

Harvard says its endowment will be the first of a US university to sign on to a United Nations-supported organization, Principles for Responsible Investment. The principles do not require Harvard to sell specific funds, but rather provide the university’s fund managers with a method for considering environmental and social factors, from water scarcity to human rights.

“Harvard has a vital leadership role to play in this work,” Faust wrote in a letter to the Harvard community. “As a university, it has a special obligation and accountability to the future, to the long view needed to anticipate and alter the trajectory and impact of climate change.”

Faust is also asking alumni and other donors to raise $20 million for a fund to spur research and innovation addressing climate change.

Twenty mill is chump change in Harvard’s $32.7 billion endowment: six basis points. Who wouldn’t toss the equivalent of a nickel to a bum just to be left alone?

Except the bums aren’t going quietly:

“The Climate Solutions Fund is going to be investing in new forms of energy that aren’t destroying the planet, but we are also investing in energy sources that are destroying the planet,” said Chloe Maxmin, a junior and cofounder of a group called Divest Harvard. “You are funding the very thing that you are trying to offset.”

Somebody needs to educate Ms. Maxmin (her real name?) on the art of the shakedown. You don’t bleed the subject all at once, but slowly, over time. You don’t kill the goose that layed the golden egg just to provide the main course for your Christmas dinner. How could she be smart enough to go to Harvard and not know that? Somebody better wise her up before the $20 million offer is off the table.

Harvard will look for off-campus ways to compensate for its emissions, for example by purchasing carbon offsets — helping to fund projects elsewhere that contribute to the environment.

See, Chloe? Money can’t buy you love, but it can purchase absolution. Don’t pee in the pool.

Comments

WAH! Women Against Hillary!

Remember that woman who hounded people in power whom she claimed had lied to her and the American people about how and why her son died? What was her name again? Shee… something?

Smith! That’s the broad!

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a sudden scheduling change related to her appearance in San Diego on April 11, 2014 at a major healthcare conference.

Local residents made aware of Hillary Clinton’s coming to San Diego organized a protest rally addressing the former Secretary’s role in what has been termed the Benghazi Cover Up. According to Pat Smith, mother of one of the fallen heroes Sean Smith, attendees were given a notice last week that Hillary’s appearance as Key Note Speaker had been changed to a satellite presentation.

Mary Kafka, one of the women organizing the protest rally addressed a group of about 75 people in Ramona, CA on Saturday March 29, 2014. Kafka stated that Hillary’s change of plans would not stop the protest from happening.

Lynette Williams, another one of the organizers and long term San Diego resident, attributed Hillary’s appearance by satellite instead of in person a result of the protest. Williams also raised the question as to whether Hillary’s schedulers saw the attendee list which included Pat Smith.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2013, in questions related to the facts surrounding the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton angrily retorted “What difference…does it make?” On April 11, 2014, concerned citizens will let everyone know The Difference Matters.

Mrs. Smith, meet Mr. Woods:

He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack — pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.

“Her countenance was not good and she made this statement to me … she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,” he said on radio host Glenn Beck’s online show, adding that she also apologized.

Woods said he “could tell that she was not telling me the truth.”

Which is different…how?

Woods also described encounters on Sept. 14 with Vice President Biden and President Obama.

He claimed that at one point, Biden came over to him and said, “in an extremely loud and boisterous voice, ‘did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’”

Woods said in the Beck interview: “I will ask you the question, is that the voice of someone who is truly sorry?”

In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama’s hand was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

To be fair, if Obama had to give a firm handshake to everyone whose son or daughter died on his watch, he’d have carpal tunnel syndrome.

Who remembers any of this stuff? In one ear and out the other. It has to be our own kid left by his country to die before we pay attention. Even Cindy What’s-her-name is long forgotten.

But not here:

Comments (1)

How It’s Done

Liberal Hegemony 101: In this course, the student will learn how to take a minor issue and blow it out of all proportion for the purpose of government takeover as the only solution. Health care, income distribution, and the weather will be prime examples. No previous experience necessary; anyone can do this.

Climate change may be the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction and urgent action is needed to combat it, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday, comparing those who deny its existence or question its causes to people who insist the Earth is flat.

“We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,” he said, referring to what he called “big companies” that “don’t want to change and spend a lot of money” to act to reduce the risks.

“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” Kerry told the audience gathered at a U.S. Embassy-run American Center in a Jakarta shopping mall. “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits.”

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” Kerry said. “We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

Flat earth, poofy hair, who gives a [bleep]?

Isn’t it interesting how desperate zealots get when cornered in a lie? The science is “unequivocal” (a nice change from “settled”); the skeptics are “shoddy” and their motives are corrupt. And there’s no time for anything like debate or review. You can hear the shriekiness of his voice in his words.

This is how it’s done, boys and girls. When you have the facts, pound the facts; when you don’t, pound the table. This is the same approach to Israeli/Arab peace negotiations. There is no more time; Israel faces boycotts and illegitimacy; they must act (i.e. do what he says) now, now, now. There is no other way.

Liberals believe in government, but not democracy.

PS: How did you get to Indonesia, Mr. Secretary, yacht? We know you didn’t take a plane: the hypocrisy of preaching about carbon footprints in such a scenario would be too rich.

Oh no!

Comments

Oliver Hussein Holmes

The eminent law professor (lecturer) in chief opines:

“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

I’ve been forced to ask this before: does he kiss his daughters with that mouth? Maybe all this severe weather we’ve been enduring is the Lord hurling a lightning bolt at each lie like so many Pedro Martinez fastballs.

But he’s got his posse:

The leftists on the new House Democratic “Full Employment Caucus” are planning to “draft” executive orders for President Obama to sign, according to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.

“[W]e’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength.

In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the president to stand with us on full employment.”

Did anyone have the heart to tell Rep. Lee that her Valentine to Obama is surplus to requirement? That “executive orders” come from the executive? That her branch of government is irrelevant to government, no matter how well-intentioned or supine? That he doesn’t need her to suck his…toes when he can suck them himself, thank you very much?

What would Alex Toqueville say of our democracy?

Comments

Obamacare is for Little People

Leona Helmsley comes to Washington (by way of Nevada):

When it comes to Obamacare hypocrisy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has plenty of company. That masquerader’s club now includes Nevada’s junior senator, Republican Dean Heller.

Sen. Reid, D-Nev., made national headlines earlier this month when he exempted some of his top aides from buying health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. As millions of Americans were being forced into plans they didn’t like and couldn’t afford, congressional committee and leadership staffs — some of the same people who helped Sen. Reid pass and relentlessly promote the unpopular law — were allowed to remain in a federal employee plan instead. They wanted no part of Obamacare exchange plans, and although Sen. Reid could have forced them to share in the country’s misery, he chose not to.

It was typical Washington “Do as I say, not as I do” politics. However, as proof that hypocrisy is a plague on both major parties, Sen. Heller has joined Sen. Reid in going against his word and doing the wrong thing.

Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and their personal staffs are required to purchase the same high-deductible, high-cost, reduced-provider, mandate-heavy coverage Democrats forced on everyone else. But members of Congress and their staffs are eligible for premium subsidies intended for the lower-middle and lower classes, even though their high incomes otherwise would disqualify them.

A consistent Obamacare opponent who backed legislation to deny Affordable Care Act subsidies to lawmakers and their staffs, Sen. Heller has nonetheless lined up at the Capitol trough to take those subsidies anyway. As reported Monday by the Review-Journal’s Steve Tetreault, Sen. Heller’s office confirmed he signed up for insurance through the District of Columbia marketplace, which offers the subsidy to the political class. It’s worth up to 75 percent of total premiums, a maximum of $5,113 for an individual and $11,378 for a family.

Sen. Heller’s explanation: He’s in compliance with the law — and Democrats are hypocrites, too!

“I know people who voted against the Bush tax cuts and still took them,” Sen. Heller told Mr. Tetreault. “So you ought to ask those people why did they take the Bush tax cuts when they voted against them.”

Sen. Heller certainly is correct about the left’s bounty of bad faith. Democrats voted against reductions in income, capital gains and estate taxes more than a decade ago and railed against those breaks for years, all the while claiming every available deduction, never submitting a tax bill that totals what they claim they should pay, and creating trusts to completely avoid the estate tax they champion as a vehicle to reduce income inequality and dynastic wealth.

But using one party’s hypocrisy as justification for hypocrisy by the other is low-road politics. When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Reid and Sen. Heller could have followed the lead of other lawmakers in being true to the spirit of the law and their word — and they decided not to.

The author makes a nice try out of tarring Heller as worse than Reid. But Heller did all he could to see that this train wreck never happened. Reid did all he could to see that it did. There would be no hypocrisy had Heller’s party prevailed.

At least Leona did time for her evasions and lies. What time will Harry Reid do—except for eternity in whatever passes for Hell in Mormonism?

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »