Archive for Hypocrisy

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

This is Rich

Is there a conservative mole at the Washington Post?

President Obama briefly interrupted his holiday vacation here Friday to urge Congress to pass an emergency extension of unemployment benefits.

With roughly 1.3 million out-of-work Americans set to lose their unemployment insurance starting Saturday, the White House said that Obama placed separate telephone calls Friday to Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to offer his support for their proposal to extend benefits for three months.

Shortly after placing the calls, Obama and his family ventured to the white-sand beach at Bellows Air Force Station, which is on the windward side of the island of Oahu and features turquoise water and a stunning view of the Mokulua Islands.

That can’t be an accident of tone-deafness, can it? Contrasting the victims of Obama’s failed economy with Obama’s own enjoyment of “white-sand beaches” and “turquoise water”? At massive taxpayer expense? I didn’t think so.

With utmost respect and concern to those 1.3 million Americans, who did nothing to lose their jobs, they have received nearly two years of unemployment benefits already. Not since Detroit’s notorious “jobs banks” (or the fall of the Soviet Union) have so many people been paid not to work—and look how Detroit turned out. We as a country have been—and still are—extraordinarily generous. But we also know when something isn’t working. Or someone. The jackass in the White House, on the other hand… is just a jackass.

Comments

The United Nations Has No Clothes

A gruesome image, considering the trolls that infest the place, but apt:


[Not much action till the end---skip forward to 2:00 to hear the fateful remarks.]

On Thursday, a United Nations interpreter expressed on a “hot mic” the thoughts of many UN observers: that the incessant emphasis on condemning Israel – for crimes real or alleged – is uncalled for and excessive.

In the video, a Spanish-English translator appears to stop her simultaneous translation to note the oddity to a colleague.

“I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It's a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad stuff happening [around the world], but no one says anything, about the other stuff,” she said.

A few seconds into her rant the interpreter realized that her remarks were heard by the diplomats in attendance, some of whom couldn’t help but laugh at the mishap.

“The interpreter apologizes,” the interpreter said, after realizing her mistake.

No need, dearie. I think there may be a spare Profiles in Courage award kicking around somewhere in the Kennedy Library.

Take that empty seat on the end. Besides, this may lead to career advancement:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the mishap on Sunday at a cabinet meeting. “I hope nothing happens to the translator as a result, but I can assure her of a job here in the State of Israel, should it come to that,” he stated.

“Sometimes someone can rip away at the veil of hypocrisy that exists in the ever-present attacks against us, and this interpreter had the courage to do just that.”

We don’t wast our breath on the UN as much as we used to, though not because it’s reformed itself. A multinational organization of child molesters and disease-spreaders, riddled with institutional antisemitism, run by and for the worst people on the planet, is beyond repair.

It’s just that there was a sameness to the posts—resolution after resolution damning the Jews; outrage after greater outrage as misogynists and cruel despots took positions on committees dealing with women’s rights and human rights—none of which ever got much comment. Anyway, we reelected Barack Obama, and Obama elected to stay engaged with these hateful goblins. Who are we to argue with democracy? But we’ll stop by from time to time, if only to check for dry rot.

Comments (1)

Among the (Many, Many) Things I Don’t Get

I thought insurance companies were “bad apples”, tossing people off their preferred plans, turning away the sick and infirm and their preexisting conditions, charging “folks” exorbitant rates for substandard coverage.

That’s what we were told; that’s why EdselCare had to become law (Constitutional law, bitches), even if it was unread (and still largely unwritten) law.

So, WTF?

The White House is increasing its reliance on insurers by accepting their technical help in efforts to repair the problem-ridden online health insurance marketplace and prioritizing consumers’ ability to buy plans directly from the carriers.

But they, like consumers, have been stymied by the online system’s technical problems. During one step in enrolling customers — determining whether their income qualifies them for government help with paying for health plans — insurers must connect to part of the federal online system, and that part does not work.

This is the sort of programming they’re facing:

Comments

Hey Progressives! If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan!

This is so entertaining.

BTL, Buck, Judi… enjoy this. Really savor it.

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.
[Right off the bat, aren't they obnoxious? - Aggie]
Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietician and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me. [Yep. Special people. Doing everything right. Small carbon footprint, I bet. - Aggie]

The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

[Wait! What? That can't be right. It must be one of those bad apple plans. - Aggie]

But, Gentle Reader, you haven’t even begun to experience how obnoxious these Liberals are. Wait til you read this:

“From all of the sob stories I’ve heard and read, ours is the most extreme,” Lee told me in an email last week.

Oh, really. Worse than the lady in California who will likely die because health care policies cannot cross counties? Worse than that? Or are you just so self-involved that you cannot even notice exactly how much pain people of your ilk have caused so many Americans? Isn’t that just like a “Progressive”? “I am the most kind, gentle, humorless, giving, narcissistic person on the planet,” they tell us. And here in America there are probably 150 million of them.

This is from the “journalist” – also a Progressive:

So I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldn’t find any.

The couple’s existing Kaiser plan was a good one.
Their new options were indeed more expensive, and the benefits didn’t seem any better.
They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level, though Hammack says not by much.

Hammack recalled his reaction when he and his wife received a letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage was being canceled. “I work downstairs and my wife had a clear look of shock on her face,” he said. “Our first reaction was clearly there’s got to be some mistake. This was before the exchanges opened up. We quickly calmed down. We were confident that this would all be straightened out. But it wasn’t.”

[Barry will take care of it - right? - Aggie]

More from the “journalist”:

I asked Hammack to send me details of his current plan. It carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30 percent coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible. The out-of-pocket maximum was $5,600.

This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.

When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California’s new health insurance marketplace, Covered California, the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays.

Here’s something for all the liberal Baby Boomers to cogitate on: ObamaCare states that no plan can charge more than 3x the price for coverage for an elderly person over what young people are charged. If a couple in their 60s would pay $975/month for the cheapest plan with hefty deductibles and co-pays, a young couple just starting out must pay 1/3rd of that amount for said crappy plan. If a better plan costs $1300 for a Boomer Couple, their adult kids must pay $450ish. Hahahahahaha.

Ok, the journalist now quotes Obama, and then speaks to someone at Kaiser:

“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.”

What is going on here? Kaiser isn’t a “bad apple” insurer and this plan wasn’t “cut rate.” It seems like this is a lose-lose for the Hammacks (and a friend featured in a report last month by the public radio station KQED.)

I called Kaiser Permanente and spoke to spokesman Chris Stenrud, who used to work for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He told me that this was indeed a good plan. Patients in the plan, known as 40/4000, were remarkably healthy, had low medical costs and had not seen their premiums increase in years. “Our actuaries still aren’t entirely sure why that was,” he said.

While many other insurance companies offered skimpier benefits, Stenrud said, “our plans historically have been comprehensive.”

Kaiser has canceled about 160,000 policies in California, and about one third of people were in plans like Hammack’s, Stenrud said. About 30,000 to 35,000 were in his specific plan.

“In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system … Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”

Let’s focus on just one sentence that the CEO of Kaiser uttered: “In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system … Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”

In other words, California Boomer Couple, you are LOSERS. Get used to it.

OK, a final bit of humor from our Loser Couple:

That’s little comfort to Hammack. He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.

“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.

You wrote to Nancy Pelosi? To ask if she’d ever gotten around to reading the bill, perhaps? But that isn’t my favorite part. This is my favorite part:

“However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote.”

These people are so self-centered that they aren’t troubled by what happens to someone who is 58. Or 61. Or 57. Or 62. Why should they worry about them. This couple is 59 and 60 years old. Those are the ages that Nancy Pelosi has to fix.

Finally, I wish I could recall the source, but there is a story about a futuristic time in which the government throws a huge “60 Party” for each person turning 60. Then they off them. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can fix health care that way?

- Aggie

Comments (9)

Definition Of A NeoCon: A Liberal Who Has Been Mugged

We welcome another O-Bot to the club.

President Obama calls them “substandard” insurance plans. But to many of the people who bought individual insurance policies that are now being canceled under the Affordable Care Act, their choice of insurance was a prudent decision that met their needs at a price that will be hard to beat under the ACA.
Jim Stadler is one of the “5 percenters”—the 5% of Americans with health insurance policies they purchased on their own—who got notified recently that their carrier was canceling coverage because it didn’t meet the tougher new minimum requirements of the ACA. Stadler, a freelance writer who lives outside of Charlotte, N.C., was laid off from a full-time job at an ad agency in 2009, at which point he became a freelancer and bought individual health coverage for him and his two kids.

Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month, with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned. But new policies are required to include free preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, and they can’t be canceled or priced higher for sicker people, which is why the cost of some policies is going up.

Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”

Obama is laughing at you, pal.

- Aggie

Comments

RIP Barack Hussein Obama

Not the guy in the White House. The guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize. I shed a tear for that guy:

There was a time when Mr. Obama expressed outrage over the mass murder and aerial bombardment of civilians in the Darfur region of western Sudan. In 2007, the then-presidential hopeful said the Western world’s silence regarding the slaughter in Sudan would leave “a stain on our souls.”

Now President Obama has joined that silence. These days, to learn about what is transpiring in Sudan, one must turn to Radio Dabanga, broadcasting from the Netherlands. A recent report described the bombardment of a Darfur village called Abu Tega, which was “completely burned and the population fled in all directions.”

President Obama’s critics have denounced his foreign-policy choices, which they believe have weakened the global credibility of the U.S. But Mr. Obama has managed to avoid scrutiny about his most tragic foreign-policy failure: standing by as Sudan’s Islamic regime perpetrates a slaughter against its own citizens who belong to non-Arab ethnic groups. Bashir continues a 10-year annihilation, slaughtering many tens of thousands, and very likely more.

Oh, will you do-gooders just get over yourselves? If you piled all of Barack Obama’s pious, self-important bloviations on top of each other and jumped off, you’d float away in zero gravity. He yapped about Darfur in 2007 precisely because he was in no position to do anything about it, just as he’s dumb on the issue today precisely because he is.

Why is Darfur his responsibility? He hasn’t burned any villages or slaughtered any non-Arab ethnic groups. He may even have gifted some of them with CDs of his greatest speeches.

I grant you the hypocrisy is pretty galling:

President Obama and his current National Security Advisor Susan Rice… in 2007… separately condemned the Bush administration for its inaction in Sudan, specifically citing the Clinton administration’s failure in Rwanda. Both proclaimed that the U.S. should never again fail to intervene when innocents are being slaughtered.

In 2007 he said, “Today we know what is right, and today we know what is wrong. The slaughter of innocents is wrong. Two million people driven from their homes is wrong. Women gang raped while gathering firewood is wrong. And silence, acquiescence and paralysis in the face of genocide is wrong.” He made his solution clear: “We’ve got to have a protective force on the ground.”

As the authors, Mia Farrow and Daniel Goldhagen, point out, President Obama still talks the talk:

Mr. Obama has cited humanitarian reasons to intervene in a crisis when politically convenient. He entered Libya “to prevent a bloodbath,” despite no mass slaughter of civilians in that country. This disingenuous explanation only damaged his credibility as a humanitarian, though it did placate the international human-rights community.

Curiously, they don’t mention the cluster[bleep] that was his policy (-ies) on Syria. To have done so would have been an atrocity.

But they do get their licks in:

Yet those suffering in Darfur can expect no such “protective force” from the U.S. For reasons that are unclear, Sudan doesn’t meet Mr. Obama’s threshold for action. His words at the U.N., including generic rhetoric “that it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” offer little hope if any. Mr. Obama has abandoned his own moral standards and left the people of Darfur to perish.

You’ll have to forgive Mia. She’s cranky because she’s on another hunger strike.

Comments

Skanks Look Askance at Excuses

But do bugger-all about it:

Anti-war groups like Code Pink and Peace Action aren’t swarming the Mall in Washington to protest Barack Obama’s planned intervention in Syria because the economy is in the pits and the movement is a “shadow of its former self,” according to Medea Benjamin, founder of Code Pink.

“Well, the most incredibly depressing thing was that most of the groups that existed before don’t exist anymore,” said Medea Benjamin, the founder of Code Pink. “That’s the number one problem, is that the antiwar movement is a shadow of its former self under the Bush years.”

Benjamin pointed to groups like United for Peace and Justice, a Communist Party-connected group, as examples: “They’re down to a couple of volunteers,” she said.

Code Pink itself, despite being one of the most visible protest groups in the U.S. today, has felt the pinch.

“Even Code Pink, which had 300 local groups, just has a tiny portion still functioning,” Benjamin said. “So when something like this happens, we don’t have the infrastructure to rally people.”

Really?

Wasn’t it but three short months ago that you had the stones to do this?

“You are commander in chief! You can close Guantanamo today!” Benjamin shouted. “You can release those 86 prisoners!”

“It’s been 11 years!” she said.

“Let me finish,” Obama pleaded with her.

“I love my country. I love the rule of law!” she said as she was finally removed by security. “Abide by the rule of law. You’re a constitutional lawyer!”

That last part is debatable, sweetie. But you had a point, however imbecilic. Now you’re pointless.

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »