Posts Tagged ‘Hypocrisy
Barack Obama’s re-election campaign has posted a new ad accusing Mitt Romney of launching a false attack. The ad plays a clip of Romney quoting Obama’s speech where he said “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The ad then shows text saying Obama never said that. A few seconds later, the ad even plays a clip of Obama saying those exact words.
This is phenomenal. Obama’s campaign is literally calling Romney a “liar” and a “say anything” candidate for quoting Obama’s own speech! The emperor is truly naked folks.
This is also just another example in a growing litany of evidence that whatever terrible thing the Progressive Left accuses the right of doing, they are already doing it themselves.
Click over to YouTube to watch the ad, and then give it a dislike just for fun.
Personally, I think this is a mistake on the part of the Obama campaign. Claiming your guy didn’t say something and then playing your guy saying that exact thing is pretty dumb. It will be interesting to see if the campaign pulls this ad. If they do, you can also catch Beck’s analysis (currently free). He doesn’t show the ad but he does play the audio and then plays Romney’s speech and Obama’s speech side by side.
This whole incident rekindles my theory that the main factor in choosing Biden for Vice President was to give the late night comedians a more obvious target to roast. Obama’s off-prompter gaffe record isn’t exactly stellar. All I know is that Romney better ride this horse as far as it will go because after this, I doubt Obama will go off prompter again through the rest of the campaign.
On the other hand, he seems to be so arrogant that maybe he will and just assume he can lie his way out of it like he’s trying to do here. What say you?
Hey folks, happy Monday!
In case anybody out there missed it, a week ago the SCOTUS began hearing oral arguments on Obamacare. Over three days they heard 6 hours of testimony and, based on the reaction of the Democrat spinsters, I think even the Obama camp is worried he mandate or the entire law may be struck down. Check out the Wall Street Journal for the 5 Take-Aways of the Obamacare hearings.
Thanks to the couple of folks who linked to an update on Olbermann’s firing from Current TV (previous HillBuzz write-up: Olbermann Fired). The main goodie from this article is that Olbermann supposedly complained about his car service because the drivers spoke to him and “smelled”. I wonder how many of the 99%-ers who idolize Olbermann have car services? And I wonder just how far in to the 1% you have to be before you feel elitist enough to complain about your car service?
One of the commentors here alerted us to this story on Breitbart: Shockingly, the left and the media are silent when conservative women are treated similarly to Ms. Fluke. Actually, truth be told, although I do not agree with Rush’s comments, he probably had more grounds to make the ‘slut’ accusation than anybody had to make these comments about Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. After all, it was Ms. Fluke who chose to put her sexual opinions on very public display. All Lt. Gov Kleefisch did was be a conservative woman elected BY THE PEOPLE to public office.
The emperor is truly naked folks. I’ve come to a realization. By and large, besides doing a lot of research, blogging every now and then, and arguing with friends and family, I’ve basically just been waiting for the media to “fix itself”. Not by magic of course, but I always envisioned that the business model would collapse as they continued to lose eyeballs and they would be forced to become more fair, more honest, etc.
However, the book I’m currently reading (and will review here soon), along with Shakedown Socialism, has made me realize that my belief in the inevitability of said outcome is a fantasy. It is not inevitable. In fact, I’m starting to see that the odds are actually stacked the other direction. Throughout history, the “inevitability” is that the media and the government become increasingly intertwined, and the media become MORE corrupt as a result.
Of course I’ve known this for years, but I never believed it could be possible here in the USA. I never believed that insidious forces could sneak in and take over. But that is happening even as I type this. Media collusion, distributed progressive talking points, voter fraud, and Lord knows what else! Maybe we’ll post a list someday of all the ways the progressive left is working to destroy everything that you and I love and take for granted about this country.
You see, most of us conservatives just want to be left alone to live our lives, raise our families, help our neighbors, etc. We don’t like the government intruding in our lives, but along with that comes a desire to not to have to get involved beyond our civic duty of voting and maybe the occasional argument or debate with a family member, friend, or MAYBE even a coworker.
HillBuzz is a microcosm of the conservative populace. For every person who comments here regularly, there are thousands who do not. For every person who comments here occasionally, there are hundreds upon hundreds who never comment. We have some very dedicated folks among us. We have readers and contributors who even get involved in the races. But those of you who do that are in the minority.
I wonder, even among those of us who are highly involved, how many of us are actively working to reverse our slide into socialism? How many of us are actively working to try to force the main stream media to change? I admit, beyond blogging and some debating with folks, I don’t really even know how to go about doing that. How many of you out there have ideas on how we can go after the media? We would love to hear from you. And we would really love to hear from anyone who has been lurking for awhile but never or rarely comments.
What else is on your minds this Monday?
I have to extend my sincerest thanks to the Progressive “media” outlet Current TV for the fantastic bit of news I read today. It turns out Keith Olbermann (aka “bathtub boy“), former host of Countdown on MSDNC (oops, I mean MSNBC), can now add Current TV to his growing list of former employers. It turns out that Al Gore and Joel Hyatt fired Olbermann for not coming to work and basically being terrible at his job.
When I saw this story, it just made my day, and for oh-so-many sweet, sweet reasons. Here are my top 5:
1) Keith Olbermann is an ignorant tool, a liar, and possibly a sociopath
The first time I personally witnessed Olbermann’s extreme tool-hardy-ness was when he threw Hillary Clinton under the bus and began his blatant progressive love affair with Barack Obama. He continued to assail Hillary throughout the rest of the primaries. There are too many examples to list but YouTube has the clips if anyone cares to look them up.
Olbermann lied constantly, almost pathologically. Usually about conservatives, but that grew to include moderate Democrats and even Hillary. I remember one case where he blatantly tried tying Sarah Palin to a violent comment supposedly made at one of her rallies. It turns out that not only did nobody actually shout “kill him,” but Sarah Palin wasn’t even at the rally at the time the comment was supposedly made. And, Keith Olbermann KNEW that she wasn’t there due to the itinerary available at the time of his broadcast.
As for him being a sociopath, I simply refer you to Olbermann’s shameless, embarrassingly personal, and oddly mechanical exploitation of his own father’s medical saga.
2) Olbermann is pompous, arrogant, and misogynistic
You don’t have to take my word for it. Even the liberal media folk on Journolist think Olbermann is a bad person.
3) Current TV proves its commitment to values… by hiring Eliot Spitzer
Olbermann’s replacement is a disgraced governor who was forced to resign after details of his lurid affairs with $1,000 / hour prostitutes were made public. It’s nice to know that a man who has both the financial means and moral ambiguity to spend about as much on prostitutes as an everyday person makes in a year is representative of Current TV’s values. Does Current TV think that the 99% can afford to spend $80 Grand on sex?
4) Progressives proved they care more about their own interests than the Progressive ideology
Reading over the respective statements and following their overly public saga shows us that neither side was actually committed to the ideology itself.
Olbermann was probably unhappy with the level of promotion/advertising (he said they failed to provide the level of support necessary for a quality news program), and was willing to simply not show up for work as a way of trying to force Gore & Company to cave to his demands. Nevermind that Olbermann was being paid $10 million and was supposedly given an equity stake in the company. Nevermind that Olbermann was already worth like $35 million. How much support could have been purchased if Olbermann sacrificed some of his own salary?
On the flip side, Current TV has shown that progressive media is not nearly as popular as they would like it to be. They suffered the realities of the free market, which is that in order to survive, you must actually produce a product that people want at a price that makes sense. Apparently, Olbermann did not fit that need.
5) Progressives revealed their willingness to politically assassinate anyone who turns on them
Olbermann and other progressives have been trying to politically assassinate conservatives and moderate democrats for years. But now we see that they are even willing to excoriate and destroy the viability and livelihood of even other progressives who do not see eye to eye.
Current TV could have simply ended their relationship with Olbermann and put out the typical statement that one would expect in this kind of situation. Instead, they made a pretty obvious attempt at destroying his career by accusing him of not showing up for work and failing to adhere to the progressive values, as Current TV saw them.
Olbermann, on the other hand, accused Current TV of failing to meet its promises and obligations, cast aspersions on Al Gore’s ethics and honesty, and basically tried to scorch the earth as he left.
Let this be a lesson to any trolls or zombies from Kos, MM, DU, etc. The so-called “leaders” of your so-called “movement” are willing to destroy anyone or anything, even their own allies, if they fail to jibe with their own self-interests.
Progressivism is dangerous. Those progressives who deny this are either too ignorant to see it, too brainwashed to admit it or, occasionally, complicit in the danger. The Hunger Games offers us a peek at a universe which would only be possible under radical progressivism.
For anyone blissfully unaware of this particular cultural phenomenon, The Hunger Games is a young adult novel (the first book in a trilogy) set in a post-apocalyptic world where North America is ruled by a single totalitarian government. This successor to the United States, called “Panem”, is comprised of essentially one wealthy, advanced Capitol metropolis ruling over twelve poorer districts. Every year, 12 boys and 12 girls (one of each from each district) are selected to participate in a televised, to-the-death mega-event known as “The Hunger Games”. One victor emerges and is lavished in fame and riches.
If anyone is still planning to see the movie, I will avoid revealing any spoilers or discussing the plot of this story. Instead I will focus on the political world.
To be fair, I have not actually read the full trilogy. However, it is my understanding that the author does not get in to specific details about the post-apocalyptic event. She apparently does touch on some environmental issues, and based on some of the comments she has made, it would not surprise me if the author was herself a partial believer in the progressive movement. If so, what a delicious twist of irony that a progressive would inadvertently write a story exposing one possible endgame of progressivism.
In any case, it does not matter what the author intended us to believe. An examination of the evidence of the story gives us all we need to know. If, for example, the author tried to claim that The Hunger Games was the result of radical libertarianism then she would contradict herself.
Without further ado, let us take a look at the hallmarks of progressivism which appear in this movie.
Progressive Hallmark: Big, Totalitarian Government
The government of Panem is large and totalitarian. It controls all the means of production and all the distribution of food and other resources. Although not explicitly stated in the movie, it is implied that the government controls the entire economy.
Progressivism is rooted in collectivism, and the unavoidable endgame of any collectivist ideology is communism, and finally, totalitarian communism. Collectivism creates a downward spiral of diminishing returns, which requires further control, which spawns ever-further diminished returns and even more control. The spiral is documented in Shakedown Socialism. The ultimate end result is a government so large that is has no choice but to be totalitarian.
Progressive Hallmark: The Illusion of Democracy
Panem has a “President”, but it is clear that there is no democracy. The movie does not touch on the electoral process, but the President is an all-powerful figure who seems to have captured the unquestioning adoration of the citizens of the Capitol.
Progressives will rarely openly admit to the desire to destroy democracy, but I have personally experienced a progressive telling me that President Obama should go around Congress and “just do what needs to be done”. We’re already familiar with Obama’s huge collection of czars, a quick Google search for “Obama circumvent congress” will produce a litany of examples, and Obama’s own team announced that executive orders (“two or three a week”) will play a big role in Obama’s reelection campaign.
The world of Panem exemplifies the mentality that “the ends justify the means,” which also just happens to be the core of the progressive strategy for political change.
Progressive Hallmark: The Use of Implied Threats
The President of Panem comments that a particular person should “be careful”. The threat is thinly veiled and the message is clear: “Do what I say, or bad things will happen.”
What was it Obama said to the bankers? “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” The President used the power of his office to issue a thinly veiled threat that those bankers – private citizens in charge of sovereign corporate entities – should be careful or else. And worst of all, this made him a hero among progressives who are apparently too ignorant to recognize such a statement for what it is.
Progressive Hallmark: Ownership of Weapons is Forbidden
This is not explicitly stated but it is implied. None of the district citizens are ever shown having anything weapon-like, not even crude implements. Basic weapons used for hunting have to be kept hidden in the woods, away from the eyes of the of the Capitol.
Needless to say, a Panem-style government could never come about so long as gun ownership was as prevalent among private citizens as it is today. Do you see many conservatives advocating for abolition of gun rights? Of course not, but it’s a favorite topic of the progressives.
Progressive Hallmark: A Ruling Class
In Panem, not all citizens are poor and downtrodden. There is a ruling class – it would seem a fairly large ruling class – which resides in the metropolis of The Capitol. These people are depicted as wealthy, extravagant, and completely out of touch with reality. It is a world of pomp, circumstance, and political connectivity. People can fall out of favor quickly and suffer the consequences.
Progressives do not espouse the idea of a ruling class – in fact, they usually claim they are against such a concept. But this simply illustrates the ignorance of progressives to the reality of collectivism in general. Every collectivist society has a ruling class. Look at the former Soviet Union. Look at Communist China. Look at Nazi Germany (the Nazi party were socialists). Even something as seemingly innocuous and beneficial (to a progressive) as a trade union can give rise to an oligarchy of powerful union leaders at the expense of the general membership. From Sweden to Greece to right here in the U.S., history overflows with such examples.
Progressive Hallmark: Debauchery for the Few, Starvation for the Many
Residents of The Capitol enjoy access to fine foods, spirits, and a plethora of highly modern technology. Debauchery abounds. They live in excess, and as willing participants in the ultimate reality game show.
Progressives would argue that their ideology does not promote this. I will concede that it does not *promote* it… but it does *create* it. One should ask a simple question: if collectivism worked, why is there so much death and starvation under collectivist rule? Millions upon millions have died from starvation under socialism and communism, even while perfectly good food rotted away in government storage. Does anyone think the government officials were also starving to death along with the population? Of course not… the ruling class, their family, their friends, and their chosen accomplices were all living in the lap of debauchery while others died.
Progressive Hallmark: Collusion with / Control of the Media
It is not made clear in the movie whether or not the media is autonomous, but it’s clear that at the very least, they collude with the government.
Meanwhile, back here in reality, the collusion between the majority of the regular media and their chosen candidates is fairly obvious. It’s especially obvious on the left, and the speed with which the main-stream media collectively abandoned Hillary to support Obama only solidifies my belief that collusion already exists.
Unfortunately, collusion is not enough for the progressive left. Even now, progressives march ever-onward towards limiting conservative speech. They’ve been doing it for years by trying to control the language, and create ridiculous levels of political correctness. Even Democrat Juan Williams admits this in his book Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate. They want Limbaugh off the air. They want Fox News shut down. And these ignorant fools actually justify the involvement of government in shutting down media with which they disagree.
And let’s not forget, Obama wants an Internet kill switch… there’s no bigger government/media power grab than that!
Progressive Hallmark: Abolition of Individual Liberty
In Panem, individual liberty is nonexistent. Minors can be taken from their homes and forced to participate in a competition to the death. Even in The Capitol, people who fall out of favor fear for their lives or livelihoods. It would seem that personal property is an illusion at best.
By its very nature, collectivism destroys the concept of personal property and individual liberty. Woodrow Wilson once dismissed the inalienable right to individual liberty as nonsense. Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that liberty should not be construed “to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion.”
Today, progressives carry on the assault by regularly advocating for the dissolution of contracts, seizure of private property, and excessive taxation of the wealthy… all in the name of “the greater good”.
Progressive Hallmark: Rejoicing in the Death of Other People
In The Capitol, the annual Hunger Games is a major television event and the ultimate reality show. Everybody watches. People cheer for the death of the unfavored and and survival of the favored.
If anyone questions that mankind could ever, in reality, actually enjoy such barbarism they have only to look to history. The Hunger Games event is really just a modern interpretation of the gladiatorial games which existed for around 700 years.
OK, but could we ever return to that sort of barbarism? One has only to look at the recent, untimely death of Andrew Breitbart for the answer. The Internet exploded with progressives rejoicing in Breitbart’s death. OK, that’s just one example, right?
- Ed Schultz wishing Dick Cheney were dead, and other progressives coming out to call his statement “beautifully phrased”?
- Twitter erupting in calls for death of Scott Walker
- Progressives calling for the round-up of “Tea Baggers”
- Death threats against Limbaugh following the Sandra Fluke controversy
- Salon publishing a letter to the editor insinuating that Sarah Palin should be electrocuted
- Mike Malloy hoping Beck, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly all commit suicide
- Chris Matthews waxing philosophical on a Bond-villain-esque death for Rush
- A litany of idiots on Twitter calling for the death of a variety of Republicans
I found these examples in just a few minutes on Google. I realize that progressives do not own the market on death threats, and some have been threatened with death themselves. But the prevalence of open rejoicing about the death of Breitbart is a new low and solid evidence of the decline in civility being perpetuated by the progressive movement.
Sadly, I know personally know progressives who honestly rejoice in the death, not just of conservative figures, but of regular folks who just happen to be wealthy. “Good”, they say, “they deserved it”. This may not be reflective of the ideology of the original progressive movement, but it seems to be the mentality of the newest generation of people who self-identify as progressive “soldiers”.
When otherwise regular people can find joy in the death of a fellow citizen simply because of a difference in political ideologies, how far are we, really, from a real-life Hunger Games?
Happy Monday everyone! I realize that the Limbaugh / Fluke story is just about dead, but I saw Sarah Palin post a video calling out the hypocrisy of the way Maher speaks about women on a regular basis. Maher, of course, is defended or even PRAISED by the left.
I seriously want to ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz how long it takes her to put on all that hypocrisy in the morning.
What Say You?!
Hypocrites and tools. And smugness. I had forgotten about this “10 kids” incident.