Some Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed

by Abe Greenwald in Commentary Magazine.

What Objection to the Ground Zero Mosque Is Not

Liberals who two years ago abandoned their humdrum lives to become career alarmists about Sarah Palin’s Pentecostalism now wish to be taken seriously as misty-eyed champions of America’s tolerance of diverse faiths. Whatever the intent of the planned Cordoba House Mosque Community Center Bowling Alley Drive-in Imax Nail Salon and Day Spa actually is matters not at all. It is to be celebrated because it is Islamic and because America does not discriminate on the basis of religion. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd laments that President Obama, in his muddled failure to partake in the festivities, has “allowed himself to be weakened by perfectly predictable Republican hysteria.” After all, says Dowd,“By now you have to be willfully blind not to know that the imam in charge of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the moderate Muslim we have allegedly been yearning for.”

Braille has come a long way. When I read that Rauf refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization and that he respects the doctrine of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini I could swear I took it in with my eyes. Just as I seemed to do when in 2008 I read that Dowd, the declared enemy of predictable hysteria, asked of Sarah Palin, “When the phone rings at 3 a.m., will she call the Wasilla Assembly of God congregation and ask them to pray on a response, as she asked them to pray for a natural gas pipeline?”

Feisal Rauf is A-OK with Khomeini-ism and he’s a welcome voice of reason; Sarah Palin prays and that makes her an unhinged zealot.

Religion is deserving of mockery at all turns—unless it is the Muslim strain to be practiced two blocks from Ground Zero. Of course, objections to the comparison are predictable. Palin was vying for the vice president’s office and Rauf is merely . . . the bridge-building embodiment of Muslim outreach that the post-9/11 world has been waiting for.

The Left’s shift from defamers of faith to champions of faith has come complete with the characterization of the Right as hateful bigots. That thousands of American liberals have in the past protested Papal visits, with some placards comparing Christianity to Nazism, is a testament to freedom of speech. That non-liberal Americans protest only the building of a specific mosque in a specific location is a testament both to prejudice and to indifference on religious freedom.

There is more. Go to Commentary to read the rest.

We are in the age of the bread and circus Roman routine

Only it is in our White House.  This is from Gateway Pundit:

Conga-Lines… Bare-Chested Beer Pong… Super Soaker Fights… The Good Times Keep Rolling Along For Obama White House Officials

Posted by Jim Hoft

Back in January 2009, Barack Obama told Americans that,

“Everyone must sacrifice… Everyone must have some skin in the game.”

Well… Everyone but Barack and Michelle Obama. See here for the videos

Guests gather for the entertainment segment of a state dinner in honor of President of Mexico Felipe Calderon inside a party tent on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, May 19, 2010. (Reuters)

In 2009 the Obamas spent over $10 million of taxpayer money on drunken White House parties.

And, it doesn’t look like things are going to slow down anytime soon.

The New York Post reported, via Free Republic.

Last week’s jobs report tanked the stock market; the president took weeks to assert control of the oil spill that threatens doom on the Gulf Coast — but at the White House the Gatsby-like parties roll on as if happy days were here again.

Just yesterday, President Obama held another fun-filled White House event, a picnic for Congress members, complete with hot dogs, cold beverages and a fire pit.

All told, during the last seven weeks of spewing oil and rampant unemployment, he has frolicked and danced through three major White House music parties.

* The black-tie tent bash on the White House South Lawn after the state dinner for Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón, which featured singer Beyoncé.

* The Paul McCartney hootenanny — a night of tributes to the former Beatle, which featured the president himself scooting onto the dance floor to join the Jonas Brothers in the long “la-la-la” closing refrain of “Hey Jude.” (Plus, of course, McCartney serenading the first lady with “Michelle.”)

* The Ford Theater event — in which the president, taking a break from “kicking ass” on the oil spill, kicked back and relaxed to the song stylings of one-time “American Idol” winner Kelly Clarkson, among other B-listers.

It was one thing when the president launched his White House days with a round of Martini Wednesdays, Stevie Wonder concerts, conga-line dancing and Super Bowl parties. That was before the gushing oil and before the employment picture defied the Obama hope-and-change cures.

Now it’s different. Now the president’s fascination with fun and parties in the midst of crisis has not only reinforced a feeling he’s out of touch, but has migrated down the chain of command.

Last weekend, Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel held a “super soaker” squirt-gun party at the veep’s residence. Everybody ran around giggling and shooting squirt guns at each other. Members of the press covering Biden joined in, to their shame.

And last Sunday, presidential spokesman Tommy Vietor and Obama speechwriter extraordinaire Jon Favreau, both 29 years old, were spotted at a Georgetown bar, stripped to the waist, playing a game of beer pong with a gang of bare-chested buddies. (This game involves throwing a ping-pong ball into cups of beer — loser drinks beer, winner drinks beer, everybody drinks beer.

If any heads roll under the bus how much do you want to bet it will be the last mentioned, the least powerful Vietor and Favreau? The original article in the New York Post was by John Gibson.

Thomas Sowell Speaks Clearly Again

From Real Clear Polictics:
Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene
by Thomas Sowell
Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.

Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?

Here is a math problem for you: Assume that the legislation establishing government control of medical care is passed and that it "brings down the cost of medical care." You pay $500 a year less for your medical care, but the new costs put on employers is passed on to consumers, so that you pay $300 a year more for groceries and $200 a year more for gasoline, while the new mandates put on insurance companies raise your premiums by $300 a year, how much money have you saved?

I seldom read fiction-- and I tend to regard autobiographies as fiction.

In response to news of President Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for peace, an e-mail from a reader recalled a black classmate's comments upon graduating from high school many years ago. When asked to list the advantages and disadvantages of being black, the black student facetiously listed as an advantage "being praised for infinitesimal accomplishments."

Many colleges claim that they develop "leaders." All too often, that means turning out graduates who cannot feel fulfilled unless they are telling other people what to do. There are already too many people like that, and they are a menace to everyone else's freedom.

Some people are so busy being clever that they don't have time enough to be wise.

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault.

Stepping beyond your competence can be like stepping off a cliff. Too many people with brilliance and talent within some field do not realize how ignorant-- or, worse yet, misinformed-- they are when talking like philosopher-kings about other things.

There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of vice presidents as there has been when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden. Yet the New York Times is lionizing Biden as a wise counselor to President Obama. When you support the liberal agenda, that makes you brilliant ex-officio in the media, whether or not you are vice president-- and whether or not you have even common sense.

Government pressures on mortgage lenders to accept less than the full amount they are owed may win votes for politicians, since there are far more borrowers than lenders. But how much future lending can be expected when the lenders know that politicians are ready to intervene at any time to prevent them from getting their money back?

Some people think that the Obama administration is going to get rid of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, making him the scapegoat for its economics failures. This would be consistent with the President's acting as if the people under him are not carrying out his policies. But if they get rid of Geithner too early, that will not help if things still do not get better after he is gone and before the 2010 elections.

People who are urging us to do things to win the approval of other countries seem to put an excessive value on other country's approval, as distinguished from their respect that we can lose by such bowing to "world opinion." Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?

Can you name the only .400 hitter who never won a batting title during his whole career? Or a pitcher who stole home? If you are one of the first ten to answer either of these questions, you will receive a free copy of my most recent book, "The Housing Boom and Bust."

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

More from Professor Hanson

The Discreet Charm of the Left-wing Plutocracy

Gorism

The news of this week made mention of Al Gore as our soon-to-be, first carbon billionaire. Accounts included both his earlier and contemporary angry denials that he was greedy, or had used his vast network of government contacts to influence public loans, contracts, and regulations, in parlaying a 2001 net worth of $2 million apparently into a green empire of several hundred million.

In Gore’s telling, he was worried only about the planet, put meager investments into promising green companies, and then, given divine intervention, found himself worth perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars.

Still, I’m not so interested in how Gore made his fortune, or even the ethics involved of barnstorming the planet in a first wave of scare tactics, then following up with a second wave of financial reaping from what his fear mongering had sown—but rather instead the divide between the world he advocates and the life he lives. After all, with cap-and-trade, our energy is going to go a tad higher—the rich oblivious to the cost, the poor to be recipients of government subsidized help.

To distill Gorism is to live in a 1,000 sq. ft. solar house, bike to work, and take the train on long distances; but to promote Gorism, one lives in a mansion, jets on private planes, and is chauffeured from airport to conference center—a rather heavy carbon footprint indeed. I mention that because this week he has insisted that he only invested in what he believes in and is thus not a hypocrite—sort of like a 1990s Fannie or Freddie director saying he is only taking mega-bonuses because he believes in public support for housing.

Read the rest he is so logical.

On Hypocrisy in Life and Politics

D J Drummond in Wizbang writes on hypocrites in the Christian life and in politics.
Fruits of the Spirit

I used to spend time on a web site which discussed religion. Like politics, religion is one of those topics where civil discussion is difficult, and a lot of the posters will attack anyone whose views are seen as notably different from their own. People who hold strong beliefs are expected not only to defend their beliefs, but to do so to the standards of the critic.

Where that has been difficult for Christians, is the fact that many Christians do not live by the creed they claim to follow. Many self-identified Christians are selfish hypocrites, willing to say or do whatever will get them what they want, while judging every other belief system as inferior to their own moral standards.

That's not to say the majority of Christians are this way, but enough of them are, including some high-profile "ministers", to make it difficult to answer the charge. You should do what you say you believe.

That's also why I cannot take Liberals (capital L, as in Loser) seriously. In every major issue, Liberals are loud and aggressive in their rhetoric, but they don't come close to living the way they talk. For all his talk, the book, speeches and a Nobel Prize, Al Gore's palatial estate and private jet prove he's a phony with regard to the planet - the man has personally done more polluting than many corporations he attacks. Michael Moore has been the most prominent enemy of Capitalism and Free Enterprise since Stalin, but he has no problem making piles of money off his lies. Barack Obama ran on the promise of helping the poor by fleecing the rich, but the net effect of his policies since his inauguration have hurt poor and minorities more than anyone else. And so on, ad nauseum - there is not even one high-profile Liberal who can point to his or her life as proof that they live the way they demand everyone else live. The media protects them, but the regular people are beginning to see through the charade.

It's difficult just now, to see how this will play out in the 2010 elections. Liberals have done a good job in the past of hiding their hypocrisy, but it also illustrates that they have a thing shell - if their façade fails under pressure, their foundation falls apart quicker than a John Kerry war hero claim.