Tag Archives: morality

More Democrat Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve already heard from Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) about how there should be no end-of-term nominations to fill Supreme Court vacancies, unless it’s a Democrat President making the nomination.

Then, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) claimed with her usual polemics that not proceeding with a nomination and confirmation process

would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself.

It is, after all, a Democrat President whose nomination needs the confirmation, else the Republic will fall.

The Democratic Party’s Progressive Presidential candidate and Socialist Presidential candidate both have demanded that the present Democrat President, in his last year, should nominate and have favorably considered a Supreme Court Justice.

Now we get Vice President Joe Biden (D), when he was the Democratic Party Senator from Delaware and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, saying in all seriousness (during the last year of a Republican President’s term)

should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

now insisting that a Democrat President should make his nomination in the current political season and

the current Senate has a constitutional duty to [consider Obama’s choices].

Forthwith.

A Problem with Veterans Administration Management

Posted on by
Reply

Leo Shane described one aspect of this in his piece in the Military Times. Shane centered his article on Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) role in making it nearly impossible to fire non-performing Veterans Administration executives.

Sanders—the independent Vermont senator who at the time was chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee—insisted on preserving the protection board’s appeals role, and held up reform legislation in his chamber until it was included.

That protection board is the Merit Systems Protection Board, an allegedly independent facility with a degree of judicial authority that supposedly ensures that nobody gets fired without due process. In the realization this Board, which Sanders was so desperate to protect, is a union facility that ensures that nobody gets fired.

The larger problem, though, is less Sanders’ union’s interference with the VA leadership’s inability to get rid of the trash and other non-performers in the VA leadership, than it is that inability to throw out the trash.

In recent weeks, the VA has seen a host of job actions against senior employees overturned by the Merit Systems Protection Board [see, for example, here]…. They include the demotion of two VA executives accused of gaming the department’s hiring system for personal benefit, and the dismissal of a New York VA director over patient safety concerns.

And

The appeals fight has grown into an escalating intra-administration showdown between VA leaders, who call the decisions off-base, and protection board officials, who blame bad legislative changes for the unsatisfactory rulings.

These union hacks even are trying to turn the problem back onto Congress:

They also accused lawmakers of overhyping problems within the department, saying lawmakers are conflating malice and malfeasance with mistakes made by under-trained supervisors.

Under-trained? The union hacks agree, then, that these supervisors are unfit for their positions, yet they insist these unfits must be retained, anyway. No trash out, not under-performers out, nobody out.

After all, our veterans are used to the idea of becoming casualties on a war’s battlefield. They and everyone else should just shut up, and our veterans should accept being casualties on an artificial VA battlefield, too.

Veteranos administratio delende est.

Racism on the Left?

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary Clinton ratcheted up Democrats’ criticism of Senate Republicans in the debate over filling the Supreme Court’s sudden vacancy, suggesting Tuesday that those calling on President Obama not to nominate someone are motivated by race.

After all, it takes a strong measure of racism to manufacture a racist beef where no racism exists. She, and the Left who are silent on her slur, are also racist in this way: it isn’t possible to criticize a President’s policies or politics when he’s a black man because—he’s black. He can’t handle the criticism, Clinton and her cronies seem to be saying.

Hypocrisy at the State Level

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Mary Lou Marzian (D, Louisville, KY) has proposed—and she’s serious about it—House Bill 396, under which

Kentucky men would have to visit a doctor twice and have signed permission from their wives before obtaining a prescription for Viagra or other such drugs for erectile dysfunction[.]

She insisted

it is merely an effort to protect men’s health and ensure they are informed about a drug with potentially dangerous side effects.

“I want to protect these men from themselves,” said Marzian[.]

She compounded her hypocrisy:

This is about family values[.]

Leaving aside the fact that it isn’t government’s role to protect anyone from himself—only a Democrat insists on so intrusive a government—the lie in her claim of concern about men’s health is shown in her subsequent comments about her purpose in proposing this bill.

[S]he acknowledged the bill is a pointed response to several anti-abortion measures in the current legislative session, including Senate Bill 4, which requires a woman seeking an abortion to get counseling 24 hours in advance of the procedure from a health professional.

This bill is about family values and about men’s health? She wrote in a related op-ed for the Louisville, KY, Courier-Journal:

A rash of anti-abortion bills have been filed, and one is now law, that places extreme hardship and emotional stress upon women and strips away their rights to make choices about their health, future and well being.

And

The conservative movement sweeping Kentucky has put women in the cross hairs of its battle to take over government at all levels, and it’s time we recognize this hypocrisy for what it is.

As these legislators and our governor increase efforts to mandate their presence in our doctor’s examining rooms I believe it is time we regulate men’s reproductive choices.

No, Marzian is simply railing at those who oppose abortion, and being logically inconsistent in her plaints—and as a highly intelligent and accomplished woman she knows she’s being inconsistent, hence her hypocrisy—and placing those who oppose abortion in Kentucky in the cross hairs of her battle to intrude government into the lives of Kentucky citizens—including Kentucky’s babies.

There’s nothing in opposing abortion that concerns women’s health or their reproductive choices, there’s only concern for a human’s life, that baby’s life who hasn’t yet been born. That tale takes up after the “reproductive choice,” made voluntarily or otherwise, already has been made. Now there’s a baby whose right to life must be addressed.

Family values? Nonsense. The baby is as much a part of that family as are the mother and father. Marzian’s bill is simply another Liberal shot at those who oppose abortion; it has nothing at all to do with family values. As far as she’s concerned, the unborn baby is unimportant; the baby’s extreme hardship and emotional stress, his choices about his health, future and well being are beneath her notice.

“Innuendo fuels Clinton email saga”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline above Juan Williams’ op-ed at The Hill.

Williams is right, but the innuendo is his as he contributes to the Left’s attempt to cover up Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s misbehavior.

Mainstream news shows have now joined conservative websites and magazines in roiling political waters with the suggestion that Hillary Clinton could be indicted. Such charges, the theory goes, would pertain to her sending secret government information over her personal email account while she was secretary of State.

Or, the NLMSM finally is awakening to the depths of Clinton’s misbehavior.

The email story broke last March when the New York Times reported Clinton “used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State.” In July, the story escalated when the Times incorrectly reported that requests had been made for a criminal investigation of Clinton’s handling of email.

Even after a correction on that story, her totally legal use of a private server while at the State Department became an acceptable short-hand for political opponents….

Use of the private server may not be illegal, but it is against State Department regulations—her State Department regulations—to use a private email address, much less a private server, for government business. Private email addresses are allowed for private emails, but government business—government emails, for instance—must be handled through government addresses, and so via government servers.

Oh, and that non-existent criminal investigation? The FBI doesn’t do security reviews; they’re running an investigation into the potential of her criminal behavior.

…NBC News reported that emails that had been retroactively declared classified had also been sent to the personal email account of former secretary of State Colin Powell and to key aides of his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

No, they weren’t retroactively declared classified. They were classified from their inception because of the classified information contained in them. They were only marked classified retroactively, in belated recognition of their classified nature.

Therein lies the felony aspect of Clinton’s handling of these classified emails and of her handling them via her unprotected private email server. It’s a crime to mishandle classified information; any markings of classification or their lack is wholly irrelevant to that. Indeed, properly marking classified data is part of the required handling of classified data. Clinton, who has said she’s well trained and knows all about handling classified data—and who, as Secretary of State, is the ultimate classification authority of State-originated classified data—knew all of this at the time of her mishandling.

And that bit about Powell and Rice aides similarly mishandling: that’s the Liberal morality we’ve come to know and love. Somebody else did it, so it’s all right for Clinton to do it, too. The rightness or wrongness of her behavior isn’t at all intrinsic in her behavior. The comparison, also, is cynically disingenuous. Powell’s and Rice’s aides’ dozen or so mishandlings stacked against Clinton’s 1,700? The former are certainly wrong, but the numbers show their accidental nature. This is what’s being compared with Clinton’s deliberate disregard.

It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

That’s Williams’ strawman; no one is arguing otherwise. He’ll have to play with his dolly without me.

And of course there is still no evidence that she broke any law.

On the contrary, there are 1,700 instances of mishandling classified information. 50 US Code § 783 makes this mishandling clear.

More broadly, many people beyond the campaign believe the furor contributes to the perception that Clinton is not honest.

Perhaps that’s because these events are showing her dishonesty. We’re up to those 1,700 emails with classified information in them on her private server, including another 81 in the just-released batch that have been—after the fact—marked classified at one level or another.