Liberal hypocrisy: Shoot first, ask questions later


It’s been about two weeks since the death of Trayvon Martin broke into a national news story. From the outset, liberals and minorities have screamed for “justice for Trayvon,” resulting just this week in George Zimmerman being charged with murder for the death. The narrative has been that Zimmerman did racial profiling, was prejudiced against blacks, shot first and asked questions later. Martin had no weapon; he was carrying Skittles.

At this point, we don’t know what was going through Zimmerman’s mind when he pulled the trigger to kill Martin, or what Martin said or did in the moments leading up to his death. A trial will bring these facts out, and justice will play itself out.

What we do know is the knee-jerk reaction of those supposedly calling for justice for Martin’s death, but really demanding revenge.  In a famous example, the New Black Panther party has put a bounty on George Zimmerman, seeking vigilante action that had led Zimmerman — and his family — to go into hiding.  In another example, six “youths” beat a 78-year-old man within inches of his life for Trayvon, merely because he’s white.  Nationwide protests for Trayvon were organized by race hustlers.

In all the buildup so far, all we’ve heard is condemnation of George Zimmerman, judging him guilty of murder for what may or may not have been self-defense. Mainstream media, race hustlers, and liberals (but I repeat myself) have said repeatedly that Zimmerman, who is half-Hispanic and half-white, killed Trayvon Martin in a hasty judgment call because Martin was black and looked menacing.

To liberals, this, then, is Zimmerman’s unforgivable sin: he “racially profiled” Trayvon Martin, made a snap decision in a moment of irrationality that revealed his deep-seated bigotry and prejudice. He saw a black man wearing a hoodie, thought “the black man is dangerous” and killed him. He shot first and asked questions later.

A month later, Zimmerman was still not arrested and uncharged.  The “black community” was understandably frustrated, and eventually national attention was called to the story. Local police were shoved aside as state and federal prosecutors stepped in. With the appointment of a state prosecutor, the goals of family and others who felt the Sanford, Florida police goofed were now accomplished. Attention and scrutiny, and justice. We’ll see a trial unfold, and public opinion will be split along racial lines. This is just like with the OJ Simpson trial, and will likely have the same divided result in the public’s eye (most blacks passionately supported OJ, until turning on him years after his verdicts).

But wait a second.

As facts about the death emerge, the narrative which the media’s been feeding us is starting to change. Initially, we were told that Zimmerman killed Martin solely because he was black but this turned out to be a misleadingly edited NBC News tape. Then this weekend, William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection deconstructed much of the remaining narrative we were initially fed, using actual facts. The narrative that fed the frenzy, inspired lynch mobs, and forced Zimmerman to hide for his life. This narrative was based not on facts, but on preconceived notions and how liberals and race hustlers wanted things to be to advance their cause. Facts don’t matter to these liberals.

Liberals saw a Hispanic shooter, but emphasized his white half . And since a “white” man killed a black man, errant assumptions were made about motives, facts, and decisions. Liberals, for the most part, did not wait for facts, but pulled the trigger of judgment hastily and irresponsibly.

So yes, what we’ve seen are snap decisions and racial profiling made by irrational emotion, based not on any actual threat or facts but based on bias, prejudice and bigotry. But, not by Zimmerman. The twisted irony here is that the liberals, media, and race hustlers are guilty of doing the exact same thing that they’re accusing Zimmerman of doing: they shot first and asked questions later.

And that, my friends, is liberal hypocrisy.

Follow me on Twitter.


Haikus for Departing Politicians: ByeKu


Rick Santorum exits the race for the Republican nomination. This leaves a barely relevant Newt Gingrich struggling to explain the purpose of his dwindling campaign, and a dominant Mitt Romney consolidating support.

So, as I’ve done in the past, this leads me to a ByeKu.

What is a byeku? Just as it sounds, it’s a haiku used to say ‘bye’ to a candidate as he or she exits the race.  I did not coin the term, as I believe James Taranto from Best of the Web did that. However, as I started creating byekus and tipping my hat to him each time, I think we’re at a point that it’s just a standing “ditto.”

With all that said, here’s the Rick Santorum byeku posted earlier today on Twitter.

Social issue lion,
Had conservative values,
But not delegates.

After good friend and fellow conservative Brady Cremeens said he liked it (you should follow him and fellow RedStater AG_Conservative, by the way), I decided to put together some other byekus of the recent campaign:

And, as a special treat, ByeKu, terrorist edition!

Follow me on Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category: ,

Abbott & Costello on Unemployment


And now for something completely different…

I got the following in email of what Abbott and Costello would say if they tried to understand how Obama measures today’s joblessness. There’s enough truth in it to be amusing.

=================

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good subject. Terrible times. It’s about 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 9%…

COSTELLO: Wait a minute. Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: But … they are out of work!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work, can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work… Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up. And, if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles, that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. You don’t want to read about 16% unemployment do ya?

COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means they’re two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an economist.

COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

And now you know why Obama’s unemployment figures are improving!

Follow me on Twitter.

Category:

Why Mitt Romney was embraced by some in 2008, who’ve since let go.


It always surprises me when Republicans I know and respect — smart people, I tell you — ask, “If Mitt Romney was acceptable in 2008, then why isn’t he tolerable to those same people now?”

The short answer is: we’re not in 2008 anymore, Toto.

Next in Line

It’s axiomatic that Republicans nominate whomever is “next in line.” Meaning, if someone fails in one election and works hard getting enough other people elected, then when the next election rolls around, it’s “his turn.”

This is all very orderly. McCain lost to George W. Bush in 2000, and after Bush’s two terms, 2008 rolled around. So at that time, it was McCain’s turn. The problem was, McCain, always praised in the MSM as a “maverick” was not a reliable conservative. He was a squishy moderate that did not excite the conservative base. In fact, he panicked it.

Romney: Acceptable in 2008

Picking up on this angst, a prominent Republican said this of McCain in 2008:

[Bob Dole] is probably the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me…I think there are a lot of folks who tend to think that maybe John McCain’s race is a bit like Bob Dole’s race. That it’s the guy who’s next in line, the inevitable choice.

Who said that? Why, Mitt Romney!

Romney said this because he knew that the GOP was definitely not in love with McCain’s “maverick” (i.e.: “moderate”) past, and comparing McCain to 1996 moderate loser Dole was handing him an anvil.

Romney also provided conservatives in 2008 an acceptable alternative to McCain. Against Obama, one of the knocks on McCain is that he too was just a senator with no executive experience. Romney had executive experience up and down his arm’s length resume. Also against Obama, Mitt was polished, and Republicans sensed they needed someone slick to go up against the orator that made women in his crowds faint (of course, now we know that Obama’s entire 2008 campaign was a feint, but I digress). And McCain, who sometimes seemed confused and off-message, is not as slick of a presenter as Romney. Go Mitt!

So, with all of this going for him, Mitt is next in line, yet here in 2012, the conservative base is not fired up for Romney. Why not? What’s different? How could the man whose bandwagon people were jumping on in 2008 to bump McCain now be someone who spent most of 2011 in 2nd place to a rotating cast of characters, including even Donald Trump?

Because 2010 happened.

Right Man for the Time

We have a way of electing the right man for the right time. Each election presents a different issue, and a different set of circumstances. A man considered indispensable in 2008 could be quite dispensable in 2012, as tax cheat Tim Geithner has suddenly become. Democrats, at least, believed that Geithner was the right man for the economic collapse of 2008-09. Now, it seems Obama is practically shoving him out the door.

Another famous example in history is Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In 1940, after the weak accommodator Neville Chamberlain quit, Churchill rose to fight the Axis powers in World World Two, and defend England from Germany’s bombing campaigns. His steely leadership helped save the UK. Once WW2 ended, he was defeated in 1945. He was no longer the right man for the time. Just as Rudy Giuliani’s strong leadership after 9/11 made him a natural candidate to take the foreign policy baton from Bush in 2008, no one even considers Rudy today. Sorry Rudy, it’s not your time anymore. Foreign policy is not the main issue anymore.  The economy is. Jobs are.

[shameless plug: Republicans should be talking about nothing else except  jobs, the economy and energy policy. I wrote a popular diary on that here.]

The Impact of 2010

In 2010, Americans had just witnessed Obama and his Democrats dominate Congress for two years. What did they do? Grow government. Spend us deeper into debt at an unprecedented pace. And of course, the Obamacare monstrosity. All of it against the will of the people. All of it to disastrous results. Even Obama won’t brag about his signature “accomplishments” (from a liberal perspective) as his recent State of the Union address hardly said a word about them.

So, the Tea Party movement grew in the summer of 2010. An historic wave of Republicans took over the House of Representatives in November 2010. Exit polls confirmed that this was a sharp rebuke of the big government that Obama had given us, all the spending, and of course, his healthcare plan.

Romney: Conservative Kryptonite in 2012

Which brings us to 2012. It is through this lens that we evaluate Romney once again. The economy is the main issue, which you think would be in his wheelhouse, given how he’s been “Mr. Fix-it” with turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics and failing companies when he was with Bain Capital. America thought it had a turnaround expert with Obama, but all he did was blame his predecessor. America may be in the mood to hire a real turnaround expert now, and Romney has the resume for this, which may appeal to independents.

However, Romney’s signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts, Romneycare, gets much greater scrutiny now. Conservatives who just got done making a statement against big government and universal healthcare are now faced with a candidate who grew the government of his state with (wait for it) universal healthcare. From a solid place of principle, these conservatives don’t want anyone with the stench of healthcare reform even near the White House.

Further, from a tactical standpoint, Romney can’t really attack Obama on Obamacare since the president can just parry it with “we just copied what you did with MassCare.” Romney can try to split hairs all day long about federalism, state’s rights, 10th amendments, and “states as laboratories for democracy.” The average independent voter won’t pay attention to all this, and even if he did, probably wouldn’t understand it. All they’ll see is the headline: “President Obama thanks Romney for Obamacare blueprints.”

2012 is different than 2008

So, what’s different now is voter disgust with Obamacare. What’s different now is John McCain isn’t running.  What’s different now is we’ve seen what we conservatives can do about getting other conservatives in office, as we did in 2010.

These days, Bob Dole has endorsed Mitt Romney. Yes, that’s right, the same man Romney said is “the last person I would have wanted write a letter for me.” So this bit of optics doesn’t help, given Romney’s own doling out criticism. But also these days, more conservative candidates compare now “moderate” Romney to Bob Dole, so we’ve come full circle. Next in line, indeed.

Romney may still very well be the man for this time, as America can certainly use a turn-around expert right about now with 8.3% unemployment and $5.00/gallon gas prices. But first he needs to convince a skeptical conservative base that he’s the right man for our economically challenged time, like Churchill in 1940, and not a man we have to accept because he’s “next in line.” We saw how that worked for Bob Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008 and we don’t want be fed any more lines.

Follow me on Twitter.


Birth control is NOT how we beat Obama. It’s the economy, stupid!


Imagine: you’ve been dealt 4-of-a-kind in your weekly poker tournament (never actually betting on it, since that would be illegal). You’ve got four jacks, and are feeling pretty good. Even better, you find out your opponent, by reading his ‘tell,’ has a busted hand, and is desperate.

Now, with this scenario, do you:

a) lure him in with a long, steady series of betting rounds sure to empty his pockets?
b) fold your hand since it’s impossible to get five jacks, and hey, you’re a perfectionist.
c) tell your opponent you’ve got four jacks to make him fold

Well, if you’re Republican candidates, you go for..

d) let your loser opponent change the game to Chutes and Ladders, rendering your four jacks worthless.

The Republicans have a winning hand right now. Obama, due to his failed policies and horrible economy, is reeling and being forced to actually run on his record. Gas prices are the highest ever for this time of year. We are in the longest string of high unemployment since the Great Depression. The “right-track/wrong-track” numbers are 34 and 60, a -26 spread. The national debt is over $15 trillion, and Obama’s budget is a total joke, failing to address our country’s spending problem and cut the deficit.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what Obama has to run on. This is his crappy hand.

All the Republicans have to do for 9 months is talk about this, incessantly, in an endless, nonstop loop. This is what’s called holding four jacks. This is a winning hand.

So what are we talking about?

Birth control.

Are you freaking kidding me?

This was settled in the 1970s with the advent of The Pill.

Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan talk about birth control? Remember all those times Reagan lectured hippies on their IUDs? What about all the times Reagan said he wants to ban condom vending machines?

You don’t remember it because he was kind of busy on something more important at the the time. You know, like ending the Soviet Union.

We have our own threats. We have Iran. We have a saber-rattling Russia. We have a nervous Israel. And brinkmanship in the Strait of Hormuz.

And don’t forget the threat to our liberty of Obamacare, and all the debt that future generations will need to dig us out of.

We need to win in 2012.

We need to end Obamacare.

We need to get the economy on track.

Yes, the liberals are baiting Rick Santorum, the not-Romney Republican poll-leader. They know he’s passionate about his conservative positions, so they are baiting him with questions about his social positions. Yes, the mainstream media is dangling what must look like softballs in front of Santorum, who just.. cannot.. pass… up the chance to explain just how passionately he believes birth control is wrong.

Rick Rick Rick. I love you, but this is stupid. We know you’re the social issues guy. Work on the independents. And giving the MSM juicy fodder to make an uninformed populace think you’re going to invade their bedrooms is not the way to win hearts and minds.

As Kurt Schlichter said on Twitter:

Santorum 2012: Because spending 9 months explaining his views on contraception is a winning strategy. #caring #unicorndreams

Exactly.

Republicans have a winning hand. All they need to do is talk about the economy. All they need to do is stay focused on Obama’s record. All they need to do is to practice a little bit of discipline and staying on message.

The bishops were doing just fine fighting the Obamacare “religious liberty” issue.

Politicians, by getting drawn into this battle, are letting the liberals re-define the debate, move the goal posts, and… no. Worse than that. It’s like having a winning poker hand and letting the opponent change the game to karaoke because he sings like Adam Lambert.

You’ve got a winning poker hand, GOP.

Play it.


Let’s Elect Newt the Unelectable Debater!


So, Newt won South Carolina! By a ton! Newt is da bomb!

Actually, instead of a ticking time bomb, I envision Newt as more of a airship. Better yet, a dirigible, only because no one uses the word “dirigible” anymore. Sure, we see them on Fringe in the other universe, but does Olivia ever *say* to Peter, “where am I? oh look, a dirigible!” No. I rest my case.

Where was I?

Oh yeah. Newt.

You know why Congressman Gingrich is like a dirigible? Because he’s full of hot air! HAHAHAHAHA!

No, that’s not the only reason why.

It’s because he floats above us, massive and grandiose and all, and it’s you know it’s just a matter of time until a spark becomes a fire and then the fiery hulk comes crashing to earth and Chris Matthews shrieks (as only Chris Matthews can) “Oh, the humanity!”

Does any of us doubt that this will inevitably happen?

Anyone?

Speaking of which, Newt is a great debater. And damn, we sure do love to hear the Newt debate. Well, not so much debate, as light into other people, particularly “the media” for doing despicable things. To him. Because Newt is such the victim.

But he is fun to watch and listen to, isn’t he?

Does this make him electable? I dunno.

25% of Americans think good things of Gingrich. 60% think he’s a d*ck.

Which got me to post this amazingly popular tweet.

What this means is we’ll be all “yeah, you tell ‘em Newt!” and he’ll win all the GOP primaries by giving red meat speeches like his great victory speech tonight in SC.

But then in the general election, moderates, indies and ALL Democrats will be more turned off than a TV on a wedding night.

UNLESS

He gives Obama such a smackdown that even squishy independents have a Eureka moment and say to themselves, “Self? I may have really misjudged this Newt chap all along!”

Chances of that happening? Who knows. SC voters called him electable, but they’re just knuckle-dragging Republicans who will vote for a corner mailbox over Obama.

Can Newt win the 65% of America that doesn’t hate Obama with the white-hot passion of 1,000 suns?

Let’s nominate him to find out!

Follow me on Twitter.

(cross-posted at IMAO, which you should read daily)


Inoculating Romney


A recent satirical post wrote the GOP should vet Mitt Romney’s past dealings with Bain. Romney’s opponents shouldn’t do this because they hate capitalism (does anyone really believe that they do?). No, his foes should do it because if there are skeletons in that closet, we need to know about it now, before Mitt’s sealed the nomination.

Was the Occupy Wall Street movement just a ragtag bunch of dropouts looking for a party? Well, ok. Maybe some. But considering that Mitt Romney was the frontrunner at the time, it doesn’t take a black-helicopter conspiracy nut to believe that the Democratic National Committee could be behind the whole thing. Why? To lay the groundwork for attacks on Romney once it’s official. The backdrop is set: the so-called 99% against the rich, corporate-jet flying, elitist business owners. Once the winter thaws, these protests will be back.

If you know your opponent is going to use a charge against you, you defend against it, you prepare for it. So, while Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich attacks — including the release of a 30-minute propaganda video — are very negative, they are very useful for Romney, and not just because it helps Newt flame out in a glorious pyre of pomposity.

Mitt Romney, having already won Iowa and New Hampshire, is still leading in South Carolina. If he’s the inevitable nominee, we need to be prepared to defend this image all summer long.

Mitt Romney as Gordon Gekko

Unlike 2004, Dan Rather doesn’t need to fake it; it’s already out there.

Given all this, with the constant drum circles beating anti-capitalism chants all summer long, this image will be leading newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS every night. Add to this the sorry tales of woe pouring out about Bain Capital and how Mitt Romney, captain of industry, dragged workers into the gutter on Christmas Eve, and he’ll be Bill Murray as Frank Cross firing Eliot Loudermilk.

So, as ugly as today’s attacks are, they inoculate Romney. They strengthen his immune system, like getting a strain of the flu. And, it gives him the chance to say next September, “this is old news that was already hashed out months ago.”

So, thank Newt Gingrich: he’s de-fanging one of Obama’s major attacks against our likely guy. It’s not certain it’ll work or be enough, but it’s better than doing nothing now.

It looks like we’re stuck with Mitt. We may as well give him a chance of beating Obama.

Category: , , ,

Let Obama Vet Mitt on Bain!


[The following is satire, written in the ironic tone. All candidates should be vetted on all issues before the general election. We apologize for any confusion. --The Mgmt]

Why is everyone criticizing Mitt Romney all of a sudden? Even worse: Mitt Romney is being attacked for being a capitalist. And worst of all: by fellow Republicans!

Leave Mitt alone!

Clearly, this issue should not be brought up at all. Newt Gingrich is the person who’s been going after Romney most vocally on this topic. To wit, in New York Magazine:

Gingrich is planning an assault in South Carolina that centers on Romney’s career at Bain Capital. At this point, Romney is a heavy favorite to win. What’s more, Gingrich’s Bain attack is indistinguishable from the themes that pro-Democratic groups are using to discredit him against Obama.

Heck, it’s so brutal, it’s even called “Swift Boating” in the essay. And we know there’s nothing more unfair and mean than that!

Newt should stop this type of attack immediately. Instead, assuming Mitt Romney continues to skate through to the nomination, we should leave it to Barack Obama to raise it. Only a liberal should raise this issue, and then it should be amplified 24/7 by the mainstream media.

If Mitt’s the GOP nominee, next summer we’ll let the liberals and their lackeys in the press drone on about how Romney hurt workers. We’ll see more video ads featuring laid-off workers like this.

We’ll hear more stories about Randy Johnson, who’s poised to be the next Cindy Sheehan. No, not that Randy Johnson. This one doesn’t have a fastball, but brings heat by following Mitt around at Romney rallies.

…now Mr. Johnson is planning to travel around the country, and wait patiently on the side of Mitt Romney’s campaign events, prepared to tell his story to anyone who wants to listen.

Gee, do you think Mr. Johnson will find someone who’ll want to tell his story next summer?

Don’t forget that next summer it’s going to be heating up, weather-wise. This means Occupy hippies will be awakening from hibernation, rubbing Cheetos dust out of their eyes, and coming out of their parents’ basements ready to resume their tantrums. This means the narrative returns to the evil rich. And who is more evil and rich than a Republican who dares to stand between Obama and a second term?

Senator Carly Fiorina was unavailable to comment.

So, add it all up and what do you have? Bain ads showing laid off workers and rusty cobwebby factories that Bain shut down. Tent cities with communists chanting against the wealthy. Don’t forget future media darling Randy Johnson on every news show as he tells his sorry story again and again. Who knows? Maybe others will come out and join him!

Rather than put Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire now, we should just let Obama and his MSM megaphone fan this flame all summer long, culminating in a crescendo of cacophony right around October.

Yes, that would make much more sense than vetting the GOP frontrunner now. Because whatever Newt or the others throw at Romney will be a big pillow puffball that will only tickle Mitt compared to the heavy artillery Obama’s prepared to roll out.

Yeah. Newt should really back off the “anti-capitalist” attacks.

Leave that for October to the lethal — and sincere — anti-capitalist experts in the White House.

Razor

If you liked this, similar posts were made by Legal Insurrection, Dan McLaughlin, and James Taranto.

Category: , , , , ,

Support the Troops with a Parade


For years during the long Iraq war, we heard from liberals that they support the troops. It was just the war they didn’t support. But darn it, don’t you even think about questioning their patriotism.

Finally, after nine years of deployment, the last of our troops finally left Iraq last week.  Yet, the Obama administration had planned no parade to welcome home our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and guardsmen.

This is unconscionable, and the height of liberal hypocrisy.

Stringing together some thoughts I shared the other day on Twitter, allow a moment for each one to sink in.

Once again, liberal hypocrisy has been exposed.  All the “support” of the troops we’ve heard mouthed by Democrats the last decade has been shown to be mere lip service and political posturing.   We need to keep this in mind the next time liberals express sentiments that go against their nature.

Turning away from politics, our heroes are home now.  They should be welcomed with proud appreciation that magnifies, amplifies, the strong feelings from the scene in the video below.  They should know how much their honor, courage, and sacrifice are appreciated by the majority of Americans.

Give our troops the parade they deserve.

Let them feel our appreciation.

They earned it.

http://youtu.be/rUrf6Qg4T4E

Give them a parade now.

Thanks for reading.

Razor