Category: Hypocrisy O’ The Day

This annual meeting at Davos is such fertile ground to display the hypocrisy of the elite

Hypocrites
Leftists change their minds so quickly it’s a wonder they don’t  have whiplash

Suddenly the Left Remembers That Men CAN’T Get Pregnant

Reaction to the leak of the draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson came in swiftly Monday night. Liberals haven’t been this outraged since Elon Musk bought Twitter. Pro-abortion activists quickly formed a protest outside the court, and politicians released statements that featured fresh new takes on the usual tropes and slogans we’ve heard for decades.

“A woman’s right to choose is not up for debate. A woman’s right to make her own health care decisions is not up for debate,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “We can’t go back. We must not go back. We won’t go back.”

“This is at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said .

“If you think they’ll stop with a women’s right to choose, you haven’t been paying attention. We have to fight like our lives depend on it, because clearly, they do,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.).

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for the packing of the Supreme Court, insisting that overturning Roe would “put the lives of women across the country at risk.”

“I’ll always fight to protect a woman’s right to choose,” insisted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). “And that will never change.”

Women. Women. Women.

That’s funny. Hasn’t the radical left been telling us that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant, too” suddenly have such a narrow view about the abortion issue that they only see it as a women’s rights issue? Weird, since less than a month ago, the pregnant man emoji was made available on my iPhone. Before the draft opinion leaked, if you asked a leftist to define what a “woman” is, they couldn’t tell you. Now, these non-biologists know precisely what a woman is.

For most of my life, abortion has been framed as a “women’s rights” issue. Yet on plenty of occasions, Leftists typically didn’t even recognize my right even to have an opinion on abortion because I’m not a woman. As Jennifer Aniston put it last year, “No uterus, no opinion.”

It’s impressive how quickly and easily progressives who have long insisted that “trans women are women” and that “men can get pregnant” showed us that even they know deep down that radical leftist gender theory is nonsensical. It may be fashionable in their circles to buy into it, but they know it’s nonsensical.

Sure, when the outrage cools down, they’ll probably go back to saying “men can get pregnant” and refer to biological women as “birthing people,” but that won’t change the fact that, in the wake of this Supreme Court leak, so many said the quiet part out loud about transgenderism.

Interesting little tidbit for our friends 7 times ‘south of the border’, but I’d say they are likely already aware of it.

Biden Is Deporting Venezuelans to Colombia

Record numbers of Venezuelan migrants have crossed into the United States from Mexico in recent months, hoping to apply for asylum. U.S. immigration authorities reported 24,819 Venezuelan border crossers in December 2021, compared to just 200 one year prior.

Despite the compelling case many Venezuelans have for seeking refuge in the U.S., the Biden administration is denying many of them that opportunity. Instead it is quietly deporting them to Colombia—a policy that resembles a controversial Trump administration practice.

Citing 42 USC 265, a public health provision that was also invoked by President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden thus far has expelled more than 1 million migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, preventing Venezuelans and many others from applying for asylum. Colombia will be a deportation destination for Venezuelans who have previously lived there, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Trump, no champion of immigration, offered Venezuelan nationals protection from deportation in one of the final moves of his presidency. But he also “deported an unknown number of Venezuelans through a third country,” the Associated Press reported in October 2020.

Candidate Biden criticized Trump for the deportations, saying in October 2020 that “it’s abundantly clear he has no regard for the suffering of the Venezuelan people.” Yet President Biden is also deporting Venezuelans to third countries.

Beyond this inconsistency lies an even more nonsensical one. In March 2021, Biden’s DHS announced an 18-month “temporary protected status” for Venezuelans already present in the U.S. That designation, which protects migrants from expulsion, is reserved for people fleeing an “ongoing armed conflict,” “an environmental disaster, or an epidemic,” or “other extraordinary and temporary conditions.” The designation applies to 320,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. but excludes newcomers, despite the Biden administration’s explicit recognition that America should be a safe haven.

Colombia, despite its own political and economic challenges, has welcomed the 2 million Venezuelan refugees who have traveled there as Venezuelan President NicolĂĄs Maduro drives the country into the ground. Colombia has even created a path to citizenship for its Venezuelan migrant population. But the U.S. is far better situated than Colombia to host Venezuelans, more than 5.4 million of whom have left their country since 2014 in what amounts to the second-worst refugee crisis in the world, topped only by the huge Syrian exodus.

Biden’s decision to send away refugees who are eager to become Americans belies his avowed “regard for the suffering of the Venezuelan people.”

The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Elitists

In 2020, then-presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg was asked how he could continue to demand gun control while being protected by private guards equipped with the same firearms and magazines that he wanted to ban others from owning. “Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these people’s?” Bloomberg’s response, in essence, was that he was not an ordinary person. He was a celebrity and billionaire who received more threats than most people: “That just happens when you are the mayor of New York City or you are very wealthy.”

At the same time, another big-city Democrat politician known for pushing gun control on the lower orders was being shielded by a small army of police officers, presumably at the taxpayers’ expense. The Chicago Sun-Times recently disclosed that a special police security detail, Unit 544, was created two years ago to protect Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, her home and office, and to “oversee her personal bodyguard detail.” The special unit consists of approximately 71 officers, in addition to the mayor’s existing “separate personal bodyguard detail” of 20 officers.

Both cities – ex-Mayor Bloomberg’s New York City and Lightfoot’s Chicago – are experiencing horrific surges in violent crime. The most recent “CompStat” report from the NYPD indicates rapes, robberies, felony assaults, burglaries, grand larceny, and auto thefts have all increased significantly as compared to the same time last year, and the Chicago Police Department’s (CPD) own “CompStat” contains the same dismal message.

While privileged politicians float above this wave of criminality, untroubled by threats to person or property, less exalted individuals are forced to rely on whatever police resources may be available or become their own version of Unit 544.

Last week in Chicago, for instance, a 70-year-old Uber driver, threatened by robbers who then carjacked his vehicle, had to wait 75 minutes before police could respond. Police assigned to serve the area had been drastically reduced to 261 officers, the “lowest monthly staffing level for the district since at least August 2017,” so no one was available to take the assignment until the next shift began. The problem isn’t restricted to that police district: overall, more than 660 CPD officers retired in 2021, almost double the number of retirees in 2018, and recruiting of new officers dropped during the pandemic. Carjacking reports, meanwhile, have set a new monthly record as of February 2022, up 390% from February 2019.

The impact on public safety is what makes Lightfoot’s private defense force of almost 100 officers all the more outrageous. In 2020, residents had already complained that patrol officers in areas close to Lightfoot’s home were redeployed to the mayor’s residence. It’s at odds with the mayor’s oft-used theme of “all hands on deck” to address public safety using a “coordinated and collective effort,” if scores of the deckhands are used for what amounts to private security work. And Lightfoot herself can’t pretend that police resources aren’t affected, because the creation of Unit 544 coincided with her proposal to cut the CPD budget by $80 million as part of addressing a pandemic–related citywide budget shortfall.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Lightfoot asserts her special police detail became necessary because in 2020, there was “a significant amount of protests all over the city, and some of them targeted [] my house.” (News reports from 2020 indicate that the protests included, ironically, calls to remove police from schools, for reforms to the CPD, and to defund the police.) A 2020 news report quotes Lightfoot defending, as well, the closing off of residential streets around her home to activists, because of threats to her safety. “[T]he situation can’t be compared to protests at former mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home given the pandemic… This is a different time – like no other.”

John Catanzara, president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, observes that “[w]hile murders are soaring, while districts are barebones for manpower, all that matters [to Lightfoot] is protecting her castle.”

Of course, it is completely reasonable for Lightfoot to take lawful measures to protect herself and her family, the same as anyone else, but her situation is arguably no more dire nor compelling than the crisis of crime faced by every other Chicago resident today.

The problem is that the mayor, and others like her, are the same anti-gun advocates who see no contradiction between demanding ever more pointless restrictions on the ability of constituents to legally access firearms for self-defense, and ensuring their own safety with assigned police bodyguards and armed security. Ordinary citizens don’t need guns because the police will protect them – even if crime climbs to levels not seen in decades and there’s upward of an hour’s wait on a 911 call.

These people would have you believe that this isn’t gun control elitism in action – it’s just that they aren’t like you and me. After all, if you don’t have bread you can always eat cake.

Yep. He’s a politician all right. He was against it, until it became law, then realizing which way the wind was blowing, he’s now for it. The only question about politicians is whether or not they’re ‘honest’ which means ‘they stay bought’.

Lee County Sheriff’s Take on Concealed Carry Bill

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a new measure into law on March 11 that will change the way gun owners carry their guns.

No longer will citizens be required to obtain a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 272, The Constitutional Carry Bill, no longer requires citizens to have a permit but also changed the language regarding penalties for unlawful carry.

“Unlike states who are doing everything in their power to make it harder for law abiding citizens, Alabama is reaffirming our commitment to defending our Second Amendment rights,” Ivey said. “I have always stood up for the rights of law abiding gunowners, and I am proud to do that again today.”

HB 272 trickles down in Alabama to all levels, including Lee County. Sheriff Jay Jones approached the Lee County Commission in November, before Ivey signed the bill, asking commissioners to continue a requirement for purchasing concealed carry pistol permits.

“It’s about pro-community safety,” he said in November. “… The current law that’s in place [requires] a person to obtain, by a fee, a pistol permit, to carry a handgun, concealed on about their person or even more importantly, in their vehicle, as they go about their business. And it’s the business of some that I would like to address.

“The tool allows us when we encounter people, who, are generally up to no good quite frankly, in possession of a weapon because they’re not going to get a permit … Criminals aren’t going to go to the trouble of getting a permit. And we depend on that. Because as a result of that, we can confront them when we encounter them without one in a vehicle and are able, in many cases, to relieve them of those weapons, which many times, are stolen.”

At the time, three citizens spoke against Jones’ request, however, the commission voted in favor of his resolution.

Three commissioners voted in favor, while District 5 Commissioner Richard LaGrand abstained.

“You know, Jay, if this is something that helps you and the three gentlemen back there with you in law enforcement, if it helps y’all do your job, I would encourage the commission to support this,” said District 4 Commissioner Robert Ham. “And I think what I just heard is that it did.”

Now that HB272 has been signed into law, however, Jones said he supports Ivey’s efforts for Second Amendment Rights.

“[I] agree that Alabama should be strong in affirming the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” he said in a statement to The Observer. “Whether the purpose is for protection of self and family or to engage in hunting or sporting activities, the right to acquire and own a firearm is fundamental. As a Sheriff, I support citizens exercising this right and encourage the concept of responsibility by acquiring the knowledge and skills to safely handle and maintain a firearm.”

His concerns, however, are still in place, he said.

“Law enforcement professionals at all levels remain concerned that a tool utilized by our peace officers around Alabama has been removed,” Jones said. “These concerns are based on experience and knowledge gained by those who keep our communities safe every day. We will remain vigilant and our hope is that our concerns do not come to fruition when the law takes effect next year.”

It makes me often wonder if these people are actually so stupid they believe that no one will be able to remember their past?

The Times, simply displaying their standard hypocrisy.

What you see from the Ukrainians is real heroism. Little to no training. Little to no logistical support. Yet they arm up and march off to fight an invader. That takes real guts.

The New York Times’ Strange New Respect for Citizens Owning and Carrying ‘Assault Weapons.’

Yes, this is the New York Times writing approvingly of average Ukrainian citizens taking up arms to defend themselves, their families, and their country. They’re being thousands of what the Times refers to as “assault rifles” for which most of them will have had little to no training at all.

Not that it matters. When your country is being attacked by a foreign army, you use the weapons at hand.

An estimated 18,000 assault rifles, variants of the Kalashnikov, have been distributed in Kyiv since Thursday. For many in line, the decision to pick up arms and fight a street battle against one of the world’s largest armies was driven by patriotism.
“I don’t really have any choice,” said Hlib Bondarenko, a 21-year-old computer programmer. “This is my home. I have nowhere to go, and I’m not going to give it up.”

Olena Sokolan, a business manager, stood proudly in a line made up mostly of men. “I am a woman, but I am strong,” Ms. Sokolan said. “I don’t have any fear. I’m ready.”

See Russian, point rifle, pull trigger.

This is the same New York Times that writes so approvingly of “assault weapons” bans here in the US of A. Never mind that the muddled old Gray Lady has written that Clinton’s AWB both failed miserably and worked as intended. Because as Americans are seeing hourly on their televisions and news feeds, who really needs an “assault rifle” anyway?

If Dems Wants to Do Something About ‘Rise in Anti-Asian Hate Crimes,’ They Can Start By Being Tough on Crime

Saturday marks the 80th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing an executive order that began the removal of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were imprisoned in internment camps. DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison and DNC AAPI Caucus Chair Bel Leong-Hong issued a joint statement commemorating that day. The joint statement also closed by claiming it’s Democrats who are righting for the safety of Americans, while at the same time calling out anti-Asian hate crimes.

Such a mention may be bold, or even stupid. In many Democratic-run cities, crime has exploded. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, as Katie reported, has dismissed a “soft on crime policies” approach as an “alternate universe.” Worse, Democratic DA’s are no help.

“Unfortunately, Japanese Americans and the AAPI community continue to face violence and discrimination because of their identities,” the joint statement acknowledged. “The rise in anti-Asian hate crimes must stop, and perpetrators must be prosecuted. Democrats have fought and will continue to fight to secure the rights, safety, and prosperity of all Americans, including those facing injustice and discrimination, in order to ensure a better and brighter future for our nation,” it closed with.

The version of the statement shared on Twitter did not mention such a modern-day application, curiously enough.

If Democrats truly feel that “perpetrators must be prosecuted,” then they can start in their own cities, with their own DAs.

A recent and tragic case in point is with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who only just recently has been reversing course on his super soft on crime approach over backlash, as Landon has covered. According to the New York Post, which I’ve mentioned in my own articles, there have been whispers of a recall effort against Bragg, who only just took office at the beginning of this year.

Among many changes, Bragg initially made, as Spencer highlighted, was the lack of prison time except for crimes of homicide and some other of the most violent offenses. Bragg also had the audacity to claim “I don’t understand the pushback” when people expressed concerns.

These changes from Bragg’s office haven’t been enough, though.

Continue reading “”

Boston abruptly lifts vaccine mandate.

Boston’s new mayor, Michelle Wu, took the city by surprise yesterday when she announced that Beantown’s requirement for proof of vaccination to enter most indoor businesses was being lifted “immediately.” This was particularly good news for bars and restaurants in the city which have struggled to enforce the mandate and seen their customer traffic (and profits) tanking over the course of the pandemic. The reason she gave was yet another “following the science” speech, noting that the city’s positivity, hospitalization, and ICU occupancy rates had all fallen below the previously defined limits. Since that means that even the unvaccinated will now be able to go about their lives a bit more normally, Wu really should answer one pressing question. What about all of the people who wound up getting vaccinated against their will? (CBS Boston)

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has lifted the proof of vaccine requirement for indoor businesses effective immediately. The announcement was made Friday evening.

The city just fell below the third metric it needed to hit in order to loosen the restrictions.

Public health data reported on Friday shows Boston has a 4.0% community positivity rate; 90.7% occupancy rate of adult ICU beds, and a 7-day average of adult COVID-19 hospitalizations at 195.9 per day.

At the Boston restaurant Sonsie, the manager went out front and took down the mandate poster that had been in the window for more than a year. She also informed her staff to stop asking to see immunity passports “immediately.”

The one thing that didn’t change on Friday night was the city’s face mask mandate. Officials said they will be reviewing that policy “in the coming days.” Of course, as we’ve discussed here previously, a mask mandate in a bar or restaurant is nothing more than idiotic posturing and virtue signaling. Customers take off their masks as soon as their beverages and food arrive at the table, so the only people being punished are the employees.

Returning to the question I posed at the top of the article, this ending of vaccination mandates is taking place all over the country now. Those who refused to accept the vaccines will now finally be allowed to mix with the rest of the public like normal human beings. But what of all of the people who didn’t want to be vaccinated but gave in and took the shots just to gain some measure of freedom of movement or keep their jobs? They can’t turn around now and be “de-vaccinated.”

The latest numbers from the CDC tell us that 64.4% of the people in the United States are now “fully vaccinated.” (That means three shots at this point for all but the hangers-on who waited until the last possible moment.) So more than a third of the country – including a majority of young children – are only partially done with getting their shots or are entirely unvaccinated. They will get to return to whatever passes for “normal” these days while those who took the shots against their will carry their lingering resentment of the government mandates with them.

If you weren’t paying attention to the politics involved, you might be surprised at how quickly we went from “the mandates are the only thing that will save us” to “never mind.” But that’s because all of these politicians are able to read their own polling numbers and those numbers look like a dumpster fire at the moment when it comes to COVID mandates. These are political decisions far more than medical decisions. And at least some of these officials are going to be held accountable later this year.

I can remember when all you needed to do to receive universal condemnation by the American media was to wear a MAGA hat and stand next to an American Indian and a drum circle.

It’s a Good Thing Quintez Brown Wasn’t Wearing a MAGA Hat.

Imagine for a moment that a young man wearing a MAGA hat walked into the campaign headquarters of a mayoral candidate in an American city, pulled out a gun, and started shooting. Imagine that he came so close to assassinating the candidate that a bullet grazed the man’s sweater. And now imagine that the shooter’s bail was set at only $100,000, and a group of white supremacists raised his bail and put him back on the street within a couple of days.

Would that be national news? Would you be able to turn on CNN or MSNBC at any hour of the day without hearing about it? Would it be presented as further evidence of what’s really wrong with America?

Well, forget all that, because when this exact scenario played out in Louisville, KY this week, the shooter was fighting for a cause that’s favored by our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the press.

On Monday, a young man named Quintez Brown tried to murder Craig Greenberg, who’s running for mayor of Louisville. Yet Brown is already out on bail, which was raised by… Black Lives Matter.

Continue reading “”

Hypocrisy O’The Day

Hypocrisy O’ The Day
Gun control and BLM propagandist tries to shoot a Louisville Kentucky candidate in the race for mayor

Activist Quintez Brown charged in attempted shooting of Louisville mayor hopeful Greenberg

A Louisville activist has been identified as a suspect in the attempted shooting of mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg — a case that has drawn national attention and unproven accusations of radicalism amid a tense racial and political climate.

Quintez Brown, 21, was charged late Monday with attempted murder and four counts of wanton endangerment after Greenberg was shot at in his campaign headquarters that morning.

No one was injured in the shooting, but a bullet grazed Greenberg’s sweater and shirt.

Live updates:Quintez Brown pleads not guilty to attempted murder, judge sets bond at $100K

Brown, a former intern and editorial columnist for The Courier Journal, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Tuesday, where a judge set his bail at $100,000.

Continue reading “”