Category: Liberal hypocrites

Totalitarianism is the new tolerance

The Other McCain points out the danger of what I call the “Rainbow shirts”

A perfect example of how the SJWs have taken over at Google:

Dozens of Google employees have sent an open letter to the organizers of San Francisco’s annual Pride parade urging them to kick Google’s company float out of the parade.
In a letter posted to Medium, the employees wrote of a work atmosphere where concerns from LGBTQ employees are regularly brushed aside.
“We have spent countless hours advocating for our company to improve policies and practices regarding the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons, the depiction of LGBTQ+ persons, and harassment and hate speech directed at LGBTQ+ persons, on YouTube and other Google products,” the letter read.

Stephen Kruiser summarizes: “The gist of the letter isn’t that Google’s LGBTQ+ employees are being treated badly at work, but that the company isn’t stringent enough about cracking down on WRONG SPEECH on YouTube.” In other words, Google hires gay people who then seek to damage the company they work for, in order to pressure the company to engage in totalitarian censorship of anyone they don’t like.Now do you understand what the firing of James Damore was really about? The LGBT community has become toxic in its politics, abandoning any pretense of seeking “tolerance” and instead demanding that the rest of us obey their diktats or else be banished into outer darkness.

Summed up very well

The Hypocritical Hypocrisy of the Cult of Climate Change

One of the most insightful bloggers out there is Animal, of Animal Magnetism. Read his latest, exposing the rank hypocrisy of the “carbon footprint” crowd

I can’t abide hypocrites.

And national treasure  Ann Althouse has found a doozy.  Excerpt:

This is one of my longtime issues — the hypocrisy of those who purport to care deeply about carbon footprints yet enthusiastically imprint their feet all over the world and encourage (and even pressure) others to do the same.

I like to see how the NYT deals with this subject — the NYT, with all its concern-mongering about climate change and all its travel articles and ads and its need to serve the emotions and vanities of its readers. What are we having today? A little shame, spiced with humorous self-deprecation, along with the usual self-esteem boosting about our progressivism and our love of the good life?

For this article, the author is by Andy Newman. Let’s read:

[T]hese are morally bewildering times. Something that seemed like pure escape and adventure has become double-edged, harmful, the epitome of selfish consumption. Going someplace far away, we now know, is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to worsen climate change. One seat on a flight from New York to Los Angeles effectively adds months worth of human-generated carbon emissions to the atmosphere. And yet we fly more and more….

What’s morally bewildering? If you believe what the consensus of climate scientists and the proponents of the Green New Deal are telling us, you should never travel. Everything else is morally wrong. If you are bewildered, you’re just bewildered about whether you — as opposed to those other people — want to center your life on morality.

But here’s the giggle line:

How does Newman bring this thing in for a landing? He’s still taking his family to Greece and Paris this summer. His reasoning is pathetically emotional: “We’re going because last year we canceled vacation to come home and watch our dog die. We’re going because the New York City public high school application process was an ordeal.” Why not rent a car and drive your spouse and teenager to a state park in upstate New York? You can hike and sleep in tents.

Mostly we’re going because of things we saw last time we were there. The tiny beach at the base of the towering cliff. The playground where the little children played past midnight while their parents and grandparents sat chatting. Chubby partridges pecking around the ruined temple of Poseidon.

So you’ve already gone, but you want to re-see what you’ve seen, because somehow the way they do it in Europe is more to your taste. I’m sure there’s a tiny beach with a towering cliff at one of those state parks I linked to.

So, the loudmouthed climate panic monger says, on one hand, that travelling is, well, basically evil. Funny how the left defines evil. Travelling? EVIL! Calling MS-13 gang members animals? EVILY EVIL! Killing babies as they are born? Not evil, in fact the left embraces such atrocities as “empowerment” 

This Newman – what an asshole.  He whines about the “carbon footprint” he produces, but then blithely announces he’s going to take his family to Europe anyway.  His reason is, effectively, because “fuck you, that’s why.”

I suppose it is OK, even saintly for the left to scream about how we are destroying the earth by travelling while travelling themselves. Maybe they believe their fake moral outrage causes them to be immune from ideological and intellectual consistency? Or, maybe Animal is right, maybe they are just assholes

Your Daley Gator Political Picture O’ The Day

.

.

What if an NFL player was vocal about the second amendment?

What would have happened if Colin Kaepernick had protested for the right to keep and bear arms? Would ESPN , and other sports media types gushed over him? Would they have stood for his right to express himself? Apparently not

Boston Red Sox slugger J.D. Martinez told reporters Tuesday he “didn’t mean any harm” by his nearly six-year-old Instagram post that advocated for the Second Amendment via a quote that has been falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler

The inaccurate quote, often cited by those who oppose gun control, was posted to Martinez’s Instagram page in 2013 and read, “To conquer a Nation, First disarm it’s (sic) citizens.” It included an accompanying photo of the German dictator doing the Nazi salute.

A 25-year-old Martinez captioned the image, “This is why I always stay strapped! #thetruth.”

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, a day after the old post resurfaced, Martinez, now 31, said it was meant to illustrate his stance on the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. The post has since been deleted.

“At the time I posted that, the Second Amendment at the time was definitely a hot topic,” Martinez said. “The point of it wasn’t to offend anybody.”

Well, let us start with the mis-attributed quote. The fact is Hitler DID disarm people, as did the Soviets, and other dictators

So, now we will see if the ESPN commentators rise in full throated support of Martinez and his speech. Wanna bet they don’t?

Here are some of his remarks

Again, he said nothing really controversial, but the Brown Shirted Speech Police are still after him, because he expressed views that are not sanctioned by the left.

Leftism is an Ideology of Convenience

ACLU attorney Omar Jackoff Jadwat shows just how “principled” ACLU attorneys are

NTK – ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.

What a weasel! I wonder if it ever bothers Omar that he has no principles? Everything is ideological with him, and that ideology is Left of Lenin, which should not surprise anyone given that he works for the ACLU