hypocrisy

Republicans Should Check and Balance Obama’s SCOTUS Nominee

Against all wisdom and common sense, I engaged in a debate online about Senate Republicans potentially filibustering or blocking President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee-to-be to replace Justice Antonin Scalia following the justice’s untimely passing this weekend. Truly, I don’t recommend it. It was not only as futile as all online arguments are (no one is ever convinced of any opinion except the one they went in with. It’s almost exclusively a forum to rant), but it was disturbing in a way that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the blatant, admitted, and poisonous hypocrisy some on the left have in matters of politics.

The vacancy left by the great Scalia (who, as an aside, my opponent in the online “debate” was convinced was a biased right-winger and was petulantly annoyed when I shared this article and told him to educate himself) will be hard to fill simply because the man who created it with his death was so great. That is nearly universally accepted.

But what Democrats seem to want to do is forget the concept of advice and consent (the constitutional provision that gives the Senate the authority to accept or disdain a presidential appointment), even as their own recent history shows their willingness to use it with careless abandon.

Don’t Believe The Media Hype About Rand Paul Hypocrisy

rand reporters

The media may be tipping their hand at how they’re going to treat Rand Paul during the 2016 election cycle. Purity testing and alleged hypocrisy.

It started last month when Time.com put out an article on the Kentucky Senator’s proposal to increase defense spending. The piece claims Paul did an “about-face” and a “stunning reversal” from past stances on giving money to the Pentagon.

But that isn’t what Paul did.

He did propose $190-billion in defense spending, but tacked on $212-billion in cuts from other places, including foreign aid, HUD, and the EPA. Paul’s reasoning is simple: if the U.S. is going spend money on something, it needs to be able to pay for it. This is sound policy and certainly better than Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s proposal to increase spending without cuts.

It’s interesting Time didn’t bother getting a quote from Paul’s office. They instead just wrote the office confirmed the amendment was his, without getting context. Both Reason and Huffington Post were willing to get quotes from Paul’s office. That should say something about the context of how Time is treating Paul.

For those who are angry about Paul’s proposal, it’s important to remember he’s in the minority of the majority. He’s a libertarian, who is surrounded by people who aren’t. Paul may want to drastically cut the federal government back to sustainable areas, but he’s one man.

Obama, Corporate Inversions, and Grotesque Hypocrisy

Last month, I put together a list of six jaw-dropping examples of left-wing hypocrisy, one of which featured Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.

He made the list for having the chutzpah to criticize corporate inversions on the basis of supposed economic patriotism, even though he invested lots of money via the Cayman Islands when he was a crony capitalist at Citigroup.

But it turns out that Lew’s hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems the entire Obama Administration was in favor of inversions just a couple of years ago. Check out these excerpts from a Bloomberg story.

Obama Lecture on Playing by the Rules is Utter Hypocrisy

In a recent weekly address, Barack Obama uttered ten words which every conservative in the nation immediately recognized as absolute truth in a constitutional republic which provides for separation of powers among the branches and levels of government. To quote, Obama stated “You don’t get to pick which rules you play by.”

His statement was made regarding the growing trend of “inversion,” whereby U.S. multinational corporations merge with foreign companies and move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid the double taxation that the United States levies on its companies, a burden suffered by the corporations of no other industrialized nation, which therefore puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

The irony of those words, coming from THAT man, should be lost on no one with an IQ above room temperature.

Obama, more than any president in American history, has shown complete and utter contempt for any constitutional restrictions on his power, and openly mocks and taunts those that express deep concerns for his brazen disregard for the tradition of compromise (as ugly as the process is to get to that end point) that has guided our government for more than two centuries.

Obama talks about having “a phone and a pen,” a reference to his numerous Executive Orders which often bleed over into powers reserved for the other branches of government. Obama has repeatedly claimed this year that he will act unilaterally when Congress refuses to give him his way, and when Congress protests such abuse of power, he glibly responds, “Sue me!”

Too Good to Check: Ben & Jerry’s Ben Cohen Now Buying Issue Support with Free Ice Cream

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen is waging a new campaign to reform the campaign finance system, and to “get money out of politics.” But Cohen is no stranger to injecting a lot of his own money into politics, and his latest gambit makes him a hypocrite of the highest degree, as the Ben & Jerry’s company and its parent company Unilever bear the financial costs of his advocacy.

Ben & Jerry's truck

You might say Cohen is delivering the bullshit by the truckload these days. Politico Influence reports:

BEN & JERRY’S DEFENDS FREE ICE CREAM TO FIGHT CORPORATE INFLUENCE: Last week, POLITICO reported that Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen is fighting the Citizens United decision by stamping dollar bills with anti-money-in-politics messages. Anyone who presents a stamped dollar bill gets a free ice cream. PI asked Ben & Jerry’s ‘Grand Poobah’ of communications Sean Greenwood who was paying for the effort - noting that it would be a bit ironic for a for-profit corporation to fight influence-peddling by giving away free ice cream.

Podcast: 10th Amendment Summit, Joseph Stacks, CPAC, Bayh’s Retirement, 2010 Midterms, Guests: Ray McBerry & Mike Hassinger

This week, Jason and Brett speak with Georgia Gubernatorial candidate Ray McBerry (you may recall his Liberty Candidate interview with us) and United Liberty contributor and political consultant Mike Hassinger on this week’s show.  Unfortunately, Mr. McBerry’s schedule only allowed him to join us for the first topic.

Together, they discussed:

Harry Reid loves billionaires as long as they support Democrats

 Steyer Infection

American Commitment is calling out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for his hypocritical attacks on libertarian-leaning billionaires who have engaged in the political process. The conservative action organization has produced a new ad that ties Reid to Tom Steyer, a big-dollar Democratic donor aiming to bring down the Keystone XL oil pipeline:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is accused in a new ad of hypocrisy when it comes to decrying the influence of billionaire donors in politics.
[…]
“The hypocrisy of Harry Reid disparaging successful Americans on the floor of the U.S. Senate, while he helps Democratic senators collect campaign contributions from shadowy, dirty energy billionaires is astonishing,” Phil Kerpen, the president of American Commitment, said in a statement. “If Harry Reid believes anything he says, he should stand up to the Steyer brothers and help the American people by supporting the Keystone Pipeline and opposing new energy taxes that only benefit special interests.”

A spokesman for the group told The Daily Caller that the $50,000 ad campaign will run online starting Tuesday in battleground Senate states like Louisiana, North Carolina, Arkansas and Michigan. These states are places where the Democratic Senate Majority super PAC is attacking the billionaire Kochs for pouring money into groups that are running ads against liberals.

The hypocrisy of Dianne Feinstein

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spoke out yesterday morning about the accusations that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had accessed committee staffers’ computers. In a 40-plus minute speech, Feinstein accused the agency of removing documents related to its investigation into the agency’s Bush-era detention and interrogation programs and intimidation:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that the situation amounted to an attempted intimidation of congressional investigators, adding: “I am not taking it lightly.”

She confirmed that an internal agency investigation of the action has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. And she accused the CIA of violating the Fourth Amendment, various federal laws and a presidential executive order that bars the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.

She has sought an apology and recognition that the CIA search of the committee’s computers was inappropriate, but said: “I have received neither.”

John McCain: Mitch McConnell faces a “very tough” race

John McCain and Mitch McConnell

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) didn’t help Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) yesterday. Shortly after a handful of Senate Republicans helped Democrats hand President Obama a blank check to raise the debt ceiling, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee acknowledged that McConnell faces a “very tough race” back home and that his vote on the debt hike could come back to hurt him:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., thinks he faces a “tough” battle, made tougher by his vote to break a filibuster of the debt limit increase.

“I must say that it was a very courageous act, especially Sen. McConnell, who — as you well know — is in a very tough race,” McCain told Politico on Wednesday, in an apparent allusion to the fact that the vote gives his primary challenger, Matt Bevin, political ammunition against McConnell.

Sixty-seven senators voted to end debate on the debt limit increase, though McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans voted against the debt limit increase itself.

Harry Reid goes “nuclear” on the filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and most members of the Democratic conference voted today to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for executive nominations, excluding Supreme Court appointments, after Republicans blocked three appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Executive nominees now need only 51 votes to win confirmation from the Senate. The change was approved by the Senate by a vote of 52 to 48. Three Democrats — Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Pryor (D-AR) — joined every Senate Republican to vote against the rule change.

Reid complained that Republicans had forced him to call for the change in Senate rules because of, what he called, “unprecedented obstruction” and claimed that the it’s “something both sides should be willing to live with to make Washington work again.”

“The American people are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock. The American people – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – are fed up with this kind of obstruction and gridlock,” said Reid from the Senate floor. “The American people want Washington to work for American families once again.”

The rule change is an attempt to change the narrative. President Obama and Democrats have talked up “gridlock” in government to get attention off of the problems with Obamacare. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made that point to colleagues this morning.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.