Category Archives: hypocrisy

Race card declined

scissors-cutting-cardWhere was Little Dick Durbin when Condoleezza Rice was nominated for Secretary of State? The hypocritical son of a bitch no doubt got in line with all of the other regressives to oppose her nomination:

Does Dick Durbin Believe that Only White Males Can Bear Public Scrutiny?

With a dull and dispiriting predictability, the insinuations have begun to fly on Capitol Hill. Lamenting that Barack Obama’s pick for attorney general has not yet been confirmed, Senator Dick Durbin told the press this morning that her critics were almost certainly motivated by bigotry. “Loretta Lynch,” Durbin contended, “the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.” In taking this ugly road, Durbin has joined in with Representative George Kenneth Butterfield, who argued yesterday that race was a “a major factor in the reason for this delay”; Representative Marcia Fudge, who suggested that “there is some racial bias” at play; and the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Sherrilyn Ifill, who proposed that “women are watching, that African-American women are watching,” and that neither of them would like what they were seeing.


Because they regard themselves as the unimpeachable champions of American progress, it is unlikely that Durbin & Co. will recognize just how acutely this mindset damages their cause. But damage their cause it unquestionably does. As Aesop taught us in his “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” dramatic claims eventually have to be backed up with demonstrable facts or they will begin to invite indifference and ridicule. The sins of America’s past are real, and they are often overlooked by those who would prefer to talk about something else. And yet, in the political realm at least, the charges of “racist” and “sexist” have become so ubiquitous that it is becoming difficult for most listeners to determine when they are legitimate and when they are opportunistic. Jim Crow involved the systematic subjugation of an entire race of people; Loretta Lynch is seeing her nomination delayed because the two main parties in Washington disagree as to what constitutes the best way forward. If both these occurrences are to be described in exactly the same language — indeed, if the two are to be directly compared — our historical and linguistic comprehension will eventually become damaged beyond repair. Then what?

Private email accounts for me, but not for thee

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds:

Bob Shrum: “This is [just] a ‘process’ story”
Catherine Herridge: Internal State Cable Sent From Clinton’s Office Forbade Personal Email Accounts, For Security Reasons

Worthy of the flaming skull.  Ace quotes this:

Just got this document from FNC’s Catherine Herridge about Secretary Clinton and personal emails

Fox News has exclusively obtained an internal 2011 State Department cable that shows Secretary of State Clinton’s office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons, while at the same time, HRC conducted all government business on a private account.   Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts”  and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”

…and in a related vein:

Hillary’s State Dept. Forced The Resignation Of An Ambassador For Using Private E-Mail

Although Hillary Clinton and her allies may be claiming that her private e-mail system is no big deal, Hillary’s State Department actually forced the 2012 resignation of the U.S. ambassador to Kenya in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system. According to a 2012 report from the State Department’s inspector general, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration set up a private e-mail system for his office in 2011.

The inspector general’s report offered a scathing assessment of Gration’s information security practices — practices that are eerily similar to those undertaken by Clinton while she served as Secretary of State.


Why hasn’t he had his clock cleaned yet?

BESTPIX Joe Biden Swears In New Defense Secretary Ashton CarterIt must be the Secret Service. How else to explain how Joe “Plugs” Biden hasn’t been decked multiple times already by the men whose wives and daughters he’s assaulted, other than that the Secret Service would jump in to save his pervy ass?

Top Democrat 2016 contenders are poor generals in the ‘war on women’

Now that the opening shots have been fired in the “war on women” 2016 narrative, a ploy used by Democrats in 2012 to paint Republicans as anti-woman, it’s time to retaliate. The current top two contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination – Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden – are really, really lousy figures in the pro-woman department.

Vice President Biden, who currently appears to skate away from controversy as “Creepy Uncle Joe,” has a weird habit of treating women like Richard Dawson, the former “Family Feud” host known for kissing female contestants. As my colleague Byron York pointed out on Tuesday, it’s time to ask why it’s okay for Biden to act like a 1960s corporate manager (without the extramarital affairs) but not okay for the coworker or friend to do so.

Especially given the fact that this is the same Biden who has for decades championed the Violence Against Women Act and more recently, the Obama administration’s efforts to combat campus sexual assault. In 2000, as York also noted, Biden said “There is no circumstance under which a man has a right to touch a woman without her consent other than self-defense.” This would be at odds with the inappropriate touching of women by Biden during White House events. As far as I can tell, he has not been defending himself from constant physical attacks by politicians, wives or daughters. But I guess that would be the ultimate twist.

Unintended Consequences? Not likely.

With the fools running this sh*tshow, I doubt that anything is unintended.  If you’ve signed up for 0bamaDoesn’tCare through the federal exchange, your information is getting passed around to who knows how many third-party sites.  I guess it’s not a HIPAA violation when the feds do it: Sends Personal Data to Dozens of Tracking Websites

The Associated Press reports that–the flagship site of the Affordable Care Act, where millions of Americans have signed up to receive health care–is quietly sending personal health information to a number of third party websites. The information being sent includes one’s zip code, income level, smoking status, pregnancy status and more.

EFF researchers have independently confirmed that is sending personal health information to at least 14 third party domains, even if the user has enabled Do Not Track. The information is sent via the referrer header, which contains the URL of the page requesting a third party resource. The referrer header is an essential part of the HTTP protocol, and is sent for every request that is made on the web. The referrer header lets the requested resource know what URL the request came from. This would for example let a website know who else was linking to their pages. In this case however the referrer URL contains personal health information.

The screencap provided by EFF lists a number of advertising and analytics providers.  These providers end up getting the referrer string, which your browser sends nearly every time it requests something: a webpage, an image, etc.  The referrer will usually be whatever is in your address bar at the moment.

There are two ways you can provide information to a website.  With an HTTP PUT request, form information is stuffed into a blob of data which is sent to the server along with the rest of the request.  With an HTTP GET request, form information is appended to the URL that is submitted to the server.  PUT requests are somewhat more secure than GET requests; they’re not as open to user tampering, and whatever form data they contain won’t get passed around to other services in the referrer, as it’ll be a much simpler-looking URL (such as  GET requests end up looking more like this example EFF retrieved from its interactions with;src=4037109;type=20142003;cat=201420;ord=7917385912018;~oref=

Look at what kind of personal information (in bold) is getting sent along with that.  In this case, the request to DoubleClick (an advertising outfit owned by Google) included the referring URL.  In all, EFF counted 14 domains that receive personally-identifiable information from, including Google, Twitter, Yahoo, and YouTube.  Another excerpt:

Sending such personal information raises significant privacy concerns. A company like Doubleclick, for example, could match up the personal data provided by with an already extensive trove of information about what you read online and what your buying preferences are to create an extremely detailed profile of exactly who you are and what your interests are. It could do all this based on a tracking cookie that it sets which would be the same across any site you visit. Based on this data, Doubleclick could start showing you smoking ads or infer your risk of cancer based on where you live, how old you are and your status as a smoker.1 Doubleclick might start to show you ads related to pregnancy, which could have embarrassing and potentially dangerous consequences such as when Target notified a woman’s family that she was pregnant before she even told them.

You could ask why is using third-party analytics and advertising.  You could ask why they’re passing sensitive information around in HTTP GET requests.  (Considering the botched rollout of “404Care,” that they’d make rookie mistakes like these shouldn’t be too surprising.)  The better question to ask, though, is this: why on God’s green earth did anybody ever think this would ever turn out any differently?  0bamaDoesn’tCare was a solution in search of a problem, and a pretty piss-poor solution at that.

Meet Bill Nye, The Anti-Science Guy

Shilling for the Grünsturmabteilung is only one of his problems…click through for the others:

Meet Bill Nye, The Anti-Science Guy

Nye has joined with 47 “scientists, science writers, and other experts” who issued a statement “taking the media to task for using the phrase ‘climate skeptic,’ saying that the word ‘denier’ is more accurate.” From their statement:

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

So they smear all critics of the global warming theory as anti-science dogmatists. But then they try to walk this back a bit:

Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.

All right, so who are the “deniers” and who are the mere “skeptics”? Will this committee issue us a list describing which objections to the global warming theory are scientifically valid, and conversely telling us which critics are the “deniers” to be blacklisted? Because that’s the only way the media can actually comply with their demand.

Oh, and the name of this group: the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. George Orwell, please call your office.

Ihre Papiere, bitte!

Notice how quickly the usual suspects squawk when it’s their freedoms on the line:

Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?

Two stories in today’s Seattle Times best illustrate the hypocrisy of the political left when it comes to the exercise of civil rights – in this case the First Amendment – and might provide an object lesson to anyone favoring restrictions on the Second Amendment.

One article explains that the Downtown Seattle Association and other Seattle business groups complained to Mayor Ed Murray and the city council about the downtown protests after the Ferguson grand jury decision. These protests were launched without permits and “caused significant disruption and impacts to transportation, commerce, jobs, retailers, residents, employees and tax revenues,” the Times reported.

Their lament drew a quick reaction from the Seattle chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, described as “an organization of activist-minded law students, legal workers and attorneys.” In their letter, the Guild wrote, “We are saddened that the Downtown Seattle Association and its partners in the business community do not understand the First Amendment and the right to protest in the most public of places in Seattle — downtown.”


Why should peaceful protesters be treated any differently in their exercise of the First Amendment than law-abiding, peaceful gun owners be treated in their exercise of the Second Amendment? Background checks for all firearms transfers, including loans or gifts and private sales might just as easily be considered “prior restraint.”

Note to protesters: If you don’t care to be photographed in a public place on the suspicion that you just might be preparing to commit a crime, don’t squawk because gun owners don’t care to have the government recording every time they loan or borrow a firearm, especially to a friend or neighbor they have known for years, perhaps decades, on the mere suspicion that some crime might occur. That’s how Second Amendment advocates could explain why blindly voting for a “universal background check” initiative is insidious. Passing a law that ratchets down on someone else’s civil right is not nearly as noticeable as your own civil rights ox being gored.