backstageadd ND

Liberal Hypocrisy

The truth you won't hear from the media

Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:10 am


7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns


John Hawkins


Mar 23, 2013


7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns


One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened -- so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.


But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an "upper class" that deserves to be protected with guns while it's okay if the "peons" get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child's life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he's threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they're so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the "riff-raff," that they should have a right to be protected even if you don't.

1) The Journal-News: The Journal News printed "the names and addresses of gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties" as its way of taking a dig at gun owners. But, this attitude about guns certainly did change when the shoe was on the other foot.

Veritas video reporter James O’Keefe has released a new video of his team posing as an anti-gun group promoting an initiative to journalists.

At each home, the group dubbed as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” asks homeowners if they are willing to put up a “Gun Free” sign in their yard.

O’Keefe primarily focuses his efforts on employees of the Journal-News – the New York newspaper that published a controversial map of registered gun owners online.

Armed security welcomes the Veritas team at some of the homes - as some of the newspaper's employees felt threatened once bloggers retaliated by posting their names and addresses online.

2) Dianne Feinstein: She introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 in the Senate.

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- Dianne Feinstein

3) Mark Kelly, the husband of Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ): "Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.

Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales of firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features, level the playing field against law enforcement.

Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January.

...Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons."

4) Shania Twain: “Shania Twain didn't exactly have a shotgun wedding....in Puerto Rico ... but it sure was a pistol -- as in what the guards were packing on the beach during the ceremony,” TMZ.com reports.

We’re told there were 'several armed security guards.'

...But here’s the thing about the privileged Ms. Twain employing armed guards (lawbreaking or otherwise) in the first place—she’s a big advocate of infringements against those of us who can’t afford an armed security presence and must rely on being our own first line of defense.

She was one of the signers...of the Handgun Control, Inc. (since changed to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to help mask their intentions) “Open Letter to the NRA,” a full page ad published in USA Today."

5) Rosie O'Donnell: "On her television show, April 19, 1999,O’Donnell had this to say about gun owners: “I don’t care if you want to hunt. I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry.’ It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Several months later, a bodyguard in her employ applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. When queried about whether her bodyguard should carry a gun on May 24, 2000, she said, 'I don’t personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.'"

6) Sarah Brady: "Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas...and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the Daily News has learned. Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington.

30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat.

"Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan."

7) Michael Moore: He's a staunch advocate of gun control who has gone so far as to suggest that merely owning a gun is racism, "…But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time." -- Michael Moore

Yet, Michael Moore has an armed bodyguard. We know because that bodyguard was arrested carrying his weapon.

“Filmmaker Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport....”
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... page/full/
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby st michael jr » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:25 pm

WOW! What a shock this is.
st michael jr
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:18 am

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:44 am

This Is How Regular, Principled People Get Destroyed By The Liberal Machine.
Written by Mockarena



And so it begins.

The destruction, the invalidation, and ultimately the total take-down of Dr. Ben Carson has begun.


Apparently, on the Hannity show earlier this week, Dr. Carson was asked for his views on gay marriage. His response was this:

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn’t matter what they are -- they don’t get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications."


So Dr. Carson doesn't want to mess around with the traditional definition of marriage. As we discussed just yesterday, we tend to agree with him on that point.

But because Dr. Carson included NAMBLA and zoophiles in his reply, students at Johns Hopkins University (where Dr. Carson has practiced surgery for over three decades) have petitioned to have him replaced as commencement speaker this year, claiming that Carson's "expressed values are incongruous with the values of Johns Hopkins and deeply offensive to a large proportion of our student body.” They also claimed that "Dr. Carson compared gay relationships with pedophilia and bestiality" and that he (emphasis mine) "used the National Prayer Breakfast speech— which, like our commencement ceremony, is an historically nonpartisan event — to deride Obamacare, advocate lower taxes for the wealthy, and suggest that Christianity requires supporting Republican policies.
"

GAWD.

You know who's spoken at JHU at commencement in previous years? Al Gore, Michael Bloomberg, and Nancy Pelosi. Non-partisan my assular area. :liar: :naughty: :hand:

Dr. Carson is prepared to withdraw as speaker out of respect for the students' wishes. He told MSNBC, "I would say this is their day and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade."


He also apologized for the way in which he worded his response to Hannity about gay marriage, saying, "I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying. First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has. What I was basically saying is that, as far as marriage is concerned, that has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and nobody should be able to change that. Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone."

But see, Dr. Carson has not fallen into lock-step with liberals or the liberal agenda, and therefore his words will be held against him for eternity, and liberals will use them to tarnish an otherwise amazing record of personal achievement, common sense, and resonance with regular Americans. And unfortunately, some conservatives will buy into the notion that he's become "damaged goods." This is how the mainstream media takes down people who aren't progressives, you guys.

It was only a matter of time. But dayum, that was quick.
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/ ... al-machine
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby raycyrx » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:27 am

He shouldn't apologize. NAMBLA and bestiality supporters are already using the same arguments for equality that LBGT groups are using.
The Church is not a hotel for saints. It is a hospital for sinners.
St. Augustine
User avatar
raycyrx
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:15 pm

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby raycyrx » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:56 pm

Michigan Republican Dave Agema says he is refusing to resign after promoting an article that said “part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/3 ... lp00000009

LibDems have called ConReps things much worse than having a, "filthy lifestyle," and there's no calls for their resignations.
The Church is not a hotel for saints. It is a hospital for sinners.
St. Augustine
User avatar
raycyrx
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:15 pm

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:32 pm

Image
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:34 pm

President Obama's Easter Service: Reverend Accuses Religious Right of Racism, Sexism, and Xenophobia

Kyle Becker

Kyle Becker
On March 31, 2013


President Obama attended Easter church services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington D.C. and the Reverend Dr. Luis Leon blasted the religious right for racism, sexism and anti-immigrant views.

According to the notes of a pool reporter attained by The Weekly Standard:


“It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border.”


Just like with America-damning pastor Jeremiah Wright, who was described as the ‘mentor’ and confidante of President Obama, this too will be brushed aside by those who can’t fathom that the president is anything but some smooth-talking messianic figure who was elected to save the United States of America from itself.

Since most people are not even willing to consider that the president is a socialist of any stripe, they aren’t able to square how the president can self-describe as a Christian and adopt positions contrary to traditional Church interpretation. For example, as Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted against a ban on late-term abortions.

The president’s recent ‘evolution’ on gay marriage issues is all well-and-good, but what about his respect for the church’s autonomy on deciding whom it will marry? For example, in an interview with ABC News in May 2012, the President said that he had “evolved” on gay marriage; and while he believed that it was an accomplishment to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA because it is (plausibly) unconstitutional, Obama indicated that was no longer satisfied with gay marriage being a state’s rights issue. This is a contradictory set of positions, no matter how one stands on the issues.

Regardless of one’s personal views on abortion or gay marriage, what has made the United States a fairly stable country over the last 150 years is more-or-less respecting the matter of authority. Just like gays don’t want social opinions constricting their opportunities for happiness, some church-members don’t want the state forcing them to sanction marriages or to pay for others’ contraception and abortion choices. Freedom should be what binds Americans, not differences of social opinion.

Until coercion becomes ruled out as a legitimate way to settle matters of opinions and lifestyles, freedom of conscience will continue to be threatened in this country. Those on the authoritarian left will continue to smear anyone who gets in their way of their dogmatic PC agenda: ‘bitter-clingers’ will continue to be branded bigots, racists, sexists and homophobes, if only they stand for individual rights, limited government, freedom of association and the rule of law.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/44340-p ... xenophobia
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:06 am

Christian & Muslim Refuse To Perform Their Jobs…With Different Results


by John Brodgian


Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism. Here’s another example…


Christian & Muslim Refuse To Perform Their Jobs…With Different Results

Image

Yet, there’s another person who also failed in her job duties due to religious principles. In contrast, few have heard her name. She isn’t being demonized by the media. No one is screaming “bigot” or telling her to hush up and do her job or get another one. Her name is Charee Stanley, and she’s a Muslim-American. These two cases provide a blatant example of a disturbing double standard within our country. Unfortunately, they aren’t the only evidence of it.

“I don’t think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living. I shouldn’t have to choose between one or the other because they’re both important.”


That quote is not from Kim Davis. That quote is from Charee Stanley, a flight attendant who converted to Islam a month before taking the job where she was aware duties included serving alcohol. She refused to do her duties and serve the alcohol to passengers. She’s now suing the airline. Where’s the public lynch mob telling her she should not have accepted that position to begin with, if the duties violated her beliefs? Why isn’t she being told to just find another job? She’s not being thrown in jail. Actually, she will likely get a nice fat pay-day from all this.

To be fair, the stories aren’t completely identical. Being a public employee doesn’t give you the same freedom as it would – or should – working in the public sector. But ask yourself this…would there be the same outrage had the religions been reversed? Or would one not be in jail, while the other’s former employer was being boycotted?

I think the answer there is clear.
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/chris ... t-results/
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger

Re: Liberal Hypocrisy

Postby Happy Mom » Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:15 pm

Image
"Preserving and protecting the principles of the Constitution is the primary role of the federal government."
User avatar
Happy Mom
 
Posts: 19336
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:03 am
Location: Granger


Return to Political Watch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests