You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Hypocrisy’ category.
Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry were each told by God to run for President. If Newt talked to God, we haven’t heard about it. Maybe the reason he doesn’t talk to God is that he doesn’t speak to himself. He already knows what he is thinking. Last night Newt Gingrich’s second wife Marianne gave an interview disclosing that Newt had suggested that they should agree to have sex with other people.It is the comments regarding sex that everyone is talking and writing about today.
However we have known for a long time that Gingrich has had three wives, affairs, and a history of unfaithfulness. The more important revelation from Newt’s ex-wife was that he said, “It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.”
Given this quote, it is important to remember the story Rachel Maddow did about Newt. In her report she quoted Newt saying:
- He made Romney’s career possible, and Mitt Romney is rich today because of him.
- It is his “destiny” to save America.
- “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
- (In a hand written note of Newt’s) “It is my mission to advocate for civilization.” Newt wrote that he was a teacher of the rules of civilization and leader of civilized forces.
When Newt was brought before the House of Representatives for 80 ethics violations, the House voted overwhelmingly, 395-28, to reprimand Gingrich and to fine him $300,000. The Republican Representative, Nancy Johnson, who chaired that ethics committee stated:
“Today we conclude this case by imposing a heavy penalty on the leader of this House. It is a tough penalty, unprecedented and appropriate.”
It seems that Gingrich thinks that the rules that apply to OTHER people do not apply to him. In an act of defiance, the day after being elected to his 11th term of office Gingrich announced his resignation. Gingrich stated, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”
Newt Gingrich is a dangerous man. He is delusional. He thinks he is above the law. He seems to perceive himself as all-powerful. He seems to perceive himself as the savior of mankind. It’s now clear why Sarah and Todd Palin have endorsed Gingrich.
Long before Bristol Palin vowed to Oprah she had become a born-again virgin, Karen Santorum, wife of presidential candidate Rick Santorum, sought her own heavenly hymen restoration. Yes, prior to marrying a man who opposes birth control and non-procreative sex even for married couples, Karen Santorum lived with a man old enough to be her dad who co-founded the first abortion clinic in Pittsburgh. Seems Mrs. Santorum only opposes premarital sex, birth control and abortion for others.
“He’s (Newt Gingrich) probably one of the most dangerous people for the future of this country that you can possibly imagine. He’s Richard Nixon glib. It doesn’t matter how much good I do the rest of my life, I can’t ever outweigh the evil that I cause by helping him be elected to Congress” – L.H. Carter, former advisor to Newt Gingrich
The above quote is from a 1984 article in Mother Jones. The 27 years that have passed since the article’s publication have not lessened the threat Newt Gingrich poses to America. If anything, Gingrich poses an even greater threat as he has surged ahead in the polls, coming precipitously close to becoming the Republican nominee.
What makes Gingrich so dangerous, is that he is completely void of any conscience. He is completely and utterly morally bankrupt. A man lacking a sense of right and wrong, without a set of guiding principles, will do anything imaginable to advance himself and his agenda, which Gingrich has done his entire life.
As many know, Gingrich’s first wife was his former high school geometry teacher, who was 7 years his senior. Jackie worked while raising the couples two children, and supported Newt putting him through undergraduate, graduate and post graduate school. Bob Gingrich, Newt’s stepfather said of Jackie, “She busted her butt for him when he needed her”. She later campaigned across Georgia for Newt as he ran for Congress. Mary Kahn, a reporter who covered Gingrich at the time stated, “Everyone saw Jackie and Newt as a unit. He was always talking about the family being a team, about family values. It was a constant, and a big part of his campaign”.
“Family values” was clearly just a sound bite Newt used to appeal to a conservative base. In 1974, his campaign advisors discovered Newt was having an affair. He and Jackie saw a marriage counselor, but Newt continued cheating on his wife. One former aide had to direct Newt’s two children away from a car where Newt was receiving oral sex from a woman. Another aide revealed that after a friend’s husband died, he used the man’s death to his advantage. He visited the woman pretending to offer her sympathy, only to try to seduce her.
In 1980, Newt revealed to Jackie he was having an affair, with the woman who would become wife #2, and sought a divorce. While in the hospital recovering from having a uterine tumor removed, Newt visited his soon to be ex-wife, bringing her a divorce papers to sign. He further had a temerity to give her so little in spousal and child support, that Jackie had to rely on her church to help her pay bills. After this was revealed Newt’s popularity in his hometown fell 15 percentage points.
Lee Howell, a friend of Newt’s stated, “Newt Gingrich has a tendency to chew people up and spit them out. He uses you for all it’s worth, and when he doesn’t need you anymore he throws you away. Very candidly, I don’t think that Newt Gingrich has many principles, expect for what’s best for him, guiding him”.
Gingrich would continue to “chew people up and spit them out”, as he carried on a 13 year affair with his current wife, while still married to his second wife. One has to wonder how many others he will use and then throw out should he win the presidency.
In what is likely to make for an interesting Christmas dinner at the Gingrich home, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich’s sister Candace has vowed to, “work really, really hard to make sure that President Obama is re-elected next year no matter who the Republican candidate is”.
It is significant to note that while the thrice married Newt opposes gay marriage as it violates the sanctity of marriage, his sister Candace remains married to her first and only wife Rebecca.
And no, while Newt was invited, he did not attend his own sister’s wedding.
In case there was any doubt about the character and moral values of Sarah Palin in the minds of any Americans, there is no longer! In a short interview with Sean Hannity Sarah Palin was asked to share her “analysis” of the Republican Primary race and offer her perspective on the race. In the same breath she commented on the “hypocrisy and double standard” of the liberals who oppose the Republican candidates she :
1. Said that “character counts”
2. Used the demeaning term “broad” when speaking about Ginger White, the woman who had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain
3. Said “boys will be boys” but they shouldn’t be running the country
4. Explained that we should get back to the “issues that really matter”
While each of these comments could be the subject of an entire post, there is one common theme. Sarah Palin continues to disparage women in the most vile and offensive way. Just when we think she can’t do any more damage to the image of the American woman, she calls a woman a “broad” and excuses the conduct of an unfaithful husband by saying “boys will be boys.”
The Urban dictionary reveals just how offensive the term “broad” is. It explains that:
“Broad refers to the distance between the vagina lips of the human female. When the distance becomes wider than normal due to wear and tear, high mileage and rough use a woman becomes a broad. A broad is not necessarily a slut because all the wear and tear may have come from one man but a slut is always a broad.”
When Sarah Palin uses this term to describe Ginger White, the woman who had a 13-year affair with Herman Cain, she is attributing blame to the woman and suggesting she is a “slut.” By saying “boys will be boys” she exonerates Cain, suggesting that he is simply a victim of his hormones. This is particularly offensive given Palin’s claim to be so committed to family values. It is offensive because of the use of women by Todd, and his history of paying women for sex.
It is even more offensive, given Palin’s own history of sexual indiscretions. Who could forget the account of a one-night stand with Glen Rice?
What about the indication of an affair with Brad Hanson, Todd’s partner?
What about the indication of an affair with Curtis Menard, who looks amazing like Track, Sarah’s first child?
What about the fact that Palin was pregnant when she married Todd?
If anyone deserves to be labeled a “broad” it is Sarah Palin herself.
However the comment “boys will be boys” indicates that Herman Cain and every other man who has been unfaithful to his wife should be excused for his behavior. The assumption is that Herman Cain’s hormones are simply too powerful to control. Palin indicates he is a victim, and it is the fault of the “broad” who caused him to be unfaithful to his wife for 13 years. Palin misses the point. It is not the act of sex for which Cain should be condemned. It is the deceit and breach of trust for which he should be accountable. If he had divorced his wife and “lived in sin” for 13 years with Ginger White we would not condemn him. If Herman Cain and his wife had agreed that they would not be faithful to each other, and have sex with other people, we might not have understood that decision, but we would respect their right to determine the boundaries of their relationship. By saying “boys will be boys” suggests that Cain is without blame or responsibility, and that the wrongdoer is Ginger White. The indication is that “boys will be boys” but “girls can’t be girls.” In these four short words Palin indicates she endorses a double standard.
It is interesting that Sarah Palin didn’t call herself a “broad” when she got pregnant out of wedlock. She didn’t call Bristol a “broad” when Bristol got pregnant out of wedlock. She didn’t excuse Levi by saying “boys will be boys” when he got Bristol pregnant.
Palin didn’t call her daughter-in-law a “broad” when she got pregnant out of wedlock with the child of Track.
Sarah Palin was right about one thing. “Character does count.” Sarah Palin has none, and that matters.
In what will come as no surprise to anyone who has been following Herman Cain’s sex-fueled implosion, it is now being reported that Cain’s marriage has been on the rocks for years.
Herman and Gloria Cain may have been married for 43 years, but according to a family insider, their marriage seems as real as Mitt Romney’s tan. “It never felt like a real marriage when I was around them,’’ says the friend. “Mostly he was always gone and his wife seemed to be OK with it. Not being together seemed the norm for their marriage, and Gloria didn’t seem to mind. His kids didn’t seem to mind either. He was king of his castle and no one questioned him,’’ says the friend. “It was an uncomfortable set-up for an outsider like me to be around. He was so indifferent to everyone. But I liked Gloria. She was warm and kind.”
If Cain cares half as much for his wife and family as he professes, he will drop of the race and fade out of America’s collective conscious.
In the beginning I thought Mitt Romney was the most likely Republican to win the nomination. Until today I perceived that the most likely reason that he would NOT win the nomination was the fact that he is Mormon. However, being Mormon may be the least of his challenges in securing the GOP nomination. While the media is focused on the Herman Cain’s history of sexual harassment, Think Progress has been focused on Mitt Romney’s history of fraud and corruption. In what seems like the most important political news of the day, Mitt Romney, his 41 year old son,
and Spencer Zwick, Romney’s chief fund raiser, have “extensive” financial and political ties to three men who allegedly participated in an $8.5 BILLION DOLLAR PONZI SCHEME. Within a few months after the billion dollar Ponzi scheme collapsed, Mitt Romney, his son, and Spencer Zwick partnered with those three men to create “wealth management business.” Tagg Romney has admitted to the business relationship with the three men involved in the Ponzi scheme that cost investors billions of dollars, but he falsely reported that the three men, who were his partners, had been “cleared of any wrongdoing” Tagg also reported that the three collected a total of approximately $15,000 from their involvement in the Ponzi scheme. Court documents indicate that there has been no vindication, and that the men made over $1.6 million by selling fraudulent CD’s to investors.
After Think Progress’ report, the Romney campaign released a statement attacking Think Progress as a “left-wing blog” which has a “highly partisan agenda.” However Tagg Romney has yet to offer an explanation for issuing such a bald-faced lie. Attempting a further cover up, Solamere Advisors, the firm run by brokers who allegedly took part in the Stanford Ponzi scheme, deleted the reference in their website which identified Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, as part of their organization.
Tagg’s declaration of vindication is comparable to Sarah Palin declaration of vindication in the Troopergate matter.
The Romney campaign and the Romney family investment company are deeply entwined. A recent Boston Globe investigation found that top donors to the Romney campaign have invested into Tagg’s firm, and that Romney’s star campaign fundraiser, Spencer Zwick, doubles as a managing partner for Solamere Capital. The Romney campaign has paid Zwick’s firm, over $2 million in fees this year alone. Mitt Romney’s brother Scott Romney is listed as a senior advisor to Solamere Capital.
The Republican party now has Cain, Perry, Romney and Palin all promoting themselves as being chosen by God. Romney has said that, “My faith is not the issue because I have it.”
Yet Romney’s campaign has benefited, and he has partnered with people who wiped out the savings of thousands of retired people across America. Herb Cain was called by God to run for President. .
However, it appears Cain is also compelled by some higher power to harass women in the workplace. Rick Perry got the call from God to run. Luckily Perry had time to answer that call since he was working less than half time.
Unfortunately his devotion to God didn’t translate into ethical behavior as the Governor of Texas. It seems that the real motivation behind Rick Perry is money. The Holy Spirit whispers to Sarah Palin. God speaks to her too, but at a higher decibel. Yet, there seems to be some confusion. Each thought the other was going to have the “ethics” talk with her, and neither did.
If Mitt Romney is the best the Republican Party has to offer, the GOP deserves to lose the election of 2012. With a slate of candidates like this, the difference in political ideologies between Republicans and Democrats will become irrelevant. Corruption, ethics, graft, and sexual exploitation by the GOP candidates should be the most compelling reasons to eliminate them as potential leaders of the country. We don’t have to consider Mitt Romney’s willingness to increase the national debt by lowering taxes and increasing military spending. It is his choice of partners that should be enough to cause any American to refuse to elect him to be our President.
The GOP debate last night was a free-for-all. More than any other GOP debates, we watched as the candidates directly attacked each other. There was yelling. There was mocking. Condescension was the only thing these Republicans seemed to share. SNL couldn’t have done a better job of mocking the Republicans. Every now and then Michele Bachmann would say nothing relevant to the discussion or question, but she would lodge another attack on Obama. Jon Huntsman wasn’t there. Ron Paul repeatedly attacked the previous speaker, with a goal of saying that we should have less government, and even advocated cutting government spending on the military. Some attacked Rick Perry for supporting education for the children of illegal immigrants. Rick Perry responded by attacking Mitt Romney for hiring illegal immigrants. Romney gave Perry a lesson in etiquette for a Presidential-wannabe. Newt Gingrich tried to point out that fighting among them was only helping Obama. “Herb” Cain said he would never negotiate with terrorists, and was later embarrassed after the debate when Anderson Cooper played a clip of Herman saying that he would. Poor Herman was also forced to defend his position that we should tax the poor and middle class by creating a federal sales tax. Cain tried to suggest that the candidates were mixing apples and oranges. Romney was confident he wasn’t making a fruit salad. A tax was a tax. The Republicans as a group looked foolish and hypocritical. There was no clear position or message. President Obama won this debate.
The best part of the entire debate was an interchange between Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.
Rick Santorum lodged a full-frontal assault on Rick Perry for saying one thing, and doing another. Imagine a Republican suggesting that another Republican might be a hypocrite. In a fit of anger, Santorum specifically pointed out that Perry had supported TARP by sending a letter encouraging all legislators to vote for it. Perry denied that he wrote such a letter. Santorum was adamant that Perry had written such a letter, and Perry was adamant that he didn’t.
Rick Perry did write such a letter encouraging the passage of TARP. In the gubernatorial race of 2010 his authorship of this letter was a point of contention. Thus, there was no excuse for Perry’s complete denial of having written such a letter. He didn’t try to explain the letter, or to explain his position at the time. He simply denied that he had ever sent such a letter. The issue has been so highly publicized, Ron Paul included the issue in a campaign commercial.
The fact that Rick Perry took totally opposite positions regarding TARP should come as no surprise. His history of saying one thing and doing the opposite is long and colorful. Who could forget his position that the government should get out of the way, and then issuing an executive order that teen girls should be required to get Gardasil immunizations, and then passed legislation that required any woman wanting an abortion to first undergo a vaginal ultrasound? Just this last week the “holy” couple Rick and Anita proclaimed that they were being “brutalized” by the media because of their religion, and then Anita lied about the reason her son was unemployed. After he cut the Texas budget for protecting Texans from fires, he then asked the federal government to protect us. After promising that he wouldn’t cut the budget for Texas schools, he did.
However the worst was that on the very day that Governor Perry accepted billions in federal government money to balance the budget in Texas he started a petition to complain about the federal government bailouts.
While liberal bloggers have been speaking out about the hypocrisy and corruption of Rick Perry, it doesn’t have the same impact as a Republican highlighting this hypocrisy on national television. Rick Santorum Rick-Rolled Rick Perry.
Mitt Romney declares in his campaign web site that if elected, during his first hundered days in office, he would:
1. “Restore America’s Naval Credibility” INCREASING our shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15 per year.
2. “Strengthen and Repair Relationships with Steadfast Allies” committing to efforts to strengthen military support to Mexico and Israel.
3. “Enhance Our Deterrent Against Iran” Increasing levels of military and intelligence coordination and assistance with Israel, and require the presence of carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
4. “Commit to a Robust National Missile Defense System” “Begin process of reversing Obama-era budget cuts to national missile defense and raise to a top priority the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic-missile defense system.”
5.”Conduct a Full Review of Our Transition in Afghanistan” The goal of this initiative is to “successfully complete our mission.” The reality is that we will never “successfully complete our mission” in Afghanistan.
6. “Order Interagency Initiative on Cybersecurity”
Order a full interagency initiative to formulate a unified national strategy to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, cyber-espionage, and private-sector intellectual property theft. U.S. defense and intelligence resources must be fully engaged in this critical aspect of national defense.
Recently Mitt Romney offered his “robust vision” of the need to maintain a strong military. His actual quote was:
“I will not surrender America’s role in the world,”
“If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today.”
What American wouldn’t want America to be the “strongest nation on Earth?” Perhaps an American who is worried about the cost of that title? Certainly President Obama is not viewed with disdain because he supervised the mission to find and kill Osama Bin Laden. It is the economy, and the national debt, and the record unemployment that has caused him to fall from favor with so many Americans. That is the primary difference between the President and a candidate for President. A candidate can take contradictory positions with no accountability. Few notice. The President can’t demand a strong military and a strong economy without people noticing that the two are inconsistent. It is not a question about conservative or liberal values; but about reality and fantasy.
Here is the reality. In 2010 the U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.] According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.
For 2010, Department of Defense spending amounted to 4.7% of GDP. Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.
The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).
In February 2009, Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., called for a reduction in the defense budget: “The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. I am working with a variety of thoughtful analysts to show how we can make very substantial cuts in the military budget without in any way diminishing the security we need…[American] well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
To put our military spending in perspective know that our U.S. military spending is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.
Romney also declares that we must get “our fiscal house in order.” “ President Obama has put our nation on an unsustainable course. Spending is out of control. Yearly deficits are massive. And unless we curb Washington’s appetite for spending, the national debt will grow to the size of our entire economy this year.”
As President, Mitt Romney says that he will cut federal spending and bring much-needed reforms to entitlement programs. Mitt will work toward balancing the budget, reducing the size and reach of the federal government, and returning power to states and the people.
However the truth is very different than Romney suggests. He proposes a massive $6.6 trillion tax cut that would primarily benefit the very wealthy and corporations. After accounting for the added interest costs that we’ll have to pay, the total cost of Romney’s plan grows to $7.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
In conclusion, it is impossible for Mitt Romney to do the three things he has said he would do: (1) increase military, (2) cause a reduction in the national debt, and (3) reduce taxes. He is the typical politician, lying to get elected.
“Innuendo” is an indirect or subtle reference to something. Someone who is relying on innuendo is suggesting something by insinuation.Todd, Sarah Palin, and their attorneys have adopted “innuendo” as their mantra. Unfortunately the word “innuendo” has become the victim of misuse and abuse. Whenever the Palin family or their lawyers (which includes the APD) seek to deny a direct attack by a named source, the suggestion is that there is no direct statement, but only “innuendo” that something unfavorable to the image of the Palins actually happened. For example, when Shailey Tripp said that Shailey Tripp had sex with Todd, the Anchorage Police said it was “just guilt by innuendo.” The quote from January of this year was:
“It was just guilt by innuendo, nothing else,” Lt. Dave Parker told the Daily News on Wednesday. “There’s not one scintilla of evidence that Todd Palin had anything to do with this.”
The only “scintilla of evidence” was the statement given by the sexual partner of Todd Palin, while taking a lie detector test, that she had sex with Todd. The only “innuendo” involved was the statement by Sarah, not Todd, when she insinuated that Todd had not had sex with Shailey Tripp. When Sarah said, just ask Todd, “hey Todd, you been hanging out with hookers lately, he’lll tell you the truth.” The “innuendo” was that Todd had not had a sexual relationship with Shailey Tripp, but of course we know he did.
Back in November of 2009, when Going Rogue hit the shelves, the LA Times commented on a passage that was “unusual for a political memoir.” They reported:
“Amid rumors that Palin and her husband Todd, known as Alaska’s “First Dude,” were getting a divorce, the governor recounts this moment in her odyssey. If it reads like a Harlequin novel, viewer discretion advised.
“That day in sunny Texas when the divorce rumors were rampant in the tabloids, I watched Todd, tanned and shirtless, take the baby from my arms and walk him back to the ranch house so Trig could nap while I made calls,” she writes in “Going Rogue,” the much-publicized memoir out Tuesday. “Seeing Todd’s blue eyes smiling, I chuckled. ‘Dang,’ I thought. ‘Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?’”
Thus Sarah Palin created the image of a happy marriage by “innuendo”. She suggested that if she found Todd to be sexually attractive, then the couple had a happy marriage. However now we know from Joe McGinnis’s book, that marriage is not a prerequisite to a sexual encounter with Sarah Palin, especially if the man is an athlete with great hands!
The National Enquirer reports this morning that Sarah and Todd Palin are, once again, headed for a divorce.
Whether Todd and Sarah actually divorce is inconsequential. The relevant story is that Sarah Palin has intentionally misled the American electorate about the importance of family. When Vanity Fair reported that “there wasn’t much parenting” going on in the Palin household, we were sympathetic to this kids, but hoped it wasn’t true. When Vanity Fair reported a year later that the Palin refrigerator carried dents substantiating the claims of battle done between Todd and Sarah with cans of food, we laughed and thought it might be true. Now that McGinnis’ book has been released and he has further documentation of pre-marital and post-marital affairs of Sarah and Todd Palin, we realized that the history of marital problems for the Palins was likely accurate.
Now that the National Enquirer is reporting that the marriage is over, it seems that this was a “marriage by innuendo.” It is always tragic when divorce is the best option for a marriage. It is even more tragic when politicians deceive the electorate regarding their values. The offense to the public is not the fact of a divorce, but the deception of a happy marriage.
If the Palins ever had a happy marriage and a tight-knit family it was long before Sarah Palin became a celebrity. To portray herself as a dedicated mother and wife is clearly not true. To suggest that abstinence education is effective is insulting to our intelligence. Let’s hope that any political future of Sarah Palin is the result of “innuendo” and “nothing else.”
Recent Comments