Tag Archives: democrat hypocrisy

More democrat hypocrisy – Energy Secty Chu testified he does not own car but his wife owns gas guzzling BMW

In a piece of video that shot across the Internet Thursday like a sports car doing zero-to-60 in four seconds, Energy  Secretary Stephen Chu told the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power that he  does not own a car. But The Daily Caller has confirmed that Chu’s wife does — and it’s quite an automobile.

There’s no Chevy Volt in the Chu household’s driveway. TheDC has  obtained motor vehicle registration records showing that Jean Chu  (née Fetter) is the owner of a 2002 BMW 325i, a sports sedan with a  gas-guzzling 6-cylinder engine.

And its engine requires premium gasoline. AAAdetermined on Thursday that the average U.S. price for  that grade of fuel was $4.03 per gallon.

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/09/energy-sec-chu-doesnt-own-car-but-his-wife-drives-bmw-gas-guzzler/#ixzz1ocRgU747

Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power on  the department’s FY2013 Budget Request, Energy Sec. Stephen Chu said he  didn’t own a car..

Sec. Chu was praising the Chevy Volt electric car and making the case  for the government to spend to help the vehicle, when the Energy Secretary was  asked if he drove a Chevy Volt.

“No, I don’t own a car at the moment,” Sec. Chu testified.

Posted:  03.09.12 @ 7:17 a.m.

Leave a comment

Filed under Financial Crisis, politics, Uncategorized

The hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi and other democrat Catholics ~ Stunning

Why does the media not hold these people to account for their hypocrisy?

“Pope Benedict warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.”

Some prominent Catholics:  (more complete list at bottom)

Nancy Pelosi

Joe Biden

Kathleen Sebilius

Dick Durben

John Kerry

Charles Rangel

Claire McCaskill

Kirsten Gillibrand

Susan Collins

Mary Landrieu

Luis Gutierrez

Mika Brzezinski

Big Hippo Chris Matthews

February 19, 2009

Vatican City (AP) – Pope Benedict XVI received Nancy Pelosi, one of the most prominent abortion rights politicians in America, and told her Wednesday that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life “at all stages of its development.” The U.S. House speaker, a Catholic, was the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the U.S. Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion.


May 12, 2010

(CNSNews.com) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh.”

Pelosi, a Catholic who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003.


After Pope Benedict XVI met privately with Speaker Pelosi in February 2009, the Vatican issued a statement saying: “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”


February 2, 2012


“The administration has issued a regulation that will require all healthcare plans to cover sterilization and all FDA approved contraceptives including those that induce abortions. This will force Catholic individuals and institutions to act against their consciences. All across the nation..”


“Is this a speech or do we have a question disguised as speech?”


We cannot and will not comply with this law.

Will you stand with your fellow Catholics in opposing this law?


I’m going to stand with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made and I support it.


Following is a list of the members of the 112th Congress who refer to themselves as Catholics.

Meet the Catholics in Congress

Here’s our snapshot of the spectrum of pro-life votes and views of Catholics on Capitol Hill, newly updated for the 112th Congress.

WASHINGTON — Catholics make up about 28% of the members of Congress, compared to 30% when the 111th Congress began. But both figures are higher than the percentage of Catholics in the U.S. population, 24%.

Following is a list of the members of the 112th Congress who refer to themselves as Catholics.

The percentage next to them is their pro-life rating since 1997, as compiled by National Right to Life. Information prior to 1997 was unavailable at press time. They are listed from the highest pro-life rating to the lowest.

*Denotes incoming congressman

**Denotes that they previously served, left Congress for a time, and won election and will be part of the 112th Congress that convenes in January. Their NRLC scores are for their previous tenures (including only votes cast in 1997 or later)


100%—Mike Johanns, R-Neb.

100%—Jim Risch, R-Idaho

100%—David Vitter, R-La.

94%—Pat Toomey, R-Pa.**

68%—Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

50%—Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa.

31%—Mary Landrieu, D-La.

23%—Susan Collins, R-Maine

11%—Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

4%—John Kerry, D-Mass.

2%—Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

2%—Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

2%—Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

2%—Patty Murray, D-Wash.

2%—Jack Reed, D-R.I.

1%—Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

0%—Mark Begich, D-Alaska

0%—Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

0%—Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

0%—Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.*

Joe Manchin, D-W. Va.*

John Hoeven, R-N.D.*

Marco Rubio, R-Fla.*

House of Representatives

100%—Steve Austria, R-Ohio

100%—John Boehner, R-Ohio

100%—Kevin Brady, R-Texas

100%—David Camp, R-Mich.

100%—Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.

100%—Mike Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.**

100%—Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb.

100%—Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.

100%—Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

100%—Peter King, R-N.Y.

100%—Steve King, R-Iowa

100%—Bob Latta, R-Ohio

100%—Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo.

100%—Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.

100%—Michael McCaul, R-Texas

100%—Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich.

100%—Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.

100%—Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

100%—Tom Rooney, R- Fla.

100%—Edward Royce, R-Calif.

100%—Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

100%—Steve Scalise, R-La.

100%—Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio

100%—Christopher Smith, R-N.J.

100%—John Sullivan, R-Okla.

100%—Patrick Tiberi, R-Ohio

99%—Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

98%—Steve Chabot, R-Ohio**

98%—Walter Jones, R-N.C.

97%—Tim Murphy, R-Pa.

95%—Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J.

91%—Jerry Costello, D-Ill.

88%—Tim Holden, D-Pa.

85%—Dale Kildee, D-Mich.

83%—Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill.

79%—Connie Mack IV, R-Fla.

77%—Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.

77%—Michael Doyle, D-Pa.

67%—Leonard Lance, R-N.J.

62%—Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.

61%—James Langevin, D-R.I.

57%—Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio

53%—Tim Ryan, D-Ohio

47%—Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio

44%—Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.

43%—Henry Cuellar, D-Texas

38%—Jason Altmire, D-Pa.

34%—Michael Michaud, D-Maine

32%—Richard Neal, D-Mass.

28%—Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas

27%—Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.

24%—Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y.

21%—John Dingell, D-Mich.

18%—Peter Visclosky, D-Ind.

15%—Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif.

14%—Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas

13%—Jim Costa, D-Calif.

8%—Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

7%—Joe Baca, D-Calif.

7%—James Moran, D-Va.

4%—Brian Higgins, D-N.Y.

3%—Robert Brady, D-Pa.

3%—Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

2%—Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.

2%—Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

1%—Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

1%—Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

1%—Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.

1%—Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

1%—Ed Markey, D-Mass.

1%—James McGovern, D-Mass.

1%—Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

1%—Ed Pastor, D-Ariz.

1%—Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

1%—Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif.

1%—Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif.

1%—Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y.

0%—Xavier Becerra, D-Calif.

0%—Timothy Bishop, D-N.Y.

0%—Michael Capuano, D-Mass.

0%—Gerald Connolly, D-Va.

0%—Joe Courtney, D-Conn.

0%—Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas

0%—Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

0%—John Larson, D-Conn.

0%—Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M.

0%—Betty McCollum, D-Minn.

0%—Jerry McNerney, D-Calif.

0%—George Miller, D-Calif.

0%—Patrick Murphy, D-Pa.

0%—Grace Napolitano, D-Calif.

0%—Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.

0%—Albio Sires, D-N.J.

0%—Mike Thompson, D-Calif.

0%—Paul Tonko, D-N.Y.

0%—Peter Welch, D-Vt.

Lou Barletta, R-Pa.*

Dan Benishek, R-Mich.*

Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y.*

Francisco Canseco, R-Texas*

John Carney, D-Del.*

Hansen Clarke, D-Mich.*

Chip Cravaack, R-Minn.*

Sean Duffy, R-Wis.*

Charles Fleischmann, R-Tenn.*

Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.*

Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.*

Frank Guinta, R-N.H.*

Richard Hanna, R-N.Y. *

Andy Harris, R-Md.*

Joe Heck, R-Nev.*

Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.*

Bill Keating, D-Mass.*

Mike Kelly, R-Pa.*

Jeff Landry, R-La.*

Tom Marino, R-Pa.*

Pat Meehan, R-Pa.*

Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C.*

Steven Palazzo, R-Miss.*

Tom Reed, R-N.Y.*

Jim Renacci, R-Ohio*

David Rivera, R-Fla.*

Todd Rokita, R-Ind.*

Jon Runyan, R-N.J.*

Bobby Schilling, R-Ill.*

David Schweikert, R-Ariz.*

Posted:  02.07.12 @ 4:16 p.m.


Filed under Church, Media, politics, Uncategorized

Blatant and stunning hypocrisy by Harry Reid

Iain (here and here) and Dan (here) are right to be outraged at President Obama’s brazenness (if not lawlessness) on the recess appointments, but it is not like he lacks accomplices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has backed the president’s play, according to the Hill. Senate Democrats will no doubt echo that support.

The hypocrisy here is blatant, even by congressional standards. In 2007, Reid kept the senate in pro forma session in order to block President Bush from making recess appointments — particularly, the eminently qualified Steve Bradbury’s appointment to head DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. “I had to keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the Bradbury appointment,” Reid recounted in 2008. “That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made.


Now he is backing obama’s lawless appointments in the very same circumstances.

This is the way Harry Reid and the democrats want the country to run – all rules or laws apply to republicans but not to the demon democrats.  And we are well on our way to this diabolical mindset and hypocrisy ruling the day.  And the democrats supposedly hate hypocrisy so much.  Oh, really.

There’s not a grain of integrity in this man called Harry Reid.  You would think at the ends of his days he would want to muster a little honesty to take with him to the other side.  One thing about it, there is an equalizer that applies even to democrats.

Add Nancy Pelosi.  http://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-glad-obama-made-bold-recess-appointments-while-183704902.html

Posted:  01.05.12 @ 12.23 p.m.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

You don’t tug on Superman’s cape…..

Wow.  The Face of the Liberal Democrat in Cape and Tights.

In private Twitter messages last month to a Delaware high school student, Weiner told of butting heads with Republican congressional opponents. Describing how he returned fire at his political foes, Weiner told the 17-year-old girl, “I came back strong. Large. In charge. Tights and cape shit.”


Ya’ think they make a superman costume in XXXS?

You don’t tug on superman’s cape

You don’t spit into the wind

You don’t pull the mask off the old lone ranger

And you don’t mess around with “Slim”

Posted:  o6.12.11 @ 1:50 a.m.

1 Comment

Filed under Humor, politics, Uncategorized

He wasn’t hacked but he sure is a hack – Weiner needs to RESIGN

This is ridiculous.  No wonder they don’t have time to read legislation.

DEMOCRAT HYPOCRISY.  Notice how a republican resigns in disgrace and a democrat just rolls on in disgrace.  Who was the guy who had to resign for a picture with no shirt on.  The democrats do not require any ethics and decency at all.   No shame.  Remember when Anthony Weiner, while serving as an Obama tool, was harrassing Glenn Beck and Judge Thomas’ wife?  I’ll bet you won’t find any crotch shots of them.

He should really accept responsibility by resigning now. He has not accepted responsibility until he resigns.  Really he should not have a choice, but should be FIRED, as the U. S. taxpayers are paying his salary.  Not another cent should be paid him.  I guarantee if this was you or me doing something like this, we would be gone.  Was this a government computer he was using?  I’m sure it was.

Just learned that Bill Clinton married the Weiners.  Figures.

Breitbart is really the only real journalist in this country.


Posted:  05.06.11 @ 5:00 p.m.


Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Hypocrite Debbie Schultz blasts republicans not supporting GM bailout, but she does not drive American car

More hypocrisy from the left.  DNC Chair  Ms. Debbie Schultz recently reviled republicans as “women haters” and blasphemed by incorporating the 9th commandment to her own use by declaring, “Thou shalt not lie about a democrat” (you don’t have to lie – the truth is sufficient) also whined about republicans who voted against the GM bailout.  So worried she is about the auto industry in the USA, she does not drive an American car:

From The Hill:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama’s 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.

“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes,” she said at a  breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, (16 mpg) a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.

Posted:  06.04.11 @ 3:03 p.m.

Leave a comment

Filed under Financial Crisis, patriotism, politics, Uncategorized

Finger-pointing rampant in aftermath of Arizona shooting

Finger-pointing began a few hours after this shooting.  It is important to note that all the fingers and all the accusing mouths were on the left side of the equation.  This post is in RESPONSE to all that blame that has come from the left in less than two days, the rampant hypocrisy from the self-righteous progressive left wing that has taken over the democrat party.  Gabrielle Giffords was a democrat, but she was a “blue dog” democrat and they are hated just about as bad as republicans by those in power in that party.

Almost from the moment of this Arizona shooting, the left wing in the country, and this includes the left wing media – or maybe especially the left wing media – have been trying to somehow blame the right, talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin, for this tragedy.

First of all, it infuriates me.  One person shot and killed and wounded these people and we’re talking about people who were not there and have not one thing to do with this.

But even more, they can’t seem to see or don’t want to see, it is really their side who is violent, who constantly uses hate speech to those who do not agree with them, and their reaction to this shooting is a perfect example of that.  In trying to blame the right, they have made this all about politics and as a opportunity to use it for political advantage.

Anybody who has been on the internet for any length of time has long known the hate language comes without restraint from, yes, Obama people.  Now they want to project their own constant use of “vitriolic” speech onto others.  They could not wait!  They did not wait, not even until the shooter had been named, not for any of the facts to come out.  Of course, as it turns out the shooter is a leftist probably fueled by the rhetoric of the hateful left wing.

The first I heard was Linda Lopez who came on with Shep Smith naming the tea party as the culprit and I remember she specifically said the shooter was an “Afghan vet.”  Of course, he was not a veteran of any kind.  Oh, but they want him to be a veteran so it will fit within some profile that Janet Napolitano and whats his name Potok, Mark Potok, has put together as those to watch for.  Shep Smith did not stop her nor challenge her either.  I can’t remember just how far into the story this was, but if you can pinpoint when the name of the shooter came out, you can know it was before that.

The MSM has carried this narrative all weekend.  This did not happen until sometime late Saturday morning.  I am rambling, but I can’t help it.  This has to be said ramble or not.

If anything EVER happens, God forbid, to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other of the targets of their “vitriol” it will be easy to point to many, many, many statements of suggested violence and death that the left has wished on them and to make them responsible.  I keep saying vitriol because that was the word the sheriff of Pima County kept using during his minutes before the camera as he proceeded to blame talk radio, et cetera, for the shooting.  This is a law enforcement person, sheriff of a county, and you would think he was a paid Obama mouth piece.

I’m going to put up just a few examples of violence hoped for and the two I have in mind right now were said on MSNBC, that’s national tv, one by Chris Matthews, the other by Mark Penn (Obama advisor).  I’m sure there are countless examples coming from Keith Olbermann but none come to mind right now.

So the hypocritical and sanctimonious LECTURING  coming from the left trying to say that ALL (oh, and Gene Robinson – again on MSNBC) uncivil  and problematic language comes from the right.  Yeah, Robinson said so in plain words.  I’ll put up his video, too.  I am recalling something that was written by Paul Krugman, NYT, but I haven’t read that.  But the examples of finger pointing and the blame game that has been engaged in by the democrat/progressive/leftist public broadcasting outlets is countless.  And it’s only Monday morning.  We’re not even talking about the web sites such as Daily Kos, but from MAINSTREAM television and print outlets.

The only thing that is anything other than speculation and wishful thinking that has been mentioned is the map that Sarah Palin had published using gun sights – I don’t know, not a gun person – and saying something like “reload.”  This is the only evidence that has been produced and I dare say that is because there is no evidence of violence or threats coming from the mainstream conservative ranks.

Well, Daily Kos has already REMOVED from their website references to Ms.  Giffords (along with other democrats they opposed) in bulls eye to be defeated.  Now, I know they are only talking about working to have them defeated.  But, hey, if we’re going to talk about language that is used frequently in the political realm, then they have to be held to the same scrutiny.

The democrats have used this method of expression – marking opponents, et cetera – and I’ll post examples of that below.

But, now, to start with, we have a president who promised to bring America together and promote unity.  Here’s just a few statements he has made that uses language of combat or violence.  Oh, and by the way he is a democrat, far left one at that.  So we don’t have much leadership.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.

He also very recently has said if the republicans win in the November election, there will be “hand to hand combat.”  And he has recently referred to republicans as “holding hostage” or “hostage takers” when referring to their opposition to some legislation.

Harry Reid called the tea party evil=mongers and Nancy Pelosi said the tea party was made up of a mob and Nazis.  At the time, these were the three top leaders of our country.  Democrats .  Right, democrats.

So, come on, the English language is full of words that can be used in different ways.  Just this morning I came across three of them.  My computer came up with a choice, copy, paste, delete, or RELOAD.  I was also thinking of using some BULLET points and TARGETING certain examples I had in mind.  So to attribute some nefarious meaning to every word without taking into consideration what is really meant by it is dishonest and really pretty silly in my estimation.

So what are we going to do, eliminate  words?  I don’t think so.  Any attempt to do that is going to make me use the word more.  I wouldn’t even be talking about this except in defense.  I’m not in favor of the word police.

Here are my examples of the MSM using violent language.  Both of these just happen to be MSNBC.  But it is just a well known fact that MSNBC is the face of the liberal democrat progressive in this country.  No denying that.

Obama just needs an “Oklahoma bombing” moment

And below, Chris Matthews says something about putting a pellet in Rush Limbaugh’s mouth and watching his head explode.

And Eugene Robinson (again MSNBC) saying violent rhetoric exclusively comes from the right:

Is he delusional?

Now, I ask you, just assuming for the sake of argument the Arizona shooter was influenced by something he heard, knowing what we now know about the left leanings of Jared Loughner, would he be more likely to watch MSNBC or listen to Rush Limbaugh?

But, of course, I heard a report last night that, after thoroughly searching his house, his computer, his writings, there was found not one mention of talk radio, the tea party, Sarah Palin, or anything that would connect him to them.

Examples of  use of bulls eyes or target points by democrats and Daily Kos when planning campaigning tactics using terms as “behind enemy lines” and “ripe targets.”

dLooks like bulls eyes when you look closely

I am adding the image below of a post that appeared on the Daily Kos two days before the shooting.  The most important fact about this particular post is that it is not random  – his congresswoman was Gabrielle Giffords.  He talks about her being dead to him because of a Vote she made and two days later she is shot in the head.  I can tell you this actually was there because I saw it, but within hours, maybe minutes of the shooting, Daily Kos removed it.  Now, if a suspect to a crime tries to destroy evidence or flees it is considered evidence of guilt.  The reason we have a copy of this is because it was captured by Hillbuzz just in time.

Michele Malkin has a great compilation of examples on this topic.

Oh, and by the way, I want to mark this down for the record – this gunman was NOT clinging to the Bible.  He was a raving atheist with some kind of voodoo shrine in his back yard.

Posted:  01.10.11


Filed under Barack Obama, Human Interest, politics