Bart Stupak: Ignoramus, Hypocrite, or Both?

Bart Stupak: Ignoramus, Hypocrite, or Both?

As is correct and proper, Bart Stupak, 9-term Democrat congressman from Michigan’s 1st CD, ended his congressional career on March 21st, 2010. It was a lackluster career, anyway, but he sealed it as finished when he revealed himself to be either the biggest hypocrite, the dumbest representative from the Wolverine State, or both.

Not incidentally, it should be noted that wolverines are vicious animals, members of the weasel family.

Stupak shall go down in history as the one individual in the U.S. House of Representatives most responsible for Sunday night’s passage of the Obamacare bill, a feat Stupak accomplished through outright and shameful deceit and ignorance.

For years, Stupak has passed himself off as a pro-life Democrat despite, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out last week, voting to fund the organization responsible for most of the abortions committed in America, Planned Parenthood.

As Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the Eagle Forum, said, “Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn’t willfully align themselves with the Party of Death:” http://bit.ly/bNeoYa . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1580)

Ethics? Schmethics! Part One

Ethics? Schmethics! Part One

Ethics: the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. (Dictionary.com)

There’s something about celebrity whether achieved in the entertainment arena or in that other entertainment arena, politics, that imbues stars with a sense of entitlement to greater power, to greater greed, to a greater number of the opposite sex.

They tend to forget those “rules of conduct.”

It must be the adulation from enthralled audiences that convinces many entertainment and political celebs that they’re exceptional, above it all, the cat’s meow as was said in olden times, and not subject to the same moral and ethical constraints applicable to the hoi polloi.

In politics, ethical lapses are certainly not confined to Democrats. Remember Florida Congressman Mark Foley and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. (Maybe it’s the name, Mark?)

However, Democrats are just so damned good at perverting power that they can’t be denied the title of Consummate Ethical Thrashers.

If Ya Can’t Beat ‘Em, Buy ‘Em! President Obama learned that trick of the political trade from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Stifle recalcitrance with remunerations. Or maybe he learned it in Chicago, but there they usually just smash kneecaps.

Harry bought the Obamacare vote of Senator Mary Landrieu . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1538)

Scott Brown and Conservatism

Scott Brown and Conservatism

Ok, it’s great news. Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown trounced Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and will be heading to D.C. asap, hopefully driving his truck. (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=5338)

The “Kennedy seat” can be termed the “Brown seat” for the next 3 years or so by Republican United States Senator Brown since he will be sitting in it. The Democrat/Kennedy death grip on that seat has been broken and Democrats in the super-blue Bay State couldn’t be much bluer if they held their breaths until the cows came home.

In an effort to shield Obama and his policies from valid criticism, the Dems are spinning crazily and blaming poor Martha Coakley for everything from meanness to ineptitude to being a closet Republican just because she blew a sure thing.

To their credit, the party big wigs have been unexpectedly gracious toward Brown and his victory with David Axelrod grudgingly conceding his “clever” campaign and Harry Reid pledging to seat the new senator posthaste and forego any cynical parliamentary delays.

All fine and good. Even better, Pelosi may be in trouble, Barbara Boxer’s seat is threatened, Reid’s 60 filibuster-proof senate votes just became 59 very filibusterable votes, and Obamacare should be cooked for the nonce unless Dems start playing numbers games with reconciliation.

So, God’s in His heaven, all’s right with the world–for now.

Speaker Nancy is no doubt lining up Blue Dogs to be shot at dawn if they don’t tow the Pelosi line and . . .

(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1436)

You Say, "Hate Crimes." I Say, "First Amendment."

You Say, “Hate Crime.” I say, “First Amendment.”

When you say potato and I say potahto, it doesn’t mean much. Same goes for tomato and tomahto.

When you say I can’t speak and write whatever I wish to speak and write–as long as it’s the truth and not likely to get people to stampede out of a non-burning theater–I say you’re trampling on my rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

On Thursday, October 8th, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to “strengthen” so-called federal hate-crime legislation to incorporate any and all criticism and attacks on homosexuals.

It was passed handily just a few hours ago as of this writing with all the sneakiness Democrats could muster, including attaching the hate bill to a defense bill to insure its passage: http://bit.ly/DP06X

Had it been proposed as a separate bill, the House probably still would have passed it over Republican opposition given the makeup of the new leftist, gay-friendly, Constitution-unfriendly Dem majority.

However, that party loves late night machinations almost as much as it loves spitting on Americans’ rights.

The legislation now goes to the Senate for a vote and then inexorably on to Obama’s desk for signature, inexorably since Democratic Senate ratification and the president’s autograph are foregone conclusions.

Obama had cautioned gays to hold fire as he diddled over . . .

(Read the rest at http:genelalor.com)