Wasserman Schultz to get the boot?!?!

Normally, I don’t blog on stuff like this; because if it happens to be wrong, I, like everyone else, looks like an idiot. But, anyhow, it’s news and I need new content.

The Moonbat of the year is leaving?!?!?! Horrors!
Back in April, the Shark Tank floated the likelihood that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman (DNC) Debbie Wasserman Schultz was perhaps on her way out as DNC Chairwoman. We now have learned that Wasserman Schultz will not be back as DNC Chairwoman after the November elections.
According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not.
This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.
via DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz Getting Booted | The Shark Tank.

Some on the right are saying, “No! Don’t get rid of her, we like her stupidity!” Which is quite humorous, I think. Truth is, the Democratic Party does have a image problem at the moment; arrogant, overreaching and well, in some cases — blatantly stupid. Schultz personifies that idiot image. No word on whether her Jewish ethnicity plays any role in that image or not. Although, I tend to believe that are many WASP’s, like me, who could answer that one in the affirmative. I best be careful though, the Semite-baiting Neoconservatives will come after me again. 🙄

(and for those of you, who are too stupid to see it — Yes, that is a good dose of snark and sarcasm…)

Either way, it will be interesting to see who replaces her, perhaps Sheila Jackson Lee?

Others: Weasel Zippers, americanthinker.com, UrbanGrounds, The Daily Caller and Jammie Wearing Fools

Arizona man jailed and fined for having a church on his property

This bothers me a bit.

Via the Christian Post

Arizona preacher Michael Salman was sentenced to jail for building what the City of Phoenix claims he has been representing as a church on his home property without securing the proper permits. Salman claims the building is not a church and is simply for private Bible study gatherings.
Salman’s case, which started in 2007, reached its conclusion this week when a Phoenix court ruled that he was guilty of more than five dozen violations in constructing the building and sentenced him to 60 days in jail and three years of probation.
The preacher, whose ministry is called Harvest Christian Fellowship, claims he was exercising his religious liberty by worshiping at home on his private property, and that his gatherings were no different than when people hold Super Bowl or Christmas parties.
“You’re taking a man out of society and sticking him in jail for worshiping at his home,” he told a local news station.

This bothers me, because we are supposed to be a free Republic and not an oppressive monarchy. But yet, when a Christian man wants to put a Church building in on his own property; he is tossed in jail?

My question you, my dear readers is: Since do Governments have the right to oppress those who wish to worship God in their own manner as they choose?

Also too, allow me go be the one to ask this question: if this man were a Jew or a Muslim; would the Government be so quick to jail him? What about if he were black?

Those are answers that I would like to know. We are supposed to be an Constitutional Republic and private property right are supposed to be respected.

MSNBC Host Melissa Harris said What??!?!?!?!?

Holy smokes….

Via the Blaze:

Just in case you are not inclined to watch the video, here’s what she said:

“Americans of course responded in very typically American ways to [terrorism], something that many people in the rest of the world had already experienced. We began with a kind of nationalist fervor that was justified as reasonable patriotism.”
“I’d like to point out that we clearly must have been having post-traumatic stress disorder because for about a year after September 11th, there were African-American men walking around the city of New York with N.Y.P.D hats on– that can only be explained as a P.T.S.D. response.”
“The other thing that happens in that moment, I don’t want to miss this, is that a new version of what America typically needs emerge, and that is a racial enemy. Americans in part identify who we are, and who deserves what, through our notions of whiteness and of the racial enemies that are the non-whites.“
“And in this moment, the new racial enemy became not so much Reagan‘s ’welfare queen,’ who was imaginary, but instead this imagined other that is somehow Muslim, or Arab, or Sikh, or something else.”
“We became willing to stomach a kind of horrific racial violence in the name of national security. It is something that we have been willing to stomach as a people over and over again in our history.”
“The Patriot Act was not an act of a Republican president acting alone. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan decision by both parties. It was not bought and paid for by corporations; it was bought and paid for by our fear.”

You see folks, this is why I do not vote for Democrats any longer. I was one of the many who were traumatized by the images of 9/11, which ran continuously; which almost drove me to suicide. For this BITCH to insinuate that I am some how a racist, because I still hold some very deep convictions about 9/11 and those who were responsible for it — is a grievous insult to those who died on that terrible day. This woman should be fucking fired from her job. She just shit on the graves of those who perished that day and just spit in the faces of those who lived through that horrible event.

Unbelievable — just damn unbelievable.

UPDATE: I came back to this posting, because I knew I could do better. I figured some serial complainer would bring up the fact that I even mentioned that this woman was black. Okay, so I removed that — but how is it that this sort of disgusting sort of racism towards whites is even remotely tolerated in public discourse? I mean, if a white man had gotten up and said something similar about blacks or Latinos — or yes, even Jews — this person would be derided as a racist or antisemitic. But, yet, this woman, who happens to be black, can spout this sort of idiotic nonsense and it is just perfectly okay. My friends, something is wrong with this damned Country and I mean in a big way. I predict that 30 years from now, if the socialists continue the way they are going — people will be saying that America actually deserved the 9/11 attacks and that White Christians were the true cause of those attacks. Oh wait, they already do. 😡 I’m sorry, but this one gets me fighting mad. 😡 😡 😡

Others: Mediaite, The Gateway Pundit, RedState, Examiner, nation.foxnews.com and The Other McCain

As much as I hate to admit it, Libby Spencer has a point

…and no I don’t mean the one on the top of her head either…. 😉 😛

As you know, I am not a big fan of the previous President. In fact, his stupidity got me to start blogging — That was in 2006 — 8 Years ago. WOW. Makes me feel old. 😯

Anyhow, reacting to the news today and Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to it, Progressive blogger Libby Spencer says:

To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?
Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.
That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.
via The Impolitic: Contemptible Congress.

I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election. This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty. Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.

It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.

It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.

In to which I say, “Irony Much, Asshole?”

This right here is irony at its best.

Here is the best ironic quote since President Obama backtracking on closing Gitmo:

President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.
via Executive Overreach – The Corner – National Review Online.

Who wrote this rather lengthy piece on executive overreach? No other than that slant-eyed motherfucker —- John Yoo. Yes, that John Yoo. The goddamned John Yoo who told President George W. Bush that torturing terrorist suspects was just perfectly fine and should be sitting in a jail cell to this very damned day. However, because we have a Democratic Party that has no fucking balls and because the Republican Party still kind of thinks that Neoconservatism is just fucking peachy keen; this little slant-eyed puke is still living as a free man.

It is not only that I object to torture. I detest this ignorant piece of shit for another damned reason. This asshole did more to injure, discredit and bring harm to the Conservative and Republican cause than any of the Neoconservatives, hands down. It was because of this man’s actions; suddenly, everyone — including me at the time — believed that ALL Conservatives and Republican believed that torture of prisoners of war was just perfectly fine. Which I now know is horribly wrong. This man has done more to ruin the image of the political party that still believes in restraint of the fiscal, militarist and some, of the social kind. This man and his idiotic thought process is why I have never, and most like will never send the Republican Party a fucking dime and why I choose to call myself a right-libertarian.

So, in closing: John Yoo, shut the hell up, you slant-eyed fool; because nobody, least of all me — honestly gives two shits what you say, think or even feel. Please, just go back to your damned homeland of South Korea and take your goddamned borderline Communist attitudes about Constitutionality with you sir. Because quite frankly, Americans like myself, find your inane bullshit writings idiotic at best.

…..and I say all of the above, in the best Christian manner than I can muster. You’re welcome.

Signed,

A very proud Constitutionalist and right-libertarian

————————-

I mean, I hate to even write stuff like this, in this blunt of a manner. But, I am reading this guy’s crap on NRO and about into the second paragraph, my freakin’ head is about to explode! 😡

Again, the stupidity of this jack ass and the Iraq War debacle was what got my start in blogging about politics in the first place. So, this posting was a long time coming for me.

That is all…

Others: JustOneMinute, Outside the Beltway, Balloon Juice, Chicago Boyz, americanthinker.com, neo-neocon, Washington Monthly, Pundit & Pundette and The PJ Tatler

AllahPundit touches on one of the biggest reasons why I will not be voting Democratic Party again

As many of you know, who read this blog with any sort of regularity; I used to be a Democratic Party voter. Then the 2008 election happened, as well as the meltdown of the economy, which was brought on by the Democratic Party’s fixing of the system to give to people who really did not deserve to even own a house.

While giving an assessment of whether Hillary Clinton will run again for office, AllahPundit observes something that I have known for years. He puts it so very well. Over you AP:

For what it’s worth, I don’t think she’ll run again, either, although three years is a long way off, too. The Clinton moment passed for good in 2007, when Barack Obama eclipsed her in the presidential primary cycle. She has high favorability ratings now, in part because she hasn’t been involved in partisan politics for more than three year years, and in part because of the declining popularity of her current boss. It won’t take long for the negatives to return if she decided on another run in 2016 based on all of the old baggage attached to the Clintons, as well as some more recent baggage, like the “reset” button and her husband’s curious mea culpa after speaking economic common sense that happened to conflict with the disaster of Obamanomics.
What I find fascinating is the fascination itself. The two Democrats most often mentioned for a potential 2016 run are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, and at 69 years of age, Hillary would be the younger of the two when Election Day 2016 arrives. They belong to a different era of politics, but who else in the Democratic Party is ready for a national run in four years? Andrew Cuomo might be the only one that leaps to mind, but his father rather famously played footsie with Democrats for years and never actually took the plunge; the son will be a tougher sell, although he’s getting good reviews in New York thus far in his first term as governor. Their Senate leadership is too old, and Democrats lost so many gubernatorial elections over the last three years that their bench has almost run dry.
Compare that to the Republican bench, in and out of Washington DC. The party has a number of exciting, fresh talent in chief-executive slots around the country. Assuming Romney doesn’t win this year, names like Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, and Bob McDonnell will probably be in play. On Capitol Hill, energetic newcomers like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio will be more seasoned and better prepared to argue for a shot at the highest office in the country. If Romney wins this year and in 2016, those same candidates will still have their positions improved for another run, plus more may join them. Unlike Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, they’ll represent the present and the future, not the distant past.
via Will Hillary hit the reset button for 2016? « Hot Air.

It’s so true, the Democrats have nothing anymore. They tried running Al Gore, who would have been an disaster for a President; he lost. They tried running John Kerry, who lost, because he was seen by many, and rightly so, as an out of touch elitist idiot. Kind of like the current President! Now they have this President, if he is beaten, who else do they have? No one. Class warfare and Wealth distribution are remnants from a bygone era and the American people know this. My Father did well with the unions and voting for the Democrats. I, on the other hand, did lousy. True, I eat here. But I do not have a nice union job, like he did, before he retired. I have basically gotten nothing from the Democrats, in return for voting for them, for a good number of years.

This is why I have decided to take a different path than my own parents to vote my own convictions and not just go along with the crowd. For the record, I expect nothing from the Republican Party or the Conservative movement; that is just it. They don’t promise you anything; and I like that sort of blunt honesty. The only thing I want is my freedom; and that is what the libertarian/Tea Party/Conservative movement is about —- Freedom. Now the Republicans, as far as this writer is concerned; have not proven to me they will reduce the size of Government at all. But I am waiting to see, just what truly happens with Romney, if he is elected. I really do not expect much greatness from him. But, I will be hopeful. I will be voting libertarian, because that is where I am politically. But I am a realist, and I know Gary Johnson does not have a chance of winning. This is why I am watching what the Republicans and Mitt Romney will be offering as agents of Freedom. It is something I look forwarding to writing about in the future.

Why Scott Walker Won and the Democrats in Wisconsin lost

I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update: Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.

Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election. Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.

Mother Jones has some good ideas as well:

1) Campaign Money is King
Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.
All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.
Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .
2) The Candidate
Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.
3) No New Ground
Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.
More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.

My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:

They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.

Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.

GOP house drops the ball: National debt up $1.59 Trillion Under GOP House

The next time some idiot from the Republican Party tells out that they are the party of fiscal responsibility; show them this please.

The story via the Cybercast News Service: (H/T to Freedom’s Phoenix)

(CNSNews.com) – The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.
In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives–led by Speaker John Boehner–has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.

You really cannot blame all of them; John Boehner is the leader of the house and he is constantly caving to the left on important issues like this one here.

Let’s look at the party that is in control of the house and see just how responsible they really are, shall we?

When Boehner became speaker on Jan. 5, 2011, the federal government was operating under a continuing resolution that had been passed on Dec. 21, 2010 by a lame-duck Congress. That CR expired on March 4, 2011.
On March 1, 2011, Boehner agreed to a new short-term spending deal with President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to keep the government running past the March 4, 2011 expiration of the old CR. Since March 4, 2011, federal expenditures have been carried out under a series of CRs approved by both the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Obama.
At the close of business on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. At the close of business on May 31, 2012, it was 15,770,685,085,364.14. That is an increase of $1,588,057,900,483.11—in just 15 months.
All of the debt accumulated by the federal government throughout the history of the country did not exceed $1.588 trillion until October 1984.
Under the Republican-controlled House, the federal debt has been increasing at an average pace of about $105.9 billion per month.

Remember that Tea Party that I blogged about, went to bat for and supported? Remember all of the promises by the Republican Party to listen to that gathering of Americans fed up with DC? All of that, as far as this writer is concerned was nothing more than a bad joke and a horrible one at that. The Republican Party had no intentions of changing their ways at all. The Republican Party saw an organic. populist-type movement of the people, capitalized on it, whenever they could; and proceeded to put forth a moderate candidate and continue on with business as usual.

I have written this before and it is the honest truth; if these Republicans and Tea Party people believe that Mitt Romney is going to shrink the size and scope of Government one lousy iota; they are going to be in for a very horrible surprise. If these same Republicans and Tea Party people think that Mitt Romney will revoke “Obamacare” they are going to be in for a big, shocking surprise. Mitt Romney, like Obama; as the Democrats have found out, is a moderate and moderates never do anything ever that will change the course of history, ever.

Artur Davis writes one of the most honest articles I have read in a long time

If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.

So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:

And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
via A Response to Political Rumors | Official Artur Davis.

I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience. You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.

So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.

It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.

All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.

Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.

Leftist MSNBC Host Chris Hayes is apologizing for saying what he truly feels

Remember this idiot? Well, now that the heat is on him, he is apologizing for saying what he really feels.

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word “hero” to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don’t think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I’ve set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation’s citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday’s show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don’t, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
via Chris Hayes Apologizes For Saying He Feels ‘Uncomfortable’ Calling Killed Soldiers ‘Heroes’ (VIDEO).

That is not an apology, sorry; that is a explanation and self-justification for what he said with a “Oh, by the way, I’m sorry if you didn’t like it.” Which is typical of the elitist limo liberals of his ilk. Screw them, screw them hard. 😡