Category: liberalism

Obamacare to stand says SCOUTS

Well, this was not what I was hoping to wake up to hearing on my 40’th birthday.

The Memeoradum round up is here.

The link round up is here: (H/T to Drudge)

Now for what I think: I believe this to be the biggest set back in American freedom since the McCarthy hearings and the red scare of the 1950’s. I guess I should not surprised, the this out of control federal behemoth that we call Government has always valued the idea of a tax on the American people.   I will comment on one thing that I read over at the Weekly Standard, that I linked to above:

It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.

This means, of course, that the more they think about it, the better it will be for Mitt Romney.  It also means (of course) that Romney should encourage them to think about it, reminding them at every turn that this election isn’t merely — or even principally — about the economy; that it’s about something bigger; that we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform.  And he should convey to them what real reform would look like, thereby bringing into the fold those independents who don’t want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo.  He should start playing to win people’s votes, instead of merely trying not to lose them.

Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election.  On some level, the American people know this.  There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.

The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about.  Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does.  Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does. 

Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.

Yes, and you can bet that Barack Obama will have a army of lawyers to make sure that he remains President too. In fact, that is just what the Boston Globe is reporting:

OLYMPIA, Wash.—President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.

Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.

Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud — making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible — rather than turning away qualified voters.

Since the disputed 2000 presidential election, both parties have increasingly concentrated on building legal teams — including high-priced lawyers who are well-known in political circles — for the Election Day run-up. The Bush-Gore election demonstrated to both sides the importance of every vote and the fact that the rules for voting and counting might actually determine the outcome. The Florida count in 2000 was decided by just 537 votes and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court.

This year in that state alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.

Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”

“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.

The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.

Believe me when I tell you; President Barack Obama and the left have been emboldened by this decision and they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Furthermore, the President knows that if he is to protect Obamacare and everything else he and Congress have worked for; they will have to win the election. So, if you all think that Obama and Co. are just going to let White America, which, by proxy will be represented by Mitt Romney —- roll over them and defeat them, you are crazy. They are now going to be emboldened to, in figurative sense — of course — fight to the death to protect everything that they have worked for in the last 3 years.

Putting it in “Southwest Detroit ghetto” terms: things just got very real. The Republicans must know, the kiddie stuff just ended, and now the real fight is now underway. From today, till election day is going to be a bare knuckle brawl. I just hope that the right; bloggers, writers, news people and the politicos know what they are in for. I also hope they know how to fight it, without getting overly stupid and letting their words and actions get them into trouble. This is not 1957 and if they fight like it is, they will lose and lose badly.

Needless to say, it is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.

More of Charles Foster Johnson’s blatant hypocrisy

Quoting the head lizard:

There it is, folks. A naked admission that the purpose of making it more difficult to vote is to tilt elections toward the Republican Party. The people most affected by Voter ID laws are the ones most likely to vote Democratic; it’s a simple equation.

That’s the end game for all of these bogus “vote fraud” allegations: if they can whip up enough fear over non-existent vote fraud, they’ll be able to pass laws restricting who can vote.

And the fewer people who vote, the better for the Republican Party.

via Little Green Footballs – PA Republican Leader Admits: The Fewer People Who Vote, the Better for the GOP.

You sure were not bitching about that, when that was working for President George W. Bush  —- were you Chuckles?

Yes, I have read your archives; in fact, I have read everything from 2004 and 2000 and I fail to find anything of the sort about George W. Bush; of whom you supported.

But now that there is a black Democrat in the White House, according to you —- the Republican Party is now the corrupt party of voter suppression. 🙄

You sanctimonious twit, you are such a hypocrite that it is spewing from your ears and you know it.

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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

 

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. 😡