Hypocrisy of the NY Slimes

Ed Lasky at The American Thinker has a good example of the hypocrisy of the NY Slimes.  They will report on all the Republican scnadals but forgets about the big ones by the Denocrats, escpecially the Governmor of the Republic of Illinois.

NYT turns blind eye to Illinois Dem scandals

Ed Lasky
The New York Times has routinely published articles on relatively minor political scandals involving Republican politicians.* But the Times remains virtually silent on recent political scandals in the pivotal state of Illinois, scandals that have been front page news in Chicago.  Might it be because the figures touched by the recent Illinois scandals are Democrats?

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been the subject of a long-running political scandal involving, among other suspicious acts, political supporters receiving government jobs and contracts ("pay for play"). He has been indicted by Federal prosecutors. Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has been tainted by business dealings with indicted businessman and political fundraiser Antoin " Tony" Rezko. A trucking scandal (wherein Chicago outsources its trucking business to contractors) has been shot through with bribery and kickbacks and corrupt hiring practices. Among other things, city employees on the clock operated as a political army to get out the vote for the Democratic Mayor Richard Daley and powerful Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 elections, and chair of the Democratic Caucus – the fourth-ranking member.

Scandals are the stories that sell newspapers, build journalistic reputations and win Pulitzers. The New York Times bills itself as printing all the news that is fit to print. If the two major papers in Illinois have printed hundreds of stories about these scandals over the last couple of years, one would think the Times might find these news items worthy of coverage. One might think that the scandal-mongering New York Times would look at these stories as a bee looks at a flower. One would be wrong. For these scandals all involve Democrats who are a protected class in the newsrooms of the New York Times.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, then does it make a sound? Censorship for political purposes would be condemned by the Times if the Bush Administration were so charged. Accusations of 1984 would fill the airwaves. But when the Times chooses to practice silence to aid the Democratic Party that posture escapes notice and comment.

*For example, this Republican politician ($ link),  a GOP Kentucky Governor who was indicted on charges that he illegally rewarded political supporters with state jobs received front-page coverage, though he later signed an agreement admitting mishaps by his administration and all charges were dropped).

The American Thinker

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy

When Pigs Fly

That is the only time you will actually see Algore or any of his other acolytes actually reduce their "carbon footprint".  But Algore buys "carbon credits" from a company he is part of, so he just shifts his money from one account to another and doen’t loose anything.  I guess you won;t hear that in MSM.  THey just follow the leader in the joke that is called Manbearpig (Global Warming). But James Inhofe has put up a challenge to Liberal elite, put up or shut up.  Either you reduce your "carbon footprint" down to the rest of the country or shut up about Manbearpig.

Inhofe dares Hollywood to take warming pledge

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON

A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their "carbon footprint" to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008.
    "I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped ‘crisis’ not only talk the talk, but walk the walk," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.
    "How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had."
    A so-called "Gore Pledge" was introduced last month when the former vice president appeared before a Senate committee to discuss his views on climate change. Mr. Inhofe asked Mr. Gore to sign the pledge to reduce his use of products that produce greenhouse gases, but he declined, instead citing alternative carbon trade-offs.
    Mr. Gore says he pays a self-imposed "carbon tax" to offset the environmental impact of his large home and global travels.

Washington Times

When Pigs Fly

That is the only time you will actually see Algore or any of his other acolytes actually reduce their "carbon footprint".  But Algore buys "carbon credits" from a company he is part of, so he just shifts his money from one account to another and doen’t loose anything.  I guess you won;t hear that in MSM.  THey just follow the leader in the joke that is called Manbearpig (Global Warming). But James Inhofe has put up a challenge to Liberal elite, put up or shut up.  Either you reduce your "carbon footprint" down to the rest of the country or shut up about Manbearpig.

Inhofe dares Hollywood to take warming pledge

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON

A leading skeptic of global-warming science is challenging celebrity activists such as Al Gore and Sheryl Crow to lower their "carbon footprint" to the same level as the average American by Earth Day in April 2008.
    "I simply believe that former Vice President Al Gore and his Hollywood friends who demand we change the way we live to avert this over-hyped ‘crisis’ not only talk the talk, but walk the walk," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican.
    "How hard is it for these elitists to become as frugal in their energy consumption as the average American? I think the American public has a right to know they are being had."
    A so-called "Gore Pledge" was introduced last month when the former vice president appeared before a Senate committee to discuss his views on climate change. Mr. Inhofe asked Mr. Gore to sign the pledge to reduce his use of products that produce greenhouse gases, but he declined, instead citing alternative carbon trade-offs.
    Mr. Gore says he pays a self-imposed "carbon tax" to offset the environmental impact of his large home and global travels.

Washington Times

Guess who owns the house???

Sent by email from ST. Clair County Republicans

According to Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp) this comparison is
accurate.

The
hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

LOOK OVER THE
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS
TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE #
1:

A 20-room mansion (not
including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house)
and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion
consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In
natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This
house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It’s in the
South.

HOUSE #
2:

Designed by an
architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates
every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains
only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps
drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water
(usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates
the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the
property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room
energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of
that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model
eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas
White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

So whose house is
gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC,
NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed,
for Mr. Gore,  it’s truly "an inconvenient truth."

Guess who owns the house???

Sent by email from ST. Clair County Republicans

According to Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp) this comparison is
accurate.

The
hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

LOOK OVER THE
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS
TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE #
1:

A 20-room mansion (not
including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house)
and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion
consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The
average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In
natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This
house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It’s in the
South.

HOUSE #
2:

Designed by an
architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates
every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains
only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the
American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps
drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water
(usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The
system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of
the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates
the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the
property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room
energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of
that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model
eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas
White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

So whose house is
gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC,
NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed,
for Mr. Gore,  it’s truly "an inconvenient truth."

More on the Hypocracy front and AlGore

AlGore is a walking example of hypocracy at its worst.  He makes movies and books chastizing the normal folks and continues to pollute more that nay of us could do in years.  In yesterday’s Opinion Journal, John Fund has a great editorial about the hypocracy and over hyping of AlGore.

Whose Ox Is Gored?
The media discover the former vice president’s environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy.

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The media are finally catching up with Al Gore. Criticism of his anti-global-warming franchise and his personal environmental record has gone beyond ankle-biting bloggers. It’s now coming from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean, his hometown paper that put his birth, as a senator’s son, on its front page back in 1948, and where a young Al Gore Jr. worked for five years as a journalist.

Last Tuesday, the Times reported that several eminent scientists "argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points [on global warming] are exaggerated and erroneous." The Tenessean reported yesterday that Mr. Gore received $570,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines who held mineral leases on his farm. The mines, which closed in 2003 but are scheduled to reopen under a new operator later this year, "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."

All of this comes in the wake of the enormous publicity Mr. Gore received after his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar. The film features Mr. Gore reprising his famous sighing and lamenting how the average American’s energy use is greedily off the charts. At the film’s end viewers are asked, "Are you ready to change the way you live?"

The Nashville-based Tennessee Center for Policy Research was skeptical that Mr. Gore had been "walking the walk" on the environment. It obtained public records showing that for years Mr. Gore has burned through more electricity at his Nashville home each month than the average American family uses in a year–and his consumption was increasing. The heated Gore pool house alone ran up more than $500 in natural-gas bills every month.

Mr. Gore’s office responded by claiming that the Gores "purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero." But CNSNews.com reports that Mr. Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets with his own resources, and that they are meaningless in terms of global warming.

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.–one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore’s company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."

The New York Times last week interviewed many scientists who say they are alarmed "at what they call [Mr. Gore’s] alarmism on global warming." In a front-page piece in its science section, the Times headline read "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype."

The Times quoted Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, as telling hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that "I don’t want to pick on Al Gore. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." Mr. Easterbrook made clear he has never been paid by any energy corporations and isn’t a Republican. Even James Hansen, a scientist who began issuing warning cries about global warming in the 1980s and is a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that his work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Other flaws are more serious, such as Mr. Gore’s depiction of sea level rises of up to 20 feet, which would cause Florida and New York City to sink below the surface.

Sober scientists privately say such claims are exaggerated. They point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that released its fourth report on global warming last month. While it found humans were the main cause of recent global warming, the report also indicated it was a very slow-moving process. On sea levels, the U.N. panel reported its s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. The new high-end best estimate is less than half the previous prediction, which was still far below Mr. Gore’s 20 feet. Similarly, the new report shows that the panel’s 2001 report overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

In an email message to the Times, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. But it’s increasingly clear that far from the "consensus" on global warming we are told exists, scientists are having a broad and rich debate on many aspects of it. Nearly two decades after Mr. Gore first claimed that "we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times," we don’t know if that is really true. Then there is the Gore zinc mine. Mr. Gore has personally earned $570,000 in zinc royalties from a mine his father bought in 1973 from Armand Hammer, the business executive famous for his close friendship with the Soviet Union and for pleading guilty to making illegal campaign contributions during Watergate. On the same day Al Gore Sr. bought the 88-acre parcel from Hammer for $160,000, he sold the land and subsurface mining rights to his then 25-year-old son for $140,000. The mineral rights were then leased back to Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum and the royalty payments put in the names of Al Gore Jr. and his wife, Tipper.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider claims the terms of the 30-year Occidental lease agreement gave the Gores "no legal recourse" to get out of it. She said the Gores never thought about selling the land and would not comment on whether they ever tried to void the lease. "There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life," Ms. Kreidler said. She said critics of the arrangement should realize it should be viewed in a "1973 context, not a 2007 context. . . . There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things."

But what about a 1992 context? That is the year Mr. Gore published "Earth in the Balance," in which he wrote: "The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future." Mr. Gore wrote that at a time when he would be collecting zinc royalties for another 11 years.

The mines had a generally good environmental record, but they wouldn’t pass muster either with the standard Mr. Gore set in "Earth in the Balance" or with most of his environmentalist friends. In May 2000 the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a "Notice of Violation" notifying the Pasminco mine its zinc levels in a nearby river exceeded standards established by the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 1996 the mine twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water quality in the river for fish and wildlife. "The discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 [the Caney Fork effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and zinc)," the analysis stated. "The combined effect of these pollutants may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life."

The Gore mines were no small operations. In 2002, the year before they shut down, they ranked 22nd among all metal-mining operations in the U.S., with total toxic releases of 4.1 million pounds. A new mine operator, Strategic Resource Acquisition, is planning to reopen the mines later this year. The Tennessean reports that just last week, Mr. Gore wrote SRA asking it to work with a national environmental group as it makes its plans. He noted that under the previous operator, the mines had, according to the environmental website Scorecard, "pollution releases from the mine in 2002 [that] placed it among the ‘dirtiest/worst facilities’ in the U.S." Mr. Gore requested that SRA "engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices." The Tennessean dryly notes that Mr. Gore wrote the letter the week after the paper posed a series of questions to him about his involvement with the zinc mines. Columnist Steven Milloy recalls talking with Mr. Gore in 2006 about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol he helped negotiate as vice president. "Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? . . . Hell no!" said Mr. Gore, according to Mr. Milloy. The former vice president then explained that the real purpose of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues. Mr. Gore clearly believes that the world hasn’t acted with enough vigor in the decade since Kyoto, which may explain his growing use of the global-warming hype that concerns many mainstream scientists.

Mr. Gore has called the campaign to combat global warming a "moral imperative." But Mr. Gore faces another imperative: to square his sales pitches with the facts and his personal lifestyle to more align with what he advocates that others practice. "Are you ready to change the way you live?" asks Mr. Gore’s film. It’s time people ask Mr. Gore "Are you ready to change the way you live, as well as the way you lecture the rest of us?"

Why stop at 8 Prosecutors.

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna has a great post about the whole non-story of the 8 fired Federal Prosecutors.  It is a satire of what the Democrats are crying about.  Clinton fired all 93 Federal Prosecutors when he came inot the White House.  Also the only person that President Bush knows that was indicted and found guilty was Libby, which he should not have even been indicted on anyway.

Why Fire Only Eight Attorneys General? We Want a Clintonesque Putsch!

by Dymphna

Really, Mr. President! When are you going to start following the leadership standard set by William Jefferson Clinton? You have some problems, sir:

• First of all, unlike Mr. Clinton you have yet to find an attorney general with Janet Reno’s charisma and competence. And neither one of your appointees have set any compounds on fire, killing women and children. Surely you can do better than that?
• How about Mr. Clinton’s assistant Attorney General? Remember the one who went to jail for fraud committed during the Reign of Bill and Hillary in Arkansas? What was Hillary’s Arkansas law partner’s name? Rubble? Double Bubble? Oh….right: it was Hubbell, wasn’t it? I wonder if they still get together for cookouts?
• You’ve only fired eight attorneys general, Mr. Bush. Come on. Mr. Clinton sacked ninety three of ‘em right at the start and gave them ten days to clear out. That sir is politics presidential behavior, with Mr. Clinton setting the pace. You owe us eighty five more heads.
• And while we’re at it, please illegally pull those hundreds of FBI files on five hundred or so former Democratic employees. So what if it was illegal? Legality was a mere trifle for Bill and Hill; so it ought to be for George and Laura. Give us Filegate II, Mr. Bush. I mean, really, is Scooter Libby the best you can manage? Pardon my saying so, sir, but that’s real bush league mendacity when it comes to law-breaking. You need to have a chat with Bill for pointers. Or perhaps Hillary instead; Herself is the one with the killer instinct. Why you haven’t even had a White House associate fall on his sword yet. For Betsy’s sake, where’s your sense of hillbilly honor?
• Last but not least, why don’t you destroy the travel office? Ruin a few lives so you can put your Texas pals in place?

Let’s face it, President Bush: what the moonbats say is true. You don’t follow the Clinton playbook, and that’s the root of your problem.

Besides which, you haven’t let Laura set policy in secret, or throw lamps at your philandering head. Oh. I forgot. You don’t do interns. Well, get busy, boy! You don’t have much time left to follow that act.

Here’s what Opinion Journal has to say:

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration’s decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from—gasp—the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for “the politicization of our prosecutorial system.” Oh, my.

“Oh, my” is correct. Give us the other eighty five attorneys general right this minute. I want their heads on a platter. We deserve no less.

Seuss-like Dems Wax Poetic

                       Courtesy of National Review On-Line,  a great poem read on Bill Bennet’s radio show.

 

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 I do not like this mission-plan   [Kathryn Jean Lopez] Bill Bennett has a contest going on his radio show, soliciting creative song lyrics on the theme of supporting the troops but not the mission. He just read this entry on the air: Hey, guys, Well, I heard that Mrs. Bennett didn’t want Bill singing so much on the show, so I changed the rules a little bit for this one.  Instead of a song, I put together a retelling of Dr. Seuss’s "Green Eggs and Ham."  It scans more or less identically to the original, takes about three minutes to read through. Hope you like it! tony The Mission-Plan That mission-plan! That mission-plan! I do not like that mission plan! Do you like The soldier-man? I do like the soldier-man! I just don’t like the mission plan! Would you like it here or there? I do not like it here or there. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the mission plan. But I like the soldier-man. Can you see the jihad-man? Can you see him in Iran? I cannot see him in Iran. I cannot see the jihad-man! And if I saw him in Iraq, I?d have to take my protest back! I do not see the jihad-man, I do not like this mission-plan! Would you fight him in St. Paul? Would you oppose jihad at all? Not in St. Paul, nowhere at all! Not in Iran, Not in Iraq! I will not fight him here or there, I will not fight him anywhere. I still support the soldier-man, although I hate the mission-plan! Would you? Could you? Cut the funds? Take the money, and then run? I would not, could not, cut the funds! You may cut them. You will see! Take the cash for AFDC! I would not, could not cut the funds. Nor give the cash to anyone! I need to get elected soon. I cannot cut the money, loon! I do not like this mission plan, but the voters are big fans! al-Sadr left his cozy house, bin Laden’s hiding like a mouse! The mission-plan is working well! My strategy may go to hell? A vote! A vote! A vote! A vote! Could you, would you, take a vote? Not on the floor, nor in committee, A vote right now would be a pity! I could not vote now to de-fund, Two thousand eight is all but won! I will not criticize Barack, Or Clinton?s vote to hit Iraq. I do not like the mission-plan. Or the ignorant soldier-man! Whoops I didn’t say that right, please don’t quote me, I was tight! Say! In the dark? You’re in the dark? Did you just make a dumb remark? I will not comment on that remark. Would you, could you, on the news? I would not, could not, on the news! I support the soldier-man! I just don’t like this mission plan! I do not see jihadi-man, in Iraq or in Iran! I did not say "I don’t respect?" I told a joke, to bad effect. The Right can all just go to heck! You do not want to win the war? I do not want to, anymore. Won’t you fight the bad jihadi? I’m afraid of Sadr’s Mahdi Do you want to flee right now? No, let’s "redeploy" somehow! I cannot vote to cut supplies— voters prize our soldiers’ lives. But I so hate the Bushie-man, that I need to have a plan! I?ll say I love the soldier-man! Really, truly, I’m a fan! Just ’cause I don’t want to pay him, Does not mean I’m seeking mayhem… Since I cannot cut the money, I’ll try to make the PLAN look funny. (And also call the Prez a dummy) I do not like this mission-plan! But I do love the soldier-man! You love the soldier- man, you say. Then support him, every day! Read the plan again, I say. Say! If you will let me be, I will read it. You will see. Oops! This is a groovy plan! This plan could make a better land. This surge-y plan, this "take and hold," Could make jihadis much less bold? I will not support it, though! My party says it has to go! Two thousand eight is near, we’ll win it; I can’t switch parties, like Bill Bennett. I do not have the courage to, defeat’s my only happy news. And I will focus on the bad. And I will make Iraqis sad. I will not fight jihadis there. I will not fight them ANYWHERE! This is Bush’s mission-plan. I can’t support it? until Hillary flip-flops and says it was hers.

Source:  http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzM3MGY5NzQ3ODhiZGJhZjFmZTUxZjlhYTc3NGUwMDc=

Julia