The era of the hypocritical liberal

There is a long list of libertarians and conservatives who have said for years that many liberals, those who think capitalism is unfair and want to make laws to limit people from enjoying the benefits of it, are hypocritical.

For instance, Al Gore champions the cause that capitalism is the cause of global cooling/ warming/ change, while at the same time flying around the globe in a CO2 emitting jet.  Obama does the same.

Curtis Kalin, in his June 24, 2014, article at cnsnews.com, "The Era of the Limo
usine Liberal," sort of hits the nail on the head of this discussion. Share on email

Hillary Clinton is not the only prominent, rich liberal who is having trouble articulating their vast concern for the poor and income inequality. Recently, there has been a rash of major liberal figures downplaying the fact that American capitalism has been quite good for them, while attempting to hamstring it for the rest of America.

Of course, this debate began anew after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her infamous comment that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House, despite her ownership of multiple homes. Clintondoubled down on the sentiment in an interview with The Guardian, saying she’s not “truly well off,” even though her net worth is around $100 million.

Hillary isn’t even the only member of her family who sounded tone-deaf on their wealth. Her daughter, Chelsea told The Telegraph she’s tried really hard to care about money, but just can’t:

“I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

Enter Vice President Joe Biden, whose salary has been paid for by taxpayers since he was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29, said he
doesn’t own asavings account, even though he kind of does.

Back in 2012, inequality crusader Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who lives in a $5 million house and whose stock portfolio totals around $8 million, boasted about her wish that no member of Congress own stocks.

And finally, anti-capitalist movie-maker Michael Moore was asked by yours truly via Twitter in 2011 why he produces movies trashing the same economic system that made him a very rich man. Let’s just say after four minutes of trying, Moore really never cogently explained that conflict of interest.

It seems the era of the “limousine liberal” has returned. Self-proclaimed crusaders for the poor who rake in millions while attempting to undermine the very system that allowed for their wealth.

It's okay to dump CO2 into atmosphere, but only if you are a celebrity

Members of the Environmental Protection Agency decided to make a week out of Earth Day by jetting around the nation championing for global warming education. They are championing on the mantra provided by the U.N. that even a slight rise in global temperatures will end mankind.

So the EPA sends chief on earth day tour on call to action on earth day week.  It's a week long 5 city tour to NY, Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Memphis that will dump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Basically, do as I say not as I do  They are mocked by some, but not many.  Most people don't realize the hypocracy. The Daily Show had this guy on.  Basically, since this EPA chief is raising awareness, no one bats an eye at the fact he is also dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to tell you not to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Al Gore is another one who does this.  He champions for us not to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, while jetting around, dumping CO2 all over the atmosphere.  He also has several homes, each of which dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

They dump CO2 into the atmosphere while telling us not to do it.  So it's okay for them to do it, but we can't do it.  Hypocracy?   I guess they say it's okay so long as they are raising awareness.

Imagine this.  Imagine a police officer pulled you over for speeding.  "Sorry officer, yes, of course I knew I was speeding.  I'm raising speed limit awareness."

Yeah!  Sorry! It won't work for you the way it does for the progressive elitist world.

Is Obama's Malaysian trip hypocritical?

This weekend, while on his Asian tour, Obama will become the first President since Johnson 50 years ago to visit Malaysia. There's a reason no President has gone to Malaysia in 50 years, and that's not because of the weather, which, I am told, is beautiful this time of year.

The reason no President has gone is because the Malaysian government does not support personal liberties, nor religious freedom.  They didn't go there because it would be hypocritical to support personal liberties and yet visit and bring credibility to a nation whose government does not.

The Malaysian government has more than a few offenses to personal liberties, and here I will name just a few of them.

1. Denial of legal status of some religions groups
2. Restrictions on proselytizing.  Cannot evangelize that you should look into other religions unless converting to Muslim
3. No public discussion for religious freedom.  It is forbidden.
4. Marriages not between Muslim and non Muslim are not recognized. 
5. Children of non Muslims considered bastards.  
6. Non Muslim kids cannot get religious education. It is compulsory if you are a Muslim.  
7. Bibles have been seized in parts of country

Despite this, Obama, through his press secretary, said the following:

"Malaysia is an emerging partner of the United States just like it's been an emerging economy. It's an important visit for president, one that can elevate U.S. Malaysian relations."

The problem with this is: why would you want to elevate a nation that does not support the same personal liberties that you say you do?  This sounds hypocritical to me.

Basically, what he's saying is, "I support personal liberties, and I want you to support personal liberties, but in this case, because it's me, it's okay that I support this one nation that doesn't."

---------------Update 4/29/14
During a press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, Obama was asked why he hadn't said anything about Malaysian human rights yet during his trip.  Obama answered:

I think the prime minister is the first to acknowledge that, uh, Malaysia's still got some work to do -- uh, just like the United States, by the way, has some work to do -- on these issues. Uh, Human Rights Watch probably has a list of things they think we should be doing as a government.

So he says he didn't mention it because, when it comes to human rights, we have nothing to brag about at home.  Really?  Where are their human rights issues in the U.S. anywhere comparable to what is going on in Malaysia?