Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Another “phony hero” of unknown political party

Actually, this guy is a genuine war hero, which makes his lie more curious. From JWF:

Looks like we have another case of a Democrat embellishing his military record. Though, of course, this account from the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn’t identify his party affiliation.

To be fair, the Mayor of Atlantic City, did indeed serve in the military, but claimed to be a Green Beret when he was not.

A.C. mayor goes AWOL

ATLANTIC CITY – Where’s the mayor? Not since “Where’s Waldo?” and “Where’s the Beef?” has such a query caused such a stir.

In this resort, where the streets are literally paved by gambling revenues, they’re taking bets on what might have become of Mayor Bob Levy and whether his disappearance signals another impending scandal involving the city’s top job.

Amid reports of a federal probe into false claims that Levy admits he made regarding his Vietnam military service, the mayor drove off last Wednesday in a silver, city-owned Dodge Durango and has not officially been heard from since.

His lawyer says that Levy is in a hospital, but isn’t giving up anything else.

Rumors flew last week that Levy was ready to resign and would hold a news conference. But his assistants insisted that none of that was true.

Then where is he? Might this have something to do with it?

Levy’s public problems started last fall, when he acknowledged to a reporter for the Press of Atlantic City that he misrepresented his military background during his mayoral campaign.

He had claimed to have served in the Army Green Berets during the Vietnam War, but in November said he never was in the elite Army Special Forces group.

Levy’s service record shows he served two tours in Vietnam and was decorated for bravery twice.

Why would someone who was decorated for bravery twice find it necessary to embellish his record?


Since then, Levy has been outed by the local newspaper, The Press of Atlantic City, for padding his résumé, and he has admitted the lie. Last Friday, amid reports that the federal government was investigating his military record, he abruptly went on medical leave and dropped out of sight.

As a veteran, he was entitled to veteran’s payments, but by embellishing his record, he could get more money, the sources said. The total financial benefit gained in this way would be less than $25,000, they said. His current salary is around $101,000, according to the acting mayor.

The government left no doubt that Levy had a distinguished war record. He was awarded two Bronze Stars for valor over two tours in the combat zone. Yet for some reason, Levy told people he’d also been a Green Beret. The elite unit was formed early in the Vietnam War and its members — soldiers with additional training in ways to kill and elude capture by the enemy — wore distinctive green berets.

This lengthy account from the Star-Ledger also mysteriously leaves out his party affiliation. As it turns out, he’s a former Republican. (Yes, he’s a Democrat. – Ed.)

Since it’s so easy to identify his party, why does the media omit this information?

I’m sure we’ll be seeing the left condemning his Macbethesque dishonesty any minute now. Nope…no liberal media bias!

Advertisements

October 3, 2007 Posted by | corruption, hypocrisy, media bias, shameful | Leave a comment

Coulter: Disenfranchise women to save the country from Democrats

Ann Coulter is an expert when it comes to ginning up publicity to drive book sales, and this time is no different. From Neal Boortz:

Ann Coulter has a new book. “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d be Republicans.” Suggested subtitle … “You Can’t Fix Stupid.”

I guess we now know just what sentence, paragraph or thought expressed in Coulter’s book is going to be used by the MoveOn Democrat Party and the loony left in an attempt to demonize her.

Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Ann Coulter by George Gurley. Here we find Coulter talking about women:

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”

The left is sure to jump on this like a crow on a June bug. Thing is …. Coulter is exactly right. Don’t take her word for it, just read “Freedomnomics” by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word .. .security.

Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don’t want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth. Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened … or if she becomes divorced … she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband.

Coulter is right. Deal with it.

Coulter may be right, but seriously, who wants to go on record suggesting that women be stripped of their voting priveleges? I don’t. Also, Coulter does the same thing that leftists do that gets me angrier than Shrillary at the sight of a Marine: lump people into a group identity. All women do not vote Democrat, and consequently, all men do not vote Republican.

I can and do accept Lott’s research and observations about women’s voting patterns. I do not accept Coulter’s idea, even though it was just a “what-if”/”I’m just sayin’…” scenario.

October 3, 2007 Posted by | Ann Coulter | 13 Comments

Quote of the day

Regarding Her Highness’ hairbrained “$5k baby bonds” brain fart, we get this below-the-belt-but-totally-called-for nugget from James Pethokoukis of the US News Capitol Commerce:

Now, while the Democratic front-runner may know a thing or two about cattle futures, she clearly is no personal finance expert—at least based on those comments.

Ouch.

204729542.jpg

October 3, 2007 Posted by | corruption, Hillary, quote of the day | 3 Comments

Obama: We’ll scrap our nukes

Didn’t this schmuck learn that this approach is a recipe for national (not to mention electoral) disaster?  Apparently not.  From LGF:

After he invades Pakistan, and opens diplomatic relations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama will eliminate nuclear weapons.

CHICAGO – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons, arguing that U.S. policy is still focused on the defunct Soviet Union instead of combatting the nuclear threat from rogue nations and terrorists.

In a speech that also highlighted his early opposition to the Iraq war, Obama said he doesn’t want the United States to disarm unilaterally […he’s not quite that stupid. – ed.], but instead to work with other nations to phase out nuclear weapons and control nuclear material.

“The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons — it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists,” Obama said.

Of course! It’s so simple. Why didn’t anyone think of this before? 

I seem to recall Mondale and Dukakis both pledging to disarm first in good faith.  How’d that work out for them?

Also, this line just slays me: “The best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons”!  Right, because terrorists respond to weakness by leaving you alone, huh?  I guess we never should have threatened them with nukes in the first place, because if we hadn’t, then 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.  Oh, wait…we never have threatened terrorists with nukes?  Well, uh…never mind.

Give them a collective group hug and a lifetime supply of prayer rugs and Mecca-facing commodes, and life will be hunky-dory.  Barry O, you’re a friggin’ genius.

October 3, 2007 Posted by | defeatism, Obama | 6 Comments

The same left who shilled for Mugabe now having “buyer’s remorse”

Better late than never, huh, leftists?  From Protein Wisdom:

There was a good essay about Robert Mugabe in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, pointing out how all the Left-wing journalists, politicians, and academics who were Mugabe cheerleaders from the start are now trying to cover their tracks.

Some samples:

As Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, presides over what might be the most rapid disintegration yet of a modern nation-state, it has become de rigueur for journalists, politicians and academics to offer what has become a near-universal analysis: Mugabe, who has ruled his country uninterrupted for 27 years, was a promising leader who became corrupted over time by power.

This meme was popularized not long after Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms in 2000. Four years ago, in response to these raids, the New York Times editorialized that “in 23 years as president, Mr. Mugabe has gone from independence hero to tyrant.” Earlier this week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that “I’m just devastated by what I can’t explain, by what seems to be an aberration, this sudden change in character.”

But this popular conception of Mugabe — propagated by the liberals who championed him in the 1970s and 1980s — is absolutely wrong. From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state.

And over several years in the early 1980s, Mugabe executed what arguably might be the worst of his many atrocities, a campaign of terror against the minority Ndebele tribe in which he unleashed a North Korean-trained army unit that killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people.

Yet, even in the midst of these various crimes, Mugabe never lost his fan base in the West. In 1986, the University of Massachusetts Amherst bestowed on Mugabe an honorary doctorate of laws just as he was completing his genocide against the Ndebele.

In 2000, at the start of Mugabe’s seizures of white land, New York Times columnist (and early Mugabe fan) Anthony Lewis admitted, on behalf of quite a few journalists, diplomats and academics in the West, “how wrong we were” about Mugabe. But he offered the qualification, “at least over time.” Lewis, and everyone else who ever feted Mugabe, was not just proved wrong about the despot “at least over time.” They were wrong the minute they endorsed him.

PW has a commenter who gets this 11,242% (accounting for Zimbabwean inflation) correct: the left has a track record of supporting maniacal genoicidal tyrants who lean to the left (Castro, Che, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Chavez, etc.) but getting their San Fransicko leather #ssless chaps in a bunch if George Bush wants to listen to a phone call between terrorists.

Case in point: Sean Penn (whose role as a mentally retarded man in I Am Sam was more insightful into his real-life persona than we ever knew) demonstrates, leftards are more than willing to accept…nay, embrace…totalitarianism, so long as it’s left-wing totalitarianism.

October 3, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Hollyweirdos, hypocrisy, moonbats, Mugabe, socialism | Leave a comment