Spread the love

BY NOT CONDEMNING THEM!

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2011

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has been serving in the House of Representatives for 20 years. She recently said that "The Tea Party Can Go Straight to Hell"

(Sep. 8, 2011) — Well, since nolu chan – noted for this post  – has apparently fallen off the edge of the world regarding any answer to the “Elg ellipsis” chicanery and presidential eligibility questions posed here, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that chan has no response or explanation.

In order to fully understand the nature of the apparent chicanery practiced in certain Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) memoranda and transmittal documents, one need examine only the prior posts here (Part 1); here (Part 2); and here (Part 3).

Normally, the failure to respond to such evidence of chicanery constitutes acknowledgment that the “Elg ellipsis” constitutes a major problem for the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and/or the attorney who purports to have authored it, Mr. Jack Maskell.  Those problems arise under federal law, i.e., 2 U.S.C. § 166(d)(1) (requiring the CRS to perform its duties “without partisan bias”) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (the federal “Fraud and False Statements Act.”), and remain unanswered by chan or anyone else.  Could it be that they agree a violation exists?

And while not directly germane to the “Elg ellipsis” and presidential eligibility issues, chan seems to be taking his/her “ignore the obvious” cues from regime sycophants such as Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) and White House press flack Jay Carney regarding Jimmy (“Nobody-Gonna-Confuse-Me-Wit-a-Rocket-Scientist”) Hoffa’s gutter slurs of Americans this weekend.

To compound their intellectual duplicity, DWS and Carney refuse to criticize Hoffa for his verbal knuckle-dragging rant.  Wasserman-Schultz and Carney seemingly never met a union goon they didn’t want to coddle.  One good thing can be gleaned, however, from Hoffa’s performance: it once again underscores the truth of the adage that those who can, do; and those who cannot, unionize.  Hey, Obama didn’t utter the slurs, so what’s the big fuss?

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a Democrat from Florida and also Chairwoman of the DNC. What does that say about that national organization?

Memo to BHO sycophants everywhere, the fuss is this: by refusing to condemn and deplore the use of thug linguistics to describe fellow Americans, The Emperor and his minions must be deemed to embrace and ratify the statements.  This regime seems perfectly content to allow and encourage the Hoffas, the Ayerses, the Sharptons, the Wrights, the SEIUs and the Farrakhans of the nation to verbally slander and demean Americans – including native born, naturalized and natural born Americans who happen to subscribe to a differing political philosophy – as long as The Emperor’s manicure isn’t damaged.  Oh, yeah, and as long as his next tee time isn’t disturbed.

Truthfully, the magnitude of the current regime’s hypocrisy can no longer be measured in mere miles, solar units or even light years.  The new standard of measurement for this administration’s hypocrisy must be the parsec: 3.26 light years, or approximately 19 trillion miles.  Hey, come to think of it, the term “trillion” seems to be gaining a new cachet under this cabal.  $4.7 trillion in new debt in just 2½ years; Maxine (“The-Tea-Party-Can-Go-Straight-to-Hell”) Waters advocating a minimum $1 trillion jobs program…details sketchy; federal unfunded liabilities approaching $115 trillion.  What could possibly go wrong?

The double standard being honed and implemented by this administration in a test-run for the 2012 election campaign – aided and abetted by a mainstream media resembling more and more a propaganda machine that would make Orwell and Goebbels proud – gives ominous new meaning to the term “hypocrisy.”  Indeed, for those who cringe at using Mr. Obama’s given middle name – Hussein – perhaps they could consider substituting “hypocrite,” since the term (a) is less ethnically incendiary, and (b) is more grammatically accurate.

Meanwhile, we still wait to hear from chan.