Sniglets of the Left


by Joseph DeMaio, ©2012

Is administering justice the goal of the Obama regime, or pursuing a hypocritical agenda?

(Mar. 25, 2012) — So, let me get this straight.  Eric (“I-Never-Met-a-Second-Amendment-Supporter-I-Didn’t-Want-to-Brainwash”) Holder objects to a Texas state law that would require eligible voters to provide verifiable photo identification as a condition of obtaining and voting a ballot.  Yet he, along with Obama sycophants and other useful idiots on both sides of the aisle, seemingly have no problem whatsoever allowing a candidate onto the ballot who is quite likely constitutionally ineligible.

Stated otherwise, the nation’s purported “top cop” apparently supports potentially ineligible persons to vote for presidential candidates who are themselves likely ineligible.  Sort of a “heads, I win, tails, you lose” approach to governance having the added virtue of consistency. Truly, the inmates are now running the asylum.

As noted in an Internet posting here, it is far beyond insane to contend on the one hand that requiring positive photo identification as a condition of being served alcoholic beverages is legitimate, yet simultaneously arguing on the other hand that requiring positive photo identification as a condition of being given a ballot to vote is forbidden.

Seriously, the depth and magnitude of the hypocrisy, deceit and disingenuous mantras of the inmates now steering the ship of state requires the creation of a whole new lexicon of “sniglets,” those species of words which must be manufactured to accurately describe the everyday absurdities heretofore never imagined as necessary, yet proving essential since November 2008.  Please note that, by definition, all sniglets begin with the root term “hypocrisy.”

Bear in mind as well, of course, that these are not your typical, garden-variety non-sequitur absurdities such as we’ve heard from intellectual luminaries like Nancy Pelosi: “We have to pass it in order to find out what’s in it.”  No, these new sniglets are more substantive.

For example, Holder’s stand on the purported invalidity of state laws requiring positive ID in order to prove eligibility to vote is, to create a sniglet, “hypoceitful.”  Then again, virtually every action (and, of course, inaction) taken (or omitted) by the agency Holder has commandeered since his appointment by Monsieur Obama – an agency laughably still including in its title the word “Justice” – has been hypoceitful.  Accordingly, Holder’s latest brain burp over the Texas law should come as no surprise.  Sad, of course, but no surprise.

Another sniglet which characterizes the regime now in charge of the rudder on the Titanic USA is “hypogenuous,” blending the hypocrisy of the left’s sham outrage over comments made by Rush Limbaugh about a shill’s congressional testimony with the disingenuous ignoring of exponentially more vile commentary by folks like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz and employing amusingly juvenile excuses from Obama enablers like David Axelrod and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

A blind Martian could see that if hypocrisy did not already exist as a core plank in the Democratic Party platform, the Left – also colloquially known on the street as the “Party of Hope and Change” – would invent it at breakfast just to tide them over to lunch.  These are but a few examples of the additional nails in the Democratic coffin which will be lowered into the ground on November 6, a date which cannot come a nanosecond too soon.

Oh, speaking of eligibility, we still await answers from nolu chan or anyone else in response to the five simple questions posed here.

After all, what do they have to hypohide?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.