Martha’s Vineyard has already become synonymous with liberal hypocrisy. From Ann Coulter at townhall.com:
It’s been awe-inspiring to see the bottomless generosity of Martha’s Vineyard residents after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent them 50 illegal immigrants from Venezuela last week.
WE LOVE YOU, YOU’VE ENRICHED OUR LIVES, NOW GET THE F–K OUT OF HERE.
Unlike angry, white MAGA voters upset about their towns being flooded with illegals, Vineyard residents would LOVE to be sort of a — what’s the word? — “sanctuary” for illegals. Really, they would. But that won’t be possible.
As Lisa Belcastro, manager of the Vineyard’s homeless shelter, succinctly put it: “We are definitely supplying them with a lot of love … They need to be off island.” The illegals “need” to hustle off because “Their immigration appointments are not here.” (Are their appointments in the Trump-supporting working-class town they were bussed to?)
In any event, GREAT NEWS, LISA! Nearly half of released illegals don’t appear for their hearings anyway. And guess what? There are absolutely no consequences. (A dozen anti-American websites claim that vast, gigantic numbers of illegals show up for their hearings, but they’re counting illegals who are being held in detention.)
Civil libertarians by definition are in opposition to the state, but now many former civil libertarians are cheerleaders for the government. From Matt Taibbi at taibbi.substack.com:
I’ve always been more liberal than leftist — living in the Soviet Union and its successor states will tend to make you queasy about both ends of the political spectrum — but still fit more on the blue side of the aisle, and for a long time, took pride in this. In the Bush years especially it was left-leaning lawyers and antiwar activists who were able to look past gruesome current headlines about 9/11 or anthrax or bombings in Jakarta or London, and see the long-term damage being done to the national character through surrender on issues like torture, rendition, assassination, and watch-listing. The ACLU mattered in those years.
The elite don’t live by the rules they promulgate for the rest of us and they couldn’t care less about our objections to it. In fact, they like rubbing our noses in it. From N.S. Lyons at theupheaval.substack.com:
I saw your post on the interweb the other day about that nasty thing Team A did, even though they always completely lose their collective mind with moralistic outrage if Team B (which I understand is your team) even thoughtcrimes about doing something similar. In fact Team A seems to blatantly do things all the time that no one on Team B could ever get away with doing without being universally condemned as the absolute worst sort of immoral criminal/being openly threatened with mob violence/losing their livelihood/having their assets frozen/being rounded up by the state and shipped to a black site somewhere for some extended TLC.
Maybe the latest thing was breaking some very important public health rules, or pillaging and burning down government buildings for fun, or mean tweets, or polluting the planet with a private jet, or using allegedly neutral public institutions against political opponents, or just engaging in a little tax-dodging or corruption while doing, like, a ton of blow in a hotel room with some capital city hookers – I forget the specifics. In fact I forget what country you’re even living in now days.
But I did see that slick video you posted on how just pointing out “imagine if someone on Team B did this!” is all it takes to blow the lid off this glaring hypocrisy, thus totally destroying Team A with facts and logic. I’ve noticed you posting a lot of things like this, which is nice, since they are very witty and produce a pleasant buzz of smug superiority, even though this feeling never lasts very long.
Iran’s government is a “regime”; Saudi Arabia’s is a government or state, never a “regime.” As an aside, at least half of us living in the U.S. think we’re living under a “regime.” From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre came very close to committing the cardinal sin of referring to a US-aligned nation as a “regime” on Monday.
In the official White House transcript of Jean-Pierre’s interaction with a reporter inquiring about Biden’s upcoming meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the press secretary’s comment reads as follows:
“Of course, he will be — they will discuss energy with the Saudi government.”
However, if you watch a video clip highlighted on Twitter by Kawsachun News’ Camila Escalante, you’ll notice Jean-Pierre gets tripped up before the word “government”, with a more accurate transcribing reading something like, “Of course, he will be — they will discuss energy with the Saudi re— uhh, err, government.”
Video Transcript: “The US Anti-War Left is Dead. The Squad’s $40b War Vote Just Killed It.” Many Dems voting YES have long denounced exactly these sorts of bills. What happened?
After Joe Biden announced his extraordinary request for $33 billion more for the war in Ukraine — on top of the $14 billion the U.S. has already spent just ten weeks into this war — congressional leaders of both parties immediately decided the amount was insufficient. They arbitrarily increased the amount by $7 billion to a total of $40 billion, then fast-tracked the bill for immediate approval. As we reported on Tuesday night, the House overwhelmingly voted to approve the bill by a vote of 388-57. All fifty-seven NO votes came from Republican House members. Except for two missing members, all House Democrats — every last one, including all six members of the revolutionary, subversive Squad — voted for this gigantic war package, one of the largest the U.S. has spent at once in decades.
While a small portion of these funds will go to humanitarian aid for Ukraine, the vast majority will go into the coffers of weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and the usual suspects. Some of it will go to the CIA for unspecified reasons. The extreme speed with which this was all approved means there is little to no oversight over how the funds will be spent, who will profit and how much, and what the effects will be for Ukraine and the world.
I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity!
A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while.
Repeatedly ignoring Russian concerns is stupid. Making Ukraine an instrument of the faltering U.S. empire is evil. From Vasko Kohlmayer at lewrockwell.com:
“Canada sending another $50 million in specialized equipment to Ukraine,” reads a recent headline.
“Vladimir Putin has made a terrible mistake, and he’s going to lose this war,” declared Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his recent trip to Warsaw. “He’s going to lose this war because the ferocity, strength and resolve of the Ukrainian people defending their territory is inspiring us all” added the Canadian PM.
How brave of Justin Trudeau to give Ukrainians some light weapons and then encourage them to go and battle the overwhelmingly superior Russian armies. How brave of him to ask them to die as they fight their lost cause.
How paradoxical that Justin Trudeau would extoll others to die such a heroic death.
Just a few weeks ago he himself had his opportunity to show the world something of his own courage as the peaceful Canadian truckers drove to Ottawa to protest his onerous lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Do you remember what the brave Trudeau did?
He quickly ran away well before the truckers even reached the outskirts of his capital!
Boris needs something huge to divert attention from his own rank hypocrisy. Ukraine doesn’t really fit the bill. From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:
Boris Johnson attempting to start a war with Russia partly over an illicit birthday party is a descent into deplorable and gutless slapstick.
The old dictum is truer than ever that stoking conflict in some distant land is an effective distraction from domestic political woes. But in the case of British prime-minister Boris Johnson, the ruse descends into farce.
Johnson is counting the days until his Conservative party finally gets rid of this train-wreck of a leader. Lies, incompetence and scandals ooze from Downing Street under his watch. Even Britain’s Tory press has given up on its loyalty to Johnson who is now seen as an irredeemable election liability for Conservatives.
That’s why Johnson’s “warning” to Russia this week of “severe consequences” if it invades Ukraine sounds downright comical. His attempt at showing political spine abroad is belied by the image of his reputation at home resembling a wobbly jelly.
Johnson claimed with a straight face that the British intelligence was “clear” that Russia is planning to invade Ukraine and install a puppet regime in Kiev. He went on to say that Britain was “leading” the way among NATO allies for inflicting dire economic costs on Russia. This is in spite of the ropey British story being rubbished as not having a shred of credibility.
If the U.S. stations troops and weapons in Ukraine, why can’t Putin do the same in Cuba and Venezuela? From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
At the risk of being accused of befriending one of the two premier enemies (or rivals, opponents, adversaries, or competitors) of the U.S. national-security establishment (the other one being China), I feel compelled to commend Russian President Vladimir Putin for exposing the rank hypocrisy of U.S. officials.
I must admit that I couldn’t help but smile when I read that Putin was threatening to send Russian troops to Cuba and Venezuela in response to U.S. attempts to absorb Ukraine into NATO, which would enable the Pentagon and the CIA to send U.S. troops, missiles, and tanks to Russia’s border.
When I read Putin’s statement, I knew immediately what the U.S. response would be… and that it would not be a principled one. Not surprisingly, U.S. officials didn’t like Putin’s idea at all, as reflected by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan exclaiming, “If Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively.”
Whoa! Now just wait a minute. We keep hearing U.S. officials saying that Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country (despite the fact that the U.S. government helped foment the regime-change operation that installed a pro-U.S. puppet regime in the country). As such, U.S. officials maintain that Ukraine has the rightful authority to join NATO, that old Cold War dinosaur that should have gone out of existence decades ago.
But Cuba and Venezuela are independent sovereign countries too, aren’t they? As such, don’t they have the authority to invite foreign troops into their countries? And just as the U.S. government establishes military bases all over the world, including in countries that are located close to Russia, why doesn’t Russia have the authority to do the same in Cuba and Venezuela?
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.