Okay, deep breath...
So Ted Cruz made a very mild jab at Joe Biden this last week. "Joe Biden... no punch line necessary"
And now has apologized since Joe recently lost his son to brain cancer.
The jab in no way denigrated the son, brain cancer, or Joe's loss. It took aim at a legitimate public figure. (MY first thought when I heard the son died of brain cancer was, "the kid must have inherited that organ from his mother...")
Moreover, Joe himself has NEVER wasted a chance to capitalize on a political opponent's misfortune in his entire political career. This guy is the definition of "creepy old guy," and regularly makes tone deaf remarks along the lines of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake."
Remember during the post 9/11 scares, when then VP Cheney was at a 'undisclosed location' to protect from terrorists? After the first scare when Joe was Veep, he told a dinner party where the location was. HE ENDANGERED HIS OWN LIFE, along with those assigned to protect him, and forever removed that site from such use. This cost taxpayers millions because Joe had to be the big man at the party. He is just clueless.
This list goes on and on, ranging from the inane to the plain stupid ("[when attacked by an intruder,] get a double barrel shotgun, and shoot both barrels into the air from a balcony" Which disarms the home owner, is illegal in most municipalities, and assumes the EVERYONE HAS A BALCONY to retreat to)
BUT because Biden is a Demo-rat, and we no longer have real journalists in the Main Stream (liberal) Media, Ted must apologize.
Had the remark gone the other way, no apology would have been necessary. No one would have cared that a conservative was smeared, unfair or otherwise.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Everyone know the story of former Speaker Hastert, who was being blackmailed for something in his past that may or may not be a true crime in the state of Illinois.
He is under indictment for... uhm, taking his own money out of his account in amounts our federal overlords do not approve of, and not telling the FBI why when asked. Note that this occurs while the Clinton openly are taking huge bribes while nothing is said.
In fact, this obscure law seems to be invoked as a gotcha today, for when the government want to a) take a citizen's money when no crime has been committed other than making deposits or withdrawals from your own bank account, or b) pursue a political opponent. For examples, google 'civil forfeiture abuse' and read a few stories for option a), and google 'Tom DeLay campaign finance trial' for option b).
What I cannot believe is that no one has played the go-to card of the day. The media is discussing this story based in the context of the Patriot Act expiring, and because he is Republican. No discussions about the blackmailer, or his possible crimes that led to the blackmail. No talk about motives or anything.