Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

"Could it be the aroma of hy-pocrisy?"*

The air is full of that aroma today.
Our 1st stop is here in Dubuque. President Obama made a campaign stop in DBQ today. To get in, besides the ticket you had to get in advance, you needed to show a photo ID for security purposes. OK, I can understand that. But why is this same administration so opposed to the requirement of an ID to ensure the security of our votes?
I know the excuses, but that is all they are, excuses. I have to regularly show a photo ID if I want to check out a laptop at the DBQ Library. I have had to let everyone of my doctors' offices copy my photo ID to protect me from identity theft. I am taking a skills test tommorrow at IowaWorks & I need a photo ID. Yes, this government agency requires one while voting doesn't. These days you need one to get a job. I could go on & on.  Given how many things the government alone requires a photo ID for, the only reason I can come up with for why it opposes having one to vote is simple. They don't care about people who have the right to voted being denied it. They care about ensuring the maximum amount of voter fraud in favor of democratic candidates possible. But given this gang is from Chicago, that should be no surprize.
Now on to an example of media hy-pocricy. You may remember how the media & Brian Ross in particular, was linking the Aurora CO shooting to the Tea Party before it had all the facts. In fact, the only explanation for the link @ ABCNews in the 1st place was that they wanted to find it & didn't bother to be sure they had the right person before putting it out on air.
Today there was a shooting at the Family Research Council (FRC) HQ in Washington DC. (More here & here) What is known about the shooter is that he "made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard," according to a source speaking to FoxNews. After the FRC guards subdued him he said  "Don't shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for." Understandably, this is being treated by authorities as a possible case of domestic terrorism. But there is nothing definite about his motive or if he has any connections with a group that would oppose FRC's efforts. & until there are we shouldn't make any.
But what I love is how David Weigel, a Slate political reporter, is calling for the media to not pull a Brian Ross. While I applaud that, how he words his plea shows the very bias & politicizing he is supposedly decrying.
He starts by saying "Don't assume any hate group connections or political motivations until we find out more about the witness." In wording it that way he is labeling the Tea Party movement as a hate group rather than the valid political movement that it really is. He is doing some politicizing.
Next he rightly says "Do keep track of how the shooting's being politicized. I say "how," because it's inevitable." Given what I already pointed out, I guess when he says it is inevitable, he is speaking from his own experience of how he handles other shootings.
Next we have "The factor to keep track of, if you want to see how conservative media will process this: The Family Research Center's two-year-old designation as a "hate group," issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC hasn't responded to the developments in D.C. (I've asked), but I'm already seeing some sputter-and-point reaction blaming them -- or just begging the question of blame -- for what almost happened."
Once again we see the politicizing by labelling certain parts of the media as conservative. Although he doesn't say it, he is clearly refering to FoxNews & talk shows like Rush or laura Ingraham. So does he call his side of the fence liberal like he should if he is being honest? I don't see a single bit of that anywhere. In fact by the way he words it, the only bias is to be found in "conservative media" & the rest of the media's cheerleading for Obama is objective reporting.
I am sure a couple of way out there bloggers have thrown some blame at the SPLC even though they likely don't deserve it. But the fact that he leaves it wide open as to who, or how the SPLC are being blamed is painting it as something that is at the center of conservatism, rather that some wackos at the fringe.
Never mind how many times the supposedly "unbiased" main-stream media has automaticly done this, he is trying to make it sound like they are blameless & that all he is doing is a simple reminder to not follow the conservative media"s lead.
Like I said about the aroma of hy-pocricy!!!!!!
Note: I am not claiming that people who are moderate or conservative aren't ever hypocritical. It does occasionally happen. But the Main Stream Media, the pro-abortion gang & the Obama administration (actually all one group in a sense) have turned it into an art form.
* Said by Edward Rutledge in the musical 1776


  • At 15/8/12 6:29 PM , Blogger Teresa said...

    Well said! Blatant hypocrisy!

    I need to show an I.D. at a bank. How is requiring every person to show an I.D. when voting considered to be racist? Uh huh... because the Dems need the illegals so that they are able to cheat and win this election. Progressives believe in voter fraud. They need it to win. Pathetic...


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery