Selective outrage and hypocrisy from the Democrats and the liberal msm

The Washington Examiner is reporting that President Trump denies using vulgar language attributed to him.  See here.

Rolling Stone Magazine has listed examples of vulgarity employed by a host of presidents, vice-presidents and presidential candidates:

Abraham Lincoln: "There is nothing to make an Englishman shit quicker than the sight of General George Washington."

Barack Obama: “Obama really drew the ire of the pious, calling opponent Mitt Romney a ‘bullshitter.’ Sometimes the dirty word is the most precise.”

Joe Biden: "This is a big f**king deal."

Dick Cheney: “Cheney reportedly told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to ‘go f**k [himself]’”

George W. Bush: “Commented on the presence of New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. Believing he had an audience of one, Bush called Clymer a ‘major-league asshole.’”

Barack Obama: "I don't think I should take any sh*t from anybody on that, do you?"

Richard Nixon: “The Watergate tapes put the phrase ‘expletive deleted’ on the map.”

Lyndon Johnson: "I do know the difference between chicken sh*t and chicken salad,"

John F. Kennedy: "This is obviously a f**k-up."

Harry Truman: “In Truman's eyes, General Douglas MacArthur was a "dumb son of a bitch," and Nixon was ‘a shifty-eyed goddamned liar.’”

So why is  President Trump being singled out for describing certain governments (not the people) as "shit-holes"?

I think we all know.

And while the liberal "mainstream media" are busying themselves with bashing the President over his language, their outrage is most selective.  Where is the concern over well-documented comments made by Nancy Pelosi?  See here.

Or what about President Obama's disparaging remarks regarding white middle-class voters in old industrial towns?  See here.

Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess. Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, in a sermon delivered in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI on March 11, 2007, explained the gravity of hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the sin that is most powerfully denounced by God in the Bible and the reason for this is clear. With his hypocrisy, man demotes God, he puts him in second place, putting the creature, the public, in first place. "Man sees the appearance, the Lord sees the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7): Cultivating our appearance more than our heart means giving greater importance to man than to God.


Hypocrisy is thus essentially a lack of faith; but it is also a lack of charity for our neighbor in the sense that it tends to reduce persons to admirers. It does not recognize their proper dignity, but sees them only in function of one's own image.

Christ's judgment on hypocrisy is without appeal: "Receperunt mercedem suam" (They have already received their reward)! A reward that is, above all, illusory, even on a human level because we know that glory flees from those that seek it, and seeks those who flee from it.

Jesus' invectives against the scribes and the Pharisees also help us understand the meaning of purity of heart. Jesus' criticisms focus on the opposition between the "inside" and the "outside," the interior and the exterior of man. 'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones and filth. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity' (Matthew 23:27-28).

The revolution which Jesus brings about here is of incalculable significance. Before him, except for some rare hint in the prophets and the Psalms — 'Who will ascend the mountain of the Lord? Those whose hands are innocent and whose hearts are pure' (Psalm 24:3) — purity was understood in a ritual and cultural way; it consisted in keeping one's distance from things, animals, persons or places that were understood to contaminate one and separate one from God's holiness. Above all, these were things associated with birth, death, food and sexuality. In different forms and with different presuppositions, other religions outside the Bible shared these ideas.

Jesus makes a clean sweep of all these taboos and does so first of all by certain gestures: He eats with sinners, touches lepers, mixes with pagans. All of these were taken to be highly unsanitary things. He also sweeps away these taboos with his teachings. The solemnity with which he introduces his discourse on the pure and the impure makes apparent how conscious he was of the novelty of his doctrine. "And he called the people to him again and said to them: 'Hear me all of you and understand; there is nothing outside a man that by going into him can defile him. It is the things that come out of a man that can defile him.... For from within, out of the heart of a man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man'" (Mark 7:14-17,21-23)."

Jesus knew that the pharisees often preached a good game but that they failed to live up to what they preached. Which is why He told His listeners, "Do as they say, not as they do." Might not the same be said of the Democrats and the liberal mainstream media with its selective outrage?

Related reading here and here.

Those who control the liberal msm exhibit a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race

Michelle Malkin writes:

"Liberal business executives are leaping like lemmings from President Donald Trump’s manufacturing advisory council. Good riddance.

These silly string-spined CEOs have sided with social justice agitators, Beltway media enablers, and Democratic resistance knuckleheads who believe Trump was wrong to condemn violence and hatred on all sides of the political spectrum.

Never mind that of the four people arrested after the violent outbreak in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend, two were identified with the white nationalist movement and the other two were left-wing “Antifa” counterprotesters.

One of those radical leftists is the man identified as having reportedly punched a female reporter for the D.C.-based newspaper The Hill.


But since that doesn’t fit the national media narrative of journalists allegedly being victimized by right-wing incitements to violence, mum’s the word from corporate media executives and the rest of the preening CEOs.

Merck CEO Kenneth C. Frazier claimed he stepped down from the Trump business panel because he felt “a responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism.”

But Frazier, who served on President Barack Obama’s Export Council, felt no equivalent responsibility to take a stand against intolerance and extremism when the White House invited leaders from the violence-inciting Black Lives Matter movement for a forum on policing in July 2016.

The invitation was a grievous affront to law enforcement officers and their families across the country outraged at the deadly ambushes committed against cops in Dallas and Baton Rouge that summer, along with several other forgotten cop killings fueled by Black Lives Matter-linked hate and vengeance.

Who remembers the slaying of Kentucky State Trooper Joseph Ponder by Black Lives Matter marcher and “Hands up, don’t shoot” slogan-spreader Joseph Thomas Johnson-Shanks in September 2015?

At least 11 police have been shot dead and at least nine more wounded by Black Lives Matter protesters, activists, and/or supporters to date.

One of the surviving policemen in the Baton Rouge massacre filed suit last month against Black Lives Matter and laid out the case against its leaders, who “not only, incited the violence against police in retaliation for the death of black men shot by police, but also did nothing to dissuade the ongoing violence and injury to police. In fact, they justified the violence as necessary to the movement and war.”

The permanently disabled cop’s lawsuit recounts escalating riots, arson, and plundering after the police-involved deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray in Ferguson, Missouri, through the ambushes in Dallas and Baton Rouge, and leading up to the Obama administration’s embrace of Black Lives Matter’s leaders.

After the meeting, Black Lives Matter leader DeRay McKesson responded to questions about his movement’s culpability for inciting violence by asserting that his “people take to the streets as a last resort. … So when I think about anything that happens when people are in the street, I always start by saying, ‘People should not have had to have been there in the first place.'”

As the lawyers for the Baton Rouge cop, who must remain anonymous to protect his family, properly concluded: “These statements were a ratification and justification of the violence.”

But instead of recriminations, the militants of Black Lives Matter enjoy continued praise and coddling from corporate America. Tech execs from Netflix, YouTube, and Google all donated to McKesson’s failed mayoral bid in Baltimore.

Business execs have been coughing up untold hundreds of millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter and related causes, funneled through left-wing nonprofits such as the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy.

On Tuesday, Walmart executive Doug McMillon wagged his finger at Trump, urging “elected officials to do their part to promote a more just, tolerant, and diverse society.”

This from the head of a retail giant that only recently stopped selling racially divisive, anti-cop taunting, violence-glamorizing T-shirts that bragged: “Bulletproof: Black Lives Matter.”

And the disavowal double standards beat goes on."

Of course it does.  The liberal msm isn't interested in objective truth.  Its sole agenda is to manipulate the reader or viewer and to advance its ideology.

In his critically important work Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree Inter Mirifica, had this to say:

"For the proper use of these media it is most necessary that all who employ them be acquainted with the norms of morality and conscientiously put them into practice in this area. They must look, then, to the nature of what is communicated, given the special character of each of these media. At the same time they must take into consideration the entire situation or circumstances, namely, the persons, place, time and other conditions under which communication takes place and which can affect or totally change its propriety. Among these circumstances to be considered is the precise manner in which a given medium achieves its effect. For its influence can be so great that men, especially if they are unprepared, can scarcely become aware of it, govern its impact, or, if necessary, reject it."

The liberal msm knows this.   It counts on it!

Speaking of manipulating public opinion, see here

Good Morning America does it again...

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow.

The folks over at Good Morning America are at it again. Not long ago, anxious to discredit the Catholic Church with false accusations which had already been thoroughly refuted, GMA solicited the views of Father Richard P. McBrien regarding the sexual abuse scandal within the Church. See here. Before that, GMA's one-time host Diane Sawyer grilled John and Cindy McCain on abortion while Robin Roberts, who interviewed Barack and Michelle Obama, never broached the subject. See here.

But now that Senator Robert Byrd, the long-time Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has died, GMA has taken great pains to whitewash his past. This morning, while reviewing the Senator's life, hosts kept repeating - almost as a mantra - that his involvement with the Ku Klux Klan was "brief." As if to suggest his time with the Klan was merely a youthful indiscretion.

Hardly.

Senator Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1942 at the age of 24. He was elected top officer of his local chapter and would go on to hold the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops. If his involvement with the Klan was as "brief" as GMA asserts, then why is it that in 1944, a full two years after joining the Klan, Senator Byrd wrote a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo saying that, "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side...Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this blessed land of ours degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

And, in a letter to a Grand Wizard written two or three years later (1946 or 1947), Senator Byrd wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation." (See here). And yet, GMA assures us that his time with the Klan was "brief." If a Republican politician had such a history, and had expounded such views, GMA - and the rest of the liberal media - would engage in a sort of public crucifixion. But there was absolutely no mention of these comments. Instead, GMA downplayed the Senator's involvement with the hate group.

Of course, when Dan Quayle misspelled the word potato, GMA - and the same liberal media - were all over the incident. Although this incident occurred back in 1992, ABC News still has a post online detailing what happened. See here.

There you have it, Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato is a big deal to MSM liberals. But a Democrat who belonged to the Klan for years, referred to African-Americans as "mongrels," and who expressed his desire to see the rebirth of the hate group "in every state in the nation," is beyond criticism.

GMA is an embarassment to authentic journalism.

Washington Post: Pope did not impede defrocking of priest...

No kidding. Other MSM outlets need to apologize for their rush to judgment. Their credibility is now in crisis.


"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful."

"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."

- Edward R. Murrow.