On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, left-wing bommb-throwing idiot called on Republicans to repudiate Palin, and he made references to targeting political opponents with "bull's-eyes over their faces." This comment in spite of the fact the Palin graphic did no such thing. It targeted DISTRICTS, not people. And like others on the left, Olbermann, struggling against all odds to be relevant coincidentally ignored the very same map on the Democrate Leadership Council website, targeting Republican districts.
This sort of "military rhetoric" has been part and parcel of the American political scene since George Washington left office. In the case of Hamilton vs. Burr in 1804, it actually came to a duel in which Burr was killed. But for the most part, rhetoric is just that - mere words. And words do not kill - people kill.
If words can cause a demented mind to act in violence, then there is no preventing that violence because the words, themselves, really do not matter. Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan because of Jodie Foster. And the man who murdered John Lennon was acting on Lennon's own songs. Short of making it illegal to speak at all, crazy people will commit violence. It is their intent - they only seek an excuse.
Every expert on the scene in Tucson has stated the same thing - Loughner was not motivated by any political agenda or rhetoric. Yet people on the left are spewing their lies in an attempt to do even more harm by using their own brand of political hate-mongering.
Whenever clowns like Olbermann, Huffington, Senators Durbin and Sanders use any violent act to further their own political agenda by blaming the right, or vice versa, that is, itself, the very hate-mongering that they say they condemn. It's like saying, "I deplore violence, and I'll beat the crap out of anyone who resorts to it." Do they not realize that by inflaming people about the rhetoric that they are, themselves, inflaming people?
I wonder what Olbermann, or Krugman of the NYT would have to say if some deranged person on the left assassinates a Republican because he believes the incendiary rhetoric of Olbermann and Krugman, and believes the Republicans are "evil hate mongerers"? I would bet my entire net worth they would not say a word except to try and blame it on the right somehow. They would find some way to blame either Bush or Palin. Any takers on that bet?
And I am sick and tired of the BS coming from the media. The media is SUPPOSED to be objective. But they are the farthest thing from it. Their bias shines through like lightning on a dark night.
All I ask is for honest, unbiased dialogue from the media so I can make up my own mind based on the facts from all sides. And I watch and read most of the media, if only to understand all sides of issues. And I don't mind telling you that the only one I have found that is - for the most part - honest and balanced is Fox News. No, they aren't perfect. Fox News is not ALL news programs. They also have opinion programs like Hannity and Beck which are one-sided. But the NEWS programs are fair and balanced. And O'Reilly comes down on both sides equally hard, so I find him to be worth watching. The only other media that comes close to Fox is CNN, though they do tend to veer left more than any news outlet should.
MSNBC, NBC, the New York Times, Wshington Post and any Time/Warner outlets are so incredibly biased in favor of liberalism that they no longer have any credibility or relevance except in the eyes of the Ivory Tower elitists that subscribe to far-left beliefs. But I still read them, because if I am to speak on such matters, I need to know all sides.
As Americans we should all be contacting the media and insist they get back to being the objective watchdogs they were intended to be, and stop taking sides. Present BOTH sides, then let us decide where we want to stand. And then when we chose our stand, do not denegrate us for the one we choose. We are under no obligation to agree. Anything less is nothing more than imposing tyranny through censorship.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment