Monday, April 24, 2006
THE WAY. The whole liberal political-media universe has finally succeeded in becoming the opposite of everything sensible, truthful, and constitutional. Up is down. Back is front. Top is bottom. Lawfulness is illegal. Unlawfulness is admirable. Subordinates are superior to their superiors. Terror is politically correct. Hatred is fairness. Cowardice is principle. Speech is silence.
Can't see it? Permit me to specify.
Lawfulness is illegal. The President of the United States has the legal, constitutional authority to declassify classified information. This is indisputable. Consider the opposite case. If the President doesn't have the power to declassify information, who does? And if someone else holds higher authority in that function, how could we claim to be any kind of free republic? All the liberal claptrap to the contrary is absolute utter nonsense. And yet we get this:
Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.
Unlawfulness is admirable. The Mary McCarthy thing. Again, there can be no reasonable debate. Regardless of her political and even moral convictions, she signed an oath to her country not to reveal classified information to the press or public. She broke her oath and in so doing broke the law. This has nothing whatever to do with the First Amendment. No intelligence establishment could ever do anything to protect its country -- i.e., to fulfill its reason for existence -- if all intelligence employees were empowered to reveal any secret they wanted to. In breaking the law, Mary McCarthy betrayed the mission of her agency and her country. And yet we are subjected to this ludicrous blather:
ABC 'THIS WEEK' HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On another -- on another front, excuse me, CIA official Mary McCarthy lost her job this week for disclosing classified information according to the CIA probably about a WASHINGTON POST story which revealed the existence of secret prisons in Europe. A lot of different views. Senator Pat Roberts praised action but some former CIA officers described Mary McCarthy as a sacrificial lamb acting in the finest American tradition by revealing human rights violations. What's your view?
SEN. KERRY: Well, I read that. I don't know whether she did it or not so it's hard to have a view on it. Here's my fundamental view of this, that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, DC here.
"I don't know whether she did it or not." What puke. She confessed. Again, she wasn't fired for telling the truth, she was fired for telling, period. And the "revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie" statement is even more vomit-inducing. Here's the real story. We can all be sure that Senator Kerry would love to be President of a country in which any intelligence operative who favored the opposition party could secretly plant stories in the press for the express purpose of discrediting him. Meanwhile, the reporters who conspired with the betrayer to sabotage the national security of their country are named Pulitzer Prize winners. Down is up.
Subordinates are superior to their superiors. Yeah, any handful of unhappy generals should always be sufficient to force the firing of their civilian boss. That makes sense -- according to 58 percent of the respondents to this web poll. But wait... here's a news flash for the whole stupid lot of you: The U.S. may be a democracy, but the military isn't. Generals don't get to fire a boss they don't like, anymore than you do at your place of work. Grow the hell up.
Terror is politically correct. So Hamas stands aside approvingly while a terrorist suicide bomber kills a half dozen Israeli civilians at a falafel stand, and great journalistic organizations like the AP, BBC, and Reuters join al Jazeera and other news networks in calling the event the "Tel Aviv blast" in their headlines. By this logic, 9/11 was an airliner crash or a building collapse, Pearl Harbor was a pair of ship sinkings, and the Kennedy assassination was a tragically fatal head injury. The real lede -- information suggesting that the bomb blast was a cold-blooded murder sanctioned by the terrorist government of Palestine -- was either buried in the final paragraphs or glossed over altogether. Front is back.
Hatred is fairness. Just ask the New York Times. They can explain it to you.
Cowardice is principle. The Comedy Channel is filled with Bush-bashing, Christianity-demeaning comedies and comedians, and speaks proudly of its devotion to the First Amendment. But after choosing to censor a cartoon image of Muhammed on South Park while tolerating in the same show a cartoon image of Christ defecating on the American flag and the American president, they have the unmitigated gall to defend themselves thus (in an email sent to those who protested their disgraceful decision):
To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment
right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and
religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to
make people laugh and perhaps, if we're lucky, even make them think in
Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite
our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not
to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion
over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public
safety in light of recent world events.
With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the
obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it
weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense
and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions
cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have
on innocent individuals around the globe...
"To reiterate, as satirists..."? Uh, no. As satirists, the Comedy Channel folks were especially obligated to show the image of Muhammed. That they did not removes any right they have to claim that they are First Amendment champions.
Speech is silence. A couple of Arab thugs killed a Belgian boy for his Ipod last week. Since then, 80,000 Belgians have taken to the streets in protest, but if you read the accounts in the AP and BBC, you wouldn't know why. These purveyors of truth felt it was their responsibility to keep us from knowing that the murderers were probably muslims. Far better for us to be mystified and in the dark than know that unassimilated muslims are continuing to cause major unrest in Europe. The new mission of journalism is not to report difficult facts, but to conceal them. That's why the mainstresam media have also been working so hard to keep us from seeing the anti-American Mexican nationalism that's driving the protests of illegal immigrants against U.S. enforcement of its own laws. Up is down. Back is front. Top is bottom.
The good news is, there's nothing mysterious about what position a good liberal will take on any issue. Just turn the facts upside down, reverse the poles of right and wrong, and start spewing bile. It's a no-brainer.