red states rule
02-05-2011, 01:12 PM
Is anyone surprised by this? The liberal meida no longer even bothers to try and hide their support and loyality to the left and their causes
Because apparently there still exist people who will fall for the “pimps’n’hookers” investigative strategy post-James O’Keefe.
Instead of focusing on the fact that there is an organization who turned a blind eye to child sex-trafficking, an organization that receives forced federal funding, the group of senior fellows ostensibly chose the route which affords zero defense of women, born or unborn, thereby saving them from compromising their female-hostile ideologies: attack Lila Rose. These outlets don’t see the insanity in feigning disgust that the racket was exposed, not that it occurred at all.
The majority of the call was spent discussing ways to discredit Rose because of her funding. They surmise that some group which donates to her pro-life magazine is a group donated to by a group given money by the Koch Brothers. So says people who just cashed a $1 million-dollar check from George Soros.
For the sake of argument, assuming that the Koch Brothers (I had to Google them to see exactly what it is they do and how their name isn’t pronounced like the sobriquet for phallus but rather, the soda) were as ubiquitous in activism as George Soros is publicly, the greatest irony has befallen our senior fellows who hate big business and personal wealth so much: they are willing pawns in a battle between frillionaires. This alone virtually precludes any other potential criticism of their actions. George Soros is the only billionaire allowed. See, they hate personal wealth when it isn’t made out in $1 million dollar increments to their organizations.
This isn’t for the sake of an argument, however, a fallacy which rules the lives and actions of our progressive brethren. This particular incident is for the sake of young girls’ lives. Apparently some in this country think that sex trafficking is a sin inherent to all other countries but the United States, as evidenced by their refusal to condemn what actually occurred on the Planned Parenthood videos. It’s a snotty, elitist view by people who make careers of condemning snooty, elitist views. Another contradiction which, alone, would preclude further criticism.
Progressives have declined to see past the PP logo for the tragedy which occurred on these cameras. They look at what occurred as an attack on “choice.” If choice is being forced to give money to an organization whose bread and butter is the infringement upon civil rights as a form of birth control, that’s not choice. It’s force. And in an era where marketers exploit the “independent women” shtick, it’s not exactly “independent” to expect Uncle Sam to provide you with birth control and free abortions, things that have to do with your choice, not the choices of others. Again, that contradiction alone precludes further criticism.
Amy Woodruff fell on the proverbial sword for Planned Parenthood’s selective attitude of women’s rights, as evidenced by how their President and Vice President, Cecile Richards and Stewart Schear respectively, sounded the alarm for the Journolist 2.0 conference call. Perhaps the mainstream media wasn’t doing enough to reconcile what Planned Parenthood says about women’s rights to what their workers are seen on tape doing: talking to a pimp about underage girls as though the girls’s bodies were commodities. A cattle auction, but in an office.
But then again, isn’t that their business model?
What cut will Journolisters 2.0 receive for all their hard work?
http://biggovernment.com/dloesch/2011/02/04/journolist-2-0-soros-sites-hold-con-call-to-map-strategy-for-planned-parenthood-defense/
Because apparently there still exist people who will fall for the “pimps’n’hookers” investigative strategy post-James O’Keefe.
Instead of focusing on the fact that there is an organization who turned a blind eye to child sex-trafficking, an organization that receives forced federal funding, the group of senior fellows ostensibly chose the route which affords zero defense of women, born or unborn, thereby saving them from compromising their female-hostile ideologies: attack Lila Rose. These outlets don’t see the insanity in feigning disgust that the racket was exposed, not that it occurred at all.
The majority of the call was spent discussing ways to discredit Rose because of her funding. They surmise that some group which donates to her pro-life magazine is a group donated to by a group given money by the Koch Brothers. So says people who just cashed a $1 million-dollar check from George Soros.
For the sake of argument, assuming that the Koch Brothers (I had to Google them to see exactly what it is they do and how their name isn’t pronounced like the sobriquet for phallus but rather, the soda) were as ubiquitous in activism as George Soros is publicly, the greatest irony has befallen our senior fellows who hate big business and personal wealth so much: they are willing pawns in a battle between frillionaires. This alone virtually precludes any other potential criticism of their actions. George Soros is the only billionaire allowed. See, they hate personal wealth when it isn’t made out in $1 million dollar increments to their organizations.
This isn’t for the sake of an argument, however, a fallacy which rules the lives and actions of our progressive brethren. This particular incident is for the sake of young girls’ lives. Apparently some in this country think that sex trafficking is a sin inherent to all other countries but the United States, as evidenced by their refusal to condemn what actually occurred on the Planned Parenthood videos. It’s a snotty, elitist view by people who make careers of condemning snooty, elitist views. Another contradiction which, alone, would preclude further criticism.
Progressives have declined to see past the PP logo for the tragedy which occurred on these cameras. They look at what occurred as an attack on “choice.” If choice is being forced to give money to an organization whose bread and butter is the infringement upon civil rights as a form of birth control, that’s not choice. It’s force. And in an era where marketers exploit the “independent women” shtick, it’s not exactly “independent” to expect Uncle Sam to provide you with birth control and free abortions, things that have to do with your choice, not the choices of others. Again, that contradiction alone precludes further criticism.
Amy Woodruff fell on the proverbial sword for Planned Parenthood’s selective attitude of women’s rights, as evidenced by how their President and Vice President, Cecile Richards and Stewart Schear respectively, sounded the alarm for the Journolist 2.0 conference call. Perhaps the mainstream media wasn’t doing enough to reconcile what Planned Parenthood says about women’s rights to what their workers are seen on tape doing: talking to a pimp about underage girls as though the girls’s bodies were commodities. A cattle auction, but in an office.
But then again, isn’t that their business model?
What cut will Journolisters 2.0 receive for all their hard work?
http://biggovernment.com/dloesch/2011/02/04/journolist-2-0-soros-sites-hold-con-call-to-map-strategy-for-planned-parenthood-defense/