As we near the election finish line, here are some observations equal part unsettling and revealing.
This campaign is demolishing the enduring myth that the press is “objective” and impartial.
The only objective view of life is God’s. The rest of us filter what we perceive through our respective worldviews. Those utterly subjective assumptions are shaped by our beliefs and values. That’s why a secular leftist can look at an abortion and see glorious freedom of choice and a conservative Christian sees the murder of an innocent for the sake of convenience.
The press didn’t use to be so hypocritical. Before the 1960s, newspapers made no bones about their ideology shaping their reportage. Only after the press became “professional,” at least in its own mind, did it adopt the faux objectivity that it boasts about. Few readers have ever been fooled. You know the jig is up when the haughty NY Times runs front-page editorials saying it’s time to depart from impartiality in news coverage because Donald Trump is so awful.
Depart? Depart from the pretense, perhaps. It’s never been a reality.
This wouldn’t cause much discomfort, except that the press for reasons too numerous to list here is horrendously lopsided to the political left. One of the truest statements all week came from a columnist at the Federalist who wrote, “a Republican saying something politically incorrect will always be a bigger story than a Democrat doing something corrupt.”
Is there a single consumer of “news” who doubts that today? So much for objectivity and impartiality.
If you believe Democrats and other leftists who say Trump is talking nonsense about the election being rigged, check out the numerous books on Amazon that document vote fraud over the years. Roughly half are written from a leftist viewpoint, and recommend leftist websites to bolster their claims. Vote fraud is only unknown to the left-leaning press, it seems.
Recall the words of old Joe Stalin, who knew a thing or two about rigging votes: “I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote or how. But what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes and how.”
Isn’t it interesting in a year when the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate is ahead in the polls that the Democratic administration says it doesn’t have the ability to do much poll monitoring this year. Probably just a coincidence, eh?
Are you still wondering why the FBI let Hillary walk, despite her illegal use of a private email system that endangered national security, despite prosecuting a member of the U.S. military for a far less egregious but similar security offense?
Maybe this will help explain the FBI’s unwillingness to go after her…
“…hacked emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks, suggested Obama may have known about Clinton’s use of a private email server….”
As Andrew McCarthy at the National Review wrote, “Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.”
And then there’s that $500,000 the Clinton’s longtime buddy Terry McAuliffe donated to the political campaign of the wife of the FBI’s deputy director. That probably bought nothing, huh?
Here’s a surprise. OK, not exactly a surprise. Germany last year opened the doors to a flood of Muslim migrants from the Middle East. Guess what now. Angela Merkel, the architect of the “let’s bring Muslims to Germany” scheme, now says Germany should deport 215,000 of them back to where they came from.
Hey, those saddened “refugees,” whom the FBI says can’t be properly vetted, are going to need someplace to go. Why not invite them here? Hillary Clinton is ready. She wants to import about that many in two years to a neighborhood near you. What could go wrong?
Remember when Obama promised that you would pay $2,500 LESS in premiums and almost everyone would get health care under Obamacare.
Guess what. He lied.
But it’s even worse than that. Premiums will increase next year by an average of 25 percent – for one of the cheaper plans. Can you say, “If you like your premium, you can keep it”?
Hillary says the solution is to double down on Obamacare’s failure.
You can’t make this stuff up: A video of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently surfaced in which she lectured State Department employees on the “responsibility we all share as Americans” to “guard ourselves and our sensitive information.”
Cyber security, she said, is important.
One wonders if she forgot that when she moved her private server into a bathroom closet.
A parting thought. Yours truly still is holding his nose after casting my early ballot this week for Donald Trump, a very disagreeable chap who promises to fix what’s wrong with America. Gee, what could go wrong there?
A vote for Trump may be a vote for a guy with a checked past and a nearly unbelievable present. He very likely is just like all politicians – all talk and promises, little follow-through and who knows how trustworthy.
But the option is Hillary Clinton, who in a moment of candor to people she probably didn’t expect would tell others, has one position for the gullible public and a private position for the insiders.
If that were the extent of her sins she probably would be on a par with Trump. But Hillary would be in jail today if she were a Republican. She can be counted on to be true to herself uber alles. That means her meanness is guaranteed to the detriment of anyone in her way, whether it’s cussing out Secret Service guards putting their lives at risk to protect her, or spewing racial epithets even to her own minority staffers. Hillary regards people as widgets, not human beings deserving of dignity.
Most assuredly, Hillary will be literal death to millions of unborn babies who she finds no reason to regard as human beings.
If you’re put off by one-issue voting, you should consider this one issue a tad more important than tax rates and free trade. Clinton will appoint judges and justices who will certainly extend the “right” to kill-an-unborn baby to its illogical extreme. She will expand this infanticide dramatically, requiring hospitals and doctors to perform the abomination procedure and severely punishing anyone who objects or impedes abortion on demand.
As a priest I met recently put it, “Yeah, I’m a one-issue voter. If you can’t see that this is a human life, how can I trust you with any other decisions regarding people?”
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.