Posted on 05/02/2015 5:08:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
Edited on 05/02/2015 6:09:30 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Last week, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was invited to be on "Face the Nation." What was supposed to be a cordial conversation about the Supreme Court and same-sex marriage turned out to be a professional ambush.
Host Bob Schieffer pounced on the Family Research Council, calling them an anti-gay hate group. He was using discredited intelligence from the Southern Poverty Law Center. It was an ugly interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Tony should have responded:
“Not to the extent that CBS is an anti-Christian hate group.”
ok, seriously:
“Bob, the term ‘marriage’ has a meaning and a purpose. The simple fact that we oppose having the term bastardized to be applied inaccurately, does NOT constitute “hate”.
“The simple fact that you and others would like to bully Christians into promoting, endorsing, and participating in that hoax, say more about you that about Christians.”
I also fault Tony for not being prepared with such a response.
Feel free!
Watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NERntJ4CxeY
Wise words.
Peace in Christ. May God bless you.
‘Pod.
Bob is twisted in body and soul.
God did bless me. so I owe God to bless others too, as much as I can.
And especially if I can alert people that sometimes what we think looks like disaster for us, isn’t. Evil can and will buffet us, badly sometimes. But we don’t ever need to be its slave now that we accept Jesus Christ as Master. And we can even turn on evil, dissolving it in God’s grace strategically and wisely applied. When I see that, my heart sings.
I think it’s likely he’ll learn, especially if he gets our prayers and not our curses! And maybe some gracious communiques.
In the meantime the battle also blazes in the grassroots. That is one of the reasons God allowed Facebook and other media to be invented, IMHO.
It certainly is. The motive for it is hiding in pain sight - journalists don’t do anything, and therefore take the opposite view to that of Theodore Roosevelt:It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.The opposite of giving credit to the person who sticks his neck out and tries to accomplish something is cynicism towards the very idea of accomplishment. The succinct statement of which is,
You didn’t build that.That attitude flatters the person who does nothing, and sneers at anyone who actually tries.The actual problem is that journalism is homogeneous. Adam Smith warned in 1776 that
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsIf it is "impossible indeed to prevent such meetings” among tradesmen generally, is doubly impossible in the case of journalists who, after all, communicate not merely with other journalists but with the public at large.But the real systematic “meeting” of journalists is the virtual meeting of all major journalists with is the Associated Press newswire. That “meeting” started in 1848, and by the end of the Civil War was an establishment to be reckoned with. It has been in process continuously ever since, and therefore if Adam Smith’s warning means anything at all, it means that people of the trade of journalism are in cahoots with each other and in conspiracy against the public interest - and have been since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary.
The existence of multiple news services is actually not even relevant; there could be five newswires of equal size without changing the principle that the journalists within each of them would do the same thing that they all do within the AP. They would still follow the same incentive to cynicism that they do now.
The existence of the AP long predates the Sherman Antitrust Act, but SCOTUS found the AP to be in violation of that act in 1945. But back then, the AP was “too big to fail.” In the 21st Century, the rationale that newswires are the only way to conserve scarce/expensive telegraph bandwidth flies in the face of the technological fact that the cost of nationwide, and even worldwide, transmission bandwidth has been made trivial by the advance of technologies such as satellites, lasers, and fiber optics. The only question is who will undertake to sue the pants off the AP and its membership, joint and several liability, for libeling Republicans by tar and feathering anyone (even Hispanic Democrat George Zimmerman) who they can portray as being a white man.
The lawsuit should also, of course, name the FCC for enabling the transmission of those libels, and the FEC for enforcing unconstitutional “Campaign Finance Reform” laws in contravention of “the freedom of . . . the press.”
>>That’s what every conservative should be striving for every time they’re in front of a camera.<<
That’s what they keep trying to do - and FAILING. There’s a lot of ego working when you keep telling yourself “I’m the one that will win over the other side”. At some point, you have to cut your loses.
I'd really like to know exactly what squishy-Left journalists think they are going to get out of coddling the Hard Left. Lifetime pensions for their loyalty? Free heath care for life? Unlimited access to child prostitutes (a popular option with UN peacekeepers)?
There must be something they think they are going to win from constantly sucking up to dictators and radicals. Because in the short run, they could probably make more money sucking up to JP Morgan and Monsanto. :)
Thanks Kaslin.
“He was using discredited intelligence from the Southern Poverty Law Center. It was an ugly interview.”
There is, or was, a crew here at FR that would routinely cite garbage from the Southern Poverty Law Center in order to try to shut down immigration threads. I’m glad to see that the SPLC is finally being recognized as the leftwing hate group that it is.
Put in mind that regardless of what causes the attraction, the behavior is separate from the attraction. It’s like telling the Hawaiian or Native American people to give up on life because their genes made them addicted to booze.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.