Ipso Facto Comic

Zero Income Tax and Zero Payroll Tax

Opera: simply the best internet experience

Download Opera

Just Google It

victory

porkbustersNo More Jean Fraud sKerry Bullshit

Open Trackback Alliance

Get the code for this blogroll


Add to My Yahoo!


Free John Kerry's SF-180 Blogroll

twalogo

The Community for Life, Liberty, Property

Guard the Borders

My Photo
Name:
Location: America's Third World County™, http://thirdworldcounty.us, United States

http://www.thirdworldcounty.us/?page_id=1723

Email Me

If you're using Internet Exploder to view this blog, tough. Get a real browser. :-)

Ignore the Blogspot "profile"—here's the real scoop

What's this blog about, anyway?

Comment-Trackback Policy

Stop the ACLU Blogburst Blogroll

Powered by Blogger

Anti-PC League

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Is honesty and transparency important?

And just how important in a supposedly democratic republic is honesty and transparency in our political leaders, news media and public advocacy groups?

[NOTE: this is a combo post. Stop the ACLU/Free John Kerry's records—both are subsumed in the content of this post.]

I would submit that honesty is an essential criterion for political leaders in a democratically republican nation. When one expects political leaders to have only one trustworthy statement in their repertoire ("Everything I tell you is suspect, if not an outright lie."), then democratic rule of a republic is dead.

Oops. Did I just imply that democratic rule of the U.S. is dead? Well, yes. And if not dead, at least moribund.

Of course, honesty among reporters of news of importance to forming public policy is equally important. And I think it's obvious we don't have a preponderance of honest reporting among the Mass Media Podpeople. (For those who do not believe that, let me refer you to a good mortuary. Your embalming procedure is overdue.)

And honesty in public advocacy groups? NOW? the ACLU? CAIR? (Just to name a few of the most egregious group liars... )

No, the public forum is littered with the effluvia of dishonest discourse.

And what of transparency? Hugh Hewitt commented recently, concerning a WAPO reporter who requested, then declined to hold an interview with him after he simply requested that it be held live, on air on his show (for purposes of getting the FULL interview on record, not a twisted, excerpted portion),

"...she declined to conduct the interview she requested. How interesting to note that the Post is willing to use sources that insist on anonymity, but not sources that demand transparency."

And what of Helen Thomas' recent declaration that she would kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for President? You know, Thomas the Termagant, who insists that she can twist anything any politician she does not like any darned way she wants? heh

"I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying...

"Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele [who reported Thomas' suicide remark] said with a laugh. _1_

Yeh, Helen. Riiiight. It's all fair game unless YOU are the subject of a news report.

Sauce for the goose.

But the same ought to go for any person or group that puts themselves in the position of attempting to affect public policy. Everything they say that at all relates to their positions, attitudes, actions and views as expressed in relation to their advocacy (politicians, Mass Media Podpeople, soi disant "public interest groups"—and even bloggers like me) is fair game for accurate quotation, commentary and review.

Or ought to be.

Politicians (OK, usually Liberalist—not authentically Liberal) often scream Foul! when confronted with their actual words or behaviors, accurately tossed back into their laps to deal with.

(BTW, John Fraud Kerry, where are your full and complete military records? They have yet to be released to the public.)

Newsies are the same, apparently.

And no one at the ACLU, CAIR or NOW are interested in having the public genuinely aware of how they make (or use) their "sausages" are they? The ACLU doesn't like it when folks (accurately) claim they support pedophilia and terrorism. CAIR doesn't like it when folks point to CAIR support of Islamic jihadist terrorism (_2_ and _3_. And many NOW members just hate it whenever anyone suggests they bathe (too many references to list. heh).

See Stop the ACLU for more info about the disingenuity and obfuscation typical of that subversive organization.

And do support holding politicians' feet to the fire by continuing to call on Jean Fraud sKerry (known to some as John F. Kerry) to actually release his full military record to the public. See Cao's Blog for someone doing the heavy lifting on this one.

Free John Kerry's 180 Blogburst group:

Aaron's cc
And Rightly So!
Atlas Shrugs
Balance Sheet
Cao's Blog
Cathouse Chat
Christmas Ghost
Civil Issues
Conservative Friends
doubleplusgood infotainment
Doughnut Holes
Euphoric Reality
Flight Pundit
Fundamentally Right
Furry Press
GM's Corner
Gribbit's Word
House Of Wheels
i-imagery.com
Infinite Universe
International House of Conservatism
Jackson's Junction
Jay Howard Smith
Kender's Musings
Lifetrek
Moonbattery.com
My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy
NIF
PBSWatcher
Pirate's Cove
Pooklekufr: The Kafir Constitutionalist
Power and Control
Private Radio
Progressive Conservatism
Ravings Of A Mad Tech
Republican Vet
Right in Philly
Rottweiler Puppy
Shades of Gray
Something...and Half of Something
Stop the ACLU
Tall Glass of Milk
The Babaganoosh
The Creative Conservative
The Dark Citadel
The Paragraph Farmer
The Pulpit Pounder
The Sunnyeside Of Life
Think About It
Third World County
TMH's Bacon Bits
Uncle Jack
Villainous Company
Web-Nuts
What Attitude Problem?
Where's Your Brain?
Word Park Blog



|