The media and the new pope: a study in contrasts, or a study in hypocrisy?

After the media’s breathless run up to the election of Pope Francis, it seems that they taken upon themselves the task of scrutinizing his past.  They are examining everything from his childhood, his education, his role in resisting the Argentinian military dictatorship’s “Dirty War” back in the late seventies through early eighties.  One story from the Huffington Post exemplifies this (MSNBC is also showing its concern):

The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis brought joy to Argentina, but has also cast a spotlight on the religious leader’s dark past, scarred by allegations of collaborating in the case of two Jesuits who were kidnapped by the country’s military dictatorship for five months in 1976. One of them accused Bergoglio — then his superior at the Society of Jesus — of being behind his abduction.

Now, while I am glad to see that the press actually has the capability to dig into a person’s past, where was all this curiosity and zeal was (and is) when Øbama, our “lord and savior” (according to that great pundit, Jamie Foxx, anyway), was being “vetted”?  If anything, the press was strangely (or typically, depending on your viewpoint) incurious and silent on president’s background, and remains so to this day.

Why is the background of the Pope, who is powerful in his own right, but really has little effect many of the U.S.’s citizens, subject to such intense scrutiny, but the background of the president, who directly affects every single one of us (including the church, as evidenced by new Øbamacare rules for Catholic institutions), not the subject of comparable levels of microexamination?   For that matter, one might ask why was the background of newcomer Sarah Palin the object of such passionate “journalism”?  Of course, these questions are rhetorical; the answer is clear.

As Mr. Spock would say, it is “fascinating”.

Don’t forget that prior to the pope’s election, there was much talk about how the new Pope, whoever he might be, will deal with the recent sex scandals that occurred in the church and how the church will deal with its policies on homosexuality.  It is beyond amazing to me that they could issue these observations when the pederasty problem in the church appears to originate with the homosexuals that have joined the clergy.  Obviously, it isn’t politically “correct” to note this Gordian Knot.

Similarly, the media has been running with stories incorporating the meme of the “Stained glass ceiling”, and pontificating (pun intended) about the church’s “inflexibility” on things like women priests potentially leading to it becoming “inconsequential” in the world.

Consider this: if the church is becoming so “inconsequential”, why would Biden, Pelosi and DeLauro attend the investiture of the new Pope?  If the church is so rigid and inflexible, why would they allow this trio of abortion enthusiasts to receive Holy Communion?  If the position of the church on the role of women in the clergy is so egregious, when can we expect the stories to commence on the role of women in Islam?  Given the parameters the press uses for the Roman Catholic church, shouldn’t Islam likewise be in danger of becoming inconsequential?  When will our crack reporters tackle this?

Clearly, the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press with respect to the Church compared to that of Øbama is palpable.  Maybe it is time the press remembers that the Church, any church, is based on faith, is equally protected by the First Amendment, and if you don’t like the tenets of the church you are in, perhaps you should find another that fits your needs, rather than forcing the church to change to suit you.

The “Paycheck Fairness” Act: politician, heal thyself….

Democrats, in an effort to bolster their female voter base and distract from the lousy Øbama economy, are making a big stink about the “Paycheck Fairness Act” (PFA) boondoggle, which is said to complement to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first piece of legislation President Obama signed upon taking office no less.   Allegedly, this will “level the paying field” (pardon the pun) for men and women in the same jobs, or allow women to more easily file discrimination lawsuits in the event it does not happen (payback to the trial lawyers).

But let’s dig deeper: as usual, we find that what the Democrats say is the polar opposite of what they practice (like paying taxes!).  According to an article in the Washington Free Beacon, titled “Senate Democrats betray Lilly”, is was found that the female staffers of Democrat Senators Murray, Feinstein and Boxer, all standing up for the PFA, were paid significantly less (ranging from 7% to 35.2%) than their male counterparts!  In Chuck Schumer’s staff, women staffers are paid an average of 36% less!   The list of Democrat offenders is long and telling and listed in the linked article.  Now that’s what I call a “war on women”!!  (For the record: I could not find a comparable article on Republican staffer pay, which tells me that the liberal media were unable to make an issue of it).

Let us not forget the “paragon” of equal pay, the president: during the 2008 election, McCain treated women far better than Øbama, employed more women than Obama, and paid them higher wages.  Not only that, McCain’s female staffers made, on average, more than his male staffers!  Even with lesser pay, Øbama paid his women staffers, on average, 78 cents on the male dollar.  (Dare I mention that his staff is “whiter than rice”: see the pics from !)  And this situation has not improved, despite all the bloviating about how women are being shortchanged in pay.  Doesn’t this remind you of the Democrat complaints about the so called “Republican war on women” while they back the gendercide being practiced by Planned Parenthood?

From the Proclamation made by Øbama on his creation of “National Equal Pay Day”:

“Despite these achievements, 46 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act and 233 years since our Nation was established with the principle of equal justice under law, women across America continue to experience discrimination in the form of pay inequity every day. Women in the United States earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, and today marks the inauspicious occasion when a woman’s earnings finally catch up with a man’s from the previous year. On National Equal Pay Day, we underscore the importance of this issue to all Americans.”

They don’t tell you that it is the pay differential in their own staff, do they?  Isn’t it time for Øbama and other Democrats demagoguing this issue to look long and hard in the mirror?  Isn’t it incumbent (was that another pun?) on an accuser to have his/her own house in order before pulling out the accusatory finger?

Bottom line: apparently, the Republicans practice what the Democrats preach.  Clearly, (aside from the recognition that this just creates trial lawyer payback) they don’t support this unnecessary legislation because they don’t have to be forced to do the right thing and don’t think you have to either.  Like charitable giving.

Actions always speak louder than words, especially words from demonstrable hypocrites.


Democrats and the new “civil” discourse

Just a little wrap up for you lefties out there, once again proving my original thesis that when the left calls for civility, they really mean you folks on the right should shut up and take out “hate” language. Bonus video: CK on the new civility. Read more

That was then, this is now

The more I listen to the Obama administration and the current Democratic legislature, the more I am convinced that this is the very real slogan of the Democratic party.

Read more