Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 7719 sources banned.

WHO IS LARA JAKES JORDAN?

She's the Santorum hit "reporter"/activist. Bryan covered her bias and close proximity to the now notorious Santorum-hater, Teresa Heinz Kerry, in an earlier post but here's more details:

For starters, she is married to veteran Democratic Party operative Jim Jordan, the former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and manager of Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid.

Not surprisingly, the Massachusetts Democrat was among the first to criticize Santorum's remarks, using it as an opportunity to attack the White House. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Kerry got an advance copy of the article given his connections.

But there's more to the Lara Jakes Jordan story.

In January of this year, Mrs. Jordan was one of the signatories on a letter to her bosses at the AP attacking the news organization for "rolling back diversity" by not extending benefits to domestic partners.

In a symbolic move, the signatories to the letter returned key chains AP management gave them to "celebrate" its corporate diversity. The key chains carried the slogan: "AP Diversity: Many Views, One Vision.

It seems Mrs. Jordan's ideological fervor is not reserved only for her private life and her corporate politicking. This woman clearly ambushed Santorum on an issue near and dear to her bleeding heart.

I've been in the daily news business for 25 years. When I got started a quarter century ago, there was an old newsroom saying that went like this: "I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."

Mrs. Jordan violated that old newsroom ethic. She abdicated her right to cover the circus because she was sleeping with an elephant – or, in this case, a donkey.

That's why I say these catcalls for the head of Rick Santorum are nothing more than a political sideshow. It's not Rick Santorum who should be forced from office for clearly stating views that have been considered mainstream for the last 5,000 years. It's Lara Jakes Jordan who should be drummed out of the news profession for scoring cheap political points under the guise of news reporting.

Now all someone has to do is reveal how close Lara Jakes Jordan and Teresa Heinz Kerry have been recently. My hunch is that Teresa encouraged Lara to conduct the hit on Santorum. From the same article:

It was a set-up. It was what we call in the news business a "hatchet job." Rick Santorum is a young, good-looking, articulate conservative in the Senate's Republican leadership. He was deliberately targeted by a political activist disguised as a reporter – Lara Jakes Jordan.

I invite you to read her original story and see for yourself how it is dripping in venom. It's an editorial camouflaged as a news story. And she wrote it for the largest and most powerful news-gathering operation in the world, ensuring it would get maximum play in newspapers throughout the world.

This is why it's critical that bloggers think before they post -- even if it's just a few minutes spent analyzing the tone of a "report." Don't get used by the mainstream press. Subvert it. The AP is still hoping to create the Trent Lott "weblog effect," but they failed already. Some bloggers early on played right along with the mainstream media script -- essentially just spreading a rumor. Here's one litmus test: If anyone still maintains Santorum "equated" homosexuals with ________ they are a blithering idiot and need to apologize to regain credibility. George Will faced three such fools on ABC's This Week Sunday. He was a man among fetuses, intellectually speaking. Santorum really didn't even "compare" sodomy with ________ either, but that's a finer point involving context and logical fallacy.
Post to del.icio.us

Posted by Chris Regan on April 28, 2003 4:58 PM
Trackbacks: View (0)Ping
Comments

I don’t believe you have made your own position clear on either of the two main (but not only) substantive issues raised by the appeal of the Texas conviction, which are these:

(1) Will the right to privacy, invented by Liberal writers of Constitutional fiction to begin the destruction of morals legislation some 50 years ago in the first place, now be officially declared to make any significant state regulation of sexual morals impossible?

(2) Ought the government to use the law to police sexual morals and maintain the exclusive legality of the traditional family?

I think the correct answer to both questions is “yes.”

And I am delighted to see that Santorum is alarmed by the likely action of the Supremes, and is willing to openly commit to maintenance of the exclusive legality of the traditional family.

And your own view was?

Good question Marcus.

This particular post was more about maintaining objective truth in the press, and weblogs (which I in some ways hold to a higher standard).

I commented on your question in the “AP is still hoping” post linked here. I feel the “right to privacy” as a broad concept was invented piecemeal by liberal activists and their judicial allies, who despise the innate conservatism built into our Constitutional Republic.

If they want a Constitutional right to privacy they should propose an Amendment that makes sense.

I also feel that if judges stripped states of their Constitutional right to make laws regarding public and sometimes private morality we would be living under a different system than the founders carefully and expertly designed.

There is no escape from moral choices. The only question is, who gets to make that moral choice? The far left thinks all morals are simply a relative social construct and have no meaning in objective reality. They want the power to be left up to the individual while the federal government is to force states and other individuals to accept that deconstruction of the Constitution and to ban all legislation of the current moral order.

Then, with pet causes like the environment, etc. they want the federal government to enforce earth worship as the official state religion. And on, and on, until we live in a freakish Stalinist state where the government invents an entire system based on “new morality.”

Posted by Chris R. on April 28, 2003 9:59 PM
Post a comment