Thursday, August 04, 2005

Collateral Damage...


Drudge is reporting that elements of the Old Busted Media are meticulously excavating through the personal history of Supreme Court Nominee, John Roberts; including the adoption records of his two young children.

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the
status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants. Both children were adopted from Latin America. A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check." Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience. Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony. One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
I like many others, recognized a disturbing event just after the announcement of Robert's nomination, when major network personalities like Ann Compton of ABC publicly discussed the fact that the Roberts' children were adopted. At ages 4 and 5 the likelihood that Josie and Jack Roberts are as yet unaware of this fact is quite high. One wonders if any agent of the press bothered to make that crucial inquiry before divulging personally sensitive - and politically meaningless - information? Even if the children were in posession of the knowledge, it is similarly as likely that many of their friends and aquaintences did not. Either way, it is a degree of private information regarding minors that ought to be respected.

Atrocious behavior of this sort is not new for what is being Left. Do let's recall the Vice Presidential debate of 2004 between Edwards and Chaney, where the Democrat candidate saw fit to out Chaney's daughter as a lesbian. All's fair in love and war... and politics, it would seem. But I for one, find this trawling of the family's intimate history by the New York Times to be wholey reprehensible to the core and well beyond the bounds of decency in the realm of public discourse. Afterall, what might they hope to find in the course of their investigation? And how might they intend to use that information, given that most Americans would find it abhorent to see one's children savaged for political advantage? Or does the New York Times, simply intend the mere threat of injury to his children to elicit a withdrawal of Roberts' nomination? If so, what does that say about the editors and staff at the New York Times? ... using figurative hostages the way maniacs use blindfolded abductees?

You see, someone very close to me was adopted; just as I'm sure that many of you know others who share that particular characteristic. It is essential to that particular institution for privacy to be maintained to a severe degree. It is knowledge that is privy to no one but parents and child. There is no right nor reason outside of a legitimate legal custody inquiry for those records to be breached by any other party. Drudge concludes,

One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
Oh it can be true... when what is being Left sees its ends to be superior to the justification of any means necessary to attain them. Unrestrained by moral principle, common virtue is abandoned to the convenience of whim. And when the Left deems it prudent to destroy children -DESTROY CHILDREN - in order to defeat their enemy, they do so without a second's reconsideration. Where are we seeing similar tactics being employed on the world stage?

The Left reprimands about collateral damage and innocent casualties in warfare. And yet warfare is chaos resulting from the total failure of civility in a social system. Politics lend definition to the principles of a proper social system. Given that collateral damage is an acceptable means to the Left's ends, could anything more condemning be revealed about their perverse notion of civility?!

Other Bloggers are on this now as well, even as the NYT obfuscates. See Michelle Malkin for starters.

The Anchoress maintains a watchful eye as usual. The Hammer has been aroused from vacation. And the Capt'n shells the Gray Lady's fortifications. And Free Republic swarms as do more blogs than I can try to mention here. Lots of great updates and links to reviewed.

What did you think would happen NYT, when you tried to molest our children?

No comments: