"So why the need for additional resources to protect Pruitt around the clock?" asked reporter Brady Dennis. "That remains unclear."
May I clear things up?
Just read the following hyperbolic headlines from the leftist media and see if they might offer a clue or two:
- "Trump, Pruitt, Congress a triple threat to environment" – NJ.com
- "Putting Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA risks irreversible damage to the planet" – Los Angeles Times
- "Why Scott Pruitt is such a threat: Trump's EPA pick would be a disaster for the air we breathe and water we drink" – New York Daily News
- "Donald Trump's pick to head the EPA is 'an existential threat to the planet'" – Mother Jones
- "Trump's EPA nominee Scott Pruitt is a threat to Hawaii" – Honolulu Advertiser
- "According to Scott Pruitt, states only have the right to pollute, not protect their environments" – Los Angeles Times
- "N.J. environmentalists: Trump's EPA pick will threaten clean air, water" – NJ.com
You get the picture?
Notice I have not even posted the real hate speech in today's media – the stuff from MSNBC and the Huffington-Puffington Post. They make Mother Jones look altogether mainstream by comparison.
Is it any wonder why Scott Pruitt thinks he might need heightened security?
The press has all but put a target on the guy's back.
Who in their right mind would take a job like that, with the clear intent of cutting the EPA down to constitutional size and scope, facing threats like that from the leftist-media holy warriors?
Are they not encouraging the more unhinged in their audiences to stop this guy at all costs or by any means necessary?
Think about it: "A triple threat to environment" … "irreversible damage to the planet" … "a disaster to the air we breathe and the water we drink" … "an existential threat to the planet" …
These folks should know words mean things. When you accuse people of destroying the planet, you are accusing them of not only genocide, but ECOCIDE. What would you say is the proper penalty for those kinds of crimes against humanity and the planet in their eyes?
You've heard of eco-terrorists, have you not?
Yes, they have killed people – with bombs and by spiking trees and other means – over the many decades. It's their calling. They don't need much encouragement to resort to violence, but they sure are getting it from the media.
What are the consequences of accusations like that by the media? Do they really mean it? Sure they do. They actually believe that these extremist headlines represent undeniable, objective reality and truth. And this kind of irresponsible, insane, irrational chatter is EVERYWHERE in the media – from ABC, to CBS, to CNN and NBC.
This is what they believe, and this is what they say.
How would you like major media saying things like that about you? Would you feel safe?
What Scott Pruitt is actually trying to do, by the way, is to cut back the budget and power of an out-of-control agency that has abused its mission and authority over the decades and terrorized farmers, ranchers and property owners in general.
You think it's easy to limit the power of government?
This is what you face when you try.
That's because the leftist media aren't watchdogs on government waste, fraud, corruption and abuse. They are advocates for UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT. That's how twisted "journalism" has become in the 21st century.
Suffice it to say, Scott Pruitt is simply watching his back.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|