Hypocrisy: The Standard Procedure Of Democrats And Their Media Allies

Written by Bill Thomas on October 9, 2019

Multiple times in the gospels, Jesus warned about hypocrites. They love to brag about things they don’t really do (Matthew 15:7-9) and they try to make others think they are more righteous than others (Matthew 6:16-18). Hypocrisy is condemned by Jesus.

Shakespeare knew about hypocrisy, too. Hamlet said to Ophelia, “God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.”

The word “hypocrisy” is a word the Greeks used to describe an actor who wore a mask to play different characters on stage. It was in the 4th century B.C. that the word began to take on a negative meaning.

Today, hypocrisy is “feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not: behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel,” and it is the standard way of conducting business for the Democrats and their media accomplices.

This isn’t anything new. The Left has been hypocritical for a long time. However, in the last few weeks, a few actions were so egregious that they deserve recognition.

The first might be called “The cost of security.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) insisted that the Trump campaign pay just over $500,000 for security at the Target Center in Minneapolis for the Trump Rally scheduled for October 10th. Frey stated that this was about just “paying the bills” and the need for extra police officers. However, Minneapolis requested a much smaller reimbursement — a reported $20,000 — after President Barack Obama held a health care-themed rally at Target Center in 2009.

Mayor Frey, can you say hypocrite? The Target Center rally is set to go on as planned and the mayor has backed down. It seems clear that the extra police are not for the attendees of the rally, but more likely for the protest that is scheduled at the same time. Is it possible that the Democrats and the media are concerned that Minnesota might be in play in 2020? Is that why the mayor attempted such a brazen hypocritical move?

The second might be called “Pay no attention to the transcript, just look at what he said he heard.” Both the media and the Democrats were hyping whistleblower number one, until he was revealed to not have first-hand knowledge. He or she is still around, but in a manner that we saw in the Kavanaugh hearing, they are now thrilled about a second whistleblower who might have first-hand knowledge.

MSNBC is trumpeting, “Second whistleblower undermines Trump’s claim that impeachment inquiry a scam.” ABC News eagerly reported, “Attorney representing whistleblower who sounded the alarm on Pres. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine tells @ABC News he is now representing a second whistleblower who has first-hand knowledge of events.”

As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, “We have the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. As such, we know more than the whistleblower knew when he got all of this started. He continues, “Trump blows it (the Democrat plan) sky-high by releasing the transcript of the call and thereby blows the whistleblower out of the water. The moment Trump released that transcript, we knew more than the whistleblower knew. It effectively took the whistleblower out of the game.” I would agree and argue it makes a second whistleblower as irrelevant as the first.

Here’s the hypocrisy. The Media and the Democrats are hoping that the American people will buy what either whistleblower said about what President Trump said on his phone call to the Ukrainian president and not read the transcript of the call. They believe they are smarter than we are (or we wouldn’t have elected Trump) and they think they can just tell us what happened. The truth is, though, we can read. We can read the Mueller report and we can read the transcript. We can see there is not a quid pro quo. We can see that the favor the president addressed was related to 2016 and not to Joe Biden. They believe we are stupid. In this case, that arrogance fuels the hypocrisy.

The last one has to do with the new Democrat front-runner Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Senator Warren, on the campaign trail, has been talking about her teaching career in 1971. She claims to have been fired because she was pregnant.

“All I know is I was 22 years old; I was six months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else. The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job.”

That statement, though, isn’t true. Madeline Osburn, in The Federalist, reports minutes from a 1970 meeting New Jersey’s Riverdale Board of Education show Warren was unanimously approved for a second-year contract in 1970. Minutes from a meeting the next year, 1971, show Warren’s resignation was “accepted with regret.”

Osburn also cites an interview with Harry Kreisler in which Warren describes her teaching career but does not cite discrimination as the reason for quitting her public-school job.

How are the Media allies of the Left describing this lie? Vox is attempting to “explain” it; Salon is calling the reporting of the lie “sexist;” and The Washington Post calls it “fake.” 

The hypocrisy practically leaps off the screen. When confronted with the uncomfortable truth that Sen. Warren is lying, they spin it away and attempt to tell us that what we see isn’t what we see. We know better, though. The only way to defeat this hypocritical bunch is to send them slithering away by beating them in 2020.

Bill Thomas
Bill Thomas lives in Washington, Missouri and is a professor at St. Louis Christian College. He's also on staff at First Christian Church in Washington, Missouri. He's authored two novellas, From the Ashes and The Sixty-First Minute published by White Feather Press of MI and three Bible studies, Surrounded by Grace, The Critical Questions and More and The Road to Victory published by CSS Publishing of OH.