…brought to us as always by a liberal.

From Michelle Malkin:

Let me summarize first lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity agenda: Shed as I say, not as I gain. While she crusades for organic foods and puts government pressure on corporations to stop marketing fast food and junk food to children, Mrs. Obama herself profited from the very same processed food industry she now demonizes.

It always seems to be the liberals who turn out to be making “the big bucks” off the selfsame businesses or industries they condemn to the rest of us.

(This is where you click on the above link and read the entire excellent column)

She saw no conflict then. And she sees no conflict now in wielding her East Wing clout to restrict the advertising free speech of the food industry that lined her pocketbook with big, fat paychecks. The Obama White House is on an insatiable control binge. No private space has been left behind — not your grocery aisles, not your children’s TV shows, not even your refrigerator.

Give the first lady this: She has an uncanny knack for wrapping her self-interests in the mantle of self-sacrifice and public service. It’s the Obama way.

And that’s a fact!

I read this item in today’s Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web Today, published daily as part of the Opinion Journal by James Taranto, and having been to many demonstrations in my time during which I had the opportunity to observe “peaceful” liberals in action, couldn’t resist putting in my two cents.

“In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite ‘extreme elements’ to violence,” the Associated Press reports from Ann Arbor, Mich.

Two thousand miles away, another AP dispatch reports, there occurred an example of exactly what the president was warning about:

Close to 20 businesses were damaged after what started as a peaceful immigrants’ rights march in downtown Santa Cruz [Calif.] turned violent, requiring police to call other agencies for help, authorities said.

Police spokesman Zach Friend said an estimated 250 people started marching through the city around 10:30 p.m. Saturday.

It was a harmonious but “unpermitted and unsanctioned event,” he said, until some in the crowd started breaking windows and spraying paint on retail shops that line the downtown corridor.

Friend said he wasn’t sure if the damage was caused by people marching in support of immigrants’ rights, or if the group was “infiltrated by anarchists.”

Anarchy signs were spray-painted on some of the buildings.

“They’re a group of people who seem to fancy themselves as revolutionaries, but what they really are are a group of morons,” Friend said.

You’ve got to love the way the AP describes this: It started as a peaceful march but “turned violent.” It was totally harmonious “until some in the crowd started breaking windows.” And the window breakers might have just been infiltrators!

At “peaceful” liberal demonstrations during which I was part of the conservative counter-demonstration assemblages (usually, what we have is the lefties on one side of the street, the conservatives on the other), I have uniformly, not just occasionally observed one constant, other than that while conservatives arrive on our own as individuals or in small groups, a large number of the liberals and entourage are bussed in from all points in order to bolster the size of their crowd for media exposure purposes, and that is that when everybody has gone:

1. The conservative side of the street is immaculate, no trash or property damage to be seen, whereas,

2. The liberal side of the street is utterly trashed, garbage all over the sidewalk, newspaper vending machines and other non-bolted-down artifacts overturned and/or tossed into the actual street, also a none-too-rare garnish of graffiti and/or broken windows.

Moving right along to complete WSJ Editorial Editor Taranto’s actual topic, which compares the biased treatment liberals receive in such situations over conservatives…

Compare this with the lead paragraph of the AP’s March 20 dispatch on the anti-ObamaCare tea-party protests:

House Democrats heard it all Saturday–words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress.

The claims of racial epithets have since been disputed and were never substantiated, but let’s give the AP the benefit of the doubt and assume that at the time, the reporter knew of no reason to doubt the word of the congressmen making the claims.

Even so, had the tea-party protesters gotten the Santa Cruz treatment, the AP would have noted that the rally was completely nonviolent, even if it featured some ugly words; that there was no ugliness at all until the protest “turned ugly”; and that the people who (allegedly) shouted the ugly words might well have been infiltrators.

If the Santa Cruz protesters had gotten the tea-party treatment, by contrast, the AP would have described the event simply as a riot and would not have distinguished between the peaceful protesters and the violent few who might be infiltrators anyway.

What’s more, conservative politicians and commentators would be sounding a constant refrain–echoed by the mainstream media–that politicians are inciting the violence with “antigovernment” statements like this one, reported April 23 by CBS News:

President Obama suggested today that the immigration bill expected to be signed into law in Arizona is a “misguided” piece of legislation that “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

We don’t think that journalists should give the Santa Cruz protesters the tea-party treatment or the tea partiers the Santa Cruz treatment. Both sides ought to get the same treatment–fair treatment–from those whose job is to cover the news impartially.

As for Obama, his efforts to demonize the opposition are unseemly and unpresidential.

Given the breadth of his policies’ unpopularity, they amount to an attack on the majority of Americans. That seems likely they will prove politically unwise as well.

That, as they (whoever they are) say, is for sure!

…seems to have arisen, involving, among others, our good friends the TSA.

Federal security workers are now free to snoop through more than just your undergarments and luggage at the airport. Thanks to a recent series of federal court decisions, the digital belongings of international fliers are now open for inspection. This includes reading the saved e-mails on your laptop, scanning the address book on your iPhone or BlackBerry and closely scrutinizing your digital vacation snapshots.

Unlike the more common confiscations of dangerous Evian bottles and fingernail clippers, these searches are not being done in the name of safety. The digital seizures instead are part of a disturbing trend of federal agencies using legal gimmicks to sidestep Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. This became clear in an April 8 court ruling that found admissible the evidence obtained by officials who had peeped at a passenger’s laptop files at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

According to court documents, FBI agents had identified an individual suspected of downloading child pornography on an Internet chat room. The G-men, however, did not want to take their evidence before a judge to obtain a search warrant, as the Constitution requires. Instead, they flagged the suspect’s passport and asked officials at the Department of Homeland Security to seize and search his computer at the airport - without a warrant. Three incriminating images were found during the examination, but this case is not about whether a particular person is a scumbag. It’s about abusing a principle that applies to all Americans.

Well, with all the rhetoric that came out of B. Hussein Obama and the rest of the Democrats in their malevolent attacks criticisms of the Bush Administration in regard to what they termed callous invasions of the privacy of U.S. citizens (monitoring of certain suspect international telephone communications and accessing bank accounts believed to be part of terrorism financing networks), this one sure is a shocker, isn’t it?

I’ve heard the accusations that the “Bushies” were using the War on Terror as an excuse to allow Uncle Sam’s nose into our personal business, according to the political left, keeping an eye on how much our nine year olds have accumulated in their savings accounts and keeping track of whom we were taking out for dinner and a show on Friday night, but this one’s a taker of the proverbial cake!

The fun part is that Obama and his henchpersons do worse without even a grimace that they are doing exactly what they purported not long ago to be anathema to any semblance of decent humanity.

Can you say, “hypocrisy”?

Actually, coming from the leadership of the Obamanation, seeing how much more marxist-like and anti-Constitution they have proven themselves in the last 15 months, I would have to say that they are acting well within the parameters of their established character.

It’s interesting to note, however, that though 99.99999% of today’s terrorist threats come from Muslims of Southwest Asian and Middle Eastern decent, every increasingly oppressive anti-terrorism screening measure they take targets everyone but Muslims of aforementioned descents.

Obama philosophy: When the best odds on preventing a terrorist act can be found in the profiling of Muslims, we must make every effort to avoid profiling Muslims.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” from unreasonable and unwarranted government intrusion. It is obvious that this right is meant to apply equally to papers that happen to be stored in digital form on a personal hard drive. Such protections do not disappear merely because one happens to be at a real - or imaginary - border.

Because the courts have been derelict in their duty to uphold this fundamental right, it is up to Congress to prohibit the thinly veiled attempts to create Constitution-free zones where Americans find their privacy invaded.

Chuck reporting for duty.

As I’ve more or less written before, my home is what could arguably be called a small yacht, as she is fifty feet long and fairly luxurious, the good part being that while she cost quite a bit of money, I was fortunate, at the time I acquired her, to possess the means with which to pay for her in full.

This was made possible by the U.S. Armed Forces, since after I retired with twenty, entering the private sector, I brought my experience and skills overseas to help some good guys solve some problems with bad guys and made a couple of good scores along the way.

She’s parked among the pleasure craft, at a marina located within the boundaries of Los Angeles County, California, of a number of individuals whose personal assets make mine look like fly specks, but then, friends of mine tell me I’m essentially a “boat bum” (as opposed to a beach one, I suppose), and they’re not far off the mark: it took practically every penny I had at the time to buy and equip her to my specifications, with a permanent and totally mobile home in mind.

My bank balance is anything but impressive, and my modest pension takes care of my month-to-month expenses.

Even so, I’m the original happy camper as what little I have constitutes, in its entirety, everything I want or need.

Having said that, I’ve been all for the modest, quiet life since buying her and going to live aboard; Entertaining friends or neighbors, taking her out for a cruise either down to Coronado or, still further south, to Mexico, or north for a visit to the Bay Area now and then, or wandering around, landlubber style, in questionable neighborhoods like Venice Beach or Hollywood.

Yesterday evening, a friend and I got together for a Thanksgiving feast at a place on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood. Having nothing planned, other than swinging by a couple of local bars I occasionally visit in nearby Venice, I spent the day wandering around and made an observation I thought I’d share.

I was down in the vicinity of Santa Monica Blvd and Western Avenue, which is as Mexican a neighborhood as you’ll find outside Mexico (along with a significant sized sprinkling of South Americans). There must be one “hellified” number of illegals saturating that community.

While practically every place of business in L.A. County that wasn’t selling food, gas or booze was closed for Thanksgiving, every business in that ‘hood was open as though there were no holiday: even the clothing stores, check cashing establishments, electronics businesses (cell phones, stereo equipment, etc), and the locals were going about their normal routines as though it were just another day.

Thanksgiving is an American holiday, one of the most prominent of American holidays, yet the folks in that Mexican enclave could care less, it was nothing to them, just something the gringos celebrate.

Theoretically, most of these happen to be among those people liberals in our society refer to as “Mexican - hyphen - Americans”.

Here at Hard Astarboard we do not believe in hyphenated Americans.

Either someone’s an American or not, they can’t be both an American and something else.

This hyphenating business came along as a liberal Democrat ploy to maintain differences between white and non-white Americans, the ultimate purpose being to exploit those perceived differences, through race-card politics, to get votes.

One of their primary explanations for this pitiful, very desperately conceived precurser of oppressive political correctness is that they “feel” all people of foreign extraction should, the poor wretches, be able to embrace their respective heritages.

If you are an American, you have the same heritage shared by all Americans. If you don’t, why be here? Wouldn’t it just be cozier to return to the land that you feel is the land of your heritage?

Now, here’s what makes me scratch my head:

Mexican-Americans. Most “Mexican-Americans” are here because they want to be able to find work, earn money, eat. Feed their families.

Back next door in the old country, many of them didn’t have those luxuries, couldn’t find ‘em, so they came up here.

By being “Mexican-Americans”, then, they are able to celebrate their “heritage” of poverty and squalor, hunger and disease in a politically corrupt shithole.

“African-Americans”. Hmmmph! How many American born black people with American born grand parents do you know that can tell you which tribe their ancestors came from and the names of those ancestors?

The reality is that American black folks are 100% American, the same as the rest of us, no different, except that their first generation ancestors paid harder than most of the rest of ours on the way to becoming free men in a free country. Granted, those unfortunates back then hadn’t been given a choice as far as coming over here to begin with, but looking at the way life has always been in sub-Saharan Africa, I hardly think the average black American, or white, yellow, red or brown one for that matter, would want to live there, anyway.

Moving on, though, slavery flourished and died long before any American now living was born, and there has not been a human being in this country alive for decades who even knew any slaves, let alone having been slaves themselves.

It’s over, it is the worst black mark on the history of this nation, but it ended, and it ended on fields covered with blood spilled by white boys and white men. It was time to move on a long time ago.

Liberals don’t want to move on, because they gain votes by pimping guilt to whites and resentment to blacks, using both to keep a wedge between false perceptions and reality, because it’s in the best political interests of the Democrats to keep alive the illusion that we are different. Keep the hate in place as best you can, so the differences remain in plain sight as well.

These are the same Democrats who founded and filled the member roles of the Ku Klux Klan, and the same Democrats who voted solidly against the Civil Rights Bill, yet they have run a hell of a good con, making it “a given” that they are the black man’s best friend.

Most of the blacks I know are pretty smart, which causes me some disappointment when I realize that so many of them are gullible enough to be made asses of by the Democrats decade after decade without waking up and smelling the proverbial coffee.

In summation, the hyphen thing seems to be working, if the people in the Mexican neighborhood I mentioned above don’t even take the fact of Thanksgiving seriously. On the other hand, look for lots of liberals to show up for the next Cinco de Mayo celebration.

After all, we American-Americans must be as multicultural as it takes us being in order to stand our own culture aside for the collective heritages of everyone else, mainly so Democrats can get more votes.

Ciau.

…a few minutes to check my email before being obligated for the rest of the day, and right off the bat, ran across a perfect example of a liberal elitist in action can be found here.

Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore told CNSNews.com “it’s absolutely a good thing” for government to drive private health insurance companies out of business and replace them with a single-payer system.

President Obama, Moore said, should stop trying to sneak a single-payer health care system through the “backdoor” and come straight at it instead. Moore said he would advise the president to tell the American people: “Look, we should be like every other Western Democracy and have a single-payer health care system. Pure and simple.”

Do you think that extreme leftist, disgusting, fat tub of treasonous combination of lard and excrement Michael Moore will, if the “single payer” system is passed, victimize himself with it as he is so determined to see the unwashed masses© so victimized?

Of course not!

A corpulent human balloon like that would no doubt be terrified, given his certain future of heart problems and other obesity related ailments, of subjecting himself to the government controlled healthcare he wishes on the rest of us, and I’d bet that if he wasn’t a very rich man (wealth “earned” by means that only a traitor could lay claim to), we wouldn’t hear a peep from the blimp-like son-of-a-bitch about this.

Later.

As we know, in most states, when a senator leaves office prematurely, such as by death or “abrupt retirement”, it falls upon the governor to appoint his or her replacement.

Those liberals in Massachusettes were okay with that until a few years ago, when they had a Republican governor (Mitt Romney) and they fretted, “What happens if Teddy suddenly kicks the bucket? This governor might replace him with a Republican! We can’t have that!”

Being a lefty state, they figured they’d be safe if they left the replacement of a senator to the voters, so they changed the law.

Now a senator has to be replaced by someone elected by the voters.

Or so the law says.

However, fickle that they are, now that Ted’s gone and they have a Democrat governor at the moment, they feel that, after all, rules are meant to be broken.

Gov. Deval Patrick named former Democratic Party chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. to the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat Thursday and said the rushed, temporary appointment was necessary because the issues before Congress were “too important to Massachusetts for us to be one voice short.”

“too important to Massachusetts for us to be one voice short.”

Of course it is.

Had Romney been governor and the same thing happened, with him appointing a Republican as interim senator, there would have been one hell of an explosion in that state legislature, since in that case a prompt appointment wouldn’t have been all that important, after all

Patrick’s appointment means Kirk will serve in the interim post until voters pick a replacement in a Jan. 19 special election. Kirk said he would not be a candidate in the special election.

This week, lawmakers gave Patrick the appointment power, five years after taking that power away when Republican Mitt Romney was in office. The legislation did not take effect immediately, so Patrick had to sign an emergency letter Thursday to make the appointment right away.

These liberals are so transparently hypocritical and so obviously hold the intelligence of the voting public in profound contempt that one has to wonder how anyone with an iota of said intelligence can take them seriously enough to vote for them.

…is available for our perusal at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Canadian and American filmmakers lashed back Friday at what they described as an ” outrageous” boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival by some filmmakers and writers in protest of the event’s spotlight on filmmakers from Tel Aviv.

Producer, writer and director David Zucker (”Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun,” “Airplane!” ) denounced as “left-wing crazies” the individuals who signed a letter called ” The Toronto Declaration” to protest Israeli government policies.

Even artistic endeavors are not safe from the injection of politics by the far left and its minions.

Mr. Zucker said he is “outraged” that actors such as Danny Glover and Jane Fonda, along with about 50 other activists, would sign a declaration that condemns Israel as an “apartheid regime” and dismisses the work of Tel Aviv filmmakers as “Israeli propaganda.”

The protest of Israel began Aug. 27 when Canadian filmmaker John Greyson released a public letter stating he would withdraw his film from the 10-day festival, which opens Thursday, to protest Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.
On Thursday Sept. 3, writer Naomi Klein and others joined Mr. Greyson’s protest and issued ” The Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation.”

Israel’s “brutal” military assault on Gaza earlier this year.

Didn’t that have something to do with stopping Hamas’ launching missiles at civilian targets in southern Israel, and curtailing the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip to prevent further violence against innocent civilians?

Then again, Liberals, who are always the first up to preach peace, are also always right there to raise their voices in support of the worst murderers, torturers and enslavers of civilian populations on the planet. If your cause involves genocide and totalitarianism, rest assured there will be millions of liberals, especially the American kind who have never had to worry about falling victim to the same evils, marching in your support.

Nevertheless, a liberal will be outraged if you even hint that he or she has even a single hypocritical bone in his or her body.

I’ll tell you one thing: Had I been Henry Fonda, not only would I have been the most ashamed father in America, I would probably, also, have looked into the possibility of a total gene replacement decades ago.

Mr. Greyson’s film, “Covered,” is a documentary about violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina that shut down the 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival.

The 2008 Sarajevo Queer Festival?

ROTFLMAO!

I wonder how many people the withdrawal of Mr. Greyson’s film has brought to the very brink of suicidal despair!

Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici complained that Mr. Greyson is now trying to shut down the voices of filmmakers in the only country in the Middle East that allows free expression.

If Mr. Greyson “were to walk down the streets of Tel Aviv with a sign saying he is a homosexual filmmaker, he would be invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Film Festival. But if he did that in Ramallah or any Palestinian village in the Territories, his films would have to be shown posthumously because they would kill him,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

In fact, Mr. Greyson was invited to the Tel Aviv Queer Festival and withdrew another of his films from that event.

My, these “queer festivals” really seem to be making the rounds. Even in “evil, apartheid mongering” Tel Aviv, imagine that!

Gays in Palestine “flee to Tel Aviv to protect themselves from their brothers who would lynch them,” Mr. Jacobovici added.

Yes, but that doesn’t count, because,

“It seems that nothing the Jews do is right and nothing the enemies of the Jews do is wrong,” said Mr. Jacobovici.

{Both above emphasis’ mine}

The idea of an Israeli apartheid is also “a lie,” said Mr. Jacobovici, noting that 1 million Palestinians live in Israel (about 20 percent of Israel’s population), “while not one Jew lives in the Territories or is even buried there because they have disinterred those bodies.”

Anyway, the entire Washington Times article is here.

Liberals…

Wolf here.

I’ve seen some pretty stupid and self destructive actions performed in my day by people who should at least have the sense of responsibility to think things through, weighing the pros and cons, before they act, of the decisions they make and the execution of what they’ve decided upon.

Unfortunately, and this goes not only for B. Hussein Obama but for the rest of that pack of dishonest scoundrels who call themselves Democrats these days.

They play politics, thinking only of their partisan ambitions without a thought to the good of America and the people who elected them to lead the nation.

They twist the truth and the accomplishments of potential victims of their political agendas to meet the requirements of those agendas.

Obama’s agenda, whatever it may be, certainly bides no good for this country, its economic future, its national security, our rights and freedoms, the values we hold dear, those that make us unique among nations, our morality, and his actions to date bear this up.

Now, to appease his “get Bush, Cheney and all their issue” base, Obama is attacking the CIA for operating, they were assured at the time, within the law.

Of course, we’re talking a renegade government run by Obama, Pelosi and Reid (Frankencense and Murtha?), and all the lies that come with it.

President Obama on Monday paid his first formal visit to CIA headquarters, in order, as he put it, to “underscore the importance” of the agency and let its staff “know that you’ve got my full support.” Assuming he means it, the President should immediately declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, and what plots foiled, by the interrogations of high-level al Qaeda detainees in the wake of September 11.

This suggestion was first made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said he found it “a little bit disturbing” that the Obama Administration had decided to release four Justice Department memos detailing the CIA’s interrogation practices while not giving the full picture of what the interrogations yielded in actionable intelligence. Yes, it really is disturbing, especially given the bogus media narrative that has now developed around those memos.

bogus media narrative is the only kind of media narrative these days, and for some reason “bogus” and “Obama” seem to coexist easily in the same piece of thought.

This shows how bold, thanks entirely to the relative lack of awareness among the American people (read that as not paying attention to the little dictatorship style government we have developed since the third week of January), the liberals who control the Democratic party have become.

I’ll tell you something, people. Seth has said this to me before, and I have come to agree with him: If we allow these politicians to continue to go this far without voting the lot of them out of office, we, as a country, deserve every bit of shit they will eventually bury us in. It’s every voter’s sacred responsibility to study hard on what the government is doing, what our politicians are up to.

In other words, CIA interrogators wanted to use these techniques in 2002 to break a terrorist they believed had information that could potentially save American lives. Rest assured that if the CIA hadn’t taken these steps and the U.S. had been hit again, the same people denouncing these memos now would have been demanding another 9/11 Commission to deplore their inaction.

Gotta love them fuckin’ traitors Democrats. So crooked and sleazy honest and fair.

The memos give considerable indication both of the sheer quantity, as well as some of the specifics, of the intelligence gathered through the interrogations. “You have informed us,” wrote Mr. Bradbury in the May 30, 2005 memo, “that the interrogation of KSM — once enhanced techniques were employed — led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles. You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of . . . Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell . . . tasked with the execution of the ‘Second Wave.’”

All in all, Mr. Bybee added, “the intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of CTC’s [the CIA's Counterterrorist Center] reporting on al Qaeda.”

In a saner world (or at least one that accurately reported on original documents), all of this would be a point of pride for the CIA. It would serve as evidence of the Bush Administration’s scrupulousness regarding the life and health of the detainees, and demonstrate how wrong are the claims that harsh interrogations yielded no useful intelligence.

The above emphasis is mine.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch,

The Obama administration’s decision to release a previously classified 2004 CIA interrogation report and appoint a special prosecutor to look into possible misdeeds by personnel involved in questioning high-value terrorists is a huge mistake.

It’s almost as if - in addition to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terror - the Obama administration has now declared war on the CIA, which is one of our most important assets in gathering intelligence for winning these conflicts.

First, these choices will likely have a chilling effect on the morale at the agency. Earlier this year Barack Obama himself vowed it was time to look forward, not back. (Of course, that is until it’s time to look back.)

In addition to being another Obama policy flip-flop, these decisions will likely leave officers in the field wondering whether they should be more concerned about getting terrorists or getting lawyers.

I can tell you first hand here that I know exactly where Mr. Brookes is coming from. Thank God I’m retired!

It’s also a major distraction to the CIA’s embattled director Leon Panetta, who seems to be drowning in a sea of inquiries from his White House and the Democratic Congress. Doesn’t he have more important things to look after, like Iran and North Korea?

(Some believe Panetta won’t be around much longer, giving the already-rattled CIA its sixth leader since 9/11.)

How about a dose of reality, here, Mr. O?

It isn’t by chance that we haven’t been attacked in nearly eight years. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that we owe the CIA a debt of gratitude for keeping us safe.

It’s a sentiment the Obama administration should really consider before it goes any further.

Wolf out.

There’s no other way to describe the majority of today’s journalists. If I were a reporter, I don’t think I’d be able to tell anyone about it and look them in the eye at the same time.

Chuck here, by the way, still having a problem with the dropdown contributor menu.

This piece from the Media Research Center says it all.

With President Obama and congressional liberals facing loud protests over their big government health care plan, journalists are casting the anti-ObamaCare forces as “ugly,” “unruly,” “nasty” mobs, with reporters presenting the most odious images (like pictures of Obama drawn as Hitler) as somehow representative. But when President George W. Bush faced left-wing protests, the media scrubbed their stories of radical voices and depicted demonstrators as mainstream, and even “prescient.”

In January 2003, all of the broadcast networks touted an anti-war march organized by the radical International ANSWER, an outgrowth of the communist Workers World Party. Signs at the rally read: “USA Is #1 Terrorist,” “Bush Is a Terrorist,” and “The NYPD Are Terrorists Too.” National Review Online quoted several protesters who claimed 9/11 was a Bush plot, “like when Hitler burned down the Reichstag,” and argued Bush would “build a worldwide planetary death machine.”

Bush would “build a worldwide planetary death machine.”

Come on, now, is that quotably sourced from a mature mind?

Regardless,

Reporters bypassed all that hate and showcased the protesters as everyday Americans. On ABC, Bill Blakemore stressed how the protest attracted “Democrats and Republicans, many middle-aged, from all walks of life,” while CBS’s Joie Chen saw “young, old, veterans and veteran activists — all united in the effort to stop the war before it starts.”

In Feburary 2003, CNN donated two hours of programming, “Voices of Dissent,” to another International ANSWER event. Correspondent Maria Hinojosa enthused: “It’s an extraordinarily diverse crowd. I have seen elderly men and women with mink coats carrying their posters.” ABC’s John McKenzie painted the protesters as idealistic: “So many voices, filling the streets, struggling to be heard.”

Is that the best a supposedly responsible, fair and balanced media can do in the way of reporting, or were they just having a bad news day or several?

On March 22, 2003, CNN offered 38 separate reports on a demonstration that day, but managed to never show any of the radical rhetoric from the podium. Over on ABC, Chris Cuomo saluted the leftists converging in New York City: “While protesters like today are a statistical minority, in American history protests like this have been prescient indicators of the national mood. So the government may do well to listen to what’s said today.”

In October 2003, the far left rallied again in Washington, this time with a rapper leading a chant of “F**k George Bush!” and speakers praising Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. The next day’s Washington Post ignored all of that in favor of a soft feature: “In D.C., a Diverse Mix Rouses War Protest.”

In D.C., a Diverse Mix Rouses War Protest.

I believe the correct response to that, in computerese, is LMFAO!!!!

In 2006, the left demanded money for New Orleans, with one protester wearing a George W. Bush mask adorned with Satan horns and a Hitler moustache. CNN reporter Susan Roesgen thought it comic, calling it a “look-alike” for the President. But covering the anti-big government tea parties in April 2009, Roesgen was aggrieved to see a picture of Obama with a Hitler moustache: “Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?”

I detest having to call anybody a hypocritical, human shaped chunk of hedge hog feces, so I’ll give Susan Roesgen the benefit of the doubt and just assume that she has something of a faulty memory where some of her past excretions expressions of opinion are concerned.

Today’s protesters are being portrayed as crazy and even dangerous. Ex-CNN reporter Bob Franken called the anti-Obama protesters “a crazed group” engaged in “organized intimidation.” An August 10 graphic on MSNBC wondered: “Conservatives Coming Unhinged?” Chris Matthews saw racism: “I think some of the people are upset because we have a black President.” And ABC’s Bill Weir on Friday warned “the rising anger is now ramping up concerns over the President’s personal safety.”

These people are the ones to whom the majority of Americans go for news and informed opinion. Frightening, isn’t it?

The double-standard is obvious. How can professional journalists possibly justify it?

They can’t, because they’re not professional journalists, no matter what their credentials may indicate.

So, what are they?

My best guess? An unpleasant flotsam of some sort.

In any case, the media needs to be purged of these political whores if it wishes to regain its former status as a dependable source of information and knowledgeably, responsibly formed opinion.

There are a number of links in the Media Research Center article that is linked near the top of this post, this link, in fact, that quantify various references in the quoted narrative.

…and his retinue are apparently encountering some degree of resistance, at long last.

British environmental analyst Christopher Monckton says Al Gore’s latest attack on global warming skeptics shows the former vice president and other climate alarmists are “panicking.”

And well they should be.

On Sunday, CBS News correspondent Leslie Stahl asked Al Gore on the television show 60 Minutes what he thinks of people like Vice President Dick Cheney who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity.

“I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the earth is flat,” replied Gore. “That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”

However, Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, says the former vice president can enjoy his “flat earth fantasies” for a few months, but in the end, the world will be laughing at him.

“The alarmists are alarmed, the panic mongers are panicking, the scare mongers are scared; the Gores are gored. Why? Because global warming stopped ten years ago; it hasn’t got warmer since 1998,” he points out. “And in fact in the last seven years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about [or] very close to one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We’re actually in a period … of global cooling.”

Hmmm…

Mr. Monckton, my hat is off to you!

Monckton contends Gore is now “panicking” because he has staked his reputation as a former American VP on “telling the world that we’re all doomed unless we shut down 90 percent of the Western economies.” He also contends that Gore is the largest “global-warming profiteer.”

It’s pitiful that Algore, a typical modern Democrat, is willing to screw the rest of us, using a typical liberal agenda, in order to make megabucks for himself. Nancy Pelosi, another leftist hypocrite, is probably foaming at the mouth in anger that she didn’t think of this racket first.

Gore’s group The Alliance for Climate Protection is currently launching a new $300 million ad campaign that demands reforms in environmental law to help reduce the supposed “climate crisis.” But Monckton points out that in the U.K., Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his “green investment company” because to do so would violate racketeering laws by “peddling a false prospectus.” He says that fact came about after a British high court found Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, riddled with errors.

Emphasis mine, and speaking of emphasis, bravo, U.K.!

It’s good to see that someone, somewhere, has exposed Algore for the opportunitic fraud he really is. Now let’s see some prosecution for same: After all, an individual who commits fraud on a bank or other business to the tune of a few hundred bucks gets a felony sentence. Gore has swindled the world at large for millions, yet he’s still walking around free.

What’s wrong with this picture?