Blogger at the home of a Forgotten Man

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump’s presidential honeymoon with the media lasted sixteen minutes, which was, not coincidentally, the length of his inauguration address.

Since then, the media, with a few exceptions, has been relentlessly attacking the president, and by media, I’ll use the definition Rush Limbaugh gave this morning to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, which is ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

I’ll add one more–a big one, CNN, sometimes called the Clinton News Network.

The media is striking back with an assault on the presidency not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal.

And Donald Trump is fighting them–and the media can’t ascertain why much of the public, their public, is siding with the president.

Because conservatives don’t like cheaters.

Among the damning revelations from the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks was clear evidence of collusion by some of these allegedly neutral outlets during the 2016 presidential campaign, most notoriously when CNN analyst Donna Brazile twice supplied a planned question to the Hillary Clinton campaign prior to a CNN-hosted debate with Bernie Sanders.

Viewers of those two CNN debates were cheated by CNN, which employed Brazile, as they rightly expected the Clinton-Sanders matchups to be, let’s use a popular term from the time when several Chicago White Sox players conspired to throw the 1919 World Series, “on the square.” Sure, Brazile, was fired, but only after she was caught the second time feeding a debate question to the Clinton machine. That says a lot. Oh, where did Brazile learn of these questions? Did they come from a low-level CNN staffer?

Liberals, with the possible exception of the most ardent members of the growing socialist wing of the Democratic Party, dismissed Brazile’s cheating as just the way the game is played, which is not how White Sox fans greeted news of the 1919 fix broke a year later.

Before there was fake news there was a fake World Series.

Here is my conservative-or-liberal litmus test: If you were angry–or still are angry–about media collusion with the Democratic Party during the 2016 campaign, they you are a conservative. If you are not, they you’re a liberal. It’s that easy.

Which explains why the media, again using the definition I gave earlier, is astounded that Trump not only attacks them millions of Americans are cheering him on.

After dutifully reporting on media collusion immediately after it was revealed, the media promptly ignored the scandal–their scandal–which is not the case with Russian interference, and yes, alleged hacking of the election by Russia of the presidential election, whatever that entails. It probably entails nothing. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, repeatedly insists that Russia was not the source of the hacked Podesta emails.

Okay, you skeptics out there, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I am citing only two examples of CNN collusion, and that done by an analyst, not a reporter.

Still still for a moment. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper, both of them anchors, the latter is the network’s Washington correspondent, were caught colluding by WikiLeaks. Other colluders captured in the WikiLeaks net were the New York Times and CNBC’s John Harwood, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Glenn Thrush, then of Politico and now of the New York Times, and Brent Budowsky of The Hill.

When Trump said on the stump “the system is rigged,” the colluders proved him right.

The Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman, that is, the people who play by the rules and try to make an honest living under increasingly daunting odds, elected Trump, despite the rigging.

John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

And the cheating media still can’t figure out why most Americans despise them.

You Democratic cynics are probably still thinking, “Everyone does it.” No they don’t. Very few media outlets are conservative ones, so the opportunity simply isn’t there for Republicans to collude. The only instance of GOP collusion in a presidential campaign I can recall is George Will’s vague self-described “inappropriate” role in the 1980 Debategate micro-scandal.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

trump-for-america-bw-and-colorBy John Ruberry

I haven’t read all of the thousands of John Podesta emails hacked by Wikileaks–has anyone yet?–but what I have read they betray a Democratic Party obsessed with two things: Money and power.

Liberal writer Thomas Frank, in his second great (gasp!) Guardian column in less than a week, accurately portrays the modern Democratic Party:

Let us start with the Democrats. Were you to draw a Venn diagram of the three groups whose interaction defines the modern-day Democratic party – liberals, meritocrats and plutocrats – the space where they intersect would be an island seven miles off the coast of Massachusetts called Martha’s Vineyard.

I’m going to drive the point home by reminding you that John F. Kennedy Jr, who was a liberal, meritocrat, and a plutocrat, was flying to Martha’s Vineyard to attend a cousin’s wedding when the airplane he was piloting crashed into the Atlantic. The Vineyard is Barack Obama’s favorite vacation spot–he’s been there seven times while president. Martha’s Vineyard the playground of the Democrat elitists. Bill and Hillary Clinton have vacationed there several times. In August her campaign held a $100,000-per-couple fundraiser on the island, just days after a devastating flood struck Louisiana.

In those Podesta emails, I haven’t so far found any mention of blacks, unless it’s about the black vote, the group that Democrats claim to champion more than anyone. But other than voting en masse for the Democrats and celebrity campaign appearances by people like Jay-Z, African-Americans otherwise aren’t much use for the Democrats.

Blue collar workers, a section of the electoral pie that has been shrinking for decades, appear to be missing from the Podesta emails too. They are also absent from Martha’s Vineyard, from what I hear, unless they are modern George Wilsons from The Great Gatsby, dutifully repairing plutocrats’ Teslas. The working class, once the biggest chunk of the FDR coalition, is heading towards the Republican Party. Perhaps a majority of them are inside the GOP tent already. And you won’t find what Michael Moore calls “the forgotten working stiff” on any vacation, because the leftist flamethrower pointed out last month his stiff hasn’t “had a real vacation in years.”

Some blacks besides the First Family “holiday” on the Vineyard, but in a 2009 article in New York magazine, Touré dismissed them as African-Americans who are “the only ones,” such as the only black in the room, neighborhood, or workplace.

“No man is an island entire of itself,” John Donne wrote nearly 400 years ago, “every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Unless of course you are a member of the Democrat elite. An island accessible only by boats and airplanes is a fitting hangout for them.

Which leaves “the leftover people” for the Republicans. Sure, the elitists will blame the decline in unionization of the blue collar work force as why the leftovers have fallen behind.

Maybe.

Also discovered in Podesta’s WikiLeaks cache was an email from Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who advised the Clinton campaign to choose a city outside of Washington for its headquarters because they would be better positioned to hire “low paid permanent employees.” And just what wage does Schmidt view as low paid? Is it less than the $15 minimum wage that Democrats call for?

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Oh, if Schmidt really believes every verse in the Democratic mantra, then why isn’t Google unionized?

So, no, the Democratic Party isn’t the champion of “the little guy” anymore, just as Martha’s Vineyard isn’t a vacation destination for blacks living in Boston’s impoverished Dorchester neighborhood. Ironically it’s a billionaire from Manhattan who, at least this autumn, has made “the little guy” feel at home within the Republican Party.

John Ruberry, whose closest brush with Martha’s Vineyard has been South Boston, regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

One of the reasons for the Culture war that has been fought by the left was to change what is acceptable and what is not and what is important and what is not.

Stacy McCain has written about this in terms of both what our culture will accept.

Birth rates in the United States are at an all-time low, and sexually transmitted diseases are at an all-time high. Prostitution and pornography are rampant. Heroin overdoses are a more common cause of death in many states than automobile accidents. Our borders are being overrun by an endless invasion of illegal immigrants. We have seen a surge of race riots from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore to Charlotte. Police are targeted for assassination, and we have been repeatedly attacked by Islamic terrorists. American civilization is collapsing into anarchy, and what are students paying $45,610 a year to learn at Vanderbilt University? The evils of “heteronormativity” and “gender roles,” in classrooms where the textbooks are written by advocates of Queer Theory.

And what it will not:

Annual tuition at Columbia University is $55,056, and for that price, parents of Columbia students are guaranteed that their children will never be exposed to any fact or opinion that feminism’s campus commissars dislike:

On Thursday, students hosting an upcoming talk by scholar Christina Hoff Sommers put up roughly 50 flyers promoting the event on four different campus buildings at Columbia University and Barnard College. Within 24 hours, most had been torn down.

But while these things on campus are outrageous what’s really outrageous is what we are seeing in the electorate.

We’ve seen the results of eight years of Democrat rule on the economy, an economy of fear where people are one paycheck away from disaster.

We’ve seen the results of eight years of Democrat in general and four years of Hillary Clinton rule at state, our enemies in ascendance, ourselves in retreat and our allies forced to consider nuclear options for defense as they cant count on us.

We’ve seen a government target their political enemies and excuse their friends in a way that Nixon only dreamt of.

And now with the revelations from both Wikileaks and James O’Keefe we see proof of the actual actions of both the media to protect the Clintons and Democrats, the actual opinions of Democrats and Clinton insiders concerning voters and finally on the dirty tricks and corruption from voter fraud to fomenting violence.

Yet with all of that information available, even with the media’s attempt to spin it, we see the majority of the American voting public apparently don’t care.

In my youth if a party in general or a person in particular had done with the Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton had done in particular they would have been run out of town on a rail.

But thanks to their successful culture war, aided and abetted by those who kept insisting it didn’t matter we have reached this point.

That is the most damning revelation from wikileaks and O’Keefe, that the majority of the American public doesn’t give a damn anymore and I never thought I’d see the say when that would be true.

It’s an axiom that democracies and republics always die from within, not from without.  I regret to say it appears American votes seem determined to prove it.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Blogger outside of Wrigley Field
Blogger outside of Wrigley Field

By John Ruberry

“Bias has always been a factor in journalism. It’s nearly impossible to remove. Humans have their thoughts, and keeping them out of your work is difficult. But 2016 saw the remaining veneer of credibility, thin as it was, stripped away and set on fire.” Derek Hunter, Townhall, October 23, 2016.

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” Albert Camus.

Both men are right.

I’ve known for many years that the mainstream media, consisting mostly of leftists, is biased, but I’ve also long suspected that these leftists have been colluding with the Democrats. Thanks to WikiLeaks we know that to be true.

The 2016 World Series, an intriguing matchup between the Chicago Cubs–of whom Hillary Clinton used to be a fan of–and the Cleveland Indians, begins Tuesday.

Which got me thinking: What if the self-righteous media guardians, umpires you might say, were in charge of baseball’s fall classic?

When the Chicago Clintons come to bat, their batters will earn a walk after three balls, Cleveland, Donald Trump’s team, will need five balls to gain a base on balls, and they’ll strike out after two strikes.

The media umpires, when the Clintons are in trouble, will take out their smartphones during the games and pass on actionable advice to their manager, who will quickly reply and request more pointers. Player after player for the Trumps will be ejected because the umpires will reveal decades-old sexual assault allegations just as the Cleveland team takes the field. Another Cleveland Trumps player will be ejected because he may not have paid federal income taxes. The umpires will claim it was only just then that they learned about about this tax issue.

Meanwhile charges that the Clintons are taking large cash payments from outsiders that could destroy the integrity of Major League Baseball are for the most part ignored–and not acted upon. And even though the umpires know that the Clintons destroyed evidence of their improprieties, they’ll deem it “old news.” The umpires will overlook the lies from the Clintons about their crimes.

When the fans in the ballpark complain, they’ll be rudely dismissed by the umpires as morons who don’t know how the contest is played.

But the truth is the public knows all too well that the game is rigged.

As Walter Cronkrite used to end his CBS Evening News broadcast, “That’s the way it is.”

And the way it is stinks. We need a new media.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

A couple of headlines caught my attention this afternoon. Here’s one: “WikiLeaks Releases More Purported Emails, Bringing Total To More Than 11,000,” comes from NPR. Wow. This federally funded news outlet I guess “forgot” that the victim of the hack, Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, admitted that his private emails were illegally breached. But he added, without evidence, that some of that correspondence may have been altered. Bloomberg writes, “WikiLeaks Releases More Alleged E-Mails From Top Clinton Aide.” Bloomberg: Are you paying attention?

So yes, Podesta’s emails were hacked. By whom? The Clinton campaign is blaming the Russian government, offering little in proof, although this morning on Fox News Sunday, Donald Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence says “the evidence continues to point in that direction.” The Clinton campaign, outside of Podesta, refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of these emails, claiming that the Russians are trying to sway the results of this autumn’s election, while deflecting findings from those emails, which include Bill Clinton receiving a $1 million birthday check for the Clinton Foundation–the charity is really a slush fund, by the way–from the government of Qatar, which we learn from another email, is funding ISIS, or at least Hillary Clinton believes so.

Did Russia write that $1 million check?

John ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Also learned from those purported emails was that there was an anti-Catholic email exchange between Podesta, Jennifer Palmieri, communications director of the campaign, and John Halpin of the leftist Center for American Progress. If the trio had discussing Islam in the same manner, they’d almost certainly be looking for new jobs now.

And those revelations are just the ones on the top of the Podesta email pile.

But a couple of media outlets, probably more, apparently believe that by questioning the legitimacy of these alleged emails, people may doubt their veracity.

I don’t think it’s going to work. Not this time. We’re not as dumb as the media elites believe.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

By John Ruberry

The Washington Post has long been a leftist publication, in the 1970s it was dubbed “Pravda on the Potomac” by conservatives.

The newspaper has gotten worse since then, even after its purchase in 2013 by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

On Friday it released a 2005 video of Donald Trump in a hot-mic conversation with Billy Bush of Access Hollywood as he very crudely discusses his sexual moves on women. In his apology the Republican presidential nominee categorized his behavior as “locker-room banter,” but the reality is that most men, or even high school sophomores, don’t speak in that manner about women, at least in such explicit detail. Trump needs to make one more apology added with a vow never to discuss women in that fashion for as long as he lives.

While NBC, which owns Access Hollywood, not surprisingly had the video clip first, it was cognizant of it on Monday. But while the network’s lawyers were still reviewing the clip, an anonymous source alerted the Post about it on Friday, four hours later it went live on the newspaper’s website.

But who was that source?

In a July Wikileaks release, Greg Sargent, who writes the Plum Line blog for the Post–most of the its blogs are leftist electronic rags–was exposed as a shill for the Democratic National Committee. Lee Cary in the American Thinker laid down how the DNC propaganda treadmill works at the Post. Sargent gets a tip of slanted information from the DNC, which of course he doesn’t credit in his blog entry. Writers higher up on the Post food chain credit the Plum Line on this “scoop,” other media sources credit the Post, when in fact the “news” is really a disguised Democratic Party informercial.

How many other shills such as Sargent at the Post have yet to be exposed?

“According to the Washington Post” is a much more convincing article lead-in than “According to a Democratic Party press release.”

John "Lee" Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven
John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

Back to the Trump tape. Yes, it’s newsworthy, but if the DNC was the Post’s source, shouldn’t its readers know about that? Remember, there’s a conveyor line of information coming from the Democrats to the Washington Post. Here’s another question: Let’s say a similarly damaging recording of Hillary Clinton was out there and the Post became aware of it. Would the Post run with that story? Or does the paper ignore it, using feeble excuses that it is “old news” or “not relevant to the political discussion.”

Win or lose this autumn, conservative bloggers and activists need to widen the battlefield and include what Trump rightly calls the “dishonest media” in the war for America. The establishment media, with a few exceptions, is a leftist cabal. If we successfully expose them to the masses, we’ll discover that defeating the Democrats will be surprisingly easy.

Don’t worry about Greg Sargent. I’m sure he has a job waiting for him at the Democratic National Committee if things stop working out for him at the Post. Or in a Hillary Clinton presidential administration.

John Ruberry regularly blogs Marathon Pundit.

There was a throw away line in this piece at Instapundit concerning Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s and wikileaks that jumped out at me:

What is it with the DNC and their strange stalker-like obsession with Morning Joe anyhow? Here’s video of the Obama administration emailing the show and one of Joe’s distaff co-hosts (possibly Savannah Guthrie) reading on the air a White House “correction” to their coverage back in October of 2009. That was also around the time “a ‘senior White House official’sent an email calling Joe Scarborough an ‘asshole’ for mocking Pres. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.”

And you thought Trump couldn’t handle criticism!

While these days my work/prayer schedule prevents me from watching the answer is actually pretty obvious to anyone who has watched the show.

Morning Joe has two things that no other MSNBC show has

 A Republican host who while occasionally going off the reservation and not a big fan of Tea Party types provides a reliable conservative viewpoint on basic issues that as a rule MSNBC viewers are never exposed to. 

A Democrat co-host who while a partisan Democrat is honest and cares about her reputation enough not to lie to the viewers simply for the sake of the party and is willing to question things that smell to her.

Even worse when a Tea Party conservative shows up on the show, they are treated fairly and not as a rule dismissed as some kind of loony

It’s one thing to dismiss Fox or GOP activists or even bloggers it’s another to dismiss something when the MSNBC drivetime show talks about something as legit.

For the Democrats that makes them dangerous.

That’s why I think conservatives should invest time in the show an cultivate both Joe and Mika, it’s their easiest entre to introduce news that the MSM wants to suppresses into the stream outside of Fox.


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Those championing Edward Snowden as an international hero for the Cause of Free Speech have taken another hit.

The choice to flee to Hong Kong had already provoked reactions such as this one from Bob Schieffer on Face the nation:

I don’t remember Martin Luther King Jr. or Rosa Parks running off and hiding in China. The people who led the civil rights movement were willing to break the law AND suffer the consequences. That’s a little different than putting the nation’s security at risk and running away.

Well obviously in an era of Drone strikes and targeting of political foes in America some sacrifices had to be made so libertarian favorite Wikileaks sprang into action.

WikiLeaks said in a statement on its Twitter feed that it had “assisted Mr. Snowden’s political asylum in a democratic country

A Democratic country, an excellent idea for champion of free speech and press freedom! There are plenty of good choices that could certainly provide a world-wide platform in the internet age.

Perhaps Norway or Sweden the countries tied for first in Freedom House’s rankings for worldwide press freedom. I’d heard rumors of Snowden going to Iceland, a good choice as it makes the top 10 list tied with Liechtenstein who nobody has mentioned in connection with Snowden.

If he didn’t want Europe, St. Lucia would do. It’s 12th in the Rankings but #1 in the Americas. If the Americas were too close to the US for comfort New Zealand or Palau can suffice, they’re tied at 13th one spot behind St. Lucia but are also tied for #1 in the Asia-Pacific Region.

All the above are great choices for a free speech and free press hero. So what is the itinerary of Edwin Snowden’s Magical Mystery Tour?

Well he left Hong Kong (ranked 71) for Russia (Ranked 176), to be followed by a stop in Cuba (191 of 196) and from there he is to finish at Equator (Ranked 134)

Venezuela (Ranked 168) apparently didn’t make the list perhaps the death of Chavez made it unsuitable.

Maybe it’s me but maybe, just maybe that’s not the itinerary of a free press champion. The only location on the list above that isn’t ranked “Not Free” is Hong Kong (Ranked Partly Free) which is in fact controlled by China (Ranked 179) and as for Ecuador, Human rights watch had this to say just a week ago:

The Communications Law that the Ecuadorian National Assembly approved on June 14, 2013, seriously undermines free speech. The law includes overly broad language that will limit the free expression of journalists and media outlets.

you don’t say

“This law is yet another effort by President Correa to go after the independent media,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director. “The provisions for censorship and criminal prosecutions of journalists are clear attempts to silence criticism.”

While the irony might be lost among the hate America crowd the Irony is not lost on the National Journal

So say you’re a citizen of Hong Kong, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela or Ecuador, and you want to protest against your government, maybe even leak some big secrets. What kind of conditions and treatment might you expect? Nothing close to Snowden’s standard for his own country, that’s for sure.

Or Doug Powers

Is there a country called “Irony-Land” Snowden could flee to? That would be the perfect fit.

Edward Snowden’s fans are certainly the big losers by his choice of destinations, but I submit and suggest there are two big winners in his choice of stops…

…Barack Obama and the MSM that loves him. Why? That’s my follow-up post…

*****************************************

Olimometer 2.52

Monday has come and the last full week in June doesn’t bode well for either the weekly paycheck ($303 shy with 6 days to go) or the monthly mortgage payment goal ($664 shy with 7 days to go).

Can I make up the full Mortgage defect or at least the weekly paycheck? Do I deserve to?

You are the judge of that. If you judge “yes” than hit DaTipJar below 15 people at $20 will get the first goal done 33 will do the second but anything that can be done will be much appreciated.

Something hit me when I was thinking about the various stories of people distancing themselves from Wikileaks:

People are going to suffer because of this and Wikileaks knows it — as does NYT editor Bill Keller, who made sure to tell Reuters that he’s always held the group at “arm’s length” even as the paper was running massive splashy “new Wikileaks cables released!” features.

Did he, why yes he did:

“Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough editing and clearance process … Today’s decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone,” the Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde said in a joint statement.

In an email to Reuters, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said: “We’ve never kidded ourselves that we had any control over the behavior of WikiLeaks, and we have taken pains to keep the relationship arm’s-length.”

In fact not only did he but a bunch of papers who routinely publish stuff hitting the US government backed off big time over this. As did reporters without borders:

Reporters Without Borders announced late Thursday it was suspending a WikiLeaks “mirror site” because of concerns over potential risks to sources.

In an editorial, it wrote that on launching the mirror site late last year, Reporters Without Borders “said it defended ‘the free flow of information online and the principle of the protection of sources, without which investigative journalism cannot exist.’

Blogs like Harry’s place note the “disillusionment” of James Ball:

There was a striking piece in yesterday’s Guardian by James Ball, who spent some time as a staffer for Wikileaks. Although initially a supporter, he was quickly disillusioned.

Belmont club has a clue as to the oddity here:

The fact that the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde now condemn Wikileaks is tantamount to a confession the true character of their “partner”. Why did they believe Wikileaks was a crusading source if they do not believe it now? If in fact they believe the opposite now?

A cynical person might conclude they’ve issued a joint statement distancing themselves from Julian Assange, not from sudden qualms of conscience about revealing confidential intelligence sources and methods, exposing informers to enemy reprisal or ruining confidences, but because their lawyers have alerted them to the possibility of real financial and criminal liability.

Yeah financial liability is likely the big thing although they are painting it as if they are shocked SHOCKED that Wikileaks would be endangering lives….

…Which leads to my question:

How is it that dissidents are in danger if they being aided by the US? Hasn’t the left always told us that the US is always on the wrong side, constantly supporting oppressors instead of the peaceful and just. If that’s the case why is anyone worried? Obviously if these “dissidents” were operating in government unfriendly to the US then those governments must be peaceful and just and CERTAINLY not the types to slaughter them right?

Of course if we ARE in fact on the side of freedom, opposing repressive governments and dissidents are in danger due to leaks; then the left is backing off because they’ve actually always known that we’ve been on the side on the angels, always understood their pronouncements of imperialism and colonialism have been self-serving BS and simply want to decrease the amount of blood on their hands.

Kinda makes you think doesn’t it?

I see the hand wringing concerning Wikileaks “accidental” leaking of totally unredacted US cables and I find it an insult to my intelligence.

Every generation we seem to have these groups or organization that cry freedom but tend to oppose only US interests.

We saw it in the anti-war groups that opposed the US but love Chavez and Cuba

We saw it in the human shields who were ready to protect Saddam from US attack but not willing to protect Iraqi civilians once Islamists were bombing them.

We saw it in the European protestors in the 80’s opposing US missile deployment.

We saw it in the protestors against US involvement in Vietnam

and we saw it in the defense of Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs

Over and over we have seen this type of thing. As time passes people are shocked when history shows the Rosenburgs guilty, Hiss actually being a spy, the Iron Curtain supporting and funding protestors in Europe etc etc etc.

Now Wikileaks which somehow manages to get their hands on US secrets (but strangely enough never finds, Russian, Iranian, Chinese , Cuban, etc etc etc cables to reveal) has “accidentally” leaked the lot and people actually think it’s a surprise or an accident?

It takes a certain type of person to believe this, perhaps the same time of person who bought this bill of goods:

It has been lost in the American press, but until he issued his televised “rivers of blood” speech from Tripoli in February, Saif was the darling of Europe’s political establishment. He socialized with members of the House of Lords, Tony Blair’s cabinet, Prince Andrew, and well-heeled environmental activists. Saif had seduced Europe’s intelligentsia and the Continent’s left-leaning cognoscenti.

“The political class in this country have courted him,” said Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski, chairman of a British parliamentary group on Libya, in an interview with the UK’s Guardian.

The bottom line is the left always manages to find any person or cause against the US worthy of admiration from dictator’s wives to leakers of US documents.

Glenn Reynolds famously quips “They’re not anti-war, just on the other side” and I think that’s true concerning many but never forget DaTechGuy’s rule of human nature:

“When explaining bad behavior, given the choice between malice and stupidity, always bet on stupidity”.

Update: Another vote for stupidity.