Freedom of Speech, Liberal Style

 

Michelle Malkin continues her blogging of those activist/vandalism peacemakers who would protect the world from the scourge of American military might.  In Minnesota, these tolerant individuals vandalized a recruiting station.  The Star Trib reports:

Several protesters who were part of a larger group of antiwar demonstrators at the University of Minnesota splased red paint on a military recruiting station this afternoon. Three people involved in the act were apprehended by campus police.

The incident at SE. Oak Street and Washington Avenue came about an hour after a rally at Northrop Plaza, where 250 to 300 gathered and then headed to the Army and Navy recruiting station.

Some of the protesters, wearing all black and with their faces covered, threw red paint onto the station’s windows, pounded the glass and scribbled messages including a peace sign over a U.S. flag sticker.

Police took at least three people into custody, said Army Capt. Val Bernat.

“They’re exercising their rights. We knew they were coming,” Bernat said, adding that campus police had alerted them days earlier. “However, we don’t appreciate the vandalism.”

As Army workers began cleaning up, a group of University of Minnesota students pitched in.

“They disgraced our country and our military,” Ole Hovde, 19, a freshman, said while wiping down the windows.

I’m sure the vandals are quite proud of themselves.  They likely feel real good that they were able to defile the face of evil.  After all, it’s all about “feeling” to these types, isn’t it?

Problem of the MSM

I’m amazed that two of the Pulitzer Prizes in journalism were awarded to reporters who published classified information which compromised the efforts in the war on terrorism. One has to ask if it is right to publish sensitive information that may be  received from an unelected intelligence bureaucrat. Would it be right (forget legalities) to publish, say, information which the reporter knew could result in the deaths of Americans fighting in Iraq? Or would it be ok to publish some launch sequence numbers of nuclear weapons? If not, then who should determine which materials are classified and which are not? It seems to me that the president has the duty and right to classify information. If that information is leaked and published, both the leaker and those who publish what they know to be classified information should come to justice under the law. But not only will the papers (Washington Post and NYT) and their editors and staff not be punished, but now they complain that the Bush Administration is oppressing them. Here’s what Bill Keller, one of the NYT editors recently said when interviewed about the leaks:

Times Editor Bill Keller said in an e-mail that he believed the Bush White House is on a campaign to intimidate the press. “I’m not sure journalists fully appreciate the threat confronting us,” Keller wrote. “The Times in the eavesdropping case, the Post for its CIA prison stories, and everyone else who has tried to look behind the war on terror.” Keller asserted that “there’s sometimes a vindictive tone in the way [administration officials] talk about dragging reporters before grand juries and in the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public’s business risk being branded traitors.” He warned that journalists possibly are “suffering a bit of subpoena fatigue. (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Keller, they are traitors. To deliberately publish classified materials that the enemy can use against us is treachery. You should be labeled and you should be prosecuted under the law. In the MSM’s zeal to portray Bush in a bad light, they are willing to publish anything regardless of the law and regardless of how this country may be damaged. They have such disdain for Bush that they abdicate reason, common sense and duty to country.

Blow Hard Ted Opposes Wind Turbines

 

It is curious that a liberal like Ted Kennedy would oppose efforts aimed at saving the environment from global warming.  After all, we’re ruining the globe with all our oil usage and any renewable fuel which reduces oil consumption should be welcome, right?  Sure, as long as we don’t disturb the view from the Kennedy summer compound.  Here’s a link to a article in the Boston Globe concerning the long struggle the Kennedy’s have waged against wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. 

Environmental groups have launched an aggressive advertising and lobbying campaign to persuade Democrats to abandon Kennedy and back a promising source of renewable energy. If the wind farm becomes a reality, advocates say, it could provide three-fourths of the Cape and Islands’ energy needs and could set an example for the nation.

The maneuver to stop the wind farm ”is clearly a backroom deal, and they’re going to get called publicly on it,” said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. ”The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy.”

The 130-turbine, 24-square-mile cluster of windmills would be about 8 miles from Kennedy’s home in Hyannis Port, and he has long opposed it. The Coast Guard bill would give Governor Mitt Romney, another wind farm opponent, the power to veto it, even if the project clears all other hurdles.

Kennedy rejected suggestions that he doesn’t like the wind farm because it would be near his Cape home, and said the project probably wouldn’t be visible from the Kennedy compound. He said he’s against the project because it would create a range of environmental and navigational problems and would hurt tourism, one of the area’s key industries.

I’ve always been impressed that the liberal elites, who motor around in large vehicles and fly private jets get away with their sham concern for the environment.  As long as others “pay” to help the environment with smaller cars and less consumption, they are in favor of conservation, but when asked to burden some inconvenience themselves, they opt out.  Here Kennedy is worried that his view of the sound will be disturbed.  Typical, very typical.  Š

Š