[T]he bald fact is that people threatened Bush at protests all the time by displaying menacing signs and messages — exactly as the anti-Obama protester just did in Maryland. Yet for reasons that are not entirely clear, not a single one of those Bush-threateners at protests was ever arrested, questioned, or investigated.Read it here and marvel once again at the monumental duplicity of the left and its minions in the MSM.
[T]he media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events.
A blatant example of the press altering information to make it fit their narrative of white male hatred appeared in MSNBC's report of a man who legally carried a weapon outside an Obama rally. They concealed the fact that the man was black so that they could sustain the fiction that the protests were manifestations of white racism. Read it here.
Check out Matt Welch's piece on the latest journalistic fad -- establishing a "hate beat" to focus attention on white working-class men who object to this administration and its policies. Read it here.