Liberal media hypocrisy reaches new heights

   By Donna Cole


 The Washington Post has an editorial that I found very surprising, and not because I am in total agreement with it either. This piece sets a new standard of measurement for liberal media hypocrisy. These editorials are not signed by any author, but are supposed to be the voice or conscience of a newspaper. None of The Post's conservative columnists are on their editorial board, only liberal columnists. The rest are editors who would probably claim to be impartial. My personal experience tells me otherwise.



 The news and editorial sides of a newspaper are supposedly divided by a sort of wall. I believe this wall at most major newspapers is made of paper thinner than the newsprint they publish on. Personally, I think these editorials should be signed by name. I understand the reasoning as to why they are not. But, that is a debate for another time. You just need to understand where this editorial is coming from. Now, to understand the context of this very surprising editorial, I need to give you a little background.



 Last week, President Obama went to Colombia to attend the Summit of the Americas. It is one of those events where the leaders of a bunch of countries get together, schmooze with each other, take smiling pictures with each other, give speeches to each other, and then sign some hollow document saying we are all friends, let's do it again next year.



 For the most part, these summits are rather uneventful, but this one brought more press coverage than usual. First, we found out the Secret Service advance team, who goes ahead of the president to set up security, was out drinking and partying with prostitutes. It seems the agents didn't want to pay for services rendered, resulting in a brawl. Several have now lost their jobs because of this. Then, photos of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who traveled with the president to Colombia, came out with her dancing the night away while chugging brewskis. I really can't hold it against her, if I had to travel with Barry, I'd need to kick a few back too.



 One of the issues discussed at this summit was the "return" of the Falkland Islands to Argentina by Great Britain. I put "return" in quotes because I don't agree with the use of it in this case. Thirty years ago, Argentina invaded these islands, which they call the Malvinas. This resulted in a war with Britain. Argentina was badly beaten, and Britain retained the Falklands. For the record, Britain has claimed ownership of the Falklands since 1833, it is considered a self-governing British Overseas Territory. The Falklands' 3000 or so people are British citizens.



 Now, Argentina seeks to use international pressure to force Britain to give the Falklands to them. Argentina never really owned these islands in the first place, at least in any modern sense, and only want now to control oil exploration rights in the area. While I cannot speak for the British government, I think I safely tell the Argentines that Britain will give the Falkland Islands to them exactly one month after hell freezes over.



 During his speech at the summit, President Obama made the mistake of referring to these islands as the Maldives, not the Malvinas. The Maldives are on the other side of the earth, in the Indian Ocean. The media wrote it off as an honest mistake, something they would have never done for President Bush. Obama did reiterate America's long standing policy of being neutral on this issue, but it has been viewed by some as a slap at Britain by not referring to the islands as the Falklands. I view it that way. Slaps like this at our friends are typical from this president, just ask Israel.



 I'll let the president slide on this one, because as part of the summit, Argentina wanted language in the agreement that all the nations in attendance supported the "return" of the Falklands to them. President Obama, along with Canada, vetoed this amendment, thus striking it from the agreement. That is why I let him off the hook for the other stuff, he didn't have to veto this, knowing Canada would. At least in the end, it would seem he stood up for our "Special Relationship" with Great Britain. But, even the liberal media couldn't have let Barry get away with not vetoing it. So, in this respect, even if he didn't want to veto it, he had no choice. I lean toward the latter reason why he did it.



 Regardless of the reason, this veto so enraged the Argentine president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, that she stormed off, leaving the summit early in protest. I would note that The Post has referred to her as Ms. Kirchner in the past, but now they call her Ms. Fernandez, so I will too. Perhaps this has to do with the fact her husband, Nestor Kirchner, a former Argentine president and now former fellow traveler, is dead.



 Ms. Fernandez is a socialist, much in the same vein as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Fernandez also has the same Chavez tendency to act like a strongman, or strongwoman in this case, bullying, demonizing, and even jailing members of the media and her political opposition. Funny how all left wing politicians seem to have this same tendency. Of course, she doesn't care for private business or individual wealth, unless it is hers or one of her cronies, and that is mostly stolen from those who earned it. Like all leftist politicians, she promises the gravy train to her nation's poor and working class, but does not, or really cannot, deliver.



 Also like Chavez, and like well known leftist politicians in this country, her socialist policies have flushed her nation's economy down the toilet and currency inflation runs wild. At 20 %, Argentina has the second highest inflation rate in the Americas, only behind Chavez's Venezuela. One should take note of this when looking at our own president's monetary policy.



 So, all this now brings us to The Washington Post editorial I found so surprising, "Argentina's president rejects stepping into the future". As the title suggests, they are critical of Ms. Fernandez, and this is where the liberal hypocrisy rears it's ugly head.



 The Post is first critical of Fernandez's call for the "return" of the Falklands, saying it only further isolates Argentina from the rest of the world. Next, they are critical of her nationalizing Argentina's oil business. In other words, she stole the business from it's private owners supposedly for the people. From the editorial;

"Ms. Fernandez claimed the expropriation, done mainly at the expense of the Spanish oil firm Repsol, was intended as “a recovery of sovereignty” over a company whose production had been dropping. But the falling output of the firm, called Repsol YPF, was produced largely by bad government policies, including a cap on domestic energy prices and controls over profit remittances. In addition to causing a rift with Spain and with the European Union, the nationalization will merely ensure that Argentina is unable to attract the foreign capital and expertise necessary to exploit its large reserves of oil and gas, including substantial shale deposits."

 So, here we have The Washington Post, who are totally in the bag for President Obama and support every horrible idea the Democrat party comes up with, being critical of this leftist's energy policies, while they back our own leftist president's similar policies.



 The president who had the policy of killing the Keystone XL pipeline, which we could have used to exploit Canada's large oil reserves. The same president who has done everything in his power to stop us from exploiting our own large domestic oil reserves. A president who, if he could get away with it, would nationalize our oil business here too. A president, if he had his way, would implement tax rates that would drive capital investment out of our country. The piece gets even better;

"The president’s further lurch toward the left is bad news not only for businessmen."

 Yes, they are talking about the president of Argentina, not ours. But that line could easily have been written about President Obama because it most certainly fits. Do you think The Post has ever written that about our president ? The answer would be an emphatic NO !



 The Post goes on to be critical of Fernandez's attacks on the media and her lying about economic numbers, such as the true rate of inflation. Yet this same newspaper constantly reports Obama's various economic facts and figures as Holy Gospel. They happily go right along with his figures on things like Obamacare, even going to point of defending them by saying the Republican's projections and figures are wrong. The editorial continues;

"The curse that shadows this once-rich country is the inability of its political class to learn from its blunders — or from its neighbors. While Brazil and Mexico power ahead, integrating with the world economy and consolidating stable democracies, Argentina under Ms. Fernandez is headed inexorably toward another crash."

 You can literally replace Fernandez's name with Obama's, and United States for Argentina in that paragraph. What has President Obama learned from the total failure of socialism in every single country it has been tried ? Nothing. The Post refuses to write a single word about this, even when Obama's very own policies are driving this nation inexorably toward a crash. Not only do they not write a single negative word about it, they actively support his policies.



 In conclusion, The Post calls for kicking Argentina out of the G-20, which they call, "the supposedly elite club of nations that gathers to weigh world economic problems."  While I agree with everything The Post's editors said about Ms. Fernandez, the utter gall they have to write it while supporting our president, who short of jailing economists who disagree with him could be her political twin, is beyond incredible.



 I have followed and studied the mainstream media for most of my life. It is the purpose of my job here at MediaPolitical to point out liberal bias in that media and critique it. In bringing these instances to light, I run into liberal media hypocrisy daily. The pompous arrogance of these editorial board members is unbelievable. This is one of the most disgustingly disingenuous editorials, and one of the largest examples of liberal media hypocrisy, I have ever found. Now, I have to go vomit.