Today's MSM says: 

Peaceful protests against Obama = bad!

Pictures of Sarah Palin being punched in the mouth = good! 

Oddly enough... Michael "As thick as a" Brick seems entirely more sympathetic to PROTESTS against President Bush in 2004...

Of course, this was an EXTREME LEFTIST protest that turned  violent.

The money quote about these 2004 protesters...

"Some people have decided they're going to go there anyway," said Bill Perkins, a city councilman from Upper Manhattan. "It reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's as American as apple pie."

August 9, 2004
Permit Denial for Big Park Rally Adds to Push for Protests There
By MICHAEL BRICK

To officials of both New York City and the largest coalition of protest groups expected at the Republican National Convention, negotiations over the use of Central Park for a huge protest rally during the convention had ended more than two weeks ago with an agreement to hold the rally at an alternative site, along the West Side Highway.

However, to many protesters from all across the political spectrum - from self-described Clinton Democrats to Libertarians - losing the battle for Central Park was a galvanizing moment, a new cause for protest and all the more reason to gather in the park, although individually or in much smaller groups than originally planned by the coalition, United for Peace and Justice.

"I think they can expect a lot of people are going to end up congregating in Central Park during the convention," said Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "There's widespread unhappiness with the city's decision. Many people will go there simply to protest that closure."

The Parks Department has granted eight permits for Central Park events that it describes as convention-related, including rallies, races and readings that range in size from groups of 80 people to more than 32,000. Several are scheduled for the week leading up to the convention, which opens on Aug. 30. All are in parts of the park officials describe as less susceptible to damage than the Great Lawn, the site for which United for Peace and Justice had sought a permit for 250,000 people to gather on Sunday, Aug. 29.

City officials said their response to protesters gathering without permits would depend on how they behave.

"They can carry signs, they can stand up on benches and declaim to their hearts' content," said the parks commissioner, Adrian Benepe. "They just have to respect the rights of others."

"Anybody's welcome to go to Central Park," Mr. Benepe said. "On a busy summer weekend, you'll get 200,000 people in Central Park. It'd be hard to notice a few more."

The Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said that small groups of protesters who are not using amplified sound would probably draw no response from officers. "You can think of permits as sometimes allowing things that would not otherwise be permitted, such as blocking a street," Mr. Browne said. "Free speech is allowed at any time, but if
you're going to use amplified noise or speakers, we would react accordingly."

United for Peace and Justice spent more than a year seeking the permit for the Great Lawn demonstration. The Parks Department rejected the request on the ground that a group that size would severely damage the grass. The coalition ultimately agreed to accept the West Side Highway location rather than sue the city.

"At this point, the park has become symbolic of the First Amendment," said Jim Lesczynski, chairman of the Manhattan Libertarian Party, which has publicly called for what it describes as an unauthorized protest in the park on Aug. 29. "Just because of the fact that there were negotiations, there's outrage that they could be told when and where they can protest."

At the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month, protesters largely ignored so-called free speech zones set up outside the convention center, deriding them as cages and choosing instead to hold impromptu gatherings in other parts of the city. In doing so, they established something of a precedent for protesters at the Republican gathering in New York, among them Erik Henriksen, 29, a graduate student who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

Mr. Henriksen said he plans some kind of personal protest in the park, but he is not sure what form it will take. "It's just to be there, just to claim my couple square feet to stand on," he said. "I'm not killing the grass, I'm not part of any organization, and I'm not seeking a permit."

Last Tuesday, the Not In Our Name Project, the group that organized a Central Park gathering that drew thousands of people to the East Meadow in October 2002 to protest the planned invasion of Iraq, issued a statement calling for a reopening of the permit application for Central Park.

"There are things circulating around the  country, people have put out things saying, 'Do not go to the West Side Highway, go to Central Park,' " said AiMara Lin, an organizer of the group. "We're trying to tap into that popular sentiment."

These calls for a convergence on Central Park have won support not just from the fringes of anarchists, Maoists and assorted malcontents, but also from mainstream opponents of the convention.

"Some people have decided they're going to go there anyway," said Bill Perkins, a city councilman from Upper Manhattan. "It reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's as American as apple pie."

Edward I. Koch, who was mayor during a huge June 1982 protest in Central Park against the buildup of nuclear weapons and who is chairman of the convention volunteers' committee, said that demonstrators who intend to break the law to protest the denial of a permit should remember the definition of civil disobedience.

"I believe in civil disobedience, so long as it's nonviolent, and so long as you're willing to pay the penalty," Mr. Koch said. "When you're arrested, you can't go before the court and say, 'Don't punish me.' "

For all their anger, some demonstrators may find the whole exercise little more than a tense but ultimately uneventful day in the park.

"I don't plan to make any signs and parade in the park," said Drew Olewnick, 44, a protester who lives in New York and works in the finance industry. "I'll try to time my biweekly bike ride for that day, then meet people on the Great Lawn, like I normally do. But I'm picking this particular time on this day for a reason."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Hey seniors! Ready for Terri Schaivo healthcare? Perfected in the UK. Exported the US. To die for. 

The Times' paranoid fear of anywhere in the world except upper-West-side coffeehouses has grown stale. Really, do we need a bunch of sissy liberals screaming that the world is a scary, scary place because they are sissy liberals? No-one wants to hear your effeminate cauterwauling any longer, guys. You are are bankrupt for a reason, you know.

-----
Random-jumbled-thoughts.blogspot.com

"Unchecked fervor" = Free speech.

Unchecked fervor? Michael Brick is an idiot. He's like a dog outta the yard. He just runs around pissing on everything and barking his fool head off.

No doubt the media will continue to ignore Bush's classy stance by asking the school to be polite.  They refuse to give him credit for anything, but I believe 100 years from now history will look favorably on him (for the most part).

This is just one more reason to like A&M besides the Twelth Man and the way the band never stops marching once they take the field. The visit to the Chicken Ranch for the winner of the A&M-Texas game was another until it was dropped.  

Semper suprene nitens

OBAMACARE: If it ain't good enough for my Congressman then it ain't good enough for me.  

You won't normally hear me say this but I will for this one time...'gig'em Aggies'!

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

...is that the image of a leader in communist nations are held in as high esteem as the man himself. Because liberals are communist in their thinking, it disturbs them to think that anyone would deface their national leader's image. National pride is wrapped up in deifying their political leader. God is no longer God - Government leadership is.

When the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down and destroyed, I would not doubt if some liberals shrieked in terror.

They want to worship something. They want to be ruled by someone. They want to give their lives for a cause.

But rather than to a loving God, they give their lives to a fallible man. Is it no wonder that a Mao Zedong or an Adolf Hitler can seize power so easily given the right set of circumstances? Like say... during a recession and economic uncertainty?

"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge

When nutcases, liberals and goofballs have protests and demonstrations, there are plenty of arrests, violence and general hatred espoused everywhere.

But you let them rascally Conservatives hold a protest/demonstration, there are no arrests.

  No violence, nudity, hatred or even animosity.

The areas are clean and undamaged after the event.

It would scare me half to death that the rest of the People would look around and notice just exactly who it is that causes the problems, and how hard the media pushes to create riots and vandalism to increase the prices they charge for AIRTIME.

http://gjresult.com