So last week, in the Rose Garden, President Obama paraded out three jobless folks, using their plight to implore Congress to extend unemployment benefits.

One of them was a delightful woman named Leslie Macko.

Here's what he said about her.

"We need to pass it for Leslie Macko who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since because she eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she's doing what she thought she'd never have to do. She's turning to her father for financial support."

Well, our President was right - she did lose her job (giving facials!), but it might have been for good reason. It occurred one month after she pleaded guilty to felony prescription drug fraud, in March 2009.

And so, this raises the question: with so many millions of jobless folks out there, why did Obama's flacks decide to exploit one charged with felony drug fraud?

Because it fit the story - and this chick is awesome.

I mean, sure, the White House screwed up - but you gotta hand it to a lady who can get that close to the President despite her criminal past.

I mean, you'd think she was Bill Ayers or something.

Anyway. It ticks me off. If I so much as look at the White House, I get wrestled to the ground by seven burly men (something I enjoy), yet she waltzes into the Rose Garden with the most powerful man in the world?

That's balls the size of giant balls.

This brings me back to a point I made during Obama's crusade for health insurance reform. Back then, the White House trotted out lots of people lacking health insurance. These were sad tales, but compared to a country filled with hundreds of millions of good stories- these isolated cases were just that. As a method of persuasion - anecdotal stories of human misery are easy and dishonest.

Anyway, who cares - I got a call into Ms. Macko.

Not to get her side of the story - but to score some percocets.

I kid the Macko.

And if you disagree with me, you're probably a racist homophobe who doesn't have any percocets.

So a new survey reports that one in five Californians need help for a mental or emotional issue.

Seems low, if you ask me. I mean - this is California, home to Sean Penn, Mel Gibson and the Oakland Raiders.

But more important, you can reduce this report to a cavalcade of cliches.

So, did they group all emotional and mental "issues" together - so we get millions of sufferers?

Yep.

Did they expand the distress to include things like "feeling sad, anxious or nervous?"

You bet. (In the old days we called that "life," but now it's an injustice if you aren't snorting rainbows 24/7.)

Also: are these problems worse for women?

Yes, the problems are worse for women!

What about old people?

Yeah, it sucks for old people!

Are the poor hit hardest by all this?

Yes! They're hit harder by everything!

What about immigrants? Surely, there must be a stigma attached to seeking help!

Yes! A stigma "may pose a significant barrier to care," even in Cali, where pets have chiropractors.

Could the recession make these problems worse?

Sure, but the recession makes everything worse! (Except, for some reason, my pecs.)

So let's see. They're combining mental and emotional problems into mass numbers. Immigrants, the poor, the aged, and females are hit hardest. What's the point?

See this last sentence on the L.A. Times blog:

"Given the number of people in pain... it may be time for Californians to overcome the perceived stigma and demand expanded public funding and insurance coverage of mental health care."

And so, your sadness must be soothed by a burdened state whose financial ruin has already caused enough emotional distress.

I think I'm gunna cry. I demand you pay for my Kleenex.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic Justin Bieber fan.

So after this whole Shirley Sherrod thing, I'm thinking, Andrew Breitbart has a point.

Let's review:

-the Tea Party was born, causing a frightened media to drum up accusations of racism

-later, Congressman John Lewis claims Tea Partiers shouted the "N-word" at him. The press runs with it. Breitbart posts a $100K reward for evidence. None comes.

-the NAACP creates a race-baiting resolution to smear the Tea Party.

-Breitbart responds with the Sherrod video - becoming the first conservative to use leftist tactics on the left.

-It works: the White House and the NAACP look stupid.

Moving on, from the Powerline blog, New York Times reporter Matt Bai writes this of the Tea Party movement on July 17th:

There have been scattered reports around the country of racially charged rhetoric within the [Tea Party] movement, most notably just before the vote on the new health care law last March, when Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the legendary civil rights leader, was showered with hateful epithets outside the Capitol.

And then last Sunday, the Times ran this correction:

The Political Times column last Sunday...erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

So while the media goes nuts over Sherrod, they completely ignore the fact that the most racially charged accusation one could ever make, never happened.

What...no apologies?

See, race politics only works one way - as a method to disarm Obama critics. As the former head of the Civil Rights Commission, Mary Frances Berry said, it's "a means of diverting attention away from other issues." Dem pollsters Patt Caddell and Doug Schoen point out in the Wall Street Journal that while youth unemployment among whites is 23.2%, among blacks it's nearly 40%.

Guess that's Breitbart's fault too. (Racist!)

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic bedbug.

GLOGUETOCOME!

So as you know, Wikileaks has posted a crapload of secret military reports about the Afghan war, including covert operations against Taliban figures. They claim their goal is to reveal "unethical behavior," by the government and corporations.

On their website they write "All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people."

This is pure bullpoop, to use the scientific term.

The fact is, their goal is to only "expose" people they don't like – meaning the United States military - and get worldwide props for it.

The head of Wikiliks, Julian Assange would argue that their role is to shine a "light on the everyday brutality ...of war." But of course, he's sympathetic only to those we are fighting against. He says he wants to help "people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards."

Can you guess who the bastards are?

Look, we don't need him to tell us that war sucks. No one wants to see our troops or innocent civilians dead. But we fight to eradicate an evil- and in this case it's an evil that this douchebag is helping. Remember that the U.S. doesn't send suicide bombers into crowded restaurants, or behead journalists, or fly planes into buildings. We are waging a war against scum - and yet Julie chooses to thwart us instead.

It makes me wonder that if Julie had secret documents that harmed our enemies - would he share those? Since they don't fit into his hit list of evil "governments and corporations," hell no. So while his majestic, but wholly one-side strategy of transparency continues - it's America that's being attacked.

Secondly, whatever Julie thinks is "unethical behavior" is only unethical if you're an idiot. For example, saying it's a war crime to have an enemy hit list may be true if it's at a children's birthday party. But in war, it's the whole point. The entire war is a hit list, you doll-haired dipwad.

But see, Julie isn't doing this to save lives - he's doing it for himself. He enjoys "creating systems on a grand scale, so, in the end, he gets back at daddy and reaps the accolades that come with it.

May a terrorist mistake him for a sexy goat.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who eats oil-soaked pelicans.

tonight:

Barret Swatek!

Brooke Goldstein!

Jesse Joyce!

Rep. Michele Bachman!

Gutfeld is often referred to as a conservative/libertarian version of Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. The comparison to Maher, an idiot, is an insult to Gutfeld, but Stewart`s style and skill bring him nearer the mark. As a conservative, the host of Red Eye doesn`t enjoy the limitless slack given the host of the Daily Show, who can flatter his audience, reaffirm their hidden assumptions, grovel before preferred presidential candidates, and still manage to be labeled daring and even subversive, a real teller of truth-to-power. Gutfeld`s stuff actually is subversive, a stink bomb hurled into every faculty lounge, mainstream newsroom, movie studio, and nonprofit boardroom in America. He`s the most dangerous man on television. And unlike Stewart, he writes his own material.

(this is Wednesday's Gregalogue, updated for tonight, with more fun stuff!)

In my opinion, the story of Shirley Sherrod isn't about racism, but accusations of racism. If someone says they aren't racist, and minus physical evidence to the contrary, you should take them at their word.

Unfortunately, we've seen that this never happens. And so when you accuse an entire group of racism, like the Tea Party - what you get is rage and frustration.

It's exactly what that d-bag, from that private leftwing group Journolist, said.

If you remember, Spencer Ackerman wrote:

Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists...This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Yep, he's a toolbag, but he's on the money. He knew that if you falsely accuse someone of racism - they explode. And to him - and the media - it rarely matters if that rage is righteous. Because all they want is an angry mob.

And that's how the race-baiting left works. The Tea Party began as a group of average folks stepping out of their living rooms for the first time. Virgins. And what happened? Chuckleheads at MSNBC pointed out how white they are, Janeane Garafalo painted them as Aryan offshoots, and then the NAACP drafted a silly resolution.

And that's when Breitbart got involved. Love him or hate him, you gotta admit: his stones are so big they have their own gravitational pull. And he may be the most aggressive fighter on the right that we've ever seen.

That can be awesome, and it can be messy. But the fact remains: the left hates him because he's effective, and his effectiveness shows the rest of us how and why the left has been so successful.

The left has always fought dirty - taking stuff conservatives have said out of context – and always on purpose. See the turds at Media Matters. They perfected the sleaze.

On more than a few occasions the happy warrior Breitbart focused a spotlight on the destructiveness of leftism. Acorn. The NEA. The census. Don't forget that, when they come to eat him alive.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who listens to country music while eating whale meat in a gun club.

So, thanks to the Daily Caller, more emails are emerging from "Journolist," that secret list of liberal media hacks - and guess what, they're about Sarah Palin.

And surprise: they aren't positive!

First, they focused on how the media could help Obama beat McCain, after Sarah was picked as a running mate.

Jonathan Stein from Mother Jones loved the idea that the pick should be labeled sexist.

He writes: "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

Thank God he capitalized "single!"

But my fave? Politico reporter Ben Adler, now at Newsweek, writing,

"... doesn't leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument?"

Maybe so Ben, although I wonder how you know her baby is "sad." Perhaps you could share your expertise in this area, douchebag.

So, here's what we've learned so far from the leaked emails:

-they desperately wanted Obama to win

-they cried like little girls when he did. (He's their Justin Bieber.)

-they conspired to label anyone who disagreed with them as racists

-they hate Sarah Palin.

So let me get this straight: everything we see in these missives is exactly what we suspected about the mainstream media all along. All of these revelations boil down to one supreme epiphany: they completely fulfill the mundane, predictable stereotype of the contemporary media hack.

Well, actually: it's only an epiphany if you just got here.

The real point: With the exception of Fox News, a few mags, a handful of talk radio hosts and some vital websites -the idea of free-thinking journalism is dead. These chuckleheads - Adler, Ackerman, that toolbag Jeffrey Toobin - try sooo hard to swagger via email, yet they come off less rebellious than Kenneth from 30 Rock. They're the Eddie Haskells of modern media: slobbering kittens reeking from the desperate sweat of sycophancy.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who hasn't purchased "the Bible of Unspeakable Truths."

In my opinion, the story of Shirley Sherrod isn't about racism, but accusations of racism. If someone says they aren't racist, and without any physical evidence to the contrary, you should take them at their word. Unfortunately, we've seen that this never happens. And so when you accuse an entire group of racism, like the Tea Party - what you get is rage and frustration.

It's exactly what that d-bag, from that private leftwing group Journolist, said. If you remember, Spencer Ackerman wrote:

Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Yeah, deja vu.

Look, this guy is a toolbag, but he's on the money. He knew that if you falsely accuse someone of something - especially racism - they explode. And to him - and the media - it rarely matters if that rage is righteous. Because all they want is an angry mob.

And that's what sucks about worms like Ackerman, Media Matters, and the left in general. The Tea Party began as a group of average folks who stepped out of their living rooms for the first time. And what happened Chuckleheads at MSNBC point out how white they are, Janine Garafalo painted them as Aryan offshoots, and the NAACP drafted a silly resolution.

To blame them, or anyone, for reacting to the NAACP's silly attack on the Tea Party, is essentially blaming the victim.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe fan of country music.

So last month we told you about "Journolist," a private email group of liberal journalists who secretly conspired to promote a progressive pro-Obama agenda. Once this group was exposed - it was disbanded.

But now Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller have the emails, some revealing a plot by the hacks to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries - and also to smear anyone who criticizes Obama. The smear, of course, would be an accusation of racism.

Here's one email from a a sad little finger-sniffer named Spencer Ackerman, which explains nearly 99 percent of all the crap you're seeing right now targeting the Tea Party. He writes:

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Now, I guess this a bombshell: proof that lefties in the media engage in deliberate, dishonest destruction of reputations in order to further their own political aims.

But here's the real moral: the same libs who said Obama was going to lead us into a new post racial world, are pretty much the same creeps fanning a racial division. Ackerman, a faux tough guy typing from his hidey hole, realizes that without the accusation of race, he's got nothing to shield an incontinent ideology.

He's what you'd call a real, honest-to-God racemonger. Which makes you wonder, why does he lack so much confidence in his own leader? Why does he have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems?

Maybe he's racist.

And if you disagree with me, you're a Nazi-loving Grand Dragon who eats at McDonalds.

Tonight,

Nick Gillespie!

Diana Falzone!

Comedian Jesse Joyce!

Now, If you don't remember a place called Maywood, that's okay. I've been drunk for two months.

But it's a small "bedroom" town in L.A. that once passed a resolution supporting an Arizona boycott, after that state decided to enforce federal immigration laws.

Well, it was announced last month that Maywood is going to lay off all its employees, unload its police department, and contract everything out to another city.

Somehow this story squeaked by me, probably because the city is just one square mile, and has only 45,000 residents. And I'm drunk.

But the financial problems, some papers claim, stem from canceled insurance coverage due to millions in legal expenses - blamed on its police department.

But maybe there's another reason: officials claim half of the population are illegal immigrants.

When you throw that in, bankruptcy makes sense. Sanctuary cities may make some folks feel warm and fuzzy, but it's financial folly. That's because cities fail without a tax base. And you don't have a tax base with people who don't pay taxes. Worse, in a tiny town with a small budget, illegals who don't contribute still use services, so you have a drain on both ends. Top that off with legal problems, and you've got a ghost town, without the ghosts.

And this leads to a simple question. Would you rather live in a state like Arizona that enforces a reasonable concept of legal immigration, or a town that ridicules that state- but then eventually disappears under its own misguided b.s?

I know where I'd live. You know, if I were allowed to cross state lines.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who attends tea parties in a white robe.