Malkin faked, haters fooled

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

La Shawn Barber summarises the fauxtography scandal involving Michelle Malkin:

In response to her recent column about indecent young women, liberal bloggers rutted for “you’re a hypocrite!” dirt and thought they’d found some.

A long-time Michelle Malkin nemesis blogger named Eric L. Muller of Is That Legal? linked to and Wonkette published what they thought was a photo of Michelle posing in a bikini in 1992.

… only it’s not.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/29/2006 at 01:21 PM
    1. The stupidest thing about this “hypocrisy!!!!” slam is that, even when it hits its target, it’s still meaningless. As one small example, it’s not hypocritical for me not to want my kids doing drugs, wasting their youths in a fog of no accomplishment or ambition and wondering why the world’s passing them by. And there are PLENTY of pictures of me doing just that. Wankers.

      Posted by bovious on 2006 09 29 at 01:43 PM • permalink


    1. Oh, Ken…

      Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 09 29 at 01:51 PM • permalink


    1. Bovious –

      When logic becomes optional (or a dead white European male construct if you went to college) people can come up with all sorts dubious equivalencies.

      The inability to think clearly—now widespread after decades of subjecting generations of students to a lowest-common-denominator education system—is perhaps our greatest impediment to meeting the challenges we face.

      Posted by cosmo on 2006 09 29 at 01:52 PM • permalink


    1. Man, that’s just sad.

      Posted by mojo on 2006 09 29 at 01:54 PM • permalink


    1. Three things wrong here:

      First (obviously), the photo is a laughable fake that only a frothing, sputtering lefty could fall for (good God, these people are credulous).

      Second, it’s patently absurd to say Malkin would be a hypocrite for speaking out against sleaze because she wore a bikini, for Christ’s sake. What is this, 1955?

      And third, Malkin said, “I wish I looked that good in a bikini.” Having seen (and been profoundly, er, movedby) her trampoline/dance game video, I’d say she would look positively spectacular.

      And the chick in the pic is a moose.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 09 29 at 01:55 PM • permalink


    1. I bet there’s a plastic turkey in that fridge in the bikini pic.

      Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 09 29 at 02:06 PM • permalink


    1. So no one who fell for it questioned that a short woman (you know I don’t think I’ve ever seen a tall Asian woman) like Michelle being nearly the same height as the standard looking fridge in that picture?

      Posted by chrisbg99 on 2006 09 29 at 02:09 PM • permalink


    1. Oh, for God’s sake.  What is this, friggin’ junior high?  Malkin said they embarrassed themselves, which has got to be the understatement of the year, and it’s indicative of the left that they don’t even realize it.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 09 29 at 02:20 PM • permalink


    1. And if you follow the links to Wonkette (slogan-come for the shallow insipidity, stay for the frequent references to anal sex!!!) you will see that the lefties seem to think that there is still some sort of point to be made regarding this picture even though many of them acknowledge it as a fake.

      Michelle should step on them like she does the beer can here.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 09 29 at 02:21 PM • permalink


    1. It is pretty desperate, its amazing that given Michelle Malkin’s critics usually consider themselves enlightened types the criticism always reverts to racist or misogynistic ranting.

      Posted by Ross on 2006 09 29 at 02:27 PM • permalink


    1. By now the guy that photoshopped the image has moved on to other pursuits.

      Posted by Merlin on 2006 09 29 at 02:34 PM • permalink


    1. I note that Muller hasn’t opened comments on the Malkin thread. Why is that, Eric?

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 09 29 at 02:37 PM • permalink


    1. Well at Wonkette doesn’t have Ana Marie Cox, anymore, to write about her favorite subjects: anal sex and hanging out with a kiss-and-tell prostitute.

      Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2006 09 29 at 02:39 PM • permalink


    1. Oh my go I’ve just read the orignal entry by Malkin’s creepy stalker:

      Here, incidentally, is the flickr page where the photo appears. Somebody forwarded it to me a couple of months ago. I chortled.

      He’s kept a crudely photoshopped picture of Michelle Malkin’s head stuck on some girls body, to masturbate to, for several months before er sharing it with us all. That’s not at all sinister is it?

      Posted by Ross on 2006 09 29 at 02:40 PM • permalink


    1. the lefties seem to think that there is still some sort of point to be made regarding this picture even though many of them acknowledge it as a fake.

      Whether or not the T & A were Malkin’s has little bearing on their purpose as metaphor…

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 09 29 at 03:26 PM • permalink


    1. That’s a pretty crummy Photoshop. Whoever did it has a real future working for Reuters.

      Posted by Randal Robinson on 2006 09 29 at 03:41 PM • permalink


    1. Quick, somebody Photoshop this jumped-up horrid twerp’s head on to a bikini pic and see just how long it takes for a Statement of Claim to land in your hand.

      Muller’s page is now showing an update, with an apology for his “error”. He “believed” it was Malkin. If he’d tried to verify whether it was Malkin, and been wrong, that would have been an error. Posting a pic from Flickr without trying to verify it isn’t an error, it’s negligent. But Prof. Muller isn’t apologizing for what he really did.

      By the way, “hypocrite” has been held to be defamatory in libel trials. Had Michelle not acquiesced in having the posts stay up, she’d have a slam-dunk defamation case.

      Posted by Jim Whyte on 2006 09 29 at 03:56 PM • permalink


    1. When did the left become the same sort of tsk-tsking old Church Lady scolds they claim to hold so much contempt for?

      Let me try to get this straight.  If someone has the audacity to point out the fact that Bratz dolls are kinda skeazy, they are thereby inviting The Oh-so Progressive Watchdogs out there to start sticking heads on bikini-clad honeys so they can screech “Slut!” with gleeful abandon at those they disagree with?  Jeepers, but doesn’t that make them, oh, I dunno… Reactionaries?

      Yup, decades worth of feminist ideals and the supposed support of all forms of sexual freedom kicked to the curb just so they can call someone they don’t like a whore. So much for “progress”, eh?

      It used to be the worst things you could be accused of being in their long sought after Progressive Utopia were judgemental (check) or a hypocrite (double-check).  But apparently witchhunts have now been sanctioned among the faithful in order to find/create photoshopped piccys, the better to accuse a woman they’ve decided is a transgressor of being (heavens to Murtha-troid!) a skank-ho.  So, where’s their Seinfeldian disclaimer, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that?”

      I think the true colors of their dainty little slips are starting to show

      Posted by BethB on 2006 09 29 at 04:12 PM • permalink


    1. sue sue fucking sue

      Posted by murph on 2006 09 29 at 04:35 PM • permalink


    1. Tim,

      I can’t believe that your buddy K. Layne was involved in this idiocy.  I bought his book, and a few Corvids CD’s a few years ago before he went off the deep end.

      Posted by Thom on 2006 09 29 at 04:45 PM • permalink


    1. Right on, BethB.

      It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

      “Got a problem with nine-year-olds wearing thongs? Well, here’s a picture of you in a bikini when you were eighteen, you hypocritical ho-bag!”

      They’re beyond parody.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 09 29 at 04:51 PM • permalink


    1. Don’t any of these people own a mirror?  Do they ever look into their own eyes?  They have no shame.  Or daughters.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 09 29 at 05:06 PM • permalink


    1. Michelle in a bikini: fake but accurate.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 09 29 at 05:07 PM • permalink


    1. I also have a picture of Green Helmet Guy in a bikini, if anyone’s interested.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 09 29 at 05:08 PM • permalink


    1. #11:  I side with the clown. I wouldn’t take any sh** from a giant mutant rabbit either.

      Anyway, on one hand I’d LIKE to see Michelle in a bikini. On the other hand, it’s possible she’d turn out to be built like a 12-year-old boy.

      Posted by Supercat on 2006 09 29 at 05:15 PM • permalink


    1. i thought that face looked familiar……..wasn’t it inside that lebanese ambulance struck by the jewish missile??

      Posted by vinny on 2006 09 29 at 05:32 PM • permalink


    1. It’s weird, I’m about to tackle this very subject on my blog.  These idiots don’t get it, the issue isn’t that human beings are sexual, attractive, playful little critters; the issue is that we currently have image overload of women as the sexual playthings of men, as complacent, submissive, and willing toys for lecherous men.  Cyberspace alone is probably about 70% pornography, most of it can be described as women bashing.

      Exploit children, you go to jail; exploit women you make a dollar.

      But I’ll be taking a slightly different tack, it wont be sweet innocent me just wants us gals to be good girls/bad girls (and I’m not saying Michelle was, I don’t think that was her point).  Already started, cos i’m putting up very sexc images of men (of course being a conservative, they are in very good taste).

      What these morons don’t understand, this is effecting our children – how girls see themselves and see boys, how boys see themselves and see girls.  This can’t be good.

      /miss priss rant off 🙂

      Posted by spyder on 2006 09 29 at 06:20 PM • permalink


    1. I don’t think Wonkette et al. care if it’s real or not: it was a joke to get her goat and it worked.
      The professor seems the only one of the lot taking it seriously.

      Posted by Donnah on 2006 09 29 at 06:29 PM • permalink


    1. Right on, BethB!

      The only thing I’d add to from this take-down is the fact that some lefty law prof (Muller) and web site (does anyone read Wonkette, even Glenn Reynolds stopped with his obsession over it) thinks an ad hominem attack on the level of an adolescent–“your mother swims after troop ships” sort–is an argument rebutting Malkin’s column.

      Pathetic. No wonder they can’t win elections.

      Lifestyle liberals–gotta love ‘em–they probably think women should be covered from head to toe, just like their Islamofascist brethren believe.

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 09 29 at 06:34 PM • permalink


    1. I don’t know – I think it’s incumbent on Malkin to show us a real skimpy bikini shot of herself just to verify the wonkette shot isn’t her. I don’t think on an important issue like this we can rely on testimony only.

      Hands up all who agree.

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 09 29 at 06:45 PM • permalink


    1. I saw it and was unaware that malkin was a pinhead.
      Bad photoshop.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 29 at 07:01 PM • permalink


    1. As usual the miserable aresholes of the left have to resort to scraping the barrel.

      Posted by Howzat on 2006 09 29 at 07:08 PM • permalink


    1. arseholes

      Posted by Howzat on 2006 09 29 at 07:09 PM • permalink


    1. #30, I agree, Francis.  “If the bikini doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” But through the miracle of internet video, we can see Michelle on HotAir, and we know something about the relative proportions of her head and her body.  The last time I saw a pinhead like that photoshopped bikini girl, it was in Todd Browning’s Freaks.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 09 29 at 07:32 PM • permalink


    1. sue sue fucking sue

      Is that the name of the woman whose body is in the bikini, murph?

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 09 29 at 07:33 PM • permalink


    1. Hands up all who agree.


      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 09 29 at 07:36 PM • permalink


    1. I read the article Malkin wrote about Charlotte Church and I really can’t see what the left’s problem is. If it is true and Church really has fallen apart the way Malkin describes—I don’t follow Church’s career—then what we have here is a dismaying psychological collapse of a young, successful woman. Or even worse, she has become, or was always, cynical, and both “styles” of career (goody two shoes and Osbourne-style harridan) are just acts. One would think that leftists and liberals, who are always spouting on about how much they worship “truth” and “authenticity” and are all for women being more than male sex objects would be as upset as Malkin, but I also thought that liberals were against racial slurs, so there goes that illusion. (Which, I may add, I have not had in a very long time. All sorts of nasty old bigotries have been given new life by virtuous liberals.)

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 29 at 07:45 PM • permalink


    1. Yeah Andrea and now they call you racist when you discuss something in another culture that is abhorrent.

      So for example, as in a recent case, if there is a tribe who still practices human sacrifice and you think it is wrong and they should be educated into a more civilised way of living, they call you a racist.

      They can’t seem to help themselves taking everything to an extreme that ends up being worse than it was before.

      Posted by spyder on 2006 09 29 at 08:08 PM • permalink


    1. Exploit children, you go to jail; exploit women you make a dollar.

      Since every “alternative press” newspaper I’ve ever seen makes most of its money off ads for strip clubs and outcall massage/prostitution services (LA Weekly, Village Voice, et al), I say it’s more accruate to say, “exploit women and it makes you a progressive.”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 09 29 at 08:14 PM • permalink


    1. That’s ok Dave i’ll count that as a yes. Maybe as two votes

      Posted by Francis H on 2006 09 29 at 08:22 PM • permalink


    1. My admiration for Michelle has greatly increased that the woman can be so intelligent articulate and achieve so much with such a small head is quite frankly amazing.

      Posted by Looneyc on 2006 09 29 at 10:01 PM • permalink


    1. And the problem with Michelle Malkin in a bikini is . . . .

      Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 09 29 at 10:13 PM • permalink


    1. Tim,
      Thanks for the expose, the self styled “professor” was too worried about being photoshopped himself to ever comment on Michelle’s degradation from the Leftoids.

      Posted by mikdaley on 2006 09 29 at 10:36 PM • permalink


    1. A picture of Malkin in a bikini is – all together now – “one of those hoaxes that bespeaks a reality”.

      Posted by Captain Wacky on 2006 09 29 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. Another middle class whitey who thinks all Asians look alike. Sad.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2006 09 30 at 01:50 AM • permalink


    1. Well everyone knows how those shrivelled up left wing skanks no wonder they’re after our own hot right wing chicksas.
      Hey leftoids, you can look but don’t photoshop- stick to your own leftist erogeneous zones!(if you can find any)

      Posted by davo on 2006 09 30 at 02:19 AM • permalink


    1. the reply on wonkettes website is bizzare. seems to say, “lucky we didn’t post any of the more demeaning photoshops”.

      Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2006 09 30 at 03:25 AM • permalink


    1. It speaks truth to voyeur.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 09 30 at 06:40 AM • permalink


    1. So for example, as in a recent case, if there is a tribe who still practices human sacrifice and you think it is wrong and they should be educated into a more civilised way of living, they call you a racist.

      Or a Zionist.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 09 30 at 05:05 PM • permalink


    1. Donnah, The law professor is the only one taking it seriously because he’s the only one with real downside exposure (lawsuit, being censored or fired from his law school).  The others are like kids throwing rocks at cars and then running awaylaughing into the night – immature hooligans who will never grow up, (i.e. the dirty mob).

      Posted by lksseven on 2006 10 01 at 09:30 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.