Who's making all those threats, calling all those names, and breaking windows?
Well, so far, we don't know.
But there's no good reason to believe that it is Conservatives, and tantalizing bits of information, combined with historical pattern-of-practice, which lead prudent people to be agnostic--or to point to the Left's insurgents.
For the last year, the media have been desperately trying to hang the "racist" tag around the Tea Party movement as a way to discredit it. This past weekend, they would seem to have finally succeeded.
The McClatchy newspaper chain, whose slogan is "truth to power," launched an opening salvo on Saturday, March 20 with the inflammatory headline -- its exact words -- "Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman." That is "protesters" in the plural who "scream" a racial epithet, "nigger," at a particular "congressman."
This one headline contains one perilously uncorroborated accusation and three conscious fabrications, beginning with the identity of the "congressman" in question. So much for "truth to power."
Cong. John Lewis DID NOT HEAR the 'n' word...
...and if that word WAS used, it was not a "chorus" of protesters who used it....
In fact, nobody on the scene seems to have heard the term, and multiple videotapes (some taken by Congressional aides/flaks) do NOT pick it up.
Further, there was no "arrest" of anyone; there was a detention/release, after a Congresscritter was 'unable to identify' his "attacker." (Maybe that "attacker" was one of his allies, hmmmmm?)
In addition, there are reports of threatening phone calls, cut propane-gas lines, and a broken window in a Congresscritter's home-town office. None of the perps have been identified.
We are aware, however, of the documented pattern-of-practice of the Left. They bomb buildings (UW, anyone?) and plot to bomb soldiers' dances (Ayers & Co.). They rough up peaceful demonstrators (Green Bay/Gore Campaign and St Louis street-peddler.) They credibly threaten violence, forcing folks like Ann Coulter and David Horowitz to cancel appearances.
Insurgents utilize "false-flag" ops all the time. The nature of insurgency requires lies and deception. It's very helpful to have a cooperative press, of course, which makes insurgency in America so damned easy to pull off.
BeerBiker thinks the same way.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
When Faux News and bloggers like you have a documented pattern-of-practice in chanting "Wolverines" and "Buy more ammo" at every turn, why is it hard to imagine that some misguided teabagger would take the extra step of lobbing a brick through a window or screaming an insult?
A reasonable interpretation of history would be that you can find a minority fringe of any political stripe who, at some point, commit violence in the name of their cause. What kind of blinders must you be wearing to suggest that only those nasty liberals engage in violence?
So where's the rationality in your assumption that teabaggers are unlikely to have engaged in these acts? If you're suggesting that these are liberal false-flag events, isn't the burden of proof on you to show evidence for that theory? The reporters of these events were making reasonable assumptions by describing them as teabagging protesters. If they weren't, then someone has to show otherwise.
Dad, you left out the incidents during the Bush years, where students/faculty supposedly had swastika's, muslim slurs etc. carved on their car doors, dorm doors, etc. Almost all turned out to have been done by the supposed 'victim'. Of course, the lap dogs blamed the so-called hate right.
You forgot "anti-Christ" and "tinpot dictator", Foust. No malice there.
Oh and "insurgents". Ha I like that one. Leftist radicals are now closely associated with a band of Arab terrorists setting IED's on our troops in the Middle East. That's where this has gone. Classic.
Foust - I believe the burden is on you, the ClintonNewsNetwork, the NYSlimes and your liberal butt buddies to provide the burden of proof that it is the Tea Party protestors perperating these acts.
I'm all for skepticism about a news report. If someone is in public protesting a bill, I think it's more accurate to call them a protester than it is to suggest they are a covert operative for the opposing view.
But please, go on... tell me what "buy more ammo" means to you, Mr. Disgruntled Car Salesman.
Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor said Thursday that his Richmond campaign office has been shot at and that he's received "threatening e-mails" --
Umhhh...I don't claim that NONE of the reported incidents are rogue "conservatives".
I simply indicate that there's plenty of NOTHING for "evidence" that 'rogue conservatives' did the deeds, and at the same time, provide a pattern of LeftOWacky violence and thuggery.
Cantor, of course, is NOT a Democrat.
Well, gee, Foust. "Buy more ammo" means just that. Seems to me that ammunition has a shelf life of about 30-40 years if stored properly. Why wouldn't I buy more?
Let's review -
1. It's relatively available for a decent price.
2. It doesn't go bad.
3. I can use it for target practice.
4. I can use it to hunt.
5. I can use it to protect my family and property from those trying to harm me, my family or take/damage my property.
What did you think that I would use it for? Vigilante missions?!?
Any protest group has its extremist members. Naturally, the opposition will paint the picture that the "rogue" or "fringe" elements are the driving force behind a movement. And it's absolutely naive (and stupid) to tout that conservatives/"reactionary" are less likely to engage in the same lunatic behavior (e.g. spitting, threatening, bombing) with vim and vigor as their liberal/"leftist" counterparts.
The burden of proof is on the protest group to completely disavow those elements which intefere with its legitimate protest interests. Until that occurs, both sides will do damage control and take pot shots at their opposition for being represented to the public by the media as "radical".
Disgruntled, you had your moment to come clean. We all know the connotations behind "Buy More Ammo", and yet, you outright refuse to admit this statement has violent overtones, similar to the environmental wackos who cry out "Defending Mother Earth With Clenched Fists".
"Any protest group has its extremist members"
Tell that to the mainstream media. They only see hate on the right and want their lemmings to believe that's how it is in the real world.
Now the latest is that some idiot tweeted about assassinating Obama. Because idiots have never threatened any President before Obama....
Hell, there was an entire movie made about the Hollywood/left Bush assassination fantasy
Anony - When have I threatened anyone?
Huh? You didn't threaten anyone, you just didn't admit that "Buy More Ammo" could be perceived as an advocation for violence, that's all.
Let's try this a different way:
Would you agree that the term "Buy More Ammo" is an advocation for violence against elected officials DCS?
How so? Maybe the term "Buy More Ammo" is merely advice on stocking up for a post-apocolyptic America. An America put there because of the non stop runaway defecit spending. The spending devaluing our currency and weakening us on the global stage. The poor leadership in dour economic times. Hmm????
Post a Comment