To hear the Liberals tell it, we are surrounded by political violence. Vivian Paige calls for an end to violence. Donald Luzatto predicts a bloodbath. What violence are they referring to? It can’t be the Tea Party rallies. They're so mommiefied, they even use trash baskets to make sure that they leave their rally grounds clean. While there has been an attack or two on people attending the protests by union thugs there have been no, zero, nada instances of violence coming from the Tea Party movement.
So what is the “violence” that Vivian is denouncing? From whence is the bloodbath Luzatto is predicting? Are they opposed to protest marches and demonstrations? If so, they risk trampling on hallowed ground. The civil rights movement was not a letters-to-the-editor campaign. Neither were the Viet Nam era protests that are the subject of so much hagiography in the Liberal community.
In my copy of the Bill of Rights the First Amendment includes the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Unlike mass protests of the past, the Tea Party demonstrations are models of restraint. We have mostly middle class people from all walks of life coming together to protest the actions of a Congress and a Presidency that has passed and signed a bill that is hugely unpopular. The reasons for the protests are various and include principled resistance to ever-encroaching government into people’s lives coupled with the issue of a large and rapidly accelerating government debt which is a burden to our children and grandchildren and threatens their future well-being.
The aspect of these demonstrations that surprises and shocks so many Liberals is that street demonstrations have long been the province of the Left. For ordinary Americans to take to the streets and public squares it somehow sinister to those who believed they owned public anger.
But back to the issue of violence. The only physical violence that I have seen at a Tea Party event was the beating and kicking of a black man, Kenneth Gladney, by members of the SEIU union, major supporters of the health care bill. I would be interested to see video evidence of violence on the part of Tea Party protestors.
Perhaps the angst by the Liberals comes from vandalism of congressional offices like this, or this, or this, or this, or this. So who is responsible for inciting these vandals? Please name names. Who incited these acts of vandalism and why have they not been denounced?
Perhaps the reference to violence is verbal violence. The event that has fostered this spate of editorial denunciation appears to have been the demonstration at the US Capital. As black congressmen walked past the demonstrators they accused members of the crowd of spitting on them and calling them “niggers.” It now appears that the congressman who claimed to have been spat on, has retracted his accusation. And despite the presence of numerous audio/video cameras including those carried by the congressmen’s supporters, no evidence of anyone using the word “nigger” has been presented.
The initial reports of being spat on were made by Congressman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) who has since said he never claimed to be spit on. Unfortunately for Cleaver, while he said he never made it an issue, he's not telling the truth. His office made it an issue. So is Congressman Cleaver guilty of stoking violence by claiming to have been spat on by a white man? Is he now walking it back because the video shows what really happened?
The other accusation, the use of the "N" word, was not recorded although literally dozens of recording devices were present. A $10,000 reward was offered for anyone who could come forward and prove that anyone yelled "nigger." The reward remains unclaimed. We are asked to believe these accusation because the accuser is a "civil right hero." Right! Sorry, in this highly charged atmosphere where charges of racism are levelled by anyone seeking the approval of the NY Times and Tea Party protestors are called Nazis, we need proof.
So who are the people encouraging violence again? How about this picture from the NY Times?
So what is the “violence” that Vivian is denouncing? From whence is the bloodbath Luzatto is predicting? Are they opposed to protest marches and demonstrations? If so, they risk trampling on hallowed ground. The civil rights movement was not a letters-to-the-editor campaign. Neither were the Viet Nam era protests that are the subject of so much hagiography in the Liberal community.
In my copy of the Bill of Rights the First Amendment includes the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Unlike mass protests of the past, the Tea Party demonstrations are models of restraint. We have mostly middle class people from all walks of life coming together to protest the actions of a Congress and a Presidency that has passed and signed a bill that is hugely unpopular. The reasons for the protests are various and include principled resistance to ever-encroaching government into people’s lives coupled with the issue of a large and rapidly accelerating government debt which is a burden to our children and grandchildren and threatens their future well-being.
The aspect of these demonstrations that surprises and shocks so many Liberals is that street demonstrations have long been the province of the Left. For ordinary Americans to take to the streets and public squares it somehow sinister to those who believed they owned public anger.
But back to the issue of violence. The only physical violence that I have seen at a Tea Party event was the beating and kicking of a black man, Kenneth Gladney, by members of the SEIU union, major supporters of the health care bill. I would be interested to see video evidence of violence on the part of Tea Party protestors.
Perhaps the angst by the Liberals comes from vandalism of congressional offices like this, or this, or this, or this, or this. So who is responsible for inciting these vandals? Please name names. Who incited these acts of vandalism and why have they not been denounced?
Perhaps the reference to violence is verbal violence. The event that has fostered this spate of editorial denunciation appears to have been the demonstration at the US Capital. As black congressmen walked past the demonstrators they accused members of the crowd of spitting on them and calling them “niggers.” It now appears that the congressman who claimed to have been spat on, has retracted his accusation. And despite the presence of numerous audio/video cameras including those carried by the congressmen’s supporters, no evidence of anyone using the word “nigger” has been presented.
The initial reports of being spat on were made by Congressman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) who has since said he never claimed to be spit on. Unfortunately for Cleaver, while he said he never made it an issue, he's not telling the truth. His office made it an issue. So is Congressman Cleaver guilty of stoking violence by claiming to have been spat on by a white man? Is he now walking it back because the video shows what really happened?
The other accusation, the use of the "N" word, was not recorded although literally dozens of recording devices were present. A $10,000 reward was offered for anyone who could come forward and prove that anyone yelled "nigger." The reward remains unclaimed. We are asked to believe these accusation because the accuser is a "civil right hero." Right! Sorry, in this highly charged atmosphere where charges of racism are levelled by anyone seeking the approval of the NY Times and Tea Party protestors are called Nazis, we need proof.
So who are the people encouraging violence again? How about this picture from the NY Times?
Note the picture of Obama supporter and Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers and the NY Times equating the Weather Underground to the peaceful protesters at Tea Party rallies.
Is the NY Times inciting a paranoid Leftist to bloodshed? If there is more violence directed at Tea Party protesters or Republicans, will we have members of the Liberal blogosphere or press calling out those who incite such violence by name? Don't hold your breath.
The hyped accusations of violence are an incitement to violent actions on the part of the crazed Left. I suggest that if you don’t want to foment violence, don’t incite your supporters to violent acts by exaggerated or totally fictitious claims of violence.
In the dark ages of racial strife it was often unfounded and completely imaginary accusations of violence committed by blacks against whites that led to lynch mobs. Today we seem to have the same situation, except the races are reversed.
Stop it.
UPDATE: I have been told that the reward for evidence of the use of the "N" word is $100,000
1 comment:
It's interesting the reward remains unclaimed.
Post a Comment