The war between the left and right has been ratcheted up this past weekend. Although a philosophical war of words, to the committed Alinsky left it is nonetheless a deadly serious war.
The progressive movement has long been known for its intolerance of opposing philosophies and its propensity for violence to attain its goals. As Noel Sheppard notes, at the 2008 Republican Convention leftist demonstrators hospitalized conventioneers with bricks thrown through bus windows and sandbags dropped from overpasses onto passing cars. The progressive media looked the other way. Following the passage of ObamaCare, much media frenzy has surrounded incidents where a coffin was put on congressman Carnahan's front lawn (didn't happen) and a brick was thrown through congresswoman Slaughter's Niagara Falls office window. Of course, the last time someone smashed Democratic Party office windows, a Democrat was found responsible. Now, new incidents of Democrat windows being broken have been reported, some credible, some not. These are being used by the progressive media as a weapon against the Tea Party conservatives. Since this type of childish vandalism is a signature act of progressivism, I would search for suspects on the left side of the aisle.
The Tea Party demonstrations in DC the previous weekend were noted by the progressive media only for an "alleged" incident (although some reports did not use the word "alleged") of a black congressman being "spit on", and another of someone shouting the "n-word".
The question I have is, why did these congresspeople, including Emmanuel Cleaver (the alleged "spitee", who actually walked too close to a protester shouting "kill the bill" and got sprayed), Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi deliberately march into the demonstration and confront the Tea Partiers? After all, wasn't it Nancy herself who said she was "frightened" by these supposedly violent people? Is it possible that they wanted to provoke a reaction from the crowd to be used by the media to demonize the Tea Party movement (i.e., "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it")? Is it also possible that when there was nothing sufficiently provoked by the lawmakers' confrontation, they decided to fabricate it? I believe their previous record of untruthfulness supports this hypothesis. Andrew Breitbart raised the stakes by offering a reward of $10,000 to anyone who could prove a Tea Partier shouted the "n-word". Despite the dozens of video cameras on the scene, no one has yet claimed the prize. Next, the Associated Press attacked Breitbart in a "news" story, saying that he has no proof that the incident didn't happen. In response, Breitbart has now raised the reward to $100,000.
What do you suppose will be the next move by the Alinsky left? There are a large number of Tea Party demonstrations scheduled around the country in April. I don't believe there is any doubt that the left will step up their attempts to provoke a Tea Party incident that they can capture on video. Even more likely, they will infiltrate demonstrations and create ugly incidents masquerading as Tea Party participants. The progressive media, doing their part for the cause, will appear at more of these events for the sole purpose of broadcasting the "proof" of Tea Party racism and/or violence.
Those of us who intend to participate in these demonstrations need to do two things:
- 1) Do not allow yourself or another Tea Partier to be taunted or provoked into saying or doing anything that could be interpreted as racist or violent. Always be civil and act intelligently. You never know when you are being recorded.
- 2) Take a video camera with you and record the faces of anyone instigating or participating in any such incidences so that they can be identified later.
Remember, to those on the Alinsky left, this is a war. And as Saul Alinsky wrote, "The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...."
Andrew Thomas blogs at darkangelpolitics.com