Apparently, the assailant who fired two rounds from a semiautomatic rifle at the White House was likely an Occupy D.C. protestor.
Of course, the New York Times does its utmost to draw as little attention to this allegation as possible. In an article published today the authors do their best to downplay any possible connection the shooter may have had with the movement. After wading through eight paragraphs, the paper reports the following:
“Late on Friday, the police searched the Occupy DC protest camp, on McPherson Square just blocks from the White House, after reports that the suspect might have spent time there. Protesters there said on Wednesday that the police had been through their encampment several times since then, showing around a photograph of Mr. Ortega-Hernandez.”
Well, did he spend time there or not?
Apparently the authors aren’t interested as it likely conflicts with their narrative of the Occupy movement. Had Ortega-Hernandez, the alleged shooter, fired his rifle at the White House after attending a Tea Party rally, there would have been hell to pay. The media would have reported that a “right-winger” tried to kill the Commander-in-Chief. Janet Napolitano would have written a memo urging the Department of Homeland Security to monitor right-wing war veterans.
Oh, wait. She already did that in 2009.
Well, it seems Ms. Napolitano is monitoring the wrong group, and the President’s life could have been at risk because of it.
But, but, but…this is a new movement. It is a paradigm shift in the governance of free people, the likes at which the world has never seen.
Well, if one means the first historical movement that included a murder, an assassination attempt on the life of the President of the United States, and “twinkle-fingers,” then I guess it is fairly novel. Although an anarchist did successfully assassinate President McKinley. Otherwise, it’s just your average mob sitcom that just jumped the shark, and the mainstream media has decided that the anarchy will not be televised.