The Anarchy Will Not Be Televised: Why the Occupy Movement Has Officially Jumped the Shark

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.

Advertisements

About Sean Patrick Hazlett

Conservative clean energy crusader, national security hawk, financial analyst, engineer, and former military officer.
This entry was posted in Humor, Policy, Politics, Terrorism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The Anarchy Will Not Be Televised: Why the Occupy Movement Has Officially Jumped the Shark

  1. Scott Erb says:

    It’s a stretch to link one person who “spent time” with an amorphous group to that group as a whole. The media don’t draw that link because it would be wrong to do so. Connections should be downplayed because this guy clearly didn’t represent Occupy DC or any associated group. He was a kook. Think of how wrong it is to associate the military with Abu Ghraib or cases of rape and attacks on innocents. Once you start down the ‘guilt by association’ path, it can turn back against you. That’s true for how the left used that against the tea party in a similar fashion.

    • “That’s true for how the left used that against the tea party in a similar fashion.”

      I agree with your characterization that its a stretch to link one person who “spent time” with the group to that group as a whole. Yet the media does this to the right all the time. Witness Jared Laughner. He was instantly labelled a right-winger, when in the end, he was neither a strong liberal or conservative. Additionally, you can bet your life that if he had returned from a Tea Party rally, these two reporters would have gone out of their way to dig up any information that proved he was a right-winger. Any scrap of evidence would have been applied liberally to the “violent” nature of the entire movement.

      The media can’t have it both ways. If they are going to trumpet the fact (or suspicion) that someone who commits violence is a right-winger, they ought to apply the same standard to those on the left. Or at the very least, they should follow a similar line of inquiry about the individual’s political views that they almost certainly would have done had they suspected the assailant was a conservative. This incident is precisely the sort of thing that drives conservatives batty about our national media establishment. I don’t think these reporters necessarily did this on purpose. It is more of a subconscious bias most of them have.

  2. nickgb says:

    There’s no evidence he was ever at Occupy DC, other than unnamed “reports”, and no evidence has emerged that he was really there. The fact that they mentioned it at all was a ridiculous attempt to tie the two together to push a story with no evidence. “Burying” it 8 grafs deep is exactly where it should go, if it even shows up.

    Fox News, for comparison, didn’t mention Occupy DC at all in its online story about the arrest. So, they have more of a bias?

    The Washington Post put it around the 5th graf, with the following:
    In trying to determine why he recently traveled to the nation’s capital from the western part of the country, investigators searched the Occupy D.C. campground near the White House but have found no connection between him and the Occupy protesters, according to three law enforcement officials familiar with the case.

    I think you’re getting a little paranoid. The two liberal sources mention a bullshit story that Fox doesn’t even bring up, and you’re mad that they only mentioned the non-story halfway down?

    • “There’s no evidence he was ever at Occupy DC, other than unnamed “reports”, and no evidence has emerged that he was really there. The fact that they mentioned it at all was a ridiculous attempt to tie the two together to push a story with no evidence. “Burying” it 8 grafs deep is exactly where it should go, if it even shows up.”

      This is going to sound silly, but there is no evidence that there is no evidence. Park police are saying they have witnesses he was at Occupy DC. For the most part, the media is avoiding the question entirely. The WSJ had a decent column dated November 18th here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577044184247535646.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

      As for Fox, I tend to avoid it. It is about as conservative as MSNBC is liberal.

      It still seems no one is even asking the question, which I still think is a huge double standard.

  3. Just saw yesterday that this guy filmed a video telling Oprah that he had a message to give the masses, that it was “no coincidence that he looked like Jesus.” My guess is he’ll be used to attack Christianity and subsequently labelled a right-wing loon.

  4. Alan Scott says:

    Sean ,

    The silence is deafening as to the origins of a guy who used an assault rifle that could have killed the President and First Family . In the past this would have been used to drum up support for assault weapon bans, hate speech bans, etc. Imagine if this happened during the left wing hysteria following the Gabby Giffords shooting . I wonder if Sarah Palin had a bullseye on the White House and maybe this guy saw it .

  5. jlhartman says:

    Any more news on this? If not, it seems you were both wrong and guilty of exactly those faults you point out in others, namely jumping to conclusions before getting the facts. Unless you have new evidence that the shooter was connected to OWS in any way, it would seem you owe the movement, Janet Napolitano, and the NYT an apology.

    • I’ve heard nothing either way, as the press seems to have deemed asking the question irrelevant — which was the point of the post. My beef with the NYT is that they did not even attempt to pursue a line of inquiry into the matter. Had this happened anywhere near a Tea Party gathering, I have little doubt “Tea Party” would have been in the headline.

      As for Janet Napolitano, I will never owe her an apology. In fact, she owes me and every veteran whose served since 9/11 an apology for casting suspicion on those who served their country without any evidence to justify it.

      • jlhartman says:

        I was wondering if you would go Glenn Beck on me with this one. So, just to clarify, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooter had anything to do with OWS, you still feel the press should take the time to investigate whether or not he did. Why not, then, also investigate whether he had ties to Al Qaeda, or China, or alien life forms, seeing as how there’s also no evidence whatsoever that these relationships exist either?

        Also, had the incident happened near a Tea Party rally, it would make sense to suspect him of having Tea Party ties based on two facts applicable to the Tea Party and not to OWS; firstly, the Tea Party largely believes not only that the President is doing an awful job of running the country, but also that he is an illegitimate, foreign-born president. Secondly, they largely believe in the right to keep and bear arms (even outside of an organized militia as specified in the Constitution). In fact, here’s a video of open carriers at a Tea Party rally: http://youtu.be/BB9IXTcEh10. What do you think the ratio of NRA supporters is at OWS vs. Tea Party rallies? What about those who support a ban on assault rifles? BTW, this is also partly why people (incorrectly, just like you did) jumped to the idea that the Gabby Giffords shooting was committed by a radical conservative: because she was a Democratic congresswoman, not a Republican one.

        Your ongoing lambasting of OWS is getting tired and you overreached on this post. That you won’t admit your fault and instead argue that “there’s no evidence that there’s no evidence” is unlike you. The right needs a rational voice to counter the mob mentality that has taken over large swaths of the country. The reason I continue to follow you is because you often provide that voice. Not in this case though.

        • “So, just to clarify, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooter had anything to do with OWS”

          That’s not true. The U.S. Park Service reported that the shooter was spotted in the Occupy D.C. crowd. The Washington Post reports that authorities say he has no ties. So the information is conflicting. As such, it would be great to see someone pursue whether a link exists or not. That is my beef. If this guy had right-wing ties, the media would go the extra mile to uncover them. My issue is with the double standard.

          “(incorrectly, just like you did)”

          I never jumped to the conclusion that the shooter was part of the OWS movement (though I admit my concluding paragraph is poorly worded and seems to indicate that I am lumping him into the movement, which was poor writing on my part). I point was that no one bothered to pursue this line of questioning for fear of it disrupting their chosen narrative. Prove to me that he had nothing to do with the movement or that he never attended the protest. You can’t. The meda hasn’t asked the right questions for you to answer the question adequately. For the same reason I cannot prove he was there. All I have is the word of the US Park Service. All you have is a Washington Post comment from “authorities.”

          Again, my biggest beef is the bias in media coverage. I believe this incident typifies this bias.

          • jlhartman says:

            “The U.S. Park Service reported that the shooter was spotted in the Occupy D.C. crowd.” This is not evidence. It was also preliminary information that was subsequently investigated and debunked. Almost exactly like the preliminary information that Jared Loughner was associated with the Tea Party.

            “Prove to me that he had nothing to do with the movement or that he never attended the protest. You can’t.” The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused. Besides, how would one even prove such a thing? Does he wear a GPS anklet from which we can extract historical data about his geographical locations? Do spy satellites track and record his every move? Should we just ask him?

            Let me flip this around in one last attempt to get you to see reason:

            A Capitol Mall maintenance worker reports that Oscar Ramiro Ortega was seen at Glenn Beck’s DC Rally last year. Police investigated but couldn’t find any evidence that Oscar Ramiro Ortega was even in the area at the alleged time of incidence. Now, I believe it’s just a case of the Koch Brothers covering up evidence and inhibiting the MSM from looking further into legitimate Tea Party ties. Prove to me that Oscar Ramiro Ortega had nothing to do with the Tea Party or that he never attended Glenn Beck’s Rally. You can’t.

            BTW, the only “bias” in this entire situation stems from the right (including yourself unfortunately), not the left: http://www.eveningtribune.com/community/blogs/applesauce/x2094885429/Fox-News-falsely-ties-White-House-shooter-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-movement

            • “Prove to me that Oscar Ramiro Ortega had nothing to do with the Tea Party or that he never attended Glenn Beck’s Rally. You can’t.”

              You are absolutely right. Why? Because the media simply is not pursuing the line of inquiry.

              “It was also preliminary information that was subsequently investigated and debunked.”

              How do you know that? There simply isn’t enough information out there to conclude one way or the other because the media is avoiding the issue.

              This editorial from the WSJ summarizes the problem I have in media coverage of the incident nicely:

              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577044184247535646.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

              As for Fox, I won’t defend them. You are right to suggest that they jumped the gun on this one way too early. That said, the rest of the media was assiduously avoided teh question altogether.

    • By the way, below is a video in which Occupy San Diego protesters call for a moment of silence for the DC shooter:

      • More than a moment of silence, Sean, a moment of “solidarity” (insert up-twinkly-fingers here). It’s completely outrageous to me. Only the sickest of our society and complete kool-aid drunken idiots would want to sympathize with or support this p.o.s., but that’s the far left showing their “moral superiority” yet again: to them, terrorists deserve their sympathy, love, and understanding far more than America’s soldiers or even the local businesses that they’ve trashed do. Do you think these far left loons have even once given a moment of silence for those people? Not a chance.

      • jlhartman says:

        Again, you’ve gone and leaped to conclusions. There are two assumptions you made this time: firstly, that the young man in the video was holding a moment of solidarity for the shooter and not the White House. It’s confusing, I’ll admit, because here’s what he literally says: “I think we should have a moment of solidarity for the White House and for the guy that shot at the White House today.” How one can have a moment of solidarity for an aggressor and their victim at the same time makes no sense, which is my point. Luckily for us, he clarifies himself in this article: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/blog-608-occupy-san-diego-protester-says-his-moment-of-solidarity-was-misunderstood.html

        So your first assumption (that he called “for a moment of silence for the DC shooter”) is incorrect upon further investigation.

        Secondly, and more egregiously, you assume that this young man speaks for the OWS movement as a whole. As you probably noticed in the video, it does not appear that this is the case. Instead, it appears that a reporter was giving a microphone to anyone willing to speak, even those who probably shouldn’t. I’m surprised you fell for this one, considering similar mistakes must have been made in Tea Party gatherings in the past.

        So, to clarify, neither the young man in the video nor the movement as a whole support the DC shooter, or even violence in general. Yet, because of your two incorrect assumptions you now state that you “will never understand or support them”. Not exactly rational behavior.

        • “How one can have a moment of solidarity for an aggressor and their victim at the same time makes no sense, which is my point.”

          I completely agree that his points are irrational, but I have come to expect this sort of irrationality from the OWS movement. Just looks at the demands of many of their member. Wide open borders, $30+ per hour minimum wages, free healthcare for everyone. Any rational individual knows that the logical implication of these demands is a 4 billion person US population that ends up bankrupt and balkanized. Yet the media continues to lionize despite the fact that they commit crime at a rate that is infinitely higher than the Tea Party movement did (infinite because any positively number over zero approaches infinitely).

          “So your first assumption (that he called “for a moment of silence for the DC shooter”) is incorrect upon further investigation.”

          It wasn’t an “assumption.” It was what he actually said. As you reported, “I think we should have a moment of solidarity…for the guy that shot at the White House today.” There is nothing “confusing” about this statement. It is crystal clear. No “assumption” or interpretation on my part was necessary. Is it unreasonable for me to take him at his word?

          In regards to his later redaction, of course he would reverse his words. He couldn’t do otherwise, because he appears to be an insensitive idiot. Why didn’t anyone get up after him and denounce what he said? Is that the kind of movement OWS is? Not one person stood up and challenged what he said. Please do not force me to lower myself to the usual reductio ad Hitlerium, but I think you can see my point.

          I will never understand the movement for a whole host of reasons including this gentleman’s general buffoonery, but also the fact that they don’t seem to have any concrete goals or purpose. Until they translate what they are doing into political power instead of breaking the law on a consistent basis, I will never understand or support them.

        • Thanks for the link – I’m glad he corrected his statement and I’m even more glad he acknowledged the guy as a “terrorist” (a word not in many far-left vocabularies). Therefore, I stand corrected and clarified on his position re: the D.C. shooter. Twinkle-fingers down to to my egregious misinterpretation of his confusing-ass statement and twinkle-fingers-up to the correction and clarification. Peace and harmony be with us all.

          To your second point, you say::
          “Secondly, and more egregiously, you assume that this young man speaks for the OWS movement as a whole. Instead, it appears that a reporter was giving a microphone to anyone willing to speak, even those who probably shouldn’t.”

          Now here’s where you’re making assumptions. How can you actually tell me who speaks for the Occupy movement and who doesn’t, or what’s on message vs. off message when it comes to them? I don’t think you can. (I guess Ketchup and Mustard can, though. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypzosXqQa4Y)

          Occupy has no leadership, and they have no message. This gives them the luxury of zero accountability and being able to disavow anyone within their movement who happens to give them bad press, even though that person may have been twinkling their fingers with them and camping out for weeks.

          I’ll easily own my misinterpretation of the San Diego Occupier’s comments and my reaction based upon a number of far left losers showing more “solidarity” with terrorists than our soldiers. However, without Occupy having any legitimate leadership, they own every comment that comes from within their ranks – negative, misstated, or otherwise as well as every action, and all of the criticism they received because of that is entirely legitimate and in my opinion, well-deserved.

          • joe says:

            Fair enough Vern. I too am growing tired of the lack of leadership and central message from the OWS movement. It’s time for either the movement to anoint a spokesperson, canonize a policy or two, or find some existing political group to do so for them. From what I’ve read, they do not do this because they disagree with the existing democratic system so much that they don’t feel they can effect change from within its structure. I, and it sounds like you also, disagree with them on this point. I agree with whoever it was (Churchill?) that said: “Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others” and believe there is nothing wrong with our current system that can’t be fixed (and relatively easily all things considered).

        • “From what I’ve read, they do not do this because they disagree with the existing democratic system so much that they don’t feel they can effect change from within its structure.”
          I get the same impression from them. It’s a nice thought experiment, but at the end of the day some things only work one way. The sun only rises in the east, gravity only pulls down, and leadership must exist for change to occur and be effective. They hate money but they want “free” things that cost money. They hate power but they want control. If they were simply a group of upset people that would be one thing, but to me they’re a living, breathing contradiction on almost every front they pretend to exist on which is why I still can’t find myself to respect much of what they’re doing. The twinkly-fingers thing on the one hand and the violence on the other just make it worse.

  6. jlhartman says:

    You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper:
    “As you reported, “I think we should have a moment of solidarity…for the guy that shot at the White House today.” There is nothing “confusing” about this statement. It is crystal clear.”

    You are correct that the quote you write above is not confusing and is crystal clear. The problem is that it is a lie.

    Again, what he actually said, and what I actually quoted is: “I think we should have a moment of solidarity for the White House and for the guy that shot at the White House today.”

    Those four words “for the White House” are important. They are what make the statement confusing and decidedly un-crystal clear.

    Why did you omit those four words in your own quote? You certainly are afoul of (even low) journalistic standards with that one.

    I agree he appears to be an “idiot” and prone to “buffoonery”, which is probably why nobody denounced what he said. Based on the entire quote he actually said, it’s hard to understand exactly what he meant. Of course, in the larger context of the movement, which has never shown a propensity for violence or aggression towards the White House, I think most people understood this man did not mean he supported the firing of a weapon at the White House.

    So let’s be clear about where you stand then. Despite the fact that the man’s actual words leave unclear exactly what his “moment of solidarity” was in support of; and despite further clarification on his part that he does not support the actions of Oscar Ramiro Ortega, you still believe he supports the firing of weapons at the white house and has the backing of OWS in so doing.

    Well, if you are going to maintain your (irrational) beliefs in the presence of all evidence to the contrary, there’s nothing more to say.

    • I removed the phrase “for the White House and” simply to show grammatically that the construction of his speech was crystal clear. I didn’t mean to misquote your posted phrase. Sometimes when analyzing a sentence’s structure, it helps to remove phrases to help clarify a sentence’s meaning. That was my intent, which is why I used an ellipsis to qualify that the sentence had other content.

      Even the full statement: “I think we should have a moment of solidarity for the White House and for the guy that shot at the White House today” is crystal clear in its parallel construction. It is grammatically precise language: “for the White House and for the guy that shot at the White today”. It is clear and unambiguous language that he thinks the group should have a moment of solidarity for the White House and also for the guy who shot at it. There can be no confusion whatsoever. To be precise he is referring to two prepositional phrases: 1) “for the White House” and 2)”for the guy that shot at the White House today” separated by the conjunction “and”.

      “Despite the fact that the man’s actual words leave unclear exactly what his “moment of solidarity” was in support of; and despite further clarification on his part that he does not support the actions of Oscar Ramiro Ortega, you still believe he supports the firing of weapons at the white house and has the backing of OWS in so doing.”

      First his words are unambiguously clear. Second, hundreds of people stood by and did not challenge this unambiguous statement. Third, I agree that after he took some heat from his unambiguously clear comments, he sought to redact them. I honestly don’t know what he supports. All I know is that there is a video where he says that he supports it before there is an article where he claims he is against it.

  7. jlhartman says:

    ““Prove to me that Oscar Ramiro Ortega had nothing to do with the Tea Party or that he never attended Glenn Beck’s Rally. You can’t.”

    You are absolutely right. Why? Because the media simply is not pursuing the line of inquiry.”

    Okay, so you think that the media should simultaneously investigate Oscar Ortega’s potential connections both to OWS and to the Tea Party, despite no evidence whatsoever that he has ties to either. What else shall we require the media to investigate about him? The possibilities are literally endless. What about any connections to the Spice Girls? Perhaps he is a Tamil Tiger?

    “Before Ortega-Hernandez was captured, investigators searched the Occupy D.C. campground near the White House but have found no connection between him and the Occupy protesters, according to three law enforcement officials familiar with the case.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/oscar-ramiro-ortega-hernandez-charged-with-attempt-to-assassinate-obama/2011/11/17/gIQAZC9BVN_blog.html

    What part of this paragraph is unsatisfactory to you? Do you disbelieve the WaPo? Do you disbelieve the three law enforcement officials?

    Should we reopen investigations into Jared Loughner’s potential Tea Party ties since there were preliminary reports about those?

    Honestly, I see Oscar Ortega and Jared Loughner as almost the exact same situation, but with the political poles reversed. A literally crazy individual acted out of sheer insanity without any political motivations at all, but irresponsible speculation early in the incident timeline led to unfair accusations.

  8. Scott Erb says:

    It’s pretty clear that the DC shooter had nothing to do with OWS. Even if he did, in a large protest movement you get hanger ons who aren’t really there for the movement but because there is something exciting going on. That’s why one must never judge a protest by cherry picking a few cases, if it is overwhelmingly peaceful (as OWS — one of the most remarkably peaceful, organized and effective protest movements ever, even more remarkable given the unexpected speed at which it spread and grew). I also think its a stretch to say that the protesters were honoring the shooter. People talking ad lib can say things in a confusing way (and listeners tend to hear what they expect to hear), but the blog seems to clarify things.

    What really amazes me is the extent in which FOX and right wing media/pundits are trying so hard to find any little cherry picked case to try to attack OWS. Granted, the left did that to the tea party too, but if you look at the media from the right alone you’d get a very warped picture of the OWS movement, they often make it sound as crazy as the 1968 protests!

    • “Granted, the left did that to the tea party too, but if you look at the media from the right alone you’d get a very warped picture of the OWS movement, they often make it sound as crazy as the 1968 protests!”

      Scott, I think the right-leaning media is probably overdoing it. That said, I think the left-leaning media went out of its way to portray the Tea Party movement as a fringe movement (and succeeded).

      Also, the one thing that is driving me crazy is that the movement in the vast majority of cases is breaking local ordinances during the course of the protests (one man was even murdered near a protest in Oakland). Oakland and Davis are the first two that come to mind. Yet, the majority of the media continue to provide a megaphone to folks who are breaking legitimate laws. This bothers me to the core. If the Tea Party had engaged in similar criminality, the media would have engaged in bouts of reductio ad Hitlerium.

  9. Scott Erb says:

    I don’t recall that much negative reporting on the Tea Party – much of it from CNN and top newspapers was actually pretty mild. In fact, the complaint on the left was that the media was too soft on the Tea Party (mirroring the complaints on the right about the media and OWS). I think how one perceives a situation colors how one perceives the supposed bias of the media.

    • Chris Van Trump says:

      I do recall that incident about a man carrying an assault rifle to an Obama rally and MSNBC trying so very hard to spin the footage, the better to support the image of the Tea Party as a racist entity. Which led to one of the few moments where I’ve been actively entertained by Fox News, when they in turn un-cropped the images of the man in question, who was, in fact, an African-American himself.

      The racism issue was the one that the media harped on primarily when it came to the early days of the Tea Party, from what I recall. And it was fairly pervasive, if not quite so virulent as many of the left would have hoped.

      Ultimately yes, perception of media bias is colored by personal ideology, though on average I’d give it a somewhat leftward slant overall. Few are quite so open about it (arguably), as Fox News, of course, which despite its self-assigned labels is a pretty blatant conservative mouthpiece.

      • Shannon says:

        They did not spin him as a racist, they spun him as a kook. Big difference.

        And that wasn’t very hard. FFS, why would you bring an assault rifle to a political rally?

    • I recall quite a bit of negative reporting, going much father based upon speculation and conjecture about what was happening within Tea Party rallies than what actually has happened in Occupy ones. Here’s some clips I found quickly scouring the net.


      Tea Party Tax Day Protest: “Right wing, not kid-friendly”.


      MSNBC: I agree with Chenk re: the Tea Party running loonie candidates (ex: Angel in NV)
      Check out 4:14 A guy explains the Tea Party far better than anyone has ever explained Occupy… (and he bathed). 6:28: Chenk: “The Tea Party is the Cancer of the GOP… if they’re convinced radicalism is the right answer.” So is “Occupy”, and their radicalism, the “cancer” of the Left?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/rachel-maddow-ana-marie-c_n_185445.html
      “Tea Bagging Rallies Ruthlessly Mocked on Maddow Show”

      Greg Gutfeld rips into the coverage. Interesting, too, because “Red Eye” actually makes fun of the Tea Bag thing themselves. and also talks about the “thin skin” that exists on the left. Interesting speculations from way back on what will actually happen with the tea party protests.

      And of course the classic from MNSBC with the cropped shot hiding the fact that a man holding an AR-15 and a pistol at a rally was actually a black man, and the only reason for doing this being of course that the shot didn’t fit in with the narrative to follow about how supposedly “racist” the Tea Part is:

      Quotes: “I think we’re going to see somebody… some sort of John Hinckley figure…”
      “…because anger about the government, and racism, and you put those two things together…”

      Last, look at this montage contrasting Ed Schultz on MSNBC with clips of Tea Party protestors and supporters.
      The Ed Show: Tea Party is “Racist, Afraid, and Clinging to Guns and Religion”

  10. Pingback: Time for the Occupiers to Stop Crying About Their Media Coverage: Early Media Portrayal of the Tea Party | The Rantings of Vern Rigg Kaine

  11. Shannon says:

    Yeah, right. The would-be assassin had to be an Occupy Protestor. I mean, what other group could possess such a hate-on for President Obama, a love of guns and extremist ideology?

    Hmmmmmm……

    Speaking of which, in terms of “violence” the TeaBaggers outstripped the Occupiers long ago. At let us remember Occupy is about ten times bigger than the Tea Party ever was.





    The fact is Occupiers are far more likely to be the victims of violence, not it’s precipitators. Not sure you can say the same about the Tea Party.

    Oh, and from what I hear, EVERYTHING in Oakland ends violently.

  12. Shannon says:

    Washington Post: Investigators “Have Found No Connection Between [Ortega-Hernandez] And The Occupy Protesters.”

    So much for that theory. I assume you’ll be printing a retraction right away?

    • Yet Capitol police reported he attended OWS rallies. I don’t know if he was linked or not. The reason I don’t is that the media never fully pursued any further lines of inquiry. Had this happened near a Tea Party event, the media would have been all over it. Remember Jared Loughner?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s