Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Occupy (Insert City Here) and Press Coverage

Who are the extremists, the Tea Party or the Occupy crowd? To listen to the news you'd think it was the Tea Party--after all, someone showed up to a Tea Party rally with a firearm! But how much violence occurred at Tea Party rallies? How much tuberculosis? How many Tea Party rallies were conducted outside the law--no permits, staying in parks after closing time, etc?

The Occupy crowd is violent. People were never raped at Tea Party rallies, cops never fired into Tea Party rallies, tear gas never had to be deployed at Tea Party rallies, and Tea Partiers were never arrested with hand grenades. As Instapundit said, "All the media myths about the Tea Party seem to have come true with regard to the Occupy movement, but the press doesn’t seem to care all that much."

Let's talk more about violence at these idiots and their press enablers:

In covering the Tea Party, of course, the Times emphasized its supposed extremism and violence. Brisbane doesn’t even mention these themes his column on Obamaville, even though there has been a good bit of violence there, whereas Tea Party violence was a figment of left-wing imaginations. That tells you something about the agenda of the Times and other like-minded news outlets.

The media helped create and now helps sustain the Obamaville monster, but that doesn’t mean they can control it. In recent days videos have surfaced from Oakland, Calif., and Portland, Ore., showing Obamavillians attacking local news crews attempting to report on the going-on.

The Portland video is especially creepy. It shows an angry white man–his face obscured part of the time by a pink scarf–shouting obscenities at a newsman, and declaring: “We are the 99%, you’re the 1%. . . . We don’t want you in our society.” The distinction between demonization and dehumanization is a very fine one, and media figures who have encouraged this foul and dangerous movement will have a lot to answer for if it continues to escalate.

But they’ll probably just blame the Tea Party or something.

Want to see the clear folly of their ideals? Bounce this idea off of them:
How would they view Occupy Planned Parenthood?

We've tolerated these adolescents for too long now. It's high time the police cleared them out, whenever and wherever they're breaking the law.

It would be wonderful if the press would quit covering for them, but then again, a pet unicorn would be wonderful, too.

1 comment:

Ellen K said...

I am of the opinion that the Occupy movement was funded by liberal insiders to provide political cover for what is becoming a very embarrassing moment for the Obama administration. Grants were given, and taxpayer money lost, by a bevy of Democrat heavy hitters. LightSquared, GreenSource, Solyndra or any of a slate of similarlly innocuously named quasi-green firms seem to have existed to give lip service to the ideals of green technology while churning their grants back out to Obama campaign funding. This is money laundering and the administration KNOWS it has been caught out. Add the Holder Fast and Furious debacle, Friday night email dumps revealing the administration's request for Solyndra to "delay" their layoff announcements until after the midterm elections and you have the transparent motives of this administration. Occupy by and large was not what I would call an organic grassroots protest. Let me ask you, would allegedly poor, homeless and jobless people simply leave expensive tents, tarps and equipment behind while bugging out? Yet that's exactly what happened in Dallas. And despite their leaderless claims, every time the cameras were turned on, Occupy had a spokesperson. That's not anarchy. That's a paid protest. I am sure this is just a rehearsal for the G summit in Chicago next May.