Nuts don't distinguish
By Neil Cavuto
Now it's Eric Cantor -- against health care reform and the target of a nut. Just like it was Bart Stupak -- for health care reform and the target of a lot of nuts.
Nuts don't distinguish. So, I'm wondering, why should we?
I want to make three things very clear, and I want to make them clear right now:
One: Threatening to kill someone over a political issue is reprehensible.
Two: Attaching an entire cause or group to someone who does is inexcusable.
Three: Selectively cherry-picking those causes or groups to suit your own biases is unforgivable.
What first brought this to light is the justifiable rage over threatening phone calls made to Congressman Stupak after he indicated he would vote for the president's health care plan.
The Media were quite properly all over that, but oddly silent over the just as scary and threatening calls the congressman said he was receiving when he was against the health care plan and life, as he put it, had become a "living hell."
Those calls didn't warrant attention when he was against the bill, only the ones he got when he did a 180 and was for the bill?
Death threats are always wrong. Threatening violence over a political issue is never right. And consistently pounding both should never be disputed.
So how is it the actions of a few nut job health care protesters speak for all health care protesters?
Would we have said the same about the few extreme Iraq war protesters who called for murdering President Bush, and in one surreal image, even holding his severed head as a trophy?
So hanging him is fine. Praising a mock documentary film featuring his assassination in "Death of a President" is fine. Defacing Republican Congressman Mike Rogers' office and splattering it with red paint because he voted for the Iraq war is fine. All that is fine, because that protest was OK. Health care protest is not OK?
No, not OK — and not fair.
First, play the race card and accuse Tea Party Patriots of being wild-eyed racist bullies. Don't worry about whether there is a shred of evidence, the Lamestream media will play it up!Second, send SEIU thugs to beat up various Tea Party leaders. This has been happening ever since Obama came into power.
Third, follow the Tawana Brawley route by making a big deal of an incident that never happened even when the audio and video evidence shows that James Clyburn was never assaulted and that no racial epithets were hurled.
Fourth, go throw a brick through a few Republican windows, shoot a bullet into their office, and go to a Code Pink seminar on how to publicly attack your political enemies and get away with it.
It would appear that James Clyburn was urged by Democratic leaders to invent an incident to use to demonize Tea Party Patriots and take the focus off of the economy-destroying Obamacare monstrosity. People have pored over video and carefully listened to audio feeds and found NO EVIDENCE that anyone said anything to Clyburn that was racist or used the "n word" at all. In today's age of video cameras and even cell phones with video capability it is harder to lie about something like that and get away with it. James Clyburn, you are busted! Media Matters, you are busted! You have been revealed as lying loons in Obama's back pocket.
Here below is a column about the situation:
FreedomWorks Brendan Steinhauser is demanding an apology from Rep. James Clyburn, one of a few members of the Congressional Black Caucus for accusing health care protesters of "aiding and abetting" "terrorism."
His item is part of a broader pushback today, which David Weigel writes about at some length, and in which Andrew Breitbart indulges with his usual moderation, against various charges against conservatives protesters.
It seems worth trying to untangle actual facts here.
It seems clear that most of the anger is on the right, that there are acts of vandalism being committed and physical threats being made. At the same time, the most damaging charge against the conservative grassroots -- of overt racism in the mob scene outside the Capitol -- lacks clear documentation to back it up. Media Matters latest contribution on the topic, for instance, relies on a photo from last February.
All political cartoons are signed by author and in the public record. Opinions expressed on this blog are by a honorably discharged military veteran and full time professional employee in the IT industry who is working hard to keep his economic head above water. I am a father and husband and grandfather who makes no money from the publication of this blog. Articles copied in whole or in part are linked.
Here is another view: Community builders versus community organizers
The Real Tea Party Story: Community Builders vs. Community OrganizersBy Kyle-Anne Shiver
In less than a year, the MSM has gone from ignoring Tea Parties to mocking and insulting their participants to grudging coverage with ridiculing overtones. Finally it has arrived at giving wide attention to the movement, albeit grudgingly and ungraciously. A once-highly esteemed fourth estate, they have become talking-head dilettantes on a mission to save the disgruntled masses from democracy itself.
Americans of all ages, conditions, and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method.
A People's Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service's ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people ... It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
To reject orderly revolution is to be hemmed in by two hellish alternatives: disorderly, sudden, stormy, bloody revolution or a further deterioration of the mass foundation of democracy to the point of inevitable dictatorship. (Reveille for Radicals, p. 198)
They fear that the development and building of People's Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and turn an organization into a Frankenstein's monster against democracy. (Reveille for Radicals, p. 198)
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (Rules for Radicals; p. xix)
The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.