Posts Tagged ‘violence’

Take a look at this video via Little Miss Attila:

This morning I haven’t seen anything on the news (but plenty of good coverage from the blogs about this scene)

Attila asks the first question:

Heroic action by Rep. Brett Hulsey saves the day, and possibly Sen. Grothman’s life. What would have happened if Hulsey hadn’t been wearing that union T-shirt? Would enough people in the crowd have recognized him by sight for him to still have turned them back?

For those who want to defend this as “democracy in action” lets play a game: Pretend that Sen. Grothman was an abortion doctor and the crowd around him were opponents of abortion. How many times would this video be replayed? Would even Charlie Sheen being found in bed with Gaddafi and Snooki be able to keep this from being the media story of the week?

As AOL noted today concerning union actions “Not one of those outrages was apparently worthy of much in the way of news coverage.” I suspect this one will not either.

Update: Should give credit to Phil who shot this video and posted it first.

Update 2: McCain asks…if this is what civility looks like.

Update 3: The Anchoress (who will be on my Radio show March 12th) links. Welcome to the faithful. You might be interested in this post on the Holy spirit, this on abortion this on Christian obligation and this on discrimination.

My latest for the examiner notes the silence of the Media Hounds:

Last month after the shootings in Arizona where several people were murdered and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured there was a lot of talk about civility in politics. Members of congress, the president and news organization both print and visual bemoaned the lack of civil discourse and attempted (and still attempt despite established facts) to blame the Tea Parties and Sarah Palin for inciting violence.

Over the last few days several incidents have taken place nationwide that are contrary to the media’s wish for a new spirit of civility in public discourse.

You can read the rest here. The actions of the supporters of the public sector unions is the real untold story of this issue.

It was a few years ago when I first saw Katrina Vanden Heuvel on panel shows. I was shocked. Considering how far left the Nation and Vanden Heuvel I thought was rather disgraceful that they were given attention as if they were a source of anything resembling mainstream thought.

But has time has gone on I’ve seen that the Democratic party has become more and more left it Vanden Heuvel opinions have become more and more typical within the party. Yet to the great public, the true nature of their beliefs were obscured hidden by quiet and reasoned words and the comments of friends in the MSM.

Which brings us to Francis Fox Piven.

Francis Fox Piven has for decades preached a far left and dare we say revolutionary agenda in Vanden Heuvel’s magazine. As a person of the left, she clearly and unabashedly proclaimed a desire to see what has happened in England and Greece happen here, to wit:

Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive—to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

Now the riots in Greece resulted in blood as the Blaze pointed out. The further took the liberty of showing Piven on TV condoning violence. Glenn Beck took the trouble of pointing out Piven philosophy as a Marxist and her willingness to condone violence. The public not caring for this has been outraged, and the NYT being the NYT is angry at the reaction and blames…Beck:

The Center for Constitutional Rights said it took exception to the sheer quantity of negative attention to Ms. Piven.

“We are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment,” the center said in its letter to Fox. “However, there comes a point when constant intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods about a person can put that person in actual physical danger of a violent response.” Mr. Beck is at that point, they said.

The irony level here is earth shattering as Powerline notes:

Glenn Beck has pulled back the curtain on this disgraceful specimen by quoting her accurately. No one has identified any statements he has made about Piven that are incorrect, or claims that he has in any way threatened her. Unlike Piven, Beck is a staunch opponent of political violence. But the mis-named Center for Constitutional Rights–another Orwellian touch–thinks there is such a thing as too much free speech. They want Fox News to shut Beck up because of the “sheer quantity” of Beck’s references to Piven.

Just as a lot of American’s projected their beliefs on the president I think the radical left looked at the election and deceived themselves concluding that their time had come with one of their own in the White House to openly advocate what they’ve said all along. This week on ABC and Morning Joe seeing the president’s numbers and the apparent power of the left included these their voices that they

When speaking to and among their own the left do not restrain their true feelings. Anyone paying attention to any ANSWER march or can tell you this. When I covered the Mayday march in Boston the 300 marchers there, when asked directly did not hide the fact that they wanted open borders, supported socialism and opposed capitalism.

Piven and their crowd have no cause to object, they have expressed these opinions for years, the only difference now is that the public at large is now exposed to them and doesn’t like the view.

So in the end I was wrong. Put the Nation and its editor out there. Let her defend every word she publishes. It is a visible and unapologetic left that we need, not hidden in obscure magazines and only excerpted by their friends, but out in the open for all the world to see their true colors melt in daylight.

One of Rush Limbaugh’s favorite lines about the media and the democrats is they will tell you who they fear by their reactions.

One of the reason’s why the media has no problem “calling out” the Tea Party without evidence and why they have no problem going after the Catholic Church is not only do they disagree with their positions, but they understand and no they actually have no physical reason to fear them.

At No Paesran via Glenn we see the difference between reporting on people you fear vs people you don’t. First the shooting in Arizona and the Conservatives in Le Monde:

The shooting in which a Democrat was seriously wounded in Arizona has appalled the American Left, which denounces the “poisoned rhetoric” of the ultraconservatives…

He continues illustrating the comparative nonsense within the paper itself and their willingness to post blames, Yet not two weeks after the attack in Alexandra against Coptic Christians that was international news (prompting a rare positive reaction) we have this story out of Egypt:

An off-duty policeman has opened fire on a train in Egypt, killing a Christian man, but it is unclear whether the attack was sectarian.

At least another five people were reported to have been injured in the shooting on a train between Assiut and Cairo.

Officials said at least four of those hurt were Coptic Christians.

That’s just the fact but note how the story ends:

The BBC’s Jon Leyne reports from Cairo that it is difficult to see how the gunmen would have known he could target Christians by boarding the train.

Here you have the media making it a point to say it’s hard to see a direct religious connection the lack of evidence to make a connection to radical Islam vs the Coptic.

Although he approves of that last statement No Paesran’s head spins:

It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian! We learn that “Officials said at least four of those hurt [there were five wounded altogether] were Coptic Christians” and we learn that “Witnesses said hundreds of Christians later clashed with police outside the hospital where the wounded were taken” and we are reminded that “Tensions between Muslims and Christians in Egypt have been high following a bomb attack on a Coptic church in Alexandria at the new year that killed 23 people.” But! It is unclear whether the attack was sectarian!

All of this speaks volumes. I think it’s not just bias, I think it is the knowledge that if the BBC suggests islamic violence they may have to deal with repercussions personally.

Restraint is easy when your skin is at stake.