My computer is doing the funnies at the moment, due to being starved of broadband. So I hope this comes out right.
This looked interesting. It seems that some membes of the MSM are being forced to admit that the Tea Parties are not violent, in fact they’re much less violent than protests conducted by they left.
Yes, you read that right: despite nonstop media warnings about hateful protests, violence from TEA party attendants is so nonexistent that police feel safe allowing them to bring large items and sometimes even guns.
The Monitor was compelled to check things out when a TEA party in Raleigh, North Carolina, persuaded officials to overturn a ban on flag poles. Such items are typically banned because a flag pole is really just a very big stick that could be used as a weapon. The Monitor’s research led the paper to admit that conservative protests are far less threatening than many past demonstrations.
Patrik Jonsson’s article drew a refreshing contrast between violent rallies of the Vietnam era versus the new model of peaceful civil uprising:
To be sure, permitting rules and police preparedness are often developed based on past behavior at various kinds of protests. Many go back to the 1960s and 1970s when violent rallies erupted over the Vietnam War. Such protests sprung up again during the presidency of George W. Bush, when protesters clashed with police in New York City and elsewhere during large-scale demonstrations against the Middle East wars. With tea party rallies so far proving more orderly, police have given them more latitude.
This flies directly in the face of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) comparing TEA parties to California in the 1970s – and that of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann comparing them to Selma during the fight for minority civil rights.
No matter how much prominent liberals talk about rampant violence, the facts on the ground tell a different story, and reporters end up leaving with rather dull footage – no police clashes, no tear gas, no images of people being carted away in handcuffs.
…
Conservatives have been hearing this for a year. A new violent attack, the next Tim McVeigh, has been about to “happen next” for some time now. Any example of potential violence, even from people who are registered Democrats, is quickly linked to the TEA party movement whether a connection exists or not.
Only too true, and NZ left wing bloggers are more than happy to repeat that nonsense.
Comments on: "Police in the pocket of Tea parties!!" (2)
The left are desperate to portray opposition to government as a violent right-wing phenomenon. Whatever happened to their “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”, eh?
Apparently dissent is only patriotic when it’s leftards doing the dissenting. Anybody with a longer memory than a fruit fly will recall that it was SEIU thugs beating up Town Hall meeting attendees and Black Panthers intimidating voters at polling stations.
Fact is, violent protest is a left-wing collectivist tactic and trying to smear ordinary, decent Americans as violent is straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
The same thing is happening in Britain where union thugs call themselves “Unite Against Fascism” and then proceed to behave like violent fascist thugs. This is only possible because the majority of media outlets are strongly biased towards the left.
Its hard to see any other explanation.