A Times Reporter reveals what Conservatives all know about the LSM

The Crown Heights riots in New York of August 1991 which was instigated by Al Sharpton was reported in the New York Times and the rest of the media pretty much the same way they cover the news today; a refusal to report anything negative against the left.

For most of you following the media’s bias the following no longer comes as a surprise.

Twenty years after the riots former Times reporter Ari Goldman wrote a personal narrative in The Jewish Week about the cover-up and distortions of the New York Times at that time.

Twenty years ago next week, on the night of Aug. 19, 1991 — the night that Gavin Cato and Yankel Rosenbaum were killed — my editor called me at home to tell me that riots had broken out on the streets of Crown Heights. “We’re covered for tonight but I want you to start your day there tomorrow,” he said.

Over the next three days, working 12 hours shifts and only going home to sleep, I saw and heard many terrible things. I saw police cars set on fire, stores being looted and people bloodied by Billy clubs, rocks and bottles. One woman told me that she barricaded herself into her apartment and put the mattresses on the windows so her children would not be hurt by flying glass.

Over those three days I also saw journalism go terribly wrong. The city’s newspapers, so dedicated to telling both sides of the story in the name of objectivity and balance, often missed what was really going on. Journalists initially framed the story as a “racial” conflict and failed to see the anti-Semitism inherent in the riots. As the 20th anniversary of the riots approaches, I find myself re-examining my own role in the coverage and trying to extract some lessons for myself and my profession.

At the time, I was a religion writer at The New York Times and was well connected in the Lubavitch community, the predominant Jewish group in Crown Heights. I was one of probably a dozen Times reporters and photographers on the streets over the course of the riots. We were a diverse group, representing many religions and racial backgrounds.

My job was to file memos to the main “rewrite” reporters back in the Times office in Manhattan about what I saw and heard. We had no laptops or cellphones in those days so the other reporters and I went to payphones and dictated our memos to a waiting band of stenographers in the home office. The photographers handed their film off to couriers on motorcycles who took the film to the Times.

Yet, when I picked up the paper, the article I read was not the story I had reported. I saw headlines that described the riots in terms solely of race. “Two Deaths Ignite Racial Clash in Tense Brooklyn Neighborhood,” the Times headline said. And, worse, I read an opening paragraph, what journalists call a “lead,” that was simply untrue:

“Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday.”

In all my reporting during the riots I never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks. But the Times was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions. To show Jewish culpability in the riots, the paper even ran a picture — laughable even at the time — of a chasidic man brandishing an open umbrella before a police officer in riot gear. The caption read: “A police officer scuffling with a Hasidic man yesterday on President Street.”

I was outraged but I held my tongue. I was a loyal Times employee and deferred to my editors. I figured that other reporters on the streets were witnessing parts of the story I was not seeing.

But then I reached my breaking point. On Aug. 21, as I stood in a group of chasidic men in front of the Lubavitch headquarters, a group of demonstrators were coming down Eastern Parkway. “Heil Hitler,” they chanted. “Death to the Jews.”

Police in riot gear stood nearby but did nothing.

Suddenly rocks and bottles started to fly toward us and a chasidic man just a few feet away from me was hit in the throat and fell to the ground. Some ran to help the injured man but most of us ran for cover. I ran for a payphone and, my hands shaking with rage, dialed my editor. I spoke in a way that I never had before or since when talking to a boss.

“You don’t know what’s happening here!” I yelled. “I am on the streets getting attacked. Someone next to me just got hit. I am writing memos and what comes out in the paper? ‘Hasidim and blacks clashed’? That’s not what is happening here. Jews are being attacked! You’ve got this story all wrong. All wrong.”

I didn’t blame the “rewrite” reporter. I blamed the editors. It was clear that they had settled on a “frame” for the story. The way they saw it, there were two narratives here: the white narrative and the black narrative. And both had equal weight.

After my outburst things got a little better. The next day’s report began like this: “Black youths hurling rocks and bottles scuffled with the police in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn last night, even as Mayor David N. Dinkins tried to personally calm the racially troubled neighborhood after two nights of violence.”

But the Times still had trouble changing its frame. Perhaps most troubling was an article written in the midst of the rioting under this headline: “Amid Distrust in Brooklyn: Boy and Scholar Fall Victim.” The article compared the life of Gavin Cato, the 7-year-old boy killed in the car accident that spurred the riots, and the life of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, who was stabbed to death later that night. It recycled every newspaper cliché and was an insult to the memory of both victims, but, again, it fit the frame.

“They did not know each other,” the article said. “They had no reason to know… They died unaware….” In the eyes of the Times, the deaths were morally equivalent and had equal weight.

The Times editorial page followed suit. “The violence following an auto accident in Crown Heights reminds all New Yorkers that the city’s race relations remains dangerously strained,” the editorial said. It concluded by praising Mayor Dinkins, giving him credit “for a hard night’s work” and doing “the job that New Yorkers elected him to do.”

The one who first broke the frame and spoke the truth was the fearless poet of the New York newspaper business in those days, Jimmy Breslin, then a columnist for Newsday. He was one of numerous reporters, photographers and television journalists who were beaten or otherwise injured during the riots. In Breslin’s case, he was dragged from a taxi by a group of rampaging young men, pummeled and stripped of his clothes. That night, he vowed to tell the truth of his humiliation, although he anticipated the resistance. “And someone up in the higher echelons of journalism, some moron starts talking about balanced coverage,” he said.

The other person who spoke the truth was the brilliant former executive editor of the Times, A.M. Rosenthal, who by 1991 had become a columnist for the paper. Rosenthal was one of the first journalists at the Times to call the riots what they were. “Pogrom in Brooklyn,” was the headline of his column on Sept. 3, 1991, just two weeks after the riots ended.

“The press,” Rosenthal wrote, “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors — very sad of course, but certainly understandable. No — it is an anti-Semitic pogrom and the words should not be left unsaid.”

It pains me to recall that not many people at the Times took Rosenthal seriously at the time. He had gone from being the editor of a great “liberal” newspaper to being a “conservative” columnist who seemed to return to the same issues over and over again: the security of Israel, anti-Semitism, the persecution of Christians in China and the war on drugs.

But Rosenthal was right about Crown Heights. In 1993, two years after the Crown Heights riots, an exhaustive state investigation sharply criticized Mayor Dinkins for not understanding the severity of the crisis. It also faulted his police commissioner, Lee Brown, for mismanaging the police during the riots.

The critical state report was widely covered in the press. “For the Mayor,” the Times headline said, “A Harsh Light.”

But another report, this one on how the press covered Crown Heights, got little publicity. It was written in 1999 by Carol B. Conaway, then an assistant professor at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., and published in an academic journal called Polity. Her article is called “Crown Heights: Politics and Press Coverage of the Race War That Wasn’t.”

“Journalists and their audience alike rely on ‘frames’ when writing about and understanding newsworthy events because they provide cues for understanding others’ experiences,” Conaway wrote. But, she added, sometimes the frames are wrong.

She continued: “The New York Post, a tabloid, shifted away from the race frame to focus on black anti-Semitism within a few days of the initial rampages, while the New York Times persisted with the racial frame for at least two years.

“Yet,” she added, “one cannot understand the events [that unfolded in Crown Heights] without getting beyond the binaries of black versus white encouraged by the use of the race frame, and understanding the more complex dynamics of the conflict.”

As someone who saw the conflict unfold I can attest to this first-hand. I am telling my story in print for the first time because it is important that we journalists examine our mistakes and learn from them. Fitting stories into frames — whether about blacks and Jews, liberals or conservatives, Arabs and Israelis, Catholics and Protestants or Muslims and Jews — is wrong and even dangerous. Life is more complicated than that. And so is journalism.

Ny-9: Bob Turner Ad and the (In)Tolerance of the Left about 9/11

When a radical Imam announced his intentions to build a fifteen story mosque near ground zero, refusing offers to build it elsewhere, it proved his intention to build it precisely there because of its proximity to the spot where over three thousand civilians lost their lives. 

Although Feisal Abdul Rauf claims he wishes to promote peace and tolerance, his actions are as uncaring and intolerant as any act can get.

Obama and the left supported the Imams plans for the mosque, admonishing those who opposed it for their lack of tolerance towards moderate Muslims. Obama disregarded the fact that his support of the mosque was intolerant and showed a total dismissal of the pain and suffering the families and friends who lost their loved ones on 9/11 live with every day.

It is known that the left cringes whenever July Fourth is mentioned since many people tend to associate love of country with the Republican Party, thereby providing them a boost. They therefore do their utmost to avoid reporting anything that stirs feelings of patriotism, while spinning and attacking the right whenever they do so. 

9/11 caused the entire nation to respond in unity against the evil perpetrated against their brothers and sisters. Playing images of 9/11 is therefore tantamount to evoking those emotions of solidarity.

Fighting terrorism has become a Republican thing to do. Reminding voters of the left’s cowardly attempts to appease extremists therefore deserves to be slammed by the media and the left.

In the current race for the upcoming special elections for the congressional seat in NY-9, Bob Turner put out his first ad with an image of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and then followed with a replay of his opponent’s support for the mosque as you can see below.

The left erupted at Turner for politicizing the tragedy to advance his personal agenda while disregarding the feelings of the families.

Aha! So when Obama uses the death of Osama Bin Laden as self-promotional material while our soldiers are still battling the enemy and endangering their lives, not a peeps is his heard in protest of the left. Nor do they condemn Obama’s sharing military secrets with a private company which will release a video of the raid which captured Osama a month before the 2012 elections. 

But Turner’s ad which shows an image of the burning twin towers needs to be decried as insensitive to the victims’ families. Why pay attention to the fact that his ad is showing his empathy of their added pain because the planned mosque?  

So, how's Bullying the Voters Workin' out for Ya?

The left poured millions of dollars down the drain in their failed attempt to grab control of the Wisconsin State Senate through the recall of six State Senators.

The elections, which took place this past Tuesday, resulted in only two out of the six races as victorious for the Democrats while the other four remained Republican, and not by a narrow margin. Republicans retained the majority, and therefore, the control of the State Senate.

The Democrats’ lack of success is stunning since they were the ones that targeted these six specific seats with a recall, confident in their ability to defeat them.

The last few months found the Democrats and union bosses in a frenzy. Besides the stupendous sum spent, they employed every dirty tactic available such as having the unions threaten to boycott any business which didn’t support collective bargaining for public employees with signs in their store-windows.

The union bullies also organized protests all across the state with many of the demonstrators carrying signs replete with threats, foul language, and Nazi symbols. At the state fair last week, leftist thugs attacked many innocent participants which they suspected in supporting the Republican candidates. And of course the media attacked the evil Republicans and used their polls as “proof” of the people’s rejection and the unpopularity of the heartless Republicans.

Despite the Democrats efforts– the people in Wisconsin voted otherwise. Thus, the reported $15 million-plus bought them a total of two seats, resulting in Twitter being inundated Tuesday night with jokes about the Wisconsin Democrats getting less bang for their buck than even the hugely wasteful Obama stimulus, which cost taxpayers almost three hundred thousand dollars per job created.

The good news about the fifteen million wasted in Wisconsin? This time around we weren’t the ones funding it!

And the better news: in just one week, two Democrat state senators will face recall elections which will quite likely put the Democrats back to square one, and slashing their current victory in half. While the final dollar amount Democrats will dump into the upcoming two races is still unknown, their coffers are already thirty million lighter.

Fear not liberals, there’s some good news for you too! If this week’s elections would’ve come even a couple of days later, you wouldn’t have won those two seats because of the public’s outrage of the despicable acts and destruction from the Verizon union strikers.

Tuesday’s elections provide a preview of 2012 and the true sentiments of the voters, despite Democrats’ denial and deafness to the facts.

Charlie Cook warned this Tuesday of a blood bath for both sides of the aisle in a repeat of 1992 where both parties lost over ten seats. The basis of his analysis? A nonsensical Democrat-funded New York Times poll of fewer than one thousand adults which found that 85% of those polled prefer compromise over principles.

A quick reminder: This is the very same Charlie Cook who predicted in 2009 (before political opportunist Specter’s party switch) that the Democrats will pick up another couple of seats in the Senate in 2010 propelling them past the 60th seat they then needed to prevent a filibuster from the right.

My gut feeling tells me his accuracy this time around will mirror that of 2009.

Wisconsin has proven both in the reelection of David Prosser and in the overwhelming Republican victory Tuesday how desperately indeed the people really seek compromise over principle.

I don’t expect Charlie Crook and the other elitists to bow for the truth with the humility and respect Obama has shown in his bow for the Saudi Arabian king. However, I do have great expectations for Washington being forced in 2012 to bow, against their will, to the will of the people.

This article was cross posted at Conservatives4Palin

2012; A Life or Death Choice for America

A few short years ago, Sarah Palin faced a monumental decision.

Early testing during Sarah’s fifth pregnancy revealed that her child would be born with Down syndrome. He would struggle mightily to acquire basic skills, always remain dependent on others, and would never be considered an equal to his peers. Going through with the pregnancy would mean unusual requirements of love and labor ahead to help her child grow up to be the very best he could be.

Ultimately, Palin chose, in contrast to more than 90% of women in her situation, the unpopular and more difficult of the two choices. Sarah chose life over death. And although Trig may never be fully independent, he is a human being like the rest of us thriving on and reciprocating love, laughter, and liveliness. Palin has explained that Trig has taught her how precious life is, even in less than ideal circumstances.

Life or death decisions are thankfully rare. But together, at this moment, as a nation, we face a life or death choice for our country.

The federal government has shirked its duties for far too long with senseless spending, endless handouts and a choking debt racked up with seemingly no care for the morrow. Obama and his team have treated the symptoms of economic illness by doubling and tripling the dangerous doses of spending, leading to the spreading of the disease which now affects so many Americans jobs and businesses.

The United States of America has undergone screenings and the results, as evidenced with the credit downgrade, have made it obvious that a choice must be made. Unlike abortion, the destruction of a great nation doesn’t occur through a single act; Indeed, it is more comparable to a person left to slowly bleed to death. Not taking any action will simply take the country further down the road to a slow and painful death, while furthering the current policies will quicken the speed of its decline.

The 2012 election is not just a quadrennial well-visit to ensure the health of this country. The elections of 2012 are follow-up appointments on the heels of a serious diagnosis and will require us all to make the choice between life and death for this nation.

Choosing life is often a difficult choice because of the hardships and pain necessary to extend the life and restore the person’s health. A patient whose doctor advises him to amputate a finger in order to save a limb, or a limb to save his life, will accept the diagnosis understanding that although extremely difficult and painful, one can learn to live and laugh with a prosthetic limb. Leaving the problem untreated, although it might appear to be the less drastic option, will lead to his demise.

The doctor’s orders may seem horrible and cruel to a clueless observer, but to all who are aware of the patient’s condition and the alternative, the doctor’s orders are a sign of hope for future life.

Medicare, Social Security and all other entitlement programs will be gasping for breath not too far down the road if left untreated. Continuing to lead this country in the current direction is equal to heading for a slow and painful death. The professionals warn us that a choice must be made. The Democrats choosing to blame the S&P and the Tea Party for the credit downgrade appear as ridiculous and as foolish as a patient that blames his doctor for his illness.

While the liberals are partying with future generations’ money, turning a blind eye to the bleeding economy, it is still possible for
someone to step in and apply a tourniquet on the gushing spending. Conservatives are aware that the doctors haven’t yet given up hope. (S&P is pleading with us to cut spending!) If we downsize the federal government and deregulate the choked private sector, the economy will return to its robust self and our credit rating will once again return to its highest levels.

When putting one’s life into the hands of a surgeon, a patient does his research carefully and searches for a trustworthy and experienced doctor. One wouldn’t trust someone who had merely passed his medical exams but would demand someone with actual experience. When choosing who should take over the reins of this country in 2012 we must remind all patients to personally do their research carefully, not trusting the media, and to opt only for someone who’s not only passed the test with flying colors but has actual life experience.

Sarah Palin has chosen life in the past. She lives her choice every day, is proud of it, and has no regrets although it’s not easy. Palin raises Trig with love and joy for the life he represents.

Governor Palin too has chosen to improve the quality of life of her state at a time when no danger was visible. She cut spending, created a surplus, and used those extra funds to pay down unfunded pension obligations and forward-fund education.

Sarah Palin is thus the only candidate who is capable and ready to lead our country through the difficult times ahead as we go through necessary cuts in order to once again return to a healthy, vibrant, and pulsating economy. 

This article has been cross posted at Conservatives4Palin.

 

Editor's Note

I am honored to announce that I've become an official contributor to Conservatives4Palin, the number one site for the truths and facts about Sarah Palin. 

I will continue to post many additional articles on this blog besides for cross-posting those I'll be putting up over there.

Does Obama's Math differ from the rest of the World's?

Obama, the brilliant law professor and graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School has created amongst many other  great achievements, a new Math.

No matter what mathematical equation is placed before him, Obama plugs into the variables positive figures for his programs. When his solution is marked with a big red "x" by the public and experts, Obama changes the equation so that his response remains in the right.

Obama declared his health-care bill as a deficit reducer although it's increasing entitlements with tremendous proportions thus raising spending with trillions of dollars. To straighten out the math, Obama set the start button for spending several years down the line so that until the spending kicks in nothing is spent. Proper math indeed!

Obama's team has now announced that the S&P have miscalculated and are short two trillion dollars. How about looking into Obamacare and your other great achievements? Sorry to burst your bubble but credit ratings also include future spending, and don't include phony savings.

The Spender-in-Chief has shelled out trillions of dollars in his endless deficit reducing programs, but alas. For some odd reason instead of shrinking our debt, it ballooned out of control with several additional trillions of dollars in debt! Gee, imagine where we'd have been without Obama's world-saving efforts. 

Why, we'd  still have our AAA credit rating and a booming economy!

Wow! The Huffington Post actually caught Fox News in the Act! Or, did they?

Huffington Post and Media Matters have displayed on their front page – for all to see -- their blind hatred to Fox News which overpowers all their senses and mutes all signals existing within their skulls for all to see.

This morning, as I turned to the internet for a political update, I met screaming headlines about Fox News host who admitted they’ve kept back punches at Sarah Palin because she’s a contributor to their network.

Wondering which of the hosts admitted to something sounding very difficult to believe as true, I clicked into the headlines seeking an answer to my surprise. Huffington Post named the hosts as Greg Gutfeld, a Conservative comedian who hosts Red Eye on Fox News at 3am and is part of the co-hosts at The Five which replaced Glenn Beck, and Bob Beckel, a liberal Fox News contributor and another co-host to The Five who bashes Palin and Conservatives at every occasion possible.

I clicked on the video, as you can all do at this link, and saw the two Fox News employees as panelists on the 5pm show. Monica Crowley, one of the co-hosts, questioned the other co-hosts including Gutfeld and Beckel about their opinion of Palin’s performance on Hannity, another Fox News host.

Gutfeld, after giving his opinion on the matter joked how he dislikes being questioned about Palin because he always feels forced to respond positively as she’s a co-worker and he’d feel awkward bumping into her in the hallway after he badmouths her. The entire room burst into laughter since Gutfeld the comedian defends her quite often because he’s a staunch conservative and their shared ideology and his remark was clearly and obviously a joke.

Perhaps one can give the benefit of doubt at this point of the video to Media Matters, The Huffington Post, and all others who reported the news with glee and joy that in their lightheadedness at having found the perfect gottcha against both Fox and Palin which are from the top enemies on their list, they simply didn’t pick up on the laughter, the fact that he’s a comedian, and his light tone.

The video however continued with Beckel joining the banter responding that Gutfeld defends her not out of awkwardness but out of fear for his paycheck. Beckel then “admitted” that he too usually pulls his punches, though of course not today. His comments were met with loud guffaws especially visible from Gutfeld at whom the camera then focuses. The clip ended with Beckel then going back to the topic on hand and mocking Palin for her comments on Hannity.

After finishing watching the clip, there’s no way anyone in their right sense of mind can take their words as spoken in a manner suggesting the audience should be taking their words literally. The clip could actually be used to determine an individual’s ability in picking up basic social cues.

Now I’m not suggesting the entire Huffington Post, Media Matters, and rest of the liberal blogosphere who pumped the news (yes-Politico is part and parcel of the liberal blogosphere) as socially inept in their inability to pick up on basic tone, facial expressions, and audible visible laughter. No. What it does prove, is the leftists overwhelming hatred towards Conservatives, Fox News, and Palin which causes them to purposely distort the facts in order to spread their hate to others not yet struck with PDS.

And their update a full five hours later saying they were informed it was a joke is unrelated to having had their eyes opened to the truth. It was updated since they’ve already reached their goal while ignoring the truth any longer would expose their intentions of purposeful distortions while pretending to seriously believe it’s the straight plain truth.

Keith Olbermann’s nostalgia for the 60’s

A week after the historic debt ceiling compromise has passed, which mostly involved the RINO’s caving to the demands of the Democrats, Keith Olbermann had an emotion-laden message to the public.

Following in the footsteps of Rahm Emanuel who advised the Obama team to never let a serious crisis go to waste, Olbermann used the Democrat caused crisis of debt default as a tool to encourage further crisis.

He demanded from his listeners to return to the 1960’s with protests and boycotts explaining that the politicians and the media have acted in their own interests (read; aren’t liberal enough) and allowed “the economic stupidity of a mandated Balanced Budget Amendment” which the Republican’s demanded, as part of the debt deal. It seems like Olbermann is not happy enough that the BBA, although far from a done deal and still has to be voted on, is a possibility in the making.

Olbermann blasted the Republicans reasoning that “a constitutional amendment denying us to run a deficit is madness.”

He questioned the soundness of a spending cap for the government in a burst of strict constitutionalism. What a foolish, destructive, and outright dangerous Amendment the Republicans are trying to force down the people, which literally ties the hands of the government, Keith cried. If a crisis hits unexpectedly, whether a natural disaster, terrorist attack, war, or other emergency it won’t allow the government to spend even a single dollar over its set budget!

Olbermann continued with the current economy as a “crisis” which “requires” additional government spending using Hoover’s supposed lack of spending as proof of its necessity.

Indeed, if the BBA passes how will the left fulfill their mantra of “never allowing a crisis to go to waste?”

Here’s a great idea, Keith!

If you’re so concerned for the future of this country, why haven’t you checked out what a very stupid idiot which you’ve been busy slamming non-stop the past several years has actually done?

That person actually cut unnecessary spending from her state budget which resulted in a twelve billion dollar surplus so that in case of a crisis, the state should have the funds to spend without putting itself into debt! In case you haven’t figured out whom I’m referring to, that woman is Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska whose ideas are sounder than yours and your hero Obama.

And if it should happen that America suffers from a real crisis and is short on funds, and by that I don’t mean another panic-induced purported crisis, don’t you think two thirds of congress would immediately agree on a vote to allow the U.S. to spend on credit?

Listening to your fiery rant against the right it finally clarified your hatred at Sarah Palin for bringing out to the open that Obama had been palling around with terrorists such as Bill Ayers. It’s because you think back nostalgically to the 60’s and actually miss the good old wild days of Ayers and others like him in action. Your call to your followers to “be mad” and “rise not violently but insistently” with “strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperations, and take-overs” against the dangerous Conservatives you incite them against would indeed end non-violently; with the help of the police department.

Thanks Keith, for the 60’s clarification and for providing such an entertaining segment after such a disappointing debt deal.

Who are the Tea Partiers?

I’ve been puzzled by this question for quite a while, and my confusion has only increased with the passage of time so I’ve decided to turn to the public for assistance.

Who are the people that call themselves Tea Partiers?

It is common knowledge that the Republican Party is mainly comprised of older white males so I naively assumed that they too must comprise the bulk of the Tea Party movement.

My assumption about the elderly part was obviously wrong, since the Democrats and media have been going on and on lately how the Tea Party members threaten to stop social security checks and want to cut Medicare. It’s hard to believe they’re throwing themselves off a cliff and under the bus.

So if it’s not the elderly, then it must be those in their twenties and thirties correct?

Wrong again!

These Tea Party people are against federally funded student loan programs which are soooo much more efficient and generous than when the banks were in control.

And besides, didn’t Obama receive an overwhelming majority of the young votes?

So what’s left? Middle-aged Moms and Dads with a kid or two to raise. But isn’t the Tea Party an anti-education group who wishes to eliminate the entire Department of Education? And wait a second; if they’re anti-education does that brand them as educated or non-educated individuals?

At least the gender of the Tea Party is clear without a doubt. After all, don’t they support rape against women because of their anti-abortion position or something? Either way, Tea Party members and females are an oxymoron. Everyone knows that. Palin and Bachmann aren’t even real females.

It’s common knowledge too that the Tea Party is only white people. Herman Cain and Allen West are irrelevant.

Okay. Forget about age, race, and gender. What about any other factors?

Aha! The Tea Party members must be those filthy rich executives Obama always rants against.

But aren’t the Tea Partiers stupid people who don’t understand anything? So how can they possibly be smart enough to run a business? The notion that brains and money are a pair has been confirmed by the fact that it was the wealthy residents of San Francisco and New York City that were smart enough to understand the benefits of Obama’s policies and have therefore supported and continue to support him. And I heard Manhattan hadn’t even had a Tea Party – ever.

All right. These Tea Party idiots surely must be the poor and homeless of this country. But that contradicts the Tea Party’s threats to slash all entitlement programs such as food stamps and Medicaid. And how did all these illiterate, brainless guys take the brains in Washington hostage at the debt debate?

I got it! The middle class!

Hey, but doesn’t the Tea Party support tax breaks for the rich which end up putting the entire burden on the shoulders of the struggling small business owners?

And why do they fight for the rich if they themselves are poor, wait – middle class, no – so what on earth are they?

One theory I’m still in the midst of experimenting with, is that the Tea Party groups are divisions of an alien army plotting an invasion. After all, they don’t even hide their hatred towards the planet Earth with their denial of global warming and carbon-causing actions.

But wait, aren’t they against illegal immigrants?

After months of research that really deserved to have been the beneficiary of billion in federal grants, I’ve finally found a lead in the following video. It’s from the start of the Tea Party era and the evidence is pretty overwhelming. The only stumbling block is that the culprit refused to respond to his interrogator.

I know you’ve seen this in the past as it had gone viral at the time, but in light of the above information, perhaps a careful scrutiny will provide some clues to the answer this young man had not given and a peaceful end to my sleep-robbing dilemma. 

There is one more possibility. Perhaps the Tea Party consists of all sorts of individuals: Rich, poor, male, female, Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, middle class, rural, suburban, young and old.  Tea Partiers may be your co-workers, family members, friends, and neighbors who are concerned for the country’s economic future and its citizens’ freedom. 

Why, it might even be you and me!

The Reaction to Palin's Announcement and a Friendly Warning to Perry

It is well known and oft-repeated that if one seeks a peek into the future, one merely has to glance back to the past since history constantly repeats itself.

I therefore decided to describe the upcoming day of Palin’s announcement although I don’t profess to be a prophet or have any visionary powers, through a simple walk down memory lane.

August 29, 2008.

It was the end of a week-long Democratic Convention at which thousands were kept hostage (as Obama is opt to say) to speeches of Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and many other top Democratic speakers. Obama’s poll figures, as expected, continued inching their way upward. 

The climax of the convention of course was Thursday night when Obama stood beside the Greek pillars in an open stadium and captivated tens of millions of viewers watching with bated breaths as he promised to solve all their issues and all problems plaguing this world.

Friday morning.

CBS, NBC, Fox News, ABC and all other media outlets were playing and replaying sound bites of Obama’s speech with commentators analyzing and praising his every statement. However, despite the coverage they gave to the Convention, an undercurrent was felt creeping in from behind.

John McCain had already made up his mind over who his running mate will be and although his choice would become public in but a couple of hours, curiosity was at an all-time high, in an accumulation of all the guesses and opinions that have been swirling through the air the last several weeks.

Focus shifted from Obama as speculation began to fill the air. While Lieberman and Giuliani appeared pretty unlikely as the VP pick, they were not ruled out. Analysts attempted to predict who McCain had chosen and which partner would give him the greatest boost, with Huckabee, Pawlenty and Romney at the top of the list. Ridge, Jindal and Palin’s name were mentioned infrequently as an out-of-the-box option, but consensus believed it would be Romney or Pawlenty.

Suddenly the pace picked up with a breathless report that Pawlenty had been contacted and he responded that "I’m not coming to Ohio” but will attend the state fair, which basically ruled him out. Others reported a reply from Romney that he too won’t be attending the rally in Dayton, Ohio at which the McCain campaign rally and much-anticipated announcement was scheduled to take place. And so, as the hours rolled on, more and more of the expected candidates were taken off the table.

Of course, all this time at every top and bottom of the hour the media still continued to replay the Messiah’s words which he had given the previous night, standing far above the crowd, electrifying all with his promises to change the world and solve all its problems.

As the time drew nearer reports began to fly thick and quick.

Reports of a plane from Alaska that had landed the previous night in Middletown, Ohio of which several individuals including a female were swept off into a waiting car circulated the blogosphere, while AP announced it had contacted a Palin spokesperson in Alaska who said she’ll be watching the fireworks from her hometown in Wasilla, Alaska.

As time passed with the list of potential picks narrowed down and with increasing evidence pointing to Alaska, at last, Fox News and others received confirmation from the McCain camp, and a short while later McCain stunned the nation with his choice of a nationally unknown figure, though well-known in her home state with a positive approval rating of 88% percent.

Sarah Palin.

A governor who fought corruption within her own party, whose state benefited of a surplus because of her policies, and whose state had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country in an increasingly difficult economic time. A mother and wife who brought five beautiful children to this world including a member in the military and a down-syndrome baby, much to the horror of the media.

The replays of Obama’s speech came to a screeching halt a mere twelve hours after it had been given, and all the attention was diverted to the popular, first female governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who has been chosen as John McCain’s running mate.

Sarah Palin’s speech was a combination of brilliance and simplicity, highlighting her convictions, common sense, and courage, which swept the crowds into wild applause over her many achievements. To millions glued to their TV’s across the country, Sarah Palin personified the American ideology and the American dream.

The entire media was thrown into a ruckus and turmoil. The Obama team delayed their take-off with several hours in an attempt to gather nonexistent negative information against Palin as they had no ad prepared about her and were just as shocked with the announcement as the majority of the country.

The media and Obama team immediately sprang into action with dozens of lawyers and reporters sent to overturn every rock in Alaska in a hunt for some hidden scandals regarding Palin. The next few days were a desperate chase for something – anything -- to throw against her. 

McCain’s poll numbers began a climb upwards, and finding nothing, the media began a shameful campaign against Palin which has never quite come to an end.

They first began with the claim that Trig, her down-syndrome baby wasn’t truly hers but rather her daughter Bristol’s, and after being proven wrong when it was discovered that Bristol was actually pregnant, they pounced upon the fact as evidence of Palin’s ineptness.

The media also proclaimed Palin to be part of the AIP which wants Alaskans should vote whether they want to remain a part of the United States of America, and that she banned certain books as Mayor of Wasilla, but of course these false attacks were proven to be untrue with the latter an outright lie as the books she supposedly banned weren’t yet written at the time she was Mayor. And so the week continued with every thinkable and unthinkable derogatory item the media could possibly imagine, thrown at her.

The following Wednesday night Palin once again addressed the nation at the Republican Convention, connecting to every day American-loving citizens with her unique sense of humor and deep patriotism for her country. She aimed some light jabs comparing Obama’s community organizing to the responsibilities of a mayor, and sent a news flash to his 20,000 press secretaries of media members that she’s “not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”

No wonder that just several days after the country got to hear from the successful governor, and former successful mayor, city council member and business owner, John McCain and Sarah Palin surged ahead in the polls a full ten points.

So for those of you wondering what the morning Sarah Palin announces her bid for the presidency will be like, here’s how I see it based upon the past.

The media will be speechless once again; disbelief and denial on their faces at having their worst nightmare come true. Having thrown all they’ve had and didn’t have against her in the past, the mad scramble for a juicy (nonexistent) story to stop her in her tracks will begin once again in a feverish frenzy, greater than ever before. 

For two days Chris Matthews and the others will scream incoherently as the lawyers and teams will once again be sent to fine-comb every word Palin has ever uttered, and when nothing will turn up new theories will be combined with all the old and will be hurtled against her in repeated attacks with the hope to destroy the enemy.

Obviously, news of any of the other campaigns and even about Obama will fall to the wayside or some middle page in the newspapers, as seen three years ago, with Palin taking center stage. The others will valiantly fight to at least be seen in her shadow rather than finding themselves completely offstage.

And of course, Palin will once again surge up, up, up, ahead in the polls.

Oh, the campaign of 2012 will differ somewhat of the one in 2008. In 2008 there was the economic collapse which Obama used to push fear down the throats of all (to which McCain responded wrongly as I’ve written in the past.) 

In 2012 there will be no economic collapse since the economy has been almost nonexistent from when Obama has taken office because of his endless spending and fear mongering. And it all rests squarely on Obama’s shoulders.

Additionally there won’t be anyone on top of Palin pulling the strings and whose instructions she must follow. Palin will be free to be 100% Palin, posting her opinions on her Facebook page and leading the campaign as she sees fit. 

After all, she’s done this in the past and has sure gotten the know-how and experience in defeating the undefeatable. From facing an incumbent city council member, to a long-time mayor, a corrupt influential Governor, and a powerful former Governor, she beat them all against all odds.

The morning following her announcement and for many more mornings until 2012, will find the former successful governor calling out the unpopular president on his economic, foreign, and domestic policies. Suddenly Obama will no longer be the untouchable and unbeatable, but will have to defend his policies; something we all know is non-defendable.

As for the timing of her announcement, I may be wrong, but strongly believe it will come on August 29th 2011.

August 29 is three years to the day that Palin was introduced to the entire country as the vice presidential candidate to John McCain and the day of her first national address at her acceptance speech in Dayton, Ohio at which she introduced herself to all.

August 29 is also her 23rd Anniversary and is three days after the 91st anniversary of the nineteenth amendment which granted women the right to vote, thus allowing them to take their first steps into politics.

August 29 is two days before The Undefeated will be available through pay per view through satellite and cable and in DVD form in Wal-Mart. An announcement of a Sarah Palin run will cause record number purchases of the above on its opening day.

August 29 is four days before the tea party rally in Iowa, at which she is scheduled as a keynote speaker. No additional explanation necessary.

Additionally the documentary will be premiering in theaters all across the nation throughout September and an official announcement will cause its momentum to grow.

Some close advisors to Perry have leaked an announcement imminent at the end of August, so here’s my friendly advice. 

Palin will make her announcement the end of August and beating Palin’s announcement with a couple of days won’t get you far, for as soon as she makes it official, forget about anyone looking your way anytime soon. Just look at what happened to Obama twelve hours after his convention speech.

Palin has got over three million and two hundred and seven thousand supporters who are signed onto her Facebook page, thousands who write positive comments about her, dozens of blogs devoted to her accomplishments, and tens of thousands who’ve donated to the cause, who are waiting for her announcement and are ready to take action to help her reach the winning line.

It’s a ticking time bomb, waiting for the explosive moment. 

Civility Strikes from the Beltway

When writing about civility it would be amiss not to mention the civility from the crowds in Washington right after the Tucson shooting when the entire liberal media from The Daily Kos to Politico attacked the Tea Parties, conservatives, talk show hosts, and Palin as responsible for the horrific shooting.

The media didn’t stand alone in their cries for civility. The entire Democratic political machine starting from Obama at his talk in Tucson demanded civility and a toning down from the Republicans.

As if the above wasn’t enough, some Republicans joined the nonsense noise demanding a tone down and one Republican senator went so far as to blame the town halls, cable TV and talk radio.

All this resulted in the joke of increased civility through the mixed seating during the “state of the union address” as though that really caused a civil tone between the two parties.

It seems that the seating arrangement can now be credited for causing many Senators and Congressmen and women in having become good friends and examples of civility.

Yes, the Democrats teamed up with the beltway Republicans and civilly denounced the tea partiers and hard core conservatives, who are the true friends of the people, as people wanting to take away social security from the elderly and destroy America’s credit rating.

Anyone seeking the definition of a circus merely has to glance back at the actions and reactions the last couple of weeks not only of the media and the liberals but of the entire group of Mr. Civilities comprised mainly of Democrats and Beltway Republicans.

The Tea Party members dared speak the truth with their demands of Washington to curb the spending and to stop selling phony deals with the simple explanation that even without an increase to our budget our debt is unsustainable and the coming generations won’t be able to pay it off.

This was reason enough to snap the members of the civility club from congress and across America into action.

The civility crowd in Washington has actually pulled off a stunning feat, the likes of which has never been seen or done before.

They named the Tea Party Republicans “hostage takers” and “terrorists” without any remorse or apology while simultaneously slamming the usage of the term “terrorist” in situations truly applicable.

When one nutcase in Norway set off a bomb and shot innocent people fingers immediately pointed to right wingers and Christianity as guilty. It didn’t matter that the Facebook page the media pumped all over in which the killer identified himself as a conservative and Christian as proof of his beliefs turned out to be a fake and was removed from Facebook.

On the flip side of the issue, although hundreds of Muslims have committed violence in the name of Allah in the past, when several Muslims committed violence right here in the USA, the civility crowd worked overtime to ensure no one dare suggest that even a minority of the Muslim religion supports terror and violence.

From the very top of the civility callers, Obama has repeatedly called the Republicans “hostage takers” and Vice President Joe Biden lashed out against the tea party Republicans Monday accusing them of having “acted like terrorists.”

Biden also encouraged Democrats to vote for the deal saying it would take “the weapons of mass destruction” out of the hands of the tea party and that the Republicans had “guns to their heads” making it difficult to seek a compromise.

These were not isolated attacks that slipped out of their mouths and were followed with profuse apologies, although that too would’ve been bad enough. Rather, this is part of a calculated strategy from those that hate the tea party to brand them as terrorists who seek to destroy the country.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) has proclaimed that “We have negotiated with terrorists,” that “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money,” and told Politico that “They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called the deal a “Satan sandwich.”

Here’s a transcript from a mantage Rush Limbaugh played h/t the Free Republic.

STENY HOYER: The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage!

This list is by far not a complete list of the Democratic politicians who have referred to Tea Party Conservatives as terrorists and hostage takers without seeing anything wrong with the terminology and without receiving a scolding from the moderates and peace lovers.

And of course the media didn’t find it necessary to condemn the dangerous rhetoric, since it delighted in the opportunity to join the game and continue to build on it.

The New York Times called the GOP “hostage takers” for the bipartisan deal that has been reached last week.

The Wall Street Journal called the Tea Party “hobbits” and John McCain found it necessary to read it aloud on the Senate floor.

Chris Matthews found it necessary to remind everyone on the day of Giffords return that she was injured because of the “violent level of the right-wing” and the tea party groups, and compared the Tea Party Republicans to baby-kidnappers and terrorists because of their opposition to the debt deal.
To top it all off, Newsbusters made a shocking discovery which went entirely unnoticed by the media; a political cartoonist from a Tucson Newspaper, from all the places, fantasized about Obama Sending SEALs to Assassinate Tea Party Republicans! 

Civility from Tucson

So I ask this of those of you carrying the flag of civility.

Have you ever seen on Palin’s Facebook page similar language? Do you have a single audio of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager or other conservatives calling the left terrorists and kidnappers?

Where have all the moderates and civility supporters both from the right and the left disappeared to? Is it uncivil to denounce this hateful and dangerous rhetoric against honest civil people trying to get this country out of debt? 

They are usually the first ones grabbing the microphones and letting their opinion be heard whether by the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood Shooting, and everywhere in between. Why don’t they take over the floor in the House and the Senate denouncing and demanding an apology of those spewing this hate-filled talk for inciting violence? How can they in good conscience join these hate-filled people in meetings and compromises disregarding their destructive choice of words?

The last several weeks have been the ultimate symbol of civility, unity, and compromise in their attacks against the tea party.

The civility crowd’s silence announced loud and clear their belief that civility is a one-way street.