Tea Party Targeted by 'All the Bolsheviks' Children' (ABC)

American Thinker ^ | July 22, 2012 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

It wasn't just that ABC's Brian Ross was wrong in suggesting that the "Jim Holmes" he found on a Tea Party website was the same man who committed the heinous crime in Aurora, Colorado. It's that it was indicative of stupidity and corruption.

--snip--

So there can be only two reasons why ABC would mention a possible Holmes/Tea Party (TP) association: either its people want to demonize conservatives every chance they get, or they think traditionalist thought constitutes a pathology. It turns out that Effluent Stream Media leftists are deeply involved in doing the former and generally believe the latter.

Now, you see, my last line contains what is called a correct profile. Because it happens to be true. On the other hand, if leftists were intellectually honest, they'd accept that the TP has been remarkably civilized. Unlike Only Whining Socialists (OWS), its events aren't marked by sexual abuse, the occasional rape, violence, vandalism and slovenly, anti-social behavior. Rather, TP attendees protest peacefully, abide by the law, listen to speeches and then go home, leaving the site behind them clean and tidy. It's the difference between sane citizens and those who mistake police cars for toilet bowls.

--snip--

So I'll be blunt. As is often the case, when leftists accuse conservatives of failings, it is projection. Traditionalist thought is not a pathology.

Liberal unthought is a pathology.

And a severe one that destroys everything it touches.

--snip--

As for ABC, since news obviously isn't its bag, I have a programming suggestion. It could replace a certain long-running but recently cancelled soap opera it's famous for with something that can be called "All the Bolsheviks' Children." This could break new ground and help rebuild ABC's reputation for honesty, as it would be the most self-revelatory reality show in history.

[ConorMacNessa]

“All The Bolsheviks’ Children”. I love it!

[centurion316]

From the article:

So there can be only two reasons why ABC would mention a possible Holmes/Tea Party (TP) association: either its people want to demonize conservatives every chance they get, or they think traditionalist thought constitutes a pathology. It turns out that Effluent Stream Media leftists are deeply involved in doing the former and generally believe the latter

On the morning that Congressman Giffords was shot, I was flipping through the channels trying to get an accurate report of what had happened. Over at CNN, they aired a phone call from a journalist from the Tucson paper who claimed to be a witness. He reported that the shooter was a right wing, gun-toting Tea Party type. Turns out that our fearless caller was a left wing editorial cartoonist who just happened to be driving in the neighborhood. Not a journalist, not a witness, not in possession of the facts. CNN had to know this, but chose to ignore it all because at that early stage, it fit their notion of how the script should play out.

The media have not changed their storyline, they just can't find the facts to back it up.

[ryan71]

They rush to put out their dribble of lies because they know that once something is said it is heard. Retracting their statement later means nothing. There are plenty of ABC viewers who still think this guy was a tea party member. It’s done.

[Jim Scott]

Selwyn Duke nails it. The leftmedia long, long ago jettisoned objectivity and substituted leftist propaganda for 'news'. The Dan Rather Memogate' scandal that finally got him fired spotlighted the groupthink inherent in the national media. He just assumed that a wealthy, quasi-conservative young man (future president George. W. Bush) with a father (future president G.H.W. Bush) that had 'connections' in Washington must have shirked his duty in the Air Force National Guard during the VietNam era. This made Rather easy to fool because, as Duke's column explains, the scenario perfectly aligned with Rather's leftwing prejudices.

That the memo was easily proven to be a forgery didn't matter to Dan Rather because he firmly believed that G. W. Bush really did shirk his duty . After all, he's a Republican. Unfortunately for Rather there isn't any evidence to prove it. To Dan, that is just a technicality. Sort of like those lefties who still believe that socialism/communism is the absolute best and 'fairest' method of governance ever imagined by man. When confronted with it's abject failures over the past decades, they shrug it off with the explanation that it 'just hasn't been done right'; or, more often, by the 'right people' (them, of course).

Obama is a perfect example of that kind of hubris-fueled arrogance. The recent failed attempts by the MSM to smear Sarah Palin over the Gabby Giffords shooting and now, the TEA party, using the Aurora, Colorado 'Batman' movie shooting simply reflect the media's hatred of any entity but the socialist/communist state. In that light, a new ABC show entitled "All the Bolsheviks' Children" makes sense...and that is the scary part.

[W. W. SMITH]

The terms Communist, Progressive and Liberal as used by the left, all mean the same thing. Let me explain why. Carl Marx in 1848 finished writing and then published the Communist Manifesto. Over the next 30 to 40 years the book gained some followers, mostly self anointed elites with PHDs. ( Now there is a subject worth some grant money. Why are highly educated people with PHDs so susceptible to such an absurd philosophy.) As people became aware of their agenda, the communists picked the term progressive in an attempt to hide that agenda. Years later, the same problem, to many people have spotted the agenda again so they picked the term liberal. ( Note that the dictionary definitions of progressive and liberal are very far removed from the political definitions.)

One of the goals of their agenda is to infiltrate and take control of both major political parties. The Democrat party is at this time wholly controlled, 90% to 95%. The Republican party is 40% to 45% controlled. This leaves WE THE PEOPLE with very little true representation inside the belt way. We need to flush the progressives from both parties.

The Citizens political views have always been to the right of center. When we argue, left with right, right with left, most of the time we are arguing from the same point of view. Those who view themselves as dictionary definition, progressive or liberal, democrats are on our side, that is, to the right of center. Try to point out who is controlling their party and ask them if that is what they really want.

[W. W. SMITH]

I really like the next to last paragraph and will use it many times.

As Peter Schweizer reported in his piece “Don’t listen to the liberals-Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows,” studies have borne out what I’ve always known: Liberals are cheap, ungenerous, uncharitable, unloving, self-centered, envious, greedy and covetous. They’re less likely than conservatives to devote time to ailing or needy loved ones, and they even hug their children less. And this reflects one reason why they support big government: they assuage their consciences by outsourcing their charity. I’ll add to this that they’re lustful, prideful, wrathful, often slothful and, if Michael Moore is any indication, gluttonous as well. In a word, they are the Seven Deadly Sins incarnate.

[ReformationFan]

Excellent article. Duke is one of the better conservative editorialists these days.

[driftless2]

The left has been trying to twist the truth for decades. Lee Harvey Oswald was a leftist/commie-loving nut. But the media tried to spin JFK’s assassination as the work of right-wing fanatics.

[Balding_Eagle]

Look what has happened to the good name of the political party that was formed to free the slaves.