Washington Post’s Andrew Alexander: Democrat Shill

In this morning’s Washington Post, ombudsman Andrew Alexander made the argument that “Allegations of spitting and slurs at Capitol protest merit more reporting.” This is zombie-mediaese for “we have to keep discrediting critics of this administration at all costs!”
An ombudsman is described as “a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing the broad scope of constituent interests.” But here we see that the only interest being put forth is one that serves the Democrat establishment.

Alexander made the embarrassing claim that:

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, a black Democrat from Missouri, said a protester spit on him. Rep. Barney Frank, the openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts, was heckled with anti-gay slurs. Two black Democrats, Reps. André Carson of Indiana and John Lewis of Georgia, said protesters subjected them to racial epithets. The episodes were recounted for days in Post stories and columns. Much blame was directed at Tea Party activists.

It’s embarrassing for the Post because there were a plethora of camera crews videotaping the alleged incident and not one tape has come forth validating this claim. In fact, Andrew Breitbart has offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who has a video showing that the “N-word” was used. There have been no takers. Do you really think the media wouldn’t be showing such a tape 24/7 if it actually existed?

The press loves to paint people as racists, especially if they’re opposed to the statist policies of the left. The only racism they treat as a Chupacabra sighting is when it comes from a Democrat.



The Post is basically joining the AP and others in granting hearsay the same value as reality or, heaven forfend, actual reporting. Yes, even when the hearsay comes from the mouth of a congressman. Is the word of a politician with a political axe to grind is taken as the gospel? Yes — if he’s a Democrat, especially a black Democrat.

The only video evidence presented was one that shows Cleaver as he put his face close to a shouting protester, as if he couldn’t hear him, and then wiped away saliva, which would have come from some being close to someone shouting. It did not appear to be deliberate and even Alexander had to admit that. The only words that could be made out is “KIll the Bill” which is hardly a racist term.

Another claim made is that Barney Frank was called a “faggot” by one person in a crowd, yet no proof was offered. If one or two people in a huge crowd does something, does that make the whole crowd guilty of something? According to the left it does. Yet they still fail to offer any proof.

Tea Party Gets Ugly: Racism And Spitting, Congressman Ryan Scolds Tea Party

This is what passes for objectivity and veracity in today’s zombie media. They shuffle along mindlessly, stenographers who pass along press releases from the DNC and Media Matters, without doing their due diligence. The fact is, the Tea Party movement is composed of people from all parties, from all walks of life and ethnic groups. Gallup found that they closely mirrored the demographics of the American public. Rasmussen found that more Americans trusted the Tea Party than the views of the President of the United States. So naturally the Post decided it needs to defend the Democrat’s narrative and continue to their campaign to discredit the Tea Party.

The Democrats and their minions, like the Post, are proving to not have democracy in their interests.

BIG JOURNALISM
Posted by James Hudnall Apr 11th 2010 at 3:47 pm 

Racist Liberal Media Attempts to Brand Tea Parties Racist, Fails

BigJournalism.com

Posted by Lloyd Marcus Mar 19th 2010 at 9:44 am

As a black proud Tea Party patriot, I am extremely offended by MSNBC’ host Dylan Ratigan’s baseless accusation that the Tea Party Movement (my white brother and sister fellow patriots) embraces Nazis and racists. Ratigan’s attack epitomizes the liberal media’s commitment to protect Obama and his radical agenda at all costs. They have a genuine disdain for freedom, capitalism and We The People. No tactic is too low. Ratigan’s rant:

While interviewing (really badgering) Mark Williams of the Tea Party Express, Ratigan outrageously to portray the Tea Party Express but tour as a far right hate group supportive of the killing of blacks and Jews. Well then, what the heck am I doing on the bus? Did I miss the “People We Hate” memo? Or perhaps, the organizers hid that memo from me and other blacks on the tour.

Left wing fanatics such as Ratigan have no shame. Incredibly they will throw the innocent Tea Party patriots under the bus in defense of Obama and his far left radical agenda.

I have traveled across America twice, on Tea Party Express tours one and two. It truly angers me to see the wonderful, hard working, decent and color-blind white patriots whom I have met at the tea parties trashed, called Nazis and racists simply because they oppose the out-of-control Obama administration.

Ironically, the true character of the tea parties is the opposite of the media’s portrayal of them. In Texas, a white cowboy at a tea party approached me pushing a stroller with two black babies he and his wife who is also white recently adopted from Africa. The cowboy said they asked God to give them babies who needed their love the most. The excited dad proudly proclaimed, “Next week they will become U.S. citizens.”

I can’t remember the state where the tea party was held, but I was surrounded by an extremely excited white family of two parents and 15 kids (all home schooled). They were fans of my articles and music. We took several pictures and chatted about values. It was a wonderful exchange.

At another tea party at a rodeo arena, again I can not recall the state, a big man well over six feet wearing a big straw hat and a ZZ Top beard gave me a bear hug with his huge, vice-grip arms. Relieved that he liked me, the gentle giant conveyed his gratitude for all I was doing for our country. He pulled up one leg of his bib jeans to reveal his wooden leg. He said, “If Obama care passes, I may have to carve my next new leg.” I really appreciate what you are doing brother.”

During my travels on the Tea Party Express tours, I was showered with affection, given sentimental gifts and homemade brownies from the folks reported as racist by the liberal media. In Nevada, a small business owner offered me free dry cleaning for life. While I appreciated her extremely generous and sincere offer, shipping my laundry from my home in Florida could be a bit expensive.

At a number of tea parties across America, I saw signs which read, “Lloyd Marcus for President!” But how could this be? Jeannine Garafolo said the tea party movement is really about white racists not wanting a black president.

When our tour bus door opened in Memphis, Tenn., we were greeted by a white woman with a huge tray of bar-b-que spare ribs. She also brought baked beans and cornbread which she had prepared especially for us, an interracial team of performers and speakers. Is this the behavior of members of an angry racist mob? By the way, her spare ribs were outstanding. A close second to my mom’s.

The greatest proof the tea parties are not racist is the overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic response to my signature opening comment. “Hello my fellow patriots. I am not an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus, AMERICAN!” The crowds go wild with cheers and even some tears. These patriots flock to me expressing great gratitude for my stand not to be hyphenated. Countless times I have heard, “Hyphenating divides us. We wish to be Americans.”

So there you have it Mr. Ratigan. Do these people sound like an angry racist, hate-filled mob supportive of the killing of blacks and Jews? I submit that you know they are not.

You sir are an evil man willing to demean the character of millions of true patriots to prop up your American idol, Barack Hussein Obama. Accusations of the tea parties being racist are absurd. And yet, the liberal media is relentless in their attempts to sell their shameful lie. Liberals like Ratigan could care less about the devastating effect that fueling the flames of racial hatred is having on American race relations.

Folks, I take the liberal media’s accusation of racism against my fellow patriots who are white extremely personal. We patriots share a kinship through our love for our country. We are family. And you don’t allow people to dis your family.

March 27th in Searchlight, Nev., we launch Tea Party Express Tour III. For me, the rallies are family reunions. I can’t wait to see you.

Party Like It's 1773? ... Tea Parties

Real Clear Politics.com
By Richard Samuelson

Are this year's "tea parties" really tea parties? What could today's protesters have in common with the "Indians" who dumped 90,000 pounds of tea in Boston harbor in 1773? Quite a bit, actually.

What do today's tea partiers want? According to the Christian Science Monitor, the movement "is about safeguarding individual liberty, cutting taxes, and ending bailouts for business while the American taxpayer gets burdened with more public debt. It is fueled by concern that the United States under Mr. Obama is becoming a European-style social democracy where individual initiative is sapped by the needs of the collective." Broadly speaking, the tea parties reflect a growing anger in America that the government seems to be a closed circle, run by an elite in both parties. These elites, combined with a class of bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists and businessmen, use government power to serve their own ends, and not the public good.

The Boston Tea party was the most famous colonial American protest, but it was by no means the only one. In late colonial America, mass street protests, parades, and other events, often led by the "Sons of liberty," were a formal ritual. Some scholars have even described them as a legal practice. In an age when government was understood to be for the people, but not of or by the people, "out of doors protest" allowed British subjects to participate in the political process, and to shape the actions of government. Government was supposed to serve the common good, and it was supposed to be under law, and yet most colonists had no vote. How could they express their opinion? They could shout, protest, and even riot.

Inevitably, some demonstrations got out of hand, and spilled over into needless violence. Such excess led supporters of the King's government to condemn all protests. They wanted to rule without being questioned by the people. After all, the elites reasoned, they were smarter, better trained, and wiser than the common folk. The patriot response to this line of reasoning was that no one, however smart, well meaning, and wise had the right to rule another without his consent.

After the American revolution, we created a government that was much closer to being of, by and for the people. A little over a century later, however, it came under assault. In the early twentieth century America's leading intellectuals concluded that our constitution was out of date. Woodrow Wilson said quite bluntly that "we are in the presence of a new organization of society. Our life has broken away from the past." The founders, he noted, "speak of the ‘checks and balances' of the Constitution." Such ideas were passe. By replacing checks and balances with a simplified administration, he would update and rationalize the American state. Wilson, we should recall, was our first and only PhD president. The social science PhD was a new invention in his day. Wilson believed that experts, armed with PhDs and law degrees, could make better choices than the common people and the politicians they elected. Armed with expertise, Progressive bureaucrats would rule effectively and fairly. Checks and balances, he thought, were no longer necessary.

Wilson, his friends, and his successors in the New Deal and other Progressives (sometimes cleverly calling themselves "liberals"), did not achieve a full revolution. Anyone witnessing the gridlock over health care in Washington realizes that. That has always frustrated them. When Thomas Friedman, the voice of the establishment, declares that "one-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages," he reflects the goal of Progressive politics since Wilson's day. He also echoes the ideas of the Tories of the 1760s and 1770s. Like the Tories, today's would-be elites claim that better training and education gives them the right to rule, although the Progressives and their children have largely dropped birth and wealth as criterion for rule.

Even if their revolution was incomplete, the Progressives did transform American government. They expanded the role of experts in government at all levels in the U.S. This permanent bureaucracy has taken over sizeable chunks of American life, and has, at the same time, removed many areas of regulation from the political process. Our representatives have been only too happy to delegate broad swaths of power to these, unelected branches of government. That way they can blame someone else when things go wrong. Meanwhile, our courts, have taken away from our elected representatives the right to legislate about various issues. The upshot: even though almost all American adults have the right to vote, their votes matter less. Perhaps that's why fewer eligible voters vote today than was the case a century ago.

Now we can see how today's tea parties resemble those of yesteryear. As more and more government operations are taken off the books, popular frustration rises. Similarly, and ironically, bureaucracies often serve the industries they regulate rather than the public good. When the government is unresponsive to the views of the people, and, beyond that, when our administrative and judicial branches restrict the scope of the people's legislative rights, protest rises. President Obama, an heir to the Progressive tradition, wants to strengthen this unaccountable, administrative state. The response has been altogether fitting.

Richard Samuelson is the 2009-2010 Garwood Visiting Fellow at Princeton University's James Madison Program, and an Assistant Professor of History at California State University, San Bernardino.