Reading the reactions to yesterdays violence in Michigan leads me to conclude that I am justified in running around punching people in the face and tearing down their shelters if I disagree with them on politics.
Who's up for a little Friday night "Wilding?" Anyone?
Up in Michigan there is quite the protest over the whole "right to work" legislation adopted by the new GOP leadership. Obviously, the unions are very upset at this and they've been protesting Wisconsin-style at the state capitol.
Also at the capitol is Americans for Prosperity - a (dare I say) community organizing group funded in large part by the libertarian Koch brothers (a/k/a: Darth Vader and the Evil Emperor who should be killed by leftists to preserve America).
AFP had a nice big tent with some old ladies inside. They had some coffee urns and tables set up. They were playing some old Ronald Reagan speeches and proselytizing for the Church of the Limited Government. This is truly evil stuff, here. Remember how Vader blew up that whole planet? Same thing here. I mean, REAGAN SPEECHES?!
It's no wonder, then why the loving adherents of the Party of Peace reacted... shall we say... badly:
WARNING: some foul-mouthedness is audible:
During this Last Stand of the Tent assault, a guy named Steve Crowder got punched a few times in the face by a union guy. I know, I know - sometimes your fists can communicate your well-reasoned objection to labor law reforms better than your four-letter words. But, apparently, some people think this is not okay.
What's been really amazing is the reaction among the Party of Peace. When there's been any coverage at all, it has focused on three narratives:
1. It's a "False Flag" operation
There is a serious belief that the two videos above were faked. That these were choreographed and produced in order to make the labor union people look bad. All that chanting "take it down!" and cheering was all orchestrated by the evil Koch brothers and their mindless minions (who should all be killed by leftists in order to preserve America).
2. They deserved it
Like a rape victim wearing a mini-skirt, right? Blaming the victim is a popular course here, too. Those evil AFP volunteers and old ladies should've KNOWN there would be thuggery and violence at a union protest. Duh! It serves them right for being there and disagreeing. Here's what Gawker offered up:
I have a third solution: Steven, stop whining, take your licks, and accept that getting hit in the face is a hazard of inserting yourself in the middle of an argument between billionaire-funded know-nothing ideologues and people whose livelihoods and stability are being threatened by the insatiable greed of the super-rich and the blind extremism of their wooden-headed political allies. In exchange, liberals will buy you a band-aid for the cut on your forehead and re-iterate that Punching Is Bad
Stupid people with their beliefs in limited government. Why haven't any leftists gotten around to killing these people (and the Koch brothers) to preserve America?
3. It's okay because union folks are scared
This narrative is the moral relativist argument - that the union people are really, really, really scared of losing all their money, their homes, their lives and their families. This justification mentality is best summed up by a poster on one of the liberal blogs:
What should be blatantly obvious by this point is the complete double standard that exists in our society today. Violence is excused when it is committed by progressive groups. Yet, when a lone madman opens fire on an Arizona Congresswoman's public meeting it is immediately blamed on Sarah Palin's political strategy map. Those targets on the map made the crazy kill a Democrat! I'm sure Sarah Palin is on that evil Koch brothers list, too.
Or how about the infamous Tea-Party-spitting incident?
A Google search of "tea party spitting" yields over one million results - most of which advance the story that racist demonstrators were yelling "n----er" and spat upon Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) as he and his colleagues walked right through the massive protests to go vote on Obamacare. Not sure if we should blame the victims here. Could a leftist give me some guidance here? Was walking through the middle of the protest "asking for it?"
Here was that video from March of 2010:
Not only has there has never been a retraction by any media outlet about the initial reporting, but the narrative has become accepted as truth.
I hear you saying, "But, Pete! This is just some leftist blogs. This violence isn't being endorsed or ignored by elected officials or Democratic Party leaders."
Speaking on the state House floor today, Democratic state Rep. Douglas Geiss said “There will be blood” as a result of the bill’s passage.
And the Obama Administration quickly weighed in on the matter:
White House spokesman Jay Carney declined to condemn the increasing violence and threats by union members in Michigan, merely telling reporters Tuesday that “the president believes in debate that’s civil.”
When asked by a reporter about a claim by Michigan state Democrat that “there will be blood” should Republicans pass a union-choice law in Michigan, Carney professed ignorance and then downplayed the comment.
“I haven’t see those comments, and I’m not sure they mean what someone interprets them to mean,” he said.
Yup. Lots of ways to interpret that "there will be blood" statement.
Rep. Geiss said Michigan would also re-live the Battle of the Overpass. That's an interesting reference, because it was an assault on union members by thugs (allegedly) hired by Henry Ford. Is Rep. Geiss saying the new legislation would lead to violence against union members?
Because given yesterday's events, it seems the Representative might consider a difference analogy.
But if we DID see a replay of such attacks on peaceful unionists, I am sure these same leftists who justified yesterdays actions will have the exact same response.
Right?
