Tea Party Supporters Getting Understandably Irritated at Being Linked to Every New Incidence of Ultra-Violence



The Brian Ross brainfart is being treated by some Tea Party activists as an insult too far.

Trent Humphries, who was president of Tucson's tea party organization at the time of the Giffords shootings, said he lived around the corner from an older couple, both of whom were shot, one fatally, making the situation that much more unbearable.

"They were friends, it wasn't a political thing for me," he said. "But my family received death threats, we had sheriffs' cars outside, because of stupid comments made…in the press."

In the aftermath of the [Gabrielle] Giffords shooting, said Humphries, the media compounded the situation by expecting tea party members to weigh in immediately as opponents of gun control.

"[The press] came to me and asked, 'What should we do about guns?'" Humphries said. "Of course they go to the tea party guy. I said, 'How about you give us a chance to bury our dead, give us a chance to suffer through what we need to suffer through, and then we can get to politics.'"

In an editorial, the Washington, D.C. Examiner notes some other examples:

In February 2010, a man named Joseph Stack committed suicide by flying his small airplane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. New York Magazine, after reading his online suicide note, immediately declared that "a lot of his rhetoric could have been taken directly from a handwritten sign at a tea party rally." The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart added that "his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement." Neither mentioned that Stack had approvingly quoted "The Communist Manifesto" and denounced capitalism in his last message to the world. That may be a relevant detail if you're trying to blame his crime on a movement that believes the opposite.

Months later, right after the famous attempt to bomb Times Square, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested it had been carried out by someone "with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something." The would-be bomber, a Pakistani immigrant, later said in court: "If I'm given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah."

And don't forget Census worker Bill Sparkman.

It already feels like a fever dream from another era, but the liberal commentariate spent the entire summer of 2009 in a deranged panic that populist anger at government overreach was on the verge of exploding into a race war. I rounded up a fraction of the output in this August 2009 column:

"Violence" is "in the air," warned Woodrow Wilson International Center scholar Jamie Stiehm, in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed that revisited the 1830s torching of an abolitionist-built hall in the City of Brotherly Love. "If it could happen there and then, it could happen here and now." The American right's "recurrent" and "deep-seated problem with political violence," warned popular liberal blogger Josh Marshall, "endangers the country." The "election of Barack Obama," wrote Mother Jones' James Ridgeway, "adds even more fuel to nativist rage." Lefty historian-of-the-right Rick Perlstein, in a Washington Post chat to discuss his theory that "the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy," analogized anti-Obama protesters to "brownshirts" and "Nazi street thugs" in Weimar Germany, warning that "authoritarian takeovers of nations happen, they happen slowly, and it's a process." Washington Post columnist and regular public broadcast commentator E.J. Dionne went even further with the Nazi comparisons, describing this summer's town hall disputes as "the politics of the jackboot." Dionne added:

[V]iolence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black.

It was a shameful, factually untethered episode that really should not be forgotten, leading directly to such debased Gifford-shooting commentary as Paul Krugman's deservedly infamous reaction of, "When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?" With that kind of just-add-violence confirmation basis, it is no wonder that the inevitable half-assed media speculation this time around landed on such a familiar target.

It might just be that the Brian Ross fallout will be loud enough to prompt journalistic outlets to avoid pinning immediate blame on the Tea Party next time around. Maybe one day they'll even get around to admitting how wrong, unfair, and divisive they were back in 2009. I won't hold my breath.

Here's an important piece to read, if you're interested in such things: In The New York Times, Columbine reporter Dave Cullen pleads with people, "Don't Jump to Conclusions About the Killer." And of course, it's always a good time to re-read Jesse Walker's "The Paranoid Center."

NEXT: A.M. Links: Romney Campaign Calls Out Lack of Transparency in Obama Administration, Tampa Cops Prepare For RNC With New Bicycles, ATVs and an Armored Truck, 52 Percent of Prostitutes in U.S. Claim They've Been Assaulted by Police

Media Terrorism Tea Party

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

114 responses to “Tea Party Supporters Getting Understandably Irritated at Being Linked to Every New Incidence of Ultra-Violence

  1. It will be easy to tell when the Tea Party and Conservatives have become weaponized - prominent liberals (not random theater patrons) will be dropping dead.

  2. I heard there was a Brian Ross who fucked sheep. Not sure if it's the same Brian Ross, but I did hear that.

    1. I heard he liked pegging. Don't know if it's the same Brian Ross as this one, or the one you mentioned, or another one entirely.

    2. All you have to do is Google "Brian Ross mug shot" to realize the guy is a criminal of the first order and should probably locked up for a good long time.

      1. If you Google 'brian ross sex crimes' you get an astounding 2.08 million searches. The man is a fiend of the highest order.

        'brian ross hitler' comes back with almost a million!

        'Brian ross stalin' one half of a million.

        This guy needs to be locked up and the key smelted.

    3. What happened when he-who-shall-not-be-named was referenced in this way? If I remember correctly, reason came under fire with a lawsuit.

      1. That's why you must be careful to phrase any such speculation as mere speculation and rumor. No one can be sure whether or not he actually fucks sheep.

        1. Sure, it's speculation and rumor and all that, but I think after the run in with he-who-shall-not-be-named, this is a dangerous game to play.

          1. Well, I assume that if a line is crossed, the editors will let us know and delete the offending comments.

        2. Except for the sheep.

          1. And they aren't talking.

  3. The fact that ABC felt it necessary to issue an actual apology this time suggests maybe they understand they can't brainstorm possibilities on air. (Or perhaps the mea culpa was because the journalistic FoE paw was directed at an individual with possibly actionable grievances.)

    1. youre on to something Fist. So much of what people think comes out of their mouths these days. They dont think very differently than the days of yore, but they do it publicly which runs high risk of embarassment.

    2. Eye C watt ewe deed their.

  4. Using assumptions about how, supposedly, violent and weird Tea Party people are seems to be a natural extension of the fear mongering we've all been subjected to since 9/11, which used assumptions about how--supposedly--violent and weird Muslims are supposed to be.

    That's one of the downsides of fear-mongering. Selling fear almost always works, but once they let all that fear loose in the wild, who its ultimate target will be is anyone's guess...

    In other words, people who are easily frightened are easily frightened, generally. Once they're scared, their fear can be directed at anything. And reason hardly ever gets in the way--that's what fear mongering is all about: overwhelming people's ability to think critically.

    Fear really is the mind-killer.

    1. I guess I could see it if the people who are pushing the message that the Tea Party is violent and weird weren't so blas? about jihadist violence because it isn't politically convenient for them, or if that tactic of leveling accusations that the political right is inherently more violent didn't long predate 9/11.

      1. If the target of fear mongering is so variable, doesn't that just reenforce the point?

        Muslims, tea party people, communists, immigrants, drugs, Satanists...

        The list goes on and on.

        It's just that we got an unusual sustained dose after 9/11.

        1. ken,
          of the groups you list, some are not like the others. Muslims, some immigrants, and drug cartels HAVE been violent. TP folks, communists, and Satanists not so much. In fact, the TP has had zero history of violence; this is the left attempting to demonize opposition.

          1. Some have been more violent recently than others.

            And certainly 9/11 was violent, and the perpetrators were Muslim. But who here really thinks that nothing the Bush Administration did in the aftermath of 9/11 was fear mongering--because 9/11 was violent and the perpetrators were Muslims?!

            The Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic may not have had much in the way of reality behind it--but don't tell that to the McMartins! They went through hell anyway.

            That's actually an important thing for us to think about. We still don't know why, exactly, this guy went ballistic, but what if it had been because he was a Tea Party Libertarian?

            Do you think that would justify people's irrational fear of the Tea Party?

            I don't. Fear mongering would be fear mongering all the same! Being afraid of libertarians or the Tea Party is completely irrational--even if one of us went completely bonkers.


            1. Exactly. Even if he were a TPer or libertarian and came right out and said that that is why he did it, blaming the TP or political ideology would still be idiotic fear mongering.

          2. Communists aren't violent? You mean, except for the 120 million people they have killed? Other than that?

            And immigrants? How are immigrants particularly violent?

          3. TP has had zero history of violence

            But their Eliminationist Rhetoric(tm) hurt a lot of people's feelings. Their calls for fiscal prudence directly inspired 'disturbed' people to carry out hateful acts of mean-ness and insensitivity. Also they called Obama dirty words. We need Gulags for these scum!

        2. I believe the 24 hour news cycle has something to do with it. Every incident becomes a national event. Fear sells.

        3. There is a culture of fear mongering, sure, but there has been for a long time. I just don't think 9/11 really changed anything in this regard. The way that the Tea Party is being treated is simply the way that the left has always treated its political opponents: by calling them stupid and dangerous. I'm not even so sure most of them really believe that the Tea Party is dangerous so much as it's just that their withered intellects don't allow them to engage in a more strenuous debate than calling people with whom they disagree racist and/or violent.

      2. maybe if the TP had a history of violence, this would be a line of thought to consider. But it does not, which makes the whole thing political. Pushing the violence meme is just another leftist tactic to discredit political opposition. It also displays stunning ignore re: who and what the TP is.

        1. I was told that Timothy McVeigh founded the TP!

    2. I don't see it as a natural extension at all. I think they'd be doing it anyway.

      Shills gonna shill. Its what they do. Its who they are.

      1. It seems like most of the supposed features that are supposed to make us afraid of Muslims are the same sort of features that are supposed to make us afraid of Tea Party people.

        If we listed all the reasons we're supposed to be afraid of Muslims--according to the fear mongers--I suspect we'd mostly see the same reasons we're supposed to be afraid of Tea Party people.

        They're fanatical; they're religious; they're uncompromising; they know how to use weapons; they're hostile to our government; etc., etc.

        Surely, you must have seen people comparing the Tea Party to Al Qaeda in comments on other sites over the last few years?

        1. They're fanatical; they're religious; they're uncompromising; they know how to use weapons; they're hostile to our government; etc., etc.

          Sure, sure. And the shills would be saying all that even if AQ were just a wet spot on bin Laden's sheets.

          1. Like I said, fear mongering isn't just taking something that isn't real and making people afraid of it; fear mongering is also taking something real and blowing it way out of proportion.

            There really are people out there who try to sell drugs to junior high school kids. I know--if you're a suburban soccer mom, that's scary!

            But making people so obsessed with the fact that some people will try to sell your kids drugs that they'll...

            Fundamentally rework our Constitution; militarize our police force; send numerous Latin American countries into what amounts to civil war; fill our cities street gangs; and and lead us to have the highest incarceration rate in the world?

            That's probably blowing someone's very real fear way out of proportion, isn't it?

    3. When the Tea Party conducts the worst terrorist attack in US history, then you will have a point. As it is, you are just being stupid Ken. The two situations are in no way analogous. The Tea Party hasn't ever engaged in any violence. If it ever does, then it will deserve it when people stop giving its members the benefit of the doubt. That is the whole point Ken.

      1. You're blaming 9/11 on all Muslims?

        Do we get to blame the theater shooting on all white men?

        1. Sure - when the white men yell "White Men Akbar" as they shoot up the theater.

          1. SO if I yell "Ice nine akbar" while shooting a bunch of people, it is your fault?

        2. So is this a Fake Tony?

          1. there never was a 'real' tony.

            1. It's Tony-puppets all the way down.

      2. The Tea Party hasn't ever engaged in any violence. If it ever does, then it will deserve it when people stop giving its members the benefit of the doubt.

        That's absolutely baloney.

        If one of us went insane tomorrow and shot some theater up, being afraid of libertarians would be just as irrational then as it is now.

        Fear mongering is still fear mongering--even if you're just taking what amounts to a small threat and blowing it way out of proportion.

        Could you be killed by a drunk driver on the way to work today?


        Should we ban alcohol to combat the very real threat of being killed by a drunk driver?

        Nah, I say let's try to keep some sense of proportion.

        And if getting hit by a drunk driver just isn't something you're afraid of in particular?

        Well, that changes nothing. You're immune to the fear mongering on that issue. Congratulations!

        1. So Ken, no matter how violent an organization or political movement is, we can't stop giving it the benefit of the doubt? That is weapons grade stupid Ken. By your logic we have no right to consider groups like the KKK or the Nazis violent because not every Nazi or Klansman was violent. Yes, when you purposely join an organization that engages in violence, you are associating yourself with the organization or ideology.

          1. I didn't say there wasn't any reason to be afraid of drunk drivers. I said we need to keep things in proportion.

            There's nothing stupid about keeping things in proportion, John.

          2. John, you know darn good and well that not all muslims are violent. That's no different then saying that all anti-abortion people are violent cause some of them blow up/shoot up abortion clinics and planned parenthood.

    4. Perhaps we should be screening all voters the Bene Gesserit way

      1. If the atheists ever succeed in getting "In God We Trust" off of our dollar bills, we should replace it with "Fear is the Mind-Killer".

      2. I'm a little short on gom jabbars and pain boxes, but it might cut down some voting irregularities.

        But do zombies (chicago democratic voters) feel pain?

    5. One slight difference: All the acts of Islam-motivated violence since 9/11/

    6. I'm not so sure I believe this analysis. I mean, what about the "survivalist/militia" scares of the 1990s? Surely, you don't mean to suggest that that was a consequence of 9/11?

      1. No, the militia scare of the '90s wasn't caused by 9/11, neither was the Satanic/Ritual Abuse of preschoolers scare; the Red Scare; or the Harold Hill/River City scare.

        We had an unusually large and sustained dose after 9/11--and the fear mongering was coming all the way from the top.

        FDR is probably my least favorite president, but if I could pick between his "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and the Bush/Cheney Administration's take, which amounted to making a virtue out of cowardice, I sure wish Bush had been more like FDR in that regard.

        Bush's take was always that if you didn't support him in whatever he was doing to fight terrorism, then you weren't sufficiently frightened. Only the truly frightened could really grok where Bush was coming from.

        It's bad enough that we're subjected to scares and panics that come from the ground up--much worse when the president plays Fear Monger in Chief.

        Once people came down from being so high on fear mongering, people rationalized their actions afterwards. The high was gone, but the effects remained. Once you're oriented in that way, to respond to fear, you're basically primed for the next round.

        TARP can be understood that way. It was sold by fear mongering. The Bush Administration got some Republican constituents so afraid, they didn't object when he pushed legislation through that used their future paychecks to reimburse Wall Street for bad investments.

        Fear mongering can make some people accept anything.

        1. Well, considering Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, I'd say the two were hardly that far apart.

          But, while I understand your claim of elevated fear mongering under Bush, I can't really agree. You, yourself, note the myriad ways that fear mongering played an ongoing role in politics well before George Bush happened on the scene. Mr. Bush just happened to be the latest politician willing to ride that particular current.

          Besides, trouble with a capital T does rhyme with P, and that does stand for pool.

    7. Using assumptions about how, supposedly, violent and weird Tea Party people are seems to be a natural extension of the fear mongering we've all been subjected to since 9/11, which used assumptions about how--supposedly--violent and weird Muslims are supposed to be.

      Does this surprise you being that so many refer to the Tea Party as "The American Taliban?" I have a friend who, despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever short of the SPLC insists that the TP and right wingers in general are the greatest threat for more terrorism in America. This despite the ample evidence of lefty groups rioting en masse, throwing molotov cocktails at events like G20 or the World Bank conventions or your average day at Occupy Oakland and the like.

  5. "If I'm given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah."

    As long as we get to watch.

  6. the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy

    Well, that much is true, though not exactly in the way that he meant it.

    1. "The crazy tree blooms in every moment" is simpler and more accurate.

  7. I'm sure none of those poor Tea Party victims ever conflated an entire group of people with individual perpetrators of crimes.

    I'm sure they were all aghast at the collective punishment leveled on Iraqi families because of the actions of a few Saudi men.

    1. Tony's argument is basically boiled down to:

      "My complaint is bigger than yours. So there."

      Always the intellectual.

      1. Sadly, Tony's right in the middle of the bell curve for what passes for "intellectuals" today.


    2. tony,
      how about all those Pakistani/Afghani me, and women, and children that your fearless leader has sent to the afterlife via drone?

      The only violence associated with the TP lies in the fevered imaginations of the Obama dogwashing brigade. I see you brought your brush today.

      1. Collateral damage on an actual war an Al Qaeda. I suppose it's just as bad as Iraq, because you're nonpartisan.

        1. Funny, some of us think that all innocent death is equally bad when it comes at the hands of the state.

          1. Meaning what? Each death is equally bad as another? Okay. But one death just as bad as 100,000?

            I suppose the decrease in collateral damage between the two most recent administrations is due entirely to the sheer force of the moral purity you radiate from your armchair.

            1. Meaning that, given enough time, all presidents are pretty shitty on the having other people killed front. It doesn't matter if it's 1:1 or 1,000:1, those are still human lives that were ended.

              Look, Bush was an evil fuckstain of a president. Nobody here disputes that. Most of us think Iraq was a HUGE mistake. But Obama's drone strikes aren't responsible for just one death, so stop.

              And lets not forget that Obama owns the assassination of an American citizen, something even Bush hadn't done yet.

    3. Tony is a big proponent of the inverse of the Golden Rule.

  8. There was a rash of TP related shootings in 2009-10 where Glenn Beck/TP was credited by the perps.

    In Pittsburgh a Beck fan killed three, in SoCal a TPer shot 5-9 at a hair salon, the church shootings in Knoxville, the Halocaust Museum shooter, etc.

    1. The Museum shooter's next target was the Weekly Standard you lying little bastard. And you don't provide a single link to any of this. You are such a pathetic little lying brown shirt. Thank God you are no where near any position of authority.


          1. Glenn Beck is the de facto leader of the Tea Party.

            1. Too bad the Tea Party doesn't think so.

            2. Snort... guffaw...

              I'm sure Beck likes to think so

      1. And what do GOP Congressional candidates mean by "Second Amendment remedies" in dealing with Democrats?

        1. MODERATION

          Now STFU troll

      2. Knoxville, TN

        During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years.

        Adkisson's manifesto[12] also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut. His manifesto stated that he intended to keep shooting until police arrived and expected to be killed by police


        1. So I guess by your logic liberal democrats are responsible for the unabomber.

        2. Take your fucking bath salts, Mary.

        3. "Adkisson's manifesto[12] also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut."

          God damned right wing terrorism.

    2. herp derp i liek science and reason and facts until the tea party is involved then i just maek shit up

    3. This is a lot like saying that presidential assassination attempts are Jodi Foster related.

      1. Which apparently makes perfect sense in shrike-world.

        1. Tea Party "patriots" are angry and want their country back.

          Their words - not mine.

          1. Good thing no one ever talked about taking the country back when Dubya was president... oh, wait.

            And you've only managed to scrape up one example as support for your supposed "rash of Tea Party related shootings"? What a panicky little shitstain you are. No wonder you live in constant fear that the Christian Taliban are going to descend from the hills and... baptize you or something.

    4. in SoCal a TPer shot 5-9 at a hair salon,

      That's total bullshit. The man went after his ex-wife because they were involved in a rather heated custody dispute. Google Scott Dekraii for details.

      Sorry, shrike, but you're just flat-out lying here. Unfortunately for you, I know a lot about this particular case, and the TP doesn't fit in with it at all.

      You're a fucking lying piece of shit.

    5. The SoCal hair salon massacre was not motivated by the TP. It was a wing nut who was mad at his ex-wife over a contentious custody battle. But you knew that as well, you disingenuous asshole.

      1. What sloopy said.

    6. Glenn Beck is an asshole, shrike, but he did not cause those shootings.

      Lack of self fucking control, caused those shootings.

    7. in SoCal a TPer shot 5-9 at a hair salon

      Fuck you shrike

      That asshole was a long time loon, not a tea party person at all, hell he wasn't even ever political.

      Just an asshole pussy that blamed his ex-wife for all his woes and ruined a dozen families, including his son's.

  9. Here's an important piece to read, if you're interested in such things: In The New York Times....

    That rag should be shunned. Please reconsider your habit of dignifying the lickspittle press.

  10. All the Dems voted against the use of force, right?

    1. They all meant to, but they were busy that day, or they misunderstood what they were voting on, or they hit the wrong button, or...

  11. Anytime I see an EJ Dionne piece, I picture him writing it while tsk-tsking and shaking in amazement that any right-thinking person could possibly disagree with his utter brilliance, and I want to punch him in his smug face.

  12. Yeah, it's just lazy journalism. That's all.

  13. E.J. Dionne: STILL a punchable face. Reason should use that picture of him for any articles about him or some asinine thing he said. He looks like a toddler about to throw a tantrum for having his binky taken away.

    On a more seriuous note, WTF are they teaching in journalism schools? Confirmation Bias 101? Blaming Conservatives 302? Advanced Projection 405? Every fucking time something like this happens they're so desperate to blame those EEEEEEVUL TEABAGGERS!!!!11!!! that they latch onto anything that even remotely confirms their preconceived narrative. It's disgusting. And they wonder why no one outside the bubble they live in takes them seriously.

    1. Reason's typical reaction to a cop shooting isn't quite as unjustified (since in those cases we know that cops shot someone) but it is still heavily laden with conf bias.

      1. Except that in most cop shooting instances, the bias IS ACTUALLY CONFIRMED.

        These repeated accusations that the TP must be responsible for every violent action are NEVER CONFIRMED, yet the media keeps parading their biases out for all to see.

  14. Next time reason needs a pic of Dionne, they should just use this one.

    1. That puppet looks more manly and threatening than Dionne.

  15. Almost 20 years after the fact, (uninformed) people still associate militia-rejected Timothy McVeigh with militias. Thankfully, the power of the big three news makers/creators has been gutted in the meantime

  16. Richard Jewell died just a year before the tea party rose out of the furor over the Wall Street bailout. In so many ways the man was a forebear of the movement. He was the sort of working class schlemiel of whom those in the elite of political institutions, traditional media and DC law enforcement bureaucracies, tend to have a knee jerk negative reaction. Don't expect that to change until the elite culture itself is no longer the most dominate determinant in the public narrative and interpretation of events.

  17. Dudethats jsut crazy when you think about it.

  18. What Tony and assplug love to ignore is the fact that not one TP protest has resulted in violence. Can't say the same about the OWS protest, but I'm sure they've got a clever way to spin it.*

    *They aren't clever enough to spin it.

    1. All they have to say is that the cops made those poor OWS ferals do it, and they'll have half (I'm being conservative here) of the other commenters backing them up.

      1. Outside agitators. Union thugs and methhead anarchist. The OWS guys are too damn lazy for anything more violent than sticking their unwashed dicks into a roofied up teenage runaway who was for a place to crash.

    2. *They aren't clever enough to spin it.

      But they are dumb enough to try.

  19. as Norma implied I am amazed that some people able to make $4245 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site makecash16com

  20. So, was Holmes on psychiatric medication?

  21. as Norma implied I am amazed that some people able to make $4245 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site makecash16com

  22. Note to Reason Editorial Staff: I do well financially, but I'm not made of money. If you persist in putting pictures of E.J. Dionne in your stories, expect to lose my business as I routinely have to replace the monitors I reflexively throw against a wall upon seeing his face.

    If you value my patronage of this site, you will either cease putting his face on these articles or you will place a spoiler alert in the lede, thus preparing me for the horrifying image I'm about to be subjected to. For God's sake, think of the poor readers for a change.

    1. Just focus on his comically tiny hands. Little baby hands! Imagine sticking your pinkie out for him to clutch at clumsily. Awww... so cute.

    2. Does anybody else get the ad here asking me to sign a card thanking Elizabeth Warren for creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

      Maybe I just get it because I've typed stuff about Elizabeth Warren?

      1. AdBlocker Plus means I don't see any ads...ever.

  23. It might just be that the Brian Ross fallout will be loud enough to prompt journalistic outlets to avoid pinning immediate blame on the Tea Party next time around. Maybe one day they'll even get around to admitting how wrong, unfair, and divisive they were back in 2009. I won't hold my breath.

    Good thing you're not, because it will never happen. People need to come to grips with something: A Leftist has one belief and one belief only: "I ought to be in charge." Everything they say and do is a means to that end. Smearing the Tea Party is a means to that end.

    Once we realize this basic fact, it all becomes clearer, and we can fight it flat-out.

  24. A quick internet search reveals "Brian Ross" has been convicted of multiple felonies in several states. I wonder if ABC News knows?

  25. Seems like this Tea Party guy shooting up the movie theater is just like the time Sarah Palin shot that congresswoman in Arizona.

  26. There are lots of illegal dead cells are working in the country,

  27. I'm probably as close to the Tea Party (or at least, what they claimed to be initially) as I could possibly be, short of being a card-carrying member.

    I love my country, fear my government, and feel obligated to abide by the rule of law. But the government is tearing down that rule more and more every year. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. They're all doing it.

    But once they finally kill off the rule of law, there will be no obligation to pretend the rule of law still exists.

Comments are closed.