March 24, 2010

About those attempts to smear the Tea Party as racist.

Doubt is cast on the spit story.

And what about the claim that the n-word was chanted? It seems likely that all that was ever chanted was "Kill the Bill." Maybe one of the elderly congressmen heard "Kill the Bill" as "n*gger." Without any recorded audio to corroborate that perception, I'd say the hypothesis should be: It didn't happen.


Scott said...

If the race baiters find that nobody is taking the bait anymore, then what do they have left?

kentuckyliz said...

Out of all the video/audio footage, there is ZERO evidence of spitting or the N word.

Lying effing liars.

Calling you out.

Racist to play the race card against people who aren't being racist.

Poor little powerless Congressman.

His feewings were hurt so he went and voted YES to feck us over.

HT said...

And the claims by the mid atlantic and northeastern congressmen that they were harassed or had their gas lines cut? False no doubt too.

MadisonMan said...

The gas-line cut is a story I find credence in. I never did the race-baiter or spitter story -- it was always a someone said someone else heard type of story.

former law student said...

Were the Congressmen miked?

Absent any video or sound recordings from their perspective, instead of from 100 feet away in the midst of a crowd, only they would know what they heard, or if they were spat on.

Why would the Congressmen lie?

Is it because they are African-Americans?

Why would Tea Partiers lie?

Because they don't want to be associated wih the extremists drawn to their cause.

HokiePundit said...

Rep. Frank's story? Uncorroborated. All we have is his word for it, and his word doesn't count for much with me.

Regarding Rep. Perriello's brother?
I suppose it could possibly be an extremely weak attempt at trying to blow the person up...but really? For all we know, dude banged his grill last time he took it out of the garage, messing up the pipe. For all we know, it's neighbor kids being stupid. It's going to take more than a broken propane cylinder connection to carry any weight.

HT said...

Sure Hokie. Sure.

Look on the comments page of AA's bloggingheads recently. Look at some of the signs from that nice genteel tea party. Those nice men. They took two days to ride a bus, and all they are is nice men and women, and here are these meanie nasty ole lefties saying they are mean.

1775OGG said...

Ah, asking for proof of the matter, eh? Well now, what kind of nut cases do you think we are, eh? Proof, "they" don't have no proof, "they" don't want no proof, "they" ain't got no stinkin proof.

Of course, considering that the Democrats have used provocateurs before, it's very apt to ask that these crimes be investigated, with the perps be identified and charged. These modern day Socialists are well known for falsely instigating crimes like this.

garage mahal said...

While it appears Cleaver may have experienced a spraying of sorts as a result of the yelling, it does not support a conclusion that he was intentionally spat upon, as claimed.”

Looks to me like that dude was yelling at him and maybe a drop of spittle flew at him.

A spraying of sorts? Sure sounds like doubt to me!

Maybe we should consult Kramer and Newman Nice game, pretty boy!

Automatic_Wing said...

Why would the Congressmen lie?

Why? To get some public sympathy for their side of the health care debate and smear their political opponents as racists. That, and force of habit.

Beta Conservative said...

I wish I were amazed at the extensive coverage this nonsense is getting from an uber friendly media ready to smear the opposition to President Jesus.

Last two election cycles the vandalism done to Republican offices recieved scant coverage. The slashing of tires in Milwaukee was just a prank. And conservatives needing guard dogs and body guards to speak on campus is all just taken in stride as the way things are.

Apparently conservatives deserve it. Bush was constantly compared to Hitler and no one cared. I don't like the dopes who bring the Obama-Hitler signs to Tea Parties, but they sure do get noticed in the press. Eight years of non-stop vileness and suddenly we are offended that our President and his party are getting a little of their own.

Jane said...

I am feeling greatly upset by this, but I know I shouldn't. It's just that in the next few frames I see some people walking by that I know personally, and they are good and decent people.

I've been posting the link to the video at as many news sites reporting on the "spitting" incident as I can. If you all want to do the same it might help. I want retractions from every news organization.

This is what I write:

There was no spitting. Look at 1:20 in the tape. The Congressman was walking close to this man's mouth as he was shouting along with the others. I would like a retraction and an apology to these, our fellow citizens.

Peter V. Bella said...

This was all preplanned by the Congress critters. They purposely marched through the crowd so they could claim racist remarks and spitting. In such a loud and raucous environment, who could prove or disprove it. It was the perfect propaganda lie piece.

The same way Pelosi's march with the big gavel was. It was all so, hmmm, Nazi like. Remember those films from the Third Reich? That is what this all reminded me of.

Daniel12 said...

I remember back ages ago when a lot of us were arguing that bringing guns to health care rallies was dangerous shit.

How dare you! we were told. That was merely an expression of the right to bear arms. If anything, bringing a gun to a rally REDUCES the incidence of violence.

Only now, there are people throwing bricks all over the place, plus a gas line cutting.

What right is that an expression of? If you bring a gun to a brick throwing, does that ensure everyone's safety?

Anyone who is surprised by violent expressions from tea partiers, verbal or physical, hasn't been watching for the last six months.

Or maybe Meade's 2 minute video is all there is to see. Yeah, that sounds right.

Alex said...

These black Democrats have learned their Alinsky well.

Beta Conservative said...

Gee Daniel, there was more violence in the recent student protests over tuition increases than in all the Tea Parties combined.

The nastiest event at Tea Party took place in St. Louis when some SEIU thugs roughed up a Black conservative and used the "N" word on him.

Glad you're paying attention.

1775OGG said...

OK, now's the time to investigate that Capitol Lady Copper, the one walking right along side of Rep. Cleaver when he went past the "heckler" with the cupped hands over his mouth. Yep, she should have arrested that bad man right away, else why did Rep. Cleaver have to get another Copper to come back to arrest that heckler. Of course, the defense that Cleaver couldn't identify that mean man minutes after the incident must mean that meanie was hiding right out in plain sight.

Justice must prevail even if it means all of the Tea Partiers must be tainted by Cleaver, who's memory is very poor, at best.

Lem said...

It looks like the guy that thought he was spat on went and asked a black officer to come back with him to look for the purported spitter but he couldn't find him despite the would be spitter being right in front of him.. he didn't recognize him.. lol

Now when the 'incident' happened there was a female officer right there.. apperently she didnt see anything warranting an arrest.

Peter V. Bella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm Full of Soup said...

Playing the race card when we have a black president. I think the Dems could use some new plays in their playbpook.

Lem said...

Look at the frame at 1:26 the would be spitter has a white cap, black tshirt with a name tag, black pants, glasses and what looks like a red jacket hanging by his waist.

Then go up to frame 2:40 play and see if you can spot the guy I described above. I mean the guy didn't even move.

This is extraordinary.

Peter V. Bella said...

Beta Conservative,
You do not understand. The SEIU is goooood. They can do that. They can be racist Nazi thugs and get away with it. They paid the President six million dollars. Six million dollars buys a lot of President and a lot of protection from the Justice Department. Eric Holder will probably hire SEIU lawyers next to protect them.

SEIU are the good guys. They can do no wrong. They can not be disavowed. Even if there is video they will deny it and claim it was made in Hollywood or something.

Instead of white robed KKK Bob Byrds, we have purple shirted Andy Sterns and his SEIU. It is all for the common good, you see. You must submit.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Peter Bella said:
"This was all preplanned by the Congress critters. They purposely marched through the crowd so they could claim racist remarks and spitting."

I agree - they are fulltime race hustlers.

Lem said...

My father would say this guy was divinely protected. (maybe he was)

Mark 15:16 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Peter V. Bella said...

I do find the attacks on the homes of people disturbing. Not the protests though. This would be a good tactic. Peaceful, polite, quiet protests in front of the homes of all the people who voted for this. As often as possible. All protesters well dressed.

This would make their lives more miserable. How do you deal with nice well dressed protesters?

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

I was there on Saturday and Sunday, and heard no racial slurs or comments yelled, chanted, or whispered. One guy had a sign that said "If you hear anyone make a racial slur, back away, point, get someone to film it and put it on the internet."

I only saw a few black people there on Saturday, but saw a lot more on Sunday. I met a group from a community college in Cleveland. They said they were there for a meeting, and were supposed to be somewhere else, but came to the protest instead. They were chanting along with the rest of us. Everyone was really friendly toward each other, while yelling at Congress.

At one point, Barney Frank came out on the portico-- I never heard anything derogatory said to him, except maybe "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Barney Frank has got to go." A black woman in a bright pink jacket, whom someone said was Sheila Jackson Lee, came out and watched the crowd for several minutes. I think she might have even been talking to someone up front (although I don't see how anyone could hear anything with all the noise.) Nobody heckled her. There were thousands of immigrants just around the corner for their own protest--I didn't hear anything derogatory directed at them.

One middle aged guy (biker? mountain man?) got in the face of some leftists who were deliberately pushing through the crowd with a sheet sign. He wouldn't back off in spite several people around telling him to cool it. I called the police about that, but don't know what happened afterwards, because I lost sight of them. That is the only negative thing I saw or heard, in two days, out of thousands of people. Of course, I wasn't there every minute, and can't vouch for everyone, but It was a lot nicer crowd than you see at a typical college football game.


Kensington said...

Say, did you hear about all those violent Tea Party thugs who got violent at Ann Coulter's speech this week and caused it to be canceled?

Something needs to be done about those crazy tea baggers.

Unknown said...

wow. i'm no lawyer, but it seems awfully questionable to require the existence of a video to corroborate a story ... especially one in a rally where there are so many screaming people where what you can decipher in a recording really depends on how loud the person next to you is. and for the people who may have had videos, there is no reason to think they'd want to use it to corroborate this particular story.

and i'm not sure why doubt about the spitting story means that the story about the racial slurs are also invalid.... i personally find the spitting story to be a different level of disrespect and aggression than someone being called the N-word. Spitting at someone in this context is even more offensive... there's no reason that doubt about a more serious offense makes less offensive behavior less likely.

that being said, i can see why some people would choose not to believe the congressmen (cleaver, frank, lewis).

i take the congressmen at their word.

even this FOX article says the 'spitter' was detained, but not arrested:,2933,589776,00.html

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Call me naive but if the alleged spitter had indeed done the spitting why did he stick around?

The guy never fled the scene.. Are we saying hes a sociopath too?

garage mahal said...

Maybe this tea party person didn't really 'spit" at, or on, John Lewis. Perhaps he just couldn't control the saliva in his mouth at that particular time, and the word he was trying to say, and it all just came flying out of his mouth - and as chance would have it, landed on a body part of John Lewis.

Unknown said...

rep cleaver is the one who released the statement that someone spit on him.

Lem said...

.. but it seems awfully questionable to require the existence of a video to corroborate a story.

It does not, given the fact that there were so many people taking videos.. I think is only fare.

I would want all the videos looked at if I was accused.

bagoh20 said...

"It didn't happen."

Like that matters.

This is war, we know the enemy will lie, cheat, and steal. I suggest they do it all. I expect nothing less and we've already seen worse.

Unknown said...

but Lem, videos can be edited. privately owned incriminating videos can disappear.

bagoh20 said...

If you have ever been to a code pink protest, then you know what offensive really is. Spitting directly in my eyes would have been merciful.

garage mahal said...

yep. Same thing.

Lem said...

but Lem, videos can be edited. privately owned incriminating videos can disappear.

If someone edits a video to make something appear as if it happened when it did not then that person is a fool.. damaging his cause beyond repair.

If somebody does that they will get caught.. I'm sure of it.

Freeman Hunt said...

i take the congressmen at their word.

That would be a big mistake. And not just in the context of this incident. And not only as regards these particular Congressmen.

Unknown said...

freeman, i'm really not interested in adapting your biases, thank you very much. i'm perfectly capable of deciding who is worthy of my trust and respect.

Lem said...

I'm not a lawyer either but I seem to recall something about the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence.

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't think you should adapt them. They're great as they are.

Only a fool doesn't take a default position of skepticism on self-serving statements made by government officials.

Freeman Hunt said...

And note: That doesn't just go for Democrats.

PatCA said...

The congressmen were carrying video cameras. Why haven't they released the vid? One would think if the N word was in there, they would.

Alex said...


take the congressmen at their word.

Of course you take Democrat congressliars are their word. You're a liberal.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I've read the threads here all day over the Tea Party and I don't think even 1% of the criticism debates the the ideas the movement professes. Why is that?

It's all about: I don't like those people; they are racist, crazy, violent dangerous, stupid, spitters, fat, too white.

Really that's all you got? Aren't there edumacated people here to argue your case against them?

Alex said...

Theo - take your racism crap and shove it up your ass.

bagoh20 said...

Theo, pass it over, you bogart.

Lem said...

My deductive gut instinct tells me that if someone said the n word a lot of people heard it.. and we would have heard from at least one witness by now.

btw - I think saying the n word pales in comparison to the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Hanna said...

@Theo Boehm:

The hallmark of masterful satire is that people don't get it.

My hat's off to the Duke. You had me going until the last sentence. Fantastic.

Lem said...

For a minute there I thought I was reading Cornel West.

You had me Theo. lol

Lem said...

..such as so-called digital video and sound..

that sould have been a hint.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William said...

I have seen several videos of the crowds. The videos cannot disprove that no one there was racist. However, they clearly show that the crowds themselves were not racist.....Marie Antoinette was tried for sleeping with her seven year old son. The pity is not that the left creates the most vile lies about their opponents; the pity is that they really believe them. This was obviously, patently, clearly a crowd demonstrating against the health care bill. You have to be delusional to characterize it as a racist mob, but that's the opinion of the left. The evidence points to bigotry, but the bigotry is among those who disdain these portestors as bigots.

Lem said...

Racism, sexism, and other forms of bias, exploitation, and discrimination are thus built into the very nature of this technology. It is therefore impossible for any objective person to view the illusory results of "recording" by this means and come to a rational conclusion as to whether or not the images seen and the sound heard represent in any way "reality."

I like the idea that video recorders are designed and made so as to not turn on their masters.. as it were.


The Crack Emcee said...

So, Ann (and the rest of you) you're still talking about race shit that didn't happen?

And that's helpful to who, exactly?

Oh yea: racists who want to keep talkin' about shit that didn't happen.


Call me when y'all join the new millennium.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Ah, Lem, another connoisseur of Prof. West's writing! So nice to share an interest.

I think is poetry more than anything else.. a verbal Olympics.

jimspice said...

Proving negatives again, are we?

bagoh20 said...

Shhhhh, there's a black guy in here.

WV: "chill" That's eerie man.

Lem said...

Its very difficult to stop talking about it when the press is constantly bring it up.

There was an 'incident' at a Walmart here in NJ recently... a 16 year old was arrested after a Facebook prank. - The kid is said to have said on the PA system "all blacks leave the store".

The story was in all the papers and all the local news casts.

The MSM is obsessed with it.

Gabriel Hanna said...

I don't know how long it's been going on but there is a trend in our political discourse which I am getting sick of. It's a bit like argument tu quoque, and both sides are doing it.

They make an argument that is insincere, because their caricature of their opponent would agree with it.

Being somewhat conservative, I'll use conservatives as an example.

"Conservatives are underrepresented in academia, so shouldn't they benefit from affirmative action? After all, a disparate impact is proof of invidious discrimination."

But conservatives, by and large, don't believe that disparate impacts are proof of discrimination. They make the argument because the caricature of a liberal, which in their minds they are arguing with, would find that unanswerable.

This kind of argument is of a piece with all the snark and irony that I think is ruining our culture. A little bit of these things adds spice to our discource, but does anyone sit down and eat a bowl of pepper? Why can't people just say what they believe and argue for it sincerely?

Instead, they always have to try to catch the other side in some sort of hypocrisy.

I'm getting tired of it. It's a game for fourteen-year-olds.

Lem said...

..but does anyone sit down and eat a bowl of pepper? Why can't people just say what they believe and argue for it sincerely?

In two letters? PC speech

Snark parody is a realm liberals still have not managed to conquer.

Your safe in there.

bagoh20 said...

For better or worse, snark is the language of the blog. I agree it is terribly over-seasoned with the stuff, but I think it's because the medium lends itself to everyone who always wanted to be the snark artist with the pithy comment. You are never interrupted, unheard, or blow the delivery, which is what makes it so hard in face to face live action. We are so cool with backspace and spell check.

The Crack Emcee said...

"It's a game for fourteen-year-olds."

I was gonna say, "like talking about race", but then it hit me that most fourteen-year-olds have outgrown it already.

All that's left after that is retards.


The Crack Emcee said...


"There was an 'incident' at a Walmart here in NJ recently... a 16 year old was arrested after a Facebook prank. - The kid is said to have said on the PA system "all blacks leave the store".

The story was in all the papers and all the local news casts.

The MSM is obsessed with it."

I did a post on it. Called the whole thing stupid.

It's a novel approach, I think.

John Stodder said...

Some of the more unbelievable comments in this thread:

Why would the Congressmen lie?

The better question is, "Why would they stop now?"

But this one takes the cake:

wow. i'm no lawyer, but it seems awfully questionable to require the existence of a video to corroborate a story

Wow. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like your new rules of evidence are going to save police departments a lot time and money. A mere accusation becomes evidence, which should always be trusted? Yeah, the cops will gladly sign up for that one.

Who benefits from this allegation? Obviously, the people making it. Victimhood is very powerful in today's politics, and racial victimhood is the ultimate grievance. It is very, very important to marginalize the teaparty thing as comprised of nutjobs who, really, shouldn't even be allowed to vote. If they are rendered indistinguishable from Klansmen, the Republicans will eventually be forced to denounce them. If the Republicans denounce them, the teaparty will, the thinking goes, field a bunch of third party candidates in these races Democrats seem sure to lose. If third party challenges can take 5 or 10 percent of the vote away from the Republicans, the Democrats win most of the contested seats, and can claim a mandate for everything they've done the past 18 months.

Given the opportunity to achieve that highly favorable outcome, why wouldn't some Democrats lie? All they have to convince the media of is

1) something the media already believes to be true;
2) among hundreds of protesters screaming, the congressmember heard one of the voices distinctly say a racial or sexual epithet.

The fly in the ointment is the presence of dozens of cameras and microphones at the event. It would have to be considered strange that of all those professional and amateur video recordings, not one of them would have picked up one epithet. It does tend to undermine the allegations that nobody has found a recording where the N word or F word are actually used, or where a loogie was hurled. If the left knew such a tape existed, they would have paid a lot of money to get it. Six figures at least. The futures of scores of Democratic elected officials are at stake. I wouldn't be surprised if operatives were offering hefty rewards on the down-low to teapartiers who might have captured it. It's that important.

The more time that passes without documentary corroboration, the more likely it is that the public will disbelieve the story. And this is represents a massive lost opportunity for the Democrats, who desperately need to catch a break like this.

Lem said...

Gabriel might also be referring to the complaint launched by author Ann Coulter to Canada's Human Rights Commission.

The problem is also the short attention span attributed to most audiences.

So, a quick stunt sometimes is all the pundit has time for.

I grew up politically watching Firing Line.. they don't make those anymore.

Chennaul said...

Wow anybody up?

FOX has breaking news Senate passed a change to the Health Care Bill it has to go bak to the House.

no details.

Chennaul said...

*back* to the House

bagoh20 said...

I really don't care if some ass spit or flung a racist slur. That happens every minute of every day somewhere. And every group of more than 100 will have one. I don't judge antiwar protests by the one naked guy with a saline inflated scrotum. Maybe I should.

WV: salin. This is getting creepy.

Lem said...

I did a post on it. Called the whole thing stupid.
It's a novel approach, I think

I agree with you Crack.

Chennaul said...

Senate Will Return Health Bill to House After Provisions Were Found to Violate Budget Rules


bagoh20 said...

" The kid is said to have said on the PA system "all blacks leave the store"."

Maybe he thought the store was on fire and is a self-hating cracker. It's possible.

Lem said...

Senate Will Return Health Bill to House After Provisions Were Found to Violate Budget Rules

Well of course.. you call it violation, I'll call it rape ;)

Chennaul said...


Can we say incompetent?

And we are suppose to trust them to takes over health care insurance.

bagoh20 said...

"Senate Will Return Health Bill to House After Provisions Were Found to Violate Budget Rules"

That would be surreal if it failed this time. We know exactly who to hate and they got nothing for it. That's why it's not gonna fail this time either

Lem said...

They've had over a year to write the thing..

Chennaul said...



Lem said...

No no no.. the beautifull thing is for Stupack to have to vote on this AGAIN!


Charlie Martin said...

It's just that the racist, classist, and sexist technology failed inherently to display the more subtle and generalized realms of grievance-based true reality, instantly recognized by progressive people everywhere.

That really deserves some sort of medal.

Lem said...

What a gift for whoever is running against these guys..

Lem said...

Its like oops the root canal didn't take..

I'm going to put you in for friday.

Might have to drill deeper this time. lol

Chennaul said...


Ya, his district might explode.

Arrrgh I was just trying to find this video for you-CBS has recordings of people leaving him nasty messages -they make a big deal out of it-and while it is really nasty it is only from four people.

I think it was somewhere at

I'm off.

Lem said...

ahh, it looks like its only a couple of provisions of the bill that have problems.. sounds like its no big deal for the democrats.

Unknown said...

As the congressmen moved through the crowd the guy bringing up the rear was holding up two videocams.

If any racial epithets were hurled or spittle spat it seems he would have caught it all on video. He was right in the middle of it.

First of all, I thought it was odd that he was holding up two flip cams during the gauntlet walk -- like the walk itself was planned in advance to incite controversy or to get something damning on tape to use against the protesters.

Secondly, that nothing was released to media or posted to youtube suggests that maybe there was just no there there.

Unknown said...

But the main thing, you know, is that if someone spit or yelled the N word at a black on the Dem's planation, they would, like, just walk on by. Because that's what black people do, right, just take it.

jaed said...

Here's where I start agreeing with the likes of NewHam (shudder). The time and energy being spent on defending against this accusation boggles my mind. "Are the tea parties raaaaaacist? But no one said such a thing! There's video! Is there more video? There's higher-resolution video!" It's all argument about whether members of this movement are raaacists. It all moves the debate in that direction. It is all useless (to us) and very useful to the opposition. It's a distraction and it furthers the smear.

Is the question "is dissent against Obama's domestic political agenda racist?" even rationally debatable? Does that accusation even deserve a response?

If some tool or moby actually *had* yelled such a thing, would it make tea parties racist? It would not. (How long do you think it will be before the aforesaid moby is deployed at a protest, complete with a nearby confederate with a video camera? What will the defensive strategy get you then?)

No. In this kind of situation, going on the defensive is a serious mistake. Never mind proving that no one yelled racial epithets at a Congresscritter. Shift the question. "Why was a congressman provoking the crowd? What business do members of Congress have trying to suppress dissent? Why are *you* trying to suppress dissent, Mister Media Man? Huh? Huh? The question is, why are you trying to suppress dissent by spreading obviously false smears about the dissenters?"

Don't let them get away with not answering that question. Bring that question front and center, every time. Never mind defending against the manufactured smear; that's unimportant. What's important is, why are the media cooperating with the powerful people trying to smear American dissenters? Keep pounding it and that will become the story. Keep whining defensively about how tea partiers didn't yell [word Althouse doesn't want here deleted], and *that* will be the story.

Example: the WaPo is carrying a column by someone who says he wants to knock their [our, that is] teeth out. A completely understandable reaction is to reach out to this reporter, to explain that we're not racists, we're not the enemy, show links to the videos, and so on.

That's the wrong reaction politically. The right reaction is to, as the President says, hit back twice as hard. (Rhetorically, not physically.) Why is this powerful media personality promoting violence against protesters? Why did the Post print such a thing? If someone attacks the protesters at a future rally, won't the columnist Milloy and the Post both be to blame for creating an atmosphere of hate and violence? Why, Mr. Milloy, are you spouting hate and violence against dissenters?

You get the idea.

Anonymous said...

Pretty soon congressmen will have to have the same protection as Ann Coulter just to walk around.

What a shame.

Alcee Hastings, Charles Rangel, John Conyers lie? Not these men of unimpeachable character.

Anonymous said...

Why would the Congressmen lie?

Force of habit.

Anonymous said...

it seems awfully questionable to require the existence of a video to corroborate a story ... especially one in a rally where there are so many screaming people where what you can decipher in a recording really depends on how loud the person next to you is.

Isn't this frightfully difficult feat of decipherment exactly what the Congressmen are claiming to have accomplished-- in real time, no less?

damikesc said...

As I was saying when this "story" broke, there is an amazing lack of proof of anything. Now that the narrative has come out, though, they got hit their goal.

Lynne said...

This kind of argument is of a piece with all the snark and irony that I think is ruining our culture. A little bit of these things adds spice to our discource, but does anyone sit down and eat a bowl of pepper? Why can't people just say what they believe and argue for it sincerely?

Instead, they always have to try to catch the other side in some sort of hypocrisy.

I'm getting tired of it. It's a game for fourteen-year-olds.

I would like to nominate Gabriel Hanna for president of something really important...

I agree with this completely. And I think it appears all over the Internet because snark sells. It gets eyeballs. Trying to blog without it can be a lonely existence.
But hey, I think it's worth it!

AllenS said...

There are two sets of rules for people. Blacks have to be treated differently from everyone else. It's been like that for a long time. My suggestion for the Tea Party is to avoid black politicians. If black Tea Party members criticize black politicians, the worse that can happen would be for them to be called Uncle Toms. When blacks accuse you of being a racist, there's nothing you can do about it. Video tape evidence won't work. Nobody in the MSM will watch the video. They're afraid of being called a racist if they point out that the bad words were not spoken. There are two Americas. Chose your friends carefully.

master cylinder said...

Doubt cast by Instapundit?
Try again.

A.W. said...


dang straight. the burden of proof is on the accusers.

And I would say this about all of their story "if the protester didn't spit, you must acquit."

The charge of shouting epithets were in the same breath as the charge of spitting. so proving them to be liars on one count, proves them to be liars on the other, too.

AllenS said...

When someone says: "when did you stop beating your wife?" It's easy to point out how ridiculous the question/accusation is, but when someone says: "you're a racist" it suddenly becomes impossible to prove otherwise. That's the way it is.

Michael said...

I love the comment about the blacks on the Dem's plantation. It doesn't occur to anyone on the left, especially the MSM, that a black congressman called the N word would not bother to acknowledge it, not bother to walk into the crowd and "call out" the offenders? It is appalling the lack of regard they give to their house negroes.

The media and the left believe with all their hearts that the vote for health care was equivalent to some courageous vote for racial equality cast in the middle of a throng of spitting and slobbering racists in a black and white photo from 1962.

Troy said...

I think some Tea Parties were ticked that the Dems were not more niggardly towards special interests in the health bill. Whoops!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Why would the Congressmen lie?

Just when I think there could not be more breathtakingly stupid question to be made, FLS never fails to dissapoint.

RebeccaH said...

Come on, November!

Jane said...

Next time, they should turn their backs, or better yet, bow and scrape to their betters. Peasants should be careful not to emit any saliva or sounds. If one of them accidentally farts in the Congressman's general direction, hopefully that's not yet against the law . . .

Anonymous said...

This was all preplanned by the Congress critters.


They never had to walk through that crowd except by their own choice.

They were trying to lay track for the ages to inflate their legacy.

Unknown said...

So Ann thinks it is perfectly ok to call Barney Frank a "faggot".

Not surprising.

And look who she uses as the source of her story - Dan Riehl - who had a gay brother that died of AIDS - and Dan refused to go to his brother's funeral, because he thought his brother was a "faggot" that deserved to die.

Typical tea party homophobia.

jeffmacguy said...

You can be sure next time there are any conservative/libertarian protests, there will be racist remarks heard loudly and clearly.

It's the Alinsky way.

JeanneB said...

When Dems get in trouble with voters, they resort to their standard playbook:

1) Play the race card
2) Claim death threats

The compliant media then splashes the (unproved) allegations all over their front pages for days on end, magnifying every unverified incident.

Then they run a poll:
"Do you think tea partiers are racist?".
Do you approve of their violent tactics?".

Of course, the answers were pre-fed to respondents by the media reports.

When is the GOP going to figure out they need to pre-empt these tactics?

DADvocate said...

Why would the Congressmen lie?

fls - Winner for dumbest queston of the day!

Unknown said...

Barney Frank being called a faggot was even caught on tape:

But Ann is ok with this I guess. Nice.

george said...

The left has always tried to provoke their opponents. It is part of their plan to try to get people mad enough to resort to violence and name calling.

It is exactly the same as how slave holders used the fact that their slaves were angry as justification for keeping them in chains. Here the left binds us hand and foot with whatever stupidity they can conceive --- all the while committing serial outrages to common decency and then if anyone becomes rightfully angry about it they use that as evidence that they were right to smear their opponents and to oppress them.

These guys have been playing this game forever but no one outside the unsophisticated rubes in the media takes them seriously.

DADvocate said...

who had a gay brother that died of AIDS

I have a gay brother that died of AIDS (Jan. 20, 1987). I spent hours at his bedside and in the waiting room during his last two weeks of life. I watched his left arm turn black from the side effects of the anti-biotics. I kissed his forehead after his death. To this day I wish I had been there holding his hand at the moment of his death.

You, sir, are the lowest of scum to insinuate that Tea Partiers don't love their brothers, no matter what they're state in life, because of the supposed actions of one person.

Brad said...

They refer to systems of privilege that “normalize” a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

This is some of the most f#$%ing stupidest s^#t I have ever heard.

So, conceivably, you could be a racist by proxy, by associating with a group, none of whose constituent members ever commits a single egregious racist act.

Our mindthoughts are, like, totally vibrationally ungroovy, man, and harshing, like, the collective mellow. Ya dig?


Here's a nickel and a dime, buy a f&#^ing clue.

richard mcenroe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff Cupp said...

What I find interesting in this conversation is the apparent belief by some people that the "n-word" is bad while "teabagger" is acceptable.

richard mcenroe said...

Considering all the phony death threats, self-vandalized cars, self-hung nooses, etc.,we've had out of lefties over the last couple of years, why should we believe a damn thing they say?

Word verification: sitinses... politically actibe hobbits?

richard mcenroe said...

"What I find interesting in this conversation is the apparent belief by some people that the "n-word" is bad while "teabagger" is acceptable."

It's not acceptable. It's FAAAAABULOUS! Why do you think CNN reporters keep showing up at these things?

richard mcenroe said...

"Barney Frank being called a faggot was even caught on tape:

But Ann is ok with this I guess..."

Barney seems to be. Or is running a gay prostitution ring out of your apartment an ennobling moment in gay empowerment?

PunditJoe said...

This is a perfect example of why I think as many people as possible should record the events they attend. Nice and inexpensive high definition cameras are now available that have sufficient storage capacity to record events start to finish. Example: Kodak's Zi8 is 1080p capable and is small enough to fit in your pocket.

A good video record will help combat the lies and also expose the press for the slack job they do in reporting on the Tea Party. Also, if some jerk face does come along to make trouble, having a video record of you and others confronting them can’t hurt.

Heck, at the very least, it is sorta neat to have the data for the historical record. :)

richard mcenroe said...

And how dare you folks criticize ANY member of the Congressional Black Caucus! They are the only part of the Democratic Party with any convictions at all... and the rap sheets to prove it.

Noah Boddie said...

>Why would the Congressmen lie?

Because his mouth had to move.

PunditJoe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PunditJoe said...

Hmmm, Richard McEnroe’s comment at 9:53am got me to thinking. Maybe folks could record video of news crews from the time they arrive until they leave. Heh heh. In today’s world, the press itself is often as much part of the story as the original event. Someone needs to watch the watchers.

Fen said...

Theo: No, any failure to observe the use of the "n-word" or other overt, blatant acts of racism and sexism on these so-called "videos" does not mean that they did not happen.

Theo, you routinely pimp your pedophilia on this blog. Just because I cant find those posts doesn't mean that you did not write them...

From Inwood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
From Inwood said...

Prof A

You people are missing the vital point: the MSM has "deemed" that Tea Party people spat & said the "n" word.

Theo B

A masterpiece! Worthy of Dean Swift!

The neo-McCarthyites live. Even Joe McCarthy himself would hesitate to deem this alleged racial stuff.

AW: if the protester didn't spit, you must acquit. Bingo!

Anonymous said...

Possibly you can ask Katrina Pieterson about whether the Tea Parties are full of racists; she is a key leader of the Dallas Tea Party (and an American of African descent). Or the three members of our North Texas Tea Party Steering committee, who are Americans of Hispanic descent. Or the American of Asian descent candidate many of us support for City Council, or the American of African descent we supported successfully as GOP Chairman locally.

Note I no longer hyphenate people. My wife- American of Asian descent, or my 'daughter' (in all but blood)- who is Ugandan through and though (properly proudly so)- understand that.

algie said...

Like a skunk when frightened or
Or rat cornered with its fangs bared
Dems play the race card
And they play it hard
In the hope their sins will be spared

Illegitimi nOn carborundum

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jimspice said...

"I spent hours at his bedside and in the waiting room during his last two weeks of life. I watched his left arm turn black from the side effects of the anti-biotics. I kissed his forehead after his death"

Do you have it on video? If not, it didn't happen. At least that's what the reasoning behind this post and it's comments would suggest.

Of course I'm being facetious, and mean no ill will toward you and the memory of your brother, but your side must recognize vitriol being heaved into the marketplace of ideas is a real turnoff to about 90% of the public.

...because of the supposed actions of one person.

You ignore the numbers to the detriment of your argument.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Ghost said...

Why would Congressmen lie ?

Gee, I seem to remember Pelosi claiming the CIA never briefed her on waterboarding. When the CIA said yes we did she called them liars. Then the CIA showed the documentation about the briefing she decided to refuse to answer any more questions about it.

I don't have to "know why they lied" I just have to show they lie which Pelosi obviously has done in the past. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE ... liar ...

so coming from a race baiter like Lewis I want addition proof other than his word.

given that the N word is in common use in my old neighborhood (Harlem) I would easily believe that Lewis could be called that in Harlem if he was doing something unpopular with African Americans.

A.W. said...

> Why would the Congressmen lie?

I don't know, maybe so idiots like you could use that to claim all the tea partiers are racists.

I mean you are supplying the benefit that they would be logically seeking.

But even if these were regular folks, and not politicians, the burden of proof is on them.

From Inwood said...

VDH today

... between 2001 and 2008, the “progressive” community redefined what is acceptable and not acceptable in political and public discourse about their elected officials. Slurs like “Nazi” and “fascist” and ...were elevated to high-society novels, films, political journalism, and vein-bulging outbursts of our elites. If one were to take the word "Bush" and replace it with "Obama" in the work of a Nicholson Baker, or director Gabriel Range, or Garrison Keillor or Jonathan Chait, or in the rhetoic of a Gore or Moore, we would be presently in a national crisis, witnessing summits on the epidemic of "hate speech."


A modest suggestion: If the liberal community wishes to be more credible ... “Please, let us avoid extremism and do not fall into the same trap as Baker, Chait, Keillor, Gore, Moore, or Range when they either expressed open hatred toward their president, or speculated about the assassination of their president, or compared their president to a fascist...."

From Inwood said...

Theo B

You're welcome.

Off to lunch. Story about the Irish Americans in Queens & Viet Nam Bombing to follow.

Carmichael said...

I have a question for those who have participated in Tea Party protests or rallys. (I have and will) Why do you tolerate being called 'teabaggers'? How is this less offensive than a black individual being called ('n word not used as I am more sensitive than most on the left)? Is there any question that this word was chosen and is being used precisely because it is offensive and conjures images that are disgusting and therefore derogatory? The intent is to marginalize those being refered to is it not?
Be sure that this Texan will once warn some one refering to him by this hateful and derogatory epitath with a warning and then precisely as if a black individual had been called n!663r.

Anonymous said...

To leftists, a thing does not have to be true in order for you to claim it so. It is sufficient that one merely *wish* it was true.

Confirm the meaning of "is" for further corroboration.

scottreynolds said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

Late to the party here, but I must say I'm starting to worry about you, Theo. You've mastered the multi-culti, post-colonial, deconstructionist PC academic argot ALL TOO WELL.. :)

Anonymous said...

When will you folks get a clue?

It doesn't matter what we do. If we don't do things they accuse us of doing, they will lie. If you "prove" a racist epithet wasn't said, next time they will plant an agent provocatuer in our midst to say something untoward, with a fellow conspirator there to tape the proof.

Don't you remember when Nancy Pelosi said we were carrying swasitika signs, and up to that point no one had seen one, and then the VERY NEXT TIME, there's swasitikas all over the place.

It doesn't matter what you do or what proof you have. They will lie and they will create anything they want to use against us.

As someone up the thread said, the only way to fight this crap is to start asking the other side, "Why are you trying to stir things up? Why are you treating your fellow Americans -- who simply hold a different opinion from yours -- as enemies?

I fear, however, that even calling them on this crap won't stop them from using the ploy, since it's so effective.

At some point the British are going to decide to use lethal force against the tea partiers.

Dag said...

Theo, loved your comment. It's true, and I have it on video to prove it, for what that's worth anymore.

Dag said...

Theo, I wonder if you're from Vancouver, Canada. Imagine my surprise when I turned just now to this:

Ann Coulter and free speech? Hardly

By OZlem Sensoy, Special to the SunMarch 25, 2010

On Tuesday, a speech by controversial American Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of fears there might be physical violence.

One of the arguments I've heard over and over about the cancellation is the "free speech" argument: Coulter has the right to say whatever she wants. This, her supporters argue, is what free speech means and what Coulter is being denied.

What people who launch the charge of "free speech" (and other charges such as "anti-democratic", "censorship" and "lighten up, it's just entertainment") fail to acknowledge and understand is the social concept of power.

Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism and anti-semitism are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator might have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (expressions of prejudices like Coulter's). They refer to systems of privilege that "normalize" a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

That is why Coulter's speech is not just "free" (i. e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of her speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.

That is why scholars of race relations and critical feminists would argue that so-called reverse-racism or reverse-sexism do not exist. Because of this difference, individual speech acts have different consequences in the social world.

A useful example is that of the electoral franchise for (white) women in North America. While women had to agitate for the right to vote and could certainly be angry with men during that period and perhaps even launch angry and hateful speech at men, women could not grant themselves the right to vote. Only men could grant suffrage because only men held the institutional positions to do so. Hence, while both groups could be prejudiced against the other, only men's prejudice against women was backed by institutional power, creating a significant difference in the impact.

Ozlem Sensoy is assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University.

Dag said...


The "isms" words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

From this framework, we can see how free speech is a slippery problem. Ironically, it seems to surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing, challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter's "speech" upheld).

In a parallel way, while "left wing" voices might not receive the kind of caution that Coulter did from Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, to be aware of Canada's hate speech laws, it doesn't matter: The effect of Coulter's speech is not the same as the effect of marginalized speech.

So is "reverse" free speech at issue here? Is Coulter the victim of censorship? Are all expressions defensible as free speech?

If freedom of speech means anyone can say or print whatever they want, why was James Frey famously fried for embellishing about his own life in his Oprah's Book Club selection? Why was the issue there "lying" and not "freedom of speech?"

Not long ago, I remember a lot of hullabaloo in the news about some unkind TV ads about Stephane Dion and puffin poop. I don't remember that incident framed as an issue of free speech. Those were rightly characterized as "attack" ads. No one I heard dared defend the Conservative party's right to free speech.

There is also a type of context-appropriate speech. For example, the morning baby-talk I know many of you use when chatting with your kitty-witty or puppy-wuppy would probably be inappropriate at a job interview or with friends at the pub.

The point is, we live with these types of speech limitations every day, limitations governed by social norms. When the "free speech" card is played (by those whose speech aligns with power structures, like Coulter), it is a defensive response to their perspectives and power being challenged. The "free speech" discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster "free speech" in the West.

Whether it's humorous "jokes" about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or "real" remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can't just say whatever the hell you want.

University of Ottawa students embody the spirit of student activism. Thank you, students.

Big Mike said...

Why would the Congressmen lie?

Because they're Democrats, and mendacity is as natural to them as breathing?

Because they assumed that the tea partiers were racists because they stupidly believed their own propaganda, so they were going to assert that a racial epithet was yelled at them whether one was or not?

Because the whole thing was part of an orchestrated "Big Lie" campaign and you're one of their foot soldiers in the Big Lie?

Is that enough for now, FLS?

Brad said...

Yep, just reread it, Theo. I'm still not sure if it is satire or not - there are people that do put forward those types of arguments.

But, mmmmmm, Irish stew a la baby. It is about lunch time, after all. :)

Dag said...

Brad, it's a re-write of the piece I posted directly bove.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I had a brother who died of AIDS,..."

Now was that your brother or "a brother"?

I need to know, because this is Althouse, and that distinction makes all the difference:

If he's your brother, no big deal. Ann's son is gay and, despite the fact he makes some stupid fucking pronouncements (and as Glenn Reynolds has said about law professors doing the same) there's nothing wrong with that and nobody has to worry about penalties.

But, if he's "a brother", then GOD DAMMIT LET'S STIR THE POT!:






And finally:


Now, we might be able to agree that none of these questions are really important, but THE COLOR OF THE DISCUSSION certainly is - and IT'S DARK, BABY!!!! BLACK AS FUCKING NIGHT.

I'm actually more of a brownish hue, but never mind, you get the idea,...

Sofa King said...

If the race baiters find that nobody is taking the bait anymore, then what do they have left?

That won't happen. They are truly master baiters.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dag said...

I think it was very clever, Theo, and I'm glad you posted it. True, many commentators are "thick," but such is the price one pays for the demos having as much right to speak as the olĂ­gos. A small price, I think, to pay for the chance to read something humorous.

Caroline said...

Why do you tolerate being called 'teabaggers'?

I won't speak for everyone, but for me, calling people names disparages the user of the word(s) more than the recipient.

In addition, the intent of the name-caller is to upset their "victim". Why allow them to make you a victim? Why give them that power over you?

I'm with Crack MC here. This whole thing is stupid. It would be funny if it wasn't so invidious.

Alex said...

In addition, the intent of the name-caller is to upset their "victim". Why allow them to make you a victim? Why give them that power over you?

Except they are victimizing us. To claim otherwise is to be in utter denial. Just look what happened over the weekend.

Charlie said...

And here's the message liberals send to a black man with no better sense than to participate in a Tea Party.

Freeman Hunt said...

If you're asking why they would lie, I feel it my duty to let you know that Santa Claus does not exist. Big downer, I know. My most insincere apologies to you.

Carmichael said...

Just Lurking,
Why don't we just tell the Black community as much?
Yah, that'll work.

My point (other than being righteously offended) is that we allow others to frame the entire issue to suit their purposes.
The question remains, why is one utterly unforgivable and the other acceptable?
Perhaps we should delude ourselves about the superiority of the high road while we watch the left destroy our country.
Of course, I thought Lenny Bruce probably had it right.

Caroline said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caroline said...

Except they are victimizing us.

Are you being serious? I ask because with you one never knows.

I don't agree that being called a name makes a person a victim. If the administration starts to deny me the right to protest, then I may be a victim.

I decry the attempts to slander the opposition, but I don't specifically care what silly names they use to do it. If I do get angry, it is at what they are trying to do with the name-calling game. I don't get angry at being called a name.

Terrye said...

I think the Democrats routinely make stuff up so that they can demonize the opposition. And of course there are people like HT who are more than happy to play along.

For instance, the story about the Congressman getting his gas lines cut...well Cantor's office got shot at...just like Bush Cheney campaign offices got shot at in 2004. The hypocricy never ends with these people.

They have no problem blaming a huge movement of people for the actions of a few, but they refuse to ever assume any responsibility themselves. They are always the victims.

Terrye said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

No no no.. the beautifull thing is for Stupack to have to vote on this AGAIN!

That was my first thought too.

Wouldn't it be something if he just changed his mind because he realized that Obama had tricked him with a meaningless and unenforcable Executive Order?

Wouldn't that just be the cherry on top if Stupak changed his mind and voted NO after all? can hope anyway.

MikeR said...
Breitbart challenges John Lewis

Blue@9 said...

Well, you shouldn't let spittle fly when you're launching into a polemic--it's very distracting and gross.

Revenant said...

The idea of someone in the crowd yelling that word is easy to believe. Obviously if you get a crowd of tens of thousands of people, some of them are going to hate black people. A crowd of tens of thousands of black people will contain at least a few folks who hate black people. :)

But the idea that there was a chant? That isn't a credible claim.

Revenant said...

Except they are victimizing us. To claim otherwise is to be in utter denial.

I don't see the victimization. The accusations that the Tea Party movement is racist aren't credible enough for me to consider them damaging to participants' reputations. Plus, in all honesty the "racism!" card is played out. Any white American under the age of fifty has been hearing the "waaah, racism" bleat his entire adult life. It's old even on the rare occasions when it doesn't turn out to be bullshit.

Greg said...

Looks like he got gleeked on. Bummer.

Morgan said...

1775OGG said...

Great video, eh? What the video shows is that Cleaver seemed agitated by the white guy in the dark shirt and light ballcap. There was a woman officer standing right with Cleaver and she did nothing to the guy shouting at Cleaver, et al. Spitting is an assault and she would have either arrested a spitter or called for reinforcements. So, this video, which is not new except to Puffing Pee, demonstrates that Cleaver can't remember stuff since he goes back to that same spot with a different officer and doesn't recognize the so-called spitter standing in just about the same spot as when the incident supposedly happened.

Also, do you notice that some of the people doing the Congresspeople walk through the crowd were carrying what looked like video cameras? Why aren't those being shown? Is it reasonable to suppose that racial name calling and spitting would have been highlighted if those video cameras had captured them? Is it also reasonable to presume that since none of those "terrible" incidents were captured on video that either they didn't happen or that those such acts were few and very far between?

Come on, guy. Either put up or shut up. Crying "wolf" is one thing, lying about phony incidents is another. Too damn bad we can't charge you for those lies, that the only thing we can do is tell you to go home to Mommy and have her wipe your nose.

Morgan said...

It's a bit like the Catholic priest scandal, with Ann Althouse and others representing the Pope. I'll present the stories in parallel.

Everyone is so afraid to admit that there are some loonies amongst the Tea Party crowd, so they just deny deny deny, even with video evidence. The denying makes them look even more out of touch and extreme. If they just admitted there were some loonies and tried to build accountability into their party, they would be more successful and less marginalized.

Everyone is so afraid to admit that there are some pedophiles amongst the priestly crowd, so they just deny deny deny, even with copious evidence. The denying makes them look even more out of touch and extreme. If they just admitted there were some perverts and tried to build accountability into their religious hierarchy, they would be more successful and less marginalized.

1775OGG said...

"M": There's been no evidence and you should know the Puffington Pee posting video shows nothing except that Cleaver is a poor actor and that the Capitol Police saw nothing chargeable on those steps.

You're just another tool crying wolf to Anderson Cooper.

Lttle "man," go home and change your panties.