Soon after each act of civic violence in the US of A left-wing politicians and commentators throw out suggestions that the perps might have links to Tea Party groups, “white-supremacists,” rural folks “clinging to their guns and religion” (Obama’s view), or other politically conservative people.
Actually, with rare exceptions, the usual suspects turn out to be violent lunatics, radicalized Muslims, environmental activists, union thugs, “Occupy” anarchists and young urban black-nationalists—protected and promoted classes by leftists.
Undeterred by the facts, the liberal-left political class ramps up its campaigns to ban guns, shut down speech by conservative voices, muffle exposing the real causes of violence, and, more recently, justify wasteful federal government spending and increase taxes.
Two articles from National Review illustrate how groups from the above “usual suspects” list contribute to uncontrolled civic lawlessness and gangster murders, aided by liberal mayors in major cities.
“Self-Occupied Oakland,” an NR article by Patrick Brennan (www.nationalreview.com; March 5, 2012) chronicles how Oakland, California’s political class tolerates “anarchy and violence.” In late January 2012 “hundreds of Occupy protesters raged through the streets” resulting in several injured police officers, 400 arrests and property damage ($5 million in one weekend). Distracted police couldn’t respond to hundreds of 9-1-1 calls. One person was murdered in an Occupy camp. Protesters broke into and vandalized City Hall and a YMCA. They burglarized downtown businesses, shut down the Port of Oakland and burned the American flag—all this excused because “we don’t believe in laws that restrict free expression.”
The pathetic response to this lawlessness by Mayor Jean Quan (“a career liberal activist”) was to call for “dialogue.” Talk is all most liberals will do about social problems—in addition to passing useless laws that won’t prevent them.
I’m reminded of a contrast between the Occupy gangs and Tea Party groups: when peaceful rallies in Washington, D. C. by thousands ended with no violence (despite some provocations), or property damage, and clean grounds at the National Mall—adding more evidence that liberal activist groups engage fascist tactics to promote their causes while their supporters spread the myth that the “right” is an agitating force. Oakland has other problems with violent people.
Oakland, Calif. is home to the Black Panther Party and its founder, convicted murderer Huey Newton. During the Occupiers’ rallies, members of the Black Riders Liberation Party called for “militarization of the people.” Occupiers’ demands were similar to the Black Panthers’ “ten-point plan.” Black Panthers defend “political prisoners”—most of them “violent criminals” with Muslim names. Also, the civil disturbance in Oakland included an “American Marxist militant group” (funded by the former Soviet KGB) called the Black Liberation Army.
Then there’s another “very liberal place”: Chicago where more than 500 murders happen every year. Fueled by the city’s history of mobster control, “the nascent black-liberation ethic,” and the profitable cocaine and heroin trade it is now occupied by “thousands of gang factions,” according to a NR article by Kevin D. Williamson (www.nationalreview.com; Feb. 25, 2013) titled “Gangsterville.”
Mr. Williamson’s city guide described the South Side as “just like Afghanistan.” Martin Luther King Drive is “a hideous dog show of squalor and dysfunction.” They lock the car doors and don’t dare stop.
What is President Obama’s fellow Chicagoan, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, doing about this? Not much. Williamson writes that Your Honor “fecklessly” reshuffles the police department’s organizational chart and makes “noises” about “gun control.” He blames his Chicago “war zone” on guns coming from the State of Indiana. Williamson notes that there is no similar gangster chaos in nearby Muncie, apparently with more guns than in Chicago.
Liberals, faced with promoting unworkable social and economic policies, ignore the root causes of their presumed concerns, try to divert public attention to irrelevant issues and deceive us with costly, unworkable laws and regulations. Much of the smoke-and-mirrors used in “social justice” agenda attempts to hide from view and protect the truly violent people who threaten us.