Options
The Angry Left Joins Talk Radio
· Thursday, March 11, 2010
WASHINGTON -- There has been yet another eruption of violence from what our liberal friends a year or so ago were wont to call the "Angry Left." However, if you read The Washington Post, you might think this recent outburst of violence came from talk radio.
The angry leftist behind the violence was John Patrick Bedell, 36, who, on the evening of March 4, walked up to an entrance of the Pentagon; pulled a gun on two Pentagon guards, Jeffrey Amos and Marvin Carraway; and was shot dead. Both guards were wounded.
In the aftermath of this attack, it was reported that Bedell was a pot-smoking intellectualoid from California who left word on the Internet that according to his findings, a "coup regime" took over Washington at the time of President John F. Kennedy's assassination and has governed the country "up to the present day." What is more, the "coup regime," according to Bedell, was complicit in 9/11. This judgment might strike you as extreme, but apparently it is not, at least not on the left. You will recall that President Barack Obama's recently resigned environmental czar, Van Jones, signed a petition to this effect before being invited into the administration.
In the Post's report on Bedell's assault headlined "Pentagon shooter's erratic journey," a high-school classmate recalled, "I remember (Bedell) being a sweet-natured, funny peacenik." Another acquaintance reported to the Post that Bedell was a heavy marijuana user, and elsewhere one of Bedell's brothers reported that he was a perpetual student who, as far as the brother knew, never held a job while bouncing from campus to campus and developing his esoteric theories. All in all, this glassy-eyed ideologue was surely a man of the left -- the infantile left, to be sure, but the left.
Nonetheless, in the Post's companion piece analyzing Bedell's assault and appearing on Page One under the headline "The disaffected lashing out at symbols of power," Post reporters wrote of "Bedell's rampage as a distorted manifestation of the anti-Washington view that has driven the rise of right-wing militias." Yes, they said "right-wing militias." Then, just a few paragraphs away from the Post's report of Bedell's being a pothead and a "sweet-natured, funny peacenik," the Post's analytical piece gibbered on about "militias and hate groups" that "are interlinked to a much greater degree by the Web and mainstream radio and TV talk shows that echo many of the same viewpoints." So if Post readers think Rush Limbaugh had a hand in the recent assault on the Pentagon, they can be forgiven.
Now, I actually listen to talk radio from time to time, and I cannot recall ever hearing one of the conservative talk hosts "echo(ing) many of the same viewpoints" of the wretched Bedell or any other member of the Angry Left. For that matter, I cannot imagine any member of the Angry Left finding himself in accord with conservative talk radio. How does one explain the Post's analysis, which is contradicted so starkly by the Post's news report? Does anyone edit the newspaper today?
My explanation is that some journalists are actually very pious people. They have a deep faith in their heroes, and the Angry Left remains revered in these journalists' trusting minds. They see a California pothead who shares Van Jones' suspicion that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11 attempt to gun down Pentagon guards, and they want to change the subject. They change the topic to "right-wing militias." Unsatisfied with that act of legerdemain, they bring in talk radio and TV talk shows. It all has happened before.
On Nov. 22, 1963, an American communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, who admired the Cuban Revolution, gunned down JFK in Dallas, and the same kind of pious journalists caught gibbering in the Post the other day fastened the nation's attention not on left-wing violence, but on right-wing critics of Kennedy living otherwise-peaceful lives in Dallas. The violent potential of militant leftists never was pondered, though America was about to enter into a decade of protest that witnessed leftists burning down university buildings, bombing ROTC facilities and otherwise committing acts of violence on behalf of peace and a better world.
Thus, John Patrick Bedell, a lifelong member of the Angry Left, gets himself killed while assaulting the Pentagon, and the pious journalists at The Washington Post lump the poor guy in with right-wing militias. It is shoddy journalism. Much worse, it is a shocking act of disrespect for the dead.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Author Dr. Bill Bennett: "The Patriot is leading the charge in the battle to restore America's values -- a vital ally on the front...." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Arnold Ahlert: CPAC Braces for Union & Occupier Chaos
- Michael Reagan: A Little More Heat
- George Will: GOP's Murky Rhetoric on National Defense
- Larry Elder: Aren't Republicans Supposed to Be Colorblind?
- Thomas Sowell: The Anti-Romney Vote
- Ann Coulter: Plutocrat Dems Attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'
- Burt Prelutsky: Was Idi Amin Smarter Than Martha Stewart?
- L. Brent Bozell: The Secular Media vs. Religious Liberty
- R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Delousing of a Movement
- Jonah Goldberg: Liberals are the True Aggressors in Culture Wars
- Cal Thomas: Fudging the Numbers
- Michael Barone: GOP Must Convince Young People It's the Party of Options
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!






















Marcus
Those "journalists" aren't pious. they are quite simply, stupid.
I would imagine that anyone who assumes the things about President Bush that the angry left does is probably still mad at Daddy.
these people can't help themselves because they are still teenagers emotionally and intellectually.
Posted March 11, 2010 at 2:21:51 PM
MichaelSSEC
The Left has a long and inglorious history of severing themselves from the failures of their own views, shifting responsibility for those views to the Right, and walking away cleanly to repackage the same failed views as "new" under a different name.
All through the 20s and 30s the American Left -- known as Progressives in those days -- embraced social Darwinism, eugenics, every form of Socialism from Communism to Fascism, and other horrific policies. They urged Americans to emulate the Fascistic successes in Italy and Germany. Mussolini made the trains run on time. "I have seen the future and it works!"
After WWII and the Nazi horrors, Progressives scrambled to dissociate themselves from all that bad press. First they renamed themselves "liberals," jettisoned the Progressive label, embarked on a propaganda campaign to paint Fascism as "Right-wing," and embraced Communism instead. All through the 50s and 60s, Communism was the darling of the American Left.
Of course, they were not the least bit liberal in the classical sense. The Founders would have spun in their graves to see the welfare state, pacifism, anti-Americanism, Statism, national health care, enviro-fascism and other Left-wing lunacies falsely paraded as "liberal." Today, we use the capitalized "Liberal" to differentiate between the modern Leftist and the classical liberal.
Since the Left owns academia from preschool to post-graduate level, it's a simple trick to propagandize that Oswald was just a crazy, or a Right-wing killer -- when in fact he was a committed Communist who killed JFK because the President's anti-Communist record angered him. It's a simple matter to paint Vietnam as a huge mistake, when in fact we had the war won militarily when the Left pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory -- and Vietnam fell to the Commies, touching years of refugees and mass murder. It's no trick to pretend that Reagan played no role in ending the Cold War, while crediting Gorbachev for the whole thing -- despite his own admissions in his autobiography. It's not hard to revise history so that Japan was justified in bombing Pearl Harbor, that we provoked that country, that our use of the atom bomb was unnecessary and evil, and that we were actually the aggressors in WWII.
And the Left owns the media, so it's not hard to paint Leftist killers as Right-wingers even when all evidence proves that's a lie.
But the wheels are coming off the Leftist wagon, thanks in large part to a little invention called the Internet. With it, we routinely counter Leftist lies and revisionism, replacing them with the truth. Now they're so desperate (and arrogant) that they don't even try to make their lies plausible anymore. They lie blatantly, even when their lies are directly contradicted mere inches away in another story on the same page of the same newspaper. Do they really think Americans are so stupid they can't see that?
Yes. Yes they do. They tell us all the time. Bill Maher was applauded for saying it flat-out numerous times. Americans are morons "who must be dragged to" the Leftist worldview because they're "just too stupid" to get it on their own. Obama's health care scam isn't a failure, he just hasn't explained it slowly enough to the imbeciles inhabiting this stupid country. Liberals sigh right out loud with weariness over the pure tedium of explaining their Utopian vision to the knuckle-dragging unwashed out there in "fly-over country."
All of this begs the question. On election day, do we prove them right by re-electing them, or fire them all and elect leaders who know who the boss is?
Posted March 11, 2010 at 6:41:27 PM