Remember the shooting at the Family Research Council this week? The media has been working overtime to spin a narrative about the shooting that hides not only the shocking truth about the shooting but to spin the narrative in their favor.
More details have come out about the shooting and you won’t hear about them on the Jurassic media. What are those details and what is the media trying to do?
Friday, on Glenn Beck’s show, he interviewed retired United States Army General Jerry Boykin. Boykin was in the Family Research Council building when the shooting occurred. He saw the shooter right after he was taken down.
While the media was just reporting this as a shooting and the shooter had “Chick-Fil-A” paraphernalia, the truth is much more shocking. According to Boykin, the shooter had 15 Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in his backpack and his plan was to go through the building and kill as many people as possible, dropping a Chick-Fil-A bag by the bodies.
Tony Perkins, the President of the Family Research Council on Friday held a news conference where he blamed the far left group, the Southern Poverty Law Center for labeling the FRC and other conservatives as “hate groups.”
The media immediately went into overdrive to denounce the claim. CNN went into a lengthy piece on its website talking about the SPLC. While not a negative word was to be seen about the SPLC, there were negative comments about the FRC and the obligatory mention of a white supremacist that killed six people at a Sikh temple earlier this month.
The rest of the media was mostly silent.
The shooter clearly stated he was motivated by the Family Research Council’s politics in statements he made as soon as he was taken into custody.
While the media has gone overboard to make certain the story of the FRC shooting was minimized, and the causal connection between the Southern Poverty Law Center’s outrageous comments is buried, they have been going just the opposite direction with conservatives.
This weekend marks the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. MSNBC had to rush out with an article about how Mosques are being forced to raise their security levels. Why? Because of the comments conservatives are making about Muslims.
From MSNBC:
While no one is saying that the attacks are connected, many Muslim leaders and civil rights advocates see common fuel in the anti-Muslim rhetoric that they say has intensified during the current election cycle.
"When the rhetoric gets bad, the hate crimes and attacks go up,” said Ayoub, of ADC. "Unless the rhetoric changes, I feel there will be more happening before the election.
On the list of politicians he says are fueling bigotry is Michele Bachmann, who recently led the call for a federal investigation of senior State Department official Huma Abedin. Bachmann accused Abedin of using her position to influence policy in favor of Egypt’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.
The charge outraged many Muslims. Even some of Bachman’s fellow Republicans protested the attack, including Sen. John McCain, who defended Abedin as a "true patriot."
Another politician becoming well known for his persistent warnings about the threat of "homegrown radicals" among the Muslim population is Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
This is the liberal double standard. They can say anything they want about conservatives and if a far left wing activist does something like shooting one or more people at a conservative think tank, there is no connection.
If a conservative raises legitimate points about someone who may be a foreign agent or about a group that has proven ties to terrorism, even though there is no causal connection to any attacks, the conservatives are still responsible.
We are entering a period of political violence in America directed towards conservatives. For the last three years, the message that has been sent to the far left by the Obama Regime is you will be allowed to get away with violence. Now the violence is escalating.
Fortunately for us, the violent fringe on the left is a very small minority. Unfortunately for us, they are quite willing to use violence and we have not seen the end of it.
The left wing media and the far left establishment are aiding and abetting this violence. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose not only the far left but also their radical violence.
We conservatives are going to have to fight back. The way we will have to do this is for conservatives to start taking the liberal establishment apart.
This will not happen overnight. When Romney wins this fall, we must get the Romney administration to eliminate the funding the left gets from the government. Then we must start taking apart the other sources of funding for the radical left, including corporate donation and money they get from foundations.
This is going to be a long fight. The left has shown an increasing propensity for violence.
We have two choices. We can surrender or we can do what our forefathers did.
One thing our forefathers never did was surrender to tyranny.
Tags: Southern, against, center, conservatives, council, family, law, poverty, research, shooting, More…
Permalink Reply by OneCitizenOfTheRepublic on per unitatem vis ("through unity, strength")
Unless we speak as a unified block, we will be ignored.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
Permalink Reply by 2a5jnma1m9pz7 on WOW ! That's a GOOD ' UN, " OneCitizenOfTheRepublic " ! . . . . wink !
Permalink Reply by Israel Fagbemi on It is my prayer that this country (which has been a symbol of peace) will not go into a civil war....and will not break up into little fragments. So far it is a united 50 states. I hope that it does not become an un-united 50 separate countries.
Pakistan broke away from India when it was trying to force its hindu religion on muslims. Why force homo-lifestyle on people until thier stomach cannot contain the filth any longer?. lET HOMO BE HOMO WITH NO THREAT TO THEM BUT DON'T FORCE PEOPLE TO BE. Politicians (right left or center), please don't take people for granted and please don't steer a civil war.
SERIOUSLY, WE NEED TO PRAY FOR THIS GREAT HOMELAND USA
Permalink Reply by Jody Cash on 
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on Israel:
The United States of America began with 13 "Original States" in 1787 and have added 37 more states (50) since that time. Each state that has been added since 1787 has "pledged its Allegiance to The United States of America CONSTITUTION and "The Rule of Law" that comes from it.
Now, The "Federal Government", in Washington, District of Columbia is located "outside" of these 50 states, for a purpose. Their mission is to orchestrate the 50 "Sovereign States" to where they can "Maintain Harmony Between Themselves". NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES but to facilitate good Commerce and reciprosity of efforts "As much as possible".
When a "Sovereign State" has been offended by another state (s) it is the mission of "The Feds to arbitrate as much as possible without trying to OVERPOWER that state.
What we have before us is an "OVERPOWERING" Federal Government who wants to "backmail and intimidate states into "Doing the Will of The Federal Government" which is totally Unconstitutional.
Therfore, the 50 State Governors and State Legislatures need to "Take the Leadership Role to Get The Feds back into their proper role".
Semper Fidelis,
Ron
Permalink Reply by Dave3200 on Ron: your perception of what "should be" is right on the mark, as is your description of what is actually happening. However, getting the 50 Governors and State Legislators to "Take the Leadership Role to Get The Feds back into their proper role" is like a Mission Impossible. Far too many of them have already swallowed the "Tea" and are fully in cahoots with the feds. I don't know which is your State, but I can tell you the level of trust by the people of Georgia is pretty low.
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on Permalink Reply by John Wertz on Zactly what we're doing in Texas. Don't forget to educate yourself on Agenda 21(ICLEI) and get it out of your community (and state),
REad this 1st
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD-A%20Brief%20Analysis.pdf
then this for more detail....
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD%20A21%20pamphlet-2010...
and finally this, on how to combat it in meetings where trained facilitators are using the Delphi Technique to shape opinion.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
Permalink Reply by Ronald Sorrells on Dave3200:
When the President and the United States Congress "refuse" to "enforce The Constitution of the United States of America (1787) that is something that "Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Paine, Lee or any of the other Founders would have never predicted". But,
for 50 State Governors and their Legislatures to "Stand By and Allow a Centralized Federal Government to Circumvent and otherwise refuse to enforce "The Rule of Law" would be complete and Ungodly "Tyranny".
Semper Fidelis,
Ron
Permalink Reply by 2a5jnma1m9pz7 on YES, Ron, TRUE ! AND, in fact, this is what our " civil " war was FOUGHT about ! I have put the word " civil " in quotation marks, because the word " civil " is NOT an appropriate title, for the war from 1812 to 1815. Ya see, a " civil " war is a nation which is " at war " with ITSELF ! AAAAAH, BUT, in the year 1811 or 1812, the " Southern " states had ALREADY BROKEN OFF from the " United " States of America, had already drafted its OWN CONSTITUTION, had already ELECTED ITS OWN PRESIDENT, ( Jefferson Davis ), so, . . . . SO, . . . . it was, in fact, ITS OWN NATION ! . . . . the CONFEFERATE STATES OF AMERICA ! . . . . GASP, . . . . SO, folks, ya see ? . . . . the " war " from 1861 to 1865, was, indeed, a WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, ( two seperate countries ), it was NOT, . . . . I repeat, it WAS NOT a " civil " war !
UNDERSTAND THIS, people, the " War between The States " was not, NOT, NOT fought about SLAVERY ! ( and, if it WAS fought over slavery, as SO MANY of you seem to believe, then, WHY was " slavery " still " legal," in the NORTHERN states ? . . . . . . GASP, . . . . . . ). NO, folks, the Confederate States of America broke off from the United states, because of an ARROGANT, OBNOXIOUS, & TYRINNICAL " central " government, . . . .
WELL, folks, looks like we're gonna have to DO IT, AGAIN, doesn't it ? . . . .
Permalink Reply by Roger Davies on Ron: Take a look at: http://www.alabama-republic.com/home.html Let me know what you think, rd6475 at hotmail.com
Permalink Reply by Robert H. Woodman on Judson,
Good piece.
To be consistent, we need to eliminate funding for all liberal and conservative organizations, groups, and agendas. Nothing should be funded by our government unless there is a clear Constitutional command to fund it or an unmistakeable, direct link to a clear Constitutional command. Do conservatives have the stomach for that kind of fight? I'm not persuaded that they do.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
