A while back, the BBC followed the lead of their brethren in the Left-wing US media and tried to get you to think the Occupiers were similar to the Tea Party movement. This was done because – to the media’s dismay – much of the country failed to hate the Tea Party movement and buy into the demonization promoted by the press. So, having resigned themselves to that fact, the media luvvies tried to gain acceptance for the Occupiers by trying to promote the idea that they had similar ideals to the Tea Partiers. The BBC even played a little game of “Who Said It” to help drive home this notion.
Now it appears the two movements do have something in common after all: their opposition to The Obamessiah.
Tea Party and OWS Protest Side-By-Side Against Obama in San Francisco
The unthinkable finally happened last night in San Francisco: the Tea Party shared a protest with the Occupiers, both groups angry with the same person.
And who was this unifier, the only man who can bridge the divide and bring together all sides of the political spectrum? Why, President Obama, of course.
I don’t need to remind anybody here that the Narrative from the BBC has been that opposition to the President is not so much policy-based as it is steeped in racism. They simply refuse to acknowledge that people can be genuinely opposed to His policies for legitimate reasons. See the video of Mark Mardell’s appearance at the BBC College of Journalism for a reminder of his mocking of a Southern woman whom he describes as a racist, as well as his opinion that the Tea Partiers are really, deep down, under the skin, concerned about the Government spending money “on people not like them”.
So, one has to ask now: Is the Occupy Wall St. movement racist?
Over to you, BBC.
As you say, it had to happen. They could never be called the same or even even similar but do have some things in common, this will be interesting, especially when (it has to happen too) some Tea Partiers try to calm down the rabid Occupiers or stop them breaking something/public property/leaving rubbish/shitting in a corner/whatever.
Black presidents – especially those who like jazz – are a minority group, so the Marxists must defend them tooth and nail. This left wing narrative is getting very boring, which most of us can see through. It can’t last for that much longer though; i predict a bloody war in this century where the opposition to reason and common sense will be armed with handbags, 6 inch red nails, grandad nighties and threatening letters demanding payment for overdue TV license fees.
I have tried to watch the movie of Mardell at the journalist school and quite frankly, it’s boring. What benefit did all that waffle produce (I didn’t watch it all and I skipped through it to try to find something of worth)? Sitting for an hour pontificating on ephemera doesn’ seem to me to be a good use of peoples time.Or am I missing the point?
Well, I should imagine that the BBC’s response to this question would probably be conditional upon the skin colour of the protester: White – “racist!” Black – “rights activist!” For the BBC, it would seem that ‘racism’ is genetically determined. So, it would therefore appear to be safe to conclude that the BBC is “institutionally racist”: it is institutionally anti-White.
Who`s the clever clogs that said “the truth won`t be found in the middle , but at both extremes”.
That they have common cause in despising the Astoreth pole that is Obama is just dandy by me.
The great Palin had him figured out…she said he`d written his biographies before he ever drafted any law as a legislator…which tells you all about the cellophane man so beloved by the BBC.