American Spectator writer Nicholas Thimmesch, II is upset that the media doesn’t treat Tea Partiers like they treat the protesters in Egypt. Thimmesch argues that journalists have been too critical of Tea Partiers rallying against deficit spending and health care reform, while positively portraying the Egyptians who are rising up against an autocratic president who has ruled for three decades:
How ironic is it that the media proudly reports that President Obama -- ever the eternal community organizer -- is speaking out on behalf of those in Egypt and elsewhere who are "protesting," even if some may not just be protesting but inciting or participating in violence (much of the televised coverage I have seen has shown both the police and the "protesters" engaging in violence), yet the same media depicts the past year of Tea Party protests as some kind of anarchist, ruthless, violence-inspiring gathering of uniformed thugs. How much did the media focus in on one or two people who showed up packing at a Tea Party rally and, gasp, those horrible, racist signs that depicted the President in an unflattering manner?
To the best of my knowledge, there were no arrests for violence nor any actual gunfire at any Tea Party rallies, the areas where the rallies took place were left spotless versus the piles of trash and garbage left after Obama's inauguration and Ed Schultz's MSNBC Rules Rally.
The one Tea Party rally I observed in person (I am neither a Tea Party member nor necessarily a supporter) was populated by middle-aged folks who for the most part looked like tourists from Kansas wanting to know where the Vietnam Memorial or a water fountain were able to be located. Contrast that with the annual World Bank/IMF "protesters" who show up in Washington and elsewhere with masks, work gloves, lawyers and chains, ready to rock and roll with the police.
Whether or not the "protests" that have taken place in Egypt will satisfy the bloodthirsty American media's litmus test for legendary violence and brutality (the now proverbial Tiananmen Square slaughter) is anybody's guess: to some, the existing government's reaction to the "protests" already has and will far surpass Commie China's response. I just know that what is going on now has far surpassed "protest": it has become armed rebellion. The real question is who will be providing the means toward armed revolution and for what purpose: will it be the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran's secret police, or a truly democratic, peace-loving group of patriots.
Remember: Iran's Islamic revolution started out with kidnapping and "protests" and ended up with a tyrannical, Islamic based government. Will whatever replaces these toppled governments be much better and will they in turn allow future "protests" the media will embrace?
