There they go again: California Democrat operatives and activists are ginning up more “fake news” about violence they hope to blame on the election of Donald J. Trump — and journalists are taking the bait.
The Los Angeles Daily News recently reported:
the Network Against Hate Crime gathered for the second time since forming to discuss ways to prevent and respond to crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual identity and other prejudices.
“We know it’s not just imagined,” said Robin Toma, executive director for the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations.
Toma said national statistics show that acts of hate, bigotry, harassment and bullying increased a month after Nov. 8th presidential election. He also said there are reports by members of several communities who feel fearful as a result of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and his stance on illegal immigration. Trump supporters have also been victimized, though not in large numbers, Toma noted.
The only problem with “statistics” is that they can be twisted to suit any purpose — especially when the existence of the category itself (i.e. “hate crimes”) is highly politicized. The so-called “news story” presents no causal analysis tying such acts of violence to Mr. Trump’s election. Similar to the narrative — alleging violence by Trump campaign supporters — pushed daily by the media during the general election.
But in the end, that turned out to be “fake news” too.
It turns out it wasn’t Trump supporters who initiated violence on the campaign trail. It was Democrat activists and provocateurs — with orders from on high.
And now with the inaguration looming, it’s déjà vu all over again. Secret Service is preparing for “unprecedented threats” on Inauguration Day, while the media is pushing a narrative it’s all Trump’s fault.
But the facts tell a different story.
The left is gearing up for war, and hiring mercenaries. According to the Washington Times, a group called Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the “largest private grassroots support organization in the United States,” posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking “operatives.”
“Get paid fighting against Trump!” says the ad.
There’s a pattern here.
When the left wants to push a false narrative — in this case, fear of violence by Trump supporters on Inauguration Day — the media are willing accomplices. But then they have to put aside journalistic integrity and ignore the overwhelming crescendo of information all over the Internet decrying that theory in favor of a much more sinister agenda by the anarchist left.
By only covering which California Democrats are skipping the inauguration, they’re ignoring the very real — albeit coded — threats of violence by dark operatives on the left. Breitbart News has identified over 75 groups that are connected to the #DisruptJ20 events, in a document titled “Ten Reasons to Go Hard on January 20,” making the case to anarchists, socialist and communist ruffians from across the country about “why would it be worth driving across the country to a city crowded with reactionaries and police.”
When you look at the group’s website, all the images are apocalyptic:
- a lone protestor in front a fire and the devastation they’ve visited upon society
- a burning police van with the provocative message: “Why We Don’t make Demands”
- a photo of President-elect Donald Trump with the White House ostensibly on fire behind him
If anyone is preparing for violence, it’s the anarchist left, not the so-called “hateful right.” They’re not afraid of it. They’re provoking it, and planning it.
According to a new undercover video by James O’Keefe’s Veritas Project, the goal is to “commit violence and create havoc” — from using butyric acid stink bombs to interrupt the “Deploraball” the night before the inauguration, to “turning the inauguration into a giant clusterf***,” thereby forcing its cancellation.
The media might do well to acknowledge that and cover this movement more closely — if only to differentiate between those who harbor deep concerns about, or have political differences with, the incoming administration on the one hand, and those who literally wish to burn it to the ground, on the other.