The Wrong Crowd to Sell Weaponized Racism To

On August 4, 2010, the Tea Party Express organization held a press conference in Washington, DC. At this conference a number of black conservative leaders and thinkers hosted reporters from a number of media outlets.

Those assembled -- including, among others, Alan Keyes, Star Parker, and the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson -- discussed their involvement in the Tea Party movement, and answered questions regarding the charges of racism lobbed against the movement.

In recent weeks, a growing collection of smoking guns regarding the American far left, the Tea Party and weaponized racism have become apparent.

Journolist member Spencer Ackerman declared that questions regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright should be shut down with accusations of racism, and more recently former Civil Rights Commissioner Mary Frances Berry publicly mused about the success of using racism as a political tactic in order to distract Americans from real issues.

"Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats," she remarked. "There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November."

"Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness," she concluded.

As far as smoking guns go, it may be even more damning than Ackerman's.

It's with this candour in mind that one turns to a question asked at the Tea Party Express press conference by Joyce Jones of Black Enterprise when she recycled the claims of the Democrat Congressional Black Caucus that they had been serenaded with racial epithets by Tea Party protesters.

"John Lewis put his life at considerable risk and danger so you could stand here and speak about freedoms," Jones began. "I want to know why it's so impossible for you to believe that someone did spit on him or call him the N-word?"

"Why would he lie about that when he's experienced so much worse?" she asked.

William Owens responded very simply: there is no evidence. So Jones asked a follow-up:

"Why is his word not good enough?" Jones asked.

"On the stage of public opinion, evidence is paramount," Owens explained. "It's one person's accusation against another. It was so public it should not be a difficult time to find evidence, and there is none."

Jones' explanation that she was there quickly faltered in the face of an admission that she didn't hear the epithet spoken, but that "there were crowds" present.

Alfonzo Rachel then responded by asking why the word of others aren't accepted with the same value -- including the word of those accused. Jones effectively had no answer.

The episode serves as a reminder of the McCarthyite tactics adopted by those executing Spencer Ackerman's and Mary Frances Berry's game plan.

When Senator Joseph McCarthy orchestrated his reign of terror over the United States, he orchestrated a rhetorical environment in which denials were treated as admissions of guilt, and only admissions were accepted. In a perverse distortion of any reasonable standard of evidence, McCarthy allowed his own suspicions to stand as evidence, and abused the powers granted to him to pursue his own personal anti-communist crusade.

Those working so hard to brand the Tea Party with accusations of racism -- to the extent that they have to distort and fabricate evdience -- are utilizing the same tactics. The question of Joyce Jones -- why the words of Represenatives John Lewis and Emanuele Cleaver aren't simply accepted despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary -- is a stark reminder of that.

Needless to say, black conservatives are clearly the wrong crowd to which to attempt to peddle weaponized racism.

That in itself should speak volumes.

Let's Discuss "Conclusive Evidence", Shall We?

This author actually intends to let Enormous Thriving Plants proprietor Audrey II's decision to flee debate go with a minimum of further commentary.

But if there's one thing this author is not prepared to do, it's allow Audrey to reinvent old arguments she lost to pretend that she won.

First, one should peruse this particular thread wherein Audrey can pick out nothing in this video that demonstrates that a Tea Party protester intentionally spit on congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

It allegedly takes place at 0:13 of the video.

-Here's a video still from the video in question:

The accused can clearly be seen, hands cupped over his mouth, shouting vociferously at Cleaver as he passes by. From Cleaver's reaction it's clear that something has happened -- as Andy Ostray points out -- from Cleaver's word, he has been spit upon, or as Cleaver subsequently phrased it, the protester in question allowed his saliva to hit Cleaver's face.

The saliva on Cleaver's face should not be in question. Andrew Breitbart offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce not video evidence of this spit, as Crooks and Liars and the Huffington Post have claimed, but for hard video evidence that the protesters hurled racial epithets at the congressmen:

"I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point."

Not only have they failed to produce hard video evidence of this -- the actual subject of the offer -- but they've also failed to produce conclusive evidence that a tea party protester intentionally spit on Cleaver.

Yet Audrey continues to pretend that the evidence conclusively shows intent -- despite that she can't point to a single instant from that video that would support this claim.

So perhaps Audrey simply doesn't know what conclusive evidence is. So, one supposes, she'll simply have to be shown some.

Consider a more recent episode in which supporters of Senator Harry Reid (he of the "negro dialect" remark) were videotaped throwing eggs at a bus carrying protesters to a Tea Party protest against Reid. Another counter-protester also threatened Breitbart.

The video clearly shows eggs striking the bus, coming from the direction of the pro-Reid counter-protesters.

While that's far from 100% conclusive, they did manage to produce a photo of one of the egg-throwers midway through his throwing motion:

(It's pretty clear the counter-protester in question throws like a girl.)

So, let's compare:

We have a video of a tea party protester shouting at Congressman Emanuel Cleaver through cupped hands -- shouting before, during, and after the actual spittle even by Cleaver's own account.

On the other hand, we have video of pro-Harry Reid counter-protesters throwing eggs at a bus carring Tea Party protesters, and a photograph of one of them with an egg in the palm of his hand.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these examples is clearly conclusive, and the other is not.

It would be amusing to hear Audrey insist that the counter-protesters in question were "accidentally" throwing the eggs. Unlike Audrey's Ostroy-esque insistence that the notion that Cleaver was sprayed with saliva mid-bellow is ridiculous (an argument that relies on viewing the events in question through a conspiratorial mental lens), that actually would be ridiculous.

It's become clear that it's Audrey, not Andrew Breitbart, who is constructing an alternate reality. It's clear that Audrey subscribes to a "truthi-alty" -- an intellectually selfish conception of the world in which she's not only entitled to her own opinion, but entitled to her own reality.

No one should expect Audrey to acknowledge any of this. After all, she made the decision to run away from debate for a reason.

Adventures in Alternate Reality

One has to take a certain amount of amusement at Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey. Ever the masochist, she just keeps crawling back for more punishment.

In a recent installment at her blog, Audrey waxes triumphally over a video of Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver being spit on by a Tea Party protester.

Of course, the problem for Audrey is that the video in question is far from conclusive. Moreover, Huffington Post blogger Andy Ostroy admits it:

"I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman."

With that admission, Ostroy undid what a score of pundits, demagogues and left-wing propagandists have worked so hard to construct: the image of a white Tea Party protester spitting on a black Congressman.

The problem being, of course, that the image doesn't hold up to so much of an ounce of skepticism.

For one thing, as one can clearly see in the video, no less than two black Congressmen pass by the protester in question before Emanuel Cleaver turns away in evident disgust. He angrily turns to face the alleged culprit, who has been bellowing at each of the men who passes.

If Cleaver had been spit upon intentionally because he's black or because he's a Democrat, one would wonder what possessed the alleged culprit to pass up the other two potential targets.

At intervals, he can even be seen drawing deeply for breath. He is, after all, an old man.

Of course, Ostroy is clearly intent to milk the incident for all its worth, no matter how inconclusive the evidence:

"some highly suspect circumstantial evidence clearly exists: (1) Cleaver obviously is either a great physical actor or some "spit-like" fluid definitely hit him in the face as he passed the protester, causing his entire body to jerk away from the accused; (2) the angry, visceral reaction from Cleaver to the protester clearly signals that something very bad had just happened. Something beyond simple partisan, anti-reform shouting; (3) notice how the protester's hands are strategically cupped over his mouth, which would conveniently conceal the act of spitting."

Right. He couldn't possibly be cupping his hands over his mouth because he's screaming very loudly.

Of course, Ostroy seems to think he has the answer to that, too:

"Keep in mind that both men at this point are perhaps two feet away from each other, which would mean the rabid protester's vein-popping shouting at Cleaver would easily be heard sans hand-cupping, and that such distance might also make the "spray it" theory a bit of a stretch;"

The volume of the crowd can clearly be heard in the video in question. And as for why the alleged culprit would be yelling so loudly with the congressmen passing so closely by, one is afraid that there's a simple explanation for that, as well:

The congressmen clearly aren't listening. It's only natural that this individual would do whatever is necessary to render himself unignorable. That requires volume.

So when one considers precisely how evident it is that the whitewash being offered by these individuals just doesn't hold up under scrutiny -- visual or logical -- one has to wonder just why individuals like Audrey and Ostroy want this so badly:

"Why can't Republicans then, out of simple human decency, just acknowledge and condemn this unacceptable behavior? They can't. It's simply not in their DNA."

Oh, right. Because Republicans are mean. And indecent. And... whatever.

Apparently the idea that the Republican Party won't denounce the conduct because there's nothing there worthy of a national public denounciation just doesn't compute.

The amount of deception being employed in this incident -- with a clear "say it, don't spray it" scenario being misrepresented as intentional spitting -- makes it clear that individuals like Audrey and Ostroy are actually in a rush to gift credibility to Michelle Malkin.

Audrey accuses Andrew Breitbart of living in an "alternate reality". Yet the only sense of reality that seems to differ from our own is the one in which the video in question is treated as conclusive -- even Andy Ostroy admits it.

But that's one of Audrey's defining characteristics: when reality doesn't suit her argument, she simply attempts to re-define reality.

Call it equal parts being a deluded ideologue and making the mistake of treating the Huffington Post as a serious news outlet: