Beacon Street Journal

Which gathering of protesters has the greater propensity towards violence? Peaceful tea partiers or Democratic Party advocates of open borders?

Remember the tea party-protesters-as-dangerously-prone-to-violence narrative developed recently by Bill Clinton? Looks like it needs to be revised slightly. Last weekend, pro-illegal immigration supporters turned violent during protests in the capitol of Arizona, hurling water bottles and rocks at the police. The protest against the tough new state law passed by Arizona’s legislature occurred in the wake of unprecedented left wing hysteria and hyperbole to the effect that the new bill would usher in a return of Gestapo-like tactics by the police.

Contrast the lack of attention this protest received from the mainstream media with the attention paid to the allegations (as yet unsubstantiated) made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus that tea party protesters made derogatory racial remarks and spat on Congressmen Emanuel Cleaver shortly after the health care bill was signed. Why the disparity in treatment by the Fourth Estate in its coverage of tea party and pro-illegal immigration protests? Most journalists are liberal Democrats and their reporting reflects the talking points spoon fed to them by their allies in the Democratic Party. The liberal/media narrative on the tea party movement is that its members are right wing kooks and prone to violence, while supporters of open borders and illegal immigration are merely concerned with non-citizens “civil rights.”