Why Are Ralph Nader And Jessi Jackson Not Criticized For Inciting Violence?

By Semperpapa

Following the shooting massacre in Tucson in January, the Left got on the high horse of civility in political discourse. Virulent verbal attacks were perpetrated by the regime media and by the Left in general against talk radio, Republicans, Conservatives, TEA party members and anyone else who was not part of the Left propaganda machine.

A new era of civilized political discourse was declared, where hinting of strong political opposition was declared unacceptable. Of course, the only unacceptable political dissent was the one shown toward progressives and their agenda, while the vitriol against anything Conservative was willingly accepted as a demonstration of free speech and free sharing of opinions.

Opposition to Obamacare, for example, buys a label of racism, equaling the utter destruction of the entire health care system in our Country to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. The stories of the almost 1,000 waivers granted by the Obama administration to companies and unions financially friendly to the president’s campaign coffers, only appear on few media outlets, Fox News being one of them, and immediately these outlets are attacked and ostracized from the common discourse. The rest of the media is just ignoring these clear indications of preferential treatment, obviously too busy attacking dissent to have any time for unbiased reporting.

So, while political civility is being shoved down the throats of Conservatives, while even the government is looking for ways to silence opposition via labeling methods and unconstitutional means, members of the Left are free to express whatever they so desire, with no repercussion.

This is the case of two members of the American Left who last week engaged in a clear campaign of incitement to violence which was not much publicized by the so called media.

During some sort of question-answer session with college students, Ralph Nader was asked by one of those brainwashed students present if he saw the need for revolution.

The answer from the multiple failed presidential candidate was an eye opener. His response was that “a non-violent revolution is long overdue” because, as he sees it the government has been taken hostage by giant corporations.

To cover his track, Nader spoke the words “non violent” but then proceeded to ask the rhetorical question of why don’t the American people learn from their history and from what is going on in the Middle East.

I personally fail to believe that the man really is calling for a non-violent revolution when he tells students that the example they should look at is the type of revolution occurring these days in the Middle East.

Is Nader suggesting that the American college students should engage in the same actions we are witnessing in Libya? Or the images reaching us from Yemen? Or those we saw from Cairo?

If that is the case, the man’s notion of 15-16 millions college students and graduates taking to the streets is, in effect, a call for a general uprising of the college population. Moreover, if he calls for students to take inspiration from the events from the Middle East, he must also mean that he is exhorting them to seek the removal of the current political leadership in favor of the Marxist model of social justice, which theoretically means the removal of king Obama too. Interestingly, Nader has been hibernating for the first two years of the Obama regime, and only now that a more Conservative tendency is sweeping the Nation, he is coming out from his complacency and inciting revolution. It almost appears as if he is disturbed by the National trend toward Conservatism, maybe unhappy of what may seem a derailment of his political side’s move toward Marxism, agenda he has been pursuing his whole life.

To such goal, it is now time to excite the masses against the government. The Left was successful at such move as liberals were able to capture Congress first in 2006 and the White House in 2008. The mid-terms of 2010 were unexpected and deserving of a renewed level of sedition. It is time now to foment popular uprising, be it from the union thugs or the college students.

Another character who has been practically silent for the last two years was Jesse Jackson. With the exception of some off microphone statements about Obama’s testicles, the good reverend has been satisfied by the Obama march toward Marxism, sure that at the end of the road there would certainly be a slice of power for himself, to insure that the self-appointed leader of blacks and his immoral lifestyle would be assured. That is the ultimate goal of tyranny.

Good old Jackson joined Nader in calling for a student revolution that would stop the counter-revolution. This is an interesting choice of words, even coming from the speech impaired Jackson. In order to call for a revolution to stop a counter-revolution, Jackson is silently admitting that there was an initial revolution being conducted. A counter-revolution, by definition, needs an initial unrest against which to operate.

If Jackson is referring to the actions taken by liberal progressives over the last 40 years, I am in agreement with him. The left has been conducting a covert revolution under the unsuspecting and unwilling nose of the American people. The ever growing intrusion of government in the lives of the people has been the mode of operation of unscrupulous politicians, from both Parties, by the way, to undermine the principles of our country in favor of increased personal power.

And the American people have allowed it to happen, thanks to the fear of being labeled as opposing “social progress” and fairness. The political climate created by Jackson and Sharpton and Kennedy and Nader and Obama and Clinton is one where social and political extortion reigns supreme. Cower your opponents into a corner when the dissent by personal attacks and character assassination. And it has worked as we witness some so called Republicans in power being not too far in their support of progressive ideas.

The main issue today remains the declarations of Nader and Jackson. Why are they not chastised in the public forum for their incitement to violence? It is a fact that as much as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Backman, Sean Hannity and Allen West have clearly expressed their dissent against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime, there has never been a word of incitement to violence on their part to realize their agenda.

Even if they have been accused of the contrary, the reality is that the message from Conservatives in the public forum has been one of using the US Constitution to return the Country to its principles. Yes, there has been a counter-revolution conducted by Conservatives against the wrong direction taken by our country, but it was never suggested that the TEA party rallies across the Nation would be the beginning of a violent popular insurrection against the policies of an increasingly tyrannical government. Yet the Media has been relentless in depicting the grass movement as vitriolic as insurgency, while remaining absolutely silent about an open invitation to violence from the Left.

It would be easy to chuck it as just hypocrisy, but it would also be simplistic and inaccurate. It goes beyond hypocrisy, being instead a clear demonstration, once more, that the conspiracy to take down our country is more widespread that we even realize.

Just my thoughts!