.

No-Shame Leftists Target Children and Parents For Political Aims

Motivation and timing indicate that radical leftists were likely behind the posting of signs with assault weapons at several Redlands schools on Wednesday.

Motivation and timing all but prove that some home-grown and radical leftists were behind the placing of political signs featuring threatening assault weapons at various Redlands schools on Wednesday.

To figure out Machiavellian tactics like this, people need to ask themselves who benefits politically from such actions.

Clearly leftists – in this case, extremist ones – think they benefit from the signs because they vilify people who support our right to keep and bear arms, just like the Second Amendment says we can. Radicals believe they benefit because the signs, in their minds, delegitimize people who oppose Obama’s latest attempt at gun control.

The creed of the leftist is that the ends justify the ends, just like Chicago professor Saul Alinsky wrote in “Rules for Radicals,” the leftist guide for undemocratic attacks on their political opponents.

And for Redlands, those ends meant scaring children and parents who dropped off their children at area schools on Wednesday. The signs were clearly meant to rekindle the horrors of the Newtown, Conn., massacre a few weeks ago among people entering a school.

Hillary Clinton studied under Alinksy. Barack Obama was a disciple.

The timing of Wednesday’s threatening signs does not pass the smell test. Their posting comes within days of:

  • Obama calling for gun control in his inauguration speech.
  • Obama urging his political operatives to keep working for him.
  • The Redlands Tea Party Patriots announcing that their Feb. 7 meeting would feature the Second Amendment.

It is clear that Wednesday’s stunt was meant to draw visceral reactions from emotionally vulnerable people -- more proof leftists have no shame.

It’s also clear that the signs were meant to manipulate the media in such a way to gin up public hatred for Second Amendment proponents and support Barack Obama’s gun control agenda.

I pray that police catch the perpetrators and exile these extremists back to the wards of Chicago – where they belong.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Gregory Brittain January 24, 2013 at 08:29 PM
The signs could have been posted by misguided supporter of Second Amendment rights or by a liberal opposed to the right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms and to make supporters of Second Amendment rights look bad. Either way, it was wrong to do. Posting the signs around a school, and only around a school, further served the later purpose of trying to discredit supporters of Second Amendment rights. Politicizing the schools is wrong. Our schools should be for educating our children not attempting to indoctrinate them. Children and schools should not be used as props to further a political agenda.
Wesley G Hughes January 25, 2013 at 01:18 AM
Paranoid, Dishonest or what’s he smoking? Teaberry’s at it again, above. And I wonder why I even care. Without any evidence in his item and purely on supposition, he accuses mystery leftists of posting pictures of “threatening assault weapons at various Redlands schools.” Because I don’t believe anything Teaberry writes, I had to do a little honest journalism to get to the bottom of it. I called some legitimate news sources and I hit pay dirt when I reached the city of Redlands official spokesman Carl Baker. Baker said some signs had been hung in neighborhoods near two schools, he named Cope Middle as one. He also said besides pictures of guns the signs carried text: “1776 will commence again.” When I told him that Teaberry had blamed it on leftists, Baker said, “I would not have thought it was a leftist message.” He attributed it to a comment by a 2nd Amendment advocate on Piers Morgan's CNN TV show. Baker said it went viral. Baker said code enforcement personnel removed most of the signs. The signs were not removed because of content, he said; they violated the city’s sign ordinance. At least Teaberry’s not calling himself a journalist this time. The title he gives himself is “military man and political conservative.” I salute him for his military service. That’s laudable. But I doubt an intellectually astute conservative would associate with his ideas. He’s in the kiddie sandbox of conservativism. Wesley G. Hughes, Riverside
Amanda Frye January 25, 2013 at 01:32 AM
Irony and cynicism appear to be at the root of those signs which were an obvious prank mocking the Tea Party's fear mongering and hysteria about the government treading on their rights. The Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting was a tragedy with an assault rifle. Most "military men" know that guns are for killing. So what is the Tea Party's true agenda? Mr. Berry's comments are politically polarizing and obviously an attempt to raise ire in the community instead of stimulating a useful discussion.
John F. Berry January 25, 2013 at 06:28 AM
Here's the backstory why Hughie is cyberstalking me: In 2010, while he was still at the Sun, he wrote a column accusing the tea party of being racists despite no proof. His problem? He cited a NY Times story that had no connection to his claims. Reading his column and the NY Times showed that he just made up his evidence. It was clear, under the guise of a columnist, that he was trying to bully his opponents from participating in the democratic process. The Sun, to its credit, ran my entire op-ed unedited. Hughie was humiliated by the op-ed for outing him as a phony. He has been cyber stalking me ever since. HIs behavior is disturbing. He should not be allowed around guns.
Gregory Brittain January 25, 2013 at 08:08 AM
So you agree the signs were put up by someone opposed to Second Amendment rights?
Gregory Brittain January 25, 2013 at 08:13 AM
Wrong Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a2gCFOtaZPo This Glock commercial illustrates the value of guns for self defense, especially for women, without firing a shot. This also illustrates the value of a large clip. In this instance, one man broke into the woman’s apartment. What if there were 2 or more intruders? What if the woman, or what if you, are not well practiced and good shots? What if the Adeline in pumping and your scared and trembling? What if your first shots miss? What if the intruders are armed? After watching the video, please consider how many bullets do you want in your clip.
Amanda Frye January 25, 2013 at 02:34 PM
Tis my suspicion a community codger is probably behind the distasteful sign posting that appear to be lampooning the Redlands Tea Party’s support of assault weapons. Just as the person behind the spoof remains a mystery, it is puzzling why the Redlands Tea Party members believe that owning assault weapons is a good idea. The only purpose of guns is to kill. The Tea Party being so adamantly pro assault weapon ownership seems as twisted as the anonymous poster of the signs. I’m sorry that Adam Lanza ever had access to assault weapons.
Wesley G Hughes January 26, 2013 at 12:58 AM
Ms. Frye wisely sees through the fog generated by the tea party and it’s buffoonish spokesman John F. “Teaberry” Berry, when she calls it “fear mongering and hysteria about the government treading on their rights.” I inflated Teaberry’s ego when I called attention to the stupidity of his argument attributing the posting of signs around some Redlands schools displaying pictures of assault weapons and the words “1776 will commence again” to some leftist agenda. Teaberry and I go back farther than he intimates and his claims are the howls of a Gibbon in a tree. I only suggest readers look at what he has written and they will see how empty and without evidence his charges are. No need to read me except than I’m a lot more fun and pay a lot more attention to facts and attribution. The Sun is a fine newspaper and I enjoyed my years there after I retired from the Los Angeles Times, where I was a respected editor and mentor to young journalists. The Sun ran his piece because it makes a practice of trying to give voice to other opinions, even the Teaberrys of this world. What Teaberry won’t tell you is he wanted my job. Fat chance. (Continued)
Wesley G Hughes January 26, 2013 at 01:02 AM
I dubbed him Teaberry for a couple of reason, which readers can explain to him if he asks. Teaberry was a chewing gum that I remember from childhood. It was the quickest to lose flavor and was a pain when it got stuck to the bottom of your shoe. Much of it ended up under the movie seats because it was flavorless before the opening credits had been shown. It had good taste while it lasted but that wasn’t for long. Redlands’ Teaberry can’t even claim that. He even copied me by attempting to give me a nickname as I did to him: Hughie. I’ll answer to that. I’ve been called much worse. And for better reasons. Teaberry is right in one regard. I did call the tea party racist and more. And I stand by that today. It’s members are also greedy and have no respect for other members of society. Something that Teaberry won’t tell you is that I have an agenda. (Sharp intake of breath!) Yes. It’s no big shock. Folks who have read my work know that the welfare of children is my agenda and primary goal and everything else comes after. (Continued)
Wesley G Hughes January 26, 2013 at 01:05 AM
The kids need protection from abuse and guarantees of a decent roof over their heads and adequate nutrition, a good school with good teachers, good health care, a warm bed to sleep in at night and freedom from fear. Those guarantees are expensive. Too bad we can't guarantee them good parents. Many children in America are denied those rights and those children come in every color. If it takes more taxes or a reallocation of federal funds to achieve these guarantees, then so be it. All Americans should be eager to cherish the right of living in this greatest nation on earth and be willing to support her in achieving humane goals. Yes, freedom isn’t free. But that’s not just talking about the defense budget, it’s talking about the needs of children, the childlike and those unable to care for themselves. I’d be happy to share those goals with the tea party any time its members want to come aboard. Wesley G. Hughes, Riverside
Amanda Frye January 26, 2013 at 01:20 AM
Tar and feathering was the assault weapon of choice in 1776.
Amanda Frye January 26, 2013 at 01:23 AM
I'm not sure that the "guarantees" you listed are expensive. So much can be accomplished with a change of mind set and changing the mind-set is free.
Wesley G Hughes January 26, 2013 at 07:01 AM
Go gettum, Ms. Frye. You have the spirit.
John F. Berry January 26, 2013 at 07:24 AM
This sounds like an admission (do you know the pranksters)? A former Occupy Redlands occupy leader told me that they had a faction within the group that wanted to mimic the behaviors of the violent national Occupy group was well as those in LA and Oakland. I don't know who did it, or can be positive they are from Redlands, but their politics have a clear stench.
John F. Berry January 26, 2013 at 08:01 AM
Normally, I ignore the whackjobs who respond to my blogs. But for Hughie? I'll make an exception because yet another one of his fibs is beyond galling. I was a journalist for 20 years, including five as a columnist. At no time did I ever apply for his job -- and why would I want the job a disgraced and fallen hack? I never read any of his columns until somebody pointed out his bogus one in 2010 to me. And when they did, I contacted the editor (I think it was Frank Pine), who quickly agreed to my op-ed. The Sun ran it immediately after I wrote it. The paper even told me they would run it before I had completed it. I think this is the Sun's way of admitting they had an issue on their hands with Hughie on staff. If the Sun didn't run it, I was going to contact Dean Singleton in Denver and demand to know why the Sun did not fact check its columnists and why it allowed such racist filth into one of his papers. In retrospect, this was the right approach because it exposed Hughie for the journlistic fraud he was before readers and peers. And despite his cyberstalking and disturbing behavior since 2010, I'm glad I wrote the op-ed then because it exposed Hughie for exactly what he is now: A bully and race-baiter.
Gregory Brittain January 26, 2013 at 09:01 AM
"Assault weapon" is a scary name the Lib came up with for guns they want to ban. Please see the earlier blob post "Intellectual Dishonesty Within Assault Rifle Ban" which does a good job explaining what a so called "assault weapon" is. What makes a gun an "assault weapon" are cosmetic features that do not affect how the gun shoots. I also posted data on that blog including studies of the prior ban on so called "assault weapons" that could not find any effect from the prior ban on so called "assault weapons." The Tea Party opposes the ban on so called "assault weapons" because it restricts the liberty of law abiding Americans; it is an further step towards the Left's goal of banning all private ownership of firearms, and there is no evidence that any gun control laws including banning so called "assault weapons" reduces crime, homicide or mass killings.
Gregory Brittain January 26, 2013 at 09:24 AM
Leaving aside the question of whether the kids are entitled to as much of other people's money as necessary so the government can provide them with everything in your list, And leaving aside providing a growing economy that provides jobs and opportunity for the kids' parents and later for the kids, And leaving aside the crushing burden of debt Obama and the Dems are piling on the kids, [Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE&feature=youtu.be and http://www.snotr.com/video/8631/Hi___we_are_from_the_Government] And leaving aside the lousy government run schools that your side preserves, protects and maintains, [After 13 years of government education, per the LA Time “most of the [community colleges'] 2.4 million students are unprepared for college-level work: 85% need remedial English, 73% need remedial math and only about a third of remedial students transfer to a four-year school or graduate with a community college associate’s degree.”] 1950-1960 there was lower standard of living and much less of a welfare state to take care of the kids, but most children grew up in two parent families and the government run schools were better. Question, overall, were children better off 1950-1960 when parents were more responsible for taking care of the children or today when the government plays a much larger role in (supposedly) taking care of the kids?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »