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.

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?


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 »