When is a newspaper unable to determine the political ideology of someone despite an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly shows what his politics are? It happens when the person in question is a deranged Leftwing stalker whose antics are so embarrassing that liberals are anxious to not be identified with him.
Such was the case with Andrew Stone (pictured), a Leftwing stalker whose home invasion of a Republican was chronicled by Michelle Malkin. As reported by Malkin, Stone stalked University of Mary Washington student, Richard Reed Pannell, whose "high crime" as stated in his Facebook account, was being a College Republican. After finding Pannell's home address in Facebook, Stone showed up at the address pretending to be a military recruiter. Here is what happened next as posted by Malkin:
At this point, Stone politely stood up, shook my hand, and told me that he had found my address on facebook. He asked if I was a College Republican as it said on my account, I told him yes. He then asked me "Oh, so that means you support the war, right?" and I responded with a yes. He then said that since I was for the war, if I was interested in signing up for the army. At this point I was sure he was a recruiter, and I told him that I'd definitely look into it as soon as I graduate (I'm a junior political science/econ major right now at UMW). This is where something changed in his eyes and he started getting aggressive. He took a step towards me and said that I support the war, yet don't want to fight in it.
At this point my roommate, Matt, stepped into the room and told him he was being disrespectful, and that it was time to leave. I told Matt that I could handle the guy (I've gotten into debates like this before). Stone responded to Matt by saying that "I'm not done talking to your roommate, he's a pussy and can't back up anything he believes in". At this point I, not politely, told him to leave our house. He refused, saying he was not done talking with us. He threw the military literature he had at me, which turned out to be United States Air Force literature. He said that I would never make it in the army and that was why he brought over USAF literature (implying he came over in a sinister manner--not only have I never seen/spoken to him before, but what if I had said that I had wanted to join up, right then and there? Oops, take this Air Force literature...).
My roommate Matt pushed Stone's shoulder towards the door at this point, and the second that happened Stone swung and struck Matt in the side of the head. Both exchanged several punches to the face/body and then I jumped in, throwing them both onto our couch. My other roommate called the police while both Matt and I tried to restrain him on the couch, but he kept hitting us. Both of us were yelling at him to leave, but he kept screaming that he wanted to fight us one on one like men, that we're "pussies" for not being in Iraq, and that we're hypocrites. He going crazy. Both of us struck him several times while he was on the couch. We finally dragged him off of the couch and forcibly pushed him out of the door. He then forced his way back into the house, where he struck Matt several more times. We both pushed him outside and went outside with him, where he would not leave our porch, and he continued to strike us both. Matt ended up pushing him over the railing, but fell along with him face first, with Stone holding onto my right arm as he did so.
The police on the phone with my other roommate told us to get inside, and so we did, and locked the door. As we entered my house, we yelled at Stone that the police were coming, and that if he was in the right, he should tell them. Personally, I'm surprised that he stayed--any logical person would flee after assaulting two people at once, unprovoked (the third roommate was not assaulted). The police showed up (4 cruisers) 30 seconds later, and Stone continued to be incredibly disorderly. They got his story, then ours, talked with eachother for 30 seconds and then arrested Stone. They asked if we wished to press charges, we said that we did. He is now out on bail, but he is charged with assault and battery, trespassing, and we have a restraining order against him.
We then hopped on facebook to see this guy's profile--he is NUTS.
...Later that day we found a list of names on the front porch, complete with addresses, boys and girls, all members of the college Republicans. I was 9th on the list. I contacted a few of the people on the list and only one had received a visit from this guy, and they hadn't even answered the door because they knew of his affiliation and what he was coming to say. For lack of better words, we were pretty unsuspecting. His arraignment is on March 1st, and our school newspaper is doing a large investigation of his ties to other organizations on campus, etc. For now, we're all pretty scared about what this guy'll do now that he's back on the streets.
So by reading this, would you have a pretty good idea where stalker Andrew Stone is coming from politically? If for some strange reason you are still having problems figuring this out, there is the fact that Stone started a Facebook group called, "Republicans are Cowards" plus these tidbits posted by Stone on Facebook:
Here's my "note" for you. Anyone who votes for a carpet-bagging, cowardly douchebag of a republican like George "pansy" Allen can go to hell with the rest of the cowards out there scared immobile by the "terrorist threat." Scumbag.
And God bless the PLO. When the oil runs out, we'll see who's left for the Zionists to go running to for foriegn aid.
God bless Iran and may this bastard state be wiped from the map.
Only a complete simpleton who hasn't read or watched the news for the past 30 years would have no idea as to the leftist political ideology of Andrew Stone but, amazingly, this is exactly the claim of TWO reporters for the the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star. First, we have this "brilliant" conclusion to the February 20 report on this stalking incident written by Keith Epps:
It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting.
This laughable statement was met with widespread derision including these readers comments in the Free Lance-Star:
"It was not clear in the report what political agenda Stone was supporting." Brief recap: Stone breaks down the door of a college Republican who supports the war and harangues him for being a "pussy," and reporter Keith Epps can't figure out what political agenda Stone is supporting. I'm here to help you, Keith. Clearly Stone is agitating for the American Royalist Party and wants to coronate Queen Elizabeth II as regent. Mystery solved. Sleep well, my friend. Sleep well.
Why is Epps lying about Stone's political agenda? It's didn't take long to research Stone and find out what his agenda is? Maybe the Free-lance Star should do something called a BASIC INVESTIGATION or maybe Epps should read his own story. I have a feeling that Epps used the last line in order to cover for Stone's political beliefs which is at the very least the worst and most ignorant type of journalism. The journalism of cowardices.
Amazingly, the Free Lance-Star compounded its foolishness by issuing another article on February 27, continuing its disingenious denial of knowing the political agenda of Andrew Stone. Here is reporter Michael Zitz with another ostrich-like claim of being unable to determine Stone's political leanings:
The tale of pacifist passion boiling over provided juice for political Web sites on both the right and the left. One conservative blogger cited it as an example of how hatred of President Bush is driving liberals to extremes.
Interviews with the participants indicate the dispute isn't that clear-cut.
The man accused in the attack refuses to call himself a Democrat but acknowledges that his actions were "dumb."
The "pro-war Republican" who was attacked says he isn't an active member of the campus political group and no longer strongly supports the war. One of his roommates, who was the first to be punched, describes himself as a liberal Democrat.
So because Stone is unwilling to label himself a Democrat despite his many Leftwing rantings on Facebook is now the reason that Zitz pretends to be unable to determine his politics. So what are the political motivations of Zitz who disingenously claims to not know what poltical field Stone is coming from. One big clue is his terminology towards the end of his article:
Pannell said he has no problem with the take of right-wing bloggers, adding, "It really was terrifying."
"Right-wing bloggers" Well, Mr. Zitz, you might pretend not to know what political agenda of deranged stalker Andrew Stone but most of the rest of us have a pretty clear idea where both you and Stone are coming from. And it is from Left field.