Remember when media liberals were insisting (falsely, by the way) that RedState's Erick Erickson had advocated shooting a census taker? Well imagine that a journalist had approached, say, Dick Armey and the following exchange had ensued. Then try to imagine what the media's response would be.
JOURNO: Obviously you don't believe in killing census workers.
ARMEY: Umm, not in that context, no sir. No, no.
JOURNO: Okay, in what context?
ARMEY: Just for the sake of this interview, no context. I don't believe in that. There are too many other government forces out here that are much more powerful that I as a man would focus on. I wouldn't focus on the census workers, sir, I'd focus on the police.
Replace "census workers" with "babies" and "government" with "white," and you have the exact statement from Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, made in an interview with Mediaite's Tommy Christopher (video below the fold).
"So," writes Tabitha Hale at RedState, "just for the sake of this interview, killing white babies is not okay. But those other times, in the proper context? It’s totally okay. You know, as long as the crackers are out of the way."
Mark Potok, please call your office.
Oh the howling that would ensue if any Tea Party leader, let alone the head of a prominent organization like FreedomWorks, made a statement like that. "Killing census workers is not as productive as killing cops," is what it would, rightly, be boiled down to.
Shabazz is saying that he considers violence towards police officers to be a more productive activity in battling white people than killing their children. Phew. What a relief.
Where is the media on this?
Where is Chris Matthews to devote an entire hour-long special to the dangers of militant black supremacy groups, as he did with the Tea Party?
Where is Rachel Maddow to devote an hour of her time to warning viewers that violent rhetoric can incite violent action, as she did in the context of the Oklahoma City bombing, naturally blaming it on conservatives?
Where is Joe Klein to remind us of the definition of sedition -- "conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state, in his words -- and to accuse these groups of "rubbing right up close" to doing just that?
Where are the host of media personalities who painted the Hutaree militia and a vague threat of "right-wing extremism" as the biggest threat to American peace since 9/11?
They are all silent, because accusing the New Black Panthers of fomenting violence does not fit the narrative -- it does not serve their political ends. And this is not some obscure member of the group holding a sign demanding that we "water the tree of liberty" -- to use a Tea Party equivalent. This is the leader of a prominent (for a wacky fringe group) organization issuing a thinly-veiled endorsement of violence against police officers.
The lack of condemnation even remotely similar to the hit jobs on the Tea Party movement is quite telling.
For more on this story, check out NB publisher Brent Bozell's segment on "Hannity" last night.
*****UPDATE:
Crack commenter sic721 notes that this is far from Shabazz's first literal call for violence. In fact, just last month, he issued the following statement:
With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!
MSM response: [crickets].
