Bruce Fancher Battles the Barbarians of Zuccotti Park (Rightwing Smear Campaign)

Seriously, "The Barbarians of Zuccotti Park" is like something out of the Robert E. Howard universe.

Anyway a "Hobbyist Photographer" named Bruce Fancher had his story transcribed in the National Review Online. Here is the recounting of that most horrible of days;

Bruce was taking photographs of tents when a man approached him and told to him to “have some respect.” He calmly explained that it was a public park and he had every right to be there. Before he knew it, his camera had been smacked out of his hands, and his face had been punched. Bleeding fairly heavily from his nose, he went and described the assault to one of the many policeman in the square. An ambulance was called, and arrived almost immediately. When she was finished, the EMT told him that it was the “fourteenth assault” to which she had personally been called.

The professionalism of the first responders stopped there, however. “There is a certain expectation of the police,” Bruce told me, but service was not forthcoming: The NYPD officer steadfastly refused to go back into the park, suggesting that to do so would “cause a riot.” As a result, the assailant, described as “light, about 28 years old, muscular, short hair, and well dressed,” got away unpunished. When he described the attack to the reporting cop, the reaction was “indifference. I may as well have told him that it was going to rain tomorrow.” He received little sympathy from the OWS crowd either. Amazingly, “no one saw anything,” and no help was proferred. Perhaps “love for all” doesn’t apply as universally as advertised in the commune.

Ha ha ha! As a cop I can't tell you how many times I've heard the 'Oh officer I was blissfully minding my own business when this awful evil man appeared and without provocation beat me up'.

The "No one saw anything" should be the kicker, that this didn't happen the way old Bruce Fancher (a.k.a. Dead Lord / a.k.a. Timberwolf) described. But, we are living in an age of BS conservative smears and lying rightwing hacks (or in this case hacker). The amazing thing about this story is the absolute full faith the conservatives have that Fancher's version of events is 100% true and accurate.

What's the name of the EMT? What are the case numbers for the alleged "14 previous assaults"? What's the names of the Officers, Fancher talked to? These facts are missing from this story. What most likely happened was a scuffle of some kind but Fancher probably caught the worst of it, but telling the truth to the Cops that he was an active participant in a fight doesn't go a long way to providing the Rightwing with the beloved evidence of OWS thuggery.

It's the story of the young white McCain staffer having a B carved into her face by an evil Obama supporter. Conservatives are only too eager and willing to accept every story that conforms to their views. But, of course, the fact that everyone commenting on the story wasn't there should also give make conservatives pause before ranting about the evil leftists but that sort of skepticism is far too much to ask of rightwing ninnies.
Fancher has a history of being a fairly famous Computer Hacker. But, perhaps some insight into the political viewpoints of Bruce Fancher would help: Here are three reviews posted on Amazon from Bruce Fancher:

Of the One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy by David Horowitz dated March 13, 2009:

Horowitz presents a well-documented, irrefutable case that the academy has been taken over by the radical far-left. This should be a must read for politicians, policy-makers, administrators, faculty (the sane ones), students and their parents. Unfortunately, the Left is a religion, and those who subscribe to it's tenets (you know, the "open-minded") are impervious to persuasion, argument and debate. They know only that they and their beliefs are superior to all others, that if they and theirs had political power, they would be able to transform the world into a far better place than it is now, and that therefore anyone who opposes, or even questions them -- like Horowitz -- is an inhuman monster who must be smeared, defamed and destroyed. So when you read the one-star reviews of this book by the small-minded and intolerant, take them with a grain (better yet, a gallon) or salt.

On The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star by Matthew Continetti dated November 14, 2009:

This book brilliantly takes apart and disproves the vicious smears that the leftist media used to attack Palin during the 2008 campaign. The book makes an excellent and irrefutable case that the media's politically-motivated portrayal of Palin, which was almost inversely proportional to the extraordinary efforts made to ignore and explain away any negative information about Barrack Obama, was unprecedented and bore almost no relation to the truth. Unfortunately, more than a year after the election, the campaign against Palin continues unabated. Today's so-called "fact-checking" article by the Associated Press is so ridiculous that it almost reads as a parody. For example, the eleven (!) contributors to the article take on the role of mind-readers, challenging Palin's claim that she was driven by "purpose" instead of "ambition" by characterizing her book as having "all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto." Hopefully, Continetti's book will help to set the record straight about who the real Sarah Palin is.

On America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy by Gar Alperovitz dated June 24, 2005:

As PJ O'Rourke says, Liberalism is just Marxism by the glass. It's mind-boggling to think how much of a narciscist someone has to be to imagine that they have the knowledge and wisdom to write a plan to bring to peace and happiness to an entire country. And how out of touch they need to be to imagine that anyone else outside of a small fringe is going to even pay attention.

I wasn't there so I don't know what happened for certain. But, reading this story it's clearly an emotional plea. It's loaded with word usage designed to appeal to the reptilian conservative brain; All of Bruce's actions were cool and collected "He calmly explained" and all the actions by the OWS leftists were viscous, unwarranted and evil.

Additionally, I don't know why when rightwing poseurs and hacks recount their attempts at instigation and the ensuing altercations they write these kind of statements; "Perhaps "love for all" doesn't apply as universally as advertised in the commune." Why do conservatives expect liberals to be tolerant and open to their ignorance, bigotry and hostility? The quote from Karl Popper applies most aptly,

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

So, Rightwing inflitrators and hacks when you attempt to stir up trouble and cause problems and it blows up in your face you've brought it down upon yourself...