by Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com
It’s difficult to say which is more absurd, in a loathsome sort of way: Iran blaming Zionists for the Christmas Day massacre of 21 Egyptian Christians, or the Left blaming the Tucson shootings on Sarah Palin, Glenn Back, the Tea Party movement, and everyone who watches FOX News.
The smoke had hardly cleared from the shootings at a constituent meeting that left six people dead and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded, before the liberal smear-machine went into overdrive.
“These sorts of things (Palin putting Giffords’ district in crosshairs on her website during the last election) I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response,” intoned Senator Dick Durbin. Speaking of toxic rhetoric, in 2005, Durbin compared the treatment of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo to the Holocaust, Soviet gulags and Pol Pot.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann blamed the “ever-escalating, borderline ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy” to everyone Keith Olbermann has ever disagreed with. Apparently, he was not thinking of President Obama telling his supporters at a 2008 fundraiser that if Republicans “bring a knife (to the presidential campaign)…We bring a gun.” The New York Times’ Julie Bosman found this an adorable example of the messiah “showing a more pugnacious side” rather than language that condones violence.
The National Jewish Democratic Council – which exists to attack anything to the right of Nancy Pelosi and whitewash anti-Semitism in the party of Jimmy (Israel is an apartheid state) Carter – nattered: “It is fair to say – in today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric – that many have contributed to the building levels of vitriol in our political discourse that have surely contributed to the atmosphere in which this event transpired.”
If I can attempt to parse this mishmash, the NJDC is saying: In today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric, levels of vitriol (which assuredly are building), have contributed to an atmosphere in which an event transpired. As for the author of the foregoing, surely there’s a place at the New York Times for someone this logical and coherent.
The mainstream media’s newest hero, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, is more direct. Calling his state the capital of “the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on this country,” Dupnik indicts what the Times describes as “anti-immigrant sentiment” for building levels of vitriol.
Well, there it is: Arizonans who object to the illegal alien inundation (reputed to include many violent criminals) helped to generate the atmosphere of anger, hatred, and bigotry which contribute to building levels of vitriol, etc.
For the record, and not that it matters, there’s no evidence that the man arrested for the shootings had any views on illegal immigration – or that he ever attended a Tea Party rally, visited Sarah Palin’s website, or watched Glenn Beck.
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman, a professional climatologist of hate, admitted that while “It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled” (“Appears to have been mentally troubled”? Try is a classic paranoid schizophrenic.), still, “that doesn’t mean his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.”
Being disconnected from reality (much like one who is “mentally troubled”), liberals find it nigh impossible to grasp the concept of cause and effect.
So, the crimes of a nutcase, which appear to have no political motivation whatsoever, nevertheless can’t be treated as “an isolated event,” but, must (in some unspecified way) be attributed to a national mood, generated by tea-guzzling Republicans.
Warming to his subject, Krugman lectured readers on what he claims was the “upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 – an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing.” Krugman said the same hatred “was seen in the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies.” The Obama supporter who pummeled a female McCain volunteer during a Manhattan march, in October 2008 apparently doesn’t count.
The columnist used another smear to reinforce his own, reminding us: “The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.”
The report, which was ordered up by Janet Napolitano (the ideologue Obama put in charge of DHS), said potential domestic terrorists included immigration-reform advocates, opponents of gun control, those worried about rising unemployment, and “returning veterans.”
The authors admitted that none of these groups had actually committed acts of terrorism – but insisted they just might. After an outcry on Capitol Hill, Napolitano repudiated the report, which doesn’t keep liberal McCarthyites from dragging it out to bolster their arguments. BTW, the man arrested for the shootings fits none of the above criteria.
The alleged shooter appears to have developed his worldview studying at a community college on Neptune, under the tutelage of an extraterrestrial penguin on hallucinogenic drugs.
In various YouTube postings, Jared Lee Loughner (described by former friends as a chronic pothead) said he was into “conscience dreaming” as a way to counter a conspiracy to use “English grammar construction” and “mind control” to keep the United States off the gold standard.
Loughner also urged readers (who probably came across his postings accidentally, while looking for internet porn): “If there’s no flag in the Constitution, then the flag in the film is unknown. There’s no flag in the Constitution…burn every new and old flag that you see. Burn your flag.” Sounds like a typical Tea-Partier – smoking pot, burning flags…
Caitie Parker, a classmate of Loughner’s in high school and college, disclosed, “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.” (Maybe he was incited by the Roland Emmerich film of the same name.) Kent Slinker, who taught Loughner philosophy at Pima Community College, said his former student impressed him as “someone whose brains were scrambled.”
It’s important to understand that from the New York Times/Paul Krugman/Keith Olbermann/Dick Durbin perspective, only the right’s rhetoric condones violence or creates the “toxic atmosphere” where conscience dreamers, whose favorite books include The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, shoot up public events. The Left’s invocation of violent images has no impact at all.
So, when liberal groups said Bush had fabricated evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify an illegal war with Iraq (a blood-for-oil deal) this was just impassioned rhetoric justified by Republican deceit.
When President Obama told his supporters to “bring a gun’ to a knife fight, and urged Latinos in 2010 to “punish your enemies,” the contribution to a toxic atmosphere was nil. And when the DailyKos put Congresswoman Giffords on a “target list” in 2008, for not acting like a good Democratic automaton, it was a call to civility and calm deliberation.
Now, if the Left (including its miniature-poodle media) had even a vague interest in exploring the connection between advocacy and actions, it might consider the case of James Jay Lee of San Diego, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel’s Maryland headquarters last September. Fortunately, only the gunman died.
Lee had posted a list of demands. The Discovery Channel “must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants,” because overpopulation causes global warming, which is destroying the planet. This enviro-whackaroo actually said he was inspired in part by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
Does all of this loose talk about planetary doom caused by capitalists and Republicans, encourage the unstable to pick up automatic weapons and take hostages? Apparently not, since the mainstream media had no interest in considering cause-and-effect here.
The witch hunts occasioned by the Tucson shootings are more than just another chapter in the Left’s ongoing campaign to silence the opposition – the only way it’s capable of responding to criticism. Recall liberals’ little-girl whining over constituents’ indignation aired at congressional town meetings in 2009.
It’s gone far beyond the usual mommy-make-them-stop-saying-mean-things-about-us bitching.
U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, D-PA, has announced that he will file legislation to make it a crime to use words or images that seem to invoke violence or appear to threaten public officials.
“You can’t put bull’s eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady told CNN on Sunday. (Point of information: On Palin’s website, the crosshairs were on a map of Giffords’ district, not on the Congresswoman herself.) “This rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady insisted. The Congressman wants to be in the rhetoric-shutting-down business.
If I said that Brady is a boob who wouldn’t know the First Amendment’s free-speech clause if it leapt up and bit him on his plush posterior, under his proposed law, would I be guilty of using words that appeared threatening to a public official?
I think the Left should draw up a list of nouns and adjectives that we’re allowed to use when discussing its toxic schemes, like ObamaCare. “Socialized” would definitely be out – as would “nationalized,” “death panels,” “rationing,” “unconstitutional,” and “takeover.” “Pull” and “plug” could not be used in the same sentence. Such allusions to a totalitarian menace might provoke pot-smoking conscience dreamers to acts of rage.
Maybe they’d let us use words like “inefficient,” “counter-productive,” “ill-conceived,” and “gosh-all-golly-gee.”
Once liberals destroy talk radio (in the name of detoxifying the political environment) and sanitize the internet (to forestall imaginary threats to national security), perhaps they’ll let us communicate via snail-mail, or heavily edited smoke signals at the very least.