lest we forget...the thing the leftylibs refuse to acknowledge is that historically speaking there is far more violence perpetrated by the left then the right...the 2008 republican convention...remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters? They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.
These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats' own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures?For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago. Yet today, we can hardly imagine what would happen if a group of tea partiers were to drop sandbags off a highway overpass, trying to kill motorists below. Liberal reporters' heads would explode. But this is exactly what anti-Republican Party protesters did in 2008, and no one cared
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/... Left-wing violence is growing worse and worse at townhall meetings that are being held to debate healthcare. A 65 year old man had his finger bitten off by a violent left-wing thug at a townhall meeting in Ventura County, California.
About 100 people demonstrated in favor of socialized health care and identified themselves as being organized by MoveOn.org, an internet based group that coordinates left-wing campaigns and activities. MoveOn.org is funded by radical left-wing billionaire George Soros.
Soros, born György Schwartz, is the son of Hungary’s most infamous Jewish Nazi collaborator. He is also a felon convicted of insider trading in France. Soros pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into left-wing movements in the United States and Eastern Europe. Soros is believed to have pumped millions into Obama’s presidential primary campaign through numerous American front groups.
Media censors race rioting in Santa Cruz and San Fransisco.
Hundreds of Mestizos went on a rampage smashing windows and attacking white people in Santa Cruz, California. The “mainstream” media has completely censored the story.
Will 2010 go down as the year of the race riots? Usually race riots occur during the hottest summer months. So far we have seen several this year and it isn’t even summer time yet.
Read More from the Political Cesspool. Click Here.
So far in 2010
Multiple Black Race Riots in Philadelphia
Multiple Black Race Riots in Kansas City, MO.
Black Race Riots in Seattle and New York City.
UPDATE: The local media in St. Louis is blatantly lying about the town hall meeting. They are only reporting that there “was a disturbance by unruly Rush Limbaugh supporters.” The fact that a man was hospitalized was CENSORED. The fact that six left-wing thugs wearing SEIU t-shirts were arrested was CENSORED. The fact that the so-called “unruly” conservatives were not even allowed into the meeting was CENSORED.
Second report of left-wing violence at a townhall meeting on socialized health care! SEIU Union Goons used to attack and terrorize conservatives at St. Louis town hall meeting. Conservative activist hospitalized.
Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don’t tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John’s Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.
“It just seems there’s no freedom of speech without being attacked,” he said.Left-Wing Violence Against Cops and Republicans — That’s Unpossible!
August 25, 2009 11:40 P.M.
By Mark Hemingway
Funny, with all this talk of the alleged threat of political violence in the health-care debate coming from the right, the national media has been strangley silent about this story:
A 23-year-old man from Austin, Texas, who was connected to a group that planned to disrupt the Republican National Convention (RNC) in September 2008, was sentenced today in federal court to possessing destructive devices. On May 14, in Minneapolis, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael Davis sentenced Bradley Neal Crowder to 24 months in prison and three years of supervised release on one count of possession of a destructive device. Crowder was indicted on Sept. 22, 2008,
and pleaded guilty on Jan. 8, 2009.
According to trial testimony, McKay and Crowder, angered by the loss of the shields, purchased supplies for constructing Molotov cocktails at a St. Paul Wal-Mart on Aug. 31, including a gas can, motor oil and tampons. They also purchased gasoline at a gas station. They then manufactured the eight Molotov cocktails at an apartment on Dayton Avenue where they were staying.
During a FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation, authorities learned through an informant that McKay and Crowder had manufactured the Molotov cocktails. Crowder was arrested on Sept. 1 for disorderly conduct during an RNC demonstration.
During a conversation overheard by law enforcement through electronic surveillance on Sept. 2, McKay told an informant that he intended to throw the Molotov cocktails at police vehicles parked in a lot near the Dayton Avenue apartment.
Oh and there’s this related nugget:
A Texas woman faces trial this month in Austin on charges she threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated an Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., last fall
As Europeans wait to see how the United States is planning to retaliate for last week's attacks on Washington and New York, there is growing anxiety here about the tone of American war rhetoric.
President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
"We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs," French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said on Sunday. "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" which he said had been "conceived by the instigators of the assault."
On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years.
Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about."
But his earlier comments, declaring a war between good and evil, shocked Europeans. "If this 'war' takes a form that affronts moderate Arab opinion, if it has the air of a clash of civilizations, there is a strong risk that it will contribute to Osama bin Laden's goal: a conflict between the Arab-Muslim world and the West," warned the Paris daily Le Monde on Tuesday in an editorial.
"Bush is walking a fine line," suggested Dominique Moisi, a political analyst with the French Institute for International Relations, the country's top foreign policy think tank. "The same black and white language he uses to rally Americans behind him is just the sort of language that risks splitting the international coalition he is trying to build.
"This confusion between politics and religion...risks encouraging a clash of civilizations in a religious sense, which is very dangerous," he added.
On Monday, Taliban deputy leader Mohammed Hasan Akhund warned his fellow Afghans to prepare for 'Jihad' - holy war - against America, if US forces attack Afghanistan.
While almost every world leader agrees with Washington that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were evil, not all of those leaders - especially in the Middle East - identify the United States with good.
British prime minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way this week to make it clear that the battle against terrorists is a battle not between Christians and Muslims, but between civilized values and fanaticism. In that battle, he said Monday "the vast majority of decent law-abiding Muslims" opposed fanaticism.
It is their support for Washington's war that could be undermined by the sort of language on the president's lips, warns Hussein Amin, a former Egyptian ambassador who now lectures on international affairs. "The whole tone is that of one civilization against another," he finds. "It is a superior way of speaking and I fear the consequences - the world being divided into two between those who think themselves superior" and the rest.
Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."
French President Jacques Chirac, who arrived in Washington Tuesday, and Mr. Blair, who will see Bush Thursday, are expected to offer Europe's solidarity, but to stop short of offering Washington a blank check. If European help is needed, Europeans want to be in on the planning, officials here say.
I assume you guys are going to post all the Jews who have spoken out against this. Because I know you all would never present only one position, especially the one position that coincides with your leanings.
Without taking any partisan position, but purely on the issue's historical merits, nothing could have been more appropriate than Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" to describe what happened to her after the Tucson killings. I know because my direct ancestors were the target of a blood libel.
A blood libel is a false accusation that someone else has deliberately caused the shedding of blood in order to harm that person or people, advance one's own political and ideological agenda, and stir up hatred for them in a manner that might lead to the shedding of their blood in revenge......
...... A blood libel means to accuse an entire group, and a person or persons within this group, for the killing. In this case, a 22-year-old mentally ill man shot, killed, and wounded people. Those who knew him say he hated television and didn't listen to talk radio. He was registered Independent and once burned an American flag.
Yet conservatives in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, are accused of responsibility for this deed, often by those who have been equally or even more inciteful.
There's another aspect of a blood libel, too, that applies here: it leads to additional rounds of violence.
Accusing Palin and others of this murder could lead to the shedding of their blood. Indeed, if one follows blogs, twitters, and comments online that is an easy thing to believe. In that case, those inciting people claiming that someone is a murderer are encouraging additional rounds of violence following the initial act.
That is a blood libel. By the way, it is also the kind of thing that liberals used to call a witch-hunt.
Instead of criticizing Palin for her use of the term, then, people should reflect on how it reveals a lot about the behavior of others in the last few days.
Given the contemporary crazed political and intellectual atmosphere, the reaction of many people who read this column will be that it is written because I support Palin politically. I don't. I support telling the truth about who is exploiting the use of the term "blood libel." And it isn't her. Even worse, there are people who have been spreading blood libels against Jews and largely given a pass by the media, which in itself has been doing so increasingly about Israel and Israelis in recent years.
What could be more absurd than seeing America's leading antisemite Patrick Buchanan--who launched a blood libel that Jews and Israelis set off the 2003 Iraq war for their own gain (reflecting the idea about World War One that launched the Holocaust in Germany) giving a lecture about the proper and improper uses of the blood libel concept. Others with a history of spreading blood libels--notably the Reverend Al Sharpton [see appendix]--were given space in the Washington Post to pretend that they were voices of tolerance and calm.
Indeed, the current idea that one cannot support the justice of any principle or point of fact without having a hidden political agenda is one of the most chilling concepts of this out-of-control era we unfortunately are living in at present.
But there's one more point that must be mentioned here. Nothing is more outrageous than people and institutions that are spreading blood libels today against Jews (even if they are Jews themselves who, in some cases, usually only invoke their Jewish background when they are criticizing other Jews) suddenly becoming outraged about Palin's remarks. Only hours before attacking Palin on this point, the New York Times coverage one-sidedly tried to prove that a Palestinian woman was murdered by tear gas fired by Israeli soldiers. And only days after it covered up anti-American blood libels.
The woman wasn't even at the demonstration. There is tremendous evidence that the accusation wasn't true. No American reporter was present at the scene. Not only do large elements on the Western intellectual, political, and media scene often collaborate in the perpetration of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish blood libels, they do not report on the myriad blood libels generated on a daily basis in the Muslim-majority and particularly Arab world.
Since I'm not Jewish, I'll let a Jewish writer's response speak for me:
"Now, just for the record, we Jews haven't been using the blood of gentile kids for our baking needs in at least a couple of decades, but in historical terms, blood libel refers to false accusations that Jews were murdering children to use their blood in religious rituals — and an excuse for anti-Semitism. It was heavily utilized in the Middle Ages by some Christians and, with a few modifications, is a regular smear in the Muslim world today.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of Israel antagonists at J Street (an outfit that USA Today accidentally referred to as "a political organization for Jews and supporters of Israel"), spoke for hundreds when he claimed that "the term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds" and demanded that Palin "retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."
Really? Memory? Inflammatory? Painful echoes?
Jews, well, we can be offended like it's 1257
Liberal Alan Dershowitz, as sensitive as they come to anti-Semitism (both real and imagined), said in a statement that "there is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term."
Now, feel free to be annoyed or enraged by Palin or her views. Feel free to question whether she had any idea what a blood libel was before this week. But this kind of indignation over an analogy is infantilizing what were once serious sensitivities.
Perhaps if self-proclaimed spokespeople for Jews everywhere like J Street focused on genuine anti-Semitism around the world, their little partisan cabaret would be more plausible.
Blood libel is the fiction-laden, anti-Israel Goldstone Report. Blood libel is the flotilla incident near Gaza. Blood libel is the Egyptian state media's peddling the idea that shark attacks were the handiwork of Jews and other state-run Arab media's blaming AIDS on Zionists.
There are plenty of genuine things to get offended about in the world if you're Jewish."
A conspiracy against the mind, against life,against man...and the virtue of Sarah Palin
They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man. (Ayn Rand)
Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction. Now. The debased and the soulless are not our masters. They do not tell us what to think and who to follow or who we can like or dislike or who we can be friends with.
Ayn Rand? The women who publicly chants her racism in hopes of garnering the camaraderie of the most vulnerable of our country--those who lack true intelligence but really do wish for the intellectual pursuit to gain back control of this country; those who truly sound just like you, crystalman. And yes I think you guys are truly the most vulnerable because you'd believe anything that women would say. It's almost a joke; like something written in Orwell's 1984: Ayn Rand is talented with words, but you could easily use the same words about any faction in this country and the vulnerable will surely post it up and find some truth to it, just like you. But wait... was that Ayn Rand? That's right, it was Ann Coulter. It's hard to tell lately with the appearance of all these media hungry women ranting and raving about some kind of hatred and suckling at the talent of Ayn Rand who stands, hopefully like Emerson, with great prose whose design can easily be manipulated into hatred... but I wouldn't give her that much credit, Emerson had something to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it Rand who wrote books about fatalism and a self-autonomous dream land (supposedly here on earth would you believe?) where everyone is out for themselves? The same book that takes Nicholas Machiavelli and the american dream and obscures them into some kind of republican dogma? Wow, I could use her own words to describe what she wrote. What a mind bending paradox. Almost seems artificial and designed, just like your all comments on this site. I don't buy it. But it makes something seem right, knowing that this lady isn't serious at all and hopefully people will see that soon.
I honestly don't understand the actions of the parents(not blaming them) but how many of you would sit back and do nothing if told your child were sick?Mental illness is the same as a sore throat,treat it ! Damn it a simple trip to a doctor would have prevented all this heartache!
Jane, I would like to think that most parents would do as you say, but I sure know a lot of people that are in denial about their kids, they aren't doing drugs, they aren't alcoholics, they don't have any mental issues, etc., etc. Maybe if you don't treat it, it isn't really there.
Honestly, try getting decent mental health for a disturbed family member. If it is available and affordable, and that is rare, the subject will usually not cooperate. You can not involuntarily lock someone up just because they are acting strange. Sometimes even after a violent episode, they are released from mental facilities with little or no follow up.
It is not as easy as you would think. It is also heartbreaking to have a violent family member picked up by a crisis unit, and then dangerous when they are released with no aftercare.
Not getting the point simply denounces you as ignorant,in Arizona a simple request is all that is needed,the gov.own son is a convicted rapist and murderer,as much as I can't stand the woman she did alot for families with mental illness.If someone simply would have said(the college where he was kicked out of for example told his parents this.) Check him out,he would have been on a radar screen.
seriously? the college asked his parents to get him tested before he could return.Couldn't be more coherent than that...I sure wish we could hear from some of his high school students,because if this started in HS they had a legal obligation to have him treated!
There is no legal obligation to treat a minor that is mentally ill unless the afflicted person commits a crime or is deemed to be a danger to self of others, and even then the rules are sketchy. Rules vary from state to state. Treatment, when available, also varies wildly from practitioner to practitioner. The drugs that are used, when and if taken as prescribed also have wildly varying reactions based on the individual taken them.
This is not a precise science, there is no guarantee of help, there is no guarantee that the help will be good or even competent. It is not as easy as you make it sound. If you had a good experience, then I am happy for you. But that just means you were very lucky or maybe the difficulty with your son was not severe. This is my personal experience after 25 years of social work.
True 15 yrs ago the laws were different and due vary from state to state,the moral obligation and parent responsibility do not change however,most HS will not let you just float knowing that a child needs mental health,and or medication,i.e. Columbine,Paducah etc... He is doing great and now that it is no longer considered a preexisting condition can get his meds .HOORAY FOR Health Care reform!
not so...By Liz Szabo and Janice Lloyd, USA TODAY
Tucson mass shooting suspect Jared Loughner's recent history of instability — including five disruptions at his community college and bizarre rants on YouTube videos — probably would have been sufficient to commit him to a psychiatric facility, even against his will, experts said.
Arizona makes it easier than most states to commit mentally ill people to psychiatric care, even against their will. But that doesn't mean that everyone gets the help they need.
"The state laws are some of the best in the country," said Jack Potts, a forensic psychiatrist in Phoenix. "The follow-up is not."
Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person's mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person's condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.
if used repsonsibly i'd be open for it. but as with all things i am sure abuse could prevail. if someone or some government agent doesnt like you for whatever frivolous reason whats to prevent them from having you committed against your will? but on the other hand we cant have lunatics with guns running loose in society.
Oh, just stop the poor Sarah Palin crap. People are stating fact, 'Sarah Palin' and others have purposefully spun rhetoric which appeared to have a militant slant. Don't try to rewrite history when things happen. Sarah Palin is not a victim. Just stop it.
Talking about her comments is not inappropriate, it's a fact. If she doesn't want to feel blame and shame for what happens in the future, she should tone down her rhetoric and stick to facts!
i wonder where the spin was in 2008? the thing the leftylibs refuse to acknowledge is that historically speaking there is far more violence perpetrated by the left then the right...the 2008 republican convention...remember the terrorist acts that were carried out by anti-Republican protesters? They threw bricks through the windows of buses, sending elderly convention delegates to the hospital. They dropped bags of sand off highway overpasses onto vehicles below. Fortunately, no one was killed.
These were anti-Bush and anti-Republican protesters. Is it a stretch to think that some of them, at least, may have been inspired by over-the-top, hateful attacks on the Bush administration by Democratic Congressmen, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Michael Moore, who was a guest of honor at the Democrats' own convention, various show business personalities, and many other leading liberal figures?For some reason, political violence was not a concern less than two years ago.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Wednesday that former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin were emblematic of an "idiot trying to make a name.â?? Some of the rhetoric against Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization has taken on an extreme tone since they began leaking the first of hundreds of thousands of stolen U.S. diplomatic cables.
Among the prominent critics of Assange's and WikiLeaks' actions are former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who described the leaks as terrorism and treason, respectively.
In a recent interview with MSNBC, Assange dismissed the charges that he is a digital terrorist, and called what he interpreted as cries for his head from people like Huckabee and Palin as nothing more than "another idiot trying to make a name for himself."
"If we are to have a civil society, you cannot have senior people making calls on national TV to go around the judiciary and illegally murder people," he said. "That is incitement to commit murder."
In an interview at the Reagan Presidential library shortly after news of the leaks hit the airwaves, Huckabee said: "Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty."
Palin, just three weeks after saying on her Facebook page that the U.S. should hunt Assange down like al Qaeda, used a leaked cable from WikiLeaks in a USA Today Op-Ed as crucial evidence in her argument against Iran's nuclear program.
Among the many charges leveled against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange - charges that he is a terrorist, a sex offender, an anarchist - the one he battles back against most fervently in interviews is the charge that he is not a journalist.
Assange defends his right to the limited protection journalists get by pointing to his longtime membership in the Australian journalists' union, as well as numerous letters of support from groups like Reporters Without Borders and Columbia Journalism School.
In his MSNBC interview, Assange equated the attempts to paint him as a non-journalist to "a new kind of digital McCarthyism being pushed from Washington."
"(The general public) don't like (government attempts to prosecute me) in the United States because of these good revolutionary First Amendment traditions about the right of all people to criticize their government," Assange said.
In the interview, Assange warned other media outlets that if a conspiracy charge could be levied against him, then it could be levied against any reporter who works with confidential sources to get sensitive information.
"That's going to take out all of good government journalism as it occurs in the United States," he said.
From my understanding, to be a traitor you need to betray someone in a harmful manner, and to be an enemy of the free world you need to either be a threat to the free world or do something which threatens the free world.
Out of all of the information that has been leaked through wikileaks, what of it has posed a threat to the national security and/or well being of any nation or it's citizens?
Today, Sarah Palin wrote this note on her Facebook page in response to the leftist lynching of good and decent Americans.
America's Enduring Strength Sarah Palin, Facebook
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.
It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.
Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.
Reagan was responsible for the end of the cold war and the tearing down of the Berlin wall. He championed freedom. If you spit on him, you spit on freedom and if he regarded homosexuality as an aberration then tough shit.
In 1989, Soviet leader Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush signed the StART I arms control treaty. It had become obvious to the Soviets that the cost of oil and gas, the cost of maintaining troop levels necessary to control the Soviet areas, and the failure of the domestic economy would cause an economic collapse of the Soviet system. Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and in 1990, Gorbachev agreed to German reunification. The Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet alliance system was about to collapse. Without Soviet support, the Warsaw Pact nations lost power. The USSR was weakened by glasnost and by February,1990 the Soviet Communist Party was about to dissolve and it was forced to surrender its 73 year old dictatorial hold on the power of the state. At the same time, freedom of the press and other freedoms allowed by the policy of glasnost, led the Soviet republics to declare their independence from the Soviet Union. A wave of nationalism swept those areas controlled by the Soviets. The USSR was fatally weakened by a failed coup and as a growing number of Soviet republics, particularly Russia, threatened to secede the USSR was declared officially dissolved on December 25, 1991.Yeah no mention of the sleeping President here.....
Today Sarah Palin responded to the vicious blood libel leveled against her by the army of destroyers. The ferocious, relentless attacks on Sarah Palin are a testament to her greatness, proof of how deathly afraid of her they are, like Dracula to the silver cross.
'Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves . . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.
This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree . . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.
If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.' - Ayn Rand
Here's the thing. The mission by objective of the haters, the party of destruction, is to ruin the best, the brightest, the good. The left has, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, trafficked only in ruin and destruction, focusing on the most effective leaders on the right.
The left was waiting for such an atrocity. It didn't matter who, what, where, when -- fill in the blanks. The ghouls were waiting for Arizona to smear the right and those that best represent it.
As for Sarah Palin not being electable -- by whom? The left? So what? Who cares? They are never going to vote for her anyway or for any decent, qualified American.
Insight and self-knowledge are no more the defining characteristics of the left than they are of Jared Lee Loughner. The fact is that a terrible and tragic atrocity by a mentally disturbed individual has been seized upon and exploited -- coldly, cynically and maliciously -- for the purposes of crude political propaganda. Even by their own degraded standards, the liberal left mob have now managed to plumb more vicious depths of narcissistic self-delusion than ever before.