Tragedy to Triumph, Democrat Style

Post Reply New Topic

"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us." --Thomas Jefferson

Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican recommended for the bench by Sen. John McCain and nominated by President George H. W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson on Saturday. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded, and her recovery prospects are promising.

These deaths and injuries are an incalculable tragedy, and equally so are the deaths and injuries of thousands of other violent crime victims each year.

Rep. Giffords is a moderate Democrat and a self-described "strong supporter of the Second Amendment." That notwithstanding, the Democrat Party has already undertaken to convert the Tucson attack into political fodder for "gun control" and "hate speech" legislation, and a "national conversation" with the objective of silencing conservative political speech.

A gun did not commit the assault in Tucson, as the Left would like you to believe; the perpetrator was a mentally deranged 22-year-old, Jared Lee Loughner, who chose to use a gun rather than some other method to orchestrate his mayhem.

What do we know about the motivation of this killer?

Former classmate Caitie Parker described Loughner as "left wing" and "a pothead." Though Loughner listed Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" among his favorite books, it is unlikely that these Leftist texts, or any other Leftist political propaganda, drove him to mass murder.

According to his friend Bruce Tierney, Loughner fixated on Giffords after she was confused by a question he posed in a previous public forum about government manipulation of grammar. "How do you know words mean anything?" he asked.

Her confusion was understandable.

Though there is not a shred of evidence linking Loughner's actions to political rhetoric, Democrats seized the day by invoking Barack Hussein Obama's Rule 1 from former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Obama and his histrionic sycophants are taking a page from Obama's political prophet, Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals." Alinsky defined how to use a tragedy for political gain: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. The opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.' ... One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

As a "community organizer," Obama practiced Alinsky's maxim to "first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent."

The first order of business for Obama and company was to target Sarah Palin -- specifically a political map1 from her SarahPAC website that identified vulnerable Democrat districts with crosshairs. One of those districts was Giffords' 8th Congressional District in southern Arizona.

Liberals argued that such imagery contributed to the violence in Tucson.

It turns out, of course, that Democrats have used much more inflammatory graphics, such as a "Heartland Strategy2 map on the official Democrat Leadership Council's website, which identified "enemy lines."

Then Democrats went after conservative media commentators like Rush Limbaugh and websites like PatriotShop.US, accusing us of inciting violence with "hate speech."

When asked if the Tea Party movement is an instigator, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said, "For a while, you've been feeding this hatred, this division ... you feed it, you encourage it. ... Some of the extreme right wing has made demonization of elected officials their priority."

However, a quick search of comments by Democrat leaders and liberal media talkingheads reveals a hefty strain of hypocrisy. Of course, were it not for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any at all.

At a Democrat fundraiser, Obama had this to say about countering his Republican adversaries: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He identified Republicans as "hostage takers," later saying, "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry!" I didn't consider any of this to be hate speech, just a clarification of how seriously and how far Democrats are willing to take the political fight.

Recently, Joe Biden remarked, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." Biden didn't mean that literally, of course, and yet we're being asked to believe that Sarah Palin "crosshairs" map was somehow an incitement for the targeted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

In a New York Times op-ed this week, former Demo Rep. Paul Kanjorski declared, "It is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." This would be the same Rep. Kanjorski who had these words for a then-Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott: "They ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

Ah, yes, "civility and respect."

A few other rhetorical examples: From the official Democrat Party website: "The Democratic National Committee plans to target Republican John McCain." From the website of Former Demo Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, "Once again, the Republican Leadership has launched an attack on working families. The target this time is one of the cornerstones of protection for American workers." From the website of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), "It Really Is Time For Americans To Take Up Pitchforks."

OK, I actually agree with McCaskill!

Headlines from Leftmedia sources: "Democrats Launch Website Targeting 'Republican Lies'" (Washington Post); "A coalition known as Americans United for Change is targeting Republican senators" (NPR); "Obama administration officials said they were targeting Republican Senators" (CNN); "Dems Play Hardball: Target Republican Senators" (Huffington Post); "In the meantime, Obama will continue to target Republicans" (CBS); "I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews).

The Media Research Center has compiled numerous other violent threats3 issued by high-visibility liberals against conservatives.

No doubt clueless as to these many examples of Leftist "incitement," the celebrities piled on: "Hanoi Jane"4 Fonda, who infamously posed on an NVA antiaircraft gun only yards from where North Vietnamese prison guards were torturing American POWs, summed up the situation thusly: "Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site (sic). Inciting to violence." Thanks for your input, Jane.

Oh, and there was another Leftist celebrity who chimed in this week. Fidel Castro wrote in an op-ed, "The Tea Party, constituted by the most reactionary and politically backward elements of society ... in the midst of the crisis and disappointment over the promises that Obama has been unable to fulfill, will take the country into the abyss."

You know when a communist dictator and Socialist Democrats are on one side, you want to be on the other!

Speaking of Leftist op-eds, consider how The New York Times opined on two tragedies.

In 2009, after Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, all the while yelling "Allahu Akbar," Times' editors wrote: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, 'we don't know all the answers yet' and cautioned everyone against 'jumping to conclusions.'"

This week after the Tucson attack, that same Times jumped to this conclusion: "It is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. ... Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments."

Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Crisis response, Part 1: Pennsylvania Demo Rep. Robert Brady is proposing "hate speech" legislation outlawing "language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a member of Congress."

Crisis response, Part 2: California Demo Sen. Barbara Boxer says, "I believe we should look at sensible gun laws again. Now, I'm not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer..."* (Huh?)

Crisis response, Part 3: New Jersey Demo Sen. Frank Lautenberg announced that he is working with New York Demo Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on legislation that would ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines like those used in Tucson. According to McCarthy, "My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as [Monday]."

Bottom line here is that liberal politicos will not be content until citizens are restricted to all but single-shot flintlocks. And then they will undertake to outlaw flint!

Since alcohol-related auto wrecks kill far more Americans than sociopaths with guns, perhaps McCarthy and Lautenberg will soon be out with legislation requiring a five-day waiting period to buy a beer, and of course, no hi-capacity six-pack purchases will be allowed.

Oh, did I mention that alcohol is a determinant in more than 70 percent of violent crimes?

For the record, I fully support your individual right to possess, transport and consume alcohol, but I also support the notion that you have an individual responsibility in society not to endanger others by driving in public after using it. If you do, the consequence should be swift and harsh. But outlawing alcohol will not stop its consumption, any more that prohibition did so, or the prohibition on drugs does so today.

Some quick facts about criminals who use guns: The annual murder rate per 100,000 people on the European continent is 5.4, while in the United States, it is 5.6 (Bureau of Justice Statistics). However, if you're not involved with the drug or gang subcultures, your chances of being murdered drop to par with the more "civilized" Western European nations, about 1.5 per 100,000.

As for Leftist attempts to disarm Americans, no amount of "gun control" will stop criminals from committing violent crimes against innocent men, women and children, though, arguably, gun restrictions can increase the violent crimes.

The U.S. city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington, D.C., has the highest murder rate at 24 per 100,000. The state with the most unrestrictive gun regulations, Vermont, has the lowest murder rate at 0.48 per 100,000.

Facts notwithstanding, the Left seizes on tragedies like Tucson in order to advance their political agenda, which is a sham and a shame. Their gun safety proposals have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with disarming Americans. Fortunately, for the moment, the Second Amendment5 in our Bill of Rights still provides something of an obstacle for Leftists like Boxer and Lautenberg.

Liberals are predisposed to blameshifting. Rather than addressing issues such as the stark social entropy engendered by their Socialist policies, Democrats would rather blame inanimate objects like guns.

Violence is a cultural problem, not a "gun problem."

Ronald Reagan once 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."

Indeed.

Please join us in prayer for all victims of criminal violence and negligence across our nation, and for their families. Let us also pray for national leadership that upholds the fundamental notion of individual liberty and its necessary coefficient, individual responsibility.

*Footnote: At a televised news conference this week, Boxer held up for the cameras and distributed to reporters an enlargement of a small image from the humor category of PatriotShop.US, a "Liberal Hunting Permit" campaign sticker. Boxer claimed it could incite violence, so her solution was to expose millions of people to this "dangerous image" likely none would ever see otherwise? I suppose that is as logical as her use of the Tucson tragedy to call for new gun control laws, even though in the next sentence she admits, "I'm not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer." One might also argue that her name is associated with a blood sport, that it might inspire violence, and she should change it!

I'm afraid you're about a month late 'Keet, this horse left the barn a while ago. Let me see if I can dig it up, but the best article I read about the tragedy and the various reactions to it mused about how so many people were focused on "violent" language and so few made any mention about voting for violence. I'll post it if I can find it.

I notice they left out the interview with Loughner's best friend who described him as 'neither left nor right' but motivated by 'conspiracy theories'. He hated everybody

Civility is nice; nonviolence is even better

By A. Barton Hinkle
Published: January 21, 2011

The frenzy surrounding Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson this month has finally died down. As tempers cool, perhaps distance could turn reflection toward some bigger questions. Many Republicans and Democrats have lamented the frequency of violent rhetoric in politics. Fewer seem to have regrets about the actual use of violence itself.

I'm not referring here to death threats, terrorism, assassination attempts, and similar heinous acts. Nobody considers those violent deeds by non-state actors legitimate. But what about violence by the state? Liberals and conservatives alike often embrace it as a means to an end they desire.

Government, as Max Weber famously put it, is distinguished from other social organizations by its claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A church or club might invite you to join, but cannot conscript you as government can. A developer cannot take your property by eminent domain; only government can. Acme might try to persuade you to buy widgets through advertising. A gay-rights group might try to coerce Acme to adopt gay-friendly personnel policies by organizing a boycott of Acme's products. But Acme cannot make you buy widgets at the point of a gun, and gay-rights groups cannot change Acme's employee policies by kidnapping the CEO's daughter.

Acme must rely on your consenting however grudgingly to buy its widgets, and the rights group must rely on other people consenting to join their boycott. Only the government can make you buy its products on pain of imprisonment. (Just ask actor Wesley Snipes, currently doing a three-year stretch for tax evasion.) Only government can force you to "boycott" products it declares off-limits, such as heroin, and arrest you if you don't.

The debate over the size and scope of government, then, is an argument over when to use violence to change things and circumstances consensual activity cannot. Liberals (broadly speaking) find inequality odious and think the government should use force in the economic arena by redistributing wealth but leave individuals alone in matters of personal morality, such as whom they have sex with. Conservatives (broadly speaking) are less troubled by inequality and disdain the redistributive uses of government power. But social conservatives are outraged by immorality, as they define it, and therefore think the state should use the threat of violence to enforce personal moral codes by banning prostitution, homosexual sodomy, and the like.

Then there are a small minority of diehard libertarians who would like to minimize government involvement in both arenas, and a small minority of diehard communitarians who think government should dictate behavior of every stripe.

Admittedly, this oversimplifies the issue. It ignores some big questions such as whether people tacitly consent to being governed. It ignores the many exceptions to the general rule, such as conservative Republican support for upward redistribution through corporate welfare. And it is open to several criticisms.

Here's one: A liberal might say that if Acme is the only grocery store in town, then the townsfolk are hardly free to choose whether to shop at Acme's Food Store, because they have to eat. So they should be able to force Acme not to price-gouge. But there is a difference between a lack of options and the use of violence, and that difference seems more than slight.

Liberals also sometimes speak glowingly of collective action. They find a nobility in the spirit of community and the notion of people working together to achieve common aims. Everyone should. From corner churches to corporate suites, voluntary social groups have accomplished great marvels. Adding coercion to the mix, though, seems to fatally undermine the community spirit.

Some conservatives also speak glowingly about the common good and argue that their policies alone will advance it. But again, forcing people to embrace those policies by threatening them with imprisonment is an admission that the people who are being forced don't think the policy is good, at least for them. A gay man, for instance, might strongly disagree that forbidding physical intimacy between gay men advances the general welfare.

Conservatives could reply that the homosexual resembles a willful child who simply does not know what is good for him (a remarkably Marxist suggestion of false consciousness) and therefore should have the good imposed on him by force. Or they could say the homosexual's own best interest does not serve the common good. But then who belongs to the common, and who doesn't?

Force is sometimes necessary. We must have police and courts and national defense and environmental protection and so on. But government at all levels does much more nowadays than is strictly necessary, because both liberals and conservatives delight in using it to make other people do what they would not do through mutual consent.

In the wake of the butchery in Tucson, it has been nice to hear many people say we should not speak so well of violence. It would be even nicer to hear more say we should not vote for it quite so often, either.

Contact A. Barton Hinkle at (804) 649-6627 or [email protected].

I notice they left out the interview with Loughner's best friend who described him as 'neither left nor right' but motivated by 'conspiracy theories'. He hated everybody

We know he was just plain crazy. We are saying the Left wanted something like this to happen so they could attempt to paint Conservatives as being mental cases. This ended up backfiring on the left.

The idea that the left wanted this is kind of hilarious to me. A few weeks ago during a discussion on this forum about the shootings I made up a 'fake conspiracy' theory that basically stated almost the exact same thing (along with lots of hyperbole and other stuff that conspiracy theories need to build a fan-base)

I doubt there was any conspiracy, just a lot of opportunistic journalism which has backfired upon themselves.

The Right has benefited equally by painting themselves as victims. I think you guys are over-thinking this. How you can say the Left (or Right) would want innocent people killed for their benefit is simply deranged and paranoid