Left's Assassination Attempt on American Liberty

There aren't enough words to describe the tragedy that occurred in Arizona when 22 year old gunman Jared Lee Loughner walked into a Safeway in Tucson and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, along with 19 others. Fortunately, thanks to a fast-thinking intern, quick medical attention, the miracle of prayer, and the luck of where the bullet entered and exited her skull, Rep. Giffords is still with us. Doctors remain optimistic about her recovery, and that is great news.

Sadly, six other victims weren't as lucky. Thoughts and prayers go out to their families. No mother, father, son, or daughter can imagine such a horrific event taking their loved ones from this world. I hope they are in a better place now where there's no such thing as a 24 hour news cycle. To use their deaths, as some have done to demonize their political opponents, shows a complete callousness for life and does a great disservice to the families. It disappoints me to think the American political process could stoop this low. And yet here we are.

Just minutes after Rep. Gabrielle Gifford was shot, before the blood was dry, progressives began blaming the tea party, Sarah Palin, and conservative rhetoric for this massacre. Was the shooter a member of the tea party? No. Was there any proof he had ever supported Sarah Palin or paid attention to her tweets and facebook posts? No. But such lack of evidence didn't stop the Left. They had a narrative to push, a narrative laid out nearly a year ago by President Clinton, that somewhere on the right the next Timothy McVeigh was out there and continued opposition to Democrat Party ideas was surely to push them over the edge. This is worse than guilt by association. It's connecting dots where none exist to silence dissent.

It didn't take long for pundits on the Left to take up Bill Clinton's campaign. Before a shooter's name was even disclosed, Markos Moulitsas and Paul Krugman had already begun to paint right-wing political rhetoric as the culprit fostering hate in America. In fact, it got so out of control that Sarah Palin became a trending topic on twitter and google during the aftermath of the deadly shooting. Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, where true hate speech flourishes, tweeted, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." And that was one of the nicer things that was said all day.

As for Krugman at the NYT, one can only hope he's ashamed of printing this nonsense:

"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

She’s been the target of violence before... she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that "the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing."

In other words, it had to be an anti-Obamacare, tea party member because hey, they ran against her in a tough-contested election. What?! Anyone who refuses to condemn Krugman for printing such false assumptions with no evidence to speak of is clearly as sick as he is, and that brings up a very important point. If the Left really believes that charged political rhetoric causes violent outbursts by deranged individuals, why are they using this same vitriol against Sarah Palin? Either they don't believe the very hypothesis they've been hyperventilating over the past two days or they are hoping something equally despicable happens to the former governor. Which is maybe why this image is making the rounds online: 

Now I don't believe this will lead some sicko to kill Sarah Palin, as disgusting an image as it may be. I do find it extremely distasteful, bordering on an actual threat (you can imagine the outrage if this image was found in the shooter's home with Giffords depicted instead). It's surely more egregious than the map liberals are whining about with "targets" over congressional districts. But obviously the Left must not believe such over-the-top political rhetoric causes disturbed individuals to commit bloody slaughters or it wouldn't be making the rounds online. Unless they really want to see Sarah Palin assassinated. Thus, the outrage is manufactured.

At this point, I would normally spend time defending Sarah Palin and the tea party, dissecting the idiocy of Paul Krugman's statements, pointing out that one of the shooter's high school friends said he was an atheist and called him "left wing." I might also point out that Rep. Giffords was the first Jewish member of Congress to be elected in Arizona and that Jared Lee Loughner cited Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamph as one of his favorite books. Or that he seems to have been planning this mad act of violence long before Palin's map or the tea party ever took form. But none of that really matters. Jared Lee Loughner was obviously a twisted individual.

Here's what does matter. We cannot let a personal tragedy for some become the great American tragedy by senselessly banning forms of political speech or attempting to police the thoughts of our citizens. We cannot become a nation that tries to set guidelines to determine which dissent is appropriate and which is incendiary. To do so would shred the Constitution, limit the right of the people to redress grievances against their government, and shrink the voice of the opposition in the face of an all-powerful state.

Now is not the time to throw out liberty for the promise of a little more security for our elected officials. Thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of over-the-top political statements have been uttered by both the Left and the Right over the past few years, yet incidents of violence have been so rare, they are nearly nonexistent. Perhaps one of the best examples of over-the-top rhetoric is that of "truthers" who believe the government of the United States is responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. Yet rather than force this kind of speech underground, giving it a kind of dangerous legitimacy by banning it, the most effective response is to refute it with facts out in the open, to smoke out the moonbats and let Truth prevail.

Millions of examples of vitriol dot the landscape of American history. So far, no event, not even the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, has caused Congress to re-think free speech or pass a law to limit political discourse as protected under the first amendment. Not only does this incident not rise to the standard of those tragedies, there's no evidence that the shooter in this case was ever influenced by the statements of any political speech, Democrat or Republican. It's more likely he was a nut, and like John Hinckley, could have just as easily taken the wrong cue from a movie starring Robet DeNiro and Jodie Foster.

Any effort to limit political speech by this Congress, and you know it's coming from the Democrats, should be firmly rejected. This is as close to a Reichstag fire moment as we've come to in this country recently. Should the first amendment be chipped away to only protect non-offensive, politically correct speech, we really will be entering a new era of tyranny. January 8, 2011 will go down not as the day a sitting congresswoman was almost killed, but as the day American liberty took a great fall.

Yes, the Left's reaction to this random shooting is a threat to our liberties, and no, I won't tone down my rhetoric to please Paul Krugman or Ezra Klein. But, then again, I don't find the Constitution "old and confusing."

Worse Than Guilt by Association

When conservatives questioned Barack Obama's character to be president based on his association with Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers and a twenty year membership in Rev. Wright's church of liberation theology, it was frowned upon by the Mainstream Media. "This is an attempt to paint Obama guilty by association!" the Left screamed. Nevermind these weren't casual encounters. Barack Obama made a conscious decision to maintain relationships with these individuals over several years. He called Rev. Wright his spiritual mentor. He launched his political career from Bill Ayers living room. In questioning Obama, we were judging him by the company he kept, the inner circle of those who influenced his thinking. This is hardly guilt by association.

Now we see the Left was only projecting. Accusing us of guilt by association turns out to be their new modus of operandi. Actually, it's even worse. What we are now witnessing is guilt without association. How else do you explain the invisible dots Democrats keep trying to connect by repeatedly mentioning domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh in the same breath with the Tea Party?

What exactly do Timothy McVeigh and conservative demonstrators have in common? Absolutely nothing. There wasn't even a Tea Party movement fifteen years ago. Sure, they both distrust the government. But so what? According to a recent Pew research poll, 80% of Americans distrust the government, the highest level ever recorded. If we are to believe the hyperbole of the Left, then 80% of the country is a potential domestic terrorist. Of course, given the growth of the public sector over the past decade, it's likely that the other 20% work for the government anyway, so perhaps it's closer to 100% distrust.

Historically, guilt by association attempted to connect two unrelated individuals without evidence that they knew each other or shared the same values. During the dark days of McCarthyism, if anyone who belonged to a group or club confessed they were a Communist, then everyone who ever belonged to that group or could be placed at an event with any of those members must also be a Communist.

Democrats have basically made the same absurd leap of logic with the Tea Party. Already they have tried unsuccessfully to connect anyone who takes part in the movement with fringe racists. Last week, threatened by the increased popularity of the Tea Parties going mainstream, Democrat leaders including former president Bill Clinton upped the ante and are now comparing the Tea Party protesters to Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber.

This is the worst of mischaracterization and guilt by association, and it's being practiced by the Left, not the Right. It's an attempt to intimidate and demonize law-abiding citizens who disapprove of runaway government spending and never-ending bureaucracy into silence. It's an attempt to discourage everyday Americans dissatisfied with the Obama administration's policies to join the Tea Party movement. It's an attempt not to win the debate, but to silence the debate.

Is it working? Let's hope not. A strong democracy requires a marketplace of ideas, not marching orders or conformity. Forced agreement with the party line is what regimes practice, not the United States of America. You can imagine the outrage if Republicans had tried the same thing when they controlled Congress. You can imagine the outrage if President Bush had called anti-war protesters like Cindy Sheehan "potential terrorists" or sent Dick Cheney out to question whether any Democrats might be spurred to violence due to the talk of "truthers" claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

Then again, conservatives are more tolerant of dissent than progressives. Conservatives are more willing to debate the merits of an idea, to draw a distinction between freedom and tyranny, between collectivism and individual liberty. In fact, it is by defining these arguments that the conservative feels they will win the debate and establish clarity, while the Left can't defeat the idea alone. An argument based on history and/or facts is never sufficient. They have to paint the conservative in a negative light. The conservative must be immoral, racist, harmful, backwards, against the poor, against women, or any number of adjectives they can come up with. This is cheap demagoguery.

Contrast this with how the Left and Mainstream Media treat radical Islam. They are afraid of ruffling any feathers. They go out of their way not to call the violent acts that some members practice acts of terrorism or to connect, for instance, the shooting by Major Nadal Hasan at Fort Hood with fundamental Islam when there were more red flags than a North Korean parade. Instead, the Left asks how they can be more tolerant of Islam. "What did we do to you to cause this reaction?" they want to know. Free people can't even draw a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed without receiving death threats or inciting riots from mainstream Muslims.

Does the Left condemn these acts of intimidation as hate speech? No, they appease it. They ask Americans to be more accommodating and sensitive, all the while unwilling to accommodate nonviolent conservative citizens with real grievances against the government. Sure, no arrests have been made at Tea Party events. But one of these vocal, flag-waving, middle class Americans clinging to their religion could be the next Timothy McVeigh.

Or Bill Ayers. In which case, Democrats should have no problem.

Left Wing Hate Speech

Once or twice a week I read a blog from the Left. One would hope this would give me perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, but mostly it provides insight into their psychology. The most vile and judgmental statements I've ever come across are repeatedly on left wing websites. And no, I'm not just talking about the ones that mention Sarah Palin.

If you oppose a conservative policy, I'm unaware of any examples where you are labeled as a bigot or a racist or your compassion is called into question. Not so if you oppose a liberal policy. Your heart, your intentions, and your tolerance are always on trial. This was clarified for me when I was having dinner with a liberal friend recently who said, "I can't stand religious people. They are all so judgmental." Apparently, he hadn't considered questioning the prejudices in his own heart, unbothered by his willingness to paint others with a broader stroke than even the people he claimed judged him so harshly.

It is said we live in a marketplace of ideas with the right to free speech, but more and more people on the Left don't want to debate. They want to shut the other side up. While the Left doesn't have a monopoly on this un-American behavior, they have certainly taken the lead. Al Gore comes to mind along with most of the global warming crowd. A scientific hypothesis by its very definition should always be open for debate. Instead, the AGW alarmist crowd has taken to fixing data, skewing computer models, deleting emails, and demonizing or intimidating those who disagree with their theory. That's not science. That's a cult.

But it's not just global warming. Based on the psychology of the Left, every statist policy is a divine truth that only those with impure motives would dare oppose. If you disagree with President Obama, you must be racist. If you oppose ObamaCare, you must want people to die in the street. If you are for state's rights or adamantly pro-Life, you must be a religious extremist whose activities should be investigated. If you support the traditional definition of marriage, you must be an intolerant homophobe. If you support the idea that the individual owns the fruits of his labor and that government should be limited in its ability to confiscate your personal property, you must be selfish and hate the poor.

Notice that the Left never judges compassion based on how much you give, only how much you are willing to let the state take by force. I would argue it's quite easy to give away that which is not yours. It's certainly much easier to buy your fellow man dinner with other people's money. Not surprisingly, studies show liberals are often the stingiest with their charitable giving. One only need look at recent presidential candidate's tax records to acknowledge this double standard.

Conservative ideas don't merit debate by the leftist, because they consider them morally inferior. I was watching Book TV on C-Span (yes, I know I'm lame, but at least I saved you the trouble) and a young progressive author was discussing his new book, Republican Gomorrah. The basic premise of the book is, in fact, that Republican voters are backwards white, radical neanderthals who are often homophobic, racist, greedy, superstitious (i.e. religious), unintelligent, and bent on stopping progress and harmony for all of humanity.

The Washington, D.C. book store audience ate up every word of course,  applauding the author as they tried to grasp an understanding of "those backwards conservatives." Some asked questions as if they were discussing a tribe of cannibals in a far-off country whose customs failed to meet civility. In progressive circles, this is often referred to as tolerance.

The problem is by painting the intentions of conservatives as immoral or anti-progress, no argument a conservative makes, no matter how strongly or well documented, ever has to be considered by the progressive. The debate is over before it ever starts. They can instead resume attacking conservative motives and questioning our compassion, even as their biggest policy achievements fail miserably, driving the economy into recession and our nation into insolvency.

A conservative is interested in protecting freedom and liberty for the individual. For the progressive, this love of individual liberty only gets in the way of their agenda for "the greater good." If liberty stands in the way of "progress", then let liberty be the first casualty. And so the Left Wing Hate is directed at the individual who won't conform, who won't walk in lockstep with the statist agenda.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it's the most dangerous hate of all, sadly now on display in the leftist circles of American politics.

Pot? This is Kettle: Dems Suddenly Squeamish Over Tea Party Protesters

Question of the week: what's more artificial? The supposed astroturfers protesting state-controlled health care at town hall meetings or the outrage and disgust which the Left has been feigning at protesters? Do they remember what we put up with for the past eight years? There's hypocrisy and then there's hypocrisy. While President Obama organizes his own paid demonstrators recruited on craigslist, he could learn a lesson or two from President Bush, who was decent enough to accommodate Cindy Sheehan and often talked about the great American right to disagree and assemble freely. But that was the evil Bush administration. Obama is post-partisan and above that.

The only thing more fake than Democrats complaining about protests (except for Nancy Pelosi who really does disdain free speech), is the Fauxbama himself, who has been staging his own phony Hollywood style town hall meetings complete with pre-selected doughy-eyed girls (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit). Or as Laura Ingraham says, giving them the ol' razzle dazzle. It's such a set-up, it's like visiting an old county fair and watching a snake oil salesman push their Cure-All. "It's the health care fix that cures all licks!"

Are you buying it? Me, neither. Dissent is still patriotic, right? Maybe this will serve as a reminder.

To see more of Obama's astroturfing efforts, check out Yid with Lid's excellent blog. And none of this would have been possible without Zombie's wonderfully weird Hall of Shame catalog of protest photos. Music written and performed by Deadman.


If you are wondering why I haven't posted a blog in almost a week, I was in film school learning my new mad mac skills! More videos to follow.