SHIELDS: Pundits, bloggers, and TV talkers had a lot to say about Sarah Palin this week. She released a video on Facebook to comment on the Tucson shootings. DID SARAH PALIN UNINTENTIONALLY MAKE THE STORY ABOUT HERSELF AND NOT TUCSON? Charles Krauthammer?
KRAUTHAMMER: SHE DIDN’T MAKE IT ABOUT HERSELF. Within hours of the shooting, of which there was no connection to her whatsoever, HER NAME WAS LINKED IN THE AP, NEW YORK TIMES, BY ALL OVER THE AIRWAVES, LINKING HER AND LINKING OTHER CONSERVATIVES WITH THE SHOOTING. This is a speech that should never have had to be made. There was never a shred of evidence about any connection, and in fact, by midweek, we learned from a friend of the shooter, of Loughner, he didn’t listen to political radio, he didn’t watch TV news, he wasn’t interested in the news, he wasn’t in politics, he wasn’t of left or right. THIS WAS THE ACT OF A PROBABLY PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC. There’s no question he was acting under mental illness. There was not a shred of evidence of, and why did her name come up? Those who brought it up are the ones who have to answer to that. That was a calumny, and it was unwarranted. I AM WAITING FOR APOLOGIES FROM THOSE WHO RAISED THAT NAME FROM THE BEGINNING.
The American public knows this. It appears to me that Liberalism has “jumped the shark.” This episode shows that the left has no new ideas to engage the public with. They are bankrupt.
Are you a liberal or a liberalist?
When the same word means different things to different people, communication is flawed, even perverted. Consider the word "liberal."
According to the dictionary, THE ADJECTIVE "LIBERAL" COMES FROM LIBERALIS (LATIN), MEANING "OF FREEDOM." "LIBERAL" DESCRIBES SOMEONE WHO IS HAS AN OPEN MIND, FREE FROM BIGOTRY OR BIAS, NOT CONSTRAINED BY STANDARD DOCTRINE -- indeed, someone who actively resists orthodoxy.
Calling oneself "a liberal" connotes an affiliation with the political philosophy known as liberalism. THIS IS A MISNOMER BORDERING ON OXYMORON. Since we desperately need clear communication, let's call THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN LIBERALISM A LIBERALIST (not "a liberal"), just as capitalists, socialists, and communists believe in capitalism, socialism and communism.
… For the liberalist, THOSE WHO HAVE POWER GOVERN ONLY BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED -- not by heredity, as the exclusive holder of special knowledge, or as the sole conduit to God. The liberalist believes that the individual -- rather than the king, priest, or president -- knows best.
SO IN TODAY'S WORLD, WHAT IS A LIBERAL?
SAYING YOU ARE A LIBERAL TODAY MEANS YOU ARE ANTI-LIBERAL and anti-liberalism. In today's world, "a liberal" believes the following.
- THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY (GOVERNMENT), RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL, KNOWS BEST.
- THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ME (no personal responsibility).
- The government should make the rationing (balancing) decisions between supply and demand rather than letting the market do that.
- A liberal will aggressively and even violently defend "liberal" orthodoxy: YOU EITHER AGREE WITH ME IN ALL PARTICULARS OR YOU ARE AN AMORAL HERETIC AND OUTCAST.
TODAY'S A LIBERAL IS IN FACT A SOCIALIST. Compare the beliefs of "a liberal" as described above to the tenets of socialism below. Only a socialist would use public (taxpayer) funds to bail out and take ownership of a failing private company such a General Motors. The original liberalist, John Locke, would let General Motors fail as the result of its own bad decisions.
Socialism is the political and economic philosophy that advocates common ownership and central control of the means of production and the distribution of goods and services. Do the following phrases strike a chord with "a liberal," Democrat, effectively socialist views? "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH." "THE RICH MUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE AND SUPPORT THE LESS FORTUNATE." "YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE." "THE GOVERNMENT IS HERE TO TAKE CARE OF YOU." …..
As the left misuses and redefines words, this is an excellent article to understand what they are doing.
Was Liberalism mortally wounded with the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords?
.....BUT ANTIGOVERNMENT RAMBLINGS COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT ARE SO SINISTER THAT THEY ARE SINISTER WHETHER THEY ARE SINISTER OR NOT. “And regardless of what led to the episode,” Hulse and Zernike say, “it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.”http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/times-loses-it_533697.html
To maintain that there’s a lack of evidence for such a sweeping statement would be inaccurate since Hulse and Zernike themselves are doing what they claim is being done. And given the tight deadlines of a Sunday edition they have focused their attention quickly indeed.
THEY MAKE AN INTERESTING CHOICE OF VERB TENSE IN “HAVE BECOME.” Maybe Hulse and Zernike are very young and, what with the way American history is taught these days, ARE UNAWARE OF RIOTS, BOMBINGS, LYNCHINGS, EXTERMINATIONS OF NATIVE PEOPLES, ASSASSINATIONS, ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS, GUN FIGHTS, AND THE CIVIL WAR, NOT TO MENTION THE INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE, THREATS, AND IMPLICIT INSTIGATIONS TO VIOLENCE IN THE WRITINGS OF TOM PAINE.
… Editorialized the Times: “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.” Interesting how A FEW SMALL CHANGES WOULD MAKE THAT SENTENCE APPALL THE TIMES as much as the Times appalls me: “IT IS LEGITIMATE TO HOLD MUSLIMS AND PARTICULARLY THEIR MOST VIRULENT SUPPORTERS IN THE MEDIA RESPONSIBLE for the gale of anger that has produced 9/11.”….
… A reaction so disproportionate and immaterial to a news story by a news organization is indicative of trouble in the body politic—trouble almost as severe as that which the Times claims the Giffords shooting indicates. I WORRY THAT IN THE TREMORS AND HYSTERIA OF THE TIMES WE’RE SEEING THE SAD END OF LIBERALISM….
The NY Times and other liberal media outlets have been wounded as they played with a metaphorical gun they found with the shooting in Tucson. The question we have now is will it be fatal?
It’s nonsense, but it’s printed nonsense
There were written by Ronald Brownstein, a progressive journalist.
Here’s the first line he wrote in that column: “LET’S STIPULATE THAT JARED LEE LOUGHNER’S MIND IS A DARK AND TWISTED MAZE.”
There is no need to stipulate: it’s a fact. The second line: “AND THAT HE WAS DRIVEN TO VIOLENCE BY FEVERISH COMPULSIONS, NOT A POLITICAL CAUSE.”
True. Well analyzed by Mr. Brownstein! Third line: “AND THAT HIS CONCEPTION OF POLITICS FITS NO RECOGNIZABLE FRAMEWORK.”
And now Brownstein starts hitting: “EVEN SO, SATURDAY’S RAMPAGE SHOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR.”
It took away my breath.
THERE IS NO LOGICAL, REASONABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FOURTH LINE AND THE FIRST THREE, BUT BROWNSTEIN FEELS THERE’S NO REASON HE SHOULD BE HELD BACK BY LOGIC AND REASON. And on he goes, line five: “Here’s one reason: Everyone who deals in hyperbolic political rhetoric was only a mouse click from disaster after Saturday’s attack.”……
What’s amazing is how many people on the left are engaged in this kind of thinking. I’ve seen many posts on the subject where you get this kind of condemnation. When you call them on it, they repeat they aren’t suggesting causality of political speech, BUT….. It’s breathtaking in its duplicity.
It was bound to happen: A Satirical Look at the Climate of Hate
Dear Lord, this year you have taken away MY FAVORITE ACTOR, Patrick Swayze, my FAVORITE ACTRESS, Farrah Fawcett, MY FAVORITE SINGER, Michael Jackson, and my FAVORITE SALESMAN, Billy Mays... I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT CHRIS CHRISTIE IS MY FAVORITE GOVERNOR."
- New Jersey Education Association memo (April 2010)
Actually this is rather clever, but you know, if you are a liberal that unbalanced people might act on this.
What a difference a network makes
Here’s the same story as it was relayed on ABC and FOX.
MUIR: Christiane, thank you. And again, I'll join Christiane for a special edition of “This week,” “After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued.” That’s tomorrow morning right here on ABC.
Another note tonight on today's town hall meeting, one of the victims of the shooting who was in the audience became agitated and was detained by security. It happened toward the end of the conversation. JAMES FULLER WHO WAS SHOT TWICE LAST WEEK, TOOK OFFENSE AT WHAT ANOTHER AUDIENCE MEMBER WAS SAYING AND MUMBLED WHAT SEEMED TO BE A THREAT. Security did escort him out of the building, and he's been charged now with a misdemeanor.
HERE’S FOX’S VERSION:
We are getting word now from Pima County Sheriff's office confirming to Fox News that one of the Tucson shooting victims a week ago today has allegedly today uttered a death threat during a taping of a town hall meeting for ABC’s "This Week" that will air tomorrow. Now, toward the end of the town hall meeting today, it was this morning, ONE OF THE SHOOTING VICTIMS, HIS NAME IS J. ERIC FULLER, APPARENTLY TOOK EXCEPTION TO COMMENTS BY TWO OF THE SPEAKERS, Arizona state Representative Terri Proud, a Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries. AND ACCORDING TO SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES AT THE SCENE, FULLER TOOK A PHOTO OF HUMPHRIES, AGAIN, THE TEA PARTY SPOKESMAN, AND SAID, “YOU ARE DEAD.” Fuller will and has apparently already been charged with a couple of things, threats and intimidation and disorderly conduct.
Looking at this story you can see why liberal hate Fox so much. While ABC reports the arrest, it doesn’t seem nearly as ominous as the Fox version. Funny how FACTS seem to make a difference.
Anti-Energy Left Comes Unglued as ‘Green Economy’ Claims Collapse
The anti-energy lobby, surrogates for Big Wind and Big Solar, is now backed into a rhetorical corner in its effort TO IMPOSE ITS AGENDA OF PROTECTING THE WORLD FROM THE HORRORS OF AFFORDABLE, ABUNDANT ENERGY. Remember, although they say their objective is to use policy to force invention of Flubber or pixie dust to satisfy our future energy abundance, this doesn’t square with their decades of saying that “If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it” (green Energy guru Amory Lovins)……
…..THE ANTI-ENERGY LEFT WANTS YOU TO HAVE THE ENERGY YOU NEED, THAT IS IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM THAT YOU DON’T ‘NEED’ VERY MUCH. They want energy scarcity. It is fair to say they want energy poverty.
And they are willing to say anything to get it. Except they are reduced to remarkably weak claims. Guys, YOUR PRECIOUS RENEWABLES ARE RAT HOLES. They have been for decades and even over a century, depending on the rat hole. But keep eroding your credibility, because it’s clear this gravy train is about to end. And with these arguments you are taking your movement down with it.
You need to read this is you want to get the facts about “green energy.”