Nine days later-- Tucson the aftermath

The Chrysalis Opens

….Instead, the metamorphosizing PRESIDENT PUT HIS FINGER TO THE WIND. He soon learned that HIS LEFTIST BASE WITHIN 72 HOURS HAD TURNED OFF THE PUBLIC WITH ITS DEMAGOGIC CHARGES OF CONSERVATIVE CULPABILITY FOR A DERANGED KILLER murdering the innocent. And so Obama summarily JETTISONED HIS LEFTIST SCAPEGOATING BASE. In dispassionate fashion, he figured that within hours the New York Times et al. would Trotskyize their earlier narratives, and most of the left would cease the poll-killing (excuse the metaphor) “climate of hate” narrative.

HE WAS RIGHT. The progressive community snapped back into line, reminding the country that THE DESIRE FOR POWER AND STATUS ALWAYS TRUMPS IDEOLOGY. Hillary Clinton was especially embarrassed: one day she was sermonizing on foreign soil in morally equivalent fashion about an American version of an “extremist”; the next day, her boss told the world that the only thing extreme about the killer was his own nihilistic madness (and by implication damned those vultures [e.g., Ms. Clinton included] who clumsily try to make political points from tragedy).

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-post-tucson-era/


Obama apparently would rather be a two term president than one that is a hero to the hard left. This should be interesting to watch.

Dupnik confesses:



He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. HIS ANGER WOULD WELL UP AT THE SIGHT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html

So Loughner was a truther and hated W. It seems he must have been a democrat or at least was undistinguishable from one politically.


Poll: Americans Split on What to Cut from Government

News poll finds that Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 PERCENT PREFER TO CUT SPENDING, JUST NINE PERCENT CALL FOR RAISING TAXES. ANOTHER NINE PERCENT WANT TO DO BOTH.

Yet most Americans could not volunteer a program they'd be willing to see cut in order to reduce the deficit - only 38 percent could name a program they would support cutting. The top responses were military/defense (six percent), Social Security/Medicare (four percent) and welfare/food stamps (four percent).

However, AMERICANS ARE MORE WILLING TO CONSIDER CUTS WHEN PRESENTED WITH SPECIFIC IDEAS, as the chart above illustrates. The most popular ideas for reducing the deficit are to reduce Social Security benefits for the wealthy, reduce the money allocated to projects in their own community, reduce farm subsidies and reduce defense spending. More than 50 percent supported reductions in each of those programs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028612-503544.html


I believe the Obama Administration went on the spending spree feeling they would be able in the future to cut back on some of the huge increases in spending and make the case to raise taxes. It seems the left feels Americans aren’t tax enough already as they always compare us to Europe where a greater share of the national wealth is taken by government. Evidently their strategy has not worked.

Dreams of his Opponents

….The person Williams should have been asking about "responsibility" is the president. OBAMA'S CONSPICUOUS FABRICATIONS OVER THE YEARS HAVE CAUSED EVEN THE SOBER AMONG US TO DOUBT HIS ORIGINS STORY…..


….In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama made the same claim. "HE HAD LEFT HAWAII BACK IN 1963," HE WROTE OF OBAMA SR., "WHEN I WAS ONLY TWO YEARS OLD."



…Obama writes ruefully in Dreams, "NO MENTION IS MADE OF MY MOTHER OR ME, AND I'M LEFT TO WONDER WHETHER THE OMISSION WAS INTENTIONAL ON MY FATHER'S PART, in anticipation of his long departure." What Obama does not mention is that THE ARTICLE WAS DATED JUNE 22, 1962.



OBAMA WAS REPORTEDLY BORN ON AUGUST 4, 1961. He was not yet a year old at the time Obama Sr. left Hawaii for good. More to the point, OBAMA FAILS TO MENTION THAT HE AND HIS MOTHER, ANN DUNHAM, WERE LIVING IN SEATTLE AT THE TIME AND HAD BEEN SINCE AT LEAST AUGUST 19, 1961, THE DAY SHE ENROLLED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON…..



……QUESTIONS LINGER ABOUT THE PATERNITY OF MANY OF THESE OFFSPRING. In Dreams, Obama's cryptic and contrarian Aunt Sarah would tell her presumed nephew, " ... THE CHILDREN WHO CLAIM TO BE OBAMA'S ARE NOT OBAMA'S." Obama must have wondered whether she was referring to him.



Curiously, when Obama found the article about Obama Sr.'s departure, he found it "folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms." Later in Dreams, in a passage heretofore overlooked, OBAMA UNWITTINGLY REVEALS THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE.



On the occasion of his father's death in 1982, lawyers contacted anyone who might have claim to the estate. "UNLIKE MY MUM," OBAMA TELLS HIS HALF-SISTER AUMA IN DREAMS, "RUTH HAS ALL THE DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO PROVE WHO MARK'S FATHER WAS."



THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE COULD POSE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS OTHER THAN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, including the date of Obama's birth, the state of his birth, and the identity of his father. Any one of these revelations could unravel the yarn that Obama has been spinning.



These problems derive from the fact that ANN DUNHAM ENROLLED AT UNIVERSITY ON AUGUST 19, 1961 and returned to Hawaii only after Obama Sr. had left Hawaii for good. Both of these facts are more firmly established than President Obama's Honolulu birth on August 4, 1961. In my forthcoming book, Deconstructing Obama, I review these possibilities in some detail.



The failure of the mainstream media to even address the inconsistencies in Obama's story is downright shameful. That failure has created a windstorm of curiosity that is becoming increasingly difficult for the media to ignore. The final responsibility for the outburst in Congress last week is theirs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/what_obama_has_said_about_his.html


I had read about this before. Rather than being born of a foreign national in Kenya, the author appears to believe Obama’s father was not Obama Sr., but rather a friend of his grandfather and Obama was not born only 2 weeks before his mother moved to Washington State, but rather six months before he was supposedly born (that would eliminate Obama as his father). That is the reason he has not released his birth certificate. In short, Obama’s citizenship is not in doubt, but his paternity may be.

Many Russians here aligning with Republicans

MANY RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS to the "red borough" of Staten Island ARE FLOCKING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, saying that the NATIONAL DEMOCRATS' "SOCIALISTIC" POLICIES REMIND THEM TOO MUCH OF THE TOP-DOWN OLIGARCHY THEY FLED IN THEIR NATIVE LAND.


With many of the borough's Russian arrivees already owning businesses and active in civic organizations, their muscle could help the Island GOP solidify electoral gains made this year, when the party took back congressional and Assembly seats.

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/many_russians_here_aligning_wi.html


Nothing surprising here.


The Looming Energy Debate

Over the past years, the CZECH REPUBLIC has invested heavily in renewable energy, such as solar power. Unsurprisingly, the Czech government IS NOW QUIETLY ADMITTING THAT ENERGY PRICES ARE GOING TO RISE, in part, due to these subsidies and the resulting higher energy costs which the public must now purchase.

Powerline suggests that this SAME LOOMING CONSEQUENCE IN AMERICA WILL BE "THE NEXT OBAMA DISASTER." In light of rising oil costs, energy is an issue waiting in the wings for its cue to take center stage in the public debate. Having opposed off-shore drilling and committed America to renewable energy, Obama will not endure such a debate unscathed.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/01/the-looming-energy-debate.php


The Obama’s administrations’ energy policy has been a disaster. Subsidizing as of yet unworkable technologies while shutting down workable ones will hit the American public soon. This will not bode well for Obama and the Democrats in 2012.

Free Speech in Academia

Concerned parents looking to send their kids to a college free from repressive speech codes can now add another option to their list. Last semester, the UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (UVA) ELIMINATED THE LAST OF A SERIES OF POLICIES THAT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICTED THE FREE SPEECH OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY MEMBERS. Two-thirds of the nation's colleges maintain policies that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech. But now, UVA is an exception to the rule having fully reformed four speech codes over the course of the last year.

PRESIDENT TERESA SULLIVAN SHOULD BE COMMENDED for overseeing these important changes, which guarantee the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members at the University of Virginia. Within just three months of taking office, President Sullivan has overseen the transformation of UVA from a school that earned FIRE's worst “red light” rating for restricting protected speech to their highest “green light” rating. But there is another UVA administrator who deserves even higher praise than President Sullivan.

FIRE began working with UVA administrator Dean Allen Groves in April 2010 after Adam Kissel gave a lecture on free speech that was hosted by two UVA student groups - Students for Individual Liberty and Liberty Coalition.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2011/01/17/a_cavalier_administrator/page/full/


Who could object to free speech, especially at the University level? Evidently a lot of people can and do. But this article is good news.

A Climate of Hate vs a Climate of Lies

The left wing press and Sarah Palin

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.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/15/shields-asks-krauthammer-did-palin-unintentionally-make-story-about-h#ixzz1B7qvHvgo


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." …..

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/are_you_liberal_a_liberal_or_a.html


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.”

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….

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/times-loses-it_533697.html


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.”

Brilliant!

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.”……

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/15/wonderful/


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)

http://climateofhate.blogspot.com/



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.

ABC’S VERSION

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.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/15/abc-world-news-reports-threat-its-tucson-town-hall-omits-it-was-made-#ixzz1BCMMAnHR


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.

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/01/15/anti-energy-left-comes-unglued-as-green-economy-claims-collapse/

You need to read this is you want to get the facts about “green energy.”