A Moment of Silence
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson
Yesterday, Obama led the nation in a moment of silence for the victims of Saturday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz. Last night, Fox News showed a candlelit vigil, with a peace sign prominently displayed in the center. Pundits are calling for Sarah Palin’s head; Palin who did nothing worse than any other politician using war rhetoric and symbols for the battle for our nation’s soul. For the first time, we also saw the lurid face of the obviously demented killer, grinning for the police station camera.
As Rush Limbaugh says of the Reagan assassination attempt: “I don't remember anybody suggesting that the relentless attacks on Reagan or conservatism by the then-media monopoly or the rest of the left had anything to do with John Hinckley's actions [and certainly not radical Left wingers]. They didn't rush to judgment. No, they waited to find out who he was. “Oh, the kid's disturbed. Oh, just a terribly disturbed kid.” Never once did they try to say the kid had done anything politically motivated. They didn't warn anybody to dial back the anti-conservatism that was all through the media. It didn't happen.”
The Liberals are quick to blame Loughner’s obsession with Giffords on Palin, while ignoring the log in their own eyes: their own virulent obsession with hating Sarah Palin. She’s no longer a candidate for vice president, or any other office. She’s no longer the mayor of Wasilla or the governor of Alaska. Her appearances on Fox News are sporadic and now appear doomed, given Rupert Murdoch’s spineless directive to his anchors to “tone it down.”
Liberal hackers displayed this same spite towards George Bush, a loathing so vicious that it produced a book and an award-winning film on his imagined assassination. I remember their heinous postings in AOL’s War on Terror chatroom in the early part of the last decade, just after 9/11. If any political force were to be blamed for this deranged young man’s act of violence, this would be the first place to focus the magnifying glass: the advocation of assassinating a political figure with whom you disagree.
They seem to have developed amnesia about the President of the United States’ thuggish comment that, “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I don’t hear anyone holding President Obama responsible for the actions of this lunatic through his vitriolic imagery. Nor should they.
What was Obama’s “moment of silence” really a testament to or an indication of? Ostensibly, it was to mourn Congresswoman Giffords, who is still alive. Then the other victims, including the federal judge, were mentioned. Was it to mourn or to warn? If anyone needs to dial-down the rhetoric, it is the Liberals. They have a long history of vicious, even violent, speech and deeds. I was the one who told the Bush “haters” in AOL’s War on Terror room to knock it off with the hate-chanting, the Goebbels-like repetition of hate-posts, and their salacious profanity.
Their hypocritical, obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin trumps even their Bush hatred. Is it because she’s a Conservative woman? Is it because she’s courageous? Are they really afraid of her because she totes a gun (so did Giffords – one of the newsites, I forget which shows her with some sort of semi-automatic rifle. Too bad she didn’t have it with her on Saturday)? They’ve slandered and libeled Sarah in every way possible and forced her from her governorship through baseless lawsuits by Rahm Emmanuel that the GOP would not help her fight. They’ve mocked her on television and spread lies and misrepresentations about her character and her intelligence. A stalker took up residence next door to her home in Alaska, ostensibly to write a book about her, and not coincidentally, to intimidate her. Yet she still comes out fighting.
Yes, fighting. She’s not taking one of her hunting rifles to innocent victims. She’s fighting, metaphorically, against able-bodied and well-funded political opponents who are ruthless, treacherous, and underhanded. If the rhetoric seems belligerent, it’s because the stakes are so high. No one invited this lunatic Loughner to the battle. Nobody even knows which side he was really on, but judging by his ranting, his largely incoherent rhetoric, and his reading list, he was Left-wing, not a Tea Partier.
Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto on the same list? I’ve read the latter, with great displeasure, and avoided the former, on my late father’s advice. Both books are all about government control, albeit in different manners. The Liberals are all about control – gun control, speech control, smoking, automobiles, private property, education, and economic control. They’re control freaks.
The Conservatives – the Tea Parties – are about individual and economic freedom. Liberty. Prosperity. The pursuit of happiness. Limited government. Reducing spending (one of the signs of the manic side of manic depression is the tendency to go on spending sprees). The Liberals balk at the notion of controlling the government the way a lunatic strains at a strait jacket, frothing at the mouth with profanity, mockery, wild threats, and convulsions. They chant mantras and spew hatred at those trying to restrain them. We are fighting for our right to be free. They’re fighting for the freedom to tyrannize over us.
Sarah Palin doesn’t fear their threats. She keeps coming back. And that frightens the Liberals terribly. She hasn’t surrendered or succumb to corrupting influences the way other Republicans have. To the Liberals, that’s very disturbing behavior. She’s a threat and they need to eliminate her in any way they can, short of murder.
It’s not just Sarah the Libs want to silence; it’s anyone who disagrees with them. They want to turn that “moment of silence” into a permanent silence and are exploiting this insane tragedy to achieve their goals. They even want to “silence the Founding Fathers.” That’s why I buy books instead of depending on the library or even the Kindle devices, space-saving as they are.
The Liberals complain that we Conservatives are trying to “frighten” people with our prophecies of an endless, tyrannical bureaucracy in place of our federated republic. They charge us with painting them unfairly as traitors, that we’re demonizing bureaucrats, illegal immigrants, and welfare recipients. That we’re turning the American people against them and that such a revolution will lead to violence.
But that’s not true. If we adhere to the principles of the Founding Fathers, our revolution will lead to peace, prosperity, and happiness for everyone. Not a drop of blood need be shed, although I daresay there will be a hail of invectives, insults, maledictions, malisons, imprecations, anathemas, comminations, fulminations, proscriptions, vilifications, and vituperations will fly through the air before the verbal dust is settled.
The Liberals want to set themselves up as the new protectors of a new America. But, “quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Listen carefully, for once the Liberals are in charge, the silence will be deafening.
Yesterday, Obama led the nation in a moment of silence for the victims of Saturday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz. Last night, Fox News showed a candlelit vigil, with a peace sign prominently displayed in the center. Pundits are calling for Sarah Palin’s head; Palin who did nothing worse than any other politician using war rhetoric and symbols for the battle for our nation’s soul. For the first time, we also saw the lurid face of the obviously demented killer, grinning for the police station camera.
As Rush Limbaugh says of the Reagan assassination attempt: “I don't remember anybody suggesting that the relentless attacks on Reagan or conservatism by the then-media monopoly or the rest of the left had anything to do with John Hinckley's actions [and certainly not radical Left wingers]. They didn't rush to judgment. No, they waited to find out who he was. “Oh, the kid's disturbed. Oh, just a terribly disturbed kid.” Never once did they try to say the kid had done anything politically motivated. They didn't warn anybody to dial back the anti-conservatism that was all through the media. It didn't happen.”
The Liberals are quick to blame Loughner’s obsession with Giffords on Palin, while ignoring the log in their own eyes: their own virulent obsession with hating Sarah Palin. She’s no longer a candidate for vice president, or any other office. She’s no longer the mayor of Wasilla or the governor of Alaska. Her appearances on Fox News are sporadic and now appear doomed, given Rupert Murdoch’s spineless directive to his anchors to “tone it down.”
Liberal hackers displayed this same spite towards George Bush, a loathing so vicious that it produced a book and an award-winning film on his imagined assassination. I remember their heinous postings in AOL’s War on Terror chatroom in the early part of the last decade, just after 9/11. If any political force were to be blamed for this deranged young man’s act of violence, this would be the first place to focus the magnifying glass: the advocation of assassinating a political figure with whom you disagree.
They seem to have developed amnesia about the President of the United States’ thuggish comment that, “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I don’t hear anyone holding President Obama responsible for the actions of this lunatic through his vitriolic imagery. Nor should they.
What was Obama’s “moment of silence” really a testament to or an indication of? Ostensibly, it was to mourn Congresswoman Giffords, who is still alive. Then the other victims, including the federal judge, were mentioned. Was it to mourn or to warn? If anyone needs to dial-down the rhetoric, it is the Liberals. They have a long history of vicious, even violent, speech and deeds. I was the one who told the Bush “haters” in AOL’s War on Terror room to knock it off with the hate-chanting, the Goebbels-like repetition of hate-posts, and their salacious profanity.
Their hypocritical, obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin trumps even their Bush hatred. Is it because she’s a Conservative woman? Is it because she’s courageous? Are they really afraid of her because she totes a gun (so did Giffords – one of the newsites, I forget which shows her with some sort of semi-automatic rifle. Too bad she didn’t have it with her on Saturday)? They’ve slandered and libeled Sarah in every way possible and forced her from her governorship through baseless lawsuits by Rahm Emmanuel that the GOP would not help her fight. They’ve mocked her on television and spread lies and misrepresentations about her character and her intelligence. A stalker took up residence next door to her home in Alaska, ostensibly to write a book about her, and not coincidentally, to intimidate her. Yet she still comes out fighting.
Yes, fighting. She’s not taking one of her hunting rifles to innocent victims. She’s fighting, metaphorically, against able-bodied and well-funded political opponents who are ruthless, treacherous, and underhanded. If the rhetoric seems belligerent, it’s because the stakes are so high. No one invited this lunatic Loughner to the battle. Nobody even knows which side he was really on, but judging by his ranting, his largely incoherent rhetoric, and his reading list, he was Left-wing, not a Tea Partier.
Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto on the same list? I’ve read the latter, with great displeasure, and avoided the former, on my late father’s advice. Both books are all about government control, albeit in different manners. The Liberals are all about control – gun control, speech control, smoking, automobiles, private property, education, and economic control. They’re control freaks.
The Conservatives – the Tea Parties – are about individual and economic freedom. Liberty. Prosperity. The pursuit of happiness. Limited government. Reducing spending (one of the signs of the manic side of manic depression is the tendency to go on spending sprees). The Liberals balk at the notion of controlling the government the way a lunatic strains at a strait jacket, frothing at the mouth with profanity, mockery, wild threats, and convulsions. They chant mantras and spew hatred at those trying to restrain them. We are fighting for our right to be free. They’re fighting for the freedom to tyrannize over us.
Sarah Palin doesn’t fear their threats. She keeps coming back. And that frightens the Liberals terribly. She hasn’t surrendered or succumb to corrupting influences the way other Republicans have. To the Liberals, that’s very disturbing behavior. She’s a threat and they need to eliminate her in any way they can, short of murder.
It’s not just Sarah the Libs want to silence; it’s anyone who disagrees with them. They want to turn that “moment of silence” into a permanent silence and are exploiting this insane tragedy to achieve their goals. They even want to “silence the Founding Fathers.” That’s why I buy books instead of depending on the library or even the Kindle devices, space-saving as they are.
The Liberals complain that we Conservatives are trying to “frighten” people with our prophecies of an endless, tyrannical bureaucracy in place of our federated republic. They charge us with painting them unfairly as traitors, that we’re demonizing bureaucrats, illegal immigrants, and welfare recipients. That we’re turning the American people against them and that such a revolution will lead to violence.
But that’s not true. If we adhere to the principles of the Founding Fathers, our revolution will lead to peace, prosperity, and happiness for everyone. Not a drop of blood need be shed, although I daresay there will be a hail of invectives, insults, maledictions, malisons, imprecations, anathemas, comminations, fulminations, proscriptions, vilifications, and vituperations will fly through the air before the verbal dust is settled.
The Liberals want to set themselves up as the new protectors of a new America. But, “quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Listen carefully, for once the Liberals are in charge, the silence will be deafening.
posted by Belle | 6:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home