Cast the Blame Where it Belongs for Gifford Shooting
Frankly, I am tired of the pundits and politicians who are blaming Sarah Palin or conservative talk show host for Congresswoman Gifford's shooting. It all began with the sheriff of the county blamed it on "right wing" vitriol. This apparently to cover up his lack of vigilance for protecting her. The shooter, Jared Loghner, had a history of violence, and of making threats to public officials, including President Bush and Congresswoman Giffords. He is certainly the kind of person who should have been under observation when this kind of an event was announced. His actionss were consistent with his known history and behavior, which is why blaming the action on Palin or other is ludicrous.
Anyone who follows this blog knows I am first and foremost a consevative and secondly a Republican. Although Govenor Palin shares those same views and affiliations and is without a doubt a Christian woman she is far from being my favorite among the Republican prospects for 2012. I do not write this post to defend her potential prospects, rather, I write because the vitriol that has been unleashed aginst her illustrates the desperation and hypocrisy of many liberals.
Only 14 months ago Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hassan murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers as a direct result of the inspiration of an American Muslin cleric living in Yemen. Despite the his connections to terrorism and his correspondence with clerics who advocated jihad shia law, and holy war on the United States, any one who called him a terrorist or suggested his action were motivate by Islam was immediately castigated and called bigotted. Even the President refuse to call him a terrorist.
Then along comes Loghner who was known for association with liberal conspiracy theories, and hatred for conservatives, with absolutely no evidence linking him to Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin. Those same pundits who accused those who point out obvious connections between Malik and terrorism of bigotry, made even more dubious associations by their accusations of conservative. These reprehensible "blood libelist" as Palin, rightly called them, reveal something about the liberal mind.
Liberal politics is not base on reasoned civility but on creating emotional responses. Take any issue liberals will seldom, respond with a rational argument:they will appeal to emotion. Look at health care, for example;we are constantly told there is a health care crisis because supposedly 30 million americans are uninsured (would someone pleas tell me where that statistic comes from and whether it is true?). From this they jump to the conclusion that they are uninsured because evil corporations, or conservatives want poor people to die (This arguement, of course, assume it is the poor who are uninsured, when in fact, it is they who have medicaid.) The fact is no person in American will be denied health care. It is against the law. They might be harrased; they might be driven into bankruptcy, and their credit ruined, but they will not be denied care. The premise that uninsured are uncared for is false, therefore, the argument that conservative who do not support government run health care don't care is an entirely emotional arguement. The issue for conservatives is whether insuranceis an entitlement society must provide, and if so, should the government decide who gets what care based on how much money is in the federal treasury. Or should families who love the sick decide the level of their care and make the end of life decisions. That is the rational debate that liberals do not wish to have. Do we want individuals to make their own health care decision based on what the free market can provide, or do we want the government to ration care based on the federal budget? I personally trust my wife and kids more than I do Washington. For years conservatives have pointed out that Social Security was never established on sound financial principles and it is going broke. But every election cycle someone who propose reform to the social security system is accused of wanting the elderly to live in tenemants and eat dog food. The argument is completely specious and merely appeals to the fear of those who are trapped in a dependency on a meager government pension. The argument about social security reform is do we want another generation who works all their careers only to becomes dependnts of a government that is going broke or do we want to create a system that guarantees independence to the elderly.
The argument for nerely every liberal proposal is always the same: They claim (and I think some of them believe)their programs are compassionate or necessary to avoid a crisis. In the recent financial crisis, a democratic liberal, Secretary of Treasury working for a conservative Republican President George Bush, told him several corporations had to have a bailout or the housing market would collapse and millions would lose theirs job. So President Bush and Obama, who argued bailout were necessary to keep unemployment below 8%, responded to the emotional appeal, and the housing market collapsed and millions lost their jobs and unemployment rose to historic heights. Aren't you glad we averted a crisis? The only thing that was saved was the ego and the face of those who had made terrible business and government decision at the expense of the American tax payer. Or look at the recent health care debate. It was completely emotional. The argument was we had to insure the uninsured or millions of people would get sick and die. After the bill was passed totally based on vitriolic rhetoric without anyone reading it, millions more americans are losing their insurance or seeing their premiums increase. It is merely transferring of health care from those previously insured to the previously uninsured. Even last week we have heard from liberals that if we do not raise the debt ceiling the economy will collapse. Once again we are told do this to avoid crisis, with no supporting evidence that crisis will insue, but attacks on those who disagree as being greedy and uncaring.
How does all this relate to the Gifford shooting? When a heinous crime ocurrs liberals act consistently and respond based on their suspicions and feelings rather than evidence and respond the way they think will advance their agenda. American politics is a contest. The problems liberals have is there arguments do not make sense.(The reason Sarah Palin is despised is she is an excellent speaker and debater who usually wins in a one-on-one rational argument, and she did not go to Harvard) The idea that the government can prevent natural disasters, economic downturn, or beligerent actions of crazy people by limiting the freedom of the reasonable civic minded people is absurd. The idea that the passionate even bellicose language of political debate whether on the right or the left causes a mentally ill person to snap is totally unsupported. What could be the motivation for these kinds of baseless acusations?
The lesson of Giffords shooting is that each individual is responsible for her own actions. Government will never prevent people from making selfish irrational choices, whether it be eating the wrong kind of food, or acting in violent rage. The only thing government can do is put in place boundaries that give people the ability to improve their lot, and punish those who cross the line. Blaming pundits or people with passionate convictions for irrational acts, or passing laws limiting the liberties of the productive citizen always results in tyranny not liberty.
Homophobia will no more be stopped by "hate speech"legislation, then shootings will by silencing conservative advocates of the second amendment (who by the way Giffords is one). Tyrants always claim to be acting for the good of people and in the interest of the common good when individual liberties are denied every area of social progress declines. Whether you are a fan of Sarah Palin or not she and other conservative bear no culpability in Giffords shooting, limiting their speech or passion will not result in a more peaceful society, but rather in one where emotions like compassion are no longer felt and feelings like outrage are no longer expressed. Just as those who blamed Dr. Martin Luther King (an avowed pacifist and advocate of noviolence)for the racial tension of the 60's showed there own bias. Those who accuse conservative pundits of violence in the wake of Giffords shooting are manipulating public opinion for their own political purposes. Let those who oppose Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin opposed them in the forum of civil debate. To do other wise is manipulation and is as Palin said reprehensible.
Anyone who follows this blog knows I am first and foremost a consevative and secondly a Republican. Although Govenor Palin shares those same views and affiliations and is without a doubt a Christian woman she is far from being my favorite among the Republican prospects for 2012. I do not write this post to defend her potential prospects, rather, I write because the vitriol that has been unleashed aginst her illustrates the desperation and hypocrisy of many liberals.
Only 14 months ago Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hassan murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers as a direct result of the inspiration of an American Muslin cleric living in Yemen. Despite the his connections to terrorism and his correspondence with clerics who advocated jihad shia law, and holy war on the United States, any one who called him a terrorist or suggested his action were motivate by Islam was immediately castigated and called bigotted. Even the President refuse to call him a terrorist.
Then along comes Loghner who was known for association with liberal conspiracy theories, and hatred for conservatives, with absolutely no evidence linking him to Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin. Those same pundits who accused those who point out obvious connections between Malik and terrorism of bigotry, made even more dubious associations by their accusations of conservative. These reprehensible "blood libelist" as Palin, rightly called them, reveal something about the liberal mind.
Liberal politics is not base on reasoned civility but on creating emotional responses. Take any issue liberals will seldom, respond with a rational argument:they will appeal to emotion. Look at health care, for example;we are constantly told there is a health care crisis because supposedly 30 million americans are uninsured (would someone pleas tell me where that statistic comes from and whether it is true?). From this they jump to the conclusion that they are uninsured because evil corporations, or conservatives want poor people to die (This arguement, of course, assume it is the poor who are uninsured, when in fact, it is they who have medicaid.) The fact is no person in American will be denied health care. It is against the law. They might be harrased; they might be driven into bankruptcy, and their credit ruined, but they will not be denied care. The premise that uninsured are uncared for is false, therefore, the argument that conservative who do not support government run health care don't care is an entirely emotional arguement. The issue for conservatives is whether insuranceis an entitlement society must provide, and if so, should the government decide who gets what care based on how much money is in the federal treasury. Or should families who love the sick decide the level of their care and make the end of life decisions. That is the rational debate that liberals do not wish to have. Do we want individuals to make their own health care decision based on what the free market can provide, or do we want the government to ration care based on the federal budget? I personally trust my wife and kids more than I do Washington. For years conservatives have pointed out that Social Security was never established on sound financial principles and it is going broke. But every election cycle someone who propose reform to the social security system is accused of wanting the elderly to live in tenemants and eat dog food. The argument is completely specious and merely appeals to the fear of those who are trapped in a dependency on a meager government pension. The argument about social security reform is do we want another generation who works all their careers only to becomes dependnts of a government that is going broke or do we want to create a system that guarantees independence to the elderly.
The argument for nerely every liberal proposal is always the same: They claim (and I think some of them believe)their programs are compassionate or necessary to avoid a crisis. In the recent financial crisis, a democratic liberal, Secretary of Treasury working for a conservative Republican President George Bush, told him several corporations had to have a bailout or the housing market would collapse and millions would lose theirs job. So President Bush and Obama, who argued bailout were necessary to keep unemployment below 8%, responded to the emotional appeal, and the housing market collapsed and millions lost their jobs and unemployment rose to historic heights. Aren't you glad we averted a crisis? The only thing that was saved was the ego and the face of those who had made terrible business and government decision at the expense of the American tax payer. Or look at the recent health care debate. It was completely emotional. The argument was we had to insure the uninsured or millions of people would get sick and die. After the bill was passed totally based on vitriolic rhetoric without anyone reading it, millions more americans are losing their insurance or seeing their premiums increase. It is merely transferring of health care from those previously insured to the previously uninsured. Even last week we have heard from liberals that if we do not raise the debt ceiling the economy will collapse. Once again we are told do this to avoid crisis, with no supporting evidence that crisis will insue, but attacks on those who disagree as being greedy and uncaring.
How does all this relate to the Gifford shooting? When a heinous crime ocurrs liberals act consistently and respond based on their suspicions and feelings rather than evidence and respond the way they think will advance their agenda. American politics is a contest. The problems liberals have is there arguments do not make sense.(The reason Sarah Palin is despised is she is an excellent speaker and debater who usually wins in a one-on-one rational argument, and she did not go to Harvard) The idea that the government can prevent natural disasters, economic downturn, or beligerent actions of crazy people by limiting the freedom of the reasonable civic minded people is absurd. The idea that the passionate even bellicose language of political debate whether on the right or the left causes a mentally ill person to snap is totally unsupported. What could be the motivation for these kinds of baseless acusations?
The lesson of Giffords shooting is that each individual is responsible for her own actions. Government will never prevent people from making selfish irrational choices, whether it be eating the wrong kind of food, or acting in violent rage. The only thing government can do is put in place boundaries that give people the ability to improve their lot, and punish those who cross the line. Blaming pundits or people with passionate convictions for irrational acts, or passing laws limiting the liberties of the productive citizen always results in tyranny not liberty.
Homophobia will no more be stopped by "hate speech"legislation, then shootings will by silencing conservative advocates of the second amendment (who by the way Giffords is one). Tyrants always claim to be acting for the good of people and in the interest of the common good when individual liberties are denied every area of social progress declines. Whether you are a fan of Sarah Palin or not she and other conservative bear no culpability in Giffords shooting, limiting their speech or passion will not result in a more peaceful society, but rather in one where emotions like compassion are no longer felt and feelings like outrage are no longer expressed. Just as those who blamed Dr. Martin Luther King (an avowed pacifist and advocate of noviolence)for the racial tension of the 60's showed there own bias. Those who accuse conservative pundits of violence in the wake of Giffords shooting are manipulating public opinion for their own political purposes. Let those who oppose Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin opposed them in the forum of civil debate. To do other wise is manipulation and is as Palin said reprehensible.
Comments
Post a Comment