Monthly Archives: January 2011
The left wants Sarah Palin to scale back the rhetoric. The left leaning media doesn’t want their false accusations answered or their own hypocrisy exposed.
Does anyone out there ask —
How was Sarah Palin inserted into the conversation concerning the murders in Tucson?
Was it by her own doing?
Did she seek the media out and shout; blame me?
NO! She was dragged into the conversation by those who claimed she was inciting this type of violence. Even before National Public Radio corrected its inaccurate report of Congresswoman Giffords death on Saturday, the left winged blogs and commentators were turning their attention to Sarah Palin.
If any of these fools actually viewed the entire clips of Sarah Palin’s speeches in which she used phrases like reload, they would learn that she went on to explain that she meant no violence, that she was taking about taking aim at the ballot box. I know, putting the comments in context, stifles the conclusion the media is trying to lead you to make.
What the left leaning folks can not stand about Sarah Palin, is that she doesn’t allow their claims and statements to go unchallenged. Sarah Palin does not, nor should she, back down.
It was the left, who short of flat-out accusation, implied that the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords was the fault of Sarah Palin. The left leaning media and pundits, led by hate spewing loud mouths like Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews, wanted us to believe that the blood of the victims was on the former Governor’s hands.
Well, Sarah responded, and how better to convey images of a sordid present than by utilizing images of a sordid past? With two words, BLOOD LIBEL, Sarah Palin captured exactly what the left attempted, and strangely enough, is still trying to create; an image that certain political words and speech, more specifically her’s, spurred Jared Loughner onto a murderous rampage.
On the Pennsylvania Progressive blog, they write “Whether or not Jared Loughren was motivated by the RWHM is irrelevant. Sooner or later someone would be.” After initial posts blaming the right-wing, complaining that no one from, as they call it, the right-wing hate machine, is taking responsibility, they are now suggesting that it doesn’t matter that the right was not responsible for this particular incident, because they will be responsible for something.
Even though the Pennsylvania Progressive folks acknowledge the right had nothing to do with this tragedy, they ask the question, “How many more nine-year old girls must be gunned down in our streets before we decide this isn’t healthy for our country?” The answer is the same number that were gunned down due to political speech in Tucson.
What is the left’s answer to the threat that does NOT exist? Curbs on freedom of speech. This is the most frightening aspect of this entire debate. To protect us from a non-threat — they simply want to surrender Constitutional rights and freedoms.
The Bill of Rights does not exist to protect only nice and pleasant speech. The main purpose of the freedom of speech clause was to protect political speech; including speech with which you disagree or find distasteful.
I applaud Sarah Palin. She waited an appropriate period of time, for which many on the left claimed she was retreating, and she emerged with compassionate words and then, rightfully so, called out those who attacked her.
Political speech, lack of civil discourse, vitriol, venom or public anger did not cause this tragedy.
One man caused this tragedy —- the one man who pulled the trigger!
It is Sarah Palin’s fault!
Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and other right wing talk radio were the trigger!
Those angry tea-party folks are at the cause!
What complete nonsense!
Everyone seems to blame everyone. Yet, for some reason, no one wants to blame the alleged gunman.
Am I missing something?
I was listening to morning local talk radio. Nancy Kman stated something to the effect that we should be more cautious in what we say and that certain words could be responsible for triggering a mentally unbalanced person. That sentiment immediately brought before me a thought of abused women who stay in relationships. One I knew in particular, after she left, would say; “As long as I didn’t push his buttons he wouldn’t hit me, for the longest time I thought that it was my fault he hit me, you know…. because I would do or say something that would upset him.”
I have to wonder is this what we have come to in society.
Are we all to be so afraid that the wrong word, the wrong comment, the wrong treatment of someone who MAY be unbalanced will spur him or her onto a shooting spree?
Are we now to apply what is obviously flawed logic in an abusive situation to society at large?
Are we now to reason that we are responsible for another’s illegal and immoral actions?
I am responsible for myself and in turn, no one is responsible for me. I cannot, nor should I be, responsible for the actions of others and in turn no is responsible for my actions. We can’t control anyone but ourselves. It is one of the main points I focus on with people who seek my assistance in losing weight. It is as true in maintaining one’s health as it is in anything else in life. You can only control you, attempting to control someone else is futile.
Additionally, I have to ask how we are:
ONE supposed to know someone is unbalanced and TWO what would be THEIR trigger.
I had a brief flirtation with the world of politics. I ran a losing campaign for Congress and I spent a brief period of time acting as a political analyst for WYOU. In the grand scheme, I was an insignificant blip on the radar.
However, I can relate three occasions that happened during my campaign that caused me some concern. Two of the three involved the same person, so I will relate those together second.
The first incident occurred in Monroe County; I was campaigning at some type of event in which there were many vendors. I was introducing myself, when at one of the booths; the person behind the stand asked my party affiliation. When I answered, I was immediately assailed with a verbal onslaught of how George W. Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. No efforts at reason were helpful; this person just continued raising her voice louder and louder until I simply walked away. The trigger was nothing more than my party affiliation.
The other two occurrences happened at separate times, but by the same person. The first time I was at an event in Lackawanna County, a volunteer was walking ahead of me asking people if it was okay if I introduced myself and spoke with them for a few moments. One of the people we talked with was very eager and I spent several minutes with him. His passion was obvious, and as long as I listened, everything was calm. After a significant period had passed, I advised him that I understood his concerns; I had even jotted down a few notes, and I would look into what he had told me. I went to walk on to the next person and I guess that was the trigger. He became agitated. He claimed that I was not interested in what the people had to say. I nicely tried to reason with him, that there were other people who wanted to speak with me. Finally, he seemed to relax, I’m not sure why, but he did and I was able to go on.
The second episode occurred when I was campaigning with my then wife. We were out doing a downtown tour when I caught a glimpse of this same person heading straight at us. The speed he was approaching alarmed me and I immediately placed myself between him and my then wife. Immediately a verbal barrage of accusations assailed me about our last meeting. He claimed I hid the fact that I was a republican and his verbiage increased in both vitriol and volume. I attempted to engage him in conversation, but anything I said just amplified his anger. Finally, my now ex-wife whispered to me… and I am paraphrasing, “Subdue him or call the police.” I am not sure why, but something else captured his attention and we were able remove ourselves.
I would guess if either meant me harm, they would have done so.
The question must be asked; how is one to know the trigger? In retrospect, I don’t believe either of those folks to be mentally unbalanced, they were passionate about their convictions, but they saw my party as the cause of what was wrong and in turn, I became the object of their anger. Yet, if someone is genuinely unbalanced, inflammatory words or actions may not be something as forthright as calling someone an enemy or having a target over a congressional district.
One life lesson I have learned is that you CANNOT apply rational logic to irrational people — that itself is a striking contradiction.
Dr. Joe Leonardi
Since my failed run for office and my short-lived career as a political analyst, I infrequently comment on politics. However, I am bothered by what has become an apparent attempt to politicize a terrible tragedy. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress and the senseless death of six innocent bystanders is something that should be above politics. Yet, sadly, it is not.
I have read much speculation and I submitted a column for my friend Dave Yonki’s site for his Write on Wednesday feature, which I will repost here after it runs.
Preparing for that column, I was doing research on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the alleged gunman Jared Loughner. There is a lot of information out there and there is much speculation and opinion; however, I came across the following item from My Fox NY Website in reporting about Jared Loughner.
When I did a search for more information there was really nothing out there other than the above line almost thrown on as an after thought.
Now, for those of us who live in Northeast Pennsylvania, we scratch our heads when we read something like that. Here in good old NEPA, our elected and appointed officials have been running up quite a record of scandal and corruption — so maybe, just maybe we are a little more skeptical.
You see, a person who has had run ins with the law and has no police record and was able to purchase a handgun and has or may have (because I’m not sure if that is just bad grammar and I can’t find another source) a relative working in government, well…. we immediately become, what’s the word I’m looking for???? …. Suspicious.
So is there anyone else out there besides me who finds this somewhat interesting?
What makes me even more interested, is that Sheriff Dupnik really seems to being trying to direct attention onto conservative talks show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and conservative candidates such as Sarah Palin.
Now, I have no idea how politics works in Tucson Arizona.
I am not saying there is anything nefarious going on.
I honestly don’t have any idea.
So, if the question would be is there some kind of political connection? To that I don’t know the answer.
However, what I find curious is that no one seems to be asking the question.