Monday, January 10, 2011

The recent death of the Constitution in Tucson

By now, almost everyone in the nation has learned that 6 people were murdered (including Federal Judge John Roll) and 14 others were wounded (including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords) in a January 8 shooting in Tucson.

Those who have been willing to pay attention to facts know that the shooter was a 22-year-old leftist lunatic with a drug problem. Probably for these reasons, he was deemed unqualified for military service when he tried to enlist. Fellow students described Jared Loughner as an ultra-liberal loner who listened to heavy metal -- not talk radio, smoked pot, and burned American flags in his spare time. His list of idols includes Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez, Latin American Communist mass-murderer Che Guevara, American Socialist and violent revolutionary Saul Alinsky, and even Barack Obama -- not Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin.

Those who don't care about facts have seemingly unanimously blamed the shooting on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and others who urge respect for the US Constitution.

Ironically, the left is always quite hostile in its efforts to show how hostile the right is. Today, that hostility is being used in their campaign to place the blame for Saturday's crime on constitutionalists. Michael Savage is right: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

The left, in their effort to blame the right for the massacre, seem to believe the shooter is another victim of the shooting and what led up to it. Rush Limbaugh made this observation on the left's approach to the shooting:
What must it feel like to be Jared Loughner, to know you've done this and to realize that the party of the President of the United States is trying to figure out a way to blame their political opponents for it, to understand that advisers to the president are telling him how to capitalize on this incident for his own political advancement? -Rush Limbaugh, 11 Jan 2011
Even the Pima County Sheriff (who is sworn to support and defend the US Constitution, including the First Amendment), Clarence Dupnik, apparently believes talk radio is more culpable than is the shooter. (It is possible that the Sheriff is only trying to divert attention from his own failures with regard to Saturday's shooing.)

Apparently, speaking favorably of the principles described in the nation's founding documents is no different from advocating violence toward elected politicians and that alone caused the shooter to go berserk. It's obvious that these people don't understand or care that the shooter, a 22-year-old leftist lunatic with a drug problem, was unlikely to be a Rush Limbaugh fan. How the left can say a leftist assassin was goaded into violence by conservative talk shows (to which almost nobody on the left listens including, most likely the shooter) is unfathomable. I know they don't listen because they characterize conservative talk programming as "vitriolic rhetoric," Anyone knows it is not -- except when leftist callers express their views.

If the shooter was influenced by anyone (which I can't say, because I don't have enough facts), I'd have to agree with Ann Coulter: "If any public figure influenced this guy, my money's on Bill Maher." I'd add professional haters like MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

As a result of this twisted perception of reality, many are calling for restrictions on First Amendment rights for conservative talk-show hosts and more restrictions on Second Amendment rights for law-abiding persons. Of course, none of these restrictions would affect the violent behavior of a 22-year-old leftist lunatic with a drug problem.

The leftist politicians and news media reacted quite differently when Nidal Hasan shot his fellow soldiers and when John Hinckley shot President Ronald Reagan. Those victims, after all, were not Democrats.

Some criticism toward any politician is certainly justified -- and in some cases far too often needed. However, are those who condemn the alleged harsh conservative rhetoric innocent of the unjustified yet harsh liberal rhetoric that was directed toward people such as George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hanity, Jesse Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, Karl Rove, Dan Quayle, Michael Savage, Luara Schlessinger, etc.? Isn't it odd that harsh rhetoric is only allowed in one direction?

When taking an objective look at political criticism, one usually finds that conservative rhetoric is focused on principles. On the other hand, liberal rhetoric is generally directed at people, because they know they loose the debate when it's based on principles. Perhaps that's why bullies like Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Clarence Dupnik fear and hate conservatives and talk radio so much.

Now, we all expect leftists to call for further degradation of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and for greater government control over the people. But what I find most troubling is that few in the news media and no politician on either side of the isle, particularly on the right, is visibly standing up for liberty. Sadly, I expected that too.

Every politician in the nation -- especially Sheriff Dupnik -- must reject the opportunity to use this tragedy to impose any enhanced control whatsoever on any of our God-given natural rights -- especially those enumerated in the Constitution or to further increase the power of government beyond those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

On the surface, Saturday's shooting was the act of a leftist lunatic with a drug problem. But, the problem is deeper than that. In our nation, we don't have a struggle between Right and Left or Republicans vs Democrats or talk programming vs people who watch American Idol. Our core problem is a struggle between good and evil. Over the past few decades, we've allowed radicals to drive God out of the schools and the public square. Since then, evil has been winning. The fact that evil is winning is why some were so eager to blame innocent people and groups for the tragedy. And, it why Jared Loughner had no moral compass to guide him. Our nation is long overdue some serious repentance and a national return to God.

Coincidentally, it was Representative Giffords, entering her third term, who read the First Amendment on the floor of the House last Thursday:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the Right of the People peaceably to assemble, and to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.
And politicians on the lect and leftist members of the news media are exploiting the shooting to call for the silencing of rhetoric on the right. Ironic. Disgusting.

PS: Since this was a town-hall-style meeting held by a Democrat, one wouldn't expect to find many gun-toting citizens although Congresswoman Giffords is pro-gun and one of the persons who subdued the shooter was wearing a handgun who said he was prepared to shoot, but assisted the tackle while the shooter was in the process of reloading. The question I have is, considering that the shooter had time to empty a 30-round extended magazine and the attempts to subdue him apparently came only as he was in the process of reloading, would the victims have wanted more guns in the crowd or less? Those who think more gun control would stop a lunatic such as Jared Loughner are just as crazy as he is. He could have done just as much carnage driving a Yugo through the crowd.

No comments:

Post a Comment