HotAir is reporting an aid saying that the death threats to Palin have increased dramatically:
An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.
Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her “crosshairs” map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday’s attack.
Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled.
Is the Left responsible for this spike in hatred? What is — God forbid — Sarah Palin is hurt? Do the pundits, personalities, etc., have any responsibility for this — using their own thinking displayed with connecting Palin to this tragedy? Here is a conversation from FB I had on this topic. I posted the following statement with a link to a post I had:
If the Arizona shooter was influenced by national hatred, which rhetorical side do you think he was influenced by: [quote from story] As we all know, the Tea Party movement is teeming with Bush-hating, 9/11 truther, antiwar, Christian-hating, “Left-wing pothead” zealots
Here is the first comment I agreed with, so here is the second comment and this kicks off the discussion in earnest. (Keep in mind all people that comment mean no malice and are friends, albeit from the other side of the political — and religious — spectrum) Misspellings included:
sorry, but liberals don’t affiliate themselves with supremacist orginizations like American Reniassance as Jared did – all the “news” agencies that “report” Jared a leftist are extreme conservative sites, while the actual newsworthy sites (AP, even Fox) paint him as unstable with ties to a racist orginization. Being back in college for Biotech we are constantly reminded to vet internet info …But I agree with Reagan, time to STOP blaming society and blame the individual. You gotta admit, when an extremist Right winger goes off the deep end, bombs and guns are involved Federal Agents are killed, Abortion Dr’s are perforated, Federal Buildings blown up, offices and people attacked- when a liberal goes off the deep end, they move to the forest and build a teepee to live in.
Yes, he was crazy, bottom line. But if he was influenced by something, it was by people who
a) hated Bush
b) 9/11 truther
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
d) hated Christians
e) was an atheist
f) Left-wing pothead
g) fixated with Giffords 3-years ago ~ before Obama, Health-Care, and the like
h) didn’t listen to radio
i) didn’t watch TV
His affiliation with American Reniassance was a “Like” on FaceBook. If I, for instance, went on a killing spree the press would have a field day with all the orgs I “liked” on my FB. Unfortunately, most of the vitriol is on the left:http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/01/tony-blankley-schools-ed-schultz-and-bill-press/
Michael Moore hates the following as his movies record:
- Anti-health care system= Sicko
- Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
- IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
- Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
- Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One
The IRS plane guy believed this;
- Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
- Hates Big Pharma
- Hates Big Insurance
- Hates GM executives
- Hates organized religion
- Refers favorably to communism
- And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.
I have more bios here:http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Crazed%20Gunmen%20Bios
Also see Democrat call Bush a Nazi: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/democrat-calls-bush-hitler-says-behind.html
The commentator that I first agreed with hops in:
you are ridiculous… and stubborn….and obviously care more about pointing fingers and making yourself feel better, than actually taking a step back and looking at what political rhetoric in this country is coming to. in stead of spurring healthy debate, politicos (on both sides) obsession with the mass media outlets, and their attempts to cater to every fringe constituent they can, has created a media monster that has more to do with “I know you are but what am I” and less to do with developing policies and legislature that reflect the peoples’ best interests…. good thing you cant own guns or I else I would be waiting for the day you finally cant take anymore from your leftist friends and the liberal media and make a list and start picking off libs…..don’t get any ideas.
My point is that the only people making rhetorical attacks — to which my blog (for those not aware of it: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/) is responding to — are from the left. Please, tell me whom on the right that are equal to Senators and MSNBC pundits are making rhetorical claims about Sarah Palin being behind this (via crosshairs) or calling Tea Partiers Nazi’s and fomenting the national mood that makes someone shoot people. YES HE WAS A NUT… but if Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell, Sheriff Dupnik, Ed Schultz, E. Steven Collins, Michael Smerconish, Woopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Mark Shields, Bill Maher, Matt Bai, Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Democrat Rep. James Clyburn, Democrat Sen. Bob Kerrey, ETC, ETC
Of course I cannot forget Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (who caucuses with the Democrats) fund raising letter just a couple of days after the shooting:
Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated. What should be understood is that the violence, and threats of violence against Democrats in Arizona, was not limited to Gabrielle Giffords. Raul Grijalva, an old friend of mine and one of the most progressive members in the House, was forced to close his district office this summer when someone shot a bullet through his office window. Another Democratic elected official in Arizona, recently defeated Congressman Harry Mitchell, suspended town meetings in his district because of the threatening phone calls that he received (Mitchell was also in the cross-hairs on the Palin map). And Judge John Roll, who was shot to death at the Giffords event, had received numerous threatening calls and death threats in 2009.In light of all of this violence – both actual and threatened – is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?
Remember this by all the same people and then some?
….On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.” There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.
Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.
“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.
“We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”
“I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.”
The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president’s remarks.
“We can’t jump to conclusions,” Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a “transparent” investigation into the shootings “so the American people don’t jump to conclusions.” And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN’s John Roberts was quick to intervene. “Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions,” Roberts said to Hoekstra. “By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte#ixzz1AmqNr4AC
My point is that most of the rhetoric I have seen (and still is coming from the Left) are from liberal pundits. And this card often used by them:
The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”
Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.
One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.
This is easy to demonstrate.
Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
- The poor
- The disenfranchised
- The environment
These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.
This psychological hatred from the Left towards Bush and now Sarah Palin is what is making the mood of the nation bitter. And it may have bad consequences that I am sure the Left will accept as warranted — ate least some.