Jared Loughner Recap

a) hated Bush
b)
9/11 truther

Democrats believe Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. 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.

c) antiwar
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
j)
one of his favorite books was The Communist Manifesto
k)
One of his favorite books was Mein Kampf

“I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality…. We will train young people before whom the world will tremble. I want young people capable of violence — imperious, relentless and cruel.” (Hitler, hung on the wall at Auschwitz; Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, p. 23)

“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.)

 

Chris Mathews Should Self-Reflect

“They work at the five yard line from either the left or the right and they do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem?” ~ Chris Matthews ~ NewsBusters

AGAIN:

BLANKLEY: Well, if the last 240 years is any indication. But let me make a point here. Because in fact, it is on all sides. You talked about Sarah Palin’s gun site stuff. I’ve seen a democratic national committee posting, where in 2004, they had gun sites. They had it called “behind enemy lines,” the same phrase that you were quoting in the previous segment. I quoted Pelosi, calling people who’ve opposed Obama-care Nazis, et cetera.

[….]

BLANKLEY: The fact is that Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Senator Reid, all used the words “Nazis,” “dissenters,” “un-Americans” to describe their opponents. This is part of the American politics. We all know that this is an ugly.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Harry Reid’s used the term Nazi?

PRESS: Again, show me when.

BLANKLEY: No Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid used to call people who were opposed to him, evil. That’s the word. And I have it from a column that I wrote late last year. This is a reality. We all know that this is an ugly part of American politics and it always has been. I hope it changes — I hope it changes but I don’t think that it’s going to.

Jared Loughner Opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan~Of Course (LR & Townhall.com h/t)


This from Libertarian Republican:

This from Lindgren’s article, “Jared Loughner’s Anti-War Views”:

On July 7, 2010, Loughner posted his assertion that the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan “is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949”:

There was help with cleaning the uranium from the Iran and Iraq war in the 1980’s?

Summation of Jared's Beliefs:
As we all know, the Tea Party movement is teeming with Bush-hating, 9/11 truther, antiwar, Christian-hating, “Left-wing pothead” zealots

Article 33 of the Geneva Convention is the prohibit of pillage.

All military invasions with armed forces into a foreign country are war crimes in the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a military invasion with armed forces into a foreign country.

Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.

Ouch! For the thoughts of war.

Lindgren also discovered Loughner rejected free market economic principles. Loughner posted support for:

“the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”

…(read more and see original links)…

At another source — TownHall.com — we find this:

As we all know, the Tea Party movement is teeming with Bush-hating, 9/11 truther, antiwar, Christian-hating, “Left-wing pothead” zealots:

On July 7, 2010, Loughner posted his assertion that the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan “is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949”:

There was help with cleaning the uranium from the Iran and Iraq war in the 1980’s?

Article 33 of the Geneva Convention is the prohibit of pillage.

All military invasions with armed forces into a foreign country are war crimes in the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.

The Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a military invasion with armed forces into a foreign country.

Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949.

Ouch! For the thoughts of war.

In a thread on unemployment, Loughner quotes with seeming approval, portions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserting “the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity” and “the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”

And then there are his frequent attacks on religion and Christianity, e.g.:

Crap on God!

Crap on God!

Crap on God!

Indeed, Loughner was so inspired by the (“overwhelmingly” right-wing) “climate of hate” that he didn’t vote in 2010, and is a registered independent.

…(read more)…

YES for investigations?!

Andrew Marcus over at BigGovernment has some excellent ideas for investigations in toning down rhetoric that Democrats are calling for:

….we think that Progressive Democrats are 100% correct when they call for action against factors leading to our toxic political climate…

…We are therefore openly calling for public hearings to look into the actions of political agitators in this nation.

Democrats have made it clear that they want to investigate and restrict Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, and others to be sure. In fact, there are so many conservatives to investigate, we need to come up with a strategy to tackle the work.

We propose that any investigation begin with events that led to criminal behavior, like say the WTO riots in Seattle. Or the RNC riots in St. Paul. Or the angry mob protests that have taken place at the home of Bank of America executives. Or the Kenneth Gladney beating. That should provide a good start.

When would the Progressive Democrats like to schedule these hearings?

We even have a handy list of 5 easy steps the Government can take right away, steps which will have an immediate effect on the toxicity of our body politic:

…(read it all and the comments)…


Ed Morrissey Debates Extremist Rhetoric On Al-Jazeera (Also: ReasonTV)

HotAir h/t:

This from the NYT’s opinion page:

….It is hard to resist payback, like pointing out the violent rhetoric directed against President George W. Bush from the left. Despite all of the strong rhetoric directed against Ronald Reagan (remember, some civil rights leaders said he’d legitimize Nazism in America after his 1980 election), I can’t remember any conservatives blaming Reagan’s shooting by John Hinckley on leftist rhetoric, or still less on Hollywood for a nutjob who took his model from “Taxi Driver.”

But this blame-setting shows an appalling historical ignorance and lack of perspective. The very first election in history where power passed from one political party to another without violence was our election of 1800, when Jefferson turned out Adams. It was the first time, as Lincoln observed, that ballots replaced bullets. The vitriol in that election would make Fox News and MSNBC blush.

Jefferson, the Federalists said, would bring the guillotine and French Jacobin terror to America. Adams, the Republicans responded, was intent on refastening the tyranny of the British monarchy. Reason TV offered a perfect representation of what an attack ad from that campaign would look like if they’d had 30-second spots back then, not to mention the fact that in those days people often ended their political quarrels through duels (see: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr). Is political vitriol really worse today? Get a grip….