Deep in the hearts and minds of the liberal media and the left lie an unspoken truth: both know that Sarah Palin’s so-called “cross-hair map” nor the “vitriol rhetoric on the radio and television” (and by that they mean the rhetoric emanating from conservative radio and Fox News) in any way contributed to Saturday’s massacre in Tucson. Thus, their repeated attempts to link the two is no more than a cynical, politically motivated exercise meant to marginalize popular conservative voices and halt the growing and, as evidenced by the mid-term elections, politically powerful Tea Party movement. However, their ultimate goal is to lay the groundwork for enacting legislation that will have a chilling effect on conservative speech; in the desperate hope that by silencing the opposition, their party will achieve better results at the ballot box.
It is obvious from what we have learned about the Tucson shooter over the past few days, is that he is a very troubled and most likely deranged individual. Does any reasonable person believe that because Sarah Palin displayed a map “targeting” congressional districts for election purposes incited the perpetrator to kill six and maim 13 people? Of course it doesn’t. No more than they believe the video games he played, or the music to which he listened sparked his rage.
If it is even suggested that it could be the games and DVDs in his possession, or the songs contained on his I-Pod that contributed to Loughner’s rampage, he or she would be, and rightly in my opinion, dismissed out of hand by the left and the media. This is especially true for those in the entertainment industry, who never accept that the violent lyrics contained in the songs it records or the gratuitous violence portrayed in the video games and movies it produces may have caused some maladjusted soul to become unhinged and commit unspeakable acts of horror like the one in Tucson.
Indeed, it will be interesting to witness how many of those employed in the entertainment industry will blame their favorite villianess Sarah Palin and her map for the carnage, but those same people will refuse, and even scoff, at the suggestion that their mediums’ products somehow caused young Jared to shoot 19 people. However, it could be argued that his taste in movies, videos, and music is a far more reasonable proximate cause for his actions than images on an election map; regardless if those images were of cross-hairs, targets, or surveying symbols.
The truth of the matter is that with the exception of the shooter himself, no person, political party, recording, or video game is culpable in the Tucson shootings–and those in the media and on the left know it full well. Therefore, the disgusting, vile, slanderous, and downright evil display of an absolute corrupt media and political party attempting to link the Tea Party and conservatives to the carnage in Tuscon over the past few days was simply pretext to their real motive: politics.
In order for the democrat party to get the maximum political advantage from this tragedy, with the ever reliable aid from the media, it must be repeated over and over that the causal link to Loughner’s provocation was politics. Further, it must be the vitriol politics spoken by Limbaugh and Beck and the election map provided by Palin that sent young Loughner off to a Tucson Safeway with a loaded Glock that Saturday afternoon to slaughter a congresswoman and other innocent bystanders. Are the connections not obvious!
If this event were not such a tragedy and the ramifications of its aftermath not so serious (not only to the victims and their families, but to the nation’s political climate as well) the media and the left’s shameful attempt to assign its causation to anyone other than the depraved shooter would be comical.
Make no mistake, their righteous indignation has absolutely nothing to do with halting violence by urging the toning down of political vitriol (and if it is, it is only the vitriol from conservatives); the primary motive of the media and the left’s attempt to tie what happened in Tucson to the conservative movement is the same reason they did after the 1995 Oklahoma City attack: marginalize popular and effective conservatives, thereby chilling or silencing their political speech. If they can rid the nation of conservatisms most effective voices and their message, liberals will be more successful at the ballot box.
The media and leftists groups such as the ACLU are always in a rush to defend free speech no matter how violent and perverted that speech may be. From the rap and hip hop music that is laced with violent rhetoric about shooting “bitches” and keeping their “ho’s” in place (When was the last time the left blamed rap for gang violence? Obama even quotes songs from Jay-Z); to the heavy-metal bands that I listened to and enjoyed in my youth, with their anti-social lyrics that may or may not have contained encrypted messages promoting suicide and rage killings; to the proliferation of obscene and grossly-obscene pornography on the Internet, in magazines, and on DVDs.
The use of the term “grossly-obscene” is an attempt to make a distinction between pornography that may be considered obscene but is basically consenting adults engaged in normal and consensual sex. The grossly-obscene are those images of rape and torture, bestiality, and “virtual” child pornography, which do not depict actual children engaged in sexual activity, but are images that have been manipulated and digitalized to make them appear to be children—yes, the courts, thanks in part to the ACLU, have found these images to be protected speech— and other repugnant acts that 90% of the American population would consider far removed from containing any social or artistic value. However, the ACLU and most of those on the left, would agree that even the grossly-obscene is protected speech, and they would defend a person’s right to produce, view, and possess such material.
Their defense in support of such material and speech is that although the words and images are vile and offensive, and even may quite possibly have a negative effect on the nation’s youth and culture, it is the price society must pay to ensure that every citizen has a voice that can be heard or a thought expressed, without the threat of Government censorship or prosecution. They argue, if the Government can prohibit even the vilest forms of expression, it will have a chilling effect on other types of speech and thought, which could lead to a ban on the more noble and enlightened forms of expression. Their argument is basically that of the slippery-slope variety, and for the most part, with the exception of the grossly-obscene, I agree with these arguments and the reasoning behind them. However, the left’s passion for defending freedom of speech ceases when that speech is political discourse in which they don’t agree with.
Political speech was the single most important form of expression the framers of the 1st Amendment intended to protect. Political thought and speech and the free flow of ideas are at the very heart of the amendment’s free speech clause. Yet, it is political speech of the conservative variety the left desperately wants to regulate—and in some cases ban altogether. Granted, the left will not come forward and promote an outright ban on conservative political speech: it will do so by advocating innocuous sounding legislation such as anti-hate speech laws, the Fairness Doctrine, and Net-Neutrality.
If enacted, those proposed pieces of legislation would have a chilling effect on conservative speech. It is an outrage that those on the left would support and defend the right of someone to produce and posses virtual child-pornography, but would go to great lengths, even use a tragedy like Tucson, to silence political speech in which it disagrees.
To counter the left’s politicizing the shootings, our elected Republican leaders must go on the airways and denounce the attempt to link what happened in Tucson to Tea Party members and other conservatives. He or she must be prepared to cite specific examples and point to the left’s hypocrisy on the issue of vitriolic speech with examples. There has to be a literal treasure trove of empirical evidence on the Internet of democrat leaders and commentators on the left spouting the most ugly and hateful things about conservatives, especially George W. Bush and Palin. The burning of her church and the movie based on Bush’s fictional assassination are just two that come to mind.
For a moment, imagine the outrage from the media and the left, if the place of worship set ablaze was Obama’s and the film depicted his demise at the hands of a make believe assassin. Both events would be broadcast 24/7 and for days on end to show “the hate on the right.” However, most Americans are unaware of the Palin church fire or the Bush assassination film. I wonder why that is?
In addition, they need to be tougher on those in the media who even suggest a tenious link between the shooter and conservatives. This has to be the right’s “Have you no decency Sir? Have you no shame!” moment when “journalists” pose asinine and loaded questions such as, “How much blame should be placed on Rush and Palin for the tragedy and will you appeal to them to tone down their rhetoric?”
Over the next few weeks, the usual suspects on the left and in the media will be positively giddy in their attempts to link this tragedy to Tea Party members and conservatives. Chris Matthews is no doubt anxiously awaiting an opportunity to cite his factually-flawed and utterly biased documentary, “The New Right,” which portrays the Tea Party and other conservatives as violent thugs, to bolster claims that conservative speech promotes violence. And while he, and the rest of the liberal media are getting a “thrill up the back of their leg” trying to link conservatives to the Tucson shootings; the thought of them succeeding in making the public believe such a connection exists sends a big chill right down my spine.