Biden to the Rescue!

Wednesday, August 10, AD 2011

In these dark days of the credit downgrade of the nation, an economy falling back into recession, a crashing stock market, etc, one man shines out as a beacon of hope:  Veep and Beloved National Clown Joe Biden.  As the Three Stooges lightened the American mood during the Great Depression with their comic pratfalls and buffoonish antics, so Biden lightens the national mood by constantly, and deliberately I am sure, saying the stupidest things imaginable.

When Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford recently returned to Congress after being shot in the head, Biden welcomed her as a fellow  member of the “cracked head club”.  As the nation was still howling at that, he dauntlessly followed up with the gutbuster that the members of the Tea Party were “acting like terrorists“.

Note the master at work.  Joe of course realizes that calling people who organized peacefully, won the Congressional elections in 2010, and whose representatives in Congress are seeking to enact legislation embodying the beliefs they campaigned on as terrorists, is absurd.  He therefore willingly makes himself absurd and a national joke in order to give us all something to laugh about in these dark days.  What a true patriot!

However, in the event that I am wrong and that Joe really meant that tea party members are acting like terrorists, below are depicted the intellectual godfathers of this dangerous movement, and perhaps Homeland Security needs to put them under surveillance pronto:

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Biden to the Rescue!

  • He’s more than a clown, if you want to read a story about how sinister and sick Joe Biden is, have at it:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/the_history_of.html

  • Don, isn’t Joe one of yours?

  • Yep Joe, he is an attorney. He almost got thrown out of law school due to an incident of plagiarism in his first year. He also got poor grades in college and law school. From the start, he was marked for a great political career!

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html

    After Biden was forced to own up to his lawschool plagiarism scandal in 1987, the next year when he was running for President he was forced out after it was learned that he plagiarized during the campaign a speech of Neal Kinnock, then leader of the British labor party, virtually verbatim.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/

    The man is an ignorant, dishonest piece of work. I do find him truly funny however, in a Three Stooges style.

  • That’s not what I meant, Don. He’s a Catholic, at least nominally. Then again, so are Cuomo, Pelosi and the NY GOP State Senators responsible for putting the gay marriage bill over the top.

    I think you once brought up Jackie Gleason who described himself as a “bad Catholic,” which, I believe you commented on by saying, “Once Catholic always Catholic.”

    As a lapsed Catholic myself, I never understood that, given that I no longer go to mass, confession or otherwise embrace the faith. But it’s there on every “religious preference” form I fill out. Makes me feel hypocritical, to say the least, but I openly admit my doubts whereas the aforementioned “Catholics” consider themselves “faithful” followers.

    My previous mention, BTW, of “smileys” referred to the lack of emoticons that used to show when one wished to add to posts. They are no longer there.

  • “Sinister” is exactly right, Jasper. I don’t give Biden the benefit of laughing him off as merely a buffoon. Oh, he’s a buffoon, alright. But he’s also a Grade “A” abortion-loving @$$h—, as evidenced by the piece to which you linked. I remember all too clearly Biden’s performance during the Bork hearings, in which he ran interference for Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd, in torpedoing a nomination that would have eventually led to Roe being overturned – something for which I’ve detested the man for close to a quarter of a century.

    But I hesitate to describe my emotions when I read that piece a few years ago about Biden jumping and crying for joy on a train platform in celebration of the holocaust of the unborn. Or when he threatened to shove his rosary beads down the throats of his critics who believe his pro-abortion advocacy disqualifies him from being a Catholic in good standing. He’s a nasty piece of work, and should not be merely laughed off as a clown. Oh yes, he is a clown, but one of those evil ones like you see in the horror movies.

  • “That’s not what I meant, Don. He’s a Catholic, at least nominally.”

    Nominal is the word Joe. He is a CINO. However, even for Biden there is hope that he can become a real Catholic before his end.

  • Biden voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning abortion in the early Reagan administration. Yet another Catholic Democrat in Congress who moved from the pro-life to the pro-abort side of the equation, and barely a peep from the relevant Catholic ecclesiastics in Delaware.

  • “As a lapsed Catholic myself, I never understood that, given that I no longer go to mass, confession or otherwise embrace the faith. But it’s there on every ‘religious preference’ form I fill out. Makes me feel hypocritical, to say the least, but I openly admit my doubts whereas the aforementioned ‘Catholics’ consider themselves ‘faithful’ followers.”

    One is either 100% fully, authenticly and orthodoxly (is that a valid adverb?) Catholic, or one is not even remotely Catholic. There are no in-betweens. To be a non-practicing Catholic is to be not a Catholic, for a true Catholic practices his faith as though the final state of his soul depends on it (and as a matter of fact, it does!). Such non-practitioners should call themselves what they are: atheist, agnostic, deist, or whatever else may validly apply, but not Catholic since they don’t practice what it means to be Catholic.

    Now that doesn’t mean a Catholic won’t sin and need to go to Confession (e.g., myself, and I probably need to go more than once a month). However, those who describe themselves as lapsed Catholics are either “blackslidden” (to use a Protestant term) or apostate (which implies a formal disaffiliation). Unrepentent blackslidden or apostate “Catholics” are not going to Heaven were they to die in their state of being backslidden or apostate. Of course, the same is true of me were I to die in a state of unrepentent mortal sin.

    Nevertheless, to feel hypocritical over calling one’s self “Catholic” while in a backslidden or apostate state (I won’t judge which one if any applies) is perhaps a glimmer of gold in amongst the trash: at least one feels some effects of the truth of the situation. So there is hope for Joe Green after all! 😉

  • Darn, Don. As a ‘tweenie,’ I’d like to have it both ways playing Pascal’s Wager. That ‘glimmer’ you refer to is embodied in this quote by Evelyn Waugh, which stays on my desktop whenever the doubts increase:

    “The Roman Catholic Church has the unique power of keeping remote control over human souls which have once been part of her. G.K. Chesterton has compared this to the fisherman’s line, which allows the fish the illusion of free play in the water and yet has him by the hook; in his own time the fisherman by a ‘twitch upon the thread’ draws the fish to land.”

    The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day. : )

  • “The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day. : )”

    As long as we live Joe, the Hound of Heaven is always hot on our trail.

  • “The Lord is still fishing, and I hope I may be the catch of the day some day.”

    Just say “yes” to Jesus and go to Confession, Joe. You don’t have to be perfect, but you do have to be forgiven.

  • Biden and about 100,000 other progressive idiots ruining America call to mind St. Augustine’s comments/observations in the City of God.

    “The half-wits we have to endure and must answer.”

    “If the wicked refuse to join in the blessed endeavor, they should be loved as enemies are loved in Christian charity, since, as long as they live, there is the possibility that they may come to a better mind.”

  • Don, thought you might post something about the 406th anniversary of Guy Fawkes Gunpowder Plot, a failed attempt by Catholics to take over the English throne.

  • Biden has his mouth so full of his own footwear i find it amazing he can still speak.
    But then, away he goes again, cramming his foot into his mouth and dribbling some idiotic garbage. No wonder his mouth is getting bigger.

    Joe Green.

    Despite what Paul has said, hang onto that litle peice of you that still says “hey, I’m Catholic.” That’s the tiny mustard seed – it just isn’t being watered or fertilized. One day there will be an event in your life that clears away the mist and makes things clear for you. There are many canonised saints in the Church who were much worse than you are.
    To be hanging around a Catholic blog actually says something. Hang in there.

  • Thanks, Don the Kiwi, for your encouraging comments. I think that it is not God who has moved from me, but me from Him.

  • In reference to Guy Fawke’s Day Joe, I have written about it before and I may again when it rolls around on November 5.

  • Some how, Don, I was thinking it was Aug. My bad.

  • I remember it because of the poem Joe:

    November, November, the 5th of November,
    Gunpowder Treason and Plot.
    I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
    Should ever be forgot.

  • Petty sure there was a saloon in NYC called “Guy Fawkes’.” Not sure. It was over 40 years ago. I was drinking. I needed no reason for it.

    Anyhow, was one GF. There were probably 600 bars in NYC where, any time, you could run into a dozen or so Irish cops, firemen, and/or an IRA men (passing the hat), and Guiness on tap.

26 Responses to Palin On The Giffords Shootings

  • Haven’t seen the video, but the quoted statement is outstandingly good.

  • I hope her fans take her advice and don’t overreact in reverse.

    People can also get a lesson in civility from Glenn Beck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKMtHGeHuik

  • I hope her fans take her advice and don’t overreact in reverse.

    Yeah, that’s the problem here.

  • You don’t put out a fire by pouring more fuel on it. While well-intentioned, Palin is only opening herself up to more ridicule. She should go shoot a moose or something to relieve the stress.

  • How much may I donate to http://www.sarahpac.com without her getting viciously and dishonestly attacked by Paul Krugman?

  • “A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked].” — A “humor bit” from the Randi Rhodes Show

    Lovely liberals . . . Making the world a better place . . .

  • “President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them”

    Ironic that Palin could see the beauty of a Catholic mass, but not the beauty of Catholic teachings on original sin, the structures of sin, and the common good (not to mention common sense — i.e., proper attention to the psychotic in our society could reduce psychotic violence).

  • As soon as you start getting civil with lies and hate, you become a permanent victim of oppression.

    That’s not God-like or Christ-like. Palin’s speech is about as civil as a rational human being can be while having the rhetorical equivalent of burning feces shoveled at her at high speed from 12 different directions.

  • Nate,

    It strikes me that one of the major differences between progressives and conservatives is the extent to which they believe in free will.

    Obviously, everyone agrees that actions of society have some effect on the actions of individuals. I’m not aware of anyone holding the position that the actions of individuals occur in a total vacuum, uncause and unaffected by outside actions.

    However, progressives generally tend to focus nearly entirely on societal causes, to the point of suggesting that if someone is poor or oppressed or abused as a child, etc, they must commit crimes and can’t be blamed at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to emphasize that while someone may be motivated by such outside forces, each person decides himself whether to commit a crime or not, and those who choose to do so should not be excused because of those motivations.

    The same divide applies, to a great extent, to discussion of “structures of sin” within Catholic circles. Progressive Catholics often seem to feel that all one ever need focus on is structures of sin, and that if they can somehow be eliminated (how exactly this is going to happen is never exactly clear) no one will sin. Conservative Catholics acknowledge the power of temptations and occasions of sin in driving people commit sins, but they at the same time hold that it is the individual person’s responsibility not to sin.

    I suppose that, out of context, one can worry that Palin’s comment (and the quote from Reagan it includes) suggests that the wider society has no effect on a criminal, but I think that pretty clearly her actual intent. For instance, many (especially on the right) have observered that given that this fellow had been making death threats against various people in his community for several years and the police had done nothing about it, there was a very clear opportunity for this whole tragedy to be prevented. I don’t think anyone is against such an idea.

  • And I agree with her 100%, by the way. Maybe she should be the president – nothing would make the left finally make good on their promises to move to France or Zimbabwe than a Palin presidency.

  • Nate,

    I don’t know that Palin can’t see the beauty of the Church’s teaching on original sin and the structures of sin or not. I don’t think the remark follows from what was said by her or the Reagan quote. While I will agree with you that our societal handling of the psychotic appears to be lacking, I’m not so sure that it constitutes a genuine structure of sin. Nor do I think that because societal sin exists, that there is no such thing as personal sin. If we were to weight structural sin and directly connect it to every personal sin there would be no personal guilt, a denial of free will and original sin even. In fact, I would consider a system that faults itself for every person’s choice to be a structure of sin!

    Directly to the our deficiency with the mentally ill, I think it’s a very hard call. Currently the default is to err on the side of a person’s will rather than the needs of the collective. It may help ensure justice for individual people, but could lack the the justice due the common good. On the other hand, it’s entirely possible to create a system to benefit the common good at the expense of justice due to individual persons. I think the most unfortunate thing is that state funding for mental health services is not sexy and not something politicians are likely to prioritize. OTOH, stuff like that is prone to become unnecessarily bloated, expensive, and abusive. I think ideally what we need are some specialized charitable orgs that states can contribute funding to and maintain some generally reasonable regulatory oversight. Of course, there are always pitfalls to that too!

    See…that something is not perfect, it doesn’t necessarily mean that is bad. It may be not as good as some, or better than others, but to think there could be any sort of mental health system (or any system for that matter) that could not be accused of being a structure of sin is not dealing in reality. It all hinges on the free will, knowledge, intelligence, and selflessness of these things we call fallen man.

  • While well-intentioned, Palin is only opening herself up to more ridicule.

    How so?

  • My respect for her went up, not down.

  • Yeah, the statement is actually one of the best written and most balanced ones that has come out from a major politician. I was pretty impressed.

    Well, okay, I’ll admit that I also thought, “Wow, I wonder who her writer is,” but then, that’s the case with any politician. Even the notoriously silver-tongued Obama writes virtually none of his own stuff.

  • “Ironic that Palin could see the beauty of a Catholic mass, but not the beauty of Catholic teachings on original sin, the structures of sin, and the common good…”

    Of course authentic Catholic teaching on original sin teaches that one can avoid mortal sin in all cases (murder included.) It also teaches that structures of sin are the result of individual, personal sin and not impersonal forces that one is overwhealmed by. It also teaches that even in the face of structures of sin, the person is free to resist sin and live a life guided by grace.

    That is the beauty of Catholic teaching.

  • The Catholic teaching on structures of sin:

    “Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984), n. 16: “Whenever the Church speaks of situations of sin, or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world, and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals. A situation – or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself – is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad”

    I find it interesting that identified as contributing to structures of sin are those who “exploit” evil. That is certainly the case of those seeking to make political hay out of this event. Even some of our fellow Catholics.

  • The last major politician I can think of to write most of his own speeches was Reagan. He would use speech writers, but he would almost alway use their efforts as first drafts, and he would make extensive changes and revisions, not counting the changes he would make often as he was giving the speech. Most politicians act as if they haven’t even read the speech written by staffers before they deliver it.

  • the structures of sin

    Nate, I am not sure that phrase means what you think it means. Some of the biggest “structures of sin” are perpetuated by progressives – the legality of abortion, the twisting of freedom into license, the attempt to destroy the family structure, the promotion of the culture of death, and on and on. It seems many progressives are the ones who fail to the the beauty of the Church teachings on the structures of sin.

  • I wish that all the sons and daughters of the Church who hold elective office in this Country had the same position on abortion as Palin does. If they did, abortion would be illegal before the end of the year. When it comes to abortion, Palin is a lot more “Catholic” than many people who claim the title but don’t walk the walk.

  • The whole “the right is to blame because of its vitriol” is classic projection by the left.

  • Art, by taking the bait, Palin will spark yet another round of name-calling (see separate post with twitter comments), ratcheting up the rhetoric. However, I understand her reaction and I suppose it is necessary to counter the ‘blood libel,’ as she puts it. In defending herself, however, she will be recast as the ‘aggressor’ in the eyes of some. Either way, she can’t win.

  • The problem is that she has already been cast as a bad guy in the minds of her detractors. Nothing she can say or do is likely to change their minds or hearts. However, to the degree that she states the truth it matters not what else they say or how they think of her.

  • Palin 2012!

    Sarah Plain is pro-life, pro-family, pro-personal responsibility, pro-economic growth and development. She is closer to true Catholicism than the hypocrites that habitually vote for abortion; gay privileges; brainwashing public school children into ignorant, useless, immoral hellions; class hatred and warfare, i.e., any dem candidate, e.g., Obama.

    I’m pretty sure you won’t be getting into Heaven if you vote for all-abortion, all the time dem candidates . . . Lord, have mercy.

  • On Intrade, Palin’s odds of winning the GOP nomination is down 25% since the shooting and is now at the lowest point since resigning as governor. Romney’s up over 20% but still well below his high. The odds of a 2nd term for Obama are also up sharply but well below its high.

  • Art, by taking the bait, Palin will spark yet another round of name-calling (see separate post with twitter comments), ratcheting up the rhetoric.

    And you’re holding her responsible, you poseur. She is not under any obligation to adopt the psychology of the wife-beater.

  • Excuse me, the psychology of the battered wife.

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

Tuesday, January 11, AD 2011

The above video is a stirring rendition of a campaign song for Abraham Lincoln in 1860:  Lincoln and Liberty Too, probably the most effective campaign ditty in American political history.  It was sung everywhere by Republicans in 1860, from huge campaign rallies to small gatherings of Lincoln supporters.  Lincoln Wide Awakes would hold torch light processions throughout the North singing the song at the top of their lungs.  The type of enthusiasm generated by the song helped give Lincoln a popular vote plurality in 1860 and an electoral landslide. 

I think the song would probably be illegal under legislation proposed by Congressman Robert Brady (D.Pa). 

“Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.” 

Critics originally took Palin to task for the apparent use of the crosshairs of guns to identify the districts. The controversy re-ignited Saturday after the shooting, since Giffords’s district was included on the map.  

Brady singled out the map as the type of rhetoric he opposed. 

“You can’t put bull’s-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” he said. 

However, a Palin spokeswoman denied Sunday that the image was intended to depict gun sights. Palin offered condolences to the Giffords family and other victims of the shooting on her Facebook page Saturday. 

 Here is the ad from SarahPac that has Congressman Brady so worked up:  

   

   

   

 

   

The crosshairs on the map indicated members of Congress targeted for defeat by SarahPac.  Such targeting imagery of course is commonplace in political campaigns.  Only a moron, or a partisan hack, would think that violence in any way was implied by the use of this image.  As far as American political speech goes, this was pretty tepid stuff. 

Continue reading...

3 Responses to First Amendment? What First Amendment?

  • Liberalism is a psychological disease.

    Would that bill inclusde imprisoning ARTISTS for producing movies about assassinating curent president (Booosh at the time), or a novel covering same murder?

    I probably will be among the first 1,000 sent to the democrat re-education camp of NY Soviet Socialist Republic.

  • If the Congress did pass legislation so manifestly unconstitutional, I can’t imagine it being upheld by the courts.

    You have a higher opinion of the appellate judiciary than I do.

  • I probably will go to jail for the following. But, here goes nothing . . . No, wait! Bombs away!!!

    Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Clintons, the so-called liberals, are foisting a gradual devolution to post-enlightenment collectivism. Enlightenment/modern man once emphasized individual or natural rights, e.g., life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The liberals’ acts and agendas indicate that their goal is establishing and maintaining the collective, which they will rule. To them the collective is one and indivisible. The individual is nothing more than a part of the collective. The individual functions for the good of the collective, in which he is a small element. Chairman OBama’s regime is out to advance the collective and demote the individual. Health care reform, environmentalism/cap and economic ruin have nothing to do with reform or saving the planet. They are the means to seize control and subordinate the individual to the collective.

    When I was in school, and among the rare times I was thinking instead of drinking, they made us study the “Inquisitioin in the Middle Ages” by Henry C. Lea. The book revealed that, like today’s liberals, the medieval Church made it a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death to believe and/or think differently. The perp didn’t need to do anything to be condemned.

    Lea, “ . . . no one can rightly appreciate the process of its development and the results of its activity without a somewhat minute consideration of the factors controlling the minds and souls of men during the ages which laid the foundation of modern civilization. To accomplish this it has been necessary to pass in review nearly all the spiritual and intellectual movements of the Middle Ages, and to glance at the condition of society in certain of its phases.” Henry C, Lea, Preface.

    St. Thomas de Torquemada, pray for us.

The Left and the Political Blood Libel

Monday, January 10, AD 2011

As indicated by the video above, many people on the Left have been relentless, since news broke of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims, on trying to blame conservatives somehow for the actions of one crazed lunatic.  There is no evidence that the gunman was motivated by anything other than the severe mental illness that he seems to be afflicted with.  However, those on the Left seeking to demonize those they politically oppose will not let a little thing like the truth stand in their way.  Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, takes a look at all this today in a column in the Wall Street Journal:

Shortly after November’s electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews’s TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday’s tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner’s killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to The Left and the Political Blood Libel

  • Two absolutely horrible conclusions that could be drawn from this tragedy would be (1) colorful speech is bad and (2) personal eccentricity bad.

    ISTM it would be detrimental for political life if bold, resolute, metaphoric, even hyperbolic speech is deemed unacceptable. There would be no more room for a Daniel Webster in public life, only for bland Hallmark greeting card sentiments of the Obama variety. Lawyers and sociologists would be the only acceptable candidates for office; soldiers and poets would be shut out. The country would suffer immeasurably.

    Even worse would be if the Jared Loughner Rule were widely adopted in higher education, to whit: anybody who makes classmates feel “uncomfortable” must be expelled. “St. Jerome, dear, your outbursts make your classmates uncomfortable, we’ll have to suspend you until you learn to express yourself more temperately.” ” Johnny Milton, the other students say your hateful rhetoric intimidates them. You are simply not college material.”

    Two terrible ideas. But don’t be surprised if they both catch on big with the “I’m OK, You’re OK” crowd.

  • The ruling elites lost the debate.

    Their dreamworld is falling apart.

    So, they grasp at the AZ massacre as “salvation”, and expound vicious lies in disingenuous attempts to reverse tea party/GOP gains.

    People (outside bankrupt/failed states like CA, MI, NY, et al) are rejecting the job killing agenda, e.g., ObamaCare, higher taxes, cap and tax, 300,000 additional rules and regulations, etc.

    The left’s answer (THANK YOU deranged pot-head with no connection to Sarah Palin, the GOP or the DREADED tea party), “You are murderers. STFU, pay higher taxes, and allow us to tell you how to live your lives.”

  • This accuse the right-wing of being behind violent acts like this one is old hat for the left. When JFK was shot, the blame was immediately fixed on a climate of hate created by the right. No matter if Oswald was a leftist who spent time in Russia and was involved in the Fair Play For Cuba group. It was the Right’s fault. No matter if nearly most of the polictical violence in this country was usually committed by leftist groups, it was the right’s fault, they created this climate of hate.

  • An example of the left pushing for revolution:

    http://creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com/2011/01/democrat-congresswoman-victim-of.html

    Sounds a bit like Morning’s Minion.

  • Some more political hate from the left:

    http://michellemalkin.com/

  • For many years, the evil right wing has created the climate of violence and hatred . . .

    that likely caused the World Trade Center tragedies of 1993 and 2001, Fort Hood lead poisonings, USS Coles catastrophe, Lockerbie crash landing, . . .

    it probably is the reason they hate us: evil, little Eichmanns . . .

  • Of course, professional obfuscator and Catholic Democratic apologist Morning’s Minion is attempting to abuse the memory of Robert Kennedy by linking his murder to this event.

    Unfortunately, reality is not a friend of this leftist revisionism. First, Kennedy’s assassin was angry at Kennedy’s pro-Israel stands. This position is usually associated with the left and not the right.

    This link of Kennedy’s killer and the left is further backed up by leftist terrorist and friend of Obama, Bill Ayers, who in part dedicated a book to Sirhan. Ayers’ rationale? Sirhan was a political prisoner.

    Robert Kennedy’s son was so incensed by this that he opposed Ayers receiving emeritus status from the U of Illinois.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/23/bill-ayers-denied-emeritu_n_737464.html

    The sordid history of the left in relation to Kennedy’s murder cannot be airbrushed out like Stalin era photos. Sadly, MM thinks we can be duped by his own effort at revisionism and hate at the expense of a truly Catholic politician.

  • First off, I agree with Donald’s point that it is despicable and shameless for the left to be attempting to use this repulsive act of violence for political gain by pinning it on their opponents. (They may well also be doing serious violence to the truth, as it is my no means clear the killer is a right-ist of any sort.)

    That said, I’d advise folks in the comment box to also keep it cool in regards to blanket attacks on the left as the source of violence and wickedness in American politics. One can’t exactly accuse them of shamelessness in making use of this killing for political gain while at the same time trying to use the killing to score political points against them.

  • Darwin,

    Score political points?

    At this point we are fighting for our political lives against a relentless lie and slander machine.

    We are fast reaching a point at which we will have no choice but to pick a side and stick with it. When the truth no longer matters, war is immanent. Lies used in this way, Big Lie campaigns formed on a moments notice, are weapons of war. It’s psychological warfare right now.

    I think certain elements want a civil war or at least martial law in this country, I think they view the Tea Party as the last obstacle to the “better world” they want to build, and want a pretext to destroy it.

  • Well, I agree that it seems like even some pretty normally-sane leftists want to go out and get them some conservative scalps at the moment, but I think they’ll calm.

    I don’t think we’re any more in danger of civil war or martial law than we were after the OKC bombing, which was similarly mis-used.

    If I’m wrong… Well, I’ll come join you at the barricades and you can laugh at me then. 🙂

  • I think certain elements want a civil war or at least martial law in this country, I think they views the Tea Party as the last obstacle to the “better world” they want to build, and want a pretext to destroy it.

    I think ‘certain elements’ would be Ted Rall.

    Much of the political opposition has a proprietary sense about institutions: the legislatures are theirs, the newsrooms are theirs, the schools are theirs, the professional associations are theirs – by right. Possession by anyone else, even a beachhead in some circumstances, is illegitimate and a sort of fraud, larceny, or criminal trespass. They also define out of the circle of reasoned discourse what the opposition has to say. However, their self-image requires certain sorts of rubrics. It’s not going to be martial law. It will be court proceedings and such, as is going on in Canada, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

  • “If I’m wrong… Well, I’ll come join you at the barricades and you can laugh at me then.”

    I’ll laugh at you now and keep quiet then. 😉

  • What a display of politicization we have seen since Saturday. Krugman especially turns the stomach. More than a few leftists, well before it was clear what the murderer was all about, were ready to pounce on their political enemies. Completely disguisting. And through the charge that “conservative hatred” ect. is in some measure responsible, is itself spreading hatred – actually doing to conservatives what it falsely accuses conservatives of doing to leftists! Unbelievable.

  • Maybe we won’t get martial law, but we may get the death of the 1st amendment, which could lead to it anyway. Already Democratic congressmen are calling for restrictions on political speech. Soon I fear it will be a crime to criticize the government in virtually any way, and that those who do will be forced into corrupt psychiatric wards as they were in the Soviet Union.

  • “And through the charge that “conservative hatred” ect. is in some measure responsible, is itself spreading hatred – actually doing to conservatives what it falsely accuses conservatives of doing to leftists! Unbelievable.”

    Projection I believe is the technical term for it. The modern day Left in this country has grown increasingly intolerant of those who oppose it: think Campus speech codes, bubble zones around abortion clinics, conservative speakers at college campuses being shouted down, etc. Any pretext will do for many on the Left if they can use it as an excuse to attempt to silence their crititics. Liberal is the shorthand description for Leftists in this country. Actually one would have to look hard for a more illiberal bunch on the American mainstream political scene.

  • Rather than a wholesale increase in the House to possible unmanageable size would be to split it in to two chambers.

    One to deal with passing amending and repealing laws, and another to deal with the budget, both of the size of the current House. It would increase the representation with out making unmanageable chambers. These two functions require different sorts of legislative expertise. The boundary’s between the functions are well defines. Individual congressman would be able to better perform their duties since they had less scope while overall increasing Congress’s effectiveness. The states would not have to align the districts of the two house the same which could provide a means to see that different interests are accounted for without excessive gerrymandering of either house.

  • Apparently, the Arizona shooter also dabbled in the occult and in a New Age technique known as lucid dreaming:

    http://womenofgrace.com/breaking_news/?p=6573

    So does this mean New Age thinking, occultism, or Satanism, was really to blame?

    Well, it goes without saying that Satan was to blame in the same sense that the evil one is to blame for ANY act of violence. Perhaps more so in that the perpetrator in this instance seems to have deliberately invoked some kind of supernatural help from the wrong side of the tracks. (Although it seems awfully strange to me that someone who apparently denied the existence of God would believe in Satan or other evil spirits, but then, we are not dealing with a rational mind here.)

    That said, while I have no use for New Age or occultism to say the least, and firmly believe those things are NEVER to be messed with, I also believe that to blame New Age spirituality as a whole for this crime might be just as rash as to attempt to fix blame on any particular political movement.

  • Isn’t “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” a line from the famous “Chicago Way” scene in “The Untouchables”? Which makes its use by Obama during the 2008 campaign all the more curious, since at that time, he was bending over backwards to distance himself from Chicago politics.

    Also, Hank, I like your comment and think that’s a good idea, but it belongs on a different thread….

  • Below is a link to that immortal scene Elaine. Later in the film the Sean Connery character, as he is chasing an Italian gangster, who had a knife, out of his apartment with a shotgun says, “Just like a Wop! Binging a knife to a gun fight!” Unfortunately this is said just before he is riddled with tommy gun fire from Frank Nitti, the Italian gangster having succeeded in luring him into an ambush.