Tag Archives: Arizona Shootings

NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind: Vilifiyers Of Sarah Palin Are Engaging In Blood Libel

By Gary P Jackson

From Vos Iz Neias

New York – Statement By Assemblyman Dov Hikind in defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”

As someone whose grandparents were slaughtered in the Holocaust; whose parents survived the horrors of Auschwitz; and as the Assembly representative of the largest contingency of Holocaust survivors, I resent the recent attacks on Sarah Palin for her use of the term “blood libel” in defense of accusations lobbed against her by those wishing to lay blame for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This is nothing more than an attempt to vilify and malign her, and I am not a Palin supporter. I would argue that those who continue to demonize her are themselves engaging in a blood libel.

H/T: Benyamin Korn at JewsForSarah.com

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Ed Koch: Sarah Palin Has Defeated Her Harsh And Unfair Critics.

Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

~ Ed Koch

By Gary P Jackson

Former New York City Mayor, Ed Koch, has joined in with other [liberal] Jewish leaders standing with Sarah Palin as she has been attacked by the rabid left and their media partners.

Being a liberal, he has to get his shots in, but this is strong support and what civility looks like. [emphasis mine]

As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the “Morning Joe” show, which I watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed) to embark on the shooting and killing spree.

[ …. ]

While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term “blood libel.” That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge – blood libel – is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.

Today the phrase “blood libel” can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.

Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.

How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.

[ …. ]

Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don’t agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.

In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin’s name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she “scared the hell out of me.” My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.

I repeat my earlier comment that she “scares the hell out of me.” Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I’ve never met her, but I’ve always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don’t believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.

Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others – men – to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.

While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance.

You can read more here.

Obviously we disagree with Mayor Koch on his assessment of Sarah’s politics, and just as he is “scared” of Sarah’s politics, we are angered by the destruction his party has caused to America. And unlike Koch’s “fears” the devastation brought on by the democrat party is real.

Something tells me, since the two have never met, Koch would find he and Sarah would agree on more things than they disagree on.Hopefully at some point the two will meet-up and have a chance to talk about it all.

One must applaud Koch. It takes a strong person to go against the grain, knowing they are from a party that doesn’t take dissent kindly. We live in a heated atmosphere. The American people are very angry. We have a radical leftist in the White House, and for four years we had a radical leftist Congress. Their policies have America on the edge of the abyss.

While it’s hard to contain this anger, Mayor Koch reminds us it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

4 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin To Democrats And Corrupt Media: I’m Not Going Anywhere!

If it weren’t for those double standards, what standards would they have?

~ Sarah Palin on democrats and their media partners

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin in an exclusive interview with Fox New’s Sean Hannity, her first after the vile attacks and blood libel from the left, makes it quite clear she’s not going anywhere. In fact, after discussing the left and their corrupt media partners, Sarah goes after the Obama regime and it’s disastrous economic policies, foreign policies, and energy policies.

Sarah Palin has a conviction about her that is quite rare in these times. She has an inner strength that will not be challenge by the rabid little dogs on the left nipping at her heels. This is what a true leader looks like.

PalinTV has the full interview. Click here to watch.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Poll: Americans Find Liberals’ Violent Rhetoric, Not Conservatives, Responsible For Influencing Unstable People To Commit Violence

By Gary P Jackson

This really hasn’t been a good week for democrats. They committed blood libel against Sarah Palin, accusing her, and Conservatives in general, of mass murder. By Tuesday after the shootings, polling already showed America wasn’t buying it. Even half the democrats weren’t having it! And this was a CBS poll. They are notorious for their left wing bias.

More polling came that showed America’s opinion of Sarah Palin had risen because of the way she handled things, showing actual leadership.

Now comes yet another poll that shows the democrats were really acting stupidly, when they went all in, blaming Sarah and Conservatives for mass murder. Quinnipiac University as part of a larger poll, asked those surveyed to weigh in on the Arizona massacre.

Saturday’s shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people were killed, could not have been prevented, 40 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

American voters say 52 – 41 percent that “heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence,” the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 – 32 percent.

Now there is some good news for all of America. It seems when you get right down to it, America is rejecting the blame game altogether. Choosing to place the blame where it belongs, with the shooter:

Americans seem to be rejecting the blame game for the Arizona shooting. By far, the largest number thinks this tragedy could not have been prevented,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Although a bare majority of voters say political rhetoric might drive unstable people to violence, less than one in seven blame it for the Arizona incident.

More bad news for democrats though, Americans are paying attention, and will long remember:

The Arizona shooting captured the public’s attention, with 59 percent saying they are paying a lot of attention to the story and 26 percent saying they are paying some attention to the story.

Those are unusually high numbers,” said Brown. “Clearly it has struck a chord with the American people.

It looks like the democrats’ attempts to cash in on the tragedy in Arizona, using it to bash Sarah Palin and Conservatives, has been a dismal failure.

This renews our faith in the American people. Americas have always stood for fair play and decency, and in the past week the democrats have once again shown they are devoid of both.

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Breaking: Americans Find Sarah Palin More Sincere And Believable After Watching Speech

By Gary P Jackson

Media Curves, a service of HCD Research, Inc. has conducted a survey of self identified Republicans, Independents, and democrats, showing them Sarah Palin’s speech, entitled: America’s Enduring Strength, following the tragedy in Arizona.

The results show that most Americans find Sarah more believable and more sincere after watching her speech:

A new national study among 1,437 self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents revealed that Americans indicated that Sarah Palin was more sincere and believable after viewing her speech in response to the shootings in Tucson.

The study was conducted during January 13-14 by HCD Research and reported on its MediaCurves.com® website, to obtain Americans’ perceptions of Sarah Palin after viewing a video of a speech she gave in response to the shootings in Tucson.

Respondents were asked to rate Sarah Palin on a scale from 1-7 regarding likeability, believability and sincerity, with 1 representing “not at all strong in this attribute” and 7 representing “extremely strong in this attribute.”

With the exception of likeability among Democrats, Palin’s attribute ratings increased among all parties after viewing her speech. The most notable increase was her sincerity ratings, which increased from 2.62 to 2.69 among Democrats, from 5.25 to 5.45 among Republicans and from 3.68 to 3.85 among Independents.

You can view a video of how everyone reacted to various parts of her speech, and see complete details, here.

Seeing this reminds me of the tough scold from the left-wing German Der Spiegel. As the democrat party and their media partners at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, and many others, were committing blood libel against Sarah Palin, and Conservatives in general, Der Spiegel warned their American counterparts not to turn Sarah into a martyr, as it would backfire.[emphasis mine]

Following this weekend’s tragic shooting, many on the left in the United States are calling for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party to be called to account for their alleged culpability in the killings. But these claims are spurious and could do more to help the left’s political detractors than harm them.

[ …. ]

Of all people, it is precisely those who have complained the loudest about the culture of debate — about the rhetoric of the Tea Party, the right wing’s harsh words and the baseless Obama-Hitler comparisons — who are now poisoning the debate with their own baseless insinuations. With little reliance on facts, they began searching for scapegoats for the attack and they found them, selectively, among the right wing, the Tea Party, Republican Party boss Michael Steele and Tea Party heroine Sarah Palin.

The accusations being lodged are grave. “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin,” leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas sneered after the bloodbath. Meanwhile, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann called for Palin to be ousted from the Republican Party if she didn’t repudiate her role in “amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics.” In his column in the New York Times, Paul Krugman sought to link the “toxic rhetoric” coming from right-wing preachers of hate with the assassination attempt. And former member of Congress Chris Carney said Palin should “say she was wrong.”

[ …. ]

What little is known about the perpetrator does not suggest that he was a supporter of the Tea Party or an admirer of Palin’s — he doesn’t even appear to have any clear political convictions. His favorite books include the “Communist Manifesto,” Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “Peter Pan,” an erratic hodge podge. So far, there is no evidence that there were any political motives behind the crime.

Indeed, the massive criticism of Sarah Palin is misguided. This is not only due to the fact that the accusation is baseless, but also because the calculated attempt to weaken Palin in this manner could ultimately backfire.

The reasoning is quite simple: Palin has always profited in the role of victim — a victim of the liberal elite. Time and again, she has been made fun of — when, for example, she spoke for the first time about foreign policy during the 2008 presidential campaign, and later when she wrote notes on her hand during speeches and television appearances. But every time people made fun of the Alaska politician or attacked her as being superficial and unqualified, it merely helped deepen the support of her followers. Now, the allegation that she carries partial responsibility for what has happened in Arizona could turn out to do more to help than harm her.

Yet again, she could emerge as a political martyr.

Despite the left-wing slant of Der Spiegel, they are spot on. The left’s baseless attacks against Sarah Palin have been over the top since day one. To them, she represents everything they loathe. She’s a beautiful, happy, independent woman, and a self made success. She is happily married to her handsome high school sweetheart, and has five wonderful children.

She’s un-apologetically pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-America. She believes in America’s strengths, and the American people. Like the Great Ronald Reagan before her, she sees America as that Shining City on a Hill. She’s to them like garlic to a vampire!

The democrats will never understand just how stupid they truly are. Had they not carried out this blood libel against her, trying to blame her for the actions of a left wing mad man, she would have never had to make her speech in the first place! If she had not made this speech, she would not have had the opportunity for Americans see her shine in the midst of tragedy, and their opinion of her wouldn’t have been improved.

Her supporters saw the speech as nothing less than presidential. An optimistic, forward looking speech that celebrates America, while condemning violence and reminding people who is actually to blame for the tragedy. How ignorant it is to apportion blame, when the only person to blame is the nut who pulled the trigger.

BTW, the left lost it’s mind over the fact she used “blood libel” and doubled down on the attacks. This caused Jewish leaders world wide, on both sides of the political spectrum, to step up and defend her usage of the phrase, another big failure for the democrats.

This craziness also caused everyone to start digging up many examples of democrats using the “blood libel” language as well. Such as:

MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle: John Kerry Underwent A “Blood Libel By The Swift Boat People.” The problem for Kerry here is that two years ago, Joe, he did not talk like that when he was undergoing a blood libel by the Swift Boat people. If he had stood up two years ago, in July of 2004, and looked into the cameras with the same intensity he showed today on this issue and said, Hey, I didn`t see Dick Cheney on the bow of my boat in the Mekong Delta, we might have a different president today. That didn`t happen then, and so he`s playing catch-up in terms of his reputation now.” (“Scarborough Country,” MSNBC, 10/31/06)

Democratic Congresswoman On Accusations Against Al Gore: “I Would Put Them In A Category, Literally, Of Blood Libel.”Rep. DEUTSCH: Well, again, it–it is ve–a–an incredibly fair and well-run process. But let me respond to the two things you said. First is the Republicans’ allegations over the last 24 or 48 hours, which I consider the most scandalous statements that I probably have heard in my entire life. And I would put them in a category, literally, of blood libel, that Al Gore has conspired to prevent servicemen and women from their votes being counted, which is absolutely not true.” (“Rivera Live,” CNBC, 11/20/00)

Some Democrats View Attacks On Their Patriotism “A Blood Libel.”What about Bush’s cheap shot attack on Democrats implying they support terrorists? Unfortunately, it’s just the kind of wedge issue many people, maybe most, in whole sections of the country, primarily the South and the West, are all too ready to accept on faith. Democrats, as they see it, are embarrassed by expressions of patriotism or, worse yet, ashamed of them. For a minority of left-wing Democrats that’s all too true; but for most Democrats that’s a blood libel that Republicans have been spreading since the McCarthy era — alas, with some success.” (John Farmer, “Presidential Campaign To Run From The Sewers,” Star-Ledger, 11/24/03)

Salon: Blair Trumpeted “Blood Libel” Against Iran.You can’t teach an old lapdog new tricks. And Tony Blair was barking up the wrong tree yet again last week in his first major appearance since he skulked ingloriously away from office back in June. Blair seized the opportunity of a New York speech to trumpet the blood libel that Iran is now the embodiment of the entire ‘global ideology’ of Islamic extremism, explicitly conflating the Tehran regime not only with al-Qaida but also with Nazi Germany.” (Chris Floyd, “Blair And Bush Team Up To Sell New War,” Salon.com, 10/24/07)

[Editor’s note ….isn’t amazing how the left always sticks up for the enemies of America and Great Britain …. GP]

Washington Monthly Book Reviews Labels Anti-Clinton Book “Awfully Close To A Blood Libel.Losing bin Laden might be thought of as the pilot for a series to be called CSI: Right ‘Wing Conspiracy.’ In the book, British journalist Richard Miniter sifts through eight years’ worth of the Clinton administration’s approach to Osama bin Laden’s terrorism, and lays the blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks squarely on — altogethernow, Regnery Publishing buffs! — Bill Clinton. Armed with 20/20 hindsight, Miniter finds a long series of missed opportunities to capture or kill the terrorist. The result is an odd book that manages to raise serious questions and make serious points about the competing pressures and interests that go into creating a foreign policy, but that still overreaches in manipulative and mendacious ways. . . . However, if Miniter had been less interested in leveling what seems awfully close to a blood libel, it would be easier to congratulate him for producing a clear account of the competing policy questions, institutional inertia, bureaucratic competition, and the personality conflicts that thwarted the formulation and execution of a policy to stop bin Laden.” (Jamie Malanowski, “Kill Bill: The Relentless Effort To Blame 9/11 On President Clinton,” Washington Monthly, 11/1/03)

CQ Weekly: “Not Just A Fiction, It Was Very Nearly A Blood Libel.”In his Oct. 17, 2002, testimony for the joint House and Senate inquiry, CIA Director George J. Tenet conceded no error, acknowledged no miscalculation. Beyond removing ‘the wall’ of legal restrictions on intelligence sharing and increasing his budget, he saw no need for fundamental change. In his view, any suggestion that the CIA was not joined at the hip with the FBI in pursuit of al Qaeda was not just a fiction, it was very nearly a blood libel. ‘One of the most critical alliances in the war against terrorism is that between CIA and FBI,’ Tenet testified.” (“CQ Outlook: Is Homeland Security Keeping America Safe?,”( CQ Weekly, 6/13/03)

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist and; Author David Halberstam Describes The Movie Pearl Harbor As A “Blood Libel.”Look at ‘Pearl Harbor.’ ‘Pearl Harbor’ is nearly a blood libel against the event. The people who made that movie should be ashamed of themselves. Then you see ‘Apocalypse’ and you see what real filmmaking really is.” (Jeff Stark, “David Halberstam on ‘Apocalypse Now’,” Salon.com, 8/3/01)

Baltimore Sun: Ellen Sauerbrey Issued “A Political Blood Libel” In 1998.Post: ‘Take us back to the last election. Do you still think you won that?’ Sauerbrey: ‘I think it’s irrelevant.’ Excuse me? Sauerbrey then vaguely blamed Baltimore City for ‘problems,’ which she said have been addressed by ‘new equipment.’ And then the subject was changed. Well, all denials to the contrary, the last election is not ‘irrelevant.’ What Sauerbrey issued, in its aftermath, was a political blood libel, accusing her opponents of stealing the democratic process. She had all sorts of time to prove her allegations, or drop them, or apologize for them and blame them on the emotions of the moment. Instead, she took them all the way to court — where they were thrown in her face.” (Michael Olesker, “Accusations Hurt Credibility Of Candidate Sauerbrey,” The Baltimore Sun, 7/21/98)

You really have to hand it to the left. When they fail, they do so in absolutely spectacular and breathtaking fashion!

The democrats have absolutely failed on every level. From the second Sarah Palin was introduced to the nation, Barack Obama, and his party, elevated her to the presidential level. Part of this is because so many of his advisers knew of, and have went up against Sarah before, in Alaska. They all lost.

If you go back and look at the 2008 presidential campaign, once Sarah was chosen, the democrats almost forgot about John McCain and focused exclusively of her. From then on, it wasn’t McCain vs Obama, it was Sarah Palin vs Obama. It created the impression that she was indeed presidential, an impression that has only been enhanced, as Sarah’s real record of achievement has come to light, and she continues to prove herself as a true leader.

The vile and vicious attacks from the democrats after the Arizona shootings should be condemned by all decent human beings. Those who engaged in blood libel against Sarah Palin should be rejected, shunned. Discounted as nothing more than hatemongers and rabble rousers, not fit for polite society.

In the aftermath we are finding the American people are rejecting the hateful rhetoric of the democrat party completely. Their vision for America does not fit with American’s vision for America. Their hatefulness does not fit with America either.

5 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sarah Palin: America’s Enduring Strength

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. ~ Ronald Reagan

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial.

But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

~ Sarah Palin

Full Text of video here.

3 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Uh Oh: The Foreign Media Isn’t Buying The Left Wing Lies About Sarah Palin Either

So Palin’s accusers lie, and so foully that they commit the very hate speech they piously claim to deplore.

~ Andrew Bolt, Melbourne Herald Sun

By Gary P Jackson

The news hasn’t been good for the left wing losers and the corrupt media that has been carrying their water as they try to smear Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. People just aren’t buying their nonsense.

Earlier on Tuesday we reported that America just wasn’t buying the left wing lies about Sarah and the Arizona shooting. Even most democrat weren’t having it!

The Brits aren’t going for it. Tom Leonard tells readers in the UK the “eliteshijacked this tragedy specifically to attack Sarah Palin. An incredible ghoulish act by some of the worst society has to offer.

A friend sends me this editorial from the land down under. Andrew Bolt writing for the Melbourne {Australia] Herald Sun tells us about “The Framing of Sarah Palin“:

IT took just hours for the media to finger the villain responsible for the shooting of US Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
It was Sarah Palin what done it, officer. And other Right-wingers just like that witch.

Such is the deranged hatred that so many on the Left feel for the former Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The New York Times was one of the first to smear her, even before the alleged shooter of Giffords – and the accused killer of six bystanders – had been publicly identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner.

It implicated Palin because nine months ago she’d posted a “controversial” map on her Facebook page showing where Democrats were running for re-election.

Gasp: “Those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms Giffords was among those on Ms Palin’s map.

Well, case closed. And so Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential Left-wing DailyKos website, tweeted, “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Jane Fonda likewise insisted Palin “holds responsibility”, as did “the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party” movement she’d encouraged – a movement that’s just a grassroots protest by middle class Americans against big government and record deficits.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman used his newspaper column to also smear Palin, saying Giffords “might be a target” because she was “a Democrat who survived” an election challenge from “a Tea Party activist” and “was on Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘crosshairs’ list”.

Fellow Leftists in the Australian media gobbled the bait, hailing Giffords as a martyr to Palin and the Right.

Here is the ABC’s Jane Cowan on AM yesterday: “Political candidates, especially those aligned with the grassroots Tea Party movement, have increasingly invoked violent imagery.

A campaign website by . . . Palin put gun targets across several congressional districts including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ and urged voters to ‘reload’.”

The hunger to blame Palin and her political kind is palpable and no evidence is needed to proclaim her guilt.

As Michael Tomasky of Britain’s Left-wing Guardian exulted, the shooter “went to considerable expense and trouble to shoot a high-profile Democrat, at point-blank range right through the brain. What else does one need to know?” That was sufficient “to see some kind of connection between (Right wing) violent rhetoric and what happened in Arizona on Saturday”.

But there’s a few things wrong with this narrative. It’s false, it’s foul; and it’s savagely hypocritical.

For a start, there’s zero evidence that Loughner, the alleged shooter, is a Palin supporter or took any notice of what she said about Giffords or anyone else.

ON his MySpace and YouTube pages he never mentions Palin or health care, the issue on which she attacked Giffords.

Both sites suggest he’s simply deranged, raving about bad grammar, thought control, “conscience dreaming” and a “third currency”.

A typical post on MySpace – on December 30 – gives the temperature of his mind: “With every day on torture, the hours are my painful isolation; these dreams, which are realistic, vehemence feelings of greatness—finally!

Just add a gun to that explosive mixture of megalomania and angry failure and . . . boom.

Still, if you think it worth trying to detect a political orientation in Loughner’s shattered thoughts, you’d have to conclude it’s sure not Palin’s.

He was not a Christian, and his favourite film clip is of an American flag being burned. He denounced the US Constitution as full of “treasonous laws”.

Simon Mann, of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, led his report yesterday by implying Loughner was a neo-Nazi, noting his victim was Jewish and he’d listed Mein Kampf on his YouTube page as one of his “favourite books”.

What Mann failed to add is that Loughner also loved A Communist Manifesto.

Another problem for the blame-Palin brigade is that Loughner’s hatred of Giffords seems to pre-date Palin’s rise to fame.

Caitie Parker went to school with Loughner, and played in the same band with this “loner” she describes as “Left-wing, quite liberal”.

She claims: “He was a political radical and met Giffords once before in ‘07, asked her a question and he told me she was ‘stupid and unintelligent’.”

So Giffords was allegedly shot by a madman with Left-wing notions who disliked her long before Palin hit the scene. Yet Palin is to blame?

Still, are her critics right to deplore the violent rhetoric of political debate in the US today?

Perhaps, although we should be clear there’s no proof this rhetoric affected the deranged Loughner, who is far more likely to have been influenced by violent movies and violent music.

We should also accept that politics is properly a contest of ideas and has long invited the language of war by all sides, which is why I have on my blog not just Palin’s “crosshair” graphic but examples of similar Democratic Party maps with bullseyes over Republican candidates.

But does this alleged culture of trash-talk really date from Palin’s rise, and who are the worst offenders?

In fact, no president has been more vilified than the Republican George W. Bush, who was even shown being assassinated in one gloating film.

And guess which president said this: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

Whoops, that was Barack Obama? And which of Palin’s critics objected?

Palin herself seems more sinned against than sinning. The kind of commentators now accusing her of a nasty tone are the kind who falsely accused her of calling Obama “Sambo”, and of only pretending to be the mother of her disabled son to cover for her eldest daughter.

They sat by when TV host David Letterman joked that Palin’s 14-year-old daughter was “knocked up” by a baseballer during a game. They said nothing when Leftist comedian Sandra Bernhard warned Palin she’d be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she entered Manhattan.

Now these people demanding a more civilised discourse accuse Palin of inspiring a murder, when all the evidence suggests she’s guiltless.

So Palin’s accusers lie, and so foully that they commit the very hate speech they piously claim to deplore.

Indeed, the hate and lies from the left wing democrats is deplorable. The democrats and their media allies have purposely gone above and beyond to stoke the hate against Sarah Palin, possible trying to provoke a reaction from another loon. The only word to describe these disgusting human beings is evil. Pure evil.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

A True Blessing: Congresswoman Giffords Responding To Verbal Commands By Raising Two Fingers And Gives Doctors A Thumbs Up

By Gary P Jackson

Millions have been praying for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ recovery. All indications show that God has answered those prayers in a big way. Updates continue to bring very good news. From KOLD News-13:

Doctors treating Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ brain wound said Monday the congresswoman was responding to verbal commands by raising two fingers of her left hand and even managed to give a thumbs-up.

When she did that, we were having a party in there,” said Dr. Peter Rhee. “That’s a purposeful movement. That’s a great thing. She’s always grabbing for the tube.”

Giffords, 40, is in critical condition in the intensive care unit of Tucson’s University Medical Center after she was shot through the head Saturday during a meet-and-greet with voters outside a supermarket. Two patients were discharged Sunday night. Eight others, including Giffords, remained hospitalized.

Recent CAT scans showed no further swelling in the brain, but doctors were guarded.

We’re not out of the woods yet,” said her neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Lemole. “That swelling can sometimes take three days or five days to maximize. But every day that goes by and we don’t see an increase, we’re slightly more optimistic.”

After Saturday’s operation to temporarily remove half of her skull, doctors over the past two days had Giffords removed from her sedation and then asked basic commands such as: “Show me two fingers.”

When she did that, we were having a party in there,” said Dr. Peter Rhee. “That’s a purposeful movement. That’s a great thing. She’s always grabbing for the tube.”

Giffords family is by her side and is receiving constant updates from doctors. On Monday, two well-known doctors with extensive experience in traumatic brain injury were en route to Tucson to help consult on Giffords’ case.

Doctors had said the bullet traveled the length of the left side of the congresswoman’s brain, entering the back of the skull and exiting the front. Her doctors have declined to speculate on what specific disabilities Giffords may face as her recovery progresses.

As for the other shooting victims who suffered injuries to the face, neck, stomach and other parts of the body, doctors said most will have a normal recovery. To ensure that they don’t suffer post-traumatic stress, depression or other problems, teams of experts will guide them through the next phase.

This is such wonderful news. We understand that Congresswoman Giffords will have struggles ahead, but we can’t wait for her recovery, and pray we get to see her back at work in Congress serving the nation as she was called to do.

We will continue to pray for God’s steady hand as he guides Gabby Giffords through this ordeal.

4 Comments

Filed under In The News

Did Barack Obama’s Violent Rhetoric Inspire Mass Murder In Arizona?

By Gary P Jackson

Well, using the very same standard the left wing, and their corrupt media partners have used to smear and slander Sarah Palin, all evidence says yes, Barack Obama may have very well inspired radical Marxist Jared Lee Loughner to commit mass murder.

As we reported earlier, Loughner has been fixated on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, one of the many victims, since at least 2007, long before the Tea Party was formed, or anyone knew who the hell Sarah Palin was.

Of course, seeing as how Loughner is against everything Sarah Palin and the Tea Party stand for, it’s highly unlikely he would have sought them out for inspiration anyway.

No, it’s more likely Jared Lee Loughner would be inspired by a fellow traveler, and a fellow Marxist, like Barack Obama.

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit has compiled a short list of Obama’s “greatest hits” his strongest and most violent rhetoric:

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Although there are undoubtedly more, we know of one case for certain where Obama’s rhetoric directly resulted in extreme violence. The “Mercenary Army” Hoft is referring to above are the purple shirted union thugs from the SEIU. As our readers know, SEIU chief Andy Stern is a top Obama adviser, and has made more visits so far to the White House than any other person. SEIU, the Service Employees Union International, is affiliated with another long term Obama supporting group, ACORN.Obama once worked for ACORN, actually training the violent street thug “rent-a-mobs” that ACORN employs.

In 2009, at the height of the heated town hall debates where America stood up and told the Obama regime they did NOT want government run health care, Obama gathered up his union thugs from the SEIU, and told them to “hit back twice as hard“!

The direct result of Obama’s violent rhetoric was the severe beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black man, at a ST Louis town hall meeting. Gladney was beaten by a large group of the purple shirted union thugs, and called a n*gg*r numerous times. Gladney was beaten so severely that he was confined to a wheel chair while he recuperated. Big Government has the nasty details of the results of Barack Obama’s direct call for violence, here.

Oh, and it gets better, an NAACP leader spoke out saying Kenneth Gladney DESERVED the beating that almost killed him because, get this, he wasn’t “black enough” and was acting like an “Uncle Tom.” You see, in the black community, and the democrat party as a whole, any deviation from the party line is simply not tolerated. You can read the details of the statement here.

You wanna hear the rest of the story? Gladney was at the town hall event,not as a participant. Instead, he was outside, having set up a small booth, selling American flags, Gadsden flags, and other patriotic goodies. That is why this American businessman was attacked for being an “Uncle Tom” and “not black enough.” I never knew being black meant you couldn’t also love your country. Someone needs to tell that to Allen West, Tim Scott, and millions more in the black community who love America dearly.

I mention the fact that Gladney wasn’t a participant for a reason. You see Kenneth is just a businessman providing a product. At other events he had sold Barack Obama t-shirts and other left wing paraphernalia. He wasn’t at the event to be political, just to make a buck. That’s the American dream! Obama’s union thugs snuffed that dream out. They didn’t even bother to talk to the man. They just attacked. These are the sort Barack Obama inspires to violence.

If the democrats and their allies in the media want to talk about about toning down the violent rhetoric by politicians, I suggest they start with their top attack dog, Barack Obama.

18 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin