After the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 , it was almost tragically comical to watch as the media found different ways to avoid mentioning the religion and painfully obvious motivations of the killer.
Let's not jump to conclusions, said everbody from CBS to the US President.
"What could it have been?" they implored to ask. of the man with the Muslim name, Muslim faith, who gave powerpoint presentations on the merits of Islamic Jihad, and who yelled "Allahu Akbar" moments before killing unarmed people. Yes, what indeed, geniuses.
Down here, "our" ABC spend eight minutes reporting the murders, without mentioning the M word once.
That same ABC, in the wake of the recent boat tragedy, so desperately tried to hide the painfully obvious fact that "compassionate" laws such as the scrapping of offshore processing, lured these people to their deaths. Instead, they chose to condemn conservative columnist Andrew Bolt for "politicising the tragedy", barely minutes after the bodies washed ashore. Bolt had, indeed, politicised the tragedy...before it happened. He was concerned, rightly, that people might die.
Then we arrive at the shooting of, among others, Democrat congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona on Saturday.
How warm, still, were the bodies, including that of a 9-year old girl, before the media was awash with guilt-by-association stories, pointing the finger at Sarah Palin and her "crosshairs" map from a year earlier, and lamenting her "incitement" and that of the conservative Tea Party movement? All, by their own admission, without the slightest piece of evidence other than their feelings?
How soon before our ABC ran a web poll asking (preaching) Is America’s right-wing political ‘hate speak’ responsible for the Arizona massacre? Less than two days.
I'm not even going to dignify the bleeding-heart, vacuous, empty and fact-free emotionalism of associating tough political analogy with the actions of a lone, crazed gunman, who in fact held the political views of someone far from conservative.
Do these Democrat town criers and Leftist intelligentsia even bother with the pretense of logic, consistency or balance any more?
But since these commentators insist that any strong disagreement with their ideals is "hate speech" or "creating a climate of hate", I would like to quote the following:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbours. I want you to talk to them... whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Sen. Barack Obama, September 18, 2008
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Sen. Barack Obama Radnor Middle School in Wayne, PA, June 14, 2008
Oh dear. A gun reference. Were there some shootings immediately after June 2008 which we can blame on Obama?
“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,”
President Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
So we're agreed. Taking a stand on political issue can be talked about in combat terms.
“We’re gonna punish our enemies* and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
President Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
Now, this one is particularly interesting. He was not talking about state enemies, he was referring to those who would vote against his healthcare reform or immigration policies. In other words, not only do we want to pass our bills, we want to punish those who didn't help. See the problem there, kiddies?
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
President Barack Obama March 2010
Fair enough. But when Republicans get angry, they must keep it to themselves. Check.
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“
President Barack Obama June 2010
Ah, nothing like a good purge.
“Punish your enemies”
President Barack Obama October 26, 2010
"I’m itching for a fight"
President Barack Obama December 7, 2010
“It’s time to fight for it.”
President Barack Obama October 19, 2010
Here's another pearler from a slightly less prominent source:
"That (Republican Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him...He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook."
Democrat Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, October 2010
The same Kanjorski now says, in light of the Tucson murders;
"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation..."
In other words "conservatives should play nice and agree with us, so we'll always be in power". Well, that must be what it means. He can't possibly be condemning strong political rhetoric, surely. That would condemn him.
Democrat campaigners used militant target graphics against Republicans. They targeted images of people, as well as district maps. Democrat activists overtly called for the assassination of George W Bush. Prominent TV commentators on CBS, MSNBC and CNN openly wished for the death of their conservative counterparts. Actors called for the violent rape of Sarah Palin, while unfunny talk shows joked about raping her 14 year old daughter. Violent rhetoric? Uncivilised discourse? The list is endless.
But that's different...right? Of course it is. Because their cause is just. And when your cause is just, you can ignore your own rules. Heck, you don't even have to make sense. You can politicise tragedy, providing your politics belongs in the correct group.
Thursday's HOT MIC
54 minutes ago