Monday, January 10, 2011

Vitriolic Rhetoric by WHICH Party and Against WHICH President?

Before I begin the main part of this post I am again sending my condolences to the loved ones of the victims who were killed in this violent massacre.  My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims who were hurt and their families as they recover from this horrific tragedy. 

It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain.  For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted.  The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left. 

The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting.   First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter,  was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion.  Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd.  Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act.  
He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media.  Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics.  Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats.  So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.  

The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.  Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats."  The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation.  Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed?  Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut.  So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.  

When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care,  car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger.  When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond?  By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country.  But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition.  And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration. These libs are so clueless.  I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies.  Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech.  Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush.  The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES. 


A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

Unfortunately place and time weren't documented.

“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.

Original source unknown.

A recommendation that Bush should hang, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.

"Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.

This man calls for “Death to...Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

A sign saying "Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.

Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.

Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.

An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.

The anti-Israel conspiracy site hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial. 

Then Sen John Kerry responded in such a way to Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time which could have been construed as a threat: 

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Full transcript here

The we have Kilborn: 

On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.

Now the progressives or liberals reaction to this horrible tragedy is to take away even more of our rights.  TCL has posted information on Congressman Brady's plan to introduce a bill against inflammatory language. Who decides what is considered inflammatory speech?  What is considered inflammatory to one person may not be considered inflammatory to another person. Matt of Conservative Hideout exposes Leftist hate.  Maggie at Maggie's notebook has posted on Blaming the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for Giffords shootings

Bill Lilley  says that: 
"We can’t let the acts of what appears to be a crazed gunman, one described by classmates as crazy and a left-wing pot-head not a right wing Tea Partier, change the way we speak to each other.
Should any of us seriously be talking about blowing away our enemies? No."
The gunmen is a 9/11 Truther. 

It seems like a greater number of threats and violent acts occur during economic downturns.  If there are indeed more threats happening under Obama than under Bush it may have something to do with the fact that under most of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5.5 % and the unemployment rate now is presently at 9.4% and this brings the nut jobs out.  

Freedom of speech is precious and is a right afforded to we the people by the Constitution and we cannot let progressives use one horrific tragedy to limit our first amendment right to free speech.  


TH2 said...

Teresa: Did not know you had this other blog until recently. Will be back to check it. Good stuff.

Teresa said...

Welcome TH2! Thanks for stopping by my political blog. Have a great night!

Opus #6 said...

I led a sheltered life. I didn't know how back the violent rhetoric was against Bush. Shameful!

LD Jackson said...

And they think conservatives are a terrible lot? Good grief, these images remind me of just how bad it was right before, during and even after the Bush presidency. The man was hated and there was no end to the rhetoric against him. I wonder where the New York Times was when it was being spewed forth?

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

As long as there is a hating left, there will be a right to blame it on.

Christopher said...

Teresa...thanks for the link to your political blog; I think I may have only been here one time before.

I'm just really conflicted over the heated rhetoric trading. Depending on the day, I could read this post and think, "Yeah, stick it to those liberal idiots" and the next day I might think, "There has to be a better way than just trying to trade blows with them." I know we would agree the liberal view point dominates popular media. With the exception of FoxNews and conservative talk radio, there isn't too many other places for people with conservative view points to go. So, from the word "go," conservatives are already behind the power curve when it comes to waging a media campaign (oh no, watch out, that language sounds awfully war-like :) ). Most people, I think, are tired of hearing it from both sides. I know you are smart enough to know that for every nasty picture of Bush, there is one of Obama. While it seems counter-intuitive to lay down and just "take it," nothing is getting accomplished by participating in it.

Like I said, I'm really conflicted about the whole thing. I don't want to ramble on your combox, so I'll just sign off. But, I still can't help but wonder if there isn't a better way, for the American citizen's sake, to do business.

Teresa said...


Thank you for stopping by my (mostly) political blog. I understand that for every nasty picture of Bush there is one of Obama but the different degrees makes a difference. Of course I didn't put particular words into the search engine for fear of getting a visit from the Secret Service but the Obama-hate signs I found on the net were mild compared to that of Bush-hate signs. Plus, I have been to many Tea Party sponsored events and while I had seen signs of Obama compared to Hitler I never once saw one saying "Obama needs to die, you are a terrorist" and if those of us who are true to the Tea Party's principles had seen this type of sign we would have denounced that type of rhetoric and forced that person to put the sign in the trash or leave. The events at which the Bush-hating signs were displayed were sponsored by Leftist groups and I didn't hear anyone denouncing them back then or now and it is self-evident that the person/s was not forced to throw away the sign or forced to leave. It is important that we not keep silent for that would be allowing the media to run with a false narrative, which if said over and over again people would be brainwashed into believing if no one spoke the truth. I think of it this way, would we stay silent if these were attacks against the Church?

You might be interested in this:

Thank you and God Bless.

Stop Marxism said...

I agree with Teresa. Yes there might be pictures of Hussein Obama as Hitler but NOT with his head cut off. The Words and Pictures from the Left to kill President Bush were abundant. I have never seen any death threat on a sign for obummer. The Left has a proclivity for violence. The sad thing is that the moderates get there information from MSM hence the reason for so much hate for Palin. When you ask one why she is stupid, they either do not answer or come up with some old lie that Sarah said Africa was not a continent. Yes that was lie that was spread on Palin and the Left and so-called Moderates use that to hate her.
Thanks, Teresa for compiling this information as further evidence of the hypocrisy of the Left.

Alex Jones said...

Bush has caused massive damage to United States. it will take long time to overcome that loss.