Recently, I posted a link to an article from The Daily Caller on my Facebook page. This story was relating how, with evidence and polls to the contrary, that 60% of the respondents to a MSNBC poll believe that political rhetoric had a part in the tragic shooting in Arizona.

In response to that post, I received the following question. “How can anyone defend putting cross hairs on the congresswoman’s district? And then say she is a target?”

I decided to answer it here on my blog because writing here as “The Gunslinger” I understand the definition and use of metaphors.

This may seem like a straight forward question but it is not. There is a subliminal part hidden within. What the question is really asking is how anyone can defend Sarah Palin’s use of crosshairs and referencing the word target.

I am not, have never been and will never be a Sarah Palin fan. While some may look to her as a leader, all that I see is just another talking head. While I stay informed of the general goings on, I do not listen to Rush or Beck. In matters where they agree with me, great. In matters where they disagree with me, they are wrong. Such is my right in a free society.

I can defend the campaign piece with crosshairs because it is a non item; it is a made up problem. It could be considered as part of the so called “Cloward-Piven Strategy;” to force political change by creating the events. As we have learned, “We should never let a crisis go to waste.” Gun and military references have been used hundreds or thousands of times in every way imaginable. To try and place blame on Sarah Palin for use of this type of print while disregarding the lefts use of the same type rhetoric also targeting Congresswoman Giffords is insane. While all on the left are wringing their hands, Democratic Consultant/ Strategist Bob Beckel has taken claim of inventing this tactic during the 2004 John Kerry campaign. Not a word from the left.

Awhile back I caught an old Cameron Diaz move on TV. This was a low budget job that was so bad that it grossed less than $200K. This movie (The Last Supper) was made in 1995 during the Clinton years. Granted, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House and we were working on the Contract with America so I suppose that this gave the left the free rein of depravity. You see the plot of this movie was simple. A group of young liberals decide that the way to form the world in their own likeness is to kill those that they disagree with. They invite the stereotypical right racist to dinner, and kill him. Next comes the homophobe, after that is the pro lifer and on and on.

It was fifteen years ago that this movie was made and now people on the left have the gall to say that the rancor between left and right is caused by Palin or Beck. I would like to say that I find this type of action unbelievable but sadly I can not. There is a complete disconnect on the left when it comes to understanding analogies such as living in glass houses or cleaning up ones own side of the street.

We find one of the slimiest humans on Earth, Bill Maher, going on Jay Leno and spewing hate under the guise of calling for civility. We have South Carolina Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn denouncing the use of metaphors and in the same interview referencing the term “double barrels” about President Obama.

Here are some words from Obama Himself:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” Barack Obama 6-14-2008.
“I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Barack Obama 9-17-2008
‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends . . .” Barack Obama 10-25-2010

http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/leftist-hate-speech/ I would like to bring everyone’s attention to the date that Patterico’s article was published; 2007/03/05. This predates Sarah Palin, Glenn beck and a host of others. This list also depicts the level of sickness in the liberal mind. Not only are they content calling for the death of conservatives but gladly include the deaths of wives, children and grand children.

NPR Nina Totenberg – “[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

Here are some great words by liberal loon Alex Baldwin on Conan – “…I am thinking to myself in other countries they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I’m thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [Crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up screaming]…” Does anybody think that the cutest part was when he added going to their homes and killing their wives and children?

Here is just your average, everyday liberal vowing to spend the year attacking Sarah Palin’s daughter Willow. For anyone who is interested, Willow is only 16. She was already sex joke material for Lettermen when she was only 14.

With that said, I would like to carry this further. Being The Gunslinger, I do not shy away from tough questions or situations. The tough question is how could I defend the charges if they were true? What if Jared Loughner perpetrated this rampage as a direct result of seeing the political ad with Congresswoman Giffords marked as a target?

Regardless of the hypothetical’s my response would not change. I consider myself as being a reasonable man and judge the world accordingly. Would a sports writer be at fault if he called for a ball team to “beat” another and someone actually beat one of the players?

In John Hinckley’s assassination attempt on President Reagan we find a direct linkage. Reports reveal that he watched the movie Taxi Driver over and over. He became infatuated with Jodie Foster including having contact with her; he was emulating Robert De Nero when he shot the President. This would seem like direct causation but it can not be viewed in that light because we are dealing with unbalanced minds.

I do not oppose civility, unity, bipartitionship or any other thing that may bring the people of this country closer together. However, I will stand in direct opposition to any or all of the previous, if they are being forced upon us as the result of the actions of a single deranged mind. This is akin to negotiating with terrorist. Should we as a country withdraw all troops from around the world because some nut does something? Should we
overthrow Russia because some nut does something. To be fair I am going to add these and ask should we abolish the FED and Dept. of Education because some nut says to. The answer to all is NO.

I am going to wrap this up with just a few final thoughts. I am a free thinking conservative. I walk with my own thoughts. I have been attacked by both the left and the right because I will call them as I see them. In fact I am usually harder on the right for the simple reason that I expect more from them. While talking about the First Amendment, the left childishly want to say “You can’t shout fire in a theater.” No you can’t but the First Amendment does protect political speech. The quickest way to become conservative is to get some ear plugs. Stop listening to what the left says; look at what they do. Who is standing against censorship? Who is standing for the First Amendment? When you look instead of listen, you will find that the right stands for the people.

In the days after the shooting, there are several things that became clear. We found that this shooting was not caused by Sarah Palin or the rhetoric on the right; it was caused by the insanity of Jared Loughner. We also find that the cause of claims against Sarah Palin and the right were caused by the insanity of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. It seems that within hours of the shooting, Dupnik, even while claiming to have no proof, chooses to spew his completely wrong leftist feelings on television. Due to this classic performance, Sheriff Dupnik has earned a listing in the Urban Dictionary.

Dupnik
(v.) to attempt to cover up one’s own duplicity or guilt by publicly and loudly deflecting blame onto others that had no demonstrable involvement.
When my boss questions my lack of task completion, I dupnik my co-workers in order to avoid a reprimand.

(n.) a buffoon, simpleton, uninformed individual that runs his/her mouth without rhyme or reason and has no idea of what they are talking about. Usually a self professed expert, short on knowledge, but is full of crap.
dude A: That tech at the apple store had no idea of what she was talking about!

dude B: Yeah, what a dupnik!

Advertisements

Comments are closed.