And we see the Democrat Party is exposing it's weaknesses in very scary ways by proposing legislation to curb one of America’s most sacred right, the right to free speech. They have found that people have rejected their message, so instead of understanding that their message is flawed they try to make their message the only message available.
From Front Page:
Part of that focus is already playing itself out. Using the Arizona tragedy as a springboard, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) is calling for the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine; Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is calling for a change in the nation’s dialogue “by will or by law;” the National Hispanic Media Coalition is asking the FCC to “update its definitions of hate speech in the media;” Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee has ordered government employees in that state not to go on “talk radio” stations during their work hours, singling out that particular part of the media and no other; and Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) has drafted legislation to ban symbols or language which could be perceived as “threatening” or “inciting violence.
By Phil Lawler | January 10, 2011 3:03 PM
Shamelessly exploiting a genuine tragedy, liberal political commentators are blaming their conservative counterparts for creating a "climate of hate" that allegedly contributed to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. They say that American political rhetoric should be toned down-- while at the same time they accuse their rivals of encouraging murder. In other words they want the other guys to cool down their rhetoric, while they heat up their own. The inconsistency of that argument is spectacular. But then inconsistency is the hallmark of liberal ideology.
The argument would have at least a tincture of credibility if there was some evidence that the accused shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was motivated by conservative rhetoric. There is none. His political beliefs seem to be a complete hodgepodge, suggesting a disturbed mind rather than any consistent zealotry.
So now, rather than looking for scapegoats-- and finding them, conveniently, among ideological foes-- why not take a deeper look into the possible causes of Loughner's mental disturbance? On this front, the major media outlets have been remarkably uninquisitive. After the Fort Hood massacre, few media outlets mentioned that the shooter was a militant Muslim. Similarly, after this tragedy in Arizona, precious few media outlets have bothered to report that the accused killer had a pagan shrine at his home!
Most secular reporters wouldn't take the backyard shrine seriously, because most reporters think of paganism as an odd sort of hobby, with no serious consequences. Christians and Jews should know better. From time immemorial, false gods have always wanted blood.
But USA Today has found a professed pagan who says that what looks like a pagan shrine is actually not a pagan shrine: that Loughner's violence should not be regarded as representative of paganism. We heard similar disclaimers from "moderate Muslim leaders" after the Fort Hood rampage. Although we are told time and again that religious beliefs have often led believers to violence, in these cases we are assured the opposite. Inconsistency again.
As the season goes forward we see the insanity and unfettered hatred of the likes of Sarah Palin. But what is that fear based on? When I ask the average person that oppose her they seem to just parrot extreme views which from the point of reality I stand, is based on demonizing rhetoric which I fail to see any basis in truth.
