Posts Tagged ‘Jared Loughner’
RICHARD VIGUERIE-AMERICAN THINKER: Following their shellacking in the first regularly scheduled federal election of the Tea Party era, the political left and the ruling-class media made predictable calls for civility in political discourse. I say predictable because, as a general rule, the left and their media partners make calls for bipartisanship and civility only when conservatives ascend to political power, and they direct it only at conservatives, not at the extremists on their side.
The recent tragedy in Tucson, however, displayed in condensed hours and days the visceral, disgraceful desperation of the left and ruling-class media.
Americans, through the Tea Party movement, are in a peaceful political war against the ruling class. To the everyday Americans-turned-political-activists, this is a war for the future of the America we cherish. The ruling class understands this is a war against the self-dealing privilege and kleptocracy they’ve created over many decades.
What if Jared Loughner had been a Tea Partier?
Would this have been the end of free speech in America?
JUSTIN PAULETTE-AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Within hours of the Arizona massacre, as we know, unprincipled partisans accused conservatives of responsibility. Nothing was known of the gunman or his motives, but ignorance was no impediment to their predetermined verdict. “We don’t have proof yet that this was political,” admitted guilt-peddler Paul Krugman in the New York Times, “but the odds are that it was.”
Those sharing Krugman’s exploitative intent advanced his politically motivated supposition by indicting Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and all-things-conservative for cultivating a “culture of hate” through “toxic” rhetoric.
The facts subsequently exonerated conservatives of culpability. Jared Loughner is demonstrably anti-conservative, an apolitical anarchist influenced more by communist and Nazi ideologies than anything in the American spectrum. More significantly, Loughner is insane, motivated by delusions of mind-control and hallucinations rather than politics.
Loughner hated Bush; thought U.S. behind 9-11 attack; used pot, ‘shrooms, and hallucinogen called Salvia divinorum
NEW YORK TIMES: Several of Jared’s friends said he used marijuana, mushrooms and, especially, the hallucinogenic herb called Salvia divinorum. When smoked or chewed, the plant can cause brief but intense highs.
None of this necessarily distinguished him from his high school buddies. Several of them dabbled in drugs, played computer games like World of Warcraft and Diablo and went through Goth and alternative phases. Jared and a friend, Zane Gutierrez, would also shoot guns for practice in the desert; Jared, Mr. Gutierrez recalled, became quite proficient at picking off can targets with a gun.
But Jared, a curious teenager who at times could be intellectually intimidating, stood out because of his passionate opinions about government — and his obsession with dreams.
He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.
Lisa Murkowski loves this idea, so it must be good. Right?
THE HILL: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaksa) has joined Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) in spearheading Udall’s effort to have bipartisan seating at the State of the Union, Murkowski’s office announced Friday.
In a letter to members of Congress today Murkowski and Udall propose Republicans and Democrats sit together during the State of the Union address. Currently, the tradition is for Democrats and Republicans to sit only with members of their party during the presidential address. The proposal comes after an earlier one by Udall where the Democrat and Republican leadership would sit together during the presidential address.
So far, 21 senators and nine members of Congress of both parties have endorsed the proposal.
BYRON YORK-WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Pundits and politicians alike praised President Obama’s speech at the Tucson memorial service last Wednesday. “A wonderful speech,” wrote the New York Times’ David Brooks. “A magnificent performance,” wrote National Review’s Rich Lowry. “A terrific speech,” wrote Sen. John McCain.
And those were just the voices on the right.
Obama’s tribute to the victims of the shooting and the heroism of bystanders was appreciated by everyone. But many conservatives particularly admired the speech because the president took care to say, in clear terms, that political rhetoric did not cause the violence in Tucson. “It did not,” Obama said flatly.
After days during which prominent voices on the Left — by and large Obama supporters — blamed the Right for inciting the violence, the president’s words were a welcome change.
P.J. O’ROURKE-WEEKLY STANDARD: It was a weekend of great sorrow. On Saturday, January 8, an insane young man tried to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, injuring her horribly. The man then fired his gun into a small political gathering, murdering a nine-year-old girl, a federal judge, a congressional staffer, and three of Giffords’s constituents. Thirteen other people were wounded. In the midst of life we are in death. There is, in this world, no making sense of such events.
Among the worldly, however, there is a temptation to make nonsense. Thus it was that on Sunday, January 9, the New York Times provided a further grief, much less important than the death and mutilation of innocents but shameful nonetheless.
Ramblings of a Madman
JARED LOUGHNER: “I’m in a terrible place. It’s the school that I go to. This is my genocide school, where I’m going to be homeless because of this school.”
TONY LEE-HUMAN EVENTS: What if Jared Loughner had been a Muslim?
Shamefully and sadly, the media would have covered his horrific assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) and slaying and maiming of innocent Arizonans in a more responsible manner. They would have called for restraint and not violated the journalistic tenet of not assuming anything, a tenet they purportedly (and often facetiously sanctimoniously) claim to hold dear.
But because Loughner was not a member of one of the mainstream media’s protected classes, they used Loughner’s heinous act to go on liberal crusades against conservatives and Tea Partiers, to promote gun control, amnesty, and rail against those who may oppose ethnic study programs that erroneously teach students that the Southwestern part of the United States is a part of Mexico.
MICHAEL BARONE: In my Washington Examiner column “Systematic assassinations not part of our politics,” I wrote of the Arizona murders:
If any blame attaches to others, it is to authorities who had notice of his madness and did not do enough to confine him or prevent him from buying a gun. The Pima County sheriff, who was quick to suggest the attack was among the “consequences” of Republican rhetoric, also reported that the shooter’s bizarre behavior was brought to the attention of authorities.
Arizona reportedly gives authorities more leeway than most states to put such an individual under restraint or at least prevent him from buying a gun. Perhaps there is some good reason this was not done; but at least there are questions that need to be asked.
Or to put it more bluntly, shouldn’t this guy have been locked up? I am pleased to see that William Galston, writing in his New Republic blog, has the same idea, and calls for a reconsideration of the laws that have reduced the possibility of involuntary commitment. Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, makes the same case and adds interesting detail. Jennifer Rubin, on her new Right Turn blog at the Washington Post notices that, as her headline reads, “Left gives up on guns, moves on to mental health,” and applauds the move.