Yes, he was a nut – but he was a nut set off by the violent rhetoric of the left. All that talk of Trump not being the legitimate President; of he and his supporters being Nazis; of those opposing them being the “resistance”, as if they were French patriots under German occupation during World War Two. All that means something – and to some people, it means you have to fight. If you say that Trump and his people are an existential threat to all that is good and true in the world, some people will take you seriously, even if you don’t intend it that way. It doesn’t matter that your goal was just a cynical firing up of the base for next year’s mid term elections…it still works out that you incited violence.
Democrats do this sort of thing because it works. Time and time again they’ve used violent, over-the-top rhetoric to fire up their base…it is a very large reason why Obama was re-elected in 2012. People forget that he’s unique – the first President to be re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time around. He should have lost – and likely would have lost save for a relentless campaign of hatred designed to keep just enough of his troops in line to make a difference…had Romney been just a bit more of a street fighter, Obama would have lost, in my view.
Democrats can end this in a moment, if they choose – all they have to do is get all their senior people to go out in public and say, “President Trump is the legitimate President of the United States”. Sure, that won’t convince the full-on fanatics, but it’d dial down the heat and the kooks would be isolated. But Democrats won’t do that – because they don’t want their side cooled down and they also don’t believe they’ll pay a price at the ballot box. I’m hoping that in 2018 they are disabused of this notion – and I think they may well be. You see, for all the firing up of the base on the left, I believe that the Trumpsters will troop to the mid term polls in record numbers, determined to record a vote of confidence in their man…and a vote of rejection to those who want to annul the 2016 result. We won’t know if I’m right until election day next year – and even if I am right, it won’t show up in polling, even if the polling is trying to be honest. But I do believe I’m right. I’m thinking that people have had enough of this – and in talking to regular folks who don’t think about politics all the time and don’t engage on social media, I see a line being drawn between the leftist rhetoric and the leftist violence: people are seeing that one causes the other.
And after a brief moment of concern for the assault on the GOP yesterday, Morning Joe and MSNBC launched back into wall to wall coverage of Trump’s impending impeachment at the hands of Mueller. Ironically Mika, who called Trump mentally challenged the other day and has on many occasions questioned the moral character of republicans, felt the need to lecture everyone on our over heated rhetoric. Just another day in the land of delusion.
…of those opposing them being the “resistance”, as if they were French patriots under German occupation during World War Two. ..
I think this is the key to the spike in violent rhetoric because it draws in the center of the Dem party. It lets the middle aged middle class Dem who is upset about losing the election justify vile thoughts and actions by letting him posture, including in his own mind, as a heroic figure fighting against evil, and it appeals to the young who were brought up on comic book heroes valiantly fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.
If the Left were to accurately portray itself as rioting, bullying thugs vandalizing our nation, its appeal would be diminished.
A typical Lefty response to the shooting:
no i don’t feel bad republicans were shot at don’t @ me i don’t feel bad for people that think i should die
Yes, being a Republican means, to some on the Left, that they “should die”.
Let’s see—–which regimes have had the same attitude, and proceeded to kill off those they didn’t like, or those who opposed them?
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro—it’s quite a list, and this is just the start. And all Leftists, of course.
When you fail to teach critical thinking skills in our schools, you end up with a lot of people who can’t (wait for it) THINK CRITICALLY. The first time I heard the term, “Liberalism is a mental disorder,” I thought it was just a humorous, catchy phrase that had small element of truth to it. The actions and rhetoric of the Left over the last decade or so have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the phrase is an accurate description of Liberalism.
At my age I really don’t want our country to devolve in armed conflict over political ideology, but it’s looking increasingly likely that they aren’t going to give us a choice (I know, ironic, isn’t it?) And all the while the globalist elites behind the scenes pulling the strings are delighted at the prospect of lowering the world’s population by a few billion. I doubt that any of the Leftist foot soldiers have the slightest clue just how much trouble they’re going to be in if they (to quote a former poster here) write a check that their canary ass can’t cash.
Has anyone else noticed that almost no one in the media is focusing on what kind of weapon this guy used, simply referring to it as a “rifle” or a “high-powered rifle?” Several news outlets HAVE stressed that it was a rifle he owned legally, which I find rather curious. If he had been a Conservative Republican you can bet every other sentence would refer to an evil, black AR-15 assault rifle with high-capacity magazine capable of “spraying hundreds of rounds a minute,” a weapon that had been previously banned. Just sayin’
And, of course, not to be upstaged by sane, rational people, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe reiterated just just how many Americans die every day from gun violence.
I wonder if Fielding Claymore was Terry McAuliffe’s math teacher.
93 gun deaths per day would total to 33,945 gun related deaths in a year.
Yet even a rather breathless fear-mongering article about gun deaths put the total for 2016 at 6,880 gun-related deaths. (This figure does not include deaths due to Pop Tarts nibbled into gun shapes or the “shotgun bullet” [spent .22 casing] taken to school by a six year old for Show and Tell. Those atrocities must have a category of their own.)
The author was a little confused (that pesky math again, plus bumping up against facts—-so distracting) because she went on, not much later in the same article, to say According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), more than 21,000 Americans take their lives with a firearm each year. That’s nearly half of all suicides and compares to about 11,000 annual gun homicides.
So, is 6,880 “about” the same as 11,000? I guess so, in Libspeak. But it still falls pretty short of 93 per day.
But when your accuracy range is somewhere between 93 a day and 93 million a day, to a Dem it might just be a rounding error.
Now that we are in the era of Assault Vehicles, we should really be looking at the weapons used to kill about 110 people a day—-automobiles.
Fatalities rose 6 percent in 2016, reaching an estimated 40,200 deaths compared to 37,757 deaths the previous year, according the National Safety Council.
Anybody can buy a car. There is no background check, there is no way to know if that car will be used as a weapon. A weaponized vehicle can take out many people in one mass attack. We have seen videos of such things. We are losing something like 19 people a day to gun violence (most of these in Dem-controlled cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and Baltimore) and many if not most of these are due to conflicts related to gangs and drugs, not involving many innocent outsiders. But families, working people, even a lot of Democrats, are being mowed down at the rate of more than 110 people a day by cars. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE
110 deaths per day from cars is a drop in the bucket compared to the number that die from medical error. Perhaps we should consider banning doctors.
Obamacare was a step in that direction. I never considered that legislation that discouraged people from becoming doctors might have been an effort to save lives.
I think that’s a general reflection of the fact that the Left simply doesn’t value human life to the extent that Conservatives do. It’s so blatant that it’s not even debatable.
Came across this quote in an email today, and it’s one of the most concise descriptions I’ve ever seen of what the Left is currently engaged in:
The Left has always been a religion. It requires devotion to a catechism of teachings, it has a specific dogma, it is about redemption (in this case, salvation that can only be achieved through the confiscation of the property of others for redistribution) and it demands that it be the ultimate authority,
It is this latter that explains the Left’s efforts to destroy the three things that pose the biggest challenges to its absolute authority—-the family, religion and education.
On top of those three, they’ve also subverted science, ignoring a giant ball of flaming gases while blaming temperature rise on humans and pretending that men can be women and women can be men if they just wish it so. Add to that the Left’s attempts to criminalize thought and attack speech that they disagree with. So when you get right down to it, Liberals can only succeed by tearing down the basic tenets of what has made western civilization great.
Yes. Americans are sick and tired to death of the obstructionist Democratic Party. They’re going to keep going until thousands of people are going to go to Washington and clean house.
Nan issued another of her comments, blaming Fox News for the climate of hate. Personally, I think what really has her bothered is that the shooter didn’t choose his targets alphabetically.
In the latest example of Deep State insurrection and subversion, we have this:
In the latest of a string of anonymously sourced stories meant to damage President Donald Trump, the Washington Post says five sources are confirming that the president is under investigation for obstruction of justice. The story was published Wednesday, just in time for the president’s 71st birthday.
Five people briefed on the requests, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Adm. Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’ recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week.
(1) who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly… So here we have a claim that five people broke the law by releasing information they KNEW they were not allowed to release. This is a pattern, as is the anonymous nature of such “information”.
(2) We once again have a newspaper publicizing information it KNOWS is not legally allowed to be made public, hiding behind the 1st Amendment and the long-established concept of being allowed to protect the identity of informants.
We have seen too many inroads into national security due to this kind of irresponsible “reporting” from the Complicit Agenda Media, and we have seen the pattern of such reporting being based on politics, on efforts to undermine the authority of the sitting president purely for political reasons. It is clearly time to get a SCOTUS ruling on the extent of 1st Amendment protections.
And we need to track down leakers, do it fast, and slam them with the full power of the law.
Also, just as a side note, the Left is controlling the narrative here, as usual. An investigation made necessary by the manipulation of political opponents, effectively creating a false impression of wrongdoing that has to be addressed because it has taken on so much weight in public opinion, is a far cry from expressing a belief that there is a legitimate reason to think there has been some wrongdoing.
I hope someone is keeping track of the cost of these Leftist-forced “investigations” both in terms of actual dollars spent and of the wasted time, when serious people with serious jobs have to take time to address hysterical outbursts and bogus claims.
Re: the Democrats transparent call for unity following a horrific incident from a member of their base – had the situation been reversed, and a Tea Partier opened fire on Democrats, I hardly think the Democrats would be calling for dialing down the rhetoric and getting along. So let me be clear, I do not want to get along with Democrats and I hope that they keep up their anger and delusion in the hopes that it accelerates their demise.
Why in the world would conservatives want to make nice with people like Pelosi, Warren, Schumer, Franken, Waters, etc.??? These are not honorable people and honestly I think 3 of the people mentioned are dangerously stupid. There is no compromise!!
Yeah, but the pious “calls for unity” quickly degenerated into what can be summed up as “we all need to get along but no one can blame people for wanting to kill the evil people who support Trump and want to STARVE CHILDREN!!”
It took less than a day for the Usual Suspects on the Left, led by the NYT, to start in with their spinning to try to link this calculated attack on Republican lawmakers with something a conservative never said or did except in the overheated pages of, you guessed it, the NYT. Their “apology” was in the “fake but accurate” category.
What was it that Ronald Reagan said about fascism so many years ago? “If fascism enters America, it will be disguised as liberalism”. Ronaldo Maximus was right again:
Canada’s Senate has passed a “controversial” (read: fascistic) new law, Bill C-16, which adds “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the nation’s hate crime laws – Canada being a world leader in legislating who should be hated and who shouldn’t – thus effectively making it a crime for a business owner to “discriminate” on the basis of not wanting his male employee to wear a dress, or for a teacher not to use a nonexistent, politically correct pronoun whenever a student tells her to. More generally, it makes a hate criminal of anyone who openly expresses a view not perfectly compliant with the zeitgeist on gender identity, transgenderism, or what have you. The debate is now, officially and legally, over.
And you know this is even funnier when you consider that liberals are the ones who call us “science deniers”.
Cluster, the Left picks and chooses which science to deny. Biology, for example, is simply discarded in their minds as a true science, so they can make up their own rules. Admitting biology as a science creates too many problems for the Left—it determines that human beings are human beings from the moment of conception, it proves that the babies the Left loves to kill actually suffer during their murders, and it points out that gender is biologically determined and not a decision. No, biology has to go.
It is easiest for them to simply invent new “sciences” such as “climate science” where they can randomly invent new “scientific” methodology and where making things up is OK. They are fine with physics, at least so far, but only as long as the theories of beginning of life are confined to random collisions of molecules which, somehow, just ARE—no Intelligent design allowed.
With the Left, first you have to figure out the agenda before you can know if the related science is acceptable to them.
Liberalism IS a mess!
Regarding Canada’s new law, referenced above—how does the ability to simply assign gender identity on the fly, so to speak, work in a demographic newly obsessed with “appropriation”? If a biologically determined man chooses to dress like a biologically determined woman, isn’t he appropriating the culture of women? After all, if a white woman wearing dreadlocks can be attacked by a black woman for “appropriating” something the black woman associates with her race, couldn’t any woman attack any man for wearing makeup or dressing in a frock?
How can you tell the difference between a “trans”-whatever and an “appropriator”?
I’m just wondering who would be arrested in Canada when the appropriation fanatics clash with the gender fluidity fanatics. And as Canada now defines “hate speech” as “anything someone might find offensive, or simply not agree with” it sounds like living in Canada is getting pretty dangerous. “Ice cream on tacos—what a queer idea” could get the Mounties after you.
“Mounties”—that name has got to go. It reeks of male dominance. No, it reeks of RAPE, and has to be replaced with a word never associated in any context with any male engaging in a sex act with any female, including all those in the animal kingdom.
LOL, liberalism does get messy
John Goodman at Townhall has an excellent article about why we’re so divided.
This morning on MSNBC and Morning Joe they were talking about the dangers of conservative talk radio and the alt right ……….. I kid you not.
Kurt Schlichter is rapidly moving up my list of favorite writers. His piece at Townhall today just nails it.
They really don’t understand that civil society is only possible as long as those who can use force agree to submit to the laws…but if the laws are no longer valid, then that deal ends. This is why, especially in a democratic Republic, that the Rule of Law be rigidly enforced. Mercy must always be used in deciding what punishment to impose for breaking a law, but all laws must be enforced…if one is broken, the person who broke it must pay at least some sort of price for doing so. As people see that some are allowed to be scofflaws, then eventually no one will allow the law to be enforced on them except by punitive force.