Monday, January 10, 2011

The exploiting ghouls are coming out in force

Never let a crisis go to waste, as Democratic hack Rahm Emanuel is so fond of saying.

1.  U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D (ancing with glee among the still-warm bodies)-NY, announced barely 24 hours after the tragedy in Tucson that she will be introducing new gun control legislation as early as today which is designed to ban high-capacity firearm magazines.

Since legislation usually takes, you know, time to prepare, it's obvious that McCarthy had already drawn up her dream law and was just waiting for a convenient tragedy such as this to heartlessly exploit.

As always, whenever we discuss Ms. McCarthy's actions we have to display the video clip in which Tucker Carlson asks a simple question that lets her self-demonstrate that she has absolutely no clue about what she wishes to make illegal, which are mostly cosmetic firearm features she apparently wishes to outlaw merely because they offend her sensibilities:

You make us sick, ma'am.  Oh, we're sorry, is that "hate speech" because it's unflattering to you?  Tough.

UPDATE:  The Violence Policy Center, one of the odious gun-banning organizations salivating over the opportunity to capitalize on this horrific event, comes right out and admits that timing is everything when it comes to ramming through overreacting, freedom-killing legislation before the victims are even buried:

"'In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly,' said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, one of the gun control groups working with McCarthy's office."

We don't know how you live with yourself, Ms. Rand.  You are a truly pathetic example of humanity.

2.  McCarthy's House colleague, Rep. Robert Brady, D-PA, has also vowed that he is going to sponsor a law "that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress".

Putting aside the First Amendment implications for a moment (this law would apparently criminalize someone innocently saying that a politician "needs to be taken out in the next election") this law would create a special protected class of people who would rate extra-special treatment, which completely flies in the face of our nation's concept of equal treatment under the law.

Besides, four of the six victims of the Tucson madman weren't "Federal officials" and one of the two who was seemingly wasn't targeted and unfortunately was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  So why is this incident such a clear example of the need to somehow further give government officials a special exalted status that differs markedly from the peasants they purport to represent?

3.  Some liberal "movement" calling itself Credo Action is presuming to lecture Sarah Palin that "violent actions have consequences", even though they admit right up front in their little manifesto that "We do not know why the shooter targeted Rep. Giffords. Sarah Palin did not arm him or pull the trigger. We do not know if the shooter admired, loathed or ignored Sarah Palin."

Well, until they do know and actually have some facts with to smear Palin, we politely suggest that these activists shut their annoying pie-holes.

We didn't hear groups such as these emotionally decrying the "violent actions" of the LEFT when, say, a figure representing Ms. Palin was hung in effigy from a noose in West Hollywood on Halloween 2008.  Nope, speech is apparently only hateful when it comes from the right (or can somehow be accused of coming from the right even without a shred of proof, as in this example).

These sorts of cretins, both elected officials and activists, who immediately attempt to turn a genuine tragedy into a vehicle to further their own plans should be mortally ashamed of themselves.  They won't be, though, because these cynical opportunists are so thoroughly convinced of their moral superiority that they can justify to themselves using any means, even the deaths of innocents, to further their political agendas.

1 comment:

Ken Hood said...

Well, after my own knee jerk reaction to the tragedy, as always, you saw this coming. It must be lonely being right all the time. :)

Thanks for schooling me on FB... I still wish folks who protest (count me as one) would police their own speech (as you do so well).

But you are correct...

When the government starts deciding what speech is "too hateful" then we are all doomed to an Orwellian existence.

If we must err as a government, we *must* err on the side of free speech.

Keep up the hard hitting (oops is that too violent?) challenges to elected officials and errant law enforcement... as I know you will.