Liberal Attempt to Exploit Arizona Tragedy Falls Flat
by Ian Mosley
Isn’t it interesting how the Democrats always seem to have these ready-made laws lying around in a drawer somewhere, just waiting for some incident to occur so they can pull them out and try to ram them through while everyone is still confused and running around like chickens with their heads cut off? When the 911 incident happened Senator Charles Schumer had all sorts of police state legislation printed up and ready to go into law.
An article on Antiwar.com reports: “Shortly after the shooting of Rep. Giffords (D – AZ) in Tucson on Saturday, officials and pundits from across the political spectrum were looking to make political hay out of it, struggling to tie the shooter to some rival political faction or other. Now, however, a number of Congressmen are looking to turn that endeavor into a more concerted effort to introduce a series of new curbs on political speech, particularly political dissent, insisting that certain criticism of seated officials is too incendiary to be allowed.”
This, of course, is the very situation which the United States Constitution was intended to prevent–the government itself deciding the subject matter and parameters of what criticism of itself is allowed, and who may make such criticism, and in what forum.
The Antiwar article notes “Rep. Brady (D – PA) has promised to introduce new legislation to criminalize any political speech which could be perceived as incendiary, and other Democrats suggested that there should be a blanket ban on all speech and symbols which might be conceivably interpreted as incendiary against members of Congress. Brady went on to claim that a number of Congressmen’s wives were terrified to hear of the shooting and questioning whether it was safe to remain in Congress. He insisted the only solution to this was to curb political speech. ‘The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,’ Brady insisted.”
In view of what the Democrats have done to this country over the past two years, yes, I would imagine that they are quite correct in being “terrified to remain in Congress.” Oh, I’m sorry, am I not allowed to say that? Is it “too incendiary?”
The people criticizing Congress are telling the truth. If the truth makes the Democrats too uncomfortable, I’d rather see the Democrats retire than the truth be forced into retirement.
Antiwar.com goes on: “The ability of Congress to pass such a bill is likely not in doubt, but convincing the courts to allow broad-based censorship of explicitly political speech is likely to be an uphill battle. For some officials, this means that the effort should be more regulatory than legal. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D – NY) insisted that the FCC should work hard to restrict political speech that could incite people, adding that no one owns the airwaves and that she clearly felt the FCC was not doing enough to regulate political commentary nor to sanction those whose criticism were unacceptable to her.”
Now, wait a second. I thought the Republicans just took over the House and the Tea Party played a big role in this political change. The 2010 election was not just a rebellion against Democrats; it was a rebellion against incumbent politicians in both parties. Americans want an end to police state legislation. They want the TSA to disappear. They want warrant-less wiretaps to stop.
As more information comes out, it turns out the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords was the work of a lunatic, who was banned from college pending a mental examination. Jared Loughner’s friends describe him as liberal, Jewish and disturbed. If anything should be done, we should improve ways of spotting mental illness and committing dangerous people before they go on a shooting spree. The big problem however is that the gigantic Third World population in the US has drained away all the money that should have gone to things like mental asylums.
