-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Jeff Lord put forward an eloquent assessment of the evil which was visited upon a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado this morning resulting in the deaths of a dozen moviegoers viewing a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. Amongst other things, Jeff noted:
The left will seek to make an issue of this, as they did most recently with the shooting by a disturbed loner of then-Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. There will be the usual shrieking about gun control. There will be mind-numbing discussions of whatever violence is in the Batman movie and isn’t our culture all ot blame. Some conservative somewhere will be targeted for doing something if this guy has ever watched Fox, belonged to the NRA, listened to talk radio or picked up a book by Ayn Rand.
Or belongs to the Tea Party. As Ross Kaminsky told us, once James Holmes had been identified as the alleged shooter, Brian Ross of ABC News told viewers there was a Jim Holmes who is a member of the Colorado Tea Party. Only Jim Holmes the Tea Partier is a 52-year old Hispanic male while James Holmes the alleged shooter is a 24-year old Caucasian ex-medical student. ABC News issued an apology but I second Ross’ motion: “Go screw yourself.”
What this tells me is that the moment ABC News found out who the shooter was, a researcher did a Google search “James Holmes Colorado Tea Party” and hit paydirt. Or so they thought. But what is it in the mindset of ABC News, other mainstream media outlets and liberals at large that they would immediately connect mass murder to a member of the local Tea Party?
I’ll tell you what it is. It’s hatred and ignorance. Not surprisingly the two go hand in hand. Too many liberals and progressives in this country hate conservatives and this hatred causes them to attribute the worst possible deeds upon our doorstep. Consider what I said in my speech to Tea Party activists in Worcester, Massachusetts back in April:
Of course, the facts seldom deter liberals and progressives. But when the race card doesn’t work liberals and progressives shift the narrative. They say the Tea Party is violent. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times once compared the Tea Party to Hezbollah, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews likens the Tea Party to Wahhabis and Vice-President Biden says the Tea Party acts like terrorists. How dare they. How dare they compare peaceful, law-abiding Americans to those who murdered our soldiers in Beirut, Baghad and Bagram. How dare they compare peaceful, law-abiding Americans to those who murdered innocent civilians in New York, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. And for what? Simplay because we dare to publicly express a point of view that is contrary to their own.
Scarcely three months after making those remarks, the Tea Party finds itself vilified for this act of evil. Sadly, there are too many liberals and progressives in this country who have a) either abandoned reason or b) have never utilized it in the first place. It goes a long way in explaining liberalism’s intellectual bankruptcy. This isn’t to say that liberals aren’t entitled to their opinions. As such I don’t expect liberals to agree with the aims and objectives of the Tea Party. But if liberals are going to insist that the Tea Party is responsible for evil then the least they could do is to name a single Tea Party activist who has been arrested either for harming another person or causing damage to property during a Tea Party event. The problem is they can’t because it has never happened and probably never will. None of which, however, prevents liberals from believing the worst about the Tea Party. With regard to ABC News, some of their employees want to believe a Tea Partier was responsible for this carnage.
But at this point, all we know about the man who is alleged to have shot and killed twelve people is a) his name b) that he was a former student and c) that he was dressed up as the villain in the Batman movie which suggests some premeditation. Apart from that, the only other thing we know is that twelve people who went to see a movie are never coming home.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/20/when-in-doubt-blame-the-tea-pa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tim the Enchanter| 7.20.12 @ 2:08PM
Lib Projection. It's what's for dinner.
DRed| 7.20.12 @ 2:33PM
A tea party Congressman in texas blamed the shooting on atheists. I'll get a comfortable seat and wait for your column condemning him.
wally| 7.20.12 @ 2:43PM
Take a Midol and lay down for awhile.
2Anglico| 7.20.12 @ 2:49PM
Odds are the shooter is an atheist. Care to wager?
DRed| 7.20.12 @ 2:59PM
I think you're missing my point.
Skippy| 7.20.12 @ 3:10PM
Which is "Tea-Partiers are as potentially violent as anyone else...maybe more."
Or maybe "One guy said one thing, therefore all of you need to shut up."
Why not just say it rather than hint around your weakass point?
Simon Templar| 7.20.12 @ 4:29PM
Nice catch, Skippy! Good eye!
Crassus| 7.20.12 @ 6:01PM
I don't think you ever had one to begin with.
Nick| 7.20.12 @ 4:49PM
I can't believe you are continuing this same flawed argument in another thread, DRed!
I'll ask again, does the Texas Representative claim to be a journalist, a reporter of facts, as does Brian Ross of ABC News?
Why can't you bleeding heart liberals understand the difference between a politician and a biased lefty hack who hides behind his press badge?
Kingofthenet| 7.20.12 @ 2:39PM
My money is STILL on this guy being a 'bagger' ...Don't Tread on me, indeed.
DRed| 7.20.12 @ 2:41PM
And you have evidence for that? No. So who cares?
WillyP | 7.21.12 @ 10:27AM
A fool and his money are soon parted. I'd be happy to take your money. How much are you willing to lose?
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.12 @ 2:44PM
When searching for a moniker for ABC and the rest...."BOMB-THROWERS".
RJ| 7.20.12 @ 3:13PM
Depending on the crime, the media either says "don't rush to judgement" or speculates that the root cause is conservatism (Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, et.al.). Obviously there is a statist agenda. Much of the media has lost its credibility with me.
solidground| 7.20.12 @ 3:14PM
Anyone who has ever tried to debate anything with a liberal knows one might as well be debating with a member of a cult that believes the sun rises in the west. Unyielding dogma trumps both common sense and undeniable facts and evidence. Liberals simply operate in an entirely different universe, one in which 1 + 1 always equals 3 and any debate can be won simply by attacking the debate opponent rather than the opponent's position or facts.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 3:32PM
The actual villian on most of these things is the ACLU and Reise versus St. Mary's and similar rulings.
To be brief: mental illness exists, especially schizophrenia and other psychosis. Effective treatments exist. People with a history of mental illness with psychosis or a history of self/other injurious behaviors who run into the mental illness system and are considered to require involuntary medication NORMALLY NEED involuntary medication. Certainly, if they are committed to involuntary treatment, they should not then have the right to refuse antipsychotics (Reise v. St. Mary's).
The problem is not law abiding gun owners. The problem is the inability to enforce involuntary treatment on violent psychotics.
Simon Templar| 7.20.12 @ 4:36PM
OT, and was this not born out of the liberal movement and liberal thinking about mental illness and patient rights beginning in the sixties?
Could you elaborate?
Occam's Tool| 7.22.12 @ 11:00PM
Simon: I cannot disagree with you. Conservatives are to blame for wanting to "cut costs" and deinstitutionalize, but it was the Szasz/ACLU combination that did the job. Note that Fuller Torrey, MD and Mona Charen have written excellent articles in a recent NRO Corner.
But I truly blame the ACLU for this by interference with proper treatment. They are a blight upon society for this alone.
Occam's Tool| 7.22.12 @ 11:02PM
In addition, when working in California it was not Conservatives who made it difficult to medicate involuntarily at all---it was ALL Libertarians and Liberals. Patient's Rights Advocates in California are despicable scum.
Occam's Tool| 7.22.12 @ 11:03PM
Simon: of course, a lot of this was due to Goffman and Szasz. Ideas DO have consequences.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 3:33PM
By the way, the guy was spotted at OWS rallies, according to the latest rumors.
Kingofthenet| 7.20.12 @ 3:50PM
One thing most gun owners don't realize it they aren't going to live forever, and when they die or become incapacitated, more often than not, the guns they own go missing. You NRA types don't wonder when big gun nut dies, what ever happens to all that hardware? Or is it like a lamp, and little Jimmy gets it?
Simon Templar| 7.20.12 @ 4:42PM
Speaking of guns going missing and ending up killing other people at a later date...are you as concerned about the fast and furious scandal as you are with the big gun nuts will and testament and estate planning? Pathetic loser liberal.
irish19| 7.21.12 @ 9:20PM
Nicely done!
Oldefarte| 7.22.12 @ 11:54AM
No, and apparently neither is Obama and hisl illustrious attorney general Eric Holder. Oh wait, they're concerned alright, but only about maintaining the coverup that the USJD is successfully performing to date. Geez, talk about a "NATION within that organization, that is] OF COWARDS" !!!!
Kingofthenet| 7.22.12 @ 2:50PM
The takeaway from F&F is to look the other way and do NOTHING. You seem not to understand reality, so here it is. EVERY day 1,000's of gun, many of them bought at a relatively few gun shops in these border states, WALK across the border, the IDEA of F&F was to document this and of course find a way to stop it(Close the shops, make buying powerful hardware harder etc) a gun bought TODAY from one of these shops can kill an officer tomorrow, but because it's BIG business there and it isn't being tracked, we will never know, best to put our heads back in the sand.
Oldefarte| 7.22.12 @ 7:35PM
No, you seem to have your head so far up your other end that you fail to understand that this DOJ is performing an illegality and autocratically refusing to obey the law by reporting its activities when requested to congress [or the people, since same ELECTED them]. The question becomes why, and the answer is no doubt due to what would be discovered if the documents requested by congress were to be read/seen. What is the DOJ so nervious about if these documents were observed by congress? Are there weapons possibly going through Mexico on their way to the middle east to arm Muslim terrorists? The refusal to supply documents can represent only one thing, and that is illegality or corruption, and that is why they are being withheld!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 7.20.12 @ 3:52PM
Sometimes, little Jimmy gets it---hunting does run in families, and it is a healthy pursuit.
Kingofthenet| 7.20.12 @ 5:37PM
Man, dyed his hair RED, and thought he was the Joker, must of went down like this:
James:Are you the REAL Batman?
Brian:No
James:No? Then why do you dress like him?
Brian:He's a symbol... that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you.
James:Yeah, you do, Brian. You *really* do!
Crassus| 7.20.12 @ 6:05PM
According to the libtards one of the following was responsible for the Aurora shooting:
A. Rush Limbaugh
B. Sarah Palin
C. The Tea Party
D. All of the above
rocky01| 7.20.12 @ 7:38PM
"But if liberals are going to insist that the Tea Party is responsible for evil then the least they could do is to name a single Tea Party activist who has been arrested either for harming another person or causing damage to property during a Tea Party event. "
This kind of quote rankles me. It's obnoxious to even posit the point in fact -- no American needs to explain themselves or justify their sobriety and worldview. This conversation we seem to have to have after radical jackasses, posing as talking heads, spew venom and look for fresh meat from among folks they deem political enemies, is offensive. Why go there? They task us. Chuckling and loving the reaction, causing others to explain themselves ... Well I'm over it and so are you.
klsparrow| 7.20.12 @ 10:28PM
This we have the liberal SOB’s in the media coming out and saying that the shooter was a member of the CO tea party. All liberals can do is make thinks up and lie about people. As for me I classify them in the shit for brains group.
Now the liberals want to take all the guns away from the honest people. That way it will be only the police who are re-active and the MS13 and other gangs who have guns. I feel safe already.
When you have a packed theater with people unprotected and one gut comes in with a gun things are going to go down hill badly. Since no one is a threat he can just take his time shooting. What would have been the out come if there had been people in the theater with concealed weapons. He would have gotten off the first shots but after that he would be in a fight and would not have the freedom to do want he wanted.. As for me I would rather go down fighting than stand there and get shot because some liberal ass does not want me to have a gun. Liberals think you should die like a lamb and not fighting like a lion. You may wear ballistic armor but getting hit by a bullet like a 357mag does not feel good. There are also round that will punch right through level II armor.
Jeffrey| 7.20.12 @ 10:52PM
Though these statisics in the link provided represent non-fatal crimes, it's interesting to note where firearms fall as it pertains to the "weapon" used is listed at.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
Pecos Pete| 7.21.12 @ 8:39AM
Jeff: Thank you for the link. 8% of violent crimes done with a firearm.
Jeffrey| 7.22.12 @ 2:50AM
You're quite welcome Pete,
Though I doubt that it will persuade any of those that wish to "hammer home" the issue of gun control. This latest tragedy perpetrated by a highly unstable individual will be yet another "rallying cry" for the progressive agenda to strip more of our rights away just like they are trying to do in Florida with the Martin/Zimmerman incident.
As an example just look at the statistics in Florida after their right-to-carry law became effective (10/01/1987):
As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees, constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.
Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
With Colorado ranking 22nd and Florida 24th in firearm related deaths (both with RTC laws) it shows that right-to-carry (or own) isn't the issue. It's moral and ethical decay.
Statistics sourced from www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
Jeffrey| 7.20.12 @ 10:54PM
Here are some great excerpts from David Kopel on the subject of gun control because we all know this is what the liberal/progressives will be screaming about:
It is not accurate to claim that there is a correlation between the availability of guns and the frequency of homicide. If there is any relationship between gun density and homicide in the U.S., it is an inverse one. In other words, the regions with the most guns are the regions with the lowest homicide rates. And while whites have a higher rate of gun ownership than blacks, they have a much lower homicide rate. Time periods in which gun ownership increases heavily are not necessarily periods when homicide rates increase; conversely, periods of increasing homicide are not necessarily periods of increasing gun ownership. For example, while homicide rates were rising in the late 1980s, firearms sales were stagnant.
Above sourced from www.davekopel.com/CJ/Mags/InnerCityCrisis.htm
irish19| 7.21.12 @ 9:23PM
That would have to be density of lawfully owned guns. Other than that, spot on.
Jeffrey| 7.22.12 @ 3:02AM
Irish,
Yes only lawfully owned, since there is no way to accurately track illegal firearms other than after a crime has been committed and the weapon obtained. We only have rough guesses on how many illegal firearms are out there and even those numbers are sketchy at best.
Jeffrey| 7.20.12 @ 10:56PM
Some more tid-bits:
The fact that American homicide rates are often lowest among regions and population groups where gun ownership is highest should at least give pause to theorists who insist that gun prohibition is the only rational response to rising murder rates. Professor Hans Toch, of the State University of New York's School of Criminology served, in the late 1960s, on the Eisenhower Commission, whose purpose was to investigate the causes and cures of American violence. Professor Toch fully endorsed the Commission's conclusion that "reducing the availability of the handgun will reduce firearms violence." (emphasis in original). But based on modern research, Professor Toch has found: when used for protection, firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression.
Above sourced from www.davekopel.com/CJ/Mags/InnerCityCrisis.htm
Jeffrey| 7.20.12 @ 10:58PM
Criminologist Gary Kleck summarizes:
Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. . . . All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass, an issue which is at the heart of the violence problem.
There are 210 million guns in the U.S.-more than enough to supply a blackmarket gun to anyone who wants one, no matter how severely prohibition and confiscation were enforced. As William Fox, a former member of the Brawling Street Rolling Crips observed,
"How are you going to get the guns off the street that are already there? No. It ain't going to change. It's not the guns that have to change.
It's the people that have to change."
It is long past time for us to stop fixating on the gun supply, and to start dealing with the persons who misuse guns, and the social conditions under which innocent babies grow in less than two decades into callous murderers.
Above sourced from www.davekopel.com/CJ/Mags/InnerCityCrisis.htm
Truth to Power| 7.21.12 @ 12:10PM
Great posts. It is also time to consider what effect our welfare state has had on violence. The welfare state is the source of the dysfunction at the root of the violence in blue land. The other part of that problem are incurious and close minded progressives.
bluecollarbytes| 7.21.12 @ 6:41AM
It's good to realize what the other side does, more importantly that it will continue, shame being a dead concept on the Left.
Mike G| 7.21.12 @ 11:22AM
"This isn't to say that liberals aren't entitled to their opinions. "
As I used to tell my students when their task was to write an opinion essay: Your opinion isn't worth anything if you don't support it with facts.
JP| 7.21.12 @ 11:38AM
From what I understand, the theatre is a "gun-free" zone. One wonders how many lives would have been spared if there was just one gun owner in the theatre (who carried a conceled weapon) and knew how to use it. I know a few who are former combat vets. Even with his body armour and tear gas, the killer wouldn't have stood a chance if a retired Marine combat vet was present. With a Glock or H&K the killer would have at the very least been incapacitated.
irish19| 7.21.12 @ 9:25PM
"From what I understand, the theatre is a "gun-free" zone."
I was wondering about that very thing.
Oldefarte| 7.22.12 @ 12:06PM
No doubt the POTUS was possibly injecting politics in his recent remarks ".....The president said Americans should also think about "all the victims of the less publicized acts of violence that plague our communities on a daily basis. Let us keep all these Americans in our prayers...." by maybe referring to the neighborhood killing in Florida [which was rebel-roused by several supposed preachers-ministers afterwords, one of which is a longtime mentor of his]!!!!!!!