Video of the Day: Franklin Graham, Obama Scoffed at Jesus

Video of the Day: Franklin Graham, Obama Scoffed at
Jesus

January 30th, 2011

Not everyone appreciated Barack Obama’s Tuscon shooting
memorial. The Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, told the Christian
students of John Brown University: “There was no call for God to put His loving
arms around those who were hurting. Why did they leave him out? They scoff at
the name of Jesus Christ.” He added, “The spirit of anti-Christ is everywhere.”
Click here to see the whole
sermon
.

Cartoon of the Day: If Guns Kill People….

Cartoon of the Day: Health Issues Behind the Arizona Shooting

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The Crosshairs

Tucson Overreaction: Putting Wimpiness In The
Crosshairs

January 14th, 2011

Danny Tyree, FloydReports.com

What a party that must have been! I’m speaking of the time that Lee Harvey
Oswald, John Wilkes Booth and James Earl Ray hopped into their Hot Tub Time
Machine and journeyed to 2011 to listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and get
brainwashed into entering the assassination game.
That scenario is not so far-fetched for those who are rushing to declare the
recent Tucson shooting rampage the fault of (take your pick) the Tea Party,
conservative talk radio, FOX News, or negative campaign ads. Suddenly “civility”
groupies are bemoaning “vitriolic rhetoric,” “hate,” “anger,” “bitterness,”
“rancor,” “extreme ideologies” and “verbal savagery.”
I agree that politicians, commentators and voters should be ashamed of
rumor-mongering, deliberate distortions of the truth, and knee-jerk auto-pilot
opposition to everything the other party proposes – but beyond that, we do a
disservice to our forefathers if we insist on playing the child-pacifying game
“Tiptoe, Tiptoe, Quiet As A Mouse” around so-called hot button issues.
Is political discourse in 2011 something unique in history? Returning Vietnam
War veterans were taunted as “baby killers.” An infamous 1964 campaign
commercial strongly implied that challenger Barry Goldwater would plunge us into
nuclear war. The Copperheads thought Abe Lincoln a despicable tyrant. One of
Thomas Jefferson’s supporters branded John Adams “a hideously hermaphroditic
character.”
Since 1776 this republic has….
Read
more
.

A Fool With a Badge is Still a Fool

A Fool With a Badge is Still a Fool

January 12th,
2011

Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com

When a would-be assassin shot my Dad, President Ronald Reagan,
nobody questioned the fact that the shooter was certifiably
nuts.
Authorities recognized that fact and put him in a mental institution as his
obvious disturbed mental state demanded.
Now we have another attempted killing of a public official, Arizona’s widely
admired Rep. Gabby Giffords, and just about everybody recognizes the fact that
the shooter, one Jared Loughner, is
crazy as a loon
.
Moreover, the fact that Loughner is probably nutty as a fruitcake, and
perhaps dangerously so, could not have escaped the attention of local law
enforcement authorities such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who already
had Loughner in his sights yet failed to do anything to prevent Loughner’s
foreseeable killing spree.
Yet we don’t hear a word of repentance for his failure to foresee what
transpired in Tucson last Saturday. Not a word, mainly because Sheriff Dupnik is
too busy
attacking Rush Limbaugh
and other
conservatives
to turn his rhetoric loose on the shooter.
In Dupnik’s twisted logic, Loughner may be a murderer but somehow or other
it’s all Rush’s fault for his unforgivable habit of calling a spade a spade and
referring to liberals as being mentally disjointed, as the majority of them
are.
This kind of ridiculous response to a tragedy is becoming what the French
would call de riguer — the liberal’s order of the day when one of their
failures to recognize reality results in people getting killed.
As my more plainspoken friends would put it, Dupnik shoulda seen it coming,
and he’s now trying to obfuscate that fact by striking out at people who had not
a single thing to do with Loughner’s deadly actions.
Read
more
.

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

January 11th, 2011

Victor Davis Hanson, The Washington Times

Very few Americans are fans of both The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, as 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the purported Tucson killer, apparently was. Fewer still post on the Internet fears about “brainwashing,” “mind control,” and “conscience dreaming”; have long records of public disruption and aberrant behavior; were expelled from community college; or were rejected summarily for military service.

No matter. Almost immediately following Mr. Loughner’s cowardly killing of six and wounding of 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pundits and some public figures rushed to locate his rampage, together with his paranoid rantings about government control, within the larger landscape of right-wing politics – especially the rhetoric of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Mr. Loughner’s unhinged rants about the “government” indict those who express reasonable reservations about the size of government as veritable accessories to mass murder. The three worst offenders were Paul Daly of the New York Daily News, who claimed just that in an essay with the raging headline “The blood of Congresswoman Giffords was on Sarah Palin’s hands”; the ubiquitous Paul Krugman, who connected Mr. Loughner to the supposedly Republican-created “climate of hate”; and Andrew Sullivan, who thought he saw yet another avenue through which to further his own blind antipathy toward Mrs. Palin and “the Palin forces.” In their warped syllogism, the Tea Party unquestionably creates hatred; a congresswomen was shot out of hatred; ergo, the Tea Party and/or the Republican Party all but pulled the trigger…

There is much talk that Mrs. Palin’s “cross hairs” ad pushed Mr. Loughner over the edge. But if sloppy use of gun metaphors can drive anyone to shoot congressional representatives, think what we are up against when the president of the United States invokes violent imagery to galvanize his supporters. What are we to make of President Obama’s warning of “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over or of his comment that one of his supporters could “tear [Sean Hannity] up” or his “Untouchables” boast that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or his advice to supporters of his presidential campaign to argue with Republicans and independents and “get in their face”?

Why would a president boast about figuring out “whose ass to kick” or, in a climate of fear about terrorism, call his opponents “hostage takers”? In a post-Sept. 11 world, is it prudent for the commander in chief to say of his political opponents, “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got – they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up”? What about, “But you’ve got to kind of talk to them, ease that finger off the trigger”?

Also, in a political twofer, Mr. Obama once not only evoked gun imagery, but did so in a context of relegating Republicans to second-class citizenry: “We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Read more.

Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

Will AZ Shooter Kill the First Amendment?

January 11th, 2011

Joe Guzzardi, FloydReports.com

Immediately after crazed gunman Jared Lee Loughner gravely wounded Arizona U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, killed U.S. Judge John M. Roll, and six other people while wounding 12 innocent bystanders, the immigration rhetoric subtly ratcheted up.

Denouncing Gifford’s shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and others made it clear that what they referred to as “inflammatory speech” had made the political atmosphere in Arizona so toxic that acts of violence were inevitable.

Referring to talk radio hosts, Dupnik charged them with “inflaming the American public by those who get paid to do that. It might be free speech but it does not come without consequences.”

Ironically, Dupnik is the most skilled flamethrower of all.

Last year, at the height of the S.B. 1070 controversy, Dupnik called it “racist” and “disgusting” while claiming that Arizona is “the mecca of prejudice and bigotry.” Furthermore, Dupnik went on record that he would not enforce the measure if it became law, a blatant violation of his oath of office.

Dupnik never directly claimed that S.B. 1070 and Giffords’ support of it were linked to the shootings. But a close read between the lines strongly suggests that Dupnik blames Loughner’s multiple murders on “the haters,” a label that many automatically apply to Americans who favor enforcing federal immigration law.

Even though only a few hours had passed after the massacre before Dupnik pointed his finger and no evidence has yet surfaced that Loughner is anything other than deranged, more “hate” charges flew.

Read more.