First Amendment Under Assault

Consensus opinion has landed on sanity but such a condition does not hold some political partisans to that standard. The calls for "civility" continue to refrain from the usual suspects despite the evidence that the sparking incident was a single individual's metal instability. Loughner had a long held dislike for Congresswoman Giffords, as early as 2007 by reports. In case time and history are challenging to one, no one except Alaskans had heard of Sarah Palin before the late Summer of 2008.

In 2007 Glenn Beck was a radio host and a CNN Headline News minor personality, but certainly NOT the media icon he has since become - Beck joined Fox about the same time Obama was sworn in as president. But Limbaugh and Hannity were around in 2007, so maybe all this is their fault, right? Still, I don't think so. And what happened to the calls for civility?

Is Democrat Congressman Steve Cohen comparing Republicans to Nazi's civil by any definition? How is removing any reference to war or fighting in political rhetoric going to make us a better nation? And if it were, why do the calls for civility seem to only emanate from the left toward the right? Isn't this apparent BS and PC efforts to quiet the opposition to progressivism?

Is it civil for Chris Matthews to call Congresswoman Michele Bachmann "close to a nut case?" Is it civility for Democrat Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee to characterize the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare as "killing people?" Isn't that the epitome of scare tactics, besides the fact that Congresswoman Lee is misrepresenting the facts, reality and truth? Oh and the lame brain Jackson Lee is, she claims repealing Obamacare is unconstitutional! What an idiot and liar too boot! I thought it was Republicans only who were guilty of scare tactics?

Have reader's seen the video of the South Carolina NAACP event honoring Dr. King? They chose a location that had a large statue of George Washington, and guess what? The NAACP folks built a wall around the statue of our first president. I guess President Washington was a Tea Party American?

Michael Moore got into the act with his claiming "people only own guns because they're racist and "afraid" of "people of color." Now that's civility right there, I'll tell ya!

Isn't it obvious to readers that this "civility" nonsense is a one way street aimed at causing progressive political opposition to end up on a dead end journey? Clearly progressives don 't see any need whatsoever to meter their language. Is it NOT uncivil when a progressive or Democrat says it? If so then clearly that means it's only uncivil if a Republican, conservative or Tea Party American says it. That's politics. That is not honesty. That is not an effort to bring opposition rhetoric under progressive control. Of course the non-gullible knew this all along. When it comes to political efforts of the left they are aimed at shutting down Conservative principles and little else - the evidence of the hypocrisy is abundant and crystal clear.

What's with this "Blood Libel" nonsense? Even progressive legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has come out clear that "blood libel" has become a political term and one that has seeped into the lexicon and NOT anything else as the falsely outraged left is trying to make it.

Then there's liberal radio host Mike Malloy who wants to choke Rush Limbaugh in his demented fantasies. Anyone rushing to arrest this guy or at the least to caution him toward "civility?" Clearly the "civility" nonsense is just that - partisan politics as usual.

Add in the repeated calls for a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" and it's pretty simple to see all of this is progressive political effort aimed at shutting down conservative rights to the First Amendment. When or where does this end? Will it just take a passage of time? My, how unfair is that? That once progressives latch onto a concept, truth, accuracy or fairness be damned, the event will run its course. See how progressive media plays into the mix? They are able to keep this story alive as long as possible. It's truly the euphemistic beating of a dead horse.

Add in the blogger having his concealed weapons permit revoked and a bunch of his weapons confiscated for his hyperbolic statement "1 down, 534 to go." He hasn't been CHARGED with a crime, just had his Constitutional rights infringed upon. If he broke a law charge him with a crime or otherwise leave him alone. If he has not committed a crime, return his weapons post haste - ya know, the LAW?

Folks, this is getting into dangerous territory. This is clearly nothing more than an attempt to have the rights of fellow Americans denied and infringed upon for political efforts of the opposition to succeed. It is a very rocky road to venture down. It's clear conservatism, when disseminated fairly, is attacked not on the merits of the speech, but merely attacked as hate by those with so much to lose if conservative politics are successful.

It's a rather clear example of when not being able to compete, progressives revert to advocating the denying of the rights of others to disagree. Recall conservatives and independents have been told recently that merely not agreeing with the Obama/progressive agenda is dangerous as well as allegedly racist and bigoted.

The truth is we have a tiny minority - the 19% of American's who self-identify as liberals or progressives and their media supporters - working to deny the much larger group of conservatives and independents, their rights to the protections of the Constitution because progressives know when conservative principles are applied as doctrine would dictate, progressivism looks rather feeble, lame and totally ineffective as well as one great big untruth.

Where did progressives think this would lead? TO attempt to shut up conservative political speech is dangerous. Progressives planting the seeds of class warfare in their hopes to win political supremacy is dangerous. Forwarding the idea that if we disagree with the progressive agenda we are dangers to the Republic is a dangerous idea. Our nation is fractured. Is it wise to inflame the wound? Is it wise to pour salt in it?

Do others believe as I am beginning to, that it's almost as if progressives are working in concert to foment a clearly definable oh, and FACTUAL event of conservative rage? I have resisted this concept, but every day it gets harder and harder to not confess that it would indeed seem progressives are wounding fellow Americans and then abrading the wound with as much as possible in a hoped for effort that some person somewhere will react poorly. Progressives tried their best to make Loughner's actions appear to be the spark but they failed. It's almost as if they are doubling down and giving it the old college try again. DO NOT accommodate the progressive efforts. Keep your heads and fight them with the tools they employ - free speech. They haven't taken it away yet, but damn they sure are trying!

SOURCES: hyperlinks