"Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence," Palin told Beck. "Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer."
Palin's comments are extremely hypocritical, especially when you consider comments she had made in the past, as well as her buddy Glenn Beck.
Just look at comments Palin made about Wikileaks late last year.
"He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands," Palin wrote. "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"
It seems as if Palin was capitalizing on a story that she disagreed with to portray someone - Julian Assange - as "inciting terror and violence."
And how about Glenn Beck's comments - sure he told his pal Palin that he doesn't like violence too, that they believe the liberal media is trying to exploit the assasination attempt to attack conservatives, and that their rhetoric does not encourage violence - Palin's camp tried to claim the infamous gunsights were actually surveyor's marks, which leads much to explain about her corresponding "retreat/reload" slogan - but is Glenn Beck innocent?
How about his violent comments in the past, like him saying a few years back on his radio program that he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore," or how about when he joked about poisoning then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?
How about admissions from the California shooter, Byron Williams, last year, who targeted popular Glenn Beck subject The Tides Foundation. An interview with Bay Area radio journalist John Hamilton shed some light on the motivations of Williams. When asked about his media influences, Williams responded with the following:
"I considered all of the news agencies to be censored," Byron says. "So perhaps Fox has broken away from the mold."
"There's only one conservative channel," he adds. "That's Fox. All the other ones are all liberal channels."
At one point, I ask Byron if he thinks Fox is worthwhile.
"I'm not gonna say anyone is worthwhile," he replies. "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this."
Thinking back over the last couple years, I cannot think of any extreme rhetoric coming from the left that may have been responsible for influencing the thoughts and actions of a mentally unstable person, but I can think of plenty instances from the right.
There is a huge difference between the rhetoric used by the wingnuts and the left in this country. The main difference is the extreme rhetoric of the right has been embraced by their politicians because they are afraid to cross Rusty the Chickenhawk and the rest of his ilk. Meanwhile, their "evidence" of similar speech from the left is based upon the absolute fringe element of the left and has never been embraced by their politicians. This is a perfect example of the foregoing: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ The major point the wingnuts do not realize in their one track mind, is they must convince the center to vote for them. When Palin puts someone in the cross-hairs of a scope, says "do not retreat, reload" and then has the gall to say the cross-hairs were surveyors instruments, she simply confirms she is a fool. Oh, her base will never admit Saint Sarah ever did anything wrong. But the damage she has done with the independent voter is probable irreparable.
ReplyDelete