Posted on 01/09/2011 1:41:09 PM PST by Publius772000
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik used the post-shooting press conference as an opportunity to attack "vitriol" and freedom of speech. And the Left now has their narrative.
by Michael Naragon
The train station was, as could be expected, packed with people. A lone bearded figure paced along the periphery of the crowd, anxious. Already this morning, he'd read through the newspaper and had his shoes shined, wasting time until he could get to his business of the day. And then, the entourage filed in.
The man at the center of the entourage was cheerful, heading to the train with members of his staff. His supporters shook hands, stood on tiptoes for a glance at the man. He had only recently won a contentious nomination for the Republican party, which was split between two factions--one of these groups wanted to maintain the status quo and maintain the practice known as the spoils system, the other group wanted to reform the "good ol' boy" network that had pervaded Washington. The new president, who was one of these reformers, had won a close election against his Democratic rival, with victory ensured by a 10,000 vote margin out of 9 million votes cast.
Now, this new president, having served only a few months in office, was preparing to spend the July 4 holiday with his wife, who was in poor health. As the president neared the train, the bearded figure began to push through the crowd. Placing himself behind a support column, the nervous assassin pulled his pistol from his coat.
He had purchased the gun weeks before, and, being unfamiliar with firearms, had practiced with it until he reached the level of proficiency he believed was necessary. Had he been a wealthy man, he would have purchased a more attractive pistol, perhaps with an ivory handle, as he assumed his gun would be placed in a museum in the future, and he wanted it to show his taste. Instead, he held a wooden-handled .442 Webley revolver in his trembling hand. To reassure himself, his mind scrolled through the reasons for his anger toward this man, ambling through the train station.
"After all I've done for him," he spat. "My speech writing, my support. All I asked was an ambassadorship. Vienna, or perhaps Paris. And what do I receive for all my work? Nothing. Less than nothing. A reprimand and rude dismissal!" His hands now shook not with fear but with rage. As the president passed by his column, Charles Guiteau found it was remarkably easy to come from behind the support, behind the back of James Garfield, President of the United States.
Gunshots reverberated through the station, and the smell of gunpowder stained the air as Garfield staggered forward, wounded. Several men grabbed Guiteau as staff members, including Secretary of State James Blaine, assisted the president. As Guiteau was dragged from the scene, the assassin yelled triumphantly, "I am a Stalwart, and Arthur is now president!"
For political revenge, the twisted Guiteau shot the man who held the highest office in the United States. Incidentally, Chester Arthur, Garfield's vice president and the man Guiteau wanted in office, governed in the way he felt Garfield would have. One of his legislative victories was the Pendleton Civil Service Act that curtailed the spoils system of government appointments.
On Saturday in Arizona, in front of a supermarket, America witnessed another senseless act of violence against a politician. Unlike the Garfield assassination, however, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords has been turned into an attack on freedom of speech, and an attempt is being made to use this tragedy to attack a political movement.
Almost instantly, the first official to speak on the shooting, Sheriff Dupnik, framed the debate to come.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
With no evidence collected, the initial law enforcement officer on the scene saw fit to condemn what he saw as the real culprit in this case. He went on.
"Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences."
Earlier in the day, Sheriff Dupnik had already made known his feelings about who was truly responsible for the shooting of the Democrat congresswoman.
"I want to tell you right now that people like myself are very, very angry at what’s going on in our country, and I think that it’s time that we take a look at what kind of hatred that we inflame by all the crap that goes on. I’m a close friend of Gabrielle Giffords’, and she is one of the most beautiful human beings that you can imagine. I think it’s time that this country take a little introspective look at the [inaudible] crap that comes out on radio and TV."
Make no mistake: this shooting was a terrible act of insanity that, in a perfect world, should never have taken place. Prayers and thoughts of all Americans go out to the families that have been ravaged by the actions of this troubled man. However, I do find some things about the sheriff's statements nearly as disturbing as the shooting itself.
The Left has taken Dupnik's vitriol against "vitriol" and run with it, condemning Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, and even--in the case of Keith Olberman, that bastion of sanity--demanding apologies for the "hate speech" that made this man attempt to kill a public official. No attempt has been made by the media as of yet to discover the killer's true ideology. He mentioned the Constitution and the government in statements on his social network accounts. Contrary to the narrative that those in the liberal media are desperately trying to use, his statements don't make him a conservative, Tea Partier, Republican, Democrat, environmentalist, or any a member of any other ideological group save one. He is a nut.
When Garfield was shot by another individual who could be characterized as a nut, there were no calls to restrict the First or Second Amendments. The consequences of freedom of speech were not called into question. There was no "I told you so" attitude from those in power. Guiteau was tried and convicted after some argument by his legal representation over whether to try an insanity defense. He was, eventually, executed for his crime. And the Republic lived on for 131 years, despite the fact that the powers-that-were in 1880 did nothing to restrict citizens from purchasing guns--ivory-handled or otherwise--or to limit people's ability to engage in vibrant political debate.
We as a nation, on both sides of the aisle, seem to believe that there has been no such vibrant debate in the past. In fact, there have been periods more vociferous and more violent than the days in which we live. In 1856, for example, Sen. Charles Sumner was nearly caned to death by fellow senator Preston Brooks over an anti-slavery speech in which Sumner was perceived to have insulted the state of South Carolina. Sumner, an abolitionist, was made a hero in the North. Brooks was re-elected and received several new canes to replace the one he had broken over Sumner's head. According to the logic of men like Dupnik and Olbermann, the First Amendment should have been suspended throughout the South and canes should have been outlawed.
As an aside, our country has been attacked by Muslim terrorists on more than one occasion in the last two years, the shooters at Fort Hood and at the Arkansas recruiting station being two of the most publicized examples. In both cases, officials were very hesitant to make an obvious link between the shooter's religion and ideology with his actions. In fact, the word "Muslim" was rarely used in coverage unless absolutely necessary.
The same Media, however, seem to have no qualms with making an unsubstantiated link between this particular terrorist and the Tea Party. In the same way that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg assumed originally that the Times Square would-be bomber would be a domestic terrorist upset with the government (i.e., a conservative or Tea Party person), only to find out it was, in fact, a Muslim with terrorist ties, the talking heads on the Left are doing what they can to paint this as a political attack from a right-wing extremist. In the court of public opinion, no evidence is catalogued or even necessary. All that is necessary to create truth is repetition.
Again, my prayers go to the families of those who lost loved ones or suffered injury at the hands of this disgusting individual. But the fault for this act cannot be laid at the feet of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton or any other "vitriolic" commentator. Nor can fault be found with the Constitution, the document that allows pundits and prognosticators on all sides to make their point without government interference and also allows for protection for ridiculous comments like that made by Sheriff Dupnik. The fault lies squarely and completely at the feet of Jared Loughner, and my hopes are that justice will be done.
Thank you for the kind words. I’d love to see it get national exposure to the degree that I’d get to defend the premise on a news program. I told my wife that, if it ever happened, I would really tweak the MSM talking heads and quote Ecclesiastes: “There is nothing new under the sun.” :)
The point is that people, particularly the Media and those close to the investigation, need to quit pointing fingers at their political foes and deal with the reality of the situation. Their attempt to paint the real “culprit” of this tragedy will only serve to exacerbate the problem they’re allegedly trying to fix.
My own (1960; oh, my!) 8th grade teacher (memorizing, and learning a working knowledge of, and passing comprehensive tests on each Article and Amendment, Section by Section, and how they interrelated, was a state requirement for graduation into high school) was Conservative, and taught it accordingly.
Same for my 12th grade Civics teacher. Not so much my required U.S. History college classes.
I know the legislatures voted, in one form or another, for their state's Senators; but I always thought of that as an “appointment”.
Oh, and thank you for posting the entire article, rather than following the curerent fad of bloggers excerpting their own material to generate hits...and it is an interesting site.
Thanks :) I should have rephrased it to make it more clear, and, in fact, have done so on the actual article on my site. The last thing I want to do is mislead.
I was tempted, by the way, to do an excerpt. But I felt it was more important to get the word out than to generate hits for my modest little blog. I feel pretty good about what I was trying to say, as several commentators last night and today, including Glenn Beck on his radio program, have echoed my initial sentiments.
Thanks again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.