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.
He is an addled old man. He is on TV telling us the vitriol has gotten out of hand.
This is a form of control.
The violence being comited is primarily by people of leftist or progessive views, m oslems not withstanding.
He is a punk old man and needs to retire.
There must be emotion to argue but violence is never acceptable except as a means of self defense.
Hey Sheriff Dupnik,how about a little more law enforcement and a little less political hackery.Now get your ass to the border and do something about drugs and illegals.
Oh,that’s right-you already refused to do your duty.
And I just caught him on FNC suggesting it had to do with people disagreeing with her support of health care!
I am watching him too.
He is stuck on blaming conservatives for this maniac’s actions.
This is shameful. He is so unprofessional.
No question this sheriff, Dipnut or whatever his name, has decided he knows the motivation and must be a mind reader of sorts. He should be more concerned about the border, which to my knowledge, he has been pretty silent about. Maybe he thinks the only people who should have guns are law enforcement and the thugs allowed to come back and forth across the border. Idiot.
I suspect he is afraid of any accusation that the shooting was his fault.
Importantly, while it wasn’t, his efforts seem to be in trying to deflect any scrutiny of his office.
“The guilty man flees when no man pursueth.”
Thus it would seem that it is time for some scrutiny of his office—not related to this event—but just to see if some other impropriety has been going on.
In context, his county (Pima) is a border county, with a broad section of land that is #1 in the country for both illegal aliens and illegal drugs.
http://geology.com/county-map/arizona.shtml
So why is he seemingly so anxious to “not be in the limelight, by being in the limelight”?
Do you suppose the Sheriff has been a little derelict, as far as huge sums of money go?
Pim County sheriff Dupnik allowed the shooter to obtain a handgun despite the history of death threats.
The local college saw the threat and banned him from the school.
The “vitriol” comes directly out of the mouths of the Marxists. These atheists are antithetical to everything the US government stands for and it is a wonder how we have allowed communist infiltration into the thinking of government officials. Although this infiltration was well recognized in the fifties, the few who put their lives on the line to challenge the communists were destroyed by the agitprop in the mainstream communist-controlled media and Marxist elites in the universities.
Well documented. Only those who understand we have God-given rights are people who can treat all people with dignity, respect and through Christ’s example-—sacrifice for others. Those are Christian ideas and atheists are on the other end of the spectrum, especially if they had no Christian influence in their lives. That Christian influence has been ruthlessly attacked by the Communists in this country (ACLU, etc.
) for over half a century. They want all ideas that create a civil society destroyed so they can create one-world government and make us all slaves.
This attack was perpetuated by an atheist. What else is new? No morality is what creates such evil. Atheists can not be moral by reason.
During an interview on FNC today, Sheriff Dubnik let slip that Jared Loughner had made many threats in the past.
Why didn’t the Sheriff act on those threats? Does it have anything to do with the parents, Amy and Randy Loughner? (Amy Loughner works for the State of Arizona.)
I don’t know about the wisdom of your last statement. I remember an old Catholic school nun who once told me, “Young man, never discount the spirtually transforming experience of pain’’.
His mother, Amy, is a Pima County, AZ Natural Resources (Parks and Recreation) official.
K?
Good for you.
Why don’t you your 1st amendment right and expand on your thought because I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I think what the good sister was referring to was that for a not-too-good student like myself, prone to daydreaming and being a class-clown, a rap across the knuckles bought not only a sharp pain but the understanding that sometimes pain is necessary to, shall we say, focus one’s attention to the matter at hand.
I really don’t get the whole wisdom commentary.
I don’t believe in violence for resolving an issue except as a right and obligation of self defense.
Soooo...How is it unwise?
I don’t believe in violence for it sake alone, don’t misunderstand me. Sometimes however a stern hand can prevent one from going astray or getting into trouble.
After reading more stories coming out about the attack on free speech, I have updated this story on the web site. Now the Internet is being blamed. I’m not sure how the Internet explains any of the other assassins or attempted assassins in American history... what did killers do before the Internet?
Quibble: Brooks was NOT re-elected; he was reappointed. It would be nearly 60 more years before Senator became an elective office via the 17th Amendment...an abomination for the Republic, as bad as the 16th preceding it.
I understand the 17th Amendment. I teach the constitutional implications of that addition to an AP Government class and two classes of U.S. History. State legislatures chose senators before the 17th Amendment (Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof [Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.).
By “elected,” I did not mean to say he was POPULARLY elected. I apologize for the confusion. Next time I make a post, I’ll be sure to explain more thoroughly and make the appropriate citations. We are agreed, however, on the value of the so-called “progressive” amendments.
This is a very good article. I wish it could get national exposure.
The left did not cause these killings. The right did not cause these killings. FREE SPEECH did NOT cause these killings.
One crazy man caused them and may justice be served and the Republic remain Free.
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.