Political Assassinations (all 4 were lefties)

There was a few of us over the weekend wondering about this...

Never try to confuse a liberal with facts. And never expect facts from the press....including Fox News.

Ayers’ honor denied; Kennedy cited Ayers’ Sirhan Sirhan book dedication

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/09/ayers-honor-denied-by-u-of-i-board-kennedy-cited-ayers-sirhan-sirhan-book-dedication.html

What about “attempted assinations”, like Squeaky Fromme (Ford) and John Hinkley (Reagan)?

Correct. Another way to look at it was that only 25% of American presidents were assassinated by bonafide nut cases. The other 75% were committed leftists.

Charles J. Guiteau, Garfield's assassin, was a piece of work. He had bounced around the equivalent hippie lifestyles of the day, even joining a free-love, free-sex commune in upstate New York for a time. He was so weird, they they eventually kicked him out.

Guiteau was not stupid, he actually argued that the bullet wound which he inflicted on Garfield was insufficient to be fatal and that the president was killed by incompetent and unsanitary medical care in treating the wound. Factually, he was correct, but juries at the time were persuaded by his clear intention to kill the president and unanimously voted to hang him anyway.

Sirhan Sirhan (sp?) was Muslim assassin of Robert Kennedy.

Terrific - put them all in...:)

Not an excuse but I’m more familiar and comfortable discussing European history since that’s where I grew up.

I clearly remember a kid at my school CHEERING when Reagan was shot. It seems the ‘political discourse’ of the day had him convinced that this dumb-@ss cowboy Reagan was going to get us all blown up; and, the ends justifying the means, it was a good thing that he was shot...better if he had died I'm sure.

I don't remember any agenda minded sheriffs blaming this on the left however.

More from the article...

“How does the leftist political violence addiction work? Let’s list a few examples.

• Racial Violence:

Yes, those were leftists underneath the hoods and robes of the Ku Klux Klan. As mentioned in this space repeatedly, the Klan was founded as what liberal Columbia University historian Eric Foner called a “military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…It aimed to…reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.” Using the Klan as a power base, the left elected hundreds of state legislators, congressmen, U.S. Senators and governors — Democrats who in turn took a “progressive” stance on issues of labor and economics for the so-called “working man.” All in the interest of controlling blacks.

With the rise of the Civil Rights movement, not all African-Americans were enamored with the non-violent protests of Dr. Martin Luther King. Others turned to violence, to seeking control just as the white Klan did. Yet as with the Klan, these black activists stayed within the political framework of leftist politics — in this case the politics of control as advocated not only by Malcolm X and radical activists Stokely Carmichael, but by the writings of James Cone. Cone, portrayed as a distinguished academic by the left because of his teaching position as Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, came to broader fame with the emergence of President Obama’s infamous pastor Jeremiah Wright, a Cone disciple. In his new book Radical-In-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, journalist Stanley Kurtz cites Cone’s call for the goal of black intellectuals to “aid in the destruction of America,” a challenge to violence Cone presents in Black Theology and Black Power. Gone is King’s famous rhetoric about the importance of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and judging all men by the content of their character. Instead Cone uses the rhetoric of violence, referring to whites as “the oppressor” or “whitey.” These indeed were the sentiments behind racial riots in the African-American sections of Los Angeles in 1992, most famously captured on video when white truck driver Reginald Denny was pulled from his truck by four blacks and almost beaten to death.

Kurtz cites the work of black Marxist Marable Manning and his determination to tie race and class issues together, resulting in the need for blacks to reject the “legitimacy of the State” …which is exactly what was happening when Reginald Denny drove his truck through South Central Los Angeles in 1992.

Arizona is famously ground zero in the illegal immigration fight — and leftist violence is ruling the day. This time the cause in which violence is given a pass by the left belongs to Latinos — and the repeated murders that have now resulted in U.S. government signs in southern Arizona warning Americans there own country is no longer safe is a perfect example of the “so-what” attitude the left has about political violence. The Obama administration could do something about this immediately by sealing the border — yet consistently refuses for political reasons. Political violence when leftist race goals are at stake? No problem.

• Labor Violence:

“We kind of agree with Mao that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun,” says Obama “Manufacturing Czar” Ron Bloom. Bloom is, surprise, surprise, a former SEIU and United steelworkers official. Long before Mao, however, American labor was practicing political violence well-admired by the American left. From the Chicago Haymarket Riot of 1886, in which a bomb was exploded killing eight policemen during a strike, plus an unknown number of civilians, all the way down the years to the disappearance of Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa in 1975 — through to ex-SEIU chief Andy Stern’s famous vow on how to bring about political change (””[W]e prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn’t work we use the persuasion of power”) violence or the threat of it has been a regular feature of the American left.

• Student Violence:

A classic example from the 1960’s was the confrontation between then-Governor Ronald Reagan and radical leftists who had forcibly taken over a park owned by the University of California at Berkeley. The university, which owned the property, planned to build a sports field. The leftists had another idea — a park. A standoff resulted, with the leftists making it plain they intended to stay and simply appropriate the land. Reagan saw this as an issue of property rights — the university had duly bought and paid for the property and were free to develop as they wished. Eventually almost 800 sheriff’s deputies and law enforcement personnel faced off against some 6,000 leftists, the latter sending a shower of bricks, rocks and bottles down on the authorities. The deputies answered the violence with buckshot and nightsticks. One student was killed, another blinded.

These type of confrontations were a regular feature of the 1960s, with leftists repeatedly employing violence in marches against everyone from college officials to the Pentagon, where one student set himself on fire.

• Radical Violence:

Perhaps the most spectacular example of radical left violence occurred at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Some 10,000 radical left-wing anti-Vietnam War demonstrators gathered with an intent to disrupt the convention — and received a warning from then Mayor Richard J. Daley — father of today’s mayor and the new Obama White House chief of staff. Shouting chants of “Pigs (police) are whores” “Kill, kill, kill” and “Hell no, we won’t go” they flung chunks of concrete, rocks, bags of urine and more at police — who of course responded harshly. Tear-gas was fired in mass quantities.

Not to be excluded in this category are the intimidation tactics of leftist groups ranging from the Weather Underground (which produced the bomb-crazy unrepentant terrorist and Obama friend Bill Ayers) to ACORN, the recently deceased-but-surely-to-come-back-under-another-name community organizing group. The group Stanley Kurtz does so much to link to someone named Barack Obama.

And of course, as we are seeing recently, leftists have brought violent mob action in cities around the globe. From Athens (where three bank employees, including a pregnant woman, were killed when leftist demonstrators firebombed their bank) to London (where violence over a hike in tuition for college students brought an attack on Prince Charles) leftist violence is on the march yet again.

This doesn’t even begin to count left’s silence about or occasional complicity with the murderous violence by leftist regimes from Communists (Stalin and company) to Hitler (the Holocaust — an outgrowth of the anti-Semitism of the National Socialist Party — Nazis), to Mao, the Cambodian Khmer Rouge and so on. Nor does it count the appalling silence by left-wingers of the day about the left’s responsibility for the Cambodian “killing fields” on back to New York Times reporter Walter Duranty a notorious Stalin admirer being given the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for his work as the Times Moscow Bureau chief. An award the red-faced Times, decades later, was forced to renounce because of the realization that Duranty’s deliberate refusal to acknowledge Stalin’s mass murders was “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.” [...]

“Martin Luther King, of course, fell to the racism the left had fed off for over a century, while Senator Robert F. Kennedy became the first American to die at the hands of an Arab zealot, Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan. Sirhan hated Israel, much in the fashion for American leftists today, replete with support for Palestinian extremists like Sirhan.

ALL OF WHICH brings us to the second aspect of leftist violence: blaming their violence or the violence of “lone nuts” on others — others who not so coincidentally are perceived to be either conservative or representative of a “conservative” sector of society.”...

Although not an assignation attempt, Jim Jones lefty past was conveniently buried after the the Jones-town mass killing.

Squeaky Fromme of the lefty Manson Family shot at Ford.

(Page 3 of 4)

In 1963, the American right (and by implication then-rising conservative star Senator Barry Goldwater) was blamed for JFK’s assassination — which, of course, was done by Oswald the pro-Communist who once tried to defect to the Soviet Union. (Goldwater, by the way, while a political opponent of Kennedy’s was a personal friend and furious at this treatment by the liberal media of the day.) In 1995 the Oklahoma City bombing by the nutty and disturbed Timothy McVeigh was used by then-President Bill Clinton as an excuse to blame Rush Limbaugh.

In 1886 the Haymarket Riot was blamed on capitalists, the same people Obama aide Ron Bloom believed needed threatening in today’s world. The Ku Klux Klan blamed their leftist violence on the audacity of blacks, leftist blacks blamed their leftist violence on the audacity of whites. Leftist supporters of illegal immigrants blame America for the illegal border crossings, and for the murder of ranchers on their own property. Leftists blamed the disaster of the 1968 Democratic Convention on the Chicago police, while the deaths at Berkeley’s People’s Park was the fault of then-Governor Reagan and the sheriff’s deputies he sent in to re-establish control.

And now, the left-wingers at MSNBC and the New York Times and bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and Paul Krugman are reaching to tag Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and everybody or anybody who has ever come close to a microphone on behalf of a conservative cause. . Incredibly, Sullivan even cites the case of the nutty ex-General Edwin Walker as proof of the right’s drive to kill JFK — without mentioning that Walker himself was the target of the Communist Oswald’s assassination plot with a bullet through his living room window to prove the point. No sense ruining a good stereotype.

Where once stood capitalists, Israel, the Pentagon, Ronald Reagan, three presidents, Puerto Rican nationalism, Rush Limbaugh, Barry Goldwater and on and on in endless parade, now stand others in the leftist dock. Convicted of making leftists do what, well, Americans have well-learned leftists do with the conviction of addiction.

Which is to say: commit violence in the name of a cause. A just cause, always. But of course.

Is that what Jared Lee Loughner was all about?

In spite of the fact that this assassin was described by a one-time friend as a “political radical” whose politics were “liberal or left-wing” — the left is off the hook on the this one.

It’s abundantly clear that Judge Roll’s colleague and friend is absolutely right. Loughner is the classic “loner nut.”

But the larger left-wing in America? They are not a group of “lone nuts.” The left in America — not to mention around the world — has shown a repeated addiction, and addiction is the word, to violence.

Bill Clinton knew this truth when he tried to pin the blame for Oklahoma City on Rush Limbaugh, a blatant lie which turned out to be one of the least of his presidency.

Leftists are as far away from the concepts of talk show host Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny as Earth is from the ex-planet Pluto. This is not the Liberty crowd – it’s the Tyranny crowd. Soft, lite or dead-on relentlessly violent, the left is about control of you, however they can do it. And the attacks on talk radio, Fox, Palin and the rest are part of that drive for control.

The rejection of the American left in this last election is in fact nothing more or less than Americans rejecting the idea of being controlled. This time, with the left’s endless attempts to control others taking the form of mandating health insurance and death panels.

But blaming the actions of Jared Loughner on anybody else than Loughner himself is, in effect, an attempt by Sheriff Dupnik and his left-wing media friends to use that oldest of leftist tricks to make Americans who voted to oppose the leftist agenda of President Obama somehow complicit in all of this. To make the talk radio audience of millions, the Fox audience, the audiences that love Rush, Sean, Mark, Beck, O’Reilly and others stand in the dock and confess to an agenda of violence these people — every last one of them and more — have actively opposed with every word of their broadcast lives.

Sean Hannity as a purveyor of violence?

Absolutely shameful. Shameful....

Mark Levin an ally of a psychotic lunatic filled with hate? The Mark Levin who has dedicated a lifetime — say again a lifetime — to the idea of liberty and freedom?

Disgraceful. Utterly disgraceful.

Glenn Beck, the man who rallied thousands for peace and understanding on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and rings a gong for Gandhi at the end of some of his shows? With Martin Luther King’s niece at his side? That man? Encouraging violence?

Sheriff Dupnik should be worse than embarrassed at saying these things. He should be stripped of his job post-haste as unfit to hold public office.

There should be shame in this in the appropriate quarters of the left.

There should be, but there won’t be.

The federal judge to whom I spoke has got it exactly right, which is what makes the good judge so angry — as it should the rest of us.

Sheriff Dupnik will get his publicity. And Keith Olbermann and the rest of the left will prattle on.

And sadly, so too will the violence of the left go on. In America and around the world. Without a peep from the left-wing media. Not to mention they will carry on with the blatantly obvious game of blaming others for political gains or a boost in the ratings or circulation.

But this time, the American people know exactly what the game is here.

Indignant, they refuse to play. Because in the end — they are the judge.

And like the grieving, angry judge-friend of the murdered Judge Roll, they recognize “downright evil” when they see it.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/10/federal-judge-liberal-sheriff/3

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com

He knew the judge (RIP) who died.

Perhaps the agenda was there but it took time for the revision to set.

I’d really love to have a concise listing as it could be useful for all of us.

Minor niggle in the theory: Booth was a conservative, Lincoln was a radical. In the late 19th century, Democrats were conservatives.

I don’t see how John Wilkes Booth can be called a leftist (even if his father was an admirer of the British radical John Wilkes). Karl Marx was rooting for the Union side in the US Civil War.