Palin Finds Ally in Walters

At least this time. But what a time it is. With seemingly every news outlet jumping on the "Blame Palin" bandwagon, saying that she is to blame for the shooting of Arizona congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords because of "crosshairs" over the districts of Giffords and other potentially venerable Democrats during the mid-term elections.

What these news outlets failed to inform their viewers is that the Daily Kos just two years ago had done the same thing to Giffords and other "centrist" Democrats in the hopes that other "Blue Dog Democrats" would lose their seats to other, more left-wing candidates. Add to that, as Elizabeth Hasselbeck points out, the New York Post had a picture of the Indianapolis Colts' Peyton Manning on their front page with croisshairs over his face with the caption, "Stop Him," the very morning of the shooting. If something happened to him, does the Post take the blame, or the crazed shooter?

Those facts and logic hasn't stopped The Mess's Chris Tingle, Kieth Olberloon and Sgt. Schultz from taking matters into their own hands and trying to make people believe that Palin and Palin alone is what set the shooter off. We still don't know why Loughner shot all those people. But the seers at the lowest rated and least repsected (and trusted) "news" outlet seem to.
What if, because of the lefts hatred of Palin along with their blaming her for this tragedy, someone shoots her, would that be their fault? They would say no, of course. They would say she had it coming.
You'll notice nobody on the left is parroting the "much respected and influential" Barbara Walters about not blaming Palin. If she had said the opposite, you know they'd be saying "Even Barbara Walters says it's Palin's fault. And you know she knows what she's talking about."

And speaking of the ultimate hypocrite, what about Chris Matthews' take on the Arizona shooting compared to what his thoughts were at the time of the Ft. Hood shootings:



And what about Democrats using bullseye imagery and gun analogies? Including one when the Democrats put J.D. Hayworth in crosshairs. What about the President of the United States himself? He said in an article in the Wall Street Journal that if "the Republicans bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."

And you can always count on MSNBC for ultra-hypocrisy:



How Maddow can say there was never any posters and commentary comparing Bush to Hitler is astounding. Where does the hatred and hypocrisy lie again?

And for good measure, why not check out violent liberal revolution advocate, Frances Fox Piven, a major influence in Obama's Socialist economic policies.

She's considered by many as the grandmother of using the American welfare state to implement revolution. Make people dependent on the government, overload the government rolls, and once government services become unsustainable, the people will rise up, overthrow the oppressive capitalist system, and finally create income equality. Collapse the system and create a new one. That's the simplified version of Frances Fox Piven's philosophy originally put forth in the pages of The Nation in the 60s.
Now, as the new year ball drops, Piven is at it again, ringing in 2011 with renewed calls for revolution.
In a chilling and almost unbelievable editorial again in The Nation ("Mobilizing the Jobless," January 10/17, 2011 edition), she calls on the jobless to rise up in a violent show of solidarity and force. As before, those calls are dripping with language of class struggle. Language she and her late husband Richard Cloward made popular in the 60s.
"So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?" she writes. "After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber-baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn't the unemployed be on the march? Why aren't they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?"
Those are the questions that frame what can best be called a roadmap for revolution. And it's not long before those questions give way to directions. The first instruction: get angry.
"[B]efore people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity," she writes. "They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant."
And along with anger must come a denunciation of personal responsibility. Instead, workers must realize that others have put them in their current, uneasy situation: "[T]he out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible."
Only then, once their rage has been properly stoked, can the angry take action. And when they do, she says, the "protesters need targets."

Too bad no one ever let go with this kind of ranting onstage at a Tea Party. The liberal establishment media could just run video of it over and over again, without going to the trouble of coming up with lies and baseless innuendos.




But if you really want someone to blame (other than his insanity) you may want to check out the source of hLoughner's ideology. You'll never guess who developed Loughner's mind for the real world.