Sarah Palin, you soulless, heartless, bitch. You and your ilk use revolutionary, violent, assassination imagery against U.S. politicians, then you give the usual trite, stock, feigned-innocence statement when someone who is very likely going to turn out to be one of your swooning fans actually does go and shoot that congresswoman in the head. For those not familiar with Palin's part in this, here's the graphic that's been on her site for months (not surprisingly, taken down just now):
I'm about as pro-free-speech as they come. But there must be limits. You don't get to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. And you don't get to use your cult-of-personality hold over your mindless minions to put people on a "hit list," complete with gunsight targets over them, use assassination imagery, then act all teary-eyed and innocent when someone who will almost certainly turn out to be one of your mindless minions actually goes and does it. The "Justice" Palin claims to be praying for will be to see her, in shackles and an orange jumpsuit, standing trial for conspiracy to commit murder and treason against the United States.
Sarah Palin, tell me again about your peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus whom you claim to so worship and emulate.
On another note, I wonder since this latest terrorist attack against America was perpetrated by a clean-shaven, White American male, does that mean we will start rounding up all the clean-shaven, White American men and ship them back to whatever countries they illegally came here from? Assuming he turns out to be Conservative and Christian, can we start passing laws specifically banning the instilling of Conservative law? How about banning the instilling of Christian law? Oh wait, that already supposedly exists in the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights.
Will we also be retaliating by waging a trillion-dollar, decade-long war against some random country that had nothing really to do with the attack but is just full of clean shaven white men? I propose Switzerland. I never really bought that whole neutrality thing.
Well, the answer to my query about if the shooter turned out to be Christian would we hold it against all Christians, waging war on a random Christian country in retaliation, would be an obvious no. We would blame his mental instability and say he certainly does not represent all Xians.
But now that it looks like he is actually an affirmed atheist/agnostic, I suppose we'd better get ready to go to war with ... what's a country with lots of Atheists in it? Norway?
Was he part of a group? Last I heard it was undecided if he had another partner/s in it. His writings were glaringly schizophrenic. A person can be a lone terrorist too. The Unabomber was alone but he killed people because he wanted a change in behavior. The same with the jerks who murdered abortion doctors.
I'd almost put him in the same category as that asshole who shot John Lennon for attention. Did he specifically hate Giffords or was she the first governmental person that he could get a hold of?
If a clean shaven, white American male professes to be a white supremacist (for example), people tend to be suspicious of them, since white supremacists tend to be violent and hateful of outsiders and certain groups (and yes I would consider them terrorists). It's the same thing with other ideologies that tend to be violent and hateful of outsiders and certain groups, especially if they have have international terrorist organizations, whether they're religions that people erroneously equate with race or not. When someone says they are Christian, we make assumptions about them believing generally held Christian beliefs, because it's more probable. Is it only OK to do this with Christians?
Other groups, even of white people, have been stereotyped and singled out after acts of violence. For instance after the Columbine shooting (even though I think of it as random killing more than terrorism), there was more suspicion of outcasts/goth kids/people in trenchcoats. Some of it might have been trying to talk to overlooked people, but not all of the attention was out of benign concern. It was harassing people, or keeping an eye/reporting their behavior out of suspicion, because they looked, dressed or acted similar to someone else who had committed murder.
Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
As this is a US political issue, I'm not sure I buy the treason point...that and the courts have a "reasonable person" clause that states that if such actions would not have been taken by a reasonable person from your words, then your words aren't to blame.
I try never to pass up a chance to refudiate Ms. Palin. Certainly she would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that publishing a webpage with targets on congressional districts, and the name of those congressional representatives, is asking for trouble. Sort of like what has been with abortion providers, as I recall.
Whether this nutcase saw those sites or not I'll be interested to learn. I try not to jump to far ahead in my conclusions.
I feel for you all in Arizona. I recently thought about visiting there and decided I could not ethically justify contributing to that state's economy. That's not that I am saying my state is without nutcases, religionists, and their fellow travelers. It's an issue of where, and how many.
As for Ms. Palin, I have no doubt that she'll get wind of people trying to connect her to this incident, and we'll hear more in the self-serving, willfully ignorant, manipulative "their persecuting me because I'm..."..... what is she again?