Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

While many Americans were enjoying a brief weekend break from the tedium of a typical work week, Tucson, Arizona saw a tragic drama unfold that would shock the entire country. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, while conducting a neighborhood meeting at a grocery store in Tucson, was shot in the head by a lone assassin along with 19 others at the meeting. A Federal District Judge, John Roll, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was killed along with a nine year old girl who was born on 9/11/2001. The total number of people killed has been reported at 6, including a staffer for Giffords. Amidst all of this carnage were conflicting reports of the lone gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, and consternatingly, his "seeming" political affiliations.

The Associated Press Spin

In fact, when reports first came out from the Mainstream Media, the initial buzz seemed pinned to the fact that Loughner, who actually survived his mass killing spree, was ex-military and an anti-Government Tea Party "radical," which quickly proved to be totally wrong despite continuing attempts to imply those same connections throughout the night and into the early morning hours. For example, in an article from the Associated Press, Reporters Terry Tang, Amanda Lee Myers and David Espo were maddeningly adamant to display a right-wing connection that simply did not exist. In fact, interjecting a bit of spin started early-on in the article when the reporters wrote the following:

"some politicians expressed hope that the killing spree serves as a wakeup call at a time when the political climate has become so emotionally charged."

We wondered initially, upon reading this "quotation," exactly, who these Politicans were and why they would opportunistically desire "strong political debate" to be altered by a killing spree? Our second thought turned to the next most obvious question, that being "are the politicians that the reporters are referring to actually the reporters themselves?" Maybe--maybe not--but this was just a warm-up for our intrepid reporters as the spin-fest would become dizzying from here on out.

The next injurious entry--edging ever closer to slander--would follow only a few sentences later as the reporters indicated the following:

"Giffords, 40, is a three-term Moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election against a Tea Party candidate as Conservatives across the Country sought to throw her from office over her support of the healthcare law."

In this particular passage, one can actually see a Liberal vengeance being parlayed towards the extremities of outragiousness as the reporters have just now set-up a fault-manufacturing scenario. First, bringing in the fact that this particular Democrat ran against a Tea Party candidate after the most recent election is much like explaining that rain is, indeed, wet. But then the reporters actually hooked violence into the thread by saying that the entire Country of Conservatives "sought to throw her from office." Throw? First of all, the entire Country did not vote in Arizona, well at least not on the Conservative side--only Arizonans can accomplish that task. Secondly, we could say the same for virtually any election or defeat by any running Democrat "gunning for office" against an incumbent Republican, as well. Artful implication does have its rewards it would seem.

The Violence of Words

The word "throw" establishes a violent connotation and then successfully sets up an aggressive connection with Conservatives that simply does not pass the litmus test of truth, all the while pulling the reader along and gently manipulating a certain thoughtfulness muted against Conservatives as if were all their fault. Even worse, the next line establishes a connection with our now vilified Conservatives, where the reporters then stated:

"Her office was vandalized in the hours after the House passed the overhaul last March, as anger over the law spread across the Country."

So, in this story, which deals with a so-far lone gunman who appears to have no connections whatsoever to anyone in the right-wing, the reporters have managed to bring in violence from Conservatives, the Tea Party, the Healthcare overhaul and vandalism from opposition all within less than four column inches of each other-- as if a certain connectivity exists--when in fact , quite the opposite is true, as will be revealed.

Further down within the article, the reporters do a bit of extreme editing concerning the few facts which were known about Loughner at the time, when they state the following Loughner quote, "Nearly all of the people, who don't know this information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't happen."

In this quote the reporters seem to be making another Tea Party connection in speaking of Civil or Constitutional Rights when so many other affiliations and facts of interest were simply left out in their entirety. But then, after quoting President Obama in his praise for Giffords, the reporters drop into their "pin the Conservative tail on the assassin" yet again by frog-leaping all the way to one of the figureheads of the Tea Party itself.

Using Sarah...When All Else Fails

In a seeming attempt at explaining a connection that simply does not exist the reporters implicate the following:

"Giffords had drawn the ire of the right in the last year, especially from politicians like Sarah Palin over her support of the healthcare bill. It's still not clear whether the gunman had the healthcare debate in mind or was focused on his own unique set of political beliefs as witnessed in the internet videos. "

So here we have another wildly-assumed supposed link, manufactured, yet again, and yet at no time do we see the possibility of an extreme left-leaning radical who is venting rage against a politician who is described as "moderate," thereby possibly setting up a sense of betrayal by the shooter against one of his ideological associates being Giffords. So, why is this?

But only a few more lines down, and yet again, the reporters mindlessly repeat a fact that has already been repeated two other times in this report by dredging up the vandalism incident and Sarah Palin's "targeting" of various candidates. This repetition is an intentional move to make absolutely certain that the reader now knows both why this incident happened and who is to blame--such is the reporters' now obviously stunted and slanted line of reasoning in abeyance to the actual facts. Is this not enough for you? No? Well...Ok, next line down, and yet one more time (we hope) Palin is repeated again but in differing words--that Gifford's district was targeted by Palin:

"with red cross hairs of a gunsight over our district. . .when people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action."

So, now the reporters have actually indicated to us the how, the why and the who as far as where the actual blame lies despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever--one need not look any further than Conservatives and Sarah Palin, Ladies and Gentlemen, as far as the AP and the Mainstream Media--in large part--is concerned, when the actual facts bear something altogether different at play.

The available facts, as reported by no less than a number of smaller and local news outlets, but including the NY Times, layed out a scenario that should indeed shame our left-leaning reporters with an obvious agenda.

The New York Times Reporting

Believe it or not, the NY Times actually gets it right in this story, and it is about as far away from the AP's story as it can be. In this case, Eric Lipton, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane give us an actual glimpse into what motivated Loughner's rage. Loughner, the article states, hints at his alienation from society, confusion, anger and even a foreboding that life would soon end. The article further states that Loughner was suspended from his Community College due to the school's becoming aware of a YouTube video posted by Loughner as being "disturbing."

The article further states that Loughner's politics were left of center, and that he may have actually met with Giffords some time before the attack. A friend stated the following of Loughner: "As I knew him he was left-wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with 2012 prophecy." This friend of Loughner's, Catie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter posts on Saturday the following: "He was a political radical and met with Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question and he told me she was stupid and unintelligent," she wrote.

More information continues, even now, to leak out which actually bolsters the radical left-wing connection. An even more recent article disclosed the fact that Occultism in the form of an alter or a shrine, a skull, ceremonial candles and other artifacts of occult worship were found behind Loughner's home. Shall we now concoct a connection between the occult and the Tea Party, as well? We can help! The Tea Partiers tend to be religious, and the occult is a form of religion, so we have bravely helped to craft another connection, albeit ridiculous, for our intrepid Mainstream Media.

Amazing, huh? So after the presumptive ravings of some AP reporters in need of a few more years of journalism class, apparently, we get the real story from professional reporters of the New York Times, no less. Where we find the actual facts, corroborated by other news sources, bearing no resemblance to the concocted AP story.

"Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto" Are Not Tea Party Favorites

The AP, in actuality, conveniently left out the facts concerning two of Loughner's favorite books, "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto," facts which would blow their "report-by-vilification" attempts at Conservatives out of the water while casting aspersions at their own ideological identities.

CNN, in fact, was no less guilty as that network also jumped into the "Conservative Blame Game" by also imputing connections that simply did not exist. In fact, what we do know concerning "Palin hating Liberals" is that even had Palin painted a target over a district such Liberals would scoff in irritation at Palin assuming they might actually read anything that Palin had written. CNN also wrote:

"She (Giffords) won her third term against a Tea Party sponsored candidate and was one of three Legislators who reported vandalism at their offices following the March vote on Healthcare reform"

So once again a Tea-Party connection is established along with a healthcare connection that does not exist, although the CNN article did not actually take steps at connecting Palin and Conservatives in general as did the AP article.

In fact, the range of articles we have seen from numerous outlets would seem to simplistically suggest that we should all "just shut-up" if we disagree on what is happening within the nation "or else." And yet, who can forget the calls of activism from the usual suspects during George W. Bush's time in office?

The Authorities Weigh In

In fact, no less than the Pima County Sheriff could be heard also displaying unusual amounts of ignorance for those in positions of authority by blaming the level of vitriol surrounding Arizona on "political conversations." Our question to the Sheriff would be, "When has political conversation not been vitriolic?" No doubt, a certain Freedom of Speech has the Sheriff both in a tizzy and blaming anyone who questions the actions of their governance for the shooting. But the fun doesn't stop here; oh no, it gets better indeed.

New York Liberal politician Carolyn McCarthy(D) has already made knee-jerk liberal preparations for opportunistically dealing with this issue by crafting a "Gun Control" law in order to help deal with this problem. To this we would simply state that while the assassination was a horrid thing that should be condemned from now on, crafting yet another law which increasingly exploits the liberties of the Government can only make the situation worse. No one has, as of yet, addressed the simple possibility that even more Government inspired meddling in society will serve to actually worsen the timbre of rhetoric spewing from all areas --which will become worse than even now. I personally, find it no less interesting that no reporter sought to blame the election of a Republican Congress on Loughner's killing spree. Is that not also a possible conclusion? No doubt, only if you are NOT of the Left.

But the Politico's have been in full bloom in continually condemning "language and words" as needful of being used with care or more accurately "limited."

Meanwhile, even a number of misguided bloggers and members of the Right and, of course, the left have come out and indicated that "now is not the time" to take on these wrongful accounts of the ideologies and dis-information flowing around. To this we would only state "If not now then when?" When fire breaks out you attack it immediately or you can wait until the house burns down....but then it's too late, isn't it? In fact, we should note that the media and politico's, to a lesser degree, have been vilifying the right repeatedly on the one hand, while telling us that we should not speak up and adjudicate the truth on the other, which makes sense only as  far as the leftward are concerned when logic is accounted for.

Apparently, support of political activism seems to run only one way in the New World Order and it should, apparently, be in tune with the powers-that-be.

At least until those powers shift...again.

Interestingly, certain members of Congress are already moving to address the problem as a first indication of effort, as stated earlier, will seek to limit guns.

A second effort at mitigation, from the hints that we have been hearing from the left, might look to the other main culprit of this violence which the left is calling "vitriol" or what others might call:

"Freedom of Speech."