Sweethearts Candy Blog's

"Steve Benson," if that is who he is, apparently concluded that Sarah Palin's "targeting" map was a call to violence, and that this is what triggered (excuse the term) Jared Loughner to shoot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was one of the "targeted."

It was  a great Democrat propaganda campaign.  It seems to have begun with the despicable Huffington Post in 2010 -- see that article here, "Sarah Palin's PAC Puts Gun Sights on Democrats She's Targeting in 2010."  The article complains about the alleged "gun sights" (which look like surveyor's symbols, not gun sights), and the "militant language" like "We'll aim for these races and many others," she wrote on her Facebook page. "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington."

Perhaps Loughner read the Huffington Post article and decided to act on it.  If anyone is responsible for the Tucson shootings, it is the Democrats themselves.  It is they who published far and wide the monstrous lie that Palin was "targeting" Democrats for assassination.  Perhaps Loughner got the idea for his massacre by reading Democrat propaganda.  He was, after all, a liberal, so undoubtedly read liberal literature.  However, he might have gotten the idea from Gabrielle Giffords herself, who appeared on television claiming that Sarah Palin had put a gun sight on her district, thus endangering her life.  It is entirely possible that Loughner, an Arizona resident, saw that television spot.  It is far less likely that he visited Palin PAC's webite and saw the map.

So Loughner then went to a shopping center and shot Rep Gabrielle Giffords and several other people.  Giffords survived a head wound, but will never be 100% the same as she was.  Others died, including a little girl.

The left then exploded in rage (over a tragedy that they may have caused), blaming it on Palin's innocuous map.  But wait!  In the age of the internet, others soon found the Democrats had their own "targeting map," one  with the bold headline "Targeting Strategy" and the words "Behind Enemy Lines."  Talk about "militant language."  Of course, both of these maps were metaphors, nothing more,  but only Democrats are ruthless enough to endanger their own with a call-out to lunatics.  Republicans never said a word about the Democrat map (used in the Clinton years), because we understand the use of metaphors and because we are not soulless, Machiavellian leftists practicing the politics of personal destruction.

Here are the two maps, side by side.  You decide.  Which map employs the more militant imagery?  Palin's surveyor symbols or Clinton's bull eyes?

Please feel free to copy and desseminate this imagery as you see fit.

It's easy to see through left-leaning Politico and the themes they want to propagate.  The latest is that of the "do-nothing" congress.  Harry Truman used this slogan to defeat Republicans in 1948 and Politico is dusting it off and hoping for a repeat of that success.

Politico whines:

Just 18 bills have become law through the first half of 2011, and 15 of those named a building after someone, temporarily extended expiring laws or appointed an official to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. Congress can’t decide what to do on critical issues like Libya, spending or the nation’s debt limit, and no compromise is in sight on a host of other issues.

Then Politico spits out:

Not that it matters substantively. When Congress is in, all it does is bash Obama.

This is really an objective article, isn't it?

Yes, Congress is unable to accomplish much in this highly partisan atmosphere, but will be able to accomplish a lot more with a Republican president and senate in January of 2013.  Let's all work for that.

Meanwhile, read Politico's Democrat advertisement here.

Hat tip:  Nice Deb

During the past few days, the Democrat smear machine was exposed as never before.  Newspaper columnists, television pundits and leftist bloggers had engaged in a massive libel against the Tea Parties and conservatives.  Their Big Lie was that conservative thought and argumentation was a hateful inspiration to violence and was responsible for the shooting spree of a lunatic.

I agree with President Obama. When it comes to politicizing random violence, he and his supporters have been "far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than" they do. Recognition is the first step toward reconciliation. It's time to recognize the poisonous pervasiveness of the Blame Righty meme.

For the past two years, Democratic officials, liberal activists and journalists have jumped to libelous conclusions about individual shooting sprees committed by mentally unstable loners with incoherent delusions all over the ideological map. The White House now pledges to swear off "pointing fingers or assigning blame." Alas, the Obama administration's political and media foot soldiers have proved themselves incapable of such restraint.

Read both articles in their entirety at the links provided.

Here are some of my previous posts on the Democrat smear machine:

1.  On Right-Wing "Hate":  Don't Take the Democrat Bait -- The leftist website Moveon.org held a rally to "condemn the hate."  Except that there was no "hate" to condemn.  I described why:

MoveOn.org's gambit is not to "condemn the hate," but to insinuate into the public mind that conservatives are dangerous crazies who are boiling with rage, ready to go postal at any minute. The falling popularity of Democrats and the success of the Tea Parties are not the result of widespread opposition to Obama's radical policies. No, they are the result of some baseless and inexplicable "hate."

When Democrat pundits and reporters ask GOP and Tea Party leaders to "condemn the hate," they are really asking for a tacit admission that the charge is true, that "hate" is a major problem on the Right. Conservatives cannot and should not give credence to the false charge. They must not become unwilling stooges in the Left's bogus drama.

2.  Rush Limbaugh slandered with false "racist" quotes -- This one is a good example of how reckless and ruthless the Democrats are with (1) the reputations of other people and (2) the truth.

3.  Democratic Underground Encourages Smear of Palin's Baby -- This one is particularly revealing of the Democrat mindset about using smear to win political fights.  A Democrat writer wrote:

NoodleyAppendage (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-30-08 10:26
122. What many here don't understand. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.

The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin's last kid (if hers), then that's FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.

GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The "rising above it" bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn't it?

If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the "concern trolls" are not helping shape the message.

4.  John Patrick Bedell: So Much in Common with Me! The Wing Nut Connection?  - A nut named John Patrick Bedell walked up to two police officers at an entrance to the Pentagon, drew a pistol and opened fire. He wounded the two police officers but they killed him with return fire. Then the mainstream media tried to connect Bedell with the Tea Party movement and/or "right wing extremists." Bedell, however, was a liberal.

5. Thoughts on the Great DC Tea Party of 9/11/2009 - This post is a good example of the various prior attempts by the Democrats to slander Republicans and conservatives.

6.  The Left's Tactics Against Sarah Palin Explained.  Why does the Left always attack Sarah Palin first?  The reason comes from Saul Alinksky's "Rules for Radicals" #13.

7. How the Left Punishes Conservatives -- A concerted program of hate and slander over a long period of time can wear down one's will to resist the forces of liberalism.  Some examples are given.  I like my conclusions:   Democrats believe that "politics is war by other means." And they are at war with America, with common sense and even common decency. Those who would mount an effective opposition had better have a high tolerance for slime, slander and abuse.

8.  Revolt and Reaction:  the Tax Day Tea Parties -- Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security released a politicized report disingenuously warning of "right wing extremism," i.e., anyone who opposed Obama's radical policies.

I notice a lot of site searching going on at Saber Point.  A lot of people are looking hard to find examples of "right wing hate" and vitriol.  They aren't finding much.

Chris Matthew, host of the TV program "Hard Ball," attributed the Arizona violence to the rhetoric of Mark Levin and Michael Savage.  In this audio file, Levin rebuts Matthews and calls his network "MSLSD."

Levin takes particular delight in describing MSNBC as an unprofitable and unpopular network whose ratings are in the tank.

Levin asks if anyone in the Loughner household ever listened to MSNBC or "Hard Ball."  If so, perhaps it was Chris Matthews himself who caused the Arizona tragedy.  Levin, of course, wasn't serious in proposing this possible scenario, but in demonstrating the utter subjectiveness of such self-serving allegations.

Listen to it here.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

I believe that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is a flaming jackass.

Oh I'm sorry, is my opinion about Sheriff Dupnik "vitriol"?

Well then, what about Dupnik's opinion that Rush Limbaugh caused the Arizona shootings?  Would that qualify as vitriol?  And if someone takes a shot at Rush Limbaugh, will Dupnik take the blame?

Dupnik is an irresponsible public official who is making reckless statements to the press.  He is a died-in-the-wool Democrat who is abusing his office for partisan political purposes.

Dupnik told ABC that Rush Limbaugh's radio commentary is "vitriol" that may have motivated the crazy Jared Loughner into shooting several people in Arizona on Saturday.  Dupnik offers not a single example of Limbaugh's alleged vitriol, because he can't.  I doubt if Dupnik has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh at all.  He is just repeating lies that he heard from other partisan Democrats.  Rush is rarely angry and sticks to facts, though those facts no doubt anger liberals very much.  Dupnik's slander of Limbaugh is false and irresponsible in the extreme.  It has no basis in fact.

Ever since the shootings, Dupnik has been using the tragedy to make partisan political points and slander Republicans.  There is a current in today's news, however, that suggests it may be Dupnik himself who is to blame for the killings.  Apparently, Dupnik ignored death threats by Loughner that were reported to him, preferring to take no preventative action at all.  Dupnik should resign.

UPDATE: an Arizona Republic editorial chastises Dupnik for his own vitriol and partisan, unprofessional behavior. They write:

Dupnik needs to recall that he is elected to be a lawman. With each additional comment, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County is revealing his agenda as partisan, and, as such, every bit as recklessly antagonistic as the talk-show hosts and politicians he chooses to decry.

My point exactly.

The Left has been trying to pin the Arizona shootings on Sarah Palin.  Yes, it is ridiculous and extreme.  They have showed a political map from Sarah PAC that shows Republican-leaning districts and those districts are marked with "gun sight cross-hairs."  See it here.

Fox News ran this image last night.  It shows that the Democrats had their own "targeting" map, complete with bulls-eyes, six years before Sarah Palin did.  The map below was released by the DNC for the 2004 elections.  Note the use of military metaphors, i.e. "behind enemy lines."  Such metaphors are often used in politics and mean absolutely nothing.  Once again, Democrat hypocrisy is on display.

The map on the left is from Sarah Palin's PAC, which designated Democrat-held districts that were targeted by Republican hopefuls.

Now the Democrat propaganda machine is broadcasting the notion that the "cross-hairs" on the map somehow inspired a 22 year old crazy into shooting Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

Is this map really outlandish?  Does anyone seriously believe it implies or advocates violence?  Even more absurd, does anyone seriously believe that the shooter was motivated by this map?

RIDICULOUS.

The Democrats real purpose is to smear Sarah Palin and reduce her political influence through innuendo, character assassination and outright lies.

The Left cannot win in a fair debate of the issues.  They can only win through mind games, propaganda and smear tactics.


UPDATE: It appears that the symbols used on the Palin map are actually surveyor symbols, not rifle scopes.






















UPDATE:  The Democrats had their own "target" map before Sarah Palin did.  The map below was used by the Democrat National Committee in the 2004 elections.  Note the bulls eyes on the "targeted" districts.  Also note the use of war-like imagery, i.e. "behind enemy lines."  Such metaphors have long been used in politics and mean absolutely nothing.  Again, Democrat hypocrisy is on full display here.