Cracks in the FunHouse Mirror, Part I

There was no mourning on the “Professional Left”, just gleeful expectation at the opportunity to undermine a particularly effective foe. When the editorialists of the New York Times launched their attacks on the TEA Party, the name of the vile, worthless shooter in Tucson was still unknown – as were his political beliefs. It didn’t matter and, frankly, I don’t believe it would have mattered, regardless of facts.

Here’s a reality check question for you: Since the Tucson shooting, have you seen more verbal attacks on the presumed shooter, Jared Loughner, or on the Tea Party movement? Just ponder that for a moment. Does this strike you as people upset that lives were violently taken, or does it appear more likely that political hacks are not allowing “a good crisis go to waste”?

Liberals are ambitious in political matters. They are not content to simply take an excuse to attack conservatives and libertarians; not when larger matters are at hand.

We all knew that the TEA Party would be blamed for the shooting in Tucson. It was as certain as the sun setting in the west, though a lot less pleasant. Then, the left followed swiftly with attacks on our rights as free human beings.

Why does the generic response from the generic left always seem to involve a restriction of God-given rights? Within two days, there were hysterical calls to restrict first amendment (speech, including “symbology”), second amendment and tenth amendment rights. Sadly, I’ve probably overlooked some others.

The left wants to use a, “troubled” I think is the preferred term now, man as an excuse to steal more of our rights as the country mourns. This is equivalent to a burglar breaking into your home while he knows you’re at the funeral of a loved one. Let’s face it; it’s just plain creepy as well as disgusting.

If I fail to communicate anything else, I hope you will remember this: Our laws – federal, state and local – are written for sane, responsible adults. Yes, there are exceptions for criminals, for incompetents and even for irresponsible people – but those are noted exceptions. We cannot afford to write laws that assume everyone is a criminal; that everyone is not sane; that everyone is incompetent. We certainly cannot use one unstable young man as an excuse to strip us of our rights.

To do so is to repudiate everything that Thomas Jefferson believed. It is to repudiate everything this country is founded upon. It would be a declaration that man is not capable of ruling himself - a “Declaration of Dependence”.

Loughner wasn’t political; he was unstable. We now know that Loughner was registered to vote as an “Independent” and that he didn’t even vote in 2010. In addition, Loughner’s friend Zach Osler stated, “He [Loughner]did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.”

Some people will wait for an apology from the left. It won’t come, because the reaction to Tucson is about many things, but truth is not one of them.