This, gentlemen, is my vision as I wrote this piece. Like everyone else I know, I do think my vision is the correct one. Why would anyone think otherwise of their own vision?
=========================================================
On Jan 8th, approximately two hours after Jared Loughner shot nineteen people, killing four, Paul Krugman - as the establishment's Keynesian mouthpiece - employed Rahm Emmanuel's maxim, "Never let a good crisis go to waste" and proceeded to use the shootings in Arizona in order to further a political agenda supporting President Obama's healthcare legislation. All of this was done at the expense of journalistic objectivity and impartiality. Krugman ignored the facts because they didn't fit his narrative. This type of "journalism" was the norm rather than the exception throughout the coverage of the event and a clear and unmistakable indicator of the further Pravda-ization of the American mainstream media. As we sift through Krugman's article and various other reports of the event, especially as it was unfolding, one can immediately detect an undercurrent of politicizing what was ultimately and, to my own eyes, clearly the act of a deranged individual. Herein we will attempt to clarify how this phenomenon occurred in Krugman's article and throughout articles in the mainstream media and why I find such an undercurrent to indicate an unwritten and unspoken agenda of statism throughout established media outlets in America today.
Violence occurs everyday in America and throughout the world. Much but not all of the violence that occurs throughout the world today is of a political nature. Whether a drone attack in Pakistan, an IED in Iraq, sabotage in Ireland, mass protests in Egypt and Tunisia or rock throwing in Palestine, political violence is a daily occurrence throughout the world. It is clear in all of the examples I just gave that the violence is of a political nature and in no case that I am aware of is there any debate otherwise. Political violence by its very nature is that a political system is being challenged or protested against. Unfortunately, the Jared Loughner incident is less clear as to the nature of the causes of the violent outburst. Jared's motivations are clear only to himself. Yet attempts by government officials and many different media outlets attributing motivations to his behavior, with little to no evidence to support their assertions, are in and of themselves indicative of a deeper agenda being pushed of the back of this crisis. The agenda is fear, ever popular with politicians willing to exploit voters for their personal or political gain.
Just one day after Paul Krugman's column appeared, the Washington Times printed a column about the events in Arizona. The paper's column was pointing out how the coverage of this event was presented in a much different light than the Fort Hood shootings that happened just over one year prior. All of the major media outlets were pushing the message that it would be wrong to jump to conclusions as to the killer's motivations.
Some of the quotes regarding the Fort Hood shootings that were used in the Times article:
"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," Gen. Wesley Clark, CNN, on the night of the shootings.
"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell on that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."
"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also on the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."
The next day, President Obama chimed in to the conventional wisdom of the day when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, journalists repeated the president's remarks.
"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Pete Hoekstra of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"
To say this kind of cautionary rhetoric was not being applied in the case of Jared Lee Loughner is, at best, an understatement. Media outlets were blaming Sarah Palin, the Tea party, talk radio and a claimed general climate of heated political rhetoric within hours of the shootings with absolutely no corroborative evidence of any kind.
Some media samplings from the days after the shootings:
"Odds are" that it was political, wrote Paul Krugman proceeding to treat the matter as if that settled it. Attributing cause to "opposition to health reform" and that Representative Giffords is "a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona." He also quoted Giffords' father "the whole Tea Party" was her enemy.
Popular political website DailyKos wrote about Jared Loughner's “his story is instructive of the increasingly — and obviously —dangerous and violent rhetoric of the far right, fueled by hate radio and rightwing media.” The founder of the website, Markos Moulitsas, also threw out this bomb, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin."
The New York Times' Carl Hulse wrote that "while the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained anti-government ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation's political culture."
The New York Times' Matt Bai remarked on what he called the Tea Party movement's "imagery of armed revolution" and accused former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of using "words like 'tyranny' and 'socialism' when describing her political enemies.
CNN's political correspondent Jessica Yellin noted "no overt connection" between Palin and Saturday's shootings, but still her, anchor Wolf Blitzer and other CNN commentators continued speculation that "Loughner acted out of rage inspired by Palin and other Republicans."
What is truly interesting to me, as a non-pundit class observer, is how so many of the pundits and journalists overlook interesting details about Mr. Loughner and his connection to Congresswoman Giffords revealing ties there that are totally overlooked by those who wish to characterize an entire political class like Tea Partiers as unstable.
For example:
One's attention is brought to focus by the Congresswoman’s YouTube page as she is subscribed to only two other YouTube channels, one of which happens to belong to Jared Lee Loughner. Coincidence? Seems unlikely. Newsworthy? I should think so. Reported by the likes of CNN? No, they are too busy blaming surveyor's sights on old ads put out by a PAC of Sarah Palin's. In light of the subsequent assassination attempt, all of this is downright chilling. Why is Loughner’s YouTube channel subscribed on Rep. Gifford’s YouTube channel? Did she or someone on her staff “subscribe” to his channel? Why? Didn't anyone bother to check what was on his channel, and then realize he was off balance? Could there have been other contacts between Loughner and Gifford, or at least her office? I can't help but wonder whether the truth will ever be known but I don't expect to learn it from America's corporate media.
As I became aware of the horror of the shootings in Arizona that day I could not help but wonder how long before the government used Emmanuel's maxim to take advantage of the opportunity to expand its powers. I figured that attacks on second amendment firearm rights and on first amendment free speech rights were imminent.(as well as proposals for more government control of the Internet) After all, Jared Loughner spoke out against the government on social networking sites and he used a gun. As it turns out I did not have to wait long.
An AP story claimed that the shooting had “left Americans questioning whether divisive politics had pushed Jared Loughner over the edge.” Later on in the same story, the AP alleged: “It is not clear whether the gunman had the health care debate in mind.” The piece also referenced a narrow electoral battle between the Congresswoman and a Tea Party candidate who raised campaign funds with — gasp! — target-shooting events.
This came from The Hill. The article as titled:
"Dem Planning a Bill That Would Outlaw Threatening Law Makers."
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."
"could be perceived"
By whom? Perception is of a very personal nature. If some government official "perceives" that my Live Free or Die bumper sticker is inciting violence then all of a sudden I have committed a federal crime, First Amendment be damned. That perception would end up putting the entire state of New Hampshire into prison. After all, the state motto of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die." This kind of broad, widely subjective legislation would make it potentially illegal to disagree with the government about anything.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson
If this silly law were passed, Thomas Jefferson could be charged with a federal crime for this famous quote.
"If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
Did Obama just say to use guns against political opposition? Could it be perceived as such?
Laws like the one proposed by Rep Brady are nothing more than an assault on free speech. Still they forge ahead with this legislation--constitutionality likely never being discussed. They will probably name it after Gabrielle Giffords. Then, if you oppose the legislation, they will question your compassion and say you must support political violence or agree with Jared Loughner. These are the same mechanisms that were used to push through the Patriot Act after all.
The politicization of Jared Loughner's motives was the equivalent of a clarion call for opportunistic fear mongering in both the media and the halls of power throughout this nation. The underlying theme of this type of behavior is and always has been statism. The manner that the politicians and the press leap at the opportunity to use Rahm's maxim, through nonobjective reporting and fear mongering, is indicative of an unspoken agenda being pushed on a large scale. That agenda is more blatant today than at any other time in our countries history. Fear is being used, much in the manner Goebbels instructed, to create conditions for putting government ideas of national security before the tenets this country was founded upon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is to the detriment of us all that those founding principals die quietly amidst the hubbub of 24 hour media coverage of a 24 second event.
===========================================
