Tag Archives: MSNBC

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.


Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,