ARIZONA SHOOTINGS: NOT WASTING OPPORTUNITY FOR RULING CLASS TO ATTACK CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

DEMOCRAT USES HORRIFIC ARIZONA MASS MURDERS TO WAGE WAR AGAINST FREE SPEECH. REPUBLICAN, TO ATTACK GUN RIGHTS

Never to let a "good crisis go to waste" (i.e., as an excuse to transfer more power and control to federal politicians and bureaucrats), thehill.com reports (my emphasis) that mere hours since the Arizona mass murders:

"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."

"Perceived"? "Could be"? And who gets the arbitrary, unbridled power to "perceive" what "could be" threatening? Him? Or, some other politician, bureaucrat, or board of self-annointed and proclaimed free speech experts? Maybe judgment would come down from a newly created, Orwellian, totalitarian, Free Speech Czar. Apparently, phrases, when used in the political context, such as, "war of words", "go on the offensive", "attack ads", and "fighting fire with fire", will result in imprisonment if reported to the thought police.

And notice that this new protection isn't for everybody. Nope, it's only for Rep. Brady's buddies in government's ruling class. Why should they receive preferential treatment over those who pay their salaries, over those who they supposedly represent?

Perhaps Democrat Congressman Brady didn't pay attention during the recent reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor to usher in the 112th Congress, particularly that pesky restriction on government found in the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Representative Brady's oath to "support and defend the Constitution", taken just last week, certainly came with a very short expiration date.

Founding Father James Madison had his own version of "not letting a good crisis go to waste", since it has been the norm throughout human history for tyrants to gain power, and for freedom to be lost, in times of "crisis":

"'Crisis' is the rallying cry of the tyrant."

Politicizing a crisis or tragedy has to be one of the slimiest of tactics. Within minutes of the tragedy, progressive liberal democrats like big government economic quack, Paul Krugman, were blaming the Arizona shooting on the Tea Party movement and/or conservatives like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, even though the evidence thus far confirms that not only was the shooter not a conservative or inspired by one, but to the contrary, was clearly a lefty whackjob. A friend of the shooter described him as a "political radical" and as being "quite liberal", and "left wing". It has been revealed by investigators that he was a flag burner who listed as one of his favorite books the progressive bible, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

I'm not in any way assigning blame to anyone other than the shooter himself, including his political views. I do condemn the shameful tactic of the left to highjack any human tragedy in an attempt to enhance their political power.

I wonder if Rep. Brady would "perceive" that President Obama's statement, directed towards Republicans, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", or Chris Matthews (regarding Rush Limbaugh), "at some point somebody is going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come." as threatening. When liberals issue death wishes on conservatives, their progressive friends do not consider this to be threatening.

I also wonder if the left's movie, Death of a President (2006), about assassinating Republican George W. Bush, would be given an exemption. Of course, if being honest, we most assuredly know the answer. Only when a progressive, liberal, Democrat, or socialist invokes "hate speech" is the First Amendment invoked and anyone speaking out in opposition (though not saying the speech should be banned) is demonized for being intolerant, against creativity, overly sensitive and thin-skinned, and against free speech and the First Amendment.

"JUST DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, PLEASE, NOW!"

Not surprisingly, it's not just the First Amendment rights that are under attack. The Second Amendment is also under assault, stemming from the ruling class principle to "do something", do anything, even if it isn't right (or stomps on our rights). Republican New York Congressman Peter King, in response to the Arizona shootings, is proposing preferential treatment for Congress and other federal officials, making it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of the privileged individuals. Disregarding the question as to why congressmen should receive unequal protection under the law, it should be noted that the problem supposedly being addressed, the recent Arizona mass murders, would not have been prevented by such a law for two simple reasons:

1. Mass murdering madmen don't obey gun laws, and
2. Mass murdering madmen don't carry measuring tape to measure how far they are from their target (MMM: "I'm withing 999 feet. Whew! That was close. Shoot away!")

Using such an unfathomable tragedy, like the Arizona shootings, to further one's unconstitutional political agenda, in the name of justifying their societal position of importance by "doing something", is among the lowest possible level of detestable human conduct, especially when that agenda includes an assault against our constitutional rights. A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit.

Less Government = More Freedom