Yet, to make matters worse, progressives in Washington and around the world are making gallant attempts at trying to link Jared's actions with conservative activism. They have even tried to blame Sarah Palin, and to put her on the defense.
They tried to blame this on the conservative movement, to talk radio, to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement.
While new polls show 57% of Americans don't buy it, the onslaught continues. Thankfully the left no longer has a monopoly on the news.
There is no doubt this young man was troubled. Now there is "speculation" that the parents might have been somehow involved in the "derangement" of this kid. To read a good discussion about this click here.
However, accusations by the liberal (progressive) media, progressive Senators and Congressmen, including progressives in Europe, are unfounded. There is not one iota of proof there is any link between the conservative movement and the actions by Jared.
Of course now there is the effort by Congressmen and Senators to think, "Aha, here's our chance to do something. Here's our chance to get one of our progressive laws passed."
We know that the progressive strategy is to cause chaos at the bottom, and then to have people at the top come up with the solutions. Obama is at the top, and so are some other pretty powerful progressives.
The goal is to make us think there is a public outcry when there isn't.
Jared stirred up chaos at the bottom (a grassroots movement perhaps), and now our heroic progressive Congressmen have the solution.
They blame guns. If he had not been able to gain legal access to the weapons he used (the clips or whatever), this wouldn't have happened. The culprit here is guns, they say. So now they have the solution: to make it harder to obtain such weapons.
They think we'll support it because we are supposed to believe there is this public outcry.
This is a feel good strategy. Personally I don't see why anyone would want or need the type of weapons Jared used, yet to use this as a reason to make another law (more power to the Fed and less to you and me) seems ridiculous and dangerous.
Glenn Beck reminded us that in 1988 gun crimes were up in Chicago. So the progressives there decided to ban guns altogether. The result of this was that gun crimes skyrocketed 60%, and Chicago was one of the leading cities for gun crimes.
The ban made it to the Supreme Court, and the High Court "shot down" (excuse the pun) the ban on the grounds it lacked common sense. The court stated that it is not guns that kill, people kill.
I know that's a bumper sticker slogan, but the moral here is that if you want to prevent gun crimes it's not the gun laws that need changing, it's the attitudes of the people.
Making another law to make it harder to obtain guns basically tramples on the Constitution. How does trampling on the Constitution prevent gun crimes? So what we learned from Chicago is that you can take away the guns, but people will still commit gun crimes.
Another Congressman proposed a law that would make it illegal to speak bad about elected officials, that symbols also should be banned. Beck notes this would lead to a slippery slope. If the government can decide what guns we can and can't have, what symbols we can use, then what is next.
If guns are bad, what's to stop Congress from making other things that are bad illegal. Depression is bad, he said, so why not ban depression. Sadness is bad, so lets ban sadness. Symbols are bad. Conservative talk radio is bad. Knives are bad. God is bad. Guns are bad. Church is bad. Machine guns are bad. Talk radio is bad.
The Cross is a symbol of the church. Jesus was crucified.
The list goes on. The idea here is that if you allow the Fed to make a law, then the Fed gets to decide what is legal and what is not.
Yet at the same time it's okay to allow kids to listen to any music they want, or to play video games where the characters rape women and kill cops. It's okay to take away prayer in school. It's okay to keep kids out of Churches that teach morals and values.
Another thing that is not mentioned by the mainstream media is that Jared had an alter in his parent's backyard where he could worship Satan or whatever he believed in (or didn't believe in). Of course the media can't start writing about this, because then they'd have to quit writing about how Conservatives are the cause of it all.
It should also be mentioned that the courageous dad of the 9-year-old girl who was killed said that what Jared wanted to cause was change. He said that the last thing we should do is change anything. He is right. He said you should not want things to change. You should not want more restrictions over society.
Well, anyway, I'm no expert on killings. I'm no expert on evil people. But I do know there is no proof conservatism has anything to do with what Jared did. Progressives see Gifford as leading a controversial life. They see conservatives as controversial. This is where they get the link. Yet it's poppycock.
In response to the media accusing her, Sarah Palin had this response on her facebook page:
President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.Again, I see no reason for people to own more than what is needed for protection or hunting. Yet I do know that there is no problem with guns and no problem with society. The problem is with the attitude of the kid.