Archive for elections

Assassination as Politics: Who’s Our Role Model, John Wilkes Booth?

By | March 23, 2020 | 0 Comments

 

         

Cathy Griffin dropped by CNN for Trump beheading photo shown on TMZ. On the contrary, many “liberals” approve of her actions. ‒ News report

“Joking” about beheading or otherwise assassinating a Republican president is nothing new. Recall the deluge of bloodthirsty Tweets that exploded before Trump’s election.

Do you remember a film titled, “Death of a President”? If you don’t, it’s no surprise – the film disappeared almost as soon as it opened. But the title was a misnomer. It should have been, “Death of the President.” In the film, an actor portraying President Bush was shot. Even worse, Bush’s head was superimposed on the actor, making it appear that Bush himself was shot.

The film was released just prior to the 2006 election. Reviews called it “amazing, eerie, tense, and immediate,” as well as “electrifying, seamless, and intelligent.” The only equivocal note was a description of the film as “controversial.”

Have we sunk so low that assassinating the president is merely controversial? How about sinful, criminal, hateful, and anti-democratic? Or are those words too “judgmental”? Is it possible that murder no longer disturbs us, but being “judgmental” offends our delicate sensibilities?

At what point does entertainment become advocacy? At what point does advocacy become criminal? At what point does literary license become incitement to commit murder? Have we passed that point? If so, did we even notice?

Before the 2004 election, the sidewalk in front of my post office was blocked by people handing out anti-administration pamphlets. When I approached, a man asked, “Would you like to send Cheney back to hell?” I reminded him that advocating the murder of a protectee of the Secret Service is a federal crime. He looked at me in utter incomprehension, as if I were speaking Mongolian.

Then I saw a graffito showing the head of President Bush, with a hand pulling it up by the hair, and a bloody, ragged neck. The text read, “Mission accomplished.” It was at an intersection – hundreds must have seen it. It was still there two days later, so I blacked it out with a marker pen. And what about this Los Angeles Times “cartoon”? Isn’t it really amusing?

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/07/ramirez.jpg

And how about this “amusing” bumper sticker?

Then we had that well-known joker, John Kerry, who appeared on the Bill Maher show in 2012. When Maher asked him about killing two birds with one stone, Kerry replied, “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania [the White House] and killed the real bird with one stone.” When the losing presidential candidate jokes about killing the winner, do you think we may have gone a bit too far?

Is murder now an acceptable part of politics? Have we sunk to the level of our enemies? Or have we sunk even lower? At least they murder their enemies, not their own. But some Democrats see Republicans as enemies rather than as political opponents.

The former chair of the California Democratic Party wrote a book titled, “Bush Must Go” and an article titled, ”Are Cheney’s Days Numbered?” These titles are ambiguous – a sinister meaning is unprovable. But why is politics sounding less like Ben Franklin, and more like Tony Soprano?

Despite the dislike of Bill and Hillary Clinton, there was no film showing them being shot. There were no books titled, “Clinton Must Go” or articles titled, “Are Hillary’s Days Numbered?” Nor were there books titled, “Obama Must Go,” or, “Are Biden’s Days Numbered?” Why? Where are Republican film and music stars who spew out obscenities at Democrats?

Somehow it became “liberal” to hate Republicans, but we must “understand” terrorists and other violent criminals. How’s that working out?

Many conservatives feel liberals are mistaken, ill informed, and naive. But many liberals feel conservatives are heartless, racist, and evil. There are exceptions, but this generalization is regrettably accurate.

Republicans accuse Democrats of not understanding the terrorist threat, of focusing on second-hand smoke instead of homeland defense, and of being well intentioned but impractical.

But Democrats accuse Republicans of throwing old folks out on the street, taking lunches away from school kids, hating minorities and women, destroying national parks, setting up a dictatorship, waging a bloody war that’s “all about oil,” and even “destroying the planet.”

Republicans are accused of wanting to destroy our freedom, enslave our people, pollute the earth, and plunge the world into war. That’s not criticism – that’s hate. And the hate comes from the party of “tolerance and inclusion.”

Democrats drove around with bumper stickers claiming “Bush knew” about 9/11. They blamed “neocons” for pushing us into war. Nazi websites also claimed “Bush knew,” and blamed “Jewish neocons” for pushing us into war. Democrats accuse Republicans of being Nazis, but some Democrats actually talk like Nazis.

And all this happened before Donald Trump entered politics. Anti-Republican hatred may be intense now, but it is clearly nothing new. It was not evoked by Trump’s over-the-top statements. It is a result of endemic “progressive” rage at anyone who dares to disagree.

Democrats want to “fight” for abortion rights, “defeat” tax cuts, “beat back” proposals for school choice, “battle” for health care, “combat” proposals for homeland security, and “attack” our policy on Iraq. They see Republicans, not terrorists, as their enemies. An acquaintance called Fox News “the enemy.” Silly me! I though our enemies were the ones who knocked down the Twin Towers and who cut off opponents heads.

People may exaggerate to make a point. Hateful rhetoric may not be sincere in the mind of the speaker, but it can evoke real hate in the mind of the listener. How many potential Lee Harvey Oswalds are on Twitter when assassination Tweets proliferate, and how many see “Kill Trump” graffiti?

Unlike older nations, America is not held together by racial or ethnic ties, but by shared ideals. Liberals are doing their best to undermine the Judeo-Christian basis of our moral code. They removed mention of God from public life, and banned the Ten Commandments from public schools. They teach students that our nation is anti-environment, racist, sexist, genocidal, and militaristic.

But without racial or ethnic ties, and with our Judeo-Christian tradition weakened and our national pride undermined, what remains to hold us together? If we replace political debate with hate speech, our nation may come apart at the seams. Hateful rhetoric, vicious name-calling, and rabid partisanship threaten our survival as a free nation.

We have two choices. We can restore our Judeo-Christian tradition and again teach Americanism in schools. Then we may be strong enough to survive hateful rhetoric. Regrettably, this is unlikely to happen. Or we can moderate our rhetoric:

● If we disagree on abortion, it’s not because one side is composed of woman-haters, and the other side of baby-killers, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on same-sex marriage, it’s not because one side wants to beat up gays, and the other side wants to destroy the family, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on school choice, it’s not because one side wants to steal the money to support fancy private schools, and the other side wants to keep kids in rotten public schools, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on health care, it’s not because one side wants the poor to croak, and the other side wants to buy their votes, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on welfare, it’s not because one side wants minorities to starve, and the other side wants to keep them dependent, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on taxes, it’s not because one side wants to crush the poor, and the other side wants to crush individual initiative, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on border security, it’s not because one side wants to build concentration camps, and the other side wants to let terrorists roam free, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on building up our military, it’s not because one side wants to trade blood for oil, and the other side wants ISIS to win, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on climate change, it’s not because one side wants to destroy the planet, and the other side wants to destroy the economy, but because of honest differences.

● If we disagree on coronavirus, it’s not because one side wants people to die of disease, and the other side wants to destroy the economy, but because of honest differences.

Granted, not everyone is honest. Proponents of gun confiscation rarely admit this, and talk about “sensible” gun laws. Democrats rammed through ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, then blame Republicans when things go wrong. Nevertheless, we should treat these people as political opponents rather than enemies.

Save the hate for genocidal tyrants who want to nuke us, and bloodthirsty terrorists who want to behead us. Don’t misdirect the hate onto fellow Americans with political differences. Don’t tolerate people who fob off assassination as politics.

Still, if “activists” insist on talking about assassinating President Trump, here is a thought to alleviate your concern:

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.

www.stolinsky.com

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.