If you want to hear the real sound of “100% wacko,” then just listen to Sarah Palin.
In the wake of the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, many around the country blame Palin’s “incitement to violence”-style rhetoric and imagery which includes, among other techniques, use of the now-infamous “cross hairs” map that – rather literally – targets Democratic leaders. The “cross hairs” map is pictured below:
At the time of writing this article, the “cross-hairs” map was still publicly posted on Palin’s Facebook page. Furthermore, in response to criticism, Palin says that she (and her cronies) are being unjustly blamed for the attack; it is their right to free speech that is being trampled.
In other words – just in case you missed it – Palin is the real victim here. It is not Congresswoman Giffords whom Palin targeted with her map and other violent-provoking rhetoric. No way. It is not the federal judge killed by the gunman. Uh-uh. It is not even the 5 others that were killed in the shooting, including a 9 year-old girl who just happened to have been born on 9/11/2001.
Nope, Sister Sarah is the victim here – she, her cronies, and, well, I suppose the First Amendment. You remember the good-ole No. 1, don’t you? It is part of that pesky document called the Constitution that so many dangerous, half-crazed, ne0-con zealots can never seem to stomach – until it becomes useful to wrap themselves up in it for protection and justification.
Here’s a news bulletin for Sister Sarah – you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end, you still got a pig. And, in this case, a rather dangerous pig. In this case, we have a pig willing to use this tragic event to transform herself into some kind of victim or martyr; or, at the very least, Constitutional champion. In so doing, Palin is revealing either a profound degree of psychological disturbance, or she is demonstrating her willingness to stoop deep to promote her own domination agenda. Maybe both.
Also shocking are those that have publicly defended Palin. For example, Barbara Walters feels Sister Sarah’s pain, saying that it is unfair to blame her for the shooting. Although I normally regard Walters higher than most, not on this occasion. As Lynn M. Paltrow noted in her “Open Letter to Sarah Palin,” Congresswoman Giffords – in particular – criticized Palin’s methods, including the “cross hairs” map. What a coincidence, eh Babs?!?!
Walters is, of course, known for her own brand of “in your face” journalism. However, as she should know, speech that promotes the public good by encouraging debate or controversy – even spirited or agitated – is not the same thing as the self-indulgent calculations of a demagogue trolling her cult of personality for violence with military-style words and imagery. For example, evidence continues to mount suggesting that Palin’s racists comments aimed at President Obama has led to death threats against the President.
If Sarah Palin’s brand of “speech” is protected, then we ought to start now and re-write every Constitutional law textbook so that they feature the likes of Charles Manson and Jim Jones alongside Constitutional champions like Mary Beth Tinker (pictured below), Clarence Earl Gideon and Rosa Parks. Hyperbole, you say? Sarah Palin is nothing like Jim Jones? How would we know that – until it is too late?
What if we suddenly learned that Sarah Palin had direct ties to a terrorist organization whose mission is to cause anarchy and civil unrest in the U.S. to destroy democracy? What is the gunman in this case had ties to the same organization? Suddenly, it might seem as though Palin’s comments were something less akin to pure free speech and something strikingly closer to conspiracy.
Even if Palin’s “speech” is protected, let us not dignify that which does not deserve dignity. A lot of very undignified “speech” is legally protected by our Constitution, whether we like it or not. That does not mean dignified citizens should go out of their way to be cheerleaders.
- Deconstructing Sarah Palin: Levi Was Right (themoderatevoice.com)
- Pawlenty criticizes Palin for cross hairs imagery – USA Today (news.google.com)
- Cross hairs: Crossroads for Palin? – Washington Post (news.google.com)