Do Words Break Bones??

[Bonnie]

David Limbaugh


April 19, 2005

It's a pretty sad day in America when one cannot criticize the judiciary and even individual judges without being accused of advocating violence against judges. This strained connection is but another example of liberals trying to chill conservative speech.

As if all the charges against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay were not enough, the Left has also implied that DeLay was inciting violence against judges by a remark he made during the Terri Schiavo turmoil.

DeLay said, in reference to judges who ruled in the Schiavo case, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

I'm sorry DeLay apologized for the "inartfulness" of the statement (though he did not apologize for its substance). Personally, I don't think he should have apologized at all, because nothing in it in could be construed as advocating violence against judges.

DeLay had every right to speculate that the public would eventually hold judges accountable for exceeding the bounds of their constitutional authority, regardless of whether you agree with him that judges acted imperially in the Schiavo case.

It's regrettable that some have hinted at a nexus between recent episodes of courthouse violence -- the murder of a state judge in Atlanta and the massacre of a federal judge's immediate family in Chicago -- and the public's angst against unaccountable judges. Both crimes were committed by people with case-specific motives.

No one seriously believes the murders were motivated by indiscriminate anger against the judiciary or judicial activism. It's laughable to think the killers were crusaders on a mission to restore the constitutional separation of powers.

This spurious alleged relationship between anti-judiciary rhetoric and violence against judges is actually part of a larger anti-conservative slander the Left has been pedaling for years. The theme is simply: "Conservatives are angry, hateful individuals within a hair trigger of lurching into violence. We must discourage, even sometimes outlaw certain speech that might incite these lunatics to violence."

Hate crime statutes and the speech codes we see on university campuses throughout the land are grounded in the notion that certain speech begets violence. Staving off such violence has long been the Orwellian justification for suppressing certain speech.

Anti-harassment and anti-bullying regulations at public high schools issue from the same mindset. It's not bullying or harassment the drafters of these regulations are targeting -- since such conduct is never permitted under any school's behavioral code -- but certain conduct-specific speech with which they disagree. No, these codes are generally designed to prevent students from airing their opinions, for example, disapproving of homosexual behavior.

At South Windsor high school in Connecticut last week, four students were sent home because they wore T-shirts with the slogan: "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," in response to an annual Day of Silence organized by the national Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Only one side of the message -- pro-homosexual -- is acceptable, because to permit free speech of the opposite message is to incite violence against homosexuals.

Remember when Bill Clinton, while musing about the Oklahoma City bombing, fingered "hate-talk radio" as the "purveyors of hate and division" who "leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable?" Or how about when columnist Carl Rowan opined that he was "absolutely certain" that "the harsher rhetoric of the Gingriches and Doles creates a climate of violence in America?" Then there was Bryant Gumbel, who said, "The bombing in Oklahoma City has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that's been coming from the right and those who cater to angry white men."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050419.shtml

 

[William Joyce]

Mr. Limbaugh's column is actually pretty decent. And I understand on the QT that this other Limbaugh is hipper to what's happening to white males in America than a "mainstream" or "respectable" conservative can let on without being the target of a hate crime law himself.

Bonnie, what do you think is going on here, really? Liberals are telling us that conservatives, because of what they THINK, SAY and FEEL, are potentially violent criminals who must be imprisoned for what they THINK, SAY and FEEL. OK. What that means is that there are rumblings to make conservative thought or speech a crime. After all, if the government is willing to bomb Iraq on the suspicion that it's a POTENTIALLY violent country, why not conservatives?

In other words, they are laying the groundwork to demonize and use law enforcement to crack down on the right wing.

Do you think race has nothing to do with this? Why is it always "angry white males" who are the target?

 

[Annie]

Mr. Limbaugh's column is actually pretty decent. And I understand on the QT that this other Limbaugh is hipper to what's happening to white males in America than a "mainstream" or "respectable" conservative can let on without being the target of a hate crime law himself.

Bonnie, what do you think is going on here, really? Liberals are telling us that conservatives, because of what they THINK, SAY and FEEL, are potentially violent criminals who must be imprisoned for what they THINK, SAY and FEEL. OK. What that means is that there are rumblings to make conservative thought or speech a crime. After all, if the government is willing to bomb Iraq on the suspicion that it's a POTENTIALLY violent country, why not conservatives?

In other words, they are laying the groundwork to demonize and use law enforcement to crack down on the right wing.

Do you think race has nothing to do with this? Why is it always "angry white males" who are the target?

WJ, while I agree the left is making hay of the right's whinings about the judicial branch, I disagree that it is just white males that are the targets. Check out what they do to minorities that are 'conservative.'

 

[Bonnie]

William Joyce..In other words, they are laying the groundwork to demonize and use law enforcement to crack down on the right wing.

Here it is, the slow methodical demonization of Conservative thought.

I have to say though that although the term angry white male is thrown around quite a bit, I also think it is other Liberal white men attempting to anger minorities against white conservatives in order to keep their voting base intact. After hearing it enough minorities start to believe white conservative people are the cause of all their societal woes, which of course liberals are happy to rescue them from. It's been a winning strategy on the part of liberals thus far, although hopefully as more minorities become middle and upper class thru hard work that tactic may loose some of it's umph.

 

[cptpwichita]

Liberals want to take away your economic freedom and make you dependant on government.

Conservatives want to take away your personal freedoms,interfere in your personal family matters and censor anything they deem "morally corrupt".

Liberals want to lay down at the altar of the united nations.

Conservatives want to station troops at every corner of the globe and support foreign militaries.

Niether will be fiscally responsible,protect personal property rights (imminent domain),secure our borders,and limit the federal governments size,scope or power.

 

[Annie]

Liberals want to take away your economic freedom and make you dependant on government.

Conservatives want to take away your personal freedoms,interfere in your personal family matters and censor anything they deem "morally corrupt".

Liberals want to lay down at the altar of the united nations.

Conservatives want to station troops at every corner of the globe and support foreign militaries.

Niether will be fiscally responsible,protect personal property rights (imminent domain),secure our borders,and limit the federal governments size,scope or power.

And your solution is?

 

[cptpwichita]

Vote Libertarian!

 

[Bonnie]

You knew that was coming right Kathianne?? :teeth:

 

[cptpwichita]

Thanks for the set-up there! :

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks for the set-up there! :

Doink!!!

 

[Gunny]

Liberals want to take away your economic freedom and make you dependant on government.

Conservatives want to take away your personal freedoms,interfere in your personal family matters and censor anything they deem "morally corrupt".

Liberals want to lay down at the altar of the united nations.

Conservatives want to station troops at every corner of the globe and support foreign militaries.

Niether will be fiscally responsible,protect personal property rights (imminent domain),secure our borders,and limit the federal governments size,scope or power.

Get a candidate who ACTUALLY stands for those things and isn't selling prettily-packaged anarchy, and I would consider it.

 

[Annie]

You knew that was coming right Kathianne?? :teeth:

Yeah I did and do. I too have strong libertarian leanings, too bad that party has only fielded decent local pols. Still don't agree with the fair tax.

 

[cptpwichita]

Yeah I did and do. I too have strong libertarian leanings, too bad that party has only fielded decent local pols. Still don't agree with the fair tax.

what part of the fair tax don't you like?