Sunday, July 22, 2012
After he booby-trapped his apartment with explosives,
James Holmes walked into a theater Friday night and opened fire on a crowd
waiting to see the first showing of the new Batman movie. He shot scores and
murdered a dozen. Holmes acted for reasons unknown, but his actions were pure
evil.
His actions also were his alone.
It doesn’t matter if he was bullied as a kid, recently
dumped or whatever else anyone comes up with as a possible motive. Nothing
“caused” him to do this other than whatever evil lives inside him.
But that hasn’t stopped many progressive liberals in and
out of the media from speculating wildly, and seemingly hopefully, as to his
motives and his political affiliation. It hasn’t stopped them from using this
event as a platform to score political points on the issue of gun control. It’s
sickening … and typical.
George Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross of ABC News started
the speculation with the following exchange on Good Morning America:
GS to BR: “You found something that might be
significant.” (Emphasis added)
BR: “There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, ah, page,
ah, on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea
Party last year. Now we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but this is
a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”
The Jim Holmes Brian Ross “found” is a Hispanic man in
his mid-50s, but he was associated with the Tea Party, so the story was simply
too good to bother checking the facts. He’s a Tea Partier, therefore …
Ross later corrected his foolishness with a tweet saying
“Earlier I reported incorrectly that the shooting suspect might be tied to the
Tea Party. I apologize for the mistake.” But we still don’t know why
Stephanopoulos thought this information “might be significant.”
What if he were? Does that make every Tea Party member a
co-conspirator? Of course not, but that wouldn’t have stopped a lot of media
members from reporting it as if it did. They’ve done it before. Who can forget
that it was cross-hairs on a map on Sarah Palin’s website that caused
psychopathic shooter Jerald Lee Loughner to go on his rampage in Tucson? And
who can forget the media reaction when it was discovered he never saw Palin’s
website and was, in fact, a Bush-hating anti-war zealot? That’s right …
crickets.
On Friday, leftists immediately took to Twitter to blame
Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Mitt Romney and conservatives in general. Blame
was being flung everywhere except where it belonged – James Holmes.
What is it about leftists that causes them to immediately
assume the worst of those with whom they disagree? What does it say about them
that after the dust settles, much of the time, those who commit heinous acts
actually share their political philosophy?
The former exposes the desperation and lack of character
that surrounds a political philosophy that seeks to make you responsible for
everyone but yourself. The latter says nothing about them as a whole because
individuals are responsible for their own actions.
It’s our curse that we stay true to our philosophy while
they will abandon any principle at any time to score points.
Not to be outdone, film critic Roger Ebert wrote in the
New York Times:
That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws
are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is
one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public
hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at
the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.
The theater in Aurora, of course, has a ban on guns,
which law-abiding citizens observe. This is why no one shot back. Had someone
been carrying a legal gun, who knows what would’ve happened?
But do we really need to make a case for gun control
before any of the victims are buried? Salman Rushdie thinks so, tweeting that
morning, “The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America.” Mr. Rushdie,
who spent years in hiding from a “fatwa” placed on him by the Ayatollah
Khomeini and enjoyed the protection of armed guards during much of that time,
saw no irony or lack of tact in his tweet. He simply replied, “No, thank you”
when journalists emailed him for further comment.
Mr. Ebert, on the other hand, lives in Chicago, a city
that’s seen 27 gun-related murders this month alone while having some of the
most restrictive gun control laws in the country. You’d think he’d be aware of
this, but pointing it out doesn’t advance his leftist agenda.
He’d rather all America become as “safe” as Chicago.
Ebert’s knee-jerk response not only expresses a complete
disregard for our Constitution (nothing new for Democrats), it shows a lack of
common sense and decency. Rushdie never has been known for his love of much
beyond himself. The exchange between Ross and Stephanopoulos shows us just what
mainstream media types think of those with whom they disagree.
But none of this left-wing exploitation of tragedy
changes the fact that James Holmes acted alone, for reasons we’ll most likely
never know nor understand. Even if he’d been a Tea Party member, the Tea Party
would’ve been no more to blame than, say, President Obama for giving us an
economy in which Holmes was unable to find work or succeed.
No government action ever will outlaw crazy or evil, and
no ceding of liberty to government ever will stop an individual from
perpetrating their sickness on innocent victims.
It just happens. And the person who does it is
responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment