Sarah Palin's response to the Massacre

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah Palin's response to the Massacre

Sarah Palin finally issued a formal response to all the screaming by the left.

It's a hell of a response, too.

I think it is more than appropriate.

A tragedy is a tragedy. Period.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/18698532" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>

On a political note, I believe Palin is moving into a new realm with this. She is starting to sound just as poetic and visionary as Obama did during his campaign. And I, for one, do not doubt her sincerity. I don't agree with everything she stands for, but I do agree with her on many fundamental issues. And I fully believe she has good intent.

I predict that Sarah Palin will continue in this approach and her popularity will grow steadily.

Michael

EDIT: I just noticed the text on the video and went to several places to find it. At this moment, you can't even see it on Sarah's Facebook page. So while Vimeo is trying to make a killing from the huge spike in traffic by hijacking this video (after having released it), here is the text as published here: America's Enduring Strength.

I will try to find the video elsewhere and post it here.

EDIT AGAIN: Now that I made the first edit, it looks like the Vimeo problem has been resolved. May they live long and prosper.

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

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.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

- Sarah Palin

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

This article by Michael Moynihan traces the origins of the word "eliminationist," which is now being featured in the screeds of Paul Krugman and others.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/11/the-extreme-rhetoric-about-ext

The word entered political discourse through Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I just read it over. Too many names for me for more than a superficial reading, but I'm glad there are people around as learned as Michael Moynihan.

Interestingly, I have run into the same problem he addresses, but on a far smaller scale. Often I want to use a quote I heard someone else quote, but the references I ultimately find are copies of Internet posts where no references are given. Or there are no page numbers when there is a reference.

The idea that many allegedly learned Left-wing intellectuals are citing Sinclair Lewis and Huey Long in passages they did not author should give anyone pause.

There is just too much information on the Internet for any reader to have to trust these people. The reader knows if he can check a fact for himself, most assuredly the intellectuals can, too. These hoity-toity vicious little souls are losing credibility big time and deservedly so.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Moynihan links to an older Reason article by Jesse Walker that I think contains some real insights. But it goes on and on encyclopedically. If you think Moynihan has too many names in his piece...

"Eliminationist" was, until 2009, used only to refer to extreme hatred of Jews in Germany, the kind that Goldhagen believes led directly to Nazism. Its adoption by someone as smart and well read as Paul Krugman has to be deliberate.

You knew Jesse Jackson was going to wade in, likening Sarah Palin et al. to George Wallace in the days running up to the Birmingnham church bombing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/hate-speech-lit-blaze-in_b_807485.html#

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

It's interesting how both sides agree to claim that "violence is not the answer" while they use violence to coerce people to adhere to their legislative fiats. The emperor has no clothes.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I don't know about sides in this case.

I do know I went to a wonderful rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC last year where non-violence was practiced, not just preached, by over half-a-million people from all over the USA. Sarah Palin was one of the speakers.

As was noted, not one arrest. And we left the place cleaner than we found it.

Calls to good character work.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Since the liberal MSM is dumping on Palin for using the term "blood libel," in her statement today on the Arizona shootings and the MSM's response to it -

it is interesting that Professor Alan Dershowitz issued the following statement defending her usage of that term: (from Breitbart's website): http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/ )

_________________________________________________________________

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Rich Engle]

And MSK pitches a RED HOT HEATER!

An uber-shitbomb!

The deadly Sack of Flaming Poo<tm>.

These hoity-toity vicious little souls

Ah, and I bet that just rolled right out, too, didn't it? SWEET! Excellent, excellent, excellent!

So you must be rewarded! To amplify your description:

r

Might be borrowing that one some day for one thing or another. NICE. Two thumbs up: WAY up.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Jerry Biggers]

ALTHOUGH THE LEFT'S MSM CONTINUE TO EXPRESS "SHOCK AND HORROR" OVER PALIN'S ALLEGED "INAPPROPRIATE" USE OF THE TERM, "BLOOD LIBEL," -

here are nine more instances of their own use of that term:

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/257057/team-sarah-points-even-more-recent-uses-blood-libel

In other words, they will miss no opportunity to smear Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, and anyone else that they deem to pose any threat to their hegemony. I suppose that this is no surprise to any of us, but it is another example of the Left's willingness to engage in lies and deceit to attack their enemies.

Disgusting.

[william.scherk]

All the speeches were good, but your President did the job he is paid to do.

Edited January 13, 2011 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

Since the liberal MSM is dumping on Palin for using the term "blood libel," in her statement today on the Arizona shootings and the MSM's response to it -

it is interesting that Professor Alan Dershowitz issued the following statement defending her usage of that term: (from Breitbart's website): http://biggovernment...rm-blood-libel/ )

_________________________________________________________________

In an exclusive statement, famed attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” from multiple detractors. As the Media Matters/MSM/Democrat narrative on the Tucson tragedy unravels, they are getting a lot more desperate in their attacks on Palin. Fortunately, there are still plenty of honest liberals around:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

I had the pleasure of being a speaking acquaintance with Alan Dershowitz when I lived in Massachusetts. He is a good man and a sound thinker.

The term "blood libel" is exactly right for this occasion. The idea is that of blaming the many for the misdeeds or alleged misdeeds of the few. This perverse way of thinking goes back to the dawn of the human race. The posturing of the liberal over Palin's use of the term (totally appropriate in this instance) is just more posturing and clucking from the creatures of the Left.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

All the speeches were good, but your President did the job he is paid to do.

Thank you for posting this, as I might have missed it. The rain puddles touched me unbearably. I remember my own 9th birthday, the best ever with a wonderful party and my first big bike. And my sons' birthdays, and the blessing that they continue to have them.

The magnificence of America is in Tucson today.

[pippi]

She said 'pundints' at 3:27 - ugh I so want to like her...

I tried.

Edited January 13, 2011 by pippi

[Robert Campbell]

This was the best speech that Barack Obama has given since his inauguration. If anyone put a Dick Morris memo on his desk, he chose not to follow the advice.

I don't think Sarah Palin would be a good Presidential nominee, but she was entirely right to say that the Paul Krugmans have been promoting a blood libel.

They've been running around making charges of "eliminationism," but by all indications they are the ones who want their political opponents eliminated.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

This was the best speech that Barack Obama has given since his inauguration. If anyone put a Dick Morris memo on his desk, he chose not to follow the advice.

I don't think Sarah Palin would be a good Presidential nominee, but she was entirely right to say that the Paul Krugmans have been promoting a blood libel.

They've been running around making charges of "eliminationism," but by all indications they are the ones who want their political opponents eliminated.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Agreed. I thought it was interesting that his aides floated the idea that he was studying Reagan while he was in Hawaii on vacation.

I compared this to Reagan's Challenger speech.

I hoped he would have been stern when the applause started and risen to the memorial and eulogistic nature of the occasion, but I will take what I can get from him.

The "rain puddles" section was beautiful and employed pathos perfectly. If you did not cry at that point, you have more self control than I.

The "Gabby opened her eyes for the first time" section was extremely dissonant for me because I had heard the Doctors explain that she had opened her eyes the day before. However, he gets a pass on that as employing another pathos trope.

All in all a good effort.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But, we've never lost an astronaut in flight; we've never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we've forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle; but they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we're thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, 'Give me a challenge and I'll meet it with joy.' They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us.

We've grown used to wonders in this century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for twenty-five years the United States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.

I've always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don't hide our space program. We don't keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That's the way freedom is, and we wouldn't change it for a minute. We'll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: "Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it."

There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and a historian later said, 'He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.' Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honoured us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and 'slipped the surly bonds of earth' to 'touch the face of God.'

Thank you.

President Ronald Reagan - January 28, 1986

http://www.historypl...-challenger.htm

Edited January 14, 2011 by Selene

[Selene]

She said 'pundints' at 3:27 - ugh I so want to like her...

I tried.

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Says she condemned violence at a campaign stop in Arizona in March.

Sarah Palin on Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 in a video statement on Facebook

Sarah Palin said "violence isn't the answer" at a March campaign rally.

Share this story:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Sarah Palin speaks about the shootings in Arizona.

In the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., much of the public discussion focused on whether political rhetoric has grown too heated.

Giffords is a Democratic representative from a conservative-leaning district. During the 2010 election, Republicans believed Giffords' seat and others like it were likely wins for their party. Republican Sarah Palin included the district on a map that put the crosshairs of a gun sight over selected districts held by Democrats. Back in March, Giffords herself said in an interview that political rhetoric was growing too heated, and specifically mentioned the map. "For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is, the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action." (A Palin spokeswoman said they were surveyors marks, not crosshairs.)

To be clear, there's no evidence so far that shooter, Jared Loughner, was involved in politics or even saw the map. Still, some have criticized Palin the wake of the Tuscon shooting for using gun imagery regularly in her public comments.

Several days later, on Jan. 12, 2011, Palin responded to the criticism with a video statement posted to her Facebook account.

"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy," Palin said in her statement.

But Palin also rejected those who would blame her.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin said. "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." She added that "journalists and pundits" were manufacturing a "blood libel" that political rhetoric somehow played a part in the shooting.

Palin then noted that she has publicly condemned violence.

"As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, 'We know violence isn't the answer. When we "take up our arms", we're talking about our vote.' Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next," Palin said.

We wanted to know the context of her comments and if Palin was giving an accurate rendering of them.

We found that Palin was referring to comments she made at a campaign stop with Sen. John McCain in Tuscon. Palin was supporting McCain, who was facing a primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth.

"And hearing the news reports lately, kind of this ginned up controversy about us common-sense conservatives inciting violence because we happen to oppose some of the things in the Obama administration," Palin said. "We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our arms, we are talking about our vote. We're talking about being involved in a contested primary like this and picking the right candidate, too, John McCain. We thank you for that. But this BS coming from the 'lame stream media' about us inciting violence -- don't let the conversation be diverted. Don't let a distraction like that get you off track. Keep fighting hard for these candidates who are all about the common-sense conservative solutions that we need."

Palin said that back in March she condemned violence and said, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we 'take up our arms', we're talking about our vote." We checked the transcript and found that was the case. We rate her

statement True.

Sorry folks.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Selene

[pippi]

She said 'pundints' at 3:27 - ugh I so want to like her...

I tried.

Sorry folks.

What do you mean by that? Just asking because you put my post up top there.

I agree with her alot of the time-most of the time actually, I just dont think she is Presidential material-hence my disappointment at the pronunciation of the word pundit.

[Selene]

Pippi:

Out of curiosity, what are the elements that make up "presidential material"?

This is not a trick question.

Adam

[pippi]

Pippi:

Out of curiosity, what are the elements that make up "presidential material"?

This is not a trick question.

Adam

Personal dignity for one.

Can you imagine Sasha or Malia or Michelle on dancing with the stars? Or haranguing with their kids on broadcast tv (ala Sarah's Alaska? ugh)

I am no Obama fan at all but at least he hasn't stooped that low.

Call me crazy for asking this but what would Ayn Rand think of her?

I find her to be a low rate 1st hander-she couldnt hold a candle to Eddie or Cheryl T

Edited January 14, 2011 by pippi

[Selene]

Pippi:

Out of curiosity, what are the elements that make up "presidential material"?

This is not a trick question.

Adam

Personal dignity for one.

Can you imagine Sasha or Malia or Michelle on dancing with the stars? Or haranguing with their kids on broadcast tv (ala Sarah's Alaska? ugh)

I am no Obama fan at all but at least he hasn't stooped that low.

Call me crazy for asking this but what would Ayn Rand think of her?

Good point. I mean Abraham Lincoln's wife was clinically depressed and basically insane. Ronald Reagan's film career with a monkey certainly was dignified. Bill Clinton certainly had personal dignity. I see what you mean.

Any other elements that make a person presidential?

[BaalChatzaf]

Any other elements that make a person presidential?

Being elected to the office?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[pippi]

Pippi:

Out of curiosity, what are the elements that make up "presidential material"?

This is not a trick question.

Adam

Personal dignity for one.

Can you imagine Sasha or Malia or Michelle on dancing with the stars? Or haranguing with their kids on broadcast tv (ala Sarah's Alaska? ugh)

I am no Obama fan at all but at least he hasn't stooped that low.

Call me crazy for asking this but what would Ayn Rand think of her?

Good point. I mean Abraham Lincoln's wife was clinically depressed and basically insane. Ronald Reagan's film career with a monkey certainly was dignified. Bill Clinton certainly had personal dignity. I see what you mean.

Any other elements that make a person presidential?

Selene Lincoln's wife's problem was not of her own making. Ronald Reagan's film career was king of embarrassing true.

But Bill Clinton and dignity in the same sentence????

[pippi]

Sarah running would just be a spoiler-she would get Obama re-elected, that is my main concern about her.

I like her sort of a little just not as a candidate for president.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will be supporting Sarah Palin's run if she does it.

I like her character. And I like how she took apart the old boy network in her own party in Alaska.

Michael

[pippi]

I will be supporting Sarah Palin's run if she does it.

I like her character. And I like how she took apart the old boy network in her own party in Alaska.

Michael

Michael-alot of so called 'experts' from what I hear anyway seem to think she will just end up getting Obama re-elected (which would be the end for this country I think and that is pretty scary)

You disagree? If so why?

That is my main reason for not supporting Sarah Palin and would love to hear your opinion on it.