Happy Hour News Briefs
Low-rent Islamaphobe and right-wingnut pundit Eric Rush writes…
The tension was almost palpable on the part of liberal and conservative politicos and pundits in the hours prior to James Hodgkinson being named as the perpetrator of the June 14 shootings in Virginia. Had Hodgkinson turned out to be a creature of the political right, of course we would have been treated to gleeful, self-satisfied oratory from leftists affirming that private ownership of firearms should be outlawed, right wingers possess innate homicidal tendencies, and that such violence could only have been catalyzed by the political ascendency of that horrible scoundrel in the White House, Donald Trump.
As opposed to the gleeful, self-satisfied oratory from fascists affirming that private ownership of guns (armed to the teeth, and then some!) should be promoted, that liberals possess innate homicidal tendencies, and that such violence could only have been catalyzed by the political ascendency of that horrible scoundrel in the White House, Donald Trump (at least we agree on that last bit).
Once it had been determined that Hodgkinson was in fact a rabid leftist, the cry went up for both Democrats and Republicans to tone down their rhetoric. Although this is being articulated primarily by those on the left, even some like conservative firebrand rocker Ted Nugent stated late last week that he would moderate his public message.
I agree. Ted Nugent was insincere. Oh, wait. That’s not what Eric meant?
This made me wonder: When Democrat and liberal leaders state that we need to employ less incendiary rhetoric, to whom are they speaking? Is this “we” to whom they refer the “royal ‘we,’” or are they speaking to the ultra-liberal base of the Democrat Party? Certainly they aren’t addressing liberals and conservatives alike, because it hasn’t been conservatives and Republicans advocating for the beating, maiming, and killing of President Trump and others among their political opponents – it is only prominent liberals and Democrats who have done so, and with great relish.
Right. So people calling for Hillary to be executed were exactly what? Just in case you need a reminder, this is Trump adviser Al Baldasaro calling for Hillary’s execution. Fun fact! Baldasaro was invited to an event at the White House today!
But, I digress. Continue, Mr. Rush:
I believe that Republicans and conservatives taking the left’s faux chagrin at face value and validating their counterfeit idiomatic peace offerings are the height of folly. It is also quite curious that the alleged peaceful majority of Muslims residing in the West who so seldom condemn terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam never seem to be quite as scarce when it comes to condemning such deeds as those of Darren Osborne, which could easily have been the frustrated, desperate actions of a citizen who simply got fed up with his countrymen being targeted by an insidious invading force and political leaders enabling same.
Osborne is the chap who decided to eye-for-an-eye Muslims in the UK and attacked a mosque using a van as a weapon. So Mr. Rush seems to be saying, what exactly? That Osborne did not deserve condemnation?
In a fistfight or in war, one does not submit to the entreaties of an opponent who executes a successful attack and then falls back to regroup. If one is able, one executes a counterattack.
Projection. How does it work? So how does this tie into his theme, I’m confused.
While I am not advocating an in-kind response to the June 14 shooting or violent acts perpetrated by Islamists, our enemies do need to be put on notice that their actions will not be tolerated in the long term.
…which sounds EXACTLY like advocating an in-kind response.
And now, the exciting conclusion, complete with lemon-scented cognitive dissonance because now Eric Rush is demanding an in-kind response:
The take-away from all of this? Don’t be fooled by this insincere and gutless tactic. Socialists and Islamists are not merely political opponents. They are deadly enemies to be neutralized, and with all due speed.