Sarah Palin Speaks On Tucson Murders; And The Loughner Left Has Gone Full "Conscience [sic] Dreaming"

Why is Sarah Palin speaking on this? Why does she have to speak about this?

Well, because, of course, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have put her in the position of the Son of Sam's dog, delivering Satanic commands into the jug-ears of bug-eyed freak Loughner. They did this on the basis of zero evidence, and, as I keep saying, quite a welter of evidence against the thesis, but they did it just the same, because they can. They don't have the power to control the Narrative anymore, but they damnsure have the power to push it.

So here we have the spectacle of someone not the Sheriff of Pima County having to explain her purported negligence in the shooting while the actual Sheriff of Pima County has not been asked a single question about his own.

That's where we are. That's the country we live in.

Video at The Campaign Spot; here's the passage that will be quoted and debated.

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.

Because everything Sarah Palin says or does is "controversial," of course this is controversial too; she used the term "blood libel," which, it is now alleged, cannot be used, ever, except in reference to the Jewish population which was first slurred by the original "blood libel." (No word yet from Keith Olbermann on why she can't say "blood libel" but he can say "Holocaust," referring to attempts to block the Ground Zero Mosque; but I'm sure he'll come up with one.)

Geraghty is already refuting this typical, brain-dead ankle-biting by saying the use of the term in other contexts is "more common than you think," which is wrong in my case, because I already did think it was very common. But his Nexus/Lexus search is more authoriative than my hunches.

It should be noted here that this newest round of shrieking and caterwauling is perfectly of a piece with the last; Sarah Palin's every word is scrutinized and criticized for being inappropriate and dangerous, and of course her use of the word "targeting" caused this attack, and now, we find out, that in a speech defending herself (obliquely) from such attacks, she has now further contributed to the "climate of hate" by using the term "blood libel."

Blood. What a giveaway, as Monty Python would say.

This is the lunacy that she/we will all be subjected to, every single word-choice challenged, because, yeah, the Narrative did get out the door and the Democrats and the media have determined that no one, no power on heaven or earth, shall ever stop the Narrative.

You can contain the Narrative, you can rebut it, but you can't stop the Narrative.

This is in fact blood libel, and this is now, officially, the Stupidest Shit I've Ever Heard In My Whole Fucking Life. We are now debating -- quite seriously, or we're supposed to be quite serious about debating this -- whether Sarah Palin can use martial imagery in her speech, even though everyone in politics does this, including the very media now assuring us this is all a terrible thing. And we are supposed to have this very serious debate while our opponents in the debate are simply making things up, or, more accurately: We are supposed to indulge our opponents' retreat to a fantasy world they've constructed, and not disrupt their fantasy too much, because, who knows, Paul Krugman might snap if we do.

Thus we are all summoned to discuss the effects of Sarah Palin's target symbols on the mind of Jared Loughner (quick version of that discussion: None) and pretend that it was a Tea Party "climate of hate" that cause Jared Loughner to get violent over his belief that the government was using grammar to mind control us and keep us from escaping into the world of "conscience [sic] dreaming."

We're really supposed to have this discussion. And we're supposed to be buttoned-up serious about it. People are dead, after all, so of course we must pay lip service to our opponents' own Loughnerian escape into fantasy worlds of conscience [sic] dreaming.

As Allah asked: Am I awake?

Yes, yes you are. All of this shit? It's really happening.

So, because one segment of the population has, along with Jared Loughner, fled to a dream world that they control, "consciencely" [sic], by simply asserting that white is black and day is night, we're supposed to join them, and find common ground with them, and find something interesting that we can jointly agree upon.

I suppose: Yes, this world of conscience [sic] dreaming you've made is certainly a nice one, and, assuming the various false premises you've conscience [sic] dreamed into existence, I do see that your syllogism does follow (again, Loughner-like) from those false premises.

I guess I'm supposed to say that.

Since the left has gone Loughner, maybe I'll join them.

Paranoid schizophrenics see patterns and connections where there are none, and where tangible, real-world evidence tells us there are none.

Leftists see patterns and connections were there are none, and where tangible, real-world evidence tells us there are none.

Therefore, leftists have become paranoid schizophrenics.

That may be true. But that's not how I feel. Here is how I currently feel, on Day 4 of being locked in a leftist Loughner Dream:

If you say a false narrative is crazy, you yourself have claimed to know what is crazy or is not crazy, and that belief is itself crazy.

Ace says this false narrative is crazy.

Therefore, Ace is crazy.

posted by Ace at 11:53 AM

| Access Comments