About jumping To Conclusions

Barack Obama warned against jumping to conclusions when terrorist Nidal Hasan shot and killed members of the US Army. This from the guy who jumped to conclusions when a police officer arrested his buddy for being disorderly. The warning signs were there and Army officers report that they were afraid to report the issue because of political correctness. One claimed his concerns were ignored for that very reason.

The communications with an al-Qaeda cleric, the rantings about Islam, the threats to infidels, the poor performance are all out there now and we are warned not to jump to conclusions.

Hasan might claim insanity and he might be on to something. One would have to be insane to follow the teachings of the radical faction of Islam.

But where were the liberals warning about jumping to conclusions when a part time census worker was found hanging from a tree in Kentucky, allegedly with the words FED scrawled on his chest? The left immediately jumped all over the case and indicted the right wing in America. The blame was placed squarely on so called hate speech from the right. Michelle Malkin detailed, at the time, all of the liberals who were blaming conservatives. Here is a sample from the Democratic Underground (as reported by her):

We need to absolutely expose Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh and the legion of others parroting right-wing lies for trumping up this nonsense and getting people to now commit murder in a hideous fashion.

HuffPo, Radio Equalizer and New York Magazine all put the blame on conservatives. There was even a picture of a hanging body with the words FED on the chest and the names of conservatives printed behind it.

It would seem that this was a bit premature because the official finding in the case is that the worker, Bill Sparkman, committed suicide.

It would seem that all of the conclusions as to whom was responsible were quite a bit off the mark. None of the liberals espousing restraint with regard to Nidal Hasan opened their mouths to caution restraint. There is plenty of evidence in the case against Hasan but there was not one shred of evidence in Sparkman’s death that pointed to conservatives talk being the cause of his death. The left jumped all over it nonetheless. Where were the trusty liberal mouthpieces when this was taking place? They were agreeing with the accusations of their echo chamber roommates. While they might not have publicly expressed the same sentiments, they were thinking it because they all believe that conservatives are violent.

Who can blame them for thinking this? The botox bimbo, San Fran Nan, told them that conservatives were violent. She teared up at a meeting to discuss the anger from the tea party protesters and stated she had seen this before in her home state and it led to violence. She was referring to Harvey Milk who, by the way, was murdered by another state employee over a job dispute. His murder had nothing to do with “angry mobs.” But Nancy had to make people believe that the tea party people are violent. The left looks at the tea parties as conservatives but the movement has people from all political ideologies and all walks of life. But the left has to focus on conservatives and isolate them in order to carry out Alinsky’s rules.

It is quite evident that this whole idea of violence is a fabrication because there has been no violence perpetrated by tea party members during all of the heated town hall meetings. The only violence came at the hands of union thugs who were acting as the enforcement arm of liberals. Those jackasses beat the hell out of a man. Those jackasses threatened the elderly. Those jackasses were the ones there to demonstrate a show of force. The tea party people know how to demonstrate peacefully. Another bit of evidence of the desire to pin violence on the conservatives appeared when the media reported that a number of people were arrested in DC at the rally Congresswoman Michele Bachman called for prior to the House vote on health care. The media neglected to indicate that those arrested were from the left. Those arrested were Code Pinko members who were protesting Lieberman’s decision to block health care. The media referred to them as tea partiers and failed to make any distinction when reporting the story.

This is a desire to pin it all on conservatives. Those who admonish against jumping to conclusions when there is mounting evidence are all too happy to sit around doing the first digit rectal interface when their side is indicting people who do not advocate violence and who do not incite violence.

Every time there is a death or violence the left is quick to point fingers at Malkin, Beck, Limbaugh and other conservatives and they point reflexively with no evidence whatsoever. Obama is an extension of that and demonstrated it with the Cambridge cop.

Let the conservatives point when there is a mountain of evidence and we are jumping to conclusions.

This liberal double standard is why they have no credibility (well one reason among many).

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

7 Responses to “About jumping To Conclusions”

  1. Adam says:

    Well, I for one did not speculate about the census worker so don’t expect me to back down on the exposure of you for your own speculation.

  2. Blake says:

    No Adam- this is true, but ther have been plenty on your side that have done so- the problem seems to be in “perception management”- a “new” branch of PR that the Dems seem to like and use more than conservatives.
    Conservatives seem to feel that the truth should be “self- evident”, while the Dems, and especially the “progressive liberal” wing seems to think that it can “create” the perception of truth, or an alternate truth that takes the place of the real truth, and thus is “perceived” as the real truth.
    This despite the fact that one cannot “create” the TRUTH- one can only lie convincingly enough that some people believe it to be true.
    It is still a LIE.

    • Adam says:

      You’re talking about spin and it’s always going to exist. Don’t pretend there isn’t an equal number of truth distorters on your side of the isle or that your side has some connect to self-evident truth. That’s simply not the case.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “one cannot “create” the TRUTH- one can only lie convincingly enough that some people believe it to be true.”>>

      DAR
      Blake’s entire posting strategy in a nutshell!

      BLK: “the “progressive liberal” wing seems to think that it can “create” the perception of truth, or an alternate truth that takes the place of the real truth, and thus is “perceived” as the real truth.”>>

      DAR
      Blake has it backwards again. He won’t understand this but others will. Here is a flash from the past that describes this well:

      ***
      Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush

      By RON SUSKIND

      Published: October 17, 2004

      Excerpt:

      “In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

      The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

      Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

      • Big Dog says:

        Any proof this took place? You know like audio or an official transcript?

        • Darrel says:

          Not that I know of.

          D.
          —————-
          “Ron Suskind is a Pulitzer Prize winning American journalist and best-selling author. He was the senior national affairs writer for The Wall Street Journal from 1993 to 2000 and has published four books, A Hope in the Unseen, The Price of Loyalty, The One Percent Doctrine and The Way of the World. He won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for his series of articles in the Wall Street Journal that later became his first book, A Hope in the Unseen.” –wiki

      • Blake says:

        No, D- I do NOT have it backwards, you do- but since perception (at least for you) is reality, you will never see the truth as it truly is, and I feel pity for you that you will not- your reality is distorted, to say the least, probably because there is no faith in your life, and you are blinded by your secular views.
        I pity you.