Sarah Palin, you soulless, heartless, bitch. You and your ilk use revolutionary, violent, assassination imagery against U.S. politicians, then you give the usual trite, stock, feigned-innocence statement when someone who is very likely going to turn out to be one of your swooning fans actually does go and shoot that congresswoman in the head. For those not familiar with Palin's part in this, here's the graphic that's been on her site for months (not surprisingly, taken down just now):
I'm about as pro-free-speech as they come. But there must be limits. You don't get to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. And you don't get to use your cult-of-personality hold over your mindless minions to put people on a "hit list," complete with gunsight targets over them, use assassination imagery, then act all teary-eyed and innocent when someone who will almost certainly turn out to be one of your mindless minions actually goes and does it. The "Justice" Palin claims to be praying for will be to see her, in shackles and an orange jumpsuit, standing trial for conspiracy to commit murder and treason against the United States.
Sarah Palin, tell me again about your peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus whom you claim to so worship and emulate.
Meh, that would be like expecting karma to handle things for us... and it's not just Palin, it's the entire GOP. People in the USA have got to stop pandering to the right-wing BS. They have always been instigators of violence and are a constant source of hate mongering, it's practically their leitmotiv.
Sensible people have let the right-wing set the political agenda for far too long. It is time sensible people in the USA stoop up and denounced the nonsense.
It seems after events like these, people are willing to denounce, but then it's all forgotten, and everyone goes back to thinking of how they can fill their pockets again. As long as money rules, this behavior is to be expected.
It was interesting this am to watch a news clip of Ms. Palin giving a speech in Arizona, before the last election, defending her "target" imagery and immediately stating it is not an incitement to violence. It's like the high school bully who pushes and trips the geeky guy in glasses, then immediately says "Oh you tripped". Then a clip of Gifford commenting on the imagery stating there are consequences. So now we see the consequences.
So if it's OK to publish photos of politicians with rifle site superimposed on their faces, will Palin be OK with the same done to her? A rifle site supeimposed on her face? How will she react? How will the government react? If you do it, I hope you are ready for your new boyfriend in prison. Or girlfriend, as the case may be.
FBI definition of "Terrorism" = The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Or, from the FBI Website here
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Above image from FBI website here.
So..... Does Ms. Palin fit the FBI definition of terrorist? Specifically, was her website with rifle sites superimposed on selected districts, a threatened use of violence designed to coerse a govet or people in furtherance of political or social objectives? If not, then would it be acceptable to draw rifle sites on pictures of Palin and publish them, as long as we state "this is not an incitement to violence"?