Can Gabrielle Giffords' views help improve American politics?

Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was a loony 9/11 Truther Continue reading on Examiner. Com: Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was a 9/11 Truther - National Libertarian | Examiner. Com Liberals, who have already connected the dots in the Tucson massacre, linking psychopath Jared Loughner inextricably to Sarah Palin, may want to pause briefly to consider emerging details about the man and his past.

According to a profile by the Associated Press, Loughner? S disaffection with government long predates the Tea Party and the presidency of Barack Obama: Mistrust of government was Loughner? S defining conviction, the friends said.

He believed the U.S. Government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (?a New World Order currency? One friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world. While, moreover, it appears true that the devil made him do it, the devil in this case appears to be more satanic than Alaskan.

The New York Daily News reports that authorities have discovered a sinister shrine in the back yard of Loughner? S home: dden within a camouflage tent behind Jared Lee Loughner? S home sits an alarming altar with a skull sitting atop a pot filled with shriveled oranges.

A row of ceremonial candles and a bag of potting soil lay nearby, photos reveal. Experts on Sunday said the elements are featured in the ceremonies of a number of occult groups. Finally come the collected?

Tweets? Of Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, describing him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical. " I have no delusions that those who have made up their mind about Jared Loughner's motives will gloss over these facts or give them short shrift before resuming the finger-pointing, stirring the pot of antipathy and rancor that they so zealously claim to abhor.

Continue reading on Examiner. Com: Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was a 9/11 Truther - National Libertarian | Examiner.com.

The way She is coming along is great, but as far as changing the feeling of the people, No, this is not the first time that something like this has happened... S G.

Sen. John McCain lost a bitter campaign against Barack Obama in 2008 and has been at loggerheads with him for much of Obama's first two years in office. But the Arizona Republican this weekend called Obama a "patriot" intent on using his presidency to "advance our country's cause" and rejected accusations – many coming from members of his own party and the tea party movement – "that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America." McCain made his comments in an article he wrote for the Washington Post opinion page, posted on Saturday, in which he praised Obama for giving a "terrific speech" in Tucson at a tribute for victims of the shooting spree that took place there a week ago.

McCain said that Obama had "comforted and inspired the country" and performed an important service by encouraging "every American who participates in our political debates - whether we are on the left or right or in the media - to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves. " "Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so," McCain said. The shootings in Arizona have prompted much introspection about the tone and tenor of American politics even though the reasons why the suspected gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, carried out the massacre remain obscured by his history of bizarre behavior.

But the fact that his victims included a congresswoman holding a community meeting and the constituents who came to speak with her was likely a factor in connecting the violent incident to the political debate, along with suggestions and accusations that the rhetoric of political partisans had contributed to what had happened. Obama has been one target of harsh political rhetoric since running for and becoming President. Some of it has questioned whether he really shares the values of most Americans; accused him of pushing the country in a socialist direction; and, suggested that he does not have an appreciation for the U.S.As an "exceptional" nation.

Related Stories State of the Union Preview: The New Drive to Eliminate Partisan Rancor From Palin to Pawlenty, GOP Presidential Prospects Grapple With Arizona Massacre 'Gabby Opened Her Eyes for the First Time': Obama at Tucson Memorial Obama's Call for Renewal: Democracy 'as Good as Christina Imagined It' Sarah Palin Blamed by Bloggers for Shooting of Gabrielle Giffords Sarah Palin: Critics Blaming Political Right for Shootings Commit 'Blood Libel' On the other side of the spectrum, some critics have implied or outrightly suggested that the rhetoric of McCain's former running mate, Sarah Palin, and some in the tea party movement, was responsible for what occurred in Arizona by using inflammatory imagery, ranging from Palin's now-famous map putting gunsights over congressional districts she was targeting, to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann's 2009 quote in which she said she wanted people "armed and dangerous" on the issue of the Democrats' energy proposal. McCain wrote that Obama had "appropriately disputed the injurious suggestion that some participants in our political debates were responsible for a depraved man's inhumanity."

While not specifically mentioning Palin, McCain appeared to be referring to her, in saying, "Imagine how it must feel to have watched one week ago the incomprehensible massacre of innocents committed by someone who had lost some essential part of his humanity, to have shared in the heartache for its victims and in the admiration for those who acted heroically to save the lives of others - and to have heard in the coverage of that tragedy voices accusing you of complicity in it. " But as the former GOP standard-bearer, McCain also spoke out against those who have sought to paint Obama's views as inimical to American ideals. "I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause," McCain said."I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals.

And I reject accusations that Americans who vigorously oppose his policies are less intelligent, compassionate or just than those who support them. " During the 2008 campaign, Palin had said of Obama, "This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America ...Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?" (She was referring to onetime left wing radical William Ayers who participated in some Chicago educational projects with which Obama had been involved). "s worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we've had," Mike Huckabee told Politico last August.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP presidential contender in 2012, said to the National Review in September, ""What if Obama is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together his actions? That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior. " While there is no way to tell whether those particular statements had an impact, a USA Today/Gallup poll in December found that while 80 percent of Americans thought that America "has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world," more than a third said Obama does not share that belief.

McCain said in his article, "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities. But I do not think it is beyond our ability and virtue to refrain from substituting character assassination for spirited and respectful debate. "McCain's sentiments were echoed on CBS' "Face the Nation" by former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, "In the first moments after this, there was a rush to judgment on both sides, you know, left-wingers trying to blame it on right-wing Tea Party, Sarah Palin; right-wingers trying to fight back and defend themselves against what was really an outrageous charge...And I thought the president's speech put it on a different tone.

And I think we have a chance, even though a couple of days later; I think we have a chance to do the same thing that we did after September 11.

The test for the Tea Partiers by Laurence Lewis Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 05:00:06 PM PST The Tea Partiers object to being characterized by hatred. Now would be a good time for them to prove their principles. Because many long have suspected that the level of vitriol from the right toward a centrist Democrat might be based on something other than policy.

And many long have suspected that the level of vitriol from the right, in general, might be based on something less than rational. It would be nice to have such suspicions laid to rest. If the Tea Partiers do have principles based on genuine political disagreements, this will be the year to reveal them.

The Tea Partiers know that the Democrats are not going to enact their agenda, but they certainly should expect the Republican majority that they helped install in the House to do everything possible to try. The rhetoric of the Tea Partiers was not compromising. Their criticism of the Democrats was not compromising.

Will they sit idly by if the Republicans now try to force them to accept what they have claimed was unacceptable? To what degree are they paying attention to the doings of the newly empowered Republicans? In just their few months of political ascendance, Republicans have been playing the same old Washington game of cronyism and sucking up to lobbyists and more lobbyists, and they have violated the Constitution and House rules by fundraising rather than showing up for their jobs.

Does the Constitution mean something to the Republicans, or do they parade it just for show? Will the Tea Partiers continue to support and enable a Republican Party that proves hypocritical on deficits and fiscal responsibility and spending cuts and balanced budgets? Will they accept a Republican Party that proves hypocritical on rules and openness and transparency and proper procedures?

The Tea Party movement wants to be taken seriously as something other than an emergence from the bowels of our body politic. Tea Partiers said they wanted to "take" "their" country "back. " Did that mean handing it to Wall Street and other corporate special interests?

Does that mean taking Democracy itself away from the people and handing full control of government to but the landed gentry? As previously noted, Frank Rich in August identified the secret behind the Tea Party: There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule.

You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might. All three tycoons are the latest incarnation of what the historian Kim Phillips-Fein labeled “Invisible Hands” in her prescient 2009 book of that title: those corporate players who have financed the far right ever since the du Pont brothers spawned the American Liberty League in 1934 to bring down F.D.R.You can draw a straight line from the Liberty League’s crusade against the New Deal “socialism” of Social Security, the Securities and Exchange Commission and child labor laws to the John Birch Society-Barry Goldwater assault on J.F.K. And Medicare to the Koch-Murdoch-backed juggernaut against our “socialist” president.

And Rich drew on the essential work of Jane Mayer, who explicated the true intent of these billionaire brothers. The Tea Partiers might not care that the Republicans they have helped empower are clueless and dishonest and just plain embarrassing, but do they care if these Republicans offer but politicized lies and lip service, with even their circus acts but deliberately deceptive political games? There already have been reports that some Tea Party activists are growing restive, while some already are questioning the direction of their effort.

The questions are about their principles and their integrity. Were they motivated primarily by hatred of this nation's first black president? Was it just more political partisanship?

Do they actually care about the issues, or did they just need to rant? The coming months and the coming years will prove whether they were but pawns in the schemes of manipulative billionaires. The coming months will prove whether they were just irrationally angry or actually believed their own rhetoric.

The coming months will prove whether or not the critics who call them extremists and hate-mongers are right, or whether they truly care about improving the direction of this nation. Will the Tea Partiers allow their Republican Party to continue to play the political games the Washington Republicans already are playing, or will they instead take political stands against a Republican Party that already is betraying what they claimed as their core principles? If they do, indeed, believe in America and the U.S. Constitution and their espoused principles, they will use the democratic process to pursue and promote those principles.

And they will be as passionate and intense in taking the democratic process to a Republican Party that is turning its back on their espoused principles that they took to a Democratic Party that they knew from the start was their political opposition. And by their stands on the issues and their support of or opposition to politicians who don't stand up for their issues, we will soon find out if the Tea Party is for real or just emotional hype.

Copyright © 2011 Creators Syndicate Previous Next.

No why would anyone think so..this is NOT the first time that something as this has happened.. Sweet G.

Fox's One-Man Clean-Up Crew: A story Of "Hannitization" 11/9/1076 2:23 pm ET — 24 Comments In advance of Sarah Palin's interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Slate's David Weigel proposed a new definition to the neologism "Hannitize": "to clean up a messy situation with a softball interview. " Indeed, Hannity has become the go-to interviewer for right-wing figures following scandal or controversy. Sarah Palin George W.

Bush Meg Whitman Christine O'Donnell Rand Paul Michael Steele James O'Keefe Weigel: "Palin To Be Hannitized" Weigel: "Second Definition Of 'Hannitize': To Clean Up A Messy Situation With A Softball Interview, Typically ... With Sean Hannity. " In a 11/9/1082 post on his blog following Palin's announcement of her upcoming interview with Hannity, Weigel wrote that the news called for "a second definition of the neologism Hannitization. " From the post: "Hannitize" is not my neologism.It's what listeners call it when the radio host is given a chance to speak to and convert someone -- he has been Hannitized.

This news begs a second definition of Hannitization: Sarah Palin is scheduled to sit for her first extended interview since the Tuscon shooting rampage on Monday night, on the Fox News Channel. An executive at Fox News Channel said that Ms. Palin would appear on the program of the conservative host Sean Hannity, and that the interview was scheduled to run through several commercial breaks.

Through the commercial breaks! It's as important (or disturbing) as The Day After! Also, a special TV interview/event four days after a book-closing video statement -- doesn't this imply that the statement was not a media-tweaking home run, and actually sort of a disaster?

Anyway, the second definition of "Hannitize": (v) To clean up a messy situation with a softball interview, typically one conducted by Sean Hannity. Slate, 11/9/101111/9/1011 Hannity Hosts Palin To Defend Herself And Use Of The Phrase "Blood Libel" Hannity Interviews Palin After Her Controversial Use Of "Blood Libel" Following Tucson Shootings. On 11/9/10118, Palin granted Hannity her first interview since the Tucson shooting.

Much of the interview referred to Palin's 11/9/10119 Facebook video, in which she addressed unfounded accusations that alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner was politically motivated and accused the media of manufacturing a "blood libel" against her. In his interview, Hannity repeatedly asked questions suggesting he felt Palin was treated unfairly following the shooting, blamed the mainstream media for this treatment, and invited her to defend herself.At one point, Hannity said to Palin, "I don't think a lot of people on the left have been very civil toward you," and went on to claim, "I really don't hear you Palin complaining a lot about it. " From the interview: HANNITY: A lot of these initial stories, Governor, had to do with this map that your PAC had put up during the last campaign, and the fact that Congresswoman Giffords was one of the people on, quote, "the target list," in the crosshairs that were there.

What could you tell us about this map? And I'll get into more questions after that. PALIN: Well, that map wasn't an original graphic.

In fact, for many, many years, maps in political races have been used to target certain districts ... And the graphic that we used was crosshairs targeting the different districts. And, again, that's not original. In fact, Democrats have been using it for years.

In fact, Bob Beckel, I believe that he had bragged on your show, Sean, that he is the one who invented these crosshairs or these targets ... HANNITY: Did you or your PAC have this taken off the Web site immediately after the shooting? Because that's been bantered about. PALIN: You know, I believe that someone in the PAC, in fact, the contract graphic artist, did take it down.

And I don't think that that was inappropriate. If it was going to cause much heartburn and even more controversy, I didn't have a problem with it being taken down. But screenshots, of course, have been taken of that.

And I don't know if the Democrats have taken down theirs in these ensuing days, but, again, knowing that that had absolutely nothing to do with an apolitical or perhaps even left-leaning criminal who killed these innocents and injured so many, I didn't have a problem with it being taken down if, in fact, it actually has been taken down. HANNITY: Governor, you mentioned earlier the DLC has used this. Bob Beckel did say this; Pat Caddell, a Democrat, over the years has said this -- this is a DLC map we are looking at in the screen here, a bulls eye map targeting districts, and it says it right there, targeting strategy.

All these war analogies. Clintons had a war room. It's very common in politics.

Why do you think you were singled out and the left singled you out in this, Governor?... HANNITY: ...Governor, when -- you specifically said when these war terms are used, this is not a call for violence. All of that was ignored by the media. Does that frustrate you more?

PALIN: Well, I have repeated over and over my condemnation of violence and specifically trying to explain that when we talk about being up in arms, we're talking about getting to the voting booth in -- in a democracy within our republic. We want to make sure that we're exercising our right to vote. That is our arms.

Fox News' Hannity, 11/9/101111/9/1011, transcript via Nexis Later, Hannity invited Palin to defend her use of the term "blood libel" in the 11/9/10119 Facebook video: HANNITY: Governor, when you finally released your video, not surprising, more controversy involving you. I want to give you a chance to respond to this. One was the timing of the release of the video, which was I believe the day before the memorial.

And the second one was the term -- "but especially within hours of the 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. " And, you know, some of your critics saying, you didn't know the historical significance.

Other people criticized you for that phrase. But I want you to address the timing and that phrase. PALIN: I don't know how the heck they would know if whether I did or didn't know the term "blood libel," nobody has ever asked me.

And "blood libel" obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. And in this case that's exactly what was going on. And yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children.

And you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion, because I believe that there are many on the left, many critics, who don't want, for instance, Congress, to buckle down, get back to work.... HANNITY: What did you think of the criticism of those, though, in the Jewish community about the use of that term? I know others came to your defense, but what did you think about the critics? PALIN: I think the critics, again, were using anything that they could gather out of that statement.

And I'm, you know, you can -- you can spin up anything out of anybody's statements that are released and use them against the person who is making the statement. But, no, I appreciated those who understood what it is that I meant, that a group of people being falsely accused of having blood on their hands, that is what blood libel means. And just two days before I released my statement, an op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" had that term in its title and that term has been used for eons, Sean.

HANNITY: Yes. PALIN: So, again, it was part of that double standard thing and goes back to if it weren't for those double standards, what standards would they have, I suppose. Hannity, 11/9/101111/9/1011 Hannity Routinely Hosts Right-Wing Figures For Softball Interviews Following Controversy Hannity Led Bush's Rehabilitation Tour.

Hannity was one of the first media figures to interview former president George W. Bush following the 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 68 release of his book, Decision Points. The 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 68 edition of Hannity featured a pre-taped interview Hannity conducted with Bush while driving around the Bush family ranch in Crawford, Texas.

During the interview, Hannity allowed Bush to twist the facts behind controversial decisions he made during his presidency, such as the decision to go to war in Iraq. After bringing up weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), Hannity asked Bush if it was "frustrating for you" that there was an "absence of WMD stockpiles. " From the interview: HANNITY: You talked a little about WMD.

When Saddam didn't use WMD on our troops, I was relieved. You talk about the absence of WMD stockpiles. Frustrating for you?

BUSH: Unbelievably frustrating. Of course, it was frustrating. Everybody thought he had WMD, everybody being every intelligence service, everybody in the administration.

HANNITY: A lot of Democrats said it. BUSH: Yes, a lot of members of Congress. Hannity, 11/9/1011, via Nexis In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, there was disagreement within the intelligence community during the early 2000s about Saddam's possible weapons programs.

Media Matters, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 63 Hannity also asked Bush many softball questions during the interview, observing that Bush "seemed even more at peace now" and later asking him, "Do you remember what you felt" when you realized "the purpose of your presidency" was "to protect our people, defend freedom?" Media Matters, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 63 Hannity Praised Whitman As Doing "Complete And Due Diligence" Following News That She Employed An Undocumented Immigrant. On 11/9/1011, Hannity hosted California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman for an interview about allegations that she knowingly employed an undocumented immigrant.

Hannity praised Whitman's conduct with regard to the hiring of the housekeeper, saying, "It seems to me you did complete and due diligence." From the interview: HANNITY: All right. It -- it gets complicated.

But I think this is really important, because you hired this woman back in 2000. You used an employment agency. Correct?

WHITMAN: Correct. We did use an employment agency and we asked specifically for someone that they knew was documented. HANNITY: OK.

You specifically -- and they provided you with documentation. They provided you -- WHITMAN: Correct. HANNITY: -- with a Social Security number, right?

And - WHITMAN: We actually had a copy of the Social Security card, a copy of the driver's license and an I-9 form filled out by Nicky Diaz that says that the employee signed saying under the penalty of perjury I - I assert that I am legal to work in this country. HANNITY: Now, all right. So it seems to me you did complete and due diligence.

All right.So now with Gloria Allred moves forward and she - she goes to this letter that I guess you and your husband received from the Social Security Administration, correct? WHITMAN: Yes. Neither of us remembered receiving this.

But, then it showed up. And you are exactly right in your intro it said nothing about immigration status. It said, you know, we're looking into W-2.

And what it read like was a clerical form and we were worried that Nicky wasn't getting - going to get credit for her Social Security contributions or a tax refund if she was due it. Hannity, 11/9/1011 Hannity Conducts Softball Interview With O'Donnell Following Video In Which She Admitted To Once "Dabbling In Witchcraft. " On the 11/9/1011, edition of Hannity, Hannity interviewed former GOP senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell.

Hannity gave O'Donnell the opportunity to defend herself from allegations of past tax troubles and from a video of her claiming that she "had dabbled into witchcraft. " From the interview: HANNITY: A lot has happened. Let's start with Mike Castle, your opponent ... It seems to be -- if you look at Lisa Murkowski, and a lot of other races, Charlie Crist, as an example, I'm almost calling it the sore loser syndrome.

The -- what is your take?... HANNITY: Bill Maher comes up with this tape, it was in 1999 you made an appearance. O'DONNELL: Yes. HANNITY: Talking, I guess, about a boyfriend when you were a teenager?

O'DONNELL: Right. Right.Right. HANNITY: OK.

Saying that you had dabbled into witchcraft. Why don't you explain for people that may be -- what was that about?... HANNITY: Well, it seems a lot of issues and one of the things I've noticed is that there is, in this campaign, I don't hear any Democrats running on health care. O'DONNELL: That's right.

HANNITY: Running on the stimulus. Their support for Obama, Reid and Pelosi. So what are we to make of the attacks against you?... HANNITY: All right.

First of all, your reaction to a campaign ad against O'Donnell? We'll get to the specifics. O'DONNELL: It's a shame because again, you know, they're taking a play from my opponent's book that don't go after her on the issues because she's right on the issue.

But specifically, that comment on the taxes. There is no truth in that. I've paid my taxes.

They are trying to go after an erroneous tax lien that the IRS admitted was a computer error. Hannity, via Nexis, 11/9/10119/11/9/1011 Hannity Hosts GOP Candidate Rand Paul To Defend Controversial Statements On Civil Rights Act. On his 11/9/1011 program, Hannity hosted GOP senatorial candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) to push back against claims that he wanted to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act.

Hannity said to Paul: "When I first saw the news coverage of it, I said, 'What? He doesn't support the Civil Rights Act? ' That's how it was portrayed.

And you clearly laid out just the opposite, and it was very clear. " Hannity also claimed that the media "tried to purposely distort" what Paul had said. Fox News, Hannity, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 63 Hannity Interviews Steele To Defend Nightclub Fundraising Trip.

On the 11/9/1011, broadcast of Hannity, the host interviewed then-RNC chairman Michael Steele following news that the RNC reimbursed a trip to a nightclub to impress donors. As Weigel noted, "Steele gave his first interview about the mess to Hannity," of which Hannity made scant mention during the interview. From the interview: HANNITY: You walked out here tonight and you got a massive reception from the crowd here in New Orleans.

You had a strong defense from Newt Gingrich. Governor Palin defended you. Some have attacked you.

Some have gone after you. What is your reaction to that and response to those that have been -- STEELE: Well, my reaction is, look, you know, I'm trying to do the best I can as national chairman. I've made mistakes -- HANNITY: You have three victories under your belt.

STEELE: I've got three victories under my belt, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia. Right? Hannity, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 68; Slate, 11/9/101111/9/1011 Hannity Interviews O'Keefe Following Charges He Illegally Attempted To Gain Access To Sen.

Landrieu's Office. On the 11/9/1011, broadcast of Hannity, the host interviewed conservative activist James O'Keefe to allow him to respond to allegations that he and his cohorts had falsely represented themselves as employees of a phone company in order to gain access to Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) New Orleans office.

Hannity allowed O'Keefe to call the incident "a huge misunderstanding. " From the interview: HANNITY: OK, so now -- and I don't know all the facts so I want to make sure because you disputed a lot of claims in the media in your statement. So did you dress up as a telephone repairman or telephone repair people?

O'KEEFE: Yes, I mean, as far as that's concerned, I mean, investigative journalists have been using a lot of these tactics for years. I mean, NBC, "Dateline". HANNITY: Yes, but -- all right.

But did you dress up as a repair guy? O'KEEFE: Yes. HANNITY: You did?

O'KEEFE: We did, yes. HANNITY: All right. And your attitude is this is something that investigative journalists will do.

That they will -- like in, I guess, to catch a predator? ... HANNITY: All right. So what -- so if people -- if we were to show this video tonight... What would people conclude?

O'KEEFE: That this is a huge misunderstanding, I think. You know, like in all my videos, like in my ACORN videos, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something. I'm trying to expose the truth.

I'm trying to get to the true intent about what these people think about their constituents. I'm trying to show the American people what are they concerned about their constituents. And that's what I was trying to do.

Hannity, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 69, via Nexis O'Keefe later pleaded guilty "to entering real property belonging to the United States under false pretenses. " The Times-Picayune, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 67 Hannity Has A story Of GOP Political Activism Republicans Know They've "Got Sean Hannity In My Back Pocket. " Former Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell reportedly chose to go on Hannity because "she felt she would get a certain kind of treatment."

O'Donnell also reportedly told D.C. GOP strategists, "I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys. " In addition, former Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle once bragged that when she made an appeal on "Sean Hannity's television show we made $40,000 before we even got out of the studio in New York. " Media Matters, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 68; Huffington Post, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 69; Las Vegas Sun, 11/9/101111/9/1011 Hannity Has A Long story Of Promoting GOP Candidates.

Hannity has used his shows to relentlessly promote GOP candidates. During the 2010 midterm elections alone, Hannity promoted then-Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio as someone who "could be president one day, or a strong presidential contender"; described a misleading Angle campaign attack ad as "fair game"; said of New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, "I love his confrontational style, he's refreshingly honest"; and defended Paul's controversial comments on the Civil Rights Act. Hannity, 11/9/101111/9/1011; 11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011 11/9/10119/11/9/1011 Hannity Has Consistently Provided A Forum For GOP Fundraising.

Hannity has consistently hosted GOP candidates and allowed them to use his program as a forum to raise money. For instance, Hannity allowed Massachusetts congressional GOP candidate Sean Bielat to promote his "money bomb" and directed viewers to his campaign website; allowed GOP senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina to promote her campaign fundraising website; hosted former Fox News contributor John Kasich to ask viewers, "If you have any extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way"; allowed O'Donnell and Angle to fundraise on his show; and aired a Republican Governors Association ad against former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH).

Hannity, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/10; 11/9/101111/9/1011; 11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/1011 Hannity Has Similarly Raised Money For Right-Wing Causes. Hannity has a similar long history of raising money for and championing Republican interests. Hannity was prevented from taping his 11/9/1011, show at a Cincinnati Tea Party event after Fox News executives learned that he was planning on charging admission, which could have been an ethical violation.

Hannity has gone forward with many other fundraising events, however. He was the keynote speaker at a fundraising dinner for the National Republican Congressional Committee in 11/9/1011. He helped raise money for Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign and Jeanine Pirro's 2006 U.S. Senate Campaign.

On his radio show, he told New Jersey listeners to "get to the polls" and "stop Obamacare in its tracks. " He frequently promoted the 11/9/1011, "FNC Tax Day Tea Party" and promoted town hall disruptors in 11/9/1011, saying, "That's a pretty good way to fight back. " Media Matters, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; SeanHannity.Com, accessed 11/9/1011/1011; New York Daily News, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; Premiere Radio Network, The Sean Hannity Show, 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; Media Matters, 11/9/1011; Media Matters, 11/9/1011 GOP Candidates Appear On Hannity To Attack Opponents, Administration Without Challenge.

GOP candidates regularly use Hannity's show to attack their opponents in a friendly and unchallenging environment. During the 2010 midterms, Hannity allowed then-Virginia Republican congressional candidate Robert Hurt to attack his opponent, then-Rep. Tom Periello (D-VA); allowed O'Donnell to attack her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons; hosted New York congressional candidate Michael Grimm to attack Obama; allowed "real Republican" John Raese to attack then-Gov.

Joe Manchin; included California GOP congressional candidate Nick Popaditch in his "Great American Panel" to attack Obama; and similarly allowed Steele and Rand Paul to attack the president. Hannity, 11/9/101111/9/1011 (Hurt segment accessed via Nexis); 11/9/101111/9/1011; 11/9/101111/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/1011/11/9/1011; 11/9/101111/9/1011 Hannity To Interview Controversial Radio Host Dr. Laura Hannity To Host Dr. Laura On 11/9/1011 Hannity Broadcast.In one of her first interviews since the n-word controversy that preceded her resignation from her nationally syndicated radio program, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is scheduled to appear on Hannity on 11/9/1011. Her appearance is billed on Fox News Insider with the words: "The talk radio host reveals her BIG move in the fight to regain her first amendment rights.

" Fox News Insider, 11/9/10119/11/9/1011.

In the days since the massacre in Arizona, the mainstream political media (and much online discussion) have zeroed in on one question: Did the uncivil political discourse (with violent imagery) of the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins of the world create an environment that encouraged or allowed an unhinged character to go on a shooting spree aimed at a Democratic congresswoman. I would like to focus on a related question: Are the right wing pundits telling the truth? The reason for my approach is that whether or not the toxic political environment influenced Jared Loughner, it is important to recognize that for the last two years, the right wing media has employed a concerted strategy to elicit in their listeners/viewers anger and a sense of delegitimization of the government (whether literally, in the form of the birthers, or ideologically, with false claims of socialism, or in practice, with false accusations of unconstitutionality and corruption that fly in the face of history and the record).

And to do so largely by making baseless charges. And when I listened and read as these right wing purveyors of venom rejected the claim that their incendiary rhetoric might have spurred an unstable individual to action, I was struck by how, once again, their approach to the issue was to make baseless charges rather than engage on the issue. For example, Rush Limbaugh declared: "At no time has anybody ever called for violence.... We've never subtly promoted it."

But it was just one year ago that Limbaugh said (in reference to the economy): "This government is governing against its own citizens. This president and his party are governing against us. We are at war with our own president.

We are at war with our own government. " Want a more recent example? On January 10, 2011, after the shooting, Limbaugh said this about claims that violent right-wing rhetoric might have influenced Loughner: "Don't kid yourself.

What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it. Criminalizing policy differences at least when they differ from the Democrat (sic) Party agenda. " So Limbaugh asserted last year that the government is at "war" with the American people, and he claimed days ago that the Democrats want to criminalize dissent.(Remember, Limbaugh is the guy who, in 1995, predicted a "second violent American revolution.") He urges his viewers to recognize that the president and his government aren't legitimate.

That is not promoting violence? And these are hardly isolated incidents. Rather, the use of this kind of baseless violent and anti-government language is part of the regular, day-in-day-out approach of these right-wing leaders.

Some examples (there are tons of others): - On June 10, 2010 Beck passionately warned his viewers that former radicals who want to "eliminate 10 percent of the population" (he makes it clear he means kill people) and "overthrow" the "United States government" are now working in the Obama administration so they can carry out their desires (charging that Obama is more corrupt than Nixon). - If Palin's cross-hairs map and "reload" comment don't bother you, how about when she spoke at a Tea Party event "America is ready for another revolution" (which, given the context, carries a specific connotation and certainly subtly condones violent reprisals against the government). - Big Journalism (on March 10, 2010) wrote that the president was "the suicide-bomber-in-chief" who wants to "blow up the capitalist system from within.

" - Sharron Angle, a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat, happily endorsed "Second Amendment remedies" and implied that an armed revolution may be necessary. These examples represent a tiny drop in a much larger bucket.My point is simply this: These leading right-wing figures regularly engage in rhetoric with the intention of rousing listeners to believe the government is illegitimate and dangerous. Sometimes the approach is to use threats of imminent government aggression (e.g. Beck's warning about mass murders and Limbaugh's prediction of government crackdowns on dissent), while other times they use language to promote the idea that the conflict is a violent one (e.g. Limbaugh's "war" comment).

And they do so using baseless claims. When Palin lectures on how debate during elections is good and then people look for common ground after the election is over, she's right, but it's also hypocritical, since it's not how she practices politics (or, more accurately for her, media punditry). So these leaders can't have it both ways.

If Beck, Limbaugh and Palin want to say that Loughner was a mentally ill individual who acted based on his own demons, and the incendiary language of right-wing media figures had no role, I encourage them to make their cases forcefully in front of the American people. While I believe that constant warnings that the government is illegitimate and planning totalitarian actions (murders, media clampdowns) can have an effect, there is certainly merit to the argument that crazy people will do crazy things.(Although any fair argument on the issue has to go beyond this one incident to include the string of violent acts and threats directed at Democrats since President Obama took office.) But what these right-wing media figures can't honestly claim is that they are not engaging in violent and delegitimizing rhetoric. Actually, I find it especially cowardly that Limbaugh would spend a chunk of his show on Monday slinging blame everywhere for Loughner's actions (including heavy metal music, rap music, parents, etc. ) and accusing Democrats of being happy about the massacre, but he didn't have the balls to stand up for what he does.

If he really had any integrity, he would have defended his rhetorical style. The implications of a right-wing media system that masquerades as journalism without any commitment to the truth is one of the biggest threats to our democracy. So in the aftermath of the Arizona tragedy, I couldn't help but zero in on the right wing lies rather than focus on the incivility.

I admired President Obama's speech yesterday in Tuscon, but rather than learning a lesson about civility from this tragedy, I hope we learn a lesson about truth. Debates on how we should conduct our political discourse are great. But these debates need to be on the facts, not on made-up fantasies and defensive lies.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.