I'm a 31-year old conservative blogger. I write on many subjects including but not limited to: illegal immigration, health care reform, taxes, etc. It is imperative that Americans are kept well-informed on the issues, and I'll strive to keep you informed. I've have my work linked by major sites like HotAir, Newsbusters, and EyeblastTV. Contact Nate at ndgc.dx@gmail.com
News Ticker powered by Fox News
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords continues to make progress in her recovery, with doctors estimating she could be released from the hospital as soon as "days to weeks."
Giffords, who was wounded in the January 8 mass shooting in Arizona, underwent a successful procedure Saturday to repair a fracture in the roof of her right eye socket, doctors said Monday.
The congresswoman tolerated the two-hour, minor operation well, and is "back at that same baseline where she was before surgery," said Dr. Michael Lemole, chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center.
The operation was necessary, he said, because bone fragments were pushing down on Giffords' eye. When she arrived at the hospital shortly after the shooting, doctors did a quick operation but "did not want to do the full repair" because she was in critical condition.
I will continue to pray for her continuing recovery and thank God for the recovery that she's had, so far. It's truly been a miracle.
I, sincerely, look forward to the day that she steps back in the halls of Congress to represent her district.
She is a symbol of America's undying spirit and resiliency and the epitome of the strength of this great nation.
A new Gallup poll from USA Today shows that, despite Democrats and the media constant assertions that the right and (especially Palin) is to blame for the shooting in Tuscon, not only isn’t America not buying it, but they, also, see it for what it is, the left exploiting this tragedy to further their own political agenda:
A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans dubious that the heated language used in politics today was a major factor that influenced the alleged gunman in last week's shootings in Tucson, Ariz. Twenty percent say such rhetoric was a major factor in the shootings, while 22% cite it as a minor factor; 42% say it was not a factor at all. Democrats are more likely than independents or Republicans to believe political debate played a role….
Most Americans reject that theory, with 53% agreeing that commentators who allege conservative rhetoric was responsible were mostly attempting to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. Roughly one in three, 35%, say the commentators were making a legitimate point about how dangerous the language used by conservatives can be.
This poll was done three days after the shooting, giving people plenty of time to make up their minds on the issue.
Of course, gun control has, also, been brought up by the Democrats in the wake of the shootings, but the people aren’t buying those tickets, either:
Most Americans, though, do not believe tougher gun laws in Arizona would have prevented these shootings. One in five say stricter laws would have prevented the tragedy, while 72% disagree. Democrats, who are more likely to support gun restrictions, are also more likely to believe the shootings could have been prevented if tougher gun laws were in place, but a majority of this group still says the shootings would have occurred regardless.
This is not going to help new gun control laws, like the one from Rep. King (R-NY) prohibiting guns within a 1,000 feet of any federal official, from gaining enough momentum to pass, especially in the heavily Republican House. New gun laws, probably, wouldn’t even pass the pro-2nd amendment Democrats in the Senate.
This meme is a dead issue for the Democrats, and they should give it up and move on.
She focused on not throwing blame around to score political points, when discussing the tragedy in Tuscon, and called it "irresponsible". She quoted Reagan saying that "society" wasn't guilty, when a mad man does something like this. The mad man is.
She, also, pointed out that Giffords and the other victims were exercising the same first amendment rights that Giffords recited, when the House read the Constitution aloud last week, and people shouldn't use this to stifle others from exercising the same free speech rights that they were enjoying that fateful morning.
This was a very good speech that made Palin look "above the fray" and, dare I say, presidential. She was calm the whole time, and she didn't go after anyone in particular. There was no lashing out at the media or Democrats that might have looked like she was getting back at them for their attacks on her and her character.
Ed Morrissey had a very good synopsis of how he felt about the speech and how she presented it:
Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.
This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.
Now, some have gone after her use of the term "blood libel":
Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that it refers to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews supposedly used the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual food. But as Glenn Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel uses “blood libel” today to rebut charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. It’s a functional political term.
I think that it is a odd choice of words and could have chosen something better, but it is a minor gripe. She didn't use the term to mean what it might have meant regarding the Jews. I doubt that it had even been aware of that possible connotation.
If any one is focusing on those two words and totally ignoring the rest of the almost 8 minute speech, they are missing the forest for the trees. They should look at the speech as a whole, too, which was very thoughtful and insightful.
Representative Peter King (R-NY) is considering introducing a bill that will ban guns within 1,000 feet of any government official. That will include any federal members of Congress, governors, or any federal judge:
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.
King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded...
It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.
This law could be very problematic for various reasons. Ed Morrissey of HotAir broke it down perfectly on why this could cause more problems than it would solve:
There are two questions involved in any gun-control legislation, the first of which is whether it will be constitutional, and the second of which is whether it will do any good. Let’s take those in order. Courts have thus far upheld reasonable restrictions on where guns may and may not be carried, such as courthouses and in the vicinity of schools. However, those are fixed locations, not mobile personnel, locations for which a court could reasonably expect most people to know. If one carries a gun legally to a public place without knowledge of the presence of a judge or member of Congress, then an arrest would pobably be unreasonable (although courts might end up ruling otherwise). And if an arrest without any kind of attempt to initiate an assault is considered unreasonable, then the law is superfluous, since the attempt itself would be illegal already.
Some may also argue that an attempt to create a special class of protected people in this law might also fail to pass constitutional muster I’d say a court would take a long look at whether Congress has a compelling state interest in passing such legislation, at least on that point, and wouldn’t bet that they’d rule no. A better question might be jurisdiction, where the law would create a mandate on state and local police to enforce federal law. The Obama administration just got done arguing in federal court that Arizona should be constrained from enforcing federal immigration law, to which the district court agreed. Would states not have an argument in the other direction in the case of this law?
Next, let’s look at its effectiveness Would such a law work in the sense that it would make these protected classes more safe? Such a law would not have stopped the shooting in Tucson. Had anyone in law enforcement seen the pistol in Jared Lee Loughner’s hands, they almost certainly would have reacted to it immediately by detaining him even without the federal law Depending on the circumstances, they may not have been able to prosecute him under existing state law, but perhaps they could have confiscated his gun and revoked his permit after discovering just how insane he was and the evidence of his grudge against Giffords. Of course, the sheriff’s department in Tucson already knew of Loughner and hadn’t done much about it, but that won’t change under King’s proposed law, either.
King’s effort is of questionable constitutional and operational merit at best. It seems like another example of my axiom, Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Rather than issue knee-jerk proposals to change the law, let’s see where the evidence leads us in this case to determine how best to protect everyone from lunatics like Loughner.
Given that the Republicans control the House and could easily block it in the Senate, I doubt that this will go anywhere. This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting out of fear or grief. In the end, cooler heads will prevail, and this bill should die a quick and quiet death.
Security around government should probably be strengthened, but this law wouldn't stop another attack from happening.
Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.
In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....
Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.
Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.
I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.
Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.
