Liberal Lies Killed the Two NYC Cops

“They have blood on their hands,” said former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik, of Mayor Bill de Blasio, Al Sharpton and “all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality.” He was, of course, referring to the heinous assassinations of the two NYPD officers this weekend. “All those who encouraged,” by the way, would include Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Virtually all the mainstream media.

And most of academia.

Liberals lied and people died.

Leftist Lies — killing people for 225 years (I’m starting with the French Revolution).

Of course, liberals now are doing damage control after their damage inducement. Al Sharpton, the race-baiting, rabble-rousing reprobate, was given space by New York’s Daily News to claim he was “outraged and saddened by the deaths of these police officers” and that at “every rally and every march” he has “stressed nonviolence and peaceful protests.”

We noticed that on his “Million Marchers” day (Dec. 13) when “protesters” in NYC chanted “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” 

We noticed it also when, in the Washington, D.C. march Sharpie Sharpton led himself, his followers repeatedly uttered the word “peace” — within the context of the chant “No justice, no peace!”

And we noticed it when Sharpton incited a massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in 1995, in which seven innocents died, calling its owner a “white interloper.”

Then we had NAACP President Cornell William Brooks on CBS's "Face the Nation" saying it was “unfair” to link the NYC killings, by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, to Obama, Holder and Bolshevik Bill de Blasio.

Except that Brinsley made clear via his Instagram account that his deadly plan was “retribution” for the Michael Brown and Eric Garner deaths.

“Hands up, don’t shoot!” It’s a lie made meme by contemptible manipulators. There was never good reason to believe it described the facts of the Mike Brown shooting, but, as liberal teachers boasting about “not just teaching facts” have made clear, facts can’t compare to useful fiction. And even once forensic evidence and witness testimony exposed conclusively that “hands up” was made up, liberals — even congressmen on the House floor — kept repeating it, saying it was a “symbol” of a wider struggle, a “metaphor.” It doesn’t matter that it’s not literally true.

Tell that to all the victims of revenge attacks occurring every time a white person — or someone who can be made an honorary white person (G. Zimmerman) — has the temerity to do his job as a policeman or defend himself as a citizen. Apparently today, DWW is a no-no.

That’s “defending while white.”

As for words that bite, what will make black people’s blood boil more feverishly, what will better evoke vengeful urges, than the idea that a white cop, coldly and at point-blank range, executed a black teen who was on his knees with his hands up surrendering?

A symbol?

The problem with symbolism in real life, just as in film, is that many people take it literally. This, not to mention that “hands up” was long portrayed as literally true, until facts made the lie so untenable that liberals — the ultimate men without chests, never man enough to admit error — had to conjure up the metaphor cover. But leftists couldn’t care less about right and wrong; all that matters is winning, as they define it.

Note that there are low-information occasional voters who to this day believe Brown was on his knees when his criminal career was ended.

Of course, we’ll now hear that no one who merely exercised his First Amendment rights should be held accountable for the NYC police deaths; it was Brinsley’s doing alone. Even conservatives have used this personal-accountability argument, with respect to other incidents, but it’s especially comical when propounded by liberals. These are the people who’ve given us speech codes in colleges and workplaces and hate-speech laws in virtually every part of the Western world. At home they’ve enacted legislation punishing “hate crime,” thus defined by what a perpetrator says, or expresses symbolically, during an illegal act. The leftists maintain that the symbolism or words warrant harsher punishment in these cases because “hate crimes,” you know, “affect a whole community.”

Liberals words have affected, tragically, not just the white and police communities but our whole civilization.

But the idea that words don’t matter is an expedient of the moment, like the notion that “character doesn’t matter” was when the left wanted Bill Clinton elected, or the idea that truth doesn’t matter is whenever the left wants anything. They don’t really believe it. Arch-liberal Keith Olbermann said, addressing his comments to Rush Limbaugh in 2010, “you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years,” as he repeated an old accusation in implicating talk radio in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. When Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, Rachel Maddow fan Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the “vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry….” Ex-presidential contender Gary Hart (D) wrote “Today we have seen the results of this [right-wing] rhetoric." And others specifically blamed Sarah Palin for using symbolism (crosshairs imagery).  

It goes without saying that words matter. Were it otherwise, corporations wouldn’t spend billions to influence people via advertising, courses in rhetoric wouldn’t exist, sappy suckers wouldn’t have been fainting at early Obama speeches (now they just don’t show up) and he wouldn’t be in a bigamous relationship with a Teleprompter, and Hitler wouldn’t have been able to move masses with oratory. And, were it otherwise, we wouldn’t have the injunction “Harm no one in thought, word or deed.”

This brings us to the difference between the accusations against talk radio and Palin and those against the liberal racial agitators. On an obvious level, conservatives never took to the streets chanting for the bombing of government buildings or the assassination of politicians. Such hatred is a liberal domain. Delving a bit deeper, however, there is a profound difference, generally speaking, between leftist and rightist rhetoric even when it is, on those rare occasions conservatives aren’t wearing kick-me signs, equally harsh:

Truth content.

Conservatives often highlight liberals’ liberal use of lies, such as “hands up,” to achieve leftist ends. But note something about the accusations hurled in the wake of Oklahoma and the Giffords shooting. Leftists hissed about conservatives’ anti-government rhetoric, use of crosshairs imagery and Intolerance™ and Racism™. 

They never claimed that what conservatives said was not true.

This isn’t just because conservatives lie one-tenth as much as liberals (I’m being generous). It’s also because the left is so disconnected from Truth that focusing on it is not, instinctively, its minions’ preferred tactic.

They care that something is “racist,” “sexist” or “homophobic,” as they define it at the moment.

They care that something is contrary to their agenda, as it’s constituted at the moment.

But Truth? It doesn’t exist in liberals’ relativistic world.

It is, however, the factor determining rhetoric’s validity. The Founding Fathers certainly used strong words against the English crown and sparked revolution just as Vladimir Lenin used strong words against “capitalism” and sparked revolution. But only the most risible relativist would consider their rhetoric and ends equivalent. We may impugn thieves as harshly as racial agitators impugned police. But if the rhetoric causes a thief to be killed, is it the same as if it causes a policeman to be killed? Robbery must be stigmatized, and even if such a killing is unjust, it can be a negative unintended consequence of morally justifiable words. It’s far different when the rhetoric itself is immoral.

A surgeon may cut off a gangrenous limb, and a madman may cut off a healthy one and ignore the necrosis. The two acts can appear the same from afar or to eyes blinded to rot, and both can seem violent. But one saves the body. Liberals have rotted our nation from within while destroying healthy tissue. They have declawed us; emasculated us; and disemboweled us, leaving us gutless. They’ve rendered us senile, destroying our memory of past glories, and cut our heart out. And from our wounds flow blood and bile as the death cultists chant, those race-pimping parasites killing a body, off which they live — and will not live without.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“They have blood on their hands,” said former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik, of Mayor Bill de Blasio, Al Sharpton and “all those who encouraged this anti-cop, racist mentality.” He was, of course, referring to the heinous assassinations of the two NYPD officers this weekend. “All those who encouraged,” by the way, would include Barack Obama and Eric Holder.

Virtually all the mainstream media.

And most of academia.

Liberals lied and people died.

Leftist Lies — killing people for 225 years (I’m starting with the French Revolution).

Of course, liberals now are doing damage control after their damage inducement. Al Sharpton, the race-baiting, rabble-rousing reprobate, was given space by New York’s Daily News to claim he was “outraged and saddened by the deaths of these police officers” and that at “every rally and every march” he has “stressed nonviolence and peaceful protests.”

We noticed that on his “Million Marchers” day (Dec. 13) when “protesters” in NYC chanted “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” 

We noticed it also when, in the Washington, D.C. march Sharpie Sharpton led himself, his followers repeatedly uttered the word “peace” — within the context of the chant “No justice, no peace!”

And we noticed it when Sharpton incited a massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in 1995, in which seven innocents died, calling its owner a “white interloper.”

Then we had NAACP President Cornell William Brooks on CBS's "Face the Nation" saying it was “unfair” to link the NYC killings, by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, to Obama, Holder and Bolshevik Bill de Blasio.

Except that Brinsley made clear via his Instagram account that his deadly plan was “retribution” for the Michael Brown and Eric Garner deaths.

“Hands up, don’t shoot!” It’s a lie made meme by contemptible manipulators. There was never good reason to believe it described the facts of the Mike Brown shooting, but, as liberal teachers boasting about “not just teaching facts” have made clear, facts can’t compare to useful fiction. And even once forensic evidence and witness testimony exposed conclusively that “hands up” was made up, liberals — even congressmen on the House floor — kept repeating it, saying it was a “symbol” of a wider struggle, a “metaphor.” It doesn’t matter that it’s not literally true.

Tell that to all the victims of revenge attacks occurring every time a white person — or someone who can be made an honorary white person (G. Zimmerman) — has the temerity to do his job as a policeman or defend himself as a citizen. Apparently today, DWW is a no-no.

That’s “defending while white.”

As for words that bite, what will make black people’s blood boil more feverishly, what will better evoke vengeful urges, than the idea that a white cop, coldly and at point-blank range, executed a black teen who was on his knees with his hands up surrendering?

A symbol?

The problem with symbolism in real life, just as in film, is that many people take it literally. This, not to mention that “hands up” was long portrayed as literally true, until facts made the lie so untenable that liberals — the ultimate men without chests, never man enough to admit error — had to conjure up the metaphor cover. But leftists couldn’t care less about right and wrong; all that matters is winning, as they define it.

Note that there are low-information occasional voters who to this day believe Brown was on his knees when his criminal career was ended.

Of course, we’ll now hear that no one who merely exercised his First Amendment rights should be held accountable for the NYC police deaths; it was Brinsley’s doing alone. Even conservatives have used this personal-accountability argument, with respect to other incidents, but it’s especially comical when propounded by liberals. These are the people who’ve given us speech codes in colleges and workplaces and hate-speech laws in virtually every part of the Western world. At home they’ve enacted legislation punishing “hate crime,” thus defined by what a perpetrator says, or expresses symbolically, during an illegal act. The leftists maintain that the symbolism or words warrant harsher punishment in these cases because “hate crimes,” you know, “affect a whole community.”

Liberals words have affected, tragically, not just the white and police communities but our whole civilization.

But the idea that words don’t matter is an expedient of the moment, like the notion that “character doesn’t matter” was when the left wanted Bill Clinton elected, or the idea that truth doesn’t matter is whenever the left wants anything. They don’t really believe it. Arch-liberal Keith Olbermann said, addressing his comments to Rush Limbaugh in 2010, “you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years,” as he repeated an old accusation in implicating talk radio in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. When Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, Rachel Maddow fan Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the “vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry….” Ex-presidential contender Gary Hart (D) wrote “Today we have seen the results of this [right-wing] rhetoric." And others specifically blamed Sarah Palin for using symbolism (crosshairs imagery).  

It goes without saying that words matter. Were it otherwise, corporations wouldn’t spend billions to influence people via advertising, courses in rhetoric wouldn’t exist, sappy suckers wouldn’t have been fainting at early Obama speeches (now they just don’t show up) and he wouldn’t be in a bigamous relationship with a Teleprompter, and Hitler wouldn’t have been able to move masses with oratory. And, were it otherwise, we wouldn’t have the injunction “Harm no one in thought, word or deed.”

This brings us to the difference between the accusations against talk radio and Palin and those against the liberal racial agitators. On an obvious level, conservatives never took to the streets chanting for the bombing of government buildings or the assassination of politicians. Such hatred is a liberal domain. Delving a bit deeper, however, there is a profound difference, generally speaking, between leftist and rightist rhetoric even when it is, on those rare occasions conservatives aren’t wearing kick-me signs, equally harsh:

Truth content.

Conservatives often highlight liberals’ liberal use of lies, such as “hands up,” to achieve leftist ends. But note something about the accusations hurled in the wake of Oklahoma and the Giffords shooting. Leftists hissed about conservatives’ anti-government rhetoric, use of crosshairs imagery and Intolerance™ and Racism™. 

They never claimed that what conservatives said was not true.

This isn’t just because conservatives lie one-tenth as much as liberals (I’m being generous). It’s also because the left is so disconnected from Truth that focusing on it is not, instinctively, its minions’ preferred tactic.

They care that something is “racist,” “sexist” or “homophobic,” as they define it at the moment.

They care that something is contrary to their agenda, as it’s constituted at the moment.

But Truth? It doesn’t exist in liberals’ relativistic world.

It is, however, the factor determining rhetoric’s validity. The Founding Fathers certainly used strong words against the English crown and sparked revolution just as Vladimir Lenin used strong words against “capitalism” and sparked revolution. But only the most risible relativist would consider their rhetoric and ends equivalent. We may impugn thieves as harshly as racial agitators impugned police. But if the rhetoric causes a thief to be killed, is it the same as if it causes a policeman to be killed? Robbery must be stigmatized, and even if such a killing is unjust, it can be a negative unintended consequence of morally justifiable words. It’s far different when the rhetoric itself is immoral.

A surgeon may cut off a gangrenous limb, and a madman may cut off a healthy one and ignore the necrosis. The two acts can appear the same from afar or to eyes blinded to rot, and both can seem violent. But one saves the body. Liberals have rotted our nation from within while destroying healthy tissue. They have declawed us; emasculated us; and disemboweled us, leaving us gutless. They’ve rendered us senile, destroying our memory of past glories, and cut our heart out. And from our wounds flow blood and bile as the death cultists chant, those race-pimping parasites killing a body, off which they live — and will not live without.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com