Image via Wikipedia
“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.” Puma County Sheriff
Christina Taylor Green, nine-year-old victim in today’s Tucson shootings, once was an infant designated to be a “Face of Hope” by virtue of her birth on September 11, 2001. She was one of the children born on 9/11, reports Tucson blogger David Abie Morales. And she is thereby featured in the book by Christine Pisera Naman, entitled Faces of Hope, Babies Born on 9/11, dedicated to all the mothers who gave birth and to their babies born on the day the World Trade Towers in New York City were taken down by an act of terrorism.
Ironically, today her life ended in violence, as she fell under the attack of a gunman at a political function at a supermarket. A neighbor was going to Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s ” Congress on Your Corner” event today, the Arizona Republic reports, and invited Christina along simply because she thought she would enjoy it since Christina was newly elected to the student council at her school. The event, an opportunity for constituents to meet Giffords and discuss any concerns they had related to the federal government, was an outdoor family friendly event. A talented girl, Christina Green participated in many activities, ranging from ballet to baseball. She had just celebrated her First Communion.
“How do you prepare for something like this? My little niece got killed–took one in the chest and she is dead,” her uncle reportedly said outside the girl’s house. The public yields a stunned assent. “She was born on 9-11 and died today? That’s the most tragic thing I’ve ever heard,” a Facebook comment asserts.
Christina’s page in Faces of Hope reads: I hope you know all the words to the Star Spangled Banner and sing it with your hand over your heart. I hope you jump in rain puddles (p. 42).
Editor’s note: Think of this – Saturday morning you send your daughter off with the neighbor to a political event. Saturday night you are planning your daughter’s funeral. Pray for this family and all the families of the victims.
Related Articles
- Sheriff Clarence Dupnik: Arizona ‘Mecca For Prejudice & Bigotry’ (huffingtonpost.com)
- Gunman kills six, seriously wounds Congesswoman (capitolhillblue.com)
- 9 Year-Old Girl Killed in Tucson Shooting, Christina Taylor Green, Was 9/11 Faces of Hope Baby (firedoglake.com)
- Pima Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Calls Out Vitriolic, Hateful Rhetoric (crooksandliars.com)
maboulette
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/
Don’t be a partisan fool like the rabid liberals in these examples of “over the top behavior” by your liberal brethren.
I’m sure you are quite proud of all these buffoons.
By: Boomerdog on January 11, 2011
at 3:25 PM
And why don’t you listen to other people instead of the partisan fools on Fox News? There are examples of “over the top behavior” by your conservative/TeaParty brethren. And I am sure you are mighty proud of all the buffoons on the right!! It goes both ways – there is over the top behavior on both sides. I felt my articles showed both sides and was centered on the 9 years old little girl who was murdered. I hope if you have children that you will never have to plan the funeral of one of those children.
By: maboulette on January 12, 2011
at 3:33 AM
So if you got your wish and they passed a law banning ALL handguns, who do you think is going to turn theirs in? Have you taken the time to even think of what you are proposing or do these ideas just pop out on their own? Why is it with all you libs that if you don’t like something, not participating in that isn’t good enough, you have to take away my right to participate? If you don’t like meat, being a vegetarian isn’t enough, you need to pass a law that I can’t eat meat. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one but who gives you the right to ban mine? Who do you people think you are…mind you’re own business and leave me alone. We already have more than enough gun laws and not one of them would have saved those people. They would have had a better chance if more people at the rally would have been carrying and shot the perpetrator first. You can’t stop crazy. Ie Sirhan Sirhan, Hinkley, Chapman, 911. Wake up and put down your crack pipe!
By: Steve on January 11, 2011
at 4:00 PM
After your normal disrespectful post on my website, the only opinion I have about your guns is that you are someone who should not have any weapons – you seem to have a temper and perhaps have some emotional problems and I don’t believe you should have any guns! As for “mind you’re own business and leave me alone” – young man you are the one who came to my website and left your note on my website – I did not come looking for you. Have a good day and I hope the day never comes when you might have to plan the funeral for one of your children like the father of the 9 year old girl who was killed had to do this week.
By: maboulette on January 12, 2011
at 3:26 AM
Where have I ever been disrespectful of you or your opinion? Is that what you call someone who disagrees with you? You should be able to differentiate between someone with a temper and someone with righteous indignation against some one that stands for eveything I deem reprehensible. For your information, my little brother was gunned down by three gunmen 3 days before Christmas two years ago, so I do know first hand of whence I speak. The most stringent hand gun laws in the world would not have prevented his senseless death. Those three scum bags would still have had theirs and still killed him. What people like you don’t understand is that hand guns prevent thousands of crimes each and every day by ordinary citizens, like me that use them to defend ourselves against those that would kill somebody else for a pack of cigarettes or a pair of sneakers. You maam are completely clueless and have no idea what you are advocating. You only look at an issue and spout off some pie in the sky solution to a problem that sounds good in your little Mary Poppins world. People have a RIGHT to defend themselves and you have no right to circumvent my means of levelling the playing field when some degenerate decides my family has no right to live. How dare you!
By: Steve on January 13, 2011
at 9:20 AM
Steve – so sorry to hear about your brother – and I understand everything you say! I don’t want your guns but there are too many guns in this country. And I am not sure if guns do prevent thousands of crimes each and every day – come on Steve – everyday!!??? But let me assure you that no one is going to take away your right to have a gun and no one is even trying to. By the way – you are so wrong when you claim that I look at an issue and spout off some pie in the sky solution to a problem that sounds good in my little Mary Poppins world – Steve, how can you say that? You don’t know me or anything about me – I don’t come to my opinions lightly – it has taken a lifetime of living to come to the opinions that I have. And some of my opinions have changes thru my lifetime. And everything I write about or post on my blog takes me often hours of work before I publish anything. I don’t just throw something up there without thinking quite a bit about what I am publishing. But its just my opinion – you get so put out with me because our opinions are different and that is what I don’t understand. Why does it matter to you what I believe – I am not stopping you from living the life you want to live – I am not keeping guns away from you. You would think that as many times we have written back and forth we could at least be friends on some level. And I bet if we tried really hard, Steve we could even find something we even agreed on!
By: maboulette on January 13, 2011
at 9:50 AM
As I’ve said to you before you seem like a very nice person and to be honest I would probably like you on a personal basis as I do most liberals. I find them as a whole very caring and compassionate. My gripe with them is that I also find them for the most part to be completely naive and much more prone to base their opinions on how they feel about something and/or how they’d like things to be instead of basing their opinions on facts and how things actually are. For example, take the whole issue of gun control. Your side thinks there are too many guns in our society, and that may be true. However the solution that your side comes up with is that a new law needs to be passed that is more stringent control of guns or even a complete ban. That all sounds good on paper, ban all guns and nobody will be killed. The problem however is that by passing a law to ban guns, the only ones that will comply with your law are the law abiding citizens that abide by every other law. The criminals, who I hope are the ones you would like to see without guns, as I would, by the way will still have theirs and there will actually be less people with a means of defending themselves with a gun. Every time that someone uses a gun and commits a senseless crime with a gun the media and the liberals go completely wild and demand new, tougher gun laws without thinking about the consequences of such an action. how many times have you heard the evening news report how a woman with a gun scared off a would be killer or rapist because she did have a gun? My guess is not many. Would you believe me if I told you that that actually happens far more frequently than people get killed. I bet you won’t. Do some research and you’ll see that is the truth. It doesn’t get reported because it doesn’t fit the left wing agenda of the left leaning press in this country. The NRA used to keep statistics on how many times a gun was used to stop a crime. I’m not sure if they still do but a smart woman like you could discover the truth as could any other journalist if they truly sought the truth and not a preconceived agenda. The right to bear a gun is granted under the Constitution for a reason. What do you think that was? If what I am saying to you is true, then you must conclude that someone has been lying to you. Who and for what reason. I post on every liberal site I can now because I have remained silent for too long. I will be silent no longer. My country is in peril and it is because it’s citizens are no longer capable of critical thinking. There are consequences for our actions and we need to get back to our Constitutional foundations and stop this big government takeover of our lives. Government is NOT the solution, it is the problem! Sorry to be so rough on you but you hit a nerve that I have first hand information about. Steve
By: Steve on January 13, 2011
at 2:13 PM
What most people don’t realize is that banning guns and access to guns (safe storage laws) increases crime in every case. Where are most gun crimes committed – in states and cities with high levels of gun control. Did banning guns in England and Australia reduce crime, no. Does the presence of a gun reduce crime – in about 1.5 to 2.5 million cases a year in the US it does because criminals run from guns. Why the range, because there are several studies that show this to be true, including studies published by the Department of Justice under Jimmy carter.
By: Jack on January 11, 2011
at 4:49 PM
I just have one question for you – why is it that the US is the only country that has these mass killing? No other countries have mass killings. They might have political assassinations and normal crime but not mass killing – don’t you fine that interesting!
By: maboulette on January 12, 2011
at 3:18 AM
I’m fairly sure you are wrong on this, Mary Ann, it’s just that the U.S. media doesn’t report on that kind of thing happening overseas very often, unless you are including murder bombing terroist in the mass killing coloum? I would, but thats just me, eh?
By: bill on January 13, 2011
at 2:29 AM
I am talking about a single gunman killing a large amount of people – I have researched this and it is unique to the United States. For real!!
By: maboulette on January 13, 2011
at 9:56 AM
The sheriff is of course a partisan spotlight-hogging buffoon, and people are getting tiredof his unprofessional, itself inciting, behavior.
As far as more regulations on guns, clips, language and symbols being put forth by the always freedom-squelching left, perhaps we should honor the wishes of Christina’s father, who has said he hopes this doesn’t result in additional regulations and thus less freedom.
By: Natalie on January 12, 2011
at 3:10 AM
Mary Ann, did I miss something? Do you support banning hanguns?
Kyle Brown
Texas Concealed Hangun License Instructor (12 years)
By: Kyle on January 12, 2011
at 1:12 PM
No, I don’t think you missed anything – and yes, I support banning handguns but it’s never going to happen and I rarely talk about it. And I don’t think this article said anything about banning handguns – so I was quite surprised to get the post that I did!! I need to go back and read what I wrote.
By: maboulette on January 12, 2011
at 5:26 PM
I reread the article again…there was no mention of banning handguns. But Mary Ann, the concealed handgun law in Texas has been very successful in reducing violent one-on-one crime. The background check necessary to get the license is quite extensive. For instance, when you speak to a person with a Texas CHL, you know that person has never committed a felony, has not been convicted of an “A” or “B” misd. in the past five years, and is not currently restrained via a protective order or restraining order as a petitioner / respondent as defined in the Texas Family Code. So, with that information available in regard to that licensed person, ask yourself what information you have about others in your presence at any given moment. If we create ‘gun-free zones’, then we are actually sending a loud message to the criminal to ‘come on in’ without fear of anyone shooting back. Do you honestly feel this man in AZ would have obeyed the law and not brought a handgun to the event had such an activity been ‘illegal’? Of course not. Please rethink your position in regard to handguns, Mary Ann. They are not evil; criminals are evil.
By: Kyle on January 12, 2011
at 5:48 PM
The problem I have with guns is how do we keep them out of the hands of those who have mental problems!
By: maboulette on January 12, 2011
at 8:07 PM
You do just that, you find ways to keep them out of the hands of the unstable, you DO NOT punish the law abiding Citizen for the senseless act of a madman! This oh so self-rightous Sherrif had MANY opertunities to do something that could have prevented this horrible incident, as evedewnced by the fact that the Sherrif”s dept and the campus police are refusing to release the “PUBLIC” records which prove that they screwed up on this one.
Taking away MY guns will not make you safe, it will just make BOTH OF US more vulnerable to crooks and nut jobs like this Loughner guy.
when, oh when will you libs figure that out?
By: bill on January 13, 2011
at 12:13 AM
Don’t call me a lib – that is disrespectful to me for I am much more than a lib – I hate that name. And I still don’t like guns – but I don’t believe that the rights to have guns should be taken away – we just need to make it a little harder to get guns. Some states have some decent laws on owing guns – Arizona doesn’t!!
By: maboulette on January 13, 2011
at 9:59 AM
well, I am sorry if you are offended by the term lib, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…,
moving on just what do YOU consider to be a” decent law on owing guns”?
As far as I am Concerned the only “LAW” we need is the one enshrined in the 2nd Ammendment: Congress shall make NO LAW abridgeing the right of the People to KEEP AND BARE ARMS.
I would have added the states to that proabition, but, unfortunetly I wasen’t there at the time, mores the pity, eh?
By: bill on January 13, 2011
at 6:37 PM
Bill – tell me something – when the 2nd Amendment was written – what do you think Bare Arms referred to?
By: maboulette on January 14, 2011
at 12:09 AM
It means to possess, keep them close so when the need comes to defend your property and your life you are ready and ale to do so. that means against Indians (necessary at the time), intruders, and an overstepping government as we now have. The government does not have the right to take the fruit of my labor and redistribute it to someone else, no matter how wealthy I am and no matter how unfortunate someone else is. That is not charity, that is theft. A government that promotes that agenda, which this one does, is tyrannical. What pray tell do you call it? A is A! Theft is theft! What difference does it make if the guy wears a mask or a three piece suit and an American flag lapel pin!
By: Steve on January 17, 2011
at 4:31 PM
“does not have the right to take the fruit of my labor ” – are you saying that the government has not right to make you pay taxes – as taxes what you are referring to in this statement? Is it your belief that the government is tyrannical because you are expected to pay taxes? If not, then what are you referring to? So far, everything you have said – I have heard Glenn Beck say word for word – are you a follower of Glenn Beck or Alex Jones?
By: maboulette on January 17, 2011
at 4:54 PM
Taxes are a necessity for a government. Taxation is not what this government is about, it’s confiscation and redistribution at the point of a gun. That is tyranny! A vast majority of what the Federal Government deems as it’s job and thus taxes us for is completely illegitimate and beyond their role as set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution is to be the law of the land NOT Congress, NOT the President and certainly NOT the Courts. (0% of the problems we have in this country is directly because the Federal Government has over stepped it’s bounds and performing roles it is NOT intended to perform. That is my beef and I still await your answer “if not the Constitution…what? You liberals want it both ways. I am not my brothers keeper, unless I choose to be. A government or anyone else that takes what’s mine and gives it to soneone else BY FORCE is a thief. My rosie glasses are off! I choose to call my government what it is …A thief. We the citizens are no more than slaves to this monster that has evolved over the last 100 years. Sorry you choose to remain in your chains!
By: Steve on January 18, 2011
at 8:20 AM
Jones I find a little wacky, Beck I find interesting and mostly right although I think he takes some things out of context to fit his point. I actually prefer our founding fathers such as Paine, Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin to name a few. If they were alive today, the Revolution would have started almost 100 years ago. Do a little honest research as to what was going on in the Colonies in the mid 1700′s and you’ll see that these guys rebelled over way far less than what we now tolerate. What is going on now is a travesty of true American values. This PC movement in our country is destroying us from within. Take the gun control issue as an example because we have been going back and forth on this issue alot lately. I am 55. When I was in HS, I used to hunt after school. Almost everyday I had a shotgun or rifle in the gun rack of my pick up truck and I went to school in southeast PA. My HS student now is confronted at a HS basketball game because a bunch of kids that formed a pep squad to support their team called their group ‘the terror squad’ and had it printed on their Tshirts. This is what makes America great? People used to come to America because they knew they had a chance of working hard and becoming an American. Now they come here to suck up all the free goodies our government gives away. That isn’t good for them and it certainly isn’t good for America. Your side thinks this is good and expects me to continue to work harder and harder and keep less and less to make this possible. I say…NO MORE!! Your way doesn’t promote freedom, it promotes slavery. I honestly believe that you and others like you are compassionate, caring people that think you are benevolent and kind in doing what you propose. You just happen to be wrong. “If you give a man a fish today, you have to give him one tomorrow. If you teach him how to fish, he can provide for himself”
By: Steve on January 18, 2011
at 8:39 AM
At that time, and, surprise, surprise, still today, it means to openly carry your weapon with no interferance from the Government or so-called law enforcement, who by the way, together kill thousands of times more people than the armed, law- abidding citizens, and who do not restrict themselves to handguns, eh?
By: bill on January 14, 2011
at 10:47 AM
“At that time, and, surprise, surprise, still today, it means to openly carry your weapon with no interferance from the Government ”
Do it? Read this http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm
By: maboulette on January 15, 2011
at 10:35 PM
Ok, I read it, I even downloaded the pdf and read that, I will say that it is an interesting theory, but it is just a theory.
) is either a member or is supported by(I couldn’t tell which, but didn’t realy care too much either way) the Hamiltonian Federalist(read Stateist)Society?, a group compleately at odds with Jeffersonian Democratic principles?
I guess I prefer original sources, like the Federalist papers, et al.
By the way, did you notice that this Dr. Bogus(nice name by the way
I, personaly, don’t put too much stock in anything involving them, but like i’ve said elsewhere, that is just my opinion…
By: bill on January 16, 2011
at 6:39 PM