And now back to our regularly scheduled dangerous vitriolic rhetoric

It seems like the terms vitriol and vitriolic have been used more in the last 3 days than in the rest of history combined. Perhaps that's an exaggeration but you know the media, once a word catches on it is used repetitively until we're sick of it. Sort of like anti-semetism.

Everyone with a political axe to grind or a propaganda angle to push is trying to make use of the Gabrielle Giffords mass shooting. Blame this one or that, words incite, words can kill. We've heard it all before but this event really gives an opportunity to push the envelope for censorship and more. In the end this is not about quieting the controlled left/right politicians, their media shills and misguided followers. It is about shutting us up ... you and I.

Already there's a call to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

Just how specific would that law be and who would have the say so on what inciting violence is? Would violence actually have to occur or would this be more in the realm of 'thought crime?'

Would calling Joe Lieberman a traitor, Lindsey Graham a war whore or questioning that a majority of Congress are controlled or blackmailed by AIPAC, Wall Street and the mega-corporations be inciting? How about saying that the entire Congress and many federal officials are complicit in covering up the 9/11 black op? It could be dangerous just talking about how the Congress and federal officials have blood on their hands for allowing the lying wars to continue or how they get on their knees waving tons of money before Israel and supporting the genocide and land theft of Palestine. Words could trigger loons to act and it would be all your fault.

Mostly it's about inciting fear. Fear to speak out. Fear to call those in power the applicable names they so well deserve. Fear to try and expose the criminal activities in government.

It's not about the "in the crosshairs" symbols of Sara Palin. It's about the symbolism of "we" who are dangerous because we ask the questions.

The traitor of the day award goes to Glenn Beck who amazingly uses the Giffords incident to lead into how he's always been right and who is number one on his list of people with dangerous thoughts ... truthers.

Yes, number 1 in his "A Recipe for Danger."

"I have told you on this program that we are facing a danger and I, on this program, have highlighted certain things. I've told you that there are people out there that I think are dangerous that actually believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that George Bush was responsible for wiring it up and blowing up the world trade center. I think some of those people are nuts.


I think some of them are dangerous.


I have told you that the government would so discredit themselves that those things would start to make more and more sense and people would say, you know what, I don't even know if I believe in the moon landing anymore."

I was surprised that Beck didn't equate truthers with holocaust deniers but he did throw in these other gems; "He {Jared Loughner} thinks George Bush was behind 9/11,"   "19 hijackers who took down the world trade center in the name of Allah,"   "My agenda is the truth."

transparent bullshit ...

vitriolic rhetoric ...

It makes you want to get up and smack the TV.