There is still a lot to find out about the terrorist attacks in Oslo, but one thing is for sure, just as with the Tucson massacre, the American left is reveling in the possibility that they could make political points from the heinous acts.

And just as with Tucson, the Left put its target (again) on American conservatives and Governor Sarah Palin. This horrific and ghoulish use of mass murder to score political points is moved today by a Roger Cohen column in the New York Times. Through this column, which gives this obscene meme the NYT Seal of Approval, Cohen blames the Oslo attacks on American conservatives, Palin and Republicans in general, but also repeats the lie that Tucson shooter Loughner was the product of all non-liberal concerns:

Breivik and His Enablers

…We’ve seen the movie. When Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords this year in Tuscon, Arizona — after Sarah Palin placed rifle sights over Giffords’ constituency and Giffords herself predicted that “there are consequences to that” — the right went into overdrive to portray Loughner as a schizophrenic loner whose crazed universe owed nothing to those fanning hatred under the slogan of “Take America Back.” (That non-specific taking-back would of course be from Muslims and the likes of the liberal and Jewish Giffords.)

Breivik is no loner. His violence was brewed in a specific European environment that shares characteristics with the specific American environment of Loughner: relative economic decline, a jobless recovery, middle-class anxiety and high levels of immigration serving as the backdrop for racist Islamophobia and use of the spurious specter of a “Muslim takeover” as a wedge political issue to channel frustrations rightward…

In the shadow of this rank tripe at the increasingly bizarre and absurd New York Times (which should be at the top of the list for Palinistas and the Fingers on the Keyboard campaign), there are some thoughtful and important pieces emerging exposing the Left Wing lie of attaching Oslo to Christians and conservatives. In the midst of what will be renewed and appalling attacks on conservatives using Oslo, here is a list of Required Reading for today to give all conservatives the information to reject and combat these specious accusations.

The Atlantic: Why the European Right Can’t Be Blamed for the Attacks in Norway (HT to Pat S. in our News Wire).

The terrorism in Norway is appalling, unforgivable, and shocking. Anders Behring Breivik was deeply involved in a growing movement in European politics, as activist Bruce Bawer notes, becoming well-known in right wing groups and circles “concerned… with the Islamization of Norway.” But what does that mean? It would be easy to react against all right-wing movements, but that is, in fact, a mistake. It is also rather unfortunate hypocrisy…

And Bruce Bawer at the WSJ:

Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer
In his 1,500-page manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik slides alarmingly from a legitimate concern about the rise of Islam in Europe to propose ‘terror as a method for waking up the masses.’

American Spectator: Why It Wasn’t Unreasonable to Suspect Muslim Terrorism in Norway

Loesch at Big Journalism: A Quick Lesson for Media on the Definition of “Right Wing”

Jeffrey Goldberg: On Suspecting al Qaeda in the Norway Attacks (UPDATED)

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. otlset says:

    This Roger Cohen tool represents the lowest of the low in his vile linking of Gov. Palin with the Norway tragedy. He accomplished his scummy leftist goal merely by putting the Governor’s name in his defamatory hack-piece. Cohen is a small, mean-spirited hack whose intent is to lie and defame. Shame on him. Shame on him two times!

    And vile is an anagram of evil — just sayin’.

  2. Artgal says:

    I think it’s time Mr. Cohen hears from a Tucsonan.

  3. Maynard says:

    Wow, the Fox headline says “Under Norway’s liberal justice system, Anders Behrin Breivik, the suspect in Friday’s twin attack that killed 76 people, faces a maximum prison sentence of 100 days per victim.” I’m sure there are complicating details that I’ll find when I read the fine print. But if that’s the penalty for this stuff…I mean, gosh, that would make terrorist murder something slightly worse than a parking ticket. Is there anyone I’d kill if my downside penalty were a hundred days? My ex-boss, maybe? Mmmmmmm… I’d like to think I’d follow God’s law here, but it’s an unwise law that places such temptation in the path of fallible humans…

    • otlset says:

      I understand the maximum sentence for *any* crime in Norway is 21 years. It’s possible then you might get the maximum sentence for just offing your ex-boss, so you might as well do a few more to get your money’s worth! You know, if you were so inclined.

      • Maynard says:

        That makes sense. Maybe I could take some orders on the side, you know, do a little free market contracting if the economics are favorable. Lotsa folks have lists for just such an opportunity, I’m guessing. And it’s a ripe market, because I tend to deal with the sort of disadvantaged people that don’t get many chances of this sort. Do you suppose I could advertise on Craig’s list? I know they been under pressure to shut down panderers, but I haven’t heard anything about other services.

        • otlset says:

          There you go! It’s only 21 years after all, and when you get out you can live the good life with your earnings! Read, study, learn a skill, then when you get out you can retire!

          If they have a Norwegian Craigslist, well no, even there it’s probably crawling with undercover crooks and cops. It would have to be word of mouth.

        • otlset says:

          Again of course, only if you’re so inclined. And I don’t think you are.

  4. As in any free society, The Debate Will Continue:

    Europe is just starting to go through what the US has had a good head start in dealing with, and that is a clash of cultures. But unlike in the US, over a hundred years ago, when masses of immigrants where dropped on the shore, and quickly co-opted by their ethnic constituents for a meager wage and a place to sleep. The national policies of these EU nations have in effect promoted, and fostered this migration process for many years. These governments not only granted residence to many, many refugees (which is a very good thing), they have literally rolled out the red carpet complete with generous living allowances, pensions, and housing. Any talk of limiting how many refugees should be let in per year, or how easy or how hard should the rules be to immigrate is immediately panned as racist in motive.

    Take a city like Oslo, according to Wikipedia it is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe due to the rise in immigrant population, which now accounts for 25% of Oslo’s citizens. Malmö, Sweden’s 3rd largest city is listed as 30% of its residents were born outside of Sweden. I think most people do not want a halt in helping refugees and to stop normal immigration all together, but how many is too many, should they cut back when Oslo is 55% immigrant? 75%? Would the left actually be satisfied once they achieve 80% immigrant to 20% indigenous population in a major city? The notion of a small, yet rich country letting in everyone the world sends its way is naive on the local level and shameless, selfish politics on the party level as those vying for power merely see these people as votes, and totally disregard any of the consequences of lumping in large amounts of people in such a short period of time.

    In saying that, I believe the massacre in Norway was not a consequence of liberal immigration policy. Neither was the open discussion of problems arising from these policies, but rather a result of very faulty thinking, repressed anger, and a total lack of respect for human life, and a healthy dose of old fashioned racism. But of course the left is trying very hard to make gains on this issue and shut conservatives up, as evil such as this gives them plenty of ammo. And the way they try to capitalize politically on death is truly revolting. (See Obama campaign speech at the Tucson shooting memorial ceremony, complete with printed t-shirts and cheering.) But the debate WILL continue. How much help should a country give? How many refugees and/or immigrants should be let in each year? 1000? 100,000? What should be done or not done about forced marriages, honor killings? What should be done about drastically higher rates of criminality and unemployment in certain immigrant groups? All laws/policies good or bad have unintended consequences. There needs to be open and honest debate on all sides of an issue.

You must be logged in to post a comment.