Now that the Sikh Temple shooter – Wade Michael Page – has been identified by multiple news sources as a neo-Nazi, the Los Angeles Times writes in the very first sentence of this story that Page associated with ‘right-wing extremists’. Leftists are using twitter to blame the likes of Michele Bachmann and Rush Limbaugh. If it sounds like the Tucson shootings redux, in which Sarah Palin and Limbaugh were blamed, these shootings might come with an additional helping of liberal hypocrisy and blatant falsehoods.
As the truth came out about Tucson shooter Jared Loughner, it was learned that if he had any political leanings at all, they were to the left; he listed the Communist Manifesto (left-wing) and Mein Kampf (ahem, left-wing) as his favorite books.
It is becoming more widely known that ‘Nazi’ translated into English means ‘National Socialist Party’. When you point this out to leftists, they say it refers to a ‘different’ kind of socialism. You know, the ‘right wing’ variety, kinda like communist capitalism.
That’s not all. Last year, Occupy Wall Street (OWS), quite the left-wing movement, had the endorsement of – among others – David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hezbollah, the Ayatollah of Iran, 9/11 Truthers, the Communist Party USA and, you guessed it, the American Nazi Party.
So, another false narrative – based on a false premise – is being put forth by the left. The premise is that Nazis are right-wing extremists. The narrative is that the Sikh Temple shooter was a neo-Nazi who was motivated by that right-wing extremism.
Walid’s family history involves his grandfather, who was a chieftain in the Beit-Sahour village in Bethlehem, being close friends with Adolf Hitler. As Walid will often explain, Islam aligns very closely with left-wing ideology. Look around; who is it that is defending the Muslim Brotherhood most, by pushing back against the efforts of Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Lynn Westmoreland, and Tom Rooney? The left. Are we to believe that Hitler was a right-wing extremist who aligned with the Muslim world and that today, it’s the left who has decided to switch sides?
The left loves to make a similar argument when you bring up the fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and started the KKK to lynch blacks after the latter had been granted the right to vote… by Republicans. The left loves to argue that it was the Republicans of today who were the Democrats back then. Sorry, it doesn’t wash with the facts. Besides, why would the left continue to keep the Democratic Party name, if they’re so compassionate?
Al Sharpton, a black Democrat, supports the murder of unborn black babies. So does his party. In that regard, the Democratic Party hasn’t really changed its stripes at all. It just makes Sharpton a turncoat by belonging to it.
Aside from Republican establishment members like John McCain, John Boehner, and Jim Sensenbrenner (Scott Brown and Marco Rubio notwithstanding), the most vehement opposition to the efforts of five truly conservative Congressmen to get to the bottom of legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration (Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland, and Rooney) has been from the left. In this case, the left is painting Bachmann, et. al. as the right-wing extremists. How can this be? According to the left, Nazis are the right-wing extremists. Bachmann, et. al. are pro-Israel, which is anti-thetical to Nazism… and Islam.
One of the groups renowned for pushing this kind of narrative – that neo-Nazis are right-wing extremists – is the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which was founded by Morris Dees. Here is a news report from WPIX in New York; it features Mark Potok, a senior fellow with SPLC.
The most notorious neo-Nazi in the modern era was Timothy McVeigh; the left loves to point to him as the poster child for right-wing extremism / terrorism whenever the issue of Islamic terrorism is brought up. Moreover, McVeigh is often painted as a Christian; the left does this with impunity and the right often remains silent in its own ignorance.
Timothy McVeigh revealed to his two biographers that he was an agnostic, who considered “science” to be his “religion”. The UK Guardian referenced a letter he wrote before his execution:
In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would “improvise, adapt and overcome”, if it turned out there was an afterlife. “If I’m going to hell,” he wrote, “I’m gonna have a lot of company.”
Do those sound like the words of a Christian extremist? Contrast those words with what an Islamic extremist who murdered 14 people at Fort Hood might say? Someone like Nidal Malik Hasan, whose business card identified him as “SOA” or Soldier of Allah. A comparative business card for McVeigh might have said “SOA” as well, for Soldier of Agnosticism (not Christianity).
As for the SPLC, perhaps they should worry about some unanswered questions that if answered, could amount to quite the log in their own eye when it comes to neo-Nazis. Perhaps they should answer those questions before politicizing the Sikh Temple shootings.
The narrative that neo-Nazis are right-wing extremists is false, which makes any attempt to pin responsibility on Michele Bachmann even more slanderous than doing so for pure political expediency.
In any event, there is one person responsible for the shootings at that Sikh Temple; his name was Wade Michael Page.