“Civility” Rules Of Engagement In America

By Semperpapa

Rules of Engagement, best known as ROE, have been blamed for higher casualties in the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. These are rules designed to safeguard innocents from the ravages of war, all with good intentions for sure, but amply utilized by the enemy to survive and fight another day.

ROE are not limited to warfare. They can also be applied to the political discourse in the streets of our country.

Going back to 8 January 2011, when the horrible news of the shooting in Tucson hit the airwaves. Six people shot dead, many wounded including US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Immediately following the breaking news, the American left started the blame game. Everyone who had ever expressed any sort of dissent toward the policies of Democrats was being blamed for the actions of an obviously mentally deranged individual with a history of fatal dislike for Ms. Giffords, who was the intended target.

From Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh, and every one else in between, was held responsible for the shooting. The lack of civility in political dissent was to blame for the tragedy, not to mention the ever present favorite argument of gun control. All stops were pulled off by the opportunistic progressives to attack the two Constitutional Amendments the Left hates the most: freedom of speech and the right to own and bear arms.

Civility police, mostly self appointed, begun to attack anyone who had ever spoken a word of dissent, holding them responsible for inciting the actions of a mad man. In the effort of killing opposition’s opinions (no, I will not apologize for the use of the word “killing”), the Left made the statement that the only “civil” discourse was a full approval of the disastrous policies of Obama and his circus.

Coming back to today, as the events in Wisconsin and unrest in other states may be brewing, it appears that the ROE for civility are different for the progressives.

Massachusetts US Rep. Michael Capuana spoke to a Union rally where he made the following statement, among others:

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

The video of the speech shows a crowd exploding in cheers at the statement, but the rest of the Nation, the true America, was struck by Capuana’s words.

Was this elected official really saying that it is acceptable to engage in political violence if he agrees with the agenda?

The congressman’s words went viral, and rightfully so. Even if he was elected by an obviously predominant liberal district population, it is safe to assume that there are some people in his constituency who do not agree with his political agenda. Nevertheless, as an elected official, he is bound to represent the interests of that portion of citizens too. With his statement, he is technically justifying the potential violence that thugs following him could bring against his own constituency.

Would Mr. Capuana take responsibility for any violence that some union goon would perpetrate against a dissenter after his speech?

Adding to the image of this “elected official”, who allegedly swore his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, Capuana was one of the most vocal attackers of “right wing rhetoric” as being responsible for the shooting in Tucson.

Reaction to the man’s statement was strong enough to spark a statement from the congressman. Among some of the empty words that came out of his mouth in what people expected to be some sort of an apology was the following:

“I strongly believe in standing up for worker rights and my passion for preserving those rights may have gotten the best of me yesterday in an unscripted speech,” he said in a statement. “I wish I had used different language to express my passion and I regret my choice of words.”

Which was not an apology, but actually a re-statement of his beliefs. He wishes he had used different words, but did not backtrack from his not so veiled support for political violence, as long as it benefits his agenda and “passion”.

So, to make sure we all understand, these are the ROE of civility in political discourse today.

One can support political violence, as long as it promotes leftist agenda.

One can carry a sign with gun sights on a political figure picture, as long as it is a Republican in the picture.

One cannot speak of the administration, unless it is in adoring manner.

Did you all get that?

People demanded an apology from Capuana, which he did not make. Personally, I feel that the least to be done would be to send the man packing back to whatever slum he came from.

Just my thoughts!