Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Sticks & Stones

James Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, came to Alexandria, Virginia, shooting, blame, scapegoat, excuses, rationalizations

James Hodgkinson of Belleville, Illinois, came to Alexandria, Virginia, where for the last few months he lived in his van . . . undoubtedly down by the river. Yesterday, he wielded an assault rifle, attempting to massacre Republican congressmen at a park practicing for tonight’s annual charity Congressional Baseball Game.

He shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who remains in critical condition; a lobbyist also in critical condition; a staffer, hit in the leg and released from the hospital; and two Capitol Police officers, who still shot and captured the shooter. Hodgkinson later died in custody.

Politically, the down-on-his-luck, 66-year-old assailant was a big fan of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. So, what does his act of violence say about Maddow? Nothing. How much is it Sen. Sanders’ fault? Zero.

The Washington Post reports that Hodgkinson was “angry with President Trump,” noting this violence came “amid harsh political rancor and a divided country.”

Michelle Malkin declared she had “warned for more than a decade about the unhinged left’s rhetoric.”

“The hatred is raw, it is undiluted, it’s just savage,” Rush Limbaugh offered. “These are the mainstream of the Democrat base, and I don’t have any doubt that they are being radicalized.”

It harkens back to then-President Bill Clinton’s success in blaming the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing on “loud and angry voices” (read: Rush Limbaugh) who “spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable.”

Sure, we should hold speakers accountable for dehumanizing verbal attacks on their opponents. But not for acts of violence these speakers do not commit, nor condone.

Condemn the violence. Stop using it to smear your opponents.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF


By: CS Admin


  1. Steven Sass says:

    Shooter Who Targeted GOP Confirmed as Trump-Hating Bernie Supporter




    As long as those who support the 2nd amendment did not take a case to court, we would have the left in a no win argument!

    LET’S DO IT!


  2. Tom Keefe says:

    What this country needs right now is cool heads and common sense. Thanks, Paul, for stepping up to the challenge.

  3. 2War Abn Vet says:

    According to the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide,” “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” Selective fire means you can choose between semi- (one round fired per trigger pull), and full-auto (continuous fire as long as the trigger is depressed).
    So, Hodgkinson did not use the fabled “assault rifle” (something rarely used in crime despite movies and TV programs); he used an SKS.

  4. JFB says:

    The assailant was a very significant aberration, an outlier.
    It was neither the weapon of his choice nor the foolishness and vitriol of the press which actually “caused” his criminal activity.
    There are 330 million individuals in this country and some of which are equivalent aberrations to this assailant, disturbed and criminal. They, unlike him, still walk the streets.
    That this incident should be an excuse to abrogate the First or Second Amendment is a quantum leap of illogic.
    I would suggest the following course of action. Quietly offer to the members of the Congress and Senate the immediate ability to fully exercise of their God-given and 2nd Amendment right of self-defense, allowing themselves and/or their security to carry firearms for self-defense in DC and all the States if they so desire.
    Following the passage of a reasonable time, perhaps a year, there should be a survey to determine if any of our elected representatives chose to do so, either personally or had armed security, over the period – temporally or continuously.
    The results of that survey should then be reported to the White House, so it could be leaked, assuring its widest possible promulgation.
    In the mean time, I am certain, that some of our elected “representatives” will, as did the governor of Virginia with his armed security force present and in place, continue to lecture that there are too many firearms and that the honest, sane law-abiding and tax-paying citizens should not be allowed this means to defend themselves from the criminals and aberrational.
    I predict that not a single member of the House or Senate will be able to honestly report that the were not personally protected by either carrying arms, or by armed security detail over the period of one year.

  5. Gary says:

    Sorry to disagree, but even after the shooting the evil and vile things being posted social media has to be taken into account.

    If this guy were a member of the KKK, a neo-Nazi, or a “right-wing” militia there is no doubt where the blame would be.

    Yes, words are just that, but the ideas that words can spawn are very powerful. When the Left continues to use violence (BLM and the anti-fa) and there is virtually no accountability for their actions, others will take this message and run with it.

    Mr. Hodgkinson pulled the trigger, but the ideas and rationale for doing it came from the ideas of others.

  6. Pat says:

    Didn’t Hillary Clinton tell her supporters to ‘keep fighting’?   She wasn’t speaking rhetorically.  She wasn’t referring only to winning elections.  She also urged them to fight ‘in the streets’.
    And you say we shouldn’t hold these speakers responsible for acts they ‘don’t condone’?

    • John F Brennan says:

      Yes Pat, but how? Hillary’s speech is incendiary and should be discouraged but not at the cost of the 1st Amendment.  There is always a cost to feedom on blood and treasure. 

      • Pat says:

        She used the media and her running mate, Tim Kaine.

        Here is what he said in response to Mika Brezinski:  Note her question and how he responded.
        I would argue that his words were nothing less than a call to insurrection.    Just as free speech doesn’t let you yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater, what is legal about calls for violence?

        “There’s so much going on here that we clearly see, you know, places where… we can criticize what the administration is doing, but how does the [Democratic] party rebuild?” asked host Mika Brzezinski. “How do you prevent a continuation of the bubble in a situation like this, and how does the party reclaim its reach across the country while fighting these battles?”

        “So, the way we get outside the bubble is we take advantage of this tremendous public outcry against the administration,” responded Kaine. “What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box, and now there’s the momentum to be able to do this.”

        Kaine’s own son took his words to heart and committed criminal acts against Trump supporters.  Kaine and Hillary cannot escape culpability for their actions.  And they shouldn’t.   Neither should people like Loretta Lynch, who made similar statements.

        • JFB says:

          I agree and it has been held that the calling for an armed or violent insurrection is NOT protected speed and prosecutable criminally ( and potentially civilly as well). Many of the previous statements of the “admirables”, as opposed to the “depolirable” have certainly,closely approached, if not past the line. I believe that the reason there has been not prosecutions to this point of such speech is the anticipated ramifications of undertaking the prosecution. As with all things human, such is subject to change and if there are continuing incidents change will be forced.

  7. LiveFreeOrDie says:

    I would be opposed to cutting out an exemption in the firearm laws solely for some subset of politicians. Their lives and those of their families are no more important than those of every citizen. Should they be allowed to purchase and carry the firearms of their choice for protection? Absolutely! The same as every American citizen should be allowed to do, regardless of where they live or their political connections. And while I blame the assailant rather than the tools they choose or the voices that spew the hate that they incorporate, there is a line that we’ve accepted for many years. If you openly call for the killing of some person or group of people, you can be held legally responsible for the actions of some demented person who follow your cries. “Progressive” celebrities, politicians, and media personalities should enjoy no higher legal status than the KKK and the American Nazi Party were held to.

  8. TxRebel66 says:

    Mr. Jacobs –
    I think that your analysis is very naive. Art / Theater Art / Motion Pictures (in that order) always exhibit a “new” way of thinking about the world. I urge you to review the overwhelmingly anti-conservative, anti-Constitutionalist / anti-American Public Expressions from the “Entertainment Media” / the “News” media / “Pop culture” over the last – what? 50? years. Violence against political opponents has ALWAYS been a part of the “progressive” ideology since its genesis in the early 1900s. “Progressive Ideology” basically amounts to a Titanic Government that is Entitled to CRUSH any opposition by any means possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2019 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top