Skip to content

Would Edmund Burke Leap to the Conclusion of “Southern Populist Terrorism”?

November 26, 2009

Oh Edmund Burke, what would you say about all this?

What was originally packaged as a horrendous right wing hate crime, was discovered on Tuesday, November 24, to be a politically-charged suicide. A little background: on September 12, the body of census worker Bill Sparkman was found in a graveyard in southern Kentucky, bound in rope, naked and accompanied by a sign with the simple word “fed” written on it. Many leftist writers and news personalities took the bait, and believed that some crazed right-wing backwoods folk killed a federal worker.

On Tuesday, November 24, Kentucky police revealed to the public that Sparkman’s demise was due to suicide, not homicide. A Kentucky State Police Captain, Lisa Rudzinski, told the Associated Press that

“based on evidence and witness testimony,” it was concluded that Sparkman died during an intentional, self-inflicted act that was staged to appear as a homicide.”

(If police are right, this is one extreme example of a far left extremist going to incredible lengths, even making sure his last act would be one to demonize conservatives and further a leftist agenda.)

Some of those media figures are now receiving the greatest backlash include Rick Ungar, Huffington Post writers and Andrew Sullivan. Appearing on FOX’s “Red Eye,” conservative writer Michelle Malkin called the entire episode “a self-made hoax” on the public, first perpetrated by Sparkman, then disseminated as truth in the media. Malkin faulted media figures as responsible for “editing errors” aka reporting without all the facts, or even the right facts. (How embarrassing!) One such figure faulted was Andrew Sullivan, who wrote on September 26 about the death, that

“the most  worrying possibility – that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts – remains real.”

Sullivan is a particularly interesting figure in this debate, as he identifies as a conservative, and yet, as of late, his words and actions have bespoken a leftist tilt. Speaking recently on health care, he pooh-poohed calls of socialism, and now he has broken ranks with his own “conservatism of doubt.” Sullivan defines this idea of conservatism as being in opposition to a conservatism of strictly adhering to one strict dogma (and by extension, a knee-jerk reaction to follow any ideology to the letter). Sullivan’s latest statement puts him less in the doubting conservative corner than in the corner of the easily malleable leftist, looking to believe whatever he is told. In a February piece, Sullivan revealed his leftist leanings, writing that

“Similarly today, a conservative should have no objection to major pragmatic attempts to prevent this depression taking on a life of its own and perpetuating pain more than necessary. And – this is the tough part – it might even be the case that the vastly growing social and economic inequality of the last three decades could justify redistribution via spending or taxes… Yes, I did see Obama as a more conservative – because more pragmatic – option in the last election. And his temperament, his patience and his civility all appeal to the conservative not blinded by partisanship or ideology.”

Sullivan justifies his left leanings by bandying the word “conservative” around like a rubber ball, when in fact, if he was truly still a conservative, he would not have rushed to the judgment that FOX News and Southern “populist terrorism” were to blame for Sparkman’s death. By moving away from the doubting conservative model, Sullivan tapped into a knee-jerk leftist-style reaction of blame-the-conservatives.

Sparkman took it upon himself to be the sacrifice upon an unholy altar: he would die so that all who disagreed with his political views could suffer. Sullivan added credence to this lie by aligning himself with leftists only too happy to find a way to fault conservatism for the basest of crimes, murder.

Unfortunately, many leftists are too busy looking for ways to demonize the right, that they are blinded to reality: a man took his own life, in order to falsely implicate an innocent party in a violent crime.

  1. Carterthewriter permalink
    November 26, 2009 3:05 pm

    We all know that the journalizm field is in economic trouble, not because of the economic downturn, but because of idiots who no longer are able to tell the difference between excretia and the truth.

    Fox News is hiring, but not indoctrinated socialists.

  2. Steve R permalink
    November 27, 2009 11:32 am

    “Sparkman took it upon himself to be the sacrifice upon an unholy altar: he would die so that all who disagreed with his political views could suffer. Sullivan added credence to this lie by aligning himself with leftists only too happy to find a way to fault conservatism for the basest of crimes, murder.”

    Which begs the question — tongue-in-cheek, of course 😉 — whether Sparkman colluded with Andrew, or some other useful idiot, before turning off his own lights and leaving the room.

    When this story first broke, I followed it very closely, and the left-wing blogs took off on their usual flights of fancy about the usual (“right wing”) suspects. What WAS pointed out in a FEW instances, and largely ignored by most, is that the area where Sparkman was found is in or near a remote national forest in southeastern Kentucky long known as a hot bed/hiding place for pot farmers, drug runners, moon shiners, and other assorted ‘citizens’ who have no love for snoopers, or interlopers of any sort. And that definitely includes law enforcement. I believe Esquire, or some such pub, did a long article on the area and its denizens several years ago. It struck me at the time that Sparkman could have run afoul of some of them by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Experience teaches that the liberal/progressive/socialist manual on facts, logic, and rational thought is rather a thin tome.

  3. November 27, 2009 6:32 pm

    The conclusion about the suicide may turn out to be right. But I think we may be jumping to a conclusion almost as unsupported as the original. He may have committed suicide so a life insurance policy would pay off. The “suicide clause” prevents payment of the insurance within a statutory period (usually two years). So the note and the conclusion the left drew from it may have been his intentional way of sending a false message and securing the insurance proceeds. On the other hand, he could have been just a seriously-disturbed individual who had no particular agenda, and just chose that false message to throw investigators off the scent of the suicide. Only time and full fact-finding will tell. And as I said, the conclusion drawn in this article may turn out to be right. I just think it was a bit too hasty.

  4. William James Ward permalink
    November 28, 2009 3:44 pm

    The shameless left will use anything to attack the sane people
    of America, disturb our minds, weaken us with their insanity by
    their acts and mixing us into the equation. Did this man kill
    himself or did he do so with help? It makes great background
    diversion to keep right thinking people on edge. I find it
    inconceivable that this man was completely willing in what
    happened to him but considering that there is a great deal of
    information unavailable I may be wrong. However the mind poisoning
    effort of the left moves on.

Comments are closed.