Yes, really. It’s in the Guardian: Anti-Trump sentiment being examined as motive for White House press dinner shooting

Do you think they’ll find any? I’ve got a few ideas as to where the investigators might look. Real out-of-the-box, blue-sky thinking.

Remember this map, put out by Sarah Palin’s Political Action Committee in late 2010?

In case the image goes away, it is headed “20 House Democrats from districts we carried in 2008 voted for the health care bill. IT’S TIME TO TAKE A STAND” and shows a map of the states of USA with clip art images of crosshairs over those districts. Below that is a list of the representatives of those districts.

Here are three different Guardian articles published on one day, 9th January 2011, linking that map to the shooting spree by Jared Loughner in which he attempted to murder Representative Gabrielle Giffords and did murder six others.

Ewen MacAskill: Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over rightwing rhetoric in US

Jessica Valenti: The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords highlights the ‘man-up’ culture in US politics

Chris McGreal: Arizona shooting: ‘Does she have any enemies?’ ‘Yeah. The whole Tea Party’

The metaphor of targeting is very common in politics. A few days before the last-but-two attempt to assassinate Donald Trump, President Biden said it was “time to put Trump in a bullseye”, without anyone thinking Joe Biden put Thomas Crooks up to it.

But that map, Sarah Palin’s map, is different. No evidence was ever presented that Jared Loughner ever even saw the map (which had been put out by the failed vice-presidential candidate’s Political Action Committee several months previously and was about a specific political issue, Obama’s healthcare bill, in which he had no documented interest) – let alone that he was moved to murder by the clip art of a target over Gabrielle Gifford’s district.

Yet the New York Times, no less, told us that the link between The Map and political incitement was clear. In an editorial called America’s Lethal Politics the NYT said,

“Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, greviously wounded Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarh Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that puts Ms Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

Actually, it put the places they represented under the cross hairs, not the representatives themselves, but that is beside the point. The point is behold the power of the map.

Obviously the use of the metaphor of a target cannot explain why people try to assassinate Donald Trump, or else Joe Biden would be in the crosshai- sorry, in the frame, now. Equally obviously, the endless stream of claims in left wing media that Donald Trump is a “pedophile, rapist and traitor” cannot explain why people try to assassinate Donald Trump, or else left wing media outlets would be bad like Sarah Palin.

Wake up, sheeple. It’s that accursed map. It wasn’t just Palin’s PAC that published it, it was re-published by a zillion left-wing newspapers and websites. Every left-winger in America must have seen it. A smart CalTech-bound kid like Cole Tomas Allen would certainly have been politically aware at the age of sixteen. He must have seen it. We already know of its power to reach across time and space to penetrate and warp vulnerable minds. Just watch The Ring and you’ll understand.

It follows from this that digital ID could easily function as a permissions system. The computer might say No, leaving John unable to hire the car or buy the wine. That could be the result of an administrative error or technical glitch but, by the time the issue was resolved, John’s plans would have been cancelled. But it could also be due to the cancellation of his digital ID, a possibility the Government makes explicit in the consultation, explaining it would need the power to revoke someone’s digital ID.

Speaking at the Parliamentary committee, insider-outsider Whitley said that the system envisaged for the right-to-work checks was one in which permissions for other activities, such as buying alcohol, could be switched off and on at will.

– Alex Klaushofer

Already, the Golders Green terrorist is being explained away as “he suffered from mental health issues”.

Hold people responsible for their actions.

– James Esses

—

And for added context…

—

It’s worth remembering that the man who stormed a kosher supermarket with a knife in 2024 received only a suspended sentence

– Ed West

“The people pursuing luxury beliefs are engaged in a kind of status competition. Who can épater la bourgeoisie with the boldest, most transgressive political statements? After Oct. 7, 2023, we saw this kind of status-jockeying on college campuses, where elite students vied to become the most fervent supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah. Keffiyeh scarves became de rigueur. Celebrating political murder is the next step on this progression. For most, it’s only talk. But there will always be a few who seek what they see as the ultimate status: actually carrying out a political attack.

“People who shrug off this violence chic as mere talk need to take a hard look at what’s going on. The foiled attack on President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner was the third attempt on Mr. Trump’s life in less than two years. The 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was tragically successful. As was the hit on two Israel embassy staffers on a street in Washington, D.C., last year. We’ve seen hundreds of attacks on Jewish-owned businesses and synagogues. An anti-Israel extremist firebombed the residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. The list goes on and on. And the pace of these attacks seems to be accelerating.”

– James B Meigs, Wall Street Journal ($)

His article also addresses how it is now considered chic for these poseurs and self-regarding halfwits to steal stuff.

One consequence of all this nastiness will be a rise in vigilantism, and I don’t at this point think anyone has an excuse for being surprised.

“In the pantheon of destructive, counterproductive laws of the last few centuries, Labour’s new Renters’ Rights Act, which starts today, must be up there with the worst. Perhaps alongside the Corn Laws of 1815, or the Trade Union Act of 1906 that allowed unchecked industrial unrest and economic decline, or the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 that constrained housing supply. It is that bad. The Renters’ Rights Act is sold as a moral crusade: a bold attempt to drive rogue landlords out of England’s private rental sector and protect tenants from abuse. As with the soon-to-be-implemented Employment Rights Act 2025, it is a cure that worsens the disease. Just as higher unemployment will come from the Employment Rights Act, so higher rent and fewer tenancies will come from this Renters’ Rights Act. Employment rights creating more unemployed people, renters’ rights creating more people that cannot rent. Classic performative socialism.”

– Tim Briggs on CapX.

One take-away from all this in my opinion is that this will seriously damage private landlords who own, say, one to five properties, and benefit larger, more institutional landlords, including corporations. Ownership of rental property will become concentrated into the hands of medium-sized and large companies, which I suspect is exactly what the existing government (and not just the existing one) wants. Such landlords will be more pliable when it comes to political pressure to adopt this or that new rule. Also, at the margins, it makes the rental sector less flexible, which also hampers the ability of people to move around in finding and obtaining new jobs. This adds to the baleful impact of the new employment legislation in the UK, which amongst its features is an attempt to re-unionise the workforce and shorten periods when an employee is on probation and can be let go. Even the BBC covers this aspect of such rules, referring to “unintended consequences”.

The point has to be made over and over that there is cause and effect. Make X more costly, or potentially risky (such as by making it harder to fire a person, evict a delinquent tenant) – there will be less of X. We impose speeding tickets on speeding motorists, so why should it be different if we somehow increase the cost of doing something, all else being equal? In fact, it would be honest if a politician said “yes, imposing these rules will reduce supply of X, so we will need to make up the difference in some other way”. But this hardly ever happens. There’s just this assumption that a new piece of law or tax will be absorbed. This is a species, in a way, of the magical thinking that we also get in areas such as around Net Zero.

de Tocqueville had this figured out 180 years ago: pic.twitter.com/uAlXJJ4FxE

— TurnedFourthing (@turnedfourthing) May 2, 2026

I thought that this apparently minor news story from the Telegraph, the comment made by someone called Bernie@Artemisfornow while linking to the story on Twitter, and the reply to that comment with an apt quote by Alexis de Tocqueville were all worth highlighting.

In case the screenshot goes away, the Telegraph story has the headline “Volunteer banned from cleaning graves over ‘health and safety’ fears” and the standfirst “Ben McGregor says South Tyneside authority has threatened him with legal action, despite praise from families“. It continues,

A volunteer has been banned from cleaning graves because the council says it is not safe.

Ben McGregor, 25, washes the headstones at Hebburn Cemetery, South Tyneside, with only soap, water and a bristle brush.

He lost both his father and his best friend to suicide and, after struggling with his own mental health, said that “if I am helping others, it helps me”.

However, the Labour-led council claims it would be “inappropriate” for Mr McGregor to continue his work because “safety checks have not taken place”.

He has been praised by families for his transformations of the headstones, but said the council had threatened him with legal action if he did not stop.

Mr McGregor said: “The one that stands out to me is a woman who was suffering from cancer. She was crying on the phone, saying that’s the nicest thing anyone has ever done for me. The council’s response has blown my mind. It’s doing my head in”.

To which Bernie@Artemisfornow replied,

This is England, where even the kindest, most human acts are subject to control by authoritarian pen pushers.

Using “health and safety” to stop a young 25 year old man from cleaning gravestones with soap and water.

This is how you crush a society. You do it by smothering small acts of decency, like driving people home from the pub and cleaning gravestones. You do it by putting rules in the way of people pulling together, until eventually they just stop trying.

and TurnedFourthing @turnedfourthing in turn replied,

de Tocqueville had this figured out 180 years ago:

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always believed that this sort of servitude, regulated, mild and peaceful, of which I have just done the portrait, could be combined better than we imagine with some of the external forms of liberty, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.

– Alexis de Tocqueville