Selective Framing

To the Editor:

I commend Sandy Hooper, in her last LTTE, for her commitment to the written word. Few can stretch a single partisan narrative into a full-length endurance test for the reader. Despite its length, her letter is a masterclass in projection, misinformation, and rhetorical distortion. While she raises legitimate concerns about political violence and free speech, her framing is not only misleading, it’s dangerously selective.

Let’s start with the most serious claim: Charlie Kirk’s assassination. That tragedy demands bipartisan condemnation. But Sandy weaponizes it to argue that political violence is “a tool used by the left.” That’s not just wrong, it’s historically blind.

In June 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered by a right-wing extremist impersonating law enforcement. In 2020, a militia group plotted to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, with multiple convictions for conspiracy and weapons charges. These are not fringe outliers. They’re part of a documented pattern of right-wing political violence that Sandy conveniently omits.

Sandy claims Democrats “led riots against ICE,” that undocumented immigrants “are allowed to vote,” and that Democratic officials “encourage violence.” These aren’t just distortions, they’re deliberate fabrications. No elected Democrat has led a riot against ICE. No credible source supports the idea that undocumented immigrants are legally voting in national elections. And accusing an entire party of endorsing violence without a single verified quote or policy is pure rhetorical fiction.

Her invocation of INA Section 212(f) and the First Amendment is equally flawed. Presidential discretion over immigration does not override due process or equal protection. And the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship, not from criticism, protest, or social consequences. Free speech includes dissent, even when it’s inconvenient for those who prefer echo chambers.

If Sandy wants to defend constitutional principles, she should apply them consistently. If she wants to condemn political violence, she must do so universally. And if she wants to speak for justice, she should start by acknowledging that it must apply to all Americans, not just those who share her ideology.

Eric Green La Grange