Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Who’s to Blame for Extremist Killers???











In the wake of senseless murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of only three U.S. physicians who practiced late term abortions in the country, many among the far-Left Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC-NYT Times Axis sought to blame the acts of madman (Scott Roeder) on Talk Radio, Fox News and other targets of the Left, in an attempt to silence those they disagree with.

The fact is, that late term (after the 21st week of pregnancy) is illegal in 23 states and more than 2/3s of Americans oppose Late Term, also known as “partial birth abortion”.

Of course, there is a profound irony in the alleged pro-LIFE Scott Roeder, taking the life of another person.

Still, does the Left have a point? Is the Right to blame for the acts of the likes of Scott Roeder, people who take Conservative talk as an exhortation and a moral justification for violence against people they disagree with?

Well, it would seem, at least no more or less so than the Left and that would include the bulk of our Mainstream news media (MSM) is responsible for the likes of 23 y/o Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), an American-born convert to Islam, who shot up an Arkansas Army Recruiting office, killing one U.S. soldier and wounding another.

Fortunately, the law makes the issue all too clear. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that you can, in effect, incite someone to break the law or commit violence so long as there is time between the incitement and the commission of the violence for somebody else to intervene and tell you that you’re wrong to try and act illegally on that incitement. If there is even that short period of time then your speech is protected even if you’re encouraging someone to break the law. The purpose of that is to give freedom of speech/free expression the benefit of the doubt and that’s vital because ONLY offensive, scatological, even what some would call inciteful speech NEEDS such protection.

There's an odd disparity here. You NEVER hear the Right seeking to blame the far-Left for the actions of the plethora of kooks and madmen among their ranks, and yet, the Left, at virtually EVERY opportunity, seeks to blame those they disagree with for extremist violence against favored Leftist groups.

Why is that?

Most likely, because the Left reviles true FREE SPEECH and seek and have ALWAYS SOUGHT to stifle and silence any dissent from their orthodox views.

Then why is the Left so consistently morally vapid?
.
It’s simply who and what they are.

16 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

Then why is the Left so consistently morally vapid?
.
It’s simply who and what they are.
yes sir..spot on...I covered this horror as well...sigh.
KEEP THE FAITH!!

Skunkfeathers said...

Historically, the Left simply is this way. During the rise of Nazi Germany -- up through the point that Hitler had a death-grip on the power from within, before he began to forcibly expand that power beyond Germany -- the Leftist Nazis sought to stifle public and political opposition through intimidation, threats, and domestic spying; their police state tactics were hugely successful, to the short-term utter destruction of part of their society (West Germany), and more long-term to the rest (former East Germany).

Leftist tactics of attack, smear and suppress their political opposition -- as opposed to a head-on debate in the Hall of Ideas, where they know they frequently lose intellectually and rationally, because their dictates are frequently at odds with the human spirit and love of freedom -- are at play anywhere marxist socialism is in evidence. The former Soviet Union (and possibly seeing a bit of a rebirth in current Russia, under Putin); Cuba; North Korea; Venezuela; some of the more fundamentalist-driven Islamic countries.

The Left seeks to overpower and control the opposition; the Right seeks to sell a product they believe to be superior to the Left.

The Left is easily explained.

Seane-Anna said...

I must be the only pro-life person in America who's not afraid to say I'm glad George Tiller is dead. I'M GLAD HE'S DEAD. He was a murderous waste of DNA who deserves his eternal place in hell. I will shed NO tears for that man or his family. I'm glad he's gone. Goodbye and good riddance.

JMK said...

100% right SF!

It's important that we understand what extreme Leftists believe and where those beliefs come from.

A GREAT website is "Hitler Was Leftist; http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

JMK said...

I'm not "pro-life Seane-Anna.

I'm consistent.

I believe in the death penalty, necessary war and abortion-on-demand until that fetus would be viable outside the womb, on the grounds that an unwilling parent, is at least at that moment, an "unfit parent" and no child should be brought into an unwanted, uncaring, often chaotic and dysfunctional environment.

I even support mandatory birth control for those who are chronically dependent.

What I DON'T support is vigilantism, like some kook gunning down a doctor in Church.

The hypocritical irony of a "pro-LIFE" person taking anothe rhuman life is staggering in this instance.

Scott Roeder had the right to try and change Kansas' laws. He did not have the right to kill Dr. Tiller, regardless of how odious that practice might be.

JMK said...

I'll be stopping by ASAP Angel....I've been running around a lot the last six weeks.

elwoodin said...

The "left is so consistently morally vapid" is the greatest statement I have heard. Wish I had thought of it. Wonderful post my friend. And so true. All of us, on the basis of us being against the things the left stands for, has to stand up and say to them, leave the laws and the constitution alone. We need to make them all know that they do the same things to us, and yet then it is okay. We have to stop allowing this double standard and start standing up for our rights as Americans. Right minded Americans.....not wrong.

Seane-Anna said...

JMK, I know you're not pro-life which, in my book, puts you outside the conservative fold. But let me explain something to you.

"Pro-life" is a term that refers to someone who opposes abortion. It means someone who's pro the life of unborn babies; it does NOT necessarily mean being pro the life of every person in all circumstances.

For many pro-life people, myself included, there are three factors that determine our stand on this issue: the HUMANITY of the unborn, the INNOCENCE of the unborn, and the DEFENSELESSNESS of the unborn. While all people are human, of course, not all people are innocent or defenseless. That's how many pro-lifers can support things like capital punishment or war without being hypocrites.

A murderer is neither innocent nor defenseless. A terrorist is neither innocent nor defenseless. Stopping such evil people by taking their lives if necessary is morally acceptable to most pro-lifers.

As a pro-life individual I consider abortionist George Tiller to be a murderer of the worst sort: a baby killer, murdering the most innocent and defenseless among us. Consequently, stopping him by taking his life is fine with me. I don't think it makes me a hypocrite in the least.

Seane-Anna said...

JMK, when I say your not being pro-life puts you outside the conservative fold, I DON'T mean you don't have conservative ideas; you do. I just mean that, for me, being pro-life is one of the fundamentals of conservatism. Obviously, you disagree, which is ok.

JMK said...

It's OK for people to disagree Seane-Anna and indeed for MOST Conservatives, the pro-life/anti-abortion position is fundamental.

I'm generally far more economically Libertarian and socially pragmatic, which puts me outie the Conservative mainstream on some issues.

As I said, for ME (and this is just me...MY view) the act of bringing a child into a chaotic, dysfuncional, uncaring/unwanted environment is tantamount to child abuse.

In fact, I'd support mandating birh control and when necessary, abortion, for the chronically dependent (the chronically poor, incarcerated felons, and the institutionalized mentally and emotionally dysfunctional) on the same grounds.

I am morally and logically consistent, in that I DO NOT believe "ALL LIFE is sacred". I support the death penalty (and far harsher measures than letal injection) for particularly heinous crimes and I support just and necessary wars.

Those Conservatives who upport the death penalty and oppose all abortion are not consistent on the "ALL LIFE is sacred" doctrine and Liberals who support abortion and oppose Capital Punishment are equally inconsistent on the matter.

Few entities (the Catholic Church is one) are consistent in that view. The Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion, most wars, and Capital Punishment, just as I support them all.

This moral inconsisency on the part of the vast majority of Liberals and Conservatives is indeed a moral cunundrum.

JMK said...

TYPO: ...which puts me outside the Conservative mainstream on some issues.

JMK said...

"Pro-life" is a term that refers to someone who opposes abortion. It means someone who's pro the life of unborn babies; it does NOT necessarily mean being pro the life of every person in all circumstances." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
<
That's an arbitrary and capricious standard Seane-Anna.

Besides, everyone defines "pro-LIFE differently and for better or worse (I think for better), the same appx 70% of Americans who OPPOSE Late Term or "Partial Birth Abortion" also SUPPORT abortion on demand through at least the first trimester.

Incredibly enough about 70% of Americans OPPOSE Late Term/PBA and another 70% SUPPORT abortion on demand through the first trimester.

That's why it's almost certain that BOTH extremes MUST ultimately compromise....and the best compromise seems to be the one I layed out - abortion on demand UNTIL the fetus can exist independently outside the womb.

You yourself acknowledge that "ALL life is NOT sacred".

GOOD.

So do I.

Let's base "the right to live" on a pragmatic, common-sense standard - viability.

A fetus is not a "child" until it can survive (is viable) independently outside the womb.

For Conservatives, we have to reach a compromise that allows us to put this thorny and divisive issue BEHIND US.

JMK said...

"As a pro-life individual I consider abortionist George Tiller to be a murderer of the worst sort: a baby killer, murdering the most innocent and defenseless among us. Consequently, stopping him by taking his life is fine with me." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
The LAW states differently.

The LAW, as written, recognizes doctors like Tiller, to be practicing a legal medical procedure.

Ergo, the killer (the deranged Scott Roeder) was violating the entire basis for our nation's existence with that murder - he violated the rule of law.

Worse still, he made a martyr out of a man who should never been lionized. Dr. Tiller is now and forever a champion of the pro-abortion/pro-"choice" side.

EVERY intelligent Conservative has run from the Scott Roeder position and have expressed deep sympathy over his murder.

Why do you think that is?

Moral cowardice?

Think again.

They KNOW that Scott Roeder disgraced the anti-abortion movement and anyone who'd associate with or defend him.

Again, it comes down to winning the battle of ideas....extremsists on EITHER side, have absolutely no chance of ever doing that.

JMK said...

"All of us, on the basis of us being against the things the left stands for, has to stand up and say to them, leave the laws and the constitution alone." (Robert)
<
<
I agree Robert.

But it's going to take some major triggering event.

Times are getting tougher and I fear (economically) the worst is yet to come.

But what will be the tipping point?

The problem has been that few people in either Party (Newt Gingrich was ONE) really support smaller government.

Look what's happening in England right now.

Same thing here.

We are witnessing all too clearly what has always plagued the world - "the political class" forcing its will on and ravaging the people.

Too many Americans are addicted to "free stuff". Things will have to collapse and I'm afraid that means things will almost have to get very ugly, before enough people see the light that there really is "no such things as a free lunch....or "free" anything else.

Rachel said...

I consider myself liberal & pro-choice, and Roeder CHOSE to shoot Tiller himself. Not FOX, Limbaugh, or any other pro-life movement worth its weight in salt.

JMK said...

I agree 100% Rachel.

It was Roeder's crime alone, just as it was Bledsoe's crime alone at that AK Army recruiting station.

It's just that reasonable people have to be able to reject and oppose the extremists on both ends of the spectrum.

American Ideas Click Here!