…license could eventually be suspended or revoked”
~ reports Wichita Eagle
Notorious serial abortionist George Tiller was shot to death this morning while attempting to enter Wichita’s “Reformation Lutheran Church,” where he is a “member,” according to the paper.
Tiller, whose bloody, late-term practice has been the proximate cause of death of more than sixty thousand people, and whose practice routinely violated Kansas Law, became a major contributor and supporter of pro-abortion Kansas politicians with a portion of his profits, including current Obama Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. His cash paid off in protection of his practices by Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys… and in the deaths of more than half the people in his “medical practice” including Down Syndrome teenager Christin Gilbert and her child, as previouisly reported by the Reagan Wing HERE . It is our opinion that, had the man been safely incarcerated for his crimes, had there, moreover, been any sense that the justice system worked, he’d still be alive today.
The Killer is no longer at large.
But the man who shot him is.
Updates
Left-wing blogger Andrew Sullivan is blaming “Christianists” for Tiller’s murder.
KansasCity.com has reported that a suspect described by eyewitnesses driving the vehicle identified by plate number was arrested without incident at aproximately 1:30 PM.
Comments comparing the assasination of the killer to terrorist acts against innocent people are springing up like mindless weeds, as are group condemnations of “Pro-lifers,” ”Right-Wingers” (people who believe in freedom), and “Christians.”
One outraged blog published descriptions of the assasination as having been while Tiller was “in the lobby” of his church, but, heart-rendingly, “while his wife sang in the choir.” So Tiller went to the lobby while his wife sang? How bad was she? One newssource, however, says he was an usher and was, quite conceivably, ushing.
Members of his feckless congregation attempted, aparently, to detain the gunman (thus interfering, for a time, with his “CHOICE”), but stopped when he objected, perhaps utilizing their “conflicts resolution” techniques or deciding that they couldn’t force their morality on someone else.
May every child who suffered torture and death at the hands of his demon, testify against him with their own blood before the Just Judge. May hell open up to receive one of it’s sons, George Tiller, mass murdererer.
I bet we’re going to find out that Tiller’s murderer was marginally associated with a pro-life organization, and it won’t matter that the pro-life organization AND the whole movement strongly oppose this kind of violence in its name. Neverthless, the libtards will use it to tar, feather and destroy the entire pro-life movement as Janet Napolitano’s “right wing domestic terrorists”. They hypocrisy is that they will do this in precisely the same way that they FAILED TO treat Islam after 9/11, or FAILED to see the incendiary black racism of Rev. Wright as having any connection with Black Panthers intimidating voters at polling precints, or FAILED to see Obama’s connections with domestic terrorist William Ayers and Weather Underground; and the bombings and thugocracy that has now infested Washington with the most Nazi-like regime America has ever seen.
Sillie Lizzie,
Since you obviously are not a fan of Islam, do you support those who feel our government should spend our stolen (tax) dollars building, legitimizing and defending a failed state called Afghanistan which institutes Sharia law?
Have you come out against the “war effort” yet?
If not, there just may be something YOU still fail to see. However, it is hard to see, this poltergeist – the state – but it is the fuel that turns all the fires you fear into actual threats.
Then unite with me against our real enemy. Let’s make it small, insignificant and toothless. Whether we kick in the teeth, or pry them out one-by-one, all that matters is that the it no longer has them…
Pete,
I think it would help if you could point to the kind of nation you’re talking about. (I hesitate to say, “kind of government” you’re talking about.)
Where on earth, in history, can you demonstrate this paradigm? Where freedom reigned and governments had no need to enforce law… or am I getting it wrong?
Getting it wrong. We don’t even have to get to that extreme yet.
The early Constitutional Republic is a great example, if you demand examples from the past. Even with the changes from the Confederation, the real power lie with the people through the states. Only through a series of legislative, executive and legal coups did the Federal government grow the fangs it has now.
However, Lysander Spooner made an intriguing observation in that even the great achievement that was our Constitution was either inherently flawed, or designed for events to turn out as they did (to become the oppressive big government of his era, the Lincoln era).
(and if I just said the word “government” instead of “state” would it sound less radical and I less an ideologue?)
Oh oh.
Wait, I am supposed to think of those guys, like John Brown, who shot slave owners as heroes.
But…. but….
Oh. Slavery bad, abortion good.
I forgot who once said that there is no more freedom or equality in the world now than there ever was, it just gets moved around, from one place to another, like a limited amount of water for a given number of cups.
Today some people have their cups running over, while others don’t even have a cup.
And they call that “progress”.
Well. Pete, here is where I think I got it wrong:
When you referred to our “stolen (tax) dollars” it made it sound like you think all taxation, not just unconstitutional taxation, not just taxation for illegitimate purposes, but all taxation is theft.
When you said “…it is hard to see, this poltergeist – the state… that turns all the fires you fear into actual threats,” it made it sound that you were NOT criticizing any particular “state,” that is, any particular “government,” but government as a proposition, all government… by extension (taking you at your supposed word), all governments in history.
Therefore, when you said, “…unite with me against our real enemy. Let’s make it small, insignificant and toothless,” it sounded like you were not criticizing any particular administration, party, elected official or group of officials, nor any government practice, policy or group of policies, but that you believed that our enemy’ was government, itself, the existence of laws and their enforcement.
It sounded very much like you opposed laws and their enforcement. That directly contradicts the very heart of the American Revolutionary Ideal: “…That to secure these rights [unalienable Rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Our Founders did not seek to abolish government and did not see it as a “necessary evil.” While they knew it to be “dangerous” they believed that legitimate governments were “instituted among men” that had just purposes (that is, purposes that were good, pure, virtuous and righteous; guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness). Just powers.
Taxation for such purposes is not “theft.”
Government for such purposes is not a “poltergeist,” is not “our real enemy” not “insignificant” and should not be “toothless.”
Legitimate government’s purpose is to serve its people. But it is evident that the simple ability of a people to control its government through political means does not, in and of itself, assure that the power will be used for those purposes because a people can lose sight of the nature of government’s proper role. We have.
Any people, particularly a people who no longer believe in a living God, one capable of intervening in the affairs of men, can be seduced to yearning for a government that will give them benefits for which it is only proper to look to God, a government who will make the economy work and eradicate poverty, a government that can manipulate climate and eradicate hate. A government big enough to promise anything they want but that will take everything they have.
The Constitution was neither inherently flawed, nor designed for failure. There is no paper nor principle that can ensure the righteousness of future generations. No law may command its own obedience. All principles are subject to the will of men for their enactment.
Each generation must win again the battle of Liberty to prove, again, that a government so conceived and so dedicated can continue to endure (to coin a phrase).
Looks like Tiller got a taste of his own medicine (pun intended).
Ah yes, Doug.
Look around you at the virtues of limited government – but tiny powers derived from the consent of this great people. Right? In fact, it wasn’t long after the nation’s founding that limits on power were being abandoned.
Now set your gaze tramontane and relish in man’s ability to resist the temptation to abuse monopolized violence. The world over. And over and over again back into history.
Or not.
However, there is one common denominator in all that you do see: government. (aside from man himself…)
Looking more closely, I guess you’re wrong on what it is you’re getting wrong. I think you’re dead on until you state that “Taxation… is not theft. Government… should not be ‘toothless.’” “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In the context of assuming that statement infallibly true, you are correct, and continue to be after this point.
“Just” powers? Consent of the governed? A high-minded idea, indeed. Could it also be a mere ideological product of its era? Is it an idealistic notion that, despite its apparent failure, this arrangement has merit enough to still be pursued as an end?
Even still, consider the eternal impracticalities of constantly propping and legitimizing the state, of which even Washington, certainly a believer in the institution, said “is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.”
Are the supposed benefits worth the occasional devastation that a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao, or even a more benign Roosevelt, Wilson or Lincoln would bring? All were put in power by “the people.” I ask, is the faith in such an ideal worth the risk?
(Oh, and “it would help if you could point to the kind of nation you’re talking about…
Where on earth, in history, can you demonstrate this paradigm” persisting? “Where freedom reigned and governments” didn’t eventually oppress the people who initially consented to them?)
Regarding state intervention into the economy, von Mises claimed “there is not middle of the road policy”: all government manipulation of the marketplace eventually leads to socialism. Rothbard took it a step further, essentially applying that logic to Liberty itself: you either have Liberty, or you have the state chipping away at it until you have the total state.
Would that we today had the government described in the document ratified by the original American states. But we don’t. If we return to it, will the totalitarian impulse manifest itself once again in the people who run the state. Don’t doubt it.
So then I ask you, is the ideal of the Founders, and their achievement in compromise, an ideal political end, the ideal arrangement to maximize Liberty among a people? Or was it a blazing attempt, albeit but a stop on the way? Maybe their achievement IS one we should shoot for once again – and then overcome it.
Also, considering that wherever government is adopted as the solution to a given problem, the collective creativity seems to atrophy in regard to inventing other, voluntary solutions and arrangements to deal with that problem. Likewise, the collective courage to adopt these solutions seems to suffer mortal blows once the responsible party becomes the abstract “masses.”
The “limited government requires a moral people” thesis is both a radical concept, and incredibly idealistic. Could it be that fragile, broken and sinful men require a system based on widespread individual insecurity to best protect the individual’s freedom, instill his sense of duty and force him into his own greatest goodness lest he risk destroying himself? There will always be failures, as well as tragedies, crimes, devastation and corruption, just as man can never be perfect. But could it be that without a government to inevitably institutionalize, compound and spread such problems, as well as create altogether new ones, that those things would effect far fewer and leave many more in peace?
The Founders were radicals in their day, and surely many thought a kingless republic based on natural law a radical idea – maybe just as Liberty as the organizing principle of society seems a radical and extreme idea today…
But what if Liberty, as an institution, is the only practical means to promoting the best society? Would it not be ironically human for man to historically eschew the one system which may be the best for him? Could it be that we have deferred too long to those in power, or those who want to be – the philosopher kings (or such aspirants) who tell us we need, by some measure or another, to be ruled?
I, like Jefferson (admitted on one of his better days), would agree that “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” (And I would use as an example his own abuse of government in the form internal crackdowns against the press an others during his presidency. )
Could freedom be the most practical solution for maximizing freedom and goodness among a people? Or is this question not to be asked?
Pete
I posted this : “Why I Oppose Nation Building” on my blog in December 2005.
No I don’t support propping up any islamofascist regime.
No I don’t believe in nation building.
No, I don’t believe that it is our responsibility to make the world safe for democracy, or anything else except making the United States safe for its own citizens.
I do believe in KICKING THE ASSES OF EVERY BLOODTHIRSTY MURDERING SOB with designs to threaten our national security.
I believe in a strong military able to KICK THEIR ASSES ON WHATEVER CONTINENT WHERE THEY ARE PLOTTING TO DO IT.
I believe in constitutionally limited government.
I believe that the federal taxes we pay should primarily be directed to doing the above, and doing it better than anybody else on earth.
Satisfied?
No? Well, then you can suck up and love Islam all you want, but in the end, you and your children will wind up enslaved just like 98% of the Middle East is now.
oops.. forgot the link to that blogpost:
http://sillielizziesrock.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-i-oppose-nation-building.html
Pete asks: “Could it be that fragile, broken and sinful men require a system based on widespread individual insecurity to best protect the individual’s freedom, instill his sense of duty and force him into his own greatest goodness lest he risk destroying himself?”
I think that men get the government they deserve. There is no such thing as perfection, neither in the individual nor a totally righteous society.
But there can be, and has been, periods when people individually and corporately conducted themselves with sufficient degrees of decency, public morality and civility for an ordered society to exist which allowed great freedom.
But when religion, morality and order are exchanged for
unbridled lust and degeneracy, greed, idolatlry, and lust for power, governments rise up to strengthen itself against the chaos, and end up oppressing a lawless people.
This is not to “force him into his greatest goodness”. Quite the opposite, it is to “repress him from indulging in his greatest depravity”.
Tyranny is God’s judgment on the moral anarchy of man.
Silly –
I know a guy who knows a guy (and many others) who works for a company that contracts with the US military. The guy known by the guy I know has seen plans (designs, actually) our military (read: government) has to invade many, many other sovereign nations. Is our government actually plotting to invade any of them? It’s extremely doubtful (although I’m sure some people somewhere in our government are advocating for one or more of these scenarios to become reality).
If other governments are applying the same logic you express above, then I guess we better hunker down and put our moral indignation safely aside, else we be smeared “insurgents” when these governments come to defend themselves from the plans we may or may not ever be willing or able to carry out.
However, I didn’t see you address the cause/effect aspect that got your SOBs a-plotting in the first place. Hmmm.
Silly: “I think that men get the government they deserve.”
Fair enough. This could largely be true in many cases. I could even peacefully accompany you to the next point you make about those periods of momentary relative utopia.
But which were the periods where the evils you mention were absent, where
men kept their desires and self-interest totally in check? Were these the times of greater or lesser freedom?
Also, when “lawless” peoples are oppressed, do they become more moral as a result of this, or are they just scared straight, if they change at all? Also, what happens when the more-cunning among the “lawless” happen to take over the newly strengthened, empowered and emboldened government? As a general rule, I tend to oppose “governments rising up to strengthen” themselves. That usually turns out bad for everyone involved.
And now we ride this crescendo to your gem of a finale…
Silly: “Tyranny is God’s judgment on the moral anarchy of man.”
So then what’s all the fuss about these days? Everyone put down the pitchforks, the bullhorns and the letters-to-the-editor! We’re getting and gonna get more of what we deserve – good and hard!
But what about the innocent? What about the just? How did the Tibetans feel when the Dali Lama some months ago told them to stop resisting the communist government thugs else he would throw in the towel as the Dali… or is that the Lama? Is the correct course of action just “turn the other cheek” writ large?
So, what – pox on the German, Polish and other European Jews? They had it coming? (Of course, the gays, commies and those moral anarchists, the gypsies, must have!) Let me guess, the Russian dissidents and Chinese peasants deserved to be slaughtered or starved, because God was pissed and they made a poor choice in leadership which played right into what He was plotting for them?
And what about the unarmed Nagasaki and Hiroshima victims, reduced to shadows while going mundanely about their workaday, otherwise unawares. The plotting in this instance is well documented, the stuff of legends! Yes our government slaughtered those civilians, made them vanish. No matter the gore, though. It was all God’s will! All of it!
Silly… Are you suggesting that God is a terrorist??? As we send our boys to the ends of the earth, or, um, eternity, will the state PLEASE allow me to keep my tax dollars out of that fight?!?! Not in my name…
Careful, my dear. Words mean things. I was reminded of this today when I advocated to the members of an organization that I’m part of that they recruit people to file for office and support them for their bravery. I was accused of putting the organization in jeopardy, of thrusting it into ruin. See, words mean things! (I will not electioneer… I will not electioneer…)
Please, Silly, resist the temptation to perform an end-run around reason and right thinking in order to justify blood spilled in your favor.
That said, Sillie Lizzie, I applaud your statements on nation-building. I’m with you on that one.
Oh brother. Talk about arguing yourself in circles of blathering paranoia. Are you off your meds?
First, you violated the most basic premise of any “reasoned” argument. You put words in my mouth, distorted what I clearly meant, created your own straw dummy and chased your tail around until you ran out of breath. Obviously, the word “context” isn’t in your vocabulary either.
I DIDN’T SAY “But which were the periods where the evils you mention were absent, where men kept their desires and self-interest totally in check? Were these the times of greater or lesser freedom? ”
In fact, I clearly said perfection was impossible. Let me make it clearer still. WHAT I SAID IS “sufficient degrees of decency, public morality and civility for an ordered society to exist”. I don’t believe in ANY kind of “utopia”, relative or unrelative.
From all of your misguided and logically bankrupt presumptions, you proceeded to accuse me, in all but name only, of war mongering, anti semitism, supporting genocide and attacked my religion as “God is a terrorist”.
Pete, it anyone should take the idea that “words mean things” and stuff it down their stupid piehole, its you.
Frankly you are the poster child for why so many conservatives think you liberals are a bunch of retarded traitors that should be HANGED instead of reasoned with.
Don’t bother to rant any more replies at me, because I won’t waste my breath trying to argue with such a stupid moron as you.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35 NKJV)
Liberal? Where did I express the slightest hint of a liberal viewpoint? No liberal would dare be so hard on Mao or Stalin, and definitely wouldn’t poke fun at the Dali!
Furthermore, I agree with true conservatives on most things, I just think they would choose to stop pressing forward right when we needed to push the hardest. Conservatives believe in limited government that shouldn’t be some of the things it’d doing now. I believe in scant government, at best, that shouldn’t dare do _______. (Fun game – see how many different things you can put in the blank!) Now that’s a conservative application of government! Liberals, on the other hand, hate my ideas. In their ideal world, I’d probably risk being hanged!
I am guilty of getting us off what Doug was talking about, and you must have deduced that since I have a different foreign policy view than you, and the main topic is the monstrous Tiller, then I must be a supporter of his and thus a liberal.
Well, my view is that if you kill 60,000 people, you’re bound to make some enemies, and some of those enemies may just be unhinged enough to break laws against you. I guess the lesson here is: Don’t kill people.
Silly, I put no words in your mouth; I just applied your words. I did not attack your religion. You put the blame for tyranny at the feet of God.
I did not rant; I asked you a few tough questions. I showed you where your twisted logic can lead, and what your perspective could justify. Oh, and I noticed that between the insults you slung at me and your approval of what “conservatives” – not you, however – think I should get, you declined to answer even one question. Hmm.
Silly, now you think I should be hanged for questioning – or were you talking about those other conservatives thinking this. It looks like my only fault was slightly exaggerating your point to aid mine. That’s what we suck-ups-to-Islam do! …or something.
Silly, I don’t share your bloodlust, therefore I’m a traitor? So God (as you apparently think he’s wont to do) should now command the government to rise up and defend itself against me and the moral anarchy which are my views? I should be done in by government for recognizing that if the American people willfully fund the tyranny YOU think our government should reign on ANY part of the world to uncover terrorist plotters who may or may not be able to execute their plans, then we will likely recruit MORE of them who want to hunt Americans over here? Are you able to see where this could lead, yet?
Silly, so I’m villainous? And stupid, paranoid, traitorous and deserving of the ultimate punishment? If only my mother had made a visit to Tiller, he could have ended this whole nightmare before it began!
I’ll unsubscribe from this so you can either stew or continue on here without me…
And Doug, I like the title. Short and effective.
Nor did I know of the story of Gilbert. We need you in the press, Doug!
Pete,
I agree with Lizzie that you have misconstrued many of her points… and it seems that the tendency, as when you addressed yourself to me, is generated, not by an inability to parse language, but by deeper philosophical assumptions.
You seem to make the point that if good government is not, somehow, self-sustaining, it is a failure. Cultural (Societal) institutions are not persons, but mechanisms. Families, organizations (like your anti-electioneering one that continues to labor, in controlled futility, as I warned (at high volume) that it would), business enterpises that labor in holy markets (may they live forever) and the markets, themselves, all share this limitation. Everything that humans do is subject to human faults even if capable of manifesting humanity’s greatest potential. Government is not the source of evils for which it is frequently appropriated any more than markets are the source of monopoly.
You seem to suggest that the tendency for liberties to erode inherent in limited government condemns it. But this it merely holds in common with all that man does. “Why should I wash the dishes,” said Pete, “they always get dirty again!” You seem to suggest that said erosion in American Self-Government proves the Founders miscalculated. But they, themselves, knew this limitation from the outset and warned us, repeatedly, about it (at high volume).
You labored, I think valiantly, in response to my challenge to cast the vision of your alternative, but, in the end, sounded (to me, at least) as if you were saying, “Well, there must be SOMETHING!?!”
There isn’t. Anarchy is not a program. In one sense, of course, that’s what we have now, the net result of people doing what they want to do. Re-read this: IN THE NEW CENTURY http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/hope-and-change-in-the-new-century/
I did a speech a few years ago that made the point that from the beginning of time there are only two types of government. And I said they can be categorized by how they answer the eternal question, “What do you do when the Hell’s Angels come to take your beer and rape your women?”
You talked of the excesses of government men from Stalin to Roosevelt, but not of non-government men from Capone to Jim Fisk, or the M13 gang or the murdering religious terrorists like Jim Jones or Muhammad. Killing government does not make talented despots go away.
Anarchy has been tried. Its sad history already spans thousands of years. It is the “Stone Age” “system” early American settlers encountered on these shores and to which generations of missionaries sacrificed their lives carrying the gospel in Africa. It is inextricably frought with poverty, disease, violence, brutality and torture. It is incapable of developing either markets or technology. Anarchy is rule by the Hells Angels. If you make, grow, build or find something good, they get around to coming by and taking it from you, engines roaring. Hells Angels don’t make, grow, build or invent. They just party, brawl and steal. Capone, Muhammad and every other pirate in history.
Government is what good men do in response to the Hells Angels. Bad Government is when good men grow laziness or cowardice (less good) and Hells Angels get gov’t. power. Stalin, Hitler, Clinton, Obama.
Yes, when you wash the car, it just gets dirty again, but… well, for a time, in that generation, it can be a “shining auto on a hill.”
STRAT,
Keyword = “DISCIPLES”
Please recall that Jesus was speaking to His disciples the night before He was crucified when He said that. If you ask me who I “love” according to that command, I will tell you this: I love those who love Christ AND His word, rightly APPLIED through the Spirit of God. The rest I hold at bay with suspicion and distrust, including about 95% of those who delusionally slap a WWJD? label on their stupid foreheads.
“For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.”- Luke 9:26
Jesus surely wasn’t applying the “love one another” to lawless people who advocate everything from tyranny (left) to anarchy (right)! Doug’s last comment about government was exactly right!!! Lawlesslessness, especially in the name of phony “love”, only results in inflicting either despotism or a bloody revolution which leads to tyranny. That’s why my definition of “liberal” encompasses an anarchist like Pete and Jeep (and sometimes you).
True freedom is the gift of the Father, in SALVATION bought by the Son, in TRUTH, rightly applied by the Holy Spirit, not only in heaven but on earth.
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” – John 4:23-24
Lawlessness? Alternatives?
To help clarify philosophical assumptions:
The lynchpin of libertarianism – non-agression: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
Morality and the state: http://mises.org/rothbardintros/spooner.asp
Dispelling myths about libertarianism: http://mises.org/etexts/myths.pdf
On Edmund Burke on the order of natural law: http://mises.org/rothbard/burke.pdf
A debate on the “order” of classical liberalism: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-13.pdf
A response in a debate on government intervention: http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_3/16_3_3.pdf
Property Rights and libertarian law: http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
Free-market monopoly?: http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_1.pdf
Libertarian roads: http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
…and more roads: http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_3/4_3_6.pdf
Punishment: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-17.pdf
State vs. Christianity: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/christianity-arch.html
Toward a more conservative libertarianism: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf
Examples, solutions:
The lawlessness of Quakers: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html
Voluntary solutions to man’s most difficult problems: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
Patrol: http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-12.pdf
Further reading:
A bibliography of market-voluntarism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
And if you’re really curious and want to explore a range of debate, I give you Rothbard as editor: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html
Even if you disagree with all this, if you’re a thoughtful person then here is likely a new area of inquiry for you.
I bet we’re going to find out that Tiller’s murderer was marginally associated with a pro-life organization, and it won’t matter that the pro-life organization AND the whole movement strongly oppose this kind of violence in its name.
No, they don’t oppose it at all. Hence the bloodthirsty glee you see in this post.
Funny to see the word “bloodthirsty” used as a means to defend the wanton slaughter of fifty million innocent, unconvicted American children. Dismembered, slowly devoured by acidic fluid over 18 hours, punctured, at the base of their skull, living, conscious, defenseless; abortion survivors thrown, living, struggling for breath, into a bag of bleach, smothered with wet towels on stainless steel tables or abandoned to thirst.
George Tiller tortured and literally butchered countless innocent children, while they were conscious, over long periods of time and knew he was doing it.
And we refuse to condemn the exaction of justice on this monster who called that “health care”? How dare we?
I tell you this, their screams will no longer be silent.
Doug, just reading the description of the procedures makes both my stomach turn and blood boil.
Given the obsession people have with medical shows and documentaries on medical procedures; given the popularity of gory horror films; given the incredibly life-like creations that animators are capable of, maybe the most effective pro-life piece of propaganda ever would be an animated film depicting in full horrific detail different abortion scenarios. It needs to look real. It needs to be clear what is happening.
Each different scene could be narrated by recordings of actual procedures where you can likely hear the jokes and mundane banter being exchanged by the “doctors” and their assistants.
In-between these scenes there can be interviews of women and men (with shadowed-out faces) who are considering aborting their child. The footage could be collected from paid focus-groups advertised on Craigslist. There couild also be footage of people who had aborted their babies offering different perspectives on their experience. Maybe a couple of reformed former abortionists could be interviewed for their medical perspective.
My guess is that the viewers would come away from the film vehemently opposed to the evil practice (if they could sit through the entire thing without vomiting). The reasoning of people who were considering doing would seem so trivial and enhance the reaction. Undoubtedly, the people interviewed after the fact would mostly express deep guilt, sadness and regret after being thoroughly questioned. The focus group method would work here as well.
Yes, there may be some who would get off on the violence and the gore, for they are for some reason attracted to vicarious violence and the reality of what they would be viewing may never hit home. But for most others who would dare watch such a film, and many people’s desire to be shocked would bring them to view it, I think the effect would be profound and the abhorrence to abortion may actually spread virally and quickly.
I’m expecting for someone here to lash out at me for such a proposal, but if people will hold posters that are probably pretty ineffectual, wouldn’t it be better to use the medium that generates the greatest impact and response among its audience – film/video?
Two resources on abortion: Hidden Truth: what you deserve to know about abortion…. ; After the Choice.
Both videos are productions of Concerned Women for America & feature real women who tell their stories..powerful!!
Anarchy? We have anarchy right now! It’s only among the governing. They don’t follow the rule of law. Maybe some day the people will catch on and we will have total anarchy. Minarchy is what we really need. For those that think that war is conservative, it doesn’t conserve life, civil liberties, resources or money and in fact makes us even more unsafe.
Click Here to hear what Steve Dence and his listeners on WHO AM out of Des Moines, Iowa had to say about this incident.
Bob Enyart of American Right to Life joins the Steve Deace show to discuss the murder of mass murderer George “the killer” Tiller. Click Here.
Sorry, I messed up on the second link.
This is the link to the Enyart Interview.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DESMOINES-IA/WHO-AM/enyart%20podcast%20060209.mp3
Sorry about that.
Bob Enyart of American Right to Life joins the Steve Deace show to discuss the murder of mass murderer George “the killer” Tiller. Click Here.
“Pete said
Liberal? Where did I express the slightest hint of a liberal viewpoint? No liberal would dare be so hard on Mao or Stalin, and definitely wouldn’t poke fun at the Dali!”
Actually the Left has pretty much thrown Stalin under the bus. Yeah, it took them a while, but this finally started happening around the early 1990s.
Pete Seeger even said recently (2007) that perhaps he should have asked Stalin about the Gulags. Yeah, far too little, far too late, but the point is that the Left is currently spinning things as being “what, we don’t support Stalin”. Unfortunately this is working because Americans have far far too short historical memories.
Pete, you are an old guy right? You are correct the Left did support Stalin. But the contemporary spin is they do not. And as for most of the people in America most of whom are of later generations than yours, say the name Stalin to you and their response would be Stalin who?
And as for most of the people in America most of whom are of later generations than yours, say the name Stalin to THEM and their response would be Stalin who?
Concieved in Liberty and Dear Children are also very good documentaries. Very powerful stuff!
Blind and deaf fools like Ryan are so invested in their “bloodthirsty” defense of human genocide against the unborn, that they REFUSE to see all of the myriads of statements of condemnation issued by pro-life organizations against this murderer’s act. This, coupled with equal deafness at the SILENCE of Muslims who refuse to condemn the jihad against us and Israel.
Surely this delusional mindset is setting them up for the slaughter that God will Justly bring upon them for their “bloodthirst”. We don’t have to undertake it ourselves.. the enemy is already within the gates.
Doug said “I tell you this, their screams will no longer be silent.” Yes, and they will be replaced by the screams of those who committed, justified, aided and abetted the slaughter of the unborn without remorse.
Actually, Alice, Pete is not at all an “old guy,” he is just a serious political activist and voracious reader. Pete is becoming a real force in Washington State politics… and, as long as we’re not close to actually disbanding State government altogether, that’s a good thing.
I wasn’t necessarily saying it was bad that he was an old guy except that it seems that he was a little out of date with the Liberals current spin on Stalin.
I am indeed somewhat of an “old gal” now. I do remember how the Left did indeed “not speak ill of Uncle Joe”. I remember how shocked I was when I was watching a cartoon with my niece (Animaniacs in the mid 1990s) and one of the characters mentioned that Stalin was a tyrant. I believe that was the first time I had ever heard such ill spoken about him in such a “mainstream” setting.
But this is the MO of the Left. Support some evil tyrant while it matters and hurts, but then when history reveals the villain for who he is act like they never did support him, or even better from their perspective and I have seen them do this engage in some historical revisionism and act like oh, they actually fought against him. Of course this is years after any of it matters anymore.
I know someday this is what they will do with Castro. But not in my lifetime. But someday they will throw Castro under the historical bus just like they have Stalin.
Never ever forget. Liberals are not MERELY wrong. They are indeed EVIL.