Ramesh Ponnuru:
Jim Pouillon was murdered in 2009 by a man who objected to the anti-abortion pamphlet he was distributing. Press coverage was scant, but some pro-choice groups, to their credit, denounced the murder. The New York Times didn’t run articles suggesting that over-the-top pro-choice rhetoric — likening pro-lifers to the Taliban, accusing them of seeking to oppress women, urging a crackdown on their ability to protest abortion — had set the stage for the murder.
Pro-lifers refrained from suggesting that pro-choice groups bore responsibility for the murder. (I’m not aware of any exceptions to this generalization.) That was to their credit: The suggestion would have been obscene.
Pro-choicers have been less restrained in the wake of the recent murder of three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. They intend to turn the killings “into a political moment they say will put abortion opponents on the defensive.” The Washington Post, which didn’t cover Pouillon’s murder, is reporting sympathetically on claims that the rhetoric of mainstream pro-lifers is to blame for the killings. Reporters are challenging pro-life politicians about the murders, which also didn’t happen in the Pouillon case. The governor of Colorado says that “inflammatory rhetoric” from pro-lifers played a role.
Why might these cases have inspired such different reactions? It can’t be that anti-abortion violence is a frequent occurrence, and thus fits into a larger story: It is only slightly more common than pro-abortion violence against adults, which is to say not very common at all.
I suspect the press is crediting the pro-choice spin on these killings because most journalists are themselves pro-choice and inclined to see pro-lifers as extremists. And so reporters who would consider it unfair to blame cop-killings on the rhetoric of some Black Lives Matter activists don’t have the same sympathetic reflex when pro-lifers are in the dock.
Pro-lifers have decried the killings in Colorado, and complained that they’re being smeared. But it has to be admitted that political rhetoric — all political activism, for that matter — can inspire violence. Many pro-lifers say that abortion is an evil on par with slavery. And some deranged people may try to play the part of John Brown in that analogy. Thankfully, such people are exceedingly rare.
When violence is committed in the name of a political movement, its responsible members have a duty to condemn it and to seek to root it out of their ranks — two things that pro-lifers have done. Do members of a movement have a duty to restrain their words for fear that madmen will commit outrages based on them? I think the answer is that political activists should refrain from saying anything more inflammatory than needed to make their case against the injustice that moves them — not so much from fear of the deranged as from love of their fellow citizens. The reason Hillary Clinton should stopsaying that peaceful, run-of-the-mill pro-lifers are like terrorists is not that she’s likely to inspire violence; it’s that saying it makes our political debates even nastier and dumber than they already are.
Pro-life rhetoric isn’t the real issue for pro-choicers anyway. The bedrock pro-life view — which, if you haven’t figured it out already, I share — is that abortion is the unjust killing of living human beings. Any expression of that view, any political action taken to advance it, is going to offend many pro-choicers, and could lead some people to violent acts.
The left LOVES murder… they can always figure out a way to use human tragedy (even when they cause it) to try and benefit politically.
If Planned Parenthood had not been parting out human beings for profit, there would have been no story. If liberals had not blown off the reports of such despicable business, focusing on their false claims of “editing” and instead addressed the actual issue, there would be far less outrage.
It’s always someone else’s fault… never the liberal’s.
@Bill: “always someone else’s fault.” Sounds like you ALWAYS blaming the libs. It just ain’t that simple Bill.
@Rich Wheeler: Remind me again who it was that immediately began trying to prove an anti-far right he-she was a Christian Republican killing in the name of Christ? Long before any details were known? Hmmmm?
Why, it was the same bunch that made Michael Brown to be a gentle choir-boy, running from police, on his knees, surrendering with his hands up when he was shot.
YOUR tribe. The ones that lie out of habit.
Since this particular shooting happened in my town, the police investigation is still very young. The shooter’s initial questioning by the police was called rambling. It may be about PP, but may be not. But, of course, that part wasn’t mentioned in any and all media reports. Borrowing a line from the Hillary playbook, it may be one day this guy decided to shoot up a strip mall. Everybody, mostly the press and certain presidential candidates, need to step back and let the police do their job. If it was about PP, they’ll find out. If not about PP, they’ll find out.
@Bill: Who lied claiming he’s a transgender wannabee/ Dem.-now debunked?
I agree with David–all should STFU until the truth is learned.
Then publish it.
@Rich Wheeler: So, to be clear before we go any further, are you now calling ME a liar?
That’s not a rhetorical question, it requires an answer. Then we can move forward.
@Rich Wheeler: I interpreted that you said he was a transgender and therefore a Dem. I’ll accept you didn’t actually believe that.
Again please don’t accuse me of saying things that should be attributed to others or not at all. Thanks
@Rich Wheeler: I never said he was a Democrat. I only stated the facts as they were presented and went no further. That’s called honesty.
Get some.
I am still not sure what you were saying here… it sounds like you were calling me a liar. People such as yourself need to come to grips with the fact that simply because someone shoots down your unsupported premise, they are not necessarily lying. Especially when trying to make the claim that wild, inflammatory rhetoric has caused some violence, wild, inflammatory rhetoric should be avoided.
@Rich Wheeler: I never said he was a Democrat. I only stated the facts as they were presented and went no further. That’s called honesty.
Get some.
I am still not sure what you were saying here… it sounds like you were calling me a liar. People such as yourself need to come to grips with the fact that simply because someone shoots down your unsupported premise, they are not necessarily lying. Especially when trying to make the claim that wild, inflammatory rhetoric has caused some violence, wild, inflammatory rhetoric should be avoided.
@Bill:What unsupported premise did you shoot down.?
What do you believe about this guy and this incident?–straight talk-no B.S.
While here—Your thoughts on Trump’s comment he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after WTC came down?
I’d consider that wild inflammatory rhetoric which you’ve said you’re against–right?
@Rich Wheeler: Did you call me a liar or not?
@Bill: Answered in #7–how bout answering my questions in #9.
@Bill:
To which Rich replied:
You responded back:
Were you really expecting an honest answer from Rich? Hope not, since this is what you got:
Got that? Rich “interpreted” what you said. He’s good at “interpreting” the words of others to fit his own narrative. And he doesn’t like being accused of saying things he did not say, although he seems to have no problem doing that very thing to others. Rich will get his Hanes in a wad twisting what others say, claiming they called him a liar when they didn’t, but he is quick to “interpret” you as being a liar.
You replied:
Ah, honesty. Ever elusive to Rich.
He shot back:
Rich is demanding straight talk from you, something he is not willing to give himself. All he can offer is obfuscation and spin. You will never pin down the wily Rich. He’s too smart for that. But let’s remember who started the entire talk of “motive” to begin with:
Yep. You got it right. It was the wily liberal, Richard Wheeler, that first brought up the subject of the shooter’s “motives” Not any conservative.
And just to prove how wily Rich is, when asked if he was calling you a liar, this is what you got for his “straight talk, no B.S.”
Bill I notice where o5 has , as she has a penchant for doing, jumped in to be your mouthpiece. I believe you can speak for yourself.
Re “lying” I’d draw your attention to Brother Bob’s unsolicited remarks in “Chris Matthews——-” post #28
He said “looking objectively, to me saying someone is UNTRUSTWORTHY is on a par with calling them a LIAR.” Caps are mine. I interpreted her statement the same as BB. Of course, as always, she tried to dance around this.
BB complemented us both and suggested we move on. I was OK with that .Still am.
This report is false When asked a question about the Shooter being reported as a rightwing Cruz said It was also reported that he was a transgendered leftist activist, shutting the reporter down.
Ted Cruz: Alleged Planned Parenthood Shooter Robert Lewis Dear Is Transgendered Leftist Activist
Police detained nutcase shooter Robert Lewis Dear at a Planned Parenthood building Friday evening after going on an afternoon shooting spree that left three people dead including a pro-life police officer.
robert lewis dear
Robert Lewis Dear has reportedly been been cooperating with investigators since he was arrested. But throughout the interrogation, sources said Dear has been behaving erratically.
I read it in Townhall thought this is too weird, that he/she went in for an abortion and was denied, so I looked further and no other news agency had such a report. I really dont know where the story started why a Townhall reporter would publish it or why their editor did not vett the story but now Townhall is in the old spam file.
Another post mentioned it and I advised Rich it was not true. When such a sensational story is reported we should all wait until a reliable source with facts does reporting before we opinionate on it, but thats really hard to do. Ive shot off before researching a few times myself, and I am sorry bout that.
@kitt: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” appropriately enough Abe Lincoln
Thanks for update Kitt.
@Bill:
Please note that Richard Wheeler seems to have no problem jumping into the conversations of others, but slams others that do the same. What a laugh.
Brother Bob also said:
” I’m not arguing that you are trying to call Rich a liar – we all know if that was your intention you’d come out & say it!”
That part Rich seems to have [conveniently] left out.
I’m not the one who refuses to answer questions when they might be inconvenient. Rich is.
Sure he was. He wanted to move on because he didn’t want to answer my questions. They didn’t fit his narrative that I called him a liar.
Honesty is not Rich Wheeler’s forte.
@Rich Wheeler:
No, actually you didn’t. What you said was you accept the fact that I do not believe what I wrote… therefore, I assume, you called me a liar.
I don’t really care about other people or opinions; what I want to know is if you are going to man up to calling me a liar? Above, it shows you cutely tried to dance around the question while doubling down on calling me a liar.
Dear’s voter reg stated he identified as a woman. Whether that is a typo or not is immaterial; MY point was that we know NOTHING about the guy and, in fact, what IS available shows him to be anything BUT conservative… or Christian.
You said I lied when I called him a transgendered Democrat… which I never did. So, I guess that makes YOU the liar. And, unless you can back the statement up just above, a cowardly liar at that.
So, why don’t you do this; apologize for calling me a liar and admitting you were wrong to do it for I was not stating an opinion, I was presenting documented information to show that there was NO justification to proclaim Dear a right-wing Republican killing in the name of Christianity.
Or, simply shove it.
@kitt:
At this point, what do facts matter? The left shifts instantly into the “make wild, politically-motivated claims, then try to fill in the blanks later, if possible” mode, so why take the high ground? Now, Dear can be anything… he can be Obama’s brother. He can be Harry Reid’s gay lover. He can be Pelosi’s cabana boy. Of what importance are facts? What wins the argument is who can shout the most fantastic accusations the loudest.
A shooter in San Bernardino has killed 12 people. You know who it was? It was an Obama cabinet member killing people he heard disagreed with Obama’s policy on Syrian refugees. Don’t agree? RACIST LIAR!!
This is how the left has caused the fine art of discourse to deteriorate. Soon, when this begins to collapse around them and they begin to take on water, they will again call for “civility”… until they find the next opportunity to call a conservative a racist, Nazi, woman-warring homophobe.
Or, we can make people that MAKE these outlandish claims (such as calling someone else a liar simply because THEIR argument collapses) stand up to their accusations and defend or retract them.
@Bill: You are very confused on so many levels What “documented information” were you presenting?–documented by who?–continue to march on your anti-liberal crusade if you wish.. I’ve got no time to battle you Bill–it’s not worth it..
CUE 05—
RE Dear I say again Wait for the facts–then publish them.
@Rich Wheeler: Just as I thought. Just as I said.
@Rich Wheeler: If I could only find a good news source that reports the facts only and doesnt just opinionate. No Mudock or Soros or Burke.
@kitt: Amen
There is an active shooter situation in San Bernardino, California as I type this. We don’t know the number of victims, the names of the victims, the names of the shooters, the reason for the shootings and yet, Martin O’Malley, Democrat candidate for POTUS, is already blaming the NRA for the shootings.
“Horrifying news out of #SanBernardino. Enough is enough: it’s time to stand up to the @NRA and enact meaningful gun safety laws”
Didn’t Harry Reid just say that the “rhetoric” needs to be tamped down?
What a shameful statement on O’Malley’s part. He can’t even wait until the bodies are cold to use the shooting for political purposes. Typical liberal.
More “rhetoric” from another radical leftie:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/untitled7.png
You would think that these radical liberals would at least wait until the bodies were cold.
@retire05:
Why would you think that? When do liberals ever demonstrate humanity not for ideological gain?
The NRA has become a tool of the gun industry. “Obama is going to take your guns” has been nothing more or less than the most successful firearm marketing strategy in history.
@Greg:
You’re an idiot.
@Greg: Tell us what the NRA has to do with this shooting? How about the most recent San Bernardino shooting?
The left… AGAIN… from the President down, commence calls for “gun control”. So, Greg, I ask you; what specific gun control would have prevented the Colorado City shootings? What specific gun control would have prevented the San Bernardino shootings? Unless you know how they got their guns, how can you demand a solution and if you don’t KNOW this, why open your gap?
Oh, no… confiscation is just a conspiracy theory. Except it isn’t. It is happening right now and the left uses instruments such as the “No Fly” list, the “terror watch list” and mental health to accomplish it. It is the abuse of these tools… which should be HELPING the problem… which causes reasonable people to distrust government in general and liberals specifically and with good reason.
OH, by the way… a neighbor of Farook (a fine Irish name if I ever heard one) noticed Mediterranean-looking men unloading boxes of gear at odd hours of the night at his home, but did not call in her suspicions. Why? Because she was afraid of political-correctness backlash. Thank you, clock-boy. Thank you, Obama. Thank you, over-reactive, racist, ideologically driven left. You got 14 people killed… AGAIN.
How fast this was tagged as terrorism but I guess what happened in California is so difficult to figure out, did that Farook dude lose the ugly sweater contest and go all workplace on those people? damn why would he and his internet found bride have done this why why
@kitt: Haven’t actually heard it tagged terrorism yet, but that’s what it smells like.
There are indeed many questions to be answered, but one thing is for certain; a great deal of planning went into it.
I suspect a video.
@Bill: Not very effective planning, his bride could build a bomb shoot an assault rifle but she was the get away driver…She came from Saudi Arabia duh women cant drive under shariah law