June 1, 2009

Connecting the Tiller murder to the Sotomayor nomination.

It's not only possible. It's irresistible.

53 comments:

veni vidi vici said...

That linked HuffPo article screams having been written to attract controversy. After all, "of course it is" that religion naturally leads to violence and acting out on doctor-murdering levels!

What a complete buffoon. The fact that her readers are congratulating her and stroking their chins is even more amusing than her sense of self-righteousness!

Saul said...

The person who committed the murder is a total dumb shit. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, the answer is not killing people. This had nothing to do with Sotomayor.

traditionalguy said...

NB: Huffington is linking the Tillercide to her demands that Obama must get a nominee that is more explicitly pro Abortion rights. They have figured out that she is a moderate faster than the Right Wing Media has allowed its loyal followers to see thru the smoke and mirrors on this Hispanic voter outreach ploy by Obama.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

Didn't Lem say something similar?

Daryl said...

Liberals are so happy that Tiller got whacked, I'm surprised it wasn't a false-flag operation.

The phony outrage from HuffPo is especially rich given it's history of fantasizing about murdering Dick Cheney and other members of the administration.

Today we have some whacked out liberal murdering a soldier at a recruiting station. Obviously reading the Huffington Post unerringly and directly leads to murder of American servicemen.

George said...

I love the "fact" in that article that a fetus is not a baby.

The FACT is that there is no real or ethical difference between an 8 month baby in the womb and an 8 month baby in NICU.

Father Martin Fox said...

Fox News just reported someone killed a military recruiter in Arkansas.

Shepherd Smith further reported the suspect apprehended had religious and political objections to the military.

If this pans out, what might we expect in the way of:

> Comments from the President directed to the anti-war movement?

> Comments from those so vocal recently, about the overheated rhetoric of hate emanating from the anti-war movement?

> The Attorney General taking action to prevent targeting of military recruiters?

Etc...

AJ Lynch said...

Deborah King's HUFFPO bio reports she is the " healer to the stars" which makes her quite the expert to make this connection.

Plus she mentions Mary Mapes the disgraced CBS Docugate producer who is now writing for the Huffington Post. LOL.

Jeremy said...

Just saying, but for all we know, the killer could have been a jealous lover or a disgruntled former patient, etc. Give it a minute, please.

-The Other Jeremy

Florida said...

Killing those you disagree with politically is a time-honored tradition in America.

Frequently, those who cannot prevail by the ballot box, choose the bullet to settle the argument.

In fact, we have a monument in Washington, D.C. to the most famous propopent of the tactic of using heinous violence against your political enemies.

Barack Obama would not be President today if Abraham Lincoln had not ordered the killing of Americans he disagreed with on the thorny moral issue of his day which divided the country.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

Why not kill the mothers that opt for an abortion as well?

TitusIsOnAMission said...

Or at least the mothers should spend some time in jail.

traditionalguy said...

Florida...Please splain yourself as to Abe Lincoln, political murdering, and The O-man.

Florida said...

Abraham Lincoln could not prevail in his argument against the thorny moral issue of his day - slavery.

Therefore, he ordered his Army to kill Americans who disagreed with him.

Whether you think he did the right thing or not, that is in fact what he did. (At the time, slavery was thought by half the country to be moral - and about half the country to be immoral. Exactly what is occurring with the abortion issue.)

He is, in fact, the only American President to order the American military to kill other Americans.

Large monument on the mall.

I've seen it. It's quite impressive.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

I am Pro Life...but it is up to the woman.

TitusIsOnAMission said...

I think this is Sandra Day O'Connor's fault.

Chip Ahoy said...

What a load.

It must be awfully easy to be a partisan Democrat.

Nowhere in there did I see anything resembling recognition that some people consider late-term abortions to be murder and abortionists to be serial murders apart from party affiliation and separate from religious conviction. What a truckload of lightweight intellectualism to categorize it all under those worn down thought patterns. What a dumb-ass crackpot.

Of course it's all Republicans and religion. What else could it be? Just jump squarely on that and you won't have to consider or talk about the horror that is an industry built up around abortion and includes the obscenity of late term abortion.

Dope.

Kirby Olson said...

99.9 % of Christians are against this murder. After all, he acted alone, and shot the poor dude in a Lutheran church. I just wrote about her and Sotomayor from another viewpoint on my blog and am getting pretty good commentary. I guess you can link any two things. I did it differently, though, and better.

AJ Lynch said...

It's the Ivy League's fault. Let's nuke them & start with Cambridge!

Florida said...

Abraham Lincoln isn't the only politician to have resorted to the bullet where political differences were concerned.

Former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton attempted the murder of a sitting Vice President.

He missed.

The sitting Vice President - Aaron Burr - did not.

Nor did an actor of some repute named Boothe.

Revenant said...

Therefore, he ordered his Army to kill Americans who disagreed with him.

That's a really dippy way of saying "Lincoln ordered troops into battle after Congress declared war in response to Confederate aggression".

Florida said...

That attempted murderer - Alexander Hamilton? That guy who tried to kill Aaron Burr?

Take a look at the $10 bill.

His picture is on it.

traditionalguy said...

Florida... There was the little matter of a bombardment of Fort Sumpter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina that seems to have started murdering US citizens long before Abe Lincoln thought of it.

Florida said...

@Revenant

That's a really dippy way of saying "Lincoln ordered troops into battle after Congress declared war in response to Confederate aggression".

Yes, yes, to the victor go the history books, and one can certainly look upon this how one chooses.

Nevertheless ... Lincoln ordered the American military to kill other Americans whom he accused of an immoral act (slavery). The "aggression" of which you speak was the South's decision to withdraw politically from the Union.

The people of the South never ordered a war against those who did not believe in slavery. The people of the South believed in allowing states to vote it up or down.

Lincoln disagreed with the whole voting approach. He thought a Civil War was the better approach.

Revenant said...

Yes, yes, to the victor go the history books, and one can certainly look upon this how one chooses.

I choose reality. In reality, the Confederacy committed the first acts of war.

So boo hoo hoo for the poor dead slavers.

Florida said...

@Revenant

As I said, without casting a moral argument ... people frequently get by the bullet that which they cannot get by the ballot.

It is a fine American tradition to kill those who are committing immoral acts - such as slavery.

So it should come as no surprise to those who believe that the Supreme Court can invent a Constitutional right to abortion (where none is to be found) that others might feel it necessary to end that political argument at the barrel of a gun.

Our American history is replete with examples.

JAL said...

Florida --

You are welcome to go back. To wherever.

holdfast said...

Hot off the presses: By Logic of Jeremy, AlphaLib and the Left, Anti-War Groups and entire Muslim Religion are now implicated in recruiting station killings:

USATODAY:

A Muslim convert who said he was opposed to the U.S. military shot two soldiers outside an Arkansas recruiting station, killing one of the soldiers, police said Monday.

....

"He has converted to Muslim here in the past few years," Hastings said. "To be honest we're not completely clear on what he was upset about. He had never been in the military."

Hastings identified the man in custody as Carlos Bledsoe, 24, of Little Rock, who was going by the name of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad. He did not have further details. The names of the soldiers were not released, nor was the condition of the wounded soldier.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter-killed_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Frodo Potter said...

Florida, I’m with Revenant on this one. Your history is all mixed up. What part of Ft. Sumter don’t you understand?

Also, as regards Burr and Hamilton, I believe Burr started it by challenging Hamilton to a duel. One other thing about Burr: if I remember correctly, he was later tried for treason and narrowly acquitted. Really not much of a role model.

Revenant said...

Megan McArdle has had some really great posts on the moral issues surrounding the Tiller murder, today.

Revenant said...

It is a fine American tradition to kill those who are committing immoral acts - such as slavery.

While I agree that there was certainly nothing wrong with killing anyone and everyone who supported the institution of slavery, it remains a simple historical fact that Lincoln did not "order the Army to kill Americans who disagreed with him". It never happened. You're making it up.

So stop being a dolt and get serious.

Elliott A said...

EVERY slave ship was owned by a northerner. Lincoln cared nothing for the slaves, he just used them as a means of resubjugating the South. Without southern agriculture, the Union was toast. So he did what he had to do, go to war. After the seccession of the southern states, which was a constitutionally protected act, the Union troops in Fort Sumpter refused to leave. They were no longer entitled to be there. Look what the FBI did to the Branch Davidians when they refused to leave their own property. Not exactly the assassination of Duke Ferdinand as an instigation of hostilities.

BTW- I grew up in Philadelphia and New Jersey. My interest in the Civil War led to much self study. Despite my current domicile in Virginia, I realized I had been duped before I ever got here. What I learned in school bore little resemblance to the realities on the ground. For example, I never learned that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Southern states beyond the control of the Unioin and did NOT free the slaves in those states which WERE in control of the Union. This kind of info gives you a better feel for what the reality is.

As an aside, slavery cannot ever be moral.

PatCA said...

The makeup of the SCOTUS does not matter. Did Roe v. Wade change the hearts and minds of Americans, or did it merely change the law? If judicial fiat produces healing and unanimity (as some claim on issues like abortion or gay marriage) why hasn't it happened yet?

Quayle said...

Barack Obama would not be President today if Abraham Lincoln had not ordered the killing of Americans he disagreed with on the thorny moral issue of his day which divided the country.



Well, indeed.

ANd you can just hear the south saying, "How does our leaving the union have any impact on the north?"

Revenant said...

EVERY slave ship was owned by a northerner.

That isn't even vaguely true. For example, the Clotilde was built and owned by a resident of Mobile, Alabama. Other ships were owned by Brits, French, Spanish, et al.

Lincoln cared nothing for the slaves, he just used them as a means of resubjugating the South. Without southern agriculture, the Union was toast.

That's just silly. Why would the Union be "toast" just because it would have to import agricultural products? Britain had to, and it wasn't (and isn't) "toast".

traditionalguy said...

Elliott A...Without each other both the northern part of the USA and the southern part of the USA were in dire danger of re-conquest by Britain and France who had only recently backed off 45 years or so earlier. Anyway the Constitution's provisions for States changing their mind were never clear, and after Lincoln's re-election (thanks to Sherman's conquests in Georgia) those questions have never again been seriously considered, until you came along.

Kylos said...

Elliott, your Emancipation proclamation argument is rather disingenuous. As the South had seceded, by their own choice, it was no longer subject to the protections of the Constitution. Therefore, Lincoln could treat it as any commander in chief might treat conquered land. He could not do the same with states still willingly under Constitutional law. For that, he would have to rely on constitutional processes.

buster said...

Florida said:

"Abraham Lincoln could not prevail in his argument against the thorny moral issue of his day - slavery.

Therefore, he ordered his Army to kill Americans who disagreed with him."

Lincoln ordered military action against Southern states that tried to secede from the Union. He famously said that if he could preserve the Union by accepting the institution of slavery, he would accept slavery.

The relative importance of states' rights and the abolition of slavery in explaining the Civil War is a complicated matter, but Florida's account is silly.

NKVD said...

Powers Boothe was alive during the Civil war? He doesn't look much over 60.

jayne_cobb said...

I would like to point out that while the South was agrarian in nature they typically stuck with cash crops (cotton and tobacco) and were actually not as self sufficient (foodwise) as one would think.

Yes they had some ability to grow food, but the majority of the nation's food production occurred further to the North in the Mid-Atlantic regions (often referred to as the Bread Basket of the nation).

Typically the North had far more food than the South (which was starving by Appomattox)

Ralph said...

While I agree that there was certainly nothing wrong with killing anyone and everyone who supported the institution of slavery
Replace slavery with abortion and rethink that sentence.

Ralph said...

G. Washington sent the militia after the Whiskey rebels. One man died in jail, several death sentences were commuted.

AlphaLiberal said...

Father Martin Fox:

Comments from those so vocal recently, about the overheated rhetoric of hate emanating from the anti-war movement?WHAT anti-war movement, Pops?

AlphaLiberal said...

The connection between the Tiller killing and the Sotomayor nomination seems pretty simple: the patience of the American people for using abortion as a political wedge issue will be very short.

The typical Republican game play on the abortion issue will not work.

Chase said...

GUNMAN KILLS SOLDIER OUTSIDE RECRUITING STATION-
New York Times, Little Rock, Ark June 1, 2009
--

Nation awaits comment from President Obama and action from AG Holder as in the Tiller case.
-

Waiting . . .
-

Waiting . . .
-

Waiting

jayne_cobb said...

AL,

Actually the Republicans have been fairly mum on the subject of abortion in this instance. Oh it's been discussed, but they seem more concerned over her statements suggesting she takes race/ethnicity into account in rulings (e.g. the "wise latina" controversy).

In fact the only people who seem fairly concerned about her stance on abortion (at least vocally) right now seem to be those on the left.

Chase said...

From the Bad Fucking Day to be a Democrat File:
-

POLL: BY MORE THAN 2 TO 1, MOST OPPOSE CLOSING GITMOUpdated
-


By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn't be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.

Revenant said...

"While I agree that there was certainly nothing wrong with killing anyone and everyone who supported the institution of slavery"

Replace slavery with abortion and rethink that sentence.

If I replaced "slavery" with "abortion", the sentence wouldn't be true anymore. :)

Ralph said...

So slavery was worse than the mass murder you don't mind.

Florida said...

Let's keep in mind that the United States Supreme Court, in Scott v Sanford, ruled that African slaves were property.

We look back on such decisions with the exact same ludicrousness that our kids will look back on Roe v Wade.

The Supreme Court has often made immoral decisions that are corrected by the use of heinous acts of violence.

So, I disagree with Barack Obama that however profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as slavery, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Revenant said...

So slavery was worse than the mass murder you don't mind.

Mass execution, not mass murder.

mariner said...

You can piss on them all you like, but Florida and Elliott A have the right of it. We were bulshitted all the way through school about the "Civil War", and most of you still are.

It was not about slavery, it was about whether citizens of some states have the right to dictate how the citizens of other states will be governed.

It was the beginning of the end of the great American experiment in limited republican government; I fear we are now witnessing the end of the end.

Matthew J. Harris said...

Our nation was founded on this principle:

... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

That's what we told King George III. Funny how we abandoned that principle when it suited our purpose.

The people of the Southern states said that they no longer consented. But the North chose not to respect that.

The only difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is that the revolutionaries won the Revolutionary War.