All of this has happened before, and it will happen again.
Alert Steve Newton, the guardian of free speech. I am about to do it again. Yes, that whacky Delaware Dem is going to take issue with intimidations of political violence from a leading conservative. Ironic? Not at all. Indeed, I speak with authority here, for when I stupidly called for Republicans to be round up and shot over six months ago, I was roundly and loudly condemned by all, and still to this day, despite my repeated and sincere apologies for my hyperbole, and still criticized by the likes of Hube. So that, and my moral conscience, tells me that threats of political violence are very very wrong and should be condemned.
Yet, there seems to be a double standard here. When a Democrat or liberal does it, it is pure evil and unforgivable. When a conservative or a Republican does it, it is protected free speech and those criticizing it are tyrannical despots intent to demonizing dissent.
Randall Terry, the very moral founder of Operation Rescue and a prominent anti-choice activist, who cheered the murder of Dr. Tiller back in April, now says that America should expect more domestic terrorism if…. God forbid …. we enact universal healthcare for all Americans. Yes, there is nothing more evil and unChristian than to provide healthcare to those without.
And yes, saying “God forbid” does not excuse Mr. Terry here.
Now, to placate Mr. Newton, I will say the following disclaimer: Mr. Terry is free to make a complete and total ass of himself whenever he chooses by spewing such vile statements. No where in this post will I suggest that Mr. Terry does not have the right to say what he wants, or that action should be taken to silence him. What I will say is that words have consequences, and that I have every right to connect the dots between violent rhetoric and violent acts.
Randall Terry is giving a pass to those who disagree with the President to commit “random acts of violence” against “those deemed guilty.” He’s putting the idea in their heads that violence against the “guilty” is a reasonable response to political differences.
All of this has happened before and it will happen again.
Dr. Tiller. Three police officers in Pittsburgh. Liberal churchgoers in Tennessee. A security guard at the Holocaust Museum. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Oklahoma City. Abortion clinic bombings. The Olympic Park bombing.
Thus, if someone gets killed, or if violence occurs, then I will blame Mr. Terry and any one who agrees with him, and any one who does not condemn his remarks. For you see, if it was right to condemn me for my inane remarks last September, than it is right for the very same people to condemn Mr. Terry. And, Mr. Newton, a condemnation of freely spoken remarks, and assigning responsibility for the consequences of words to the speaker and his supporters, does not violate free speech. Indeed, it protects it. For if it becomes acceptable to threaten violence and death over political differences, pretty soon there will be no political differences.
Fear threatens free speech and debate. And all Mr. Terry and those like him and those who agree with him are doing is instilling fear in those who want universal healthcare, or want reproductive choice. He is trying to end the debate by scaring his political opponents. That should offend you, Mr. Newton. Yet, I suspect you will criticize me for this post.
Indeed, I suspect no condemnations of Mr. Terry will be forthcoming. The double standard endures. If any liberal organization went anywhere near this crazy in predicting “random acts of violence” against those deemed “guilty,” you know Democratic members of Congress would be falling all over themselves to apologize from the floor of the House and Senate, and all media and all Republicans would be full OUTRAGE mode. Look what happened with MoveOn and the “Betrayus” ad.
I, and many others, see no reason to condemn Randall Terry.
Why not?
Because we don’t take Randall Terry seriously.
And because we do take our own personal defense seriously and are prepared to defend ourselves from any idiot who does decide there is an excuse for violence.
Too bad you are wrong on both counts.
Of all that we lost under Bush, the loss of our sense of national unity in spite of our political differences, is the biggest loss.
RWR:
Your personal defense? So you are agreeing with Terry. The random acts of violence in response to political differences are acts of self defense in your view? You are worse than Terry.
EDIT: You have edited your comment to make it clearer. I still don’t understand what you mean, but you are not agreeing with Terry with your “personal defense” remark.
I don’t believe you that you do not take him seriously. He is a leading spokesman for several social conservative causes, a leading activist on your side. Social conservatives everywhere cheered him when he took the lead in the Terri Schiavo matter in 2005. You do take him seriously.
Terry has been agitating for violence for many years. Now he wants violence about healthcare? Is he going to picket the VA?
On this point? No, i don’t. And even when i do agree with him on some issue, it does not constitute an endorsement of him or statements like this. You’ll find I’m not alone among Republicans — including those of us of the social conservative variety.
Jason, have you and I lived in the same country for the last 4 decades? Maybe it is a question of age, but i don’t recall that sense of national unity you accuse Bush of destroying reaching back to the Johnson Administration.
I remember the attacks on Johnson by the Left when I was a child — and the acts of terrorism that went with those attacks (see William Ayers and the Black Panthers for details). I recall the hatred of Nixon that was with him from the very day of his inauguration — and which ended up exacerbating his character flaws and leading to Watergate. I recall the hatred directed at Reagan — and at the first Bush. Have you forgotten the Clinton years? That which you claim existed until 2001 was dead long before then.
RWR, perhaps it is a matter of age. I grew up in the Reagan and Bush I years, and no, I do not remember any hatred of Reagan, and my family is as die hard Democratic as they come (my grandmother had pictures of the Pope, Kennedy and Roosevelt arranged together on the wall, and I am not entirely sure which one was above the others).
The hatred Jason speaks of began with Clinton. The right wing just went nuts at the prospect that he was President, just as they are going nuts now with Obama. I did not see that with Reagan and Bush, but then again, I was young then and not alive during the Johnson and Nixon years.
But even if it is, as you claim, an artifact of the Clinton years, then Jason is wrong to lay the blame at the feet of George W. Bush. Just a little Bush Derangement Syndrome in action, I guess.
And if you want evidence of how deep it ran during the Reagan years, remember that KGB documents made public after the fall of the Soviet Union indicate that Ted Kennedy (D-Psalm 109:8) was prepared to work with the government of the Soviet Union to undermine and defeat the sitting President of the United States — certainly treading close to the line of what would constitute treason, even if it may not have crossed the line.
Oh, and as far as “the right wing” and Clinton — let me tell you a personal story. I was one of the few Republicans at my seminary, but on Jan 20, 1992 I stood up and offered a prayer for the new president. I was later accosted by several classmates who were Chicago Dems and one Massachusetts liberal with family connections to the Kennedy’s and condemned for being insincere in my words — because they could never sincerely offer similar prayers for a Republican president. I put my country first — and that means I opposed Bush when I thought he was wrong and will support Obama if I think he is right. My experience is that the same is true of most of my fellow conservatives.
There is a difference between condemning protected political speech and attempting to restrict it via the power of government.
To wit, DD, here is what I wrote regarding Randall Terry and the Army of God right after Dr Tiller’s murder:
These assholes ARE supporting domestic terrorism, and doing so openly.
View it here
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-questions-regarding-scott-roeder.html
You’ll note that I also said that people like the Army of God who made political violence an overt part of their platform should be monitored by law enforcement.
I guess the fact that I agree with you regarding this post is pretty solid evidence that you have never gotten my point.
Maybe you should look up the the language used against Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan.
I almost wonder if you actually listened to the remarks or did you react in a knee jerk way. He not only said GOD forbid, but condemned those who would do so as fringe elements. I am confused what am I suppose to condemn? I agree that radical fringe elements exist and they should not be condoned. There is enough interesting stuff out there that you don’t have to spin Randal Terry. He is not the type of person that you need to be worried about. He is not politically effective any longer nor is he violent.
I am not sure what good he did in trying to persuade undecided law makers not to fund abortion. He is right that such a move would launch a massive wave of civil disobedience. I wrote about that myself. It would almost be mandated by Christian Theology. Taking our money to fund abortion is an assault on Christian theological identity, conscience, and faith. It would be trying to make us a part of the abortion industry. The part about the radical fringe should have been left on the cutting room floor. It was too easy to distort or be misunderstood. Some nut could twist it to say that what I feel is understandable after all some intelligent attorney took the exact opposite meaning from it.
It is a legitimate worry if you say it, but a call to action if he says it according to DelDem. Ironically, on this concern of preventing the fringe from going out of control, Terry and DelDem actually agree, but neither would see the others words in that light. Sadly there is too much back and forth to hear one another.
I think all reasonable people reject tearing ourselves apart with violence. It only hurts people. You can not be acting in love while engaging in lawless violence. Accepting that would be accepting the end of civilization. What cause would be advanced then?
“I grew up in the Reagan and Bush I years, and no, I do not remember any hatred of Reagan”
You can’t be serious? Oliver Stone, Barabra Streisand to name two hate mongers. Remember amiable dunce etc? Remember his stance on Pershing II missiles and how he was denounced?
Reagan was hated by liberals and the media.
No one cares about Randall Terry.
Mike Protack
I also agree that the so-called Army of God should be (as it is) monitored. There are hundreds of organizations which were and I hope are. Bush kept a lid on them by understanding who is dangerous and who is not. Unfortunately Del Dem does not have that same understanding.
You know what? Whatever. Everything is acceptable to you David provided the speaker is a Republican.
There is nothing unAmerican or unsavory any Republican can say. – but oh shit…watch out if some Democrat ever gets close to saying anything that can be construed as possibly violent.
You are so inconsistent and your ethics are so situational that it would be funny it were not so relentlessly stupid.
Terry is no more radical than you are. He is on the right and you are on the left. You refuse to listen to what he said. He couldn’t have said more often in one paragraph that he believed it was unacceptable. I guess you guys do not understand the concept of discussing how to avoid things that you hate and advocating things that you like. This is just another example of you all taking something and running with it in spite of the facts. I just refuse to go along with your program. It is the fallacy of have you stopped beating your wife? The person who never beat his wife can neither answer yes or no.
You take a clip where the speaker rejects violence and say when are you going to condemn him for advocating violence.
It is the game of censorship. You try to paint a group of people one way in spite of the facts. Terry is a publicity hog whose day has past so he tries to be dramatic to get attention. There is plenty that you can take from his clips and quotes that would be good fodder. The problem is that you want to believe that there is some right wing underground planning to overthrow the government. You can’t get that from Terry, Beck, or any other past or present conservative leader. What are you to do? Make it up.
The post said one thing and the clip said another. Am I too take you seriously? Yes, the reason is that I think that you all really don’t hear what is being said.
As for violent Democrats, they get appointed Czar of something and the organization that defends them gets from one of its board members a supreme court appointee. Who should I be more concerned about the people who are in power or those who hold a press conference 3 or 4 times a year?
David:
Mr Terry is attempting to derail a specific piece of legislation by suggesting that many Americans will respond to it with political violence.
Mr Terry wants the legislation defeated.
Mr Terry is not making a disinterested observation, nor is he regreting the violence.
He is explicitly stating that any violence that occurs will be the responsibility of the State and not of the people who commit it.
Sorry, from DelawareDem’s staunchest and loudest critic on the issue of political speech, when you suggest that he and Randall Terry are radical equivalents from opposite sides of the spectrum, and therefore ignore Terry’s long personal association with a violent movement that has killed and injured people, you are full of shit.
But–as I always maintain–you have the right to be full of shit. 🙂
Suggesting that David A is full of shit got me placed in the moderation queue?
Some software you guys have going here.
You’re free, Steve!
No, Steve, that is freely welcomed.
Of all that we lost under Bush, the loss of our sense of national unity in spite of our political differences, is the biggest loss.
Oh yes. We were soooo ‘unified’ under Clinton.
The cultural schism that exists in America today may well be irreparable. Time will tell, but I see secession coming…probably Alaska, Montana, Idaho for a start. Sounds crazy? That’s what Buchanan thought.
On a side note, I find the idea of a bunch of cupcake liberals coming to ’round me up’ laughable. Ever been to Nebraska? Gumboro?
I would expect you to think that way because you hate this country and are an idiot to boot.
There is a qualitative difference between advocating that someone be killed — your statement of half a year ago, for which you have apologized — and a prediction that there could be random violent acts if some particular thing happens.
Who knows, maybe Mr Terry would actually like to see such happen, but that isn’t what he said.