Rachel Maddow puts Dr. George Tiller's execution by known domestic terrorist, Scott Roeder, into it's proper perspective, while Rachel's guest, Dr. Warren Hern, rightly explains why Tiller's killing was an American political assassination, not a random violent act.
Hern's comments are essential….they start at about the 5 minute mark.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
One of slain Dr. George Tiller's collegues, Sarah Hill, describes the life work of the doctor and the tragic cases and situations that led women to seek his services.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The fringe elements of the so-called Christian right have been hotbeds for breeding America's domestic terrorists for decades. The breeding ground for terrorists, the training camps for domestic jihadists, are found within American religious organizations. That's where the hate is seeded and watered. The extreme evangelical right in America is becoming harder and harder to distinguish from any other terror group determined to change America through domestic violence.
Recently, an American imam was sentenced to 65 years in prison for his financial support of alleged Muslim terrorist groups. In America, those who support Christian hate groups, hate groups who spin out dangerous jihadists, like Scott Roeder,……are rewarded with tax deductions for their financial support.
The unhinged elements witnessed during the Palin campaign and at the recently held Tea Parties….are the same unhinged elements who occasionally spin off a dangerous jihadist.
But just like with the torture discussions, if it's Americans doing it, and not Muslims, it's all justified. The concept of American exceptionalism in the braincells of evangelical nuts translates into some bizarre messianic nationalism…..where the United States has been raised up to act uniquely for god.
Needless to say, if killing is required to get god's work done, if violent jihad works in forwarding god's will, if domestic assassination of specific individuals is what god would want….then, by definition, it is the right and proper action to take.
There's nothing new in any of this. American terrorists declare active jihad whenever a Democrat sits in the White House. For American jihadists who embrace Jesus, torture, and killing abortion doctors, electing a Democratic President is the "trigger" to begin carrying out their terror plots inside the U.S.
This lunatic fringe element inside the U.S., typified by the lunatic, Randall Terry, should be declared a dangerous terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The cold, bastard, Fox media talking heads who provoke this lunatic fringe should be perp-walked for inciting violence. But these two lawless elements in American society will hide behind their fig leaf free speech and religion rights…while at the same time, they defend premeditated and egregious illegal actions of violent terrorism and torture.
The ends justify the means….and after all, it's all being done for the sake of Jesus.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Two terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the last week … Who is minding the store?
Maybe Obama should waterboard Roeder to confirm the allegation that Rush Limbaugh ordered him to kill the doctor. I'm guessing that you wouldn't have been so quick to prosecute and demonize abolishionists during the 1850s who advocated slave rebellions.
"Who is minding the store?"
One thing for sure…it ain't George and Dick….they kept us safe.
Bubba..were the abolitionists encouraging the killing of slave owners? And what does slavery have to do with a woman's right to choose?
Actually as a dem lemming and religious bigot the Reverend would be demonizing abolitionists in the 1850s, Bubba.
As a matter of fact they were, that is what armed rebellion means. Also the ownership of slaves was both legal, Constitutionally protected, and abhorred by many people. The point is that just because something is legal now doesn't mean it has to be blindly accepted.
No one is arguing that anyone has to blindly accept anything. I'm simply suggesting that in lieu of blindly accepting everything, assassination's ain't the alternative.
larry..
Now why would I be demonizing abolitionists in the 1850's? You, maybe…but not me. I believe in freedom. I believe that men should be free from being enslaved, like animals…..and I believe that women should be free to control their own reproductive lives.
You hurt my feelings, larry, when you call me a dem lemming, although the word combination pronounces easily, so you have that going for you.
A religious bigot would be someone who was intolerant of faith-based people. I want all people to be free to follow their religious beliefs, or not. It is religion, itself, that poisons everything. It is a cancer.
It seems odd to me….people who believe strongly in invisible, imaginary stuff are held in high esteem, often deferred to, inside America. Doesn't anyone else find this odd? Odder still is the obvious fact that anyone who didn't believe in invisible, imaginary stuff, could never be elected president. Doesn't that seem, I don't know,…..wrong, somehow?
I'm not sure what you'd believe in in the 1850s as what you believe in now is primarily baloney. Maybe phrenology?
In any case, please stick to your usual inflammatory tone, Reverend.
Why is abortion, and specifically late term abortion, strictly a religious issue ? It shouldn't be. I view late term abortion as a human rights issue. Viable babies should not be murdered. What freedom is the Reverend granting to them, other than the right to be slaughtered ? The right to life is the most important right of all, because without it, the rest of them don't mean diddly.
On the bright side, the Reverend can comfort himself in the knowledge that dead babies don't buy guns.
King, I believe it is the left's way of justifying murder. By combining abortion and religion they can use the church/state separation argument. Otherwise it just becomes a mom wanting to kill her unborn baby out of convenience.
average….you're my blog buddy…but have you ever considered the woman's point of view?
King waxes unusally spiteful and ugly with his comment. Placing the "rights" of embryoes over the rights of women is not oly misplaced….but ignorant as well.
Does a man have the right to decide what happens to his body? So, too, a woman.
My favorite thing about pro-lifers and the anti-abortion people is that they are the same people who are anti-welfare, anti-tax, anti-public education. So this young mom who doesn't have a dad to help her decides hey, I don't want to ruin my life or give a kid a horrible life so I'll get an abortion.
Now you say she can't get one. So that means she can give it to CSB. Oh wait you are anti-tax and welfare so CSB is to underfunded to take on new kids. The child has a crappy life. Suppose then her family is willing to support her, well now she has to stay low class, and most likely won't graduate high school let alone college, so she will send her kid to poorly funded public school (that the right refuses to fund) and the kid becomes a thug. She needs help supporting her kid because she can't good a good job. Well she is a drag on society because she collects welfare.
It is quite ironic to me (and less I really over generalized this) that you say, no you have to keep the baby. But then all of you are completely against the services needed to help a mother be successful if she decides to keep it.
Well you will say she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Well I say, LIVE IN REALITY!!! People have sex, they get pregnant, on purpose and by mistake. People have a right choose if they are going to live with that mistake or not. Hell if you are all so gung-ho with "you can't make mistakes" then Laura Bush should be in jail (she killed a person) Cheney should be in jail (he shot a dude in the face) Bush was a deserter.
All I'm saying is stop being a bunch of hypocrites. You don't want girls having abortions then give them the programs they need to succeed and keep their child otherwise stop complaining.
If a woman has the right to decide what she does with her body why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal to use drugs?
Bubba, two other fights that should be fought. People who are laissez-faire should be asking those questions. Along with why does the government get to dictate when I can use my cell phone and that if I can successfully drive home after 2 beers why I should get a DUI for getting pulled over for a blinker being out. (Think of the tax revenue from federally regulated drugs and licensing for prostitution)
Both are illegal because they were illegal in England (where most of our rule of law comes from), and the English Rule of Law strictly adhered to laws of the bible.
(By the way Bubba, drug usage and prostitution are only illegal in certain areas)
Then it should be OK if abortion is illegal only in certain areas? If people truly have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies then why haven't any of these other laws prohibiting these behaviors been overturned?
Even democratic governments move slowly. Prostitution and narcotics will be legalized and regulated sometime in the future in America. That's not only the pragmatic thing to do, but the right thing to do.
America is still experiencing the hangover from it's Puritan days.