10 (Biased) Examples of Christian Terrorism

 

jesusgunnedHere we go again, some clueless partisan will now explain how the kid stealing gumballs who will get whipped if he is caught by his folks is far worse than the crack dealer who thinks drive-bys are the best way to deal with competitors or witnesses and whose Mom and Pop will never admit is a nasty sucker instead of their misunderstood little boy.

SATURDAY, AUG 3, 2013 07:00 AM PDT

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism

Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the US are carried out by white men

How racist! Did they count the white men who were Muslim terrorists twice?

BY 

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.

When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

Given that Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hassan was classified as “workplace violence” you might be able to make a case as far as government records go; if you count the times Islamic fundamentalists with normative scripture to quote have been involved in violence as opposed to Bible Verse spouting Christians doing such things the count would be far more one-sided in the other direction. If we expand our focus world-wide there is no question, almost the only people involved with terrorism today are Islamists; the remainder are a radical and unsupported teaspoon in a bucket of Islamic aggression supported by most of the Imams outside the U.S..

Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

Well Virginia, at least one sentence in this piece was accurate, too bad the author could not keep to the ‘examples of non-Islamic’ part instead of turning it into a lynch-whitey-and-the-Christians-fest.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

Deceitful definitions are the hallmark of this list. Neo-Nazi (National Socialism) is a far Left mind-set, not a far-Right one. The Right thinks of itself as the “owners” of the status quo, the “traditional way things are done”; their problem children use its system to steal power and abuse it. Meanwhile the Left sees itself as the “champion of the underdog” to the point that they excuse virtually any crime or ‘gaming of the system’ that puts one of “their own” over on “the Man.” Sounds like divisive tribalism in PC clothing to me.

The #1 on this list is not about Christians or the far-Right, who tend to be theocrats seeking to own the system and not radicals seeking to destroy it. It is about a far-Left, Neo-Nazi loser who was about as un-Christian as they come as well as being rejected by virtually all of the mainstream Right, Middle and Left. This does not for a moment stop the Leftists from pulling him out as a straw man to use against their opponents in the theft of power from the people.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for God author Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

The Leftist once again gives a pass to the evil of his own sides radicals. while denigrating the Right for the same thing. I think both sides can be guilty of this kind of condoning of crime.

Late-term abortion, the kind Tiller specialized in, is far from cut-and-dried in it’s ethics and morality regardless of your religion, or lack thereof. In a world where 6 month preemies routinely live and prosper the justification for late-term abortion over delivery and adoption start to look pretty damn self-serving. I do not agree in any way with the theocrats on the Right; the only place in the Bible where it even might be talking about abortion is so vague that both sides use it as a proof that their side is the correct one according to scripture. I certainly do not support an individual taking a persons life into their own hands absent a clear and present danger to a person’s life, limb or property. But, we do need to have a conclusive debate on just when a fetus becomes a baby; the present standard seems to be that until a baby breathes air, with permission of the mother, it is a piece of flesh and may be done with as the clinic chooses, i.e. let die and then disposed of or sent to the research labs.

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose, in the first trimester, have been iffy on it in the second and have never supported it except in the case of extreme birth defects or an actual threat to the mother’s life coupled with a likelihood that the baby will be dead or a victim of massive defects in the final three months.

A woman gets to choose, but how many times does society have to allow her to keep choosing? At what point does a woman-with-a-choice become a mother-with-a-responsibility? We would arrest a woman sharing her cigarette and whiskey with her newborn but, we do nothing save frown in disapproval if she does it a day before she delivers; even when the child is ‘wanted‘! This is an indefensible position.

Would I have been willing to shake Tiller’s hand? No.

Do I think he deserved anything but due process of law in his professional life? Again, unequivocally, no.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

Here we have the classic partisan trick of taking some lone-wolf radical and pretending that they represent the mainstream of their opposition; all parties in America are guilty to some extent or another but, this list get nauseating inn how disingenuous it is in it’s attempt to tar the opposition with a brush of distortion and concealed facts.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

So, what he is saying Virginia is that the “Army of God” is far more radical than even the “Rev.” Phelps’ group of anti-gay “activists”? What exactly does this say about mainstream Christianity in relation to the normative schools of doctrine within Islam? Is there even a correlation?

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

The Army of God is hardly an example of the kind of “Christian” that even the typical ‘radical Christian’ can accept as normative. In Islam, Sunni and Shiite, the norm is support of honor killings, gays executed, and apostates murdered, all with the sanction the Qur’an or ahadith.

Just imagine how much worse the Irish ‘Troubles‘ would have been if there had been hordes of Catholic priests and bishops running around IReland preaching support for the IRA’s violence. Of course the new Irish “converts” to radicalism would have found it confusing when they realized they had joined an atheistic, Marxist group (IRA)!

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

And which mainstream, normalized Christian sect is it that supports this kind of radicalism? Army of God? A group so radical that the groups considered radical by the mainstream think they are over-the-line is now normative Christianity?

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

So, the only praise this guy got was from a group that Radical Right groups consider too radical? How is this an indictment against any sect of mainstream Christianity? All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse honor killing, the execution of gays and apostates as well as other doctrines equally abhorrent to the modern civilised human.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

All of which adds up to his being more in tune with Leftists like Chomsky than with conservatives or Christians; another strawman; unless the author’s argument is that only white Lefties commit terrorism.

Of course, Virginia, there are bad people on the Right but, being Right Wingers they will work the system from inside rather than game it from outside.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

I don’t know about their being “liberal” but, they certainly are NOT aligned with ANY mainstream grouping on either the Left or Right! William Luther Pierce’s own words show that clearly; the closest is the anti-semitism shared with the Left-of-Center Left and radical theocrats from the far Right.

Liars and hypocrites: those are terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats.”

 

“…stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives.”

 

“..But when democracy instead becomes a threat to continued Jewish rule, they are just as fervent anti-democrats.”

 

“… The government we have in Washington now … cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. …… If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.”

Clearly this movement is not aligned with conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats or anyone else interested in evolution of society over revolution by a disgruntled minority.

Especially disturbing is when a partisan just makes things up and puts them in the mouth of their opponent; unjustly and dishonestly hanging them with a rope they had nothing to do with making. The last one ion the list full of it, from start to finish.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist…

What I noticed was more of a confusion about why the LEft insists that an anti-government, self-declared agnostic must be conflated with conservative Christians. That hardly adds up to denying that any self-declared “Christian” is without faults.

…Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male [G DeW: WHY do you have to drag race into this? There are plenty of white Muslims in prison for terrorist crimes.] carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack. [Emphasis added]…

There is one problem with this; There is no mainstream political organisation, Left, Right or Middle, that says any such thing. They all focus on the fundamentalist and radical mentalities.

It is well known on the Right that the majority of American Muslims have absolutely no faith in the representation of the national Muslim “advocacy” groups like CAIR and MPAC. The problem actually is not the perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is the numerous fundamentalist-minded Imams who are the initial radical element; using their authority as religious leaders to cherry-pick from actual scripture and doctrine only what they need to radicalize individual Muslims whenever they can.

“…Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.”

Here we run up against the Leftist’s cherished fantasy that the KKK and all of the most violent and virulent racism from American history came from Republicans when the truth is that until the late 50’s and early 60’s when Federal court decisions made their legislative foot dragging on integration moot did the Left STOP being the ideology of the Black-hater, Jew-hater or indeed the “other”-haters they had always been; at least in public, there is no sign that the racism of the Left has done anything but morph into a more subtle and slimy form.

Before the Civil War the people in the North that most opposed abolition were Democrats; in the South the ones who supported it were Republican. During the Civil War (or The War, as Southerners like to refer to it to this day) The people in the North who opposed the war were Democrats. After the war was over the KKK was formed by, once again, Democrats.

In the 50’s it was Democrats who perpetrated the famous acts of violence against peaceful protestors; Gov. Wallace – Dem, Bull Connor – Dem, MLK’s assassin – Democrat… the list is endless. Republicans have their faults to be sure, any partisan grouping is going to have them running out of their ears but, if you hang someone, use a rope that they made, not one you crafted to lynch the innocent.

 

Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

Ann Coulter, You Kill Me! I Still Love You But, You are Wrong About the Death Penalty

Guy DeWhitney of Heretics Crusade debates Death Penalty with Ann Coulter

Dear Ann Coulter, you have hurt me deeply.  I was under the impression, since my wonderful encounter with you at David Horowitz’s Freedom Foundation Wednesday Morning Club, that you were a moderate who sought to “moderate” the Right by speaking their language and not worrying about the lost cause of the Left.  You implied I was correct when our eyes met and something palpable passed between us; I believe it was the book you had just signed. Your book Demonic seemed to bear out this concept.

And now? I am torn, broken and lost, all my illusions shattered by the things I read in the article below; Ann, please tell me you don’t really believe in the death penalty!

First off, let me explain my position on the death penalty lest I be hung with a rope I had nothing to do with making.

My central objection to and adamant stance rejecting the death penalty does not stem from the expense of all the appeals, though a case can be made that Life-without-Parole costs less on average; human life is not something that, at the bottom line, should come down to a bottom line.

My principled objection does not come from the fact that there have been Death Row inmates exonerated, or even that is beyond statistical certainty execution of the innocent *can* and *has* happened; a human life should never be gambled by anyone but the owner of said life.

My stance, firm and unashamed, is that I believe that no one has the right to kill a human being that is in secure custody in the hopes that maybe, somewhere, another person might not commit a similar crime; to shed a soul no better or worse than yourself in the eyes of God in what amounts to a marketing strategy is simply nefarious.

When you add that to the two reasons I first mentioned feel that it has to be admitted that there is no real reason for the Death Penalty but as a collective expression of natural animal bloodlust… we NEED some way to sanction our desire to kill SOMEONE for their transgressions against us, real or imagined. Yes, it is rather benign as historical expressions of bloodlust go but, does that mean we cannot decry it?

On to my analysis of of the article:

From David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine

Cop-Killer Is Media’s New Baby Seal

Posted by Ann Coulter Bio ↓ on Sep 23rd, 2011

For decades, liberals tried persuading Americans to abolish the death penalty, using their usual argument: hysterical sobbing.

First, a quibble my lovely Lady.

Ann, what would happen in Law Courts if one School of Law said that a “tort” was X and another said a “tort” was Y? If you call a leftist a liberal instead what do you call someone who is not brain dead in their cultural relativism but, also not a rock, reacting only to outside changes? Admit it, conservative is not a label that the majority of a society should want to adopt for themselves. To have conservative principals along with the common sense to find opportunities to improve things by changing; what do we call that, if you use liberal to mean leftist?

As to your argument, I agree, they haven’t the moral cojones to make the argument against it that I did above.

Only when the media began lying about innocent people being executed did support for the death penalty begin to waver, falling from 80 percent to about 60 percent in a little more than a decade. (Silver lining: That’s still more Americans than believe in man-made global warming.)

I am glad to hear that about Global Warming but, can you make your case regarding the lack of rotting innocence expressed in the guise of rotting innocents? I am not a lawyer or a politician; I am a poet, artist and engineer type. It is not easy when most people are almost all right or left-brained to be neither; I am not even sure it is a good thing. But, it makes me almost immune to falsehood in the long term. When you love harmony and see the world in definite patterns it is hard to be lied to for very long. If the patterns do not reflect reality eventually the pieces unravel and you can’t help but see the truth no matter how much internal consistency the lies are or how appealing they seem to your own desires.

Short version: Please don‘t bullshit me Ann, I wasn’t born yesterday; can you make your case?

Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years.

Really? Then that would have been a great place to put a link to another article explaining the facts behind your assertion. If you want me to believe you I need some facts, what with all the “spin” that goes on nowadays. Either the facts of the cases I have seen on cursory search are all wrong, or you are using a definition of innocent that reaches beyond the scope of the crime for which the person was executed; I think the bible has something to say about that kind of “guilt”.

But unless members of the public are going to personally review trial transcripts in every death penalty case, they have no way of knowing the truth. The media certainly won’t tell them.

Ann, it was your intelligence that caused the first spark between us, please do not insult mine; facts my Maid-of-the-Sexy-Vocabulary, let’s have some facts.

…Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week — barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis’ room and board for the past two decades.

(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn’t have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)

Sometimes there is a fine line between snarky and hateful and my dear Ms. Coulter, you habitually walk close to it but, this is one of the few times that I might agree with those who say that you cross; and our romance loses some of it’s luster. It is a human life we are discussing, the acceptability of the Death Penalty in principal, not just in one sad human’s case. I myself feel it does not behoove any Christian, or any truly religious person, to lament the time allowed a soul before the only judgment that is infallible.

Ann Hart Coulter, can you really think that 14 years of not knowing if you will or will not be executed, a truly insane procedure in and of itself in this Hyper-PC world, is somehow seen by “the kids” as better than just being executed in a way that removes the, very slight and temporary, deterrent effect the Death Penalty has on violent crime? Society is the only real deterrent. Otherwise the Islamic world would enjoy the lowest violent crime rates; you would also see a much lower rate of violent crime three hundred years ago when hanging and death by torture were commonplace, yet we find the opposite; society itself evolved less violent ways to get along, the law did not force them to be that way.

There’s a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis’ case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell

Ann, Ann, there you go again with the un-backed assertions; let’s have the facts that lead you to say that please. Otherwise refer to my argument against the Death Penalty itself at the beginning of the post.

Don’t cry Hun, you know I still love you.

How to chose sources

Often when I am perusing various news sources and blogs for items to post and comment upon I will find interesting and pertinent stories posted by online magazines or blogs that, on the whole, do NOT reflect the values I defend and uphold. Yet these sources do often have articles that are neither badly spun nor inaccurate. Should we only accept news items from sources where we agree with the editorial voice of that source? To do so can limit almost to extinction sources of information on some subjects.

Just as the bad behaviour of Mr. McCarthy in the 50’s damaged the voice of Anti-Communism and delayed the recognition of the extent of infiltration if the only voices that speak are not heard due to their known biases.

What do you do when a lot of the stories you are interested in have not been picked up by mainstream media due to their controversial nature? Worldnet Daily is a good example. While a conservative Christian news source they have a number of interesting stories and perspectives. But they also have a strong undercurrent of jingoistic partisanship. Do not expect to see any articles about Obama that Rush Limbaugh would disagree with. But outside of their editorials their reporting tends to be just that, reporting. They simply focus on things the rest of the media ignores. Such as the persecution of Christians that is on the upswing around the Muslim world.

To me the language of the story has a lot to do with how credible I make it out to be. Obviously partisan language will make me reject an otherwise pertinent story. This blog takes no sides in politics beyond preserving the basics of our Western way of life. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and equal treatment under the law for everyone.

With all that said I would like to speak about some of the very active and important blogs out there. There are many, from the moderate to the rabidly Rightist. Not all have been successful, not all deserve to be. Some do. The two I would like to chiefly address are Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs. Two that 90% DO but when they don’t it makes my teeth ache.

For a while now I have eagerly followed Robert Spencer’s work. I have for the most part found him to avoid the rabid partisanship we see all over the political spectrum from the Left to the Right. But then with the taking of office of Pres. Obama his tone changed.

Where I see certain actions and words by the administration as being crafted to send a message in terms the RECEIVER of that message I can’t understand why people like Robert Spencer seem to see nothing but dhimmitude. This, to me, is why Amadinijad got so uppity. He understood that Obama was telling him that we would talk but only when IRAN stepped up to the plate properly. What could the Dinner Jacket say to his people then? The Iranian people are not fools. There is a strong undercurrent of modernity festering under the mullah’s hands. They know that the West has legitimate issues with Human right etc. What is the “great Leader” to do? Bluff bigger! Make the IRANIAN conditions for talks so unreasonable as to render them impossible to attain. Obama backed him into a a corner with an unagressive gesture! Now it is IRAN that seem to the world to be the one that will not co-operate.

What bugs me is that great voices like Spencer can’t see that he is playing the same divide to win treason game that he and his friends have accused the Left of playing.
Yes Obama had a Muslim of questionable associations speak at his inauguration but remember this; Obama was not just making a show for Americans, he was making a show for the world. The Muslim he chose to PRAY was a woman! I ask MR. Spencer for one moment to think about how that played to the PEOPLE in Saudi Arabia, in Sudan, in Pakistan. We have seen the Wafa Sultans, Tarek Fatehs. They do exist and there are a lot more that do not speak. There are hearts and minds to be won behind the propaganda curtains.

Yes, I too worry that the Leftists will come out from under their rock and delay further the proper response of the West to our times. But I have been heartened often by the moderate, considered way Obama is moving forward piece by piece. I like a lot of what I have seen and haven’t seen a lot that I can’t stand. I do not subscribe to the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh school of logic that demands that any statement or action by an “opponent” be dissected in the most partisan and negative manner possible.

Lets be frank here, hard-core partisan politics is a sign of mental illness no matter what color you are in the political rainbow. To live life as though one basic way of looking at every problem would solve ALL problems is just crazy. You might as well teach that all problems of geometry, spherical or plane must be solved with…algebra!

Any ideology, especially in the Western world, that can on one hand support a multi-party constitution while on the other hand they spend most of their time trying to give one party a total lock on all exercise of power.

Leaders on the Left and the Right pay lip service to the idea of Democracy but if you judge them by their actions they seem to want nothing more than to disenfranchise all voices in opposition to theirs. This is not limited to Liberal PC fascism. The Righties are just as quick to clamp down with the thought police. They just call the offenses by a different name; unpatriotic, radical, treasonous.

I have to say I find it very hard to refer to or link to an article on Atlas Shrugs. The intelligent and witty style of expose is, in my opinion, massively diluted in effect by the associations Ms. Geller keeps as well as her tendency to veer into completely partisan fugue states. It does her credibility no good among the masses to have a prominent, intriguing link to a site selling a Young Earth Creationist book. To an undecided reader this link alone will likely cause anyone who checks it out to completely ignore anything she has to say about radical Islam as coming from a hopelessly biased source. Added to this the ragingly anti-Obama rhetoric and you have a wonderful site that seems to go out of it’s way to shoot itself in the foot. And all simply to gratify Ms. Geller’s emotional attachment to a single, distinct shade of the political spectrum.

Please do not get me wrong. I admire the energy with which she has pursued a worthy cause. I find her intelligent and witty in extreme and pretty cute to boot. I am sure if we sat down and had a chat we would get along famously as long as we avoided a few subjects. Who knows, in person she might be open to discussion on subjects where she seems unyielding online.

My point is that we are facing a rise of tidal proportions in totalitarian thought. Many diverse voices need to come together to get the message out. But those voices need to be ones that a large percentage of the population are willing to listen to. It would have done no one any good if one week before Pearl Harbor the most virulently racist journal in the nation had reported in detail the Japanese plans.
It becomes important for us to chose which things are most important to us. Which do we value more? Our personal grudges or the freedom to pursue those grudges in the future? The time has come for anyone who wishes to be HEARD in this fight to be aware of the face they present to the general public. This is not about preaching to the choir or gaining speaking fees. At least it is not supposed to be. That is one of the things the opposition accuses ALL anti-Radical Islam voices of being. Shills in it for the money. Tools of the JOOS.

IT is certainly true that you can get more attention faster if you cater to a partisan mindview. The choir always enjoys being preached to. They will pay you to do it. But the unconverted still swarm outside your sanctuary doors! And the barbarians are at the gate.

Robert Spencer has been castigated a number of times for the publishers he uses to get his books out. For the most part I have agreed with his view that it is what is in the books that matters not who publishes them. But lately I find myself changing my mind in regards to him personally. How many bestsellers is it now? To me it would be a major step toward a wider audience if he concisely sought out more mainstream houses for his new books. Surely the hardline conservative publishers are not paying him so much more that he is willing to let millions of moderates and liberals think he is a Ditto-head.

And if they do pay more, so what? Is he in it mainly for patriotic reasons or just to be surrounded by worshipping Republicans?
When blogging on such controversial subjects I feel it is important to make a serious effort to be as objective and moderate as possible. This means not carrying over political grudges and emotional strawmen into a realm that is important to all people everywhere.

I is no skin off my nose if the creators of Atlas Shrugs choose to make money from associating with crazy people (or worse, people who make money off of people they know are crazy) but she has to understand that it makes her look insincere in her desire to actually make a difference. As opposed to making a little difference and stroking her ego a lot. Or worse making a little difference and making a lot of money.

Are we asking ourselves when we write whether what we say reflects the common values or just OUR values? One of our greatest arguments, the source of all out moral highground is that we are promoting the universal values of the West. It does our cause no good to act in a way that subverts the very values we claim to support by speaking in Partisan ways on non-partisan issues.

“If we keep together we shall be safe, and when error is so apparent as to become visible to the majority, they will correct it.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas W. Maury, 1816. ME 18:291