The Young Turks Banned Me: The Violent Nature of TYT Army

As I previously wrote, the Young Turks have now banned me from chat on two occasions. Some of you may say this is TYT’s network and they are free to ban anyone they choose. That would be fine if TYT did not define themselves as ardent champions of free speech, expression and democracy who welcome all dissidence, except that promoting illegal or violent activity, on their network (see this video for example). This is a lie which I will expose!  TYT and their “army” freely defame, personally attack, threaten and promote violence against ideological and political outsiders  while dissenters, no matter how well articulated, respectful or justified, are banned.

I never promote or partake in cussing, crime, hate, personal attacks, rudeness, trolling or violence. I am an unrelenting intellectual diligently, logically and fastidiously  investigating, studying and testing the issues, claims and propositions before me so I may assess, discuss and debate them in an erudite manner, supporting or opposing them as available, objective evidence dictates. This evidence, as it stands today, thoroughly debunks and destroys the claims and creed of my liberal, progressive and predominantly atheist opponents.

Being ideologues militantly hostile against anything and anyone that is not congruent with their gospel, my adversaries, unable to intellectually rebut said evidence, merely reject or ignore it by default, and also delusively, fallaciously, personally and even physically attack, oppress, persecute, censor and eliminate not only those who uphold and bring it to the fore but anyone posing a challenge or not blindly yielding to their dogma and agenda.  People like me are feared by those like TYT. They know it is dangerous to allow us to freely speak for we would drown everything for which they stand and struggle in a vat of veracity, forcing them to either join our conservative ranks or soldier on dishonestly, hypocritically and speciously holding and fighting for exposed falsehoods. TYT is content with the latter and thus have banned me from the live chats. I’m not setting up new accounts just to get into chat, especially only to be blocked again the moment I dissent.

Like most of their liberal, progressive and atheist comrades, these individuals emblematize the thin-skinned, anti-intellectual, anti-science, dogmatic, violent fanaticism they vilify and deprecate their ideological opponents for allegedly possessing, vocalizing and actualizing. TYT and their “army,” be it in their videos, posts, tweets, so forth, regularly, with total impunity and without rebuke from their brethren or moderators, assault those with whom they disagree, like me, with vitriolic personal attacks,  lies, sexual innuendos, bloodthirsty fantasies, threats, and also wishes and celebrations of misfortune, tragedy, illness and death befalling them, their families, friends, colleagues, and so forth. For some examples, look at their glee over the deaths of Andrew Breitbart, Antonin Scalia or Nancy Reagan. So cruel, crude, profane, revolting, scatological, violent and vulgar are these utterances, thoughts and festivities that the psychological and emotional well-being of those making, thinking, allowing or partaking in them is brought into question. Perhaps these people suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness, like a psychopathy or psychosis, that require them to be on psychiatric medication, in psychotherapy or in a mental institution.

These screen grabs are examples of the type of filth and violence spewed and endorsed by TYT and its army. None of these users were banned or rebuked by other TYT supporters or moderators.

These come from TYT chat.The first 3 were taken from the chat room itself while the last 2 were taken from the TYT live stream archives that used to be on YouTube.

(This refers to Jason Chaffetz and was posted by the same moderator and community ambassador who banned me for challenging TYT’s voter suppression conspiracy, Kimani Wallace David.)

These are a couple of responses I received to a comment I made on a TYT upload.

Several violent comments have been left on my YouTube channel as well, including this threat:

This is not just idle talk or satire on their part but rather exemplifies their real world aspirations. TYT advocate for nothing short of a dictatorship, founded and defended through violence and death if necessary. They unequivocally champion, for example, firing or protesting people, their places of employment, businesses and other organizations with which they affiliate for holding, defending or supporting candidates, propositions or beliefs they oppose, boycotting or suing businesses for not servicing certain events, banning certain political and informational websites, like Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), and, perhaps most disturbingly, bringing forth the change they desire through violent revolution, using upheaval in France as their inspiration. TYT deleted the video of them endorsing such violence, but it has been uploaded by another Youtuber here, and this video is further analysis of it by HowTheWorldWorks.

It is thus imperative to expose and oppose these vile, violent liars and hypocrites not merely for what they say and do online but more so because of their real-world ambitions and influence. TYT has even set up their own superpac, Wolfpac, and have won the ear of major political figures like Bernie Sanders. TYT and their army bill themselves as a mass political movement  aiming to reshape the real world in their liberal, progressive, mostly atheist, image, which is clearly one cleansed of nonconformists. Despite their contrary claims, with those like TYT, there is no room for freedom, democracy, free thought or dissent but a dictatorship in which group-think, or, at most, democratic centralism, is enforced and dissenters who cannot be “re-educated” are marginalized, dehumanized, silenced, and if necessary, likely physically eliminated. Yes, I am talking genocide. TYT are, after all, inspired by French-style revolution.  Just as TYT peddle democracy, liberty, human/civil rights and free speech so too did the original French revolutionaries talk of “liberty, equality, fraternity;” once the latter took power, they filled the streets with the blood of dissenters and other undesirables. It is also very telling that during their chat, Cenk Uygur never held Sam Harris accountable for the latter’s ongoing advocacy for murdering people based on their beliefs. Then again you should expect nothing more from a company named, despite Mr. Uygur‘s denials, after one of the most evil, violent, genocidal movements in history.

 

Pro-Abortion Militants Lie About Homeless Man and Kansas Terrorist Plot to Vilify Pro-Lifers (Featuring Pseudo-Intellectual Diarrhea from The Young Turks and MoveOn)

The absence of a terrorist conspiracy to bomb or attack staff at the South Wind Women’s Center, an abortion mill in Wichita, Kansas, has been exploited by liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion militants to push their political cause and denounce conservatives, pro-lifers and religious adherents.

Moises Trevizo, varyingly described by the media as either 19 or 20 years of age, entered the mill on August 17, 2015 carrying a rucksack that was discovered to contain, among other items, knives and a pill bottle-sized, homemade firework, which was mistaken for a small bomb. The subsequent thorough, impartial police investigation determined that Trevizo supports abortion and only intended to apply for employment with the mill. Having just become homeless, however, he was left without a secure place to store his belongings, and thus simply carried everything he owned around with him at all times, including the aforementioned items. “It was just him having all his personal items,” explained Wichita police spokesman Lt. James Espinoza. As for the firework in question, which most irresponsible news and propaganda sites alike have continued describing as a bomb or improvised explosive device (IED), Trevizo and his friends had, how ever unwisely, manufactured it at a friend’s house, intending to blow it up at a later time just for fun.

For all logical, rational, objectively-minded individuals, this explanation would suffice and end the case, so naturally this excludes liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion zealots by whom the official conclusion is unacceptable for no other reason than it denies them the opportunity to further their program of defaming and vilifying conservatives, pro-lifers and religious believers, pushing the war on women lie and demanding access to abortion mills be secured and protected, at Constitutional and taxpayer expense, from violent, murderous, female-hating pro-lifers. Basically, these fanatics are exploiting a poor, homeless man forced to schlep his worldly belongings with him as he sought employment and a better life, which ended up causing a minor misunderstanding, to fling their old, predictable, stenchy pseudo-intellectual diarrhea around and forward their own agenda. The most egregious mainstream examples of this come from The Young Turks and MoveOn.

TYT, in their typical contempt for truth and political, ideological rivals, unequivocally and repeatedly claim  this was an attempted bombing by a pro-life Christian terrorist, that the firework is really a powerful bomb that could cause damages equivalent to 9/11 and that the media has ignored this conspiracy (see this and this TYT video).  All of these lies are readily debunked. Trevizo supports abortion, his religious views, or lack thereof, are publicly unknown and irrelevant, the “bomb” was a firework and the media has extensively covered this incident, including every mainstream news sources like ABC, Associated Press, CBS, CNN, and Newsweek. Truth is obviously of no consequence to TYT in their anti-pro-life, anti-religious crusade.

Uber liberal organization MoveOn goes even further, titling Trevizo a domestic terrorist and creating a petition demanding he be officially prosecuted for attempted terrorism. Oh please! These extremists are essentially willing to throw one of their own, remember Trevizo is pro-abortion, under the bus in order to further their dishonest political agenda. The Site also dismisses the official police conclusion as laughably unbelievable and libels the police chief and his department with accusations of professional misconduct.

Liberal feminist site Dame Magazine, in a similar vein, is using this incident to politic for abortion mills to be put on par with other secure sites that prohibit civilians from carrying any weapons, regardless of intentions, motivations and permits, with violators automatically charged and prosecuted. This is unnecessary; it wastes time, money, legal resources and criminalizes law-abiding individuals. Then again, Dame supports “buffer zones” around abortion mills, effectively limiting and criminalizing dissent, free speech and expression in crucial public areas, defaming pro-lifers as violent, aggressive women-haters, in the process.

For her part, the mill’s owner, abortionist Julie Burkhart, also baselessly, slanderously and contradictorily claims that even if Trevizo “didn’t intend to harm us…the sheer fact that he had an explosive device means that his intentions certainly weren’t pure.” How do you know this, Dr. Burkhart? Are you telepathic and so able to discern his true, impure intentions embedded in his mind?

Nothing these liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion extremists propagandize is mistakenly false and subject to correction once the facts are known. It is, rather, disinformation and propaganda purposely crafted and disseminated to benefit themselves and damage their rivals. In essence, these people abide by the dictum “never let the facts (or anything or anyone) get in the way of a good story,” or your beliefs, ideology or agenda; this obviously includes sacrificing even the disenfranchised, defenseless and those who share your politics. An innocent, homeless, poor, powerless, vulnerable man whose only “crime” was seeking employment while carrying his personal belongings with him because he had no other choice is thus now being callously and dishonestly exploited by utterly disgusting, brutal, pathetic, socially Darwinistic, compassionless, loveless, inhumane and soulless liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion extremists, demagogues and ideologues intent on advancing their agenda at all and anyone’s costs.

 

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.

 

Atheism and the Tucson, Arizona Shooting

Jared Lee Loughner, suspected shooter at a Tucson, Arizona Safeway store that killed at least 6 people and injured another 14 on January 8, 2011, is an atheist. Does this prove atheism leads to mental illness? Does this prove atheism inspires murder and/or violent acts? Atheists will be no doubt be quick to say, perhaps even scream, that it does not; there are atheists who may even become angry or enraged over the very suggestion or question.

Think back, however, to April of 2009 when self professed Christian Youtub user Anthony Powell murdered Asia McGowan, a girl with whom he was obsessed, before taking his own life on the campus of Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Michigan. Many of you may not remember or even know of this incident as it received minimal coverage in the mainstream media. It was, however, a sensation among atheists on the web. If you are unfamiliar with this tragedy, search for it on Google and/or Youtube. Many atheists to this day exploit this tragedy to rage against religion. These individuals are quick to not only point out Powell’s Christianity but also fallaciously assert that this proves religion if it does not cause mental illness certainly nurtures it by, among other things, encouraging people to stay clear from professional, medical treatment of such illness. These are just some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Many have also found it appropriate to blame Youtuber VenomFangX for the murder-suicide because Powell was a fan of his. Some have blamed VenomFangX more directly while others take the indirect route, implying a connection.

Many atheists are quick to point the finger at religion, or some particular religion, for allowing and/or encouraging the crimes or violent behavior of a person who happens to hold religious views. These atheists cannot provide any substantive evidence or logical reason for such a conclusion, which, it seems, is merely the product of their irrational anti religion prejudice and hate. Thus, if we are to apply this same logic, perhaps atheism should be blamed for the crimes and violence committed by atheists. In Loughner we have an atheist whose Myspace and Youtube accounts paint a picture of a psychologically disturbed man vehemently and militantly against religion, God and the US government. Upon this hate, Loughner’s motivation and justification for his murder spree was founded. Though their precise philosophical foundations may have differed somewhat, we have seen many atheists just like Loughner in the past. Pekka-Eric Auvinen, Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Cho Seung-Hui, Matti Saari, and Russell Williams, to name a few.

Is it now fair and time to put the blame on atheism for encouraging and fomenting the thoughts and actions that lead atheists to engage in criminal and violent behavior in the same way atheists have blamed religion? After all, the common thread among these atheists is their atheism.

 

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.

 

Loaded Language and Political Gain: The Exploitation of George Tiller’s Murder By Abortion Supporters

Whenever there are incidents of crime against abortion providers or supporters, the pro-abortion lobby gears up its propaganda machine to blame the whole pro-life movement for those crimes, such as the murder of abortionist Dr George Tiller or Eric Rudolph’s bombing of an Atlanta abortion clinic. According to the pro-abortion lobby, founded on a philosophy that champions hate, violence and other bad/criminal things against abortion supporters and providers, the pro-life campaign naturally produces followers who endorse and execute criminal, terrorist and militant acts against the latter. However, this characterization of the pro-life movement is wrong and unfounded and is simply an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to defame and discredit the movement, paving the way for its persecution, oppression and ultimate destruction.

There is a very vocal and visible aspect of the pro-abortion lobby that exploits crimes allegedly committed by those claiming affiliation with the pro-life movement, like Tiller’s murder, in an attempt to garner political and moral advantage over the movement by spinning such crimes as indicative of the entire movement. A movement which, therefore, must be stopped, or at least weakened, in all respects, politically, morally, philosophically, legally and so forth. (for example, check here, here and here. However, those who would put forth such assertions about the pro-life movement have never been able to substantiate them with hard evidence. As proof, therefore, such individuals offer nothing more than a mishmash of unsubstantiated, untenable, obscure, irrational, illogical arguments and statements but which are carefully worded, tactfully employing emotive or loaded language (like hate, violent, terrorist, and so forth). The famous liberal, pro-abortion and icon of the Left site The Huffington Post, for instance, is rife with such characterizations, like from Jeffrey Feldman, Shannon Moore and Mary Mapes. Notice how they also try and connect Christians with abortion violence; even though abortion is not exclusively a Christian issue but is, rather, one which cuts across many political, religious and irreligious lines.

The aim of emotive or loaded language is to extract the conditioned, negative, irrational, paranoid response and perspectives from people that it tends to incite towards their subject, like disgust, fear, loathing, condemnation and discrediting of the entire pro-life movement. Information about loaded language may be found here, here and here. For example, the National Organization for Women stated the day after Tiller’s murder that “the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded (anti-abortion) criminal acts for decades.” Who or what is the “criminal enterprise?” Who are the “domestic terrorists and violent racketeers?” The vagueness of these concepts is deliberate for they are meant, of course, to generalize the entire pro-life movement, from the most pacifist to the most violent elements, both words and actions as some kind of terrorist organization and/or a type of organized crime that is an imminent threat not only to the safety of the individual, community and/or society but also to national security, the American way of life, the Constitution and so forth. Similar sentiments, as we have seen, have been expressed by many others in the mainstream pro-abortion movement and media.

When such pejorative perceptions of the pro-life movement is successfully rooted in the mind of the public and especially those with political and judicial power, the social, political and legal opposition to and persecution and oppression of the movement becomes easier to foment, justify and normalize. In other words, attacking and ultimately denying the Constitutional rights of pro-life individuals and organizations not only becomes possible but also legitimate. At this point, the longstandng objective of many in the pro-abortion movement of silencing, marginalizing and rendering irrelevant the pro-life movement, thereby enabling abortion to thrive uncontested, unquestioned and uncriticized becomes evermore possible. Nothing endangers Constitutional rights more than irrationality and paranoia. As Father Frank Pavone states, “I wouldn’t put it past abortion advocates in Congress to use this tragedy to put more protections in place for the so-called right to choose.” We have witnessed the political persecuation of the pro-life movement in recent history. During the Clinton presidency, for example, even the most pacifist pro-life campaigners were targetted by the State, such as labelling nuns praying on the sidewalk by abortion clinics as terrorists and subsequentally targetted by police and many pro-life organizations, like Life Dynamics, who were in no way linked to violent activity being spied upon, including having their mail opened. You can check here, here.

With a pro-abortion President Obama in office combined, with Tiller’s death, the resulting paranoia and the recently released report “Rightwing Extremism” in which the pro-life movement is given special attention, the attacks on the Constitutional rights and freedoms of the latter from the highest offices in America may have been reinvigorated. We already know that Attorney General Eric Holder has directed U.S. Marshals to protect “approprite people and facilities around the nation”…in order to “help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.” What this means is unclear. It could mean that any person, group, activity, speech, expression can be arbitrarily targetted on the basis of preventing “any related acts of violence from occurring” or under the guise of “Homeland security.” How this current wave of hysteria against the pro-life movement plays out, if it has any longterm force and what its eventual consequences will be obviously remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is the pro-life movement is facing stiff opposition from the public, the mainstream media and political and legal forces in Amerca’s highest offices reinforced, perhaps even encouraged, by the propaganda of the pro-abortion lobby. The pro-life movement must, however, continue its message against abortion while making it clear that violence of any kind against abortion providers and/or supporters is unnacceptable, counter-productive and hypocritical to the whole idea of pro-life.

 

Anti Abortion, Pro Life Violence is Rare

Regardless of how the pro-abortion lobby wants to spin it, incidents of crime, especially violent crime, including murder, against abortion providers and clinic workers is very rare. Consider this, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries reports that on average there are about 800 work-related homicides per year, most of which are committed during robberies. From the legalization of abortion in 1973 to 2009, there have been 8 murders of abortionists, 5 of which occurred between 1993 and 1994. During those latter 2 years, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that 2,154 work-related murders occurred in the US of which one occupation, garage/service station attendant, had 5 times and two occupations, auto mechanic and janitor, had almost 3 times the deaths suffered by abortionists in almost 36 years at 40, 23 and 21 deaths, respectively. Tiller was the first abortionist murdered in 11 years, the last being Dr. Barnett Slepian in October, 1998.

As a workplace, abortion clinics are not prone to crime. Violent crime has been particularly rare, having victimized abortion clinics 6 times from 1993 to 2009, including 5 shootings and 1 bombing, resulting in 6 deaths and 2 injuries. Compare this, for instance, to the over 59 school shootings resulting in some 142 deaths in the US during that same period of time. To put things in even more perspective, from 1993-2007 there were 559 on the job murders of taxicab and livery drivers; of these, 103 occurred during the peak years for murder of abortionists from 1993-94.

Violence against abortion providers and support staff is so rare that when major organizations like the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health compile studies, lists and/or statistics of work-related violence or occupations most susceptible to it, abortion, whether as provider or support staff, is not even listed. Rather, workers most at risk for violent crime, like homicide, include taxicab drivers and chauffeurs, those providing protective services, such as bailiffs, detectives, police, sheriffs and security guards, gas station and garage workers, jewelry store workers, bank workers, grocery store workers and teachers.

People have complained that this is a false analogy because it compares occupations where workers are interacting daily with the public, whereas abortionists and their staff are not, and therefore more at risk for crime. This is not true. Abortionists and their staff, like others in the medical profession, are also in daily contact with the public, their contact information, both business and private, attainable and their clinics, usually, readily accessible. Once off the job, most abortionists and their staff do what most people do – go out in public places, such as shopping malls, movies, games, church, etc. Therefore, at some time and place, to someone truly intent and prepared in committing a crime, the opportunity to do so will present itself. The real reason why these “doctors” and their staff don’t suffer more violence is because the pro lifer desiring and/or willing to commit crime is extremely rare.

However, to appease these complaints we may compare abortion to other careers in the medical profession, which is one of the most dangerous for work-related violence in the US. Even here, though, the instances of violent crime against abortion providers or their support staff is very rare, with those working outside of the abortion field being the most victimized, the primary perpetrators being patients in psychiatric wards, emergency and waiting rooms, geriatric units or in-home care. Among the highest risk factors for such violence include mental disorders of patients, long wait times for patients and overcrowding. Therefore, even compared with other medical careers, abortion is among the safest.

Crime against abortionists, then, is simply something sensationalized and hyped up by the pro-abortion lobby and the media. The former does it to make the problem appear bigger than it is in an attempt to defame and discredit, gaining political/moral advantage over the pro-life movement while the media typically does it for ratings and sales; as the old saying goes “if it bleeds, it leads.” It is somewhat similar to the fixation with homicide in the postal services industry during the 1980s and 1990s when the media made it appear that it was an epidemic. The fact has always been that work-related violence in postal service work is rare. Creating the perception that abortionists are under constant threat of violent crime is an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to exploit crimes against abortionists to garner political, legal and societal support for the persecution and oppression of the pro-life movement. This is an issue which I will address in my next blog.

(NOTE: I will make this very clear; this is not about trivializing or denying the existence of violence against abortion providers or supporters nor am I saying they do not deserve protection by the law. What we are presented with by the pro-abortion lobby and the media, however, is a message suggesting abortionists and abortion clinics are constant scenes of crime, and particularly violent crimes at that. This is not true, and all I am saying is we need get away from sensationalism, paranoia and hysteria and logically and rationally evaluate the situation, putting things in proper perspective because when we do that it becomes clear that abortionists or their workplaces are not more prone to violence than anybody else. )

 

Anti Abortion, Pro Life Movement Not to Blame for Dr George Tiller’s Murder

The liberal media, bloggers and pro-abortion lobby have attempted to link the entire pro-life movement to the death of abortionist Dr George Tiller ever since his May 31, 2009 slaying, spinning the latter, the act of one individual, supposedly a pro-life supporter, as indicative, exemplary and normal of the entire pro-life movement. Many have exploited this crime to argue that it is time to legally and politically clamp down on the hate, violence, terrorism and harassment, in deed and in word, of which the whole pro-life movement is guilty, directly and indirectly. For example, NOW’s statement. However, to accuse and convict the whole pro-life movement of Tiller’s murder and of hate, violence, terrorism, harassment, and related concepts, whether in word or deed, whether directly or indirectly, is wrong, untenable and simply obscures reality. In this time where irrationality, hysteria and paranoia are easy to incite and pander to, we need to take a step back and objectively analyze the situation and the abortion debate for there is nothing tangible, concrete and direct anyone can legitimately use as evidence to objectively accuse, prosecute, convict and condemn the entire, or even a majority of, the pro-life movement of direct or indirect involvement in Tiller’ s murder or of hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other criminal things in any sense.

Those who would charge the whole pro-life movement with involvement in Tiller’s murder have not proven any causal link between the two but rather have assumed it according to their own prejudices, and thus the charge is void in every sense and must be dismissed until concrete and direct evidence can be provided. Such an accusation is premised on the assumption that the pro-life movement is founded on hate, violence, terrorism, harassment and related concepts which organically foments and fuels criminal and extremist pro-life activities. A Houston Chronicle editorial exemplifies this, stating the pro-life movement has “indulged” in “hate-filled rhetoric…for decades…establishing a climate that accepts and even condones violence against abortion providers.” Similar sentiments have been echoed by Mike Hendricks and Yael T. Abouhalkah, at the Kansas City Star, Satchel Robinson at Daily Kos, Adele Stan at The Huffington Post, Susan J. Demas at Capitol Chronicle, among many others. Again, there is no objective and concrete proof that this is what the pro-life movement is based on, especially as it pertains to the entire pro-life movement, and thus must be dismissed as a false generalization.

The pro-life movement involves many different organizations and individuals from all walks of life, cutting across religious, political and economic backgrounds and beliefs. These include atheists, agnostics, conservatives, feminists, liberals, medical practitioners, people and organizations of various religious faiths and so forth. According to a Gallup poll released in May, 2009, a majority of Americans are pro-life. With the exception of a fringe minority of extremists, pro-life supporters have never promoted, encouraged, supported or partaken in what would legally be considered criminal or militant activity like violence, murder, hate, terrorism, harassment and so forth. The unequivocal public denunciation by the majority, mainstream of the pro-life movement of such words and deeds by individuals claiming to be part of the pro-life movement should be proof enough. Every mainstream pro-life organization has condemned, for example, Tiller’s murder. Many pro-life opponents may question or deny the sincerity of such disapproval, but such people most likely do not know us in the pro-life movement, what we truly feel in our hearts and minds and are judging us through their own prejudices. Some may even be exploiting such criminal actions to attain political advantage over the pro-life movement. Mary Kay Culp, Executive Director of Kansans for Life sums it up well saying “the actions of militants do not represent the agenda of the anti-abortion movement and are a setback to its goals.” We in the pro-life movement do use sharp criticisms, critiques and explicit visuals (like pictures and videos) and make use of political and legal avenues to denounce and stop what we see as a wrong. This should not be spun or considered as anything other than what it is – civilized opposition to abortion. The majority, mainstream pro-life movement is peaceful and pacifist, in word and in deed.

Secondly, what do these individuals mean by hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other pejorative labels they attach to the pro-life movement? These terms are used so loosely and subjectively that anything with which they disagree may be labeled as such, and thus such terms merely reflect and express the biases and prejudices of those who use them rather than the truth of those upon whom they are placed. Therefore it is important to carefully discern what is really being targeted when opponents and critics of the pro-life movement use such terms as any disagreement, opposition or criticism to their beliefs, ideology, perspective can be spun as “hate,” “terrorism,” violence,” “harassment,” and related concepts. Tiller, for instance, called the whole campaign against him “terrorism,” and not just the criminal acts against him, which were, again, vilified by the mainstream pro-life movement.

Criminal and/or militant activity is not what the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement wants or needs. On the one hand, the pro-life movement realizes such activity would be political, moral and social suicide as its adversaries would exploit them to condemn the movement and its goals and advance calls for its political and legal persecution, which is what is happening now. On the other hand, the pro-life movement understands that such activity is not only illegal but also inherently wrong and immoral regardless of the responses it would incite from the movement’s adversaries or the type of media coverage it would garner. If the pro-life movement is to maintain its moral advantage over the pro-abortion campaign, the former must respect the law and all life regardless; anything less is hypocrisy. Murder is murder whether it is by the abortionist or by someone against abortion, whether it is the unborn child or the abortion doctor, and thus must be condemned as such. If we are to arbitrarily decide who lives and who dies, we will become a nation in chaos, a lawless nation in which nobody can be safe and in which anybody can be targeted by anyone, at anytime, for any reason. As Princeton law professor Robert P. George in National Review says “let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.” Anyone, then, linking violent acts of extremists with the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement either does so out of ignorance, prejudice and/or as an attempt to garner political and/or moral advantage over their adversaries and must be dismissed as such unless direct proof can be used to substantiate their claims.