Colorado Again

We’re still learning the details, but some information has emerged on Friday’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. It does appear that Planned Parenthood was the target but that no one was killed there because the patients and staff went behind a security door (abortion clinics have developed extensive security procedures since a wave of anti-abortion violence hit in the 90’s). Preliminary reports are that the shooter was talking about baby parts so this does not appear to have been a random attack.

A few little thoughts:

Democrats who are jumping on this to promote gun legislation can go to hell. Colorado has background checks and an assault weapons ban and it’s still not clear what weapons were used. I have lost patience with this business of milking every tragedy for their agenda.

Last week, we got a bunch of think pieces asking why Muslims always have to denounce jihadist violence. We’re already seeing those same outlets demanding that anti-abortion politicians and Christian organizations denounce this act of violence. Of course, many of them, including Mike Huckabee, already have.

Was this terrorism? Well, it wasn’t part of a mass organization to attack abortion clinics. But it is violence directed against innocent people to try to end abortion. So, yeah, I have no problem calling it terrorism.

There has been a recent uptick in attacks on abortion clinics. But, overall, violence directed against clinics and providers is way down from the late 90’s. Keep that in mind.

In keeping with my previous posts, I will not name the shooter. I will, however, name Garret Swasey, the police officer murdered by this lunatic.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    Great work dealing with those doctored videos, pundits, talk show hosts, and politicians. I’m sure this was pure co-incidence though. Next.

    Thumb up 2

  2. CM

    “What we really have to start asking ourselves is what can we do as a nation to rectify the situation,” Mr Carson told ABC.
    “I think we should talk about the actual facts. If we can get rid of the rhetoric from either side and actually talk about the facts, I think that’s when we begin to make progress,” he added.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34958284

    Back in August, he said of Planned Parenthood, “One of the reasons that you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find a way to control that population.” A day later he claimedthat “the number one cause of death for black people is abortion.” (If you ask the CDC, it’s heart disease.)
    Yet, at the same time, it emerged that Carson had used that same type of fetal tissue in his researchas a pediatric neurosurgeon that Planned Parenthood has been accused of “selling” for profit, a claim that has been repeatedly refuted by official sources.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-view-confronts-ben-carson-on-abortion-you-should-be-applauding-planned-parenthood/

    But that’s ok, he’s calling the libtards libtards, so anything goes (short of criminality).

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    “What we really have to start asking ourselves is what can we do as a nation to rectify the situation,” Mr Carson told ABC.
    “I think we should talk about the actual facts. If we can get rid of the rhetoric from either side and actually talk about the facts, I think that’s when we begin to make progress,” he added.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34958284

    Back in August, he said of Planned Parenthood, “One of the reasons that you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find a way to control that population.” A day later he claimed that “the number one cause of death for black people is abortion.” (If you ask the CDC, it’s heart disease.)
    Yet, at the same time, it emerged that Carson had used that same type of fetal tissue in his research as a pediatric neurosurgeon that Planned Parenthood has been accused of “selling” for profit, a claim that has been repeatedly refuted by official sources.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-view-confronts-ben-carson-on-abortion-you-should-be-applauding-planned-parenthood/

    But that’s ok, he’s calling the libtards libtards, so anything goes (short of criminality).

    Thumb up 0

  4. Biggie G

    The personal responsibility lies with the shooter.  Did any of these videos say to go shoot up clinics?  Did any mainstream candidate incite violence?  Has any mainstream pundit called for shootings?  I haven’t heard everyone, but I would guess no.

    If someone reacts unreasonably to a political disagreement, where does the responsibility lie?  This had a tragic end, but at its root, that is what happened.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    A nutter group put out doctored tapes and claimed they showed things that they did not.
    Then all the rest of the nutters echoed it, and the conservative media promoted it, all the opportunists drove it into the ground on their blogs (for ad click dollars) or sent out fundraising messages about it, but worst of all, supposedly serious politicians acted like they believed it when they knew much better and made it seem somewhat true. Now you’ve got a guy, who will likely turn out to have mental problems but still, he goes and kills 3 people and then says “no more body parts”.
    It’s hard to argue that the people who put those videos out aren’t partly responsible for those 3 deaths. I guess we have radically different definitions of the word. In my world being in a position of considerable power and/or influence requires you to act in a responsible manner.

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    It wasn’t a “political disagreement” though, was it. It was using lies to spread fear and lies and to agitate. Well, I guess it worked.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Hal_10000 *

    CM, I think you’re totally wrong on this. Let me you give you an example why. I think global warming is real.  But I also think there are people who exaggerate its danger (which, to be fair, is very uncertain) or spin fantasy stories, such as this weekend’s claim that global warming would cause massive boulders to be hurled all over the world. Algore’s documentary exaggerated the amount of warming expected, the amount of sea level rise expected and the impact expected.  Does he then bear responsibility for ecoterrorists?  A few years ago, Neal Boortz put passages of Algore’s “Earth in the Balance” side by side with excerpts from the Unabomber’s manifesto and asked his readers to figure out which was which.  It was really hard.  Does Algore bear responsibility for that?

    What about people who claim that income inequality is starving people? Or the Vietnam protesters who claimed the US military was murdering babies? Or the anti-Thatcher or anti-Reagan people who said they were starving people?

    Heated rhetoric and exaggerated claims are, unfortunately, part of the political discourse. That heat gets really hot when you’re talking about what you see as the wholesale destruction of the planet or wholescale slaughter in a war or what pro-lifers see as murder on a massive holocaust-level scale. If you think a horror is being committed, there is nothing wrong with make your horror clear.  That does not make you responsible for people who decided to use terrorist violence to try to end it.

    Thumb up 3

  8. richtaylor365

    You are absolutely right, Biggie G. See, in CM land, wrongdoing should not be discussed or reported for fear that some lunatic might go all vigilante and take action against said wrongdoer. I know, totally nuts. In that magical mystical land, if someone says something or does something you don’t like, you just said it didn’t really happen, or that somehow what you saw or heard was magically doctored or falsified, there, your delicate sensibilities are intact and all is right with the world.

    It’s hard to argue that the people who put those videos out aren’t partly responsible for those 3 deaths.

    On the all time dumbest things you have ever written here, this is probably the dumbest, and that is saying something. I know that after the dust has settled and you have time to think about this, you will admit that emotions got that best of you and your rational side will want to retract this most stupid of stupid statements.

     In my world being in a position of considerable power and/or influence requires you to act in a responsible manner.

    Dang, I just got whiplash. First you call the guy a nutter, now he holds a “position of considerable power”, you are all over the place, which is it?

    So by reporting that a white police officer shot a black suspect, even if it was justified, the news media is now”partly responsible” if some Black Lives Matter nutter goes out and kills a cop?

    Of course, taking your stupid position to it’s natural conclusion, the news media (not Bush) is responsible for turning all those peaceful Muslims into Jihadists because they reported the Iraq War. Of course it is my position that The Iraq War didn’t really happen, all the news footage was doctored, yeah, that’s it.

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  9. CM

    Algore’s documentary exaggerated the amount of warming expected, the amount of sea level rise expected and the impact expected.

    This would seem to be the place to start with your comparison. We’d need that there was exaggeration, and then how meaningful it would be (in terms of hooking into an existing feeding frenzy, and resulting in people taking illegal action based on it).

    Does he then bear responsibility for ecoterrorists?

    Can you provide some details of what these ‘ecoterrorists’ have done? Gore’s documentary is pretty old now, can you draw a direct link? I think this is very weak.

    Does Algore bear responsibility for that?

    You’d need to provide the details and demonstrate how it likely resulted in ‘ecoterrorism’ for me to answer that.

    But details aside, yes Gore had a responsibility to be accurate. He was a political leader in a senior position.

    What about people who claim that income inequality is starving people?

    Which people, and what specifically are they claiming? Are they targeting any particular people or organisation, and using lies to do so? Were they parroting something that wasn’t true as though it were, via their positions in the media or with easy access to media? And constantly?

    If you think a horror is being committed, there is nothing wrong with make your horror clear.  

    IMO there certainly is something wrong with it if you use lies to do so and are in a position of influence (not sure how you get to strip away the two actual key ingredients). To me it is obvious that you share in the responsibility if there are repercussions (such as there has been with the Planned Parenthood fiasco). But then, as I said, I think perhaps we have quite different meanings of ‘responsibility’.

    Rich your post is so way off base I don’t even know where to start. Perhaps I should start with noting that I never advocated that “wrongdoing should not be discussed or reported” or anything of the sort, and also that the shooter isn’t the people/person who held a position of power of influence (I’m really not sure how you came to that conclusion). The rest of your post fails accordingly.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365

    Rich your post is so way off base I don’t even know where to start

    Which tells me I hit a bulls eye, mission accomplished.

    I’m really not sure how you came to that conclusion

    I didn’t, that was your conclusion. I was talking about the so called nutter that produced the videos, you know, the guy that taped those abortionists bragging about their entrepreneurial spirit in selling baby body parts, but yeah, they weren’t really saying that (even though they were).

    Given your disjointed sentences, yes it is easy to get confused. First you bring up “nutter groups”, then more nutters that echoed it, then the nutter media, then nutter politicians, wrap this whole nutter stew and your reader is supposed to figure out who you meant by “being in a position of considerable power”.

    But nice dodge on all the examples Hal gave you, all that weak flotsom proves you got nothing. But it does not stop you from assigning guilt.

    Face it, you have no idea these video’s were the catalyst. It is possible that he saw Cecile Richards do her 2 step on the news and got his info from that. So what is the real catalyst, Cecile Richards or the news media?

    But no political discourse or free speech in CM land.

     

     

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    Which tells me I hit a bulls eye, mission accomplished.

    I don’t see how that follows. You’ve misrepresented me…..unless that was your intention. If so, then yes you did really well. Congrats.

    I was talking about the so called nutter that produced the videos, you know, the guy that taped those abortionists bragging about their entrepreneurial spirit in selling baby body parts, but yeah, they weren’t really saying that (even though they were).

    Ok well thanks for clarifying. However you certainly confused the issue as I referred to the people who put the videos together as a “nutter group”, then wrote that the rest of the nutters echoed it. As I referred to the “group” I assume you must have been referring to the shooter himself when you said “the guy” (i.e. a single guy).

    In my view the shooter certainly bears ultimately responsibility as he took the action. But that does not absolve others who played a part.

    But nice dodge on all the examples Hal gave you, all that weak flotsom proves you got nothing.

    Ah right, yes, I forgot that none of the actual detail matters-  it’s all about black-and-white and binary, and anything else is for stoopid libtards. Any analogy automatically applies, it’s simply a matter of naming one and that’ll do. Same old same old then.

    But it does not stop you from assigning guilt.

    I’m talking about people in positions of power and holding sway acting responsibly.

    Face it, you have no idea these video’s were the catalyst. 

    Right, because apparently everything operates in a vacuum. Same old same old. No matter that the GOP candidates, on a debate stage, promoted a fictitious account of an already-falsified tape to cartoonish levels. No matter that anti-abortion rhetoric from prominent Republicans has centered almost entirely around the phrase “baby parts.” It refers to a specific charge – the harvesting of “baby parts” for profit, against a specific healthcare organisation, the same one attacked by a gunman last week. Co-incidence!

    Reports that the gunman uttered “no more baby parts” after the murders cannot be construed as having ANY other context other than the one that has been used as thumping anti-abortion, anti-Planned-Parenthood drumbeat by Fiorina, Cruz, other GOP presidential contenders, GOP members of Congress, GOP officials, and others touting those specific charges specifically against Planned Parenthood as an organisation.

    But no political discourse or free speech in CM land.

    From the start I’ve made it clear that this about responsibility. You know, the responsibility THAT COMES WITH FREE SPEECH. That you’ve taken that and concluded that it means I’m against free speech is well beneath you. Perhaps that was an emotional response rather than a rational one?

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    CM:

    …details aside, yes Gore had a responsibility to be accurate. He was a political leader in a senior position

    Rich:

     

    ….nice dodge….

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

    You have taken an untenable position , then keep failing in defending that position. You said;

    It’s hard to argue that the people who put those videos out aren’t partly responsible for those 3 deaths.

    So yes, you are totally saying that wrongdoing should not be reported or discussed for fear that a lunatic will go vigilante and take action against the wrongdoer. There is no way to sugar coat it, you are wrong in that position, the video makers are not at all responsible for the actions of a lunatic, none, not at all, not even a little bit.

    Again, taking that ridiculous position to an absurd conclusion, when Bernie Sanders targets the rich as hoarding all the wealth and depressing the economy, if a lunatic goes out and shoots Bill Gates, you must think Bernie is at fault.

    When Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary, perpetuated the lie (yes, lie) that some dumb video was the cause of the Benghazi attack and a lunatic decides that this video maker (or actor in the movie, or even an associate producer) deserves a bullet in the head for his recklessness, it is Obama and crew who is responsible.

    When BLM marches and chants ,”What do we want? dead cops”, then a follower goes out and shoots a cop, it’s all on BLM, right?

    I could give you a dozen more examples of how asinine your position is.  Your phony claim of responsibility is meaningless at that exact point where insanity starts, otherwise, you are just another one of those fascists that want speech regulated.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  14. CM

    You have taken an untenable position , then keep failing in defending that position. 

    Feel free to demonstrate that, but please try to do so without misrepresentation.

    So yes, you are totally saying that wrongdoing should not be reported or discussed for fear that a lunatic will go vigilante and take action against the wrongdoer.

    Which specific “wrongdoing” are you referring to? Or would that be just another “dodge” on my behalf? (If so, how is that consistent with your whole ‘discourse should occur without limits’ position – surely you can’t have it both ways?).

    I completely agree that wrongdoing should be reported and discussed. Again, that is not what I’m saying. But I see no point in repeating myself yet again if you’re going to keep up with such blatant misrepresentation. Really, what is the point of the misrepresentation, Rich? Unless you don’t see that you have a choice because you’re determined to argue with me?

     There is no way to sugar coat it, you are wrong in that position

    Do you have an actual argument to demonstrate why? So far you’re just misrepresenting my position on this instead (including on the Gore analogy, which I was clearly happy to explore but ultimately noted that he had a responsibility not to lie given his status).

    the video makers are not at all responsible for the actions of a lunatic, none, not at all, not even a little bit

    Well they are to me. But then, as I say, I think we define ‘responsibility’ quite differently. Yours is obviously a lot narrower than mine, likely because of that whole vacuum issue.

    Again, taking that ridiculous position to an absurd conclusion, when Bernie Sanders targets the rich as hoarding all the wealth and depressing the economy, if a lunatic goes out and shoots Bill Gates, you must think Bernie is at fault.

    In this analogy did Bernie name Gates or Microsoft specifically? Was Gates doing something specific with his money, or services? Is the economy an emotive trigger in the same way as abortion? Did Bernie use the same emotive language (murder, “barbaric atrocities against humanity” etc)? Did Bernie get hundreds or thousands of hours of video footage but fail to find any illegality so instead relied on smearing and editing of rich people going about their work and acting as if they weren’t being filmed?

    When Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary, perpetuated the lie (yes, lie) that some dumb video was the cause of the Benghazi attack and a lunatic decides that this video maker (or actor in the movie, or even an associate producer) deserves a bullet in the head for his recklessness, it is Obama and crew who is responsible.

    Again, you’re taking an “all or nothing” binary approach, which I don’t agree with. I’d need to look into the detail again and consider it. Happy to do so.

    When BLM marches and chants ,”What do we want? dead cops”, then a follower goes out and shoots a cop, it’s all on BLM, right?

    “All” on them? No, not at all. But certainly those chanting would need to bear a certainly level of responsibility (and the organisation if that chant was sanctioned, or allowed to occur when they could have stopped it).

    I could give you a dozen more examples of how asinine your position is.

    Let me know when you find one that works, and doesn’t rely on a misrepresentation of my position.

    Your phony claim of responsibility is meaningless at that exact point where insanity starts, otherwise, you are just another one of those fascists that want speech regulated.

    Way to underline that you simply can’t comprehend what I’m actually saying, even though I’ve repeated it to make it clear. No wonder things are as they are.

    “Sorry, David Daleiden [Center for Medical Progress founder, who spearheaded the recent sting videos],” NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue wrote in a recent Facebook post. “You don’t get to create fake videos and accuse abortion providers of ‘barbaric atrocities against humanity’ one day and act shocked when someone shoots to kill in those same facilities the next.”
    When you take specific steps to argue that Planned Parenthood doctors are cold-blooded mass murderers, it is hard to make sure none of them decide that violence is the appropriate response.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/30/9816870/planned-parenthood-violence-controversy/in/9582415

    I genuinely don’t understand how you can argue that actions occur in a vacuum.

    Thumb up 1

  15. InsipiD

    A nutter group put out doctored tapes and claimed they showed things that they did not.

    This was far more a matter of “edited for time” than changing the meaning.  Planned Parenthood is a disgusting and despicable organization built on hopes for eugenic manipulation and trading in lies about their current role.  That doesn’t mean that the place deserves to be shot up, but to blame the videos for this shooting is wrong.  It’s also wrong to say that everyone who is against Planned Parenthood agrees with the shooter or had a hand in the shooting is a disgusting way to belittle political opponents.

     

    Why don’t we have a thumbs down again?

    Thumb up 1

  16. richtaylor365

     you simply can’t comprehend what I’m actually saying, even though I’ve repeated it to make it clear

    What you are saying is abundantly clear, you will only allow discussion or reporting of wrongdoing (even the  mere appearance of wrongdoing) unless it is done in a “responsible” manner, with you being the final arbiter on how “responsible” is defined. Face it, the only difference between you and those cry baby fascists at Missouri and Princeton  is that you have a funny accent.

    I genuinely don’t understand how you can argue that actions occur in a vacuum.

    Ah yes, the get out of jail free card of the “nothing happens in a vacuum” argument. There is no black or white, right or wrong because that old vacuum thing allows us to deflect and transfer blame to wherever we decide. The same weak cheese that initiates lawsuits against gun manufacturers for guns used in a crime, or against car makers when a dumbshit wraps his Porsche around a tree. It is never anyone’s fault and blame is mitigated with ease because, you know, vacuum. Same old tired progressive moral relativism, nothing ever changes with you guys.

     

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    How am I doing that Hal? I’m not advocating limits on speech at all. I’m referring to the responsibility that comes with free speech when you’re in a position of power/influence.

    Rich, let me know when you’re ready to respond to what I’ve actually written. I’ve already asked you to stop with the misrepresentation. Or are you simply incapable? Sounds like your accusation of emotion was pure projection.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    “It’s also wrong to say that everyone who is against Planned Parenthood agrees with the shooter or had a hand in the shooting is a disgusting way to belittle political opponents.”

    Who is claiming that? Certainly not me. So why suggest it?

    Thumb up 1

  19. CM

    So this place is now somewhere where blatant mispresentation is expected? There are officially no standards at all now? Is this designed to increase traffic somehow?

    Thumb up 0

  20. InsipiD

    “It’s also wrong to say that everyone who is against Planned Parenthood agrees with the shooter or had a hand in the shooting is a disgusting way to belittle political opponents.”
    Who is claiming that? Certainly not me. So why suggest it?

    Ahem,

    Reports that the gunman uttered “no more baby parts” after the murders cannot be construed as having ANY other context other than the one that has been used as thumping anti-abortion, anti-Planned-Parenthood drumbeat by Fiorina, Cruz, other GOP presidential contenders, GOP members of Congress, GOP officials, and others touting those specific charges specifically against Planned Parenthood as an organisation.

    As soon as you equated political opposition to abortion and specific opposition to giving Planned Parenthood federal tax money with culpability in the shooter’s unconfirmed motive.

    By your yardstick, nobody could oppose abortion or funding Planned Parenthood without being responsible for the California shooting.  Further, as soon as anyone here challenges your intellectual honesty, you post what amounts to a “citation needed” rather than admitting that anyone on the left has ever committed a politically motivated violent crime.

    Does he then bear responsibility for ecoterrorists?
    Can you provide some details of what these ‘ecoterrorists’ have done? Gore’s documentary is pretty old now, can you draw a direct link? I think this is very weak.

    As if you’ve never heard of ELF or Greenpeace.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    No, noting that the motive of the shooter was clearly related to the current controversy over “body parts” and their supposed “sale” (and people who are supposedly in positions of responsibility calling Planned Parenthood murderers, and what they do “barbaric atrocities against humanity” etc etc etc) doesn’t equate to saying that “everyone who is against Planned Parenthood agrees with the shooter or had a hand in the shooting”. I’m sure there are many people who don’t like at least one aspect of what Planned Parenthood do, but who equally don’t like lies and deception and political opportunism via hyperbole.

    By your yardstick, nobody could oppose abortion or funding Planned Parenthood without being responsible for the California shooting.

    Nonsense. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Someone could oppose abortion but not have an issue with Planned Parenthood specifically, (or specific others who carry them out). Or they could “have a problem with them” but not agree with the methods used to try and destroy them (the sting operation and misleading videos, and exaggerations/hyperbole coming from politicians and the usual pundit suspects).

    Further, as soon as anyone here challenges your intellectual honesty, you post what amounts to a “citation needed” rather than admitting that anyone on the left has ever committed a politically motivated violent crime.

    I asked for some specifics so I could consider the analogy. I don’t see that Hal was challenging my “intellectual honesty” when he offered up the analogy.

    As if you’ve never heard of ELF or Greenpeace.

    That wasn’t the question though.

    Has ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ been specifically referenced during the act of murdering people? Or found to be a direct motive?

    The usual automatic everything-is-unrelated defence of “you can’t prove it was related” doesn’t work in this shooting.

    Thumb up 0