Wednesday, August 10, 2005

"Eliminating" the Opposition

The "pro-choice", as-long-as-you-don't-chose-to-adopt, groups have joined the mudslinging. An ad by NARAL suggests that SCOTUS nominee Judge Roberts, provided legal aid by filling papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans”.

The ad is false.And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law. The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

I wonder how NARAL believes this happened. Do they think Judge Roberts is a wizard & got hold of a time turner that did survive the DA member's fight against the Death Eaters? Is there something going on that J K Rowling & the Ministry of Magic is not telling us about?

NARAL’s ad not only misleading, but also lying. In fact:
In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
In the 1986 memo, Roberts called abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons. Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers.

Sure sounds like a supporter of clinic bombers to me.

On the other hand, the superhero, "Dianisis", of a new animated video by Planned Parenthood, says, while standing in front of pro-life demonstrators, that:
"Under the First Amendment of our Constitution they are allowed to express their beliefs…Yet they can sometimes become unruly and sometimes they get a little too close. But mostly I just wish they would disappear...."
and proceeds to take out a gun & shoot the pro-life demonstrators with condoms, which encase the demonstrators for a moment & explodes in a puff of black smoke, thereby "eliminating" them.

Dawn Eden, another girl blogger from NY :-) has a great post on this video with still photos. She also has a link to Saint Kansas, who has posted frame-by-frame stills that show a pro-life demonstrator being decapitated. Lest you think that the violence of the pro-abortion movement is limited to cartoons, please visit abortionviolence.com , which shows that there are many instances of attacks on pro-lifers that the media has chosen to ignore.

Now, just for one second, imagine that the pro-life movement produced a video, aimed at young people, whose superhero brandished a gun at demonstrators & made them "disappear".

HAT TIP: Pat in NC

Comments:
The Planned Parenthood video is akin to hate speech. I first heard about this on the Michael Medved radio show.

I have also been doing a great deal of reading online about the NARAL commercial. You are right, it is a lie. That's right, a lie: not an embelishment, not partisan politics, but an outright lie.

In fact, the woman they feature on the commercial was the target of an abortion clinic bombing in 1998. That is something like 8 years after the Supreme Court Case that Roberts was involved in: 8 YEARS AFTER!!!
 
Since when do facts matter to these asshats? SInce he can get cheap leagal representation, he should sue their asses off
 
That's interesting. I must be behind on this, b/c I haven't seen the advertisement. Also hadn't heard about the pro-choice (not necessarily pro-abortion) video. That is also interesting since one of the primary arguements against the pro-life movement is that they advocate killing to safe babies. I am disappointed in Planned Parenthood for this video - I normally support their pro-choice endeavors. Thanks for sharing. Clearly advocating violence against either side would be wrong.
 
Dear mep:

I find the tone of you comment reasonable. I must, however, disagree with you on one point: "pro-choice" is in fact "pro-abortion".

If one favors abortion rights then they are in fact endorsing the murder of unborn children: by being what you call "pro-life" one ensures that abortions will continue in this country.
 
I'm certain you meant to write "pro-choice" will ensure that abortions continue. But that is not the action that all pro-choice people represent. I dont think I that could ever make the choice do have an abortion, but I don't feel comfortable telling other people that they don't have the right to make that decision on their own.

What about the "culture of life" and their support for pestacide testing on pregnant women and chidren? Should we really call them pro-life? or just anti-abortion.
 
Every time I think I've seen the left reach an all time low in promoting their agendas, one of their senators, media components or organizations like PP prove me wrong.
These folks are just plain beyond shame, and no matter how low they go, how blatantly they lie or how just plain outrageous their spew, they get instant backup from all their fellow travellers.
It's insane.
 
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about Roberts but even I thought the ad was over-reaching. There is a small implication that he was being an activist on the issue because he took a lot of initiative to pursue this. And contextualized by the climate at the time I think that is a legitimate avenue of scrutiny. But, the ad was OTT to say the least.

There does seem to be some skeletons in Roberts closet though, Drudge had something else on him tonight. Bush chose a very safe, uncontroversial choice in Roberts, but he's not exactly somone with verve, idealism and personality that the right can rally around. He may find it harder to defend himself because the attack dogs on the right are slightly codified by the fact Roberts isn't really all that special.

Democrats may well be better off keeping their traps shut because the screw up the Roberts nomination, and Bush might give them something a whole lot worse to contend with.
 
If you delve into anyone's past deeply enough, you can always find something, even something really picayune, to exploit. When you have a group of people with the media access the Democrats possess, you can take that piece of trivial information and spin it into a major issue.
Graham, you are absolutely right: Roberts is probably the best offering Bush is going to give the Dems, from their point of view, and if they DO screw him up, the subsequent nominations may move farther right, and eventually there WILL be a new justice, only he/she might be the left's worst nightmare instead of relative moderate like Roberts.
 
I will say one thing ... thank god we do not have civil war in this country , we just attack each other in other ways ... a vey
 
I've read of this awful commercial, but not seen it. If Naral is a charity, then it appears to be acting in a political manner, which could mean it loses it's charitable status.

Normally pro-choice organizations are actually pro-abortion. They don't offer choices for the pregnant women, they push her towards an abortion clinic.

Maybe the confusion is down to John Kerry. He claims to be Catholic, but supports issues which the church condemns. He claims to be anti-abortion one day, but supports partial birth abortions on another day.
 
NY Girl, do you remember when the "Gang of 14" saved the Republic from the fell clutches of those Bible-thumping fundamentalist demons, those unstable right-wing fanatics who believed the Senate should (gasp) vote?

Remember how Eternal World Peace ensued after the Holy Filibuster (which takes away the sin of the world and gives it to Karl Rove) was saved, and judicial appointment debates would be clean and without blemish from now on? We know that all of this is true - the MSM said so.

Speaking as a Bible-thumping fundamentalist unstable right-wing fanatical demon, I have an observation: Eternal World Peace ain't what it used to be.
 
Mwalimu, you gave me an idea for a fun version of American Pie :-)

But, seriously, you're right, there are some arrogant people who want to do away with our democracy because they think they know better than the people of the United States.
 
Another death penalty poll Resource... LifeLaw.org . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as death penalty poll .
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?