Blogs and Stories
Pro-Life's Happy Warrior
Mike Hutmacher, Wichita Eagle / MCT; AP Photo
Operation Rescue’s Randall Terry tells The Daily Beast’s Max Blumenthal that, while not condoning Sunday’s murder of abortionist George Tiller, the “evil” victim bears blame and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t.
George Tiller was one of only a handful of doctors in the United States who performed late-term abortions. For years, he was demonized by right-wing politicians, antiabortion zealots, and radio jocks—Bill O’Reilly accused him of “Nazi stuff,” he was shot in both arms in 1993 by an attempted assassin, and his clinic was once bombed. On Sunday, he was murdered while serving as an usher at church. The suspected killer, Scott Roeder, was an apparent associate of Operation Rescue, a radical antiabortion outfit that inspired attacks on several abortion doctors during the 1990s. Speaking with The Daily Beast less than 24 hours after Tiller’s murder, Randall Terry, one of Tiller’s most strident antagonists, stopped short of endorsing Tiller’s murder, he also blamed the victim—literally—while also proclaiming: “I am happy for the babies who will not die at his hands.”
“It’s clear that George Tiller did reap what he sowed,” Terry told me. “Our duty in this movement and in this time is to not fear and not flinch and not retreat a single inch.”
“It’s clear that George Tiller did reap what he sowed,” Terry told me. “Our duty in this movement and in this time is to not fear and not flinch and not retreat a single inch. The pro-abortion community and the Obama administration are going to try to browbeat the pro-life movement into surrendering our most effective images so we must remain aggressive.”
During the 1990s, Terry organized blockades outside women’s health clinics across the country. These demonstrations often turned violent, and some of Terry’s closest cadres resorted to domestic terrorism. In 1998, while cooking dinner for his wife and four children, Barnett Slepian—a doctor who performed abortions and whose home had been the site of protests by Terry and his followers—was shot to death through his kitchen window by James Kopp, a former volunteer at Operation Rescue's Binghamton, N.Y., office. With Tiller's death at the suspected hands of another Operation Rescue cadre, Terry has revised a familiar public-relations tactic: denying all responsibility while highlighting the doctor's supposed evildoing.
While condemning Tiller as “every bit as evil as Nazi war criminals,” Terry declared, “I take no responsibility whatsoever [for Tiller’s murder]. We are absolutely committed to nonviolence and peaceful action. We’ve been peacefully protesting against this holocaust for years and the reason something like this sticks out is because we’re such a peaceful movement.”
Terry also defended Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly against accusations that his stream of invective against Tiller incited the doctor’s murderer to take action. “O’Reilly exposed him and I think it was good that he did,” Terry remarked. “If you’re looking to cast blame, the blame falls to the man who tried to shoot him and to Tiller because it’s Tiller’s deeds that precipitated this.”
In order to deflect charges that Operation Rescue has spawned acts of domestic terrorism, Terry painted Roeder as a lone wolf who “just snapped.” “When was the last time an abortion doctor was killed?” Terry asked me. “It’s been over 10 years.” When I pointed out that antiabortion violence had virtually disappeared during the presidency of George W. Bush, when abortion opponents felt they could accomplish their goals through political means, and now with a Democratic government the antiabortion movement’s radical wing might return to “direct action” tactics like assassination, Terry became agitated.
“Your reasoning suggests that we should not say the truth,” Terry said. “If you want to blame someone for this, blame Moses. Moses said, ‘Thou shall not kill.’ What you’re asking for is surrender and we will not do that. George Tiller was a mass murderer. I said that in his life and I’ll say it after his death.”
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Michelle Goldberg: Is Tiller's Murder the Start of Right-Wing Revenge?
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Joe Stumpe: Tiller's Muder Was 10 Years in the Making
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Un-Pelosi: The Senator Who’ll Kill the Stupak Amendment
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast, writing fellow at The Nation Institute and author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books). Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Palin's Noxious Ghostwriter
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast, writing fellow at The Nation Institute and author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books). Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Did Women Beat the Right's Point Man?
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast, writing fellow at The Nation Institute and author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books). Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Oh brother !
Grateful author pointed out to the interviewee that under GW Bush they were not prone to violence during that time, advocating then, and that Terry squirmed; and really could not justify this wave of aggression, try as Terry may.
This is one of those issues, like death penalty and evolution, that are forever unresolvable because they are in most arguments (most, not all arguments) based in FAITH, which by definition, cannot be dis/proven.
This results, in a multicultural nation/world filled with different faiths, a necessity for a shared 'religious pragmatism'. If we both disagree, to use an example referenced already, on when the soul enters the body (conception v birth) then we may philosophically agree on the same issue (killing a child is wrong) for the same religious reason (child has a soul) but disagree on the moment that the context exists (birth or conception). So, you can have two people who fundamentally believe the same thing but who would have significantly different views on abortion.
The religious pragmatist would likely say: Look, we will never know for a FACT whether or not we have souls, when we get them, if/when we might lose them, we only have our differing FAITH in what/when/if it might be. Because we cannot define an absolute truth here, we have to allow for some level of divergent faith-based practices in so far as they might be consistent with other social compromises. (yes i know, many refuse on both sides to compromise on such an emotional topic, but bear with me.)
The "breathing on its own" standard is an example of such a compromise - the child is outside of the mother, so is fully a separate entity like everyone else is society, needy though it may be.
But if you believe that the soul is in place at birth, then for yourself, you would not abort. If you believe the soul comes later or not at all, then the breathing on its own standard would apply to your event. This is choice, yes, but allows for choice BASED ON YOUR OWN FATIH for your own event rather than someone else's faith imposed on your own event.
We can't resolve whether or not this is murder and we never will be able to. Best in these cases then to worry about your own soul and the souls of your own (potential) children as defined in your own religion than worry about others within their religion.
Much of these arguments is based in a monotheologic determinism - my way or the highway - cultural standard which is commonly employed by the religious right, and conversely, by die-hard atheists. Failing to recognize the reality of diverse faith-based opinions makes these arguments only theoretical and impractical.
Speaking with religious pragmatism, this is not nor will ever be a fully Christian nation in which every Christian believes the exact same Christian teachings and interpretations nor will it ever be a nation comprised fully of atheists.
Like Jack said, "Either we live together, or we die alone."
Beautifully stated. And it's my position, as well. It's the viewpoint that I share with those on the other side of things. And it's the reasoned, sane approach to this contentious subject.
I take your point, but I get a little tired of this false equivalency nonsense. Show me where atheists routinely poke their noses into the lives of others and dictate their choices?
What a bunch of psychobabble crap.
If there's a developed brain, heart, organs,
legs, hands, feet . . . THAT'S A HUMAN BEING.
Not necessarily. Cheney has all that stuff.
Terry declared, "I take no responsibility whatsoever [for Tiller's murder]..."
Yeah right - but the Operation Rescue website has been inaccessible since within an hour of George Tiller's shooting.
They might not take responsibility - but neither to they have the courage to be held accountable for their rhetoric.
and VERY interesting that this morning they apparently TOOK DOWN the detailed listing they had previously posted on Dr. Tiller's schedule and movements. talk about facilitating murder, geez Louise. Methinks Randall Terry doth protest with a forked tongue.
Wow no wonder no one takes pro-lifers seriously, hypocrites.
hey leave moses out of it, he didn't do nothin, and those Egyptians had it coming. Seriously tho it is interesting to see how morally bankrupt organizations like Operation Rescue are, and Bill O'reilly clearly hates America and the freedoms it provides the individual.
Moses was a mass murderer too.
On second thought, strike that "too."
Just as trying to reason with the Taliban is futile, trying to reason with these religious folks is futile. There is a common thread in all societies when it comes to extreme religious views, they are narrow minded thus cannot be reasoned with.
Where was "Operation Rescue" when the bombs were falling on Baghdad and Arab babies were dying?
Where was "Operation Rescue" when babies were being hacked to death in Rwanda?
Where was "Operation rescue when the G.O.P wanted to cut benefits, school lunches and medical coverage to poor children and babies?
The so called PRO LIFE crowd loves the fetus and the stem cell but if it is a living, breathing child, then all bets are off, dead kids are not as bad as aborted stem cells and fetsus....
O'Riely is a thug, he is protected under the constitution to free speech BUT if someone is inciting violence then those who are affected by that hatred and violence are also protected.
Once the baby is born it's given bootstraps to pull itself up by and that's all the help it ever needs.
There is common ground to be found on this issue, but statements like Mr. Terry's only work to further divide the issue. Neither side wants to admit that a fetus has less value than a born child but does in fact have some value. That it is a partial, unformed life whose value is equal only to what it is given. The hope and desire of it's parents and it's chances for a healthy birth.
When does life begin, at the creation of sperm? The act of sex? The forming of the zygote? If not there, then at what point during development? Some cultures believe life doesn't enter the child until it takes breath. Who is to say, and who is anyone to pronounce death on another for holding a differing opinion over a matter which cannot be fully known.
What can be known is that this is always a difficult question with difficult solutions and respect can only be given to those who provide genuine solutions. I respect those who offer counseling and adoption assistance to these women and deplore those who would harass them or kill their doctor. I respect also those who would offer donations to these clinics to help underprivileged women who find themselves in this situation.
Simply demanding that women carry to term children conceived in rape, children with deformities that will kill them with in months of birth, children that could kill the mother during labor or children conceived at such a young age that the mother is wholly unable to care for it is not a solution. It is also not a solution to simply say that abortions should be used as a form of birth control without any concern for potential moral concerns.
Everyone in this debate must find a way to be solution oriented and mature rather than ideologically partisan. We need to increase sex education and fully inform teens about birth control measures while still encouraging abstinence. We need to provide alternative options to women that may encourage them to carry the child to term.
Rhetoric and violence solve nothing. This debate needs to be elevated to a more reasoned discussion.
This is the best comment on here. Thanks.....
I hate this. If you can't win a political argument... kill them. Wow... how American is that. Makes me sick...
No one in the "Pro Life" crowd still will not answer why they are for WAR?. How can you be pro life and support GW Bush, Palin or Cheney?.
How can they be pro life and support cutting funding to poor kids?.
Until the so called "Pro Life" crowd embraces ALL life I will consider them a bunch of single issue thugs......
As someone pointed out elsewheres, if abortion is in fact made illegal, these "pro-life" types wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected.
I think it's about innocent life. I think that people in the Pro Life movement believe that the folks who were killed in the Twin Towers were innocent lives taken wrongly and that to prevent further atrocities, people had to go to war. Your argument is illogical because it would be like arguing that the Pro Life crowd should have left Hitler in power in Germany because they are against war and death. I think all people can recognize that some fights are worth taking up.
Wrong. Plenty of innocents die in war and thought that you just said they are for the innocent. They should be for 'the innocent' 100% of the time, but they aren't. They pick and choose. Do they go out there and fearlessly take in children that are treated horribly, born addicted to drugs, need a home, need food, go to Africa, India, etc., etc., etc? No. They attack people in a country with rights and laws. Get out there and start doing something about the innocents starving and wasting away first, then come and tell me about unborn children. Hypos!
jackee.
Incocent life??????
You miss the point. We did not go to war in Iraq becuase of the twin towers, thats BS and you know it.
You refuse to answer the larger question, if indeed the Pro Life crowd is just that, Pro Life then why do they overwhelminly vote for Republicans?. They voted in droves for GW, the same man who brought us Iraq, how many innocent dead babies were killed there?.
How about social services to the poor?.
The death penalty?
43 Million Americans ( And a lot of Children and babies ) without health care?.
How many babies has the US killed around the world?.
How polluting the earth?.
Save it, the pro life crowd is nothing of the sort, if so you should be protesting in streets for those mentioned above, but alas that is left to the Liberals....
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who hath known a man by lying with him.
But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
- MOSES, Numbers 31:17-18
Which of these women and children were not innocent? The males and adult women Moses had murdered, or the girls that were spared so they may be raped?
What is amazing to me is this: DUH, the loonies at Operation Duct Tape women are female foes, and O Reilly is no feminist, for sure!
But, the friendly fire HAS GOT TO STOP. Today two prominent web sites: FemiSex and Salon are posting stories that demand that Obama stop kow towing to the Loonie Right on this matter.
Femisex rightly points out that Obama is playing dangerous politics with women's freedom when he says abortion is a "moral tragedy" and point blank refuses to call it a human right's issue or an issue of freedom for women.
And at Salon, the foolish Joan Walsh as done something very unfoolish: allowed the esteemed Gloria Feldt to also demand that Obama stop framing abortion as a moral issue and stand up for women's freedoms.
Both deserve a soldid read!
Femisex also rightly pointed out last fall that is was under Clinton that the Loonies were killing abortion doctors. It is up to Obama to get rid of anti-abortion zealot Tim Kaine as head of the DNC and to pass FOCA and stop telling women abortion is a moral issue with lots of shame attached. Friendly Fire is MUST STOP or all we do is pass the torch back and forth: gag rule to no gag rule, slaughter of MDs to no slaughter of MDs, depending on whom is in the Oval Office.
If any headway is going to be made in this issue the left must admit that there is at least some degree of moral concern to be had in this issue. It can't be allowed to provide an excuse to take a woman's rights away, it can't be used to allow the state to intervene in personal medical business and it certainly can't be used as an excuse to harass women or kill doctors.
However, the left and the right have to agree that while a fetus doesn't have the value or rights of a fully formed and birthed baby, it does have some value. If a person brutalizes a pregnant woman and she miscarries as a result, isn't that crime something more than a simple assault? The moral questions can't be allowed to dominate the discussion over abortion rights but neither can they be wholly dismissed.
Headway is having the guts to say that this is a privacy issue! END of STORY.
Moral concern is code for control of women and their bodies and Mr. Obama understands this. And so do you! Sneaky talk to keep women under the thumb of begging for the right to privacy over their own bodies.
Women need to be done begging for the right to privacy over their bodies.
making a crime worse if the woman is pregnant is FAKE concern for women and a way to continue to make women BEG for bodily Freedom. This is a woman's freedom issue just as slavery was a black person's freedome issue. NO more bull-loney.
Can't Terry and his "operation" be prosecuted as accomplices in this and the Gunn and Slepian murders? Perhaps under the federal RICO statute? The name seems to fit: Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organizations. A law dictionary defines 'racketeering' as "An organized conspiracy to commit crimes of extortion or coercion." Isn't Operation Rescue trying to coerce health providers to do their bidding and doing so by using any and all means possible, obviously including murder?
This is so senseless. I spent a summer defending abortion clinics and was appalled to see these "pro-lifers" sending little children (I'm talking 4 and 5 yo) into the street to trip the escorts who were trying to help the woment into the clinic. I had the chance to talk to one of the "pro-lifers" (she was handcuffed and sitting at my feet). She told me the kids weren't with their parents. The whole group had been bused in from Kansas and the kids had been put on the bus with "chaperones" if their parents couldn't make the trip. Nice. I wonder if their parents knew their little darlings were being sent into traffic (the street was not blocked off) to trip pregnant women. The rationale behind the tripping, but the way, was that if by chance the pregnant woman fell and miscarried, it was God's will.....
How in the world are these theocratic crazies who advocate violence any less terrorists then the Islamic extremists we fight in the Middle East?
For laws that oppress women and limit their choices, check.
For violence when they can't force their opinion on others through legal means, check
For a heavy theocratic component in the state, check
For using terror to force those who disagree into silence, check
How is it that the people sending money to the Sudan are criminals for providing "material support to terrorists" and yet those who give to these organizations that advocate the same kind of thing as the Islamist groups fighting us are given a tax deduction instead of prison? Seems quite wrong.
politico83
To answer your very first question--they're not one iota different than they're Islamic fundamentalist counterparts. Even down to holding the fervent belief that the "real" God is on their side. The important difference between these two sets of radicals is that, at least for now in this country, we govern with a set of secular laws. Just another reminder of the critical need to preserve separation of church and state. And never believe for a moment that these warriors for Jesus will ever go away. Just as we will always have to bear ignorance and its prejudices, so we have to put up with people who INSIST that we must all believe as they do.
The newest tactic among the right-to-lifers and the hard-core Catholic pro-life faction is to make the argument that people who support pro-choice are no different from those people who would've, in another era, supported slavery.
That's ridiculous. And I don't have to make that argument here because if you look above you, at the comments of dragonfly3000, you will see a well-delineated counter-argument to that proposition.
There will always be hard liners in the pro-life camp. My fervent hope is that there are many more people among the pro-life group who are amenable to reason; who perhaps are "thinking" with their gut instead of their head; who can be reasoned with because they've not fully thought through all the possible horrible implications of their position. I've met such people. I've had gentle talks with them. And some of them have actually come round to the pro-choice point of view.
oops...meant "their Islamic.."
So there are only three clinics that abort after the 21st week??? Republicans have been letting on that these clinics are "everywhere."
This is disgraceful. And, I am SO RIDICULOUSLY HAPPY that these people don't control the White House anymore.
Unfortunately, even though they don't control the White House now, they actually are able to reduce late term abortion clinics to only three across the whole country and now we may only have two left. This is how successful they are. A typical case of minority rule, indeed.
I am abhorred by the extreme statements that Randall Terry is making in the light of the death of Dr. Tiller by someone who has subscribed to Terry's extremist views- and was even affiliated with his organization. What Mr. Terry is essentially doing is condoning stopping abortion- at any cost. As a member of the Republican Majority for Choice, I cannot understand how someone who claims to be "pro-life" would ever make these comments. In fact, Mr. Terry seems to be encouraging this moral vigilantism- and all of America should be outraged over this.
People tend to forget that the VAST majority of late term abortions are actually WANTED pregnancies in which the women find their lives endangered or the viability of the fetus in question. These women are forced to make an extremely difficult and medically necessary decision...There is nothing morally reprehensible in defending one's own life and anyone who suggests otherwise must see women as nothing but baby machines--they clearly do not recognize their humanity.
This user is no longer registered.
Too true. The mother's life and her ability to bear further children is far more valuable than a fetus which hasn't taken it's first breath.
this is kinda where those of us who have a visceral, not religious, negative reaction to late term abortions could use some help. where can we find this vast data. my experience is reliable info isn't easy to find on this because of privacy rules. inform me.
Sotomayor's views on abortion:
In 2002, Sotomayor sided with the Bush administration in a case brought to court by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged the ban on government funding to international groups that provided abortion or abortion-related services, also known as "Mexico City Policy."
"We were very disappointed when the decision came out. We thought we had good constitutional claims," Nancy Northup, president of the advocacy organization, the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABCNews.com. "Judge Sotomayor and the panel believed the precedent that our claims couldn't go forward."
In the decision, Sotomayor wrote that "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.
In another 2004 civil rights ruling, Sotomayor ruled on the side of anti-abortion protestors who sued police officers for brutality outside an abortion clinic. And in a 2006 immigration case, she ruled to grant a Chinese woman extended amnesty on the basis that she faced forced birth control in her home country.
Those decisions have some on the left saying her views need to be made public in confirmation hearings.
"Because we don't know where she stands on the constitutional right to abortion, we think it's important that during confirmation hearings, that senators explore her view... and that she expresses her legal views on the matter," Northup said.
NARAL Pro-Choice America's President Nancy Keenan echoed similar words in a written statement.
"Discussion about Roe v. Wade will -- and must -- be part of this nomination process," Keenan said in an advocacy message sent to supporters.
Asked if Obama knows for a fact that Sotomayor supports the ruling in Roe v. Wade, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that the president does not have a litmus test on abortion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7699191&page=1
As a pro-choice woman, I certainly hope that Judge Sotomayor will not degrade, weaken, or reverse Roe v. Wade.
I am concerned about the "Mexico City Policy" on the grounds that, if we in this country offer abortion (or even information regarding abortion) as an accepted choice to our citizens, we are contradicting that policy by denying that choice to women in other countries. I'm not a lawyer, but how could that position withstand reasonable scrutiny? I can only say that I'd have to scour the judges ruling to try and get a sense of her position. I don't know enough about the particulars of the 2004 police brutality case to be able to offer an intelligent critique of it (though,sadly, I can picture some red-neck, Bible-thumping law officers perpretrating such a thing). And as regards the 2006 immigration case, I see no problem in conferring extended amnesty to a Chinese woman on the basis that she faced forced birth control in her home country--UNLESS the female Chinese petitioner wasn't seeking amnesty on those grounds. That would be a screaming red flag regarding her views on women's reproductive rights. BUT--if the Chinese woman herself made a plea to stay in the States due to China's policies governing sterilization, then I support Judge Sotomayor's ruling in that case.
On behalf of women everywhere, Ms.Sotomayor should be thoroughly questioned regarding her positions on Roe v. Wade. And--yes--afforded her Supreme Court position based on that stance. The pro-lifers would deem a potential Supreme Court Justice's stance on abortion rights a deal-breaker. So what choice do the pro-choice folks have in these same hearings??
Randall Terry is a complete hypo, like most of them!
Those who are completely against abortion are usually deeply interested in punishing those who have sex outside of marriage.
What would surprise a lot of people to know is that many married women have abortions. The vast majority are not unmarried teens.
"The pro-life ethic is to value all human life from the moment of conception until natural death."
Unless we really, really don't like them or what they're doing, then it's all fair game.
"We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down."
Because the fact that Dr Tiller was in church at the time of his assassination adds such an extra negative PR spin to the event. If only Roeder had waited until Dr Tiller was at the clinic, it would be a much easier sell.
"Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him [Dr. George Tiller] brought to justice."
But when it's been decided over and over again that what Tiller was doing was in fact legal... Well, let's just say we're glad we won't be facing him in court again.
"We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning."
But we denounce the guy who got killed even more.
---
All quotes from Operation Rescue's website. Even though they've locked the door from the inside (error 403), the Google cache still remembers.
So now it's shoot anyone whom you disagree with, even if the thing you don't like is within the law??
Randell Terry doesn't actually do the assassinating,he just congratulates the assassin for a job well done, just like Osama Bin Ladin.
If by acting within the confines of the law I will sow the seeds of my murder, consider me officially chilled by domestic terrorism.
Operation Rescue's Randall Terry tells the Daily Beast's Max Blumenthal that, while not condoning Sunday's murder of abortionist George Tiller, the "evil" victim bears blame and Bill O'Reilly doesn't.
***************************************
Randall Terry is a scum bag. A supposed Christian who cheated on and dumped his wife and thus, has no credibility whatsoever. George Tiller was a decent, compassionate, man, who stood up to these terrorists and bullies to protect the right of a women to a safe and legal abortion. He saved my daughters life by terminating a pregnancy that would probably have killed her and her baby. The hysterical rhetoric by the anti-choice crowd is what motivates crazies to do just this sort of thing and think they are doing it for some higher purpose. The mullahs in Pakistan do exactly the same thing to get young men to strap bombs on their bodies and blow up innocent people. Religious terrorists are the same all over. Bless you George Tiller. God's speed.
"religious terrorists are the same all over."
I'm glad someone besides olberman, maddow, and myself see this.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.