Editorial: Reid vilely using tragedy to try to silence others

Have you no shame, Harry Reid? Is there no tragedy, no calamity that you won’t exploit for your political demagoguery and use to besmirch honest and sincere people whose only shortcoming is disagreeing with you and your liberal ilk?

Mere days after a deranged gunman killed three people at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility, Reid used the shooting as an excuse to press House Republicans to disband a committee investigating allegations that some Planned Parenthood operations had improperly handled fetal tissue from abortions performed by the organization.

“We should not fail to see the context in which this vile assault took place. Last summer, a right-wing group began releasing videos with unsubstantiated allegations. Since that time the Republican Congress have made it their mission to push these unsubstantiated allegations,” Nevada’s senior senator has been quoted as saying, apparently missing the point entirely that the committee is merely trying to “substantiate” what is documented on videotape to be Planned Parenthood officials attempting to illegally profit from trafficking in fetal tissue and organs, failing to obtain patient consent for harvesting fetal tissue and changing abortion procedures to provide valuable intact organs.

Reid later lectured his fellow lawmakers that they “must be mindful of our words and our actions. We bring people into a frenzy of hate and anger while providing them with easy access to firearms has proven disastrous for our country.”

This is an outrageous libel against pro-lifers whose objective is to preserve life. Reid’s objective is to stifle all speech but his own vitriolic rhetoric that he sprays with abandon and without regard for logic or sensibilities.

Apparently, people with legitimate concerns about whether their tax dollars are supporting illegal, questionable or immoral behavior must remain mum lest some crackpot, as Reid presumes is the case, might use it as an excuse to go on a shooting spree.

As for the frenzy of hate and anger, Reid’s rambling diatribe on this topic posted on his Senate website uses the word Republican 17 times — all for leveling base accusations and saying the party members are politically motivated, when it is Reid who is pitifully pandering to his and Obama’s political base. He used the occasion to scattergun his attack on Republicans over the Benghazi committee, Syrian refugees and gun control in general.

“It is appalling how many times I have had to make this plea, but I say to my Republican colleagues yet again, join with us in passing sensible gun safety reforms,” Reid daid. “Help us keep guns away from people intent on using them to slaughter innocent people.”

Reid’s linkage of the shooting and the Planned Parenthood probe is a non-sequitur. It is like saying a bank audit should be called off because of a robbery. There is no connection, no linkage, no rationale whatsoever, just more Reid smearing and attempting to silence heartfelt concerns.

A version of this editorial appears this past week in the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Planned Parenthood shooting scene.

Advertisements

41 comments on “Editorial: Reid vilely using tragedy to try to silence others

  1. nyp says:

    ““I’m guilty. There’s no trial,” Robert L. Dear Jr. told a startled courtroom here on Wednesday. “I’m a warrior for the babies. … According to one law enforcement official, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts” after his arrest. ”

    No connection, no linkage whatsoever.

  2. 13 months and counting until this partisan buffoon is put out to pasture…it can’t come soon enough! I only wish we could banish him back to Searchlight where he belongs.

  3. Vernon Clayson says:

    Banishing him back to Searchlight is cruel and inhumane, that’s to the decent people that live there. He grew up there but it didn’t turn him into a radical socialist and agent for the progressive agenda, that happened in Washington. He and his handlers should stay there with their kind. By the way, since he left here years ago he’s too white and has a Caucasian accent to be a good neighbor here in Las Vegas.

  4. Patrick says:

    Please don’t pretend that the republicans are doing anything more than pandering to their base here. And “morality” Thomas? Surely you jest. This has absolutely as much to do with “morality” as the votes those senators took (approving I might add) the killing and torture of innocent people every time they cast a vote in favor of bush’s war against reason and the funding of agencies that tortured and killed people during and after that war.

    Their actions have zero to do with morality and Senator Reid is calling a spade a spade here.

  5. Winston Smith says:

    Patrick, if PP cut up babies (sorry, fetuses) and sold parts for profit, is that legal or not? Is it moral or not? Is it wrong for the Congress to investigate the allegations? Should anti-abortion taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions?

    I realize you like to mix and match other events to confuse the issue, but let’s get down to brass tacks about PP, OK?

  6. Patrick says:

    Winston:

    Was bush war against reason unconstitutional/illegal? Can a senator that voted FOR this unconstitutional/illegal/immoral act be heard to claim that an ALLEGATION, politically motivated and disproven as it has been, is sufficient to require an investigation without being labeled as politically motivated and hypocritical?

    Simple answer is no, and that’s exactly what senator Reid said, and of course, he was correct.

    And of all things for a libertarian to defend.

  7. Steve says:

    WE helped Saddam use WMD’s against Iran. We provided the satellite imagery Iraq needed to target their enemy.
    We knew Iraq had WMD’s because we helped them use them.

  8. Steve says:

    OH and here are a bunch more…via Zero Hedge…yeah, I know, Zero Hedge…but the the PDF’s are real and traceable. And from the CIA.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/how-times-have-changed-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-use-chemical-weapons

  9. Winston Smith says:

    Patrick, every U.S. war since 1945 has been illegal/unconstitutional, since Congress did not officially declare them.

    Harry Reid voted for the Iraqi War in 2003, knowing it wasn’t an official declaration, so he is just as complicit as any Republican in the mess that followed.

    If a major company, partially funded by the federal government, is accused of breaking the law, and Congress calls for an investigation, how do you, personally, determine that the call for an investigation is “politically motivated”?

    And at what point is some allegation “disproven”? Before the investigation even starts?

    And, in your mind, if is it “hypocritical” to approve of unnecessary violence under one circumstance while opposing it elsewhere, then is not approving of abortion and opposing the Iraqi War hypocritical?

  10. nyp says:

    you know, if you continually compare your particular cause to abolitionism, you shouldn’t be surprised when lots of people decide that they are John Brown.

  11. Patrick says:

    Winston you’ve become naive in your old age, or just another political pawn.

    Please spare me the “conservatives in Congress are displaying true righteous and moral concern with the lives of the unborn” crap. Planned Parenthood has become the touchstone the right now hugs (as they use to hug the flag when flag burning was all the rage (whenever that was) whenever they need to drum up support from their base (used in the “meanest” sense of the word).

    Coincidentally, this “investigation” comes during a presidential race (how handy right, and certainly just a coincidence).

    Save the crapola about congressional investigations designed to investigate money being “inappropriately spent”. Of the more than trillion dollar budget in this country, and of all the WASTE or FRAUD, or THEFT of that budget money, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and it’s INFINITESIMAL, part of that budget is going to be INVESTIGATED? And you believe this was for NON-POLITICAL reasons?

    You’re either naive or become partisan Winston. I hope and pray it’s the former.

  12. Patrick says:

    Even while federal law prohibits federal funds being spent for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mothers life, and that Planned Parenthood as a whole receives barely 500 million dollars from the federal budget, only 3% of those funds (15 million) go to abortion related services.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

    HOWEVER, a HUGELY disproportionate number of republican voters see “defunding” PP as one of two MOST important issues when deciding to vote for a candidate.

    http://www.people-press.org/2015/10/02/contrasting-partisan-perspectives-on-campaign-2016/

    15 million dollars, however spent, on abortion related services, out of the more than TRILLION dollar budget of this country is worth a Congressional investigation and republicans lining up to castigate PP, and it’s not political?

    Grotesquely partisan or naive Winston is the only excuse.

  13. Barbara says:

    This “investigation” is just the Republican establishment placating their base. They have no intentions of defunding PP. Both the Democrat and Republican leadership, along with big donors to establishment candidates, want PP to continue and so it will. The Washington Cartel wins again and main street America loses. Reid is despicable, but so are the Republicans who did not vote outright to defund this evil organization. Make no mistake, killing the unborn is about as evil as it gets.

  14. Patrick says:

    Can you kill something not alive? Not according to any law I’m aware of.

    But, speaking of an evil law; the death penalty comes to mind.

  15. Winston Smith says:

    Just because the SCOTUS redefined life in 1973 doesn’t make it true. And before that, even PP knew abortion was murder. And, when someone murdered a pregnant woman the accused was generally charged with two counts of homicide.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/14/tennessee-woman-faces-charges-of-attempted-first-degree-murder-for-botched-self-abortion/

  16. Patrick says:

    As I said, no law against killing something that isn’t alive. And the Supreme Court merely looked to the best medical science that existed, at the time, and found that a fetus, was not a life.

    And, nothing has changed.

  17. nyp says:

    Unlike Barbara and “Winston Smith,” I am opposed to sending women who have abortions and use IUDs to the electric chair.

  18. If “it” is NOT alive…why do they have to kill “it”…dismember “it”…and suction “it” out. The Supreme court also once said that a black person was only three fifths human…how did that law work out for you Patnyp? Your take about that the Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade, and it’s companion Doe vs. Bolton is false and inaccurate…maybe you should read it.

  19. nyp says:

    As I said, I do not think that a Doctor who performs an abortion or provides a woman with an IUD or a morning after pill should receive the death penalty. You apparently disagree.
    It is no wonder that people go around shooting up Planned Parenthood Centers.

  20. Killing an unborn or pre-born little human…HAS to be against the law in order for an abortionist (I don’t call them physicians because they violate their hippocratic oath every day) to receive the death penalty or a prison term. What the Supreme Court did in those two aforementioned decisions is…they legalized killing.

  21. Patrick says:

    HFB:

    I’ve read Roe many times, is there a part that you could point out that is contrary to what I wrote here?

  22. nyp says:

    That is right. You believe abortion to be first degree murder and you believe that anyone who performs and abortion or who directs that an abortion take place should receive the death penalty.

    That means the electric chair for both the doctor and the woman.

    I am perfectly content to have the 2016 election be a referendum on that issue.

  23. Patrick…perhaps you can quote the part that says “it” isn’t alive, and in fact the justices state in the preamble that it’s NOT their duty to determine when life begins. And Nyp…Barbara is correct, killing our own offspring by abortion is pure evil.

  24. nyp says:

    You have certainly clarified the issue of what should be done to women who choose to have abortions and to doctors and nurses who perform abortions.

  25. Actually I have done nothing of the kind. I merely replied to your twisted statement of false facts and hyperbole. Point of fact…you really have no idea what my solution to this dilemma might be.

  26. nyp says:

    You believe abortion is first degree murder. You believe there is no difference between aborting a fetus and killing a newborn.
    You believe that people who commit murder should be put to death.

    QED you (and people like Barbara) believe that people who perform or direct abortions should be arrested as criminals and sentenced to death.

    Your position could not be more clear. I find that commendable.

  27. Oh and Vernon, until the good citizens change the name of “Harry Reid Road”…which runs south of Cottonwood Cove Road to E. Encinitas Road…I’m still in favor of banishing him back to his roots, so to speak.

  28. Thanks for making my point little PatNyp…all hyperbole and no substance, as usual.

  29. Patrick says:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

    “Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160]

    It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live’ birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [n56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [n57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [n58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [n60] The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [p161] the moment of conception. [n61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. [n62]”

    “All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

    And HFB please use my screename when addressing me so we don’t have to devolve into childish name calling. Thanks.

  30. Will do Patrick…you’ve hit on the nub of the argument…it’s the nebulous definition of personhood. It’s not…whether “it” is alive, it’s not whether “it’s” a human life (what other life form could it be when consummated by a man and a woman of the human species) and the Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether the fetus (latin – meaning “young one” or “little one”) “was not a life.” As I stated…Harry Blackman was very careful in stating that it was not their intention to define when life begins…but personhood, because that was something they could hang their non-constitutional hat (decree) on.

  31. Patrick says:

    HFB:

    What Blackmun and the rest said, was for purposes of the law. He did not want to, and could not have, with any relevance, opined with regard to anything else.

    He did make it clear though, by stating that a fetus, was not a person, that “it” was not protected as a “life” as that term is understood in the law until, at least, the 24th week.

  32. An arbitrary definition…and an arbitrary time frame. Which is really meaningless…because the three trimester time periods described in Roe, were arbitrarily thrown out the window in Bolton.

  33. Patrick says:

    Don’t know if that’s legally correct, but even assuming you’re right, as medical science advances, based on the standards used in roe, you can expect allowances.

  34. The video that I usually post when discussing this subject (Eclipse of Reason) does just that. The film is narrated and produced by Dr. Bernard Nathanson who ran the largest abortion clinic in the country for two years, was a founding member of NARAL, and an atheist (agnostic Jew). He said that he changed his mind on abortion…due to the unmistakable humanity of the unborn child evidenced through the scientific advances of fetology and fetoscopy.

  35. Patrick says:

    HFB:

    I don’t know whether you claim as others do here, to be a libertarian, and maybe you are not so I won’t assume, but if you are, I’m wondering, given the libertarian philosophy regarding “liberty rights”, at what point in time, after conception, is a mother or a father, “released” from all obligation or responsibility for the result of conception?

    Seems to me, that the libertarian philosophy would permit a “parent” to, at worst, walk away completely the moment a child was born without further “obligation” to consider what happens lest their own “liberty interests” be “forcefully” impaired.

    If you are not a libertarian I don’t expect you to speak for them of course.

  36. Barbara says:

    I would note that the $1.1 trillion spending bill released in the early morning hours does indeed fund PP as well as many other misdeeds. I’ve already called the three Hs (Hardy, Heck, Heller)to voice my displeasure and desire for a NO vote. Too bad we can’t replace all three with true conservatives.

  37. Patrick says:

    Now that I’ve taken a look at some expressions of libertarian philosophy regarding the “liberty rights” and “obligations/responsibilities” of parents to both “the unborn” and children (ghastly stuff really. Enough to make any progressive feminist blanch I think) maybe one of the resident “libertarians” with either a small or large “L” (I’m hoping Winston) might explain his/their position so seeming dead set against abortion, when many libertarians seem to be of the opinion that…there’s nothing wrong with it.

    “(There are some libertarians, e.g. Murray Rothbard (1973), who argue that since the fetus is “trespassing” on the woman’s body, it may be expelled by the woman for any reason and at any time whatever. By this logic, parents could throw their newborn infants into the streets to prevent them from “trespassing” in their homes.”

    http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn061.pdf

  38. Conservative here…”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” (Without the first unalienable right…all the others are meaningless.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s