A few things are empirically true about the murder of Kansas Doctor George Tiller this past summer. The murderer, Scott Roeder and his supporters are angry, extremist, fundamentalist Christians.
While all major Christian institutions have condemned the murder, they have also disavowed the tactics of militant anti-abortion folks who legitimize their behavior under the banner of Christianity.
Even Bill O’Reilly, primary provocateur of record, has clearly and explicitly condemned Scott Roeder and the slaying of an innocent man in the name of Christianity. But O’Reilly did not act alone. He was encouraged, CHEERED in fact, by a small number of militant Christians with a clear history of harassment and violence in and around Wichita Kansas. Apparently, bloggers played a major role, some of them even falling over themselves to take credit.
That is why Richard Okelberry’s history of militant anti-abortion speech, long-standing attacks on Dr. Tiller and his explicit refusal to condemn Tiller’s murder demands closer scrutiny as to the role he played in this horrific affront to human decency and Christian values.
Note: Richard Okelberry hails from Lincoln, Nebraska less than 200 miles from Roeder’s home.
By his own admission, Okelberry began sending letters about Dr. George Tiller at last as early as March 2006. In a post titled (surprise) “Tiller The baby Killer” which features a faked photo of Tiller in jail, Okelberry writes;
I also sent copies to Planned Parenthood, the areas premier abortion provider, as well as several state representatives and a few nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts…One of those copied was Mr. Bill O’Reilly from the Fox News Channel and the Bill O’Reilly Show. Richard Okelberry March 24, 2006
It is well know by now that up until the time of Tiller’s murder, O’Reilly or guest, had mentioned Tiller (as the Baby Killer) at least 28 times. In the same post Okleberry implicitly claims to have encouraged Bill O’Reilly:
While I have no idea whether or not my correspondence had any effect, I can tell you with all certainty that Bill O’Reilly has now picked up the ball and is running for the ”in-zone.” In fact he has launched an all out campaign against the infamous Kansas doctor that he calls, “Tiller the baby killer.”
In the days following one of Okelberry’s letters O’Reilly said on the air:
“No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller’s business of destruction. I wouldn’t want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day.
By any measure, this is a veiled death threat. While O’Reilly has consistently shocked the world with his bullying, cruelty and recklessness, he is not known for originating death threats. One can only assume that he was referring to threats made by others? But who? Who among O’Reilly’s sources was using the term Judgment Day in reference to Tiller?
I think the answer is clear. This is a Christian term which, in its most popular context, means death, deserving of death to be specific.
Lets take a moment and consider the vitriol in Okelberry’s writings. In this post of less than 500 words attacking Obama and Sebelius, Okelberry refers to Tiller as a “baby killer” no less than SEVEN times.
“…Gov. Sebelius, even threw a party for the infamous Tiller the Baby Killer (George Tiller)…to thank Tiller for his sizable blood money….Tiller the Baby Killer isn’t just your run of the mill abortionist….that will pluck the dead remains of a fully developed baby at 9 months…Tiller the Baby Killer and his wife…”
George Tiller was murdered 90 days later.
While it remains unclear exactly what role his vicious anti-abortion advocacy played in encouraging the cold-blooded murder of George Tiller by Scott Reoder, it is clear that Ricard Okelberry petitioned Bill O’Reilly to villanize a great and brave Doctor who risked his life everyday to protect the health and in many cases, the lives of women. Richard Okelberry bragged about it.
As a prolific contributing author to a popular local Utah blog called KVNU’s For The People, Okelberry’s response to Tiller’s murder was expected to reflect some contrition. As one who wore his Christianity on his sleeve, we all expected some remorse, at the very least a clear condemnation for this unchristian act. Instead, in a post entitled Mass Murderer Dies at the Hands of Radical (which was subsequently removed), we got:
My first instinct after hearing of the shooting Sunday was to write an essay on the topic. Instead I decided to take a moment to allow those on both sides of this issue make their case. I was not surprised to find some on the right rejoicing over the death of Tiller.
Should we also look at the charitable record of his murderer to justify his actions? Both of these men were evil and murderous. They are both GUILTY!
This is the first death of an abortionist at the hands of a pro-lifer in over 20 YEARS! This is not a pattern, but merely an incident. Young men living on the South Side of Chicago are far more likely to meet a violent end… in that community, than any abortions is [sic].
In addition to his uncompromising position against womens’ reproductive health rights and flaunting disregard for law, all under the guise of religion, Okelberry has been advocating for the most vile, sickening law enforcement practices imaginable. Follows is only one example of the kinds of punishment he imagines for young pregnant girls.
I do want to point out that when a 15 year old girl does have an abortion, the genetic material contained in the discarded fetus should be collected by law enforcement and used as evidence of a crime. What crime you ask? First degree, unlawful sexual assault of a minor child is a felony in Nebraska. Richard Okelberry March 24, 2006
The lengthy record of Okelberry’s writing reflect nothing short of the ugliest kind of misogyny and a total disregard for democracy, privacy, law, Christian doctrine and the Christian community.
Okelberry’s actions and posture on this issue constitute nothing less than the promotion of violence, immorality, misogyny and intolerance through the fraudulent usurpation of Christianity.
#1 by Spencer Pratt on January 3, 2010 - 11:14 am
One of the advantages of the LDS church’s membership policy is that it is protected from this kind of “usurpation”.
But anybody can call themselves a Christian. If they get booted by one church, they can go to another.
But nobody can call themselves a Mormon unless the Mormon Church agrees.
Okelberry would certainly not be welcome in the LDS Church. You just don’t get to go off the rails like this, just as some Christian denominations have disavowed the LDS as non-Christian, someone should disavow Okelberry as a Christian.
#2 by Rev Donald Spitz on January 3, 2010 - 11:22 am
I’m glad that babykilling abortionist George Tiller was shot dead. He deserved to be shot dead because of the babies he was going to murder the next day.
You babykilling pro-aborts are guilty of murdering millions of unborn children. I’m glad one of your mass murderers was stopped by that American hero named Scott Roeder.
#3 by Richard Warnick on January 3, 2010 - 11:32 am
You really a Rev???? I mean, some of us have been accused of giving religion a bad name, but wow!
#4 by pancho on January 3, 2010 - 5:29 pm
Okelberry is a liar and an inciter to murder.
He knows he’s lying. When he writes that, “This is the first death of an abortionist at the hands of a pro-lifer in over 20 YEARS!,” he can’t not know that it’s a lie. Donald Spitz’s friend and Operation Rescue associate Paul Hill, for instance, killed a Pennsacola doctor and his unarmed 74-year-old escort, and tried to kill the escort’s 68-year-old wife. Michael Griffin killed another doctor in the same city a year earlier. John Salvi, another Spitz associate, tried to kill people in Virginia, then killed receptionists at two clinics in Boston. Eric Rudolph, another Spitz favorite, killed a policeman when he bombed a clinic, bombed a gay bar, then two more died and 120 were wounded when Rudolph bombed the Atlanta Olympics. Shelly Shannon tried to kill Tiller, but only wounded him in both arms after firing five shots at him. Hill attended her trial with Operation Rescue before returning to Florida to murder. James Kopp killed Bernard Slepian twelve years ago.
#5 by pancho on January 3, 2010 - 5:32 pm
Okelberry also lied when he claimed that Governor Sebelius “threw a party” for Tiller. Dinner at the governor’s mansion was a item at auction in a charity fundraiser and Tiller won the auction.
#6 by pancho on January 3, 2010 - 7:04 pm
Spitz and his confederate David Leach were producers and distributors of a how-to guidebook for terrorism and assassination, the “Army of God” manual.
#7 by Cliff Lyon on January 4, 2010 - 10:12 am
Thank you Pancho for your due diligence on Okelberry.
Okelberry is wholly uninterested in fact. He is poison.
For someone who claims the high moral ground, he sure does seem to like killing.
#8 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 4, 2010 - 12:32 pm
Pancho–
Okleberry probably doesn’t know. His view of the world is such that he probably doesn’t feel the need to research the crimes of his side. Too many of us (myself included) fail in that respect.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#9 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2010 - 5:39 pm
George Tiller was murdered for a political strategy. Nothing more and nothing less. His killer is a hero compared to the swine who egged him on and condemned him after the fact. As far as I know, even Charles Manson didn’t condemn the idiots he persuaded to kill.
#10 by Cliff Lyon on January 4, 2010 - 8:07 pm
“even Charles Manson didn’t condemn the idiots he persuaded to kill.”
ouch! So true and so very frighting.
#11 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:16 pm
To tell you quite honestly, I expected a few more responses to this posting. At the very least I expected many of the authors here to come out in force to support their benefactor, Mr. Lyon. Could it be that so many of them have seen this all play out before? Has everyone here seen Cliff Lyon lash out with a scathing barrage of personal attacks and outright lies in response to me exposing the truth about Mr. Lyon before and finally realize that it is better to not be associated with such lies?
While I knew he was rooting around the KVNU, For the People Blog and at my personal blog http://www.UtahFreePress.com looking for dirt on me, I never imagined he would go to such lengths to defame me. I only hope that the lack of responses to this posting is an indication that OneUtah is heading in a new direction. I hope it indicates that the readers and authors here now know that they can hardly trust a single thing Mr. Lyon says and that it can be very detrimental to a person’s reputation to jump on the slander wagon without first knowing the facts.
Of course, before penning a full defense on my own site, I would like to first address each of the few respondents:
#12 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:18 pm
Spencer Pratt
You may find it interesting that not only do I belong to a Lutheran denomination (as did Tiller) but so did the infamous BTK Kansas Serial Killer, Denis Radar. Following the discovery that Mr. Radar was responsible for his crimes where he Bound Tortured and Killed his victims, his pastor and congregation issued public statements of forgiveness and sought to council Mr. Radar.
This enraged many and caused many public attacks against his church, even by other Christian denominations. Many simply felt that his crimes were too horrific to deserve forgiveness.
You see as Lutherans, we believe that NO sin is greater than any other and take Jesus’ statement on the matter, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” While you may be correct that I may not be welcome in the LDS faith, in my 41 years as a Lutheran I have yet to even hear of a single person being excommunicated. You see, we are all sinners. If we were to kick out every person because they sin, there wouldn’t be anyone left, not even the pastors. Am I a sinner? Yes! Am I a perfect Christian? No, I am sad to say that I am not.
While, I really don’t care to speak for another’s religion I must question your assertion that I would not be welcome in the LDS Church because as you allege “You just don’t get to go off the rails like this.” While membership in the LDS Church MAY be as restricted as you say, I would beg you to consider that your statement about me “going off the rails” is predicated on a lie being peddled to you by Mr. Lyon. As such, I would encourage you to research his accusations to discover the truth before making accusations yourself. All too often people simply believe what they read without having any knowledge of the motivations or truthfulness of the source. This is why here in Utah as in other states, Libel (the public defamation of another individual in written or broadcast form) is not merely a civil crime but is also a criminal offense.
I personally have had many conversations with my Mormon Neighbors and friends over the years and have yet to hear the LDS Faith be described as so restrictive. My wife and I are regularly invited and do occasionally participate in local LDS social events. We have also even made Christmas dinner for several area missionaries in an effort to give them comfort while they are away from their families during the holidays.
All this we do with our LDS friends and neighbors with the complete understanding that we are secure in our current faith and not candidates for conversion. We have been told by many that our LDS neighbors would only embrace us until they discovered that we could not be converted. By our experience and the loving way that we have been accepted in our largely LDS community since relocating here we can each attest that this is not the case. In fact when I ran for City Council last fall, I did so at the urging of my LDS Neighbors, destroying the often spread idea that you must be LDS to find support for political office in small towns in Utah. I personally am a testament to the fact that LDS members are more than willing to support non-LDS candidates. I personally have found the members of the LDS faith here in Cache Valley to be open, loving and inviting at every turn. For this we are truly grateful.
If you truly are LDS Mr. Pratt, I would hope that you would learn from their example and only speak so harshly of someone when you can be certain of their true nature and moral disposition.
In discovering for yourself, the accuracy of Mr. Lyon’s damnation, I would like you to consider reading the actual essays that Mr. Lyon quotes for yourself. While you do, I would like you to continually ask yourself; where are the references to religion that Mr. Lyon claims is at the heart of my opposition to abortion? If you do read these actually essays you will also discover that one of the essays and it’s associated “letter” (which was actually just a copy of the essay “Are Abortion Clinics Destroying Evidence”) that Mr. Lyon refers to, is not directly about the prohibition of abortion and at no time does it even mention Dr. Tiller.
If I hadn’t even mentioned Tiller in the essay that I sent to O’Reilly (and others) how can it be said that I was the first one to turn Bill O’Reilly onto the crimes of Dr. Tiller. The reality is, I hadn’t even heard of Dr. Tiller until Bill O’Reilly mentioned him on his program. This essay that Mr. Lyon holds up as proof evidence that I spurred the demonization of Dr. Tiller wasn’t even about the prohibition of abortions or even the late term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller; it was about how child-rapists may use abortions as a method of covering up their crimes.
Regardless, I understand how easy it can be to be led astray by deceit and misdirection, I forgive you for you mischaracterization of me and hope you have the moral compass and are compelled by your faith to see your mistake and make a public correction.
#13 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:20 pm
Rev Donald Spitz
I simply cannot agree with your statement Mr. Spitz. In fact such statements only add fire to the accusations by anti-theists like Mr. Lyon that Christians are all about killing those who oppose them or sin against God. For certain this is not what Christ taught us. Because such statements are so contrary to the teachings of Christ, I have to question as Mr. Warnick did; whether you are an actual Reverend. If you truly are a Reverend, I would invite you to read an essay that I penned on the subject of Capitol Punishment that addresses how we Christian should be looking at the subject. It is titled, “Capitol Punishment a Satanic Ritual.” http://utahfreepress.com/?p=30
If you are a Reverend, you should know better than most that Christ replaced the Law of “an eye for an eye” with “turn the other cheek.”
#14 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:21 pm
Richard Warnick
Thank you for not pilling on!
#15 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:22 pm
Pancho
I assure you that if my information about the death of Dr. Tiller being the first death of an abortion doctor at the hands of a pro-lifer in 20 years is not correct, I certainly will make the correction and add it to the essay for clarification. Please give me just a short amount of time to do the research and make the correction. While I am generally very good at research, I am human and do make mistakes. Unlike the general media, we bloggers are our own research department, fact checkers and copy editors. I hope you understand that there was no attempt to deceive here.
I must say though that merely listing all the crimes of radicals as you did with Eric Rudolph does not fit the criteria, though I will concede that it is important to include others involved in the abortion trade who have been killed or injured, not just actual abortion doctors.
I believe you are splitting hairs here. However, to be technically accurate I will say that as a large contributor Mr. Tiller was invited by Governor Sebelius to a fundraiser where it was understood by Governor Sebelius that whoever “donated” the most money in a fundraiser auction, even if that person was the Late-Term abortionist Dr. Tiller, they would receive a party at the Governors mansion in recognition of support. After which, Governor Sebelius, who is now our Health and Human Services Secretary under Obama did throw a party for Mr. Tiller where they took pictures and did appear to be very friendly with each other.
Is that a more fair and accurate description? (be sure that I will add this or something similar as an addendum to the essay as the facts bare out.) You past experiences with bloggers may have led you to believe that many stand firm when confronted with publishing inaccurate information. I am not one of those. With me all you have to do is present the facts and ask me to make the corrections. There is no need to launch unfounded accusations of purposeful deceit. Now wasn’t that easy?
#16 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:26 pm
Dwight Sheldon Adams
Ultimately, when someone commits a crime like this, they certainly are not on my “side.” So I really don’t completely understand your statement. I certainly am no tribalist and will rally around no one that I believe to be in the wrong regardless of how similar their other beliefs are to my own. You have indicated a similar independence in our past conversation. I hope you can show it here. If you would like to show that you are capable of doing research in an effort to discover the truth, I invite you as I did with specifically with Spencer Pratt above and read for yourself the associated essays that Mr. Lyon is using in trying to make the case that I was instrumental in turning Bill O’Reilly onto Dr. Tiller.
Also, shortly I will have everything that I have ever written on abortion in various essays together in one collection at my web site. If you read them, you will find that while I am opposed to all abortion my primary focus is almost always on the immediate need to curb Late Term Abortions. Those are abortions that are performed on babies that are fully capable of living outside the womb. These types of abortions are the very type that Dr. Tiller specialized in and performed not just to protect the life of the mother but in one case simply because the young woman wanted to be able to fit into her prom dress.
Additionally, you should find that one of the main essays that Mr. Lyon relies on to spin his defamation did not even argue against abortions but the use of abortions to cover up the crime of rape. If you read correctly you will find that I argue in this essay that I felt the right to privacy insured by Roe v. Wade would still be enforced as under law such investigations of child rape already protect the identity of the minor.
Do you personally agree with all the Late Term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller?
In fact; DOES ANYONE HERE SUPPORT ABORTION ON-DEMAND OF A VIABLE CHILD IN THE WOMB AT 8.5 MONTHS? I would like to hear from someone who does! Just one actual person?
Or do you believe as I do that he should have been tried and convicted under Kansas law for performing Late Term abortions that were not medically necessary for the health of the woman? Also, I want to note that you have expressed on several occasions during our discussions that you are LDS. It bears noting that I rarely bring up my religious without being asked. However because of one single response to a question by Mr. Lyon about my faith, he jumped to the assumption that I was trying to push my religion on others through the enactment of laws. He did this because he was completely incapable of defending his position on abortion and wrongfully assumed that the only position that someone can hold against abortion is a religious one. In countless debates I have not only proven him wrong but was able to get him to admit during an on-air debate at KVNU that a late term child in the womb is deserving of human rights. If a child in the womb at 8.5 months is deserving of human rights, then how could he possibly say that when Tiller killed such a child during a Late Term abortion that he was a, “a great and brave Doctor?”
(Careful now, Mr Lyon hates it when I post this!) Cliff Lyon of OneUtah on Abortion – http://utahfreepress.com/?p=420
Also, if he knew ANYTHING about Lutheranism he would have known that few religions separate themselves from the affairs of government as Lutherans do. This was one of the prime reasons why when I was elected Vice President at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Logan, I was very careful to express that my written opinions should not be considered the opinions of my Church and that others should not misrepresent them as such.
You on the other hand have regularly expressed your religion and the LDS Church is certainly by far more politically active than the LCMS. (Understand that this is not something that I hold as a fault with the LDS Church and have long defended their right to do so.) I only bring it up to help discover why you have escaped the wrath of Cliff Lyon while he was so opposed to my faith that he was moved to say,
So what is the difference between you and me? Can you somehow turn off you faith as Mr. Lyon expects? Do you know how to perform that trick? How does a person simply stop believing in God before entering the ballot booth or registering their political opinions in public? If you know how, please tell me…
Could it be that this essay is nothing more than a vindictive personal attack made in response to my regular exposure of his deceit and radical beliefs?
You’ve shown yourself to be more of a critical thinker than many of the authors here. I wonder if you will be suckered by Mr. Lyon on this one or if you will do the right thing and stand up against such distortions and defamation.
#17 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:31 pm
Larry Bergan
Did you just say that I am worse than Charles Mason? Or are you saying that Charles Manson had some admirable qualities that I don’t posses? And some people think that making comparisons to Hitler and anti-Semitic statements by liberals is unreasonable.
#18 by Richard Okelberry on January 6, 2010 - 12:32 pm
NOTE: I will be publishing shortly at http://www.UtahFreePress.com a detailed response to this essay. I will also be listing every essay that I have ever writing that has anything to do with abortion so that readers can discover for themselves the TRUTH.
#19 by Cliff Lyon on January 6, 2010 - 5:18 pm
No detail necessary Okelfairy. Just copy and paste the following.
I Richard Okelberry, being of questionable sanity, hereby apologize for any role I might have played in the incitement of Scott Roeder to murder an innocent man.
I have been reckless in my advocacy to restrict the people’s lawful right to control their personal family planning decisions as well as the ability for medical professionals to practice their their lawful profession lawfully without fear of death at the hands of pseudo Christian religious freaks like me.
I beg God’s forgiveness for my zealotry and heretical behavior in his name. I pray that I may be forgiven my trespasses. My giant ego got in the way and in my exuberance and sophomoric interpretation of Christianity, I laid a big hot steamy pile at the Church’s door.
I am sorry.
Your humble servant,
Richard Okleberry
#20 by Larry Bergan on January 6, 2010 - 11:24 pm
I second the motion on behalf of all people who can’t seem to keep other people OUT of their private lives.
#21 by Richard Okelberry on January 7, 2010 - 6:26 am
Here’s a great topic for a new debate here at OneUtah.org:
That’s right! To EVERY author here at OneUtah; you could pay $50,000 each and every time you tell a lie about someone. For that kind of cash, I imagine it will not be long before we have local attorneys running ads like, “Is somebody spreading lies about you on the internet? Call, Cheetum, Fast and How, where on your side!”
Yeah, there’s more! Don’t think that $50,000 is enough for your good name?
Blogger ordered to pay millions in libel damages
I really do think, Mr. Lyon needs to call his “name brand” attorney on this one before everyone here has to go looking for a new place to blog.
#22 by Cliff Lyon on January 7, 2010 - 7:15 am
Mr. Richard Okelberry of Logan Utah,
Thank you for the in depth reporting on a few frivolous lawsuits involving bloggers. Since there have been NO convictions outside of simple defamation (which does not require a blog), I hesitate to concur with your conclusion.
Just because someone make a complaint, doesn’t mean it has any merit. Heck, you submitted a complaint against me that went nowhere too.
But I was pleased to see you quote Scheff: ““is you just can’t go out there on these blogs and slander and defame people without having any facts to substantiate what you are stating,” Scheff said.”…
I believe I have thoroughly substantiated my defamation of you (though, I do not believe questioning your moral character is defamation)
As for Glenn Beck, I believe (I am SURE) he is a traitor to our country and should therefore swing from a branch, then cut down and urinated upon by all the villagers, young and old.
Finally, I believe your vicious, public attacks on Dr. Tiller in the years and months leading up to his murder by Scott Reoder, and your subsequent refusal to condemn this crime, constitutes an endorsement of murder.
#23 by Richard Warnick on January 7, 2010 - 8:15 am
I’d agree to pay $50,000 if anyone could prove I told I lie about them on a blog. But then I would want to collect $50,000 every time I told the truth– I could quit my job and retire to a life of blogging.
#24 by anonymous on January 7, 2010 - 9:11 am
Glad to see the lot of you operating within the confines of reality.
#25 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 7, 2010 - 2:53 pm
R.O.–
First, let me just say that I absolutely and entirely despise your rhetorical method. I likewise abhor Cliff’s rhetorical method most of the time, but for different reasons. I thusly find it quite difficult to have a civil conversation with you. But I will try.
You misunderstand my purpose at being here. I spend a lot of my time positing analysis of other peoples’ ideas, presenting alternative perspectives (which I may or may not agree with), and trying to find a fruitful middle-ground. As such, I tend not to comment on certain things unless they are large breaches of decorum or atrociously wrong. In particular, I am opposed to the intentional demeaning or degrading of individuals on the site.
If you go back to my older postings, you’ll find many many instances when I reprimanded Cliff, Glenden, and Glenn Hoefer for their rhetorical and logical devices, without making any clear reference to my own beliefs regarding the issue at hand.
So I come to why Cliff doesn’t berate my religion. First, let me point out that he does. My introduction to this website followed Glenden’s critique of a comment I left in the Salt Lake Tribune. I suffered attacks on my personality, my ethics, my religion, and assumptions about my personal life for a couple of months before receiving any real opportunity to contribute. Consider it an ill-conceived initiation process.
My desire has never been to promote my ideals on the basis of my religion or to wear my religion on my sleeve, however. Rather, my religion is an identifying mark which is useful only as a matter of disclosure, but one which, unfortunately, I have used without proper purpose at times. I will ferociously defend the benefits and virtues of religion, however, as you may have seen on one of Cliff’s recent posts about atheism.
But I, like Cliff, believe strongly in a separation of church and state. The position of many anti-abortionists has frequently resided on the religious foundations of this country. Because your site has so frequently focused on Christian apologism and issues with a clear religious context in our society, you can expect that people will respond more to your religious convictions than they will to mine, despite my overt acknowledgment of my religion.
Whether they are in actuality or not, your religious convictions appear to be a primary motivation for your political convictions. I don’t have a “switch” I can use to turn off my religious convictions. I have a translation matrix that allows me to express only one rather than both simultaneously. It goes something like this: If I believe that God is the source of supreme morality, then I must believe that God possesses or designs that morality to the utmost quality; he must have reasons for those morals. My job is to discover those reasons, and to argue on a social level based on the reasons I’ve discovered.
So I tend to argue ethics, not morals, which you appear to do as well. But I don’t tackle all of the same issues as you. I have said on this site before that if abortions are allowed, that compulsory, temporary sterilization should follow, until the male and female who created the need for the abortion are prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of sexual relationships.
As to your rhetorical method: the vendettas in which I engage on this site are retributive, brief, and purposeful. I do them only until the commenter in question alters their behavior, and they’re primarily geared towards correcting bad etiquette, not censuring individuals or ideas. Your vendetta, on the other hand, appears to be a permanent fixture in all of your comments, geared not towards arguing a point, but towards discrediting individuals and propagating irrelevant miffs based on perceived character flaws and personal slights.
I despised the same thing in Cliff. I once reprimanded him for trying to dig up information about me and then attempting to discredit me for my youth. Once you stop your vendetta, you can be sure my behavior will change in regards to you. But when I come across a reference to Cliff in the second paragraph in a response directed at me, I just roll my eyes–your credibility is suspect immediately. I know what emotions do to people’s ability to reason.
Furthermore, if I may say so, you appear to be quite the self-promoter. How many references do you have to your site so far? 6 on this page alone. That’s not in itself a condemnation, but I have wondered at times. . .
I found this interesting. Why the crusade against Lyon, then? Why not make a rotation through all of the sins on your blog, rather than focusing on a select few? If you were simply explicating religious or philosophical concepts, I could understand–but you clearly spend a lot of time and space discussing the “damnation” of specific people and acts. Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction?
In any case, I suggest that you practice more careful reading of your detractors, spend a little less time on defamation laws and libel, promote yourself less frequently, and forget the vendetta with Cliff. I mean, I thought MY posts were long, but at least they have substance. You have posted so many things that were quite frankly irrelevant, threatening, or insulting to our participation in this discussion (and others) and on this site.
As for abortion, yes, I agree with you that it’s wrong. In almost all cases, it’s wrong. This comes down to a freedom issue for most people (except when it’s strictly religious), and I happen to believe that the freedom of the woman (and the man, by the way) is insignificant next to the freedom of the child. I believe that there’s no way to know if the child is alive or not, so we have to play it safe and assume that it is. I believe that contraception isn’t wrong while abortion is because contraception counteracts the initiation of a life-generating event of low probable success (conception) while abortion counteracts an already-initiated event of high probable success (live birth). I believe many things that I don’t detail here because I’m too busy trying to straighten out the ridiculous, unproductive activities of other participants.
If you really want to discuss abortion, please don’t feel like you have to respond to Cliff or anyone else whose actions don’t facilitate effective conversation. I like to discuss just about everything, so it’s a surprise that you are one of the few people who can drive me to be sick of a discussion. Please discuss the issue on philosophical and conceptual grounds instead of reverting to tactics that fit better in sports, war, or the playground.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#26 by Cliff Lyon on January 7, 2010 - 3:53 pm
Dwight,
Dude,
Forced sterilization, by law? What up? Are you nuts?
Or did I misunderstand?
#27 by anonymous on January 8, 2010 - 9:50 am
Does anyone actually read Dwight?
#28 by anonymous on January 8, 2010 - 10:01 am
“I have said on this site before that if abortions are allowed, that compulsory, temporary sterilization should follow, until the male and female who created the need for the abortion are prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of sexual relationships”.
Ah yes, here it is Cliff.
Is that going to be covered in the public option Dwight or will it be an extra “Special Op”? Sort of a Blackwater meets Single payer health coverage thing?
#29 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 8, 2010 - 10:05 am
Cliff–
I didn’t fully explain the position. I hope I can help you understand it better.
Abortions which are a product of necessity (e.g. health of the mother, severe deformation, rape, incest) are no problem for me, although I believe counseling prior to the abortion should be required for rape cases. Abortions of convenience, which, however rare you may think they are, you must nevertheless admit the existence of, are not a matter of necessity. Because there is no real way to determine without a doubt that an infant in the womb isn’t, in fact, alive, it can’t be determined without a doubt whether or not the infant is its mother’s possession any more than that one of two conjoined twins is the other’s possession.
It therefore rests upon us in the matter of abortion (or any matter where the existence or absence of life is unsure and the potential victim hasn’t been given the chance to make a choice in the matter or delineate responsibility for that choice to any other individual) to take the safer route and assume that the child is alive, and that, while the procreative act is the mother’s possession, the process by which her body creates a child after the procreative act may very well not be, if it results in viable life; that is, procreation is the mother and father’s, but the gestation is the mother’s, father’s, and the child’s, and it may not be ended without consent of all three, in particular without consent of the individual for whom the most is at stake–the child, whose entire life opportunities reside upon a successful and healthy gestation and delivery.
The issue of ending a life must therefore (if nothing else) be a matter of full disclosure. The child has none. There is nothing I’m aware of which states with absolutism that a child’s soul enters his body at any particular time. In those philosophies which deny the existence of a soul, I see nothing that absolutely determines the beginning of life with any real accuracy but that which may be agreed upon by social consensus. And do we really want to leave life to social consensus?
It’s therefore my conclusion that abortions of convenience should not be permitted any more than the murder of one’s own conjoined twin or the willful killing of a dog that gets in your way as you walk down the street. If society needs to provide services that will help young ladies get through the pregnancy with the least difficulty and without unduly financially burdening them, then so be it. If we need better sex education and need to regulate the quality of contraceptive methods, then so be it. But by no means should the naturally-consequential mental anguish of a soon-to-be mother justify the ending of a potential life. Ease the burden, yes. Lift the burden, or transfer it to the shoulders of the baby, no.
The forced sterilization is kind of a tongue-in-cheek last resort. It’s to say that, if we do permit what may or may not be the direct and forceful ending of a life, we may directly and forcefully prevent the potential for that event from occurring again. Much the way that we allow people to drink and drive–until they’re caught or cause an accident. Then we send them to rehab. Or how we imprison people who are a danger to society until they’re rehabilitated. We do what we must to protect society from those people who would use what power they have to affect others to their detriment.
The sterilization would have to be reversible (i.e. it would have to be a contraceptive method), and would only be prolonged until the person makes an open and willful acknowledgment that they are prepared to produce or bear children and to take the responsibility, of course. But it would prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the process. I’m sure I wouldn’t like to be forced to be sterilized, but I’m sure a baby would have liked to die at 65, if he had been given choice in the matter–if people had even considered that he might deserve to be.
What would you prefer? If we consider that a child may actually be alive, is it better to force the mother to carry to term or to allow the abortion and then temporarily sterilize her and the father, employing a persistent but reversible contraceptive method? No avoiding the question and saying that the child isn’t alive, so we need not consider it–just answer the question. Which is better, or is it better to just allow people who possess someone to destroy them at will?
I believe one of the arguments in Roe v. Wade (or just one brought up by people since) is that the 13th Amendment prohibits forcing a women to carry to term as a form of involuntary servitude to the infant. Other theories on slavery would appeal to the concept that the woman supposedly possesses the child (or that the child is part of her body, not a separate but dependent form, and therefore has no right to itself), and that her freedom to destroy it at will implies a slave-owner relationship.
I would assert that, while a child may not be a “person” yet, by the definition of law, it is a viable life which, left in its present habitat and without the imposition of intentional external hindrances, will naturally either grow to personhood or die. The ending of that potential is more meaningful than the ending of the life of a potential fungus or plant, because neither of those will achieve personhood if left to their own growth. Furthermore, one way to define murder is as the intentional ceasing of the process of life. Life is a matter of continuance, not merely existence. The growth from one moment to the next constantly changes the existential qualities of the living object.
Can you define life by certain steps in the process? When does a seed become a tree? When it ceases to be dormant and begins the process of doing, rather than being, however simplistically, it assumes so much more life than a rock and requires more reasons than convenience or ownership to justify uprooting it or crushing its first bud underfoot.
Ironically, I think that you might feel more outrage and less sympathy for the man who burns a couple-dozen tree saplings on some property he bought than for the woman who has had her second or third abortion in the midst of a happy marriage. I don’t know if that’s how you would respond, though. What do you think?
There are other concerns that must be brought up when we assume that life doesn’t begin once the reaction of conception takes on its own life (pun intended), such as: when does it? How do we know? Are we sure enough that we can risk being wrong about something as important as life–which may very well be the ultimate ethic? Does the male have ownership of the fetus as well? To what extent? If a child is premature and dependent upon an incubator and respirator for life, is it alive yet? If not, may we destroy it?
I personally hold that women who desire abortions over issues of finance, lifestyle, or convenience should be required to receive free counseling services first. They should have the event fully disclosed, so that they can have a full understanding of what will be done and how. If they still go through with it, they should have to witness the event to some degree. These same rules apply to the man, by the way. There must be some responsibility, or at least awareness, for the choice.
But I think I’ll leave this argument in Norma McCorvey’s capable (and far more personally experienced) hands:
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#30 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 8, 2010 - 10:20 am
Anonymous (If that’s your real name)–
We could always send them to prison for murder instead. How about that?
As I said, the forced sterilization idea (which should have been “forced contraception”; sorry) is a tongue-in-cheek “what if?” Personally, I think that abortion should just be outlawed in cases of convenience, and that we should provide the necessary education and services to remove any need for it and/or reduce the fear and discomfort that motivate the desire for it. IF they are legal, then we as a society can do what is necessary after the person in question has already made a choice to protect society from further choices of the same kind. It would be kind of a contingency, fully disclosed: if you get an abortion, your tubes will be tied until such a time as you are prepared for them to be untied. Think it’s dictatorial? Try being the baby.
–Dwight
#31 by anonymous on January 8, 2010 - 10:40 am
Tongue in check as in the Blackwater rejoinder.
Abortion is legal if you can get it, so this conversation is about a non starter as it gets. You do not go to prison for it as murder, unless of course you cause an abortion in a pregnant woman that wants her baby, then you can be charged with murder.
Getting pregnant repeatedly is legal, like it or not. Many contradictory non beneficial behaviors are legal. We do not as yet have the forced compulsion protocols in effect to ameliorate the damage, yet.
These would be of course implemented based on the type of harm you and others fear is worst. Perhaps you truly are nuts. Dwight.
The abortion doctors, nutters, and the rest, all part of the sordid show. The babies unfortunately unable to secure their politics, are left to the desires of their mothers.
You wish to repeal Roe vs Wade before forced sterilization or after Dwight? Wouldn’t this increase the amount of “back alley” abortions? That or just trivialize the Federal authority even farther than it has fallen in insisting on so invasive an approach to a citizen’s personal business.
Governance being there to aid in solving the People’s problems, not to compel behavior in its own judgment. It really is to have no judgment but what we give to it under constitutional parameters.
#32 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 8, 2010 - 11:19 am
Anonymous–
Write long posts and you betray your anonymity.
I believe my statements clearly implied a conceptual basis–not an extant one. That is, if we are to discuss abortion from a foundational perspective, any statements which refer to its legality should be assumed to also question whether it should be and the possibilities if it is/is not. Try some critical reading. If I say “We could always send them to prison,” it should be clear that I’m assuming that abortion has been made criminal prior to doing so. Also, in this context, read the 13th Amendment: “. . .involuntary servitude [shall not exist] except as a punishment for crime. . .” This is foundational to my post-abortion contraception argument. If it’s a crime, we may allow it to occur, but then provide appropriate compulsion thereafter.
Yes–but not nearly as many contradictory detrimental behaviors are, which assumption of detriment I believe is what should also be read into my statements. Are you dithering on purpose or are you just stupid? Besides, I thought nobody read me?
Interesting how you set up an argument and follow through with an ad hominem attack. The substance you provide is so filling. Yummy!
Insisting on a premise which has been disputed as a foundation for your argument is idiotic. No more, please.
Interesting. To assume that governance has “its own judgment.” Can you perceive any other iterations? Furthermore, what problems can be solved without some form of compulsion? Unless government is, indeed, an elite (and entirely socially discreet) ruling class, it relies upon compulsion for the acquisition and distribution of resources, and even for the most basic and historical forms of the rule of law. Good luck getting people to agree to a non-compulsory form of government. Anyone who does has no idea what law actually is.
Thank you, by the way, for reading my posts and responding. I really appreciate it.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#33 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 8, 2010 - 11:36 am
This just in: all three branches of government today declared that government exists to liberate everyone without restricting anything! Anarchists rejoice in streets! Mob violence results in deaths of thousands!
#34 by anonymous on January 8, 2010 - 1:39 pm
“Perhaps you are truly nuts”. Dwight.
Concurring with Cliff’s questioning analysis there. It was not my ad hominem, and was asked as a question.
Back to forced sterilization Dwight. Would that require arrest and drugging of the unwilling for the procedure? Would there be public lists and records of those people who have required abortion services?
Governance has its own judgment when it transcends the laws that give it power, makes its own undemocratic edicts. Individuals within it interpret the law to their own judgment, usurping the representation they are sworn to uphold for their own beliefs or gain.
I think forced sterilization of those who have required abortion services falls into that category to be thankful that there is a modicum of reason in what is left of governance today.
#35 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 8, 2010 - 9:41 pm
Anonymous–
I refuse to believe that you are so unacquainted with methods of implication as to believe that you weren’t creating an ad hominem.
No arrest and drugging. Abortion procedures would include persistent contraception, with full prior disclosure. As with anything the law gets involved in, there would necessarily be lists, but they wouldn’t be made public.
I agree with your meaning regarding government’s “own judgment.” I think that the dynamic of which you make it a part is overly simplistic. One may be justly compelled to do a thing. Solving problems for the many and the society may very well include compulsion of a few, such as the compelled sequestering of murderers behind bars. There are such things as unjust democratic edicts, and not all undemocratic edicts are unjust. Furthermore, your disagreement with government doesn’t make it undemocratic or unjust. If a life is threatened by abortion, a compulsion must exist somewhere–either the compulsion imposed by one individual over the other, or the compulsion of society over one individual for the protection of the other. Please, try to comprehend my argument before you jerk your knee.
I think that the legalization of abortions of convenience falls into that category to be thankful that reason may be restored to what is left of governance today. Finding other ways to diminish the need for abortion, as I said, is preferable. Ultimately, this is a discussion of ethical imperatives. Life must be secure from destruction, but is the fetus alive? As long as we don’t know, I believe that we must play it safe and assume that it is. Solving the abortion issue requires some unique solutions. How do you prevent a murder when life can be so easily created and its creation so easily kept secret?
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#36 by Richard Okelberry on January 9, 2010 - 9:18 am
Here is my detailed response to this defamatory essay: OneUtah: Cliff Lyon Launches Another Personal Attack.
URL: http://utahfreepress.com/?p=583
NOTICE: I am legally requesting that the author of this essay, Cliff Lyon, publish a public retraction of all false statements, accusations and assumptions made within this essay as required by Utah State Statutes.
#37 by cav on January 9, 2010 - 9:23 am
Yawn.
#38 by Uncle Rico on January 9, 2010 - 9:29 am
Yawn.
#39 by Glenden Brown on January 9, 2010 - 9:56 am
dear lord okelberry!
I get that cliff says things that get under your skin but seriously, that’s one long, boring post.
#40 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 9, 2010 - 10:01 am
Yawn.
#41 by Richard Okelberry on January 9, 2010 - 10:29 am
Glenden,
You think that reading it is boring. You’re just lucky you didn’t have to write it.
#42 by Cliff Lyon on January 9, 2010 - 10:45 am
Okelberry,
Does this mean you continue to defend Tiller’s murderer, Scott Roeder?
Have you at least removed your Tiller the Baby Killer posts?
#43 by anonymous on January 9, 2010 - 10:52 am
I would offer that compulsion of the many by the few, or the few by the many, unhindered by any constitution respecting and insuring inalienable rights, to be nothing but a tyranny. The constitution or rights charter is all that comes between this and subjugation of any group within a nation by any elements within the country. Then of course an arm of enforcement is required with some measure of incorruptibility. Not an easy trick.
This is why politicians simply lie to their public all day. It is so much easier.
Like I said in the beginning, the issue is a non starter as it is legal, and any changes in the description of abortions of “convenience”, will bring, “says who”? .
Though when you get to the bottom of it, all abortions are of convenience, due to the inconvenient nature of having a child. This isn’t any different if the lifestyle or health of the mother is at stake. That is who makes the decision now, the pregnant, and the procedure’s availability affects
#44 by anonymous on January 9, 2010 - 11:01 am
whoops… the procedure’s availability affects whether that decision can be made by the woman to have an abortion. Obviously there are all manners of factors affecting that ability, and Tiller’s absence and murderer is now among them. We after all now must pay to adjudicate and incarcerate Tiller’s killer. Who knows yet the civil implications?
Part of the psychic whole of the social psychosis in the US that is the abortion issue.
#45 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on January 9, 2010 - 11:18 am
Anonymous–
I agree with pretty much everything you said in your last post, but please don’t assume in the future that my theories on governance and compulsion don’t include the strict protections of constitution and the mutable protections and compulsions of law.
I think that “convenience” may possess a socially understood meaning. While we may all be relativists to the extreme, most are not, and few would consider avoiding the death of a mother who was compelled to pregnancy by rape (to use an extreme example) to be a matter of convenience. Convenience implies that alternatives exist which, while unpleasant, are entirely executable without the sacrifice of a chief social ethic–such as life. The conversation defining convenience could go on, but I’ll end it here.
Thank you for these most recent comments. I appreciate their depth and consideration, minor disagreements aside.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#46 by Larry Bergan on January 9, 2010 - 3:22 pm
Okelberry:
Don’t you get the irony of hosting a site called “Utah Free Press, while trying to shut this one down or scaring people with lawsuits. I, for one, will not be visiting your idiotic site. See if a radio site that plays Hannity will take you back; it’s your best hope.
#47 by Cliff Lyon on January 9, 2010 - 4:08 pm
Larry, Thank for raising that point. I didnt want to be the first to state the obvious.
The only thing free about that ghost town of a blog, is the fact that Okelberries is “free” to incite murder without having to ask his wife.
#48 by Cliff Lyon on January 9, 2010 - 4:09 pm
…or his Church
#49 by cav on January 9, 2010 - 5:30 pm
While I suspect this comment: “You think that reading it is boring. You’re just lucky you didn’t have to write it.” may be that of an RO name-stealer, I would like to add that while I, myself, have stopped reading RO’s over-the-top articles, I do not feel there’s real reason to presume – he had to write it. Who made him? I pray his demons be banished NOW!
Further any tedious rant against killing the defenseless womb-dwellers, should, in my humble opinion, be balled up and thrown directly in the face of the war-makers. I suspect there’s many a pregnant family who is having second thoughts about bringing another innocent into a culture where the people. practically without recourse, are tasked with destroying somebody over there, simply because a bubble of war-making has surrounded the ruling class.
Not with my babies, you don’t! I’ll abort first!
#50 by Jesse Harris on January 11, 2010 - 4:46 pm
Richard: You apparently haven’t figured out by now that Cliff likes to be as much of an outrageous ass as possible just to provoke a reaction. While I’m sure he believes some of what he writes, he adds just enough over-the-top goodness to be a 4chan-level troll. He is best ignored, not engaged.
#51 by Cliff Lyon on January 11, 2010 - 6:03 pm
Jesse, Its always a pleasure to read your thoughtful posts. You are clearly a wise and informed person.
If I have offended you, I am sorry for that. Allow me to apologize in advance for the next time I do it.
To characterize my comments as “he adds just enough over-the-top goodness to be a 4chan-level troll” is entirely accurate. I happily own it.
That said, I owe you the truth; I DO believe all of what I write. I can see why you might think me an ass if I didn’t believe everything I write. That would be out of integrity. But I do.
No need to apologize though. I can handle it.
#52 by Jesse Harris on January 11, 2010 - 6:47 pm
Cliff: You say offensive things and I’m sometimes (maybe often?) either in or near a group or ideology you condemn, but I don’t know that I’ve taken any personal umbrage from your postings. It’s usually so out there that I figure you’re either trying to probe a reaction or preaching to the choir. In either case, getting angry would either be taking the bait or overreacting, neither of which sounds like a good idea to me. I can usually read between the lines to see what you’re really saying.
So no, I have no hard feelings. Since we’ve never met, you’re just words on a screen to me.
#53 by Larry Bergan on January 11, 2010 - 10:13 pm
Jesse:
I don’t agree with you about Cliff, but I do agree with your support of Peter Carroon on your website. In fact I’m giddy about Carroon running against Herbert.
Cliff’s blog allows people to sort of “get down in the dirt”, which offends sometimes, but it’s where ideas spring from and become popularized. Democracy is noisy.
#54 by Cliff Lyon on January 12, 2010 - 6:53 am
Jesse,
Thank you for stickin in there with us.
I want to make sure you understand the difference between condemning a group vs condemning the claims or positions of the group and/or a ‘member’ of that group.
I am very careful about the distinction, though I cannot help those who mistake one for the other.
That said, I should also point out that you and I have different approaches to the issues. I can certainly appreciate your more conciliatory, “can’t we all just get along” approach. But I do not feel that such an approach does anything to move the ball forward so to say.
The current congress is a perfect example. No amount of conciliation, or good faith deliberation has been reciprocated by the Republicans. I mean, really. Consider that but for a single exception on the House Health Care vote, not one other single Republican broke rank.
When Bush got re-elected, I moved from “process” to “results.”
I believe this is probably the essence of our difference. I see no evidence that being nice works in politics anymore.
#55 by cav on January 12, 2010 - 7:30 am
Be nice, but carry big stick.
#56 by pancho on March 5, 2010 - 7:57 pm
A few late comments, as I check the e-mail account I used to post at this site.
Okelberry wrote, amout my earlier posts challengening his unfounded statemets about George Tiller and Kathelln Sebelius:
“I believe you are splitting hairs here. However, to be technically accurate I will say that as a large contributor Mr. Tiller was invited by Governor Sebelius to a fundraiser where it was understood by Governor Sebelius that whoever “donated” the most money in a fundraiser auction, even if that person was the Late-Term abortionist Dr. Tiller, they would receive a party at the Governors mansion in recognition of support. After which, Governor Sebelius, who is now our Health and Human Services Secretary under Obama did throw a party for Mr. Tiller where they took pictures and did appear to be very friendly with each other.”
“Is That a more fair and accurate description?”
It’s not a fair and accurate description at all. It is apparently something that Okelberry simply created out of his own vivid imagination.
The auction at which Tiller won the dinner at the Governor’s mansion was a benefit for the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus. It was a “silent auction” which Tiller won, with a $2,500 bid. It was indeed a donation, without need for quote marks. It was not made for the benefit of Sebelius.
It was common for the govenor to make the mansion available for the use of various groups, mostly non-profits.
Tiller won the dinner in September ‘05, but did not exercise his option to use it until April of 2007. Because the benefit was made for a political organization, the GKCWPC fully paid for the food and drink, $848.
It was not a political dinner, however. Tiller did not invited his small political staff, nor his attorney. It was a dinner whose purpose it was to honor the his clinical staff who suffered daily abuse from screaming, threatening, stalking “Christians,” who carried signs such as “God hates fags,” and were under constant threat of violent attack. The clinic was often attacked in the past. It was torched by an arsonist. Tiller was shot in both arms at the clinic by another arsonist, an associate of Operation Rescue, as she tried to murder him.
He invited his nurses, his technicians, his clerical staff and receptionists and his custodians.
But in an effort to make the claim that this was somehow sordid, Okelberry and his kind massage the facts at every turn until there is faint resemblance to actuality.
Despite a rigorous search of the Internet, I am completely unable to find any reference to Okelberry’s contention that TIller was invited to the auction or was encouraged to bid on the item by then-Govenor Sebelius. That search included reading many posts about it be various right wing sites including that of the chronically hyperbolic and mendacious Operation Rescue, with whom Tiller’s assassin was closely associated.
#57 by Richard Okelberry on March 8, 2010 - 11:05 am
Pancho,
So let’s get this straight: you say…
Yet the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus directly supported and campaigned for Sebelius during her various campaigns. After all the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus is primarily a PAC that uses such “Soft Money” contributions to support women candidates that share their same pro-abortion stance. Anyone who is at all familiar with political fund raising knows that these types of fund raisers are typically targeted at large contributors and the auctions are only “Silent” with respect to the fact that only the amounts being bid are kept a secret, not the participants. Those in attendance at such events are generally well known to the organizers and are typically invited. Are you arguing that this Dinner was an “Open to the Public” event? Very doubtful!
Also, I want you to consider another fact. This silent auction is typically held annually at what is called the organization’s “Torch Light Dinner.” In 2005, the year that you have said that Tiller won the auction; can you guess who was the listed “Mistress of Ceremonies?” If you guessed Mistress of Ceremonies Governor Kathleen Sebelius, you are correct!
Also, it is apparent by Governor Sebelius’ own testimony during her confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary that she has received DIRECT contributions from Tiller to both her own campaigns as well as her PAC.
You can complain all you want that there are those that are distorting her connection to Tiller but hard facts remain. Chief among these is exposed by what is missing. Usually when ties are made between high ranking politicians and controversial figures the first reaction of the politicians is to distance themselves from the controversial figure by first denying knowledge then by make very specific public statement of opposition to the controversial individual or organization.
In this case it would be impossible for Sebelius to deny knowing that Tiller was going to be in attendance at the mansion party and the publish photographs illustrate in all too powerful a fashion her kind reception of Tiller. Also it must be noted that Sebelius first has had ample time to make a public statement against either his contributions to her, her PAC or the PACs (like The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus) that support and campaign for her. Second Sebelius could have made a public statement against the types of late term abortions that Tiller was infamous for. Among these is one documented during a criminal investigation of an abortion of a viable child that was performed so that the young woman could fit into her prom dress.
Ultimately, Sebelius could have cleared this whole thing up with Dr. Tiller in an instant. She has yet to do so, which is ultimately the most telling.
Here are a few other minor points in response to your post.
The governor’s office only request that the Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus only reimburse the state for the dinner once the controversy over Tiller went public in the media with the release of the photos and the subsequent freedom of information requests from the media.
You really might one to consider retracting this statement. The “official” reason for the dinner is supposed to have absolutely nothing to do with Tiller, his clinic or staff. He was just supposed to be some random guest. Try to stay on message!
Ultimately, I am all about the truth.
So, if you still feel that Sebelius was unaware that Tiller was contributing to The Greater Kansas City Women’s Political Caucus and as “Mistress of Ceremonies,” did not know that Tiller was invited to the Torch Light Dinner, then why don’t you simply ask her? Write her a letter asking her to explain everything. I personally have a few questions for our nation’s Health and Human Services Secretary that I would like answered also.
1. EXACTLY when does a human being become a FULL human and thus deserve civil and human rights protections? Throughout history many groups have argued that certain classes are nut Fully Human and thus should not be afforded equal protections under the law. The Nazis in Germany declared that both Blacks and Jews were less than human. Also, slavers and racists throughout American history also argued that blacks were not fully human and thus not deserving of consideration as a full human being. Does she consider a child in the womb at 9 months to be a similar Half-Human class?
2. Does she support the types of late term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller and does she believe he was only and always operating within Kansas law?
3. When she discovered that the infamous Dr. Tiller had contributed to her campaigns and her PAC, why didn’t she give the money back?
4. When was the very first time she physically met Dr. Tiller and did she have any communications with either him, his staff or his PAC over the years?
I will anxiously await any response she might give you.
BTW: Fell free and answer the 1st question above if you like.