With Boehner’s chief of staff, after the election.

If Nancy Pelosi met with a known terrorist with a criminal record, there would be a hue and cry.  Apparently soon-to -be Speaker John Boehner isn’t being held to the same standard.  According to Right Wing Watch:


And Terry apparently  issued some big demands for Boehner and the Republicans now that they have taken control of the House – the complete end of abortion in America:

We must demand that Republicans who won the House of Representatives hasten the end of legalized child killing in America. Their victory could be a strong step forward for the babies, but it also might be yet another set back after 50,000,000 dead babies.

We must not delude ourselves! The landslide the Republicans enjoyed in the House of Reps was a repudiation of President Obama’s overall agenda; it was about the economy, about jobs, corporate bailouts, the debt, and about his health care bill.

Yet we already see pro-life fundraising letters and petitions heralding this GOP victory as an automatic victory for the babies’ lives. This is simply not true!

When the Republicans are in power, pro-life groups and leaders become way too “polite.” We lose our edge; we don’t hold them accountable; we settle for trite phrases and broken promises as long as they will meet with us for 10 minutes, and we can take our picture with them, or they come to one of our meetings and receive some useless award.

I beg you to carefully consider my words; look at this situation with prophetic insight. Unless the Republicans do something concrete to save babies from murder, then they are collaborators with child killers, and we must treat them as such.

We have Pro-Life DEMANDS for Mr. Boehner & House GOP

We Must Play Hard Ball: They Must Fear Pro-Lifers!


If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it might be a duck, or in Terry’s case, a terrorist. The appropriate question should be why is this person who has been convicted of criminal acts over the past 3 decades gets an audience with Boehner. Randall Terry obviously has some issues.

Here is what the Christian Newswire quotes, without further comment, what Terry is saying:

“Nevertheless, the sheer horror and frustration of such an evil policy will lead some people to absolutely refuse to pay their taxes. And I believe — if my reading of history from America and around the world is correct — that there are others who will be tempted to acts of violence.

“If the government of this country tramples the faith and values of its citizens, history will hold those in power responsible for the violent convulsions that follow.” — Randall Terry

Terry has been known to be an attention-hog and a bully.  He has done hard time.  Perhaps soon-to-be Speaker Boehner needs to be reminded that a man is known by the company he keeps. 

60 Thoughts to “Randall Terry Meets With Upcoming Speaker of the House”

  1. punchak

    THIS IS AN OUTRAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Randall Terry should not be getting an interview with any of our congressmen or senators. He is a violent person and certainly cares nothing about the law. He has thrown a pregnant daughter out of the house and disowned an adopted son.

    but save every egg, it is sacred. Forget it when it becomes a sentient human beings.

  3. Steve Thomas


    First off, I am no Randall Terry fan. However, I disagree with your characterization of him as a “terrorist”. Beyond chaining himself to an abortion clinic sink, and obstructing the entrances to abortion clinics, I respectfully challenge you to provide any act that would rise to the level of “terrorism”. All I can find are misdemeanor arrests and convictions, and a few civil cases he lost. What did he do “hard time” for?

    While I may hold the same views life as Terry, I hold little respect for “the man”, based on his abandonment of his family to marry his mistress, after disowning his parents for their divorce, and for disowning his son after the son announced he was gay. A bit of a hypocrite, I’ll give you that. Lousey husband and father, I’ll agree there too. But a “terrorist”?

    If Boehner wants to meet with Terry, and listen to his “demands”, fine IMHO. Whatever the motivation, Boehner will have to deal with the cost/benefit of the meeting. But I would like to point out our current President has had a years-long relationship with TWO TERRORISTS. Real Terrorists. Former members of the Weather Underground, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who bombed the Pentegon, bombed a park in Chicago to kill Police officers, and accidently blew up a townhouse while building bombs to kill Ft. Dix Soldiers. Oh, and Dohrn actually issued a proclamation declaring war on the United States….Me, You, and everyone else who was alive at the time.

    Now maybe you disagree with Terry’s positions on Life, and his methods for pushing his agenda, but to classify him as a terrorist or some hardened criminal is quite a stretch. However, I do look forward to your spirited defense of your position 🙂

  4. Steve Thomas

    Oh, and he didn’t even meet with Boehnor…just the chief of staff.

  5. I don’t recall what Randall Terry went to prison for. I believe it was the Atlanta prison. I will try to find it. Let’s get Obama out of the way here. You say a relationship….I say he knew the person. I have rubbed elbows with people who I find politically repugnant also. I would hardly say they were close, hardly say they had a relationship over weatherman or whatever Ayers was. That is just one of those gotcha things.

    I once had a 25 minute conversation with the Imperial Wizard of the KKK. That doesn’t make me a klansman.

    Now on to Randall Terry. Why do I consider him a terrorist? I think he is a terrorist because he uses fear and intimidation to advance his political cause. He has done more than just chaining himself to a sink. He has inspired others to commit violence, chain themselves under cars, glue locks, and keep people out of their place of business. His rhetoric is violent, or at least it used to be. It inspires other to do things to others.

    Would he bomb a building? I don’t know. I would hope not.

    from the WaPo

    During Operation Rescue’s glory days in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Terry was arrested dozens of times for his calculated brand of street theater. Sometimes, he and others chained themselves to the actual medical equipment used to perform abortions. Other times, they shoved themselves into the faces of pregnant women on their way into the clinic, screaming “Mommy, Mommy, don’t kill me!”

    It was God, Terry said, who ordered him to go to such extremes — to do everything he could to save the unborn. That included stunts such as displaying a dead fetus at a press conference and arranging to have one delivered to Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. (Terry did three months in federal prison for that one.)

  6. @Steve, I suppose it all depends on what a person considers terrorism. I consider Terry’s behavior very much terrorism. Scaring people and inciting others is sort of the entire point of terror. I think any blockade of a medical facillity whether to protest abortion, animal testing or whatever is terrorism and should be treated as such. When the US Marshalls are called out and assigned, its time to start putting labels on the activity.

    And I think he has an upcoming meeting with Boehner but I could have misread articles. It wouldn’t be the first time.

  7. Steve Thomas


    So, by your rationale, SEIU would be a terrorist organization, because they frequently use intimidation to silence their opponents? That would make Andy Stern, former head of SEIU a terrorist as well, and considering he tops the whitehouse visitor’s log for frequency of visits, it would appear that Obama and/or members of his staff are having meetings with a terrorist…. lot’s of meetings…481 meetings in the first year of Obama’s administration (according to the WSJ).

    If Terry had used actual violence, or threats of actual violence (ie. bomb scares, hanging and burning effigies, etc.) I could accept your characterization, but agree that we can have differring thresholds with regards to “fear and intimidation”. Kinda like obscenity in a way. He uses a lot of symbolism, meant to shock and offend. I can understand why he does this. He wants to move the discussion from the academic and hypothical to reality. It’d kinda be like me walking into KK’s, purchasing a bunch of videos, and standing out on the street with a portable dvd player, sticking it in the customer’s faces as they walked in or out of the shop, while telling them they are supporting pornography (of course, this isn’t my style, nor would I advocate someone else doing it).

    The thing is, every citizen has a right to approach the elected leaders of our country, and petition for redress of greviances. I’m not happy that Andy Stern, an addmitted marxist was A#1 guest of the whitehouse, but he has every right to be there.

    Now, on to Ayers & Obama…

    From the Chicago Tribune:

    The UIC records show that Obama and Ayers attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way. The two continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program, records show.

    At a Democratic debate this year when the association between Obama and Ayers was raised, Obama said: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. . . . He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” Obama called Ayers’ past radical acts detestable.

    But critics note that Obama visited Ayers’ home for a meeting at the start of his first state Senate bid in the mid-’90s.

    The UIC records showed that Ayers was instrumental in securing the $50 million education grant to reform Chicago Public Schools, part of a national initiative funded by the late Ambassador Walter Annenberg. . After Chicago was awarded the money, Obama served as president of the Challenge’s board of directors, the fiscal arm that disbursed the grants to schools and raised private matching funds. Ayers participated in a second entity known as the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, the operational arm that worked with the grant recipients.

    From Fox News:

    “William Ayers, who was a founder of the 1960s and 1970s radical group the Weather Underground, told FOX News correspondent James Rosen in a candid 2004 interview that he still believed he was “on the side of justice” years after the group’s wave of attacks.

    In the interview, conducted three years after the September 11 attacks, Ayers argued the U.S. government had carried out “many other acts of terror … even recently, that are comparable,” and claimed he and his bomb-planting comrades were “restrained” in their actions.

    Ayers, now a professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago, served with Barack Obama on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago for three years and helped launch Obama’s political career in Illinois by hosting in his Hyde Park home an informal campaign event for the future state senator in 1995.”

    It’s the “informal campaign event” that cinches it for me. These guys were more than just neighbors. A terrorist radical like Ayers or Dorhn wouldn’t be hosting anything for someone he wasn’t 100% sure of their ideology, and you can only get that true insite with long, deep conversations.

    But to our original point: Boehner’s COS meeting with Terry means very little, if you ask me. I think the GOP leadership is going to stick to economic issues for the foreseeable future.

    1. My husband met with Tom Hayden regularly. Many people would classify Tom Hayden as a terrorist. My husband hated him and Hayden’s ex-wife, but he sure didn’t show it. Tom Hayden served on the board of directors of a company my husband worked for.

      As for SEIU, I don’t know that much about them. Union stuff can be rough. That is why I am glad I live in a right to work state. However, I haven’t been permanently injured by SEIU. I have by operation rescue.

      If Andy Stern did the things I accuse Randall Terry of, then I would classify him of terrorism. I don’t know that he has and I have never seen those folks at work. I would be curious as to who they blockade out of going to work? Is it during a strike?

      I am probably not a good person to talk to about unions. I have very mixed feelings.

  8. Steve Thomas

    @ MH,

    “I once had a 25 minute conversation with the Imperial Wizard of the KKK. That doesn’t make me a klansman. ”

    I didn’t say it did. I once spent a very pleasent 2-3hrs with the blog owner of a local moderate-to-liberal blog, and had a very productive discussion. That doesn’t make me a moderate 🙂

    1. @Steve Thomas,

      Bwaaaahahahahahaha…awe Steve, I was just softening you up. Seriously, that is the first good laugh I have had all day.

      Aren’t you even going to bite about the Imperial Lizard?

    2. @Steve, ooops I meant wizard.

  9. Censored bybvbl

    I’d say a person who blocks the door to a medical clinic for women, chains himself to the equipment, yells at clients as they walk through the door is a thug if not a terrorist. Until men face the same thuggery/violence over their medical decisions concerning reproductive rights, I think they should STFU on the subject. When women can decide which men should have vasectomies or surgery on their reproductive organs, maybe then there will be somewhat of an equal playing field. SEIU is totally irrelevant. We’re talking about an individual person’s rights to a legal medical procedure. How many of you men have been yelled at or threatened when going to an appointment for a prostate exam or to see your doc about diabetes or high cholesterol? I’d bet none. Your doc may yell at you but you don’t have a cadre of wingnuts shouting as you enter a clinic. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Take precautions about pregnancy. Educate your kids. But you have absolutely no effing business sticking your noses in anyone else’s medical decisions. Why do these right wingers hate women so much…

  10. Steve Thomas


    I’d rather hear about your discussion with the Imperial Lizard….My guess is it involved some good stuff, a lava lamp, and some Doors Music…:-)

    I ran the last six miles of the Okinawa Marathon with Elvis…I swear it was him, or I was just bonking from dehydration….

    So you really spoke with the Grand Wizard? Back in 1985, a Klan recruiter in Jacksonville NC tried to talk to me about his organization. I had a lot of fun messing with his mind.

    1. @Steve

      I was a kid in Atlanta, Georgia during the lunch counter sit ins. I was too young to really know much about it and retrospectively, I am not sure why on earth my mother let me go downtown with friends. Anyway, I hopped off the escalator and bumped right in to the Imperial Lizard….errr Wizard. He tried to convert us. I wanted to know what he was and why he was in fairy godmother clothing. He told us we should have never cut the picket line. We finally ran off. I was a pre teen or very young teenager.

      Now about the Lizard and the Doors…now that is another story. I guess all roads lead to Rome, I was with a marine also. 😉

  11. Steve Thomas


    Are your comments general in nature, or directed at someone specifically? You kinda lost me with the whole prostate exam thing. I am guessing you are directing it at me, since you referenced SEIU.

    You obviously have strong feelings regarding abortion. You are entitled to that. I didn’t say I approved of the tactics used by some of the more radical right-to-life groups. I’m all about the peaceful/lawful demonstrations, and working withing the legislative process to change things. Now, I could go on a rant myself, regarding the tactics used by SEIU to intimidate conservatives. I believe it is very relevent. We are talking about the methods used to futher one’s agenda, and whether or not they constitute “terrorism”, and whether or not it is proper for an elected leader to meet with these people. If Boehner’s COS was meeting with a group of Catholic Mom’s who oppose abortion through peaceful and lawful means, I doubt it would have warrented any media mention. But because it’s someone who’s methods are considered by some (me included) to be questionable, do those methods rise to the level of “terrorism”, and is the meeting proper.

    So, if you understand what the debate/discussion/matter-at-hand actually is, then you can decide what is relevant. This isn’t a debate about positions on life. Everyone has a right to their positions/beliefs/morals. It’s about methods and classifications of the individuals using those methods. I tell you this: You have a right to swing your arms around in public, but your right ends where my nose begins.

  12. I know exactly what Censored was saying. People may feel any way they want about abortion or any other reproductive issue. Those are personal feelings based on ones sense of ethics, religion, upbringing etc. Howevaaaaaaa….

    Don’t get in the way of anyone going for medical services. That is what makes Terry a terrorist. (in my mind)

    Steve, I think the only thing we disagree on is whether what he does is terrorism. I say yes. You say no. I have also seen it first hand and talked to him. (ad nauseum) So did my husband. He is has more attention seeking behaviors that a monkey on ecstasy.

    I really don’t approve of scaring and bullying women on what for some, is probably the worst day of their life. I think it really is the bullying that makes him a terrorist.

  13. Censored bybvbl

    Steve Thomas, Randall Terry’s tactics are aimed at women’s reproductive rights and medical choices. He attempts to physically interfere with these rights. There is no similar issue that men face. And having a group of Catholic Moms peacefully meet with their representatives to voice their opposition to abortion is indeed not similar to Terry’s thuggish tactics. With the Atlanta Olympic bombings, the murder of abortion providing doctors, the bombing and blocking of clinics it should be apparent that thuggish tactics often result in violence and death. This is one of those instances where leaders of either party have to be careful of the company they keep. Abortion, which should be a private medical matter, is a litmus test for the Republican right wing (and some Democrats and Independents).

    You can bring up any number of Democratic “similar” meetings with “terrorists” to try to lessen Randall Terry’s record, but there is no similar issue that men face. As far as your arm swinging analogy – remember that the next time you think you have the right to interfere or limit a woman’s personal medical choice.

  14. I can’t add to what Censored has said so well.

  15. Steve Thomas


    Please do not misinterpret my pro-life position or objections to the label of “terrorist” to mean that I approve of those who willfully trespass, obtruct access through physical means, use criminal mischief to deny access to a legal establishment, for lawful purposes. I, in fact do not approve. If I object to the goings on at said establishment, I have the means, through the exercise of electoral power and the legislative process, by which I can affect the change. While this way may take more time, it has a greater chance of success in the long run, than “direct action”. What dooms direct action to failure, is it lacks a legitimate lawful foundation.

    Whether Terry is a terrorist is a matter or opinion. I do not think his actions to date have risen to that level, because they are lacking the component of violence. To define everyone who uses intimidation as a terrorist lessens the descriptor for the true terrorist.

    You can argue he is a “thug”, an immoral person, a hypocrite, and your argument will have merit, and you will find me in agreement with you at some level. I’m not here to defend him. However, if you insist on calling him a terrorist, and throw out the subjective measure, I will use the same measure to classify Rahm Emmanuel, SEIU, Andy Stern, Malik Zulu Shabaz, and a whole host of others as terrorists, becuase they use intimidation as a method of futhering their respective agendas. You’ll have to agree if you possess the least bit of intellectual honesty. I’m using your yardstick afterall.

    1. @Steve, not that you were talking to me…but when has that ever mattered. I decided the Terry was a terrorist many years ago. Being rushed by a mob of people is pretty terrifying. While I don’t approve of it, I certainly wouldn’t call all people who approach patients terrorists. I hate the behavior but they aren’t being terrorists. Hundreds of people rushing a building, forcing their way inside and doing whatever it takes to stop stop business is a form of terrorism. Even barricading a building is a form of terrorism. No one knows when some nut in the crowd is going to pull a gun or harm someone.

      What I have personally seen happen crosses a line. Is it the same as driving a plane into a building? Of course not. There are degrees.

  16. Morris Davis

    I suspect those who argue Terry is not a terrorist believe al-Awlaki and Assange are, which demonstrates that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter depending on your perspective.

    1. @Moe,

      I am sure that’s how Terry sees himself: Fetal freedom fighter.

  17. Censored

    Steve, there is no similar situation. No one is bombing clinics or threatening doctors who deal with men’s reproductive rights. These are assaults on individual women’s medical choices. To argue otherwise – we can all make our lists of terrorists or freedom fighters – shows a lack of understanding of what choice half the population may face at some point in their reproductive lives. Maybe when enough women start threatening organized violence against deadbeat fathers will the weight of pregnancy hit home to the other half – despite my husband thinking a beer gut may qualify. 😉

    M-h, “fetal freedom fighter”. LOL!

  18. Steve Thomas


    As always, we can find common ground and work from there. As I am sure you have come to realize, I am supportive of rights of individuals and groups to protest, as long as their actions remain wholly inside the bounds of the law. An angry mob surrounding a person or smaller group, blocking all avenues of ingress or egress, or otherwise restricting their freedom of lawful movement, is not a lawful protest action. Similarly, storming or orderly occupation private or public property, whether it’s an abortion clinic, annimal testing facility, military base or student union is not lawful either. These methods are counter-productive. The “righteousness” of the cause does not matter. We have a constitutional right to freedom of assembly, but no right or authority to restrict the movements of others.

    I guess it’s my nature to want to deal in specificity, rather than sweeping generalities. As a student at the Citadel, I had the opportunity to study under Profs. Joe Twinam, former ambassador to Lebennon, and Gardel Furtado, former chief of the CIA’s terrorism desk. As a young Marine Officer, much study of terrorism was required of me, due to events post-beruit bombing. Zebras, Donkies and Horses all have common traits, but that doesn’t make any of them a Mule. SEIU, PETA the pro-life movement, and similar special interest groups may use similar tactics, but Al Queda, Hizbulla, Sandero Luminoso, the IRA, etc. meet the definition of terrorists.

  19. @Steve

    I am very supportive of individual rights also, until they slam in to other people’s rights. I have no problem with peaceful protest, even if something I disagree with but I have pretty high standards regarding ‘peaceful.’

    I also am fairly inclusive regarding the definition of terrorism. And Al Queda, Hizbulla, etc, are extreme terrorism because they kill people. I might even go so far to say there is a terrorism continum, with causing bodily harm being to the far extreme.

    However, property damage is also a part of terrorism, at least in my book. Certainly those animal rights people show squirt ink and dye on someone they think is swearing fur rather than faux fur is practicing terrorism…as is a person who sets fire to a lot full of SUVs because they are seen as gas guzzlers. Shooting up the miliarty buildings is also terrorism, in my book. Cyber attacks are a form of terrorism.

    I think our disagreement is on the definition of terrorism more than anything else. I am more inclusive of property damage and just scaring people. As long as we can agree that these acts are horribly wrong, I don’t really think it matters what we call them.

  20. Steve, do you think that the snipers were terrorists?

  21. I’ll answer that one, Moon.

    The Beltway snipers, if that’s who you are referring to, WERE NOT, technically, terrorists. They were serial killers. Common criminals. Yes, they caused terror, but the term doesn’t apply to them.

  22. Steve Thomas

    “I think our disagreement is on the definition of terrorism more than anything else.”

    I would agree with that statement.

    Moon & Cargo
    I do consider the Beltway Snipers terrorists, as well as serial killers. My wife worked on that trial, so I am very sure of my facts. Their first victims were picked at random, killed, and they departed the area. However, after the victim in Spotsy County, they began making phonecalls and sending/leaving notes for authorities. They made financial demands in order to end their killings, and stated that it was their intent to terrorize the DC metro area. This is why Paul Ebert was able to use the state’s terrorism statute to get a death penalty conviction, even though there was only a single victim in his jurisdiction.

    Later, we all found out that the only person John Allen Mahammad really wanted to terrorize was his ex-wife, and have her be his final victim. Yes. He was a terrorist. He used violence and the threat of violence to advance his agenda.

  23. Steve Thomas



    First of, I am not sure why you insist on turning this discussion towards the abortion issue. Perhaps my disclosure as having pro-life positions is what you are focusing in on. My disclosure was purely for “full disclosure” purposes, and not an attempt to frame the debate within the abortion issue. Quite the contrary. The discussion was whether or not this individuals actions rise to the level of terrorism, and if so, the appropriateness of his having access to the incoming speakers COS. Just because I fall on Terry’s side of the fence on life, doesn’t mean I approve of the man or his actions. I am a RedSox fan. Doesn’t mean I would approve of a Yankees fan being mistreated at Fenway, by other RedSox fans.

    It is obvious that you have very strongly held views on the abortion issue, and you are entitled to them. Even if we disagree, I am sure if we discussed the rationally, I could come to understand why you hold them, as I am confident that if I articulated my views, you would find them reasonable. I am also confident we could, at some level agree on certain points. I think communication breaks down with incorrect assumptions on the others reasoning and motivations. Your comments implying that because I a a man, and therefore lacking the plumbing required to carry a child, my views are somehow invalidated and I should “STFU”. Yet, you have no idea as to my rationale, or my motivations, or even a clear understanding of what my actual views are. Yes, you use the generic “Men” and kept the pronouns out of it.

    I am sure that I could go back in the archives and finds some post authored by Moon Howler, referencing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or even something on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. I could begin every response to a comment with which I disagreed with a question: “Have you ever served in the military, and did you serve in combat?” , knowing that she hasn’t. Then I could dismiss her entire argument based on that fact, and not on the merits of what she was saying. To me this is lazy, disengenuous, disrespectful, and really does nothing to further the debate. It stiffles the debate.

    So, if you would like to have a reasoned, civil discussion on the abortion issue, I am open. If you’d like to have it face to face, I would actually prefer that. I find we are a lot more reasonable when we have to look eachother in the eye, and actually can be a bit more open and forthcoming. If you’d rather discuss via email, please contact MH. She can provide my email address to you. If youd rather have it here, ask MH to put up a post and ring the bell. I am all about civil and rational debate, because we are always better for it.

  24. Cargosquid :

    I’ll answer that one, Moon.

    The Beltway snipers, if that’s who you are referring to, WERE NOT, technically, terrorists. They were serial killers. Common criminals. Yes, they caused terror, but the term doesn’t apply to them.

    I would say they were terrorists. There was political motive.

  25. @Steve, I answered Cargo before I read your response. Thanks for your explanation. I agree with you even though you brought out some points I was unaware of. Those were a horrible few weeks when those monsters were terrorizing.

  26. I think that Censored is speaking of the politics of abortion rather than personal belief. I will be glad to broker email addresses with everyone’s permission. Say the word.

    I don’t ever argue the personal choice of abortion because it is …a personal choice. Each person for herself, based on her faith, conscience, and life circumstances. I sure can’t tell another person what to do on such a deeply personal issue, nor do I want to.

    Public policy…I am all over that……If you all want to discuss it here, I have no problem. This is an older thread. Do what you want. I am only a stickler when it is a new thread. There are folks that like to diffuse issues by getting them just a little off base.

    I will vouch for Steve being a reasonable person to have a discussion with.

  27. I don’t remember the Beltway snipers being politically motivated. I thought that they were only asking for a ransom to stop the killing. But I may misremember. If it was politically motivated, then I agree that they were terrorists.

    I picture terrorists as those that use violence to advance a political cause, substituting civilian targets over military ones. Unfortunately, when used on a large scale, that’s called total unrestricted warfare. And we excelled at that during WWII.

    I’ve always thought that if an enemy wishes to conduct warfare in any manner, then we respond in kind. They blow up our civilian buildings, we identify specific targets that they value and destroy…..all of them. If they want to play with the big dogs…….

    1. @Cargo, I will defer to Steve Thomas on this one. He knows more about the details than I do.
      Steve…..take this one please.

  28. Steve Thomas

    Cargo is correct when he says the demands themselves were financial, and not political. However, the demands were made to the governments of the DC metro area, which means they were trying influence the actions of the local governments through the threat of continued violence. Their actions and methods were intended to inspire mass fear. Remember people ducking and weaving when getting gas or crossing a parking lot? I’d say a case could be made for both arguments, especially when you realize their ultimate goal was to cover the planned murder of Muhummad’s ex-wife.

  29. Censored bybvbl

    Steve, I link the discussion of Randall Terry to the abortion issue because that is where he uses his coercive tactics. Pregnancy only effects women although it can have a psychological/financial effect on their partners as well. It’s a unique physical condition with long-term effects for the one who finds herself pregnant.

    I’m well aware of the various positions people hold on abortion and they’re entitled to hold those different opinions. I’ll be blunt. I think no one but a woman and her physician (and her God, if she happens to be a believer in a higher power) should be involved in that decision. Randall Terry doesn’t like the outcome of our present law. He prefers to intimidate women who are making personal decisions and acting within the law. He’s a thug.

    You may be sympathetic to women’s plight but you’ll never be a woman so, try as you may, you’ll never have the same life experiences or understanding. To say otherwise is as presumptious as my saying I understand what it’s like to be a sixty-year old African American. I don’t and never will. There are some areas in which we make choices which breed a degree of similarity – going to the same universities, joining the military, living overseas, raising children, racing cars, etc. Gender and race aren’t chosen and are unique.
    Randall Terry is trying to intimidate one gender about choices which are uniquely its own – and it isn’t his gender.

    It won’t do any good to debate me. My mind is made up. I’m old enough to know women who have had illegal abortions, legal abortions, raised children successfully despite not wanting a pregnancy, had an abortion and then raiused a child, regretted an abortion, given up a child for adoption. You get the idea. There are a lot of options and I don’t find the choice to be anyone else’s business – particularly a thug like Randall Terry.

  30. Censored bybvbl

    Ha ha – I need to use my other browser with its spell check.

  31. Steve Thomas

    “I’ll be blunt. I think no one but a woman and her physician (and her God, if she happens to be a believer in a higher power) should be involved in that decision.”

    What about the husband? Has he no say? Is there a time in the gestational period where an abortion isn’t appropriate? What about the murder of a pregant woman, that also results in the death of the unborn child? Is the perp guilty of one murder or two? Is a preganacy an “illness” which ethically binds a doctor to treat, or is it as you put it “a medical condition”, where the procedure is purely elective?

    You have declined my invitation to debate, and I can respect that. The “zero sum game” is a tough (almost impossible) position to defend. When someone isn’t willing to engage in a debate, defend their convictions, or just dismisses the other party’s arguments solely on some percieved “lack of standing”, what does that say about the truth of their position? I believe it makes their entire argument gratuitous. I’m kinda funny that way.

  32. @Steve Thomas

    See, I knew you had a much better answer than I did. Thanks!

    On the other hand, see what happens? You come for a visit and I immediately put you to work.

  33. In a perfect world, or even an imperfect one, husbands and wives and boyfriends and girl friends decide together about pregnancy, especially if it is a problem pregnancy.

    However, ultimately, it is always the woman’s choice in the end.
    Is there a time? I think the time frames in Roe v Wade work…if one is a believer in rule of law. Naturally each person has a different interpretation on that one. To some, never is the answer. To others, circumstance dictates when the lines have been crossed. I don’t think there is a absolute here.

  34. I am a great believer in what Carl Sagan and Ann Dryan said:

    I will try to summarize. I ought to get smart and do this right once, and then save it.

    Any time the abortion debate comes up, the hard cases are mentioned. Rape, and incest. And those are real considerations. I can’t imagine being a victim of either of those behaviors and having to bear a child caused from rape or incest. Most people, even those who abhor abortion will often give a nod to it being ok in those cases.

    But wait…back up. Most people are either woman focused or fetal focused. I am generally woman focused. Let me switch hats. Is a fetus, conceived from rape or incest any less deserving of life? Did the fetus have anything to do with either situation? NO. So, if I am fetus focused, I can’t very well say, well tough fetus, your biological sperm donor was a rapist. Therefore you will be aborted.

    By the same token, I cannot, will not, tell any woman or girl that they are to be forced by the government to bear the offspring of her rapist or a relative to forced himself on her.

    That leaves me a pro choice woman. Women will simply have to be the ones responsible for their own morally appropriate choices. The government needs to stay out of it and stop with all the whittling away at women’s reproductive rights.

    Pro-choioce people are not pro abortion. They are pro personal responsibility and have faith that this is just one more area that government instrusion is not welcome.

  35. Steve Thomas

    MH, if I am a guest in your house, you have every right to ask me to load the dishwasher.

  36. Steve Thomas

    “Naturally each person has a different interpretation on that one. To some, never is the answer. To others, circumstance dictates when the lines have been crossed. I don’t think there is a absolute here.”


    You are a smart lady, and you have hit on the key point. It is “settled law”. There are those who read the 2nd Ammendment, and “shall not be infringed”, saying “see, anything goes. Give me my beltfed machine gun and rocket launcher!” But a more reasoned approace is: there must be reasonable restrictions, like convicted felons, minors, and prohibited places like schools.

    The abortion issue is the same at some level. There are those who say “never”. There are those who say “anytime”. Yet, the reasoned approach is somewhere inbetween. This is up to the greater community to decide. In order to do this, one must first be willing to engage in the debate.

  37. @Steve, here is where we differ. I don’t think abortion is one where the community can decide. It doesn’t involve the community. I am ok with the time lines in Roe. Is there an argument for other benchmarks? Sure, but those will always be arbitrary.

    I don’t like the whittling away of rights. I believe this is probably where 2nd amendment folks and reproductive rights people can also find common ground. If you can’t just outlaw something you don’t like, there is always the opinon of whittling away. You might be more comfortable with pecking it to death by a duck.

    I see the artificial clinic regulations ordinances, bills, etc recently done by the city and county as duck pecking. But I digress.

    The best way to end abortion is to end unwanted pregnancy. As Americans, we spend very little money on contraception R & D. Yet very little consumes an American election more than the topic of abortion.

    Abortion is expensive, sad, can’t be pleasant to endure physically or emotionally. but necessary as a safety net in modern society. I can’t imagine anyone chosing it over safe, reliable contraception. There’s the catch. Safe and reliable contraception.

  38. @Steve, I hope that Censored will join back in. I simply don’t argue or debate abortion because I feel it is such a personal issue and an issue that depends so much on life’s circumstances. My Carl Sagan belief is as close as I come. And I made up my mind, almost as a kid about this issue, over Sherri Finkbine and lambchop. I tend to start repeating myself fairly quickly.

    I can talk policy for a long time. I probably repeat there also. And I also will say, I don’t think for one minute I will change anyones mind. I do think I can make people see my point of view. And that is as good as it gets. As long as people see each other’s point of view, then we are a step ahead.

    When I first got involved in this issue as an adult, that was one of my first objectives…to see the other guy’s point of view. Some people never bother to do that. That is why I will always talk to you about things because you seem to approach things that same way.

    Do I have areas where I don’t even try…? Yea. But this isn’t one of them.

  39. Elena

    Morris Davis :I suspect those who argue Terry is not a terrorist believe al-Awlaki and Assange are, which demonstrates that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter depending on your perspective.

    Moe, you took the words write out my little fingers as I was going to write a response. Abortion providers AND workers have been killed at clinics or GUNNED down in their onw CHURCH! When you call doctors murderers and woman murderes, and use the bible to advocate violence, you no longer get the cloak of righteousness, you are now the same as Mohamed Atta in my mind.

    This is a famous case where the Southern Poverty Law Center sued the Aryian nation for promoting violence and won, Their settlement destroyed the abilty of the organization to actually run as a comprehensive meaningful group. Here is part of the link:


    Metzger made numerous television appearances in addition to hosting his own cable access show. In November 1988, his son appeared on an episode of the Geraldo show in which a brawl broke out and Rivera’s nose was broken.[7]

    The group was eventually bankrupted as the result of a civil lawsuit centered on its involvement in the 1988 murder of Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian man who came to the United States to attend college. In 1988, white power skinheads affiliated to WAR were convicted of killing Seraw and sent to prison. Kenneth Mieske said he and the two others killed Seraw “because of his race.”[8] Metzger declared that they did a “civic duty” by killing Seraw.[9] Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a civil suit against him, arguing that WAR influenced Seraw’s killers by encouraging their group East Side White Pride to commit violence.[10][11]

    At the trial, WAR national vice president Dave Mazzella testified how the Metzgers instructed WAR members to commit violence against minorities. Tom and John Metzger were found civilly liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, in which one can be liable for a tort committed by a subordinate or by another person who is taking instructions. The jury returned the largest civil verdict in Oregon history at the time—$12.5 million—against Metzger and WAR.[12] The Metzgers’ house was seized, and most of WAR’s profits go to paying off the judgment.

  40. Steve Thomas

    @ Elena,

    I agree with you regarding the direct advocation and perpetuation of violence, for the purposes of advancing a socio-political agenda, does constitute terrorism. Those who hide behind some warped interepretation of their respective religious doctrine are included in this, IMO. I take it very personally when these people claim to be Christians. I will refrain from turning this into a faith discussion. Much wrong has been done in the name of this religon or that religion, and there will be an accounting for these things one day, I do believe.

  41. I think that the key question is, “Is abortion the killing of a baby?” I use that word specifically, because that word is used in court cases where people have been convicted of two murders in the death of pregnant women. I don’t intend to debate the question, as I know that it won’t change minds at this blog. I just wanted to make sure that objections to abortion are shown to be not necessarily faith based. If it is, is it murder? That is the difference in opinion. And those that believe it is murder are trying to prevent murder and save the right to life.

    Steve, as to the 2nd Amendment, we can have a discussion about “reasonable restrictions” and the impossibility of such. Personally, I think, in a nutshell, possession of a firearm should not be a crime, even by ex-convicts, as they have supposedly paid their price. Just have them apply for restoration of rights. It should be the improper use of a weapon that should be hammered. Even ex-convicts have the right of self-defense. And don’t forget, when the 2nd was written, “crew served” weapons and armed ships were privately owned.

    1. @Cargo

      Smart man. No, you won’t change minds. Most of us are old enough to have given this issue considerable thought. I am not going to tell on my self to say how many years I have had an unwavering opinion.

      And no, ‘killing a baby’ isn’t really what its all about. Babies are cute little people you put diapers on. Almost no abortion takes place at that stage of the game. You simply cannot compare terminating a pregancy in the zygote state with some idiot blowing away an 8 month old fetus and its mother like that little bastard out in CA…Peterson.

      As for murdered pregnant women, that is NOT how reproductive rights should ever be evaluated.

      Obviously the closer to term one gets, the more repugnant the issue of abortion becomes. That goes without saying.

  42. Oh, and Steve, I’ve already asked about a father’s rights. The opinion here is, “a woman’s rights take complete precedence.” Thought that I would save you some effort.

    1. Bingo. When men get pregnant they make the final decision. Until then, they need to treat the woman well so that she will include him in the decision-making process. Its a pretty simply idea. Women aren’t brood mares or human incubators for men.

  43. Treating the women well is not a guarantee that the woman will let a father’s child be born. Or abort, if the father doesn’t want the child. I say again, if a father has no rights, why should he then be held responsible?

    1. I would work on it from a paternity suit point of view rather than from an abortion rights point of view.

      What if a woman wanted to have a baby and the man did not want that to happen. Does he get to determine that she will have an abortion?

      Treating a woman well is a good starting point. Probably the best way to avoid such things would be to avoid casual sex. Relationship sex makes for a better argument.

  44. “Obviously the closer to term one gets, the more repugnant the issue of abortion becomes. That goes without saying.”

    I wrote the above before realizing that there were more comments.

    Goes without saying. Except that there are laws that state that babies that survive abortion be allowed to die. Abortion is legal to the moment before birth. And then there’s partial birth abortion. So….again, where is the line drawn? When is a fetus a baby? And when does a fetus begin to have rights? Either one can go to jail for killing a fetus or not? Is the fetus to be considered the property of the mother and therefore, it is the mother that decides? Or the surviving father?

    1. @Cargo–not really. That is pure BS. Read Roe.

      Partial birth abortion is a misnomer. It is the D & X procedure. Grizzly sounding but not used up until birth. It also is now illegal. It was surgical technique used during second trimester abortion.

      I am not going to debate the pros and cons of abortion. You probably need to check with state laws on some of those questions. Some of those things vary from state to state.

      Generally speaking, fertilized ovum, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, are ‘babies’ in a wanted pregnancy, from the moment the biological mother knows of its existence..or even before.

      In an unwanted pregancy, not so much. Sometime some of us will come on here and discuss people we have known with unwanted pregnancies. Go back a few decades and it gets uglier.

      I think you have read too much anti-choice propaganda. There is a lot of it out there.

      The problem is, this is a very complex issue for which there are no simple answers.

  45. @Moon-howler
    Well, you see, I was “an unwanted baby.” My mother was 44 years old, bad marriage, 14 years since the last child, and it was 1962.

    But I was always “a baby.” My mother looked at those signs that said, “An unwanted baby is an unloved baby” and let me know that they were lying. Having sex is a tantamount agreement, whether people want to believe it or not, that children MIGHT result and that they have a responsibility to the child. And no, I’m not talking about incest or rape. As for the idea that the best way to avoid such problems is “relationship sex” is the problem that people having “relationship sex” are the ones most likely to fall into this problem.

    But as I said, I’m not here to argue the merits of the debate or defend Terry. I wanted to point out that those strenuously objecting may be doing so because of the belief that the right to life trumps the idea that mothers can arbitrarily decide the fate of their unborn children. If you felt it was murder, wouldn’t you fight it?

    Well, anyway, that’s all I wanted to say.

    1. Thank you Cargo, for sharing something so personal. I am curious, did your mother tell you about this when you were older?

      Options were different in 1962. My mother also had an unwanted pregnancy in 1960. I don’t think that meant an unwanted brother resulted though–just that given options, my mother would not have elected to have another baby. I also don’t think she would have considered abortion.

      Remember that being pro-choice does NOT mean pro abortion. No one is ever forced into abortion. Parents can’t even do it, legally, at least in this state. And as for relationship sex, I meant the men and women having different opinons on a pregnancy.

      As for mothers having the final say-so, they always have. The only difference is now abortion is relatively save and legal. Abortion techniques go back to antiquity.

      As for people feeling abortion is murder, then they should not do it. Some of those same people believe using contraception is an equal mortal sin. They also oppose the death penalty. Is that not murder in their eyes also? That’s the reason a person’s faith should never become part of public policy. We all differ too much.

  46. Steve Thomas

    “So….again, where is the line drawn?”


    When ever I make the argument that it is up to the community to decide what is, and what is not acceptable, I enevitibly get some pushback. It is and always has been “up to the community to decide”, going back to the days we lived as hunter-gatherer groups. Abortion is no different. Yes, Roe v. Wade is settled law, until such time that the court overturns it, or again reaffirms it. Some decry the “whittling away” of Roe, each time a State (ie. a distinct community) passes some sort of restriction. They have a “zero sum game” approach to the issue. There were those on the pro-abortion side who opposed laws classifying the killing of a pregnant woman as the murder of two, rather than one. They argued in order for the fetus to be considered a victim, it would first have to be classified as a person….and so it goes. There are those who oppose parental notification laws on the grounds that in the case of incest or potetntial physical abuse by a parent pissed off that their minor daughter got pregnant. Now I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I feel pretty confident that the vast majority of teen pregnancies result from teens having sex with other teens. These are minors, and their parents have a legal, legitimate and moral right to make medical decisions for their child. In some states, a minor can get an abortion, but can’t get her ears pierced, a tattoo, or a breast-enhancement without parental consent.

    As reasoned, caring people, I am sure we can agree that abortion is not a desirable thing. I believe the vast majority of woman facing the decision, would not want to be in the position to have to make the decision. A rational argument can be made that there are certain instances where a woman needs the option to pick the “least worst option”, and I am willing to listen to these types of arguments. But I think we can all agree the “all or nothing” arguments do nothing but polarize the community. The, “you can’t have a child, so you don’t rate an opinion” isn’t rational either. I am a member of the community. I am a father of a daughter, who may be in this position one day. I am a husband.

    The community decides what it will and will not tolerate…for everything. The community sets standards through the development and enforcement of laws. We call this a civil society. Rights are inclusive. Powers are exclusive. Folks need to understand this. It’s as old as civilization itself.

  47. Steve Thomas


    “What if a woman wanted to have a baby and the man did not want that to happen. Does he get to determine that she will have an abortion?”

    No. Never. Protection should always tilt toward the creative, not the destructive.

  48. Steve Thomas


    Cargo, you will find me as pro-RTKBA as they come. My point in bringing up the 2A was to make the “absolute right” is a misnomer argument. I’ll save the points for an appropriate thread, but I have no issues with a felon who petitions to have his or her rights restored, to have the right to own a firearm included.

Comments are closed.