Sarah Palin shows yet again how she uniquely redefines the English language to conveniently get the political results she wants. The latest example concerns the term "terrorism". To review, a terrorist is someone who attempts to effect political change through the use of violence and/or threats of violence. Contrary to recent popular usage, the term does not imply any particular political ideology or religion. There are terrorists all across the political spectrum, from the right (the IRA, Timothy McVeigh, abortion clinic bombers), left (PETA, William Ayers of 40 years ago), and of course Al Qaeda.
But as Brian Williams revealed, Sarah Palin will have none of that. Only those that disagree with her are terrorists:
Brian Williams: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers -- hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?
Sarah Palin: There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was um one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon -- that is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or um facilities, that uh, it would be unacceptable -- I don’t know if you could use the word terrorist, but its unacceptable and it would not be condoned of course on our watch. I don’t know if what you are asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.
Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.
Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.
The out of course is that those involved with abortion aren't considered "innocent" in Palin's side of the world. They are killing babies you see. Isn't it cute how she just redefines words to suit her warped views?
But why would she do this? Well, because while those who would actually bomb an abortion clinic are (thankfully) rare, those with similar predispositions who would cheer such an act, even if they'd never commit it themselves, are far more numerous. They go by another name: Sarah Palin's base.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
would seek to destroy innocent Americans
Gov. Palin doesn't have a very inclusive notion of American. What about all the un-Americans out there, the liberal elites and big-city folk she is always ragging on? For that matter, there are a lot of Muslims and Arabs (not the same thing!) out there, and almost all of them are innocent too.
Your typical terrorist probably doesn't believe there are innocent [Insert target here]s, or at least are willing to rationalize collateral damages. They believe that they are defending their nation/family/culture/religion or whatever. They get there through a process of fear-mongering, bigotry, nationalism/tribalism, and, yes, appeals to religion, that we would find very familiar if we dared to see it. I see a lot of it going on now, esp. from the McCain/Palin camp, and it worries me.
I have found that people react very negatively to this idea, so I don't say it much in public any more.
Moderate this you babykilling pro-abort.
You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
Sorry bud, but fetuses aren't necessarily babies, and I prefer action to wishful thinking directed at dead legend.
But thanks for a perfect example of the irrationality of the pro-life crowd.
Wow! Rev. Spitz, if that is who he really is, sure knows how to make a persuasive argument, doesn't he? Submit or die! There is no possibility of reasoning with someone like this.
And so it begins. He believes he is protecting babies and that he is justified, by God no less, in advocating the most extreme of actions against anyone he decides is a wrongdoer. Note that such belief grants him godlike authority. If he were to decide that anyone who shaved his beard was going to Hell, he could use the same arguments to justify killing barbers.
Post a Comment