Legitimized Victims

Maybe it won't that that kind of Saturday after all.

---

This collection of Twitter citations is both worrisome and enraging. The most recent developments in the George Zimmerman murder trial make it quite plain that the accused was merely defending himself, that the prosecution has no case, and that the indictment was handed down purely for political purposes. Yet numerous Twitterers are calling for a riot should George Zimmerman be acquitted as he deserves.

Why riot? Well, Trayvon Martin was black. That makes his life sacrosanct. Never mind that he was verifiably trying to kill George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman did the one and only thing guaranteed to preserve his own life. Martin was a member of a protected species under some law or other. Maybe it was the Environmental Protection Act.

Remember the Los Angeles riots over the acquittals of two of the policemen in the Rodney King affair? Same underlying rationale. What rationale? Relax; we'll get there.

---

Next up is this citation from the esteemed Sister Toldjah:

Reader "Adam" gives me the third degree via email over my support of Texas’ pro-life bill SB5:

While I understand that you may find the idea and morality of abortion to be abominable, it is constitutionally protected under the ruling of the Roe v Wade Supreme Court case. The bill that was under voting while supposedly in the support of stricter health guidelines for abortion clinics in Texas, are needlessly binding them with more red tape.

The provisions of the bill would cause a dramatic rise in the cost of running these clinics and shut down the majority of them. This would mean that the second most populous state in the Union would have close to the lowest number of abortion clinics in the nation. This would infringe on the rights of women desiring to obtain an abortion, just as poll taxes and literacy tests reduced the ability of non-whites to exercise their right to vote in the time prior to the 1950-1970 civil rights movements.

Despite the fact that you claim to be a conservative which in itself advocates reduced government involvement in the private affairs of citizens, you advocate a bill that directly interfeeres with and blocks the rights of those citizens.

tl;dr: You are not a conservative and you’re infringing on rights

Let's ignore "Adam's" poor grammar and inability to spell. We all know that those things are regarded by Leftists as relics of the bad old days when there were rules about such things. ("Capitalist patriarchal oppression" and "dead white European males," anyone?) At first blush, "Adam" is completely confused about the source of rights. (He's also confused about why conservatives adopt the positions we do, but that's a tirade for another day.) Rights are not created by the State or any organ thereof; they proceed from the laws of Nature, especially those of human nature. Yet "Adam" dismisses the right to life as an obstacle to be swept aside if a feminist mob or a SCOTUS decision demands it. How did he manage to do that? More to the point, why?

(An aside: If you begin from a completely secular set of precepts and assumptions, it is just barely possible to frame a case that abortion, up to about 13 weeks' gestation, is morally ambiguous -- enough so, at least, to argue that it should be legal. But even a case-hardened secularist runs into trouble after that; the developing creature is too obvious, and too obviously a human baby with an ironclad right to life.

No one who calls himself a Christian can condone abortion at any stage of gestation -- and the funny thing about that is that the thinker who made the perfect case against it, Aristotle, died more than three centuries before Christ.

Frankly, I regard anyone who thinks a SCOTUS ruling can legitimize the murder of a helpless infant as irremediably morally corrupt. (Synonym: evil.) To all such persons: make no sudden moves and keep your hands where I can see them. I tend to shoot first and worry about the paperwork later. End of aside.)

If I may misquote Winston Churchill: The terrible "whys" accumulate.

---

Finally, I'd like to invite you to think back to a couple of lurid murder cases: the first was that of Matthew Shepard, the second that of Jesse Dirkhising. Both cases engaged public attention because of their sexual aspects. In the Shepard case, the murderers were heterosexual and the victim was homosexual. In the Dirkhising case, the reverse was true. Homosexual activists raised a tremendous row in both cases, but for opposite reasons.

You see, the sexual orientations of the principals made the first case a "hate crime" in homosexual activists' eyes. They demanded the lives of the murderers unconditionally, for that reason alone. But they insisted that the sexual orientations of the murderers in the Dirkhising case were irrelevant, despite the brutal and repeated homosexual rape of the 13-year-old victim.

Has the pattern become clear enough?

---

It appears that the Left has decided to institute a new interpretation of the right to life:

If you're not a member of a Leftist mascot group, you may not harm a member of any such. More, a Leftist mascot can take your life in any way he pleases, with no blot upon his group "identity."

Sleek, eh? If accepted into law, it would turn about 80% of the country into legitimized victims. Moreover, all you'd have to do to incur the pre-indemnified murderous wrath of a Negro, a homosexual, or your unwilling-mother-to-be is exist. But regardless of what any one of the Left's mascots might do or have done, his characteristics are absolutely above reproach. No accusation leveled against them can have implications for their race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, or any other affiliation.

This is the obvious implication of leftists' rhetoric in all cases where one of their mascots is involved in a life-or-death confrontation, in either role.

---

I've occasionally speculated upon the possibility of a new civil war, where the sides are divided not by a political stance on slavery or allegiance pledged to some foreign power, but rather by characteristics generally deemed personal. Any such conflagration would be horrific. Millions would die, and many more would suffer.

Left-liberal vermiculations, both legal and rhetorical, are bringing such a possibility closer every day.

The key lies in a single evil idea: that some have more rights than others because they're [fill-in-the-blank], which the Left has declared "protected." That idea advances every time we allow the presumption of sincerity to a leftist arguing as they did in the cases cited above.

They are never sincere.
They mean to have you at their mercy.
Their mascot groups are tools toward that end.
Don't expect to be shown any mercy. They have none.
And don't silence yourself in a forlorn hope for peace or tolerance.

Pray.