Response to Dana Milbank Antiabortion rhetoric unwittingly unleashes the unhinged in WP

Response to Dana Milbank Antiabortion rhetoric unwittingly unleashes the unhinged in WP 12/1/2015

After graciously admitting that the anti Abortion Movement did not kill the victims, he continues:

"But it’s a different matter to ask whether the often-violent imagery used by conservative leaders on abortion is unwittingly giving the unhinged some perverse sense of justification to contemplate the unspeakable."

Let’s look at this deranged sentence itself.

1. What kind of pictures have been shown by conservative leaders?
   1. Picture of babies in the womb taken by ultrasound, -- clearly not violent
   2. Pictures of aborted baby which while gruesome are clearly not “violent”
   3. I don’t remember anti-abortion leaders using the more gruesome pictures, although their followers may have
      I did not find any “violent pictures” since there are very few movies of abortionists removing babies and destroying them.
      
      
      Even if there were, however, the sentence presumes that political speech, if it “unwittingly” causes the deranged to go off the deep end, is to be controlled.  Either self-controlled, or, as is happening in the Universities, controlled by the mob.  Otherwise what is the point of saying “it is a different matter”?
      
      
      The matter is not at all different. To control political speech is to foster tyranny.  The tyranny of political correctness, of that of 1984. Your pick.
      
      
      This is one more example of directing attention away from a vicious act by an individual and trying to paint a whole group of people with the anger generated by that specific vicious act.
      
      
      Our secretary of State himself participated in the same tactic when he said he could conceivably understand why Moslems had killed at the Charlie Hebdo shootings, which also murdered Jews in a supermarket, but could find no reason for the newest attack on a Soccer Stadium or night clubs and Show.  The implication being because someone opposes something, it gives people who support it a rational for murder.
      
      
      Concerning Cruz:

“There will always be the irrational and the unstable. But when political leaders turn disagreements into all-out war, demonize opponents as enemies and accuse those on the other side of being subhuman killers, the unbalanced can hear messages that were never intended.”

But this rhetoric about “subhuman killers” is Mr. Milbank, not Cruz. It is he, not Cruz who is using rhetoric that, if you believe him, could cause the attacks.  But of course his point is as silly as the argument. The tapes he refers to are video which show PP speaking, not Leaders of the Right.  It was their total indifference to the value of life which made them so extraordinary.

I could continue, but it is rather futile. It’s a hatchet job which is neither fact based nor emotionally balanced.  He needs a psychologist. I would recommend Charles Krauthammer.