Shortly after Keith Olbermann announced he was leaving MSNBC, I had to laugh on twitter about it. That, naturally, brought out the hate.In the past seventy-two hours I've been told to get AIDS and die, die in a fire, f*** off, choke on a d**k, burn in hell, and the like. Not content to just hurl insults, shortly after RedState's annual post on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade appeared, the left decided to willfully misread the post and accuse both me and this site of calling for open and armed rebellion against the United States.Nothing could be further from the truth.While I am flattered (read: deeply insulted) that the left has decided to make me the right wing equivalent of Keith Olbermann and target me and my various employers for harassment, they have built a case out of nothing.First, I'd like to point out that I did not, contrary to the claims, write the post. However, I do stand by it.Second, the accusation of the left is that both I and this site are calling for armed rebellion due to the persistent legal killing of children in this country. They are both lying and ignorant of history.Let's review.The key allegation is premised on this paragraph:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
To read into that paragraph that this site or I are calling for armed rebellion against the United States requires that the very opening paragraph of the post not exist. In the opening paragraph, the author wrote, "we pause here at RedState to remember the fallen and renew our commitment to do everything within the confines of the lawful political process that may be done to end the greatest injustice that has ever been foisted on our society."Likewise, in the contested paragraph is this language: "We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise".That sound like a caveat, but it is not a caveat to any of us here. It is, however, a recognition of an unpleasant reality — a historic one the left chooses to ignore in making its case against us, and a present one we prefer not to dwell on, but must at least touch on.Historically, the Congress ultimately allowed states to decide for themselves whether they would be free or slave states. A flood of people moved to the Kansas territory to affect its choice. Ultimately, abolitionists, like their pro-slave counterparts, were moved to violence to defend their view.The Supreme Court decided in Dred Scott, as it did in Roe, to take the matter from the democratic processes by invoking the nonsensical legal doctrine of "substantive due process" and let our enlightened black robed masters answer the question. The result was an escalation of brutal and bloody violence in the Kansas territories, largely by abolitionists to drive out the pro-slave crowd. It also kindled in the minds of abolitionists that they were prepared for bloodshed to free the slaves.Ultimately, the pro-slave forces decided to rebel to preserve their "property" rights. The Court's effort to short-circuit democracy had failed. Violence begat violence. The slaveholders rebelled and turned against their country rather than accept a Republican president supported by those icky abolitionists. America was torn asunder. Presently, there are some on the pro-life side who have chosen to abandon all reason and kill. Abortionist George Tiller and others have been killed in the name of the pro-life cause. Whatever the virtues of their motives, these actions are not pro-life, they are abhorrent and must be condemned. It is for the law to convict and God to judge, not individual citizens.We at RedState are mindful that there are those so frustrated with this country allowing the lawful killing of children that those people are perfectly willing to take a life to preserve a life.We not only do not condone that, but we condemn it. And that, finally, brings us to the point of the contested paragraph.At RedState, we maintain a pro-life rule for our regular front page contributors. While a pro-abortion poster may never write about the topic, their world view is incompatible with the conservative community reflected here at RedState. Fundamentally, one who sees a world where killing a child is okay sees the world differently from the rest of us. Likewise, we do not endorse pro-abortion candidates for the same reasons.We believe that life can be preserved and defended through legitimate political processes. We continue to fight for a Supreme Court that will ultimately overrule Roe vs. Wade. We believe it is possible. But both we and the left would be willfully naive if we ignored that there are others who have grown impatient. I and we here at RedState pray that those who have grown impatient will seek patience. Violence is not the answer. Winning elections is.That the left would resort to willfully misreading the point and refuting the historic ties between slavery and abortion — ties even recognized by people like Jesse Jackson — is unfortunate, but all part of their effort to silence those who see the world through the prism of life.