Evil is not an exclusive thing,
trait, or motivation. Evil is not confined to a people group, profession,
geography, or society. Evil is not confined to time, space, or circumstance.
These conclusions are as unfortunate as they are true.
As individual citizens, or as
the American People as a whole, it’s past time to openly state the truth about
evil. It is a truth that evil exists because mankind choses the evil path. It
is a truth that each of us has a duty to resist evil whenever and however possible.
It is a truth that the choice between good and evil cannot be legislated away.
“I would rather be a little nobody, then to be an evil
somebody.” – Abraham Lincoln
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men to do nothing.” – Edmond Burke
This post came to my mind after
reading about the assault of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs
on the 27th. My thoughts did not originate because of the attack,
nor as a means to rationalize away the tragedy. They rose out of a sense of
disgust for what I was reading and hearing in the media (and to some degree the
commenting public). Even before the incident was over, the media began to
embrace the evil on display by seeking to demonize those that were not involved
in any way. And now, days later, that trend continues.
The Facts
On 27 November 2015, Robert
Lewis Rear assaulted the Planned Parenthood facility of Colorado Springs. When
the incident was resolved there were 11 injured and three dead. The dead
included a veteran, a mother, and a responding police officer.
Moral: An American’s life is sacred. – No one may kill
another person without cause. If a heartbeat, then a life.
When I look at these facts I see
that a single man is solely responsible for his thoughts, feelings, and actions
on that day. In turn, he is a killer with a high probability of becoming a
convicted murderer. In my view, it seems clear that the individual acted alone
and without cause for the harm done. Meaning he is singularly responsible for
the killing and wounding of Americans outside a state of war and without a
clear and present danger to his person, his castle/property, or bystanders.
What he did was morally wrong and reprehensible.
Now…the media
As I was watching the news and
tracking media posts I could not believe my eyes or ears. Before the incident
was over there were declarations
of Rear’s motivations to include blaming “white conservatives,” “pro-lifers,”
“Republican rhetoric,” “self-righteous white Christians,” and the “antiabortion
right.” This was not just isolated to tabloids and other trash media, as it was
also seen on the main-stream media. Additionally, there was what seemed like thousands
of social media commentators writing in concurrence. Comments were being posted
faster than I could realize they were posted.
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as
he who helps to perpetrate it.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
My only conclusion is that I was
witnessing madness. It seemed as if there was a complete absence of morality in
Colorado, within sections of the media at large, and across portions of
cyberspace at the same time. It was proof positive that moral thinking was not
only set aside, it was completely abandoned. The peddlers of truth were lying
through their teeth and the citizenry seemed to be eating it up.
One day later, some pushback
against the madness was observed. I came across an article from the New
York Times that seemed to be a well written and informative piece. I
appreciated the read just for the fact that it had facts. Throughout the
article there were claims that could be later verified, quotes from officials,
and witness testimony. All in all, given the nature of what just happened, it
was a job well done. Then, there was an
ABC article that began with speculation made by the Mayor and ended with
the President of the United States telling the public what should not be
happening during the holidays and that murdering people was not normal. (No
$&*#, sir!)
Two days after the event, media
commentary on the shooter’s motive was already cranked up despite the fact that
the Colorado
Springs Police Department refused to release details relating to motive. A
Think Progress piece went so far as to contribute Rear’s actions to “increased
scrutiny since a deceptively edited video” was released by a politically
opposing group, then quoted the CEO of the Planned Parenthood division
calling the act “domestic terrorism,” and wrapped up with a briefer
named Buckley stating that it would be “premature to speculate about this
individual’s motives.” – Here’s a news flash: A video did NOT force the gunman
to do anything, a CEO is in no way qualified to determine if an event is an act
of terrorism, and it was clearly stated that motive was unknown. (A passing
thought…if the CEO is indeed an authority, then does that mean Planned
Parenthood is actually a political organization knowledgeable in seeking
political ends through other means?)
Three days after the event, Fox
News was also reporting on the motivation question. Again, the article quoted
the Planned Parenthood CEO as an authority when law enforcement officials were
“leaking” details under the condition of anonymity. When did the leading
provider of abortions in the United States develop enough law enforcement
expertise to declare motive of a suspect that the organization never met? Why
should we believe that local law enforcement is leaking information, which it has
been good about issuing public statements and taking media questions up to this
point?
This veteran’s perspective…
How about declaring the event an act of evil, or stating any
motive to murder is unacceptable, or promising the People (and future murders)
that the full weight of the law would be brought to bear? Nope! Instead the
message from the highest office in the land was an “if-then” statement: “if
we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many
times, with a truly clean conscience – then we have to do something about the
easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no
business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough."
Really! Did the POTUS just suggest that I contributed to the
massacre because I believe in the benefits of arms? I’m a reasonable man. I’ll pick
up that gauntlet.
What is the logical progression between one person’s personal
decision to murder and my personal decision to responsibility own personal
property, a firearm? Along that vein, let’s ask a different question. What is
the correlation between the high
casualty counts of attacks on unarmed civilians (in 2014 the average was 18
killed per event) and the restriction of firearms for self-defense?
Perhaps the question should be rephrased? What is the
correlation between the much lower casualty counts of attacked armed civilians
(in 2014 the average was 2.5 killed per event) and the promotion of firearms
for self-defense? (Before answering, please keep in mind that there is a 3-7
minute delay between a 911 call and the first responder arriving on scene. Just
to be clear, the time does not start from the moment a shooter becomes active,
but from the making the 911 call. It does not end when law enforcement officers
begin a response, but from when the first officer arrives.)
Am I to understand that IF I am to pray for the suffering,
then I must first renounce the pre-existing right protected by the Second
Amendment? Am I to understand that IF I am to assuage my personal guilt (and
that is one hell of an assumption), then I must accept the use of force to
disarm certain people? Am I to understand that IF my thoughts and prayers are
to be accepted by God, then I must let you decide who should be disarmed? (Before
blowing these questions off using some version of “that’s not what he meant” or
name-calling, consider that the POTUS has an entire staff dedicated to
scripting and rehearsing this stuff.)
Did anyone else notice the phrase, “Period. Enough is enough.”?
Again, I’m a reasonable man; and, again, I’ll pick up that gauntlet. Am I to
believe that the POTUS is the keeper of the final, reasonable answer? Am I to
trust in a call for reason when the Chief Executive has already signaled his
intent to use the government’s monopoly on force against others because one
person out of 340 million other citizens was unbelievable stupid? If the POTUS
is responsible for executing the laws, and the laws frame a free society (not a
safe under all conditions society), then how is beginning the conversation with
an absolute end-state going to unite the nation through a reasoned discourse?
Just how is the emotional pleading of the President to do
something that “feels good” going to bring about anything that actually “is
good?” (Before you answer that, keep in mind that laws declaring this violent
act illegal and unacceptable are already on the books right now, and have been
for centuries, and are well known across the population.)
Honor, Morality & Ethics
What happened to honorable
conduct? The American Honor Code is very simple and 100% applicable: “I will
not lie, steal, cheat, nor tolerate those that do.” If this code had been
followed by the media and its commentators, then two things would likely have
happened: first, the assignment of blame (regardless of CYA weasel-words) would
not have happened; second, if it did happen, then those that pushed that junk
would have been immediately ostracized. Why? Because it would be reasonable to
conclude that no one other than the hostile actor knew what was motivating that
hostile actor.
What happened to morality? In
this case the primary moral is as follows: “An American’s life is sacred. No
one may kill another person without cause. If a heartbeat, then a life.” Why is
this not the automatic default position across the board? And, if it is, then
why not come right out and declare it so?
What happened to American
values?
America values unity, not uniformity. It’s time to be united
against unacceptable behavior at the societal level. Instead, the call is for a
more uniform, guilt-driven, and self-imposed state of disarmament.
America values stewardship, not neglect. If mental health is
at the heart of the problem, then where is the call to bolster the common man’s
ability to care for the spirit, soul, and humanity of his fellow man? In other
words, if morality to taught and reinforced locally across the nation, then the
nation will begin to behave in a more moral manner by default.
America values answering our enemies without moral ambiguity.
Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind. Mr. Rear is an enemy of the American
society. He has crossed the line. There is no going back.
America values doing what is good, not doing what feels good.
If reducing gun violence represents what is good, and individuals are solely
responsible for their decision to use gun violence to resolve disputes, then
“doing what is good” is about conditioning the people away from choosing gun
violence to resolve differences. Reducing instruments of gun violence is not
the answer. Increasing society’s resistance (morality) to evil intent is the
answer. Just as “doing what is good” must be taught by one generation to the
next, so must morality.
What happened to personal
responsibility? No one has the right to do what is wrong. It’s a simple
statement that is clear and unambiguous. There are no conditions,
qualifications, or exceptions stated or implied. Therefore, why does the
virtual barrier of social media seem to serve as an insulating feature between
the participants of evil and those that fail to denounce that same evil?
“He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really
cooperating with it.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Going Forward
For a representative republic of
liberated, free-thinking people to combat evil in our mist, the people must be
morally straight and well-grounded by absolute truth. The people must have an
inherent ability identify what is evil and wrong, and demonstrate the courage necessary
to select the right and virtuous path without regard to circumstance, reward,
or consequence.
For the American people to be
free, then they must first be moral. The people must know, understand, and be
able to apply moral absolutes day-to-day in all that they do.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you
believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am
looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American
discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
No comments:
Post a Comment