- - Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Ben Carson’s presidential campaign has been notable for the public’s view of him as perhaps the most honest human being in a very large field. How disappointing then that Mr. Carson recently said one of the most intellectually dishonest things any presidential candidate has uttered on the road to the White House.

Mr. Carson appeared on multiple new programs over the weekend and cited “hateful rhetoric” as the cause of tragedies like the recent shooting deaths near a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood “clinic.” Otherwise known as a place where human adults mass slaughter human babies, and then traffic in the dead body parts for profit.

Oops, there I go with the kind of rhetoric Mr. Carson is talking about, I guess. Except that it’s all true, so I don’t give a rip.

While I am on record numerous times saying what a decent and impressive man Mr. Carson is, that is all the more reason to point out how galling and pointless his reaction to the Colorado Springs shooting truly was.

Why does anybody on the right have to claim responsibility for the motives of a still-nebulous murdering madman, particularly after weeks of being lectured about how ISIS has nothing to do with Islam?



Or after watching the Left and its water-carrying media whistle past the graveyard that is Planned Parenthood’s for-profit sale of baby parts?

I no more feel the urge to defensively remind people I’m not in favor of cold-blooded killing than I do defensively reminding people I didn’t beat my wife last night. And every moment we waste as a pro-life movement playing the baby butchers’ game here is a moment we waste that could’ve been used to save a baby instead.

Mr. Carson need not even wade into the specifics of baby murder to point out the ridiculous nature of any premise that aggressively holds the pro-life movement to a standard almost never applied to progressivism’s sacred cows.

If a guy can gun down a crowd full of people while yelling “Allahu Akbar” and not get pegged as an actual Muslim, there is no way Mr. Carson should be giving credence to the notion that a trailer-dwelling loner, with a history of sketchy behavior, is somehow an obvious extension of the pro-life movement.

Yet he did exactly that. And in the process of doing so he provided ammunition for those opposed to life to target pro-lifers with.

What he should’ve done instead is ask these pro-killing proxies disguised as “journalists” if they’ve ever heard the name Floyd Corkins? For these same peddlers of false tolerance largely ignored Corkins, who is in prison for the next 25 years after being the first man convicted of domestic terrorism in the history of Washington, D.C. All because he was driven to try and mass execute employees at the Family Research Council, after they were labeled a “hate group” by cultural Marxists on the Left.

So if the same people who routinely refer to those who disagree with them as “racist, misogynist, anti-science homophobes” and call it “reporting” are suddenly concerned about decorum, perhaps Mr. Carson should’ve prompted them to start proving their sanctimony there?

If you want to talk about abortion rhetoric, though, the first order of business is to determine what pro-life language has Mr. Carson so vexed that he is ready and willing to engage in the kind of moral equivalence he is now guilty of. Which begs the question: Does Carson not understand how little it takes to make Planned Parenthood’s jingoists go bonkers? When I’m already guilty of chaining women in the kitchen while barefoot and pregnant for simply pointing out the scientific certainties of when human life begins, why am I the one who needs to worry about my rhetoric?

Why is it a bridge too far to ask women if one measure of equality shouldn’t be understanding where babies come from, and being held accountable for the consequences of abusing that knowledge – you know, grown-up stuff — instead of embracing the war on the womb?

Why must I use guarded language to confront pro-killing apologists who are caught on tape sorting through freezer bags of baby parts. Yet are so pathological they will insist there is simultaneously nothing monstrous about their words and behavior, but that the videos are edited to make them look bad?

Why can’t I tell Cecile Richards to stick her clumps of cells where the sun don’t shine, when it is obvious she wants babies around just long enough for them to be worth more at the Lamborghini bargaining table?

And why, when Mr. Carson himself has operated on babies in utero and claims to understand the power of God’s dominion over mankind from that unique perspective, is he not fighting for innocent life with every rhetorical hammer at his disposal because he knows better than anyone how miraculous it is?

Mr. Carson got pretty mad at the press a few weeks back for its hit job about him and West Point. He insisted that the truth mattered, and his rhetoric showed it. He looked right in the camera and told members of the media to stop lying. Amen.

But now he won’t allow his own base the same means of defending itself and, more importantly, defending innocent life against the powers of darkness. Thus, he has abandoned them, which is a cardinal sin in politics. Especially when that base is the most loyal and vast voting bloc the Republican Party has.

Mr. Carson is a good man with an inspirational life story. Yet it is increasingly obvious he’s in over his head. There is no doubting he has gifted hands, but he has not been gifted with the resolve, quick-thinking, and discernment it will take to rally a nation to defeat the evils of progressivism eating away at its soul.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide