Planned Parenthood Terrorist: “I’m a Warrior For The Babies”

Alleged domestic terrorist Robert Dear. Photo via CSPD

Alleged domestic terrorist Robert Dear. Photo via CSPD

A dramatic day in court for domestic terrorist Robert Lewis Dear, who leapt to his feet during his arraignment hearing today to confirm his motives for his murderous assault on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs late last month. AP reports:

In court Wednesday, Robert Dear said the state public defender’s office wants to seal documents and limit discussion of his case to hide what he saw inside the clinic.

Dear shouted, “You’ll never know what I saw in that clinic. Atrocities. The babies. That’s what they want to seal.”

Dear noted that his attorney also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes. He says attorney Daniel King “drugged” Holmes, and “he wants to do that to me.”

…The man accused of killing three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic says he’s guilty and that he’s a “warrior for the babies.” [Pols emphasis]

In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs on November 27th, abortion opponents flailed wildly trying to distance themselves and their summerlong campaign of lies about the organization from the shooter’s actions. Conservative media, followed by local social media voices and Republican elected officials all the way up to Ted Cruz, clung to any unsourced rumor about the shooter’s motives: that he was a “transgender leftist,” that he was a bank robber “gone wild,” and various other deflections. Even after news reports surfaced that Robert Dear had used the words “no more baby parts” when explaining his actions to police, investigators in ultra-conservative Colorado Springs were unusually slow to “speculate” about Dear’s motive.

After today’s outburst in court, we’d say it’s time to stop speculating.

62 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Davie says:

    “I’m guilty — there’s no trial — I’m a warrior for the babies,” shouted Robert Dear, his wrists and ankles shackled in an El Paso County Courtroom.


    I predict a competency hearing in Mr. Dear's future, followed by a very long stint in various state (or possibly Federal) institutions.  Seems like a reasonable wish to grant — no need for a lengthy trial.

  2. taterheaptom says:

    #Jesus' #Jihadis: "I'm a warrior for the babies," #WM #XTIAN terrorist proudly touts his twisted and warped faith in open court. #COpolitics

    — Zombie Reagan (@ZombyReagan) December 9, 2015

  3. Moderatus says:

    That doesn't make him any less insane. Sorry, your guilt by association isn't going to work.

    • Curmudgeon says:

      So, by your reasoning, ISIS has no culpability for the deaths in San Bernardino, either?

      Spreading hate and lies about an "enemy" has no consequences, in your book?

    • Socialisticat says:

      When they do it:

      – Radical Islamists, When has a Muslim ever condemned these attacks?, Islam is violent.

      When we do it:

      – Dude crazy.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      So, he shouldn't have been allowed to possess firearms??

      • FrankUnderwood says:

        Dio, let me play devil's advocate here and make the argument that the ammosexuals would like to make:  

        Where, I ask you, is there an exception in the Second Amendment allowing the Big Gummint to abridge the God-given rights of the insane and/or terrorists to bear arms?

      • mamajama55 says:

        Charged with rape,  domestic abuse, threatening neighbors,  convicted of stalking, and a bunch of minor offenses, clearly unstable and paranoid….

        Modster, Negev, AC,do Mr. Dear's second amendment privileges take higher priority than his victim's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Would you sell an AK to this guy with a clear conscience?

        • exlurker19 says:

          Charged but not convicted.  Unfortunately, makes a difference.

          • mamajama55 says:

            His ex-wife had a restraining order on him. That would have prevented him from buying a gun in Colorado, thanks to Evie Hudak, who paid the price for protecting victims.

            Still, the question to our "gunnies" stands: Would you sell a gun to this nut with a clear conscience? Not that any of them will answer that question, of course.

            • Negev says:

              If he had a restraining order in place he would have been prevented from buying a gun anywhere in the country. Evie Hudak had nothing to do with that. (see Form 4473 question 11(h)). 

              • mamajama55 says:

                Yup. You're right –  Hudak sponsored a bill , SB197, that would mandate that domestic abusers relinquish their guns. As you noted, 19 other states have laws on the books which would prevent someone named in a restraining order from purchasing a gun. So I'm inferring that you would support those state laws, and also Hudak's bill, by your quote:

                "He should not have a gun".

                Women are most likely to be killed by a gun wielded by their spouses and partners.

                A staggering portion of violence against women is fatal, and a key driver of these homicides is access to guns. From 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Guns are used in fatal intimate partner violence more than any other weapon: Of all the women killed by intimate partners during this period, 55 percent were killed with guns. Women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than are women in other high income countries.

                Senator Hudak resigned  in order to keep gun laws in place that saved lives. Thank you, Senator.


                • Negev says:

                  All 50 states have laws preventing someone named in a restraining order from purchasing a gun. My point is he should not have a gun, but he did. Most likely he broke the law. Perhaps two, or maybe 10 laws, making it clear that criminals do not obey laws. Adding a misdemeanor possession charge to 3 counts of murder does not seem to deter a nutjob, Agreed? Did not appear to save lives. 

                  Hudak resigned in order for her party to stay in power. The recall group did not even have enough signatures to start the recall.  

              • Diogenesdemar says:

                Perhaps your point is that a question on some silly "instacheck" form, only at the same time of a few retail purchases, is fairly meaningless, and that what is really needed is thorough, intense investigation and background checks, which may take a good deal of time — maybe upwards of a month, for all gun owners, as well as mandatory database reporting by all parties (law enforcement, mental health, social workers, and physicians) — including periodic reevaluation and investigation — an effective gun-owner licensure, much as is required in Israel, and most other civilized countries???

                … or, maybe not???


                • Negev says:

                  Maybe not. Point is there are more guns than people in America. Think about that. Take all time in the world, anal probe and DNA test whoever you want, if someone wants a gun, they can get a gun. Legally, illegally, stolen, made, borrowed, whatever. Robert Dear was not a law abiding citizen, why are you surprised he did not follow the law?

                  Do you know how he got or what type of gun he had? I can't seem to find that answer…




        • Negev says:

          Would I sell him an AK? No. Appears I didn't have to. 

    • Old Time Dem says:

      Anti-abortionists are morally vacuous.  If they actually believed one-tenth of their overheated rhetoric, they should all be "warriors for the babies."


      • BlueCat says:

        Exactly. If they really think a holocaust is going on then they all should be taking up arms against it.  If they aren't it's either because they know their rhetoric is just that or they're cowards unwilling to do anything but bitch about the holocaust while letting it go on.

        One sure test for whether you really believe a bundle of cells matters just as much as a baby that's been born is this classic. You have the chance to save one or two babies from a fire or load up with all the test tubes containing fetilized eggs that have divided into a small bundle of cells that you can carry, many, many more than one or two. Which do you choose?

        If your answer is the one or two babies (and God help you if it's not) you don't really believe that every ferilized egg has the same value and the same degree of right to life as a born baby does. Your holocaust rhetoric is therefore fundamentally dishonest. As it is if you aren't just as keen on shutting down fertility clinics where "leftovers" are routinely disposed of and just as hysterical over the holocaust taking place in that sphere as you are about closing down Planned Paenthood clinics that include abortion services as a small percentage of services offered.  

        So I don't say to anti-choicers exactly put up or shut up. They have the right to express their personal opposition to abortion. But I do say drop the baby killing/holocaust rhetoric because, when push comes to shove, even you anti-choicers don't believe it. That is except for the Dears of your world. 

        • mamajama55 says:

          Nice logical argument, BC. For the Dears of the world,logic does not apply.

          • BlueCat says:

            If he believes abortion is a holocaust then his decision is consistent with his logic. The rigties who also say it's a holocaust but insist he's just a luatic, nothing to do with them and their rhetoric, are the ones who's logic is faulty.

            • Curmudgeon says:

              You'd still have a hard sell proving he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.  He might think it was justifiable (thanks to Republican rhetoric he was following), but he still knew it was wrong.  Otherwise, why didn't he slaughter everyone, and die in a hail of bullets?    

    • taterheaptom says:

      Dude, put your heart into it.  I get it must suck, day after day, defending the indefensible.  But there are probably others that would take your place if you are no longer up to the job.  

  4. Diogenesdemar says:

    Does this mean the Denver Post's team of crack reporters who wrote that Dear was recent marijuana migrant might have been spreading unfounded and worthless speculation???

  5. BlueCat says:

    This is terrorism and should be treated as such. Period. What's crazier about a Christian killing to save babies than a Muslim couple with a child throwing it all away to kill for jihad? You might call them both crazy. Maybe not. Certainly in both cases an act of terror was committed. There should also be federal prosecution. As for guilt by association, that's just one of the phrases modster spits out. I don't think he knows what it means. 

  6. Written to my Facebook page:

    Can we stop trying to second-guess whether Mr. "I am a warrior for babies" was really targeting the Colorado Planned Parenthood now? No more "it was a bank robbery gone bad", no more "it was a random attack". Open court statements by the attacker are clear; there is no longer any doubt.

    Further, can we admit that he's a domestic terrorist who was self-radicalized after listening to radical religious based speech widely available on the Internet and our own broadcast media? We have lawmakers in this state who agree with this man's cause. We have media personalities and religious leaders blaming the intended victim of his attack. The fact is, year after year, decade after decade, we continue to have terrorist attacks at Planned Parenthood because a significant segment of our society – a supposedly Christian segment – tolerates and encourages inflammatory and often false rhetoric.

    Speaking as a Christian, we should be ashamed of the rhetoric and the lies that cause some people to take radical and violent action. We should work to oppose those who act in our name by inciting such acts, who can't manage to keep "but Planned Parenthood Bad" out of their condemnations of these terrorist acts, who think that misrepresenting Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a political game. It's gone too far – long, long ago.

    • mamajama55 says:

      yes + 10 Phoenix

    • BlueCat says:

      And BTW, wacky as he may be the legal definition of insanity is not knowing right from wrong. If Holmes was judged legally sane after blowing away strangers he had nothing against for no religious or political reason but just on the basis of some personal point accumulaing system, Dear is, if anything, less insane. After all, he had a reason. Stop the baby killing. In fact, all those anti-choice advocates who swear up and down that abortion is more than merely murder but represents a holocaust should not find it insane that someone should determine that killing in order to stop it is a rational response. Especially those anti-choicers, almost all of them, who are for the death penalty and not conscientious objectors. They might think he made a wrong choice for a variety of reasons but why would they find his choice insane?

      So here's our chance to avoid another lengthy expensive trip to a destination we could reach in short order. He pleads guilty at state level and also to charges of domesic terrorism at the federal level and gets put away for life with no chance of parole.  Everybody's happy. 

      • Yep. Dear knows what he did is wrong – he justifies it by saying it's less wrong than all the "babies dying" at PP. He knows he's guilty, and has admitted it in court. The same public defender tried to get Holmes a plea with a life sentence and was rebuffed; perhaps the El Paso DA would be willing to settle for the deal. What are the chances?

  7. Craig says:

    The local media and the national media are really starting to piss me off.  Last night both Lester Holt and the guy on Channel 9 both made statements like it seems abortion may be the cause.  Come on guys.  The shooter said it straight out.  It doesn't seem like the cause, it is the cause and his motivation for shooting three innocent people, including a police officer who moonlights as a pastor.  Quit with this mealy mouthed BS.  He admitted his motive was to stop abortion.  So stop mincing words.  You're taking the Republican line in this case.

    The thing that scares me most is that I'm not sure you could seat a jury of 12 in Colorado Springs that would convict this guy, let alone give him the death penalty.

    • TobiasFunke says:

      Let me say first that I agree with your points, and totally agree that they should be able to say "His motive was x, based on what he has said."

      But let me tell you, that's exactly the sort of statement that will get a Journalist — not a talking head, or a columnist, or anyone on Fox News, but a real, live, big-J Journalist — canned in a newsroom.

      Until there's a trial or conviction, everything is "alleged" this and "probable/possible" that. And I know because I got in trouble for running a soundbyte once — not even me speaking, a police officer saying — "he did it, and we got him." 

      It's not the Republican line. It's the unfortunate blurred line between Journalist and opinion-haver.

  8. Froward69 says:

    out right flipping it now. accusing Dems of being "warriors for baby killing,"   then shut up and skulk away when confronted a second time…   domestic HOMEGROWN terrorist. Conservatives in Colo Spgs want to quash the whole affair.


    • Moderatus says:

      Some liberals, not all but some, would proudly consider themselves "warrior for baby killing." Anyone who would allow a doctor to kill a baby born alive supports baby killing

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Who would? 

        Name one.

      • MichaelBowman says:

        You mean liberals, like in Israel? The country that feasts on the largess of the American taxpayer, yet has one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world?  

        Experts say Israel’s secular foundations, along with Jewish law’s relative ambiguity on abortion, have kept religious political parties mostly silent on the issue and led groups like Efrat to focus on preventing abortions rather than outlawing them. Aliza Lavie, a lawmaker who proposed abolishing abortion committees at a recent Knesset conference, said Israelis are pro-choice because they understand women don’t approach abortion flippantly.

        “I think there’s an understanding here that we love children in Israel,” Lavie told JTA. “When a woman already gets to that point [of wanting an abortion], she has just reasons. Israeli culture is very pro-kids.”

        Traditional Jewish law doesn’t regard life as beginning at conception, and even mandates abortion if a mother’s life is in danger, so opposing abortion isn’t as high a priority for Israeli religious activists as it is for some of their American counterparts. Haredi Orthodox parties in the past have tried to outlaw late-term abortions, but the bills failed early and no religious party has made abortion a signature issue.

        • BlueCat says:

          Have no idea what the official religious view is but the folk tradition was always that abortion is OK until quickening. That's when you can first feel movement. But righties also give Israel a pass on being a socialist country with a top down controlled economy, government controlled prices, universal healthcare and all that other evil socialist stuff. Meantime they call center right Dems socialists and Obama, who has never proposed anything anywhere near so far left, a lefty Satan. Go figure.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.