The Austin Bomber Was Supposedly A Conservative, And I Have Some Things To Say About That

The Austin bomber blew himself up after a SWAT team approached his vehicle. He’s been identified as Mark Anthony Conditt. Up until now, the only thing we knew about him was…he’s white. MSM really wanted everyone to know that he’s white. WHITE WHITE WHITE. Please ignore the fact that some of his victims were also white.

Race is clearly irrelevant here. But now there’s this.

TMZ is reporting that Conditt was a conservative. Finally. Their ah-ha! moment. CONSERVATIVE TERRORIST. They’ve been DYING for this news.

Austin bomber Mark Conditt blogged that homosexuality is not natural and therefore gay marriage should be illegal.

It appears Conditt was a student in an online American government class in 2012 at Austin Community College, where he submitted several blogs in which he gave his opinions on a variety of issues.

As for gay marriage, Conditt wrote, “Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies … It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, ‘see, it’s natural for them to go together.'”

In addition to attacking homosexuality, he railed on the government providing women with free abortions, saying, “If you can’t provide for a child, then don’t have sex.”

You can read his alleged blog posts here.

Liberals are salivating.

SHOCKER: Austin bomber Mark Anthony Conditt self identifies as a conservative. pic.twitter.com/Oqe5xtmuvT

— IrishCatholicAtheist (@jumpinjeebus) March 21, 2018

Austin bomber Christian white conservative that hated abortion! #AustinBombings pic.twitter.com/DoD3gEVEQb

— WAR on the NRA (@WhoDat_Info) March 21, 2018

It turns out that the Austin bomber, Mark Anthony Conditt, was a Conservative who proposed ending the sex offender registry.

I’m going to guess our alleged sex offender-in-chief will not make another tweet or comment about his capture.

Just a guess…

— Brian Krassenstein🐬 (@krassenstein) March 21, 2018

So the Austin bomber was:

-White
-Conservative
-An evangelical Christian
-Anti-LGBT
-Pro-life

He’s been labeled as:

-A nice kid
-From a good family

And not labeled as the one thing he actually is:

-A terrorist

Am I missing anything?

— Anson Ling (@ns0n) March 21, 2018

Um, who labeled him that? He’s a POS bomber who terrorized innocent people. Did I stutter?

The Austin bomber identified conservative, hated abortionn & gay marriage

A violent right-winger, imagine my surprise
https://t.co/KtDWkdlS2C via @thedailybeast

— Aurora Erratic 🖖❄ (@Potterchik) March 21, 2018

As you can see, they’re trying to use this information to make us look like hypocrites. “See! You’re saying that he doesn’t reflect conservatism and Christianity, but when a Muslim does something, you say he or she reflects Islam!”

There’s nothing hypocritical about that. Yes– conservative Christians are generally pro-traditional marriage and pro-life. But one HUGE hallmark of conservatism (and Christianity) is endlessly defending innocent lives. Murdering innocent people isn’t in the platform. You won’t find it anywhere. It’s not a hallmark of our Judeo-Christian beliefs. So I’d argue that no– this man is NOT a conservative. There’s nothing about conservatism that encourages random hate or violence against innocent lives. Small government. Personal responsibility. Protecting the lives of the innocent. I’m not saying conservatives are perfect angels– that’s far from the truth. No one is. There are definitely morally compromised individuals out there, but you don’t get to say you’re “pro-life” and send explosive packages to innocent people. This man violated one of the MAIN tenets of conservatism and Christianity. So no. He doesn’t get to own the label. Conservative Christians don’t send explosive packages. It’s contrary to our value system.

In other cases– when a Muslim extremist carries out acts of violence– it makes more sense to mention the possible ideological motivations, because the religion of Islam promotes violence. It promotes hate. It promotes jihad. I’m certainly not saying all Muslims operate that way or adhere to those archaic beliefs. I know there are “reformed” Muslims out there, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s STILL an evil religion rooted in hate. The ideology itself is evil. There are Muslim scholars who PREACH that hate. Sharia Law is still a reality. They have terrorist organizations devoted to carrying out the violent beliefs prescribed in the religion. That’s why, in those instances, the ideology should be considered. Conservatism is not an ideology that advocates hate or violence. Neither is Christianity.

Again, in one instance, someone is acting contrary to their supposed ideology. In the other, they’re carrying out the ideas behind their claimed ideology. I know it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but there’s a difference and it’s appropriate to acknowledge that.

Conservatism isn’t an ideology of hate. Christianity isn’t an ideology of hate. Taking a hateful, evil individual and assigning him as the representative of ideologies that ARE NOT IDEOLOGIES OF HATE is completely disingenuous and pathetic.

The bottom line? No matter what these people call themselves, all of them are evil pieces of sh*t. Surely, we can all agree on that.