I
n A Tale of Two Shootings, columnist Scott Wheeler made some interesting observations:
- Obama’s response to the shooting death of abortion doctor, George Tiller:
I am shocked and outraged! - Obama’s response to the Fort Hood shooting of 12 American soldiers by a self-proclaimed Muslim jihadist:
I would caution against jumping to conclusions.
Wheeler also pointed out another apparent inconsistency in the Obama admistration’s response to domestic terrorism:
- Janet Napolitano’s activity following the Fort Hood terrorist attack on multiple American soldiers:
The Department is now working to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by a Muslim soldier. - Janet Napolitano’s activity earlier this year:
The Department issued a report cautioning against the domestic threats of “right-wing extremism” and right-wing groups that might use issues such as abortion as a recruiting tool.
Interesting observations that kind of make one wonder exactly who our government is trying to protect these days. Read Wheeler’s article here.
Hi Richard,
ReplyDeleteI hope you know that I think you're an incredibly smart guy. That's why it surprises me so much that you buy into the distortions from outlets like Fox News.
I would encourage you to go back and look at the entirity of President Obama's comments. He also said of the Foot Hood shooting...
“These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk and at times give their lives to protect the rest of us on a daily basis. It’s difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an army base on American soil.”
You've told me in the past that I can't cherry pick verses from the Bible to make a point, without looking at the full context of the situation.
I would argue that if President Bush were incharge and asked if this was an act of terrorism, connected with alqueda, he might also urge us not to jump to conclusions until all the facts are in. At least I hope he would have.
But if you want a real example of distortions in the media...check this out...
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage
And one more thing! lol
ReplyDeleteI've read Janet Napolitano's comments that you included, several times and I'm at a loss as to what your issue is. In both scenarios she is talking about protecting Americans from violence. Isn't that her job?
I can understand some concern that her comments about "right wing extremism" might give some the imprssion that all right wing groups are dangerous.
However, the right wing talk show hosts I've heard lately seem outraged that our government would give even the slightest of concerns to people of the Muslim faith. In my eyes these folks on the Right are doing the exact same thing that you're accusing Napolitano of doing. They appear to have this attitude that if you're a Christian, you are more American than a Muslim or anyone else for that matter.
A good example of this was when Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison was sworn into office in 2007. Ellison is the first and I believe only Muslim in Congress. When he took the oath of office the right had a fit. Here is a quote from Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.” Talk show host Dennis Prager, speaking of use of the Koran, said that the “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”
The glaring error in their argument was that Ellison was not sworn in on the Koran or the Bible. The swearing in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.
As our country becomes more diverse, I think the Republican party will have to stop telling us who is and who isn't a real American.
Your blog is so therapuetic. Hope I'm not getting on your nerves yet.
You're not getting on my nerves at all, Tim. In fact, you're making me consider how some of the things I say might be perceived by someone who doesn't know me real well.
ReplyDeleteTo explain my issue with Napalitano's reports and responses, I need to admit that I am a pro-life activist. I believe that pre-meditated murder is wrong in all cases. (War is not pre-meditated murder.) Therefore, I would seek legislation to end all abortion no matter what the circumstances. A true life-of-the-mother situation is something that I believe should be left to the decision of the mother, the father, and the physician. But true life-of-the-mother situations are very uncommon and should be considered the exception to the rule.
Napalitano's targeting of abortion as an issue that might be used to recruit folks to radical extremist domestic terrorism is blatantly absurd. I know thousands of pro-lifers and none of them would support or defend violence in the name of pro-life activism.
So that is the reason for the problem with Napalitano's report. Lies used to imply that we are protecting the nation from violence are still lies. And they are intentionally propagated, in the case, as a smear campaign against those who disagree with the penchant of the left for murdering the most helpless amongst us for the sake of convenience and wealth.
My problem with Obama's responses to the two situations is that he is apparently far more concerned with not offending a religious group that has a large percentage of folks who have sworn to obliterate us than with offending American citizens who have a different opinion than he does about the preciousness of human life.
I don't actually get much news from Fox - I don't get to watch more than about an hour or two of television per week. I have seen Glenn Beck's show exactly twice and thought it was highly entertaining. It would not be my choice of news source.
But I would never look to the daily show for my news either. I don't find him remotely entertaining. But if others do, I don't mind them watching him. I would definitely put him in the same extreme category as Michael Savage. Probably not the same as Beck, as I think Glenn actually thinks a good bit more clearly than John. But both shows are intended as entertainment and opinion, not as news. I think Sean Hannity is a hopeless neo-con and is not a particularly deep thinker. I think Rush Limbaugh is crude and uncaring. So that's not the source of my news. I would actually be considered Libertarian in my beliefs, not Conservative and certainly not Republican. Some of my more conservative friends actually think I'm far too liberal on some issues. C'est la vie.
Oh ... and I think you're a very smart guy too. I don't know if you put the humble projection forward as a front or if you really don't realize how smart you are. But you are definitely a deep thinker, which I greatly respect and appreciate. It is the reason Mary and I have enjoyed so much discussing things with you.
Hi Richard,
ReplyDeleteWe'll just have to agree to disagree on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart has his off nights, but for the most part I find him to be brillant and hillarious.
I also disagree with the notion that those people who are Pro Choice, like Obama, have no value for the "preciousness of human life". It's just not true. It would be like me claiming that people on the right don't care about human life, due to their lack of support for public healthcare.
Finally I have to ask you. If you were President; how would you have handled the Fort Hood shootings? Hours after the actual event a reporter asks you, "Did the shooter have any connection to Al Quida or any other extremist organization." How woud you respond. I'm just curious.
I think I probably watch more Fox News than you do! That's scarey. Friday night Sean Hannity was discussing the Fort Hood tragedy with his usual panel of 2 agressive right wing people and 1 meek, shy lefty. Anyway, Hannity kept focusing on the fact that the Fort Hood shooter had made a comment, several years ago, that he was a Muslim first and an American second. Hannity pointed this to a sign that this man was an extremist and should have been weeded out of the army a long time ago. Now, I know that Hannity is a Christian. I'm assuming he would say he's American before he's a Christian. Otherwise he would he have to be consided an extremist for putting HIS religion first. Right?
I understand what you're saying, Tim. However, if I were the president, I would not try to give the impression that I'm more interested in soothing Muslim sensibilities than in protecting my own people. I'm not saying that is an accurate description of Obama, but it is certainly a perception that is increasing rapidly because of his insistence on apologizing for America and for political correctness with regards to Muslims.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that someone saying that they are a Christian first and an American second would qualify them as a terrorist or even a threat to the nation. Religious doctrines play heavily into such a consideration, as do current events. Islam has a religious doctrine of jihad, which has been used increasingly over the past 1,000 years to justify conversion by the sword or simply annihilation of those who believe differently. Christianity has no such doctrine. In fact, Christian doctrine commands just the opposite.
And current events must be considered as well. The US is currently in a world-wide war with Muslim extremists who have openly espoused the annihilation of America. So Hassan's statements in the past should have been a huge red flag to the administration, especially since he was already under investigation under the Bush administration, until that investigation was cancelled by Obama's administration.
On the other hand, if the nation did decide to watch Christians closely due to some perceived threat, Christian doctrine teaches us that we should not worry at all about that. Romans 13:1-4 says: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
And should the government decide to wage war against Christianity regardless of whether or not we're a threat, we are instructed in the bible to "turn the other cheek" and Jesus himself said “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12).
These doctrines are a far cry from the teachings of Islam.