Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

With President Obama demonizing Tea Party protesters and the recent comments of New York Mayor Bloomberg speculating that the Times Square bomber was a tea party protester, it is mind boggling how the evidence continues to stack up against their arguments of Tea Party protesters being intolerant and racists.

Especially in the light of breaking news that thieves have stolen the Mojave Desert Cross that was built to honor Americans who died in World War I.  When  just less than two weeks prior the U.S. Supreme allowed that Cross to remain on the property.

I’ll bet good money that some raving liberal removed the cross because of his or her dissatisfaction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.

Yet where are the news of lynchings, swastikas painted on synagogues and burnt out black churches by Tea Party Protesters?

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Of Tea Party Terrorists and Cognitive Dissonance

  • Thrasybulus – ancient Greek tyrant and teacher of tyrants: “Cut down the tallest stalk in any political field.”

    Liberals are vultures.

  • Nothing frightens the corrupt criminals in the political class like the active involvement of citizens in politics.

    In their view, politics is “their” domain; our role is to show up every 2 or 4 years and cast a ballot and go home.

    Now we’re taking ownership of the political process. The tea party just unseated a Republican incumbent in the Utah primary.

    http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articles/Senator_Bob_Bennett_Loses_Nomination_Bid_in_GOP_Primary

    “Most of delegates, when interviewed, confirmed that they had never served as a delegate, and most had never attended the state convention or even a caucus meeting. The primary reasons cited by delegates spoken to were a concern about the increase in size of the federal government and a resulting loss of liberties.”

    The political class hears this and goes into spasms.

    And make no mistake – they are more afraid of this than they are of Al Qeda.

Previewing President Obamas State of the Union Address

Wednesday, January 27, AD 2010

[Updates at the bottom of this post as of 1-27-2010 at 4:20pm CST]

Victimhood personified by a modern liberal of the Democratic Party.  Where is Harry “the BUCK stops here” Truman?

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Previewing President Obamas State of the Union Address

  • I am sure he will discuss his spending freeze proposal. Supposedly, he increased government spending by about 25% but only plans to freeze about 4% of his spending.

  • Maybe you should go back and read Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s first state of the union addresses. Did they personify Harry “The Buck Stops Here” Truman? I think not. They talked about where the country wason the day they gave their speeches in terms of how the country had gotten there – in other words, they looked back. So, Reagan and Bush 43 must have been cases of victimhood personified by “modern” conservatives of the Republican Party, don’t you think?

  • Linda,

    They talked about America in general.

    They didn’t cite the previous president’s name and blamed him for all the problems that they were still having.

Libs Go After Obama, Why?

Tuesday, November 24, AD 2009

In this most recent SNL skit President Obama was skewered… royally.  It’s as if the SNL writers downloaded my thoughts on President Obama’s recent Asia trip, or what is sometimes referred to as his World Apology Tour: Asia Edition, and wrote this skit

The sarcasm is biting and the humor is hilarious.

The question is, why does it seem that his base is turning on him?  Are they realizing that their previous efforts to poke fun at President Obama failed miserably so they turned it up a notch?  Or is this genuine creative license that sometimes hits or miss and in this instance it hit?  Or are they really upset with the excessive spending that President Obama is pushing for?

My guess is that it’s their creative license that finally hit its mark.  I like SNL, but watch it infrequently now that I don’t even have rabbit ears on my tv set to watch the broadcast networks.

This skit certainly got me to smile and lifted up my day ever so briefly.

The most memorable line from this skit is:

“I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money.”

Enjoy!

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.4001657&w=425&h=350&fv=]

(Biretta Tip: Big Hollywood)

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Libs Go After Obama, Why?

  • There’s clearly at least one writer on SNL’s staff with some conservative sympathies (see here and here for other examples).

  • I remember both skits. Pretty good stuff.

    The second link, that of the Olbermann spoof, was so good that Afleck personally called up Olbermann to apologize for the skit.

    What a wimp.

  • Well, this liberal thinks our president is too conservative. And while I may be the most radical person in your commentariat, there are several million Americans who have me beat.

    That said, humor sells. SNL has spoofed every president since Ford. I doubted they had enough Palin material to roll with for eight years.

  • Well, Olberman crashed the closed set while Affleck was rehearsing the sketch…which must have been a little awkward. It’s not surprising that he apologized.

  • Why John Henry, I didn’t know you read the HuffPo! 😉

  • Well, this liberal thinks our president is too conservative.

    I’ll take the bait, Todd. How so?

  • Every President of a pronounced ideological stripe tends to leave the true believers on his side unsatisfied. That was certainly the case with Reagan and many conservatives. Obama is a dream come true for many liberals and worry is growing on the Left that they aren’t getting what they want. For example:

    1. No single payer health care system.

    2. US troops aren’t out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    3. Deep cuts in defense spending aren’t being called for.

    4. No card check.

    5. No Freedom of Choice Act.

    6. Insufficient spending by the Federal government as typified by the calls on the Left for a second stimulus package.

    7. No blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.

    8. No attempts yet to go after “right wing” talk radio through an imposition of a new Fairness Doctrine.

    9. No repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or the Protection of Marriage Act.

    10. No calls to overturn the filibuster rule in the Senate.

    Partisans of the Left recognize that this is the best opportunity to enact their agenda in four decades. From where they sit Obama is blowing a golden opportunity.

  • Donald,

    I hope they do fail on this farce of a health care bill.

    Lieberman has already said absolutely, unequivocally “no” to any form, delay, etc of the public option.

    Landrieu, Nelson, and Lincoln have hostile constituencies that want NOTHING to do with more public spending.

    I will be praying hard for this bill to die quickly.

  • Wow. I had no idea Donald was a closet liberal. Are you guys going to kick him off the blog for that?

    “I’ll take the bait, Todd. How so?”

    I don’t speak for other liberals, especially the secular ones, but Mr Obama is a conservative in my view because of …

    – pro-death penalty
    – Geithner and money
    – pro-choice (it’s a forty-year status quo, after all)

    He’s just a mainstream politician, no matter how much whining others do because he’s non-GOP. Y’all make the false assumption that we 40% non-GOP and non-Dem, are all tucked in ideologically between your two big parties. Look more closely.

  • We have other Catholics that lean left on this website.

    We all have fidelity to the Magisterium.

  • “Wow. I had no idea Donald was a closet liberal.”

    One does not need to be a liberal Todd to read their sites. The disappointment with Obama is palpable on many blogs of the Left. A typical type of post is linked below:

    http://lesserevilparty.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-hoover.html

  • So, then, Donald, why are you pontificating on what it means to be a liberal? Aren’t there enough conservative things to talk about? Attending to your testimony, counsellor, would be like going to an internet-savvy Muslim to tell me about Catholicism. It just begs the question: what’s the point?

  • “He’s just a mainstream politican…”

    Maybe, but then why did so many of his disciples think he was The One?

  • Mr Obama is a conservative in my view because of …

    – pro-death penalty

    I may be mistaken, but I think the last time an execution was carried out at the behest of a (civilian) federal court was around about 1963, so whatever he might have said to whatever focus group is not likely to have much practical import. (Unless of course you were hoping for judicial appointments that would arbitrarily nullify all capital sentances, as Justice Brennan wished to do).

    – Geithner and money

    You appear to be referring to financial regulatory schemes and modes of recapitalizing the banks. He and Barney Frank have been most problematic in this regard. What appellation would you apply to Yves Smith (lapsed investment banker) and Luigi Zingales (professor at the University of Chicago) who have been most eloquent about the shortcomings of Geithner and his predecessor?

    – pro-choice (it’s a forty-year status quo, after all)

    How very Burkean, you and Jeffrey Hart.

    A purpose of political terminology is to supply and illuminating shorthand. It’s not working out for you (or the folks to whom you speak).

  • “It just begs the question: what’s the point?”

    To answer the question of the post Todd. There is growing concern about Obama on the Left. I find it interesting because Republicans he never had, Independents now are largely in opposition to his administration and even his base is becoming restive. That is a good shorthand description of an administration in trouble.

  • And right on cue Obama scores his lowest approval rating yet:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/24/rasmussen-obama-drops-to-lowest-approval-rating/

  • Okay …

    It’s just so fun to skewer you, Donald. I bet your courtroom opponents had similar fun on occasion.

    I think your politics are off somewhat. When elected, the president’s base was pretty solid among independents–I would have expected registered Dems to support him. Otherwise, he positioned himself (and giverns as) a moderate centrist Democrat. I give him credit for being the first northern Dem to be elected president since 1960.

    But base? Are you serious? These are Democrats you’re talking about. You realize that, right?

  • “It’s just so fun to skewer you, Donald. I bet your courtroom opponents had similar fun on occasion.”

    Normally they do not look like they are having much fun actually.

    “he positioned himself (and governs as) a moderate centrist Democrat.”

    For someone on the far Left Todd I have no doubt that Obama would appear moderate. For those Americans who have not swilled the “progressive” Kool Aide, Obama is quickly becoming president non grata. At 45% Obama is falling back on his Democrat base. Assuming the economy stays in the tank, I am expecting him to decline to 38% to 40% by the Spring of next year, assuming no foreign disaster. After he announces more troops to Afghanistan next week, that might peel off a point or two of the Out-Now crowd.

    You do have my sympathies Todd. It can be hard to vote for a man and then have him revealed as completely inept at the job. You can take solace from this observation however. With Jimmy Carter’s record as president, it will be difficult, although not impossible, for Obama to claim the distinction of worst post World War II president.

  • … or the worst president EVER.

  • Wow! So Pelosi, Kate Michelman, the late Ted Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama are “conservatives” on the subject of abortion, because conservatives are always on the side of settled law, no matter what the law happens to be.
    Who knew?

    Nice bit of sophistry. Reminds me of the media trick of referring to the hard-line Russian Communists who opposed Yeltsin in the early ’90’s as “conservatives.”
    It was an entirely inaccurate description but a cute way for liberals to reassure themselves that they are ever on the side of the angels.

  • Tito may be right, Donald. In just one year, Obama is giving Mr. Peanut a run for his money. By 2012, The One might even match the dismal record of Buchanan, who was long thought unbeatable in the “Worst President” category.

    For America’s sake, I certainly hope not, but the possibility *shudder* is there.

  • You might be right Donna. Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, is saying that a reprise of the Carter Administration is a best case analysis now.

  • It can be hard to vote for a man and then have him revealed as completely inept at the job.

    Given his deficient preparation, it would be a most pleasant surprise if he performs creditably. Todd should have understood this before casting his ballot. Given the severity of our economic problems, one better hope he performs creditably.

    With Jimmy Carter’s record as president, it will be difficult, although not impossible, for Obama to claim the distinction of worst post World War II president.

    No, it will not.

    Mr. Carter’s principal problem was that he lacked the people skills and acquired street smarts to persuade Congress.

    His secondary problem was that his priorities were rather at a variance with those of the majority of the Democratic Congressional caucus; Mr. Carter’s interests: tax reform, civil service reform, energy conservation, and improved methods of public budgeting were more those of a liberal Republican (e.g. Thomas Dewey) that the mode of the Democratic Party of his day.

    Another problem was that he was unwilling to countenance controls on monetary aggregates to restore price stability. Keep in mind, though, that the stable of economists listened to at the elite levels of the Democratic Party misdiagnosed the sources of inflation (as did Arthur Burns) or misjudged how costly it would be to contain it (as did James Tobin).

    All of which is to say that the domestic policy failures of the Carter era had less to do with Mr. Carter’s deficiencies than they did with the wretched matrix in which he found himself. Blame Tip O’Neill, blame Arthur Burns, blame Texas oil patch congressman, and blame the shills of the public employee union in Congress ‘ere you blame Carter.

  • Whenever a discussion like this veers to Jimmy Carter, the Republicans have gotten bored with the notion of the Left laughing at President Obama.

    In political cycles like these, it’s easy enough to find the worst presidents. But I can’t pass up the opportunity for the bogus administration of Bush the Second: inattention on terrorists, then still-unsolved anthrax. Let’s not forget a souped-up homeland security department, followed by an inability to deal with a homeland natural disaster. Two wars, not well thought-out, incompetently run.

    Honestly, I think y’all are still smarting from getting thrashed in the last two national elections. Let it sink in: by your own admission, you’ve been routed by the worst president in history. Seven more year, my friends. Seven more years.

  • “Seven more year, my friends. Seven more years.”

    Actually Todd it is 13 more months and change before the Congress elected in 2010 is seated. Enjoy the next year Todd. I think you and your ideological think-a-likes are going to be in the political wilderness for a very long time.

  • to Jimmy Carter, the Republicans have gotten bored with the notion of the Left laughing at President Obama.

    It’s a small topic, needing few words.

    you’ve been routed by the worst president in history. Seven more year, my friends. Seven more years.

    The man is an empty suit; the Administration and Congress have done flat nothing to address a most wretched banking and financial crisis, and ignored sachems like Paul Volcker and Luigi Zingales; he has squandered months attempting to build a policy monument to himself in the form of a hopelessly baroque medical insurance program (which ain’t gonnal look good if we have a failed Treasury bond auction); he allowed David Obey, et al to turn a needed macroeconomic stimulus into a patronage free-for-all; and he Rahm Emmanuel, a monster of arrogance whose personal history suggests Latin American levels of corruption, in charge of his executive office staff. You want seven more years of this????

  • “The man is an empty suit …”

    That empty suit still beat your war hero and perky governor. And it wasn’t even close.

    “You want seven more years of this?”

    I’m going to enjoy watching conservative heads spin until 2017, at least. You’re far more entertaining this way. The only thing that would be better would be a third party to vault ahead of the Dems and leave the GOP third in a 3-way race. Then I’d get to watch conservative Dems twist in the wind, too.

    I agree, Tito, that corporate banks and insurance are a complete mess. It wouldn’t have been different under McCain, and we know it was BAU under Bush II.

    If we were suddenly to see Ron Paul and pre-pro-choice Dennis Kucinich surge into the fore, then we’d have some excitement.

  • I read what you write; the President’s suit is not the only thing that is empty. Happy trails.

  • Art, it doesn’t seem you read terribly carefully. Like many conservatives, you assume that just because I disagree with you on one point, I disagree across the board. There is a distinction between being the bearer of bad news and actually causing the calamity oneself. Take the last word, friends. This has been a tough one for you; you’ve earned it.

  • Actually, I tend to think it was George W Bush that beat “the war hero”. The Democrats could have nominated anything from Charles Manson to a lobotomized lab rabbit to a gooseberry pie and it would have won by the same margin.

  • Todd, have you checked Gallup or Rasmussen in the last couple of days? They’re a bit more accurate than Daily Kos online polls.

    I live in a very liberal area. If I confused the entire country with the folks in my neighborhood I would be very glum indeed.

    Todd, you need to get out more.

  • The Democrats could have nominated anything from Charles Manson to a lobotomized lab rabbit to a gooseberry pie and it would have won by the same margin.

    I don’t know about that. Charles Manson would have had a hard time delivering the minority vote in usual numbers. The lobotomized lab rabbit was even a drag to the ticket as VP running mate, and the gooseberry pie was too much of a girly-man for most voters.

  • Actually, I tend to think it was George W Bush that beat “the war hero”. The Democrats could have nominated anything from Charles Manson to a lobotomized lab rabbit to a gooseberry pie and it would have won by the same margin.

    Darnit, Rick beat me to the punchline!

    Cheers!

  • Found this and just wanted to post it. No SNL skit, or funny, but straightforward truth.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16905

Obama The Theologian

Friday, September 4, AD 2009

It’s interesting that during a Ramadan dinner at the White House President Obama mentioned that Islam is a great religion.

Since when is he qualified to make such theological statements when questions of this magnitude are above his pay grade?

Did President Obama mean how the followers of Islam subjugated the Christian lands of the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia, the Balkans, and Spain?

Enslaved millions of black Africans in the slave trade to Europeans?

Not to mention defiling the Hagia Sophia, Saint Peter’s Basilica, and many, many more Christian shrines and churches.

President Obama you have no idea what you’re talking about.

_._

To go to the RealCatholicTV.com website click here.

To download the Vortex by Michael Voris, S.T.B., on RealCatholicTV.com click here.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Obama The Theologian

  • by Pope John Paul II in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope”

    A very different discussion, obviously, is the one that leads us to the synagogues and mosques, where those who worship the One God assemble. Yes, certainly it is a different case when we come to these great monotheistic religions, beginning with Islam. In the Declaration Nostra Aetate we read: “The Church also has a high regard for the Muslims, who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth” (Nostra Aetate 3). As a result of their monotheism, believers in Allah are particularly close to us.

    I remember an event from my youth. In the convent of the Church of Saint Mark in Florence, we were looking at the frescoes by Fra Angelico. At a certain point a man joined us who, after sharing his admiration for the work of this great religious artist, immediately added: “But nothing can compare to our magnificent Muslim monotheism.” His statement did not prevent us from continuing the visit and the conversation in a friendly tone. It was on that occasion that I got a kind of first taste of the dialogue between Christianity and Islam, which we have tried to develop systematically in the post-conciliar period.

    Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

    Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.

    Nevertheless, the religiosity of Muslims deserves respect. It is impossible not to admire, for example, their fidelity to prayer. The image of believers in Allah who, without caring about time or place, fall to their knees and immerse themselves in prayer remains a model for all those who invoke the true God, in particular for those Christians who, having deserted their magnificent cathedrals, pray only a little or not at all.

    The Council has also called for the Church to have a dialogue with followers of the “Prophet,” and the Church has proceeded to do so. We read in Nostra Aetate: “Even if over the course of centuries Christians and Muslims have had more than a few dissensions and quarrels, this sacred Council now urges all to forget the past and to work toward mutual understanding as well as toward the preservation and promotion of social justice, moral welfare, peace, and freedom for the benefit of all mankind” (Nostra Aetate 3).

    From this point of view, as I have already mentioned, the meetings for prayer held at Assisi (especially that for peace in Bosnia, in 1993), certainly played a significant role. Also worthwhile were my meetings with the followers of Islam during my numerous apostolic trips to Africa and Asia, where sometimes, in a given country, the majority of the citizens were Muslims. Despite this, the Pope was welcomed with great hospitality and was listened to with similar graciousness.

    The trip I made to Morocco at the invitation of King Hassan II can certainly be defined as a historic event. It was not simply a courtesy visit, but an event of a truly pastoral nature. The encounter with the young people at Casablanca Stadium (1985) was unforgettable. The openness of the young people to the Pope’s words was striking when he spoke of faith in the one God. It was certainly an unprecedented event.

    Nevertheless, concrete difficulties are not lacking. In countries where fundamentalist movements come to power, human rights and the principle of religious freedom are unfortunately interpreted in a very one-sided way-religious freedom comes to mean freedom to impose on all citizens the “true religion.” In these countries the situation of Christians is sometimes terribly disturbing. Fundamentalist attitudes of this nature make reciprocal contacts very difficult. All the same, the Church remains always open to dialogue and cooperation.

  • Now, Tito, just as it is not right to say Catholicism did X, Y, and Z because of what some of its followers did, it is not right to say X, Y, and Z are from “Islam” unless you can show how it is universal Islamic teaching.

    The Fall of Constantinople is very interesting to bring up. First, we all know Catholics before Muslims sacked the city and indeed, destroyed religious relics and holy sites (though it was not Catholicism which did this). The sacking of Constantinople was a great defiling and it was Western Christians that did it. By this fact, Constantinople was weakened enough to be taken centuries later. Second, in the taking of the city, many Christians were in the army of the Turk (indeed, a great number) — we are talking about empires, not religions.

    Now saying this, it is true to say a lot of followers of Islam have done evil things, just like followers of Christ have done evil things. But let’s not use that to define Islam, just as we don’t use the abuses of the Spanish Inquisition to define Catholicism.

  • Did President Obama mean how the followers of Islam subjugated the Christian lands of the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia, the Balkans, and Spain? Enslaved millions of black Africans in the slave trade to Europeans? Not to mention defiling the Hagia Sophia, Saint Peter’s Basilica, and many, many more Christian shrines and churches.

    I think this is an unnecessarily uncharitable reading of the President’s remarks. If President Obama had said that Christianity was a great religion, I certainly would not have understood him to be praising the Spanish Inquisition. As with Christianity, so with Islam.

    Additionally, ‘great’ has multiple meanings, for instance ‘most significant’, ‘influential’, ‘extensive in time or distance,’ which strike me as at least as plausible in this context. It seems unlikely (to me) that President Obama was praising Muslim theology, per se. Moreover, even if he was praising Muslim theology in general terms, there are certainly enough points of agreement between Islam and Christianity that this should not necessarily offend Christians; it’s not like President Obama was praising Sharia law or commenting on the divinity of Christ.

    great (gr?t)
    adj. great·er, great·est

    1. Very large in size.
    2. Larger in size than others of the same kind.
    3. Large in quantity or number: A great throng awaited us. See Synonyms at large.
    4. Extensive in time or distance: a great delay.
    5. Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
    6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
    7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.
    8. Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).
    9. Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
    10. Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
    11. Grand; aristocratic.
    12. Informal Enthusiastic: a great lover of music.
    13. Informal Very skillful: great at algebra.
    14. Informal Very good; first-rate: We had a great time at the dance.
    15. Being one generation removed from the relative specified. Often used in combination: a great-granddaughter.

  • Whoops, just noticed Henry had already used the Spanish Inquisition…should have come up with another example. ‘Nobody expects…’

  • Henry K. & John H.,

    Excellent points all the way around.

    Without getting into any nitpicking which I want to avoid, President Obama would never have said anything about Islam the way Pope John Paul II has so eloquently stated.

    His was more of a political statement to the appeasement of his liberal sensibilities that all religions are the basically the same.

    Which isn’t true at all.

    His comparison of Islam to Wicca, Buddhism, and Christianity shows his lack of depth on the subject of religion.

    This coming from a man who didn’t know that Jeremiah Wright was a racist while attending his ‘church’ for 20 years.

    …I like the quotes pulled from Pope JP2. He is one of the major reasons why I am a Catholic today.

  • Catholic Anarchist,

    You are now banned from all of my postings.

    Enjoy purgatory!

  • “His was more of a political statement to the appeasement of his liberal sensibilities that all religions are the basically the same.”

    Actually that is also not what he said, and that is the problem. As the Church has consistently pointed out, we do not reject that which is true in other religions; to say that (which is what his quote from Ali is about) is not to say they are all equal.

    I thank God St Thomas Aquinas found much truth through Muslims!

  • I have to say, I think this particular broadcast went a bit too far.

    Obama’s use of the word “great” did not need to be subjected to such hair-splitting analysis.

    I certainly believe we have a right and a duty to criticize the president when he says or does something morally objectionable, but I have little respect for people who are simply looking for any reason they can find to lay into him.

  • Of course, to say what a specific Muslim does is not “Islam” is a fair statement. But then you can look to the founder and founding texts. In those texts, there is a much closer relationship between Islam and violence than between the Inquisition and Catholicism.

    But, all in all, I doubt the O was making any great theological statement on Islam – he was just being cordial. No point in antagonizing where there is no need to.

  • c matt,

    Of course, to say what a specific Muslim does is not “Islam” is a fair statement. But then you can look to the founder and founding texts. In those texts, there is a much closer relationship between Islam and violence than between the Inquisition and Catholicism.

    nailed it.

    But, all in all, I doubt the O was making any great theological statement on Islam – he was just being cordial. No point in antagonizing where there is no need to.

    No, he wasn’t making a grand theological statement, since he’s an avowed secularist, and likely an atheist at his core, how could he? He was making a value judgment, suggesting that all religions are equally good and can be used to further his agenda. WHich is why he refused to participate in the national day of prayer, but hosts a Ramadan feast in the White House. Appeasing the Islamo-fascists is in his agenda, appeasing true Christians is not.

  • Henry K.,

    We only accept what is true in other religions.

    Joe Hargrave,

    He is the president of the United States, we should expect only the best from our president. This man accomplished so much that by the age of 35 he wrote TWO memoirs!

    Tito

  • I certainly believe we have a right and a duty to criticize the president when he says or does something morally objectionable, but I have little respect for people who are simply looking for any reason they can find to lay into him.

    During the previous Republican administrations, where exactly was this seemingly virtuous stand that so bravely confronts the underhanded pettiness on the part of the president’s cruel critics?

    Or is it the case that the president need be a democrat, or better yet, a Pro-abort democrat, for that matter, or simply Obama, in order to deserve this kind of just treatment and defense?

Rhetoric and Violence

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

As several commenters have pointed out in other threads, there were two potentially ideologically motivated murders in the last 48 hours.

On Sunday morning, a well-known late term abortionist was shot and killed while attending services at his Lutheran church.

On Monday morning, a man opened fire on the recruiters at an Army-Navy career center in Little Rock, Arkansas — killing one and injuring a second. (The military being a needed and honorable profession, my prayers are all with these men and their families.)

Suspects for both crimes are now in custody and doubtless the machinery of justice will do its work in due time.

However, only the first of these is considered national political news, and while many are calling for soul searching on the part of the pro-life movement (or in some cases for government surveillance and downright suppression on it) few seem to be making similar calls in regards to the anti-war movement.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Rhetoric and Violence

  • D,

    The only thing I object to is the notion that killing Tiller – or the recruiters for that matter – is necessarily ‘eye of an eye’.

    A killing can be as much preventative as it is retributive. I’m not saying that makes it right, necessarily, but there IS a difference and in some cases, a moral difference. Perhaps not these cases.

  • Those who give a great deal of thought to class dynamics might observe that the elite which is responible for writing the news is much more sympathetic to the anti-war movement than to the pro-life movement — and further that a 60-year-old, white, upper middle class abortionist is part of their class, while military recruiters are not.

    Indeed. That violence is used to settle disputes between the lower classes is deemed tolerable, but violence used against the elite is the beginning of the end of society.

  • Excellent post Darwin.

    The narrative is clear that abortion is the elephant in the room that the left will do everything they can to ignore it if not to miss an opportunity to demonize the pro-life movement with.

  • I had just finished reading the report about the recruiter’s murder and was struck about the difference in language, tone, and emphasis between the that report and the ones on Tiller. I think you’re right that that difference suggests that this situation is being used for ends outside of justice for Tiller’s murder.

  • I had not heard of the second case, and yes, it is as wicked as the killing of Tiller.

    And yes, there is bias all the time. The people in rural and exurban communities are the first to defend their right to own guns, paying no heed to the implications of widespread availability of firearms in inner cities.

    You may be right about the media bias on this matter. I have always noticed a bias on Israel-Palestine. We always hear of Israeli deaths, and yet Palestinian deaths are downplated because the “conventional wisdom” is that Israel is somehow more in the right. For instance, how many media outlets have reported the Jewish settlers rampage this weekend, attacking Palestinians and burning their farmland?

  • MM,

    You have an interesting point, but lets keep to the topic here concerning the disparity of reporting between these two incidents that some on the extreme left are already hailing as an “eye for an eye”.

  • And yes, there is bias all the time. The people in rural and exurban communities are the first to defend their right to own guns, paying no heed to the implications of widespread availability of firearms in inner cities.

    Perhaps because they are dubious about the empirical relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and rates of violent crime, the capacity of gun registration statutes to contain gun ownership among the wrong sort, and the relationship between the prevalence of sporting weapons in rural areas and small towns with muggings in city slums. Not only are they dubious, but econometricians who study these effects are dubious.

    You may be right about the media bias on this matter. I have always noticed a bias on Israel-Palestine. We always hear of Israeli deaths, and yet Palestinian deaths are downplated because the “conventional wisdom” is that Israel is somehow more in the right. For instance, how many media outlets have reported the Jewish settlers rampage this weekend, attacking Palestinians and burning their farmland?

    That ‘conventional wisdom’ might be based on the observation that the political objects of the local Arab population have been, in general, an ethnic cleansing extravaganza.

  • I have some real doubts as to whether my family’s deer rifles are responsible for kids getting shot in Chicago.

  • What a horrific tragedy! I will pray for these brave recruiters and their families. What senseless violence!

    However, I could find nothing online that pointed to an ideological motive. The news has said that assault weapons were found in the car, but that there is no known motive at this time.

    As Catholic, and like our Pope, I did not support the war in Iraq. I find it dubious that such a crime would be perpetrated by war protestors.

  • Steve,

    You’ve obviously been duped by a biased media.

    Viona,

    Of course. Only pro-lifers have such people on the fringe of their movement.

  • However, I could find nothing online that pointed to an ideological motive. The news has said that assault weapons were found in the car, but that there is no known motive at this time.

    Hmmmm. Someone drives up to a recruiting station and opens up on it with an assault rifle, but it’s not remotely possible that the person doing this considers the military or recruiters in particular to be evil? Not remotely possible there’s an ideological motive involved?

    Well, I don’t know… I do know that I’ve read self described pacifists denouncing recruiters as “scum”, “modern slavers”, “child predators” and “hitmen”. And, of course, all sorts of very graphic denunciations of the war itself and the suffering of Iraqis, Afghans, and others.

    Yet while you showed up very, very sure that the pro-life movement was at fault for Tiller’s killing, you seem a little more hesitant here. Any suggestions as to why?

    Is it possible that you’re okay with graphic denunciations you agree with, but hold that those you disagree with should not be able to express their beliefs fully without being denounced inciting violence?

  • Slight correction: the dead soldier wasn’t a recruiter, he was just out of basic– I’m going to guess the Army does the same thing as the Navy, and offers X-days free leave after basic to go help recruiters by offering a fresh perspective on what possible recruits will go through.

    Going to your old High School is another thing that’s encouraged during the week or so. (I got ten days, plus two for travel. Loved it!)

    I am darkly amused that every story I’ve read so far has emphasized that no-one has even a slight notion what could possibly be the motive, while all the Tiller killing ones announced it was the work of a pro-lifer….

    Recruiting commander Lt. Col Thomas Artis says the victims had just completed basic training and were spending two weeks in Little Rock training to recruit in their home area, showing the difference that less than two months of training made in their lives.

  • Well perhaps the shooter was a faithful member of the Religion of Peace:

    http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/?cid=226222

  • Phillip,

    Oh my goodness.

    Has President Obama called up the National Reserve? Is this being labeled as a “terrorist” act? Have they called them out as Muslim fanatics?

    Interesting how the two stories diverge in content and vitriol.

  • Thanks for the correction, Foxfier.

    I suppose we shall all have to wait and see whether there is a national call for people to pull back on rhetoric about the US’s involvement in the Middle East which might cause young Muslims to want to shoot up recruiting stations. Or will this remain “non-ideological” and “not religiously motivated”?

  • I don’t think it’s fair to categorize the anti-war movement as predominantly Marxist or Anarchist. In fact, the anti-war movement is heavily based on classical and principled pacifist thought, which does NOT encourage violent revolution. This horrible action AGAINST pacifist thought hurts the anti-war movement tremendously and is not seen as something light to be brushed off as you suggest.

  • Mary-
    Please read more carefully; he said :
    Whereas given the Marxist or anarchist leanings of many of the most hard core members of the anti-war movement

    Which is not making a characterization of the entire anti-war movement; the same flaw of reasoning, reversed, has folks acting like the Montana Freemen are the same as limited-gov’t conservatives or even libertarians.

    I can understand getting wroth, but it’s misplaced wrath, based on something not said.

  • I think Foxfier is still arguing that Mr. Roeder is not a true blue member of the anti-abortion movement. Strangely, on the dashboard of his car was found the home phone number of a top operative at Operation Rescue, a woman who had been jailed previously for bombing a clinic.

    He was a well-known protester and Operation rescue member. Let’s hope he was not also a catholic.

  • So well known that the only evidence anyone can call up is someone who remembers him from a dozen years ago (where he said he loved her work in justifying deadly violence for political goals) and two postings at a blog from two years ago, and now an unsupported claim that one bomber had the phone number of another?

    BTW, you never answered Darwin’s question– why are you so unwilling to make a better-supported leap to motive in the case of dead young soldiers than in the case of a dead abortionist?

  • However, only the first of these is considered national political news, and while many are calling for soul searching on the part of the pro-life movement (or in some cases for government surveillance and downright suppression on it) few seem to be making similar calls in regards to the anti-war movement.

    Good catch, Darwin.

  • Foxfier: Well, having just read through these threads, I think we know why Viona is so quick to jump to conclusions and wholeheartedly condemn in one case and so very er, “nuanced” when it comes to the other.

    In her eyes, Tiller was performing a necessary, “pro-woman” service – never mind that he hacked up the bodies of as many or more females as males. (It never seems to sink into thick feminist skulls that, world-wide, abortion is one of the most anti-female forces in the world. The male to female sex ratios in China and India are becoming seriously skewed as a result of girls being aborted at much higher rates than boys. “Freedom to choose” for many third-world women means freedom to rid themselves of their “worthless” girl babies in favor of much more valuable sons.)

    Those soldiers – well, they might have gone on to kill people overseas (since, for some reason, Obama didn’t bring all the troops home 5 minutes after he took office), so, well, it’s regrettable, but their lives just weren’t valuable in the eyes of the pro-abort left in the same way that a man who performs third-trimester abortions is.

    And all good pro-abort progressives know that the pro-life crowd is full of violent nutters, and anti-war protesters are always on the side of the angels and would never hurt anyone. Just ask Bill Ayers.

  • “And all good pro-abort progressives know that the pro-life crowd is full of violent nutters, and anti-war protesters are always on the side of the angels and would never hurt anyone. Just ask Bill Ayers.”

    The miserable thing is that a lot of pro-life people would say the same about anti-war protesters.

    I feel truly isolated, being both anti (this particular) war and pro-life at the same time. Either a whole bunch of people like what you have to say, or everyone hates you for different reasons.

  • It’s curious to me that while the pro-life movement actively responds to this incident rejecting and decrying it…the media portrays it as “being on the defensive”. There is absolutely no response from the Islamic community when an Islamic man kills a US soldier in cold blood, and yet, there is no media asking about it.

  • Joe Hargrave, do your beliefs extend to standing up for life in cases like the death penalty, cases like Terry Salvo, etc. as well?

  • Here’s an article with some background on Raeder:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02tiller.html?_r=1&em

    It sounds like a case of mental illness, rather than overzealousness.

  • What I mean to say is that it sounds like he became unbalanced, which resulted in his becoming violently fanatical about certain issues … not that he was overzealously pro-life, which resulted in violence.

  • Joe: I disagree with you about the war, but I respect your opinion, and I certainly wouldn’t lump you or most anti-war people in with the Bill Ayers of this world. (I wish many anti-war people would also do me the favor of not assuming that I favored this war because I want us to get our hands on oil any way we can, or because I love seeing innocent Iraqis get killed. It is difficult, sometimes, to see the good intentions of those you disagree with when they are imputing the worst of motives to you – not that you yourself have done this.)

Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

Monday, June 1, AD 2009

Obama Speak

The White House issued a statement that bordered on the polemic from President Obama that ratcheted up the rhetoric surrounding the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller [emphasis mine]:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion [notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us], they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Such partisan rhetoric is unbecoming of the office of the President.  Especially when preliminary reports show that the suspect has no connections with any pro-life groups.  In fact, Scott Roeder, the alleged suspect, is connected to various anti-government groups.  This only shows President Obama’s speech at the University of Notre Dame of ‘not demonizing the opponent‘ as nothing more than empty rhetoric.

This type of rhetoric has only emboldened anti-life groups to capitalize on the tragic death of abortionist George Tiller.  The pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) has already deemed it a “terrorist” act and wants stalinist tactics used on Pro-Life groups by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to:

Continue reading...

43 Responses to Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric

  • Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

  • Pingback: President Obama Did Not Demonize The Pro-Life Movement. « Vox Nova
  • Comments are now reopened on this thread. Good post Tito. Here is more from the Attorney General:

    “Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.”

    That last sentence is intriguing. I wonder just what these “appropriate steps” will be.

  • No President Obama, whatever “moral” standing you have will quickly diminish if you go down this road of demonizing an entire sector of Americans by what in preliminary accounts looks like the lonely act of an anti-government anarchist.

    What about your demonization of “anarchists” in this sentence?

  • When there is violence, appropriate steps is to see what caused it, and what one can do to fix the problems which caused it. President Obama’s words were not against the pro-life movement, but against a group of people who claim to be pro-life, but show no understanding of the sacredness of life, that they are willing to do the unthinkable and take a life themselves. The two acts are linked. And one of the causes is the rhetoric within the pro-life movement which focuses only on abortion, and ignores the real pro-life stand which honors all life, even of those people we find to be monstrous. And nothing in this, nor what the Department of Justice said, indicates all pro-lifers will be profiled. But if you keep doing posts like this, you might just get what you want.

  • Thanks for the warning Karlson. If the Obama administration ever would be foolish enough to attempt to strong arm the pro-life movement, something I think is close to nil in probability, I have no doubt you would be using your best efforts to assist them.

  • This is Obama’s Oklahoma City bombing.

  • Steve

    Save it appears this has been a concern and worked out long before Obama was in office, as one can see with what he posted on the Operation Rescue website two years ago. In other words, it should be a wake up call for the pro-life movement, instead of being used as another reason to make Obama into the bogeyman.

  • Tiller’s murderer is pro-choice. That he is only a recent convert to the culture of death in no way invalidates the proper attribution of his worldview. Like any pro-abort, he made that “heart-wrenching” decision to reduce a human life to a problem to be solved by killing. He should face the full force of the criminal justice system.

    This incident is instructive, however, as the President’s speech at Notre Dame calling for the two sides not to “demonize” each other is quickly shown to be empty rhetoric, as he and all his supporters leap to the demonization of Christians and pro-lifers. Gone is the language of “human-caused tragedy”, gone the urgings not to “tar the whole group with the actions of one,” gone the calls to “understand the root causes of this crime”.

    For those who have so long hated the pro-life movement, the martyrdom of George Tiller is an occasion of great rejoicing.

  • To suggest that Obama’s response is not an attack on the pro-life movement is absurd. This is ONE murder of a particularly controversial individual who is clearly outside of the mainstream abortionist. There has been a grand total 4 abortionists murdered in the US. A federal response of any sort in this kind of isolated case is with no indications of an ongoing threat is unprecedented and only being done because it is an “opportunity” (remember Rules for Radicals and Rahm Emmanuel’s reference to using a crisis as an opportunity).

  • Mr. Karlson,

    How is this a wake-up call to the pro-life movement? I lead a small, humble local pro-life organization with nearly 1,000 members. If this is a wake-up call, what should my response be? To scour the internet looking for individuals with no affiliation with me or my group and ensure they aren’t planning any vigilante activities?

    Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

  • Just listened to NPR’s report (the left’s equivalent of Fox News.) No effort to investigate whether the shooter was tied to the pro-life movement or not. Lots of pro-abortion voices making Tiller out to be a martyr for compassion and women. Yes this will be used for more left-hate disguised as “protection” for the right to choose.

  • Your response is akin to those who demanded ALL Muslims take responsibility for 9/11.

    A perfect response to those who would use this incident as an occasion for bigotry.

  • Wrote my comment before farandaddy’s hate speech. Perhaps its that he can’t read the comments on other posts decrying the murder as contrary to the Faith.

  • Steve

    If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals. That’s the thing. It should wake us up, to remind us how we are to consider ALL life as sacred. ALL. When we find ways to get around that, we begin to move away from a pro-life stand.

  • farandaday,

    An opportunity to read as well as listen. Here from American Life League opposing the killing of Tiller:

    http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11966

    Also many other such statements from pro-life organizations. Perhaps if you wish not to be blind and read such statements. Perhaps. Perhaps…

  • I try to get along with everyone and none of us like to dictate to others. I am very pro-life and some people come up with the choice argument. And then, I’m pro-marriage between a man and a woman. These are my views but in the real world, it’s like our foes would accuse us of “ordering people around” which I don’t like to do.

    The struggle for the life rights of all has really come to the forefront and the “pro-life” issue takes precedent over anything with me.

  • The diarist wrote: notice how Obama ‘assumed’ that the issue was related to abortion without any of the facts present, implicitly connecting the suspect to the pro-life movement and instantaneously demonizing us.

    Hmmm. Roeder had been shot in both arms by an anti-abortion activist, his clinic had been bombed – repeatedy, he had received more death threats than he could count, his clinic had been blockaded by activists, vandals had cut wires to security cameras and made holes in his roof, and his home was constantly picketed. The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    This is just stuff I gleaned from 10 minutes of newspaper reader. I imagine the President knows a little more.

    But, really, why would anyone just “assume” the killer was an anti-abortionist?!

  • I hope the guy isn’t a Catholic. Let’s hope no one that has not fallen away from the Holy Mother Church would do such. Of course, I would hope no one would do such in the first place. As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.

  • I’m sorry, Tom, are you condoning this killer’s actions?

    “As said, though, this is against a tyrannical stance of the US government and one of the more radical abortion stances in the world.”

  • If nothing else, it should strive people to purify their language, to make sure they are not giving way to words which would encourage a violent response. The rhetoric over the last year has been the kind which does end up with “holy war” ideals.

    Describing something one believes to be evil is always going to involve a certain amount of strength of language.

    Peace advocates use _very_ strong language in denouncing the actions of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seldom worry that they are encouraging violent militants to kill US soldiers.

    Anti-globalization efforts use strong language to denounce business and global poverty, yet seldom worry much about the violence that springs up at G8 meetings and other similar protest events, much less more widescale violence in developing countries.

    I certainly do not endorse bringing self-consciously violent rhetoric into a debate needlessly, but it would be absolutely wrong for pro-lifers not to state clearly that they believe abortion to be the murder of an innocent human being. To elide that would be to ignore the injustice going on.

    What would be next? Should lynchings be timidly denounced as “mildly impolite” lest someone be encouraged to kill white supremacists?

  • Viona,

    it’s apparent that you read comments on this blog with about as much skill as you read the newspapers… which is really none at all.

    The “alleged” gunman was a well-known anti-abortion protestor

    this not in fact true nor has it really been reported. He is a well known anti-government activist, no substantial involvement in the pro-life movement has been uncovered.

    and had posted on Operation Rescue’s “Tillman Watch” website.

    By your standards of evidence, you are a pro-life Catholic since you’re posting on this blog.

  • Viona Walsch: Of course not.

    Such things as the Mexico City policy which would fund abortions in foreign countries is of the utmost repugnant nature. That is carrying this evil into other countries, maybe paying for it with our tax dollars. That is evil. That is tyrannical.

    Abortions is big business at operations at $5000 dollar a pop and Tiller conducted over 4000 of these. Doesn’t exactly put him in the poor house.

  • Viona,

    To say that Roeder is reflective (or even part of) the pro-life movement is the same as saying this is reflective of the anti-war movement:

    http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0609/627959.html

  • Viona Walsch, are you saying we are not free to call unjust acts that??? Just as the killing of Tiller is unjust and may be the tyranny of one man’s mind as other assassinations have been, what about acts our government might do that we disagree with? I know plenty of anti-war people, even some elderly ladies that would go to our Adoration Chapel.

    But this is from the Jerusalem Post:

    “Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman’s “right to choose;” it attacks a living baby’s right to life. His position is not simply “pro-choice;” it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a “uniter” would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies? ”

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1207159750412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    This is silly to say, just because one says someone’s stance is wrong, that they support the alternative. Are we suppose to agree with the government in such wrongs?? Clearly, even most abortion supporters see the line should be drawn at the birth of a child.

  • This is utter stupidity. There were 300,000 pro-life marchers in Washington DC this year. If this man was reflective of the pro-life movement there would be NO ABORTION DOCTORS OR CLINICS LEFT. Period.

    In reality, the pro-life movement is the most peaceful movement in HISTORY. Far more were killed by anti-slavery, and civil rights actions than the stunning total of 4 abortion doctors killed.

  • Viona,
    Your question to Tom immediately after a rather plain English post is really quite breathtaking. It is plain as day that Tom was saying that both the US legal treatment of abortion and the murder of Tiller are evil. Do you somehow see those two things as incompatable? Honestly, I am confused by your question. Am I wrong to take it as a serious one?

  • I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is perfectly okay to express your repugnance with abortion in all forms. That is your absolute constitutional right. I do find some of the ugly comments by people (a woman named Rhonda on this site said she was relieved when she heard Dr. Tillman was killed)sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    I didn’t say that Roeder’s actions were reflective of the anti-abortion movement. On the contrary. I think there is a radical fringe element who will blockade clinics, harass workers and their families. Obviously far fewer will take it to the ultimate extreme. But in any “movement” you will find all degrees of commitment and extremes.

    Denying that Roeder was part of the larger movement is disingenuous.

  • Just to slap all the cards on the table, you are much more a part of the “larger movement” which supports this practice, Ms. Walsch:

    As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Id., at 61. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body. Ibid. The traction between the uterus and vagina is essential to the procedure because attempting to abort a fetus without using that traction is described by Dr. Carhart as “pulling the cat’s tail” or “drag[ging] a string across the floor, you’ll just keep dragging it. It’s not until something grabs the other end that you are going to develop traction.” Id., at 62. The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. Id., at 63. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. Dr. Carhart agreed that “[w]hen you pull out a piece of the fetus, let’s say, an arm or a leg and remove that, at the time just prior to removal of the portion of the fetus, … the fetus [is] alive.” Id., at 62. Dr. Carhart has observed fetal heartbeat via ultrasound with “extensive parts of the fetus removed,” id., at 64, and testified that mere dismemberment of a limb does not always cause death because he knows of a physician who removed the arm of a fetus only to have the fetus go on to be born “as a living child with one arm.” Id., at 63. At the conclusion of a D&E abortion no intact fetus remains. In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with “a tray full of pieces.” Id., at 125.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD2.html

  • Viona,

    sad and not becoming of our faith. However these comments are still legal.

    advocating the legal murder of the unborn regardless of “disabilities” is even more unbecoming of our Faith. Though they are immoral, the comments are legal.

  • Mr. Karlson,

    I guess it depends. If you’re arguing that pro-lifer activists shouldn’t incite violence toward abortionists, then you’re constructing a straw man since no credible group (certainly not the movement as a whole as you alleged in your first post) has done so.

    If you’re saying that we need to apologize for our stance by not saying that abortion is murder, then you are suggesting we deny the truth for the sake of political expediency and getting along.

    Christ did no such thing. He used sharp words when nececessary, even if he did it lovingly. The pro-life movement does the same thing. If we aren’t willing to call abortion murder, we have no grounds for opposing it. Arguing that abortion hurts women, that it’s lucrative, that it’s exploitative are all good and important. But unless we condemn it as murder, we have no leg to stand on.

    Let’s be clear here about pro-life activism: Any tactic that is licit is valid. But there must also be no small amount of prayer and discernment, particularly with a spiritual director. There is a rightful place for soft language, hard language, graphic images, silent prayer, and the whole range of licit responses. I pray that we might be given the gift of discernment to know when each response is appropriate.

  • Viona,

    Let’s get one thing straight here. If blockading clinic entrances is an unjust, illicit act, then so were civil rights sit ins in the 1960s. Putting one’s body in between a murderer and his intended victim is an act of love and bravery.

    The rest of your allegations are purposely vague. Anytime the words intimidating, threatening, harrassing are used, I get suspicious. Our pro-life Rosaries have been called all of those things. If we really were intimidating, threatening, or harrassing people, they would come out and say what our crimes really were. or something to that effect. Instead, whenever they don’t like our presence, they attach a vague, unfalsifiable and dishonest adjective.

  • Violence may beget violence. Has anyone heard this story coming out of Arkansas.

    So this is early in the story, but do we assume this is an anti-war act and so all other anti-war protesters are of this terrorist extremist type?

    “Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center
    Monday, June 01, 2009

    A gunman opened fire Monday at an army recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark., killing one army recruiter and seriously wounding another, FOX16.com reported.

    A man in a black SUV drove to the recruitment office and began shooting at around 10:19 a.m., a spokesman with the Little Rock police department told FOX News.

    The suspect, who immediately fled the scene, was later apprehended approximately four miles from the center with an assault rifle in his vehicle.”

  • Oh, again, I pray for the poor soul and their friends and family who have lost life in this needless act. May God have mercy on us all and forgive us our trespasses.

    I hope we aren’t getting into an eye for eye as might happen.

  • Gunman Shoots 2 at Arkansas Military Recruitment Center

    are all soldiers now going to get security provided by the US Marshal service??? Or just the recruiters?

  • Placing U.S. Marshals is an overreaction to say the least. President Obama, like Rahm Emmanuel says, will not miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.

  • Matt,

    I just realized you wrote a similar thing.

    Catholic Anarchist,

    Since when do “anarchists” have a positive connotation?

  • Tito on the mark. This White House will take advantage of a crisis, such as it is. Been wondering for years if Powers That Be, now in charge at White House, will finally, once and for all, attempt to drive the pro-life movement off the map. In turn, a serious persecution of its most prominent bloc, our own One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Scratch many hardcore libs and you will find serious anti-Catholic bias. As for the Arkansas murder case, MSM may flip and go Eye For An Eye. Then twist its logic in returning to coverage of Tiller’s murder. (Not that I am the least bit concerned about respectability in their eyes. We tried as much since 2nd Vatican Council. No go.) Meanwhile, be prepared for rough times. Some may suffer for the sake of the Gospel. We may be at that point.

  • Gerard E.,

    I agree.

    We need to pray for Tiller and those that demonize us that they may see the light and understand the undue harm their stance does.

  • Pingback: Anthony
  • I find this article to be demonizing President Obama. He made remarks condeming a murder, and you have taken offense and twisted it to where your group becomes the victim? On some level, you are showing support for this murder by minimizing it and trying to seek political gain for your own cause. We as Christians will never be taken seriously until we respect all life, not just the ones we like or agree with!

  • Rubbish. It is rather Obama who has who has sought political advantage from acts of horrific violence perpretrated against children in the womb. Here is a fund raising letter sent out in which his wife trumpeted his opposition to partial birth abortion.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/Slide%201%20michelle%20obama%20pba%20letter.jpg

    Pro-lifers condemned the murder of Tiller. If only Obama would also condemn the slaying of the unborn, instead of upholding abortion as a right.

  • Pingback: Divider-in-Chief Obama Complains of “Tearing Each Other Down,” While Disparagingly Calling Opponents “Teabaggers,” Amid 2009 Obama Site Calling Opponents “Right Wing Domestic Terrorists…Suberting the American Democratic

Obama: Armenian 'Atrocities', Not Genocide

Friday, April 24, AD 2009

April 24, 1915 A.D. is the date fixed for the beginning of the Armenian Genocide where over 1.5 million Armenian Christians were slaughtered by the Turkish Muslims through deportation, starvation, slave labor, and concentration camps.

Today President Obama referred to the Armenian Genocide as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.”  Thus breaking his campaign promise of calling it a genocide in deference to Turkey’s delicate sensibilities to their Armenian question.

This display of masterful verbal calisthenics has not been seen since Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings of ’99.     President Obama skillfully used over a 100 words to explain these ‘atrocities’ instead of utilizing the more efficient use of ‘genocide’, which is one (1) word exactly (comments mine).

“(O)ne of the great atrocities of the 20th century.  I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed (a falsehood).  My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts.  The best way to advance that goal right now is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward.  (The  Armenians who were massacred in the final days of the Ottoman Empire) must live on in our memories.  Reckoning with the past holds out the powerful promise of reconciliation.  I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive.”

For the article click here.

To learn more about the Armenian Genocide click here.

Update I: The following are excellent articles relating to today about the Armenian Genocide.

Armenians Remember 1915 Killings

Turkey Declares Armenia Deal

Q&A Armenian Genocide Dispute

Turkey’s Armenian Dilemma

Fears of Turkey’s ‘Invisible’ Armenians

Cold War Haunts Armenian Border

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Obama: Armenian 'Atrocities', Not Genocide

  • The phrasing of Obama’s written statement attracted heightened scrutiny because of the sensitivity of the issue and because the two countries are nearing a historic reconciliation after years of tension. The Obama administration is wary of disturbing that settlement.

  • Mark,

    I understand the weariness of the Obama administrations reluctance of using a highly charge, yet accurate, term of ‘genocide’.

    Beside’s the presidents reluctance, I am heartened to hear of the settlement between Turkey and Armenia. Albeit that it’s incomplete, but it is a positive start to hopefully an end of over a century of animosity and to a new era of cooperation and friendship.

  • In the Bush 44 administration, George’s Inner Gipper was in constant conflict with his Inner Poppy. In final year, Inner Poppy won all the way. Within Dear Leader, we have ongoing smackdown between Inner Willie and Inner Jimmy. The Armenian ‘atrocities’ statement was pure Inner Willie. But Inner Jimmy is never far away, ready to mess things up- as in sending signals for Scooter Libby-style show trials. Or Janet Napolitano- his Janet Reno- alienating Canada, veterans, and pro-life moms. The struggle continues.

  • I think Obama played it well.

    Whether or not Turkey accepts the Armenian genocide (and they won’t, it’s illegal in Turkey to talk about it), the issue isn’t going to have a positive political effect. Sometimes you have to play politics, and when Turkey, a long-time regional ally, now has increased importance in resolving our Iraqi and Iranian problems, there’s no reason to through sand in their face with no obvious U.S. interest.

  • Joe,

    If by played it well you mean ignoring the deaths of over a million Armenian Christians so as to not offend Turkish Muslim ‘sensibilities’, then yes, he played it very well.

    Once can stand by the truth, or play politics. Obama promised to change the tone in Washington, instead he dolled himself up and is literally kissing the pig to ingratiate himself to the politiratti.