A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. (ESV)
A cheerful disposition is good for your health; gloom and doom leave you bone-tired. (Message)
Some Good Commentary:
22 One's psychological condition affects one's physical condition: a healthy attitude fosters good health but a depressed spirit ruins health. The antithetical idea, describing the two effects, stresses the importance of a cheerful heart. The first line presents the ideal: a "cheerful heart" (leh game-h) causes "good healing" (yetih gehah; NIV, "is good medicine"). The heart, as with the spirit in v.22b, refers to the mind, the psyche. The positive and healthy outlook on life brings healing. On the other hand, a "crushed spirit" (rush neke'ah), i.e., one that is depressed or dejected, has an adverse effect on the health of the body. "Bones" figuratively represents the body (encased in the bony frame): fat bones means a healthy body (3:8; 15:30; 16:24), but dry bones signify unhealthiness and lifelessness (cf. Ezek 37:1-14).
Proverbs 18:21
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits. (ESV)
Words kill, words give life; they’re either poison or fruit—you choose. (Message)
Some Good Commentary:
21 Many a one has been his own death by a foul tongue, or the death of others by a false tongue. and, on the contrary, many a one has saved his life' by a prudent gentle tongue, and saved the lives of others by intercession (an interposing or pleading on behalf of another person; a prayer to God on behalf of another) for them.
This story is true, because conservatives are smarter than liberals, but false because it shows the inane thinking and twisting that goes on in evolutionary psychologists heads.
This being said, the gay lifestyle is the epitome of hedonism. The nature of men and sex, unrestrained, is one of unbridled “passion.” in fact, women, via courting and marriage, are one of the biggest factors in raining in our passions. Not only that, but Western civilization adopted the Judeo-Christian ethic of one woman and one man making a marriage for life. This is where my conservatism comes out again.
Homosexuality is one of the most crucial issues we all must consider. At the personal level most of us know at least one of our friends, colleagues, or fellow-Americans who is dying the terrible death of AIDS. At a cultural level one most revealing indexes of a civilization is the way it orders human sexuality.
(Before I continue with this quote, I must respond to anyone who believes I am uncompassionate towards any who suffer any genetic or choice lifestyles. When a philosopher speaks of whether rape is morally wrong or not morally wrong, he is of course compassionate towards the victim of the act. However, the philosopher or politician is discussing the issue itself, asking deeper questions that if the individual him or herself is hurt, but rather if the act is wrong. Thus the philosopher may sound uncompassionate, but is merely dealing with the raw facts of the situation.)
When left to itself, human sexuality appears unconstrained and to the innocent mind shockingly polymorphous (meaning: having, assuming, or passing through many or various forms, stages, or the like). But the hallmark of a society in which all sexual constraints have been set aside is that finally it sanctions homosexuality as well. This point is hotly disputed today, but is reflected in the wisdom of the ages. Plutarch, the first-century Greek moralist, saw libertinism to be the third and the next-to-last stage in the life-cycle of a free republic before its final descent into tyranny. Edward Gibbon (The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire) in eighteenth century England understood this principle with respect to ancient Rome, but from a historians point of view. Sigmund Freud emphasized the same principle with respect to many cultures in the West – – although from a radically secular psychoanalytic perspective. For him, universal sexual repression was the price of civilization. Without constraints civilization would lose its discipline and vitality. And of course, the Bible repeatedly shows the effects of unconstrained sexuality, such as its stories of the rise and fall of Sodom, Gomorrah, and indeed Israel itself.
Dennis Prager, a reform Jewish cultural commentator, writes:
“Man’s nature, undisciplined by values, will allow sex to dominate his life and the life of society…. It is not overstated to say that the Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can, to a significant extent, be attributed to the to the sexual revolution, initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.”
In sum, it is a simple and sobering fact that no society that has sanctioned unconstrained sexuality has long survived.
The typical homosexual is a man who has frequent episodes of anal intercourse with other men, often with many different men. These episodes are 13 times more frequent than heterosexuals’ acts of anal intercourse (which is still showing disregard and unconstrained hedonism towards a man's wife or girlfriend), with twelve times as many different partners as heterosexuals. These statistics are quite conservative. The most rigorous single study – the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study – recruited nearly five thousand homosexual men and found that about 80 percent had over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. The book, The Male Couple, was researched and written by a homosexual couple, out of the 156 couples they studied, only seven maintained sexual fidelity. Of the hundred couples that had been together five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that “The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals” (p. 3). A 1981 study revealed that only two percent of homosexuals were monogamous or semi-monogamous – generously defined as ten or fewer lifetime partners. And a 1978 study found that 43 percent of male homosexuals estimated having sex with five hundred or more different partners (A. P. Bell, Sexual Preference [Indiana University Press]). Seventy-nine percent said that more than half of these partners were strangers and 70 percent said that more than half were men with whom they had sex only once (A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Woman [Simon & Schuster]).
So while I would agree with you that the homosexual man could satisfy his partner without penetration, this just doesn’t happen. Nor would I support the normalization of even these acts in our society, as my conservative values seep out for keeping our society bent towards the family unit, which is the backbone of a healthy society. I don’t just say this; history proves my point for me.
Much thought, PapaG
P.S. – You said: “None other than religion. Religion is the only definitive argument against it.” This is not true. I have already shown the health hazards of this lifestyle; the result is an unduly large strain on society. I have pointed you to some books by historians that show unconstrained sexual activity becoming the norm as a major factor in the last stage ringing in the fall of a republic (societies that reject this unrestrained sexuality live long and prosper; one’s that accept die an untimely death). And the homosexual lifestyle is not genetic, but a psychological malady, as I have just shown their sexual drive to indicate. Not only that, but if the homosexual wants rights as commonly understood, theism (as I have clearly shown) is the only worldview that can give any meaning to the word rights. Especially unalienable.
From my proposed chapter on the Emergent Church, "Emergen[t]cy: Investigating Postmodernism":
In that same Christianity Today article, Brian McLaren is quoted as saying that he does not “think we’ve got the gospel right yet.... I don’t think the liberals have it right.[1] But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”[2] [3] Agreeing apparently with Brian McLaren that we have yet to get the gospel right is David G. Benner, who says that the “spiritual climate is ripe... [for]... Jesus seekers across the world are being prepared to abandon the old way of the written code for the new way of the Spirit. Paul told us long ago we've been freed by the gospel to live a new way, but we've not known what it is or how to do it.”[4] McLaren says we do not have the Gospel right yet... Benner says we do not have it right either, yet, we should look to Eastern mysticism to get it correct? I don’t think so.
NOTES:
[1] While these authors and pastors try not to be labeled as “liberal,” that is exactly what they are. In an interview with Rob Bell (audio of which can be found at Fighting for the Faith... right around forty minutes into the program) where he is praising the TNIV -- a gender neutered Bible -- Rob himself says he is in the middle of the progressive movement: “My name is Rob Bell, I’m a pastor in Grand Rapids Michigan, the epicenter of progressive culture.” (Listen Here:)
This can also be found as well under iTunes free podcasts under Fighting for the Faith, dated at 9-1-09, the podcast is titled, “What is Rob Bell Going To Do Now That The TNIV is Going to Be Discontinued?” One of the founders of the emergent movement, Mark Driscoll notes as much as well:
Emergent liberals range from those on the theological fringe of orthodoxy to those caught up in heresy that critiques key evangelical doctrines, such as the Bible as authoritative divine revelation; God as Trinity; the sinfulness of human nature; the deity of Jesus Christ; Jesus' death in our place to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross; the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation; the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sex outside of heterosexual marriage; and the conscious, eternal torments of hell. Some emerging house churches are also emergent liberal in their doctrine. Emergent liberals are networked by organizations such as the Emergent Village, which is led by author and theologian Tony Jones (Jones is no longer a youth pastor but is involved at Doug Pagitt's church), along with other prominent emergent leaders such as Pagitt, Karen Ward, and Tim Keel. The most visible emergent liberal leaders are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. Emergent liberals are commonly critiqued as those who are merely recycling the liberal doctrinal debates of a previous generation without seeing significant conversion growth; they are merely gathering disgruntled Christians and people intrigued by false doctrine. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this critique:
When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this [emergent liberal] movement simply refuses to answer the questions."
Religion Saves + Nine Other Misconceptions, 217.
[2] Andy Crouch, “Emergent Mystique,” 37-38.
[3] A caveat here: if he does not think liberals have it right, and then says he does not have it right either... is he then saying he is on the conservative side of the issue? If he is on the right, then where does that leave people like D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, or myself? I guess I do not fit within what he considers orthodox... maybe we’re “fascists” of sorts?
[4] David G. Benner, Sacred Companions: The Gift of Spiritual Friendship & Direction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 9 (emphasis added).
"Time for talk is OVER," "America WILL continue on this path" ~ Obama
Obama to act with or without agreement - e.g., progressive fascism
This is an interesting article because it attempts to sweep under the rug any debate on anthropogenic global warming (e.g., climate change) by saying "skepticism of global warming is a psychological disorder and here is why." Ridiculous! It is just another attempt by progressives to not talk, discuss, debate an issue by attaching labels to it. Xenophobic, racist, bigot, religious-nut, and now, climatorophobia. The following is from Dennis Prager:
This is easy to demonstrate. Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:
Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant
And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:
Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment
These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways. First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.
Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.
Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.
Global warming? Case closed. Consensus achieved. There can be no debate about it.ClimateGate? Never happened. I refuse to even acknowledge its existence. Must hang on to the global warming belief at all costs even against evidence to to the contrary.
That dogmatic stance pretty much sums up the attitude of Associated Press writer Malcolm Ritter in his story about how global warming skepticism can be ascribed to psychological faults:
The Copenhagen talks on climate change were convened with a sense of urgency that many ordinary folks don't share. Why is that? One big reason:
It's hard for people to get excited about a threat that seems far away in space and time, psychologists say.
"It's not in people's faces," said psychologist Robert Gifford of the University of Victoria in British Columbia. "It is in the media, but not in their everyday experience. That's quite a different thing."
Oh, I see. Global warming skepticism has nothing to do with the observable evidence or with the recently discovered falsified evidence revealed in the ClimateGate emails and East Anglia University CRU computer source code. No. It can all be ascribed to psychology as presented by global warming dogmatist Ritter:
Gifford said people tend to attach less importance to future problems than more immediate concerns. That may be a holdover from early days of human evolution, when "things far away didn't matter, things in the future didn't matter. It was whether the tiger or the enemy was just around the corner," he said.
In fact, scientists say global warming's influence is already visible and it could get worse within decades if no action is taken. The average number of heat-wave deaths in Chicago could more than double by 2050, and killer heat waves in Europe could also increase by that time, experts say. Arctic summers may be almost free of sea ice by 2030 or sooner, they say.
Could..could...may. This is called reality? It sounds more like speculation. And Ritter picked a really poor example when he stated that heat-wave deaths in Chicago could more than double in 2050. In the actual, not could, world Chicago has just experienced an unusually cold summer. However, this won't stop Gifford in his junior league psychological analysis starting with the "13 dragons."
Even among people who accept global warming as a serious issue, there are additional psychological barriers to getting them to take significant action against it. Gifford, who studies pro-environmental behavior, calls them the 13 dragons.
Among them:
Environmental numbness: "OK, climate change. I've heard that one before. Been there, done that."
A feeling of powerlessness: "Anything I do is just a drop in the bucket."
Conflicting goals: "Yes, I should be changing my behavior, but I've got to look for a job, I've got to go to the gym, I have to take my kids to soccer practice, so I'll do it tomorrow."
A sense of inequality: "Why should I take the bus when my boss is driving a Cadillac?"
Loss of freedom: `It's a free country. I can drive a Hummer if I want to."
Tokenism: "I recycle, so thank you very much, I'm finished."
Excessive optimism: "It will work out in the end. The scientists will figure it out, so I don't have to do anything."
And then there's just plain habit. It's "a huge but boring force," Gifford said. "We just tend to do today what we did yesterday."
How about a 14th dragon?
Dogmatically clinging to a "scientific" belief without considering any evidence to the contrary by writing off dissenting views as merely due to psychology.
Perhaps Malcolm Ritter should look to himself in the global warming psychological problem department.
About three hours ago, the AP finally joined the Washington Post and some other national news organizations in reporting the “troubling portrait” of Nidal Malik Hasan, the man believed responsible for 13 deaths and dozens of wounded at the world’s largest army base. In hearing these details, many people wonder why the Army had ordered Hasan into a war zone — and perhaps why Hasan remained in the military at all:
For six years before reporting for duty at Fort Hood, Texas, in July, the 39-year-old Army major worked at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center pursuing his career in psychiatry, as an intern, a resident and, last year, a fellow in disaster and preventive psychiatry. He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001.
While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan had some “difficulties” that required counseling and extra supervision, said Dr. Thomas Grieger, who was the training director at the time. …
At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.
They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case. …
On a form filled out by those seeking spouses through a program at the mosque, Hasan listed his birthplace as Arlington, Va., but his nationality as Palestinian, Khan said.
“I don’t know why he listed Palestinian,” Khan said, “He was not born in Palestine.”
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health.
“He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist,” McCaul said.
McCaul said Hasan had received poor grades for his work at Walter Reed and was not happy about his situation in Fort Hood, where Hasan apparently felt like “he didn’t fit in.”
“He’s disgruntled because he had a poor performance evaluation, he doesn’t believe in the mission, he’s looking at getting transferred to Afghanistan or Iraq,” McCaul said. “He’s not happy about all that.”
McCaul added that officials planned to interview Hasan to try to determine for sure that he was not working with foreign agents.
“From an intelligence standpoint, that’s key, finding out if he talked to anyone overseas,” McCaul said.
With all of these red flags, why was Hasan still in position to get deployed into a war zone? Why hadn’t the Army taken action to isolate Hasan, or remove him entirely? A Hot Air reader who served as a medical officer at Fort Hood earlier in this decade explains that the military has a great reluctance to act against his former colleagues, and that promotion of marginal medical officers is not unusual at all:
It is true that the promotion for medical and dental officers in the Army is extraordinarily easy. Just as long as you don’t kill anyone, fraternize with enlisted or come out of the closet, and get decent Officer Evaluation Reports, you’ll easily make Lieutenant Colonel in 20 years. With a little more work and additional schooling, you could make full Colonel. But basically you can set your clock to getting promoted every 7 years. So he may have had one bad report, but probably did barely enough to get him through the promotion board. But we don’t know what “bad” means…he may have simply failed the physical fitness tests, or he may have no clinical skills at all.
The Army has a unique way of handling providers who pose an obvious threat to soldiers they are supposed to care for. We had one dental officer who practiced dentistry far below the standard of care. He was moved first to doing examinations only (the most benign job) and eventually moved to an administrative job. The Army unfortunately can’t fire anyone, they just take them out of the equation or move them around to where they can’t hurt anyone. Being released from the military is a different story. Hasan’s obligation to the military depends on how much ROTC time, medical school time and residency time added up to. So if the Army paid for his education, he is obligated to serve, and there’s almost no way out of that. He could pay the Army back that money and get out of the contract, but that’s a long, long paper trail. There’s always the conscientious objector route, but if he was sincere, and not the loon he is appearing to be, his chain of command (superior officers) might have exempted him from deployment. However, he is a medical officer and NOT a combat soldier, so that argument just about flies out the window, since his role is medical support, and not combat. I’ve heard a lot of ways out of deployment (ie Ehren Watada, Tina Mahuika) and each case is unique. Ultimately the final decision can be influenced by the chain of command’s perception of the officer.
So not only would the Army be highly reluctant to discharge him, Hasan probably had few options for leaving the service, assuming that the Army paid for his medical education. That explains his rank, and his predicament in getting shipped out to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. As a medical officer and not (necessarily) a combat officer, the conscientious objector route would not have applied anyway.
We’ll keep up with this story during the day as more developments occur.
Update: I agree with Rick Moran to some extent that casting this as an example of a pending wave of Islamic jihad in the US is just a wee bit premature, as well as a pending wave of fraggings over US war policy, etc etc etc. Hasan appears to be a lunatic whose motivations — at least as far as we know at this point — are entirely his own delusions. We shouldn’t be afraid to report the facts, but we should be wary about drawing wide-reaching conclusions from them until we have a lot more certainty.
I will want to disagree a bit with the post I will be importing here. It deals with homosexuality and childhood molestation. I will here quote a favorite political author of mine, Tammy Bruce and her input as a woman in the homosexual community:
Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it.They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic.[1]
...these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly.If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”.... After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society - children - in their image[2]
... and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.... Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.[3]
[1] Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 35.
[2] Bruce, 92, 206.
[3] Bruce, 90, 99.
Being a San Diegan (he’s also from San Diego) and a past HUGE fan of Tonex’s, I took a particular interest in knowing more about him. Why? Because I absolutely loved his music (was my favorite) and was just waiting for him to turn the corner and truly start representing Christ the way he should be (especially since he is a pastor of a church)!
I am so saddened to report that Tonex has not improved, but has become reprobate in his thinking and his living. This was witnessed by watching videos of “The Lexi Show” broadcasted on The Word Network. A show where Tonex opens up about past molestations when he was a child. I did think he showed great maturity by admitting that he doesn’t blame his current sexuality upon his past. He says he accepts full responsibility for what he’s encountered in life since his molestation.
Listening to the whole interview I couldn’t help but shake my head at Tonex’s constant misinterpretation of scripture. For example his understanding of the saying, “the truth shall set you free” he understood it to be “honest” with onesself and then you’ll be free – a deadly belief that honesty is all that God requires of us. Also his belief that he’s free from responsibility of NOT practicing homosexuality until God draws him out of it. He reasons since God hasn’t taken the desire from him yet, then it must be ok.
At least he’s brutally honest right now. Honesty that most can appreciate but is honesty what God desires from us? Yes, and no. Yes, he wants us to be honest enough about our sin that we’ll admit it – then forsake it! So it’s not enough just to be honest. To be honest and then do nothing about breaking God’s laws is just a complete waste and spiritually dangerous to one’s soul (as in never being born-again to begin with)!
Well, I’ll highlight a few of the headshaking comments pulled from that talk show that I felt was done very very well by Lexi. I commend her for being brave enough to ask the questions that everyone wants to know about Tonex, things that’s he’s been very vague about in the past, that he’s finally opening up about now. Lexi played the journalist’s part very well. I just hope that after the camera’s stop rolling, she played the part of the praying and concerned sister in Christ!
The "health" of the mother allows for aborting a baby at any point during a pregnancy, thanks to Doe v. Bolton (decided the same day of Roe v. Wade). As you can see in the video above, Dr. McHugh points out that this was the excuse used to abort 7, 8, 9-month old babies. This "health of the mother" excuse will play out in gender wars now. The question becomes this, I will post the original version, and then the new edition:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?” ~ Dale Berryhill
“We can now tell the gender of a baby in utero, in which case parents wanting a boy might choose to abort the female fetus. Will feminist activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
They do not test pregnancy, so do not require state approval under the Medicines Act, unlike pregnancy tests. To use the new test, a pregnant woman mixes her urine with the kit's chemicals in the supplied container. If it turns green or black, the fetus is a boy; orange or yellow indicate a girl.
The kits are claimed to be 90 per cent accurate, but because patents have not yet been issued, the maker will not reveal the supporting data or the science of how they work.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is worried about what the test might lead to.
"The concern we would have is that people would then terminate pregnancies on the grounds of sex selection," said college president Dr Ted Weaver.
Anti-abortion group Voice for Life echoes this concern. Spokesman Bernard Moran said abortions for sex selection were a problem overseas and the test would facilitate this in New Zealand. "Certain ethnic minorities here might be more prone to use it."
Mr Moran was concerned to learn that the approval of the Health Ministry's Medsafe unit was not required. He said that although abortions were not permitted for sex selection, they were permitted on grounds of the mental health of the woman, and the Abortion Supervisory Committee had acknowledged that the way this was applied meant New Zealand, in effect, had abortion on demand.
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller’s suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
President Obama issued a statement condemning “heinous acts of violence” within hours of Tiller’s death. The Justice Departmentmarshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleefulconservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News for reporting Tiller’s activities. issued its own statement and sent federal excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climates of hate and fear created by
By contrast, President Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Private William Long dead and 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon – more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruiting center in Little Rock – President Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army Secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama’s omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
