Friday, April 19, 2013

Boston bombings: Some find it easier to blame innocent conservatives than actual terrorists

When actor/comedian Patton Oswalt posted about the Boston bombings on his Facebook page the other day, it quickly went viral for its impact. He questioned humanity in one way, but also reaffirmed his faith in it, citing the fact that so many people ran toward the victims to help, rather than away from them. It really was a great post, but Oswalt’s closing comment gave me pause. He said, "So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, 'The good outnumber you, and we always will.'"
I agree one hundred percent with what he says. The good will always outnumber the evil. I also reject bigotry, intolerance and misogyny, as well as the other things he cited. With apologies to Mr. Oswalt, though (because I don’t mean to assume what he meant by his words), but something about them made me cringe.
Maybe I’m hypersensitive, but for so long now the left has portrayed conservatives as all those things: intolerant, bigoted, misogynist and hateful. I am not saying Oswalt is a “leftist” – I don’t really know what his politics are exactly (though he has expressed outright hatred for Bush and Romney, which may give a clue) but I do know that the words he used have been buzzwords the left regularly uses to malign conservatives. Conservatives who don't wish to pay for someone's birth control for religious reasons must hate women. Those who want to keep the right to protect their families by owning a gun are violent. Those who want to uphold traditional marriage as defined in the Bible are bigoted.
When I read Oswalt's post on Facebook, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was subtly associating the bombings in Boston with supposedly “misogynist, violent, bigoted” conservatives. I am not putting the implication of those words in Oswalt’s mouth. I just wonder how many people, in reading those words and having heard those exact words used so frequently to describe conservatives, took his words to mean that conservatives would likely have been responsible for the bombings. If so, then as a result, without having done anything wrong, conservatives are once again condemned, marginalized and persecuted.

Where Oswalt's ponderings may be covert in their intended target (if that's even what he was doing), others are outright overt in their attempts to pin the Boston bombings on the right side of the aisle. For instance, NPR's Dina Temple-Raston had this to say: "The thinking, as we have been reporting, is that this is a domestic, extremist attack and officials are leaning that way largely because of the timing of the attack. April is a big month for anti-government and right-wing individuals. There’s the Columbine anniversary, there’s Hitler’s birthday, and the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.”

Sorry, but wasn't it liberal leftist Janet Reno who approved the FBI assault on Waco? And what do Columbine  and Hitler have to do with this? Then again, what do facts matter when the left can use a tragedy to further advance their own political agenda by casting conservatives in a negative light?

But I wonder, now that the bombing suspects have been identified as Chechen Muslims with supposed jihadist ties, if that turns out to be true, will the rhetoric of the Patton Oswalts and Dina Temple-Rastons of the world shift toward exposing radical Islam's hatred for western culture, or would that be too politically incorrect? Will such acts of violence like the one in Boston be cited for what they are, or will it just remain easier to fire cheap, veiled shots at conservatives, while giving terrorists a pass?

It remains to be seen, but continuing to treat terrorists with kid gloves only denies the ideological underpinning of what drives them to commit deadly attacks. It's time to call a spade a spade, and stop being so fearful of offending those who wouldn't think twice about killing us.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

No Tigers' Opening Day military flyover so Obama can make petty political point

President Obama wants us to suffer any way he can - all to prove a political point that sequestration is bad for the country (even though he was the first one to suggest it...until Republicans got involved - then he had to back pedal and tell us all how horrible it is).

To make sure we all know how "bad" sequestration is, Obama wants us to feel the pain directly.

School kids across the country who saved money through bake sales and other efforts to pay their way to the nation's capital are left standing at the door of the White House because Obama says sequestration prevents us from funding tours there. Yet at the same time, he and the First Lady are entertaining Hollywood celebrities there with luxurious, opulent dinners and other niceties. Beyonce, and Harrison Ford are just some of the several "special guests" who have recently been privy to the royal treatment at taxpayer expense, while the public is told to get lost.

Obama says sequestration also means we can no longer afford the tradition of military flyovers at special events. That means there will be no such pomp and circumstance at tomorrow's Home Opener at Comerica Park - even though, as part of regular training activities, such flyoevers don't cost taxpayers extra money. It's just a nice bit of Americana we enjoy at such events. But Obama wants to strip us of that simple pleasure to show just how bad sequestration is. Yet, by the way, he somehow has found millions of dollars to give to unfriendly nations.

Obama has also targeted about 150 air traffic control towers across America for shut down because sequesration makes them impossible to afford, so he says. But he somehow found a million dollars to grant one group the ability to study the sex life of snails in New Zealand.

As if this weren't bad enough, now cancer clinics nationwide are turning away thousands of Medicare patient "due to" sequester cuts. So while human beings are being denied life-saving treatments, it calls to mind the March 5 Washington Times report that said a leaked email confirmed Obama's political strategy to make budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

In targeting cancer patients, our president is politicizing medicine to make a point, coldly putting his agenda over the well-being of Americans. It's reprehensible - and just wait until ObamaCare is fully implemented. Everyone will be impacted by the politicizing of our healthcare system so Obama can continue scoring his own points.

If Obama were really interested in saving money, he'd start with saving it where it shouldn't be getting spent in the first place. But that's not his goal. His goal is to make us feel the suffering of his tantrum so he can prove some childish political point. He should be ashamed, but I don't believe he has the capacity to feel such a thing.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.