Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Jon Sanders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama, the humanity!
by Jon Sanders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Hours after the Virginia Tech massacre, Barack Obama spoke at a campaign stop in Milwaukee. Obama could have shown compassion unalloyed with politics, what one hopes to find in a leader when disaster strikes. But he didn't. In the grand tradition of leftist orators, Obama repackaged the awful news of the day to "reflect" on his own political themes.

"I hope," the candidate said about the massacre, "that it causes us to reflect a little more broadly on the degree to which we do accept violence in various forms all the time in our society: we glorify it, we encourage it, we ignore it, and it's heartbreaking."

In other words, some deranged madman just perpetrated the greatest shooting massacre in the nation's history, and Obama wants us to "reflect" on whatever "violence in various forms" that he can say we're responsible for. While people were crying on each other's shoulders in Blacksburg, tensely waiting by hospital beds and telephones, or gathering in candlelight vigils across the nation, this character was in Milwaukee trying to put the national nose in a corner to think about what we've done. (Any similarity between Obama's reaction and killer Cho Seung Hui's note "You made me do this" revealed later is sickly coincidental.)

Then Obama went into a litany of the other forms of violence that he said "we're going to have to think about." His comments, delivered with long, thoughtful pauses that belied their callous oblivion, came out more like a parody of a Democrat usurping current events for political gain than something from a serious candidate.

"It's not necessarily physical violence," he said, "but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways." That was the windup; here's the pitch:

"Last week the big news obviously had to do with Imus, and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughters... There's the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job has moved to another country, they've lost their job and they've lost their pension benefits and they've lost their healthcare, and they're having to compete against their teenage children for jobs at the local fast-food place paying $7 an hour. There is the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored, who don't have access to a decent education, who are surrounded by drugs and crime, and a lack of hope. So there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society ..."

To recap: Because some deranged lunatic just shot up a college campus in a way never before witnessed in America, candidate Obama thinks we need to use the occasion to reflect on Imus and pensions and the minimum wage and stuff.

By the same ridiculous standard, one finds there's also a "violence" in big-government blowhards immediately seeking to capitalize politically on the slaughter of innocent college students. "It's not necessarily physical violence," but what should we call it when someone perpetrates on us a disgusting analogy that compares hate speech, job loss to outsourcing, losing health insurance, taking a minimum wage job, poor education, lack of "hope," etc. to real, horrific violence?

Also by the same standard, this May 6 will mark the 70th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster. I hope that the memory of it causes us to reflect a little more broadly on the degree to which we do accept gasbags in various forms all the time in our society.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jon Sanders is a policy analyst and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C.

Be the first to read Jon Sanders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Ben
Hey, I don't have any problem with you quoting whatever you want, it was just that the second part of that sentence contained my rebuttal to the first part of the sentence, so it was relevant. I didn't realize that the dashed lines were a time stamp (sorry I am new to this, so I apologize). I didn't mean to sound hostile.

My point is that abortion involves more than one human life. Two humans (mom and baby) or actaully three humans (mom, baby and doctor) are involved. And I don't like big government either, but someone has to represent the life of the unborn child. Do you believe that only two parties, the doctor and mom, should be involved? (In other words, the baby/fetus/clump of cells is the mom's property.) Or do you think someone needs to represent the third party (baby) who is most affected by the abortion?

I already responded to the argument about illegal abortions. See my post above. I agree that it would be tragic, but not at the level of 1 million deaths yearly, which is what we have now with abortion.

You said that there are many things that the government can do to give women options other than abortion. I thought you wanted the government to stay out of it? But I am all for other options, I just think once an unborn human life is involved it is up to us as decent human beings to protect that innocent life.

I read the article online that you referenced, and for the most part I agree with it, but I don't get how it applies to the abortion debate. If anything, it would support my assertion that the Constitution supports limits on rights and that our rights end when they infringe on the rights of others (i.e. the baby in abortion). By the way, I see you are from Louisiana? Is Louisiana as a state fairly pro-life would you say? I would think so, with such a large Catholic population.

Anyway, I understand that you are saying this situation isn't easy, and I truly do get that and I truly do have compassion for women who have abortions. For me, it just boils down to whether you believe the fetus is human, and alive, and deserves to be protected or you believe something else.





Sonny
What in God's world would make you even think I'm an atheist? I am a devoted Christian, attend church at least once a week, read the Bible regularly, have been involved in many Bible studies, etc.

One reason I was so against the foolish war in Iraq, from before the war began, was my Christian commitment. Christians - in my view - should consider war the very last option. We certainly didn't do that in Iraq. We rushed right in, pushed by people like Wolfowitz, Feith, etc., whom I suggest well could be atheists. Most of that neocon crowd were formerly strong socialists, many of them Jews (like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Abrams, etc.) who no longer embrace their historic faith. The result of our ill-advised attack has been the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis. And we're in a quagmire.

A minor point. Saddam was evil - no one argues that. Ironically, under Saddam the Iraqi Christians were treated very well there. His second-in-command, Aziz, was a Catholic (remember how he visited the Pope?). Now that Saddam is gone Christians are under assault and many of them have fled Iraq. We are likely to have an Iraqi theocracy not unlike Iran.

The Pope also was against the invasion of Iraq. (I am not a Catholic, but think that is of interest - an indication that millions of Christians of all sorts opposed this war. Let me add that the attack on terrorist bases in Afghanistan was necessary after 9-11. But Saddam was an enemy of bin Laden. Most war supporters refuse to face up to such facts.)

Now, let me ask you: are you an atheist? Fair question?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.