Not This Again

It’s been a while since I have posted, but I really need to write about the most recent, predictable outrage displayed by right-wing pundits in response to President Obama’s trip to Asia.

The first thing that I must say is, “Not this shit again.”  Earlier this year, the President visited Saudi Arabia, and while meeting King Abdullah, there is a photo of a bow.  The right-wing crazies were incensed.  They believed that it showed weakness, even though it is not customary in that culture to bow before the King.  Saudis do not even bow to their King, so it hardly makes sense that there was a conscious bow by an American President.  It doesn’t matter, though.  There was a photo at some angle that made it look as though the President was subordinating himself to the Saudi King.  That’s all the right-wing television and radio pundits need in the overt attempt to weaken and harm President Obama.  They talked about it for weeks and weeks and weeks.

This weekend has created a reawakening for outrage toward the President for bowing.  While in Japan, the President bowed to the Japanese Emperor Akihito during a meeting.  This time he clearly bowed, and rightly so.  The custom in Japan is to bow, and that is for everyone, not just civilians to Emperors or Kings.  The custom here, in the United States, is to shake hands.  But customs and protocol mean little to the President’s most vociferous critics.  They are having a panty-wetting contest about what they perceive as weakness.  Most sane individuals would call it being a respectful guest in an allied country, but sanity is not the strength of the right-wing or the Republican Party.

This is just further evidence of the Obama Derangement Syndrome.  Our President can do nothing satisfactory for these people, not because he’s a screw-up like our previous President, but because they are so bitter and petty.  Everyday, these blowhards find something insignificant to attack, but all they are doing is showing themselves for what they truly are–HATERS.  They stay up late at night, ignoring their spouses and children, thinking of the outrage du jour (yes, “du jour” is French for “of the day,” which means that I must hate America).

I really try to ignore this nonsense, but it’s becoming far too frequent.  All of this hate toward our President is becoming tiresome.  If anyone dared, during the Bush Administration, to criticize the President while he was overseas, they would be labeled by these same right-wing clowns as a traitor, or un-American.  It’s funny how those things change after a single election, but there it is, and it’s not going to end anytime soon.  That’s unfortunate.  Who will stand up, and call this b.s. for what it is–nonsense.

For those Obama-haters out there; remember this?  Where was the outrage back then?

Two Names

Two names:  Scott Roeder and Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.  When you see the these two names, what comes to mind?  Believe it or not, these two men have a great deal in common.  They are both American citizens.  They both feel very strongly about their beliefs.  Oh, and they are both domestic terrorists.  My guess is that you may not be surprised that Mr. Muhammad, a converted Muslim, is a terrorist.  But Mr. Roeder?  A white, Christian, anti-abortion advocate?

For many years–at least since September 11, 2001 for most Americans–we have been continuously conditioned by the media and other groups that terrorists are Arab, Muslim men who hate America.  We have been conditioned to be suspicious of anyone wearing a turban, or other traditionally “foreign” dress.  Americans have been conditioned to keep an eye on Arab-looking men with beards out in public places.  There have even been suggestions that “racial profiling” might be a good idea, because we all know that all terrorists are Muslim, right?  Wrong.

Let us take a look at the definition of terrorism from an online Military Dictionary: 

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Scott Roeder, as you may know, has been is the news, recently, for his actions on Sunday, May 31.  On that day, he walked into a church in Witchita, Kansas, and shot down controversial OB/GYN, Dr. George Tiller.  Dr. Tiller, dubbed “Tiller, the Baby Killer” by his critics, was one of only a few doctors in the country that performed “late-term” abortions (after 21 weeks) for women who were having complications with their pregnancies.  No matter how you feel about abortion, I think that most can agree that it is wrong to murder anyone.  Mr. Roeder has been an anti-abortion activist for many years, and even served time in prison in the late 1990’s for possessing bomb-making materials.  Take a look at the definition of terrorism above, and this incident clearly falls within that description, but you will be hard-pressed to find a media outlet call it for what it is:  domestic terrorism.

Another case of domestic terrorism happened just a day later, when Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a converted Muslim, previously know as Carlos Bledsoe, opened fire on an Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The shooting killed Pvt. William Long, and wounded Pvt. Quintin Ezeagwula.  When it was discovered that Muhammad was believed to be targeting military members for political and religious purposes, there was no problem calling that an act of terrorism.

There you have two acts; both acts of terrorism, both dispicable, both sad for the victims’ friends and families.  They both fall into the description and definition of terrorism, but only one is actually called terrorism.  Why is that?  Is it because killing a man who performed abortions is okay?  Is it because the terrorist is a white man in the Tiller case?  Is it because Muhammad is Muslim?  Or is it because of the way that we have been conditioned in this country to think of terrorism?

There are bad people lurking in all races and religions, many of which who use religion to justify lawlessness.  If both of these men are convicted, and there are no other suspects at this point, then they deserve to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, and some will say that they should be executed.  At this point, I could think of no better way for these two men to live the rest of their lives than to spend them together as cellmates in Leavenworth.