June 4, 2009


Bookmark and Share

So I'm listening to Relevant Radio (Catholic radio) in my car, and the host says that Obama didn't use the words "terrorism" or "terrorists" in his speech in Egypt and didn't refer to terrorism at all.

Obama DID mention terrorism in his speech. He may not have used the word (why reinforce a stereotype: "All Muslims are *terrorists"?), but he referred (with anger in his voice) to "Al Quaeda" and spoke at some length about the innocent people (of America and various nations) who were murdered on 9/11. (Thank God I had heard NPR's airing of the speech earlier in the morning.)

I am NO fan of Obama's extreme anti-life policies or his Socialist drift (and I certainly didn't vote for him), but if we start attacking him for the good things he does (or worse, falsifying information), we will lose all credibility. It becomes an attack ad hominem. This is gravely dishonest.

Interestingly enough, I was on Chicago's 94 inbound where there were billboards for BOTH "Relevant Radio 950" AND "Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio 820." Hmmm, I thunk, I wonder what 820 is saying about Obama's speech? So I tuned in: "Breaking news! In a zoo in Germany, two male penguins are caring for an egg rejected by its biological parents!"

God bless America.
*Maybe we should retire the terms "terrorist/terrorism" all together. Makes 'em sound real powerful and scary. My mother says we should say "cowards/cowardism."


  1. Dear Sister. You have a very nice blog. I am a new blogger, hits are far and few, but it's fun.

    Regarding your comments on Mr. Obama, as you say - his anti-life policies are extreme. Then you go on to say we should not attack him for the good things he has done. I am at a loss - maybe it's just me. If a person is OK with the "killing" of children (and that is exactly what abortion is, faith or science) - how can I even begin to praise him for any good he has done? it makes no sense. I am frightened by this kind of thought.

    God bless you!

  2. Dear Brian,

    Thanks for your comment! I am a proud one issue voter (pro-life) because if the issue is big enuf, it trumps all other issues. I actually added the lines at the top of my blog when Obama was elected President: "There are no human rights without the right to be." What I was trying to say in this blog post is that Catholic radio was MISREPRESENTING Obama on purpose. I will defend anyone who is misrepresented on purpose. The Vatican came out and praised Obama's speech in Egypt. Could Obama get relations with the Muslims "right," while being horrifyingly wrong on "when does human life begin"? Yes. We can mention in the same breath how wrong he is about other things(even more important things such as pro-life), but he can still be "right" in these other areas. We really need to make these distinctions because of the cardinal virutes of justice (so we don't become liars/haters) and prudence (no one will listen to us if we're liars/haters).

    Happy blogging--I would HAVE to blog even if no one read it. :]