Sarah Huckabee Sanders Won the Night

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has become the unlikely heroine of the debacle that was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Comedian Michelle Wolf savaged Administration figures over the weekend at the traditional roast and Sanders bore the brunt of the attack.

When attending a roast, the guests of honor should be prepared to be insulted and to accept it with good nature and Sanders did so. An eyewitness at the event, Benny Arthur Johnson, wrote a touching defense of Sanders on his personal Facebook page. Johnson, a reporter for the Daily Caller, wrote that it was Sanders who possessed “real power,” “strength,” and “class.”

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit that I have not listened to Wolf’s routine in its entirety. The portions that I have listened to have been so unfunny, even to a critic of the Trump Administration, that I have no desire to sit through the full 20 minutes, particularly after having heard the shrill voice in which Ms. Wolf delivered the routine. Roasts are supposed to be savage, but they are also supposed to be funny. The funniest comedic insults are those that are based in truth, not simply an exercise in viciousness and meanness.

Johnson agrees that Wolf failed at being funny. “You could not really see it on TV, but virtually no one in the room was laughing,” Johnson wrote. “I saw even some of the most liberal reporters in the profession cringe with disgust,” adding that members of the White House press corps planned to send her a flower basket.

Johnson then tells the story of an MSNBC after-party following the dinner where he spoke with members of Sanders’ staff. “They were disgusted by the remarks - and tell me that the plan was for Sarah to walk-out if they got too personal. Sarah however, stayed firm,” he said.

“’I don’t know how she does it,’ one of her closest confidants told me, ‘She kills them with kindness - she puts up with it. Good-hearted American people see that - and then she wins,’” Johnson added.

“Then, Sarah Sanders walks into the party,” Johnson said. “The MSNBC party. A network that lives to savage and promote the godless vitriol that just attacked her. Guess what? Sarah Sanders was smiling. She owned it. I asked her about the attack and she shrugged with a smile and just said the attacks didn’t bother her and that she’s praying for the comedian. That is the kind of woman she is.”

Other attendees agreed with Johnson’s assessment. New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman tweeted, “That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out,on national television, was impressive.”

Sanders’ response to the vicious attack also stands in sharp contrast to how her boss would have handled the situation. Where the press secretary reacted with silence and poise that made her seem strong, the president would certainly have fired back with a Twitter fusillade that would have seemed childish and only provoked further attacks and degenerated into an endless tit-for-tat.

I am not particularly a fan of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Her job defending the often-indefensible behavior of President Trump is not one that I would want and I probably would not last very long in that role.

Nevertheless, I can appreciate her poise and grace in responding to Wolf’s attack. Her mature and dignified reaction certainly won the admiration of much of the country. Her maturity and strength are traits that the America sorely needs.

Originally published on The Resurgent

CNBC Editor: 'Viewers Not Stupid As We Think They Are'

There are signs that the media is learning. Nikhil Deogun, senior vice president and editor-in-chief of CNBC, recently discussed confirmation bias and trust in the media with Yahoo! News anchor Katie Couric on a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival and his thoughts were actually encouraging.

“Consumers are increasingly gravitating toward outlets that basically tell them what they want to hear, reinforce their beliefs,” Couric said, quoted by The Blaze. “A friend of mine said, ‘They’re seeking affirmation, not information.’ So, given that, how do you restore trust in the media writ large if people are so divided about which media outlets are actually fair and accurate?”

“I think sometimes there’s too much of a tendency to interpret a fact to a degree that it goes into opinion,” Deogun said. “And I think part of our job is to — again — remind ourselves that our … readers, viewers, users, are not as ignorant, as stupid as we think they are.”

Deogun continued, “I think part of that is to be more transparent. Part of that is to be more forthcoming about what we know and what we don’t know.”

The injection of opinion into news stories to give a biased slant on the news has long been a criticism of the mainstream media by conservatives. Numerous surveys have shown that the vast majority of reporters identify as liberals and Democrats so when a bias exists it almost exclusively reflects a liberal viewpoint.

Journalists were traditionally taught the “five w’s and one h” for their writing. A good news story answers the basic questions of “Who, What, Why, When, Where and How.” Contrary to the apparent belief of many modern journalists, the “What” is a reference to “What happened?” and not “What people should think.”

Deogun’s statement is an admission that at least some journalists realize that they have gone too far and alienated their customers in the process. While 90 percent of journalists may be liberal, political views of the general population are much more mixed. The majority of the population that is not liberal doesn’t like to be talked down to by liberal journalists, especially when they have to pay for subscriptions to outlets that insult their views and values.

There are encouraging signs that the media is trying to fix its ideological problem. Deogun’s admission that there is too much opinion in news stories and that journalists talk down to their readers and viewers is one such sign. CNN’s firing of three journalists who violated the news site’s standards is another action that conservatives should applaud, rather than using it to attack the network’s credibility.  

Of course, the media still has a long way to go in regaining lost trust and respect. After all, Deogun didn’t say that viewers weren’t stupid, he just said that they are not “as stupid as we think they are.”

Old habits and attitudes die hard. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Verizon phone records are different from IRS scandal

This week’s revelations of widespread data gathering by the federal government have shocked many Americans.  Coming on the heels of the recent scandals about Justice Department spying on reporters and IRS agents harassing political opponents, the new information about America’s intelligence gathering activities have drawn widespread opposition and indignation.  There are important differences between the activities of the National Security Agency and the other scandals, however.

On Wednesday, leaked court documents demanding that Verizon turn over phone records to the federal government sparked an uproar over the NSA’s phone surveillance program.  On Friday, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released more details about the program.  Reported by the Associated Press, Clapper noted the program, which presumably includes other companies as well as Verizon, is reviewed every 90 days and the government is prohibited from indiscriminately examining the records of Americans.  The information obtained by the NSA does not contain the content of the calls, but only “metadata” such as the phone numbers involved, time, location, and duration of the call.

On Friday, the Washington Post also published leaked reports of PRISM, a secret program that analyzes internet traffic in a manner similar to the NSA’s examination of phone records.  According to the leaked documents, “e-mail, chat, videos, photos, stored data, VoIP, file transfers, video conferencing, notifications of target activity...log-ins, etc., online social networking details” were available from major internet companies.  A CNET analysis of the PRISM documents indicates that it is theoretically possible that the government has been reading private emails of American citizens.

Even though the amount of information collected by the NSA and PRISM is staggering, there is so far no evidence that it has been used to spy on Americans or intrude on their privacy.  Instead, it seems that the federal government has been engaged in a process called “data mining.”  Data mining is the use of computer programs to discover hidden patterns in data.  Private companies frequently use data mining to target advertisements to likely customers.  Cookies on websites and tracking software collect information about internet users, which is then sold to internet advertisers.  Computer programs can even “read” your emails to target ads to your screen.  Similar programs might be used to block suspicious credit card transactions based on the user’s past history. 

While the NSA is not interested in selling anything to Americans, it is presumably interested in suspicious contacts between the United States and known terrorists in other countries.  On Thursday, Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Politico that “Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States.”  Rogers added, “It is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

Rogers appears to be correct.  Both programs appear to be legal if they were implemented properly.  In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Maryland that telephone users have no expectation of privacy with regard to telephone numbers dialed because telephone companies regularly track such information.  Likewise, CNET points out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008 and the Protect America Act of 2007 permit intelligence gathering of internet data.  The Protect America Act is limited to people “reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States” (Section 105A) and the Section 702 of the FISA Act clarifies that U.S. citizens or people within the United States cannot be targeted. 

On Friday, President Obama defended the NSA programs, saying, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls.” In a PBS transcript, Obama continued, “By sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. Now, with respect to the Internet and e-mails, this doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, and it doesn't apply to people living in the United States.” 

In a separate speech on Friday, transcribed by NBC Bay Area, Obama noted that “ if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust Congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

The other scandals of the Obama Administration have worked to diminish public trust in government, however.  Even before the recent scandals, Pew showed public trust in government at all-time low levels.  The reports of systematic abuses of power against the president’s political opponents (summary on Examiner.com) and spying on reporters have only heightened the crisis of confidence in the federal government.   A June 5 Rasmussen poll showed that an unprecedented 56 percent of Americans view the federal government as a threat to individual rights.  Even normally trusted agencies such as the FBI have been implicated in the Obama Administration’s apparent suppression of conservative groups.   Even the New York Times said Thursday that “The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

Unlike the data mining by the NSA, the allegations against Obama Administration in the IRS and DOJ media spying scandals include the specific targeting of American citizens.  The IRS has admitted that it specifically targeted conservative groups and an investigation by McClatchy News confirmed that no liberal or nonpartisan groups received unfair treatment.  Several IRS employees have said that their scrutiny and harassment of conservative groups was directed by IRS officials in Washington according to the Associated Press.  Likewise, Attorney General Holder personally approved the warrant for surveillance of Fox News reporter James Rosen according to MSNBC.  Unlike the NSA surveillance, which was apparently a legitimate program directed at foreign terrorists, the IRS and Justice Department programs were specifically directed at Americans and apparently had political motives.

The NSA’s surveillance programs are not new.  They have been public knowledge since 2005 when the New York Times published an account of the program.  However, the programs are likely viewed with more concern by many Americans due to the recent reports of spying and abuses of power against American citizens.  If the IRS and DOJ could illegally target Americans for political purposes, many are concerned that NSA data might be used for the same reason.  

Originally published on Examiner.com

IRS and press harassment similar to other Obama scandals

The Obama Administration has become embroiled in three simultaneous scandals over the past few weeks. Much speculation has been made about what President Obama knew and when he knew it. Regardless of whether President Obama gave the order or had personal knowledge of spying on reporters or the harassment of conservative groups, the charges are well within the character of an administration well known for executive overreach and disregard for the law. The Obama administration has been hallmarked by disregard for the rule of law since its early days.

In the spring of 2009, the Obama Administration ignored established bankruptcy law to cast aside secured creditors of Chrysler and GM in favor of unsecured but better connected creditors such as the United Auto Workers pension according to National Affairs. Creditors were denied their right to have input on the company reorganizations through a sub rosa plan in which the assets of “old” Chrysler and GM were “sold” to “new” Chrysler and GM, bypassing creditors in the process. When some investors stood up for their rights, President Obama attacked them as “speculators” in a speech at Chrysler.

The closing of dealerships in the aftermath of the auto bankruptcies fueled speculation and rumors that the Obama Administration was using the auto bankruptcies to target political opponents. The Washington Examiner pointed out at the time that dealers on the list of closures had donated millions to Republicans, but only $200 to Obama. The list of closures seems to have been dictated by Steve Rattner, President Obama’s “car czar.”

On the heels of the auto bankruptcies came “Fast and Furious.” In the spring and summer of 2009, Democrats from Secretary of State Clinton to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) claimed that 90 percent of the guns used in Mexican crimes came from the United States. While claim is not accurate, thousands of the guns that actually did get to Mexico from the United States apparently were allowed across the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Whistleblowers later told Congress that they had orders to let smugglers take illegally purchased guns across the border into Mexico. As Examiner reported in 2011, several of the illegal weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010. The guns turned up at numerous other crime scenes in Mexico as well. In 2011, another American officer, Jaime Zapata, was murdered in Mexico with a gun that had been tracked by the ATF according to CBS News. The Mexican government was not pleased with the revelations that the Obama Administration allowed thousands of illegal guns into their country.

After the BP oil spill in 2010, President Obama issued a unilateral moratorium on deepwater drilling. When a court ruled that the drill ban was unconstitutional, the Department of Interior still refused to issue new drilling permits. This led a federal judge to hold the Obama Administration in contempt of court for its “determined disregard” for its continued drilling restrictions.

In the spring of 2011, after dithering for months, President Obama approved U.S. intervention in the Libyan civil war. Obama notified Congress within 48 hours as required by the War Powers Act, but neglected to seek congressional approval within 60 days. Obama also failed to end American involvement within 30 days of the deadline for seeking congressional approval as required. The N.Y. Times called the Libya intervention “illegal” and said that it “set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.”

The matter is all the more stark because President Obama had said in 2007 that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” After Libya, Politifact rated the statement a “full [flip] flop.”

Also in 2011, the Obama Administration’s loan to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, went sour. While most analyses of the Solyndra scandal focus on the poor judgment involved in making a loan that ultimately cost taxpayers $535 million according to Yahoo, laws might have been broken here as well. According to the Christian Science Monitor, it may have been illegal for the Obama Administration to restructure Solyndra’s loan to put private creditors ahead of taxpayers.

In 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the government to compel its citizens to purchase a private product, keeping Obamacare’s individual mandate intact. The legal status of other parts of Obamacare remains questionable. The mandate that all insurance policies cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs has been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the freedom of religion.

Since 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued more than 1,200 Obamacare waivers to companies according to The Hill. As noted in Examiner, the language of the Affordable Care Act did not permit such waivers. In 2013, Politico reported that members of Congress were secretly negotiating an exemption from Obamacare’s requirements under concerns that staffers would face sharp increases in premiums when Obamacare goes into effect.

More recently, faced with a $1.5 billion shortfall in funds to implement Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius resorted to soliciting donations from insurance companies according to the Washington Post. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) points out in the Wall St. Journal, the Constitution and other laws do not permit the government to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress. Soliciting donations from companies that Sebelius regulates is likely a conflict of interest as well.

Earlier this year, President Obama received a strong rebuke from a federal court for several appointments that he had made to the National Labor Relations Board. The president styled the appointments as recess appointments even though Congress was still in session. The decision, described on Examiner, stated that Congress, not the president, decided when it was in session and then went a step further, stating that recess appointments could only be used to fill vacancies that arise during a recess. A second appeals court issued a similar ruling in May after the NLRB ignored the first court’s ruling and continued to issue decisions on cases heard by the invalid members.

President Obama also has a record of issuing executive decrees when Congress fails to act. In December 2010, the EPA announced plans to regulate carbon after Congress failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation. At the same time, the FCC unilaterally issued “net neutrality” rules in spite of a court ruling stating that the agency did not have the power to regulate the internet. Before even asking Congress to enact new gun control laws, the president signed 23 executive orders relating to guns.

The new scandals, lying to public about Benghazi, spying on reporters to ferret out leakers within the administration, and using federal enforcement agencies to quash political opposition, are merely the latest in a long line of abuses of power by President Obama and his deputies. The common threads among all of the Obama scandals are abuse of executive power disregard of the law for political gain. The new trio of scandals is no different.

A form of this article was originally published as Atlanta Conservative Examiner.

Obama can relax, he won’t be impeached

The “perfect storm” of political scandals that has embroiled the Obama Administration over the past few weeks has some conservatives and Republicans speculating that President Obama might be impeached or be forced to resign in disgrace. While there are plenty of serious accusations of misconduct in the White House and federal government, the scandals are all still in their infancy and President Obama’s precise role is not known. It is all but certain, however, that the president will not be impeached.

The first scandal, the cover-up after the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is the most advanced. The White House released emails earlier this month that showed that references to al Qaeda had been scrubbed from the administration’s talking points about the attack according to ABC News. ABC reported as early as Oct. 9, 2012 that the street protests were non-existent. More than two weeks after the attack, President Obama was still blaming a “crude and disgusting video” that allegedly “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world” in a speech to the United Nations. President Obama’s only mention of al Qaeda in the speech was to call it “weakened” in reference to Osama bin Laden’s death. There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why there was no rescue attempt.

The second scandal involves abuse of power by Internal Revenue Service. The IRS admitted on May 10 that it had targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny during the run-up to the 2012 election. It quickly became apparent that the problem was much more widespread than the IRS had admitted. In fact, the IRS approved no conservative groups at all for a 27 month period beginning in February 2010 according to USA Today. There were other abuses as well, including audits of Obama’s political critics and attempts to force a pro-life group to stop protesting Planned Parenthood according to Examiner. The IRS had even planted the press conference question that Lerner answered to ignite the scandal in an apparent attempt to preempt a government report on the matter.

President Obama and his aides claimed to learn of the scandal “when it came out in the news” according to Yahoo News, however multiple reports show that the White House counsel learned about the internal investigation of the matter several weeks earlier. Lois Lerner, the IRS official who broke the story, learned about the matter as early as 2011 according to the Washington Post. Several senators were also aware of the investigation, but had been unable to get answers from the IRS before Ms. Lerner’s apology.

The third scandal, the Obama Administration’s broad seizure of Associated Press phone records, may prove to be the most dangerous to Obama. In the course of investigating a leak, the Department of Justice, in another scandal that was wider than initially admitted, secretly subpoenaed phone records for five AP offices and hundreds of reporters over a two month period according to the Washington Post. Typically, government investigators ask news organizations for records or at least provide advance notice of such a subpoena. In this case, the DOJ did neither.

The government cites national security concerns for the phone records, but the case in question, the report of an al Qaeda bomb plot disrupted by federal agents, was actually the subject of a White House news conference on the same day that the AP published its story according to NBC News. Further, the press conference by counterterrorism advisor John Brennan contained an important detail that the AP story lacked: the fact that an inside informant had helped to disrupt the plot. Obama claimed not to know the details of the AP case as late as May 16, three days after the story broke according to Mediaite. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed to have recused himself from the investigation according to USA Today.

The Associated Press scandal may prove most dangerous for Obama because the media has traditionally been sympathetic to Democrats. By launching heavy-handed investigations of media outlets, the Administration risks transforming the cozy relationship to an adversarial one. The problem is compounded by the recent revelation that the FBI secretly monitored a Fox News journalist as a “criminal co-conspirator” in a 2009 leak case. Ironically, the failure of the media to look deeply into other Obama Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and Solyndra may have encouraged members of the administration to pursue ever more risky political strategies on the assumption that they would not be subjected to rigorous fact-checking by the media.

Regardless of the severity of these scandals, there is almost no chance that any combination of them will result in the president’s impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors” which are not defined. Since the House is controlled by Republicans, a vote to impeach should pass handily, so why impeachment so unlikely?

The second step is that the impeached president must then be tried in the Senate in order to be removed from office. The Democrats currently control the Senate 55-45 (including two independents who would probably vote with the Democrats). The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to remove the president. This means that even if all Republicans in the Senate voted to remove Obama from office, they would still need the votes of 21 Democrats or independents. It would be pointless and possibly counterproductive for Republicans to impeach Obama when they are not able to remove him from office.

In all of U.S. history, only two presidents have been impeached. Neither was removed from office. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by a single vote after seven senators broke party ranks to support the president. In 1998, Bill Clinton was also acquitted with 45 guilty votes on a perjury charge and 50 votes on an obstruction of justice charge, 21 and 16 votes short of removal respectively. Several Republicans voted for acquittal while no Democrats voted guilty.

The chance that Obama might be forced to resign is slightly better, but still a long shot. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign from office. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment. President Obama is unlikely to take similar action since the threat of impeachment is so remote. President Obama would probably not consider resignation unless he lost the support of his Democratic base.

Liberals can breathe a sigh of relief that President Obama’s job is probably safe. On the other hand, conservatives can take encouragement from the possibility that Obama may be so damaged by the scandals that he is unable to advance his second term agenda. Likewise, the Democratic Party’s troubles means that Republicans might have better odds in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans can take comfort from the fact that if Obama were removed from office, Joe Biden would be next in line.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scandals-won-t-result-obama-impeachment

A Tale of Two Killers

In the past few days, two politically motivated murders occurred in the United States. On Sunday, May 31, Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas abortionist, was murdered in his Wichita church. The following day, Monday, June 1, a US Army soldier working at a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas was also murdered. The way that the media treated the two stories was markedly different.

Scott Roeder was arrested in Dr. Tiller’s murder. Mr. Roeder has a criminal record and long history of membership in radical anti-government fringe groups. In 1996, he was even convicted of criminal use of explosives although the conviction was overturned on appeal due to an illegal search.

Dr. Tiller, called “Killer Tiller” by pro-life protestors, specialized in late-term abortions and had been opposed, mostly peacefully, by pro-life groups for over twenty years. He had been wounded during a previous attempt on his life in 1993. Earlier this year, Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted on 19 counts of violating the Kansas state law requiring a second opinion for late-term abortions. He estimated to have been responsible for upwards of 60,000 abortions.

Dr. Tiller was acting as an usher at his church when he was murdered. I am curious how he justified his participation in the deaths of 60,000 children with his church membership. The Bible makes it plain that Jesus loved children (Matthew 18:6, 19:14, Mark 10:16).

The killing was front-page news in many newspapers around the country. Some articles referred a series of anti-abortion killings even though the last such murder was over ten years ago in 1998. In some cases, conservatives and pro-lifers were even blamed directly for the murder. This is true in particular of Bill O’Reilly who had featured Tiller’s story on his show.

In contrast, the killing of US Army Private William Long was buried in a short article in the back pages of most newspapers. Private Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded in the attack. The murderer was a local convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Muhammad.

Muhammad was already under FBI investigation stemming from a trip to Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity. While in Yemen he was arrested for using a Somali passport.

Privates Long and Ezeagwula were recent graduates of the army’s basic training and were on a temporary assignment at the recruiting office. Neither had ever seen combat or duty in the Middle East.

In the wake of Dr. Tiller’s killing, mainstream pro-life groups denounced his murder. The Kansas Coalition for Life placed a sign outside his clinic stating: “We prayed for his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint, not for his murder.”

On the other hand, there was less furor and mourning for Private Long. There was no rush to blame his Islamic religion or associates. So far I have not seen any Muslim groups who have stepped forward to denounce Private Long’s murder. Few Muslims have denounced terrorism in general.

In the final analysis, Private Long’s murder is much more important nationally than Dr. Tiller’s. While Dr. Tiller’s murder is an isolated event perpetrated by a man whose brother says suffered from mental illness, Private Long’s murder is the most recent in a long list of violent acts by Islamic extremists.

Abortionists have nothing to fear from most anti-abortion activists, many of whom are Christian believers who are commanded by God not to murder. In contrast, many (but not all) Muslims, including those in the United States, follow religious leaders who specifically instruct their followers to engage in terrorist acts. Private Long’s murder fits a new pattern of homegrown terrorism; attacks by lone militants without specific direction by terror groups abroad.

I am a supporter of the pro-life cause and I categorically denounce the use of violence against abortionists. I do not want to minimize Dr. Tiller’s death, but it is not indicative of a larger movement. It was the work of a lone, sick individual.

The proper means of ending abortion is through the political and judicial process. This is not only the moral means of ending abortion; it is the most effective means. A recent Gallup poll showed that, for the first time since the question was asked, 51% of Americans oppose abortion rights (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/). The use of violence is not only immoral, it is counterproductive.

Over the past few years, there have been numerous other foiled plots by homegrown Islamic extremist terrorists. The attempted attack on synagogues in New York City that was foiled in May 2009 was a homegrown terror plot. So was the attempt to kill soldiers at Fort Dix in 2007 and an attempt to blow up the Sears Tower in 2006.

We should learn from this attack, as well as other foiled plots that there are potential terrorists in our midst. Americans can be radicalized via the internet or through extremist Islamic literature found in many mosques and even distributed by Muslim chaplains in US prisons. While we should not harass or imprison innocent Muslims, we should cultivate intelligence sources in the Muslim community and take steps to ensure that mosques are not inciting terrorist acts.

On a final note, the difference in the coverage of the Tiller and Long murders may also be a simple illustration of media bias. Most journalists support abortion rights and are outraged by the murder of a man that many pro-choice supporters consider a hero and a martyr. In contrast, these same journalists oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, and thus can sympathize with a man who is aggrieved by the military’s actions.

On rare occasions, the news offers stark contrasts between two extremes. The deaths of Dr. Tiller and Private Long provide one. Dr. Tiller, who was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 babies, is trumpeted and mourned by the media while Private Long, who volunteered to risk his life to protect the United States, its people, its constitution, and its freedom of the press passes largely unheralded.

Private Long, I salute you.

Sources:
“Suspect Held in Doctor’s Killing,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/46575872.html
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/bill-oreilly-has-dr-george-tillers-b
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/


“Military Recruiter Killed,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_re_us/us_recruiters_shot_21
http://media.abcnews.com/US/wireStory?id=6508567
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497335/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/May/Terror-Case-One-of-Many-Homegrown-Plots/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/324puasg.asp

Greensboro NC
6/1/09