Ad hominem attacks – which means, roughly, an attack “against the man” – are common in political discourse. The purpose of attacking the character of an opponent is to deflect his argument without responding to it. It’s an effective political tactic because the masses believe that if the messenger is bad, the message doesn’t matter. President Bush was a target in numerous ad hominem relating to his intelligence – often “proved” by his Texas accent and mispronunciation or misusage of words, or his ties to big oil, or simply calling him (and everyone else in his administration) Nazis. President Obama is no different in that regard. Many on the right have thrown ad hominem attacks at him in (generally futile) attempts to derail his credibility. The biggest problem with attacking the character of either of our last two presidents is that there is enough there for opponents to bring them down on policy alone while leaving character out of it. So in this piece I will refute some of the character attacks on Barack Obama so that the five of you who read it can focus on what he is doing rather than who he is, or isn’t.

Barack Obama is not the antichrist. Stripping away the theological discussions about what the antichrist is or isn't, I don’t believe that Barack Obama is the antichrist. He is not the putative embodiment of evil on earth. He is not Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, the Enemy, or whatever you (personally) call the Supreme Ruler of Hell. There are e-mails going around that indicate that the book of Revelation indicates that Obama is the antichrist, but no such passage (or anything describing the antichrist) exists. (And if you think it does, show me the chapter and verses.) He may follow a preacher who preaches a strange theology (“Black Liberation Theology”); he may denigrate true Christian beliefs on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and the like; he may even be as corrupt as Rod Blagoyevich or Bill Clinton (that last is simply a possibility, not an accusation) but he’s not the antichrist.

Barack Obama is not Adolph Hitler, nor is he a Nazi. Yes, his rise to power is based primarily on his celebrity. Yes, his policies indicate that he favors nationalizing the economy. Yes, some of the statements he has made, the people he has associated with, and the people he has hired – even as President – can lead a reasonable person to believe he harbors some racial animosity. But this does not indicate that he intends to actually carry out the systematic extermination of the white race, nor does it prove that he intends to rule the US as a brutal dictatorship and use its might to spread his evil across the world in a search for lebensraum. He has actually tried not to let his racial animosity be his guiding principle, despite letting it slip from time to time (the Cambridge police acted “stupidly”, for example). Recall that Hitler spent much of his time blaming the Jews for Germany’s problems. He was very public about his anti-Semitism, and fed on the general anti-Semitic feelings within Germany at the time, much as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does today. Barack Obama does not do that himself. Yes, he lets his supporters call his opponents racists for opposing him, but he doesn’t give them credibility by acknowledging them.

Barack Obama is not a radical Muslim. I read the refutation of this one in Snopes, but it primarily dealt with things Obama has said about himself. I rarely let one’s own words prove or deny something about them. If Charles Manson said “I’m not a murderer” would that be enough to cast even the slightest amount of doubt in your mind? Having said that, however, there has been little indication that Barack Obama follows wahhabist Islam, as he has been accused. If favoring the Palestinian Authority over Israel is an indication of radical Islam, then just about every Democrat – even a lot of “Jews” – is actually a radical Muslim. Besides that, a radical Muslim would not spend his Sundays in a United Church of Christ church listening to a radical Black Liberation Theology preacher for 20 years. He may have had some Muslim upbringing. His father – who abandoned him – may have been a Muslim. He may have attended elementary school in Indonesia, a major Muslim country. But that doesn’t equate him to Osama bin Laden any more than it makes me, a Catholic, a member of Sinn Fein.

Barack Obama is not occupying the White House in violation of the Constitution. Sure, his policies may violate both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution’s goal of limited Federal government, but so far as any evidence exists, he, himself, is eligible to be President of the United States. There is independent evidence (in the form of newspapers and the like) that show that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Hawai’i. Last I checked, Hawai’i is in the United States. Even in the unlikely, but I suppose not altogether impossible, event that there is some merit to the story, proving it is nigh impossible. Until and unless they start fingerprinting every infant at birth to include with the birth certificate – a process that would only help a situation like this as early as 2044 if they started right now – proving that a copy of a US birth certificate is a fake would be difficult at best. Of all the constitutional problems Barack Obama stands to cause in his administration, whether or not he was born in the US is the least of my worries.

Barack Obama does not think there are 58 states. I’ve never played this one up much because it’s so worthless a criticism. This stems from a comment he made on the campaign trail where he said he had been to at least 57 states at one point during the campaign. Ladies and Gentlemen, it was a joke! Maybe it wasn’t all that funny, but it was a joke! It’s like when you tell your coworkers that you were stuck in traffic for a week (a frequent comment where I live). You weren’t, you know you weren’t, your audience knows you weren’t, people who don’t like you know you don’t think you were. He was simply making a point as to how much traveling he’d done recently. I’d have probably made the same joke in his position because a lot of my humor is based on hyperbole.

These and other attacks against Barack Obama’s character only divert attention from his policies, which should be the point of the argument. He has done enough wrong – stimulus packages, Obamacare, the Henry Gates incident, Sonya Sotomayor, etc. – for conservatives to oppose him on ideological grounds. Ad hominem attacks are a waste of time.

Vick was charged with violating 18 USC §371, Conspiracy to commit an offence. The specific offense was traveling in interstate commerce to aid in unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. The charge stemmed from six years of operating “Bad Newz Kennels,” an illegal interstate dog-fighting ring. While not part of the charges, Vick was accused of killing dogs – often brutally, stealing pet dogs to train the fighting dogs (usually killing the pets), and illegal gambling. In the end, Vick got two years in federal prison and 3 years of post-incarceration supervision. Some said the sentence was fair – a sentiment with which I tend to agree. Others, particularly on the hard Left, said it was too light, and that he should have been punished more severely. I don’t recall anyone really saying the sentence was too harsh – I could be mistaken, though. Since then, Vick was released from prison, having served his sentence, and will be eligible to work at his chosen profession on Sunday.

Burress was charged with criminal possession of a handgun in New York City. The charge stemmed from an incident a year ago when he brought the gun into a night club and, when he took it out of his waistband, the gun fired, grazing Burress in the leg. No one else was injured and Burress was immediately taken to the hospital. It was revealed later that he had had a permit for concealed carry from Florida, which permit expired a few months before the incident. He plead guilty to possession of a handgun, and was sentenced to two years in prison.

What we have here are two widely disparate crimes with a very similar punishment. Vick’s crime was willfully participating in an illegal activity over a number of years. Burress’s crime was carrying a gun in New York City. Vick used his wealth to maintain a dog fighting ring, treated the dogs brutally, and lied about it to authorities, the media, and the NFL’s commissioner. Burress carried a gun in New York City. Vick is alleged to have stolen other people’s animals and used them for training bait. Burress carried a gun in New York City. Vick is alleged to have gambled on the fights and possibly have evaded paying taxes on the winnings. Burress carried a gun in New York City. Both got the same sentence.

My problem with this whole story is this. Michael Vick did something that is patently illegal, never mind disturbing to people with reasonable sensibilities, and got a reasonable sentence for it. Burress did something that is supposed to be legal (bearing arms) under the US Constitution, did something stupid – not bad, not wrong, not reckless, just stupid – with it, luckily did not hurt anyone else, and got precisely the same sentence. I in no way say that Vick’s punishment should have been less, nor do I generally feel it should have been significantly more. I do believe that, particularly given the recent Supreme Court ruling on guns in Washington, DC, Burress’s case could, and possibly should, be a test case for curbing unconstitutional gun control laws. I don’t believe what Burress did was necessarily right or necessarily smart. But it should have been legal, and in any case the punishment does not fit the crime.

As if any proof was needed that the policies supported by the Global-Warming-is-true eco-frauds are evil, we get a story in the AP today retelling a story in the British medical journal Lancet. Apparently some “experts” – precisely who these experts are is not stated in the article I read – have published an editorial in Lancet that supports “free birth control” to developing countries so that “environmental pressures” caused by “overpopulation” could be reduced. Translation: “have fewer babies, get a better environment.” As an interesting aside, the AP article, which was titled “Birth control could help combat climate change” ends with the pronouncement that “…normal population growth is unlikely to significantly increase global warming…” though the demands for basic necessities will “jeopardize” an environment already “struggl[ing]” with climate change.

Furthermore the article claims that some 200 million women want birth control and can’t get it. This, say the “experts,” has resulted in 76 million “unintended pregnancies” each year. The “experts” go on to state (paraphrased in the AP article) that “If those women had access to free condoms or other birth control methods, that could slow rates of population growth, possibly easing the pressure on the environment…” “Other birth control methods,” huh? I wonder what that could possibly mean.

Getting serious, now. Given that everything that the Left hates either proves your intolerance or is bad for the environment or both, and they want intolerance and, more importantly for this rant, anything that harms the environment legislated out of existence, how far is the leap from “giving” people free condoms to a China-style one-child policy of forced abortion and sterilization? Here’s the logic I’m following.  To the Left: People equal Environmental damage, in a direct, linear proportion. Therefore, more people equals proportionately more environmental damage. Conversely fewer people should equal less environmental damage. Since higher birth rates, obviously, equal more people, then to get fewer people we need to reduce birth rates. This has already happened in the West, where many European countries only grow because of immigration and immigrant births, and some (Russia, for example) are actually shrinking even if immigrants are counted. Since voluntary birth-rate reduction only goes so far – as some people are morally against artificially reducing the birth rate – at some point the world’s population will (not “may”) reach that critical mass where the voluntary methods can’t do “enough” and more people will “inevitably” cause far greater environmental damage. When (not “if”) that point is reached, what Leftist environmentalist, who has been (a) putting the environment over humanity, (b) believing that humans are a cancer on this world, and (c) supporting uninhibited abortion rights, for decades, will grow a conscience and decide that killing the unborn to support some cockamamie theory about the “population bomb” is actually morally repugnant? 

I’ll say it again, in case my explanation got lost in the paragraph. When (not “if”) voluntary contraception proves insufficient in curbing worldwide population growth to a degree deemed sufficient by the Left, what Leftist would not support forced contraception? Especially since those forced will almost exclusively be political enemies on the right (given that Leftists are more likely to be willing to do it voluntarily)? This article seems innocuous enough, but at its heart is a deeper, much more sinister attitude toward life, humanity, and the environment.

How many of you here know who James Pouillon was? Anyone? Anyone at all? Does the name seem familiar to you in any way? No, he’s not the French chef on Iron Chef America. So you’ve really never heard of him? I’m not shocked. I didn’t either till this morning.

How many of you here know who George Tiller was? If I were looking at a room of people, I’d expect to see about half the hands raised. Tiller, of course, was the Kansas abortionist who was killed in May by a lunatic claiming to be part of the anti-abortion movement. We heard about Tiller’s murder, and his “heroic” (their words not mine) choice to continue being a one-man death panel for the children of countless thousands of women – and reaping a significant financial reward for his “services” – despite death threats and the long history of unprovoked violence against abortion providers (which history mustbe long, as 10-20 years usually pass between high-profile abortionist murders.) And stories ran daily for weeks after Tiller’s murder most either explicitly or implicitly linking Tillers killer, Scott Roeder, to the mainstream anti-abortion movement.

James Pouillon, 63, died last week in a drive-by shooting in front of a high school in Owosso, MI. Pouillon was an anti-abortion protestor and had been sitting across from the school holding an anti-abortion poster in a quiet, one-man protest against the greatest evil of our age. His murderer, Harlan James Drake, also killed another man, an acquaintance of Drake’s unrelated to the abortion debate, some time later. The story was covered by most of the news media last Friday and Saturday (according to Google) and not much has been seen about it since. I wasn’t paying attention to the news those days, so I missed the story completely and it was only this morning when my wife told me some anti-abortion protestor had been shot in Michigan that I’d heard anything about it. After the initial coverage – mainly because the drive-by shooting of a 63-year-old man who needed leg braces and an oxygen tank is, in fact, news, even if his views are objectionable to the media – the story disappeared. If you weren’t paying close attention to the news last weekend, this may even be a breaking story to you.

Pouillon, nearest I can figure – the stories about his death have been very brief – was a quiet, unassuming man who was merely against abortion. He attended a number of protests with his local anti-abortion group and was often seen holding up anti-abortion posters at various locations around his community. Most stories that covered his death, including the one in the NARAL: Yes Times made a concerted effort to note that because the (unnamed) killer killed another man who had nothing to do with abortion, Pouillon’s murder was not motivated by his protest. That’s sort of like saying that because Lee Harvey Oswald killed a cop in the late afternoon on November 22, 1963 his murder of President Kennedy wasn’t politically motivated.

In giving credit where credit is due, what I would normally refer to as the Commie or Crescent (depending upon the story of the day) News Network, aka CNN, actually provided a complete, albeit brief, story on this event. According to CNN’s story, run on September 11, Harlan James Drake, 33, shot Pouillon because he “was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.” So in a few dozen stories, I found only one, on CNN of all places, that (a) named the killer, and (b) indicated that his motive even could have been the anti-abortion protest. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the news media completely dropped this story after the initial reporting. There have been no retrospectives on Pouillon’s life, no one coming out and calling him heroic or courageous or a martyr, there hasn’t even been a more recent story on the prosecution of the case, or detailing Drake’s deep-seated hatred of anti-abortion protestors. There’s been nothing.

What kind of world do we live in when a man whose life’s work consisted of (a) convincing thousands upon thousands of young women that it’s OK to kill their children and (b) actually overseeing the killings is considered a hero and lauded in the Press for weeks (even having been brought up in stories about Pouillon), while a man who made it his mission to try to stop the slaughter gets a page-two blurb that told us that his death was not motivated by his politics? Something about that just disgusts me.

So I leave you with this. We may never hear James Pouillon’s name again, but please try not to forget it. He was a man who died exercising the rights we all have to peaceably protest what he (and many others) saw as a grave injustice. James Pouillon, requiescat in pace.

HJG

Courage, basically, is the ability to face danger effectively. There are two basic degrees of courage: Physical and Moral. Physical courage is the ability to accomplish your goal in the face of a danger that could cause actual physical injury or death. Particularly when death or injury is assured. Moral courage is the ability to stand up for the truth despite potential harm – which harm can be physical, psychological, financial, professional, or personal. One aspect of courage that is not considered is the fact that courage necessarily includes doing the right, moral, and just thing. Making an effort to put yourself into dangerous situations because you enjoy the “rush” (like “extreme sports” participants) is not courage, it is foolhardiness. Deserting from military service because you don’t approve of a war is not courage, it’s cowardice. Disagreeing with a power base that cannot or will not punish you in any way for that disagreement is also not courage. Merely standing up for what’s unpopular is also not courage. Some things are unpopular precisely because they are morally wrong, and standing up for that which is morally wrong – abortion, gay privileges, legalization of drugs, treason, supporting totalitarian regimes, etc. – falls into the realm of the foolhardy, because you not only risk your soul for supporting evil, but you risk committing the sin of scandal, which I’ve defined numerous times.

In case you’re still wondering what I see as courage, here are a few examples:

St. Maximilian Kolbe – Father Maximilian Kolbe, OFM Conv., was a Polish priest in the 1920s and 30s. His father was hanged by the Russians in 1914 for supporting Polish independence. During World War II, Father Kolbe operated a HAM radio broadcast in which he condemned the activities of the Nazis. He also sheltered refugees from the Nazi regime – including about 2,000 Jews – in his friary. He was arrested by the Schutzstaffel (SS) and sent first to the concentration camp at Pawiak, before being transferred to Auschwitz. While there a prisoner disappeared, and the camp commander ordered 10 prisoners starved to death to serve as a deterrent to additional escape attempts. One of the 10, a Polish sergeant named Franciszek Gajowniczek begged to be spared because he had a wife and children. Kolbe volunteered to take Gajowniczek’s place and the Germans allowed him to. After three weeks of starvation, Kolbe, who was stoically accepting his punishment, was executed by an injection of carbolic acid on August 14, 1941.   Gajowiniczek lived to see his rescuer’s canonization and died in 1995 at the age of 93. I’ve always considered St. Maximilian my favorite saint, owing to his great physical and moral courage.

Chaplain (Lt.) Vincent Capodonno, USN – Father Vincent Capodonno was a chaplain in the US Navy in the Vietnam War. He served with the 3^rd Battalion, 5^th Marines, 1^st Marine Division in Que Son. On September 4, 1967, the Marine company he was with was attacked by a larger force of North Vietnamese Army (NVA) soldiers. During the battle, Fr. Capodonno – who as a Chaplain was a non-combatant, and, thus unarmed – ran around the battlefield tending to wounded marines, giving last rites and Anointing of the Sick to the dying, and giving words of encouragement to those Marines still able to fight. He was severely wounded by a mortar round and instructed the corpsmen to assist the wounded Marines instead of himself. Fr. Capodonno was shot and killed by a machine gunner when he tried to aid a wounded corpsman. For his actions he was one of the very few chaplains ever to receive the Medal of Honor.

Norma McCorvey – Originally one of the great heroines of the Left, Norma McCorvey was the “Jane Roe” in the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case. McCorvey had originally fabricated a story in which her pregnancy resulted from a rape, later admitting that it had simply been consensual, non-marital sex. Furthermore, and less well known, she was involved in a long-term lesbian relationship during the 70s and 80s. By the mid-80s McCorvey was characterizing herself as a pawn of the pro-abortion movement, and by 1994 she had fully recanted her pro-abortion stance, converted to Catholicism, and even repudiated her own homosexual lifestyle. Now she serves as one of the most prolific anti-abortion activists even going so far as to risk arrest for protesting in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way (shouting down Senator Al Franken during the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, for instance.) By standing up for what is right and good, not what is popular and expedient, Norma McCorvey has faced ridicule, jail, and her own personal demons with more courage than the vast majority of us. 

You’ll notice that I didn’t include people like the 9-11 hijackers, Bishop V. Gene Robinson, war protestors, Michael Newdow and the like, all of whom have been called “brave” and “courageous” by the media or others on the Left. As I said, standing up for wrong and committing acts of evil are not the marks of the courageous. They are foolhardy, self-serving, or cowardly people bent only on serving their own ends. They who call them “brave” twist the meaning of courage to suit their own ends. Like other virtues, true courage is detested by the Left, and they change its meaning to something like “falling in lock-step with the hard Left’s values and seeking to overthrow Western culture.” Those who express true courage are ridiculed, and those who support Leftist ideals (or oppose the Left’s enemies, including traditional America) are the new courageous.