By Tom Quiner
It was just a one paragraph blurb in yesterday’s Des Moines Register: four men in New York City were convicted of plotting to blow up synagogues in New York.
I read the paragraph searching for a key piece of information. Can you guess what it was? What would you like to know about these anti-semitic terrorist wannabes?
The answer is motivation. The answer couldn’t be found in the Register’s five sentence coverage. In search of why four men wanted to blow up synagogues (note the plural), I went to the New York Times for additional insights.
The Times’ reporter on this story, Kareem Fahim, focused on the Defense’s claim that the four men were entrapped by the FBI in a sting. It wasn’t until the 10th paragraph that Mr. Fahim revealed that the charged (and now convicted men) were arrested after the FBI infiltrated a mosque. The word Muslim was not used in the news report.
Is this word relevant?
In light of 9/11, the answer is yes.
In light of the Christmas day “shoe” bomber, the answer is yes.
In light of the Fort Hood massacre, the answer is yes.
In light of the attempted Time Square bombing, the answer is yes.
Muslim terrorists want to kill Americans. These terrorists obviously do not represent all Muslims. They may only represent a small percentage.
But political correctness seems to block this critical piece of news reporting. The USA Today said on September 13, 2001:
“Arab-Americans and Muslims fear backlash” after the 2001 9/11 attacks in the US.”
The London Guardian said in July 8th, 2005 after Islamic terrorists killed 56:
“Muslim leaders fear backlash.”
After Islamic terrorists killed 195 in India in 2008, the Muslim Public Affairs Council said:
“The Muslim Public Affairs Council today sent a letter to the Bush administration and the Obama transition team expressing concern about a potential backlash that could be triggered in the wake of terrorist attacks in Mumbai.”
After Nidal Hasan murdered 13 women and men at Fort Hood and wounded another 30, but before his motivations were known, Islam Online said:
“As fears of a backlash are going high among US Muslims, President Barack Obama urged Americans Saturday, November 7, not to jump into conclusions over a deadly attack on a military base in Texas, stressing the diversity of the US army.”
You can understand the concern Muslims have that a backlash might occur in light of the number of innocent people Muslim terrorists kill each year in American and around the world. This leads to an interesting question: which group do you think is the victim of more hate crimes in the United States each year? Muslims or Jews?
The FBI tracks hate crimes. The chart above gives the answer. Jews are victims of ten times as many hate crimes as Muslims. Interestingly, this is not newsworthy to the Mainstream Media (MSM). What is newsworthy is the fear of reprisals against Muslims.
Why are anti-semitic hate crimes of such little interest to the MSM?
[This post first appeared in Quiner’s Diner in October of 2010]
By Tom Quiner
If you read yesterday’s post, a faithful Quiner’s Diner reader posed the question:
“What exactly did Jesus say about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman?”
This is a test question.
Most people know that Jesus didn’t specifically address the subject of same-sex marriage. But he revealed his thoughts about marriage when he received this test question from the pharisees, as recounted in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 19:1-6:
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
“Have you you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
And just so He left know doubt about what a marriage means, Jesus reiterated his point by saying:
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
The elements Jesus identified as constituting a marriage are “male” and a “female.”
There’s another element: They are joined together as “one flesh” in the conjugal act only possible between a male and a female. Jesus refers to the Genesis verse (1:27) that:
“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them … be fertile and multiply.”
In other words, the essence of marriage as explained by Jesus is the union of a man and a woman, not a woman and woman; not a man and a man.
In fact, Jesus indicated not everyone is cut out for marriage for various reasons in Matthew 19:12:
“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Pope Paul VI expressed it so beautifully:
“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
The late pontiff eloquently builds on his thesis:
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.
So what is the definition of marriage according to Jesus? A union between a man and a woman.
By Tom Quiner
I guess I’m a barbarian.
Vice President Biden was explicit:
“This is a different kind of fight,” Biden said to union members. “This is a fight for the existence of organized labor. You are the only folks keeping the barbarians at the gate. That’s why they want you so bad.”
Teamster president, Jimmy Hoffa was equally eloquent in his derision of the Tea Party and conservatives:
“Let’s take these sons of a b*tches out.”
What is it that makes us so barbaric in the eyes of these elite?
Is it our desire for fiscal restraint? For balanced budgets?
Is it our desire for long term solvency of Medicare and Social Security? They’re going broke. The government tells us so. Republicans have presented solutions. Are the solutions bad? If so, how about if the elites present their own plan?
Is it our respect for the dignity of human life that makes us seem so barbaric in the eyes of the elite? But if that’s the case, how does ripping a pre-born child out of the mother’s womb qualify as being civilized?
Is it defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman, just as Jesus did? If that’s barbaric, tell them to take it up with Jesus.
Is it our call for fairness in squaring extravagant federal union perks with the economically-challenged needs of the working class families paying for those perks?
The elites know what’s best.
The vice president says so. So does a union boss.
Be sure to catch the “barbarians at the debate” tonight at 7 PM central time on MSNBC to find out what makes them so uncivilized. If you learn what it is, let me know.
By Lisa Bourne
I attended the Tea Party of America’s Restoring America event in at the National Balloon Classic grounds in Indianola, IA on Saturday, September 3.
Former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker at the event. Despite previous reports that she would not announce her candidacy for the 2012 presidential election at the rally, on the off-chance she might do so, I thought it would be interesting to be there.
I also wanted to take in my second Tea Party event.
After my two Tea Party encounters I remain convinced that the negative aspersions cast on the movement by the media and some politicians and others are complete fabrication. At both I saw regular, hard-working people who are patriotic and love our country. At the same time, they are unhappy about what’s happening here and abroad at the hands of and in the name of our nation’s government.
Sarah Palin gave a speech that was well-written and delivered at the Restoring America rally.
The woman is also much maligned by the media and others.
What’s not for the cranky to hate?
She’s beautiful. She’s likable. She’s down-to-earth. She’s accomplished. She seems thoroughly genuine, and she’s beat the feminists at their own game by “having it all,” minus the anger.
For me, Sarah Palin’s character has never been more evident than in her rejecting the notion of taking the life of her son Trig while he was in his mother’s womb waiting to be born, as is all too customary with Down’s Syndrome children anymore.
And yet, what’s the story on her candidacy?
For all the petty vitriol blasted her way, even those who aren’t among the haters can find her posturing as a candidate without officially jumping in tiresome.
Sarah Palin had a good message at the Restoring America rally, substantive as any campaign speech, which is what it clearly had to be. I think she’ll announce soon, and she’s got an army of grassroots supporters ready to fall in formation when she does.
However I agree with the perspective I was recently offered by a friend: She can be of greater value to the conservative cause if she continues to use her influence on various issues and candidates rather than becoming a candidate herself.
Additional comparing of Sarah Palin’s level of executive experience to that of Barack Obama going into the 2008 election, or acknowledging the media’s conducting a war on her words while simultaneously constructing the president as he-of-the-golden-tongue, would not advance the discussion.
Recognizing that we’re operating on the assumption that any number of choices would result in better than we have now, Sarah Palin is certainly among those many choices.
However, while we absolutely have somebody to vote against, we absolutely need somebody to vote for.
As a Catholic I’m pulling for Senator Rick Santorum.
Experience, good on the issues, a proven record in office and yet, outside the Republican establishment.
In a world where politicians whom a Catholic can support in good conscience are few and far between, I find Rick Santorum a breath of much needed fresh air.
Life, the family, marriage, faith, our country; all among the things Rick Santorum has pledged to continue to fight for. You can get a glimpse at http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick.
Again, something key for me; while he’s been a successful public servant, he’s a devoted husband and father, the man has his family with him whenever he can.
Senator Santorum and wife Karen are the parents of one child in heaven and seven children here on earth. The Santorum’s youngest child, Isabella, three, has Trisomy 18, a condition where the vast majority of children do not survive past birth. The family is walking the walk when it comes to life.
It is my hope that more people will continue to hear Rick Santorum’s message, even get to meet him, that support for him will resonate so his candidacy grows, and then we can get on with the business of restoring America.
[Thanks to Lisa Bourne for contributing this article and photos to Quiner’s Diner. Ms. Bourne is a Catholic journalist and pro-life wife and mother.]