The Inverted West

Isn't this grounds for impeachment? Obozo would have sworn to protect the US constitution and the US constitution includes the 1st Amendment which allows people to say whatever they want about a 7th century religion founded by a psychotic pedophilic epileptic totalitarian. Also, in the US, separation of church and state is declared by law and here is the TOTUS supporting a death cult which denies there is any separation between church and state and that their psychotic exceedingly offensible religion trumps everything.

This should get maximum publicity and, even though it won't succeed given the temporal proximity of the US elections, impeachment proceedings would raise awareness of this issue in even the dimmest members of the US public.

I sat up just a little straighter when I heard Obama make that statement. I was hoping that someone in the media would at least question it (sarcasm on). Obama is saying EXACTLY what he means! Problem is, there is no one in the MSM who will confront or question him. Pat Caddell was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the American public are being lied to by the current media. Hoping common sense will prevail.

Obama is not good for the future of liberal democracy.

What Ken said.

As much as the popular press adores this man, they had better be very wary of what that means for them. It won't simply be a matter of sugar coating and white-washing the news any longer. Gone will be the news agencies' erroneous yet independent discretion and silence. Entire events will just not have happened because the Islamists say they haven't. When independent sources cite these events and major news agencies don't, how long will ANY of these news agencies stay afloat? They simply don't have that leg work to gamble any more.

This makes at least as much sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6_RZhh44NY

It is preposterous that there is not massive outrage at this. Military commanders can be releaved of command forthwith for such....why not a President.

Funny why didn't he add "or the prophet of Christianity"?

Why is a future with Muslim bashers worse for Obamba than Christian bashers?

It's weird because Obamba simply waves his Nobel Peace Prize and bombs any Arab country he wants like Lybia turning the country into a murderous Islamic cesspit, and the "peace loving", "religion hating", liberal left cheers him on like a messiah.

They need to be stopped.

It's something that Romney would be wise to bring up during the debates. It's one of the few ways to get the message out without lamestream media toads filtering it out.

One of the problems of the MSM is that they haven't a clue about the differences between Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other hosts of religions.

The see all religion as the same, a bunch of rules derived from their "holy books" which are ancient texts that do not apply to today's scientific and secular mindset. They believe that it is all outdated and needs to be taken out with the trash.

The media and journalism schools vet and weed out the reporters who have a religious point of view, other than the token religion column or article, as that would bring too much bias to the secularists. They just want the facts, ma'am. None of that religious hokus-pokus, mumbo-jumbo.

I doubt that most of the reporters even noticed that there was anything even askew in the speech.

For an American to say that, much less the President and Commander in Chief of the military that has had 2000+ of their comrades killed by these creatures, it's just plain surreal. Like some strange Fellini movie.

The more I think of it, the stranger it gets. To indicate any questioning of Mo or dissatisfaction with Mo is slander. Stranger and stranger it gets.

Well technically he's right, the future must belong to those who eliminate the prophet of Islam. Slander just won't cut it.

He is the Right Hand of Satan, the Son of Motherless Goat.

Full Disclaimer: I am NOT a supporter of U.S. President Barrack Obama. I am NOT a Moslem nor a Moslem sympathizer.

Having said this, I ask if anyone actually listened to or read the text of his speech at the U.N.???

Here is the full quote:
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

He also said: "Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change.

This indignation over the phrase about "slandering the prophet" just makes makes those who take issue appear to be partisan nut cases. I for one will have NO tolerance for those who twist things to make a few cheap political points.

Right on David.

David in Michigan >

"...heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” - BO

That's why Gandhi was a loser and didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize like Obamba because he didn’t have the guts to order F15 planes to bomb Libya back into the Stone Age and prove his benevolent tolerance towards Gaddafi.

Might not sound 'fair' but I don't think most in the MSM have a lot of religious conviction. In fact many progressives see religion as a deterent against 'progress'.

Obama concerns me more and more. What he really believes and what he lets escape during conversation. If Romney cannot draw him out in the debates and am questioning whether he can win. As much as I detested Clinton I never would have questioned his pattriotism. I think Obama might have other priorities.

Dianne West isn't wrong about the media. But I don't read too much into Barry's speech. He's as sincere about that speech as he was about every other speech he's made. Serial liar, lying? Shockah!

I very much doubt he gives a cr@p about Islam or any other thing that doesn't make him look good. He's a self-worshiping head case.

David in Michigan - I disagree with your view that since Obama generalized slander against Islam to also include slander or harm against the icons of all religions, that his statement is OK. It isn't.

Slander is a subjective term; it exists only in the perception of the receiver. Therefore, what Obama is saying is a complete rejection of the rights of the First Amendment, freedom of speech.

Speech that is critical, that is analytic and non-adulatory of Mohammed and Islam, can readily be perceived as slander by an Islamist. Obama is declaring that people who make such analyses 'have no future'. Hmmm. That's exactly what the Islamists rant when they scream 'kill the infidels'.

As for the rest of his speech, Obama is a pathological liar; his words are completely empty and irrelevant. He lives in a Bubble of Words. Unconnected to action, to reality. Therefore, his claims of helping others are empty nonsense.

BUT, his Bubble World rejection of free thought and speech should be confronted. Even though Obama may live in a Bubble, we who live in the real world should confront him that, as President rather than as an irrelevant Community Organizer, his words have results in the real world. And his violation of the First Amendment should get him kicked back into his Bubble.

@knight 99: You're right about my choice of words. I'm laughing at myself.... intolerant SOB that I am.

As the US law system throws some loser in jail for making a movie about the backasswards of the sands, the president says these statements, writes in his flimsy books about standing with his muslim brothers, and still most of the Hollywood idiots will throw billions upon this stomper of free speech to re-elect him to jail them down the road. The left truly are retarded, just watch Kirsten Powers Tamara Holder Leslie Marshall Juan Williams etc on Fox and you see just how stupid lefties are nightly. Good bye America if this saboteur isn't sent packing.

ET said: "BUT, his Bubble World rejection of free thought and speech should be confronted."

Now -that- is absolutely true. Particularly since that section of his speech with all the pretty-pretty wording stripped off means we all need to shut the hell up.

Whenever a politician comes out and tells us all to shut up, that's usually bad.

This week's Hot Girls and Bacon may need to feature a Canadian classic: pea-meal back bacon barbecuing over Koran-coals. Gives it a biting, smokey flavor I'm told.

Religion of Peace being what it is these days, I'll have to work on the fortifications a bit if I do decide to run it. The north wall could use some reinforcement, and the automated minigun turrets haven't been shredding the stray deer just the way I like lately. Some pieces of the last one were larger than a softball!

Well David, if you want to analyze the quote more fully, he said the future doesn't belong to one group. I'm expecting that I'd be viewed in Egypt or Saudi or Pakistan as slandering if I preached "No one comes to the Father but through Me." Next sentences relate to how the Mohammedans who condemn such slander can gain credibility. He advises that the Mohammedan should condemn violence and lies and what other consider as blasphemies in order to be credible to these others.

These next sentences do not subtract from the first sentence they merely give political, strategic advice. In other words B. Hussein Obama II is saying, yes, the future is yours but if you want to be credible, tone it down and throw a few bones to the rabble to make the others think you are reasonable.

ET - It seems to me that Obama actually called for more free speech. He said if you condemn criticism of Islam you need to condemn the hate expressed in slanders of other religions to have any credibility. To criticise slanderers of other religions you have to actually express yourself.

Now I know that one man's slander is another man's honest and objective criticism, but what Obama is saying is if you are torqued at criticism of Islam you gotta be torqued at criticism of other religions too. Then he slips into saying you have to become tolerant of other views.

What I don't like about Obama's statement is that it is more of the "more pavilions at folkfest view." It allows that Islam is a valid religion as opposed to a totalitarian philosophy.

a) the folks who made the film "Innocence of Muslims" didn't slander Islam's prophet, they told the truth
b) the film "Innocence of Muslims" wasn't the cause of the Benghazi consul terrorist attack

Obama implies both falsehoods are true by addressing this speech issue at all at this time.

rroe, no, I don't get your interpretation out of Obama's words. And by the way, if something is said that is so obtuse that it lends itself to multiple interpretations then it is in itself problematic.

He is, in my view, saying that ANY criticism of ANY religion can be understood as slander and therefore should not be allowed. He specifically said 'Intolerance is itself a form of violence'. That means that criticism of any religion is an act of intolerance and thus an act of violence. He's rejecting free thought and speech.

He's not saying, 'well, if you Islamists criticize Christianity or Judaism, then you have to allow criticism of Islam' - because he added that sentence on 'intolerance=violence'. He's rejecting any critical analysis. Period.

And yes, he is also therefore, defining all belief systems as equal.

ct, "I think Obama might have other priorities." Exactly! Just ask your self who his friends were. Some names that come to mind are Rev Wright, van Jones, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayres, etc.

Oz, exactly.

ET @ 9:56, agreed. "And yes, he is also therefore, defining all belief systems as equal." There is part of the rub. Islam is not a "religion" in the same sense as other religions are, but rather an amalgam of religion and an ideology of physical conquest.

ET - why does he say "to be credible" the criticism must be spread accross all religions? if freedom of speech is not allowed - why talk of credibility at all. He said intolerance is an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. That is saying that if you don't tolerate criticism you are an obstacle to the growth of the democratic spirit. As someone who supports the Bush doctrine you should be jumping on board that.

Boy - taking a class from you must (have been?) be tough. You don't open up to different views very well.

We do agree on two problems with this speech though:
1. it isn't very clear, and
2. it raises Islam above its actual purpose of justifying a totalitarian theocracy.

@ David in Michigan

Thanks for adding context to the quote.

Just FYI. Attempts are underway in the US to give legal protection to the US flag against desecration.

"By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration."
www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_we/
Respect for Our Flag: Symbol of the Constitution

But of course Obama is neither a Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/bill_and_hillary_and_huma_and_anthony.html

"... As Bill Clinton once again takes center stage at the Democratic National Convention, let's amuse ourselves by screening the vilest soap opera in American history: Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony.

This one's got it all: two sham marriages, sexual perversions, and national treachery at the highest level. Naturally, the "mainstream media" refuses to inform you of it, but that's why I'm here.

If you've scratched your head trying to puzzle out the complex inter-relationships between these glamorous grifters, stop scratching. I'm about to unveil a Grand Unified Theory that explains why Huma Abedin, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood asset who's the top aide of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, chose to marry disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner in an interfaith ceremony performed by matrimonial expert Bill Clinton. ..."

rroe, nope, I continue to disagree with you.

After all, I could say that YOU also don't accept different views, so to declare that because I disagree with you means that I don't, as a general rule, accept different views, is an invalid argument.

Let's repeat the quote:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

It's in three parts.

The first part is simply an assertion that IF you 'slander' (criticize) Islam, THEN, you must not have a future. That's quite the assertion. It rejects free speech.

The second part says that in order to be justified in rejecting the criticism of one religion,[that's the credibility] then, you must also reject the criticism of all religions. Rejection of free speech.

The third part is a summary. It sums up criticism of any and all religions and says that such is slander; and slander is equivalent to intolerance (and we've already said that slander is also criticism). AND, that intolerance is actually an act of violence. And must be rejected.

This is quite the three-part argument.And quite the semantic distortions. Obama rejects free speech.

ET is correct.

Sentence 1: translation, "Shut up."
Sentence 2: translation, "Shut up."
Sentence 3: translation, "Really, just shut up!"

So basically, we should all just shut up and get back to work paying those taxes. Why? Don't ask why, Barry said and that should be good enough for you untermenchen.

MSM response: ...[crickets]...

And the polls would have us believe this guy is on track for Round Two in the little white house on Pennsylvania Ave.

Obama's teacher Saul Alinsky must be proud.

As for the rest of his speech, Obama is a pathological liar; his words are completely empty and irrelevant. He lives in a Bubble of Words. Unconnected to action, to reality. Therefore, his claims of helping others are empty nonsense.
- Who Else

BINGO with a BULLET.
Sorry to bang on about my current reading, but this analysis applies equally to Father Abraham, the American Moses/Christ who died for our sins and "saved the union". For example, it is now pretty well acknowledged that he was not a Christian but he quoted voluminously from the Saint James Bible. Sheer Bullshit just like our current Illinois-based thug.

diLorenzo makes exactly ET's point. That the academic Lincoln cultists focus exclusively on Father Abraham's WORDS and ignore his egregious totalitarian actions. And when they don't ignore such actions they pile on the contextual excuses and sometimes even approve of them.

Quoting the fuller Obama passage is pointless and irrelevant. It matters not one whit with what bumpf he surrounded the "don't slander Islam".

See his appointed Secretary of State who is actively engaging with the OIC for the express purpose of criminalizing Islam criticism. This is B Hussein O's agenda. Period. We will have noticed that there is ZERO pressure from this criminal den of islamo-marxists about the Christian genocide unfolding in Islamic countries. Zip.

Focus on the WALK not the TALK. Talk is cheap. Obama's is speech incontinent.

Just another speech, hardly when Muslim nations are clamouring for blasphemy laws at the UN and then the president of the US tells his people there is no future for those who slander Islam it's important because he sided with the Islamofascists publicly.

David in Michigan (7:30 AM):

IF, in the longstanding context of constant assaults on free speech in the west -- the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the death threats against writers and cartoonists who are forced to go into hiding with their families, the constant Muslim demands, including by statesman and prime ministers in Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey and elsewhere, for censorship of westerners who "slander the prophet of Islam", the recent riots and violence over some YouTube trailer that none of the rioters had seen, the murder of the US ambassador under the (proffered, fake) pretext of one single westerner's "slander against the prophet of Islam", etc. etc. etc. -- you are unable to correctly parse the significance and timeliness of Obama's statement that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam", and suggest that those who "take issue" with the statement are "partisan nut cases", you're just watching the proverbial hand.

Honestly, now: if Muslims hadn't been rioting and murdering people (including each other) to protest against the speech of westerners, including Americans, do you think Obama would ever have been moved to stand in front of the UN General Assembly to announce, as he did, that we must condemn the desecration of images of Jesus Christ? Do you think that thought -- those words -- would even have occurred to him, or entered his head, let alone that he would make such a statement at the UN?

You're ignoring the real-world context, and swallowing Obama's rejigging of it hook, line, and sinker. Yes, he's a mellifluous speaker, prone to making pronouncements on behalf of the world and the, um, oceans, but it's your own credulity that makes people who aren't so credulous, and a lot more aware of context, seem like "partisan nut cases."

Most of us understand exactly what "issue" he was addressing in his speech before the UN General Assembly.

Final comment to those who still believe that Obama spoke in some kind of secret subversive code when he used the phrase "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." You can twist it and analyze it and deconstruct it and reconstruct it and mock it but to the "normal" listener or reader it still comes out as simply a statement against hypocrisy and intolerance. If you see more than that then you are either being argumentive for it's own sake or your dislike for the policies of Obama are warping your commons sense.

I could careless what you think David, we know exactly what Obama meant, and do not forget Hildabeast supports the UN blasphemy motion.

David in Michigan, for you to declare that anyone who disagrees with your view of Obama's remarks is prone to 'conspiracy thinking' or is 'argumentative for its own sake' or because we 'dislike Obama's policies' and thus have a 'warped common sense'....is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

I could equally say the same of you for rejecting my own understanding of his speech.

I'll stand by my interpretation of his words. I won't repeat my parsing of those three sentences, but in my view, it's an accurate summation of his rejection of freedom of speech. As he said, criticism=slander=intolerance=violence. Whew, that's quite the semantic slither.

ET, you are right that Islam/ME wants special treatment despite the context of Obama's full quote. Anyway, VDH agrees with you in this amazing piece, which is worth a full read, but here's a tidbit:

"The paradox is not just that the well-off in London, Paris, and Washington are diffident, while the impoverished in Cairo and Tehran are fanatic, but that there comes also a certain sick awe in the self-loathing West for those who can at least be zealous in their self-righteousness, however repellent in the abstract that may be. One could see all this in Piers Morgan’s CNN interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The more the latter spouted his anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred and homophobia, the more the liberal former seemed mesmerized by such surety — in a way he most surely is not by Sarah Palin’s mild conservatism."

www.nationalreview.com/.../neurotic-middle-east-victor-davis-hanson

Shamrock, thanks for the link It's really a superb analysis by VDH. Here are a few quotes;

'Nor do we assume that a cure for prostate cancer could ever emerge from Tripoli as it might from Tel Aviv. The world will not be flooded by Syrian-made low-cost, durable products that make our lives better — comparable to what comes from South Korea. There will be not a Saudi or Algerian version of a Kia. High-speed machine lathes will not be exported from Pakistan as they are from Germany. I doubt that engineers in Afghanistan or Yemen will replace our iPads. The Middle East’s efforts in the production of biofuels will not rival Brazil’s. Libya will not send archaeologists to the American Southwest to help investigate Native American sites.'

NOTE: It's incredible how the MENA has invented and developed nothing. Absolutely nothing. Yet it's quite eager to use all of the West's incredible technological developments. Why is this? Can't they think? Ah, but Islam rejects reason and independent thought..

VDH writes: 'Exasperated Arab secular intellectuals sometimes confess that tribalism in place of meritocracy, statism in place of free markets, authoritarianism in place of consensuality, religious fundamentalism in place of tolerance, censorship in place of transparency, and gender apartheid in place of sexual equality combine in the Middle East to ensure poverty and violence.'

NOTE: Exactly. That's what I've been saying for years. So, what does VDH suggest?

'What can be done? A psychiatrist treating a delusional neurotic attempts to bring him slowly back to reality. In the case of the Middle East, that would mean in the long term defending vigorously the values of free speech, tolerance, and constitutional government — and not giving exemptions on the basis of fear or multicultural relativism. More practically, the U.S. must develop fully all its energy supplies — coal, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and alternative fuels — to reduce the strategic importance of the Middle East in U.S foreign policy.'

Exactly. We must reject their demands for their special treatment and we must encourage their transformation into the modern world of constitutional democracy, a middle class economy and freedom.

VDH continues: 'I don’t see how welcoming in Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy and giving her airtime on CNN and MSNBC has enriched the United States by providing us a keener understanding of Egypt — not when she uses spray paint to deface public posters that she personally finds objectionable.

To sum up, the West should just say, “No.
'
Perfect. The West must say NO. Instead, we've got an Obama, in his Bubble World of Words, telling them how great a civilization they are and how they'e contributed so much to the world (Cairo speech). And now, declaring that their rejection of our criticism of Islam must be dealt with by us, by stopping ALL criticism of ALL religions, for criticism is slander is intolerance is violence.

It should be obvious by now even to a 5 year old that Obama is a Sunni Muslim. From slips of the tongue, to the more concrete reality that he has Turned the World over into a Muslim Playground, while embassies burn. That he implies anyone but those who follow Mohammad have no future is like a nuke going off in a coffee shop. civilizations slandered. He has Ramadan in the oval office buy not Easter.
He plays footsies with Iran Wilkes like a good Sunni, shelters Saudi Arabia. Muslims are as eager to kill other Muslims as kaffurs. The only exception is Jews, who they would exterminate even with collusion of their enemies.

The American people do not deserve to have this election stolen by the Democrats.

me no dhimmi - I haven't read those books but they certainly seem enticing.

I long ago rejected the 'free the slaves' argument for the civil war; I can't imagine wars fought over ideology. Wars are economic.

My own view is that the US civil war was about economics: a North that was moving into an urban industrial economy, a small and medium business economy versus a South that was an agricultural large scale farming (cotton/tobacco) economy.

The cheap labour of the south in its method of wealth production versus the more expensive labour of the north... Plus the north was concerned about the ability of slave-owners who moved into industrial businesses would be able to out compete those who had to pay wages.

And an industrial economy that was expanding and therefore, focused on more centralized control of this expansion.

I don't think it had anything to do with any humanitarian reasons.

I continue to respect Islam exactly as it respects me.