It’s Not Just Obama’s Lies — It’s the Premise of Obama’s Lies
With CNN’s Candy Crowley shamelessly throwing President Obama a Libya life-preserver at Tuesday night’s debate, the so-called Mohammed video is back in the news. That ought to offend sensible people — and not just because the president, aided and abetted by Ms. Crowley, is lying when he now claims, despite weeks of denials, to have regarded the Benghazi massacre from the first as a pre-planned terrorist attack.
For weeks, Obama and his minions attempted to hoodwink the country into believing that the murders of our ambassador and three other Americans were triggered when Muslim protests over a “movie” virtually no one had seen spontaneously erupted into rioting. In fact, these Americans were killed precisely because Obama’s high-priority policy of embracing Islamists, in Libya and elsewhere, has empowered al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants. The policy’s current implosion, in the presidential campaign’s final days, has made a mockery of Obama’s pretensions about having decimated al-Qaeda — the only part of his record that the president thought it was safe to run on.
The video was the heart of the administration’s initial lie and subsequent cover-up. The assertion that it caused the latest atrocity was always untenable. Now that this causation claim has been blown out of the water, you might think that the video’s relevance has been destroyed along with it. But in a significant way, it has not.
Obama’s emphasis on the video as causation was so demonstratively false that detractors have focused myopically on the lying. This serves short-term political objectives: a president who richly deserves to lose is reeling with the election just 19 days away.
Nevertheless, long-term societal needs are being disserved. Focus on the administration’s serial lies has left unrefuted the obnoxious premise of these lies.
It is as though we have conceded that if the movie had actually triggered protests that led to violence (as Islamist protests are wont to do), responsibility for that violence would lie with the filmmakers. The culprit would be our culture of liberty and reason, not the anti-democratic culture of the Muslim Middle East.
That is dangerous nonsense.
Constitutionally protected speech can never be legitimized as a cause of violence. Period.
The administration has attempted to walk a disgraceful line on this. First, it has worked closely with Islamist governments for four years, endeavoring to carve out of the First Amendment’s carapace the protection of speech that criticizes Islam. Clearly aware that this is a rogue effort, Obama and his minions further suggest that the Constitution limits only what laws government may enact, not any extra-legal methods – what Secretary of State Clinton euphemistically calls “shaming” — by which government pursues ends the Constitution forbids.
We see this raw, bullying power in the speeches and nauseating Pakistani television commercials Obama and Clinton produced to reprove the video at taxpayer expense. These fundamentally betray the federal government’s principal duty to safeguard American liberties against foreign threats. We also see it in the Kafkaesque prosecution and detention of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, alleged producer of the video, on a mere probation violation. “Violations of supervised release,” as they are called in the biz, are numbingly routine. Convicts are rarely re-imprisoned over them absent a truly severe infraction. And even when such infractions occur, there is almost never any rush to adjudicate them — generally, the probationer is given a summons with notice to appear in court on his own recognizance with counsel; he is not arrested in his home by armed police in the middle of the night, as Nakoula was, as if he were a terrorist or a drug lord. That is not responsible law enforcement; it is abuse of power.
Finally, while the administration winks at the Muslim Brotherhood and prostrates itself before Islamist audiences, Obama lamely claims that his detractors are wrong: no, he maintains, he is not really saying that speech critical of Islam justifies violence; just that such speech is wrong and somehow blameworthy. But while there is never a whisper of complaint about the savagery of Islamists who kill — who brazenly declare the right to kill — over trivial slights, the president spares no indignant syllable in condemning free expression. The contrast is stark. Its inevitable effect is to immunize the marauders. This only intensifies the danger to Nakoula (whose movie no one would ever have heard of absent Obama’s promotional campaign) and to Americans who lawfully grapple with a threat over which the administration prefers to slobber — the ideology rooted in Islamic scripture that has led to the killings of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people (many of them Muslims) worldwide.
Put aside, if you can, the administration’s banana republic repression tactics. To accept the premise that a video, rather than the malevolent culture of Islamic supremacism, could possibly have caused the murderous attacks in Benghazi is not only to accept sharia’s suffocating blasphemy standards, it is to instill in our culture classical sharia’s noxious caste system in which Muslims, and only Muslims, are licensed to respond violently to criticism of their beliefs and icons. It is to eviscerate our constitutional commitment to equal protection under the law.
The last point would be bad enough — in fact, intolerable — even if Islam were only a religion.
In that case, we would “only” be excusing violent reactions to negative speech about Islamic spiritual principles — the kind of speech all other religious believers are expected to abide without forcible protest. But, as I explain in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the predominant Islam of the Middle East aspires to be far more than a religion.
That form of Islam, Islamic supremacism (or what we call “Islamist” ideology), is a thoroughgoing societal system. It dictates behavior in every aspect of life, including economics, finance, military combat, crime and punishment, legal evidence, social relations, hygiene — in short, the plethora of affairs that in the West are consigned to the judgment of the body politic, outside the control of any creed. Obama’s “no criticism of Islam” standard would thus render unfit for public discussion not only religious tenets but innumerable matters of great public importance. Naturally, the most urgent of these involve national defense, because Islamist ideology fuels the terrorist threat. But it is not just our security that is at stake; it is our capacity to maintain the free flow of ideas a self-governing people must have in order to flourish.
There is nothing new about crass provocation being passed off as art. What is new, and perilous, is the notion that it has become government’s place to condemn free expression, and based not on community standards of decency but on the political tastes of government officials. Government’s only proper role here is to protect the right to provoke. When government’s coercive power is put in the service of the heckler’s veto, when it becomes the “ad hoc nullification machine” by which corrupt officials smother constitutional protections that inconvenience their cronies, then that government is no longer legitimate.
It is not enough to reject Obama’s lies. It is essential to reject the premise of his lies. In our society, we get to say unkind things about icons, just as we get to speak vigorously in their defense. It is for us, the sovereign people, to weigh the merits of these competing claims without government’s meddling thumb on the scale. That is a big part of what makes Western civilization civilized.






Exactly, the problem is the policy of supporting Islamists, not just the PR moves that surround this incident. I hope this truth catches on as I see a lot of Republican commentators strategically supporting policies identical Obama’s while disagreeing on tactics.
“The culprit would be our culture of liberty and reason. . . ”
Sadly I see our culture regressing to one of control and compliance.
Here’s the deal – the Radical/Islamist-in-Chief hearts with Islamists. Moreover, his administration views American interests as parochial concerns, therefore, they will do anything to put America in its place. In the main, the above allows for a convergence of a red/green alliance, which is a grave detriment to liberty and freedom.
The fact of the matter is that Americans were given a backwards gift as a result of the POTUS’s lies – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/18/hillary-takes-the-fall-for-the-potus-in-bengazigate-but-there-is-a-silver-lining-shining-the-spotlight-on-huma-abedin-addendum-to-uncovering-the-tip-of-huma-abedins-spear-the-house-of-al-sa/
Why not make lemonade out of lemons?
Perhaps we non-islamists should demand the same rights for speech to which we object. We already accept blacks, hispanics and gays flying into uncontrollable rage over verbal slurs.
Catholics might demand life in prison for anyone crafting a mosaic of the Virgin Mary from cow dung or death for the “artist” who, with public funds, placed a crucifix in a jar of urine. The legal establishment might unleash the Jewish Defense League on arab cartoonists. Veterans should be able to “object” to flag burners in a more satisfying manner.
Generalize this concept of responding to offensive name calling. If someone refers me as a tea bagger, would I be within my rights to draw one of my Model 1911s and ventilate his cranium? If so, I may be able to embrace this new privilege.
When I was a child (many, many years ago) when someone aid something “mean”, the correct response was “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” (said in a sing-song voice.) That clear distinction between verbal aggression and physical aggression was made very clear, and responding to the former with the latter was unacceptable. What has happened to this country that that traditional wisdom has been so forgotten? Truly, the self-esteem movement in the schools and the media has destroyed the capacity to live independently of other people’s opinions. In my book, the guy who throws the first punch is the guy who truly started it, not the guy who smart-mouthed off. Apparently, self-control is passe in this culture. But them self-control is a civilized virtue, not practiced by barbarians.
Don’t forget that Obama did not grow up in this country. His first years were in Indonesia. Culture is very different. Watch Obama 2016.
I would support massive tantrums in the US …..and use my swifter as a weapon: I have never fallen under the spell of the man who claims the presidency, a president who is a chronic liar and whose wife thinks the US is just a special credit card, available for unlimited funds. He speaks of the middle class but lives better than many who have the private planes and status symbols of the verry rich….many of whom made their own money. Why did no one compare his speech in Germany with those of Hitler….also an orator. I don’t feel I have anything to apologize for. The Muslims or Arabs haven’t done much to improve the world since arabic numbers. I don’t think they even developed the technology for getting their oil out of the ground.
And it wasn’t the Arabs who developed “arab numbers” anyway. They were invented in India.
Something big is brewing. Keep an eye on this.
Weekly Standard reviews Tribune reporters’ book on Blago
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/10/20/weekly-standard-reviews-tribune-reporters-book-on-blago/
Huzzah Mr. McCarthy!
Here Here!
Crazy how they are so reflexively anti-freedom.
“The strategic goals of al-Qaeda have three focus elements:
Initial strategic focus: To drive overt and covert United States forces from
Muslim lands in the Near and Middle East. Covert American forces are
entrenched in Saudi Arabia. The country houses the most important Islamic holy places, including Mecca, the prime destination for millions of
Muslim pilgrims from around the world each year.
Second strategic focus: Halting the unqualified U.S. military and political
support for Israel.
Tertiary strategic focus: End the United States support and manipulation of
corrupt puppet regimes in Saudi Arabia and other dictatorships of the Near
East, Middle East, and North Africa.”
Look at the above quote. Obama’s ME policies are identical to AQ’s strategic focus. Great…
And what has all the genuflecting before Islamists bought Obama? They are sneering at and shaming him while he is fighting for his political life. Just like Jimmy Carter, Obama is learning that Islamists are not won over by or appreciative of wimpy, apologetic presidents. They will not share their success but rather use it to undermine erstwhile “friends.”
Obama not only brought all this on his own, but also to America.
It was predictable – beginning with his 2009 speech in Cairo, having the Muslim Brotherhood sitting in the front row, him being a member of said Brotherhood, signaled his intentions. Mubarek was ot invited to that speech – it was strictly to advertise his intentions of support for jihadists, but also his dismay against americans as a whole.
When he allowed jihadist into our government; invited CAIR to the table and, the rest of his posse, we should have known.
Hillary – with her muslim brotherhood member Huma Abedin, also joined obama, as we now know that she intended to ‘shame’ us into sharia and to deny our right in the constitution of ‘free speech’.
There’s a reason they have been arming not only AQ in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi, but also AQ in Syria to overthrow Assad.
By now – we all should understand and know, that obama and, hillary installing the muslim brotherhood all over the Middle East and, are advancing the same ideology right here in the US, either thru policies, the courts and the UN.
While the ‘Small Arms Treaty’ was somewhat sabotages by our side, she’s not done and, will try again – to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Obama, Rice, Powers, Clinton and Holder are neckdeep in overthrowing our form of government from within. It is the most pressing issue – to throw them all out coming November 6th.
I still say someone owes me 14 minutes of my life back. If this video had not received all this publicity I never would have watched it.
One problem is that the Coptic Christians are being held as hostages to keep us from speaking out in their defense. They have begged the west not to try to help them as it just makes their lives more dangerous. What would happen if we accepted their anti-defamation rule being pushed in the UN but then enforced it against their bull about Jews and Christians? Then again, how could we enforce it short of declaring war and destroying the whole middle east? What I don’t understand is how they can say we are defaming them when all we do is just quote verbatim from their own Koran? Are they saying their own god Allah is a bigot but must be defended continuously when called out on his bigotry? That kind of religion is nothing but the religion of thieves and murderers. When Mohammad and his followers were weak they preached love and understanding but when they gained strength they immediately changed their tune all the time claiming Allah commanded them to do it. To me, Mohammad was nothing but a petty warlord and caravan raider that was later, much later, made into a so called prophet by those that followed to justify their bloodlust and greed.
65 million people watched that debate and by now have accessed the transcript in the Rose Garden. Someone would have us believe that the majority believe that Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism at that time.
“Who you going to believe, us or your lieing ears!” The delusional narcissist wants others to accept his interpretation of his reality. If the voter buys it, the the president is not in a cover up, and the republic can go merrily off the cliff.
The ability to read with comprehension is yet another casualty of our “educational” system.
What our Muslim-sympathizer-in-chief has done to this country may at best take years to reverse, if ever. Elected in a perfect storm whose timing I still find more than suspect, Obama’s words and actions just continue to strain belief and stagger the mind.
And where are the people asking why Candy Crowley just happened to have those irrelevant Rose Garden transcripts on her desk, and how Obama knew about them…???
This election cannot come soon enough.
It was even more scripted than you think! Check this out:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/17/cnn-and-the-obama-administration-weapons-of-misdirection/
Obama knows the guy who asked the question… then he doesn’t know him and asks him his name. Oops!
With all due respect to Stevens, Woods, Doherty, and Smith,
the first casualty on September 11, 2012 was a vigorous defense of free speech by our president and his administration.
Romney was exactly right to criticize the Cairo Embassy statements, even before he knew the facts from Benghazi. Romney’s vigorous defense of free speech in no way disrespected those four men. It respected them, and their contributions, more than anything else Obama or Hillary has said.
There is no “That form of Islam…”. There is no “good Islam”. There is only “Islam”, and it is evil itself, in its entirety.
Like cancer, some is worse than others, but you don’t want to encourage any of it.
Hear! Hear!
Aye, hear ye him.
Right. Islam is in fact tyranny wrapped in religious garb. It is completely antithetical to the notion of individual freedom, such as our Declaration defines, and 100% opposed to the concept of limited government, as defined by our Constitution.
Islamic rulers are the ones left standing after scimitars, guns and bombs have done their flesh cutting and beheading. Brute force is the means. Capitulation and subjugation is what Islam means by “peace,” the ironic goal.
When every opponent is dead or in chains, yes, that is peace, according to Islam. Allah is the moon god, some spirit rebel, some second rate wannabe diety whose work is deception, leveraging the worst parts of a fallen human nature to create destruction, misery and death.
Let’s not kid ourselves. When spiritual ideology takes upon itself the objective of secular domination, with intolerance its primary doctrine, any American must know down deep that there’s something wrong with this so-called religion of peace.
Peace my ass.
Who ever would harm another in his god’s name bends his knee to Satan.
Just as one is either pregnant or not pregnant, one is either a friend of Free Speech or an enemy of Free Speech. There is no in between. There never has been and there never can be. Anyone who does not understand this, knows nothing about free speech. And anyone who even thinks about misapplying “Fire in a crowded theater” or “Fighting words” to try to justify what is clearing being held hostage to the lowest and most disgusting thing on the planet, Islam, knows even less than nothing about free speech..
Agreed, but beware the heckler’s veto. It’s dangerous legal territory to even entertain the idea.
Except without violence, actual or threatened, there is no “heckler’s veto”.
I condemn the action of the individual in the United States who made a film disrespecting the Great Prophet Mohammad. That action was hateful. It was intolerant, and it was extremely disrespectful. I condemn the actions of a small number of individuals who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Qur’an. Together with our Muslim Partners in Peace, we must secure and serve the people of the Muslim world.
Betray us. Again. And again.
Is the comment from GeneralPetraeus really from him or is it an attack on the real General Petraeus. It sounds like a well-deserved satire on what General Petraeus (and his boss, President Obama) say.
It appears that many of the top brass are careerists willing to play yes men even to this President who despises us and our military. OK, he is their Commander in Chief, but must they lie constantly to give him cover?
Remember that every promotion to general / admiral, 1-5 stars, must be confirmed by the Senate. While it is usually automatic, it doesn’t have to be, and officers who aren’t politicians aren’t promoted.
“But while there is never a whisper of complaint about the savagery of Islamists who kill — who brazenly declare the right to kill — over trivial slights, the president spares no indignant syllable in condemning free expression.”
So that’s explains why, according to this administration, the newsworthy speech offense of the week is Romney daring to talk about binders. It’s not a big deal that people are calling for Romney’s death and election riots on social networks. Suddenly Twitter is the hot social hub for Obama supporters openly blending the Islamist model of death threats combined with the George Soros post election uprising model. Looks like an organized political marriage there and not any kind of “normal” mass post-debate psychosis.
Maybe Barack will go before the UN and declare that the future does not belong to those who slander women with dangerous speech about binders.
This is what wannabe revolutionaries do. They dream of the 1960′s, when we had groups of these thugs acting out their political fantasies. One, Bill Ayers, just happens to have boosted Obama into politics.
He’s not American, is he? Obama has a third world mindset.
I would so love it if Mitt would school Obeyme in the last debate about the first amendment, according to the excellent points brought up by this article. Thanks Barry for alerting us to not drift into some kind of “new normal” that erodes our basic individual rights.
I’m sorry! Thank you ANDREW.
I wish Mitt Romney would choose him to head the DOJ. We need someone like him.
Anonymous,
I have serious doubts he’s American by birth either. It will come out someday. It took years for Lance Armstrong to be exposed sadly. The truth has a way of scratching and clawing its way to the surface.
I’ll bet he actually WAS born here,
But under such “Sketchy” circumstances with his floosie/freak of a mother running all over the place, it was possible to play both sides later on in life….
Thats is to say, I think he (they) invented a plausible and lightly “documented” version of a foreign birth, just enough to play the Ivy League/Affirmative Action system, and are having problems covering THOSE tracks, which is why his college records are so tightly sealed.
Think of it…I’d have more sympathy for a truly foreign born INFANT, who had no control over his parents creating a fake “Hawaiian Birth Certificate” than I would for an Obnoxious Privileged Leftest Teenager DENYING his American birth in order to exploit/cooperate with the generally Anti-American sentiments of Leftest Academia. And then trying to “switch it back” and making a real mess of it all.
His whole Birth History does not add up, but maybe not for the reasons most people are thinking.
And THATS why they laugh so confidently at the Birthers….
who just might be barking up the wrong tree.
I think that obama has been covering up the fact that he repeatedly said that he wasn’t born in the USA. Just look at how he claimed to be foreign born in the blurb about his book. He was desperate to cover up the fact that he is a serial liar.
“Government’s only proper role here is to protect the right to provoke.”
I wish we had heard this from some government official immediately after Benghazi.
Politicians on the right as well as the left have gone out of their way to accommodate Muslims delicate “feelings” by calling the film “disgusting” or “reprehensible” or in some way voicing their disapproval.
In my opinion all this genuflecting to Islam is what was disgusting and reprehensible. That making apologies for a movie is even considered is an indicator of how far America has already fallen.
The appropriate response from the U.S. Government should have been a reflexive: “in America we have the freedom of speech and we will defend it against any one who tries to interfere. It is not the government’s place to make any comment whatsoever on the content of a movie.”
This was very well stated. We are not at war with “terror.” We are not at war with “Afghan insurgency” or even with “Al Queda” except in that they are a part of a much larger and inclusive enemy.
We are at war with Islamic Jihadists. This transnational movement is the 21st Century version of European colonialism. They intend to take over the world, while our President apolgizes, excuses, condemns free speech, and bows and scrapes past the graveyard.
Mickey, that’s the most interesting take on it all that I’ve ever read
and when I think about it, I have to agree with you.
So what you are saying is we’ve become the new native peoples of this land and here come the settlers.
Antrax, white powder will become the smallpox infested blankets. There’s no end to where one’s imagination can go with this.
Damn, payback is, and sure will be a bitch
Sorry, Mickey, read the Koran. From its’ foundation, Islam has divided the world into the Dar al Islam and the Dar al Harb, and made it quite clear that the latter will convert or be enslaved or killed.
“We are at war with Islamic Jihadists.”
I think the most accurate term is “islamic supremacist.” I believe that is the one Mr. McCarthy prefers as well.
But if you’ll permit me….
Please recall that at his press conference on 9/12, in his reply to the final insolent questioner still trying desperately to nail him on the prematurity of his remarks, ”when all the facts weren’t known,” Romney made it utterly clear that it was precisely this apology for America’s Second Amendment rights that he was specifically addressing, a fact that indeed was known at the time of his remarks, saying quite sharply: “ I spoke out when the key fact that I referred to was known, which was that the embassy of the United States issued what appeared to be an apology for American principles. That was a mistake. And I believe when a mistake is made of that significance, you speak out.”
Make that First Amendment!! (As the old saying goes, “those who would presume to teach must first learn.”)
If the progs would just tell the truth they would not have to spend untold hours explaining what the meaning of is, is. Just today an obama flack screamed at Megan Kelly and her other guest when they dare to say that Susan Rice went on 4 or 5 news shows and blamed the attacks on the video. He said that was not true. Even after Megan played sound bites he still insisted that Rice never said the words she said. It must be difficult to go through life blaming others when you are caught in a bold faced lie.
Bald-faced, not bold-faced. Bald-faced means no covering; No hair, no mask.
I really get tired of people using words and terms they do not know, thus losing the real meaning and power of them. I see this from the young pundits at townhall.com, all the time.
Another one I see a lot is “flaunting” instead of “flouting” (the law or the Constitution).
Does it matter? Yes, because when you get them wrong, you look ignorant, and your arguments get dismissed. The terms lose their power, and so do your arguments. You also represent our side very poorly, when you try to use terms you do not understand.
I appreciate precision in language. It is a lost art. Your clarification was helpful, but you did not need to slam the writer. A blog comment does not need to be perfect. Would you silence those who have something to say if their writing is not up to your exalted level? Perhaps your role is to clean up the horse poop after the parade has passed.
anybody. How stupid of you to say that. He did the writer a favor, in fact.
And you choose to invoke “horse poop” yet.
“It’s just the last 5 years or so that “bold” has come into usage. It refers to typeface. It is used metaphorically in speech. In the same way that a typesetter uses bold face type to highlight specific text and set it apart, a bold face lie stands out in such a way as to not be mistaken for the truth.”
we get it: you are so smart.
I get tired of critics.
we get it already, you are the smartest guy on this thread (kinda’ like obamma).
I get tired of the critic.
Mr McCarthy
I wrote this comment under a misapprehension of what your issue was. I thought it was that Islam is a ‘society system’. When I went back and discovered that your issue was “Obama’s ‘no criticism of Islam’ standard would thus render unfit for public discussion not only religious tenets but innumerable matters of great public importance,” I was tempted to delete the comment. But I think it is important to clarify the matter of a ‘societal system’, so I choose to leave the comment – knowing that it is tangential to the point you are making.
You said:
“That form of Islam, Islamic supremacism (or what we call ‘Islamist’ ideology), is a thoroughgoing societal system. It dictates behavior in every aspect of life, including economics, finance, military combat, crime and punishment, legal evidence, social relations, hygiene — in short, the plethora of affairs that in the West are consigned to the judgment of the body politic, outside the control of any creed. Obama’s “no criticism of Islam” standard would thus render unfit for public discussion not only religious tenets but innumerable matters of great public importance.”
A possible implication of this statement is that the problem with Islam is that it is a ‘societal system’. But that is not its problem. Judaism is also a societal system. For millenia, Jewish communities have been governed by Jewish law which covers every aspect of life – family, social, business, hygiene, food, charity, and time and space – as well as all the religious aspects. Until starting in the 19th century in Europe when Jews gained citizenship of the countries in which they lived, Jewish legal matters were brought to Jewish courts – and in some communities they still are. The reason Jews have moved seemlessly into accepting civil jurisprudence is that so much of our civil jurisprudence and what we consider civil behavior comes to us through the Pilgrims and the other early colonists who were steeped in knowledge of the Bible.
Christianity accepted the Jewish Bible and included it together with their own gospels and epistles. That means they read the Five Books of Moses and the histores, the prophets and the psalms, and Job and Ecclesiastes – all with strong moral messages. Christians do not accept the 613 commandments but they do accept the Decalogue and they do accept the moral framework.
Islam never incorporated the Bible. The so called stories in the Koran that are ostensible retellings of Biblical narratives are revisions with a vengeance. For one thing, it is not God who created the world or caused the flood – it was angels. That is such a fundamental transformation that even if all the details of the retelling were accurate, the moral imperative is lost and therefore the significance of the story is denied. Not having the Bible, Islam also does not have its moral framework. One significant aspect of that framework is: Live and let live. Bnai Yisrael was commanded to conquer the land that had been promised to their forefathers. They were not commanded to go beyond those borders.
Islam has no borders. The Koran teaches its adherents to conquer all. That is the problem with Islam – the conviction that it has the right to force its belief system on everyone it comes in contact with – and not only its belief system but also its social values and mores.
There is a commandment in the Torah to obey the judge of your times. In this way, Judaism has been able to evolve through the millenia, as rabbis made decisions in accordance with both the Bible and the social mores of the times. And not only through the rabbis – but it is quite evident (to me at least) that there was already an evolution during the course of the history that is recorded in the Bible. In general, that evolution has been in the direction of alleviating the difficulties that a strict reading would impose.
Islam makes no allowance for evolution of this kind. In fact, the principle of abrogation favors the harsher interpretation over the more lenient interpretation.
These are the problems with Islam – not that it is a ‘societal system’.
How about if we say Islam is an evil societal system? As opposed to just a societal system?
How about if we say that Islam is an evil societal system that has overstayed its welcome and has no place in a civilized world, and should never be defended or apologized to.
Islam is not merely a collection of beliefs about their god and their god’s expectations for people, Islam also is a political movement, a justification for military action and war. Granted most Muslims don’t take their beliefs so far as to fight us kafirs, but it is part of their belief.
The odd thing about this is that the Left considers themselves to be the go-to iconoclasts, never realizing that when an “alternate” view is mainstreamed and institutionalized, it ceases to occupy any type of ground that could be seen as a perceptual breakthrough. The recent stupidity of Tom Morello and his supporting cast at the Kennedy Center speaks to this. Really, there’s no one left to fight, but the Left continues to rail against now vanished bogeymen and ignores the new ones.
Forget about the fact that the fundamental imperatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Congressional Black Caucus are little different from the modern KKK – it’s all in one’s point of view, historical oppression, and not in one’s principles.
The Left is still fighting the ’50s and indeed accuses the Right of wanting to go back to those times of Jim Crow and women who knew their place and Ozzie and Harriet.
The Left goes after soft targets, ones which don’t really react all that much, such as straight, white men, the Catholic church, etc.
Real iconoclasts with truly new points of view are normally reviled, or, as in the case of the Nakoula film, reviled simply for going after the wrong target, and a protected one; one that fights back. The Left, bereft of principles, can only see bigotry and racism in all the old places. Without a monocle and hood to guide them, new sources of racism, especially among groups protected by PC, is simply not seen.
Obama: “When four Americans get killed, it’s not OPTIMAL”
This sounds like a community college graduate testifying in court about his mothers car being impounded for lack of payment. “Your honor, this situation is just not optimal for my mother situation”, so says little Johnny.
No offense to community college graduates, this guy is President.
President Obama, name one word that describes your campaign? Strategery!
“The government is a big operation. At any given time, something screws up and you make sure you find out what’s broken and you fix it.”
-barack obama, on the daily show.
we know what’s “broken”. america gets it’s chance to “fix” this “screw up”, november 6th.
Obama’s all for free speech, unless he doesn’t agree with it.
There is one issue with the LYING USURPER and the biased moderator which deserves far more in depth investigation.
When they were discussing Benghazi Romney made the point ” you never called it Terrorism for two weeks” . Obama made a sneering face then instructed the moderator ‘Get the transcript’ which she then held up and completely misinterpreted it in the USURPERS favour.
This raises some extremely important questions.
1) Of all the millions of debate relevant documents she could possibly have transcripts of why did she have that one.
2) How did Obama KNOW she had it and why was he so SURE she would support HIS contention regarding it.
It is impossible that he guessed she might have it and impossible that just by chance she had it too. Quite clearly there was pre-debate collaboration between the USURPER and the moderator.
Yep, Having all the bases covered in the event of an epic fail is what these guys do well. That’s why there have to be so many czars and a plethora of minions everywhere; or they could not contain the water with every hole that appears in the dyke. C.S.Lewis describes this so well in “The Screwtape Letters”; it’s how evil works to influence and control people. As for anyone being surprised that Candy Crowley had been given a thorough briefing before the debate; that shows a complete lack of not only understanding, but a lack of a martial mind set. THAT’s why we need warriors as POTUS’s and warriors as Congressmen … our watchmen have been asleep and now we have been given a wake-up call …. …
Correct it is disgraceful to offer the first amendment as blame
Anti American in the extreme
It would be nice to have a president who defended not just the Constitution, but the universal principles behind it, such as freedom of speech. Sadly, Obama cannot bring himself to do either.
Although I’m not a woman, I feel I speak up for possibly the most open, honest, aboveboard President in the history of this disappointing nation. I use that word because of its treatment of the poor, the huddled and the masses who don’t have huge bank accounts but rather small rooms in which they huddle in the winter for the necessaries of life; heat, food, warming clothing.
In fact, as a boy, Obama learned early the life of a have not; the one parent house, having done his homework, he would pensively wonder what it would be like to live in a country that took care of its less fortunate.
Quoted Obama last year, in his third year, Obama could only hope the people’s letters and emails could “convince selfish, unfeeling people like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney to consider taking care of the little guy; the have nots.
For this reason, Obama set upon a mission to redistribute the nation’s wealth. The rich must pay their fair share to the government in the form of high taxes so that money could not only be transferred; turned into light and heat and warm clothing for the poor, and also bring down the debt to the point where this nation, like under Bill Clinton, finally ran a surplus. The 16 trillion debt no longer an issue, private enterprise could not take off like a rocket and provide tens of millions of jobs, giving everybody a fair shot at the American Dream.
Although unpopular with the rich, to show their good faith, the Obama administration is seriously considering a system where poor and rich families switch homes for a month. Producers all over are clamoring for the rights to this idea. Obama feels that in the end, the rich will start to empathize with the much less fortunate and make the switches permanent; on the theory the rich can always start a successful business anew, while the poor don’t get up early enough in the morning when the job of business is done.
As a bystander, (and ardent Obama supporter) I really think Obama has great ideas that will end up helping all strata of life in these United States, especially if military spending is cut by more than half, the money going to the poor, huddled masses, in the one bedroom apart, so cold in the winter their pens freeze up and their fingers turn numb.
Although Obama didn’t experience these sensations in Hawaii, Obama has a huge talent for empathizing with the poor and can actually hold a ball point pen in his hand and cause the ink inside it to freeze.
Before I conclude, I should mention that it was Ryan and Romney who produced the video that caused the attacks in Benghazi. Even though, you may not have heart this fact, it’s been verified by both Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi, two more honest people you couldn’t find if you searched for a lifetime.
It as Obama who first realized terrorist also were in cahoots with the video maker and, rest assured, as in the case of the voter intimidating Black Panthers, the names of the perpetrators of the murders in Benghazi will be brought to justice in New York City. I
Oh hell yah….. even though I’m not really rich, I’d love to change places with a poor person. Let them deal with unreasonable governmental regulations, have to meet with entrenched, overpaid government lackey’s trying to shut down the business I work for, and actually earn the money they spend.
I’d love to sit at home watching my 42″ flat screen, wearing my $300 sneakers, talking on my obamaphone for endless hours at taxpayers expense, buying beer and twinkies with my welfare checks/food stamps and visiting local casinos to bolster their surrounding economies, spend endless hours with my OWS brothers and sisters protesting anything and everything and fouling the environment with my bodily fluids.
Sounds great to me…..
This is a put on, right ?
If not, let me be the first (maybe not the first) to inform you that you are completely insane, including, but not limited to…
“…it was Ryan and Romney who produced the video that caused the attacks in Benghazi. Even though, you may not have heart this fact, it’s been verified by both Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi, two more honest people you couldn’t find if you searched for a lifetime.”
(never trust a writer that can’t spell Pee-losi
)
“We see this raw, bullying power in the speeches and nauseating Pakistani television commercials Obama and Clinton produced to reprove the video at taxpayer expense.”
So, when do we get our $70,000 reimbursed, Mr. Obama?
Watching from afar Obama is like the warning beware the false prophet.
Excellent work, Mr. McCarthy. And while you’re correct in your analysis; there’s one component that has been really troubling me which I haven’t heard many address. If you’ve seen the video (I have), the first thing you notice is how mind-numbingly DUMB it is. It’s more stupid than it is offensive. BUT… while watching it, I got very uncomfortable with the audio overdubs – they’re clumsy at best – but seem to contain all the offensive parts. It really looks like someone took a video that was stupid, and overdubbed audio simply to make it as offensive as possible.
This creates the uncomfortable perception that this was a setup of some kind. Either this video was some sort of “White House-generated excuse” that was kept handy in case it was needed (and then failed when it wasn’t sufficient enough), or perhaps the whole thing is being used as some sort of community organizing leverage precisely to force the “islamic free speech exception” issue and give Da Preezy something to lecture the UN about.
But one thing’s for sure – there’s something going on here we’re not being told. And in either case, rounding up this poor director guy just made me sick. Although… since we haven’t really seen a photo of him, and he seems to have several names… he just may be an actor playing his part in this fraud as well.
Obama’s carefully contrived “gotcha” moment with Mitt in the second debate regarding the 9/11 Rose Garden speech was, at the very best, a Pyhrric victory for Obama (and I’d argue, not even a victory of any kind). Sure, he could smugly point to the amiguous phrase “acts of terror” in the speech… at the cost of focusing LOTS AND LOTS of unwanted attention on the issue, with a rising chorus asking “if you knew (as you claim) on the morning of 9/11 that this was a terrorist attack, why did your Administration spend two weeks saying otherwise?”.
And I really do hope Mitt hammers him at the next debate on the issue of why, WHY ON EARTH, did the President of the United States stand before the UN General Assembly and denounce “blasphemy” and “those who slander the prophet of Islam”?! That this outrage hasn’t received more attention absolutely baffles me.
“It is as though we have conceded that if the movie had actually triggered protests that led to violence (as Islamist protests are wont to do), responsibility for that violence would lie with the filmmakers. The culprit would be our culture of liberty and reason, not the anti-democratic culture of the Muslim Middle East.”
Mr. McCarthy, with all due respect, I reply with a Tonto-like “waddya mean ‘we’, Paleface?”. I, and other conservatives with whom I’ve conversed on the subject, have conceded no such thing. Of *course* the underlying problem is Islamist totalitarianism and violence; but I can’t vote al Qaeda out of office, can I? Our focus on the Obama Administration’s oily equivocations regarding what happened in Benghazi is based on this being a direct, concrete, immediately-comprehensible (even to “low information voters”) issue in the imminent election.
With CNN’s Candy Crowley shamelessly throwing President Obama a Libya life-preserver at Tuesday night’s debate…
It was so stupid, insisting that Obama’s vague reference to acts of “terror” on September 12 somehow obviated the fact that he subsequently blamed the video for 2 solid weeks.
Obama, sitting on his stool, cheering Candy on.
Embarrassing.
Also stupid, “We wanted to be sure of all the facts before we said anything.”
If you wanted to be sure of all the facts (mostly known immediately to the people at the state dept. getting real time reports from Benghazi), why in hell blame a video for 2 solid weeks ?
For statists like Obama, what speech is allowed (along with everything else) must be entirely within their control.
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors…That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny…Only the wicked Governours of Men dread what is said of them…”
~Benjamin Franklin
The culprit would be our culture of liberty and reason, not the anti-democratic culture of the Muslim Middle East…Obama and his minions further suggest that the Constitution limits only what laws government may enact, not any extra-legal methods – what Secretary of State Clinton euphemistically calls “shaming” — by which government pursues ends the Constitution forbids.
The perfidy of these dissemblers, constantly attempting to re-define reality in order to tune it to their agenda.
…(this administration) has worked closely with Islamist governments for four years, endeavoring to carve out of the First Amendment’s carapace the protection of speech that criticizes Islam.
Nominated for stupidest statement of the year, Obama’s utterance before the United Nations, 2 solid weeks after the attack in Benghazi. (He referenced “the video” 6 times in that speech.)
“The future doesn’t belong to those who insult the Prophet Mohammed.”
Bet me.
To understand how short a period of time is available to preserve the right to free speech which is the foundation of a civilized society – may I refer all the readers and commenters to Leonard Peikoff’s book The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out. Thank you
To understand how Obama and his minions are racing to squelch this right and annihilate the United States of America please see http://www.peikoff.com/election/
GETTING BACK TO THE LIE ABOUT THE VIDEO CAUSING THE DEATHS IN BENGHAZI:
1) Obama’s Team would never have lied about the deaths in Benghazi if it didn’t think it had the media in its pocket and could get away with it;
2) There’s little doubt that Obama’s policy decisions — foreign and otherwise — are not run out of the White House. They’re run out of Chicago and the re-elect committee
Andrew, thank you for pointing out the obvious. Your points came to mind while reading about the apology in Pakistan by Secretary Clinton. If a “piss Jesus” display can exist in New York under 1st Amendment protection, so can insults to Islam, however amateurishly produced.
Obama and the rest of the vile left would have us believe that Benghazi was simply a movie review that got out of hand. They have no intention of defending that most essential American value, the right of free speech. That proves they have no concept of what it means to be an American, which also means that, regardless of what it says on their passports, they are not Americans. Once again, they have proven that they are nothing but a tumor on the body politic.
In a free society, there is no right not to be offended. Only a warped society with a feminized mindset catering to hurt feelings could contemplate let alone believe otherwise. In the final analysis, government should never be the source of rights since it can then take them away. Instead, government exists to protect unalienable rights already given by God.
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Why is it that no one mentions that at the beginning of the same Rose Garden speech that Obama blames the death on the movie:
***Obama in Rose Garden: “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. “***
It’s clear that the 2d paragraph is referencing the video. And, it calls the killings “senseless violence”, not ‘a terrorist act’.
When push comes to shove, and it eventually will – even in America – so-called “moderate” Muslims will be as scarce as moderate Germans under the Third Reich.
Social and pathological liars are most prominent in the middle east and Africa. Extreme living conditions, both environmental and political, make lying not only a way of life but a method of survival. Although christian teachings denounce lying as a crime against man and God, Islam only recognizes a complete and absolute resolve to their religion and especially imposing their beliefs on all societies. If lying promotes the teachings of Mohammed then it is accepted as a methodology and not chastised as deformation of character. In other words – “you is what you is”.
the monster in the WH hates us and US. He is the figurehead of the Leftist and Liberal monsters combined with the racist Blacks. An evil homosexual who had his deviants murdered to cover his evil sins. Try him and the scum that spawned him. The most severe penalties are demanded. Including public trial and execution for treason for his cohorts if found guilty.
Romney missed a good opportunity last night to say that Obama has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. He said it was important that we show we are on the side of the freedom and democracy element of those in the Arab Spring, but by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, we show that we are on the wrong side. That’s why the freedom lovers pelted Mrs. Clinton’s car with tomatoes when she got to Egypt.