Tag Archives: President Obama

“No faith teaches people to massacre innocents”

Posted on by
Reply

Between rounds of golf, these were President Obama’s remarks on the execution of journalist James Foley by Islamic State:

Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL. Jim was a journalist, a son, a brother and a friend. He reported from difficult and dangerous places, bearing witness to the lives of people a world away.

He was taken hostage nearly two years ago in Syria, and he was courageously reporting at the time on the conflict there. Jim was taken from us in an act of violence that shocked the conscience of the entire world. He was 40 years old, one of five siblings, the son of a mom and dad who worked tirelessly for his release. Earlier today, I spoke to the Foleys and told them that we are all heartbroken at their loss and join them in honoring Jim and all that he did.

Now, Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

Any thoughts while you’re at it about Hamas? Words are his specialty. Actions not so much.

FROM THE COMMENTS: This was an interesting observation from the Catallaxy comments thread whose accuracy would be useful to know:

“no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”

From Robert Spencer

It also says that Muslims must fight against the “People of the Book” – Jews, Christians, and others who are considered to have received previous revelations from Allah – until they “pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). That option of submission and subjugation, however, is not open to groups that have no written revelation that could qualify them for “People of the Book” status. Hence for the Yazidis, to convert or die are the only Qur’anic options open for them.

The great scholar and expert on Islam ( family in Kenya and schooling in Indonesia, for example, must have provided some exposure ) is being disingenuous.

Under Islam, the Yazidis aren’t even as low in the hierarchy as Christians and Jews. They are seen as idolators and devil worshipers and hence ‘not innocent’. This is another speech brought to you by the representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood apparently embedded through the US government.

So the bit left out of this speech is – ‘but it is righteous to slaughter kuffir’.

Obama – the dismissal

Posted on by
Reply

It has always seemed a plausible idea that Gough Whitlam sought his own dismissal in 1975. Overseeing a government that by then in virtually every respect was making economic conditions an absolute shambles – rapidly rising unemployment combined with rapidly rising inflation – while being caught up in the preposterous Khemlani Loans Affair, Whitlam’s was a government that was certain to enter history as amongst the worst if not the worst in Australian history. But having been dismissed by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, and then gone before the press to declare, “Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’ – because nothing will save the Governor-General”, he then went home and had a hearty lunch, reportedly in the best possible spirits.

Who now thinks of the Whitlam Government in the way it needs to be, as a massive failure, and a failure specifically because of the various aspects of socialist ideology that were the causes of the economic havoc that occurred? Whitlam’s name has been redeemed as a great martyr, rather than as a major political catastrophe.

I now think Obama wishes to take the same approach as Whitlam, to replace his reputation in history as an incompetent fool and see in its place his role as a martyr to impeachment and the forces of the right. That he deserves to be flung from office is obvious. If competence and results were the only issues then he would be. But since the issues would shift from competence to defying democracy, with major discussions of racism as the cause, he won’t be impeached, even though this may be his own dearest wish.

Here is an article that sees Obama in the same light as Whitlam: Obama wants to be impeached. I think myself this is true, not just because even if impeached he would never be removed from office, but because it would raise his standing in the polls. The Democrats could only wish the other side was stupid enough to do it. Although on this occasion no Congressional leader would go near any such action, it may be enough for others merely to raise the possibility for this to achieve its aim. And it does seem to be his aim.

President Obama insists on flirting with impeachment even as House Republican leaders insist there’s no such possibility.

Obama uses a passive-aggressive strategy that can be judged as a political maneuver, a personality disorder, or both.

Secure in the knowledge that impeachment is not the same as removal from office, Mr. Obama brings up the topic on his own and with bold defiance. Martyrdom goes well with a Messiah complex and Mr. Obama’s speeches are a non-stop litany of depicting himself as a victim of Republicans.

This for him would be political gold. Since the process would go on endlessly and divert attention from the more significant issues, it would be an act of political suicide. The article however delves into the psychological underpinnings of Obama’s character to explain his motives in daring others to impeach him:

His behavior matches the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of passive-aggressive behavior, “a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others.” Often, such persons see themselves as blameless victims, projecting fault onto others. Commonly, they follow erratic paths and cause constant conflicts.

Be that as it may, the politics of impeachment are clear. Any such move would help only Obama and the Democrats. Best to leave him where he is, a human wrecking-ball though he is. If after eight years of such governance the American constituency seeks to elect an Obama-clone of some kind, well them’s the facts. In the meantime we out here in the rest of the world will have to work out what to do when America has rolled itself up into an ungovernable socialist ball with little desire to assist its fellow democracies dealing with the various forms of tyranny we see at every turn.

Barbarism against Western civilization

Posted on by
Reply

Phyllis Chesler is by a long long way my favourite feminist. She has written an article on the traison de clercs which she has titled, J’Accuse whose significance and historical roots will be missed by the dumbed down members of the academy today. This is how it begins:

J’accuse every single Western academic, each intellectual and journalist who has ever circulated and signed a Resolution against Israel and in favor of Hamas is a supporter of Islamist barbarism against Western civilization.

They are the West’s equivalent of suicide (or really, homicide) bombers.

These are the professors and activists who are, essentially, anti-American in their point of view and who, like President Obama (who studied with them), want a de-militarized and diminished America. The 21st century manifestation of this sentiment in academia is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, whose aim is to starve the Israeli government by bullying even further already indoctrinated academics, artists, and businessmen into not working in Israel and/or into covering the news in only a pro-Hamas and pro-Palestinian way.

Support for Hamas is merely a particular instance of this hatred of our civilisation, not just the most prosperous in history but also the kindest and most open. That others hate us is how things happen. That so many within the citadel hate us as well may yet doom us, but if they are successful they will be responsible for the dark age that will be the successor civilisation to what we have now.

The Guns of March

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t know what this means but from Drudge:

SHOWDOWN: KERRY GIVES RUSSIA MONDAY DEADLINE

And the minor stories above the fold:

Russia Massing Military Forces Near Border With Ukraine… Developing…
Kremlin Bans Websites Critical of Gov’t…
Jittery customers run on banks in Crimea…

A weak president who wants to show he’s strong may be the worst of all at such times. More from Drudge, POLL: Putin stronger leader than Obama…:

Maybe it is the photos of him posing shirtless on horseback, or his military push into Ukraine, but Americans in a new poll believe Russian President Vladimir Putin is a much stronger leader than President Obama.

A YouGov/Economist survey of 1,000 adults interviewed March 8-10 found that 78 percent view Putin as somewhat to very strong leader. Just 45 percent see Obama the same way. Worse, more Americans, 55 percent, view Obama as a weak leader.

The poll comes as the president is struggling with a response to Putin’s push into Ukraine and expectations that Crimea will break off and join Russia.

Or maybe it’s because Obama really is weak and not just weak but has no idea what to do or even who to ask or listen to.

Squandering American prestige and honor

Posted on by
Reply

obama castro

Most of the Obama-related commentary on the funeral in South Africa is about his selfie with with David Cameron and the Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. But that wasn’t the blockbuster moment. John Hinderaker at Powerline explains the deeper significance.

Otto Reich, former assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, explains the damaging significance of Obama’s handshake:

The Castro brothers have been vying for the world to see a handshake with a U.S. president for over 50 years. (President Clinton did shake hands with Fidel at a U.N. summit in 2000, but there was no photo.) They knew it would represent a form of recognition, something they forfeited by virtue of presiding over a military dictatorship, and their support for violence and anti-American terrorist movements and governments on three continents.

Until now, every American president had studiously avoided this mistake: At U.N. and other gatherings U.S. Secret Service agents and diplomats were under orders to make sure such a ‘photo op’ so highly desired by the Castros did not happen.

With his greeting, President Obama has squandered U.S. prestige and honor.

All very subtle to you and me but not to those who count.

Ignorance rules

Posted on by
Reply

Government-run anything is a disaster waiting to happen, especially government-run governments. It is just that everyone seems to have to learn it for themselves. Our generation learned from watching the Soviet Union (what’s that? say all the under-40s). Now they have to learn it from their own soviet-type leaders, as with the Affordable Care Act in the US. This is taken directly off the Instapundit page as printed. Hilarious for the rest of the world; insanity for the US.

OCTOBER 21, 2013
BYRON YORK: President leads a surreal pep rally for ailing Obamacare.

There was a lot of speculation about what President Obama would say when he made his first extended remarks about problems with the Affordable Care Act. Would he apologize? Would he crack the whip on his own administration, pledging that no more mistakes would be tolerated? Would he attempt to deflect blame to the Republicans who have long opposed Obamacare?

What few observers expected, given the ongoing failure of the Obamacare exchanges, was that Obama would hold a pep rally for the troubled system. And yet that is what he did. . . .

The president made a few more brief mentions of Obamacare’s technical deficiencies during his 28-minute speech, but in the end his Rose Garden appearance bore a great resemblance to the campaign-style speeches he made selling the health plan when Congress was considering it back in 2009 and 2010. (Minus, of course, the now-discredited promise that anyone who has coverage and likes it can keep it under the new system.)

Nothing about the event seemed to go smoothly. For example, Obama said anyone having trouble with the Obamacare website could call an 800 number to apply for coverage. “You can get your questions answered by real people, 24 hours a day, in 150 different languages,” Obama said. But a short time later, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein tried the system and tweeted what he learned: “Can’t make this up. Got through to 800 number, followed prompts, and got referred to Healthcare.gov.”

Then there were the people Obama used as backdrops for his speech, people he said have “benefited from the Affordable Care Act already.” It turns out that was a stretch. One was a man who works in a Philadelphia restaurant, does not have health care through his employer, but has, according to a White House press handout, “recently used Healthcare.gov to process his application and is waiting for the options for potential plans.”

Another was a man just out of graduate school who has no health coverage but “is planning to enroll after he explores his coverage options on the D.C. exchange.” Yet another was a Tennessee small business owner who “was able to register through Healthcare.gov and now plans to comparison shop for the best plan that meets her budget and needs.”

As success stories go, they didn’t represent much success.

A short time after the president’s event, White House spokesman Jay Carney was either unable or unwilling to offer background on the website’s problems, on the testing that took place before the rollout, on the contractor involved, or on whether the administration will penalize Americans for not buying insurance when the website on which insurance is sold doesn’t work.

Talk about a bad day at the White House.

Even the traditional media are noticing.

And then immediately after – which means in time sequence, immediately before – we find this about the Canadian health care system.

OCTOBER 21, 2013
GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE: Surgery Caps In Canada:

“There’s even more demand and they’re cutting back,” he said, adding he doesn’t blame the hospital or the surgeon, opthalmologist Dr. Barry Emara. But he believes people who’ve paid taxes to the Ontario government all their lives should get prompt access to health care now they need it. “It’s like a car insurance company saying ‘We’ve had two many accidents this year, we’re cutting everyone off.’”

The problem, according to hospital CEO David Musyj, is that the number of procedures – when it comes to cataracts, hips replacements and knee replacements – is capped by the Health Ministry. And hospital officials (up until October, cataracts were done by Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, which has since transferred cataracts to Windsor Regional) were scheduling surgeries based on the previous year’s cap of 5, 022. Then in September, they learned the cap for the fiscal year that started April 1 would be 4,849. In 2010, there were 5,412 procedures, he said. In a guest column published in today’s Windsor Star, Musyj said the cuts are due to the continuing rise in health care costs and governments looking for ways to cope with them.

When the government runs health care, it gets worse, but more expensive. Kind of like health care websites. A move in the free-market direction would accomplish the opposite, but presents fewer opportunities for graft.

It’s bizarre how things can be ruined so quickly. No one any longer even knows how things work, specially the President of the United States and his Democrat allies. They have no idea like their Leninist friends and mentors.The damage they cause will be incredible.