UPDATE: I'll say that he did 3 and 5 but not 1, 2, and 4. I thought, overall, that the President seemed tired and bored. He took a lecturing tone, telling us what we need to do, anticipating that we have trouble distinguishing between radical Islamist terrorists and the rest of the world's Muslims:
We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They are thugs and killers. Part of a cult of death. And they account for a tiny fraction of a more than a billion Muslims around the world, including millions of patriotic Muslim-Americans who reject their hateful ideology.It was notable that he made a separate statement about what Muslims need to do:
If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies rather than push them away through suspicion and hate. That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. It's a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote. To speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.So he's not trying to hide that the terrorists are Muslim, and he wants nonterrorist Muslims to actively propound a good version of Islam, with the right values. It's "the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization," he says, and "the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination" against Muslims, a "betrayal of our values [tjat] plays into the hands of groups like ISIL."
Posts
94 comments:
1. Resign office.
Did you just get out of a seven year coma?
I would be pleased if Obama announces that he has lost the support of the electorate and will resign, effective immediately.
Be prepared to be disappointed.
It will be everything is fine. We will degrade and destroy ISIS. Generalities. Nothing.
Obama is a complete joke.
I suspect he'll spend the next 13 months daring the House to impeach him.
Obama will consult his magic 8-ball.
Disappointment is coming, I think.
He needs to keep on controlling the weather so well. That is his only known skill. Thanks to his work to replace efficient coal electrical production with worthless windmills, the climate has not warmed at all over the last 19 years, of which Clinton can claim 4, Bush 8 and Obama 7.
And he has single handedly restored the Persian Empire's power while he destroyed our military Institutions. That's a lot for one man.
And at least 20 references to I, me or mine.
History is all about Barack because he is historic.
well..I believe he has already told folks gun control is his next big focus..while he scares ISI_ with climate talks.
Whatever he says conservatives won't like it. I'd like to hear him tell the nation that he is the Commander in Chief and he will do what it takes to keep the nation safe, if it is humanly possible. In the near future the Congress needs to vote to give him the war powers he will need. It's pretty amazing that the Republican majority Congress objects to overreach regarding Obamacare, yet is just fine with allowing Obama unilateral action regarding military involvements. Also lets not be hypocritical about intrusions onto our personal communications, while demanding the Obama Adminstration stops terrorists acts before they happen. Realistically we will can't have it both ways.
As an aside, just looked at Berno's twit feed for 12/2..just bits o gun control..nothing on "radicals". Just lumps all gun violence together...355 mass shootings this year, he says. Maybe Obama will repeat that figure.
1) Tell us you're going to fire Ben Rhodes as your national security adviser.
That will mean he is serious about getting this right. The rest will fall into place if he hires someone with a head on their shoulders and some knowledge of enemy we face. Lot's to choose from, but odds are he'd replace one commissar with another.
You will go zero for five. He will call it an isolated incident, blame easy access to guns and demand Republicans stop their inflammatory rhetoric.
Althouse, your one-through-five leave Obama with Nothing.
You are asking for him to show us something he never has before, but it isn't there: he has already shown us every one of his gimmicks and tricks.
Most more than twice.
The evening show has the same script as the matinee.
I am Laslo.
Take responsibility for a change.
David Begley said everything I was going to say.
Mingus nails it. You're going to be disappointed, Althouse. Which is too bad 'cause you're also going to be the only sentient person watching.
I don't need him to do anything. I've given up on him.
He will declare war on Republicans.
"What I want is: 1. Don't tell us what to do (e.g, remain calm, don't be afraid), 2. Don't mention gun control, 3. Don't let it show that this is for the partisan benefit of the Democrats (even though, I assume, it must be), 4. Be specific about new things that you will do, and 5. Don't pass it off to a need for an international coalition or for Muslim countries to step up and do the fighting."
1. He will tell us what to do and what to do is to call our congressman and insist on "doing something" about out of control gun ownership. 2. see #1 3. Republicans are standing in the way of "common sense" gun control laws. 4. See #s 1 through 3. 5. He will call on an international coalition to help.
My bet is he will not use the term Islam or Muslim except to say that he is standing by to unleash holy hell on those responsible for the surge in hate crimes against the peaceful ROP and its peaceful adherents. World wide.
Ann, good luck with all of that. I am assuming 0 for 5.
He'll say whatever Valerie Jarret wrote for him.
I'm to the point where I prefer a transcript I can zip through. The invariable attempt to on one hand reassure while scolding inaction will be detestable.
#1, 2, & 3 would require him to rise to the occasion and lead. I no longer think he is capable of doing so. I hope I am wrong.
"What I want is." Sorry, ma'am, no early Christmas for you. And you do know that Santa ain't real, don't you?
But y'all are being too harsh on O. He'll get to IS--sorry, ISIL--right after he stops the oceans from rising. First things first.
What do I need him to do?
Well, he could double down on reaching out to the Muslin community with NASA.
Or, he could hold the largest the largest climate conference in the history of the world. In the US this time. That should bring ISIS/ISIL/ISALYS to heel.
Or, since Obama has said that “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”, he could play it for us tonight from the oval office.
I find myself, for the first time, agreeing with Laslo Spatula. His comment @6:36 PM
is pretty much spot on.
Cease fires in Syria? What's he talking about?
He will contain, degrade and destroy a straw man argument that exists only in his imagination.
Does anybody really care what he says? Does anybody think anything he says will matter in the least?
Ah..no mention of "gun control"..but a mention of "gun safety measures". Altparse worthy...
@Althouse, are you and Meade going to drunk blog his speech? Anyway thanks for watching so I don't have to.
@Georgie, if you trust Barack Obama to do the right thing and display leadership you are the last person in the country who does.
0 for 5
Did the President say "Let me be clear..."? I don't think he did.
Georgie said...
Whatever he says conservatives won't like it.
Obviously, if Obama said he was resigning, conservatives would like it very much.
More seriously, Obama is the most left-wing president in the history of the United States, Georgie. There is almost nothing he and conservatives agree on. If he did say something conservatives liked, his liberal base would hate it.
And what is this nonsense about Islam? Does he think Islam is like Episcopalianism? There have been fatwas endorsing slavery even in the 21st century.
He will point out that a firebomb fried sixteen people recently, and we need better smoke alarms and more restrictions on fire
How about something like:
"Gun control and gun safety are intertwined. The person who knows how to control their gun, good sight picture, deep breath and so on, is going to be a safer shooter.
Therefore, I am proposing a new federal firearms license. This license will have two components: First, the licensee will need to go through a background check as they do now when buying a gun. Second, they will need to complete a shooting class with the NRA or other organization.
Licensees will then be permitted to buy, own, swap and legally use guns with no further documentation.
Education is a key to good gun control and safety. We used to have shooting clubs in our schools. Perhaps it is time to bring them back. I am directing the Secretary of Defense to make an inventory of all weapons under department control that are excess to their needs. These will be distributed to high schools that organize shooting classes, clubs and other activities in cooperation with the NRA or other organizations.
That is all."
Oh, I almost forgot, if someone comes into your workplace shooting and you shoot back, I have directed the Attorney General to provide as many federal attorneys as needed to defend you in any criminal or civil action arising from your act of self-defense. We are not Europe. We are not sheep.
Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow."
Ann, you asked what I need President Obama to do. That is what I need his to do. It is not what I expect, of course.
John Henry
He pretty much did 3 and 5.
In the post title you ask:
What do you need him to do?
But then in the post you say:
What I want is:
Emph added
Wants and needs are two very different things. Are we supposed to say what we need him to do or what we want him to do?
John Henry
I watched as much as my stomach could stand. The bottom line is that we must not discriminate against Muslims.
More mush from the wimp.
I went looking for a transcript and found a Whitehouse.com transcript from 12/6/15.
Turned out that it was a from a Kennedy Center address earlier today. It did have President Obama saying this, which gave me a chuckle:
About 80 years ago, the ship carrying a young girl named Rosa Dolores Alverio -- (applause) -- from Puerto Rico -- (applause) -- came into New York City, steamed by the Statue of Liberty. “Oh my goodness,” she thought, “a lady runs this country!”
Does he not realize that Rosa Dolores Alverio (Rita Moreno) was not coming to "this country" (USA)? She was already in the USA, born a US citizen. She was simply moving from one part of the US to another.
John Henry
That was literally my first take--mush.
I expected to be either heartened, or pissed off. I'm neither.
(Okay, or dancing in the street if Meade was correct.)
So the former constitutional law professor can't think of why anybody would object to a law preventing people placed on a no-fly list without any due process and without any ability to appeal that placement from exercising their Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. Not disagrees with such an objection, mind you, can't even conceive of such an objection. The University of Chicago Law School ought to give people who studied under Obama a partial refund.
That speech perfectly encapsulated his presidency -- flaccid.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/72-dhs-employees-on-terrorist-watch-list/
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
<
“I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process,” he said. “That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time.”
Did he do what you needed him to do, Professor?
Althouse, how did he do?
I am beginning to feel those barbaric Mfers have his birth certificate.
I agree with the many above who note that Obama will disappoint on all five of Ann's list. He is incapable of entertaining the idea that he might have been wrong,ever, and so will keep doing and saying all the wonderful stuff we've all gotten sick of seeing or hearing.
Trying to understand how Obama sees himself is tricky business. I've never seen anyone in public life who is so incapable of thinking he might have been wrong. The only time I recall his doing something suggesting he had disavowed a prior position was when he was poised to order military action when Assad crossed Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons, and then suddenly not only backed off leaving the allies who were ready to support us high and dry, but claimed preposterously that he had never set a "red line" in the first place. His position was ultimately that everyone else was wrong because they weren't paying close enough attention to him. That always seems to be where he ends up.
You have to wonder who the intended audience is for his latest effort at speechifying rather tha doing. It has to be an ever narrowing base of Dem true believers, an audience that doesn't include Hillary! or Feinstein or even Schumer at this point. Obama is past the point where no one much cares what he says because they know what he'll do -- the same old same old.
More mush from the wimp.
What I would have liked for him to do was announce a serious rethink of US counterintelligence and possibly roll some heads. He really needed to hit Ann's #4 in some way or other. Without any new ideas to present or some important breaking news about the latest terror attack, there was no reason to make this address. With nothing new to say he would have been better served not saying anything at all.
What's this business about needing Congress to declare war on ISIS?
Did Obama mean he is conducting war without authority?
Or is it a political trap?
I thought the September 2001 AUMF covered this.
More concern shown for the nonexistent backlash against Muslims than for the problem at hand.
Oh, and I think a terrorist on the no fly list is likely not a retail gun store buyer scribbling out the forms on the counter top.
And again the insane description of the weapons he wishes to ban.
The bubble he lives in has wafted into the ether.
"He took a lecturing tone"? Say it ain't so, Professor. Obama's never done that before!
After a month in which he 1) said ISIS was contained and 2) ridiculed the GOP for thinking female refugees could ever be dangerous [WHOOPS] - even moderate lefties were coming to the realization this guy is completely clueless.
So tonight, he makes his first primetime speech from the oval office since he took credit for the surge and declaring Iraq so stable that he could pull out American troops [WHOOPS].
Tonight his main objectives appeared to be disassociate Islam from Islam-inspired violence and make anyone on a list that included Ted Kennedy and still contains 70 members of the Homeland Security Dept. from ever buying a gun.
He declares that there is no evidence that any outside influence directed the San Bernardino killers' actions and ten minutes later warns that they were influenced by others to radicalize.
He claims he has the plan to keep America safe and screen bad guys from entering the country without saying one word about a 2,000 mile border he has refused to secure for seven years.
And oh btw he declares the Ft Hood massacre an act of terrorism after six years of referring to it as workplace violence.
Heck of a job, Barry!
I was surprised. I expected him to declare war on some random country, just to show how tough we are. I think its called the Cheney maneuver. It might cost a trillion dollars and produce blow-back that lasts for decades but it shows that you no longer have other priorities, at least for other people.
Why did Obama even bother with this? He cannot possibly think that it accomplishes anything. Was he just that desperate to avoid attending the Kennedy Center Honors?
We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want.
'That, too, is what I and the lefties want. Because then I can label you all as stupid, evil Republicans, those goobers and hillbillies. And, all I have to do is lecture you and do not have to do anything more. I am bored and tired of this. Now, go away.'
"I was surprised. I expected him to declare war on some random country, just to show how tough we are. I think its called the Cheney maneuver."
The VP can't declare war. You are thinking of the Kerry-Clinton maneuver, ARM. You know, the two people Obama picked to be secretary of state.
Like shooting ducks in a barrel, it is . . .
To speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
He should really have a conversation with Ayan Hirsi Ali or Rushdie. Or those bloggers who got hacked to death in Bangladesh recently.
Well....he didn't mention climate change....so....that's, I guess....progress....in the ...uh...war on terror and stuff...don't ya think?
. . . but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.
Funniest line of the night! Slavery was wide-spread throughout the Arab world until the 1950s. Obama's hated British Empire put a stop to it in the 'pink' parts of the globe. Majorities of Muslims want to impose sharia, even in Western European countries. If the vast majority of Muslims were as willing to embrace tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity as Jews, or Baptists or Catholics, we wouldn't need a prime time White House speech, would we?
Althouse wrote:
So he's not trying to hide that the terrorists are Muslim, and he wants nonterrorist Muslims to actively propound a good version of Islam, with the right values.
I don't think that Obama acknowledged that the terrorists were Muslim. Instead the terrorists are promoting an extremist ideology that has spread within Muslim communities.
"He took a lecturing tone, telling us what we need to do, anticipating that we have trouble distinguishing between radical Islamist terrorists and the rest of the world's Muslims." Honesty starts with examining why we are bound to have that "trouble" in principle and in practice.
"It was notable that he made a separate statement about what Muslims need to do: . . . It's a real problem that Muslims must confront without excuse. . . . . To speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity." -- A small step forward. But honesty starts with examining why most versions of Islam, outside a very tiny liberal circle, and Islamic practices in many historical periods are fundamentally "incompatible" in that way.
A religion that unequivocally asserts its own superiority can only practice tolerance by subjugating what it tolerates. A religion built on an inerrant messenger and an inviolable text cannot extend "mutual respect" to those who deny those precepts. The need for submission as a mark of true faith, including in society the religiously mandated submission of women to men, necessarily undermines human dignity.
"Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.”
Well, at least they could demand that those people surrender their guns. I would be OK with that.
Just because I hate to let people like ARM characterize the Iraq War as Bush's war, or the Republicans' war, here is a list of all the Dem senators who voted for HJR 114 in 2002 (if you haven't actually read the text of HJR 114, you really don't understand why the war occurred).
Lincoln, Blanche
Boxer, Barbara
Feinstein, Diane
(Yes, that's both dem senators from Cali)
Dodd, Chris
Lieberman, Joseph
Breaux, John
Landrieu, Mary
Baucus, Max
Nelson, Ben
Reid, Harry
Clinton, Hillary
Schumer, Chuck
(Both Dems from ultra-liberal New York!)
Edwards, John (2004 Dem VP candidate)
Kohl, Herb
Carnahan, Jean
and of course Kerry, John.
It irks me that Obama thinks that the citizens of the United States need reassurance and comfort over the Redlands terror attack. It must happen once a year that a bus overturns on its way to Las Vegas or St. Louis and 14 people get killed. We don't fall to pieces about it. If we are in a war with terrorists, we have to expect a certain number of casualties. I never heard General Patton say, "Gee, I better back off on the relief of Bastogne. What if I take some casualties?"
Obama frequently says "ISIL doesn't speak for Islam." As a non-Muslim, I don't know how Obama can be so certain of that. If it's true, I would like to know who *does* speak for Islam? ISIL has a very loud voice, but "moderate Islam" continues to be much too quiet.
Over 14 years after 9/11, and he's enlightening us on the need for "moderates" to do their part? Nobody ever thought of that. Oh, and why don 't we announce what we won't do. I'm sure the enemy isn't listening.
"It's "the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization," (Obama's directive.)
No. The same "ideas" about the west, history, culture, morals, religion etc that create terrorists are also held by millions of mainstream Muslims. The difference is that some conclude that they should go out and kill people, and others conclude that they should go to work, care for their families and pray. In short, the same ideas can leave different people to very different actions.
The main "idea" that distinguishes the passive or peaceful from the violent and terroristic in the middle east is the idea of violence. Unfortunately for us (and them) opposing the violent extremists in their society is not a healthy occupation. The terrorists are perfectly willing to use violence against others of their sect to suppress this kind of dissent. They do it all the time. (This is wholly apart from the sectarian bloodletting between the Suni and Shia.)
Terry, thanks for the useful post listing all the Dems who voted for HJR 114. To that I would add the votes for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which "expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
That was supported almost unanimously by the Democrats. Where else did they think that policy would lead?
(Democrats in the House passed the Iraq Liberation Act by a vote of 127-29 (20 not voting.) The Senate passed it by unanimous consent. President Clinton was delighted. He immediately listed seven different Iraqi groups (most of whom hated each other) as recipients of our aid.
President potatohead is still stuck on stupid so the only thing he WILL do is carp day and night.
The economy is in taters, the non-war war is a disaster, the ISIS enemy IS INSIDE the gates and it's less than one year till the election.
He won't defeat the terrorist nor fix the economy.
Hope for change in 2016.
Deaf
He also managed Obozo today by tweeting "Is that all there is?" after Obozo's speech tonight.
There are 3 million Muslims in the US. We can't tell the radicals from the normals much of the time.
The first thing to do is what W should have done on 9-12-01: cut off all immigration from Arabs (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait). Arabs were specifically excluded from immigrating to the US from 1924-1965. That brand of Sunni Islam is completely fucked up. Al-Awliki (born in US but spent formative years in Yemen), the 9/11 hijackers, KSM (raised in Kuwait and obtained his college degree in US), etc. The second thing is to stop any refugees from Islamic countries. The 20,000 or so Somalian refugees settled mainly in Minneapolis and have a 60% unemployment rate and more than 36 prosecutions against members of their community for terrorism plots. The 1,000 Chechen refugees we let in are also poor and provided the US with the Boston Marathon bombers.
The US is not the social worker of the world along with the world's police. Plenty of hard working people want to come and study and visit the US or become a citizen. We don't need people from these hellhole countries.
Let Europe deal with these refugees from Syria and Northern Africa. We don't ask them to take the 8 million people who've illegally settled into the US after crossing our southern border the last 25 years. Europe's declining birth rates and social welfare spending have led to them taking in Muslim immigrants. How is it working out for them? Japan has declining birth rate and heavy debt and social spending on its elderly but it doesnt accept any immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. No Somalia refugees, no Libyan refugees, no Chechen refugees, no Syrian refugees.
The countries of Islam haven't produced the standard of living and tolerant and relatively open societies that Christianity, Judaism, and Shintoism have. Their backass religion is a major reason for this.
anticipating that we have trouble distinguishing between radical Islamist terrorists and the rest of the world's Muslims:
How can we Americans have this trouble when Obama and other leftist elitists (including Althouse) routinely criticize us for making exactly this distinction? At times reading Althouse is sufficiently bewildering You must sympathize with Lewis Carroll.
4. Be specific about new things that you will do....
I'll say that he did ... not [do] ... 4.
He said he'd sign legislation reforming the visa waiver program and authorizing military force against ISIL. Aren't those specific and new?
I will now mention that I had the measure of the man before he was elected.
Some others did not.
Adjust your viewpoint accordingly.
I hoped for a full report assisted by comments all done while I had a nap. But apparently everyone skipped this speech. It's like listening to a class where no one's read the book but the professor and she did so only because she's conscientious. Shame on all of you. I myself had a nice nap which I needed because I've been sick lately; my stomach can't even handle yellow jello. And I guess this speech will be an unknown blip like Silas Marner.
AReasonableMan said...
"I was surprised. I expected him to declare war on some random country, just to show how tough we are. I think its called the Cheney maneuver. It might cost a trillion dollars and produce blow-back that lasts for decades but it shows that you no longer have other priorities, at least for other people."
If you know some other lefties could you invite them to come here. They might be entertaining discussion, unlike you. There is nothing true or thoughtful here to engage with. Boring.
If we're to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
"Enlist"? What, like people in Muslim communities will get a number from their local draft board and report when it comes up? Because so far they seem to be unwilling or unable to do anything to address the problem. They've been our "strongest allies" in the same sense that Pakistan is our strongest ally in Afghanistan.
I have a better idea. Why don't we recognize Pakistanis in Pakistan are going to have a lot more trouble carrying out terrorist attacks in the US than Pakistanis in the US?
"It's "the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization," he says, and "the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination ..."
So hold the so-called "muslim world" to the same standards as the rest. As an example, demand that they drop those "Apostasy laws". But I think those so-called "moderate" muslims would then feel discriminated, having to justify themselves to those dirty infidels, and it would only inflame the poor things some more (/s).
BTW, some things which predate ISIL and consorts;
- death for apostasy
- FMG, purdah, pashtun culture (may predate islam but islam is OK with it), ...
- sharia law in the muslim part of Nigeria, the basis on which Boko Haram was founded
- the true "rape-culture", like as in "grooming gangs"
- the true discrimination of women
- no-go zones in Europe (and no doubt either in the USA or coming to it)
- ...
All having VERY much to do with islam, just like ISIL and consorts.
Thanks for the review, guys. Hammond was arranging his sock drawer and missed the speech.
"'4. Be specific about new things that you will do.... I'll say that he did ... not [do] ... 4.'He said he'd sign legislation reforming the visa waiver program and authorizing military force against ISIL. Aren't those specific and new?"
Those are 2 things he wants Congress to do, but he is saying he'll sign it if Congress does what he says. I see that as more of a passing the ball, like saying he needs an international coalition.
"Reassure and scold" Obama nutshell.
Obama needs to realize he has absolutely no credibility on this issue. He has misjudged, as thoroughly as possible, every step of the issue thus far.
I'd like to hear him tell the nation that he is the Commander in Chief and he will do what it takes to keep the nation safe, if it is humanly possible. In the near future the Congress needs to vote to give him the war powers he will need.
ISIS exists because he and Hillary decided that Quaddafy, who was under control, HAD TO GO and, lo and behold, we left a black hole in his place that led to ISIS. So, yeah, let's give a guy with such an ability to see issues power to do stuff.
Especially since his actions in Libya were actively OPPOSED by Congress and he ignored them. This isn't Iraq. This didn't get support.
It's pretty amazing that the Republican majority Congress objects to overreach regarding Obamacare, yet is just fine with allowing Obama unilateral action regarding military involvements.
What, precisely, are they supposed to do. Starve the troops sent over there? It wasn't THEIR decision to go. I'd zero out the WH budget, personally.
Also lets not be hypocritical about intrusions onto our personal communications, while demanding the Obama Adminstration stops terrorists acts before they happen. Realistically we will can't have it both ways.
The Left had no problem blaming Bush for "letting 9/11 happen" based on unactionable intel in a PDB (you know, the ones Obama ignores). Screw fairness...I'm holding him up to Leftist standards.
Obama wants us to stay the course. We're doing all we can and should do..but Congress needs to votes to authorize force? Weird attempt to make it look like Republicans are "being obstructive" or is there a nuance involved?
(i.e. the reassurance with the scold)
Standing at podium in oval office so he doesn't appear to be sitting on his ass?
To me the most disturbing thing The President said was the remark about using the No Fly List to bar the sales of guns to those on the list. I abhor this for the usual reasons: denial of an ennumerated civil right without due process and the flaws in the secret list, but mostly because of the list itself.
According to Wikipedia (which has a very interesting article on it), the NFL was not a product of law but of executive fiat and was probably used as an enemies list in the past. Names can be added to it by a variety of agencies and these additions are not checked out, or if they are, we don't know about it.
Food for thought: the Wikipedia article tended towards concern about civil liberties citing those who were clearly affected wrongly as mostly being on the left during the Bush administration, what stops the same thing from happening in any adminstration, i.e. to have an executive branch enemies list that is not monitored by the other branches, is not authorized under any law and appears to have no internal checks and balances. Would the Democrats want this under a President Cruz?
I am totally sympathetic with the thought that terrorists should not have access to guns, but my thoughts are not realistic in an assymetric war in which guns and IEDs are available almost everywhere, gun laws notwithstanding. If a government can take away Second Amendment rights, in the process destroying several other ennumerated rights, where will it end?
The President did say that we should not give in to terrorism but this seems to be an instance of doing exactly that. Such an edict will have no effect on any further terror incidents, we all know that, but it is low hanging fruit that, ironically, flies in the face of progressive concerns about the very list being used. The same logic in this case could be used to deny guns to black males (most likely to commit murders), anyone who drinks or uses drugs (the most common finding in both suicides and domestic murders) or any gun owner since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone.
https://twitter.com/JamesGRickards/status/673519459278061569
Maybe that's why they dragged a podium in..so inevitable editing of the two don't match...
Dust off the foam pillars...
We've been waiting since 9/11 for the semi-mythical Moslem "moderates" to emerge. Could it be that there are no Moslem moderates? Either they've never existed or they've been cowed into silence by the majority of Moslems.
Well..there is this guy originally from Neenah, WI:
http://aifdemocracy.org/about/staff/founder-president/
Welp, Obama has now appointed himself Theologian in Chief. He knows what any given religion truly espouses and when it is being perverted or misinterpreted. And when Islam's tenets are being perverted -- or misinterpreted -- he urges Muslims to speak out against these hateful perversions and misinterpretations. But if a religion's tenets are not being perverted or misinterpreted -- they just simply are what they are -- what then?
"That does not mean denying the fact that an extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse. Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda promote; to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity."
So it is not just acts of violence he and we all want to stop. No, we must denounce all religious beliefs that are incompatible with "religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity."
This is dangerous business. What other religions (or "misinterpretations" of them) would our Theologian in Chief deem to be incompatible with his values? That's a mighty big job. But it's hard to imagine he included this language in his speech mistakenly or without any thought given to its implications. Many Christian beliefs, for instance, are "incompatible" with "religious tolerance."
Think I'm an alarmist? Already -- though so far, it's been primarily limited to the commercial context -- the State punishes a person who doesn't "tolerate" -- by refusing to participate in -- activities incompatible with his religious beliefs. Why wouldn't a Department of Religious Crimes be next? That George Bush rejected the idea of putting "hate crimes" into a separate category is beginning to make a lot more sense.
Post a Comment