Thursday, September 27, 2012

Obama In An Intellectual Bunker

So the president went to the UN and sacrificed American free speech to the Islamists, prostrating himself over a video that had nothing to do with the Islamist attacks on our embassies that made him and Hillary wet their pants. Here's what the President of Libya had to say:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What's the point of rational conversation any more? This is simply insane. The President of Libya sits there and tells NBC News that it was a premeditated act of war while Obama behaves as if the video caused the attack. His progressive worldview is completely divorced from reality. The most amazing thing of all is that when he is confronted by contradictions from the real world, he doesn't change his thinking.

That's not an intellectual bubble he's living in, it's a hermetically sealed bunker.

Secondary thought: Talk about return on investment! In exchange for some mortar rounds and a few RPGs, the Islamists got the President of the United States of America to crawl to the UN and speak about how the Prophet is sacred and off limits, mouthing justifications for his actions that the simplest child can see are total lies. What sniveling worms these Americans are! Bloody their noses just a tiny bit and they completely capitulate.

Tertiary thought: I love the interviewer. She's performing a bisection search between two data points: Attacks occurred and they were premeditated. Were there mortars? How many mortars? How do you know they were there? Is this what leads you to think the attacks were premeditated? Jiminy Christmas, woman, the President of Libya is telling you your ambassador was assassinated in a coordinated military strike and you keep circling back to question whether or not it was really coordinated.


Doo Doo Econ said...

Thanks for the link! I couldn't agree more. I think that it is time to vote for the mormon and kick out the moron.

John Travolta said...

"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect."

K T Cat said...

Next on Project Runway: John Travolta makes an entire evening gown from fig leaves!

A video, John? What video? Why did he mention that? By the way, there was a video maker arrested yesterday. Was it an anti-Mormon one? No. An anti-Catholic one? No. Which one was it, John?

Anonymous said...

I've seen many blogs point out, correctly, that Obama and Hillary clung to the "the video made us do it" story long after it was proved a lie. Most criticize the use of the film-maker as a scapegoat or distraction, as well as his arrest and imprisonment for possibly politically motivated reasons.

I have NOT seen anyone discuss the administration's outing of the film-maker's identity, such that he and his family became targets of death threats and other violent retribution as well as intrusive and abusive media exposure. This is every bit as objectionable as Spike Lee's publication of George Zimmerman's address (unfortunately giving wrong information that placed an entirely innocent elderly couple in serious jeopardy, such that they had to move out of their home for their own safety).

I think that placing someone in danger of his life is an even more egregious abuse of presidential power than the use of a scapegoat to distract from Obama's own failures. Whatever anyone thinks about the content of the film trailer, it did not lead to the murder of four Americans in Libya, and making the film-maker a target for violent retribution is not in any way excusable.