Tag Archives: You Would Think

Limbaugh On Nobel / Obama

by

Rush has an explanation for the unbelievable:

Stepping in It Again

by

Woke up to the news that our flegling president, who continues to divide America and make our neighbors seem like enemies, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  For what?!  Has the world gone mad?

From Michelle Malkin:

It’s the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s coffin.

“From community organizer to Illinois state senator (present!) to U.S. Senator for 143 days before moving into the White House…and now, the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize — not for anything he’s actually done, but for the symbolism of what he might possibly accomplish sometime way off in the future.”

I can’t capture the incredulity this morning any better than Allahpundit has: “Am I awake?”

Erik Erickson at RedState quips: He’s Becoming Jimmy Carter Faster Than Jimmy Carter Did.

Michael P. Leahy asks: Where’s Kanye West when you need him?

Scraping the Bottom- Obama

by

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.” — French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

“When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. “– Charles Krauthammer and more from Krauthammer:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia … what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Pvt. Long vs Dr. Tiller Murders – In Obama-speak

by

Obama is said to be a master of the word and speech.  If this is true, then we must suppose his limp response to the murder of Pvt. William Long is very meaningful.  The President had at his disposal all the elegant and convincing verbage we have come to expect from him (whether he means it or not.) It is due from the Commander-in- Chief, when one of his troops is murdered. Contrasting Obama’s response with the response he gave when George Tiller, a late term abortionist (with much blood on his own hands,) was murdered; using words like “heinous” and expressing “anger” and “outrage,” Obama was quick to respond and dramatically vocal.  The absence of such sentiment, and the three day delay in any response, speaks volumes. We have to ask: Where do Obama’s loyalties lie?
Obama’s passive voice, the dispassionate euphemism, the blameless, faceless, semantic nicety; that is a far cry from a cry of truth.  We get abstractions from a man avoiding the reality of a jihadist convert killing one of our troops, one of Obama’s own charges  serving loyally and dutifully. No calling out his killer here, just “a sensless” act.  By who? and why? we may ask?  Obama doesn’t seem to want us to notice that someone, a jahadist, pulled the trigger killing one soldier and gravely wounding another,  18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula.

Michelle Malkin puts it in words for all of Obama’s failure to react.
The Anchoress writes:

And yet, here we are, watching thousands of words being written about the grotesque murder of George Tiller, all of which dutifully identify his killer by name, race, religion and ideology, (Scott Roeder, white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion) while the sad story of Pvt. William Long is quietly put to rest, with little-to-no-mention of the shooter:

[NPR’s] news reader, Nora Raum, outlined the incident and stated that the shooting appeared to have “religious motivations.” She did not name the suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, or tell NPR listeners what those religious motivations might be. In other words, it could have been a radical Unitarian who gunned down the soldiers, or possibly a violent Presbyterian.

The story about Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad grows more interesting by the day:

A joint FBI-Homeland Security intelligence assessment…said officers found maps to Jewish organizations, a child care center, a Baptist church, a post office and military recruiting centers in the southeastern U.S. and New York and Philadelphia.

And:

An FBI joint terrorism task force based in the southern U.S. reportedly had been tracking Muhammad after he traveled to Yemen and was arrested and jailed there for using a Somali passport, an official told The Associated Press. The probe had been in its early stages and based on Muhammad’s trip to Yemen, ABC News reported.
…At Tuesday’s court hearing, Deputy Prosecutor Scott Duncan said Muhammad told investigators that “he would have killed more soldiers had they been in the parking lot.”

The press duly (and briefly) reports, then re-focuses on Tiller, and the evil “Christianists” who are all responsible for his murder. Meanwhile, Obama is keeping silence, even foregoing the perfect opportunity to memorialize his soldier.

When George Tiller was murdered, Obama spoke out, and then he mobilized his justice department, to deploy guards at abortion clinics. Sort of like a Commander-in-Chief might do, if he feels his beloved country is under attack. When Pvt. William Long was murdered, Obama said and did…nothing.

So Much For Equality Before the Law

by

Hot Air on Sotomayor including Rush and response:

The context of the quote still leaves it in the ranks of racism or reverse racism:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

AllahPundit is waiting for answers:

I’m looking forward to hearing whether she thinks any of the white men on the Court currently aren’t devoting the “time and effort” needed to neutralize their white-male-ness, and to whether she’s devoted any of her own to understanding the “experiences” of people who aren’t female and Latino.

Obama Making a Game of Our Security

by

AllahPundit calls Obama on his slight of hand rhetoric, setting up “straw men” as choices. Obama talks about rejecting “false choices” while feeding us a line of false choices. The Magic is wearing thin!

This time President Obama tries shell game manipulations at the Naval Academy:

“When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops,” Obama said. “So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both.”

The Pundit points out the false choices:

The notion that our war policies have alienated the world is pathetic, given the track record of the rest of the world, especially our enemies. The notion that straying from Obama’s perception of American ideals energizes our enemies is belied by the history of increasingly brazen terror attacks during the Clinton administration and culminating in the 9/11 attack. Jihadis — and the Left — may use Guantanamo Bay and enhanced interrogation for propaganda purposes, but the jihadis will always have a grievance du jour — as evidenced by the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists said on videotape that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. Jihadis are energized when their attacks succeed, not when they are preempted. The Left is energized by photos of detainee abuse, but suppresses footage of jihadi beheadings or people plummeting from the World Trade Canter.

I, for one, am glad AllahPundit has the eye to spot the slight of hand,  for our choices in a dangerous world should not be the shell game Obama is making it.

Read it all here.