Barack Obama

President Obama Says We "must" Condemn "those who slander the prophet of Islam," Among Others


Today, President Barack Obama delivered four pretty good paragraphs to the United Nations about the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the underlying principles of free speech and tolerance-of-minority-viewpoints it reflects. In the as-prepared transcript of the speech, the good material in question can be found starting with the sentence "I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video," and concluding with the accurate kicker, "There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

I would be inclined to quote more, if it weren't for the Obama administration's own sorry record of video apologetics and premature blame these past two weeks, and for the fact that the president's welcome-if-overdue remarks today were bracketed by some assertions that can best be described as heinous. First, the noxious preamble:

In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

Then, the worse postscript:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.

As with every empty political speech or newspaper editorial, focus here on the authoritarian if blustery word must. In order:

in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

Let's see, I love freedom for myself (and others); am I somehow compelled to ask myself how much freedom I can tolerate from my fellow residents of the United States? Hell no, I'm not. We have a mostly free system that can and should be much freer, but there is no requirement to have this conversation, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It deteriorates rapidly from there:

I believe [the video's] message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

So many things wrong in so few words. Why this video, and not Theo Van Gogh's Submission, or Lars Vilks' animation of Mohammed wanting to go to a gay bar, the "Super Best Friends" episode of South Park, or Funny or Die's "How to Pick a Pocket"? Is it the degree of the insult, the craptasticness of the production values, the size of the release, or the vociferousness of the outrage expressed?

Given the track record of our past two administrations, I think we know the answer to that question, which suggests another thing terrible about this sentence: As Eugene Volokh recently pointed out, "Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated." If all it takes to earn a White House call for global condemnation of a single piece of expression is some violent protests outside a dozen or two diplomatic missions, then the perpetually aggrieved know exactly what to do the next time they pluck out some bit of cultural detritus to be offended by.

It is not any politician's job, and certainly not any American politician's job, to instruct the entire world on which films to criticize.

And speaking of that favorite State Department word, rejected–isn't that a word to describe what you do to something that gets in your face, or body? In medicine, the body "rejects" organs or other dissonant substances that have been introduced within it. In basketball, not every blocked shot is a "rejection," mostly those that come when the offensive player is driving aggressively toward the vicinity of the hoop. Innocence of Muslims didn't get all up in someone's grill, it lay forlorn and neglected on YouTube until some people (pro and con) decided to get excited by it. Even then, it is a remarkably easy piece of culture to avoid coming into contact with. "Rejected" implies a cultural potency that "Sam Becile" (or as I prefer, "C'est imbecile") could never dream of.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Not your call, dude. Also, not my "prophet."

Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.

Even though you can see what the president's getting at in terms of equivalent outrage, he's still way off base here. It is not our job to condemn blasphemy of any kind, period. As individuals we might criticize a few bits here and there, but we mostly ignore the vast ocean of what various people may consider "hateful" or "offensive" speech, and rightly so.

There was much else to criticize in Obama's speech today, most notably a deeply incoherent depiction of America's role in the world. But it's certainly worth noting that a president who thought he was making a profound defense of American freedom of speech has continued his administration's two-week assault on the very notion.

NEXT: Early Election Called in Catalonia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How is this crap not tanking his candidacy? I would think the average American would hate this garbage.

    1. I think it is. He gets, let’s say, 47%.

      1. Those freeloaders?

    2. Because TEAM BLUE doesn’t care what he says, they’re voting for him because TEAM RED is teh evul?

      1. Yeah but there are plenty of team “moderate”, the mushy middles who would seem to be swayed by this.

        1. “Mushy middles” don’t like offensive videos. Or free speech.

          I think there are very few free speech absolutists around, really. And even fewer people who think members of the government need to robustly defend free speech absolutism, or that failing to do so is actively bad. Just some observations on the lack of outrage I have seen in people I know over this incident and the ensuing comments from the president and others.

          1. Hm, true, but I’m not talking about free speech supporters. I’m talking about average Christian Americans who would take exception to strong support of “the prophet Mohammed” over everything else.

            1. Sure, but we all know what they would say.

              “He’s just being respectful. It doesn’t actually mean anything for him to say ‘the prophet Mohammed.’ Who is it hurting? It’s just being nice.”

              1. nicole pretty much got it right. “He’s just being respectful youguys…”

                1. “It’s better to have a President whos tolerant…”

                  1. “Being nice never hurt anyone…”

                    1. “Paying the Danegelt will leave you berift of gelt long before you run out of Danes.”


                    2. A good one.

          2. you don’t have to be an absolutist to have a problem with this.

        2. Moderates are mostly going to vote Democrat anyway. Being an “independent” voter is an affectation of liberals.

          “Oooh! Look at me! I’m independent! See how open minded I am? How tolerant of other viewpoints? Now quick take a picture of me, because I’m late for a $1000 a plate Obama fundraiser.”

          1. This may just be solipsistic myopia on my part, but Romney could capture the middle by triangulating *some* issue away from Obama.

            1. Maybe he can just steal some ideas from bama, like he always did in the debates with whomever got the most applause.

          2. “Being an “independent” voter is an affectation of liberals.”

            Is it? I thought that there were more declared Democrats than Republicans out there. That would seem to indicate that claiming to be independent is more of an affectation of people who usually vote republican than of liberals.

            1. More registered Republicans than Democrats this year.

              1. Which should be fixed as soon as there is a republican president again.

                I can see thinking that you need to vote for one of them, but I don’t see why anyone would want to identify with one of the teams. I guess people just like teams.

          3. Technically, not true. Republicans have far fewer registered party members than Democrats yet usually break about even in the final elections. That’s because independents tend to break for Team Red, unless Team Red has angered them.

          4. Pretty much agree. Most of the self-identified “independents” I know are actually liberals who watch The Daily Show every night and think it is “non-partisan”.

          5. By my observation, the swing middle does move back and forth between Repubs and Dems, but the problem is they are STATISTS. They do keep an open mind – between which fist-mailing, force first solution is the right one. They are happy so long as there is a Statist solution offered for problem X. So, in the end, they are fear filled superstitious folk who vote for whichever fear monger happens to be talking loudest at a particular moment. And then they pat themselves on the back for being so open minded.

    3. I think it speaks volumes that the Obots of my acquaintance no longer even talk about what their god-emperor is up to; they’re content to mock Romney over airplane windows.

      1. I’ve noticed that too. Especially on Facebook. They still post Chick-fil-A shit.

      2. Laff, I almost knew that something saying exactly the same was going to get posted before I finished my comment. Because it wasn’t like Obama was going to run on his record.

      3. I don’t get the airplane window thing, did I miss something?

        1. Some thing on Twitter and the FB trending about Mitt Romney’s airplane.

          1. I think I just lost a couple of iq points.

        2. Romney lamented the fact that when there was smoke in the cabin of Ann Romney’s jet, she wasn’t able to open the window.

          “Why do they make the windows that way?” he said, or something like that.

          It’s kind of like wondering why the guys on Apollo 13 didn’t just open the window.

          1. That would totally be a voting deal-breaker for me.

            1. Romney made a joke about the airplane windows rolling down: “Basically he was retelling the story and when he said ‘I don’t know why they don’t have roll down windows on airplanes,’ he looked at the audience and everyone laughed,” Everitt told TheBlaze. “It was a clearly delivered joke ? There were 1,000 people there that will tell you the same thing.”

              Liberal sites are re-telling it and leaving out the part where it was an obvious joke.

              1. Leaving out or incapable of noticing it?

                1. Tomato Tomahto

          2. I got a poll call a few days back that asked me if I intended to vote and I answered, ‘why would I want to be ruled by someone else?’ Given he couldn’t speak for several seconds, I’ll take it he never got that response before.

            1. Hey now, no fair making some minimum wage caller’s head explode.

          3. To be fair, it’s easy for Romneybot to overlook the fact that the carbon units require a steady supply of oxygen to continue functioning.

      4. One of my more left leaning friends the other day actually brought up the WMD.

    4. As far as I can tell, a lot of those “average Americans” are spending their time on social networks reposting cutesy images calling Romney an inhuman monster for doing the exact same shit that Obama is doing worse. (Don’t point this out unless you want to deal with people having apoplectic fits, though.)

      Sigh. Man, as much as I want this election to be over, I’m scared that the “perpetual campaign” shit is just getting started.

      1. Hmm, that could be a plus for Obama winning. At least he will stop campaigning, whereas Romney would have to start campaigning again in 2.5 years.

        1. If O’s not campaigning he will be spreading more regulation. Is that what you want??

    5. Have a look at how this speech is being summarized in other media outlets. No mention of this appeasement crap.

      BBC “Obama’s UN General Assembly speech condemns extremism” Sounds good don’t it?

      CNN Obama confronts Iran, Syria Oooh he’s so confrontational!

      CBC Obama at UN rejects violence while defending free speech [link redacted due to squirrels] Obama is liberate defensor!


      (Yes, my Latin is probably wrong).

      1. Yeah, what’s up with the two link limit? That’s just silly.

      2. Yes, one of the bold headlines said “On Iran, Obama Says The U.S. Will Do What It Must”. Vague and non-committal, yet MSM thinks this is some kind of heroic stand.

    6. Because the average American is flipping between Idol and New Jersey Housewives, doesn’t read or care about issues, thinks Obama is cool, and in the off chance watches CNN for more than 2 minutes, will never see anything critical of Obama.

  2. “President Obama Says We “must” Condemn “those who slander the prophet of Islam”


  3. Needs more appeasement.

    1. Just wait, I’m sure there’s more to come.

      1. we need a Constitutional amendment to condemn Prophet slander

        1. Who needs a Constitutional amendment? Barack Hussein Obama just issued a diktat.

          1. Perhaps it would be called a jizyah.

  4. If we’re just talking words, I’m not in the business of condemning anyone. I may object to the words and offer some criticism of them, but that’s it.

    I don’t see how anyone can see this man as having the slightest interest in protecting or promoting our core civil liberties. And I agree, all those “musts” show just what an authoritarian fuck this guy wants to be. That crap may work at the UN, but it shouldn’t work here.

  5. He just really really really doesn’t get it.

    Everything in this guys world is about him, and nothing is his fault ever for any reason whatsoever. This morning the WSJ utterly demolished his excuse making on 60 minutes from Sunday and now he’s apologizing to thugs and terrorists about a video that has absolutely nothing to do with the riots in Benghazi.


    I still can’t believe they actually said this though. An attack from guys with RPG’s and masks, on 9/11’s anniversary, raising the al-qaeda flag on the roof and this is because of the video?

    Christ this is terrible.

    1. I honestly pray for banal and cynical rather than stupid, but I’m no longer sure.

      1. I really think it’s narcissistic ignorance at this point. This guy has had people blowing smoke up his so much his whole life that he can’t even tell what’s real anymore. You really get the impression that he thinks his own shit doesn’t stink.

      2. Why not all three?

        It’s a trifecta, I tell ya!

    2. Tman, I read that in the voice you intended it to be read in and it cracked me up.

  6. Why hasn’t this man been convicted of treason and placed in front of a fir-[INTERDICTED BY THE NSA: PLEASE REPORT TO PROCESSING CENTER # 36-B]


    2. You know perfectly well what would happen. People would [INTERDICTED BY THE THOUGHT POLICE. PLEASE REPORT TO ROOM 101. THE RATS CAN’T BE KEPT WAITING]

  7. The Obama folks have to know that empty words are not going to pacify the group who can get lethally outraged by insults to Mohammed. Only theocratic thunder brought down from the United States government on anyone who slanders the Prophet will appease them. So why bother paying lip service? You’re not getting anything out of it.

    (And, P.S. the youtube video had nothing to do with anything.)

  8. Aren’t we pretty much already paying the Jizya in form of aid to every majority nation on Earth? Fuck this guy, and fuck Mohammed, goat-fucking child-rapist, terrible general, and all around asshole. I slander whoever I goddam well please.

    1. “I slander whoever I goddam well please”

      Isn’t that the entire point of this country?

      1. “Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker’s God-given right.”

        1. Ha just watched that Sunday!

      2. It once was. Now, according to Team Blue, it’s to flagellate ourselves over everything bad we have done or imagine ourselves to have done.

    2. Agree with the Jizya comment – we are paying them to behave and getting screwed on the deal.

  9. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

    This is insane.

    I’ve said it before: Every last person who is a Christian, Jew, or atheist does not believe that Mohammad actually received messages from God. All of them.

    If Mohammad did not actually receive messages from God, then he either lied about getting them, or was crazy and thought he received messages he didn’t actually receive.

    Let’s ask the mob if the statement “Mohammad was either crazy or lying” constitutes slander of the prophet.

    Because I’ll bet that they’d say it does.

    And that means that all persons who are Christians, Jews or atheists are slandering the prophet merely by refraining to convert to Islam.

    1. Pretty much. If you take this statement at its face value, how are the people who claim Obama is a closet Muslim not right?

      That is probably the worst thing I have ever heard an American President say.

      1. Everyone seems to want to forget this clip.

        (I know, “just a slip of the tongue,” a mistake anyone might make when talking about their religion….)

        1. Yeah. Amazingly enough, despite God and religion being one of my favorite bullshiting topics, I have never wrongly referred to myself as a member of another religion. In fact I have never seen someone do that. Funny that.

          1. And he didn’t even correct himself: the interviewer had to correct him!

        2. I had never seen that before. Wow.

          1. So eloquent.

        3. I was under the impression he was talking about allegations about his religion (though the context is helpfully excised), in which case it wasn’t a slip of the tongue so much as a poor choice of phrasing.

          Fact is, while the President’s stance is (hopefully) out of sync with American’s staunchly liberal values, it’s perfectly in line with social democrats in Europe and Canada, and I don’t think they’re secret Muslims, even if some other Europeans believe they might as well be and consequently slaughter islands full of their children.

          1. Well, it turns out Snopes is on your side on this, and they do have a case. The whole “secret Muslim” thing always seemed like a stretch, but this clip did startle me. I don’t think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate so much as a self-congratulatory empty suit with standard leftist delusions which he’ll use for his own purposes.

      2. Well, I’m still far from convinced that he is a secret Muslim, but he is an ass. What an awful speech. He should be in there explaining to the rest of the world that doesn’t seem to get it what freedom of speech means.

        1. Well, the other possibility, since he attended the Reverend Wright church for twenty+ years, is that he’s a Black Liberation Theology adherent influenced by his exposure to Islam in Indonesia as a youth. All that gooey goodness topped by the Marxist cherry that was his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. What’s not to like?

    2. Well, Obama says we must not do that, Fluffy. The words are pretty clear.

    3. And that means that all persons who are Christians, Jews or atheists are slandering the prophet merely by refraining to convert to Islam.

      And let’s not forget that “slandering prophet” carries the penalty of death.

      1. And what the fuck is this “prophet Muhammad” bullshit? I don’t think he is a prophet. And neither does every person in the world who is not a believing Muslim.

        1. Exactly.

          And you know what else?

          If I made a movie that said, “Mohammad was either crazy or lying, and you know what else? He was a murderous desert savage and conqueror who had multiple tween wives in a harem,” I’m sure the President would condemn me for stating the truth.

          If you gave Mohammad a hockey mask, he’d be the Lord Humongous.

          1. If you gave Mohammad a hockey mask, he’d be the Lord Humongous.

            I might convert then.

          2. I haven’t watched the shitty video they nutty over, but is it factually incorrect? He was a pedophile, slaver, mass murder, adulterer, pervert, and hypocrite. None of the rules about where to shove your dick applied to “the Prophet”.

            I’ll insult him and his crazy cult any time I want.

            1. I think it is pretty much impossible to say whether anything about Mohammed is correct or not.

              1. Okay – Is it consistent with murder and rapes described in the Koran or Hadith?

                1. Well to paraphrase the Koran:

                  “Thus, the Prophet is given sexual access to first cousins, captives, and any believing woman whom he desires to wed.”

                  1. It’s good to be the prophet.

          3. Dude, it’s a fact that Republicans like President Obama would rather placate the religious right than deal with the truth.

        2. No shit! I don’t go around saying “Jesus Christ Our Savior”, so what the hell is a Christian man doing going around saying that Muhammed is a prophet?

          If Obama believes Muhammed is a Prophet, then he’s in heresy territory.

          1. If George Bush had run around the UN saying “Jesus Christ Our Savior” he would have rightfully been excoriated on all sides. This “prophet Muhammad” bullshit is nothing but another particularly loathsome method of being obsequious. I mean Christ on a crutch, why doesn’t he just go up and prostrate himself before the Islamic members of the UN.

            1. Do we have to dig out the bowing picture again?

              1. That was at least ambiguous. No one but him knows if he meant to bow. But there is nothing ambiguous about this.

            2. I’m sure, though, that Bush and others have said Jesus Christ (i.e., including the “Christ” part). I’m not sure that it’s ultimately all that different.

              Not that I’m not bothered by Obama’s comments. I most definitely am.

              1. But the “Christ” part in Jesus has become more of a convention. Technically you are right Nicole. Saying Jesus Christ is the same thing as saying “Prophet Muhammad” by a strict definition. But the conventions are different. Even no Christians will say “Jesus Christ” because it is the common way of referring to Jesus of Nazareth. Not so much with Muhammad. Maybe someday the convention will be to call him the “Prophet Muhammad” like people call Jesus of Nazareth “Jesus Christ”. But not right now.

                1. I think you’re right, John, though I’d personally prefer to push back on the “Christ” side as well.

                  This is all starting to remind me of one of my favorite (outside of this anecdote) college profs. In discussions about the history of the Arabic language, he had occasion to mention a couple times the date of the Quran, which he always referred to as being “revealed” at such and such a time. I’m 99% certain this was an attempt at “tolerance” and not because he was actually Muslim, and it always really grated on me. Nonadherents of a religion adopt the religion’s own terms, typically to appear inclusive, but it is just absurd if you actually think about what they’re saying and the fact that they don’t actually believe it.

                  1. That is funny nicole. In many ways it is deeply patronizing to do that.

                2. Prophet H Muhammad?

                3. I would think anyone saying “Jesus Christ” was raised in a “christian culture”, even if they arent christian themselves.

        3. It started when papers started reporting from Shitholeistan where 9 out of 10 people are named Muhammad ibn Mohammad al-Mohammed. However, for some reason, they don’t see it necessary when reporting from Latin America to use the phrase “Jesus, the Anointed One; not Jesus, the mechanic down the street from Nuevo Leon with the mole on his face.”

          1. Come on. Even I don’t believe that weak sauce.

    4. I’ve said it before: Every last person who is a Christian, Jew, or atheist does not believe that Mohammad actually received messages from God. All of them.

      Not quite true. He might have actually received messages from God but completely misused them.

      But that goes to the “crazy” part you pointed out later.

      Or evil, and he intentionally twisted the message for his own end.

      Im gonna go with your original statement though.

      1. Not quite true. He might have actually received messages from God but completely misused them.

        He still wouldn’t be a prophet, though. The Prophet line ended with Jesus.

      2. Not quite true. He might have actually received messages from God but completely misused them.

        Not possible. An omnipotent God would have necessarily known how he would have used them. So it is logically impossible for someone to receive messages from an omnipotent being and misuse them.

        1. Free will might create a workaround for that, but the bigger problem is that it implies that God let himself be defeated and went and sat in the corner with a Forever Alone face on for the last 1400 years.

          If God called a prophet and the prophet told God to GFH, like any cold caller he’d move on to the next name on the list.

          Otherwise you create potential scenarios like “Joseph gets pissed and kills the pregnant Mary with an axe; the Incarnation is defeated and humanity doomed”. That can’t occur even though Joseph has free will, because God would just knock up some other chick.

          1. Of course Muhammad has free will but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t know how he would use it. So God would never get hung up on because he would know exactly who would and would not pick up the phone.

          2. On a related note, has anyone else read the Agent of Byzantium short stores by Harry Turtledove?

            The basic premise is that on an early trade trip, Mohammed converts to Christianity and therefore never founds Islam. Instead he ends up a Christian saint famous for his hymns.

            Without Islam the Arabs/Turks never come to power, Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire never fall and while its bad in the western part, there is nothing like a dark ages in eastern europe. Persia and Byzantium are the world superpowers and technology continues to develop within them.

            For example, in two different stories, vaccination is discovered in Constantinople and the printing press is invented in Persia, centuries before they are created in our world.

            1. There is some historical evidence that Muhammed was more of a Christian than the dogma now says. See the book I posted about the other day.

              1. I just finished that book. It is pretty compelling case the Muhammad did not exist in any form like that portrayed in the Koran.

              2. The evidence for a large number of historical figures are scant at best.

                Of course, some of them really are fictional.

                Muhammad seems likely to have existed, to me. Much more so than “Neil Armstrong”.

                1. There was most definitely one or more religious leaders running around seventh century Arabia. And one of them may have been named Muhammad. And said Muhammad may have even been the most important one. But anything beyond that we really don’t know.

            2. Turtledove is generally an incredibly overrated “alternate history” writer, but the Agent of Byzantium stories are pretty good.

              1. I like the various Videssos-based books.

              2. I loved the WWII series with the lizard invasion.

              3. I don’t think of Turtledove as exactly a top-notch writer, but in the small sub-field of alternate histories he’s pretty much the most prolific writer and a good one.

                1. I’d agree. Always a good ride with his books.

        2. I considered that, and as for the crazy part I agree.

          But not for the evil part.

          God allows all kinds of free will, free will on potential prophets would be in that category.

          Look at the behavior of some of the guys he did use?

          Moses didnt get to enter the promised land because he hit the rock misusing God’s orders.

          David committed murder to cover up his adultery.

          I could go on, but you get the point.

          Of course, I believe a large percentage of people (possibly approaching 100%) receive messages from God, so YMMV.

          1. ^^^That was a reply to John, not Fluffy, but it works there to.

          2. Sure God gave his prophets free will. But when they disobeyed, he killed them or screwed with them until they got it.

            The Book of Jonah is all about a guy who didn’t feel like being a prophet. God screws with him until he has no choice. In Samuel, several guys get taken out for disobedience – the Priest Eli and King Saul.

            To think that God would pick a greedy sexual predator as a prophet is laughable. And if He did, correcting that mistake would be easy.

          3. “Of course, I believe a large percentage of people (possibly approaching 100%) receive messages from God”

            That just reveals you as batshit crazy on *that* subject. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong about anything else.

    5. Well, as far as I am concerned, prophets are crazy people who think that gods talk to them. So I don’t have too much problem calling him “Prophet Mohammed” to distinguish him from all of the other Mohammeds in the world. But declaring what we must or must not say about that guy is just beyond the pale.

  10. i’ll consider myself ‘condemned’ then. can I still slander Jesus without any repurcussions or am I ‘double condemned’?

    1. You will not win the future, citizen.

  11. The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

    Wow would that make for a great attack ad.

    1. Just keep repeating it over footage of jets exploding into the Trade Center, people jumping from 50 stories up, the towers collapsing and people running from the churning debris cloud.

      1. Unfortunately, Romney (or Johnson, maybe) wouldn’t have the balls to run that ad.

        1. That’s why we have SuperPACs.

          1. Hehehe…. Oh, I can already hear the cries of outrage….

  12. You know, it could just come down to the fact that he has zero values and thinks he can solve any problem with just one more speech, with no regard for the contents of said speech. He only has to keep the turd floating for another six weeks.

    1. He really does seem to think he can tell anyone anything no matter how stupid and insulting. It is like he doesn’t understand that the vast majority of the world are not his brain dead supporters.

      1. Alas, he probably has enough brain dead supporters to be reelected.

        Remember, 50% of the population has below
        median intelligence.

        Dare I suggest that, subtracting the 3% too incapacitated to vote, you have his 47%?

        1. There are plenty of rent-seekers who have above-average intelligence. Trial lawyers, poverty pimps, phony venture capitalists, CEOs looking for subsidies and free money, and greedy geezers, for example.

          And there are plenty of brain-dead Republicans.

        2. You’re forgetting to factor in all the dead people in Chicago who’ll manage to vote for him.

    2. All promises expire at dawn with this guy. Like fairy magic, only more capricious and malicious.

  13. Yeah JoeM, how is it not? It boggles the mind.

    “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ” Wow. It just takes the breath away.

    No matter how stinky this piece of shit gets, his supporters are determined to smear him all over the rest of us.

    Hey John, feelin’ the hate yet?

    1. LOL. I didn’t say I didn’t hate. I said everyone does. And usually for good reason.

  14. So Obama is The Decider when he’s doing the macho dance over the OBL raid, but when we see a totally predictable reaction to his drone bombing policies happen it’s someone else’s fault, not his.

    1. What drones? [/my liberal Facebook friends]

    2. Par for the course. The economy is shit? Bush’s fault. Your business is making it through? You didn’t build that.

  15. This will give more ammo to those “Obama is a sekrit mooslim” fools. Sigh.

    1. I never believed it. until now.

    2. Yes, it will. They will read “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ” as “The future belongs to Islam.”

      I really dont think the guy is a muslim, but that is how I read what he said.

      I am so mad I cant see straight so I am not going to read back upthread. Someone said that this is the worst thing they have ever heard any president say. I am inclined to agree.

      1. I didnt actually hear it, but “Lets put all the Japs in concentration camps” is worse.

        1. Saying that the future belongs to islam is saying that all of the rest of us must convert or die or live in slavery. I would judge that it is worse.

        2. Chalk that one up to another hero of the progressives, FDR.

    3. Perhaps the super-secret underground construction at the Whitehouse was a Mosque/community center?

      1. Burlington Coat Factory.

        1. I thought it would be an ESPNZone

    4. THAT’S what you are worried about?

      1. Brandybuck is a concern troll.

        1. I’ve seen his postings so infrequently I don’t have a handle on the guy. I’ll keep that in mind in the future.

    5. Obviously the shit stains of studying the Koran in a madrassah for four years (a non disputed fact) have left a permanent mark on the guy. He has a real problem dealing with anything negative associated with Islam.

      1. And the sad fact is that his Muslim step father seems to be the only sane influence in his life. But apparently Lolo’s practicality and understanding of capitalism and self reliance made no impression of the village idiot here.

    6. Doesn’t appear to be a ‘sekrit’ anymore, eh, Brandy?


    Because when not-so-Bonnie Prince Charlie takes the throne, Britain is screwed.

    1. I am not a royalist. But sometimes I can’t help but like the old broad. She is the last of a dying breed.

    2. I thought Bill jumped to the front of the line when he hit 30? Did I imagine that? Wasn’t that part of the Camilla marriage deal?

      1. Nope. Prince Charles is still the heir apparent.

      2. Sorry, my ancestors fought a couple of wars so I wouldn’t have to pay attention to inbred Brits.

        1. My English father would have you know that it’s a bunch of inbred Germans. Mixed now with some Greek.

          1. It’s been Germans since what, the 1600s? And they re-named their river after his pronunciation, so it’s their own damn fault.

            1. George I (George Louis; German: Georg Ludwig; 28 May 1660 ? 11 June 1727[1]) was King of Great Britain and Ireland from 1 August 1714…

              George I was the first Hanoverian king.

              William and Mary took the throne in 1689 but they were Dutch.

            2. Oh, and Pommies don’t need any help from Squareheads to come up with bizarre pronunciations. 🙂

            3. They have distant Anglo-Saxon ancestry, as they’re descended from Harold Godwinson (one of his descendants married a descendant of William the Conqueror), as well as some Norman, Viking, etc but primarily they are German. Although I assume future royals will be mostly British, as the practice of marrying commoners like Kate Middleton becomes the norm

          2. And Scots.

            Sophie, who all english monarchs must be decended from, was the granddaughter of James I (James VI of Scotland).

            1. It should so obviously be “th-aims” not “tems”. SO STUPID

          3. The inbreeding is still there; Liz and Phil are cousins. Not first, IIANM, but close.

            And the Greek Ex-Royals are German too. IIRC, taking them on was a condition that some other European countries demanded of the Greeks in return for helping them overthrow the Turks.

            1. Sorry, the first modern Greek king was a German. But they kicked him out and then took on a Danish Prince. That’s where the Prince Philip connection is. Philip was in the line of succession to bothe the Greek and Danish thrones but had to renounce both claims as a condition of marrying then-Princess Elizabeth.

  17. Now, let’s try to step back and be fair.

    Obviously what Obama was actually trying to say is, “The future must not belong to mean old meanies who say mean things about other people’s religions just to be mean”.

    I’m pretty sure that’s actually what he meant.

    But you know what? That pisses me off, too.

    1. In the full context, you are absolutely right.

      But what’s up with the language?

      Dude, that’s fucking weird, I don’t care how permissive you are interpreting it.

      1. He may…just maybe…have meant that, but the language is a clear appeasement to the muslims. I still hear ‘the future belongs to islam’, and the muslims will hear it that way too.

        Either way it will do nothing but embolden them. Prepare for more madness. More bombs, more dead bodies, more outrages. Imadinnerjacket is backstage at the UN furiously jerking off and laughing like a hyaena.

        1. “Imadinnerjacket is backstage at the UN furiously jerking off and laughing like a hyaena.”

          Actually, he’s busy making token appearances with leaders of the self-loathing Jew community, and the rabid-Leftist Casmpus Dictator set who form the brunt of his cheering squad in the U.S. are doing their usual shtick, and trying to pass it off as proof that Ahmadinejad is a benevolent, holy being whose reputation only comes as a result of “teh corpite meedia brainedededwashings!!!11” and not the fact that he’s the Holocaust-denying puppet figurehead of a genocidally insane theocacy which routinely stones women and homosexuals to death (which the Left will NEVER FUCKING ACKNOWLEDGE, least of all when they’re campigning on the belief that everyone who doesn’t want tax dollars going to contraception is waging a war of misogyny, but I digress).

          I imagine this is what it must have felt like to be alive in the 30’s and 40’s at the height of Nazi/Commie appeasal.

    2. That is just as bad. In the future is all public religious debate going to be verboten?

    3. Precisely, Fluffy. Precisely.

    4. but he’s supposed to be a great speaker. and that’s an easy point to make. it’s practically boilerplate.

      “Those who denigrate another’s most cherished beliefs will soon they have no audience, for the future belong to a free and open society where all religions practice blah blah” obama out.

      1. He’s good at delivering speeches. Not sure if that is sufficient to be called a good speaker.

    5. I concluded years ago giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on anything makes me a chump. You are a much nicer person than I am to still do it to some extent. To some extent I too was giving the benefit just yesterday. I concluded a reference to his Muslim past with a ‘I don’t doubt he is some kind of Christian.’ So, yeah, I can still be a chump too, damn it!

      But, come on, to refer to Mo as a prophet is showing reverence for someone no Christian feels any kind of reverence. The best Muslims can hope for from a sincere Christian is tolerance with an unstated, ‘the very existence of your ‘prophet’ is an abomination and mocks my Lord.’

      1. It seems that the people who believe the worst about him are nearly always proven right in the end.

  18. Obama is on the wrong side of history on this one.

  19. I have made it clear

    Oh no he diunt…

  20. I am going to make a point of listening to Mark Levine today. His ranting will probably cause the radio to catch fire right after his head explodes. It should be quite entertaining.

    1. Ugh, if only she had a man’s voice.

      1. I refuse to use emoticons or LOLs, but yeah, that got me laughing like hell.

        I expect it will be especially high-pitched today. As I said, especially entertaining.

    2. Agree about the voice. I just can’t take it even on the occassions he is making perfect since.

      1. I sense that since you have listened to him before you sense he sensible.

        1. I love it when someone ribs someone else about a simple typo and in doing so makes one just as bad.

          Yeah…he sensible alright. ugh.

          1. That is why I never do it.

          2. The odd thing is, though my mistakes are usually made due to an aesthetic dislike for certain spellings, I chose the uglier of the two, ‘since’ over ‘sense.’

  21. This YouTube film is now a historic monument to our liberty Mr. President… not an insult to America.

  22. The future must not belong to those who neglect the alt-text.

    1. “Who will live with me in a future without hateful you-tubes and flavorless mush my wife calls rootmarm”

  23. “There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

    This should have been his entire speech. I don’t know why he constantly feels the need to try to pander to everybody on every side of a given issue.

    1. Ummm… because he’s a panderer?

      1. Oh. Yeah, I guess there’s that.

  24. Will he say the same thing when someone bad mouths Christ or Budda. I am so tired of the bending over for radical anything (Islam, Enviromentalist, Government Spending, etc). This constant dance we do is ridiculous. Be truthful and let the cards fall where they may. No radical anywhere for any reason will stop their crusade because of an apology.

  25. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

    “I give the video two thumbs down, for insulting poor Muslims!”

    I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

    “But this video only, ok? Don’t stop seeing Religulous or Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator. Those were made by my homies. Let’s be clear.”

    […]for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion.

    *cough* Crucifix in piss, paid with my tax dollars! *cough*

  26. What’s interesting is that we’re supposed to believe this 10-cent video made all that ruckus when Muslims could’ve made a much better case for their outrage after Protocol was released. I would’ve expected the president to call for all those VHS tapes to be confiscated and such, but nu-huh!

    I guess it is all in the timing…

    1. The protests (well riots really) do seem suspiciously selective in their targets. And I’d bet that 99% of the rioters have never seen the video at all.

  27. I found this line particularly shameful:

    “The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources ? it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people.”

    So if you’re a business owner who simply seeks to enter into voluntary transactions with other people based on consumer demand, you’re stealing the nation’s resources. Only if you also seek to broaden the prosperity for all people will you not be stealing resources.

    This was an absolutely shameful speech.

      1. So you guys are in favor of autocratic strongmen…?

        Who is channeling this mindless outrage? I’m just curious.

        1. His policies have traded one “autocratic strongman” for a new group of strongmen. Do you really think the people of Egypt or Lybia will start to prosper financially or increase their personal freedom because of the change, they won’t. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss( Pete Townsend). He should be saying if you want real freedom they should be like us where just because some idiot with a camera and an Internet connection makes a movie, we don’t have to kill people that had nothing to do with it. Freedom of speech is for the speech you don’t like not the other way around.

        2. Don’t worry, Tony, soon, inshallah, you will be crushed under a wall.

    1. “So if you’re a business owner who simply seeks to enter into voluntary transactions with other people based on consumer demand, you’re stealing the nation’s resources.”

      I’d have to see it in context, but I would interpret the passage you quoted to be referring to corrupt leaders of fucked up countries (e.g. most of the muslim world) who actually are stealing their countries’ resources, not about business.

  28. Obama’s audience was not the readership of Reason mag. It was, in part, the Muslim world. He gave as good a defense of free speech as you could want, then used his own speech to call for religious tolerance, something the Middle East needs a lot more than a lecture on Jeffersonianism.

    1. He gave as good a defense of free speech as you could want

      No, he did not. That’s what we are all complaining about.

      then used his own speech to call for religious tolerance

      No, he did not. There’s a difference between tolerance and deference. He wants us to adopt the Muslim standard for speech about Islam. Fuck that.

      1. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don’t we 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. 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 profoundly 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 quickly become a tool to silence critics and 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.

        1. Reread the whole transcript and that is well said. I’ll give him that.

        2. It is no secret that “hate speech” is used in countless places to suppress free speech, usually to protect “minorities”. In the real world free speech is very much restricted, usually by the leftists that you defend with such rosy words.

      2. I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

        The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

      3. Since Reason saw fit to truncate that bit in favor of the bit it wanted to bitch about.

    2. Piss be upon him for not being the President of the United States of America – the job he was allegedly elected to. He wants to go soothe damaged egos of Islam, then get a TV show on al-Arabya or Al-Jezzera and feel their pain. Explain our position on liberty, then STOP.

      1. It is not our position on liberty that all speech is good speech. If you want someone to take a shit on Muhammad just to show we can do it, watch South Park. You guys are just grasping at something to bitch about. The speech was measured to the point of bland. And not every country he’s talking to has a tradition of free speech.

        1. It is my position on liberty that the President of the United States should not while on the clock attempt to whip up the world to unify to condemn people who engage in free speech.

    3. Why didn’t he talk about Muslim destruction of Buddist statues. Muslim governments enslavment of their women. You don’t make apologies for our freedoms you defend them. This is the perfect opportunity to say to this audience, if you want tolerance you have to show to religious minorities in their country the same tolerance. Constant apologizing does not make the world safer. Radicals take it as a sign of weakness. He should be apologizing for drone strikes in these countries if he wants to apologize so bad. Killing people makes them mad not movies.

      1. Point out where he apologized for something.

        1. I read the entire transcript and I was wrong on my previous post.

    4. So you’re saying that Obama hopes that the american people don’t listen to what he actually said in this speech?

      I can believe that.

      With the way MSM covers him, that’s probably pretty likely to happen.

  29. IF he was real, I’m pretty sure Mohamed was a camel jockey.

    1. riding sidesaddle

    2. Why do they call camels the ships of the desert?

      1. Camels usually walk, especially if it is hot, but when they must go faster they either gallop or pace. The pace is a medium-speed movement in which both legs on the same side rise and fall together. This leg action produces a swaying, rocking motion that makes some riders “seasick.” Camels are sometimes called “ships of the desert.”

    3. Brilliant disguise! Which of the three stooges are you?

  30. No way, Tony.

    Take the Muslims out of it for a second.

    Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated

    Um, fuck you, dude.

    I don’t have to condemn anybody for “desecrating the image of Jesus Christ”.

    This is Obama’s equivalent of Romney’s statement that “the important thing is that you have faith in something”. No, that’s not the important thing.

    The most charitable reading of what Obama is saying is that he’s embracing a model of “pluralism” that consists not in each man having liberty to say what he wants and criticize what he wants, but in the various sects getting together and agreeing not to fight and agreeing to condemn anyone who criticizes any one of the sects as a “hater”. And that model of pluralism is contemptible.

    1. Look I’m a militant atheist and I get off on insulting anyone’s religion as often as possible.

      Obama is not speaking to a world of militant atheists, he’s speaking to a world of mostly religious people. In the Middle East, they are particularly hot under the collar about it. He gave the UN all the lecturing you could possibly want on American free speech (for what it’s worth I felt the speech was probably a little grating on that front from the perspective of a non-American–thanks for the lecture dude, bomb any more civilians today?).

      He said absolutely nothing whatsoever calling for any restriction on anyone’s speech. He said explicitly the opposite. He said explicitly that bigoted speech can’t be contained even if we wanted to, and that it’s never an excuse for violence.

      Then all he said was let’s try to get along a little better and stop hurling religious bigotry back and forth. But in typical fashion you guys aren’t happy unless he takes a literal shit on Muhammad just to prove how badass we are.

      1. I don’t need him to take a shit on Mohammad.

        I would have been satisfied if he had refrained from asking the world to unite with him in denouncing Andres Serrano.

        1. It’s a perfectly reasonable sentiment, and after all, merely another speech act. Free speech does mean tolerating offensive speech, but it does not mean refraining from criticizing it.

          1. It is if your desire to condemn is borne from a fear that someone is going to burn your house down if you don’t. Don’t pretend this “soothing” isn’t in part due to the incredibly thin skinned people involved here. The US government itself subsidized Piss Christ, it didn’t have much qualms about pissing people off there because they knew people wouldn’t be cold bloodedly killing people and burning buildings to the ground. So we have to measure what we say, as satire, because of the psychotic reaction to it? I’d say it’s the opposite. It’s only through hammering this message does it accustom these nuts to reality of what free speech is. Not only do we NOT tuck tail and run, we PUSH the message.

            I wonder how Obama would have felt about all the provocative anti-slave talk 170 years ago. We shouldn’t rile up the blood now should we. The more intolerant the people you are dealing with the more aggressive you have to be. That is what free speech is for, not debating leagues and college class rooms to ruminate over. It’s a protracted battle between people who want to be free and those who wish to cow them. Willing to be cowed, or joining them in cowing others is reprehensible.

            In the end, taking the whole speech together, it is simply doublespeak. It is contradictory and meaningless. Trying to all things to all people, it ends up empty rhetoric.

          2. T o n y| 9.25.12 @ 5:13PM |#
            “It’s a perfectly reasonable sentiment,…”

            No, it’s not, shithead. A reasonable sentiment would be for the world to laugh at stupid bleevers.
            You may be a militant atheist, but you seem to give it up when your fave politico says we should all play nice.

          3. Tony, from a private citizen, saying “you must condemn the filmmaker” is free speech opinion — wrongheaded and giving unauthorized direction, but still, just opinion.

            But from the president of the US, it is direction given, top-down, that is anti-free speech. For these four (or eight) years, he does not speak as a private citizen. He’s on the clock, 24/7.

            Obama has always been weak on what the constitution actually means. His administration is replete with examples of either continuing or instantiating unconstitutional activities.

            This is just one more example of the same.

            Unfortunately, there is no viable alternative at this time.

      2. You are a complete puss and fool – that is if we are take your persona here as real.

  31. ” Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.”

    It’s horrible to have a President who can’t see the difference between acts of speech and the physical destruction of churches.

    1. Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. Desecrating someone else’s image of Jesus or destroying a church is bad. Desecrating your own personal picture of Jesus is A-OK in my book. Big difference. ANother good example: saying mean things about Mohammed is OK. Breaking other people’s stuff and killing people because you are annoyed about what other people said is not.

      1. The spirit of Johnny Cash:

        “I thank God for all the freedoms we have in this country,” Cash said once before performing “Ragged Old Flag” live, “even the rights to burn the flag.” The crowd didn’t like that suggestion. They booed. “Wait wait,” he said calming the crowd. “But we’ve also got the right to bear arms. And if you burn my flag, I’ll shoot you. But I’ll shoot you with a lot of love, like a good American.”…..dq=johnny cash I thank god flagpg=PA2#v=onepageq=johnny cash I thank god flagf=false

  32. Realizing that this was a prepared statement sends chills down my spine.

  33. To be credible, you must blow something up.

    That is the message.

    The United States fears and respects violence as a means to an end.

  34. The must not slander the prophet quote makes more sense if you realize that everything Obama says is calculated to get votes. He’s trying to get the Muslim vote. He knows that none of the other 47% will care what he says.

    1. This is insightful.

  35. Indeed. Mostly, it was naught but a blurry blanket of breezy bromides (with a bright bit here and there). But this bit of “MUST”urbation really itched my Liberty-bits.

    No, POTUS-O, we “MUST” do no such bloody thing, thankyouverymuch.

  36. To quote Churchill:

    Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

  37. Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!…..evolution/
    “Food For Thought”
    Semper Fi!

    “Food For Thought”
    Semper Fi!

  39. Well, I finally read the damn transcript. I was expecting something execrable, but that was really the only truly sour note. Eh. My rage has to be vented on videogame critters now.

  40. How horrible of the President to try to diffuse a situation and save American lives.

  41. This goes well beyond stupid and into dangerously stupid…..…..eech_.html

    1. indeed. And by a Posner!

  42. The President’s remarks strike me as exactly right. We will all lose in a world in which religious intolerance flourishes. This truth is too obvious to need to be stated, or so I thought. Apparently it is not.

    I hope that the President’s sane and thoughtful remarks have the effect that they deserve to have — one can at least hope.

    And, while I’m at it: Four more years!

    1. “We will all lose in a world in which religious intolerance flourishes.”

      Only the superstitious lose, and even then they only lose in the matter of their superstitions. OTOH, they gain in that they now have a realty-based view of the world, which will make them considerably more effective.

      If superstition goes away, we’ll all be better off. And that most definitely includes the presently superstitious.

    2. “We will all lose in a world in which religious intolerance flourishes.”

      Sure, if by this you’re referring to the religious intolerance of a group of people to react to the thoughts and words of others with anything except psychotic violence.

      If you’re suggesting fighting religious intolerance by way of regarding either a specific or all religion as being above criticism, satiure or ridcule, then you’re a damn fool and a hypocrite.

  43. The President’s comments about those who steal their country’s resources was a not so veiled reference to Mubarack, but it could also apply to Putin and all the other leaders of the world’s great kleptocracies. This speech is one of his best, and it made me feel proud to be an American — because it made me feel that America is still, somehow, the country that gave the world a Jefferson and a Lincoln.

    1. Yes because in America those multi-millionaire politicians, many of them that have never done anything other than politics, are all honest and earned that money through hard work.

  44. “Every stink that fights the ventilator thinks it is Don Quixote.”

  45. In Mecca one of the rituals is to stone the devil, which clearly is intolerant to satanists. When is somebody going to stand up for them against this hateful behaviour ? Probably only when there a billion satanists and only a handful of muslims in the world. This is zero to do with tolerance, but more to do with pandering based on fear of a big group of people.

  46. First of all some of you RIGHT WINGED EVIL PEOPLE would not know God if he stood in front of you floating on top of an Olympic Swimming Pool. How you can sit there and talk about the President’s speech and try to dissect it like you all are mind readers or God is simply the Republican way. We all know that the USA abuses freedom of speech. None of you would be singing this tune, had one of your family members been killed because of these extreme nutt job religious fanatics. They do this crap, because of HATE, nothing more nothing less. The people who killed the Prime Minister and the other people are horrible demons. And the people who constantly spew HATE HATE HATE in the name of our precious FREEDOM OF SPEECH are no better than those individuals.

    1. “And the people who constantly spew HATE HATE HATE in the name of our precious FREEDOM OF SPEECH are no better than those individuals.”

      Yes, they are, by any reasonable person’s standard. Not to put too fine a point on it, you’re a monster and a psychopath if you think that a bitter insult from a member of an oppressed group is the moral equivalent of the murder and violence and intimidation directed against that group that lead them to such bitterness.

  47. I think the best thing I read was that if you’d heard this speech on 9/12/01 and been told it was the president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama speaking in 2012, you’d think we lost.

    “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam”

    There was no need for this phrase. It glares out from the speech like a threat. It should be taken as such.

  48. His remark that the future “must” not belong to those who insult “The Prophet” raises the question of to whom the future does belong, and brought to mind this scene from “Cabaret”:

  49. Obama did what he always does…
    speak out of both sides of his mouth. Standing up for free speech while condemning certain speech.

    He does it all the time with everything. People like Tony hear the “standing up” part, and excuse away the “condemn it” part. It was how he was able to be the cipher, all things to all people, before he got elected.

    Its simply amazing that being so self-contradictory is treated as great speaking. I guess if you are just looking for bullet points to check off, and don’t care to actually think about what someone is saying, he is great.

    His speeches about race, inequality, religious tolerance, regulation, gov vs private sector, he always contradicts the shit out of his own words, and dumb people think it is being balanced or nuanced.

  50. Clearly the current administration does not believe in “People before Prophets”.

  51. Funny, I don’t see him condemning those who slander the Mormon prophet.

    1. Even when it’s his own campaign media network who is doing the slander

  52. I did see one promising comment in Obama’s speech:

    “Attacking an embassy won’t create a single job.”

    That’s better economics than he’s been showing any signs of before.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.