Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Obama's UN Speech

By Jennifer Rubin
Right Turn
The Washington Post
September 25, 2012

President Obama is so soaked in the State Department/Western European/ leftist intellectual goo of moral relativism and disdain for core American values that I doubt he understood how offensive were hisremarks at the United Nations today.
After fessing up that our embassy people were killed by terrorists (he doesn’t say what kind, however) and reciting that violence is never justified he then once again denounced the anti-Islam video. And he delivers this:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”
Together, we must work towards a work where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.
Where to begin?
Let’s start with the simple observation that he is the president and not the minister of religion. It is not necessary for him to select out one or another references to the Divine. (No “God of Moses”?). It sounds like blatant pandering and it is.

The fact that he embodies the U.N. mantra on defamation of religion (“slander”) is even more regrettable. This is, as informed watchers of the U.N. know, an invidious movement to control and suppress speech, to prevent criticism of Islamic extremists and to use the West’s legal system against itself.
Moreover, Obama is heading down a path to nowhere in which every statement of intolerance theoretically must be individually condemned by our government. But he doesn’t mean it. The hypocrisy is evident. He doesn’t and will never do this when Evangelical Christians are vilified, when art displays portray Jesus in offensive ways or when Broadway musicals jab at Mormons.
Moreover, the moral equivalence is downright appalling. Intolerant speech and insulting cartoons — that is free speech — is NOT the same as violence. And Holocaust denial by governments is not the same as boisterous, irreverent free speech exercised by free peoples.When he also concedes that the future should not belong to those “who target Coptic Christians in Egypt “ and “bully women” ( bullying is what he calls mutilation, honor killings and child marriages?) in the same patter in which he denounces those who “slander” Islam he suggests these are all equally heinous and all deserving of eradication.
The rest of his speech was equally disingenuous. A few examples: “Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace.” Which party went to the U.N. to get a unilateral declaration, left bilateral negotiations and has made a pact with Hamas?
That and other sections, as John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, told me, “were infused with the fallacy of moral equivalency. While Obama defended the First Amendment, he also said that we accepted that others didn’t. It’s no wonder Obama doesn’t understand the real threats to America in the Middle East.” Obama said the defense of free peoples reflects “universal values” but later concedes “I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech.”
On Syria: “In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there’s a cause that cries out for protests in the world today, peaceful protest, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets in apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.” But what will he do, other than speak pretty words? Nothing.
The president’s policy is in deep disarray because his thinking is deeply misguided. When at the U.N., it would be appropriate for the president to say clearly and without caveats that the U.S. does not label obnoxious speech “slander” nor apologize for it. It defends liberty. Period. We are faced with a segment of Islamic extremists who are offended by the idea of freedom. They must be defeated, and the West must be defended. Unfortunately, this president will never be so clear. And his policy will forever be a muddled failure.
By   |  01:14 PM ET, 09/25/2012 

No comments: