See my commentary from July.
Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. – Barack Obama’s secretary of state, September 13, 2012
I said earlier this week that Barack Obama is not an American because he does not believe in the founding principles of America. Republicans need to keep pounding this point home, because this is a huge weakness for this President in the upcoming election. But much more important than that is how incredibly dangerous Barack Obama’s foreign mindset is to our national security.
Obama’s secretary of state is dead wrong. We have never had a commitment to religious tolerance. We have a commitment to religious liberty. The two are closely related, but are most certainly not the same. “Tolerance” is very dangerous because it can be used to silence views that are seen as “intolerant” – which is exactly what the Muslim terrorists are demanding that we do.
Again, make no mistake about it. This is about Sharia law. This is about banning all criticism of Islam and Mohammed, and Barack Obama is playing right into their hands. This obscure video is an excuse for the riots, not a reason for them.
Religious liberty, meanwhile, is very different. Religious liberty means our government will allow us to practice our chosen faith and to speak of our faith without worry that the government will come knock down our door and arrest us for not following the state’s chosen religion or the majority’s chosen religion – or for being “intolerant.” Religious liberty means that I can say Islam is a false religion (which it is) and Mohammed is a false prophet (which he is) and Muslims can also voice their opinions. Government’s only role is to make it illegal for Muslims to kill me for saying what I just said.
If Obama was an American, he would not be denouncing the video. The only people he would denounce would be the terrorists. If Obama was an American, he would not be distancing himself from the video. He would be embracing freedom of speech and telling the terrorists to deal with it.
If Obama was an American, he would not be rounding up the man who made the film like he was some sort of criminal. He would be ordering the Libyan government to turn over the terrorists so we can exterminate them – or we will come get them ourselves, and exterminate them.
The remarks by Obama’s secretary of state were utterly despicable. In response to terrorist attacks against America, in response to the obviously premeditated and pre-planned murder of our ambassador, the Obama administration’s response is to denounce the “offensive” video two days after 9/11.
I never thought I would see the day when the President of the United States would side with the terrorists, especially only 11 years after the war crimes committed on September 11. That day is here, and we knew this day would come the moment Obama was announced as the winner of the 2008 election. Obama must not be re-elected.
Former Monroe County Council member Scott Wells was arrested for drunk driving and other things ten years ago today. He has whined non-stop about it for the last ten years, but Scott Wells was not set up. He was convicted. He’s guilty. Earlier this year, I outperformed Wells in the primary election where Wells attempted to reclaim his county council seat and lost. Wells was rejected a second time in July when he attempted to fill a ballot vacancy in a party caucus.
What was interesting is that the response dismissed my entire argument as “a snarky little letter” and focused on my closing line: “How’s that hope & change workin’ out for ya?” (On a side note, it’s interesting that is always tied to Sarah Palin, when the phrase I use comes from Rush Limbaugh. Palin’s phrase is slightly different.) So let me break it down:
- Questioning why President George W. Bush is not actively supporting Mitt Romney is irrelevant to Obama’s record on civil liberties.
- Complaining about the economic downturn that was in place when Obama took office is irrelevant to Obama’s record on civil liberties.
- Complaining about the Republican House (ignoring the fact that Obama had huge majorities in both houses when he took office and could do anything he wanted) is irrelevant to Obama’s record on civil liberties.
The fact of the matter is that, after years of rhetoric about Bush’s record on civil liberties from Democrats and promises by Obama himself to be more respectful of civil liberties, Obama made it worse. Not only has Obama re-authorized the Patriot Act, but he has also increased the use of drone strikes, including one to assassinate an American citizen who had not even been charged with a crime.
In the comments for my letter, it was suggested that republicans would have blocked a significant overhaul of the Patriot Act. Again ignoring the fact that Obama had huge majorities in both houses for the first two years of his time in office, Obama did not need to do anything to get rid of the Patriot Act. He simply had to do nothing at all. Yet the Democratic Congress passed and the Obama signed an extension of it.
But it does not end there. Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on New Year’s Eve 2011. The American Civil Liberties Union points out that this law codifies “indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.” What happened to the promise of more respect for civil liberties?
The question I asked three weeks ago remains unanswered. How’s that hope & change workin’ out for ya?
Last week, Peggy Welch signed a “clean campaign” pledge for the race to represent the new District 60, which has moved north to include Morgan County as well as parts of Welch’s old district in Monroe County.
Before I even get to the issue, the Herald-Times displayed incredibly bad judgment in having Mike Leonard be the reporter assigned to this race. Leonard has a long history of sharply partisan attacks on Republicans and conservatives, including an utterly shameful incident earlier this year where Leonard spewed a smear against a Christian pastor who was to speak on the IU campus. (See here and here and here and here and here for more about Leonard.)
Leonard did not even attempt to contact the pastor for the “news” article that appeared on the front page of the Herald-Times. Even if Leonard covers this race in an ethical, factual and truthful manner, his reporting automatically lacks credibility because of his history of being a dishonest partisan hack.
As to Welch’s “clean campaign” pledge, she is obviously rattled about mailings sent by the House Republican Campaign Committee to voters in her district criticizing her for joining her fellow Democrats in fleeing the state to prevent the Indiana House of Representatives from doing business in 2011. I posted a scan of the mailing on Twitter and PhotoBucket, and there is nothing uncivil about it – the mailing truthfully reports Welch’s record as a legislator. There are no personal attacks whatsoever in the mailer.
But Welch does not like it, whining that the Republicans “dropped three negative mail pieces the first week of August” and claiming that “it is possible for a first-time candidate to control her caucus.” Welch bragged that she told the state Democrats that she would not go negative and would not allow them to do so either – which is simply not true. One mailer attacked her 1998 opponent, Jeff Ellington, for allegedly turning his back on Middle Way House. I hope that Welch simply does not remember this mailer, and is not being dishonest.
Congratulations to Peggy Mayfield for not playing this silly game. These “clean campaign” pledges are often a sham, little more than a thinly-disguised effort to get Republicans to not criticize Democrats at all, even on relevant things like someone’s record or qualifications for the office.
As much as people whine about negative campaigning, if a candidate truly believes that his opponent is not qualified to serve because of his record, qualifications or ideology, that candidate has an obligation to go negative to explain to the voters why electing the other candidate would be ineffective, counterproductive or destructive. The HRCC is absolutely right to attack Welch for fleeing to Illinois and preventing the business of the state from getting done.
The key point here is that negative and dirty are not the same. Falsely claiming a politician has committed adultery, stealing yard signs or vandalizing campaign headquarters are examples of dirty tricks. Criticizing a legislator’s voting record or behavior in office is relevant to the campaign and would not violate a sane clean campaign pledge.
ABC News was whining last night about ATM fees. I see absolutely no problem with this. Do you really expect another bank to give you services for free, when you don’t have an account there? You can always go to your own bank’s ATM, and there are other ways to get access to your cash for free – like most grocery stores.
It is really irritating when some fool will not let me over and then proceeds to pass me on the right. Look, fool, if you would slow down and let me over, you would not have to pass me on the right. But you’re so impatient that you simply do not care about proper behavior. You and your kind need to not be driving at all.
Barack Obama’s response to the preplanned terrorist strike on our consulate in Libya and the preplanned Muslim “outrage” over an obscure low-budget Internet movie continues to be a shameful betrayal of American values.
Not content with his embassy employees in Cairo apologizing for our First Amendment, Obama has now dispatched his Secretary of State to continue to apologize for America. Oh, we don’t have anything to do with this evil video, Obama’s SOS whines pathetically. Please don’t blame us for the actions of those bad people insulting Mohammed.
Folks, this is ridiculous. Does anyone really think that the attack on our consulate in Libya by well-organized militants with assault weapons and rocket propelled grenades was not planned well in advance to coincide with the eleventh anniversary of the war crimes committed by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001? It is true that the terrorists have managed to exploit the sensitive feelings of mindless savages to whip up some AstroTurf outrage, but let’s be honest here. These protests have nothing to do with an obscure Internet video. These protests are part of a planned attack on freedom and a effort to implement Sharia law.
If anything, Obama is inviting further attacks by repeatedly apologizing for our Constitution and begging the terrorists not to blame the U.S. government for the “offensive” words of relatively unknown Internet activists. Displaying weakness only invites more aggression. Remember that Osama bin Laden himself wrote after we cut and run from Somalia when warlords and terrorists murdered our troops and dragged their corpses through the streets in a demonic victory celebration. Remember, we were there on a humanitarian mission to stop a man-made famine. Those mindless savages must have really wanted to starve to death.
Let’s get this straight: Free speech does not invite terrorism. People say critical things about Islam all the time, and this is what the terrorists are angry about? The terrorists suddenly decide, on the anniversary of 9/11, to get angry about an Internet video that has been up for several months? Please. No one is that stupid. This is all a ruse to attack our freedom – to demand that the government practice censorship of speech that Muslim terrorists find offensive. The worst thing is that Barack Obama is siding with the Muslim terrorists.
I am not a “birther.” I am convinced that Barack Obama was born in the United States and is a natural born American citizen. But with or without a birth certificate, born in Hawaii or born in Kenya, Barack Obama is not an American. He does not believe in the Constitution that he swore to protect and he does not believe in the right of free speech that so many Americans have given their blood to protect. Obama actually attempted to convince Google to remove the “offensive” video – to practice censorship to appease the terrorists. Obama’s ideology is both foreign and dangerous.
And once again, let’s not forget that deceased Libyan tyrant Moammar Gadhafi was marching toward Benghazi just a year and a half ago and would have burned that city to the ground and slaughtered every single person there had the United States and other Western powers not intervened and gave the rebels just enough breathing room to mount a counter-attack, topple Gadhafi and then summarily execute the war criminal as soon as he was captured.
The complete and total lack of gratitude is evil.
An increasingly popular and unquestionably evil meme making the rounds in the media is that this is a clash between “extremists” – as if the people who made the controversial video are on the same moral ground as the mindless savages who rape, murder and riot. Rachel Maddow actually said this on her September 13 program after listing a number of incidents where Muslim terrorists rioted and murdered in response to something that “offended” them:
Nobody has the power to force a civilized detente between provocateurs and the angry mobs who give them meaning.
We need to have an adult conversation about Islam. Christianity is insulted all the time. Take a look at comment sections for newspapers not to mention various forums scattered across cyberspace and you will see countless examples of blasphemy. Yet when the taxpayer money is used to fund “art” like a picture of a cross in a jar of urine, you don’t have Christians rioting and murdering and engaging in wanton destruction of property.
Why is that? What is it about Islam that turns otherwise normal people into mindless savages hell bent on killing anyone who disrespects their “prophet” or their religion? Is there something wrong with Islam itself that brings about these actions? We need to have an adult conversation about the “religion of peace” and whether it actually is what its defenders claim it to be. Can we have that conversation, as adults, without being accused of racism or bigotry?
The following is an open letter to the legislators that represent Monroe County in the Indiana House and Senate.
What is sad here is that after the Indiana Daily Student published an irresponsible editorial basically advertising the smartphone app (which I will not name here) the app becomes the catalyst for a violent crime. What the app does is make it possible for people to “hook up” for anonymous sex.
“Hooking up” is not new by any means, but the extent to which sexual intimacy has been cheapened in our culture to the point that people will give their bodies away without a second thought is a great tragedy that has destroyed many souls. This is not God’s plan for sexuality as our Lord Jesus Christ explained in Mark 10:1-9.
Both the Indiana Daily Student and the Herald-Times reported this week that a man was raped by another man after meeting through a social networking smartphone application. But the IDS article contained a surprising and disturbing quote: “Indiana Code does not constitute forced man-on-man penetration as rape.” A quick look at IC 35-42-4-1 confirms this.
While the rapist would be prosecuted under the Criminal Deviate Conduct portion of the code, I believe this is an unfortunate oversight in the code that should be corrected as soon as possible. Men who are victims of rape should not be told by the Indiana Code that what was done to them is not rape. Everyone instinctively knows that sexual penetration against someone’s will is rape, regardless of whether it is done to someone of the same sex or opposite sex.
I find it amazing that this is still the case in 2012, but this can be fixed easily and with almost no effort or time. I see no reason why we should not have complete bipartisan agreement on changing the law to make it clear that all rape is indeed rape. In fact, this is such an obvious common-sense change that it should pass unanimously in both houses.
Thanks for your time.
As a reminder, the Community Reinvestment Act played a huge role in the 2008 financial crisis. Big banks were pushed by the federal government to give loans to people who could not pay them back. The banks tried to make this work, but eventually the whole house of cards came crashing down. It is shockingly dishonest for Barack Obama and his cronies to blame the banks for the crisis that the government created with foolish policies like the CRA.
Federal deficit spending out of control — October 22, 2009
The Community Reinvestment Act, revisited — October 25, 2010
More on the Community Reinvestment Act — December 18, 2010
More on the Community Reinvestment Act and the housing bubble — November 8, 2011
The Community Reinvestment Act, revisited — December 28, 2011