Senator Inhofe says what many are thinking: “I just don’t know whose side he’s on…”


In response to Obama’s Muslim-coddling and apologies for America during his speech at Cairo, Eqypt last week, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) makes a statement that most of us are thinking:

“I just don’t know whose side he’s on…”

Now, of course, several of the group-thinking leftists in the blogosphereare simply appalled. Most are spewing hateful insults to Inhofe without really debating the facts about Obama’s policies and what Inhofe actually said.  That is largely because much of the time blinded Obama supporters and Leftists (not necessarily mutually exclusive) can’t argue based on the facts. 

Here is what Infofe said:

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program. Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.” …. “I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.

Frankly, many of us, including those in government roles, have had similar thoughts.  While we, nor Inhofe, at this point, could prove or even outright state that Obama is squarely on the side of our enemies, it is a rational thought to wonder which side he is on. 

There are several ways to look at it – is he on the side of freedom or oppression? for or against the rights of Muslim women?  supportive of his country’s history and Constitution or ashamed of it in such a way that our country must be radically “changed”?

Here’s a few more thoughts in that direction in analyzing just whose side Obama sounds like he is on:

Why does Obama, for all the world to see, choose to validate “the Muslim world”, but says his own country is not a Christian nation or even acknowledge its Judeo-Christian roots?

The Asia Times had a response to Obama’s Cairo speech that hits the nail on the head regarding Obama’s validation of the “Muslim World”:

The Asia Timessaid Obama made a mistake by speaking in Cairo. “Why should the president of the United States address the ‘Muslim world?,” it asked. “What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the ‘Christian world’? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk.”

 “To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration,” the paper stated, “and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”

Does Obama love his country or does he hold such disdain for the greatest country on earth that he can’t help but apologize and put us on equal footing with “The Muslim World” – particularly the part of that “world” that uses violence to spread its nasty tentacles throughout the Middle East, Europe and around the world?

Mark Steyn says it best about Obama addressing the “Muslim World”, as if the “Muslim World” is somehow on par with a sovereign and free nation, the United States.

Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department Web site, “President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyperalert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the United Nations and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and Presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Barack Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.

Mark Steyn also hits on Obama’s continued apologies for his own country:

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea and any other psychostate minded to join them.

Is Obama clearly ignorant of Islam in our early history or he is being disingenous, at best, with the facts of our history?  He portrayed Islam as something embraced by our forefathers, when, in reality, they were studious of Islam in an effort to understand their enemy even then.  Obama had this to say in his speech in Cairo:

Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” … And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

From   Andy McCarthy at National Review, the history of Jefferson’s Koran is centered around Jefferson’s need to understand his enemy, not because he embraced the words of the Koran.  Obama’s reference to Keith Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Koran is wholly disengenuous and his history is revisionist, just as it was when Ellison touted the fact at his inauguratoin.

[I]n 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today’s Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, ….

The conclusion on why Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran is best summed up by David Barton in “An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran

Recall that Jefferson had been personally exposed to Islamic beliefs when attempting to secure peace between America and Muslim terrorists. Having been told by the Muslim Ambassador that the Koran promised Paradise as a reward for enslaving, killing, and war, Jefferson inquired into the irrational beliefs that motivated the Muslim groups and individuals warring against America.

 Is Obama for or against freedom?  Is it freedom in the Muslim world for women to wear the hajib?  Or, more correctly, is it freedom for women to have the choice to wear the hajib or not?  Most Muslim cultures and states dictate (through violence, death and other means) what the women wear, who they may converse with, who they may marry, and almost every aspect of their lives…..but Obama says that the US will fight for the woman’s right to where the hajib?!?!

Caroline Glick makes this point:

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn’t care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

Is he for or against the rights of Israel, our allies, to maintain its land and its growth in the settlements?  Obama wants a two-state solution where Israel gives up its land to those who have already stated that Israel has no right to exist.

 Mark Steyn shreds the notion that we must stop the growth of Israel into the settlements:

On the other hand, a “single nation” certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel regarding its West Bank communities, there has to be “a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” No “natural growth”? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you’ve got to talk gran’ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn or wherever? At a stroke, the administration has endorsed “the Muslim world’s” view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: the Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow.Would Obama be comfortable mandating “no natural growth” to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced “the Muslim world’s” commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the West but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.

It is disheartening to endure the apologies for this country made by our President.  This country, almost from its inception, has been the beacon of good in the world.  Domestically, in a few short months of this administration’s policies, we are already weary of unconstitutional takeover of private companies, union political paybacks, and “change” to a bankrupt, Socialist nation….all being implemented at lightning speed….

And we’ve yet to even endure Obama’s healthcare takeover with accompanying rationing and taxes, energy tax, and the repercussions of his “sudden” Muslim roots and awakening — and now the coddling of “the Muslim World” and their anti-freedom mindset –people who will no more respect this country than Obama seems to respect our Judeo-Christian history, traditions, and US Constitution.

In reference to immigration, Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about allegiance and loyalty to one’s country back in 1919:

“…..this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American….There can be no divided allegiance here.  We have room for but one flag (in this country)….We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

In a different twist on Inhofe’s statement, my question is:  Where does Obama’s one soul loyalty lie?

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. Your piece is so unbelievably biased and naive.

    I’m sorry, but you don’t even begin to approach this topic in a balanced or rational way.

  2. Enlighten me Elliot…..obviously you understand that Obama is clearly a “true” American Patriot with our best interest at heart….and he obviously knows better than the 43 Presidents who came before him….
    Help me understand.

  3. Wow. You truly believe that your piece was an unbiased and entirely accurate portrayal of that speech? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that anyone could have such a polemical and vitriolic response to it. But, whatever, I guess we’re all entitled to our own opinions…

    We could spend days arguing over each point you raised, I’m sure. So, maybe it would be better if we go through these one-by-one. Let’s start with the hijab issue:

    Obama said, “Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That’s why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.”

    He then goes on to say, “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.”

    You wrote, though, ” Is Obama for or against freedom? Is it freedom in the Muslim world for women to wear the hajib? Or, more correctly, is it freedom for women to have the choice to wear the hajib or not? Most Muslim cultures and states dictate (through violence, death and other means) what the women wear, who they may converse with, who they may marry, and almost every aspect of their lives…..but Obama says that the US will fight for the woman’s right to where the hajib?!?!”

    Wait a minute here. You seem to have, intentionally or not, twisted Obama’s words. Obama’s remark on the hijab wasn’t about gender repression in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan, or anywhere else in the world. It was about religious freedom in the United States. It was about respecting Muslim culture and trying to combat the derogatory stereotype that has been so maliciously linked with it.

    If you are really criticizing Obama’s words….those important “facts” you claim to base your piece on….then your point seems to be that you don’t think Muslim women should wear the hijab..ever…even if it is entirely their decision, without coercion, to wear it as an expression of their faith?

    And, if that’s true, I’m wondering how you reconcile that with your unabashed promotion of “freedom”? Honestly, it sounds to me that you would rather be the oppressor by denying those Muslim American women the basic freedom to choose and the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit?

    Our nation, undoubtedly, has Christian roots…but we were also founded upon the idea of religious freedom and toleration. Your criticism of the hijab does anything but advocate for those things. That, to me, is “un-American”.

  4. Eliot,
    This whole piece was meant to support the thoughts of Inhofe…. I outlined several areas, mostly within Obama’s speech in Cairo, where it is difficult to tell what Obama believes and where his loyalties lie.

    You spoke of the hajib and that is a good example to run with….First, I would like for you to show me where I said or insinuated that I “don’t think Muslim women should wear the hijab..ever”. I didn’t…and that wasn’t the point.

    The point is that with Obama’s words, it is difficult to tell what side he is on. In Muslim countries, women are forced by threats of violence to wear the hajib, the burqa, or other pieces of clothing, depending on the country/area. Granted there may be some women who want to wear it, but the numbers who would choose that clothing given the FREEDOM to do so, would not choose to wear it. They have NO CHOICE in many Islamic countries.

    If they come here in a country where religious freedom is inherent in our being, if they want to wear the hajib, they have that freedom as it should be. But I don’t see any big push in this country to keep Islamic women from doing so if they wish. Of course, a few days after Obama’s speech his DOJ is going after a company in New Jersey, I believe, who prohibited a woman from wearing the hajib. And by the way, there may very well be valid issues in some companies (ie disruption, other uniforms, etc.) or for other reasons (ie driver’s license pictures) that hajib can’t be worn…not because of religion but because of security, safety, laws, or needs of a business. That is entirely valid.
    But I do wonder if that were a Christian woman sharing Bibles with her coworkers that Obama’s DOJ would also defend her right to free exercise of religion…Answer: I highly doubt it.
    But back to the issue…this country doesn’t have blocks of people denying woman to wear the hajib…Obama’s disingenous words insinuated that our country was limiting the right to wear a hajib on a large scale.

    Woman and girls are treated as objects in many Islamic countries. They have few to no rights, they are beaten for looking at men or being alone with them, they are genitally mutilated as very young girls, and/or they may be victims of honor killings if the males in that family believe they have committed some sexual crime.

    Obama states that he is for freedom and religious freedom. You won’t find a true conservative in this country that disagrees with religious freedom as long as, perhaps, those freedoms are not against the law or infringing upon other rights.
    I would be one who wholeheartedly believes in free expression which is why I believe Islamic women can wear a hajib and why I believe that Boy Scouts have the right to keep homosexuals out of their ranks and why children should be able to read Bibles and talk about Jesus in school.

    So, Obama is disingenous in his statements of allowing hajibs in this country. But further, he never mentioned the verses of the Koran that clearly outline women as less than a man and he never mentioned the harsh lack of freedom that women endure in Islamic countries.

    So, is Obama for the choice to wear the hajib? or does he agree that the countries that FORCE women to wear the hajib may do so in the name of religious freedom?

    Is he for religious freedom which these women (and Christians and Jews) don’t have in many Islamic countries or not?

    It’s hard to tell which side he falls on…see what I mean? (and the hajib is one example)

  5. I can’t help but notice that you continue to twist Obama’s words in order demonize him. The part about the hijab was in reference to religious freedom in the United States. But, you distort those words to imply that he is also advocating for gender repression in the Muslim world. That’s just a bold lie.

    In fact, his entire 6th point was about women’s rights. He says, “Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.”

    It is not hard to tell whch side he falls on – it’s perfectly clear. He’s advocating for their choice. He’s advocatig for their freedom. To reason anything different from his actual words (those facts you continue to not base your piece on) is just willful ignorance.

  6. Elliot,
    Obviously, you use your “willful ignorance” with regards to what I’ve written.

    Women in the “Muslim World” are FORCED to wear the hajib….if Obama is so much for women’s rights in the “Muslime World”, why didn’t he condemn the threats of violence on women in forcing them to wear it instead of SUPPORTING the suppression of women’s freedom by saying we will fight for that “right” to wear a hajib in the US?
    That is the point.

    The other point is he would never condemn the violence, rights suppression, and downright hatred that exists —for women, Americans, Christians, Jews–in the Muslim World while he is trying to coddle them.
    And by not condemning the suppression of women in the Muslim World, he is, in your words, “advocating for gender repression in the Muslim World”.

    Obama says: ” I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal”

    Again, the point is that in the very part of the world where he spoke and the “Muslim World” for which the speech was directed…these women don’t get ANY choices…..his words are worthless because he glosses over the fact that women don’t have rights in most parts of the “Muslim World” he was speaking to.

    You and Obama are starting at a point that says human rights in the “Muslim World” are equivalent to those in our country…..and it is an absolute error to start with that premise.

  7. Elliot,

    Who ever said or implied that SRTs take on Obama is supposed to be “unbiased”? That’s a term for journalists and judges, although many in both professions seem to have forgotten what that means. In case you are new to the concept, a blog typically involves the presentation of opinion and commentary, not objective news.

  8. Sure, we all have biases and we are all entitiled to our opinions. But, your interpretation of the “facts” does not even attempt being fair. That’s my point. It skews reality so much that there is not integrity to what you actually write.

    Also, how is it “SUPPORTING the suppression of women’s freedom by saying we will fight for that “right” to wear a hajib in the US?” If they want to wear the hijab in the United States, they should be allowed to wear it. That’s their right, they should have it, plain and simple.

    And, we all know that human rights throughout the world is a major issue. Obama doesn’t gloss over that fact in his speech. He addressed it quite directly. If you wanted him to use that that speech as a medium to criticise other nations for their failings, then, yeah, you were probably disappointed. But, to say that he doesn’t address human rights, religious freedom, and women’s rights in that speech is just plain wrong.

    But, let’s move on…

    You write, “Why does Obama, for all the world to see, choose to validate “the Muslim world”, but says his own country is not a Christian nation or even acknowledge its Judeo-Christian roots?”

    You don’t offer much commentary on this question. You do, however, link to another article you wrote, which is prompted by Obama’s words “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” He actually said, “although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

    Ummm….those ideals and values would be religious toleration and freedom. It’s not an attack on our Christianity. It’s the promotion of a state that values religion of all kinds and allows its citizens the right to worship as they please.

    Nevertheless, though, you go on to copy a piece from the Asia Times, which you think “nails it on the head”. They write, “To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration,” the paper stated, “and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”

    This is just utter crap. To think that Obama aspires to create, or is breathing life into, the promotion of an Islamic state religion is completey unfounded and pure fearmongering. His remarks clearly state that the United States is for the freedom of religion and is not defined by one religion over another. Also, as he notes, we have a very large Christian population, but that doesn’t mean our laws and government are Christian, too. We’re not a theocracy here.

    Have you ever spent time around Muslim people? Honestly, for all the interest you have in commenting on them, you should seek them out around where you live. It would do a lot to change your perceptions of them and their faith.

  9. SRT –

    Whatever happened to conservatives promoting a true conservative foreign policy?

    Honestly, I see this overture by Obama as much more aligned with the conservative mantra of “friends with all, alliances with no one” than, say, the Bush Doctrine ever was.

    My guess is Republicans of the libertarian persuasion would have probably agreed with Obama and wanted him to go further.

  10. Eliott –
    You still aren’t hearing me….

    Obama should condemn the force put upon women in Muslim countries…instead he glosses over it by saying he’ll fight for the right to wear a hajib in the US where virtually no one would deny them the right to do so just because of their religion….
    Perhaps before Obama displays the false notion that Americans won’t allow them to wear it, he should have clearly addressed the threats and violence and suppression for what it is in the “Muslim World”. His words completely gloss over the suppression of women there and purposefully insinuate that the US suppresses women in some way.

    Obama does elude to rights for women and others in the World in this speech, but in many cases he leaves out huge swaths of truth and valid information, or he just outright lies.

    Examples?
    Obama said:
    “The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. ”

    Funny how this insinuates that those good cooperating Muslims are just being treated awful. Perhaps he could have mentioned a few of things that Islam has actually done that has contributed to reactions from the West. Things like: jihad doctrine, Islamic supremacism and directives to make war against non-Muslims; beheadings in the name of Allah; or the culture of hatred and contempt for non-Muslims that existed long before the spread of American or modern Western culture.
    Instead Obama glosses over all of the violence, hatred and religious extremism that overflows in that area of the World….
    And one could argue endlessly that in that part of the world the Violent extremists are not in small numbers….and those “moderate Muslims” who may wish to speak out against it are threatened with death and/or their livelihood if they do.

    Obama said:
    “…and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
    That is either a lie, naivete, or an outright attempt to gloss over the intolerance of the “Muslim World” he addresses. Justice in Islam means honor killings to women for looking at a man. Progress means living in a 15th century culture in many Muslim areas. Tolerance means killing the infidels (jihad) in the name of Allah. Dignity is murdering American soldiers and dragging their corpses through the streets.
    Christians and Jews don’t show “tolerance”, “progress”, “dignity” and “justice” in those ways….that is inarguable.

    Obama said:
    “But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

    He is right on this one, but perhaps he should also have emphasized, as a Christian himself, that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles which embrace liberty, freedom, and individual pursuit of happiness. We offer a country where ALL are free to worship as they please….unlike the “Muslim World” which in many instances does not allow open and free exercise of any other religions! Instead, later in his speech, he exaggerated that we are “one of the largest Muslim” nations of which we are not, with 7 million Muslims, of which there are about half that many.

    Obama says this:
    “But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”

    This is just simply not a long standing and far-reaching belief with those who lead many Muslim countries and many of their citizens.
    Of course, one could argue that Obama doesn’t believe his own words either—
    *since “speaking your mind” is the antithesis of the “Fairness Doctrine”;
    *since “confidence in the rule of law” is overlooked by Obama in his dealings with GM, the banks, CEO’s and his “czar” appointments;
    *since a “transparent government” and one that “doesn’t steal from its people” doesn’t hold water in the Obama administration because we can’t account for billions of bailout dollars spent, we can’t see the results of waterboarding, must RUSH through a Socialist healthcare overhaul and quadruple the deficit and raise taxes on all; and
    *since “freedom to live as you choose” is not upheld for private business and will not be upheld if Obama has his way with healthcare — virtually every aspect of our lives can be controlled by his attempt at completely overhauling the best healthcare system in the world.

    EVen Obama’s statements for freedom ring false when his actions show the antithesis of what he says.

    YOU SAID:
    “To think that Obama aspires to create, or is breathing life into, the promotion of an Islamic state religion is completey unfounded and pure fearmongering”

    When we are required to call Islamic terrorism a “man-made disaster” at Obama’s request, he is watering down the very violence that is espoused by many he spoke to….his inability to call them on their violent, freedom-hating, West-hating motives DOES give credence to the aspirations of many Muslims who believe they will conquer the World….and who believe that all others are infidels. You want aspirations? Speak to Iran, Hamas, the Taliban.
    Just what has Obama said squarely to those Muslims about their aspirations, violence and hatred of the West in this speech? Obama has exhibited a no-holds barred approach in his criticism of Israel…why not the “Muslim World”?

    As far as Muslims…it is irrelevant how many I know or don’t know….what is relevant is that we know our enemy, defend our country, and respect our allies….none of which Obama clearly exhibits in this speech.

  11. Eliot–
    you said: “Whatever happened to conservatives promoting a true conservative foreign policy?
    Honestly, I see this overture by Obama as much more aligned with the conservative mantra of “friends with all, alliances with no one” than, say, the Bush Doctrine ever was.
    My guess is Republicans of the libertarian persuasion would have probably agreed with Obama and wanted him to go further.”

    Actually conservative policy is one of protecting liberty and freedom here at home. Inherently that does not necessarily include proactively inserting the spread of freedom through the World, but in the interest of not being isolationist, there are instances where America can and will insert itself….particularly and especially when the very liberty, freedoms and, therefore, security of our country and its citizens are at stake.

    It seems you are trying to insinuate that Bush 43 was wrong to invade Iraq….That will probably be debated for years…especially given the fact that many overlook the fact that Saddam turned his nose up at over 40 UN resolutions, we had other countries involved, and other countries were also quite vocal about their belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was a threat to their countries as he was to ours.

    I doubt many who truly understand what it means to defend our nation would have agreed with much of Obama’s speech.
    In a nutshell, the speech coddled the very people/ideology who took the offensive and attacked us on 9-11, who have worked (but been thwarted by Bush’s policies) to attack us again, and who continually vocalize their declaration of war on us.
    Not to mention, the very same ideology (that Obama proclaimed in Cairo was for liberty, justice, tolerance and dignity) was the basis for the attack on a US service man on our soil around the very time Obama was addressing the “Muslim World”.

  12. No, STR, I’m hearing you correctly. You’re just don’t like what I’m saying…

    If you wanted criticize Obama for not coming out stronger on the issue of women’s rights in the Muslim world, I can respect that. Valid point, no problem.

    But, that is not what you do. You claim that Obama is actually advocating ‘for’ the opression of women and you claim that he is actually advocating ‘for’ the spread of radical Islam.

    Why?…because he didn’t mention the things you (or Caroline Glick) wanted him to mention, or say the things in a way that you (or the Asia Times) thought he should have.

    The link you make between what he didn’t say and what that implicitly means is partisan, vitriolic, hateful and misleading. Although you’re free to express those beliefs, they have no place in honest political debate.

    Moreover, you repeatedly lump together all Muslims into a single violent, pro-terrorist, anti-US stereotype. This type of “othering” is un-intelligent, it’s unhelpful, it’s untrue, and it preys on the legitimate fears of many white, middle-class Christians in the United States. It’s such a shame that you do this over and over and over again.

    In Obama’s speech, he was trying to connect with moderate Muslims by emphasizing our common values. These are not muslims who believe in global terrorism, honor killings, beheadings, stoning, female genital mutilation, etc. etc. You can claim that Muslim belief in those awful things is common, but that is just not true. The people Obama was talking to are the majority of Muslims that respect women, respect other people’s religion, want democracy, want to send their kids to good universities, and want to live peacefully in a modern society.

    Because of your “othering”, though, it comes as no surprise to me that a speech by Obama, which emphasizes our common values with these moderate Muslims, is “confusing” to you and leads to questions like “Whose side is he really on?”….which is, with all due respect, such an asinine question.

    If problems in the Muslim world are to be dealt with, the signicant amount of work has got to be done by moderate Muslims…who, like you and me, want peaceful, tolerant and stable socieities. America needs to come alongside of these people and help them…not rachet up our vieled threats and perpetuate malicious stereotypes.

    Furthermore, efforts to label America as an exclusively Christian nation are even more polarizing because of the tragic history between Christianity and Islam. Ultimately, the in-your-face label does not help with the transformation of these societies…it only galvanizes support for the radical elements of that religion.

    Seriously, you should get to know some Muslims around your community. It’s not irrelevant to the debate. It shapes how you view and process this information. It will also help with the significant “othering” that your logic falls into.

  13. Elliot…

    If Obama can’t speak truth to Muslims and their treatment of women in the world, then he shouldn’t try to make an equivalence that Americans are trying to keep women from wearing the hajib…it makes NO sense except to pander.

    I never said Obama advocated for women’s oppression….what I was trying to say is that he didn’t condemn it in the very part of the world where it is prevalent in many areas. And as I’ve said over and over…he then tries to insinuate that America has issues with women, particularly Islamic women who wear the hajib…it is simply not true.

    BTW–Obama himself said he was addressing the “MUSLIM WORLD”…which means he was addressing the radicals as well as the “moderates”…..

    you said:
    “The link you make between what he didn’t say and what that implicitly means is partisan, vitriolic, hateful and misleading. Although you’re free to express those beliefs, they have no place in honest political debate. ”

    Good lord, Elliot…I am not the only one making the connection between what Obama glossed over about radical Islam and what he chose not to address.
    If you can’t stand an honest opinion from another viewpoint perhaps you have no place in political debate.

    I, for one, have used example after example of history, others’ assessments, what the Koran teaches, and obama’s policies to back up my opinions.
    All you have done is take Obama’s speech word for word, digest it and then tell me I am hateful for not agreeing with or believing all that he said or didn’t say.

    Explain to me just what leaders in the “Muslim World” that Obama spoke to that have not only verbalized but also acted upon the notions of liberty and freedom, dignity and justice for which we supposedly share such a close bond?
    One place I can think of is Iraq….and that is strictly because of our efforts to move out Al Qaeda and set up a democratic form of government….

    You said: “These are not muslims who believe in global terrorism, honor killings, beheadings, stoning, female genital mutilation, etc. etc. You can claim that Muslim belief in those awful things is common, but that is just not true.

    I guess you could ask those women and young girls who’ve experienced those things in the “Muslim World” that Obama was speaking to whether or not the men in their lives believe in these “awful” things or not.
    There are examples of honor killings in this country in the recent past concerning some of those “moderate” Muslims. Two that come to mind are in Texas and New York.
    And have you forgotten 9-11; the first WTC attack; the 2004 Spain bombings; suicide bombings in Israel, Iraq, Pakistan; the 2005 London transit system bombing; the soldier killed in Arkansas just last week…there are too many to mention…unfortunately radical Islam is everywhere and many of the terrorist do come from the part of the world where Obama spoke…and they are included in the “Muslim World” that Obama addressed.
    In Egypt specifically, where Obama physically spoke, Coptic young girls have been abducted and/or forced by violence to convert to Islam for over 30 years…with a high profile recent abduction last month….

    You said: “The people Obama was talking to are the majority of Muslims that respect women, respect other people’s religion, want democracy, want to send their kids to good universities, and want to live peacefully in a modern society.”

    Yes, he was talking to them as well….but I bet even many of them would have agreed that a much stronger condemnation of radical Islam would have been appropriate….there is no way to make peace with that kind of evil, terror and hate without addressing it head on and fighting it physically and diplomatically as required. Talking, coddling, and leaving out the evil will only embolden them.

    You said: “America needs to come alongside of these people and help them…not rachet up our vieled threats and perpetuate malicious stereotypes.”

    We have helped, defended their freedom, and rescued Muslims all over the world for decades…Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, China, The Soviet Union….
    But Obama didn’t bother to mention that did he?
    As far as stereotypes…I have mentioned many acts of terror, rights abuses, rhetoric and more from the “Muslim World”….stating truth is not ratcheting up anything. If Obama can’t be truthful about Islam and the radical Muslims who have declared war on us, there is absolutely no chance to reconcile and have peace with them….none….nada.

    You said: “Furthermore, efforts to label America as an exclusively Christian nation are even more polarizing because of the tragic history between Christianity and Islam. Ultimately, the in-your-face label does not help with the transformation of these societies…it only galvanizes support for the radical elements of that religion.”

    Again, I didn’t say we are a Christian nation…I said our country was formed on Judeo-Christian values…and the vast majority of our citizens are Christians…If Obama can say we are one of the “largest Muslim nations”…why would it be polarizing to call us THE largest “Christian nation”? D-o-u-b-l-e standard….
    The tragic history of Christianity and Islam has nothing to do with the basic principles of our founding. Yes, our founders were fighting Islam even then…but our country was firmly grounded in the Judeo-Christian beliefs and teachings of our founders. It is a fact…and we should not be ashamed of it.
    Our Judeo-Christian values are exactly what give us the free expression of religion in this country….not so in many Islamic countries….
    If who we are as a country and our citizens pride in it is a cause for the radical elements to wage terror, violence, and war…that is not our fault….even though it seems you and Obama believe it is.

  14. I’ll say it again, I have no trouble with you taking Obama to task for not denouncing in a stronger way the illiberal policies on women’s rights or religious freedom in certain Middle Eastern countries. That’s an honest and straightforward critique.

    But, I am also telling you that you are hateful for insinuating that Obama is ‘for’ the oppression of women…and is ‘for’ the spread of radical Islam. That is absolutely wrong and it approaches the debate in bad faith. After a quick look through your blog, though, I’ve realized that this is the modus operandi for your political views. Sad.

    Muslims who use violence…whether it is in New York, Mumbai, Pakistan, Iraq, anywhere…are not moderate. You must understand that. And, there is no gender divide on this issue. You must quit trying to draw the link between these radical groups and moderate Muslims. It’s not there. It’s untrue.

    That’s why I think it would do you good to actually meet some local Muslims…to realize that they are tolerant, non-violent, culturally rich, and generally nice people. I say it again, you must quit lumping them into one pro-terrorist group and realize that the vast majority of Muslims speak with moderate voice.

    I’m going to stop responding to this comment thread because I believe we’re starting to go around in circles. But, I think you need to be very careful about what you write in this blog. You’re breeding a level of hate for the President and for Muslims that is scary and entirely inappropriate.

    Hate breeds more hate…and then violence…just ask FoxNews.

  15. Elliot,

    You have consistently misconstrued my statements and then arrogantly proceeded to tell me what I must believe, who I must know and what type of words I must use.

    I have acknowledged over and over the existence of radical Muslims and moderate Muslims. It is not hateful, however, to point out the hate and violence in the name of Islam that is being perpetrated on the world. It is a fact…and one that Obama chooses not to deal with.

    Besides…Obama himself lumped them all –Muslims–together in his speech to the “Muslim World.” Wouldn’t that require clearly addressing both the radical and moderate parts of that world in your speech?
    What part of that is not clear?

    When conservatives voice opinions somehow we are always inciting hate….but when you arrogantly tell me what I must believe, but have no facts to back ANY of your claims….you are the righteous one.

    Frustrating…but thanks for your comments anyway.

  16. […] Another Senator (John McCain) questions just whose side Obama is on Posted on June 24, 2009 by sharprightturn A couple of weeks ago after Obama’s Cairo speech flush with apologies for America and coddling of the radical Muslim world, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) indcated he didn’t know which side Obama is on. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: