“The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Would Slander the Prophet of Islam”

1 10 2012

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

A friend had called and told me of this quote by the President of the United States and I must admit, I did not believe it.  This friend calls me often to discuss world events and usually has his facts right.  He is the only person I know who can read a newspaper, listen to the television, and carry on a coherent conversation all at the same time, and tell you detailed information from all three sources.  I am jealous!

I asked him to see if he could confirm that with another source while I began to research myself.  A news break confirmed it, and I still couldn’t believe it!  I began to text a few close and trusted friends who hadn’t yet heard it.  Then a while later they began texting back that “…Obama also spoke against violence against Christians.”  So I watched the entire speech at the UN myself. Then again.  And finally a third and fourth time, rewinding and replaying several key points.  So here is my analysis of Barack Obama’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012.

The underlying theme of the entire speech was “Tolerance”.  This should not surprise anyone, anywhere, as it is the prevailing theme of Leftist/Progressive/Socialist ideology around the world, particularly in the West.  The only problem with those who preach tolerance, is they aren’t.  Most of the time when someone demands your tolerance of something be it speech, morality, or behavior, is not asking for your mere “tolerance” of them, but demand your codification of whatever it is. But I digress!

While the “overt” theme was tolerance and “mutual respect”, the main subject matter related directly to the stupid little Youtube video which made fun of Muhammad and Islam.  It looked like something high school kids might come up with. Very poorly done and amateurish.  I question not only the source of production, but also the fact that United States Government officials are bending over backwards to disavow the stupid thing.  As Shakespeare would say, “Methinks he doth protest too much”.

The President did the right thing by formally paying tribute to Ambassador Chris Stevens killed by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Next he posed a valiant effort in standing up for freedom of speech, especially as we know and understand it in America, while recognizing that “not all countries” share our belief in free speech.

Mr. Obama then addressed the violent reactions to the video, blaming the actions of a few backward extremists for the attacks and calling them to leave the cause of violence  and politics of destruction behind and join with us to create a better future….Kumbayah!  Oh, I have no problem with what he said, and he said it well, but either his naivety or his chronic narcissism has clouded his view of the real world.  Especially, the Islamic world.  You see, these “extremist impulses” which “divide the world into us and them”, are part and parcel of the Sharia which all Muslims are obligated to establish so that there is no more “us and them”; that is Dar al-Harb (“House of War”-anywhere that is not under Islamic control) has been absorbed by Dar al-Islam  (“House of Submission”) and “Allah’s religion shall reign supreme!” (Quran 8:36)

No Mr. President, this violent Islamic extremist activity has been going on now for over 14 centuries, and will not ever cease until the 2nd Coming of Christ!  It is not the result of the infidel Americans casting aspersions upon the “prophet”, nor the result of American or even Western intervention in Islamic lands or Colonialism of 3 centuries gone by.  It has been going on since the “Prophet” was exiled from Mecca in 623 AD!

Back to the speech.  Nearly 20 minutes into the speech, Mr. Obama began a series of comments about “the future”.   Now, lest I be accused of taking the lead quotation out of context, I will include the whole of these comments here in block quotes and follow each phrase with commentary in [brackets].

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt, it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted ‘Muslims/Christians, We are One!’.

[I have no problem with this statement and commend the President for drawing attention to the Coptic’s plight at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.]

The future must not belong to those who bully women, it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.  [Again, the words of the President are spot on.]

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources, it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who see a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stand with. Theirs is the vision we will support.  [Not quite sure what Mr. Obama is driving at here but will assume that he is speaking to historic European Colonialism.]

The future must not belong to those who would 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.  [I want to come back to this!]

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia Pilgrims.  [Let’s do that!]

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.” [Gandhi also said, “A religion which takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”]

In analyzing this portion of the speech, which in my opinion was the most interesting, I consulted with an attorney friend of mine.  As we went through the points about “The future must not belong to _____”, she brought to my attention that each of the crimes pointed out; violence/assault/murder (specifically here against the Copts) against any  people, beating/bullying women, stealing, these are all crimes recognized quite objectively by any legal system.

Slander on the other hand, i.e. “The future must not belong to those who would slander the Prophet of Islam.”, is quite subjective and as Muhammad has been dead for, well a long time, a dead man cannot be slandered or defamed.  Especially under American jurisdiction, where an opinion is freely expressed about anything or anyone.  Free Speech according to our First Amendment of the Constitution.  Legally, a plaintiff charging slander must prove in court that he/she has been defamed by the defendant at a personal cost, be it economic or social.  Muhammad cannot do that and since no one is alive who actually knew him to speak on his behalf, the charge is not provable.  If I call Muhammad a pedophile I am not slandering, because he actually had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl, molesting her much earlier at the age of 6.  If I call him a robber and a thief, I am not slandering because his raids of caravans are documented.  If I call him demon possessed, I am not slandering because Muhammad himself thought he was demon possessed and contemplated suicide.  If I call him an idiot, that is my opinion, and as such that is all it is worth.  Sharia cannot stand either historical fact or the opinion of a dissident!

Only under Islamic Law, ala the Sharia, can someone be charged with slander by criticizing Muhammad, or Islam, or even Muslims.  In America you can criticize any religious figure, book, government official, teacher, neighbor, or family member without fear of retribution.  It is an essential and inherent right, and the Founders understood freedom of speech to be so, in order to arrive at the truth of any matter and specifically to maintain personal liberty without fear of an oppressive governmental authority.  In Islam, Sharia is the government.

The other thing about this sentence in Mr. Obama’s speech is this.  This is a stand alone statement.  Anything that he adds afterward is merely window dressing, but taken at face value, all he is saying here is “if you condemn the slander of Muhammad you must also condemn hate.”  Hate, which presumably results in actions of desecration of icons, destruction of churches, or denying the Holocaust.  So are we to simply condemn the hate and not the action, or should we include hate as a crime, or what about prosecuting those who actually committed the crimes of destruction of property or causing personal injury?

Sometimes I wonder what planet these ideologues come from where they deny basic human instinct and behavior!  They never consider that aspect of human nature which, as fallen from the original state of Creation, is selfish, driven by his own lusts, and violent.  In the Psalms, King David writes the rhetorical question, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”  The answer of course is “Because they are heathen and people are vain!”   But David says it better, “The kings of the Earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'”  Rebellion against God always results in destruction, whether personal, or national, or cultural.  Islam has chosen another god from the God of the Bible and the result is darkness, blood and pain, not only for those who are in it, but now it has come to all the world.

Barack Obama’s eloquent speech was just so much white noise in the chambers of the UN General Assembly.  Immediately following Obama, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari demanded insults to religion be criminalized.  Over a dozen people were killed there in protests against the film, while they burned President Obama in effigy.  “The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said.

Mohamed Mursi, the new Muslim Brotherhood President of Egypt echoed that sentiment on Wednesday.  “Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone,” he said. “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

Outside the United Nations in New York, about 150 protesters demanded “justice” and chanted “there is no god but Allah” outside the U.N. building on Thursday. One placard read: “Blaspheming my Prophet must be made a crime at the U.N.

Islamic leaders in Dearborn, MI, held a protest on Friday, Sept 28, protesting freedom of speech, demanding laws that criminalize hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Yeah, me too…

Advertisements




Born on the 4th of July

30 06 2011

PRESIDENT CALVIN COOLIDGE, the only president born on the 4th of July, said:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. … No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.”

That quote alludes to a movement that had great gains in the early 1900′s known as “Progressivism”, who’s chief advocate of that time was the Harding/Coolidge administration’s predecessor Woodrow Wilson (D). Wilson believed the United States had outgrown the Constitution and he was a founding member of the League of Nations (predecessor to UN) which the Republican dominated Congress refused to allow the US to join. Exponential government expansion and increased taxation (gave us the first Income Tax) and oversight marked Wilson’s presidency, only being overshadowed by WW1, after Wilson was narrowly elected for a second term. Wilson also brought us the Federal Reserve banking system and advocated nationalized health care.

Wilson’s successor Warren Harding was a “moderate” Republican who died after 2 years in office leaving his conservative VP Coolidge in the Oval Office. Coolidge was a true conservative, believing that issues not addressed in the U. S. Constitution were better left up to the states. This was proved out during his tenure as Governor of Mass. when he signed into law measures that opposed child labor, reduced hours for women (to 48 or less) and raised pay in the factories, stating “we must humanize industry”. He also pushed the legislature to give a $100 bonus to WW1 Veterans in that state.

Conversely, on the Federal level, as President he believed that labor unions were a skid to socialism, and opposed them at every turn. He also fought Congress on government subsidization of agriculture stating that “government control cannot be divorced from political control“. He believed that taxes should be lower and fewer people should have to pay them.

Coolidge is not without his warts, and many blame lack of controls on Wall Street for the “Crash of ’29″. I believe this criticism is warranted. Hindsight is always better than foresight and commentary easier than commission, but I would contend that policies of his successor Herbert Hoover (moderate Rep) followed by FDR (another Progressive) contributed to the duration of the Great Depression.

Hoover was not Coolidge’s VP but Commerce Secretary, and after Coolidge announced he was not going to run in ’28 the Republicans nominated Hoover. Coolidge once said of Hoover, “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad”. However, he did not want to split the party and quietly went back to private life. Known as “Silent Cal” someone at a dinner party once challenged him, “I have a bet with someone that I can get you say more than 2 words”. He replied, “You lose.” When this same person was informed of his death years later, she asked, “How could you tell?”

Coolidge’s presidency is now largely forgotten along with the unprecedented economic growth during that time. Few people know who he was, let alone his politics. He was a Republican yes, but more than that he was a conservative who realized the bounds of the US Constitution, and the restraints that must be applied to government. He was very popular and after the landslide victory won with Harding in ’20, Coolidge went on to win his own landslide in ’24.

I believe that without this conservative tempering between Wilson and FDR, we may very well have had a similar type of revolution as experienced in Germany and Russia as the Socialists and Communists struggled for power. They were very present here in America. They’re back.

In my reading of this era of American History I realized that there is a pendulum swing in American politics from left to right and usually the swing matches the distance marked on the opposite side. We have recently been witness to a drastic swing to the left. However, with the 2010 sweeping victory in the House of Representatives, and the “re-awakening” of grassroots America, it seems the momentum has become static. As we move into the next election cycle, look for continued retaking of Congressional seats and a shift in the Senate, along with Obama returning to Chicago, or Honolulu, or maybe Nairobi to look for new digs.

So while you celebrate the “4th” and this great country we have been given, maybe give a passing thought to “Silent Cal” Coolidge on his birthday. Then have another hotdog…God Bless America!

(Revised-Previously published 7/4/2010 under title “Happy Birthday America!”)





Happy Birthday America! (And Calvin too…)

4 07 2010

PRESIDENT CALVIN COOLIDGE, the only president born on the 4th of July, said:

“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. … No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress.”

That quote eludes to a movement that had great gains in the early 1900’s known as “Progressivism”, who’s chief advocate of that time was the Harding/Coolidge administration’s predecessor Woodrow Wilson (D). Wilson believed the United States had outgrown the Constitution and he was a founding member of the League of Nations (predecessor to UN) which the Republican dominated Congress refused to allow the US to join. Exponential government expansion and increased taxation (gave us the first Income Tax) and oversight marked Wilson’s presidency, only being overshadowed by WW1, after Wilson was narrowly elected for a second term. Wilson also brought us the Federal Reserve banking system and advocated nationalized health care.

Wilsons successor Warren Harding was a “moderate” Republican who died after 2 years in office leaving his conservative VP Coolidge in the Oval Office. Coolidge was a true conservative, believing that issues not addressed in the U. S. Constitution were better left up to the states. This was proved out during his tenure as Governor of Mass. when he signed into law measures that opposed child labor, reduced hours for women (to 48 or less) and raised pay in the factories, stating “we must humanize industry”. He also pushed the legislature to give a $100 bonus to WW1 Veterans in that state.

Conversely, on the Federal level, as President he believed that labor unions were a skid to socialism, and opposed them at every turn. He also fought Congress on government subsidization of agriculture stating that “government control cannot be divorced from political control“. He believed that taxes should be lower and fewer people should have to pay them.

Coolidge is not without his warts and many blame lack of controls on Wall Street for the “Crash of ’29”. I believe this criticism is warranted. Hindsight is always better than foresight and commentary easier than commission, but I would contend that policies of his successor Herbert Hoover (moderate Rep) followed by FDR (another Progressive) contributed to the duration of the Great Depression.

Hoover was not Coolidge’s VP but Commerce Secretary, and after Coolidge announced he was not going to run in ’28 the Republicans nominated Hoover. Coolidge once said of Hoover, “for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad”. However, he did not want to split the party and quietly went back to private life. Known as “Silent Cal” someone at a dinner party once challenged him, “I have a bet with someone that I can get you say more than 2 words”. He replied, “You lose.” When this same person was informed of his death years later, she asked, “How could you tell?”

Coolidge’s presidency is now largely forgotten along with the unprecedented economic growth during that time. Few people know who he was, let alone his politics. He was a Republican yes, but more than that he was a conservative who realized the bounds of the US Constitution, and the restraints that must be applied to government. He was very popular and after the landslide victory won with Harding in ’20, Coolidge went on to win his own landslide in ’24.

I believe that without this conservative tempering between Wilson and FDR, we may very well have had a similar type of revolution as experienced in Germany and Russia as the Socialists and Communists struggled for power. They were very present here in America. They’re back.

In my reading of this era of American History I realized that there is a pendulum swing in American politics from left to right and usually the swing matches the distance marked on the opposite side. Folks we are really swinging to the “Progressive” left right now but could the momentum be slowing a bit as Americans begin to earnestly realize where we are? Perhaps 2010 will see a conservative sweep of Congress and Obama will be “One and Out” in ’12. Time will tell.

So while you celebrate the “4th” and this great country we have been given, maybe give a passing thought to “Silent Cal” Coolidge on his birthday. Then have another hotdog…








%d bloggers like this: