Justified Right

Obama Lawyered-Up About Torture at Presser Last Night

Beware the lawyer-President.

 

Lawyers are the most intensely trained wordsmiths on the planet.  Persuasion is their business. While the Cannons of Ethics forbid them from lying, they are taught in law school to “slant facts” toward the direction they want you, the listener, to go. They are encouraged to lead you to a place they want you to be, even if in reality you should be somewhere else.

 

As an example, you will recall our last lawyer-President tried to change the definition of what “is” is to keep him out of a sex scandal.  While that bit of misdirection saved him during his post-impeachment expulsion trial in the Senate, the legal Ethics Committee in Arkansas didn’t buy it and suspended his law license.

 

One of the usual ways a lawyer-politician will wiggle out of a question is to, in the beginning of his answer, change the subject.  This is done subtly, like a magician’s slight of hand, so the listener doesn’t even know it happened.

 

It’s the job of journalists, also wordsmiths, to look for this sort of trickery and catch the lawyer-politician in the act.

 

President Obama, consider yourself caught, thanks to a question about torture, or the lack thereof (the question was neutral) asked by Jake Tapper of ABC News.

 

Here is the question Jake posed to the President:

 

“Thank you, Mr. President. You've said in the past that waterboarding, in your opinion, is torture. Torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Do you believe that the previous administration sanctioned torture?”

 

Note the TOPIC of the question:  Jake seeks The President’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on torture.

 

Now let’s parse Obama’s answer:

 

“What I've said — and I will repeat —“

 

Before we continue, let’s look at how the President started his response, because he uses a rhetorical tool taught to him in law school.  Note the forcefulness of the phrase “and I will repeat.” He is acting as if he has nothing to hide, so you the listener will more easily believe he has nothing to hide.  That is the classic set up before the lawyer-politician is about to hide something, so you are less likely to notice it – the verbal equivalent of the magician’s slight of hand.

 

The last time we saw the “I will repeat” lexicon used as a tool of believability was by President Clinton.  After he uttered it, he then famously said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”

 

President Obama continued his answer, and keep in mind the TOPIC is supposed to be the Geneva Conventions:

 

“…is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture.”

 

Gotcha, Mr. President.

 

The question asked of him was if waterboarding violates Geneva Conventions.  He slipped in a change of subject – that it violates “our ideals and values.” He does not mention the GC or any other laws.  He changed the topic so fast most people didn’t notice he did that, and that’s what the lawyer-politician, like the magician, counts on.

 

Under the rules of rhetorical misdirection, he can’t end it there, or it will give you the listener time to ponder that he changed the subject. He must now bolster his argument, which keeps you from recognizing that he is on a different subject altogether.

 

So the President continued:

 

“I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.”

 

How clever!  When the President speaks of “many who’ve examined the topic…” you think he is on the topic of International Law (since that was the original question).  In your mind you picture a team of International Law professors examining the Geneva Conventions, don’t you?

 

But the President already changed the topic from the GC to “our ideals and values.”  So who were these people the President referred to as having examined the “topic?”  Who out there has on their business card that they are experts in “our ideals and values?”  Of course there are no such people, so no such people looked.  This goes beyond fair rhetorical persuasion or fact slanting – this was a lie.

 

Why is President Obama changing the topic away from Geneva Conventions when he answers the “torture” question?  There are a couple of reasons.

 

First, he is getting great political traction by making people believe President Bush tortured people and he put a stop to it.  That satisfies his far left constituency, even though he is duping them the most.  Obama has never said Bush’s waterboarding violated the Geneva Conventions, but he reaps the public relations benefit by making people think that he has.

 

Second, Obama is no longer merely a protesting community organizer. He’s the President, and he now has the burden of interrogating the bad guys to get information. 

 

The Geneva Conventions, contrary to public perception, do not have a list of things you can’t do because they are torture.  Instead, there is a definition of what is “torture” that is so vague it’s impossible to follow:

a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

By the way the above applies to "High Contracting Parties" to the Geneva Conventions, which al-Qaeda is not, so the three men Bush waterboarded weren’t covered by them anyway.  Obama knows that, but no journalist with access has asked him about it.

There is no mention of “waterboarding” in the Geneva Conventions, so whether that is torture is left to interpretations of the above definition, and that’s the problem.

The Geneva Convention language is so vague one International Kangaroo Court might find waterboarding is torture.  Another might find mere name-calling is so "humiliating" it is torture.

Barack Obama knows if he takes the position that President Bush violated the Geneva Conventions, he opens the door to some “International Court of People Who Hate America” someday trying to hang him for merely questioning an al-Qeada member and, heaven forbid, degraded him with insults.

Barack Obama has never said President Bush tortured in violation of the Geneva Conventions, because Bush didn’t. Obama will let you think he has accused Bush, but if push comes to shove he has “plausible deniability” because a parsing of his words show he never actually said it.  He will simply blame you for misinterpreting him.

Obama certainly didn’t tell Jake Tapper last night that President Bush’s waterboarding violated the Geneva Conventions, no matter how many news reporters you’ll see today who bought the deception.

Is It Really Worth It, Notre Dame?

Well this just keeps getting more interesting.

How many Catholics is Barack Obama going to insult and upset before he backs out of his Notre Dame speech, or at least  takes a compromise of not accepting the Honorary Law Degree?

Obama is one selfish, stubborn son of a gun.  I can't imagine him allowing a situation with another religion to fester so deep for so long without doing something about it.

Thankfully, Mary Ann Glendon is doing something about it.  She is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See.

She was to receive the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame this year and speak at Commencement Ceremonies.

She no longer wants it, and she is no longer coming to the graduation.  I'm proud of her, and I'm proud we Catholics are sticking up for ourselves and the unborm.

Here is her open letter to Notre Dame President Father John Jenkins:



Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision -- in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops -- to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Obama Brags of His Speaking "Gift!" LOL!

Senator Harry Reid has apparently written some sort of joke book or coloring book (aka his memoirs) which includes a conversation he had with Barack Obama.

Reid's account says that after complimenting Obama on a speech, Obama said "I have a gift, Harry."

Reid has been defending Obama, claiming that he in no way was being an immodest bragger when he said it.

Sure Harry, Obama was being completely modest when he talked of his own "gifted" speaking abilities.

Good grief.

Keep pumping away at the lie that Barack Obama is a great speaker, mainstream media:


  All I've ever seen him do is adopt the tone and cadence of Martin Luther King, Jr., which makes media swoon over their recollection of an entirely different man - not this fool.

What's that saying?  Oh yea - you can fool the mainstream media all of the time, but bloggers never.

Here's a nice video of the stutterer in chief:

Barack Obama Is The Worst Speaker Ever

I'm not new to this growing observation.  I've said from the beginning if you take him away from his teleprompter and he is a stammering fool!

Obama being a great speaker is just another example of media creation to make him something he isn't.

Eric Bolling Punked Me On Strat Room. Or did he?

My man ERIC BOLLING and his guests made light of my email on Strategy Room wherein I suggested Bank of America made a good deal in buying Merrill Lynch for only $50 Billion. I guess they missed this: http://tinyurl.com/c38lx7 Merrill contributed 3.7 Billion to BofA's net income in the 1st Q. As I said, I'll take Merrill off their hands for $50B right now, Eric! :-)

Friday Photo Fun

Banana Republics Jail Their Predecessors, Mr. President

In America we marvel at ourselves each election day.  Every candidate, pundit and news reporter at some point during the evening will laud our "peaceful transfer of power."

We distinguish ourselves from Latin American countries and unstable Europeans whose leaders, after assuming power, make their first order of business to jail, exile or even kill their political opponents.

While doing the same to Republicans might be the fantasy of left-wing fringe groups such as ACORN, Code Pink and MSNBC, I thought at least President Obama would respect Americanism.

Every time I give Obama the credit of an American soul he proves me wrong again by showing he has the pith of a foreigner.

President Obama left open the idea that he might prosecute Bush Administration officials over how they interrogated terrorists.

Unfortunately the President hasn't announced how he intends to deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the planner of al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the Bali nightclub bombings and who is linked to Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

President Obama has either lost touch with reality as to who are the bad guys in the world, or he never had it.

To win an election in America is commendable.  To change America so much as to move the country off it's Capitalist moorings while criminalizing past Presidencies simulates an act of treason.

To say that waterboarding is "torture" is nothing more than a pretext the President will use to jail political opponents, as is the practice in Banana Republics.

Here's a tip for the President:  Should you ever find yourself in a torture chamber and they hand you a menu to choose what they will do to you that day, pick the waterboarding. It involves fear not pain, and when it's over you are fine.  That's not torture.  If you want to know what torture is, take a look at John McCain's arms.

If you read the Geneva Conventions in hopes of finding a list of interrogation procedures that are "torture" and those that are "not torture" you'll be terribly disappointed.  There are no lists.  The Geneva Conventions don't say what procedures can be used in interrogation.

Here is the incredibly vague "guidance" the Conventions give on avoiding things that may be "torture:"

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(By the way the above applies to "High Contracting Parties" to the Geneva Conventions, which al-Qaeda is not).

The problem is, that language is so vague one Court might find waterboarding is torture.  Another might find mere name-calling is so "humiliating" it is torture.

What was lost on the media regarding the inappropriately named "torture memos"  (they are anti-torture memos) of the Bush Administration was that President Bush intended to define acts of torture more clearly, so that our military leaders would not end up someday before some foreign-run Kangaroo Court who could rely on the vagueness of the Geneva Conventions to hang them.

What no one realized was that the Kangaroo Court would be run by Democrats and the chief prosecutor of those protecting us from terrorists would be named Barack Obama.

I remind the President of an American military man who was also involved in clandestine efforts against America's enemies, as is the very men Obama wishes to prosecute today.  His name was Nathan Hale.  His hanging helped fuel the American commitment to revolution. 

Perhaps the President should consider that bit of history with a cup of "tea." 

 

 

 

Hand-wringing Over The Obama-Chavez Handshake

Can we talk? Joan Rivers

 

What gives a detractor of President Obama legitimacy is having the ability to defend him when he occasionally does something right.  Why not encourage him to be correct? His shaking hands with and speaking to Hugo Chavez is one of those times.

 

Something has gone wrong with how Americans view diplomacy and as usual it’s the fault of the left.  Unfortunately, rather than proving the left wrong, the right has allowed the left to drag them into the world of un-enlightenment, where those on the right start acting as wrong as those on the left. 

 

Adopting the rhetoric of the left and using it against them might be fun in a “give them a taste of their own medicine” sort of way, but those on the right have to Stop doing that at some point and come back into the real world.

 

Of recent vintage is this idea that if a President meets with, has a picture with, shakes the hand of or even acknowledges a leader of another country he is signaling his absolute approval of that country’s past and future.

 

That silly concept is an outgrowth of photographs coupled with the emergence of mindless “gotcha” politics.

 

Note this very well:  Talking to someone does not signal affirmation of the other party. Sometimes talking is the only chance you will have to grab him by the lapels, put him against the wall and tell him that if he doesn’t stop acting contrary to American interests, you are going to have to punch his ticket.  It matters not that you talked to someone - it matters what you say to him.

 

For 8 years of the Bush Presidency, the left constantly brought out this picture of Don Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to Iraq for President Reagan, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983:

 

According to the loons on the left, because Rumsfeld later worked in the Bush administration, it meant that President Bush owned and was responsible for everything Hussein did both before and after that handshake. That is perhaps the dumbest assertion the left has ever made, but it was pervasive, and it never went away. Gotcha Gotcha Gotcha!

 

Tired of combating the left’s force-field that allows them to repel incoming logic, the right decided to give the left a taste of their own medicine.  The right would drag out this photo of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State to President Clinton, smiling with Kim Jong Il (she also met with Slobodan Milosevic):

 

 “Gotcha Gotcha Gotcha” screamed the right.  “Look – she’s toasting him!  President Clinton clearly agrees with everything Kim Jong Il ever did and ever will do!”  Good grief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest everyone take a look at this photo of FDR, Stalin and Churchill:

 

This photo was taken in Tehran of all places (Yalta was later).  Stalin was a communist dictator and his Great Purge killed millions of people. He had designs on weakening the West.  FDR met with him several times and negotiated with him, referring to Stalin as “Uncle Joe.”

 

Can you image any President today, of either party, jokingly calling Chavez “Uncle Hugo?”  There would be enough conspiracy theories to fill a library.  Bad man or not, Stalin was the leader of a country, so FDR and Churchill had to deal with him.

 

Take a look at this picture:

 

That’s President Nixon meeting with Chairman Mao Zedong in 1972.  The PRC in China considered themselves an enemy of America at the time.  Did this handshake make Nixon a believer in Communism? Did it make Nixon responsible for the deaths caused by Mao?  Would serious people attempt such an argument then or now?

 

 

 

Look at this photo:

 

That’s President Reagan and Vice President Bush meeting with Gorbachev in New York in 1988.  In the many meetings between Reagan and Gorbachev, did anyone claim they were together because Reagan believed in Communism or loved the Soviet Union?  Certainly not.  Reagan met with Gorbachev to right him and promote American interests.  Again it mattes not who you meet with – it matters what you say to them when you do.

 

Critics will always claim a meeting “legitimizes” the enemy. To quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

In political vernacular “legitimizing” means this:  If some foreign country held an election and the outcome was uncertain, or there was a coup and the outcome was uncertain, if the American politician called on one of the sides and not the other, the American could be seen as “legitimizing” the side they called upon, by “recognizing” them as the winner of the contest.

 

After the contest is settled, the word no longer applies. Legitimizing is not a synonym for “met with.” Once the foreign nation has an established leader, be it by vote, coup, fiat or primogeniture, there is no “legitimizing” the leader simply by talking to him.

 

Unfortunately, the misunderstanding about “legitimizing” is causing us to abandon diplomacy altogether.  So right now, the political modus operandi of America is to talk only to those we agree with, and not talk to those with whom we have differences to settle. Backwards. Recently I was walking past the UN and stopped to think, “I wish there were some neutral territory where world leaders could talk to one another.”

 

We need to change our view of diplomacy, and applaud, not ridicule, when leaders speak. It seems to me if you aren’t talking, you’re fighting. 

 

That brings me to the troops. Above everyone else, diplomacy with the enemy is owed to the troops.

 

Our fighting men and women are moral human beings, not robots. They don’t want to kill anyone. While they don’t question orders, it helps if they believe the orders are moral.  To look through a scope and shoot a piece of lead through another person’s heart requires moral clarity – a just cause.

 

How can a President give an order to the troops to kill while saying, “I have not tried to talk to their leader to convince him of his errors.  The photo-op would look politically bad for me, so just go kill his people instead.”

 

An order to kill can morally come from a President only when he can assure his troops he has tried diplomacy but those threatening us won’t back down.  That is the only time you can expect a soldier to be able to square killing human beings with his religion.

 

I recall, as an example, 17 ignored UN Resolutions against Iraq before we attacked Hussein.  Of course a response to a physical attack as with al-Qaeda requires no diplomacy.

 

Here’s the rule: Talk first – kill only when talking fails.  That’s diplomacy.

Funny Photo Friday

2000 People At Tea Party In Tiny Belmar, NJ

Media Snub of Tea Parties Makes Me Want To Go

For 8 years I suffered through news images of protests against President Bush when more media people showed up than protesters.  The media would cover protests with as little as 15 people if they were protesting the war.

 

Tomorrow on April 15 America will have a nationwide protest in hundreds of cities that is predicted to be the largest in American history.  Some predict 100,000 people will take part. Some predict up to one million protesters.

 

The Tea Party protest is non-partisan, and about economics only.  The protest straddles the actions of President Bush’s $700 Billion bank bailout buffoonery to President Obama’s stimulus package debacle.

 

In an effort to keep it non-partisan, a request by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to be a speaker was turned down by Tea Party organizers.  That seems to be the case everywhere, as elected officials are being invited to protest with the people, but not to speak.

 

This morning I went through the various News organization websites to read about tomorrow’s historical day.  Only Fox News has coverage of the Tea Party Protests.  The rest had no coverage. NONE!

 

Here are some headlines, which are apparently more important than the largest ever populist protest in America, so these were on the home page:

 

CNN:               Giant Purple Garage Ticks Off Neighbors.

MSNBC:          Lil Kim Dazzles on Dancing with the Stars.

Yahoo News:    Mystery of Tooth Strength Cracked.

Google News:   Obama’s Dog Choice Makes Splash In Britain.

CBS:                Photos of Protesters! (In Thailand)

ABC:               Are Date Rape Jokes Funny?

NBC:               Mexico Complains About Burger King Ad.

NY Times:        Can Animals Pay Taxes?

Wash Post:       Wardrobe Makeover Tips.

 

Also, guess what was the one issue that had every news outlet so excited, so absolutely deep-breathing, pulsating, wound-up and about to burst with exhilaration that each one had to make it front page news everywhere?

 

Porn star Marilyn Chambers died.

 

Good grief.  That’s more important than the expression of frustration of Americans all over our nation?

 

I wasn’t going to the Tea Parties tomorrow because like many other Americans, I can’t afford a day off work in these trying times.  This has changed my mind.  I’ll be there.

Find the Tea Party nearest you by clicking here.

 

Brown University Turns Yellow On Supporting Fairness, Free Speech

I submitted to the Brown Daily Herald, Brown University's student newspaper my column responding to the faculty's decision to disrespect America and Italians by changing the name of Columbus Day to "Fall Weekend."

As expected, the slave-money endowed school won't print my response.

Here's their email to me:

Tommy,

Thank you for your submission. We normally only publish content written exclusively for publication in The Herald's pages, and we reserve the right to edit for length and clarity, so we will not be able to run your piece.

James Shapiro
Opinions Editor

They require exclusivity rights?  When you get to the real world Mr. Shapiro, you'll find newspapers have to pay money for that.

Only a cowardly publication refuses to print the words of those they've insulted.

Brown University Insults America, Italians

The only thing more common than complaints about university professors who hate America and teach fake history is the frequent proof those professors provide revealing the complaints about them are warranted.

 

The faculty at Brown University, in an act of intellectual laziness and sanctimony toward political correctness voted last week to stop celebrating Columbus Day and replace it with “Fall Weekend.”

 

Why replace it with another day off?  There’s no secular or religious command that people have a holiday the second week of October.  If they wish to disrespect America’s Columbian start they should at least have the decency to go to work that day.

 

The reason behind the Brown middle finger toward America is the deliberate distortion of Columbus’ treatment of Indians to make him appear a bad fellow, put forth in books by such exceedingly bad fellows as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, whose credentials for hating America are as top drawer as the incurious preppies who teach at Brown.

 

Since academia has shut out the light of truth about Columbus, let’s turn it back on and have a look at true history, shall we?

 

Detractors of Columbus fail to admit their allegations are based upon the claims of a man named Francisco de Bobadilla.  Who was de Bobadilla? The man who wanted Columbus’ job as Governor of Hispaniola, that’s who.

 

Exactly how trustworthy do you suppose was the word of the man who wanted Columbus ousted from his job so he could take it himself?  Perhaps we should let Cornell’s football coaches double as referees during the next Brown v Cornell game to find out.

 

The King and Queen of Spain sent de Bobadilla to the New World to check on Columbus because of complaints about him.  The complaints were not about his treatment of Indians.  They were complaints of Europeans who weren’t getting enough out of the New World as they wanted.

 

So de Bobadilla came and claimed to talk to people for a few short days.  He did not speak to Columbus, who he immediately arrested on sight with his brothers and sent them back to Spain.  He then assumed the Governorship.

 

I ask the Brown University intelligencia (oxymoron intended) how wide of an investigation can one do in the year 1500 with no telephones and no motorized transportation?  How many people can you actually talk to in a day in year 1500?  And what of due process for Columbus?  Have you nothing to say of conflict of interest? - de Bobadilla both investigated Columbus and reaped the reward of his expulsion.

 

The King and Queen of Spain yelled shenanigans on de Bobadilla, recalled him back to Spain and re-instated Columbus as Admiral.  de Bobadilla’s ship home was destroyed in a hurricane and he drowned.  Too bad. His trial would have given us a great historical record of his lies about Columbus, which in turn would have forced Zinn and Chomsky to read books instead of write them.

 

Some people back then thought Columbus conjured up the hurricane to kill de Bobadilla, the same way Kanye West and the media thought George Bush conjured up Hurricane Katrina because he didn’t care about black people.

 

So why does the faculty at Brown ignore that the “Columbus was mean” meme is the worst sourced story in world history?  They WANT it to be true. Otherwise, what campus street-cred would a university professor have if he or she didn’t hate America?  Pledging allegiance to the Flag is just so out of place when you’re sipping latte and writing plaintiff poetry in a hippie-vegan coffee shop.

 

So we know Brown hates America, but why do they insult Italians?  Brown knows the Italian-American community identifies with Columbus and the holiday.  We Italians sponsor the parades.  Oh and by the way - the Italian candidate didn’t make it out of the presidential primary last year, so I guess we can still claim oppressed minority status.  It’s not very “Che Guevara” of the Brown faculty to insult a politically disenfranchised ethnic minority, now is it?

 

Actually, Brown has a tradition of insults to Italians.  Brown’s mascot is a snarling, fanged, long-nailed violent beast they call “Bruno.”  Bruno!  While I’ve not heard one professor (or Italian) complain about it, you can bet if the animal were nicknamed “Redskin” or “Brave” the Brown faculty would have labeled it racist toward Indians and changed the name.

 

Since Brown wishes to distance itself from really bad people of antiquity, I suggest the faculty vote to close the University.  Brown University was founded with slave money.  Not just from guys who owned slaves, but from guys who owned slave ships!

 

Even the University’s namesake family, the Browns, were slave traders.  They infamously sent the Slave Ship Sally to Africa to trade rum for slaves, bring 4 teenage slaves home for “family use” and sell the rest in the West Indies.  Of the 196 people they packed below deck, because conditions were so awful, 68 died on the voyage.  Now THOSE were some despicable people, those Browns. Surely the PC Brown University faculty will vote to close the school immediately.

 

What argument will they use to not do that – that there are other redeeming things about the University to celebrate?  Certainly what is not a good enough reason to honor America will not be a good enough reason to honor Brown.

 

Although, in defense of Brown’s faculty, I can understand the chip they carry on their collective shoulders.  How tough is it being Ivy League when your name isn’t Princeton, Harvard or Yale?  I imagine it’s like being a Carter, but your name isn’t Jimmy, it’s Billy.  

Salvation

Friday "Fail" Fun (we do it every Friday)

They'll Hate Us No Matter Who Is President, Or What We Do For Them

Today is the 6th Anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and the toppling of that giant, obnoxious Saddam Hussein statue.

Hussein was brutal to the Shi'ites, and the Shi'ite leader is Muqtada al-Sadr.

The followers of al-Sadr were Saddam's bitter enemies.  When Saddam was hanged, those in attendance victoriously chanted al-Sadr's name.

To mark his appreciation, al-Sadr sent his people out today in a joyous celebration of America and it's beloved new President with the Arab middle name.

Of course by "joyous celebration" I mean they chanted "Down Down USA," burned photos of President Bush, demanded we leave and accused us of plotting to steal their oil (as if we wouldn't have taken it already over the past 6 years if that's why we were there).

Oh and you have to love this sentiment of cooperation from one speaker:

"Iraq has experience of occupation ... No country has emerged from it through politics and transparency. It will only end through the sword."

By that he means they still plan on killing Americans.

Below is a video of part of the demonstration.

You won't see it reported in media.  Their too busy reporting how Obama has transformed the world and how Arabs love us now.

Good grief.

The Afghan Marital Rape Law - Karzai Needs A First Amendment

I'm all for people living their lives the way they wish.  Be free.  But remember - your right to flail about and swing your fists ends where my nose begins.

Right there at the meeting place of one's fist and another's nose is where laws are needed.  While people should be free, we have to regulate only the behavior that will infringe upon others.

That's the goal of the American Constitution and it's civil and criminal laws, although we do sometimes fall short of the goal of protecting people from the trespasses of others.  See as examples Eminent Domain and abortion.

Afghanistan is about 85% Sunni Muslim and 15% Shi'a Muslim.  As their young new government continues to form while our boys and girls beat back the Taliban with guns, they struggle to create a government that can deal with a pluralistic populace that holds differing ideas.

A new law has been passed by the Afghan Parliament and signed by President Karzai, the purpose of which is to respect the differences in religious practices of the minority Shi'a Muslim from the Sunnis.

The problem is that Shi'a religious law can brutal toward women.  The law, according to the Obama Administration's reading of it, allows a man to rape his wife.  Right there is where the proverbial fist and nose meet.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has voiced America's objection to the law. Secretary Clinton has the right to do so.  America is the only thing standing between Karzai and Taliban terrorists.

President Karzai announced he will meet with his country's government and religious leaders to discuss the law.  I predict the discussions won't be fruitful.

The problem is that while Afghanistan has in its Constitution the equivalent of the second idea expressed in America's 1st Amendment (protecting the free exercise of religion) they have no equivalent for the first part - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

It's a courageous thing Americans did - religious people made sure there was no excessive entanglement between religion and government by passing the anti-establishment clause.  That could have been misconstrued as a devaluing of religion.  A slight against religion. Americans however were motivated by having come from religious prosecution in Europe, so they understood the need for the anti-establishment clause.

The Afghans need to learn our lesson - that the best way to protect religion is to have the government not pass laws about its practice.  Allow people to follow religious tenets by choice, not by law. If I miss church this Sunday I will have sinned and can pay the price in heaven, but I can't be arrested for it here.  It's my choice to follow my religion - government be damned about it.

If a Shi'a woman wishes to subject herself to Shi'a law as a matter of choice she should be allowed.  There should be no law compelling her to do so. That's the only way she can then turn to government power to stop her husband's fist from hitting her nose.

American men and women are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan to end tyranny, not to allow a new group of tyrants to assume power.

Obama’s Mea Culpa Tour Of Europe

While in Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton figuratively told the world that Mexican drug lords were at war because Americans smoke the pot Mexicans won’t smoke, and Americans manufacture guns that fire only when pointed at Mexican police chiefs.

 

In other words, whatever bad thing is happening in Mexico is all America’s fault.  Good grief.

 

Before that Attorney General Eric Holder announced that on race relations America has always been a “nation of cowards.” Does that include the more than half million cowardly white guys who died for race relations in the Civil War?  Does that include cowardly black civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks and Dr. King?

 

We should have seen those statements as precursors to Obama’s theme for the President’s European tour.

 

It has become apparent that the official Obama Foreign Policy is an adoption of Michelle Obama’s meme “We’ve never been proud of America,” made famous during the campaign.

While in Strasbourg President Obama said America “has failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.” Wow. America no longer has the leading role in the world?  I expected the European audience to stand up and leave the room once Obama declared America’s secondary relevance.

Worse than that, President Obama said that toward Europe America has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”  Is that how Obama wants Frenchmen at Strasbourg to think our boys acted at the invasion of Normandy - “dismissive” toward Europe?

Obama must think he’s the President of Indonesia, his childhood home.  Never have I heard an American President, on foreign soil no less, say so many horrible things about my country.

Nor have I heard an American President say so many stupid things. Saturday he referred to “Austrian” as a language. Oh how fortunate are we to have such a “worldly” and “intelligent” ambassador representing us in Europe!

Not one mainstream news agency has picked up on President Obama’s “Austrian Language” gaffe.  Had Sarah Palin said it, ABC, NBC and CBS would have interrupted programming, Saturday Night Live would dedicate a year to it and it would be the first sentence on Palin’s wiki bio.

Continuing his “I blame America” European tour, the President noted to Turkish students, “America, like every other nation, has made mistakes and has its flaws.”  Fortunately, the President couldn’t name any.

To make sure he left Europe with a whimper, he also said to majority Muslim Turkey, “Will never be at war with Islam.”

 

What he should have said was, “We will never be at war with Turkey.”  al-Qaeda, The Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah certainly don’t agree with the idea that we won’t be fighting Islam.

Michelle Malkin's Excellent Post on the Left Blaming Conservatives for the NY Shooting

Read Michelle's roundup here.  Just amazing.  Great job by Malkin. Full of win.

Notre Dame Students: Demand Obama’s Honorary Law Degree Be Rescinded, or Hold An Alternative Graduation Ceremony

President Obama speaking at Notre Dame is not the problem.  The honorary law degree Notre Dame is giving him is the problem.

 

University President Father John Jenkins rests his case in favor of the speech on the argument that the school is honoring the office of the President; the school is not endorsing his policy views, particularly on abortion.

 

Fair enough.  With that understanding there’s no harm in listening to the President speak and be wrong about abortion or any other issue.

 

However Father Jenkins’ assertion is contradicted by the honorary law degree Notre Dame will bestow on the President graduation day.  While America’s Declaration of Independence explicitly states that the right to life is endowed by the Creator (both a religious and legal conclusion), whether the Constitution will equally protect that right for the smallest and weakest humans is a legal question.

 

President Obama may claim to speak in a vacuum separated from his political views, but granting him an honorary law degree is an endorsement of his legal views.  His legal view is that our Constitution holds some humans as being worth less than others – a view rejected by the University, the Church and a billion Catholics worldwide.

 

Some might argue that honorary degrees are often bestowed on graduation speakers who are not employed in that particular professional field of study.  Mike Tyson once received an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters from the University of Ohio. 

 

Note the stark difference.  Humane Letters are always honorary and given to someone whose career is NOT in science, government, law, literature or religion. That way, the recipient cannot embarrass an entire field should he one day embarrasses himself (as Tyson eventually did).

 

Obama IS a lawyer.  Notre Dame could have bestowed an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters on him so as not to endorse his legal views.  They did not. That makes the choice of an honorary Doctorate of Laws not only deliberate, but also an endorsement of the President’s legal analysis.  If not deliberate, there is at least an enormous capacity to confuse it as such.

 

That’s why giving President Obama the honorary law degree is such a problem.

 

The Cardinal Newman Society (dedicated to renewing and strengthening Catholic identity at America’s 224 Catholic colleges and universities) has a petition closing in on a quarter million signatures to pressure Notre Dame to rescind the speaking invitation to the President. Despite that, the University won’t budge. 

 

What concerned Catholics should now call for is at least the rescinding of the honorary law degree while still allowing the President to speak.  If Father Jenkins and President Obama refuse that olive branch, then both are exposed as smiting the pro-Life Catholic community when there is an alternative not to do so.

 

If that compromise isn’t accepted, the graduating Catholic students who are committed to both the Constitution and their Religion must take matters into their own hands.  They must avoid their graduation ceremony and hold an alternative ceremony that does not include a politician who has passed laws to kill the innocent, as Barack Obama has when he re-funded overseas abortions.

 

The seriousness of a boycott of one’s own graduation is commensurate with the seriousness of the abortion issue.  Stopping abortion is without a doubt the most important political battleground for today’s Catholics.

 

There will be an understandable longing by graduates for the Pomp and Circumstance of the University sanctioned ceremony.  The graduates worked hard for it and most of their parents paid hard for it.

 

But Catholics follow the path of Christ.  What a sin it would be to put a day of celebration for yourself above the opportunity to stand in love and charity to defend innocents from slaughter. The Alternative Graduation is beyond obligation – it will be an honor and a joy to take part in it.

 

The world is watching.  If Catholics don’t stand strong on Catholic dogma and equality than certainly no one else will.  This is a remarkable chance to show Catholic commitment to Jesus and His lesson of love to us.  

 

As a Catholic, I beg pro-Life graduates at Notre Dame to begin planning the Alternative Graduation Ceremony. Cancel it only if the University rescinds the honorary law degree, or the President rejects that degree.  Both can save face if they issue a joint statement foregoing the honorary degree but accepting the speaking invitation.