Obama

Lese-Majeste

by

(Sorry, no history post today – just too much going on and I am too steamed about this particular First Amendment issue. It seems that in the eyes of certain parties, our current president may not be mocked by the peasants.)

That useful concept (thank you, the French language for putting it so succinctly!) is defined “as an offense that violates the dignity of a ruler” or “an attack on any custom, institution, belief, etc., held sacred or revered by numbers of people.”Well, it appears that our very dear current occupant of the White House is certainly held sacred by a substantial percentage of our fellow citizens. How else to account for the perfectly earsplitting howling from Missouri Democrats and the usual suspects over a rodeo clown wearing an Obama mask to yuck it up before the crowd most of whom seem to be laughing their heads off. All but the desperately sensitive, who breathlessly insisted that it was just like a KKK rally, practically. The rodeo clown’s name apparently is Tuffy Gessling; his supporters, and those who, as a matter of fact, support the rights of a free citizen to mock authority figures of every color and persuasion, have set up a Facebook page. He’s also been invited by a Texas congressman to come and perform the skit at a rodeo in Texas.

Read more

Obama’s Anti-Terror Policy Can’t Be a Continuation of Bush’s Policy

by

J. E. Dyer:

Foreign policy doesn’t operate mechanically, on autopilot. Its effectiveness is determined entirely by the nature of the national administrations involved. You take the Bush 41 administration, and it can make a particular basic policy — say, in the war on terror — achieve a detectable level of good effect, in spite of the setbacks and “friction” (in the Clausewitzian sense) that are inevitable with international relations.
 
You take the Obama administration, and officially, it will modify the same basic policy on the edges. But in reality, the Obama administration becomes known for things like zero follow-through, strategic sclerosis, narcissism, unreliability, and desperation for photo ops and a favorable narrative. The same policy, modified, can’t work under those conditions.

This is a good point and should give pause to anyone who is reassured by assertions that the Obama administration’s anti-terror activities are an extension of what the Bush administration did. In fact, Obama’s weakness and ineptitude make it impossible for him to get the results Bush did, even if Obama wants to.

Executive competence is a critical variable in foreign-policy success. There is no adequate workaround for executive incompetence.

Quote of the Day

by

Richard Fernandez:

The big risk the liberal establishment took in advancing Obama for President was not in proposing a black candidate, but in nominating an incompetent one. That ensured that when the recriminations came it would be about race.
 
A successful Obama presidency would have been a breakthrough for race relations that would have lasted decades. Conversely, a catastrophic Obama presidency would set things back for generations.
 
The unspoken takeaway for many would be “never an African-American again”. But that is the wrong lesson. The right lesson, I think should be “never an incompetent again”.
 
Things might not have been much better, and arguably they would have been worse, under Hillary Clinton. The kind of disaster that is unfolding is across the board. Foreign policy catastrophe, economic mismanagement, chaos in governance, botched programs — they’re just piling up. So in the face that avalanche of woes, Obama will do the easiest thing: make it about race.
 
But it is really not about race. Race in this case was cosmetic. It was the mask the liberal establishment donned to rejuvenate their tired old agenda. And now that it’s failing comprehensively they’ll blame the mask.
 
It may seem counterintuitive, but the ones with the most to gain by racializing Obama are faceless backroom boys. They know he’s done for so they’re going to pin the disaster on the black guy, not upon the guys who selected the incompetent who happened to black. They’ll put their political mistakes in the coffin with Obama’s career. Pin it on him and push Hillary 2016.

The Events in Egypt

by

Check out this photograph of protesters against the Morsi regime in Egypt.

Then see this: Anti-government demonstrators in Egypt expressed anger and contempt for the Obama administration  as they took to the streets on Sunday to demand the removal of Muslim Brotherhood-backed President Mohamed Morsi.

The demonstrators maintain Morsi has become a power-hungry autocrat who is intent on making the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt’s permanent ruling party.

They also blame the Obama administration and U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson for propping up Morsi and facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood’s power grab.

“We are very critical of the Obama administration because they have been supporting the Brotherhood like no one has ever supported them,” Shadi Al Ghazali Harb, a 24-year-old member of Egypt’s Revolutionary Youth Coalition, told the  Washington  Free Beacon  on Friday afternoon during a telephone interview from Cairo.

The White House is “the main supporter of the Brotherhood,” he said. “If it wasn’t for the American support this president would have fallen months ago.”

See also this–a sign carried by Egyptian demonstrators: “Wake Up America, Obama Backs Up a Fascist Regime in Egypt”

…to which PowerLine responds:

Well, yes. So he does. What is bizarre is that Obama hasn’t just tolerated the Brotherhood’s rise to power, he has abetted it. It would be defensible to argue that we have little power to influence events in Egypt, and, moreover, attempts on our part to exercise influence are likely to backfire; therefore we should stand aside and do nothing. But why Obama would consider it a good idea to put America’s thumb on the scale on the side of the Brotherhood is beyond me.

The Obama administration has also–through its ambassador–asked the Coptic Church to urge its members not to participate in the demonstrations against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ( Coptic) Pope politely informed her that his spiritual authority over the Copts does not extend to political matters.

Regardless, many Egyptian activists are condemning Patterson for flagrantly behaving like the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge.   Leading opposition activist Shady el-Ghazali Harb said Patterson showed “blatant bias” in favor of Morsi and the Brotherhood, adding that her remarks had earned the U.S. administration “the enmity of the Egyptian people.” Coptic activists like George Ishaq openly told Patterson to “shut up and mind your own business.” And Christian business tycoon Naguib Sawiris—no stranger to Islamist hostility—posted a message on his Twitter account addressed to the ambassador saying “Bless us with your silence.”

The post at the link notes that:

Among other things, under  Morsi’s  rule, the persecution of Copts has practically been legalized,    as unprecedented numbers of  Christians—men, women, and children—have been arrested, often receiving more than double the maximum prison sentence, under the accusation that they  “blasphemed” Islam and/or its prophet.    It was also under  Morsi’s reign that another unprecedented scandal occurred: the St. Mark Cathedral—holiest site of Coptic Christianity and headquarters to the Pope  Tawadros  himself—was  besieged in broad daylight  by Islamic rioters.    When security came, they too joined in the attack on the cathedral.    And the  targeting of Christian children—for abduction, ransom, rape, and/or forced conversion—has also reached unprecedented levels under  Morsi.

Yet Obama’s ambassador attempted to dissuade these persecuted Christians from protesting against their persecutors!

More at  Pam Geller’s site. Note the picture with the sign saying “Obama Supports Dictator Morsi.”

It is hard to avoid the feeling that Obama is more sympathetic to radical Muslim organizations and regimes than to the millions of more moderate Muslims who would prefer modernization and civil liberties rather than  strict shariah and violent aggression against other faiths. Whether or not that has truly been his intent, it is certainly the way his policies have worked out in practice.

 

What is a conservative ?

by

Right now we have the immigration bill that has been passed by the Senate after being written by the “Gang of 8.” This bill, like so many major pieces of legislation lately, was written in secrecy and has not been through the usual committee process. “We have to pass it to see what is in it.”

As if Obamacare were not enough, here we have another opaque and mysterious bit of legislation that is thousands of pages of incomprehensible legalese.

Jennifer Rubin weighs in with a rather beltway-oriented view. Fair enough as she writes in the Washington Post.

The immigration battle, the debate over U.S. involvement in Syria and the flap over NSA surveillance have suggested two starkly different visions of the GOP as well as two potential paths for the GOP.

The question remains whether the GOP will become the party of: Sen. Rand Paul, Ky., or Sen. Kelly Ayotte, N.H., on national security; The Gang of Eight or the Gang of Three (Sens. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions) on immigration; Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio, or Rick Santorum on gay marriage; Broad-based appeal (e.g. Govs. Chris Christie, Gov. Scott Walker) or losing ideologues (Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann). I don’t know that Angle and O’Donnell were “ideologues.” Angle, at least was an amateur, somewhat like other candidates supported by the Tea Party.

I’m not sure I agree with her choices but let’s think about it.

Read more