What did we expect already from yesterday’s Prayer Breakfast? Obama long ago put the world on notice that he’s going full Bulworth (i.e., after six years in office, he intends, finally, to stop lying and speak the truth).
While before Obama just let out peevish little trickles of animosity, anyone paying attention could tell that:
(a) he’s profoundly ignorant about history — not just American history, but any history, including Muslim and Christian history;
(b) he hates Christians and Christianity;
(c) he hates America, no matter that this nation twice elected him as president (with a little help from the IRS, of course); and
(d) he reveres Islam — although that doesn’t mean he’s a Muslim, ’cause he could just be a fan boy of a powerful, antisemitic, monomaniacal faith, in the same way Hitler was a fan boy . . . not that I’m saying Obama is Hitler.
The only thing different about the prayer breakfast from Obama’s previous statements is that we didn’t have to squirrel around, picking up a speech here or a phrase there. Instead, Obama just put it all out there at once, in his inimitable arrogant, condescending, confabulist style.
The above is my brief editorial on the subject. Here are some other great posts on the same point:
Blessings Buzz has assembled some of the best tweets and posters about Obama’s execrable comments. Here are just a couple of examples:
Noah Rothman points out that, in indicting Christianity for ancient sins, Obama inadvertently indicts Islam for modern ones:
But to assert this and in the same breath suggest that Christianity was also a violent, expansionist religion a mere 800 years ago is a contradiction. Why make this comparison if ISIS is not representative of Islam? Isn’t the concession in this claim that those who commit acts of violence in the name of their religion, regardless of whether those acts are supported by a majority of coreligionists, that they are representative of their faith? Therefore, by perfunctorily nodding in the direction of a moral equivalency between Christian and Islamic violence, isn’t the president invalidating his own claim that ISIS, Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf, and a host of other fundamentalist Islamic terror groups are agents of a violent strain of the Islamic faith?
The guys at Power Line savage Obama’s ignorance and arrogance: First, John Hinderaker:
There was nothing wrong, in principle, with the Crusades. They were an appropriate (if belated and badly managed) response to the conquest of the Holy Land by Islam. Did marauding 11th century armies inevitably commit outrages? They certainly did. In fact, that still happens today. But the most unfortunate thing about the Crusades is that they failed.
But more fundamentally, what is the point? Obama is telling us not to get on our “high horse.” Does that mean that we shouldn’t try to do something about the groups that are ravaging the Middle East and Africa and carrying out terrorist acts around the world? Are we supposed to refrain from anger against ISIS on account of the Crusades? Seriously?
Then Scott Johnson:
It is jarring to hear him talk of “Christ” as though he believes in a power higher than himself. But then he speaks only of “Christ” to humble Christians. He speaks of “Christ” to tout “Obama” or, as he calls it, his own “faith journey.”
Obama’s “faith journey” results in a warning to us not to “get on our high horse.” The high horse is reserved for Obama. Obama’s doctrine places himself above us. It is the vantage from which he looks down on us and lectures us and hectors us. He is the prophet of his worship of himself. Obama is not the man on a white horse; Obama is preeminently the the man on a high horse.
A couple of good articles about Obama and Iran
Those who cannot reconcile the Magic Negro of their political fantasies with the real man in the White House are assiduously ignoring Obama’s schoolboy crush on Iran and his willingness to do anything — anything at all! — to earn its love in return. People who live in the real world, however, are horrified by what they’re seeing.
Michael Doran writes about Obama’s “secret Iran strategy,” which has been in place from the first day of his presidency (hence his passivity in the face of Iran’s Green Revolution) and which involves establishing Iran as the dominant power in the Middle East.
Victor Davis Hanson is back with another brilliant article about Obama and Iran. This time, he focuses on the narcissistic arrogance that leads appeasers to believe that they’ve got what it takes to pacify a mad dog regime.
One of my high school friends (a neo-con who made aliyah) got a kick out of my saying that “Palestinians are the PR face of ISIS. They’re all the same.” I’m right too.
Because they are all the same, I’m jumbling under one heading all of the evil things Muslims have been doing lately, without regard to artificial distinctions about ISIS or al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah or Palestinians.
A UN agency reports that ISIS is selling children in slavery, sexual and otherwise (entirely consistent with the Koran); crucifying them (consistent with the Koran); burying them alive (consistent with the Koran); and turning them into unwitting or unwilling suicide bombers. Obama yawns because Crusades.
Swarthmore college students shout down and jeer at Egyptian who was tortured by the Muslim Brotherhood for supporting Israel. Obama allows himself a private smile.
British students shout down and make every effort to silence the Israeli ambassador to Britain, proving once again the censorship is the tyrant’s friend. Obama wishes we had more censorship in America.
The American and British students’ love affair with murderous totalitarianism is something we must take seriously. In a thoughtful (of course) post, Robert Avrech notes that Naziism was able to take over Germany when the academics embraced it. Obama works on more ways to funnel more American young people into academics.
Daniel Henninger makes an interesting point about Obama’s tax plan which is that, for a so-called “Progressive” president, it’s about as regressive as they come:
Commenting on Mr. Obama’s nearly $4 trillion budget, Jared Bernstein, a former policy adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, told the New York Times: “It’s a visionary document and basically says, ‘You’re with me or you’re not,’ and we can have big philosophical arguments about the role of government.”
He is right. For the Obama presidency that is what it has always been about: You’re with me or you’re not. The government role reflected in this budget looks less like a 21st century American institution than a system last seen in 17th century Europe, in which a leader defines national wealth by handing out dispensations, emoluments and punishments.
Brian Williams — Object of well-deserved ridicule
I’ve already exhausted myself on the subject of Brian Williams’ lies and stolen valor, in part because I’ve never actually watched him perform his “news” shtick. I tend to read my news, not watch it on TV, and I’ve always understood that he’s little more than a vaguely pretty news reader. I can’t let the subject of Williams go, however, without sharing a couple of excellent links with you:
Once one lie unravels, all of the start unraveling. So, did Brian Williams really see dead people at Katrina and get dysentery there too?
The intolerant Left continues its rampage against the First Amendment
Gordon College is a small missionary college near Boston. Because it’s Christian, it espouses traditional Christian values, including a prohibition on homosexual behavior. The “tolerant” Left has declared all-out war on Gordon and is trying to destroy it.
On the subject of children with Downs, Sarah Palin’s view trumps Andrew Sullivan’s
You may remember how Andrew Sullivan led the jeering, pitchfork-waving crowd in the appalling attacks against Trig, Sarah Palin’s youngest child, who was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome before he was born. Rather than seeing Palin as a person of exceptional decency, compassion, and morality, the Left, led by Sullivan, presented her as a vicious fool.
It turns out, though, that if you’re not Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential candidate, many people actually think you’re pretty cool if you step forward to take care of a child with a birth . . . let’s not call it a defect, let’s call it a . . . um . . . limitation.
Samuel Forrest lived in Armenia with his wife. When their son was born with Downs, the wife said words to the effect of “It’s the child or me. I will not keep or care for a Downs child.” Samuel chose his son, despite having no idea how he would carry the financial burden. This being the second decade of the 21st century, he turned to crowd-funding, and magical things happened:
Not sure what to do without the support of his wife, Forrest turned to GoFundMe to ask for help.
In about a week, he’d already surpassed his goal of raising $60,000, which he hoped to use to support him and his son for a year.
Forrest, who is originally from Auckland, New Zealand, said he plans to move home with Leo, where it would be easier for him to integrate with society and find support.
Incidentally, the reason I know about this story is because it’s trending like crazy on Facebook — and it’s trending, not in a nasty Andrew Sullivan-like way, but in a “isn’t this a wonderful, heartwarming story” way.