Tag Archives: morality

Obama’s Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

This from Bret Stephens, in The Wall Street Journal [emphasis mine].

“Hasa Diga Eebowai” is the hit number in Broadway’s hit musical “The Book of Mormon,” which won nine Tony awards last year.  What does the phrase mean? I can’t tell you, because it’s unprintable in a family newspaper.

[I]f you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can’t tell you about that, either….

The “Book of Mormon”—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing “Innocence of Muslims.”  This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.

No matter.  The film, the administration says, is “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice), “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney) and, in a twist, “disgusting and reprehensible” (Hillary Clinton).  Mr. Carney, the White House spokesman, also lays sole blame on the film for inciting the riots that have swept the Muslim world and claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff in Libya.

So let’s get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam.  Why?  Maybe it’s because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.

RTWT.  There’s more, about the assault on American free speech by this American government, and about the necessary mutuality of respect.

Stephens centers his article on the behaviors of liberalism and progressivism, but Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is the head Progressive, and his silence on his movement’s hypocrisy is deafening.

Pity the Poor Union

Posted on by
Reply

The Chicago Teacher’s Union, which is unhappy and feeling rushed.

Using the children its teachers claim to teach as hostages, the union has decided to continue its strike for more money, more job security, and less stringent individual teacher performance evaluation.  Of course, this leaves those children out of school and forces parents to lose income from taking time off from work or to incur additional child-care expenses to handle children who should be in school.  That doesn’t matter, though, to teachers whose salaries already are some 50% higher than those of the parents whose children they’re not teaching.  (On the other hand, what’s the downside for the kids, really?  This collection of teachers does poorly by the students: a 60% high school graduation rate, generally, and a 44% rate for black high schoolers.  Just 15% of fourth graders are proficient in reading.  Just 20% of the students are grade level proficient in math.)

But faced with a generous offer from the city to come back to work, the CTU declined even to vote on the offer over the weekend.

CTU President, Karen Lewis, said teachers wanted the opportunity to continue to discuss that offer.

Our members are not happy,

she said.

They want to know if there is anything more they can get,

she said.

They feel rushed,

!?  she said.

They want to squeeze more—as if their already failed performance should be rewarded.  Talk about not hurting (teachers’) self-esteem.  They feel rushed?  They always could come back to work and study the city’s offer at leisure.

In the meantime, the kids are suffering.  Or, maybe not so much.

Our Judiciary’s Selective Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

The Ninth Circuit strikes again.  The Ninth agreed with a Federal district court that an Idaho law that lets state authorities bring criminal charges against pregnant women who seek abortions by using medications purchased online would likely be found unconstitutional (the Ninth Circuit ruling can be found here).  The Ninth, however, overruled the lower court’s enforcement injunction, saying it was too broad.  Instead, the Ninth substituted its own injunction: state authorities are enjoined only from enforcing the Idaho law against the particular woman who brought the case, not from enforcing the law everywhere else.

The WSJ‘s Law Blog provides a summary of the case:

In May 2011, Mark Hiedeman, the prosecuting attorney in Bannock County, Idaho, brought criminal charges against Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, after she purchased medications over the Internet in 2010 to terminate her pregnancy.  There are no licensed healthcare providers who offer abortions in southeastern Idaho and Ms McCormack, who didn’t want to have additional children, claimed the medications were prescribed by a physician outside of Bannock County.

The lower court set aside the case against McCormack and enjoined the prosecutor from enforcing the law against anyone on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Set aside your views of abortion for a moment, and consider what this appellate court has done vis-à-vis the injunction.

The law under which Hiedeman attempted to prosecute McCormack was found by the district court to be unconstitutional, and the Ninth agreed: it is likely be found unconstitutional.  Yet the Ninth then overruled the district court’s injunction against enforcing that law at all.

Their logic centers on the premise that the law has not yet, in fact, been found unconstitutional, and so the original broad injunction went too far.  Yet injunctions, by their nature, are temporary—even permanent ones, which can be withdrawn for any number of reasons at any later date when they’re found no longer to be useful.

So where is the harm done by the lower court’s broader injunction?  The state is harmed by not being able to enforce a law that is, nominally, legitimate.  Women are harmed by being threatened with prosecution—and potentially prosecuted and convicted—for acting as McCormack did and who is protected from prosecution for those same actions by the injunction as modified by the Ninth.  The women who are under the gun here, also are in a time-sensitive situation: their pregnancy must be terminated promptly, or not at all.  We the People are harmed by this court’s announcement that selective enforcement of a law, as a matter of state policy, is entirely legitimate.

This is a rule of law question, regardless of what we might think of the legitimacy of abortion itself.

Censoring Appeasement

Posted on by
Reply

These tweets are from the US’ State Department via the embassy in Cairo just prior to and during the initial rioting and American flag desecration at the embassy, and on the same day that American diplomats and staff were murdered in Libya:

We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

and this:

U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement ow.ly/dCxwY—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Try that link.  The material on the other end is “File not found.”  Hmm….

And this:

This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Which the Cairo Embassy deleted from its Twitter account.  Except that tweets last a while, as Twitchy notes.

And this carefully deleted tweet:

@BrianGriffiths we did not apologize to anyone because we did nothing—
US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012

Follow this Twitchy link to see more that the Obama administration has deleted.

And this Cairo Embassy statement—oddly, no longer found, also; try the link:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.  Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.  Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy.  We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

But not a word of condemnation for those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt us.

What else is the Obama administration covering up?  What else have they tried to censor from the public’s eye concerning these despicable attacks and their timid response to them?

Can our nation afford four more years of this?

Still Equivocating

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama continues to soft pedal our government’s reaction to the atrocious attacks on our embassies and our personnel.

Fox News reports that in a call Tuesday to Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, Obama had this to say:

…he rejects efforts to denigrate Islam…there is never any justification for violence against innocents.

Still caveating, still being squishy.  Still more concerned with the hurt feelings of thugs than with the safety, the honor of Americans and America.

And this, in a who-cares statement (indeed, throughout his entire prepared statement, Obama merely recited his lines, consulting his note cards more than the faces of his audience, with no emotion other than evident boredom, no outrage fueling his statement):

While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

No.  No conditioned statement is necessary.  No caveats.  How do you “balance” the murders of innocents against anything?

There is never any justification for violence against innocents.

Period.

Addendum:  “We tragically learned that [Ambassador Stevens] had died.”  Tragically learned.  Not learned that [Ambassador Stevens] had tragically died.  Oh, no.  It’s Obama’s tragedy, not Stevens’ and his family’s.

Think I’m being too hard on Obama for a misspeak?  Watch the video.  He was reading from his prepared script.  He knew what he was saying.

Update: from Fox News this morning:

Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement strongly denouncing the anti-Islam video that is purportedly the cause of the violence as the administration sought to pre-empt further turmoil at its embassies and consulates.

“The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said before a meeting with the foreign minister of Morocco at the State Department. “We absolutely reject its content and message.”

Duck and cover.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.  Apologize for having interrupted their fists with our face.  Don’t even think of denouncing the riots, the desecrations of our flag, the murders of our citizens, unequivocally.  In an actual statement of condemnation (hopefully accompanied by concrete action) that pulls no punches and that contains no other comments at all.  No, just point the finger at someone else.  Anyone else.  Especially at those evil Americans exercising their right of free speech.