Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

posted at 2:01 pm on September 25, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

President Obama addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York on Tuesday morning, and while there were a few moments when he at least talked a good game on free speech, there were also moments that left much to be desired on that same front and on the real nature of the root causes of unrest in the Middle East.

Here are some key excerpts (you can read the full prepared remarks here):

But the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded – the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; and that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis. Because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart, and the hopes we hold in common.

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

So far, not bad. But then, for some reason, the president felt the need to bring in, criticize, and apologize for the YouTube video that we’re to believe was the catalyst that sparked these inexcusable recent events — even though, really, that video is not what any of this is or should be about at all, and I’m not really sure why it’s something the president feels the continual need to explain away.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

Again, not a bad rundown of our free-speech values, but if we believe that all people have a right to express their views, even ones with which we disagree, why are we still talking about this dumb video? The video is not the point. The Obama administration has already had to revise their original version of the chaos in Libya and labeled it as the terrorism that it was, but President Obama conspicuously failed to mention terrorism in relation to Libya in his speech. Why do I feel like this was a speech designed to sound so-so on promoting our American values but simultaneously pander to the people who would criticize us for them? There was an opportunity for a real display of strength and courage here in the wake of all of this unacceptable violence, and the president declined to take it.

Here’s a reaction from former UN Ambassador John Bolton:

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7

If “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” then why did Obama take 1 million dollars from Bill Maher?

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM

He meant slander-slander.

MeatHeadinCA on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM

He says that slander against Christians should be condemned.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM

No…….. Read it carefully Madi, he says the exact opposite of that.

What it says is that the hatred seen when “the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied” not the hatred that caused the individual who did those things, must be condemned.

It does not say that there is anything wrong with desecrating the image of Jesus Christ, burning Churches or denying the Holocaust, it condemns being offended by those things, while simultaneously making it 100 percent perfectly clear that taking such offense at equal treatment of the Prophet Mohammad is acceptable behavior.

In other words what it says is, those who condemn the slander of the prophet Mohammad must also condemn those who are offended by the desecration the image of Jesus Christ, burning Churches or denying the Holocaust.

It’s in the wording.

Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Aren’t all “infidels” an insult to the islamic prophet and his followers?

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yup , and obama wont tolerate them.

the_nile on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He does say the violence is not justified. But he also says we need to be sensitive to Muslim sensibilities. He’s saying everyone needs to take a step back and be more sensitive and understanding. Everyone isn’t killing ambassadors, setting buildings on fire and threatening death to some “film maker”.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Right, but that’s not the headline Erika chose now is it. He also says that Muslims need to show tolerance to Jews and Christians as well. I’m no fan of Obama, but to act like he’s somehow actively trying to push blasphemy law, as suggested by Erika, is silly and makes real criticism of Obama, such as he didn’t prepare the embassy and consulates for attacks, he doesn’t understand radical islam, etc, less potent. Could he have come out more forceful on free speech? Yes. Should he? Yes. But this, like nearly every headline she writes, is meant to spark outrageous outrage that we mock to Left for doing all the time.

cpaulus on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” then why did Obama take 1 million dollars from Bill Maher?

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Thread winner

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

He says that slander against Christians should be condemned.

He says that the future, however, should be protected only from those who slander Islam.

Wake up.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM

——

ha ha ha such amazing partisan head in the ass garbage coming out of you

Dave Rywall on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Dude, we might have to let up on the Canada noogies. Stephen Harper is proving to be a hell of a lot better leader than ours.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Pathetic, isn’t it? It wasn’t too long ago that the most liberal president was still more conservative than the most conservative Canadian prime minister. If only our current president really were an empty chair, because an empty chair would actually be an improvement.

NotCoach on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

He was just a bump in the road. At least that’s what Obama’s limo driver said.

The Rogue Tomato on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Ahem, I think you mean bus driver. Obama’s been throwing everyone under the bus. Watch out, Clintons!

MeatHeadinCA on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

leter, you fool, a president with real stones would say “Our First Amendment is a cornerstone of freedom. The world should follow its good example of protecting the weak and the strong. It provides each individual the right to be free, and free to be stupid. In the US a mock Jesus, Muhammad or Anyone action is free, so that we all be and remain free”.

Schadenfreude on September 25, 2012 at 2:42 PM

This president has no stones, just as lester has no brain.

Right Mover on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

F Islam and F Herr Obama

VorDaj on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

He’s calling the hypocrisy of Muslims…by saying the future must be controlled by those who don’t criticize Islam?

Explain that, if possible.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:33 PM

We had Sam Bacile and we have/had Christopher Hitchens. One of them is an intelligent man that provides actual thoughtful criticism. The other is an attention whore, a convicted felon and a terrible film-maker who makes so much noise that actual criticism goes unheard.

Which group do you want the future to belong to?

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Realistic review of speech: More pandering and apologizing to murderous thugs with a few golden unicorn platitudes sprinkled in.

MSM review of speech: The best, most inspiring, most fantabulous, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious speech ever made by a leader in the history of the known universe.

natasha333 on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

ha ha ha such amazing partisan head in the ass garbage coming out of you

Dave Rywall on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Deep.

Now, don’t you have to scoot along to a Pamela Geller protest?

MeatHeadinCA on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Fair point.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

ha ha ha such amazing partisan head in the ass garbage coming out of you

Dave Rywall on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Such dunderheaded inability to counter from you, as well as cowardly refusal to defend his comments, you pathetic worm.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

He says that slander against Christians should be condemned.

He says that the future, however, should be protected only from those who slander Islam.

Wake up.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM

——

ha ha ha such amazing partisan head in the ass garbage coming out of you

Dave Rywall on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

No , Obama conflates mass killings of Christians with a youtube video.

the_nile on September 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Right, but that’s not the headline Erika chose now is it. He also says that Muslims need to show tolerance to Jews and Christians as well. I’m no fan of Obama, but to act like he’s somehow actively trying to push blasphemy law, as suggested by Erika, is silly and makes real criticism of Obama, such as he didn’t prepare the embassy and consulates for attacks, he doesn’t understand radical islam, etc, less potent. Could he have come out more forceful on free speech? Yes. Should he? Yes. But this, like nearly every headline she writes, is meant to spark outrageous outrage that we mock to Left for doing all the time.

cpaulus on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I didn’t take Erika’s headline as implying that Obama wanted anti-blasphemy laws (though you can find plenty of recent examples of liberals in print and online asking for such things). I took it as Obama being being soft on American values in favor of multicultural values.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’d rather he protect discussion instead of promoting respectful, civil discussions. The first is explicitly a duty outlined in the Constitution.

MeatHeadinCA on September 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Pathetic, isn’t it? It wasn’t too long ago that the most liberal president was still more conservative than the most conservative Canadian prime minister. If only our current president really were an empty chair, because an empty chair would actually be an improvement.

NotCoach on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Not gonna lie…the border is going to look mighty tempting if we get another four years of this traitor.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

If we are serious about upholding these ideals

They’re not.

The sooner you realize that, the better.

mankai on September 25, 2012 at 2:55 PM

It’s as if Churchill tried to dissuade Hitler from marching across Europe by condemning the Easter Bunny.

Fools, the coordinated attacks that took place on 9-11 had nothing to do with some videos.

Ugh, SCOAMF, just tell the savages to shape up.

joeindc44 on September 25, 2012 at 2:55 PM

This was from July.

DOJ Official Won’t Say Whether Justice Department Would ‘Criminalize Speech against Any Religion’

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez refused to say Thursday whether the Justice Department would ever “entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion.”

During a House subcommittee hearing examining fairness in voting rights enforcement, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, referenced an article detailing a meeting between top Justice Department officials and Islamist advocates, where the advocates reportedly lobbied officials for “a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”…

“According to the article, no one at Justice, including you, objected to this call to aggregate free speech. Americans would be shocked to learn that their Justice officials and unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism trial huddled together to discuss ways to take away Americans’ freedom of speech,” Franks continued.

“Will you tell us here today, and I apologize for having to hurry. Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never again entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?” he asked Perez….

Later in the hearing, Franks brought up the issue again, asking Perez pointedly, “Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?

When Perez didn’t answer the question, Franks said, “Now that’s not a hard question.”

“Actually, it is a hard question in the sense that when you make threats against someone …” Perez replied before Franks cut him off and asked him the question twice more.

Franks asked the question four times and never received an answer!

INC on September 25, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Yes, Bishop. Exactly.

Islam commands its adherents to go forth into the world and see that all submit to Islam, and if they will not submit, if they are unbelievers, they are to be destroyed.

Islam seeks world domination and the eradication of all other faiths and all non-believers a the main tenet of the religion.

There is no ‘co-existence’ for other religions or non-believers possible in Islam.

thatsafactjack on September 25, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Dude, we might have to let up on the Canada noogies. Stephen Harper is proving to be a hell of a lot better leader than ours.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Nevah!

Axe on September 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Lester – the champion of respectful and civil discussion!

But seriously, which group of people is having a problem having a discussion: a film maker or a group of rioters/murderers/terrorists?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Obama’s way too self-centered to be a Muslim. However, he does have that weird liberal cognitive dissonance about gay & Muslim interests supposedly being on the same page.

thebrokenrattle on September 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM

He’s a very complicated man. Not an intelligent one at all but confused. He seems to think he is black, isn’t sure if he’s a muslim, came out as gay…there’s a lot of stuff there. None of it good.

CorporatePiggy on September 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This may explain why Rywall is so angry.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Lack of Lithium may be another explanation.

Madison, duly noted about Harper. I don’t really have anything against Canadians, except for when they start trying to impose socialist views on America…like Obama does.

BruthaMan on September 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM

So he is saying it is okay to kill those that don’t believe in Islam? If “the future must not belong to those…” sure sounds like he advocates death to the infidel.

generouse on September 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Now, don’t you have to scoot along to a Pamela Geller protest?

MeatHeadinCA on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

He likes it here. Wonder why.

Axe on September 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I don’t know if you realize it but your comments are making our point.
Idiots on either side? The idiots on their side are killing people, calling for more murders and destroying personal property. What are idiots on our side doing?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Obama is AWESOME!!!!!
-lsm

cmsinaz on September 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Agreed, imagine how pathetic Bark would have sounded if he had said something like “I want you to get in their faces!” or “We’re going punish our (political) enemies and reward our friends” or “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun!”.

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Either Obama believes Mohammed is a prophet of God and is Muslim or he does not. Which is it? Does he imagine Radical Muslims see any difference at all between the “slander” made in this video and the “slander” of denying Mohammed?

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You seem to have no knowledge of Islam.

Islam in a minority Muslim country believes in lying to everyone that they have similar beliefs to those around them. They even believe in dressing and acting in such a way to fit in. Lying is the way they are taught to do this.

Fact Obama’s preacher of twenty years got his divinity degree from an Islamic College. His Preacher was more Muslim than Christian. He was just wink wink Christian. He was just a way for people to be Muslim but claim to be Christian to further the Muslim cause more effectively.

Steveangell on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

So he is saying it is okay to kill those that don’t believe in Islam? If “the future must not belong to those…” sure sounds like he advocates death to the infidel.

generouse on September 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

BINGO.

VorDaj on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Fair point.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Remember, this is the administration that informed us (as if we were utterly unaware) that “Words Matter”… For them then to suggest that how a sentence is constructed is not indicative of the intended meaning behind that sentence would in essence be the equivalent of asking us to engage in a willful suspension of disbelief of their prior assertion.

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

An administration, who would allow Black Panthers to wield pipes at the entrance to a polling place, will also allow force and terror to suppress free speech.

The future of America is hatred, tyranny and terror.

This is the inevitable – with Statism.

We are the minority. The majority want the State to nurture and care for them and, in return, are willing to get on their knees, when the State demands it.

America is lost.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

We had Sam Bacile and we have/had Christopher Hitchens. One of them is an intelligent man that provides actual thoughtful criticism. The other is an attention whore, a convicted felon and a terrible film-maker who makes so much noise that actual criticism goes unheard.

Which group do you want the future to belong to?

People who speak their minds without fear of barbarians killing them for saying it. They’re part of the same group. You’re trying to divide people even further, just like your awful f**king president.

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion

…while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You just broke the irony meter. But then, liberals always do.

Let me also address this:

…the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

On one side, we have Sam Bacile. Is he an idiot? Possibly. Is he a barbarian? No.

On the other side, we have murderous Islamic psychopaths. Are they idiots? Possibly. Are they barbarians? Yes.

That you just compared the two, as if they were no different, demonstrates how f**ked up your paradigm is.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Amadejad threatens Israel with death and Obama threatens America with death.

VorDaj on September 25, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I don’t know if you realize it but your comments are making our point.
Idiots on either side? The idiots on their side are killing people, calling for more murders and destroying personal property. What are idiots on our side doing?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM

When they know their side is morally reprehensible, they whip out the moral equivalency card.

NotCoach on September 25, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

You children of the internet are so full of shit. The only reason he is discussing this is because it shows what a bunch of pussies you guys are and throws this token gesture towards other religions simply for conveniences’ sake.

Go back to deviantart and jerk off to more joke Reagan/T-Rex pictures. You could then use the OFFICIAL DNC Obama flag as your batch rag since you seem to enjoy mocking other political groups…

ClassicCon on September 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Little sister calls her brother a poopy head.

Big brother punches little sister in the face – breaking her nose.

Liberal breaks them up and tells both of them to think about how they can be more sensitive to each other and condemns calling people poopy heads and breaking noses, admonishing both of them to do better next time.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

+1,000,000,00

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The man is as sly as they come.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Obama is AWESOME!!!!!
-lsm

cmsinaz on September 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

. . . and if you travel beyond the horizon you’ll fall off the edge of the earth.

rplat on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

I didn’t take Erika’s headline as implying that Obama wanted anti-blasphemy laws (though you can find plenty of recent examples of liberals in print and online asking for such things). I took it as Obama being being soft on American values in favor of multicultural values.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Either way that’s not what he said. He explicitly defended the right to free speech. He also said this:
“Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers.”

Same goes for MadisonConservative’s statement. He explicitly condemns radical Islam while saying that the movie is stupid. The criticism should be that he thinks a movie caused this, but instead, because of the headline, we’re talking about this idea that he’s defending Islamic values over American, which in fact he’s not.

cpaulus on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Obama is a far greater threat to American and Western Civilization than Osama ever was or could ever have hoped to be. This has become self-evident.

VorDaj on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

On one side, we have Sam Bacile. Is he an idiot? Possibly. Is he a barbarian? No.

On the other side, we have murderous Islamic psychopaths. Are they idiots? Possibly. Are they barbarians? Yes.

That you just compared the two, as if they were no different, demonstrates how f**ked up your paradigm is.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The left wing moral relativism murder=video is pure evil.

the_nile on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

If worse comes to worse, MadCon, and Obama is re-elected, don’t go to Canada… stay here and fight by my side. We’ll need you on the battlements.

thatsafactjack on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

the message in the video seemed ok. what else could obama do?

nathor on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Agreed, imagine how pathetic Bark would have sounded if he had said something like “I want you to get in their faces!” or “We’re going punish our (political) enemies and reward our friends” or “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun!”.

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I retract my earlier pronouncement of thread winner.

Thread Winner

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM

We had Sam Bacile and we have/had Christopher Hitchens. One of them is an intelligent man that provides actual thoughtful criticism. The other is an attention whore, a convicted felon and a terrible film-maker who makes so much noise that actual criticism goes unheard.

Which group do you want the future to belong to?

How about both, since the idea of having someone like you deciding for me what is acceptable speech and what isn’t scares the shiit out of me.

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The apologizer-in-chief strikes again.

What a freekin’ loser.

DuctTapeMyBrain on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I appreciate the he (finally) got a round to a more robust defense – or even explanation – of free speech here.
I largely agree with those frustrated by what seems to be an inability to be plain spoken about that – and not feel the need to attach to those comments a rejection or judgement of the speech in question.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to offer that as well – but not automatically ancillary to a free speech defense.

As Salman Rushdie recently offered:
“It’s not for the American government to regret what American citizens do. They should just say, ‘This is not our affair and the [violent] response is completely inappropriate.’ ”

verbaluce on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Obama is promoting respectful and civil discussion while knocking the idiots on either side.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’ll add to what has been said that he is lying through his teeth.

The actions of the DOJ and HHS prove that he is undermining and denying freedom of religion for those who voice disagreement with his policies or with the tenets of Islam.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

the message in the video seemed ok. what else could obama do?

nathor on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Not be a pussy and play the childish “All religions have idiots” card when there is no comparison. It is a coward’s convenient excuse.

This is what happens when you are raised by nothing but ugly pissed off single-moms like Lester, and drywall.

ClassicCon on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

cpaulus on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

See what I just said.

He is lying through his teeth.

His actions indicate what he really thinks.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM

the message in the video seemed ok. what else could obama do?

nathor on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Gee, I don’t know, condemn the violence without making excuses, or trying to put bad movie makers on the same level as murdering barbarians? Is it really so hard to reject entirely the concept of insult induced murder?

NotCoach on September 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Anyone who would now vote for this guy for a 2nd term is either nuts or totally unclear on the concept on a level once thought unattainable!

pilamaye on September 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

~Voltaire

Can’t be repeated enough.

Schadenfreude on September 25, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Great thought but you should look into who most likely said it… Doesn’t look like it was Voltaire. Looks like it was a pedo named. Kevin Alfred Strom. What attribution did you find?

I found this at wiki reference.

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

There are over 47K Google hits for this quote, 19K attributing it to Voltaire, but since it does not appear on the Voltaire page, I have my doubts. –Myboybutch (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can’t find it or anything similar in English on Google Books. But, since Voltaire was French, I am hesitant to say anything more. Since no source seems to be ever given and the quote seems to have popped up in the last few months, I think it is highly suspect. If I have time, I’ll try to round up some Voltaire scholars to see what they think. —KHirsch (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A controversial writer named Kevin Alfred Strom said something very similar in 1993: “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” In later articles, Strom rephrased himself somewhat: “If you want to identify the real rulers of any society, simply ask yourself this question: Who is it that I cannot criticize?” Maybe Strom was paraphrasing Voltaire, but I doubt it. Google search shows no reference at all to the alleged Voltaire quote in English before 2001, and very little before the last few years. Perhaps someone liked Strom’s idea, but found him an unacceptable person to quote, or simply mixed things up.

Kaptain Amerika on September 25, 2012 at 3:07 PM

America is voting on Barry’s future, not the Islam world. Someone should remind him of that. If he wins, he can always flip back to terrorist sympathizer.

Waggoner on September 25, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You children of the internet are so full of shit. The only reason he is discussing this is because it shows what a bunch of pussies you guys are and throws this token gesture towards other religions simply for conveniences’ sake.

Go back to deviantart and jerk off to more joke Reagan/T-Rex pictures. You could then use the OFFICIAL DNC Obama flag as your batch rag since you seem to enjoy mocking other political groups…

ClassicCon on September 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM

A Sam Bacile type. Can’t make a point, but does manage to derail discussion. Future should not belong to ClassicCon (but he/she should still be tolerated).

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Either way that’s not what he said. He explicitly defended the right to free speech. He also said this:
“Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers.”

Same goes for MadisonConservative’s statement. He explicitly condemns radical Islam while saying that the movie is stupid. The criticism should be that he thinks a movie caused this, but instead, because of the headline, we’re talking about this idea that he’s defending Islamic values over American, which in fact he’s not.

cpaulus on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The problem is that if you string together all off Obama’s “we must affirm that our future will be determined by _______, and not by _______” formulation there are stark contradictions because the people who are offended by Western values tortured and killed Stevens.

He may be condemning radical Islam but he undercuts the strength of his point by also condemning the video.

I also didn’t say he was defending Islam values over American values – I said he was defending multicultural values (as epitomized in the emasculated states of western Europe).

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You can tell how indefensable what Obama said today actually was, by how many of our Trolls show up to defend him.

kingsjester on September 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The man is as sly as they come.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM

No kidding, reading what he says is like reading a Recording Industry Contract, every single phrase has to be carefully examined for it’s prepositional and conjugative ownership otherwise you will be deceived by the intentional implication of misplaced ownership.

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

America is lost.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

No. At least, not by your reckoning. I say this not to argue, but encourage. :) History is (at least largely, if the absolute is too strong) directed by the minority.

Axe on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

A Sam Bacile type. Can’t make a point, but does manage to derail discussion. Future should not belong to ClassicCon (but he/she should still be tolerated).

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You’re sick bastard.

the_nile on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Ok so now that Barky has affirmed his respect for all religions and their adherents, how about we see that Khalidi video so we know he isn’t being hypocritical.

Bishop on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

A Sam Bacile type. Can’t make a point, but does manage to derail discussion. Future should not belong to ClassicCon (but he/she should still be tolerated).

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

And if someone kills an American ambassador because of what ClassicCon said and promises more deaths unless ClassicCon is handed over for execution you’ll tell ClassicCon and the terrorist to both cool their jets and rethink things?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Future should not belong to ClassicCon (but he/she should still be tolerated).

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

The future shouldn’t belong to you, either; someone who talks about respectful and civil discourse in the same breath that they call people idiots.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Gee, I don’t know, condemn the violence without making excuses, or trying to put bad movie makers on the same level as murdering barbarians? Is it really so hard to reject entirely the concept of insult induced murder?

NotCoach on September 25, 2012 at 3:06 PM

i though it was the tipical message, i dont agree with what you say, but i defend your right to say it. also, he claimed it would be impossible to stop everybody with a cellphone do blasphemy.

nathor on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

verbaluce on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I grant you that Obama finally made some sort of argument for free speech. But – like you say – it makes for very weak sauce given the rest of the speech.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Could this man just move to one of his beloved muslim countries and leave us alone already?

Susanboo on September 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM

kingsjester on September 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM

ding ding ding

cmsinaz on September 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You seem to have no knowledge of Islam.

Islam in a minority Muslim country believes in lying to everyone that they have similar beliefs to those around them. They even believe in dressing and acting in such a way to fit in. Lying is the way they are taught to do this.

Fact Obama’s preacher of twenty years got his divinity degree from an Islamic College. His Preacher was more Muslim than Christian. He was just wink wink Christian. He was just a way for people to be Muslim but claim to be Christian to further the Muslim cause more effectively.

Steveangell on September 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I’m aware of this. Which is exactly why Obama should be made to clarify his statement that he is a Christian but yet condemns those who “slander” Mohammed.

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM

When The Nobel Laureate in Peace referred to the “Prophet of Islam” he not only neglected to say PBUH, he gave the wrong designation. There are many Prophets in Islam. For example, Jesus (non-Chicago) and Moses are both regarded as Prophets (nabi). Muhammad was more than a Prophet–he was the Messenger (rassul). Referring to him simply as the “Prophet” reeks of slander and displays the Dear Leader’s ignorance and insensitivity, thus justifying yet more Muslim bumps in the road.

We can play this game forever. And if we don’t vote this piece of shit out of office in six weeks, we most assuredly will.

spiritof61 on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I’ll add to what has been said that he is lying through his teeth.

The actions of the DOJ and HHS prove that he is undermining and denying freedom of religion for those who voice disagreement with his policies or with the tenets of Islam.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Which actions of DOJ? and HHS? If we allow any religious organization to drop what they want then why not allow Scientologists to drop psychiatric care? What next? Some random group saying cardiovascular disease shouldn’t be covered because they go against their religion? Where does it stop?

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Do you have something against American Freedom?

Oh, what a silly question. Of course you do.

kingsjester on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

As Salman Rushdie recently offered:
“It’s not for the American government to regret what American citizens do. They should just say, ‘This is not our affair and the [violent] response is completely inappropriate.’ ”

verbaluce on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Hey, good news for you-Ralph Nader says Obama is a War
Criminal.

Yeah, I always thought the man was
“Unsafe at any Leadership”

ToddPA on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Incredible.

.Obama urges NFL and refs to settle lockout,

can’t meet with foreign leaders

gerrym51 on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

why must everyone preface what they say by adding “it’s a terrible, disgusting video”. really? isn’t that over the top? it’s stupid and unfunny, but disgusting??

if you don’t believe this, all i’ll say is trust me, there are truly disgusting videos on the internet, that is not one of them…

jetch on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

A Sam Bacile type. Can’t make a point, but does manage to derail discussion. Future should not belong to ClassicCon (but he/she should still be tolerated).

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM

A Bill Ayers type. Can’t respond to a point so he claims it doesn’t exist and runs back to 4chan for comfort. So you are going to decide who the future “belongs” to? How very Stalin of you.

By the way, please send a link where you were outraged when Piss Christ first came out assuming you were old enough to use a computer. I know it doesn’t exist because you are typical disingenuous lying fck, but it will be cute seeing you ignore the request or attempt to spin away your childish double standard.

ClassicCon on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

If we allow any religious organization to drop what they want then why not allow Scientologists to drop psychiatric care?

Agreed…why not?

What next? Some random group saying cardiovascular disease shouldn’t be covered because they go against their religion?

Why not?

Where does it stop?

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

It stops when it interferes with the rights of citizens. Health insurance is not a right. Get that through your head.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

As Salman Rushdie recently offered:
“It’s not for the American government to regret what American citizens do. They should just say, ‘This is not our affair and the [violent] response is completely inappropriate.’ ”verbaluce on September 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Obama almost got there, but the he could not help himself and brought politics into it. He needed an excuse for the happenings in Libya and Egypt and thus the movie and all the explinations.
The ads in Pakistan only re-enforced his political vision.

Shorter Obama, I had to blame something

Jabberwock on September 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

HotAir’s own Jazz Shaw understands enough about Islam to know that the “opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer” are the Shahada, the Muslim confession of faith, and if a person chooses to speak those words in Arabic,

POOF! You’re a Muslim!

If that’s true for “Jeff” on the TLC show, and for Muslims world-wide, then why wouldn’t it also be true for Barack Hussein Obama?

And guess what? In 2007, Barack Hussein Obama publicly confessed the Shahada in Arabic.

He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them. Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

Whether he believes it or not, he said it, and Barack Hussein Obama knows that the Muslim world views him as a Muslim because he recited the Shahada in Arabic.

Barack Hussein Obama publicly confessed the Shahada, the opening lines of the call to prayer, in Arabic. In the eyes of the Muslim world, he is a Muslim.

What he truly believes is anyone’s guess, but Obama deliberately wants Christians to think that he is a Christian, and Muslims to think that he is a Muslim. Again, I don’t know if Obama is a Muslim, or just an atheist who wants the Muslim world to believe that he is a Muslim, but one thing for certain is that he is not a Christian. I believe that a Christian would rather become a martyr than to deny Jesus Christ by confessing the Shahada. You cannot confess the Shahada in Arabic and legitimately call yourself a Christian.

Obama publicly confessed the Shahada in Arabic. The opening lines of the call to prayer IS the Shahada, the Islamic confession of faith, and in the eyes of the Muslim world, anyone who confesses those words in Arabic IS a Muslim.

And for better or for worse, Madonna is the first Obama supporter to go on record saying that he is a Muslim.

ITguy on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

And if someone kills an American ambassador because of what ClassicCon said and promises more deaths unless ClassicCon is handed over for execution you’ll tell ClassicCon and the terrorist to both cool their jets and rethink things?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

No. We kill the terrorist if it’s an actual threat and tolerate ClassicCon. It’s pretty simple. If someone tells ClassicCon to stop making sh1tty provocative comments that’s also the same protected free speech.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Which actions of DOJ? and HHS? If we allow any religious organization to drop what they want then why not allow Scientologists to drop psychiatric care? What next? Some random group saying cardiovascular disease shouldn’t be covered because they go against their religion? Where does it stop?

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

The government shouldn’t be telling religious organizations how to spend their money. If Scientologists don’t want to be forced to subsidize your psychiatric care it’s none of the governments business.

It stops at personal freedom. You want something then pay for it yourself. You want someone else to pay for it as a condition of employing you? Then find an employer that agrees with you. It’s none of the governments business. Unless of course you also think my employer should provide me with guns and ammo so I can properly exercise my 2nd amendment rights?

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Which actions of DOJ? and HHS? If we allow any religious organization to drop what they want then why not allow Scientologists to drop psychiatric care? What next? Some random group saying cardiovascular disease shouldn’t be covered because they go against their religion? Where does it stop?

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM

It stops with medical care which has no relation to an actual disease. Contraception doesn’t cure pregnancy. It’s not a disease. If you wish to avoid it, pay for contraception or abortion yourself.

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM

No. At least, not by your reckoning. I say this not to argue, but encourage. :) History is (at least largely, if the absolute is too strong) directed by the minority.

Axe on September 25, 2012 at 3:13 PM

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville

OhEssYouCowboys on September 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The worst possible crime is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). It is considered an act or state of aggressive defiance against Allah. The Koran is quite explicit that disbelief is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191) that involves death of Muslims. (For a discussion, including tafsir, of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm, by Ali Sina). Murder of a Muslim is a crime that is penalized according to the law of life-for-life retaliation (5:45; i.e., death penalty), but disbelief is a worse crime! Remember the apologist’s quote, that killing one person is like killing all humankind? If we assume that’s true, then disbelief in Islam is a worse crime than killing all humankind! This sounds like a far-fetched interpretation, but it is a simple logical deduction from what the Koran says. The Koran does not say “disbelief is the second-worst crime, and murder is the worst.” Rather, the Koran clearly and repeatedly states that disbelief is the worst crime.

Rebar on September 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM

why must everyone preface what they say by adding “it’s a terrible, disgusting video”. really? isn’t that over the top? it’s stupid and unfunny, but disgusting??

if you don’t believe this, all i’ll say is trust me, there are truly disgusting videos on the internet, that is not one of them…

jetch on September 25, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I didn’t think it disgusting, unless you consider it’s being a poorly done rip-off of Monty Pythons “Life of Brian” to be disgusting.

SWalker on September 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Schadenfreude on September 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I think that these liberal trolls are becoming overly annoying… Some say but it is good to have a good debate… The issue is that we are not having a good debate… these fools are here to demoralize us, insult us, and defend a communist called Obama… I think the site would be much better without them…

mnjg on September 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Rocks on September 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Thank you. I’m trying to do some other stuff, and I appreciate you saving me the time of replying.

INC on September 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Obama: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

“Those who slander the prophet of Islam must not belong to the future”

“Behead all those who insult the prophet”

ITguy on September 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Comments on parts of his speach:

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

He has already surrendered to Islam.

“Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace”

Equating the two is preposterous. Palestinians have no interest in having peace with Israel unless it entails the destruction of Israel.

“Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist”

The existance of Israel negates the existance of Islam. Either Obama does not know what he is saying or, as is most probable, he is pandering with a lie.

TerryW on September 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

It stops when it interferes with the rights of citizens. Health insurance is not a right. Get that through your head.

MadisonConservative on September 25, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Organizations are not citizens. And obviously we disagree on right to basic healthcare.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I grant you that Obama finally made some sort of argument for free speech. But – like you say – it makes for very weak sauce given the rest of the speech.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It could be argued that in this setting he didn’t have the option not to address the video and it’s content – and he did a better job in this instance having that concern fall in line behind a defense of free speech. And he is delivering both those messages to the Arab world – this wasn’t one message for the West and one for the Middle East.

verbaluce on September 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

No. We kill the terrorist if it’s an actual threat and tolerate ClassicCon. It’s pretty simple. If someone tells ClassicCon to stop making sh1tty provocative comments that’s also the same protected free speech.

lester on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

How about finally realizing that ClassicCon has violated some minor parole condition and having him taken forcibly from his home in the dead of night to clear it up, buying $70,000 of air time in a foreign country disassociating yourself from ClassicCon, and continually blaming ClassicCon for inciting riots and violence?

It’s called appeasement.

gwelf on September 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

ITguy on September 25, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Obama’s father, and most of Obama’s father’s family today, were, and are, Muslim.

In the tradition of Islam, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are automatically considered a Muslim.

thatsafactjack on September 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Obama 2nd term: Constitutional amendment to ‘condemn’ slander of Prophets

burserker on September 25, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7