Obama's Hypocrisy & America in the World

[August1991]

The Book of Mormon is a hit Broadway musical. Last year, it won the Tony for Best Musical. Here's the start of a review:

This is to all the doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up. I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water. So hie thee hence, nonbelievers (and believers too), to “The Book of Mormon,” and feast upon its sweetness.

NYT

Hillary Clinton has seen the play (noblesse oblige, she saw it shortly after its opening), and apparently loved it:

The show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim. More than 300 people show up daily for a shot at 14 lottery seats to a musical that is sold out through September.

AP

The musical was written by the creators of Team America and South Park. Here is how Trey Parker describes his play:

"People have a lot of different beliefs, and at the end of the day, we all have deeply held beliefs that probably don't make sense to anyone else," he said. "We just try to keep it in the context of how we can treat each other right and laugh about it without being too offended about it."

Needless to say (this is America, after all), the play has its moments:

"I believe that God lives on a planet called Kolob. I believe that Jesus has his own planet as well. And I believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri. ... I am a Mormon, and dang it! A Mormon just believes!"

[bTW, if you're in Toronto and want tickets, here's the link: http://mirvish.com/shows/thebookofmormon. Keep in mind though that in Canada, there is no 1st Amendment protection so your tickets may not be honoured.]

****

Meanwhile, in another part of the world, this is what the US Embassy in Egypt said last week:

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.

NYT

This is what Hillary Clinton said last week:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

Indeed, Obama and Clinton went to the trouble to broadcast this ad in Pakistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlr3Yj7ENDM

But does the "U.S. reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"?

Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

Wikipedia

-----

This is what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is the "establishment of religion"? It can have no other meaning than the creation of a State religion. (Look up the word disestablishmentarianism.)

What is "abridging the freedom of speech"? (Look up the word abridge.)

The US, at its origins, made an individual's freedom to speak more important than a religious cohort or sect.

Edited September 22, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

Does this matter?

I happen to think that Americans vote on domestic issues, not international affairs. And on domestic matters, most Americans know that Obama inherited a bad economic situation and has done arguably well. I reckon that, compared with Hoover, Obama has a deservedly better chance for re-election.

So, if you're an Obama supporter and think that this thread will threaten in anyway Obama's re-election, have no fear. I am not really opposing the Obama team. I reckon that Obama will win, regardless.

---

Nevertheless, as a foreigner, I rely on Americans to tell the truth and assume the consequences. (As I always say, I enjoy all the benefits of being American without any of the costs.)

If you Americans stop being American, then who will be American?

[Michael Hardner]

It seems to me that the US was trying to mitigate against a pending riot.

But I still don't understand why they said that.

[GostHacked]

It seems to me that the US was trying to mitigate against a pending riot.

But I still don't understand why they said that.

Also this so called movie has been out for some time, but it's only now that people seem to make a stink about it which was spontaneous in more than one location at the same time. So yes, coordinated indeed.

[August1991]

It seems to me that the US was trying to mitigate against a pending riot.

But I still don't understand why they said that.

I once thought the same as you, Michael. Obama and Clinton simply wanted to quell violence. If I were a western political leader, faced with the question of spending $70,000 for a TV advertisment to save a life, I would not hesitate. I'd spend the money, do the ad.

But the key question, of course, is whether these videos/statements in fact quell violence in the long term. You stop the violent disturbances now - but what of the future?

Like Churchill and Truman, I reckon that the writers of the US Constitution thought about this. They decided that it's better to assume a cost now, rather than later.

----

If America is no longer America, then what will the rest of us do?

Edited September 22, 2012 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Also this so called movie has been out for some time, but it's only now that people seem to make a stink about it which was spontaneous in more than one location at the same time. So yes, coordinated indeed.

What are you talking about ?

[dre]

If America is no longer America, then what will the rest of us do?

Same shit we do now.

[August1991]

Same shit we do now.

Huh? Canada today is civilized.

Imagine a Canada where the Hell's Angels have State power and decide.

IOW, imagine a world without the US.

Edited September 22, 2012 by August1991

[GostHacked]

What are you talking about ?

Misread the thread, carry on.

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed, Obama and Clinton went to the trouble to broadcast this ad in Pakistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlr3Yj7ENDM

It really annoyed me when I saw that on the news; $70 million dollars spent to denounce the video, while saying nothing about our freedom of speech in the U.S. - I think that should have been a part of it. It's fine to put it out there that the video doesn't speak for the U.S., but it seems to me they need to be reminded that we enjoy freedom of speech and as such, sometimes Mohammad gets insulted same as God and Jesus.

[msj]

It really annoyed me when I saw that on the news; $70 million dollars spent to denounce the video, while saying nothing about our freedom of speech in the U.S. - I think that should have been a part of it. It's fine to put it out there that the video doesn't speak for the U.S., but it seems to me they need to be reminded that we enjoy freedom of speech and as such, sometimes Mohammad gets insulted same as God and Jesus.

I don't see the problem here.

The video is factual and simple.

It needs to be simple.

You don't want too many ideas creeping into a message and I think focusing on religious tolerance and the US government not creating the video is targeting the audience effectively (the target market here are ignorant Muslims).

Obama and Clinton are already on record for supporting the 1st amendment elsewhere so the redundancy is unnecessary for anyone other than Republicans or, perhaps, even former Republicans (i.e. ignorant Americans ).

Edited September 22, 2012 by msj

[eyeball]

If America is no longer America, then what will the rest of us do?

Party on dude.

[eyeball]

Huh? Canada today is civilized.

Imagine a Canada where the Hell's Angels have State power and decide.

IOW, imagine a world without the US.

What in the blazes are you talking about?

[Bitsy]

It really annoyed me when I saw that on the news; $70 million dollars spent to denounce the video, while saying nothing about our freedom of speech in the U.S. - I think that should have been a part of it. It's fine to put it out there that the video doesn't speak for the U.S., but it seems to me they need to be reminded that we enjoy freedom of speech and as such, sometimes Mohammad gets insulted same as God and Jesus.

The correct figure is $70,000 not $70 million.

[msj]

The correct figure is $70,000 not $70 million.

Oh, now that's an interesting slip on AW's part, isn't it....

[BubberMiley]

The correct figure is $70,000 not $70 million.

That's only a difference of three zeroes, and everyone knows a zero is nothing.

[Guest American Woman]

The correct figure is $70,000 not $70 million.

That's better than the $70 million that was reported on the news program I saw yesterday; however, I'd rather they spend $70 million and include the reality of the existence of free speech in the U.S. - which is the point I was making.

Edited September 22, 2012 by American Woman

[kimmy]

Trying to explain free expression to the dummies who are rioting in the streets over this would be futile.

This video was about a different incident earlier this year, but illustrates the kind of mentality in effect here. When you talk about trying to explain free expression to the ones rioting in the street, try and imagine trying to reason with this guy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kAVlnGMTU

-k

Edited September 22, 2012 by kimmy

[dre]

Huh? Canada today is civilized.

Imagine a Canada where the Hell's Angels have State power and decide.

IOW, imagine a world without the US.

WHat in the world are you on about August?

[Guest American Woman]

Trying to explain free expression to the dummies who are rioting in the streets over this would be futile.

This video was about a different incident earlier this year, but illustrates the kind of mentality in effect here. When you talk about trying to explain free expression to the ones rioting in the street, try and imagine trying to reason with this guy:

I didn't want Obama and/or Clinton to "explain" anything; I wanted them to say in no uncertain terms that while such videos do not speak for America, Americans have the right to free speech and will use it, and that includes Mohammad along with God and Jesus.

The video says it all - they are not to be "reasoned with;" but they need to be told that we will do as our laws allow in our nations.

[waldo]

You don't want too many ideas creeping into a message and I think focusing on religious tolerance and the US government not creating the video is targeting the audience effectively (the target market here are ignorant Muslims).

it was an effective U.S./Clinton message... or as effective as its access reach might ultimately be. How many 'protestors' actually saw that profound example of "American free speech denigrating the Muslim prophet"... as distinct from being swept into simple orchestrated opposition and mob rule?

of course there is a rather obvious point being lost/avoided by the fervent MLW 'free speech talkers'... that 'free speech', to varying degrees, is a rather foreign concept to many of the 'protestors' - to their society's at large. To many (of them), it's almost inconceivable that the U.S. government wouldn't have sanctioned the offending movie... because, in their world/view, a complicit government would be needed to allow such an offending video release to have taken place. Hence, the key countering follow-up message from Clinton.

[August1991]

What in the blazes are you talking about?

If the US no longer performs the role of being an adult, then what will the rest of us do? Rely on the UN?

Leftists (North American Leftists in particular) have a tendency to equate dominant power: to them, the US, the Soviet Union, Islam, China are all the same. Big powers that want to dominate. Many Leftists see the US government (and Wall Street, American capitalism, Goldman Sachs) as the most powerful, dominant force.

To these Leftists, there is no difference between the RCMP and Hell's Angels. Both are "dominant forces".

I take a different worldview. I have no objection to "dominant force" as long as it is restricted, and a force for good. I see a difference between the US government, and the Iranian/Venezuelan/North Korean/Cuban governments. I see a difference between the RCMP, and the Hell's Angels.

-----

As the Australian PM John Howard famously said, "Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it." My fear is that Leftists may get their wish and see the US disappear as a world power. Under Obama, Rodham-Clinton and people like them, the US will become a country like Sweden - or Quebec.

And without the US, what will the rest of us do?

[Ludwig von Mises said that if the Soviet Union ever dominated the world, it would have to leave at least one small country with a free economy so that the Soviet bureaucrats would have some idea of true prices. I fear something worse.]

Edited September 24, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

The video is factual and simple.

It needs to be simple.

You don't want too many ideas creeping into a message and I think focusing on religious tolerance and the US government not creating the video is targeting the audience effectively (the target market here are ignorant Muslims).

Obama and Clinton are already on record for supporting the 1st amendment elsewhere so the redundancy is unnecessary for anyone other than Republicans or, perhaps, even former Republicans (i.e. ignorant Americans ).

msj, you make my point.

Do you really think the ad will work?

Trying to explain free expression to the dummies who are rioting in the streets over this would be futile.

This video was about a different incident earlier this year, but illustrates the kind of mentality in effect here. When you talk about trying to explain free expression to the ones rioting in the street, try and imagine trying to reason with this guy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kAVlnGMTU

Kimmy, ditto.

Do you think these Obama ads on Pakistani TV will explain anything to these dummies?

Kimmy, you love cartoon/science-fiction movies, and you write very well. Here's a script idea. If you were confronted with people from the 8th century, what would you do to show them this 21st century world?

---

Sadly, neither of you address the terrible hypocrisy of Obama and Rodham-Clinton.

Edited September 24, 2012 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

To these Leftists, there is no difference between the RCMP and Hell's Angels. Both are "dominant forces".

To paraphrase, Leftists love big government, but they don't see the difference between big government and the Hell's Angels.

I always knew it wasn't just a language difference between Quebec and the ROC.

[bleeding heart]

To paraphrase, Leftists love big government, but they don't see the difference between big government and the Hell's Angels.

I always knew it wasn't just a language difference between Quebec and the ROC.

Ha!