Fuck you, Barack Obama, you fucking traitorous pussy.
Try standing up for the US Constitution, are you promised you would do in your Oath of Office.
President Obama: The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam
Go read the whole thing.
There is so much to criticize in what Barack Obama said.
For starters let's point out, it would be hard to slander Mohammed the dog of a man, because his own "holy" scriptures, the Koran and the Hadith, proclaimed that he had sex with children, called for the murder of Jews, the rape of women, the taking of women as the spoils of war, as well as the murder of gays, apostates, and other uncooperative Infidels.
What lower thing could I say about such a man?
He was a scum, rife through with evil, malice, filth, perversion, and mental illness.
And, he is the "prophet of Islam".
I agree with Bare Naked Islam on this:
UPDATE - I want you to think about something here.
Barack Obama could have used the word "insult", he could have used the word "denigrate", or he could have used the words like "lie about," "denounce", or "indict".
But Barack Obama chose to use the word SLANDER.
SLANDER IS A LEGAL WORD.
Here is the legal definition of the word Slander:
Oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.Barack Obama is a Lawyer, right? We can assume he chooses his words, especially when he dips into his grab bag of legal jargon, with intent.
One must wonder, maybe even assume, that if Barack Obama used a word Slander, it is a loaded gun pointed at people who would criticize Islam.
Barack Obama may want to change the law. He may want to pursue an agreement whereby the United States is bound by an international law against blasphemy. We need to take this seriously.
This is a threat to Freedom of Speech.
The man must be removed from office.
midnight rider throwing his convoluted thinking in:
I don't know if Obama intended the word "slander" or not. He has certainly shown a propensity to not always choose his words carefully. Or perhaps he appears not to choose his words carefully when in fact he does and therefor directs or, more appropriately, misdirects the conversation over here so we ignore something going on over there.
Regardless, he likely did not write this speech himself. Far too busy golfing and gladhanding it on The View, grabbing Whoopi's butt in the Green Room and Joy's tits in the toilet. But whoever did was careful in the phrasing and very possibly why Pastorius and others have not seen any other outrage over this.
In the same paragraph where slander and Islam are used the caution is also given to not desecrate Christ or deny the Holocaust, thereby seeming to compare and equate them. "Oh" say those not thinking it through "he's saying we should show the same respect to all religions"
But he's not, is he? Desecrate has no legal ramification, nor does deny. Nor destroy. But slander (and libel) most certainly does. And that word alone could be enough to incite muslims against those who would commit an "illegal" (slander) act against them and their prophet.
If he didn't know it or realize it Obama certainly should have. He has the Harvard Law degree, after all. If he did know it then it is an open legal threat, possibly a way of paving support for a U.N. move to outlaw slander against Mohammed and Islam, as Morsi has called on them to do.
But more importantly, as President of the United States, he should not have waded into something like this to begin with. First Amendment against establishing a religion and all that AND protecting free speech. And if he doesn't believe it is a religious issue (then why is he speaking out) but a secular one well, then, all bets should be off, shouldn't they?
PASTORIUS AGAIN - Here's the problem with Obama's speech. In general, it sounds like it was a reasonable defense of Free Speech. But underlying his seemingly reasonable points are a triumvirate of Ideological IED's set to explode and destroy the foundations of Freedom of Expression
1) Obama is an Attorney. Indeed, his self-assessment is that he is a Constitutional Scholar. An Attorney would be fully cognizant that to use the word "slander" in relation to criticism of Mohammed is DANGEROUS at a time when the Organization of the Islamic Conference (Muslim states) are attempting to have blasphemy laws inserted into International Law (and are making some considerable headway),
2) It is not within the President's purview to insert himself into issues of the "desecration" of symbols of Jesus Christ. As Americans, our right to Free Speech is a part of the checks and balances which are so important and even sacred in our system. We must be allowed to criticize powerful institutions within society. In fact, not only must we be allowed to criticize powerful institutions, we must be allowed to make mistakes in our criticisms. That is our Freedom Speech must afforded us to be inaccurate in our analysis, or else fear of failure will impede our ability to exercise our Right. Speech/Expression is the way we work out ideas. The arguing through of ideas is the way we make moral and ideological progress in society. This right to a societal free and open discussion/dialectic is sacred to America and it is the reason why America is so creative and forward-thinking. It is the reason America is the leader of the Free World. Our right to criticize powerful institutions as a check against their, otherwise, unchecked power, is fundamental to the idea of Free Speech. In other words, our right to Free Speech exists specifically for individual human beings to go against the very grain of society, to be most controversial, to be most offensive. The powerful institutions of a society would include, but may not be limited to a) the Government, b) Corporations, c) Religion, d) the Media, and e) Academia. If individuals are not allowed to blunt the power of these institutions through criticism, the powers of these institutions will become dictatorial.
3) The Gandhi quote, while cute/sweet-hearted, is absolutely not within the American Tradition. The idea that intolerance is a form of violence is actually counter to the Constitution in spirit. We are intolerant of many things, slavery, rape, murder, murderous incitement against homosexuals, organized crime, etc. -and we should be. The idea that the President inserted such a grievously absurd quote into a discussion of the "slander" (CRITICISM) of a religious figure at a time when fanatical fundamentalists want to reinstate the Dark Ages (blasphemy laws) is frightening to me.
Barack Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Are we to assume he could have chosen his words better? He chose the word slander which actually has a legal force?
Are we supposed to take him seriously and give his words weight, or are we to believe he is a babbling idiot?
I, for one, do not think he is an idiot. I think he is an equivocator, and, in the name of diplomacy, he will always choose bow to those who would threaten us, rather than stand up for the American Idea.