Barack Obama has it both ways

...I am truly sorry to place such a terrible event in what appears a cynical, calculatedly political context but truly, democratic politics is about moral leadership and persuasion as much as anything else. A critique of the quality of Mr Obama’s speech is not a frivolous show business review: it is central to the concept of free debate and how it is to be conducted. So how did he do? There had been much speculation about whether he would criticise those on his own side who have exploited the tragedy for opportunistic purposes – accusing the Right of creating a “venomous” atmosphere in which such violent acts are triggered. And yes, he did that in pretty clear terms. We cannot, he said, use this occasion as one more excuse to turn on one another, especially when there was no evidence at all to show that the murder was provoked by exposure to political language. But he also said that this was a moment for everybody to take stock of the vehement rhetoric that had become commonplace in American national discourse – which, if you are so inclined, can be taken as a direct hit at Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement.

So subtle and well-crafted was this ambiguity that the Today programme’s coverage did a 180 degree turn on its assessment. Just after seven am, its US editor Mark Mardell was reporting this as a magnificently moving, apolitical speech which successfully avoided any hint of partisanship. By eight o’clock, his judgment was far more ambivalent, noting the coded references to what was obviously meant as a condemnation of the reckless ugliness of the Right......

“I could have done without the Messiah moment in which he pointed out that Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time just after his visit to her in hospital.”

Nothing would snap my eyes wide open like having him enter my room while I was unconscious and unable to defend myself.

[and then I'd start screaming for help but that's just me]

I listened to as much of his hokum as I could stand and was sickened by the apparent “applause” for *him* that was in reality provoked by his references to the people there who helped and those who were victims.

The “wild applause” *seemed* to be ‘all about him’.

It was not.

A well dressed wino could’ve given the same speech and gotten the same response.

“I could have done without the Messiah moment in which he pointed out that Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time just after his visit to her in hospital.”

have you seen this site?

1. False Bible teachers would be money hungry. They would be smooth talkers, have many followers, and slur the Christian faith (2 Peter 2:1-3) See some at:

http://www.fakemessiah.com/

2. Homosexuality would be increasingly evident at the end of the age (2 Timothy 3:3)

3. Earthquakes would be in diverse places (Matthew 24:7)

4. Stress would be part of living (2 Timothy 3:1)

5. Many wars would erupt (Matthew 24:6)

6. People would forsake the Ten Commandments as a moral code, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and killing (Matthew 24:12)

7. There would be a cold religious system, in denying God’s power (2 Timothy 3:5)

8. Men would substitute fantasy in place of Christian truth (2 Timothy 4:4). This is so evident at Christmas when the birth of the Savior is lost behind the myth of Santa Claus.

9. Deadly diseases would be prevalent (Matthew 24:7). The worldwide increase in AIDS deaths is almost inestimable. Over 160,000 Americans die of cancer each year.

10. The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by the scientific world because of its uncanny implication.

11. The institution of marriage would be forsaken by many (1 Timothy 4:3)

12. There would be an increase in famines (Matthew 24:7)

13. Increase in vegetarianism would increase (1 Timothy 4:3-4)

14. There would be a cry for peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

15. The possession of Jerusalem would be at the center of international turmoil (Zechariah 12:3)

16. Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4)

17. There would be hypocrites within the Church (Matthew 13:25-30)

18. There would be an increase of religious cults/false teachers (Matthew 24:11 & 24)

19. The future would seem fearful to many (Luke 21:26)

20. Humanity would become materialistic (2 Timothy 3:4)

21. There would be many involved in travel (Daniel 12:4)

22. The Christian Gospel would be preached as a warning to all nations (Matthew 24:14)

23. Jesus said Christians would be hated “for His name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9)

24: And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. (Luke 21:25-26).

25: Youth would become rebellious. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy (2 Timothy 3:2)

26: Men would mock the warning signs of the end of the age saying, “for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2 Peter 3:4). The Bible even reveals their motivation, they love lust (verse 3). They fail to understand that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years to us. God is not subject to the time that He created. He can flick through time as we flick through the pages of a history book. The reason He seems to be silent, is because He is patiently waiting, not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance.

Wash Times Opinion Excerpt: "........The evidence mounts that liberalism is dead. The liberal wizards, working their wonders at the New York Times and its clearinghouses in the major networks, cannot even dupe the American people with an absurd conspiracy theory anymore. In Dallas back in 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, a pious communist awash in the Marxist-Leninist bilge, shot President John F. Kennedy. In no time, the liberals had the nation focused on the "dangerous right-wing atmosphere" supposedly pervading Dallas. Soon all the talk was of "the paranoid style" of American politics. Oswald was almost forgotten. Doubtless, there are fervent liberals living today in haunts in Massachusetts and Berkeley, Calif., who believe in their heart of hearts that the president was felled by Texas Republicans.

This time around, an obvious lunatic shoots 19 people in Tucson, killing six (one of whom was a Republican judge) and wounding 14 (one of whom is a Democratic congresswoman) and the liberals try again. With artifice and craft, they try to focus the nation's attention on the "heated rhetoric" of the right. Sarah Palin is trotted out. The Tea Partyers are cited. The venerable New York Times editorializes that "it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge." (Remember the Times' cosseting of the angry left back in 2008?) Today, however, the average American has had enough of this liberal garbagespiel, and so, in a CBS poll, nearly six in 10 Americans disagreed that the "country's heated rhetoric" had anything to do with the shooting. Liberalism has come to the end of the line. It is a bore.

Yet what kind of person directs our attention to the meaningless madness of a lunatic and tries to lecture us on the random concreteness of nouns appearing in the chaos of the poor wretch's attempts at thought? The accused gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, mentions "Mein Kampf." He mutters something about the gold standard. And my favorite - he advocated proper grammar, or perhaps he abominated proper grammar. He was not very clear.

Mr. Loughner is obviously a schizophrenic. I am no psychiatrist, but I would bet he is a paranoid schizophrenic. That is the most dangerous kind of schizophrenic. What he says might matter to his psychiatrist, but it has little significance to the outside world. Yet, apparently, it mattered greatly to Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. On Tuesday, he wrote in the New York Times: "Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance; it's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right." And, he continued, "It's hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents" to violence............" ---- TYRRELL: Liberalism's death knell keeps tolling-- "Tucson tragedy is the latest sign the left's lost touch with America"

Haven’t seen that site, no but I *am* very familiar with the “signs”.

Been saying for *years* that he is evil incarnate and a puppet for some -thing-, not just some -one-.

I’m not the only who’s been sreaming a warning for a very long time.

I have NEVER encountered a mortal being who has terrified me more....ever.

I am literally unable to tolerate his image/voice for very long without becoming -literally- physically ill.

He is an evil, soulless vessel for Something very old....and very dangerous.

You could -not- force me into being in his actual physical presence.

Go ahead and call me crazy.

I don’t mind.

[FYI, I don’t recall any world leader who has the “love” of Muslims, Jews and Christians, either...that alone is scary...and he came from “nowhere” and nobody truly knows who he really is...scary, in overdrive]

[WSJ Editorial Excerpt] "There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief........ [End Excerpt] Why the Left Lost It

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.