« Can Rand Stand? | Main | An Artificial Slice of Life »

Sunday, May 23, 2010



It's rather obvious that this administration lacks anyone competent and brave enough to point out how utterly insipid this and almost all of the President's language is. It's pretty much all this President has to offer.

George Mason

William and KB; Please do not take offense, but what bravery does it take to
speak such an obvious truth. This is cowardice manifest. Obama believes if we speak nicely to these people or simply not mention them they will suddenly love us. Obama's speech in Cairo was supposed to end all terrorist attacks against us by mesmerizing Islamists with his brilliant rhetoric. Unfortunately, as Hillary Clinton would say, they were just words, just more empty words.


Under islamic law hussein obama is a muslim. Since islam considers women lower than dirt, the father's religion dictates the son's religion. Both of hussein obama's fathers were muslim, therefore hussein obama is muslim even if he was hiding in wright's hate speech church. Our own president hussein doesn't want to criticize members of his own religion.

Douglas Wiken

Obama is just a bit too creamy sweet. I like his rhetoric less every time I see humbug like his reception to the Mexican President as he attacked a US state. His waffling on bankster and brokersters regulation is also disheartening.

Radical religion of any kind is a threat to government and logic. Islam seems peculiarly adapted to living in sand a thousand years ago and for little else.
The jihad reaction of Islamicists to a cartoon should be an indicator to Obama and everybody else that such adherence to mythology is a threat to more than states.


Wow, Doug! You managed to get to my right on this one. I certainly agree that there is a problem with the President's rhetoric when he can't manage to mention the existence of radical Islam but has to hesitation to call Arizona's government extremist for merely insisting on the enforcement of federal immigration law.

Jlio: Your logic is about as persuasive as that of the Mad Hatter.



Your response to Jlio is an insult to Mad Hatters everywhere


Please tell me there are not Mad Hatters everywhere!


Miranda - You can follow the exploits of 541 Mad Hatters here:


That doesn't begin to include the thousands in state capitals, city halls and county seats from sea to shining sea.

Mad hatters are everywhere, my friend, and the epidemic of them is killing us.


I read this identical opinion in National Review, right down to the word "insipid." When I went to college this was considered plagiarism.


Anne: I am happy to supplement your college education. No one has a copyright on the word "insipid". No one has a copyright on opinions either. It is scarcely any wonder that the National Review and I should agree on occasion.

One of the things I learned in college is that, if you are going to accuse someone of something like plagiarism, you probably ought to provide some evidence. You don't even identify the source that I supposedly plagiarized, let alone show similar wording between texts. What is written on this post is what occurred to me as I read the President's speech.

The comments to this entry are closed.