UN + Obama = UNObama

 
A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?

It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.

When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.

Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.

The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.

I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.

The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:

Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill

So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.

Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.

So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.