Obama: Yes to Iran, No to WFTV

A reader who asks for anonymity but refers to himself as “a product of Pittsburgh Steelworkers” writes about his discomfort over Obama:

Dear Anchoress:

An observation about Barack Obama that bothers me enough to write somebody an email.

Barack Obama said during the first debate that he would sit down and talk to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, without preconditions because he did not believe in the notion that by not talking to people we are somehow punishing

Then when a Florida TV reporter asks his VP candidate, Sen. Biden, some questions he didn’t like, their campaign cuts them off and refuses to talk to them or grant any further interviews.

So, Barack Obama is willing to sit down and talk with the regime that gave the order for the bombing of our Marine Barracks in Beirut but not willing to talk to an American TV station because of a few tough questions.

Politicians all make contradictory statements; it’s almost impossible not to considering all the speeches they make. But this is different. This is a case of actions speaking louder than words. His cutting off of that Florida station is a preview of how he will act as President. Will he be this vindictive towards all Americans who don’t agree with him or his administration? Cutting off that station but still being willing to talk to a terror sponsoring regime also reveals a certain naiveté, or worse, an unacceptable level of moral relativism.

This, combined with his going back on his word about public campaign financing, I think, are a true measure of his character.
[All links and italics mine - admin]

The writer states that he basically just needed to say that to someone. In his profession, he is not free to speak out. Apparently the “tolerant” folks around him do not tolerate diverse opinions.

Well, I’m glad he said it to me, and allowed me to pass it on to you. He’s quite right. Obama reveals inconsistency, naivete, relativism (and remember what good Pope Benedict XVI has said to us about The Dictatorship of Relativism) and a tendency toward suppressive and vengeful behavior to those who do not fall in line.

Yes, it’s troubling.

People are hoping to get the LA Times to release the tape it is holding – is refusing to release in order to protect Obama (can you even believe I’m writing that sentence in America?) – but you know, we don’t really need it to learn who Obama is. His actions speak volumes. For all his dodginess, all his unreleased medical reports, all of his his unreleased transcripts, all his votes of “present” and smooth evasions, Obama has effectively shown us who he is; all that is needed is for the twinkle-dust to be rubbed out from the eyes, to see it.

He’s the guy who lets his auntie live in a slum and tells her to keep silent until after the election, while he’s lecturing Joe the Plumber about “sharing the wealth” and talking at his rallies about the “selfishness” of those who disagree with his policies.

He’s the guy who does not talk to the press anymore, takes no questions, and expects only softballs and agreement.

He’s the guy who spends over half a billion dollars to win an election because he could not keep his word about public funding. He wants to ‘share the wealth’ and he wants to talk about ‘fairness’ – but he doesn’t have any moral qualms about outspending his opponent by $518 million, thanks to a dishonorable flip-flop which – it must be said – his GOP opponent did not copy.

He’s a guy who spends half a billion dollars on electioneering while talking about how to help the poor and the downtrodden. Note – he does not share his wealth. Someday he’ll drive past those downtrodden and give them a thumbs up for keeping it real, as they stand in their lines full of “shared” discomfort.

Obama is precisely the type who goes about bouncing on fluffy pillows of honest-to-goodness wealth, shaking a rhetorical finger at us for daring to try to get comfortable on our foam rubber mats of hard-earned wages.

He’s quite the little despot, ain’t he? I thought he – like Bill Clinton – would be too tall to be a despot, but he’s belying that old canard. And here is more information about his dubious associations

Meanwhile Orson Scott Card on what matters as we go to vote, an excellent read – a highly recommended tonic- via Julie

Oy – they’re never happy and so paranoid: Le Miserable (related, Paranoia Ascending)
Confederate Yankee: Have you saved an Obama, today?
Presumption, Illusions, Reality
Pope Benedict: there is one truth

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: America goes truly post-racial | The Anchoress

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Obama reveals inconsistency, naivete, relativism (and remember what good Pope Benedict XVI has said to us about The Dictatorship of Relativism)

    In connection with Obama’s relativism, what with all the talk about “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” from the U.S. bishops’ conference, it is well to consider also Cardinal Ratzinger’s Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

    2. A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.[12] As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,[13] as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. . . .

    3. Such relativism, of course, has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good. Political freedom is not – and cannot be – based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. . . . Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society. . . .

    4. The complex array of today’s problems branches out from here, including some never faced by past generations. Scientific progress has resulted in advances that are unsettling for the consciences of men and women and call for solutions that respect ethical principles in a coherent and fundamental way. At the same time, legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a “grave and clear obligation to oppose” any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] . . .

    When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. . . .

    7. Christian faith has never presumed to impose a rigid framework on social and political questions, conscious that the historical dimension requires men and women to live in imperfect situations, which are also susceptible to rapid change. For this reason, Christians must reject political positions and activities inspired by a utopian perspective which, turning the tradition of Biblical faith into a kind of prophetic vision without God, makes ill use of religion by directing consciences towards a hope which is merely earthly and which empties or reinterprets the Christian striving towards eternal life.

    At the same time, the Church teaches that authentic freedom does not exist without the truth. “Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery.”[27] In a society in which truth is neither mentioned nor sought, every form of authentic exercise of freedom will be weakened, opening the way to libertine and individualistic distortions and undermining the protection of the good of the human person and of the entire society. . . .

  • culperjr.

    What bothers me most about Obama (and believe me, there’s plenty!) is that he is so fundamentally dishonest. Everything about him is surface–he is like a Christmas package that, beneath the pretty wrapping, is an empty box.

    I guess you could distill it down to this: I like my tyrants to be honest with me. Tell me that I’m screwed for all time and let it be done with. Don’t slather the whole process with goo and expect me to like it better.

    As a friend of mine said to his proctologist just before an especially intrusive exam, “Just because you dim the lights doesn’t make this a date.”

    I feel like, for the next 4 to 8 years, Dr. Obama will be doing unpleasant things to me and expecting me to smile all the while.

  • JimC

    I’ve had the same thoughts at least since this incident.

    Obama has talked tougher to fellow citizens who are his political opponents than he has to our country’s enemies.

    [Edited to admit link - admin]

  • Bridey

    I’m with you, culperjr: Better “a boot, stamping on a human face, forever” than the slippery, oh-so-plausible Obama and his slobbering media lapdogs. It bewilders me that so many people, including millions of my fellow Catholics, will go out next week and vote for such a man.

    But it’s the trouble with democracy, isn’t it? People who have no idea what’s really at stake (joined, in this election, by dead people and entirely imaginary people) can vote away freedoms for the rest of us. As our soldiers fight tyranny abroad…

  • Gayle Miller

    Consistency is above Senator Obama’s pay grade apparently.

    On the other hand, the Pope has now labeled the Democratic Party the “party of death” and that must be having some effect. Not to mention the 48 bishops (and counting) who have condemned Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi’s interpretation of the Church’s teaching on abortion. I have many Jewish friends who have said that they did not leave the Democratic Party, that the Party left them. I think we’re going to be seeing a lot of Catholics trending that way as well.

    Not me of course. I started out a Republican! Great parents.

    Note to those pollsters who are awakening me at 10 p.m. out of a sound sleep and a dream of Tom Selleck – you’ll take the answers I’m inclined to give, regardless of whether they have any relationship to truth (and they don’t). Exit poll people – don’t expect any more veracity from me. I’m voting at 6 a.m. (with my 2 carpool companions) on Tuesday. I will not be inclined to be cooperative. Our aim will be directed with laser-like clarity on IHOP for some coffee and pancakes before getting on I-95 Northbound for the 50 mile drive to work.

  • Terrye

    Obama gets creepier all the time.

  • Pingback: Biblical Babylon

  • Gina

    Soooo…. Auntie lives in public housing, and obviously can’t work so gets Medicare and disability, but had $260 around to give to the Obama campaign. If there is a single honest reporter in America, they’ll ask Obama if he plans to give that back. There isn’t, and they won’t, but they should.

    I’m still waiting for someone to ask why the Obamas and Bidens give so little to charity compared to, say, the Palins.

    How about the fact that Trinity United is spending over 1 million tax-free dollars to build Rev. Jeremiah Wright a mansion abutting a golf course?

    All about the poor and disadvantaged, as long as it’s with someone else’s money.

  • tim maguire

    It’s not necessarily inconsistent to meet with an Iranian leader who may have participated in the 1979 hostage takeover but not with an American reporter who asks tough questions. When judging Obama, you have to keep in mind who the real enemy is. The enemy is not someone who opposes and undermines U.S. interests in the world, the enemy is anyone who makes Obama look bad or undermines his ego in any way.

    The mullahs merely harm America. Joe the Plumber harmed The One. He’s the real enemy.

  • Pingback: Can we talk? : Pursuing Holiness

  • http://plls.blogspot.com s1c

    bouncing on fluffy pillows of honest-to-goodness wealth, shaking a rhetorical finger at us for daring to try to get comfortable on our foam rubber mats of hard-earned wages.

    He already has made his, and now that he has made it he wants to be sure that none of the other plebes can join him, after all it was to get away from the gun clinging, god clinging and bitter people that he wanted to make it.

  • Pingback: Stop The ACLU

  • KIA

    No worries; McCain is going to WIN! Ever since we started the rosary Novena, I can feel it.

    I predict the big “upset” will be PA, won by the the landslide win in Western PA. I’ve never known a more pro life part of the country, or a part of the country more devoted to the Mother of God. In the small towns, it’s uncommon NOT to see a statue of Mary in the yard.

    The small towns of Western PA will outvote the lefties of Philly. I’m telling you guys, McCain is going to win.

  • Pingback: Quite the Little Despot « Obi’s Sister

  • igout

    KIA, if only. But the other side is minting voters. Stalin & Hitler used to settle for 99.9%; this guy will breeze past with at least 110% of the electorate.

  • gs

    There remains the issue of McCain’s temperament as evidenced, per George Will et al, by his erratic behavior when the financial crisis hit. Until that point, it was looking increasingly plausible that he would pull off the upset. I was becoming pro-McCain despite my distaste for the post-Reagan GOP.

    IMO the risk-benefit profiles of the candidates differ significantly. Long-term American decline would continue under both: under Obama, the likely rate would be significantly faster than under McCain. However, a rash decision by a President can quickly bring cataclysmic consequences; on that score McCain worries me much more than Obama does.

    McCain’s heroic qualities are not complemented by commonplace self-discipline and restraint. IMO he’s tried to disguise that lifelong deficiency by embracing the “maverick” label, but I no longer buy it.

  • stephanie

    I guess I don’t see it as inconsistant, if he truly thinks that he’s not punishing the station by refusing to talk to them- what he is doing is protecting himself. There is a difference there :-).
    If he’s afraid he’s already stuck his foot in it, makes sense that he wants to shut up, no?
    Apparently a number of people feel that action is “punishment”- but that doesn’t make punishment his intent.

  • Pingback: Mike's Noise