Comments (1)

By Cassandra Effect, July 24, 2009 3:23 pm

Obama realized he stepped into a pretty big pile with his off the cuff “stupid” judgment of Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley following the arrest of the President’s friend, Professor Henry Gates, Jr., and playing upon the alleged racial issues of the arrest.  To wit:  A neighbor notice two men trying to jimmy a lock on Professor Gates’ house at night and called the police.  I would hope to have such attentive neighbors. More here:  Obama resorts to race baiting on Harvard Prof’s arrest

Anyway – the apologizer in chief somehow could not summon the actual words “I apologize” to minimize his prejudgment and hasty comments.  I guess he finds it easier to apologize for everyone else in America except himself.

Here is the Presidents Weak-ass apology – and he ends it with inviting the two men over for a beer!  George W Bush could have pulled that off, but it sounds so silly coming from this effete man!

Watch him grovel and completely fail to acknowledge his words.

More from the NY Times:

President Obama said Friday that he “could have calibrated” his words more carefully in the controversy over the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white police officer, but added that there had been an “overreaction” by both sides in a case that touched off an intense discussion about race in America.

“To the extent that my choice of words didn’t illuminate, but rather contributed to more media, I think, that was unfortunate,” Mr. Obama said, making an unusual unannounced visit to the White House briefing room in an effort to ease the controversy….

The president said that he conveyed his sentiment to Sgt. James Crowley in a telephone call on Friday afternoon. The call, which lasted about five minutes, came after police officials in Massachusetts and beyond accused Mr. Obama of maligning the character of Sergeant Crowley and the entire Cambridge police force.

“I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear that in my choice of words, I think, I unfortunately, I think, gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “I could have calibrated those words differently, and I told this to Sergeant Crowley.”

Mr. Obama did not specifically use the word “apology,” but aides said that was the sentiment conveyed during his call with the officer…

“I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station,” Mr. Obama added. “I also continue to believe, based on what I heard that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you’ve got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.”..

Mr. Obama, carefully measuring his words to avoid further criticism from either side, said, “Even when you’ve got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African-American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.”

One hour after calling Sergeant Crowley, Mr. Obama reached Professor Gates by telephone. An administration official said the call was “a positive discussion,” and that it ended with an invitation for the professor and the police officer to meet at the White House — to have a beer, as the president said in his remarks to reporters. There was no immediate word on whether Professor Gates accepted the invitation.

Comments (0)

By Cassandra Effect, July 20, 2009 8:16 pm

Obama has passed the apology torch to Secretaryof State Hillary Clinton and she has taken it to new levels (depths).

From CNS News

Urging India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the weekend accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change.  “We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” Clinton said in Mumbai, India.
 
“We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes,” she added

More disturbing was Clinton’s fascination with the nihilistic notion that limiting a woman’s reproductive rights was “ENLIGHTENING” – read on for what went on at the conference:

In other comments, Clinton described Sunday’s roundtable discussion as “very enlightening, especially for me.”
 
As an example of this, she noted that “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning”

Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.
 
In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
 
Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”
 
In 2007, an Australian academic argued  {READ THIS LINK!!!] that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.
 
Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

To think that developing nations now have fertility rates which are below sustainable levels is a GOOD thing is only supported by the left loons in the Zero Population Movement.    Oh but wait – the executive director of the Sierra Movement, Carl Pope has served as political director for Zero Population Growth!  And he writes for the Huff Post.  Imagine that.  The self hating left can’t wait to off themselves to save the planet.  Every other creature on planet earth is tryign to perpetuate its species, but humans should hold off.  Its the most nihilistic thing I have ever seen.

And as an added bonus,in the category of sick, preverted, twisted use of totalitarianism, China spun its one child policy to get credit for REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES

 
The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change

Comments (0)

By Cassandra Effect, July 11, 2009 3:13 am

This time during his trip to Russia….this guy is working the humility thing entirely too hard.  Enough already. 

His moral relativism is seriously disturbing.  To suggest that the principles of a democratic, free society are something we should not be promoting,

By no means is America perfect. But it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our imperfections, to improve constantly, and to grow stronger over time. Freedom of speech and assembly has allowed women, and minorities, and workers to protest for full and equal rights at a time when they were denied. The rule of law and equal administration of justice has busted monopolies, shut down political machines that were corrupt, ended abuses of power. Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable. If our democracy did not advance those rights, then I, as a person of African ancestry, wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a President. Because at the time of our founding, I had no rights — people who looked like me. But it is because of that process that I can now stand before you as President of the United States.

So around the world, America supports these values because they are moral, but also because they work. The arc of history shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not. Governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend into failed states, to terrorize their citizens, or to wage war on others. Governments that promote the rule of law, subject their actions to oversight, and allow for independent institutions are more dependable trading partners. And in our own history, democracies have been America’s most enduring allies, including those we once waged war with in Europe and Asia — nations that today live with great security and prosperity.

Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. And we haven’t always done what we should have on that front. Even as we meet here today, America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.

Full text of his speech HERE