Posts Tagged ‘Columbia’

Why Do Liberals Keep Ginning Up Racial And Feminist Outrage Based Entirely On LIES? Because That’s Just Who They Are, That’s Why

July 6, 2015

A few days ago I was riding the exercise bike at my gym and CNN was on.  The entire 35 minutes I was riding that stupid bike, CNN was “reporting” on the story that in the aftermath of the shooting in , racist white people were burning down six or seven black churches.

I went home assuming that all hell had been unleashed and white people were rising up in the kind of racist rage that they’d seen black people rise up in in city after city across the nation.

But, golly gee, later that night I turn on Megyn Kelly’s program and she points out the, you know, FACTS that NONE of the fires had actually linked to arson, that a rash of churches that primarily white people belonged to had burned down (due to lightning strikes), and that in the few actual cases OF arson against black churches, the arsonist was BLACK.

It takes at least two points to connect a line, but when liberal propaganda is concerned, it doesn’t even take ONE fact to draw a conclusion.

A few days after I saw the “news” story on CNN, I look at this on CNN’s website:

Why are black church fires associated with acts of hate?
By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN
Updated 6:51 PM ET, Thu July 2, 2015

(CNN)It’s a visceral and involuntary reaction, perhaps even knee-jerk: A black church burns in the South and our minds race immediately to hatred.

It must be arson. It must be the handiwork of some despicable white supremacist.

That was the sentiment on display across social and traditional media these past two weeks. The NAACP, while acknowledging only three of the recent fires were suspected arsons, called for vigilance, saying the blazes require “our collective attention.”

“For centuries, African-American churches have served as the epicenter of survival for many in the African-American community. As a consequence, these houses of faith have historically been the targets of violence. We will use every tool in our advocacy arsenal to preserve these beloved institutions,” Cornell William Brooks, the group’s president, said in a statement.

Brooks also cited the recent church massacre in South Carolina.

On June 17, Dylann Roof allegedly killed nine members of Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Four days later, black churches began burning across the South. To date, seven in five states have caught fire.

Are the events linked? It’s unclear, as investigators continue to gather details. Early indications are that most of the fires were not arson, let alone hate crimes.

But that doesn’t mean we haven’t connected the events in our minds, and that colors how we digest news that another African-American house of worship has gone up in flames, experts say.

“It isn’t unreasonable to speculate that at least some of the black churches are acts of arson, especially coming in the aftermath of the horrific massacre of nine people in a black church,” said Jack Levin, a professor emeritus at Northeastern University who has studied hate crimes for 30 years and serves as co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict. […]

But yes it is damn well TOO “unreasonable,” if you call yourself a “reporter” or a “journalist.”

REAL journalists and reporters have a natural skepticism.  Everyone else ASSUMES but they demand the FACTS.  And they don’t say “Good morning” unless they’ve fact-checked the weather.

The problem is that liberalism did to journalism what it did to babies.  It just plain slaughtered them.  And today journalism is DEAD.

In the same vein, I’ve watched city after city burn down in rioting perpetuated by the mainstream media’s blatantly false depictions of so-called police brutality.

The facts that actual JOURNALISTS and REPORTERS would wait for?

Well, I saw this in the newspaper on July 3rd:

California sees fewest complaints filed against police officers since since 1990

I’ll bet you anything that what is true in our largest state with over 30 million people is true across the nation.  There are giant cities and there are tiny towns and California is so vast and so diverse that it has been frequently suggested that it be broken up into six different states.

But again, every damn time a police officer shoots a black man – pretty much no matter HOW much justification there is – you can count on the mainstream media to run to Al Sharpton and report his race-baiting hatred as “news.”

And then wonder of wonders, their cameras are conveniently there to report the next “protest” (a synonym for “race riot” consisting of burning, looting, and the terrorist sniper-attacks of police officers).

Black people are being murdered at an astonishing rate.  But they’re being murdered by other black people.  And they’re frequently murdered in gun-free zones.  But let’s not report actual FACTS.  Let’s keep ginning up black rage.

The attitude of lies and dishonesty and deception are most manifest in the Democrat politicians that the media cover-up for.  As an example, the liberal-progressive mayor of Baltimore DENIES saying she gave the black rioters “space to destroy”:

“I never said, nor would I ever say, that we are giving people space to destroy our city. So my words should not be twisted.” — Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, April 27, 2015

Judge for yourself:

Hmmm. “We also gave those who wished to destroy space to Do That as well.”

“Let them loot, it’ only property,” she is on the documented factual record as having said.

That’s bad enough, of course, but it hardly ends there.  The SAME liberal-progressive Democrat mayor is on the record DENYING that she issued stand down orders.  The police commanders under her stated that no such orders had been issued.

But damn them damn facts:

Baltimore police commanders acknowledge that they ordered officers not to engage rioters multiple times on the day of Freddie Gray‘s funeral but said they did so to protect officers and citizens as they prioritized life over property.

In an interview with The Baltimore Sun, police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts and six top commanders who directed deployments on April 27 denied that they gave blanket orders to do nothing as rioters looted, raided businesses and even attacked officers with impunity.

The story ONLY changed because the audio of the police commanders issuing the stand-down orders became public – something that will NEVER happen to the emails Hillary Clinton purged from her private server to destroy the evidence of her myriad crimes.

Frankly, most Democrats – including President Obama himself – along with most reporters, should be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for inciting riots.  Al Sharpton incites them on a regular basis, and he’s sitting next to Obama in the White House when he’s not fomenting racial hate.

Even when the underlying “facts” that initiated the riots are proven to have been lies, Obama has been able to exploit the lies to enact sweeping policies that impose more fascist totalitarian federal raw naked power.

In the same way, liberals are screaming about the “war on women” and a “rape culture.”  And they have completely seized control of university policies as a result.  To what effect?  Well, don’t count on MSNBC or NBC or CNN or ABC to report this stuff for you, but what has been “fundamentally transformed” into a ruthless war on young white men is terrifying.

First of all, the very basis for seizing control of the college and university policies was based ENTIRELY on false reporting and lies, we can now document:

New DOJ Data On Sexual Assaults: College Students Are Actually Less Likely To Be Victimized
December 11, 2014 By The Federalist Staff

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

BJS SA Study Highlights

The higher rate of victimization among non-students is important due in large part to recent accusations that U.S. colleges and universities are hotbeds of so-called “rape culture,” where sexual assault is endemic, and administrators and other students are happy to look the other way. The bogus “1 in 5″ statistic, which was the product of a highly suspect survey of only two universities and which paid respondents for their answers, has been repeatedly used as evidence of this pervasive rape culture on college campuses across the country.

Even more striking is that according to the BJS data, the likelihood of sexual assault has actually been trending downward across the board since 1997.

BJS SA Trends 1997[…]

People capable of actual thought – rather than spouting left-wing screaming points – would understand that if one-in-five women are raped on university campuses, THEY WOULD BE BEING RAPED BY OBAMA-VOTING LIBERAL PUKES.  Because it’s those same college pukes voting Democrat more reliably than damn near any other group.  But, of course, either way it proves what swine liberals are: either they’re rapists, or they’re lying about being raped.  And either way, they’re horrible people.

But, that fact aside, because of that bogus “one-in-five college women are sexually assaulted” reporting, the Obama White House imposed the most fascist policies on sexual assault since Adolf Hitler was running a government.  To the extent that we now have a government policy imposed on colleges and universities that white men are guilty even AFTER they have been proven innocent.

I only recently wrote up a story about a young man who got EXPELLED from Amherst for a rape there is no question never occurred. And in fact HE was the victim of a sexual assault, given the definition that to be drunk is to be unable to turn down a sexual encounter and therefore it qualifies as sexual assault.  Because of Obama Administration Hitlerian NAZISM, that young man was not allowed the right to have an attorney, was not allowed the right to have any kind of trial by his peers, was not allowed to have any discovery process, was not allowed to face his accuser, and his accuser’s story was taken at face-value and entirely believed to be truthful even after evidence was offered that showed she was lying like you wouldn’t believe.

The same thing just basically happened to a male student at Columbia University as “mattress girl” became a media darling and a guest of a Democrat Senator.  The same thing happened at Vassar.

Which is to say, the same liberal-progressive propagandists masquerading as “journalists” and “reporters” who don’t need a single FACT to “report” arson fires in black churches blatantly ignore actual fact-after-fact-after-fact that proves their previous reporting on the so-called “rape culture” was a great big fat giant lie.

We’ve got the infamous Duke Lacrosse case and we’ve got a slew of other cases of a vicious war on men based on dishonest women and manufactured into an issue for dishonest politicians by dishonest reporters.

We’ve got the bogus story of Sandra Fluke – who was basically the heroine “mattress girl” was seeking to emulate and receive the same adoration – who just flat-out LIED to make a bogus claim about birth control.

But, true to form, Obama has cynically exploited the lies his ideologue army of cockroach “journalists” and “reporters” provided for him and issued sweeping fascistic controls to impose his agenda by fiat.

It goes back to the liberal progressive fascist theory of “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”  Because for liberals, every crisis – especially they ones THEY created with their stupid, wicked policies – is another opportunity to expand the power of demonic government.

To be a liberal means to be a liar, and if you are a “journalist” or a “reporter” these days, you’re just a liar with a microphone and a camera.

As we speak, every reporter or journalist is shoving a microphone into the faces of every Republican presidential candidate they can find and demanding they give their position on Donald Trump’s remarks.  And the obvious response from the other candidates would be, “What the hell does that have to do with me?  Why don’t you ask me about MY positions and talk to Donald Trump about his own damn problems?”  But that’s not how the system works when the Grand Old Party is concerned.  The media says they do this because controversy sells and they are equal opportunity when controversy rears its head.

I’d love to be able to interview Hillary Clinton.  I’d love to ask her, “Do you believe that every political figure ought to be able to install his or her own private server and purge all their communications that would or could politically destroy or even criminally indict them the way you did? How are you NOT a damn fascist?”  I’d love to ask, “Given your enthusiastic support for Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist who was successful in building Planned Parenthood into a genocidal machine to exterminate negro babies, why shouldn’t you be called anything other than the worst kind of racist scum?”  No mainstream media reporter has or ever WILL ask Hillary Clinton such confrontational questions.  So no they AREN’T equal opportunity.

Why won’t the same media that goes after Republican politicians who oppose gay marriages as “intolerant” go after Democrats who support gay marriage as hating the Bible and despising biblical Christianity?  Because they are pathologically biased and unfair, that’s why.

Reporters and journalists are people who believe the 1st Amendment gives conservatives, Republicans and Christians the right to shut up and bow down to political correctness or be prepared to be targeted for slander.

I’ve been hitting it over and over and over again, I know.  But the Democrat Party is the party of deceit and slander and lies.  The Democrat Party is the party of the coming Antichrist.  The Democrat Party is the party of the deception and the mystery of lawlessness that the Bible foretold would characterize the last days.

Maryland Mall Shooting (That’s Right, For Those Keeping Score At Home: Another Shooting In ANOTHER GUN FREE ZONE)

January 25, 2014

The moment I heard about the shooting in the Maryland mall, I knew it: another shooting in another gun free zone.

It didn’t take long to determine the “gun free zone” thing.  All I had to do was identify the mall, then find their web page and then look at their “code of conduct” page.

And there it was: “No firearms or illegal weapons.”

Too bad nobody was allowed to have a firearm who was actually INCLINED to obey the damn law.

Wonder if MSNBC or any of the rest of the liberal media will cover the “gun free zone” angle (yeah, probably not).

“Gun free zones” again: Three killed in Columbia, MD Mall [Updated]
Posted by Bob Owens on January 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Mall-in-Columbia-aerial

The Howard County Police are reporting via Twitter that:

Call came into 911 around 11:15 a.m. that shots were fired. Police made entry and found three dead, one found near a gun and ammunition.”

We’ll update the story as more information comes in, but the operating assumption at this time appears to be a double murder and suicide in yet another “gun free zone.”

Update: The incident is over. The UK Daily Mail and NBC Washington are both reporting that the shooter used a shotgun, and the Daily Mail  has posted a photo from a twitter user showing what appears to be evidence of a shotgun blast into the wall.

bulletholes

Daily Mail is further claiming that, “A mall employee described the shooter as a Latino or Middle Eastern man.”

I’d keep it firmly in mind that eyewitness statements are notoriously inaccurate.

[Mall image from WBAL]

Liberals are truly stupid people who will just not ever learn because their worldview obliterates any capacity for learning.  But when you criminalize guns or ban them, the only people who obey the laws are the law-abiding.

CRIMINALS ARE BY DEFINITION LAWBREAKERS WHO DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE LAW AND PSYCHOS ARE CRAZY PEOPLE WHO BY DEFINITION CAN’T CARE ABOUT THE LAW.

Every single mass shooting we have had in this country over the last several years – every single one – occurred in a “gun free zone” where the only people who had guns were the evil people.  Thanks entirely to Democrats.

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

[…]

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

If you want to know all the most dangerous cities in America, just go visit the places that have the most restrictive gun laws.  YOU go to the places like liberal Chicago or liberal Detroit.  I’m sure not going to be one of the defenseless sheep praying to Obama to protect me.

Given That Obama LOVES To Redistribute Rich People’s Money, The ONLY Reason He Won’t Take Donald Trump’s Offer Is He’s Got Something To Hide

October 25, 2012

Let me put it this way: either Donald Trump is going to be writing a $5 million check to the charity of Barack Obama’s choice or the Redistributionist-in-Chief has something that would destroy his presidency to hide:

Trump to give $5 million to charity if Obama releases records
NEW YORK | Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:46pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Donald Trump offered to pay $5 million to the charity of President Barack Obama’s choice if Obama releases his college and passport records, the real estate mogul and television personality said on Wednesday.

“Frankly, it’s a check that I very much want to write,” Trump said in a YouTube video released via his Twitter and Facebook pages.

Trump has questioned whether Obama’s birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii is legitimate, suggesting Obama was not born in the United States, which could have made him ineligible for the White House. The White House released the long-form copy of Obama’s birth certificate in 2011.

Trump did not say what he expected the college and passports records to reveal but was specific in saying he wanted to see all of Obama’s college applications and records and his passport applications and records.

“President Obama is the least transparent president in the history of this country,” Trump said in the video.

“If he releases these records it will end the question and indeed the anger of many Americans.”

Trump, who had toyed with the idea of running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, said the deadline for the release of the documents was 5 p.m. (2100 GMT) on October 31.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Paul Simao)

What is interesting is that Donald Trump just put $5 million on the table to prove what a former classmate of Barack Obama has claimed:

Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’
Posted on August 6, 2012 at 10:28am
Wayne Allyn Root

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.

It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Either Obama is in fact NOT a native American citizen and was never legally eligible to run for president in the first place, or he’s a hypocrite pile of quivering slime like his hypocrite pile of slime pal Elizabeth Warren who cynically exploited her bogus claim to be an American Indian.

We know from Obama’s own words that he was a total pothead.  We also know from Obama’s own words that he frequently cut classes and was an indifferent student.  So just how the hell did he get admitted to the premier colleges in America???

Obama won’t release his records because one way or another, he’s a gigantic phony and a lying weasel without shame or honor or integrity.

And as much as liberals love to redistribute other people’s money, they won’t call on him to take $5 million in charity from Donald Trump because liberals KNOW that Barack Obama is a complete phony and lying weasel and in fact that’s the reason they love him so damn much.  Because liberals are wicked, evil, demon-possessed people.

And as for the FACT that the media is a biased bunch of Marxist propagandists, consider how many damn times the media asked Romney to show his tax records and then wonder why there’s a goose egg after how many times Obama has been asked by “journalists” to show his college records.

Obama’s Berlin Speech Reveals Europeans Gutless On Terror

July 26, 2008

Correspondent Major Garrett filed this report for Fox News Special Report that appeared Thursday, July 25, on Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin, Germany:

MAJOR GARRETT: The scene, unprecedented in contemporary European politics, was unlike any a U.S. presidential nominee ever had the audacity to expect, or the cultural candlepower to attract. But to the upbeat throngs estimated by Berlin police to be in excess of 200,000 Obama did not sing a sweet song of hope and change. Instead he zeroed in on the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

OBAMA SPEECH VIDEO: “This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.”

MAJOR GARRETT: That means Germany and other NATO nations must throw more into the battlefield in Afghanistan, where a resurgent Taliban and its terror-plotting al Qaeda allies have recently launched increasingly lethal attacks.”

As for Iran and its headlong pursuit of nuclear weaponry, Obama said While Europe may welcome his call for direct unconditional talks, europe must back such an initiative with a heretofore missing committment to using all economic and diplomatic tools to isolate and punish Iran if it proves intractable.

OBAMA SPEECH VIDEO: “This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.”

“A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less.”

MAJOR GARRETT: On a continent weary of Pres. Bush Obama spoke of a new era, but hastened to add, if he’s elected, his administration will not represent a cost-free alternative to the status-quo.

The crowd, which did not applaud that much, filed quietly away. If Obama hoped his words would galvanize the audience and his message would thereby reverberate in capitals throughout Europe, there was no evidence of it. The tepid response may stand as a silent declaration that calls for new sacrifice and anti-terror tenacity – whether spoken by the current president or the presumptive Democratic nominee – meets similar European skepticism.

Garrett noted that Obama’s speech did garner some applause lines – on the issues of global warming, a call for “just peace” between Israel and the Palestinas, and especially on the call to end the war in Iraq.

But the real story was the absence of applause on Obama’s presentation of his foreign policy.

One of the biggest delusions Democrats suffer from is the perception that if only their guy were president, the world would love us. They believe that Europeans hate President Bush because he’s a cowboy who ignored them and decided to do it all on his own.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

We saw a little bit of the real problem in Berlin on Thursday: if Barack Obama wants to stand up to terrorists and demand Iran renounce its nuclear weaponry, he better expect that he will be acting alone.

Europeans are not willing to sacrifice. They don’t want to “renew their resolve to rout the terrorists.” They don’t want to have a stake in seeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan is a success. They don’t want to send troops to Afghanistan. They don’t want to send “a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” They don’t want to commit to “using all economic and diplomatic tools to isolate and punish Iran.” They don’t want to “be required to do more–not less.”

Now, personally, I don’t really believe that Barack Obama wants any of this either. I think he was simply pandering to American public opinion and mouthing the slogans that Americans want to hear from a man they rightly believe is weak on foreign policy.

But don’t expect squat from Europe if you want to stand up and act in order to secure a better and safer world.

I came across an interesting article titled, “Why Europeans Doubt Colombia’s Hostage Rescue,” that sheds some light on European’s attitude.

The story presents the fact that European papers and television across the continent were presenting and believing the myth that Columbia bribed the terrorist organization FARC to release the hostages, and the rescue by the army was just a ruse. It provides details of how France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, and Spain have paid one ransom after another for hostages. And then it concludes:

European friends of the FARC are angry. How dare Colombia join the ranks of Britain, Israel, and the United States by refusing to negotiate with terrorists? How dare Colombia disprove the European mantra that all conflicts be resolved through diplomacy? How dare Colombia upstage post-heroic Europeans who, having lost the will to fight, believe anything can be bought for money?

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe summed it up well: “There are some who are bitter and who are seeking to discredit the operation. But these bitter people only know Colombia from afar. Aloof Europeans, what do they know about Colombian ingenuity? They believe that Colombian genius lies with the FARC. Someday they will know these military boys who carried out this operation.”

The fact of the matter is that Europe looks at diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise as end-all solutions. Look at what they have accomplished, they would argue: we formed our European Union on the basis of compromise. We who were former enemies united; why can’t we likewise come together with opponents such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran?

What they don’t realize is that the United States of America has a rather enormous advantage of experience in the process of “uniting,” having done so nearly two centuries before Europe got into the act; that Americans aren’t much interested in hearing moral lectures on politics from the inventors of monarchism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and socialism; that the only reason Europeans aren’t speaking first German and after that Russian is because the United States stood up and fought for their freedom; and that Europeans ought to be therefore grateful enough and generous enough to stand with the United States as we continue to fight for the freedom of other oppressed peoples.

What Europeans have conveniently forgotten is that their freedom was won for them, and not by them. What they have forgotten was that their diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise didn’t mean squat to the Nazis or the Soviets; only American power and our willingness to use it mattered to these determined enemies of human freedom.

If Barack Obama becomes president (and, I must admit, there’s a part of me – and I’m ashamed to admit this – that wants Obama to get elected so that everyone can see just how spectacularly liberalism will fail) he will be shocked to discover that Europe will be nothing but an obstacle to his every effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

An article titled “Why Europe Won’t Sanction Iran” provides a lot of the underlying reasons for this behavior.

The reason President Bush ultimately was forced to attack Iraq was because France and Russia did everything they could to prevent any meaningful sanctions being applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in a corrupted and incompetent United Nations. We had good reasons for believing that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, and were frustrated at every turn by Europe in obtaining the tough sanctions that would have forced Saddam to open up his program to inspection. Unable to obtain a diplomatic solution, we were forced to either attack or risk a WMD-armed Iraq.

And Russia and China are doing the same thing now in protecting Iran even as it is almost certainly developing a nuclear weapons program.

We’re going to see the same demand to let diplomacy and sanctions work – even as every meaningful effort at diplomacy and sanctions is thwarted; we’re going to see the same aversion to war – even as war becomes the only option; we’re going to see the same international condemnation and isolation all over again.

Or we’re going to see a nuclear-armed Iran that will be free to carry out terrorist campaigns by proxy and even shut down the Strait of Hormuz at will with absolute impunity.

Europeans have largely degenerated into Nietzsche’s portrayal of the “Last Man,” the end result of decades of creeping cynicism and mediocrity.

Today, Europeans are frankly both pathetic and apathetic. They won’t stand up for anything; they won’t fight for anything. The people who are literally dying out due to extremely low birth rates don’t care if they are consuming benefits paid for by massive debt that will crush the next generations after them. And their most cherished desire is that the mighty United States would be as weak, as pathetic, and as insignificant as they are.

Americans would have a different view of the world – and a different view of President George Bush – if they learned that lesson. It may take the election of a liberal president, and the crisis of a nuclear Iran, to drive that reality home.