Here’s a ‘get it off my chest item’: I’m disgusted with both Clintons right now. This is a new event for me. I understand intellectually the reasons Bill Clinton is campaigning for Obama. I also know he knows he’s blowing smoke. The man has no respect for Obama and probably has a large dollop of contempt. Bill Clinton is doing what I suppose he feels he must do. However, I’m human, I get to cop to my real feelings: He’s groveling and it’s grating and disappointing.
Hillary is more disturbing of late. Again, I know she’s doing her job. But I also know she knows that her State Department employees were not killed because of a breathtakingly bad “film” made in a SoCal back yard. They were murdered in a terrorist attack. Towing the administration line on the “film” is pure politics. Obama needs it to be about hurt feelings and she’s going along to an alarming degree.
The dynamic here is simple and gross. H. Clinton may want to run in 2016. B. Clinton very much wants her to do just that. Obama has seized control of the party apparatus. If the Clintons don’t play along now, the Obama wing may not play along then. That’s the thinking. It’s specious thinking, of course, as Obama won’t keep his side of the deal if something else comes along…say a Presidential library campaign fund. I assure you Obama’s library will be over the top, tacky and pricey.
The more important point is the First Amendment which seems to be an afterthought for Mrs. Clinton in this drama so far. Her speech at the Clinton Initiative, while better than previous comments, still focused on the film as the problem. The film is not the problem. The problem is a vast swatch of this planet believes speech ought to be curtailed, and that their religion deserves a waiver from our central and centering right. Crappy, offensive films about religion are protected in the United States because speech is protected. Speech is protected. THAT is the only thing that needs to be said. She needs to be saying it without equivocation or explanation.
Most controversies land in the gray area. This one does not. We need a Secretary of State that is unequivocal about free speech. We are in the right here. Those who think insulting one particular religion is out-of-bounds in this country are wrong. Period.
The proper response to offensive speech in a civilized society is more speech. Not genuflection to “hurt feelings”. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…. is not concerned with our feelings. The Founders did not care about what you or I might feel about the obnoxious preacher down the way. Or, if they did, they didn’t think our feelings trumped the creation of a free and muscular republic.
Free speech is not an aspiration – it’s who we are. If, in some questionably American quarters, a film is to be blamed for the murder of 4 people this only makes the squishy response emanating from the current administration all the more upsetting. This is American Society 101. Speech is protected. A medieval killing spree in response to it is not. Mrs Clinton or Barack Obama or any other American need not make excuses about this. Our rights – given to us by God or natural law, – are not subject to anyone’s feelings.
And we can all thank God for that.
“Free speech is not an aspiration – it’s who we are. If, in some questionably American quarters, a film is to be blamed for the murder of 4 people this only makes the squishy response emanating from the current administration all the more upsetting. This is American Society 101. Speech is protected. A medieval killing spree in response to it is not.”
That is correct, JWS. No excuses.
I’m constitutionally incapable of dumping on Hill. But, I’m Bone-tired of Bill’s Rah-Rah-Obama show. It’s undignified and hard to watch. Battered woman syndrome is what he’s suffering from.
I don’t like dumping on the Clintons either… but I want to sail on to something new and better and sacred cows won’t fit on the boat.
Jay, very well put. Its an unfortunate fact, but true nonetheless.
John, the subject of how we self identify is a recurring theme here. This is a good exercise since part of our identity includes the ideals and people we hold dear. I adored both Clintons even more because of their flaws, rather than in spite of them. This whole ‘O’ period seems to be wearing on both of them. I am disappointed in each of them,for different reasons, but politics is a game for shameless opportunists, so it should be no surprise when they show that side of themselves.
yes, very much yes!
tired of other countries trying to say that we should limit our own free speech like turkey for instance. this is a right we have had since the beginning of our country and if this government goes ahead and stunts our free speech then that is treason. the constitution is our ultimate leader, and they are forgetting this on purpose it seems to placate a people who’s feelings were hurt over a movie supposedly.
but i agree it isn’t about a movie, they hate america period and those people were al queda who attacked our ambassador.
they use their religion as almost an excuse to attack us though the actual terrorists from 9/11 were paying for prostitutes and doing all the things they say are sins of americans and the reason they hate us. but it has been so long that they just plain hate us and they can make all these excuses of why but i think that even they have forgotten why it all originally started too that they have to blame a movie for these current attacks…
i don’t know, this is all bs. we should never apologize for our free speech period!!! it is ours and the terrorists or muslim countries cannot and shouldn’t be able to ever take that away.
Although it feels like the biggest, saddest, loss, letting go of sacred cows once and for all is in truth the biggest liberation.
Loving people, supporting them, defending them and criticizing them because of who they really are and what they really do, is a lot better and simpler and less wearying and stressful, than turning yourself into pretzels making excuses for them and yourself.
I’ve been pointing out for a couple of years now who the Clintons are showing us they’ve become and why it happened. Every choice we make, every time we choose to walk this way or with that person, we’re accepting certain consequences as part of the choice. Every time. Our choices constantly change us. But it can be helpful to remember that, for better or worse, our core self remains essentially the same.
Knowing people for who they really are, not what you want them to be, is a great stress reducer.
Now Ahmadinejad is throwing fuel on hot burning coals. It’s another in a very long line of luck being tossed in Obama’s lap.
Obama speaks to the UN General Assembly today and although it’ll be about a movie and what America stands for and terrorist attacks and Iran and Israel and the Middle East, it’ll be a campaign speech rattling with rhetoric, a bit of false reason, and threats Obama would no doubt be glad to follow up.
Obama released a new ad yesterday attacking Romney’s 47% line. It’s really just a toss off. Today Obama turns the page to the next narrative, the one that works best on Americans, on any population that’s angry and afraid.
“Presidential library campaign fund. I assure you Obama’s library will be over the top, tacky and pricey. ”
Yes it will since the place will be full of teleprompters for you to read all the historic speeches off of.
Who told the media that the YouTube video was the reason for the attacks and not just the goatfuc&ers celebrating their 9/11 holiday.
Hmm, DE, a pre-cover-up? State Dept had warnings of attacks coming on 9/11 anniversery — did the obamalonians scramble to look for a cover reason, and found it in this stupid video sitting on youtube? The false explanation then faithfully parroted by the vermin in the MSM?
I 100% agree with your post, John.
This isn’t great but I miss the West Wing and it’s fun to see them again in this new ad.
When Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak to the U.N. on Yom Kippur, and the U.S. doesn’t so much as raise an eyebrow, decency is dead.
Oh sophie it’s so much worse than that.
Ahmadinejad said Israel has “no roots” in the Middle East and will be “eliminated.”
Be ready: Obama’s speech will change tone from the stance they’ve had up to now.
Ugh, this is getting worse and worse.
Barry will give a touchy feely speech reaffirming the perception in the Arab world that the US is a paper tiger.
Netenyahu will probably make one last attempt this week to call for the international community to do something, but its looking more and more like Barry is going to leave him to swing until after the election, and as a result Israel probablt will feel compelled to act alone.
Obama speaking now -spoiler alert – he’s being an asshole
“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
And people still think Obama wins Florida?
O is leaving no doubt that the U.S. can no longer be trusted as an ally…Where’s your six dimensional chess move now, Barry ?
This president really believes he can give a speech and the oceans will recede.
z
I do sometimes wish Israel would just get on with it.
The Clintons are dead to me. Hillary had the power to defeat obama in 2008 by continuing her campaign. She could have defeated him this year by running in the primary. She chose to be barry’s faithful servant, and now Bill is eagerly pimping for him.
This proves that the Clintons care about the Clintons, not the people. Fuck them.
The Clintons are part of the same system that gave us Obama, and ultimately they do what they are told. In my opinion, it was naive to think that were ever going to do or be anything different. The system always calls the shots for those inside it.
The Clinton’s care about the things they can do with access. They do not care only about themselves or they would be living lives like GW Bush. They are going along in order to accomplish what they can. Not everyone can stomach that but the Clinton’s have always had their priorities straight.
Gawd yes, preach it, brother. This!
The only think I would add is that this whole conversation is a direct refutation of why our country was founded in the first place and this amendment chosen as the first one. The founders knew their history; the folks on the wrong of this debate in America do not. And they should be rightly shamed for it, even if it is Mrs. Clinton.
And Bill can suck it. I’ve never before gotten the sense that he didn’t have America’s best interests at heart, but I do now. If he thinks that Hillary Rodham Clinton as president is in America’s interest no matter the cost, then he and I have parted ways.
I echo your sentiment John as does everyone here it seems. I do so with an incredibly heavy heart as I’ve respected the Clintons – although not always agreed with them – for their intellect, their grit and what I always thought was a dedication to do the best thing for this country. I no longer believe this of them. What particularly has wounded me is – as John points out – the breathtaking statements coming from HRC (Obama’s didn’t surprise me in the least) which frankly have either ignored or denigrated our core principle as Americans of freedom of speech AND freedom of religion – including the freedom to respect none at all. I’ve been literally sick over it and it has been her actions in the past 10 days that has scared me about our future as a country even more than I thought I could be.
For some reason, DDE’s farewell address to the nation popped into my head when reading John’s post. It’s worth a read in its entirety if you haven’t: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
It’s not the famous/infamous military-industrial complex piece that has struck me anew however, it’s statements like these:
” . . .each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.”
“Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”
I don’t relate to people’s concerns over our freedom of speech. In this ‘anti Islam movie’ blip we’re having, for instance, I don’t hear our officials saying that people don’t have the right to make fun of Mohammed. They’re saying it’s wrong and hurtful to many, which it is. But I don’t hear people who matter saying they don’t have the right to be wrong and hurtful. Even the apologists aren’t saying that we don’t have the right to be obnoxious — I just see them as trying to smooth the consequences of having been obnoxious.
Even the freedom of speech has its limitations. There are things you can say that will land you in jail. Is that speech free? Well, sort of no.
Oh Jay you’re such a troll.
I do keep a lovely bridge.
The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
How can anyone defend this statement?
I’m an atheist and reserve my right to slander any fucking prophet I want. And Obama’s (above) statement is frightening. IMO, if you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.
And just for the record, I’m not “slandering” anyone when I say I don’t believe in their deity. I’m speaking my truth. Every day, every hour, every minute there are faithful who are “offending” my truth. How about telling them to shut up and stop being “obnoxious”?
GXM — where in that statement does it say that you can’t slander whomever the hell you want to?
Also, to illustrate the slippery slope here, does Obama not have the freedom to say whatever the hell he wants to say?
The merits of the statement are a different conversation than the freedom to speak.
The first part. The part that says “the future must not belong to,” that part. It means that people like me need to be eliminated. The world will be better off without us.
Absolutely, Obama should be allowed to say what he said. And Americans should be rightly upset that their president doesn’t support our First Amendment and thinks blasphemers should be banished to history.
Further, the idea that a “prophet” can even be “slandered” is ludicrous. I’ll tell you who the future shouldn’t belong to: Righteous bullies who murder and oppress in the name of their god.
Jay, a tweet I just saw might change your mind:
You are hiding your head in the sand. Our president is just stopping short of calling for anti-blasphemy laws. Soon he won’t stop short of calling for them and then he won’t stop short of trying to enact them. This is the inexorable attempt to acclimate US citizens to criminalizing our speech against a particular religion. We have always understood the freedom of speech to have very rare limitations and NEVER to have limitations on what we say or feel about any religion. Every American should be outraged about statements like this from a government official.
This latest statement of O’s that the future MUST NOT belong to those who slander Islam should rightfully scare anyone who cares about our first principles. I certainly don’t hear our “officials” clearly and unequivocally supporting the freedom of people to criticize – in any way – religion or religious icons. THAT is what an American leader who cares about freedoms should feel and act on as their first instinct – not apology and appeasement over an individual American’s excercise of his free speech.
Plus – as GX says below – it is simply not possible to “slander” a religious icon. As monumentally public figures, they are free game to say anything about them. There is no such thing in the law (which this term is a legal term) as slander of Mohammed or Jesus or the Buddha, etc. etc.
Votermom — do you think that our President is leaning toward outlawing speech against religion? I don’t.
“It means that people like me need to be eliminated.”
GXM, that’s just crazy talk. It may mean that people like you shouldn’t run countries — but is this a legitimate concern for you?
“Votermom — do you think that our President is leaning toward outlawing speech against religion? I don’t.”
Jay, I strongly suspect that the Obama administration (or at the very least he personally) does want to subject our free speech rights to the PC-sensitivity constrains that Europeans have to live with. It’s anathema to the the First Amendment, which is not subject to the niceties of protecting against hurt feelings or the exigencies of those who’d kill or maim, or create mayhem, in response to insults. That people are even seriously debating this issue is evidence that the medieval Islamists are winning the war.
Votermom — do you think that our President is leaning toward outlawing speech against religion? I don’t.
I think he is looking at a “don’t inflame terrorists” executive order as an excuse to have the power to yank “inflammatory speech” off youtube, twitter, and various interwebs. It’s The Patriot Act Part Deux, because yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a crime so saying stuff that gets those sensitive jihadists riled up should also be a crime.
“You wouldn’t want more embassies burned because of your insensitive remarks, would you?” will be the rationale.
Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Exactly Tamer! Also, at the risk of sounding pedantic, I’ll note that one cannot slander the dead, legally speaking.
Erratum: “…First Amendment, which is not subject to the niceties of protecting against hurt feelings or the exigencies of appeasing those who’d kill or maim, or create mayhem, in response to insults.”
Jay, Obama saying that atheists should never “run countries” is a legitimate concern to me the same way it would be if he said that homosexuals should never run countries. (Although that’s not what he said and I stand by my initial reaction.) It’s not only a bigoted statement, it’s a dangerous one. It puts people like me, someone whose ideology consists of what the religious would term “anti-religious rhetoric,” in the category of “other” with the added implication that we are dangerous, uncivilized, and need to be silenced lest our heathen attitude infect anyone else. When did 2012 America turn into Salem, Mass. circa 1692? So, yes, I’m legitimately concerned.
Brilliant find, Run, thanks.
True Believers are reliably extreme. Then follow the others.
The Clintons are great and everything Hillary does can’t be criticized. Or they’re dead to me.
Grow the fuck up or lose the scintilla of power you have left, people.
What the hell did you think the Clintons were doing when Hillary became Secretary of State under Barack Obama?
Give truth and reason a chance.
Jesus Christ.
This is your lives and major changes, not in your favor if you keep up this way, are a hair’s breadth away. Stop monkeying around.
Huh? Honestly, huh?
Don’t hurt your little brain, run.
Scroll on until someone like Anthony posts something you can grasp.
Zal – your posts only make sense 1/2 the time, which is why I am convinced you are drunk during at least 1/2 of your comment posting. Read your comment out loud to yourself and honestly ask yourself if it makes any sense whatsover? I mean “This is your lives and major changes, not in your favor if you keep up this way, are a hair’s breadth away. Stop monkeying around.” That is gibberish.
“The Clintons are great and everything Hillary does can’t be criticized. Or they’re dead to me. Grow the fuck up ”
The latter would be me growing up from an admitted tendency in the past to slip into the former.
Time for your meds?
This is what the President of the US said today to the world: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” I shouldn’t be gobsmacked, but I am.
I’ve been re-watching Family Guy episodes on Hulu recently which I think is one of the funniest, crudest, most irreverent shows ever created. It’s funny how it makes fun of the Christian God, Jesus and Christians frequently in pretty profane ways without nary a peep, let alone rioting, rampaging and killing from Christians. I note that our dear leader also said those who condem Islam slander should also do so with Christian slander. I hope Seth McFarlane – a huge Obama booster – is taking note.
Jesus H Christ on a biscuit, I’m mad right now reading this fool’s remarks. How dare he compare as equivalent violence against women and killing of coptic christians to those who ridicule a religious figure. He’s a monster.
“I’m mad right now reading this fool’s remarks.”
Oh if only he were “a fool,” Run–we’d have less to worry about. He’s much more dangerous than that — with the definite potential to be closer to what you call him in the last sentence of your comment.
Ah – you are too right NES. Would that it were not so.
For those who don’t believe O would try to outlaw speech against religion in some way – wouldn’t need to be through an outright law passed by Congress could be some C-in-C “national security” executive order – consider the following that is happening right now in our country.
–The writ of habeas corpus is no more
– We no longer have 4th amendment protections of our private communications
– We no longer have 4th amendment protections in or on our private property if a drone can see what you are doing
– We no longer have 4th amendment protections safeguarding the integrity of our bodies at the airport – soon to come – everywhere else
– The government can force us – through taxation – to engage in any activity they wish.
– O has declared he has the unilateral right to:
– assasinate US citizens regardless of due process
– refuse to enforce laws passed by Congress and create new laws out of the air in areas specifically relegated to Congress as he wants.
Of course, this man would NEVER through use of police power enforce an anti-blasphemy scheme.
Agreed.
What run_dmc said.
Free speech is not an absolute right. Exceptions are many incitement of imminent violence, insider trading, yelling fire in a crowded theater. I don’t know the facts of the film– that hopefully is for a court to sort out. If they made the film to cause violence, then they should be held accountable for that behavior. Those committing murder and destroying property should also be held accountable.
When would you like me to put on a burka so as not to incite any violence from Muslim extremists?
Angela, your assessment is flawed on two counts:
1) That film portrayed (albeit very amateurishly) things that are actually in the Koran about the life of Mohammed. His own holy book has him down as a rapist, child molester, and serial killer. (I only wish the movie had included the part about his flying horse);
2) True, inciting someone to riot or to violence is not covered by free speech, nor is releasing state secrets or violating an NDA, nor slander. Insulting someone, who subsequently chooses to commit violence in response, is not prohibited. What you propose is a sort of ‘eggshell psyche’ law, which would be a scary thing, indeed.
the “fire in a theater” analogy is specious here. There is no need for the courts to sort out the film because the film breaks no laws. People have the right to insult religions via film or plays or any other way.
Where is the law that says you can not yell fire in a crowded theater? We have laws that prosecute you for yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire — not because you can’t yell it but because you probably started a dangerous stampede based on a lie and people were hurt. Yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire is perfectly fine.
What Grey said, better than me.
Greyledge – there’s no law against yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, that’s true. But it’s considered unwise regardless of the existence of any fire – because it can lead to a stampede which will cause injuries. If there is a fire, what is considered wisest is to quickly and calmly notify theatre personnel, who can safely evacuate people in an as controlled manner as possible. (That very concept has been a historical question on the WAIS intelligence test.)
Lorac, so good to see you! How’ve you been? Missed you.
lorac, you’re absolutely right.
Our wide open freedom is an extraordinarily great privilege of our time and people today seem to completely miss that if we don’t use reason and act responsibly we’re squandering them and could lose them.
Totally agree with Gxm’s and Run’s view on this sub-thread.
And, Jay, I would say this about Obama’s right to free speech. Of course he has this right as a private citizen. However, he was addressing the UN (and the world) as POTUS, not as a private citizen; as such, he should’ve kept his idiosyncratically restrictive view of the 1st Amdmt. to himself.
Rats, that comment didn’t nest in the right place — I was referring to Gxm’s comment at 11:44 am and Run’s at 12:01 pm, supra.
Suggesting that people who use anti-religious rhetoric should not rule the world is not only not a crazy statement, but it has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.
Ok, I’m genuinely confused, Jay. That idiotic fella, who made a laughably bad trailer of an alleged movie, had a 1st Amendmt. right to make it. Bad as it is, it’s an artistic expression of a controversial viewpoint, and is therefore squarely within the protection of the 1st Amdmt. (I make that judgment as an American citizen, not as a lawyer [Im not a constitutional lawyer].) The trailer may not be judged on the quality or value of its content. For our gov’t to condemn — yes condemn — the video and say it understands why Muslims are offended by it — and to even go further and attribute the death and destruction that followed its publicization — to it is to chill the exercise of free speech. Are the limits of our free speech to be defined by the reaction of the Muslim world? Is that the country we want to live in? Trust me when I say (based on personal experience), there is no limit to the things that offend the ‘Muslim Street’ on anything related to Islam. Nothing.
No one is suggesting that the idiotic and ungifted film-maker should rule any country, let alone “the world.”
That said, I may well have misunderstood your statement. Please correct me if I did so..
NES — I have a very hard time having detailed conversations in blog threads, but I’ll certainly try with you because to me you’re a bright spot in these parts:
“For our gov’t to condemn — yes condemn — the video and say it understands why Muslims are offended by it — and to even go further and attribute the death and destruction that followed its publicization — to it is to chill the exercise of free speech.”
I disagree that it chills the exercise of free speech. It’s an acknowledgement of the harm that free speech sometimes brings, sure — but I have absolutely no problem with that. When I hear Romney say that he’d never apologize for the actions of the United States, it makes me CRINGE. Oh yeah — we can do NO wrong. Ask Hiroshima, the recipient of one of our most wildly effective wrongs.
Please note that the filmmaker is not in jail. He is in hiding, which is a consequence of how he chose to exercise free speech. Nobody is suggesting that he didn’t have the RIGHT to make that bad little movie. He did and does.
Thanks, Jay. I have a better understanding now of what you meant. I guess we have to agree to disagree on what does and doesn’t chill free speech. You are correct, however, that the gov’t hasn’t done anything here that would be the basis of a legal claim for violation of the film-maker’s free speech rights. I just don’t like the direction the government’s public utterances see to be headed. Maybe the dividing line is where one perceives the proverbial slippery slope to be on the First Amdmt. — I think we’re dangerously close to it in the face of Islamist threats, if not on it already, and am therefore perhaps a little paranoid about the situation. Time will tell. In the interim, we should all keep our collective eye on Europe and the siege mentality and fear of Islamist retribution that has set in there. I don’t believe any of us want to be at that pass.
The comments of the s.g. President and the s.g. SoS do chill free speech. As does the DoJ’s interrogation of the filmmaker. They essentially say: ‘your government may or may not support you when you express your opinion.’
Good thing for Jay he didn’t make FORGIVING THE FAISELS
I just believe in me.
John Smart and me.
And that’s reality.
“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”
Do you know what slanders the Prophet of Islam? Uncovered women, gays, Christians, lesbians, girls who don’t want to marry at 13, pork, western culture, women drivers, lipstick, barbie dolls, bananas, the existence of Israel, atheists, educated women, unmarried people, tattoos, and just about anybody else who disagrees with you politically.
The future must not belong to those who demand submission to the prophet of Islam. For an American president to even suggest such a thing is a complete Obamanation.
Depicting “the prophet of Islam” — in any way, shape or form — is to slander him. No kidding. Have you never wondered why Islamic civilization excelled at calligraphy, abstract design, and depictions of flowers and nature? It is forbidden by Islam to depict the prophet; period.
What is also an insult to the “prophet of Islam” is to convert out of his religion. Apostasy is punishable by death.
It’s blasphemy to depict anything in nature, “Allah’s work.”
It’s got good company, but Islam is really, really fucking stupid.
No question, Islam is a ‘Mickey Mouse’ religion.
For one, it’s a sloppy pastiche of Judaism & Christianity. Two: the koran is supposedly written by Mr. M. himself, yet is in the third person. Three: every single thing in the koran is flatly contradicted by something else in the koran. Four: the only “true” koran is a koran in arabic, so unless you read arabic, you just gotta trust da mullah. Five: that flying horse thingie.
Either Barry doesn’t think about this kind of stuff or a whole bunch of people thought it was a good idea for the President of the United States to say :
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see and the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed. Or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Because in saying that he is creating a false equivalency between the “hurt feelings” of predominantly reprsessive and increasingly vile and violent culture/religion to the suffering of Christians and the horrific genocide that the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people during WW2.
He is also creating a false sense of equivalency between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.
I want to write a longer post on this, but I’m really kind of just flabbergasted. Not in the sense that Barry made a can’t well all just get along speech, which is exaclty what I thought he’d do, but I’m just astounded at the sheer level of doucheness that Barack Obama has attained…. this is just douchebaggery on a whole different level.
He has met and exceeded my own estimation of any human being’s ability to be a douchebag. The only way I think he can top this is by actually inserting femenine hygene products into his body and carrying them around for future use.
The Alhambra is really nice though!
Dan, most excellent rant (except for the last sentence, for which your knuckles will be rapped).
The thing about our Barry is this: he’s CULTURALLY Islamic/Muslim (not religiously…in fact, I suspect he may be an atheist). Rev. Wright, a man who’s had more conversations with Obama on matters of ‘religious’ conscience than anyone else, recently said of him (on tape): “The Islam ran deep in him.” Islam is the religion of Barry’s paternal forefathers, and he reveres and exalts it for that reason; he certainly places it on a par with the Judeo-Christian tradition and code of ethics, at the very least (he may even think it’s superior). Only a functionally secular, well-meaning people like Americans would miss this aspect of Barry, or be distracted by his election-time claim on Christianity. It’s really quite simple: if your father is a Muslim, then you are one too; no formal stamp or ceremony required. Conversions are possible, of course, but there’s no evidence that Obama ever converted (nor should he have if, as I suspect, he’s not religious). I don’t mean to be promoting the Barry is ‘a secret muslim’ thesis; I’m not. I’m simply stating a fact that’d be apparent to anyone who’s grown up and lived in the Muslim world. (Also, you wouldn’t find a Muslim in Deerfield, MI, who’d disagree with
me.)
The Alhambra is beautiful.
Dan, if you’re ever up for writing a post, TLN would be honored to publish.
barry’s UN speech is confirmation that OFA is narrowly focused on whipping up the proglodyte base, while writing off the independent bitter-clingers.
“I want to write a longer post on this, but I’m really kind of just flabbergasted.”
Write the post, Dan. Out of flabbergastedness is born many a good and wise rant. Go for it.
NES, if my knuckles will be rapped for thinking that the only way that Barry Sortero can be more of a douchebag is by literally becoming a container in which said douches are carried in, I will submit my knuckles for said rapping.
He’s a douchebag.
barry abso-fucking-lutely deserves the next Douche of the Day!
Tamerlane I’d love to write something forTLN. I’ll email you!
Rofl Dan. I was merely objecting to the association of Barry with feminine hygiene products.
To clarify: it’s because I use such products.
Ok, I had to look it up (douchebag). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/douche+bag
I’ve never used the first; Barry is definitely the second. No knuckle-rapping for Dan after all.
One thing becomes apparent when reading these posts, agree or disagree, as you may, they are all written by true lovers of America. Not one poster has whined ‘what’s in it for me?’ or shown any emotion other than great loyalty and concern..I am awed to be hanging out here.
Glad you’re around, helping to spread the sanity, Soph!
” . . Suggesting that people who use anti-religious rhetoric should not rule the world is not only not a crazy statement, but it has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.” Jay – that is absolutely not what O said. You are completely rewriting his words to somehow give yourself comfort that what he said was not anti-American and scary.
He said – direct quote “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” That doesn’t say anything about ruling the world. In fact, it is very carefully crafted to be read – by Moslems – as people who say anything construed as “slander” to Islam should not have a future.
And, even if read as you completely retooled it – what the hell does that mean? What is anti-religious to the millions of moslems trashing embassies and/or killing people over a cartoon is certainly not anti-religious to me? If I do something these idiots think is “anti-religious,” that means the future doesn’t belong to me? As Anonymous and NES have said – uncovered women, women who are seen with men not their husbands or relatives and Israelis are “slanderous” or “anti-religious” to Islam to millions of Moslems around the world. Should the future also not belong to them? What about women who have had abortions or doctors who perform abortions? To Christian pro-lifers, as well as many Moslems – they are anti-religious. Should the future also not belong to them? Should they not rule the world?
Do you see how dangerous this thinking is?
Also, Angela’s statements about limits on free speech apply only in very limited circumstances which have never been read to extend to political speech, satire, art, or ridicule of religion or public figures. There are limits on speech which reasonably will incite activity that causes foreseeable harm – inciting people to flee a burning theater is always used. But the reaction to the speech has to be reasonable also and directly related to the reactor attempting to get away from/protect herself from a dangerous situation. Or, in the case of conspiracy laws and other criminal laws, there has to be an underlying criminal act done or attempted. There is no underlying criminal act in creating a movie ridiculing a religious figure. And, Mr. Constitutional lecturer and (sadly) a once-respected lawyer like HRC damn well know this.
AND, Lunatics who rampage and kill over someone’s expression – whether ridicule or not, whether plodding and badly crafted or not – of their beliefs about Mohammed a continent away that in no earthly way could cause physical harm to them is no more reasonable than a psychotic going on a slashing rampage because he thinks a commercial he sees on tv told him to do so.
The prophet Mohammed liked to lick the camel-jiz out of his ugly sister’s pimply ass. How’s that for slander?
Not bad, tamerlane
One problem with blasphemy laws is who gets to decide when the prophet has been offended?
Depends, Tamerlane. Did he spit? or swallow?
HAHAHAHA on Tamer’s slander.
This “the prophet Mohammad” thing . . .
Ben Stein wrote a piece on the way this “statement” is being slipped into our language yesterday. He didn’t reference Obama although I have head him say this previously. Instead, he reference numerous television readers (anchorfolk) are now using the term “the prophet Mohammad” in newscasts. Why is that happening? Shit, as I sit here I just heard Shepard Smith use the phrase.
Oh the typos – I’m angry and it affects my typing skills.
Yes – it’s exactly the same as hearing a government official say “the lord god jesus christ” or “the son, the father and the holy ghost” rather than simply jesus or god when referring to Christianity.
From last night’s viewing of Family Guy, Scene:
Jesus gets mad at his mother, Mary; calls God – his non-custodial father.
Jesus: “God, can I come stay with you for a while.”
God, in bed “Umm . . .now’s not really a good time Jesus; I’ll see you next visiting weekend.”
God hangs up and turns to what happens to be a young blonde buxom (second wife/girlfriend?) next to him in bed, leers at her and says “Where were we?”
Buxom blonde: “Right about here . . ” and pulls out a condom wrapper.
God (in a wheedling voice): “Oh, come on baby . . do we really have to?”
Is that cartoon anti-religious? Does that “slander” god or jesus? Should Seth McFarlane “not have the future belong to him” or we’d condone him having to go into hiding because of it? Now let’s say he used Mohammed and one of his (many) children and a prepubescent concubine in bed instead? Should he be interrogated by the DOJ or should we condone his being hunted by maniacs?
Because if you believe that, then we have to throw down, because no way do I want to live in a world where there is no TED 2.
NES, did you mean Dearborn, Michigan?
Free speech and why Islam is off the table – how about that movie that dear Mel Gibson produced – The Passion of the Christ.
Do you really believe that obama wrote that speech or read a speech written by others on his beloved teleprompter?
Pipermn– quite right, I meant to say Dearborn, MI! Thanks for catching that.
Unfortunately I stopped by CounterPunch last night, and their front page article was one defending the feelings of Muslims. Disappointing. Also disappointing that they’re going along with the excuse that a bad film incited all of this. But they did bring up part of the Consitution I hadn’t seen anybody mention yet.
“Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression. Article 20, paragraph 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/25/insults-incitement-and-islam/
I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think that’s the Constitution. I think that the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But I’ll defer to the lawyers among us.
As an atheist, my “freedom of religion” includes “anti-religious rhetoric.” A conundrum, ain’t it? Maybe we atheists should all be disappeared so the religious don’t have to be offended and/or incited by us.
You are correct, gxm, that is not the Constitution. It is true that you cannot use free speech as a defense if you are directly inciting violence by your speech (for example, if a staunch Mohammadan were directly in front of you and you knew how he felt about Mohammed and yet you said something very deroguatory about said Mohammed and you had reason to know that he would go off the handle, then it is not a defense.) but that reference in monkeypants’ comment is no where to be found in the Constitution.
The US Constitution has 7 Articles. It has Sections, not Paragraphs.
No international law counts as Federal law, unless we signed a treaty on it. No treaty is valid if it violates the US Constitution.
monkeypants, that thing you quote is nowhere in the US Constitution. Thank God. Some squishy counterpunch person made that up. There are not 20 articles . and the 20th amendment is about when elected people assume office.
That’s definitely not the constitution. And, Lililam – your example is 180 degrees from reality. I don’t really know what a “Mohammadan” is, but no matter how insulting you are to someone standing in front of you and no matter what their religion is or how staunchly they believe in it, they cannot attack you physically. In your example, the “staunch Mohammadan” would most assuredly go to jail if he attacked you. (Not sure what law you thought the person saying “something derogatory about Mohammad would be violating either).
The Counterpunch b.s. demonstrates the creep toward the slippery slope I fear. Won’t be long before the loathsome Shariah becomes a respectable sourxpce of “international law.” Preposterous.
run dmc- you didn’t read what I wrote- I was merely attempting to demonstrate an example when you couldn’t use free speech as a defense if you were arrested for starting a fracas due to your speech. It is a very rare occurrence, but an exception to free speech, akin to the old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. I agree that the crap in the counterpunch post has nothing to do with the constitution.
Okay, I looked it up this morning and it is a UN treaty (ICCPR) that monkeypants is trying to pass off as the US Constitution. The US signed the treaty in 1977 with the very first reservation being:
United States of America
Reservations:
“(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
source link: http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec
Liliam – I read exactly what you wrote. You are just wrong. Simply saying something insulting to someone’s faith is not considered “incitement” under the law. You don’t need a “free speech as a defense” argument. You don’t need any defense at all in the situation you mentioned. You just need to say you were assaulted, end of story, and the “Mohammadan” is the one in trouble with no defense, not you. Your mentioning “free speech as a defense” in this situation indicates you think that the person saying something bad about Mohammed in your example actually did violate the law and somehow brought the attack on him/herself which is a complete misunderstanding of the law.
“Incitement” is very specific, and does not at all apply in the example you used. To “incite” someone with speech alone, it has to be a pretty clear example that the speech would reasonably lead someone to think they need to react physically. So – yelling fire when there is no fire clearly will lead to people stampeding out the door to protect themselves. i.e. escaping physical harm. If you came up to someone on a dark street and said “I have a gun and I’m going to shoot you” but you have no gun – so the threat about the gun is simply speech, then – yes – it would be reasonable for the person threatened to use physical harm towards you to protect themselves and you couldn’t argue free speech to defend your actions. The person attacking you, however, acted reasonably to prevent harm to themselves.
Walking up to a Muslim on a street and saying Mohammed was a pedophile is in no way shape or form legal “incitement” and any Muslim who attacked you if you said that has no defense to their actions and you need no defense for your speech.
It’s amazing to me through all this debate in the last weeks how few people actually understand our first amendment protections and what the actual limitations on speech are and what they are not. At least this is the legal construct we live under now until Obama is reelected and we do have anti-blasphemy enforcement.
Good post, John. Agree. I like your nice succinct take on the Clintons, Tamerlane.
Dan, I would also like to read a long rant by you. Amazing comments. Agree with Sophie/Conner. Awesome.
They will say and do anything just to get to suck on the teats of the super pacs.
@NES
That people are even seriously debating this issue is evidence that the medieval Islamists are winning the war.
You are correct. This must stop. This behavior tacitly encourages the extremists to continue their crusade.
Okay – interjection from your host – please stop with the gratuitous name calling. I’m done with it. 90% of the comments are on point or on another interesting point. I’d like to shoot for 100%. Disagree with my points or on points made by others. Be as brutal about your disagreement as you like – avoid personal attacks HERE.
Thanks.