Posted on 09/08/2010 11:28:52 PM PDT by American Dream 246
In response to Gen David Petraeus' denunciation of Florida pastor Terry Jones' right to engage in a symbolic protest of the 9/11 attacks by burning copies of the Quran this Sept. 11, President Obama said: "Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country."
Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida lauded Obama's remarks, saying America is "a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't."
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Obama's words a "clarion defense of the freedom of religion" -- and also claimed that he had recently run into a filthy jihadist who actually supported the Quran-burning!
Keith Olbermann read the poem "First they came ..." on air in defense of the Quran-burners, nearly bringing himself to tears at his own profundity.
No wait, my mistake. This is what liberals said about the ground zero mosque only five minutes ago when they were posing as First Amendment absolutists. Suddenly, they've developed amnesia when it comes to the free-speech right to burn a Quran.
Weirdly, conservatives who opposed building the mosque at ground zero are also against the Quran burning. (Except in my case. It turns out I'm for it, but mostly because burning Qurans will contribute to global warming.)
Liberals couldn't care less about the First Amendment. To the contrary, censoring speech and religion is the left's specialty! (Any religion other than Islam.)
They promote speech codes, hate crimes, free speech zones (known as "America" off college campuses), and go around the country yanking every reference to God from the public square via endless lawsuits by the ACLU.
Whenever you see a liberal choking up over our precious constitutional rights, you can be sure we're talking about the rights of Muslims at ground zero, "God Hates Fags" funeral protesters, strippers, The New York Times publishing classified documents, pornographers, child molesters, murderers, traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, flag-burners (but not Quran-burners!) or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage.
Speaking of lying dwarfs, last week on "The Daily Show" Bloomberg claimed he was having a hamburger with his "girlfriend" when a man came up to him and said of the ground zero mosque: "I just got back from two tours fighting overseas for America. This is what we were all fighting for. You go and keep at it."
We're fighting for the right of Muslims to build mosques at ground zero? I thought we were trying to keep Muslims AWAY from our skyscrapers. (What an embarrassing misunderstanding.) PLEASE PULL THE TROOPS OUT IMMEDIATELY.
But back to the main issue: Was Bloomberg having a $150 Burger Double Truffle at DB Bistro Moderne or a more sensible $30 burger at the 21 Club when he bumped into his imaginary veteran? With the pint-sized mayor shrieking at the sight of a saltshaker, I assume he wasn't having a Hardee's No. 4 Combo Meal.
Adding an element of realism to his little vignette, Bloomberg said: "I got a hamburger and a pickle and a potato chip or something."
A potato chip? Translation: "I don't know what I was eating, because I'm making this whole story up -- I wouldn't be caught dead eating 'a potato chip' or any other picaresque garnish favored by the peasants." At least Bloomberg didn't claim the man who walked up to him took credit for setting the Times Square bomb because he was a tea partier upset about ObamaCare -- as Sherlock Bloomberg had so presciently speculated at the time.
Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.
This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy -- invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?
If the general's main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists' recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!
But wait -- weren't we assured by Fire Island's head of national security, Andrew Sullivan, that if America elected a "brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy," the terrorists would look like a bunch of lunkheads and be unable to recruit?
It didn't work out that way. There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama's first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.
Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the "it will help them recruit" argument yet?
The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do.
The people that were screwing over the military in the 60s, were the politicians that were in their 50s and 60s.
I think that a lot of us here agree that the Pastor has placed himself in extraordinary danger, the man has put himself, by name, on a global death list, and they know where he lives and works.
Naming a few individuals doesn’t change the point, the American leadership in the 1960s was among the most anti-military group ever in America, but there have been many such periods, like the 1930s, the Indian wars and so on, very different than today for instance when the military is getting relatively strong support from the government.
Today is probably the best period to have ever been in the American military.
I don't have direct evidence. I do know that the pastor of the Dove Church has praised the Westboro Church, which is highly disturbing but indicative of an extremist Leftist ideology.
It also follows history that when the Left is in trouble, it fans the flames of racial and religious strife to create a safety zone where it can reassert itself as an agent of diplomacy and thus relevance.
Well, some liberals are braver than others. They're not all cookie cutter, or they would be easier to deal with.
The liberals in power, who hide in their little socialite bubbles, are the who are most afraid and hide behind the liberal extremists, like the Dove Church or SEIU, IMO.
"This a knock down, drag out, no holds barred fight to the death...... Problem is, right now only one side understands what’s at stake here and is willing to fight it for the fight it is..... Meanwhile the other side continues to try to buy their way out of the war with appeasement."
It’s been tried before, time and again. Always with the same outcome. The appeaser loses, usually big time.
Fig leaf? You're very amusing.
My aim, really, is to avoid unecessary conflagerations against those who may not be active combatants againsts us so that one, the enemy doesn't grow larger and more powerful, and two, so that our enemy can be isolated and dealt with.
Burning the Koran is more of a mastubatory act, though probably satisfying, but really doesn't weaken the Islamofscists in any real way.
Does burning the Koran set back Iranian nuclear development?
No.
Does burning the Koran prevent the Saudis' and other rich Muslim countries from funding terrorist operations?
No.
Does burning the Koran help kill Sharia loving Taliban fighters?
No.
Does burning Korans unite Americans against Muslim radicals?
No.
Does burning Korans magically turn mainstream journalists from communists and terrorist collaborators into human beings?
No.
Burning Korans does little except recruit more Muslim terrorists and give ammunition to the American Left so that they may further oppress Americans by claiming we are irrational as our history supposedly illustrates and separate us even further from our Constitutional rights.
Your support for the Islamofacist is palpable.. as is your skill in attempting make this a debate about a specific act.
Which of course I have not taken the bait and now you fail.
Either protected political speech is protected political speech or it is not..
If it is protected political speech to crap on the American Flag.. Desecrate Christian Symbols such as Portraying the Virgin Mary as a whore, the Christ as a Homosexual...Filling a jar with Urine and placing a cross in it..
Then for the Government to involve itself at the highest levels to prevent a similar offensive act of political speech when another group or Ideology is the target.
That itself an act of complicity, support or surrender to the group they have singled out to afford special privilege to.
When you have public officials from Fire Chiefs to the Executive Office trying to deny anyone their first Amendment Rights.. When you have the same media that insists on their unassailable right to print information such as Wikileaks has done jeopardizing the lives of Americans and our Allies in the same fashion.. but then state they will not cover a specific political act which arguably will have the same effect..
That is beyond Hypocrisy.. it is overt support for a very real and well funded enemy who very obviously has many friends in high places.
No doubt largely bought and paid for... and the question remains to Western Dhimmis/Traitors to the West.. by the word or month?
W
I never said burning a Koran isn't protected political speech. I simply said that it shouldn't be done because of the negative consequences..
I never said Americans don't have the right to burn Korans, or any book for that matter.
But you have the right to believe whatever you want even there are things that shouldn't be believed, like say, my supposed dhimmitude.
I've been put down for being a birther and now I'm being accused of being pro-Islamofascist.
WTF?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.