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.
Ansell...You are so right and thank you for standing where we all need to stand.
Islam’s agenda is playing out in this whole ‘burn the Koran’ ordeal as we watched the two most powerful men in our country bow to Muslims threats...out of fear.
I just wish with all my heart all Muslims could be shipped back to their countries.. and all others who have determined to include themselves with Islam...let them go back to the stoneage...deprive them of all military and technological means....and resources and let them figure out how to live...and if they murder and rape and destroy each other...let them do so. The infections they bring to all countries they are in is deadly in every way , for every citizen, I want my grandchildren to be free of what is surely going to be a tinderbox here now and in the future as long as they are on our soil.
Oh c'mon. These idiots get their panties in a wad over any little thing they consider a provocation.
This another Coulter masterpiece, and it has far less to do with the silly Koran-burning party than it does with the shameless hypocrisy of the left.
Ann BUMP!
Agreed!
In fact, all you have to do is remind them that Muhammed was a pedophile and they jump up and down and holler like stuck pigs.
Even Ann can have serious lapses of common sense.
Those muslims "who mean us no harm" are unkind to us; through their silence, their inactivity in actively seeking out the killers among them.
If only 10% of muslims mean us harm, that's 140,000,000 of them, and of course their over a billion silent supporters sitting unkindly on their consciences...
However, their unkindness is not simply the burning of paper --- it is the burning of human beings.
Stupid suggestion, Anne.
I have a DVD set of Disneys contribution during WW2, one could literally interpret the same issue here but we have been weakened by the liberal advancements in our culture.
Walt Disney made many a film showing the cartoonish Hitler or the devils from Japan, Islam is far worse and deserves the same treatment.
Of course you are right. But i´m still “split” on this issue. Of course it´s about time to stop all this political correctness and the ongoing backing down of our leaders to Islam because god forbid we could offend someone.
On the other side it comes to a real bad time.
Having troops in afghanistan, Iraq... its like pouring gasoline into a fire. So this pastor puts the lifes of the troops on extra risk with actions like this.
I mean the troops and not him will have to face the result of his actions.
This also will flush the weak willed among us out. THAT is why many Americans do not want this to happen, because NOW they have to take a stand.
The real question is -
ARE YOU STRADDLING THE FENCE?
Acts 5:34-41
I agree, with a slightly different take as to the sequence of events.
We are already in a world war against them. Entirely on their terms.
Imagine World War 2, except the Axis Powers decided not to wear uniforms. Your ignorance of history and human nature would suggest that the allies should have surrendered in 1940. Civilians, ya know.
War may be ugly, but falling on your knees and wetting your pants due to your total inability to deal with the unconventional tactic of the enemy is uglier!
Typical liberal incoherence.
Obama and his minions (including Petreus) make decisions every day and create rules of engagement that cause other American citizens and other muslims to die daily.
Aside from the obvious sophistry, what's the difference?
Spare me "the rule of law" crap. When the Constitution has been violated 18 ways to Sunday by an undocumented president, that has become meaningless.
I have a hard time believing the enemy isn’t already doing its level best to harm us. It’s their nature, born and bred to hate the infidel, the non-Muslim. And this has been going on since long before we were in Iraq or any other country in that area. The current round started in earnest in 1979 because they were unhappy with our backing of the Shah of Iran.
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.
We’re going right down the very same road we’ve gone down leading to so many of the wars we’ve fought.
Well, he looks old enough to have been in Vietnam. Funny how the political people (politicians) that are whining about this now had no qualms about screwing over our military in the '60s.
It certainly was. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people who personally meant us no harm were killed by these policies.
They may or may not have been necessary for us to win the war, but there is no question they killed a great many who we had no real reason to kill.
Well, these particular Islamist are a bit of a pickle, for us, even if we wanted to, and could, kill all( say ) Muslims.
Why? Because it was answered, or illuminated, by Khomani who when asked about Iran being nuked by the US or Israel said he didn’t care, God would decide, and he would be comfortable in heaven. Unlike almost most of the Nazi era, we have these Islamist who are not fighting for a city, or even their own populations, but in many cases fighting to die.
Anyhow, killing off the population is as old as dirt, and although we might now be a bit squeamish about it, others aren’t. It’s a truism that if there are no Muslims, there will be no Islamists.
we’ll have to fight a world war against them.
In case you haven’t noticed, we NEED to be fighting a world war with them.
So, what would you do? Arrest the pastor to appease the muslims?
Just when did the Bill of Rights stop being something worth fighting and possibly dying for?
Common tactic: Repeatedly attack what you oppose then throw in a fig leaf at the end.
A very “macho” one I might add.. LOL
My question. Does the Islamofacist movement pay by the word for support from Western Dhimmis or monthly?
W
So this pastor puts the lifes of the troops on extra risk with actions like this. I mean the troops and not him will have to face the result of his actions.Not to mention the fact that this pastor is one of those who "cheers every death of every American soldier".
On the one hand, he cheers the deaths of American soldiers, by supporting Westboro Church, while at the same time doing something that will probably increase the number of those deaths.
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.