Posted on 01/22/2015 8:40:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Neither can I.
It’s getting to where my only comment these days is “What a leftist dumbass”.
A small nitpick-they stopped being “liberals” in any sense decades ago. They are now leftists, or as they call themselves, “progressives”. Leftists is more accurate.
“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.”
Sorry Prof. but there is no mention of Mohammed or Islam or even ARabs.
Those who insult other faiths but treat Islam with a special exception think they are being bold and edgy. The truth is they're cowards and it's a simple as that.
So yes, Piss Christ and Mary Dung is ok because those that call that art will live another day.
28 Pages/Saudi Role Remains in Media Spotlight: Terry Strada on CNN
The media spotlight continues on the role of Saudi Arabia in terrorism, and the necessity to de-classify the “28 pages” of the Joint Congressional Inquiry report on 9/11. Among the developments in the last two days, are that CNN International interviewed Terry Strada on January 19th, national co-chair of the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, who spoke at the Jan. 7 Washington, D.C., press conference with Congressmen demanding declassification. January 19th, Commentary magazine posted an article, “Every Presidential Candidate Should Pledge Release of Missing 9/11 Pages.”
Amidst this ongoing attention, an instance of arrogant evasion took place today, by Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA (2006-2009) and NSA (1999-2005). Hayden was speaking on Capitol Hill at a Middle East Policy Council event, where he was asked about the withheld 28 pages and the Saudi role in terrorism, by EIR’s Bill Jones. Hayden sneered in reply, that he was going to give an “unsatisfactory answer.” Namely, Hayden said that he hadn’t read the 28 pages; didn’t know what was in them; and didn’t intend to; and wouldn’t say more.
This is the immorality Terry Strada denounced roundly on CNN International. She said, “Yes, Saudi Arabia funds terrorism.” She said that, besides releasing the 28 pages, we want legal action against those responsible.
“The world has a right to know the role of Saudi Arabia in funding terrorism....”
She called on everyone to activate.
In the Commentary article, writer Michael Rubin ended his piece,
“Journalists should not let any candidate off the hook. Every aspirant to the presidency should pledge him- or herself to full transparency and to complete the historical reckoning from 9/11 that all the victims, their families, and, indeed, every American deserves.”
Rubin, who is at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, makes the point that “Obama is no different than his predecessor,” and not only on the 9/11 cover-up. Rubin wrote, “When Navy SEALS raided bin Laden’s compound, they removed millions of files...” but they have released only 17 documents.
Sen. Bill Nelson Calls Saudis ‘Duplicitous’ and ‘Two-Faced’
For the second time in as many days, a sitting Senator has singled out Saudi perfidy on the terrorist question. Contacted Jan. 16 for his response to former Sen. Bob Graham’s call to release the 28 pages, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told the Florida Politics blog, although he had not read them, he did not need to in order to affirm that the Saudis are “quite duplicitous” regarding the terror threat in their own country. With this, Nelson joins Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Chris Murphy (D-CT)who spoke out on CNN’s “State of the Union” January 18thin the assault on the House of Saud. Nelson said:
“They will say one thing in private, which they desperately want us to do this or that against the bad guys, but because of their politics and their position in the Middle East among their Arab colleagues, they’re afraid to say those things.”
While this problem is widely encountered when dealing with foreign governments, Nelson said, the Saudis are notorious for playing a “two-faced game” on this account.
“Because they allowed, back in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, the incubation and hatching of these radical terrorists [sic] groups that were often started in Saudi Arabia, and/or funded by Saudi money. It may not be government money, but it was Saudi citizen money, and as a result, they’re rueing the day now, because Saudi Arabia is one of the prime targets of the terrorists all over the world wherever there is a Saudi interest.”
Additionally, the article names Walter Jones’ and Stephen Lynch’s H.Res.14, the legislation for the full release of the redacted 28 pages of the joint inquiry into 9/11
Marine Le Pen Hits Saudis and Qatar as Terrorist Funders
Marine Le Pen, head of the right-wing Front National, which a recent poll showed to be the leading party in France, with support from about one-third of the population, due primarily for its anti-euro stand, published an op-ed in the New York Times on January 18 directly attacking Saudi Arabia and Qatar for their funding and support for jihadist terrorists. Le Pen wrote:
“French foreign policy has wandered between Scylla and Charybdis in the last few years. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s intervention in Libya [which turned the country over to terrorist gangsed.], President François Hollande’s support for some Syrian fundamentalists, alliances formed with rentier states that finance jihadist fighters, like Qatar and Saudi Arabiaall are mistakes that have plunged France into serious geopolitical incoherence from which it is struggling to extricate itself.
“Incidentally...Gerd Müller, Germany’s federal minister of economic cooperation and development, deserves praise for having the clear-sightedness, like the Front National, of accusing Qatar of supporting jihadists in Iraq.”
More Discussion of Saudi Funded Terrorism
The role of Saudi Arabia in promoting and financing terrorism is continuing to seep out in the major news media. A few examples:
On CNN’s “State of the Union” show on Sunday, there was discussion of the role of Saudi funding of the Wahhabi groups that produce jihadists, and of both Saudi Arabia’s and Pakistan’s repressive practices. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said the Obama Administration should be telling the Saudis and Pakistanis that this funding of terrorists has to stop, or else there will be some ramifications. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) agreed, saying:
“And, of course, we know that, for years, for decades, the Saudis have been funneling money to Wahhabi clerical organizations that fund the very madrasas that train Islamic jihadists. We certainly know in Pakistan that, at the same time that they have been fighting radical elements, they have also been funding those radical elements, or at least being permissive of them.”
The Globe & Mail of Canada runs a piece by its national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson, entitled, “Cozying Up to Saudi Arabia: How Can That be Principled?” in which Simpson blasts the Harper government for its arms deals and political ties to Saudi Arabia
“whose government-sponsored support for a Wahhabi/Salafist form of Islam has spawned terrorism in many places;... whose government oppresses its Shia minorities; and whose government has beheaded more people in 2014 than any other in the world and sentences a blogger to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for insulting Islam.”
Simpson says that Saudi Arabia, more than any other country, “has been responsible for financing schools and teaching that promote the Saudis’ Wahhabi version of Islam, which in turn has provided a fertile breeding ground for extremism and terrorism.”
The issue of Saudi funding of terrorism was also discussed on BBC’s “Hardtalk” program on Jan. 16, in an interview with former MI-6 counter-terrorism official Richard Barrett. Barrett pointed out that we can never kill all the terrorists, nor solve the problem with more surveillance laws. When asked about the large amounts of funds and weapons being provided to terrorists from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, he said that in his years of investigating Al Qaeda, he had never found evidence of a state directly supporting terrorism, but there are certainly individuals within Saudi Arabia etc. who are supporting terrorists, and he said that Western governments should lean heavily on states like Saudi Arabia to get them to crack down on terrorist financing.
You can only insult Catholics by sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine (they’re OK with that) or the Virgin Mary by covering her photo with elephant dung. (also OK to them)
To be clear Charlie Hebdos mocking cartoons only incites a small minority of a minority to violence.
To follow this professors line of thought to its logical conclusion; because they are easily incited to violence, Islamic fundamentalist are the people of the world that will decide what is prohibited under Free Speech.
What this professor is therefore proposing is instituting Muslim heresy law as the standard for prohibited speech.
To draw an analogy; the line of thought the professor puts forth is to take the free world back to the equivalent of Middle Ages Europe when it was under the Holy Roman Empire. A time when we lived under two different jurisprudence systems. That of the King and that of the Church. And you faced death under both systems. And heresy could be punished by flogging, having your tongue cut out or death (usually burning at the stake).
I prefer to remain free. Restrict immigration from Muslim countries severely and deport any Muslim that expresses even the least tendency to fundamentalism.
Islam is incompatible with freedom. It is self-evident.
al-lah is satan and mohammed was his spawn
You forgot fat people and Southerners.
*censored frustrated grumbling that sounds like an ancient Sumerian summoning ritual*
I did, didn’t I?
I read Dewayne’s editorial in USA Today. I always knew he was nuts. All he talks about is race anyway.
The slippery slope here is that this kind of thinking legitimizes a violent reaction to anything and takes the onus of control from the slinger of rocks and places it squarely on the slinger of words. If you can raise enough people to violently react to anything someone might say ... such as “Obama sucks” then suddenly it is not the attacker who is at fault but instead the speaker who has caused the disturbance.
In my humble opinion, if your religious faith is so weak as to be shaken by a cartoon or caricature or even a soaking in urine . . . then how strong is your faith?
That is NOT to say that we can’t express our displeasure with such depictions ... just that we can’t do so violently!
Sadly our politically correct judicial and executive branches of government are leading the way in the destruction of the First Amendment and our Constitutional protections.
Then the USA is not where this clown needs to reside...he obviously does not comprehend what freedoms are.
Sounds like he’s a proponent for sharia and should go teach in a madrassa...
That's because Jesus is God. The creator of the universe can handle insults.
On the other hand, Satan, the being worshiped by mohammadans cannot stand being mocked.
So if you cannot persuade by logic or reason adopt a violent attitude to further your beliefs or stifle those who hold opposing views.
Does going to Journalism school have the same effect as habitually smoking pot, it dramatically lowers your IQ ?
Had ENOUGH Yet ?
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.