September 18, 2012

More On A Subject

That being the Mohammedan attacks on everything U.S. in various Mideast countries in response to a video that — surprise, surprise — offended Islam like so many things do. They are, after all, the “Religion of Peace”.

A novelist I read pointed out in one of his books that technically, peaceful, moderate Muslims are the ones who are not embracing Islam according to Mohammed’s directives (see the 9th Sura, or chapter, of the Unholy Koran, which orders all good Muslims to kill or subjugate all infidels), and that were Mo to return today, he’d be lopping off millions of heads, as a result, of “moderate” Muslims.

That said, what really takes a front row perspective is the response of the Obama Administration to the anti-American violence taking place the last few days as the result of a film made by a private citizen that, Allah forbid, has once again offended Islam.

From Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson, in an interview with Sun News.

Host: “Now this latest wave of violence in the Middle East has brought intense focus on American foreign policy. In fact that very topic seems to have supereceded the economy as the biggest issue in the presidential election, at least for now. Election issued aside, how the President handles this latest crisis is a topic for much debate. For more o0n this we’re joined via Skype by Steven Emerson. Steven is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Thanks for taking time to speak to us today Steven.”

Emerson: “Good morning or good afternoon, whatever time it is up there. ”

Host: “Well it’s both actually. It’s the middle of the day so we’ll call it both. First question I guess, what do you think of the Obama administration’s reaction to the attacks and the internet video?”

Emerson: “Well I’m going to be perfectly honest. I thought it was the lowest point in his career and I was embarrassed by what they said. First of all the initial response was they condemned outrageously this video and to apologize for it when it wasn’t the US government that produced it; it was a private US citizen. Number two the second statement that was made by Secretary Clinton was almost like a regret that we had the First Amendment. And third, the fact that the President actually contacted Google to take it down betrays the whole bedrock of Western civilization, free speech. So the problem here is that we acted as if we did something wrong, the US government, and two we reacted as if free speech was a curse that we should try to limit. That’s why I thought that the response was craven, we should have stood up for free speech, and I think it also reflects on the fact that the new Arab Spring was intended to basically show that democracy in the Muslim world would allow new movements to emerge and use politics as a way of expressing themselves democratically. What it turns out is that they’re using it to basically impose autocratic or totalitarian rules. That is, they insist that free speech should not be allowed in the US and that criticism of Islam should be actually criminalized.”

Read the rest.

Emerson’s response is spot-on.

The First Amendment endorsed right of a private citizen to express his or her opinion, whether anyone else finds it offensive or not, is nonetheless a right, and as the government belongs to the people rather than the other way around, an individual’s expressed opinion is not the intellectual property of the government or, for that matter, the rest of the country, it is just that: An individual’s opinion.

So where does the Obama Administration get off apologizing on behalf of our entire country for the film made by one private citizen?

Where do they get off using Federal Law Enforcement to run the film maker down and the justice system to pursue ways to “get him”, so to speak, on probation issues, in order to appease a whole bunch of violent animals who follow a satanic cult mistakenly referred to as a religion?

From Wes Pruden:

Free speech takes a licking

President Obama and his men (and particularly his women) are having a tough time standing upright in the fierce wind blowing from the east. The troops are leaderless and the leader is rudderless. Their strategy, unique in American history, is making a wish for the barbarians to be nice.

The news from Libya gets darker, and the worst of the bad news for the president is that if everybody at the White House is “on message” it’s because everyone gets to make up his (or her) own message for nobody to believe.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who obviously needs a good night’s sleep, got in a war of adjectives with some of the caliphs of the Arabian knights. She fired the first volley of adjectives at the infamous video about the Prophet Mohammed, which the White House, against all available evidence, insists is the sole cause of the deadly riots. The video is “disgusting and reprehensible,” she said, “and it appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and provoke rage.”


The White House keynote of distraction was sounded first by Jay Carney, the president’s press agent, when he insisted the riots were not aimed at his boss, the government, or even at “the American people,” but only at the video. Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., sounded even sillier when she insisted the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi was not planned and organized as a deliberate assault on America and its diplomats, but was a “spontaneous” happening against the movie. In her telling, it was probably a bunch of guys in Benghazi, loitering on the corner talking about the what was under the chadors the girls wore, and just happened upon a cache of automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, and when one of the good ol’ boys suggested they attack the American consulate from three directions, they thought, well, why not? Guys, you know, like, will be guys.

The Libyan government’s insistence that the riots were not spontaneous, but highly organized and led by outsiders from Yemen and Mali, sounds like special pleading – blaming outsiders is always tempting for governments under siege. But it comports with what everyone so far knows.

If the president wants to find someone to blame, he should look at the face in his mirror. He imagined that a few honeyed words would make the Islamic world love him (and maybe even tolerate the rest of us) merely by making goo-goo eyes at those who want to kill us. We’ve had three years of goo-goo and the Muslim red-hots are still killing American soldiers, occasional civilians and selected diplomats.

Now the government is playing movie critic. The video is not likely to win an Oscar this or any other year, but criticizing the religious faith of others, and not just the faith of Christians and Jews, is well within what Hillary Clinton calls “the outer limits of free speech.” Apologizing, whether by word or deed, for America is asking for trouble. Nobody does apology for America better than Barack Obama, but now we see what he gets for it, even if he doesn’t.

Well said.

As we observed in an earlier post here at Hard Astarboard and as others have said before, the problems posed by so-called “militant Islam” (which part, if the Koran is to be believed, is not militant?) aren’t new, are not even rooted in our lifetimes or even in recent centuries. The violence that began under Jimmy Carter, intensified under Clinton and now flourishes during the watch of Barack Hussein Obama, despite what liberals and other collaborationists would have us believe, is not in response to anything America or the west has done in recent years, that is all an excuse intended to force us, through political correctness, to cede ground, as it were, to the Islamofascists so they can press an attack, with more and more impunity, that has been incubating since The Great Pedophile

Was Mohammed a pedophile?

The literature “Sahih Al-Bukhari” comes in nine volumes and contains thousands of Hadiths describing Mohammed’s life. It talks about “Aisha” the girl in Volumes 5 and 7. Since taking a child bride was so unusual, it seems Mohammed claimed Allah had spoken to him in order to overcome the strong protests of the child’s father. Thus, the marriage ceremony occurred when the girl was 6 and finalized through intercourse when she was nine.

…walked the earth centuries ago, not since any American or European made any remark or performed any action “offensive to Islam” anytime in the last 1500 years.

Islamophobia, right.

It must be a nice surprise when, in the course of trying to subjugate a strong country, you find their leader to be sympathetic to your cause.

by @ 10:36 am. Filed under Applied Islam, Islam In Action, The First Amendment, The President
Trackback URL for this post:

Comments are closed.