Free speech - for muslims only

[fossten]

BONFIRE OF THE INSANITIES
by Ann Coulter
September 8, 2010

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 :q:q:qs" 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.

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

 

[04SCTLS]

Christian worshippers attacked in Indonesia


Associated Press Writer
Associated Press September 12, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...ernational/i052448D63.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0zPfjjeEt

BEKASI, Indonesia (AP) --
Indonesia's president ordered police to hunt down and arrest assailants who stabbed a Christian worshipper in the stomach and beat a minister in the head with a wooden plank as they headed to prayers.
Neither of the injuries appeared to be life-threatening.
No one claimed responsibility for Sunday's attacks. But suspicion immediately fell on Islamic hard-liners who have repeatedly warned members of the Batak Christian Protestant Church against worshipping on a field housing their now-shuttered church.
In recent months, they have thrown shoes and water bottles at the church members, interrupted sermons with chants of "Infidels!" and "Leave Now!" and dumped piles of feces on the land.
Local police Chief Imam Sugianto said Asia Sihombing, a worshipper, was on his way to the field when assailants jumped off a motorcycle and stabbed him in the stomach.
The Rev. Luspida Simanjuntak was smashed in the head as she tried to come to his aid.
"I was trying to help get him onto a motorcycle so we could get him to a hospital," she told reporters in the industrial city of Bekasi, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Jakarta.
She said the face of one of the assailants looked familiar.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who relies heavily on Islamic parties in parliament, has been widely criticized in the media for failing to crack down on hard-liners.
But he immediately called on authorities to investigate and to hold accountable those responsible.
"We've questioned nine witnesses and have already identified the perpetrators," said local detective, Capt. Ade Arie. "But it's too early to comment or speculate on a motive."
Indonesia, a secular country of 237 million people, has more Muslims than any other in the world. Though it has a long history of religious tolerance, a small extremist fringe has become more vocal in recent years.
Leading the charge against the Batak Christians has been the Islamic Defenders Front, which is pushing for the implementation of Islamic-based laws in Bekasi and other parts of the nation.
They are known for smashing bars, attacking transvestites and going after those considered blasphemous with bamboo clubs and stones. Perpetrators are rarely punished or even questioned by police.
The front also pressured local authorities early this year to shutter the Batak church, located in a densley populated Mulsim area, saying the permit was granted without the required approval of residents.
The Christian worshippers have refused to back down. Every week, about 20 or so return to the field to pray, defying threats and intimidation.




_______________________________________________________________

Islam is incompatible with the seperation of church and state and our way of life.
Freedom of religion does not include a religion that will not agree and defer to this seperation and has as it's goal the destruction of other religions and people's.

This is a clash of civilizations that must be won at any price even if it means modifying and/or upending the freedom of religion that some of us purport to cherish.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't take issue with Peterus' sentiment because he' involved in a nightmarish situation in Afghanistan, attempting to both national build (not rebuild) while engage in a counter insurgency that relies upon the cooperation of locals. The way the Islamic media exaggerated this story truly does make his life more difficult while increasing the risk to service members over seas.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the duplicity of the American media and political left on this issue. It's precisely a "free to do it, should be responsible to avoid it" issue. There are unintended consequences and the act would have been ineffective at accomplishing anything positive.

And he didn't.
Let's not forget that part of the story too.
He didn't burn or desecrate anything.

Maybe it further exposed hypocrisy. But did it really? This is the same media and culture that won't even let South Park depict Mohamed.

 

[lincolnx2]

When Gen. Petreaus asked for americans not to burn the kuran, ,he wasn't telling you not to, he was just saying think about the people who are over there fighting for your freedoms, people seem to forget that we are at war.

 

[04SCTLS]

The fear is that there will be extra attacks on top of the usual attacks that would have happened anyways.

The american public is not buying the media whitewash of Islam though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39081887/ns/business-careers/

exerpted paragraph

“I think the mosque in Manhattan seems to be a flashpoint, but it taps into feelings that preceded it,” she said. “The feeling among people in the workplace,” she added, is “not only are we not going to accommodate your practices and beliefs, we’re also going to ridicule you and call you names.”

Before 9/11 Muslims costumes and practices were viewed as quiant and harmless along the lines of the Amish and Hassidics.

Now that we know more about Islam as practiced by extremists we find it to be barbaric threatening and repugnant to our values.

The not unreasonable fear is that it only takes one or a few bad apples to spoil the bunch so why take the uneeded risk of opening our country to these people and risking the bad apples that come with the bunch.

Basically the general sentiment of the public is we'll put up with your funny costumes and repugnant practices if you keep that to yourselves and don't make trouble but we don't really like you and don't want you here.

 

[Calabrio]

I've been very outspoken about how I feel about the philosophical and historical foundation of Islam.

I'm also critical of the continued, escalating investments in Afghanistan.

But Petreus is involved in a counter-insurgency action over there, with huge odds against him, and stupid,flash issues like this one, easily ramped up by the media and politicians/imams (same thing) over there, along with a population that neither understands liberty and come from a massively insecure culture, can only lead to additional complications and loss of life. You can't build the "trust" of the community, informants, and all of the other necessary social components when they are busy rioting in the street because of this story...

The public burning of the koran would have been a bad idea. All negative, no positive.
And it was a bad idea for the media to focus on some goofy guy in the middle of Florida with a sign on his truck.

He didn't do it though. That point seems to be lost on the Muslims.
Though those 7th century morons had no reservations about burning the bible, our flag, or beating on Christians.

The odds are certainly high that we're going to deal with a Clash of Civilizations within our lifetimes. It's a horrible reality, but that culture is not compatible with the civilized world. But it be better if we controlled the terms of the fight and not let guys in rural Florida with handlebar mustaches push the issue.

 

[fossten]

The fear is that there will be extra attacks on top of the usual attacks that would have happened anyways.

The american public is not buying the media whitewash of Islam though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39081887/ns/business-careers/

exerpted paragraph



Before 9/11 Muslims costumes and practices were viewed as quiant and harmless along the lines of the Amish and Hassidics.

Now that we know more about Islam as practiced by extremists we find it to be barbaric threatening and repugnant to our values.

The not unreasonable fear is that it only takes one or a few bad apples to spoil the bunch so why take the uneeded risk of opening our country to these people and risking the bad apples that come with the bunch.

Basically the general sentiment of the public is we'll put up with your funny costumes and repugnant practices if you keep that to yourselves and don't make trouble but we don't really like you and don't want you here.

You and I disagree frequently but I have to say that your posts on Islam are right on the money.

 

[04SCTLS]

You and I disagree frequently but I have to say that your posts on Islam are right on the money.

:Beer :drunk:

You and I are more alike than you may think.

Sometimes I just like arguing with you for sport.

 

[04SCTLS]

What's really telling is the comments on the bottom of pro Islam articles where the media gives it their spin and the public says
"Ya Right"

The comments are like 90 to 10 against.

 

[TheDude]

I'll be the first to admit I don't follow the news much these days, as it's mostly just more biased crap.

But concerning Coulter's piece, where are all these liberals being against the Pastor's Qur'an burning?

Love him or hate him, Petraeus' has a valid opinion, at least from his side of the table concerning the issue.

 

[fossten]

I'll be the first to admit I don't follow the news much these days, as it's mostly just more biased crap.

But concerning Coulter's piece, where are all these liberals being against the Pastor's Qur'an burning?

Love him or hate him, Petraeus' has a valid opinion, at least from his side of the table concerning the issue.

Well, the President called him and urged him not to do it. The media has been decidedly negative in its coverage.

 

[lincolnx2]

Well, the President called him and urged him not to do it. The media has been decidedly negative in its coverage.

I dont think Gen Petraeus went against the presidents reccomendations, that not in his character.

 

[fossten]

I dont think Gen Petraeus went against the presidents reccomendations, that not in his character.

I'm talking about the preacher, not Petraeus.

 

[cammerfe]

+++

You and I disagree frequently but I have to say that your posts on Islam are right on the money.

Take this as coming from me, too! I appreciate what you have to say---even on the occasions when we may not be in agreement.
KS

 

[04SCTLS]

Take this as coming from me, too! I appreciate what you have to say---even on the occasions when we may not be in agreement.
KS

Well it certainly feels good to have one's opinion valued in the company of clever men.

I'm calling it the way I see it in the way my avatar Dr Strangelove would

Islam is the best possible argument for the seperation of church and state and keeping religion out of politics.
Islam is not content to merely deny everlasting life to non believers like all the other religions.
It wants to kill you here on earth.
It is insecure and hostile, making a big show of itself,(hey look at me I'm praying 5 times a day) and harboring ill will to non believers, infidels and heretics.

This is what happens when you let religious extremists run wild.
Religion always wants to restrict personal behavior.

Christianity had it's periods of nastiness but they are currently in the past.

The US is a country founded by english and european Christians but not as an official Christian country.
This is where I disagree with Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee wanting the US being based on the Bible.
The founders saw the troubles with different Christian Catholic Protestant religions.
God is purposely not mentioned in the constitution except only in the vaguest terms like window dressing. Under God was not added to the pledge until Eisenhour was persuaded to do so because of the communists.

However we are primarily a Christian Catholic Protestant country of people not forced to practice it.
This is the chess check move conundrum we find ourselves in right now.

I'm sure the founders had no or negledgeable experience of Islam and were not considering including a heavyhanded religion that is easily interpreted to destroy other religions and people's as it's core belief as that would be incompatible with the purpose of freedom of religion(duh!)

They were of the whole Henry the 8th experience and there weren't any Muslims here to know then.

So how do we deal with this unexpected challenge to our freedom of religion principles.

How do we say "But we weren't thinking of religion as practiced by some Muslims when we framed this freedom of religion thing"

We are lucky that we only have a peaceful 1% Muslim population to contend with that's not growing quickly.

The troublemakers and provocateurs come from foreign countries though.

We need to protect our field from this enemy, keep up our guard and move slowly to protect our King(the seperation of church and state and the triumph of reason)

If we keep to the strategy of limiting immigration from troublemaking Muslim countries now we won't have (as big) a problem here in the US in the future.

It's not personal to Muslims we may know individually, only prudent until more time has passed for us to assess the winds.

We have to protect our homeland regardless of what's happenning abroad.

 

[cammerfe]

You really do need to check into the situation that obtains in Dearborn MI in regard to hostile and violent activity by 'peaceful' Muslims.

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

You really do need to check into the situation that obtains in Dearborn MI in regard to hostile and violent activity by 'peaceful' Muslims.

KS

If I was confronted by activists from another religion while I was partying with mine I'd be p*ssed too.
Those Christian guys went looking for trouble and excitement and got it.
This is hardly Muslims causing real trouble.

 

[Calabrio]

Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?'

September 14, 2010 6:52 AM

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Breyer, the author of “Making Our Democracy Work,” told me it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/201...koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

 

[04SCTLS]

Justice Stephen Breyer: Is Burning Koran 'Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater?'

September 14, 2010 6:52 AM

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.” Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Breyer, the author of “Making Our Democracy Work,” told me it’s a “rickety system” -- but it’s worked “fairly well” for a long time.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/201...koran-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater.html

It's the sin of pride and a stupid assed thing to do to provide the enemy with useful propaganda.

 

[04SCTLS]

Portland Newspaper Apologizes for Peaceful Portrayal of Islam

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2267582/entry/2/#add-comment

Editors at the Portland Press Herald spent Saturday apologizing to their readers, not for a factual inaccuracy or other error but for running a prominently placed photograph of Portland-area Muslims celebrating the end of Ramadan on Sept. 11. "We sincerely apologize," editor and publisher Richard Connor wrote in a 700-word mea culpa. Connor described calling in extra staff on Saturday to cope with phone calls, Facebook, and Twitter, rushing apologies to Oregonians offended by the peaceful depiction of Islam and lack of "balance" in regard to Sept. 11. Time's James Poniewozik is horrified. "Here's where we are in America, 2010," he writes. "There is now one group of Americans whose peaceful religious observance cannot be noted by decent people, unless it is 'balanced' by the mention of a vile crime committed in 2001." Meanwhile, the Texas Board of Education is considering regulating how Texas textbooks can describe Islam. One board member has complained that textbooks have been "tainted" with "gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions." According to the Dallas Morning News, supporters of the resolution claim that "more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are doing now," but "offered no specific evidence of such investments."

 

[fossten]

If you are a citizen and want to worship Allah in America, go ahead. But you live by our laws, and you support America when she goes to war, even if it's with Mecca. That's the way we roll.