I'm just playing devils advocate.... Trust me, I think you should be able to say what you wanna say... and I wish the rest of the world played the game by our rules.
I just look forward to hearing "The rest of the story" once the dust settles.
I just look forward to hearing "The rest of the story" once the dust settles.
Wolfie, thanks for the reply. I'm curious, if you don't mind me asking, what is your news source? Tell me to eff off if ya want (I can take it ), but I'm curious.
Here's partly why I'm asking (and anyone else is certainly free to chime in): I was at my local range on Saturday getting the lead out, and afterwards visited with two of the fellas running the counter.
This range is owned and operated by VERY patriotic Americans, retired PD and SWAT types, so, obviously very pro-2nd amendment, pro-America, in tuned to what's going on types.
So I'm yakkin' with the boyz, two savvy fellas packin' heat on their hips and as American as apple pie and baseball, about all the crap going on in the Middle East right now, and asked them if they knew that the Marines in Cairo weren't allowed to have live ammo in their weapons.
They looked at me like I just landed in a spaceship.
Seriously.
So I followed up with, "Didya know that Amb. Stevens had NO Marine protection at all, that he was 'protected' by Libyan security forces, who apparently gave him up to the bad guys when they breached the consulate?"
More spaceship looks.
Seriously.
I then hit 'em right 'twixt the eyes and asked them if they knew that SoS H.C. signed off on all of this.
Blank, incredulous stares.
At this point I wanted to ask them what their news source is, but the counter got busy and I didn't want to get in the way.
These guys are great; I'm not picking on them.
I've taken the time to type this out to illustrate, yet again, how much the media in this country shapes public opinion.
These guys are very likely getting their "news" from a nightly mainstream source on TV.
They're obviously not getting very much news, and they're not getting the truth. Or not all of it, anyway.
Someone with an agenda is telling these guys what the truth is, even if that truth isn't REALLY the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Pay attention, America; we're backed up against our own goal line and quickly coming up on the two-minute warning...
In fact, I bet them and I bet you 5 dollars that the first establishment of sharia law will be to follow Canada and Holland, and make it a Hate crime to tell the truth about Islamists. ( see Mark Steyn http://www.steynonline.com/4409/gagging-us-softly ...
Mark Steyn, you say?
quote:
Mark Steyn: If Our Ambassador Had A Security Detail Like Those Escorting The Muhammad Filmmaker, He’d Be Alive Today RightScoop.com, Sep 17, 2012
Mark Steyn is livid over how the administration is claiming this video is the reason for the violent protests and said that if our ambassador had the same level of security as the filmmaker did in the photo being taken for questioning, our ambassador would be alive today.
Freedom of Speech - just um, you know, don't like be offensive or anything.... to shall we say a PARTICULAR segment of parced and carved liberal bit of 'society'
News source for me would be Morning Joe for a few every day sprinkled with a little Fox news and MSNBC in the evening... with a dash of the web.
MSNBC? Overall, as deliberately, maliciously left as they come. Just sayin.'
Fox? From the right, to be sure. At least they don't try to hide their bias and pretend their portrayal of the news is right down the middle.
A dash of the web? Care to be more specific?
I've heard of Morning Joe, but didn't know what it is or which direction they spin their "news." What I've discovered isn't particularly pretty, amigo. I'll toss this out for your review:
quote:
Daily Caller's Matt Lewis Has Some Advice for 'Morning Joe'
Leftward tilt: [See linked article below - FB]
To call the selection bias associated with “Morning Joe’s” recent guest booking evidence of overt liberal political bias would be simplistic. “Morning Joe,” it seems to me, is most interested in booking establishment elites or insiders. These elites, of course, just happen to be liberals. Cultural bias is more insidious than overt political bias. For casual viewers, this is a distinction without a difference.
It would be a mistake for the show to attempt to overcorrect by bringing in conservatives who don’t fit the show’s culture (most of these people already have Fox News contracts, anyway.) There are certainly many things about the show that works terrifically.
Sound advice to be sure, but NBC isn't about to offer more airtime to conservatives and their ideas until after the election, especially when it comes to a show like "Morning Joe" that tells our media elites how they're supposed to think.
Lewis points out that there are at least twenty conservative names that could fill Buchanan's slot today. This is true. It's also true that there were 20 conservative names that could've filled Buchanan's slot the day after he was let go.
But NBC News CHOSE to go with Joe Scarborough II -- Steve Schmidt -- someone who NBC knows does more damage to the Republican Party than any liberal ever could, because Schmidt's a Republican who reaffirms the media's anti-GOP talking points.
Trust me, this is all part of the plan. These people are evil, not stupid.
In general, much of the media will attempt to rehabilitate its tattered image .... but only after they have given every ounce of body and soul to reelect Obama. And New Media's job after the election (besides holding President Romney's feet to the fire) will be to ensure the media is not allowed to rehabilitate itself.
Happy 5th anniversary ‘Morning Joe’ (and now, some unsolicited advice) By Matt K. Lewis, Sep 17, 2012
As anyone who follows my tweets and blog posts knows, I’m a fan of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” But as they kick off their 5-year-anniversary week, it’s perhaps appropriate for some unsolicited advice. (Just as Joe Scarborough offers Mitt Romney intellectually honest analysis regarding problems in his campaign, I will attempt to do the same.)
In the past year, the show has drifted leftward. This is unfortunate — and potentially costly. Many center-right viewers find “Fox & Friends” vapid, so they flip over to MSNBC (until things get out of hand around mid-morning). But there may come a tipping point where they are associated with the rest of MSNBC’s liberal brand. Their enviable role as an opinion leader both sides have to pay attention to feels tenuous — but I’m not sure they realize it.
Ugh, Morning Joe is presented by MSNBC? Warning! Warning! Warning!
Wolfie, I'll let you read the rest of Mr. Lewis' criticism of the Morning Joe if you'd like. He says he's a long-time fan of the show, but my take is that he's seeing a definite left shift in their guest lineup, which, of course, will give their "news" a definite left shift.
MSNBC, in total, is nothing but a rag, in my opinion.
Muslim Rage & The Last Gasp of Islamic Hate By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sep 17, 2012
Islam’s rage reared its ugly head again last week. The American ambassador to Libya and three of his staff members were murdered by a raging mob in Benghazi, Libya, possibly under the cover of protests against a film mocking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
They were killed on the watch of the democratic government they helped to install. This government was either negligent or complicit in their murders. And that forces the U.S. to confront a stark, unwelcome reality.
Until recently, it was completely justifiable to feel sorry for the masses in Libya because they suffered under the thumb of a cruel dictator. But now they are no longer subjects; they are citizens. They have the opportunity to elect a government and build a society of their choice. Will they follow the lead of the Egyptian people and elect a government that stands for ideals diametrically opposed to those upheld by the United States? They might. But if they do, we should not consider them stupid or infantile. We should recognize that they have made a free choice—a choice to reject freedom as the West understands it.
How should American leaders respond? What should they say and do, for example, when a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s newly elected ruling party, demands a formal apology from the United States government and urges that the “madmen” behind the Muhammad video be prosecuted, in violation of the First Amendment? If the U.S. follows the example of Europe over the last two decades, it will bend over backward to avoid further offense. And that would be a grave mistake—for the West no less than for those Muslims struggling to build a brighter future.
Anybody know who Robert Davi is? I barely do. He's apparently a Hollywood type of some sort, but has a refreshingly conservative (i.e. "normal," in my opinion) way of looking at things.
Here are brief excerpts from two essays on free speech from Mr. Davi, the first written in 2009, the other written yesterday. He speaks the truth, no?
quote:
...last week the White House -- our White House – attempted to block Fox News from a pool report interview.
Thankfully, the other news outlets refused to allow this to happen, but that doesn’t change what our White House attempted to do. It also doesn’t change the fact that two of President Obama’s top guys – Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod – were sent out to the Sunday shows last week to tell other networks that Fox News wasn’t legitimate – to tell other networks what is and is not legitimate news.
We need differing points of view. If Fox News is silenced who will MSNBC hosts argue with night after night? Some respected pundits write this off as a minor issue saying the President should not tangle with Fox and keep his eye on pushing health care. But, my dear fellow Americans, we need to keep our eye on THIS. Because if we do not the Obama Administration has made clear their goals -– if we do not, the administration has every intention of seeing to it we are spoon fed what to think, say and feel. And regardless of politics, that is an insidious and frightening thing.
...In light of, once again, the current crisis in regards to selective Free Speech - I wish to bring your attention to an article I wrote back in 2009 [see above - FB].
I do not care what your politics are, but the issue of Free Speech is as important as Women, Gay or Civil Rights, and yet some of the same folk who may wear the banner of any of these issues cower and balk at the most fundamental right any of us have - TO SPEAK OUT or EXPRESS any point of view without fear of retaliation.
To blame the current riots and murders solely on a film that may offend, whether the film be accurate or not, is absurd. I have not seen the film nor do I care to. I also do not like attacks on any religion and think it in bad taste and shows a lack of respect for others and their beliefs.
...Look, we do not have to condone denigrating a historical figure, but we must have the freedom to do so - without peril to the first and most fundamental amendment. And our lives!
My friends HEED this warning! I do not believe, personally, in offending anyone or any religion. I feel we must RESPECT all and live as brothers and sisters - Arab, Jew, Gentile, Buddhist, Scientologist, Mormon, Vegetarian, Smoker, Straight, Gay or Lesbian - whatever the race, color, creed or orientation. Imagine "Harry Potter" or "The Last Tempation of Christ" or "The Da Vinci Code " and a ton of other films that happen to offend people of Faith, and instead of perhaps not going to see the films, people went and then started killing and rioting.
Wake up! We are in perilous times. Now, please read my previous article on the First Amendment.
Absolutely. Check IMDB, he's been in quite a few movies, and was a personal friend of Sinatra. You'll know who he is as soon as you see him. He's got quite the voice too (he was originally trained as a singer before Sinatra put him in one of his films). He's got a Sinatra tribute album out, 'on the road to romance'. It's very good.
Not sure if you are aiming at humor or not playing devils advocate. Nevertheless, the comparison to yelling fire in a theater has been made, and I'll explain why this is a very poor comparison.
When you yell fire in a theater, you expect to cause a dangerous panic that is likely to injure or kill people. The thing is, "fire" is neither a religious belief or political idea. In contrast, this movie clip is all about religious/political ideas. It is part of a discussion of those ideas. The fact that some will threaten violence, or even act in violence as a response to these ideas should never be an excuse to squelch free discussion of those ideas. This is the very essence of the first amendment.
The government launching into an investigation of this guy because of the response to his movie is an egregious violation of his first amendment rights. It is very chilling to see this happen. I hate to think where this may lead when this administration has "more flexibility" to do as it wishes after a reelection. I see BO's actions far more dangerous to our country than that attacks from the Muslims on our embassies. We can easily defend an embassy if we wish to. Defending our country from a despotic leader can be far more difficult.
The U.S. must make a law against blasphemy – or we will not let the US consulates in Pakistan function,” a rally organizer told the paper.
From Hootowl's link above.
Uh, No. In fact, we may have a revolution here if we all them to destroy the First Amendment any more than Obama already has.
I find your actions offensive to my faith, mr. rally organizer. Is it ok if I slaughter a bunch of people in Belgium because of it? How about Islamabad?
Wolfridgerider, Columbia? Time to play "Roland The Headless Thompson Gunner" by Warren Zevon. ( don't play "Excitable Boy" anywhere near "sensitive people" )
"The government launching into an investigation of this guy because of the response to his movie is an egregious violation of his first amendment rights."
This is EXACTLY what the first amendment is for. The protection of the individual from the government for speech the government does not like. It has been warped to protect other things. Lets hope the original meaning is not lost on the courts.
Sadly, 0bama has proven that the courts don't count anymore.
(On a related note, why was Justice Roberts so, so nervous when he swore-in 0bama back in January 2009?)
Back to topic:
quote:
REPORT: Obama admin considering release of Blind Sheikh to quell Middle East riots
This does sound like something our Apologist-in-Chief would do and you better believe the Obama administration will deny this one until the cows come home – until after the election:
THE BLAZE: The U.S. State Department is actively considering negotiations with the Egyptian government for the transfer of custody of Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as “the Blind Sheikh,” for humanitarian and health reasons, a source close to the the Obama administration told TheBlaze.
The Department of Justice, however, told TheBlaze that Rahman is serving a life sentence and is not considered for possible “release.” Previous calls to the State Department were referred to the Department of Justice and so far, the State Department has neither confirmed nor denied the report.
A veteran intelligence analyst and researcher for TheBlaze said he met with an official within the Obama administration who told him the transfer of the Blind Sheikh to Egypt is something that is being “actively considered” by the administration as a solution to the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. His source asked not to be identified.
When asked if the transfer of the convicted terrorist was being seriously considered, the intelligence analyst said yes, according to his source, who stressed that the move, if executed, was not intended to take place or be announced until after the presidential election.
He also said it is likely that the riots and unrest in the Middle East are related to efforts pressing for the release of Rahman, not the anti-Muslim YouTube clip that the Obama administration is adamant sparked the chaos.
“When radical Islamists in Egypt were calling for the burning down of the U.S. embassy this past weekend, before the riots took place this week, they said they were going to do this to push for the release of the Blind Sheikh,” he added.
What a stupid strategy that even defies common sense. Giving the Islamists what they want will just make us weaker in their eyes and won’t quell anything. It will only embolden them to do the same thing for the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and how many American lives would that cost us?
Americans are being led to believe that radical religious groups get what they want through violence. That seems to be what our admin/media/political leaders are showing us. Very scary stuff.
These are the tactics that BO understands. These are the tactics used by a community organizer. Threaten and demonize your target until they give in to your demands. We really shouldn't be surprised that BO fails to stand up to these tactics.
Egypt to seek death penalty for 7 Coptic Christians and Florida Pastor Terry Jones over anti-Islam film
None of the accused are even in Egypt, but let’s not let that stop them from their kabuki-sharia trial to gin up more anger and hatred:
TIMES OF ISRAEL — Egypt’s general prosecutor has issued arrest warrants for seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and referred them to trial on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that has sparked riots across the Muslim world.
The prosecutor’s office says the seven men and one woman, all of whom are believed to be outside of Egypt, are charged with harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information. The office says they could face the death penalty.
A statement from the prosecutor on Tuesday says Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian Copt living in southern California and believed to be behind the film, is among those charged. So is Florida-based Pastor Terry Jones, who has said he was contacted by the filmmaker to promote the video.
Didn’t Obama back this movement? Nevermind, nothing to see here.
Egypt to try 7 Copts, US pastor over anti-Islam film Suspects could face death penalty for harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam
September 18, 2012, 5:29 pm
CAIRO (AP) — Egypt’s general prosecutor issued arrest warrants Tuesday for seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and referred them to trial on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that has sparked riots across the Muslim world.
Will they also have a trial for Youtube, and Google, who refused to bow to pressure from the slime in this Admin. who wanted them to remove it?
When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it.
I'm pretty darn sure that If I declared a Fatwa on, say, Piggly Wiggly, and started shooting up people at grocery stores in the name of the Gods, I'd get vilified in the press, shot by the police and not get my demand for cream filled pastries met.
Perhaps If I slaughtered in the name of the Aztec Gods, and declared myself an undocumented worker? Then would I be protected from rational thought too?
It's weird. It reminds me of Stockholm Syndrome. You can tell these people in the press and the government fear Islam. They fear it so much they will strike back at anyone else who they fear might antagonize the ones that scare them. Perhaps battered wife syndrome is a better fit to this insanity.
It long predates Obama's coming to power.
They will happily protest people, like the Catholic Church, or the Tea Party, that they KNOW would never harm them, but you never, ever see them protest the Soviets, the Islamists, or any other actually evil group that would kill them like ants.
It's a cowardly, mentally ill thing. ( and, alas, it's the State Dept. in a nutshell )
Hootowl, that's awesome, thanks for posting. I respected the man's words already, but discovering who he is, hearing him actually speak, the conviction and love of country in his voice, and then re-reading his essays I posted above, it now completes the circle.
Excellent; thank you.
We need all the Patriots we can muster right now; our destiny lies before us.
Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack Kim Sengupta, Sep 18, 2012
American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.
Hillary Cheered Broadway's Book of Mormon, Condemns Innocence of Muslims By Jack Cashill, Sep 17, 2012
On Thursday of last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the video project Innocence of Muslims, the one that may or may not have provoked riots worldwide, "disgusting and reprehensible."
Although Clinton could have seen no more than a 13-minute trailer for the video,she condemned it in no uncertain terms: "Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."
One would think that Clinton might have had a similar reaction to a musical comedy by the name of The Book of Mormon, a satirical, scandalously potty-mouthed riff on the Mormon religion.
Apparently, Secretary Clinton has flexible standards. The Associated Press reported soon after The Book of Mormon's opening that "The show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim." Indeed, the show has been the biggest hit on Broadway these past two seasons, winning nine Tony Awards along the way.
), but I'm curious. 
