It’s been a crazy couple of weeks here at Fuzzy Central; lots going on that isn’t related to politics, so I’ve been all distracted and otherwise (quite happily) busy. That’s not to say that I haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in the world. Oh I have, but what’s been happening has left me enraged, so much so that I simply wasn’t able to formulate even a rant. Imagine! I’m calm now, and ready to write, but it turns out that I’m too late (day late, dollar short. Yet again. Heh.). There are loads of far better writers and thinkers out there who’ve said what I would have liked to have said or what I meant to say or what I would have said if I’d blogged sooner, so here goes (do read the quoted/linked posts in their entirety; they’re that good):
First up, Conservatives on Fire, who was also enraged by the events of the past week and by their cause:
[N]o one should doubt that the attacks on our embassies and the deaths of four Americans are the direct result of the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama started his presidency with an apology tour to Cairo where he apologized for America’s past arrogance in playing its role as the world’s only super power. Obama urinated all oner Israel and Netanyahu with demand that negotiations for regional peace with the Palestinians must start by Israel agreeing to return to their 1967 borders. An asinine position! Meanwhile, Hillary and her State Department were busy with their world youth movement and training young people from Tunisia and other north African countries how to use social media like Facebook and Twitter to organize protests against their dictatorial governments. And, when the fruits of her labor ignited in flames, she and the President were there to fan those flames. As an aside,how many times did we hear Hillary tell us that Assad was someone we could work with that he was different from his father; that Assad was a reformer? How has that worked out for you, Hillary? And, our know-it-all President demanded that Mubarak step down in Egypt and that the mad man Gaddafi had to go. Then, leading from behind (translation: following the dictates of the UN) we lend our military might to helping the Libyan rebels. Many of us on the Right, including yours truly, predicted that these destabilizing policies could only lead to the radical islamic chaos we are seeing today. So, I repeat the title of today’s post, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton own this so-called Arab Spring. They and they alone are responsible for everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in that region of the world.
Now, for those dear readers that decided to share in my rage today, I implore you to understand this. The events of recent days in Egypt and Libya were NOT spontaneous. And, please do not buy the horse droppings the Muslim leaders and our LSM are selling. These anti-American protests, the attacks on our embassies and the deaths of four Americans have absolutely nothing to do with some You Tube video denigrating the profit Mohammad. NOTHING! These attacks and protest were well planned and orchestrated. That they started on the anniversary to the 9/11 attacks is not a coincidence! Yes, those that planned these events needed a public excuse that they could use. They scoured the news media and the social media and You Tube looking for anything they could use as their triggering excuse and they latched on to some stupid You Tube video. I will bet my next Social Security check that the number of protesters you are seeing on television that actually saw said video could be counted on the fingers of one hand you would have fingers left over!
Oh yes, that anger is real and righteous. Thank goodness we are Americans who value free speech and express our rage in words and not through violence, rape, murder, and terror.
Next up is Kirsten Powers (yes, really). Although a Democrat mouthpiece much of the time, Powers has, on more than one occasion, shown that she not only can but does think for herself. She also is unafraid to say what she thinks when it goes against the grain of the rabid leftist lunacy. I like that. I respect it. Yes, even when she’s clearly OD’d on her morning koolaid; her sometimes-sanity makes me listen to her more carefully, even when she’s wrong. She’s not wrong here, though:
Worse, our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American. We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.
Egypt’s President Morsi reportedly asked Obama “to put an end to such behavior”—presumably freedom, constitutional rights and the like — as it led to the making of, in his eyes, the offensive movie.
Team Obama’s unseemly groveling to violent extremists has been cloaked in a newfound concern on the left for respecting religious sensibilities. Tuesday, a liberal professor argued in USA Today that the maker of the Mohammed film should be arrested.
President Obama said in the Rose Garden: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” and Clinton asserted that, “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough endorsed efforts to create “a world where the dignity of all people—and all faiths—is respected.”
Apparently our foreign policy is now being run by Dr. Phil. Someone needs to explain to the White House that our Constitution protects freedom of religion from government interference, not the protection from people who say mean, critical or offensive things about one’s religion.
If Christians had burned down Maher’s house in response [to one of his usual offensive comments about Christianity], would the administration put out a statement condemning the violence but pointing out that he should have respected the religious beliefs of others?
Of course not. Nor would anyone want that.
But that is what the administration keeps doing with their responses to the attacks in the Middle East. The condemnations are paired in with claims about respecting religious beliefs, which is implicit sympathy for the claims of some of the attackers and rioters.
She’s right. This isn’t about a movie, but you can bet that the 0 administration will try to use it to curb our First Amendment rights. As usual, the dinosaur media is compliant in this dismantling of our Constitution and of our God-given rights. Leftists, you see, really do believe that Islamists are little more than wild animals, that putting up “Don’t Feed the Bears” signs will ensure that we–the more sophisticated, clearly superior people of the western free world–don’t provoke the wild beasts into some sort of barbarous rampage. According to leftist “thought,” Muslims have no human ability, you see, to reason, no free will, no intellect, no nothing resembling humanity to stop them from fomenting violence, murder, and mayhem.
You wouldn’t wave a red flag at a bull, goes their thinking, so don’t upset the subhuman Islamists. This viewpoint is insulting. It’s wrong. It underscores so very much that is wrong with leftist “thought.” But it’s what they think, and of course, they see a great opening for killing free (i.e. conservative) speech . . . a long-held goal of the regressives, who cannot abide either dissent or facts that disprove their nuttery. And you can bet they certainly won’t let this crisis go to waste in furthering that particular goal. So they’ll start with Sharia-compliant “don’t feed the CAIR bears” restrictions on “hurting Muslims’ religious feelings,” and then, in true regressive style, branch that out until we have no free speech at all.
Along these lines, Hans Bader of College Insurrection writes about “Liberal Professors, Egyptian Leaders, and U. S. Diplomats [who] Back Censorship of Anti-Islam Speech“:
The Obama administration was earlier criticized by law professors and legal scholars for effectively endorsing anti-blasphemy legislation at the United Nations. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin lamented the Administration’s support for proposals at the UN to restrict “hate speech” against Islam and other religions. In USA Today, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley criticized the Obama administration for endorsing a “blasphemy” exception to free speech: “Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.”
You might ask, why should we care what the Obama administration says to curry favor at the UN? After all, the First Amendment trumps customary international law, right? Well, not according to some prominent left-leaning legal scholars, such as Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. International law can undermine civil liberties either directly, by expanding the government’s enumerated powers, or indirectly, by supposedly giving the federal government a “compelling interest” for imposing an otherwise forbidden regulation.
Treaties can give the federal government the ability to impose legislation that would otherwise be beyond its enumerated powers. Congress can rely on its treaty powers to pass legislation regulating private conduct that would be beyond its power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. For example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently so ruled in United States v. Bond (2012), where it upheld a woman’s conviction for an intrastate, non-commercial crime — attempting to sicken her husband’s paramour by putting chemicals on a doorknob and car door handles — because the broad federal law under which she was prosecuted was passed to implement a chemical-weapons treaty.
Worrying. Very much so. So, we may well wonder, what all this means, where it comes from, and where it’s going. Daniel Greenfield has an excellent study of “Anti-American Savages of the Post-America World“:
Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.
And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece. When our enlightened leaders lecture us on offending Muslims, they are acting as the interpreters for bearded thugs who believe that Jinns are around every corner, that angels are afraid of cats and that women are inferior creatures because Mohammed went down to hell and found it full of women.
Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours, are. The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons. Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.
Leftist Anti-Americanism has revealed itself to be Post-Americanism and Post-Americanism is nothing more than savages making laws by burning and killing things. And our Anti-American and Post-American elites had better start explaining to us why being governed by Salafi savages is a moral improvement over Americanism and they had better do a good job with that explanation because the American people are watching.
Also read his “The Price of a Koran“; it’s equally good. So what do we do in the face of all of this? What do we do with a president who has actively supported the Islamofascists who are raping and slaughtering our citizens, raising the black flag of Islam over sovereign American territory, screaming for our heads and our souls? We ask him, simply and clearly, as Glenn Reynolds has, to resign.
When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.
He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.
But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office.