September 13, 2012

"Why is she engaging in a disquisition on free speech with the mob?"

"The implication here that, perhaps the mob is right, that we ought to be suppressing anything that offends Islam...."

64 comments:

Pogo said...

Sharia, endorsed.

Scott said...

To Hillary's horror, progressivism collapses under the weight of reality.

David said...

It's not quite the seminars at Wellesley or Renaissance Weekend anymore for Hillary. She has taken that 3AM phone call and said "Huh?"

Better than her Boss Obama, who went to sleep. In the middle of the fucking crisis he went to sleep.

Lyle said...

This is what comes out when you believe all cultures are equal.

tiger said...

Well, the Administration really screwed the pooch on this one.e

Either they believe in the First Amendment or they don't.

And the initial reply from the Cairo embassy was appalling.

As for those illiterate fucks that let themselves be used:

When I see the reactions from these Muslim nutjobs it makes *me* want to piss/spit/burn a Koran just to say 'Fuck you and your barbaric, backward, perverted ideas of religion.'

Tim said...

One of these days - maybe now? - Americans will come to realize most join the Foreign Service not to represent America, her values and her interests, to the rest of the world, but rather to represent the rest of the world, their values and their interests, to America.

Once one understands that, State's statement makes sense.

Richard Dolan said...

Makes you miss Bush and Cheney and Condi, doesn't it?

Tim said...

Lyle said...

"This is what comes out when you believe all cultures are equal."

Barry Soetoro believes, within the context of American Exceptionalism, that the Egyptians and Libyans think they are exceptional too.

Tim said...

"Better than her Boss Obama, who went to sleep. In the middle of the fucking crisis he went to sleep."

The golf course must have been closed.

Lyle said...

Hillary's days are number for sure. Regardless of the election.

She's actually been a bright spot in the Obama administration for the most part. She has talked tough to our adversaries at times. She woman of her time though.

If the leftwing Independent story being reported is true... the Secretary of State is going to have to go, I think.

Dante said...

It's just a little bit of PCIsm. It's not trashing one of our most cherished rights, free speech.

It has to fall to fairness seeking multiculturalism, and its evil cousin PCIsm. The college students probably get it. They are used to it.

I heard someone in the Justice department outed the guy who did the original youtube video that purportedly started the havoc on 9/11. That's like calling to the savages and saying "Here's the guy, have fun."

Comanche Voter said...

Hillary Clinton is the "bright spot" in this administration. Maybe by comparison to the rest of the Obozo Team. They bear more resemblance to "wet spots" in a third rate Bangkok "riding academy".

Synova said...

Hillary's statement was actually pretty firm, all told, and emotional about *her* people who had died.

Yes, it included the wishy-washy bit, too. It did.

Did Krauthammer get this before Obama made his statement? Because compared to Obama's statement, Hillary sounded like the "blah blah offense" was a mere formality and the harsh words were the ones she really meant.

I still think that the qualifier shouldn't have been in there, and Krauthammer is probably right about her role not being to "disquisition" with the mob. But at least she sounded angry at the right people.

Lawyer Mom said...

Oh, Kraut, the Hill is right. When will we get it through the thick heads of Republicans that if we could just be nicer, so our mobbing enemies would be. Republicans must understand that we are all one with humanity, that our enemies are people, just like us. They are rational. They have feelings.

Thankfully our good government is getting the message out to younger hearts and minds, through anti-bullying campaigns in public schools across the country.

My daughter, for example, learned this week that if the other students had been kinder and more charming, the Columbine shooters might have disarmed. http://youtu.be/GWo21pPZfX0

Kindness starts a chain reaction!

Last year, a teacher explained to my daughter that the 911 terrorists couldn't help themselves; their religious beliefs dictated their actions. That we should feel sorry for the terrorists. How my heart swelled with gratitude for that teacher, and admiration for her intellect.

It's no different with radical Islamists. Kindness is the key. If your free speech offends them, cut off your tongue - even if they are pretending. And never forget that like us, they are all rational human beings. The only thing that separates our enemies from our friends is that one step of kindness we all need to take.

Of course, if our culturally deprived, impoverished friends start killing US citizens because our country is pro-gay or pro-choice or pro-woman, all bets are off. Because that would just be WRONG.

Skyler said...

The question is, are they in melt down, or is this an intentional result?

Lem said...

dis·qui·si·tion.. A long or elaborate essay or discussion on a particular subject.

I had to look that up.

The Hammer is right... People engaging in violence are not interested in the evolution of our constitution... As Obama would put it... its above their pay grade.

Gene said...

When push comes to shove most people don't believe in free speech anyway. For decades now the left has been pushing for, and often succeeding, in banning "hate speech." If the constitution protects political speech, all they do is call political speech hate speech and ban it anyway.

Alan said...

Hillary today: dissing religion is unpatriotic.

Hillary 2003: Dissing a presidential administration is not unpatriotic.

Pogo said...

Wonder no longer:
This is what would happen if the Berkeley High student council ran things.

Steel Turman said...

Cancer cells are living cells and thus should have rights to exist.

Right?

No.

Some things just need killing.

Otherwise everything else dies.

Islam is a cancer ...

... can't be said plainer than that.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Obama likes to whine that he inherited a big f'ing mess.

Funny thing is, if he wins a second term, he will be inheriting an even bigger one.

madAsHell said...

This is all the conflicts, and convictions coming together.

....and you're telling me it doesn't work??? Who'da'thunk??

Synova said...

I looked it up too, Lem.

I had guessed it meant more or less what it meant, but I wondered if it had some particular meaning beyond letting Krauthammer sound like a smarty-pants, that would justify using it instead of some other word such as... talk.

;)

Joe said...

For decades, the State Department and the CIA have run roughshod over American ideals.

PatCA said...

Why on earth were people saying she is such a good Sec State? When it hits the fan, she is completely shocked and unprepared.

I bet Bams is home furiously re-reading his Alinsky again to figure out where he went wrong on this competing interests and shared interests thingy.

creeley23 said...

At the Daily Beast, Richard Grenell asks, "Why is it okay for the secretary of state to reject the Cairo Embassy’s statement as weak and inappropriate but not okay for Mitt Romney to do the same?"

Furthermore, Grenell says:

A State Department official told me that Clinton rejected the Cairo statement because it was weak. "It started from an awful place," said the official. "The Secretary knew that Romney would use it against her and the president." Clinton feared that her department was going to hand a political issue to Romney at a decisive moment.

So Clinton's immediate response was damage control for the Obama campaign. Well, there were no dead bodies ... yet ... but it would have been nice to have seen some concern for freedom of speech.

The sequence of events is becoming clear: Embassy Cairo ignored the advice of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and issued the statement anyway.

I'm glad that the State Dept. didn't back it. However, where does the buck stop when Cairo Embassy rolls its own foreign policy in the middle of a crisis? I say the buck goes right to the top -- Hillary and Obama.

Seeing Red said...

We must not forget she of outstanding intellect - Ginsburg - told the Egyptians:

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt

hombre said...

The President of the United States to Morsi: "Tell your thugs to have their fun, but starting at noon tomorrow, the price to Egypt will be to forfeit US aid in the amount of $100 million a day for every day they are within a mile of our embassy or any other structure in which the US or her citizens have an interest. Details to follow."

Of course, this isn't McPresident Obama.

elkh1 said...

They blamed an underling going rogue apologizing. And Romney jumped the gun criticizing the administration for apologizing for our freedom of speech.

Fish rots from the head down. That's why the WH stinks so bad.

Dave said...

Enough already - it's not an apology... just because Romney called it an apology it doesn't make it one anymore than his assertion about Welfare changes made it so. He's a deal maker trying to close the deal and he'll say anything to win.

Just a reminder - these are the same people who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war.

Revenant said...

Enough already - it's not an apology...

It was an expression of sympathy for the motives of the rioting murderers. "Apology" works well as a euphemism for that.

Anyone who discusses this issue and actually devotes time to whining about "disrespect for religion" should be spat on -- because whether or not any religious people feel insulted is utterly irrelevant to this incident.

Dave said...

There's a rumor that a lawyer runs this blog and that this lawyer (a tenured professor chose to post Krauthamer's idiocy. With all the ill informed ranting here - one point that seems overlooked is that free speech is not now nor has it ever been absolute. There are limits to rights - a bright line - with speech the line is "falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater." And reasonable people disagree as to what constitutes crossing that line. And unreasonable people try to defend extreme positions - oppressing free expression on the one hand or denying responsibility for exercising the right of free expression on the other.

As I was writing this my eye fell on tiger's erudite expression of rage - "it make me want to piss/spit/burn a Koran just to say 'Fuck you and your barbaric, backward, perverted ideas of religion.' I'm guessing that tiger isn't a big fan of ecumenism ,probably doesn't have many Muslim friends or acquaintances and lacks a basic understanding of the faith. Certainly no understanding of the Christian faith. How pathetic...

Palladian said...

And reasonable people disagree as to what constitutes crossing that line.

No, they don't.

And unreasonable people try to defend extreme positions

Unreasonable people, like the ACLU?

Revenant said...

And reasonable people disagree as to what constitutes crossing that line.

Nice try at equivocation, kid. Trying to finesse "reasonable people can disagree" to "all disagreement is reasonable" is an oldie by a goody.

Anyway, back here in reality it is the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court -- and, of course, of all "reasonable people" -- that making offensive remarks about a religion is covered by the first amendment right to freedom of speech.

So run along, junior. The grown-ups need to finish this discussion. :)

edutcher said...

Of course, the Lefties hate free speech. Look how they try to suppress it every chance they get.

David said...

It's not quite the seminars at Wellesley or Renaissance Weekend anymore for Hillary. She has taken that 3AM phone call and said "Huh?"

That sound in the background is Willie sobbing, "Buh-bye, '16".

tiger said...

Well, the Administration really screwed the pooch on this one.

You don't say, "Well", you say, "Sweet Jesus", but I give you credit for brushing up on your "True Lies".

pm317 said...

Hillary will be thrown under the bus for this. Looks like the media and Obama WH want to make this a tragic event over an offensive video which absolves them of their own negligence. I was afraid it might come to this and it seems to have that Hillary made a mistake taking the SoS job in this nincompoop's administration.

edutcher said...

PS Our embassy in Yemen stormed.

I'm sure O and Hill are just waiting for the hostage-taking to begin.

PPS Good headline off AP:

October surprise comes early this campaign.

kentuckyliz said...

Islam means submission. The ambassador played right into the mob's hands. They were tweeting--and after the statement, the mob tweeted that he justified what they were about to do.

Instead of pissing on a Koran, read Alliance of the Traveller to learn what sharia is and educate/warn others.

I absolutely reject the exemption of Islam from freedom of speech. I am a picked-on Catholic. Any freedom loving Muslim is welcome in Murka who loves our freedom, including our freedom of speech.

Any Muslim leader who advocates the imposition of sharia law on all Americans including by abusing the notion of hate speech should be quietly, secretly assassinated. They are foreign enemies in our borders,

kentuckyliz said...

A free market in religion with freedom of religion, speech, and assembly is GOOD for religion. America has higher rates of belief and practice than Europe.

What are you afraid of, Muslims? Your religion might not survive scrutiny and critique?

I'm Catholic. It will survive. It might actually even get better and healed and strengthened.

They have such a master/slave concept of God. They are not culturally capable of our notion of freedom.

creeley23 said...

...Krauthamer's idiocy.

Dave: Perhaps you could explain exactly how the good Dr. K is an idiot, unless you mean idiot in the standard way of liberals, that is to say, "someone who disagrees with me."

Liberals have such a hard time understanding that someone who disagrees with them is not automatically stupid, evil or idiotic. You appear to be one of those liberals.

There are limits to rights - a bright line - with speech the line is "falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater." And reasonable people disagree as to what constitutes crossing that line. And unreasonable people try to defend extreme positions - oppressing free expression on the one hand or denying responsibility for exercising the right of free expression on the other.

And what is this "bright line" limiting freedom of speech when it comes to religion? You won't say. So tiger epxresses a desire to desecrate a Quran ... just as some leftists and Muslims actually burn American flags, what of it?

An artist named Serrano placed the most sacred symbol of Christianity, a crucifix, into a jar of his own urine, photographed it, titled it Piss Christ, entered it into an art competition and was paid $15,000 for it, in part from a NEA grant. This means some American Christian taxpayers helped pay for an artwork they consider blasphemous. Nonetheless no American Christians rioted or committed violence, though a few French Christians did damage one print of Piss Christ last year.

Tell me more about this "bright line." I don't think you know what you are talkling about.

Dante said...

1:59 Dave Sez:
With all the ill informed ranting here - one point that seems overlooked is that free speech is not now nor has it ever been absolute. There are limits to rights . . .

Yes, and as the Hammer pointed out, in the US the extent of free speech is (at a minimum) a cross stuck in a bottle of urine. The government paid for that one.

And as you don't seem to understand what tiger is saying, what he is saying is he is willing to stick his neck on the line for Free Speech. Remember the death threats against the Muslim Cartoonist, who has been living in a safe house for years.

Essentially, what you are suggesting, rather than saying, is that we ought to have different freedom of speech laws for different target groups. One set of words that can be used when addressing blacks by whites (in this case as opposed to blacks by blacks), another for addressing Muslims as opposed to Christians, etc. And if you are not, then you have to trash the first amendment. To prove it, I'll create my own group, and say the use of the word "Democrat" offends my sensibilities, and is hate speech.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

damikesc said...

They had warnings of the attacks 48 hrs in advance.

Our Resident skipped all security briefings and did nothing, allowing 4 people to be murdered.

Blood is on the little fascist's hands.

gerry said...

Obama's anticolonialism requires our punishment. Islam may be his weapon.

Synova said...

"There's a rumor that a lawyer runs this blog and that this lawyer (a tenured professor chose to post Krauthamer's idiocy. With all the ill informed ranting here - one point that seems overlooked is that free speech is not now nor has it ever been absolute. There are limits to rights - a bright line - with speech the line is "falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater."

What if the fire in the theater is real?

What if the "bright line" is defined by when I decide to burn something over it?

You can fuss that others don't see the fine differences of meaning, but the problem is that they DO.

Firstly, you've made no effort or even claim to try to find out if the fire, in either direction, is real. Is the movie actually offensive or is that irrelevant? (It's irrelevant.) But for the fire in a theater *test* to work it's necessary to ask... is there a fire in the theater? So if the *movie*, no matter how amateurish, is telling the truth, then yelling "fire" is saving people from burning to death in a theater.

Did you ever bother to find out if there was a fire in the theater?

Did you care?

So then (since I know what the answer is to that) the "bright line" is related to when people will be mad at you. The person who made the film must have known, and likely intended, that it upset Muslims. At what point does speech that no one gets mad over need protection? Never?

Your "bright line" is a subjective ever moving preference. It's neither bright nor a line.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If the leftwing Independent story being reported is true... the Secretary of State is going to have to go, I think."

-- Not necessarily. If State provided the information to Obama in a briefing, maybe one of the ones he skipped, then they did their part. Remember, Obama gets more information than any of his subordinates. If I passed him information, and he decided nothing had to be done, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to assume (well, before this), that he had more information that made the warnings I gave him not as dire.

Now, of course, no one is going to trust his judgment, especially with that nagging fear: "What if he DIDN'T get briefed on the info I sent him?"

Clinton could come out of this looking like a rose: "I told him, warned him! I printed the briefing and sent my people to explain everything. He skipped out on our meeting."

I would pay to see that press conference in person.

Mark O said...

Obama hates free speech. He's the Speech Code President.

Matthew Sablan said...

Here are some of the top stories on CNN about what is going on:

4 die in Yemen | Egypt | Iran | Iraq; Yemen protests Yemen protests | Cairo violence Cairo violence; Jewish groups mad over anti-Islam film; Who is responsible for the video?; Anti-Islam filmmaker in hiding; Opinion: Nations don't grasp freedom; Avlon: Romney remarks disgraceful; Obama, Romney navigate turmoil; Obama changing tone on Egypt?

Notice something that's missing in CNN's front page round up?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Dave,
Should Americans be allowed to burn U.S. flags?

Illuninati said...

Carter gave us a radical Iran, Obama gave us radical Egypt. Before this is over, the forces of evil released by these administrations will kill thousands, or millions, of people. Carter gave us a radical Iran, Obama gave us radical Egypt. While the Middle East burns, we should all thank the moderates, like Althouse, for putting this crack foreign policy team into office.

By the way, although I disagree with her, I can understand why people like Althouse voted for Obama the first time. Because of the crash, people were focused on the economy at the time of the election, and ignored Obama’s radical associations. Also, George Bush was almost as incompetent as Obama, when he called Islam "a religion of peace." The difference, between Obama and Bush, is their choice of friends. Bush was loyal to friends of our country, like Mubarak. Obama is also loyal to his own friends, such as Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood who hate the USA. What I don’t understand is how moderates can still be “protective” of this man. Even if we assume that he means well, a man who has skipped half of his national security briefings has certainly not been “protective” of us.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Even if we assume that he means well, a man who has skipped half of his national security briefings has certainly not been “protective” of us."

-- The most damning thing is that he skipped the briefing the day after the murders happened. So, while the bodies were still being sorted out, he couldn't be bothered to stop campaigning and hear from the horse's mouth what was going on.

Tank said...

I was a little worried about this Blog, and the law professor rumored to run it. But now that Dave is here, I feel safe.

A lot of one time hit and runs lately. Wonder where they're coming from.

Meanwhile Dave, could you elaborate on which opinions it's ok to express and which ones are forbidden and lead to "hurt" feelings which require killing innocent people. Thanks.

shiloh said...

"They had warnings of the attacks 48 hrs in advance.

Our Resident skipped all security briefings and did nothing, allowing 4 people to be murdered.

Blood is on the little fascist's hands."

Usual con nonsense aside, how many 9/11 warnings did cheney/bush have ?!? Rhetorical.

Peter said...

" free speech is not now nor has it ever been absolute.There are limits to rights - a bright line - with speech the line is "falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater."


No matter how badly made, the video is a political statement. And you do, after all, have to go out of your way to view it (which makes it far more like a book sitting on a shelf somewhere than something that's shoved in your face).

The right of Americans to make, show, and view such works is at the very core of the First Amendment and about as far from any "bright line" as one can get.

It is not at all like crying "fire" in a crowded theater.

carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

Dave: one point that seems overlooked is that free speech is not now nor has it ever been absolute. There are limits to rights - a bright line ....

And the goal of Dave and his lefty ilk is to move that "bright line" back to the point at which dissent with their point of view is unprotected along with statements/actions that "offend" their politically supportive designated victim classes.

damikesc said...

Usual con nonsense aside, how many 9/11 warnings did cheney/bush have ?!? Rhetorical.

These warnings were concrete, based on a specific date and a specific location.

But keep trying to qualify the same. Bush had been in office for 8 months. Obama? 3 1/2 years.

shiloh said...

dam

No need to keep apologizing for cheney/bush as they are no longer in office.

Chris said...

"The implication here that, perhaps the mob is right, that we ought to be suppressing anything that offends Islam..."

The mob are idiots. We don't need the state to suppress that which we already ignore.

Thugs and morons.

As for the embassy's initial statement, "... We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"...

"Let's roll" it ain't.

Strelnikov said...

Why? Because she believes we should do so.

Nathan Alexander said...

No need to keep apologizing for cheney/bush as they are no longer in office.

Then there was no reason for you to bring them up, either.

If you bring up nonsense, it gets slapped down.

If you can't take it, stop posting nonsense.

Which, in your case, would be never posting ever again, at all.

caplight45 said...

Tim said:
"One of these days - maybe now? - Americans will come to realize most join the Foreign Service not to represent America, her values and her interests, to the rest of the world, but rather to represent the rest of the world, their values and their interests, to America.

Once one understands that, State's statement makes sense."

And all God's people said, "AMEN."

caplight45 said...

Tim said:
"One of these days - maybe now? - Americans will come to realize most join the Foreign Service not to represent America, her values and her interests, to the rest of the world, but rather to represent the rest of the world, their values and their interests, to America.

Once one understands that, State's statement makes sense."

And all God's people said, "AMEN."

Nora said...

Islamic leaders are afraid of being exposed and incite anti-western violence to protect their power and opressive hold over the millions of people in the most backward and poor countries of the world. And leftists, that like to call themselves "progressive", are willingly helping the Islamaniacs in this noble course by trying to suppress free speech in the West as well.

How progressive is this? How much more of an idiot a useful idiot can become?

DEEBEE said...

"There, there you poooah little mooslims, when you grow up we won't have to coddle you anymore from the vagaries of freedom." -- Secy of State