The following list of “Leftie” jokes may only be funny to those who aren’t but all together, they clearly evince much that is wrong with many in our society. Because those who hold these views are often in prominent or influential positions (news media, teachers), they also explain why in America we are faced with so many problems and why there exists such a cultural divide.
You might be a left head, if ...
James Lewis May 01, 2011
Remember redneck jokes? Blonde jokes? Polish jokes? So --- why don't we have leftie jokes? The United States is infested by out-of-control lefties swarming around the media like body lice. Why don't we scratch where it itches?
To start making up for our humor deficit, here are a few starting ideas. Please add your own. Extra points for funny.
"You might be a left head if...
• You can't tell "it's" from "its."
• Your mind cuts out after one tweet a day.
• You think "like" is part of English grammar.
• You believe Jerk Rap is better than Mozart.
• You feel sure that 2 + 2 equals 5 in some cultures.
• You think snowstorms prove global warming.
• You believe God is dead but Karl Marx lives.
• You secretly think human history started when you woke up in high school.
• You've had at least twelve years of education, but you can't read, write, add, subtract, multiply or divide, or make any sense.
• Your eyes glaze over when somebody talks facts and logic.
• You never liked history because it has too many dates.
• You're twelve years old and feel ready to have a baby.
• You think undocumented immigrants lost their documents someplace.
• You think blacks can't be racists.
• You consider Al Sharpton to be a spiritual leader.
• You want to spend your life doing good for humanity, but you can't stand math, science, business, accounting, agriculture, economics or engineering. Or work.
• You think the Nazis were conservatives.
• You're sure you're a Progressive but can't explain what that means. If anything.
• You believe Karl Marx gave human rights to women, blacks, and gays.
• You think the Soviet Union was a good idea.
• You think the most intellectually stuck president in history is a genius.
• You think ObamaCare will balance the budget.
• You think Bill Maher is funny.
• You think race baiting is a perfectly good political argument.
• You believe anything in the New York Times. Anything. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.
• You know in your heart that people who don't agree with you are evil, racist, sexist, gay-hating, and Islamophobes.
• You think America deserved 9/11.
• You're scared about Islamophobia, but not about suicide bombers with nukes.
• You believe Christians should not be allowed to criticize Muslims.
• You think it's ok for Hamas to kill families in Israel, but it's not ok for Israel to strike Hamas.
• You think that all drugs should be legalized, because people will use less of them if they're cheap and legal.
• You think Christians are evil, but Muslim terrorists deserve more sympathy and understanding.
• You think the media tell the truth.
• You think Obama never tells a lie.
Sophistry is used by Obama, the Democrats and even some Republicans to vilify very successful companies dealing with crucial commodities – like gas. Opponents and demagogues portray the $10.65 billion profit of Exxon Mobile as obscene and rapacious – and demand that punitive actions such as windfall profits taxes be imposed in order to “recoup” what shouldn’t be theirs.
This is an essential component of the Democratic Party’s ideology - punishing those individuals and companies that are successful and ironically, pay inordinate amounts of taxes to begin with.
In contrast, what has Government Motors (GM), a government and union favorite and perennial loser, done for us lately?
How about cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars that we will never see again. A failed company on life support (thanks to Federal government) that should have been allowed to fail and close or markedly downsize that is persistently sucking out rather than contributing tax dollars.
The editorial below places this deception into proper perspective. We will add one more element. Though not entirely linear, if Exxon Mobil had produced only one fifth the amount of oil that it actually did, its profit would have been only be around $2 billion – not so excessive sounding. However, this would have also translated into a higher cost of a gallon of gas (due to supply and demand issues) and its tax “contribution” to our government would have been billions of dollars lower.
Seen And Obscene
Investor’s Business Daily 04/28/2011
Earnings: A few oil firms post what some call outrageous profits. How long before the uninformed and envious demand these companies pay a windfall profits tax?
Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company in the U.S., reported Thursday a first-quarter profit of $10.65 billion, or $2.14 a share, up 61% from a strong year-earlier period. Royal Dutch Shell came in at $8.78 billion, or $1.76 a share, up 68%. And on Friday, Chevron is expected to post a 27% increase in earnings to $5.69 billion, or $3 a share.
Speaking for the anti-capitalist, anti-corporate wing of his party (it's a big wing), Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., called Exxon's profits "obscene" and claimed that "Big Oil" is "robbing" the middle class.
Two days earlier, ABC's Jonathan Karl displayed the bias widely found in his profession when he, too, asked if there is something "obscene" about high oil and gas profits "when Americans are struggling just to fill up the tank."
While billions in profits might seem a little much, let's take a look at the context.
Exxon earned $10.65 billion on $114 billion in revenue. Shell's $8.78 billion profit came on $114.84 billion in revenue. Chevron's expected top line of $66.62 billion will likely yield a bottom line of $5.69 billion. These are not outsize margins — roughly 9% after taxes in the case of Exxon, less than 5% for Shell and 8.5% for Chevron.
In comparison, Apple made $6 billion on revenue of $24.7 billion, a profit margin of almost 25% in the first quarter. Google's profit margin for the same period was nearly 27%. Too high-tech for you? McDonald's makes 20 cents on the dollar. Where is the outrage over their profits? Aren't they committing robbery too?
Also lost in the rush to demonize oil companies is historical context. What some would say are large profits simply aren't inevitable. The oil industry has gone through periods of low profits before and will again.
Further, there's a (probably willful) misreading on the left and in the media of oil company profits. They aren't squandered by rich executives but paid to investors — some of them Democrats — and plowed back into producing more energy. If profits are taxed more, investors are hurt, as are consumers who pay higher prices due to energy scarcity caused by curtailed development.
"Obscene" profits? A need for punitive taxes on oil companies? The facts show the Democrats and the media (but we repeat ourselves) are wrong on both counts.
Many of the elected Left are seeking to make elections and elected officials somewhat unimportant in many ways. That is, they are continually seeking to impose greater restrictions on the American public not necessarily just through laws passed by Congress but also by seemingly infinite rules and regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.
To evolve our country into a socialistic one with a large central government that has virtually total control over most of the activities of its citizenry. The population will be neutered with an ever increasing number becoming docile and agreeable dependents of the State. This further facilitates implementation of their far left ideological agenda.
These same politicians, who are acting like an elitist class akin to the politburo of former Soviet Union, will be rewarded with privilege, power and wealth. We have to look no further than Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Charlie Schumer and Barney Frank to see what is transpiring.
We must vociferously and staunchly oppose all these individuals and their policies and do whatever it takes to abrogate their actions and remove them from office.
Our Unelected Rulers
Investor’s Business Daily 04/15/2011
Administrative State: Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi says "elections shouldn't matter as much as they do." Maybe they don't even matter as much as she thinks they do. It seems that bureaucrats are making our laws.
Speaking last week at Tufts University, Pelosi suggested that until recently there was little difference between her party and the Republicans because of "shared values." In her mind, these shared values had rendered elections meaningless in the pre-Tea Party era. But now she fears a true grass-roots uprising has forced a bright line between the parties.
What she and most of the country are missing, though, is the impact of the administrative state. America has become a nation where unelected regulators make law. We should be alarmed.
Recently we learned from U.S. News & World Report that "just six pages" of the 907-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been turned "into 429 pages of new regulations." That is one page for "every page of (President) Obama's campaign book, 'The Audacity of Hope' — plus another 45 pages."
A few months earlier, the New York Times reported that federal rule makers "suddenly find themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans."
According to the Times, "More than 200 health regulators working on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors of a suburban office building" in Bethesda, Md., "paying almost double the market rate for the space in their rush to get started."
Paul Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large employers, is quoted as saying: "There has never been a period like what we are going through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of rule-making."
Issues to be settled by regulators, not elected officials, the Times said, include:
• How much credit-card companies can charge shopkeepers for administrative fees when cards are swiped for purchases.
• Which types of financial companies are so "systemically important" to the economy that they should be subject to greater federal oversight.
• What services must be covered by all insurers as part of the "essential health benefits" package and at what point would premium increases be considered so "unreasonable" that regulators could step in.
This is not a sudden bump in rule making. Regulators have been busy for decades, particularly during Obama's first year in office — which wasn't even a full year. In 2009, the administration published a record-breaking 163,333 pages of rules that affect our daily lives, from the energy we use to the financial decisions we make to the health care we get.
If all this seems inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence's guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without state interference, there's good reason. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffat has written, Americans rightly "feel that they are increasingly being governed by administrators, not legislators. ... The rule of law is being supplanted" by rules and regulations.
The administrative state's disciples believe an army of experts is needed to organize society because they hold special knowledge. In his 1887 essay "Socialism and Democracy," Woodrow Wilson gave fuel to a radical agenda that gnaws at us yet today when he wrote that "men as communities are supreme over men as individuals."
The rise of the administrative state is oxygen for a political left that relishes control of civil society because its members believe they're too smart not to be obeyed. It has a chokehold not only on individual rights, but on the economy as well.
The Phoenix Center in Washington has found that on average, "eliminating the job of a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and nearly 100 private sector jobs annually."
This would strike most as evidence that the administrative state is counterproductive. Yet there's an absence of a strong effort to reverse it. This isn't inspiring. Elections should mean something, and deconstruction of the body of unelected rule makers would give even more meaning to the pivotal 2012 races.
Local, state and federal governments are becoming increasingly intrusive in our private lives in accord with the liberal philosophy that "the government knows better".
Guess what (there is no need for guessing here)?
The government doesn't know better and it has no right dictating our choices (as long they are "legal").
In a Chicago school, children are not allowed to bring in their own lunch anymore because the administration feels that the parents are incapable of feeding their children properly. The school forces the children to eat there ... and what it deems that they should eat. California and N.Y. are the most well known for their restrictive, intrusive and punitive culinary restrictions for restaurants.
Soon, governments may decide what kind of toilet paper we must use and the number of sheets that can be used before being subjected to a fine.
These intrusive actions, signs of large and powerful governments and unrestrained politicians, must be abrogated!
The following article is a well-written and vehement indictment of the passivity of the silent majority and the incomprehensible acceptance by individuals and certain ethnic groups of the political correctness run amok, egregious or corrupt behavior and associations by politicians, etc. Too many have become complacent, silent and feckless. They are afraid to take a stance, whether public or not, against the de facto abrogation of our rights.
This must not be allowed to continue unopposed!
The Silence of the Jews
James Lewis April 10, 2011
We live in an age of public cowardice. That goes for millions of Americans and Europeans, even in the face of simple PC witch-hunts that don't end up burning or jailing people, but only try to destroy reputations and careers. Human beings have stood up to a lot worse than Political Correctness. But we can't seem to rouse ourselves to oppose it. The liberal bullies keep winning, because most of us just look the other way.
Decent people constantly get bashed and bullied by those coneheads at CNN, truly ignorant show-biz airheads, who take it upon themselves to dictate what we, a free people, are allowed to do and say in public. But our constitutional rights of free speech and assembly mean nothing if we do not exercise them. Silence means consent.
This is hugely embarrassing. Where is our self-respect? When did we lose our guts? Why did we cede the moral high ground to bullies and moral throwbacks from the ancient desert? Who made up those rules? I didn't. Did you?
Today we feel guilty about imaginary sins ginned up by the lowlifes at the New York Times and the Washington Post. This is Winston Churchill turned upside-down: Never have so many surrendered so much to so few. Can you really imagine apologizing to the likes of Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton, or to Obama, for the decisions you have made in your life? But that is exactly what we are doing as a people. Michael Barone, the most distinguished political scientist among the political pundits, has labeled this "Gangster Government."
Mr. Obama just went to visit Al Sharpton, right after announcing his new election campaign. Does that give you faith in his moral sensitivity? Or does it just add more evidence to the same story we know so well? And in that case, how could you possibly support Obama or his party?
Internationally things are even worse. We kowtow to an endless freak-show of depraved clowns at the UN and in foreign capitals. Madman Gaddafi goes around parading with a personal body guard of thirty official virgins bearing Kalashnikovs, an internationally famous cross-dressing exhibitionist who has exploded a civilian aircraft over Scotland and had a police woman in London killed by rifle fire. Gaddafi is known to be a madman by all the Arab world. The things he has done to his people are too awful for words. Yet the UN Human Rights Commission now has Muammar Gaddafi, the genocidal Sudan, and Ahmadinejad as full voting members -- and the liberal media are afraid to say how utterly insane that is.
In a healthy society, people who defend the indefensible have their reputations ruined for life. If we defrock and jail abusive priests, well, let's also do that to power-mad, abusive celebrities and political demagogues. Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, defended a criminal warrant-escaping Oscar-winning child rapist with the immortal words, "It wasn't really ‘rape-rape.'"
Well, Whoopi-Whoopi, I'm going to turn your flick-flicks ‘off-off' forever. I challenge anybody reading this to do the ‘same-same.' If enough of us refuse to pay a penny to companies that own and pull the strings on the depraved idols of the culture, their jobs will be ‘gone-gone.' Why can't the normal and decent people of this country get it together? That's the easy part. Don't just sit there, do it.
The Camerons and Merkels and Sarkozys had their bluff called by Libya just this week, and they've crumpled again. After calling for Libya to overthrow that tyrannical freak they can't find the jet planes to keep the pressure on. This is utterly disgusting. Civilized nations hold those who aid and abet criminal actions responsible under the law. Aiding and abetting the enemies of civilization is much worse than mere tax evasion, which the Democratic Party apparently practices as a routine business precaution.
The abhorrence we feel for this level of moral depravity has not changed one little bit since the Nazis. Just because it takes place in Europe or the Middle East does not mean that we should support bloody totalitarians. Your local college campus has been doing exactly that since the 1960s, and we, as a people, have never raised a word of protest, because, after all, there should be academic freedom on campus. That is why the totalitarians of the Left now controls speech on your schools and colleges. Yes, the neo-Stalinist left is doing it --- but we are all submitting to their malevolence without protest. That makes us less than heroic, to say the least.
The United Nations engages in twisted demagogy every single day, and everybody who reads the news headlines, even filtered through the moral midgets of the media, knows that perfectly. This is how one-party Machines operate: Da Mare is as corrupt as the day is long, but nobody can fight City Hall.
Well, that's how oppressed peoples have to act in a brutal tyranny. But in a democracy, people like us take back power at the polls -- if -- and only if -- they can to face the truth. If we do not act, it's because we lack the simple moral fiber our parents and grandparents had. It's not hard and dangerous for us to act. All it takes is concerted action by all the people who are ashamed and embarrassed by the moral depravity of our political leadership. We can stop paying corrupt corporations that control morally depraved celebrities. We can stop paying advertisers who collude with the corrupt and mendacious media. We can start telling them exactly what we think about them. You have free speech. Nobody has beaten you up or thrown you in jail, the way they do in other places. You have freedom, but if you do not exercise it you might as well be living in the gruesome little tyranny of Myanmar.
Our general gutlessness is even more deplorable for those who know the past so well, including American Jews, who can see Israel being more and more surrounded by morally backward reactionaries armed with rockets and missiles (and nukes in another year). We are doing nothing, while America and Israel, and decent Europeans wherever they still exist, are being slandered and scapegoated. No wonder they think they are winning.
Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, Ahmadinejad, every sleazy little upstart generalissimo in the world gets to spit in the face of the two most decent nations in the world: America and Israel. Why is that? Where is our self-respect? Why do the worst abusers get endless chances to rip the most decent and peaceful people in the world? And our media morons collude with them?
The Democrats command the loyalty of most American Jews. But the Democrats have been penetrated by those who hate tolerance, democracy, and respect for sovereign nations. The Left has played American Jews for suckers. Obama is no exception -- he is supported by an inner circle of ideological fanatics some of whom were born into Jewish families, but somehow never got the point of civilized behavior. Part of that point is: It doesn't matter who you are. It matters how you act. If you collude with evil, you are a criminal in your heart, and perhaps in fact. Civilized nations repudiate criminals no matter who they are.
Israel just convicted its ex-President Katzav of the crime of rape. That crime is not something to feel proud about, but the prosecution is. Few countries in the world can act with that kind of moral seriousness and consistency. The United States used to be one of them. Today I wonder if we still have the simple integrity to administer equal justice for all. If the Left keeps winning, we will lose whatever moral integrity we have left, because arbitrary power goes with arbitrary corruption. We see it every day in Washington, D.C.
Jews are among the most abused peoples in history -- not the only ones, but abused badly enough to remember what it's like. Jews should therefore be the most alert to the rise of hate preachers, the kind of thing that the MEMRI website translates into English every day. In a decent world the New York Times would simply take a running RSS feed from the MEMRI website. It would easily triple their accuracy score. The NYT could restore its reputation for honesty and integrity in a single instant, and even rescue its crumbling business model. Obviously they are far too corrupt and morally blind to do anything like that.
I don't personally like the idea of burning books. It goes against my grain. But I would symbolically burn Hitler's Mein Kampf and the works of Jozef Stalin, and so many other books that are brainwashing ignorant people today -- symbolically only, to demonstrate contempt for the worst evils human beings are capable of. That seems to me to be a moral act, in a world where PR stunts govern the headlines every day. If the Left burns the American Flag and tears up the US Constitution, perhaps there is a role for symbolically demonstrating the moral depravity of the Left and Islamic fascism. Killing an innocent human being is infinitely worse than barbecuing a call to genocide and persecution.
A small minority of Americans and Europeans, Christian and Jews and non-religious, have long been aware of the rise of neo-fascism from the Left and Islamic reactionaries. But the majority are sound asleep, in psychological denial, or just afraid to speak up: Like lambs to the slaughter. It is a dreadful thing to behold.
Conservatives keep asking why Jews vote for the Left. Part of the answer seems to be that Jews get suckered by utopian promises. If only we elect a clean-looking black Democrat from the Chicago Machine to the American presidency, all the problems of the Middle East will be solved! Jews may yearn for peace because they have felt the ravages of war and persecution. They may easily be taken in by false hopes that all it will take is a little bit of compromise, a little peace talk, for everything to turn out all right in the Middle East.
But there is no excuse for willing stupidity. I don't care how good your intentions are, if you do not have the courage to open your eyes you are colluding with evil.
Even before Obama, Israel was the only nation in the world directly threatened by nuclear proliferation to mad regimes -- covered up by UN criminocrat Mohammed El Baradei, who naturally received a Nobel Prize for his collusion with the nuclear maniacs in Tehran. Just a few days ago El Baradei came out of the closet by calling for Egypt to go to war against Israel if it defends itself against rocket barrages from Gaza. It's part of his election campaign in Egypt, believe it or not. Was anybody surprised? If you were, you haven't been paying attention. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of malignant evil is much, much worse.
Has anybody noticed these facts at the New York Times, where Baradei was butt-kissed while he was peddling lies about Iranian nukes? Is anybody over there waking up? I don't see it.
Ahmadinejad is celebrating a nuclear Armageddon to come, and the Left is getting panicked by the American Tea Party.
Please. It is beyond belief.
The New York Times covered up the worst crimes of Hitler and Stalin when its correspondents knew exactly what was going on there. Those facts are known beyond reasonable doubt. Today the NYT-wits are covering up Iranian nukes and the spread of Islamic fascism, when they again know exactly what is going on. At some point collusion becomes a crime. Media collusion is what keeps corrupt political machines alive. It follows that the corporate owners and executives of media companies must be held morally liable for the malfeasance they cover up. They do not deserve to make millions by spreading toxic lies. If they engage in systematic libel they should be held to the same standards that ordinary people are. In many countries deliberate libel that does material harm to innocent people is a civil offense.
Turkey is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and pro-democratic Turks have been purged from the police and the armed forces. Egypt is going the same way, after Obama brutally pushed Mubarak out of power. The totalitarian Left is treacherously spreading slanders, like the Goldstone Report, about Israel -- the same slanders it propagated about the United States in the case of Abu Graib (where the goofball perps were already arrested and headed for trial when the media got the photos, and used Abu Graib to bash George W. Bush for five years).
You can't read about the Left over the past two centuries without knowing they are murderous enemies to civilized life anywhere in the world. That is why they keep making friends among the worst totalitarians -- the ones that tyrannize women and kill children, the ones that promote suicide bombing of innocent civilians by the thousands. The totalitarian Left worked hand in hand with the Nazis, and today they are doing the same with reactionary throwbacks in Tehran, Cairo, and Jeddah. Don't take my word for it. Just watch them do it. It's not a secret. They don't even bother to keep it secret.
If your eyes are already open, talk to everybody you know. Don't be intimidated. You live in a free country, and you are keeping it free by exercising your rights.
Two years into Obama's term the Middle East is falling apart. The Saudis are running scared, because Obama just delights in destroying all the unstable Arab regimes -- and the Saudis are none too stable themselves. Even medieval Saudi Arabia thinks America is run by un homme aliene, as Sarkozy called him. Iran is sending modern warships into the Mediterranean. Russia has a new naval base in Syria, and Assad has a second nuclear plant that's just been uncovered.
Meanwhile Obama is running for reelection, and I'll bet that a majority of brain-dead liberals will vote for him again. Obama has made nice with the most dangerous tyrants in Iran and North Korea, and now he is doing the most amazing thing any American president has ever done: He is deliberately pushing unstable allies into collapse.
Rumor has it that even Hillary is ready to leave. I wonder if she has the guts to tell the truth? If so, I might even vote for her. My standard is now truth-telling: Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Hillary, I don't care. We are suffering from toxic lies, and a refreshing breath of truth reminds us that truth exists.
Ordinary Americans have allowed one of our political parties to be taken over by the totalitarian Left -- the people who instantly try to control your free speech, because they know that if you can be made to shut up about politics you can be rendered helpless. That is why there are speech codes on American campuses and in our news rooms. Speech codes are inherently totalitarian. The Left has totalitarian swings. Since the "Berkeley Free Speech Movement" of the 60s the Left has slammed the free speech door shut. We now have Forbidden Speech from the Left. That is why they are attacking the free web through the lie of "net neutrality."
We live in an age of corruption, and an age of cowardice among free peoples.
But the silence of American Jews on the fate of Israel is the most ominous reality today.
Obama and most of the Left seek to appease and not offend Muslims in order that they might not commit terrorist acts against us. They go out of their way even in blatant instances of jihadist acts where the terrorists are proclaiming “Allah Akbar” that there is no true association.
This is a position of weakness which actually serves to “protect” the terrorists. The Islamic terrorists, in turn, clearly see these actions as signs of weakness and vulnerability which motivates them even more to escalate the violence.
Being apologetic and denying the obvious will not allow us to meet this malignant scourge. Only by assuming a position of strength can we attempt to successfully tackle this.
We need to resolutely and loudly let the world know that their behavior will not be tolerated, that they will not be allowed to impose of Sharia law in this country, we will not abridge any of our freedoms such as that of free speech so as not to “offend” Islam, and that we are united in strength against their violence, intolerance and subjugation.
We should also let them know that we know that these issues are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few but instead are reflective of a basic noxious, violent tenet of Islam which is upheld by a majority of Muslims.
And finally: ISLAM IS NOT A RELGION OF PEACE!
Obama's Mishandling of the Quran-Burning
Monte Kuligowski April 09, 2011
A Jed Clampett-type figure burns a Quran somewhere in Tennessee, and the Muslim world breaks out in an uproar. In keeping with Islam's spirit of peace, rioting, effigy-burning, and the indiscriminate killing of over twenty people accompanied the protests. The U.S. can tolerate protesting and flag-burning, but the disproportional response of murdering and beheading is where the line must be drawn.
But no such line has been drawn by the Obama administration.
In his response to the situation, President Obama notes that both Quran-burning and murder are wrong. True, but his words are meaningless without distinction. Here's how Obama responded:
The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.
No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act.
The question is not whether a religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, but whether the U.S. government will tolerate the same. Free speech and expression, even the offensive style, are tolerated by the American system; murder is not.
By omitting the free speech rights of Terry Jones, President Obama has sent the wrong message to militant Islamists. Mr. Obama needed to explain that freedom means that even offensive expression is protected.
If Mr. Obama is not willing to proclaim that American values of free expression will not be suppressed by government out of fear of terrorism and murder, then we have already lost the terrorists' war.
The murdering Islamists need to be informed in clear terms that any harm caused to U.S. citizens will be met with a military offensive the likes of which will cause Islamists to beg for mercy.
As Americans, we may strongly disagree when the U.S. flag is burned in protest, whether at home or abroad. We may also strongly disagree when the Bible is torched in Muslim countries or when Christianity is "desecrated" by federally funded artists. Yet Americans overwhelmingly support the free expression rights of those with whom we disagree (so long as the expression is made with one's private property).
Radical Muslims work themselves up into killing frenzies over words against Islam, writings, cartoons, Quran-burnings, et al., and they will not be content until offense to Islam is outlawed. Of course, what we do or allow in our country should be none of these radicals' concern. Islam has no sacred protection status from insult in the United States -- and hopefully, it never will.
But if Senators Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham have their way, the federal government may intervene to limit free expression, which would implicitly protect Islam from offense. And I can't imagine that Barack Obama would oppose federal intervention.
Reid and Graham appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" and discussed the possibility of congressional hearings on the Jones matter. Senator Graham told Bob Schieffer: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy."
That has to be one of the lamest excuses for federal intervention into an area the First Amendment clearly prohibits the U.S. Congress from entering. The free speech restrictions during World War II had everything to do with loyalty to the U.S. and nothing to do with offending the Germans or the Japanese. One could burn as many copies of Mein Kampf as one wished without fear of government reprisal.
The difference is that during World War II, the objective of the United States was complete and total victory and unconditional surrender of our enemies. The U.S. wasn't real concerned about "putting our troops at risk" by offending our enemies. Indeed, we were more concerned with killing our enemies.
The motives for the murders at the U.N. office in Afghanistan and elsewhere are no more significant than the motives of Terry Jones.
We could try to understand Jones' standpoint. We could try to understand the Muslim mobs. We could try, but in context of constitutional discourse, it's irrelevant. Let's leave feelings and emotions to the therapists.
So as not to offend Islam, our servicemen are currently forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, with no clear definition of victory. Only in a politically correct type of war does it make sense to not offend our enemies.
If we offend them, they will kill us. Therefore, reasons the Obama administration, to stop them from killing us, we must not offend them. That makes sense to leftists, but it's a weak and dangerous policy stance to take with radical Islam.
On the horizon is the question of whether we are willing to suppress our freedoms in order to appease the violent faction of the Muslim world -- a faction which makes up a considerable slice of Islam. It is like a campfire that has broken out of its boundaries and which must be stomped out quickly lest it spread as an uncontrollable wildfire. If the U.S. and the West are not willing to completely stomp out radical Islam, I'm afraid we will soon be surrendering our freedoms.
If we don't wake up, offense to Islam will someday trump American freedom.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. is a chip off the old liberal demagogue block. His father should be proud.
The rest of America, that is, the one that is working hard to support themselves and their families should be outraged once again.
This is a plea for more of the big government liberal agenda to further burden the overtaxed taxpayer into having more of their paycheck vaporized in support of those who are largely irresponsible and indolent.
More government sanctioned wealth/income transfer.