The Paper Tiger

I mentioned in an earlier post how disconcerting it was for me to see other nations doing what we as Americans used to do pretty well, and do it better. Yes, our retreat, our fall from grace has lowered the bar and made catch up much easier, but to think that others are eating our lunch, at our table in our restaurant, it really sucks ass. Patton was right, Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser, and Americans play to win all the time. Well, we are losing, we are losing our self respect, we are losing the moral imperative in the world of civil liberties, and we are rolling over like bought dogs wrt that which we have forever revered and cherished, the First Amendment.

Here is our president and the Sec. of State exposing their backsides:

When they came for him, I stood by and did nothing, I was not a film maker.

Curious that Hillary falls all over herself apologizing for freedoms men many died for, too bad she only bends knees to the radicals that murder people. Where was this soap box sanctimony, this champion of religious tolerance, when she went to go see that intolerant laughfest that denigrates the Mormon religion, the Book of Mormon:

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.

One (with a backbone and an appreciation for the freedom of expression) could find equal hilarity in this silly video, I certainly tried when I made fun of it, it’s bad acting, it’s dreadful set pieces, and the cosmically slapstick power of the vagina in converting any sinner. The true American could should find both amusing, then go home reveling in the good times shared but harboring no hatred or offense at what was clearly meant as entertainment. But with Hillary, one is funny but the other disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. Maybe the two step has something to do with her and her state dept. being so behind the eight ball, so backwardly slow in figueing out what happened, all she had to do was read the MSM lackies who spew propaganda for her, they had the story pegged almost from the outset.

But here again, we see, other nations displaying their onions and standing by the obvious, things we are suppose to do, but not with this guy in the WH.

Exhibit A in the French (are you kidding me, what kind of bizarro world is it that the French understand freedom of speech better then we do?)

Foreign minister Laurent Fabius admitted that satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s provocative cartoons, one of which appeared on its front cover, would ‘throw oil on the fire’ of recent anger over an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

However, he defended freedom of expression, adding that the fundamental right could only be limited ‘by court decisions’.
Mr Fabius said embassy security was being stepped up in Muslim countries, and that riot police in major cities would receive reinforcements.

As France plunged into a fierce debate about free speech, the government defended Charlie Hebdo’s right to publish the drawings and said it would also block a protest planned by people angry over the anti-Islam movie The Innocence Of Muslims.

Wait, no apologies issued from those cheese eating surrender monkey’s? (disclaimer, issued tongue in cheek)

Europe has a history of standing up for principles that American’s expect their leaders to champion:

The terrorist found it intolerable that Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt would not intervene to deny Vilks the right to draw and to publish his cartoon. Mr. Reinfeldt had in fact been preceded in this principled stance by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark, when mocking cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad were published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. He too had refused to yield to demands from the Muslim streets and from non-secular Islamic governments such as Pakistan and Iran—accompanied by threats of economic retribution against Danish companies and incendiary mayhem against Danish citizens and embassies—for censure and censorship of his country’s newspapers.
In each case, however, the principled defense of the right of free expression, indeed of what we might call the “right to ridicule,” has been largely left to these admirable prime ministers from small Scandinavian countries. The only important non-Scandinavian stateswoman to have come to the defense of this right has been Chancellor Angela Merkel, who just received the prestigious Medal of Freedom from President Obama. She spoke at an event in September 2010 at Potsdam, where the Danish cartoonist was awarded the M100 Media Prize 2010, declaring emphatically that “it is irrelevant whether his cartoons are tasteless or not. … Is he allowed to do that? Yes, he can.” By contrast, the leading English-speaking governments have generally failed to express solidarity with the Scandinavian governments and cartoonists, either by words or by actual actions that would cushion them against the threatened economic retribution.

This is the state we find ourselves in, where the rapist gets an apology from the victim, who expresses remorse for somehow provoking the attack, either dressing provocatively or being insensitive to the attacker.

So now this poor schlep of a film maker not only gets a star studded perp walk (the problem is, he is no perp), but a bounty on his head. At least he can feel proud knowing the Sec. of State invoked his name and his film in her groveling to the murderous crybabies.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    I’ve gone back and forth on this one. On the one hand, it will do nothing to pacify the crowds. Salman Rushie had a great comment on this, that we should just say, “we believe in freedom of speech” and leave it that. We shouldn’t apologize for a film we didn’t make, even it was a vile piece of shit put together under fraudulent circumstances by a convicted felon.

    However, I suspect this is part of the delicate dance we’re playing with the Pakistani government and that the commercial is aimed at placating/supporting them. The Pakistani govt is not exactly our friend as the bin Laden raid showed. But we’ve seen in Egypt what happens when a bad regime falls; it can get replaced by a worse one. And Pakistan is dangerously close to becoming a theocracy with nukes.

    FWIW, our response when the Rushdie thing erupted as no better. Thatcher and Bush both waffled, Reagan waffled, Carter wrote an op-ed condemning it and the Archbishop of Canterbury called for heresy laws to be applied. But at least all that cow-towing bought us peace in the … oh, wait.

    Thumb up 2

  2. richtaylor365 *

    What was that thing Franklin said about liberty/security? I know, it is simplistic, and we do live in turbulent times (no more turbulent then what those gentlemen faced and risked) but I guess if things are going to go to shit, I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror and be proud of my actions, as opposed to abandoning principals in the face of adversity. When honor is all that you have left, that ain’t bad.

    Thumb up 5

  3. Hal_10000

    Point taken. It’s been a pathetic week for the State Department. The Benghazi fiasco keeps getting worse. And they’re now moving to remove the terrorist designation from MEK, which seems both unprincipled and dangerous.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Mississippi Yankee

    When they came for him, I stood by and did nothing, I was not a film maker.

    Precise and to the point. Best paraphrase of a quote I’ve read in a while.

    May I add
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

    George Santayana

    Thumb up 2

  5. TxAg94

    I’m sorry guys, I just don’t see the hubbub in the clip. I don’t see why our government needed to say anything, least of all apologize, but I don’t see them banning stupid people making videos or even implying that they should be banned. All I see is Obama saying, in short, this was an outrageous video but that doesn’t justify violence. Then I see Hillary rejecting the video on our behalf, which I do take exception to, but mostly just trying to clarify that it was not produced by our government. I do see why they think that is important because in most of these countries things like this DO come from the government. I will say I think it is a waste of time because the people who get stirred up either can’t or won’t make the distinction.

    What am I missing? I know the clip is in the larger context of statements about the incident but I just haven’t gotten a sense that YouTube visoes are about to be shut down by the government.

    Thumb up 3

  6. Hal_10000

    Here’s a question to throw out. if a prominent movie came out claiming the Holocaust was faked and israel erupted in protests, would and should the SD make a similar statement about it?

    Thumb up 0

  7. TxAg94

    Here’s a question to throw out. if a prominent movie came out claiming the Holocaust was faked and israel erupted in protests, would and should the SD make a similar statement about it?

    I get your point and I agree wholeheartedly. I just don’t see this in the video clip:

    Curious that Hillary falls all over herself apologizing for freedoms men many died… for

    Nowhere do I see her apologizing for the First Amendment. Again, I just see her desparately trying to highlight that this was not an official U.S. government video.

    Thumb up 1

  8. AlexInCT

    Here’s a question to throw out. if a prominent movie came out claiming the Holocaust was faked and israel erupted in protests, would and should the SD make a similar statement about it?

    Call me when their “protests” end up killing some of the locals or even some of the foreigners that coincidentally happen to work for the SD and the WH blames a movie so they can deflect from the fact they have no policy towards Israel…..

    Thumb up 0

  9. Poosh

    French seem to have bigger balls than Americans these days.

    How does that make you feel? :(

    Hope and change eh?

    Here’s a question to throw out. if a prominent movie came out claiming the Holocaust was faked and israel erupted in protests, would and should the SD make a similar statement about it?

    What you would get though (I take your point), but what you would get is Israelis taking to the streets showing clear evidence of the Holocaust, showing documents and remains of the murdered, such as gold teeth etc. No violence. Just facts.

    That’s the difference between Israel and The Rest Of The Middle East.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365 *

    How does that make you feel? :(

    Mixed emotions, the first being a general embarrassment and disgust, but then followed by a reconciliation that someone out there “gets it”, and since our leader has shown a pattern of leading from behind, maybe he can be shamed into reaching into his pants and searching for his balls, then doing the right thing.

    Here’s a question to throw out

    Non sequitur

    Israel would not erupt in protest. But assuming that for one day they all turned crazy like some of their neighbors and “erupted”, the SD should do nothing (like they should have done here) except to condemn the violence, nothing more, no free speech equivocation, no deflection of guilt, no watering down the barbarity of the act.

    Thumb up 0