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.