Obscene Apologies

This article appearing in the New York Post is perfect for discussing the murder of innocent UN personnel and two American soldiers, that took place in Kabul, Afghanistan  last week.  We believe that Florida's Terry Jones is an attention seeking fraud.  He disguises himself as a Christian minister in order to give credence to his inane acts like burning a Qur'an.  He is not representative of mainstream Christians, and no where are we taught that acts such as his are condoned by our faith.  He's an idiot! But so are the Afghans who resorted to murder to avenge their religion. 

Whereas we do not condone Terry Jones' actions and consider him directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people at the hands of Islamic fanatics, his burning of the Qur'an is not considered a criminal act in the United States and is protected by his First Amendment rights.  Just as we seethe when we see someone, especially here in America, burning our flag, we have to concede that the Supreme Court of the United States protects those person's rights as well calling it "symbolic expression." 

In some Muslim countries converting to Christianity is punishable by death.  It is the same with being seen with a Bible, yet we don't attack Muslims in retaliation.  It is the tip toeing that our elected officials do around Muslims, trying to be politically correct and sparing their feelings from insult that we find objectionable.  The article below adequately expresses our feeling on this particular issue. Feel free to post your comments.
Two Sisters. 


Pols Appeasing Islamists

by Michael A. Shaw

Back in 1943, with D-Day still a year away and the outcome of the war against Nazi Germany still very much in doubt, Noel Coward penned a little ditty called "Don't Let's Be Beastly to the Germans."

It was, he explained, "a satire directed against a small minority of excessive humanitarians, who, in my opinion, were taking a rather too tolerant view of our enemies."

We mustn't let / them feel upset,

Or ever get the feeling

That we're cross with them or hate them.

Our future policy must be to reinstate them.

Alas, the satire of 1943 has become all too real today. Over in Afghanistan, a mob of howling savages, whipped up by our "ally," kleptocratic President Hamid Karzai, has been rioting for nearly a week over the burning of a Koran by an obscure pastor in Florida. More than 20 have died, including two US soldiers shot at a checkpoint yesterday and seven UN staffers killed Friday in Mazar-i-Sharif after their compound was sacked by demonstrators.

But don't let's be beastly to the Muslims.

In a series of disgraceful statements, Sens. Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham, along with Gen. David Petraeus, have laid the blame for the unrest where it doesn't belong: at the feet of the US Constitution.

Reid, the feckless Senate majority leader, said the body would "take a look" at Terry Jones' actions in burning a copy of the Islamic holy book, and threatened hearings, as if the Senate didn't have far more pressing issues -- such as passing a budget and tackling the country's fiscal problems.

Graham:  Putting Afghan feelings
ahead of American freedoms.

Even more disgraceful was Graham, who said on "Face the Nation": "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable," referring to Pastor Jones. "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."

This is jaw-dropping in its ignorance and stupidity. Graham is arguing against freedom of speech -- why else should an American citizen exercising his First Amendment rights, however offensive to some, be "held accountable" for the reactions of superstitious goatherds half a world away? -- and equating an insult toward the religion that explicitly animated the 9/11 hijackers with the Bund marchers who supported Hitler.

But the prize for disappointment goes to Petraeus and NATO Ambassador Mark Sedwill, whose statement read in part: "In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important . . . to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Koran and the Muslim faith. We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Koran.

"We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Koran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people."

To this we've come: Bogged down in an increasingly ineffectual military operation in Afghanistan that should have ended years ago after we defeated the Taliban and routed al Qaeda, we are instead apologizing to the very people who are killing American soldiers, and treating their holy book better than we do any other.

Petraeus' statement can perhaps be excused on the grounds that his job is as much diplomatic as martial -- but that, of course, is precisely what's wrong with his current mission. He shouldn't be "helping the Afghan people." That's a task for after the Islamist threat to the West has been eliminated.

World War II ended with the destruction of German cities, the death of Hitler, the hanging of the top surviving Nazis at Nuremberg. In Japan, Gen. Douglas MacArthur forced Emperor Hirohito to publicly renounce the myth of his own divinity and the Japanese doctrine of racial superiority.

But don't let's be beastly to the Islamists. After all, restricting the rights of our own citizens in order to appease people still living in the 7th century isn't much of a price to pay for peace, is it?

Let's be meek to them

And turn the other cheek to them

And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.

Let's give them full air parity

And treat the rats with charity,

But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.  


Copyright 2011 NYP Holdings, Inc.

Misusing The Constitution...Again

It has come to this, again.  As long as this administration is in power people will feel free to trample upon the Constitutional rights of others because they see it done daily by those who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

This story needs no explanation really.  All of us who are Conservatives are familiar with the "Pigford Affair"  and Shirley Sherrod.  Ms Sherrod is one of the prime examples of how this administration has, and continues to play the "race card,"  which has set back race relations in this country at least one complete generation.

A lot of good it did  for all of us who argued and marched for Civil Rights and equality for all.  Now, year later we see that all these years, regardless of their upward mobility in a society which once brutally discriminated them, members of the black community have harbored a bitter resentment against us, regardless of our actions, and judging us only by the color of our skin.

Is this what we call reverse discrimination?  Is it payback time?

Andrew Breitbart the subject of this article, and Ben Shapiro the author of the piece are journalists of impeccable credentials.  We might not always agree with them, but we know that they are, unlike those on the left, incapable of publishing anything less than the truth.

Shirley Sherrod's Unconstitutional Attack on Andrew Breitbart

By Ben Shapiro

On Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011, Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, the impresario of the ACORN scandal and a growing investigative force in the conservative media, held a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference. At that press conference, he laid out evidence of a concerted effort by government officials, race-baiting lawyers and certain black non-farmers to defraud the federal government of millions of dollars by exploiting a legal settlement called Pigford. On Saturday, Feb. 12, 2011, Shirley Sherrod, the single largest recipient of cash from the Pigford settlement, filed a lawsuit against Breitbart for defamation.

Sherrod, you may remember, was a ranking Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Breitbart released a video of Sherrod speaking to the NAACP, where she told a story about discriminating against a white farmer before realizing that such discrimination was wrong. The purpose of releasing the video, as Breitbart clearly stated, was to demonstrate that the same NAACP that labeled the tea party racist tolerated racism within its own ranks. The video accomplished that purpose -- members of the NAACP cheer and laugh as Sherrod describes her past racism in the video.

No matter what you think of the original Sherrod incident, Breitbart's commentary falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. Freedom of political speech lies at the core of the Constitution; we attack our political officials all the time without fear of reprisal. Sherrod was an outspoken public figure, one that unapologetically stated that she saw the world through the framework of Marxism.

Sherrod had indeed made racist statements in the past. In June 2009, for example, she explained to a group of college students that school integration was one of the "worst things that happened to black people" because integration undermined black self-sufficiency. She was quoted in 1996 as explaining that the federal government's role was "to be a force for keeping blacks on the land." Even in the NAACP speech at issue, she explained, "it is about black and white, but it's not."

Whether Breitbart is wrong isn't the issue here. It's whether Shirley Sherrod and her group of well-funded thug lawyers should be able to silence political opposition. Let's be frank: Sherrod's lawsuit is probably being backed by someone larger than Sherrod. Her lawyers are the famed law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. They wrote a 40-page complaint to lead things off. If Kirkland & Ellis charge Sherrod their usual rates, such a complaint probably would cost a minimum of $40,000 to produce. A full-scale lawsuit would cost Sherrod hundreds of thousands of dollars -- if she were paying.

In all likelihood, she isn't. Kirkland & Ellis just happens to be the second largest donor, through its employees, to President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign committee and leadership political action committee. Its lawyers are committed liberals, and as a Chicago-based firm, it is heavily tied in to the Democratic Party. As Andrew Breitbart drew the left's spotlight in 2009 and 2010 by defending the tea party, intensely pursuing Obama administration corruption and exposing liberal allies from unions to Hollywood, the left took notice. And they went to their favorite firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to deliver the knockout punch.

Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution stands in the way of such efforts. Sherrod's lawsuit is frivolous in the extreme. She can demonstrate no malice, because no malice existed; she can demonstrate no libel, because Breitbart's writings were fair comment on matters of public interest. Further, Sherrod has no damages -- she has been offered a promotion and made a cottage industry out of playing the victim.

The incredible cynicism of this lawsuit is obvious. The real culprits here are the members of the Obama administration who forced Sherrod's resignation -- and Sherrod even acknowledges that inconvenient fact in her lawsuit. Yet nobody in the Obama administration is a named defendant.

Andrew Breitbart has vowed that he will not be silenced. Thank God for the Constitution, which will allow him to continue his work, despite the legal bills he will have to incur. And shame on Shirley Sherrod for allowing herself to be used as a pawn in a chess match designed to shut down conservative criticism of the Obama administration once and for all.




©Creators Syndicate