« September 11, 2001 in videos | Main | Islamophobia missing in cross country trek by 2 Muslims »

The Hobgoblins Of Small Minds

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the Koran-burning dumbass in Florida, the Ground Zero mosque, and several other incidents in the recent past. And while, at first, there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy involved, it turns out there is a consistency at work in how the incidents are portrayed. A troublesome one, but a consistency nonetheless.

1) The Koran-burning dumbass: it's his Constitutional right, but it inflames hatred and bigotry and puts Americans at risk around the world.

2) The Ground Zero Mosque: it's their Constitutional right to build their "Islamic Cultural Center" there, and anyone who opposes their doing so is acting against the Constitution.

3) "Piss Christ:" It's an exercise in free speech, and to denounce it is tantamount to censorship.

4) Mohammed cartoons: It's free speech and free press, but it's tremendously insensitive and should be reconsidered carefully because Islam forbids depictions of their Prophet.

5) "The Last Temptation Of Christ:" Viewed by many Christians as blasphemous and an attack against their faith, but an artist's creative vision and protected.

6) South Park's plans to depict Mohammed in cartoon form: a gross insult to the world's Muslims, and a tremendous display of insensitivity and bigotry.

At first glance, the inconsistency stands stark: in the odd-numbered cases, the rights of the offenders to exercise their rights trump the rights of the offended to not be offended. In the even-numbered cases, the rights of the offended trump the rights of the offenders.

But there is a consistency here. The rights of the Muslims, in each case, triumphs. They have the right to be offensive, and the right to not be offended.

But it can't be that simple, can it? A simple case of religious supremacy, where one faith simply holds higher status in the eyes of the law and society than another? That's utterly intolerable -- the Constitution explicitly forbids such discrimination, and at no point will anyone arguing either side of the argument state it as such.

No, the real answer is a consistency at a more primal level. An allegiance to a principle that predates the Constitution, a principle that is probably as old as humanity itself.

"Don't piss off the crazy dangerous people."

That's what it boils down to. Consciously or not, the mainstream narrative in the above six cases all comply with it to the letter.

In each case, all you have to do is weigh which side in the dispute is more likely to respond to the situation with violence. Which side is more prone to respond to provocation with force, to attack and kill to express its displeasure -- even of innocents.

Weighed on that scale, it's really easy to make a decision on each case.

Nutjob wants to burn Korans? That could get Muslims around the world to start killing. Stop him.

Muslims want to build their not-quite-a-mosque in a building damaged by the 9/11 attacks, named after a great Muslim conquest, with ground-breaking scheduled for 9/11/2011, and of seriously dubious financing? Go ahead, let them.

Christians are mad that an artist sticks a crucifix in a jar of urine? Screw 'em. What are they gonna do?

Draw cartoons of Mohammed? That could get people killed! Stay the hell away from that one.

A blasphemous movie about Jesus? Oh, just grow up and get over it, Christians.

Mohammed in a TV cartoon? Didn't you idiots learn anything from the newspaper cartoons! That actually did get people killed! Don't do it!

The non-Muslim defenders of Islam wrap themselves in principles and ideals and lofty language, talking about Constitutional rights and being against bigotry and hatred and all that, but they will never apply those same demands for "respect" and "tolerance" on behalf of other, less violence-prone groups.

And that exposes their agenda: at their core, they aren't actually driven by principle. They're driven by fear. Fear of what happens when you piss off crazy, violent people.

Which is, itself, a form of bigotry. "The soft bigotry of low expectations." They just presume that if Muslims are insulted in some way, they will respond with violence.

Which is, it must be noted, is rather justified. It's not a guarantee, but it's certainly the way to bet.

But to simply presume that is to say that Muslims, generally, can't rise above such primitive, savage urges and act like mature, civilized human beings. And, generally, that those who can and will can't exert restraint on those who find it so challenging to do so.

Again, it's a belief that's based in reality.

But does it have to be? Can't Muslims be called upon to grow up a bit, to recognize that their standing as members of civilized society require them to "suck it up" and recognize that they have no right to not be offended? That they have no right to demand that the entire world, even those non-Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, obey the laws and dictates of their faith?

I think they can be.

I think they must be.

And that is why I considered my own little act of blasphemy recently. Not as a gesture of hatred of Islam, but as a simple, personal Declaration Of Independence:

I am not a Muslim. I do not live in a Muslim land. I owe Islam no allegiance or obedience whatsoever. And I have every right to violate Muslim law with impunity.

Those who speak of their "respect" for our Constitution and freedom ought to stand behind my rights to do so. They can say they don't agree with my actions, but they will defend my rights to do so.

But those governed by fear will urge me to desist. They will speak of showing "respect" and "tolerance" for Islam, and talk about how I should not commit this awful act of blasphemy.

But the real message is the one they will not dare to speak:

"Don't piss off the crazy dangerous people."

Fuck that. Sometimes, you need to piss off the crazy dangerous people. Sometimes, you need to remind them that their craziness and dangerousness does not trump law and principle and tradition.

Or you can just get used to letting the crazy dangerous people run things.

It's not that bad, really. After all, they might not go after you any time soon.

It's the textbook definition of "terrorism:" the fear of the use of violence and the threat of violence to bring about changes in behavior and policy.

I don't feel like being terrorized.

OK, where the hell is a Koran? I got some bacon's just dying to be used most inappropriately...


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40080.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Hobgoblins Of Small Minds:

» Wizbang linked with The Religion Of Peace

Comments (42)

"Don't piss off the crazy d... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Don't piss off the crazy dangerous people."

Yep, hypocrisy. But it hasn't bothered them before, why should it bother them now?

Ever notice that most times... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Ever notice that most times, the looney left, the lib media, and O-B-R-P take basically the same position as the Islamo-fascists?

I'm so tired of everyone ti... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

I'm so tired of everyone tip toeing around the red headed step child called islam (see rage boy). They can take their deceptive hateful barbaric and evil culture back to their 3rd world sand box in the middle east and stay there.

On the the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed tearing up the most hateful and violence inciting pages of their so called holy book and watching them burn and turn to ash. Being a safety conscience individual, it was also enjoyable to relieve myself (of few craft beers) upon the ashes to insure the flames were extinguished.

Did I incite any violence? I really don't care. Muslims who think they are in Pakistan while in Texas do so at their own peril.

I will not submit to any of their intolerance.

Seeing as the death toll fr... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Seeing as the death toll from the mohammad cartoons was primarily other muslims, I say we keep on pissing them off until they take care of the issue themselves.

"Those who speak of their "... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Those who speak of their "respect" for our Constitution and freedom ought to stand behind my rights to do so. They can say they don't agree with my actions, but they will defend my rights to do so."

The problem is that libs believe in the constitution for them, but not for anyone else. They do not believe that other people whose views differ from their own should be allowed the same freedoms and protection.

Their argument for why others should not have these same rights is because "they are wrong" in their beliefs and wrong beliefs like that do not deserve protection. If you think I exaggerate consider that they equate people with conservative views to be the equivalent of islamic terrorists who would gladly take their lives. So people who want to argue with you about ideas are equivalent to people who want to cut off your head over ideas.

Piss Christ was also public... (Below threshold)
howcome:

Piss Christ was also publicly funded and we were not allowed to criticize it without a meltdown from the left.

"Can't Muslims be called up... (Below threshold)

"Can't Muslims be called upon to grow up a bit, to recognize that their standing as members of civilized society require them to "suck it up" and recognize that they have no right to not be offended? That they have no right to demand that the entire world, even those non-Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, obey the laws and dictates of their faith?"

No, not as long as Islam accepts the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira as their scriptures, because each of these "holy" books _require_ that Muslims be offended by such things and that they, whenever possible, respond violently to such "offenses". It's extremely clear in the life of Islam's "perfect man" (whom ALL Muslims are enjoined to emulate and whose words are specifically taught to be the inerrant Word of Allah) and in his specific teachings that your proposal is impossible, as long as the Koran, as well as Islam's other "holy" books, are THE definitive Islamic source. But... if the 70% or so of the Koran, etc., that are little other than terrorist training materials were deleted from the Koran, etc. (or ignored)then Islam would cease to exist and what would be left would be a few moralistic platitudes lifted from other religions.

Then, but only then, could the gutted, _former_ Islam might be able to grow up and respond rationally to the world at large.

As we move into the 10th ye... (Below threshold)
Grace:

As we move into the 10th year after September 11, I believe we are becoming more and more aware of the dangers of this "religion".

I put that in quotes, because to me, religion denotes moral attitude and actions by an individual, not a government system.

As we move from the immediacy of the horror of 9/11, and as we see more and more proof of the lack of spine from the "moderate muslims" to condem anything or anyone who contradicts their religion, we as a nation, are beginning to stiffen our resolve.

I feel the exact same way as Jay Tea, "bring it on". Each year we remember innocents, but also those fearless first responders - those willing to overcome their fears and act.

"to me, religion denotes mo... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"to me, religion denotes moral attitude and actions by an individual, not a government system."

Good point. I would add that there is no other religion that I am aware of where the moral code of how we treat others differs in how we treat coreligionists and those outside the religion.

islam teaches that murder, slavery, lying, cheating, rape etc are all OK if done to people who are non-muslim. Apart from some cults, I can think of no comparison.

Its fearWhen MFM vid... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

Its fear
When MFM videod muslim reactions around the world, the joy of the mobs etc, Arafat told MSM that any further filmers would die...and that was the end as very little footage(is that a valid word in the day of video?).
I think the Ruling Class also fears terrorist suiciders as the main reason for supporting them and supporting them they do...

Eventually the Muslim nati... (Below threshold)
G.:

Eventually the Muslim nations will have to be forced away from Islam the same way they got there, by the point of the sword. I don't want my country or the west to have to do that, but I suspect that that is ultimately what will come to pass. They will push and destroy until they've gone to far and the proverbial shite hits the fan. Use of nuclear weapons will be involved but I think they will be the ones that strike with them first. We will be the ones that return it last, with finality of purpose. Mecca and Medina and other "holy" shrines of Islam will cease to exist. War on Islam will be a reality. In Christianity and Judaism there is a time for war. Scripture tells us so. This, is a time for war. There is no command in my beliefs that one must submit to servitude of men or evil. I do not demand they or anyone else serve or embrace my beliefs. Our founding fathers said we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Islam means to remove those rights by force under the guise and guile of a wicked god that does not exist. We have turned our cheek to our enemy and have been struck. We have turned our other cheek to our enemy and have been struck. For more than 30 years this has been going on. We have struck some of their nations in return to remove evil people/leaders from their midst at the cost of the precious blood of our sons and daughters. To give those nations a chance of hope and peace and freedom. But their problem is not just a person or people, it IS a religion of hate and death. As long as it rules their lives, evil people will use it to justify death and submission on others.

I will not submit. I am commanded to love my neighbor as my self, but I am not commanded to submit and follow wickedness nor am I required to allow my life or the lives of others to be taken or forced into submission to the demands of the wicked. Must the people of Islam die? No. Islam itself MUST die. If their people must to save the free, if they will have no other way, then so be it. May the death of Muhammad and his slavery of nations be delivered soon with finality and freedom for all people.

Re # 5:Jim, you re... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 5:

Jim, you really should stop posting comments in which you explain "what libs believe."

Either you have NO IDEA what "libs" believe or you are making stuff up because it fits with what you want to THINK "libs" believe. Or you heard this stuff somewhere and just mindlessly repeat it without any basis in reality.

Now, Mr Tea doesn't explicitly say so, but I think it's safe to assume that he wants his readers to think that it's the "libs," as Jim would put it, who want to excuse Muslim intolerance and enforce tolerance on everyone else. That's humbug.

Plenty of liberals were vocal in their condemnation of the violent Muslim overreaction to the Danish cartoon shouldn't-have-been-a-controversy, and were furious at the makers of South Park for giving in to fanatical Muslim bullying.

As for myself, a proud liberal, I say screw ALL religious people who can't take a joke, be they Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan. This is America, and we can say, believe, and disbelieve as we please. That goes for crazy Muslims upset about cartoons as well as crazy Evangelicals upset about a sculpture. (Which was, umm, about twenty freaking years ago, wasn't it?)

And if I'm correct, and that IS what Mr Tea is implying (that liberals are scaredy-cats and conservatives aren't), how does he explain the fact that liberals have always been perfectly willing to "piss off the crazy dangerous people" like the Klan, Bull Connor's Police Department, and the Aryan Nations?

There's something to be said for "pissing off the crazy dangerous people" sometimes. There's also something to be said for NOT pissing them off just to BE pissing them off.

It's also bogus to equate the building of the Park 51 center with the burning of the Koran by this nutjob in Gainesville (where I was born, BTW.) If you take the Park 51 people at their word, they want to promote tolerance and diversity. If you take Terry Jones at HIS word, he wants to promote intolerance and hatred in the name of Jesus. See the difference?

Actually, the breakdown of ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Actually, the breakdown of Islam, oversimplified of course, is Ishmael was fathered by Abraham through a whore and God banished him from the promise land. Abraham made amends and birthed Isaac through his elderly wife Sarah and then became the father of all nations. Of course the family battle between the bastard son Ishmael and the pure tribe of the twelve, Israel has been going on for centuries. Our president may say we are not at war with Islam but I guarantee you most muslims believe this is a holy war that has been going on for thousands of years.

But I do agree with JT and that is why I was looking forward to the nutty pastor burning the Koran so the muslims would get a life lesson. The main one being our freedoms trump their terrorism and secondly, we are not afraid of them. Well, I should say some of us are not afraid but obviously our government is as is our generals. I am a huge supporter of Betreus, but his saying an act of burning Korans would put our troops in danger is stupid. They are already there. If anything, it may piss off the Afghans to a point of making stupid mistakes in their strategy thus making our victories more numberous.

Wake up America, the muslims are trying to control how we act and think. ww

And yeah, I know, you'll sa... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And yeah, I know, you'll say "We can't take Muslims at their word." Yeah, yeah. Give me some examples, and I'll file 'em under "Religious Liars I Have Known."

"...liberals have always be... (Below threshold)
G.:

"...liberals have always been perfectly willing to "piss off the crazy dangerous people" like the Klan, Bull Connor's Police Department, and the Aryan Nations?"

Bruce, this may come as a shock...but democrats ARE the party of the Klan,slavery,Jim crow laws etc. so i guess you wouldn't mind "pi$$ing off" yourselves. wise up.

Oh you are scaredy cats, and well know scaredy cats (hence the sheets)

And if I'm correct, and ... (Below threshold)

And if I'm correct, and that IS what Mr Tea is implying (that liberals are scaredy-cats and conservatives aren't), how does he explain the fact that liberals have always been perfectly willing to "piss off the crazy dangerous people" like the Klan, Bull Connor's Police Department, and the Aryan Nations?

Bruce, two things: first, the liberals of today are NOT the liberals who did that. Second, I'd wager that all three groups you cited have nowhere NEAR the body count that radical Islam has.

J.

Is "Bruce Henry" Dane?... (Below threshold)
CODEKEYGUY:

Is "Bruce Henry" Dane?

that's perfect! I quote yo... (Below threshold)

that's perfect! I quote you and linked your post and told everyone to come over here and read the whole thing.

http://kirls.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-piss-off-crazy-dangerous-people.html

"If you take the Park 51 pe... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"If you take the Park 51 people at their word, they want to promote tolerance and diversity."

Actually, that is the problem. Libs like you, Bruce, want to take people who hate America at their word and those who want to defend America you always question.

Perhaps you would feel better if instead of referring to 'libs' I referred to 'lefties' like yourself. I suppose there may be liberal people who no longer consider themselves part of the leftist "progressive" movement.

If you ever wanted evidence that the left wanted to appease the radical muslims and offend the whole of America just look to see what the fat poster child of the left, Michael Moore is saying. Currently he is saying the the mosque should not be built 2 blocks away from ground zero. No, he's demanding that we build it directly on top of the graves of the people they murdered. It's already acknowledged to be an act of triumphalism over the US. Why not help them make it a complete symbol of islam's pending victory over our culture. Moore and the left (yeah, that includes you Bruce) want to see America's enemies victorious and our culture destroyed.

The liberals who helped fac... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The liberals who helped face down the Klan are mostly old or dead, Mr Tea, that is true.

So, that IS what you were implying, that liberals are pussies and conservatives like yourself are manly he-men who'd just as soon piss off a dern Mooslim as look at 'im? I thought so.

So, a blogger, who uses a pseudonym, threatens, at some unnamed future date, to privately do something inappropriate involving bacon and a Koran.

Wow, that's impressive.

And anonmymous commenters on that blog, like # 3 above, claim to have already torn out some pages, burned them and pissed on the ashes, but nobody saw him do it, of course.

Real profile in courage there.

But Jon Stewart, who has repeatedly and relentlessly mocked fanatical Muslim bullies many times in recent years on National television, is a liberal sissy. Why don't we ask Jim M what Stewart was thinking when he did that?

Moore is a provocateur, Jim... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Moore is a provocateur, Jim. He says stuff just to piss conservatives off. It works, too.

And thanks again for explaining "what libs (or 'lefties') think," Jim. Never-ending source of humor.

BTW, Mr Tea, Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center are still around today. Do they qualify as "liberal?" Do they still piss off crazy dangerous people like the Klan, neo-Nazis, and the Aryan Nations?

Oh, and Jim? Is Te... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, and Jim?

Is Terry Jones one of those who "want to defend America?" Really?

How about his theological brethren at Westboro Baptist Church? Are they as patriotic as you and Reverend Jones, Jim?

Fred Phelps is a registered... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat if I recall correctly. Just a fun bit of trivia.

Actually, I read somewhere ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Actually, I read somewhere that Phelps won an award back in the day from his local NAACP. Of course, this was before God turned him insane.

The SPLC, Bruce? <a href="h... (Below threshold)

The SPLC, Bruce? Those racist, white-trash-with-money crackers, Bruce? That SPLC?

I don't consider them any kind of moral force. Especially since they teamed up with Soros' minions for their "smear the Tea Party" stunt.

J.

Well, it's a minor point, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, it's a minor point, Mr Tea. But Dees, Potok, et al ARE liberals, and ARE still actively pissing off crazy dangerous people, as well as courageous Koran-defilers like you and Texbob.

"Soros' minions", Mr Tea? R... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"Soros' minions", Mr Tea? Really? You're a better writer than that.

"Morris Dees and the Southe... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center are still around today. Do they qualify as "liberal?""

Do they count as Liberal? I would peg them left of liberal. I would also ask why they apparently refuse to hire minorities into positions of importance within their organization. I say refuse because the only explanation for an organization with an overt civil rights mission to have no minorities in high position has to be prejudice. Interesting that.

As for Fred Phelps...there was a time before he was insane? I don't pay much attention to his crap but if there was such a time it would surprise me.

Oh, come ON, Bruce. You're ... (Below threshold)

Oh, come ON, Bruce. You're a LOT smarter than this. Where is the threat that they're confronting today that's anywhere NEAR the danger of radical Islam?

Remember, we've had three major Islamist terrorist attacks within the US just since Obama became president, and the only reason two of them failed was the incompetence of the attackers.

J.

Oh, I get what you're sayin... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Oh, I get what you're saying, Mr Tea.

No, the Klan and the neo-Nazis aren't nearly the threat that radical Islam is. Happy? However, they ARE a pretty big threat to the individuals who man the SPLC, I dare say.

But your implication is that liberals are physical and moral cowards, unlike conservatives, who have the guts of Chuck Norris and the steely-eyed ability to call a spade a spade, and then ACT, of Clint Eastwood. You know, like yourself and the ubermacho Texbob, who go around burning, pissing on, and greasing up Korans whenever you dern well please.

And I disagree, that's all. Morris Dees is only one example. What about Stewart, who I mentioned previously? Is he a pussy like the rest of us libs and lefties?

Bruce, Stewart has flashes ... (Below threshold)

Bruce, Stewart has flashes of testicular fortitude. But his network... see #6.

But back to the SPLC... notice those salary figures in that link I posted? Talk about doing well by doing good. And it seems that the best way to fight black poverty is to pay a bunch of white people a lot of money to take care of them. Ain't that mighty white of the SPLC people?

Damn you, Bruce. I've been kicking a whole article about the SPLC, and you're making me waste all my best lines here.

J.

"Don't piss off the craz... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Don't piss off the crazy dangerous people."

And that is exactly why Obama, when he spoke of the Cordoba group's constitutional right to build where they want, felt he had to clarify himself and say that he would not comment on the wisdom of building at ground zero ... BUT ... he just about broke a leg getting to a microphone to speak to the wisdom of a nobody preacher at a nothing church burning a Quran.

Bruce-"It's also b... (Below threshold)
914:

Bruce-

"It's also bogus to equate the building of the Park 51 center with the burning of the Koran by this nutjob in Gainesville (where I was born, BTW.)"


Must be something in the water.


Re # 31:What about... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 31:

What about Colbert, Mr Tea? He's on Comedy Central, and routinely mocks idiot Muslim bullies, as well as idiot Christians, idiot Jews, and idiot conservatives. He occasionally even bashes idiot liberals, when he deems one worth mocking.

And what about the odious Bill Maher? He slammed Muslim fanatics pretty good in Religulous, don't you think? I know he's not on CC, but he is a liberal who's not afraid to mock and humiliate fundamentalist Muslims. I know he's not brave enough to adopt a pseudonym and boast on a blog that he may rub bacon on a Koran someday, but he's still pretty brave in my book.

See my point here, Mr Tea? You and Drummond and Wizbang commenters have a fantasy in which you guys are manly testosterone-filled toughguys who are willing to go to war, (even sending other people's kids to die) while liberals are pussy head-in-the-sand types who just don't get it, and wouldn't do anything about it if they did. Or even worse, consciously abetting the evil Muslim worldwide conspiracy to reestablish the Caliphate.

I'm here to tell you you're incorrect. Your fantasy is just that - a fantasy.

Excellent points Jay. ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

Excellent points Jay.

You have been on a real tear the last month or two -- the quality (and quantity!) of your output seem to have taken a major step up. I've always enjoyed reading your posts, but to me you seem to nailing it on almost every post lately.

Whatever you're drinking, don't quit!

Bruce, I'm not going to pla... (Below threshold)

Bruce, I'm not going to play your "gotcha game." I'm talking about the general trend, the big narrative. Instead of touting your little pet heroes, why not look at the actual examples I cited? The incidents, and the trend they demonstrate?

Oh, yeah, because you seem to think that because you can cite individual examples that don't fit the trend, you've disproven my thesis. That only works if I had labeled it as an absolute. Pity for you I hadn't.

J.

WildWillie...I mus... (Below threshold)
ElvenPhoenix:

WildWillie...

I must correct some of your Biblical history re: Ishmael, the elder son of Abraham. His mother was not a whore, rather she was the handmaiden (read: slave) of Sara, Abraham's wife. Sara gave Hagar to Abraham for him to conceive a child with when she concluded that she was too old and barren, and would never be able to give her husband progeny. Out of that union Ishmael was born.

Then Sara conceived Isaac. Once her own son was born she was jealous of the child Abraham had had with Hagar and caused Ishmael and his mother to be driven from their camp.

Yes, "dont' piss off the da... (Below threshold)
Scott Madsen:

Yes, "dont' piss off the dangerous crazy people" applies in many social circumstances, especially if you are a middle class to upper class liberal who doesn't like getting their hands messy taking out their oen garbage, let alone societies garbage.

This is the very reason they have all of the productive pay taxes that are dumped into the bottomless pit that is social entitlement prograns, to keep the cities from turning into bonfires. Confidence money or riot insurance, call it what you want, but that is all it really is....well that and a vote buying program for the Demcong of course.

But see, Mr Tea, I DID addr... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

But see, Mr Tea, I DID address your examples, except for the Martin Scorsese movie. I spoke to the Koran burning dumbass issue, Park 51, the Piss Christ thing, and especially the cartoon thing.

And my "pet heroes," all proud, influential liberals, were among the loudest voices ridiculing the Muslim hissyfit over the cartoons, and the South Park sellout, too. The sculpture issue is SO 1980s, and come to think of it, so was that movie.

And, again, I can't say my "little pet heroes" are courageous enough to pseudonymously claim to touch porkfat to a Koran, as you so bravely did, or to secretly burn and pee on one, as the manly Texbob claims to have done. (Wonder if he squatted while doing that?) But, yeah, they're still heroes to me.

I agree that citing individual contrary examples doesn't disprove a trend. It also can't, apparently, shake your faith in your own Marlboro Man ideology, in which you squint and grunt about how tough you are, and what lily-livered tinhorns liberals are. Laughable.

.... But there is a consist... (Below threshold)

.... But there is a consistency here. The (triumphs of the demands of Muslims and/or of every other un-and-anti-American activist, in every) case, (trample on the Constitutional Rights of every Sovereign American. Every enemy of America) the "right" to be offensive, and the "right" to not be offended ....

Thus are the twin tyrannies of "multiculturalism" -- which deliberately destroys our culture from within and "political correctness," which demonizes and destroys those of us who dare protest our culture's deliberate destruction -- being sheeted home.

(Don't you just love "Democrats?" AKA Traitors)

Hey, Mr Allen, there are ru... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Hey, Mr Allen, there are rules about when and how to use parentheses. Study up on 'em.

The thing to do with crazy ... (Below threshold)
1389 Author Profile Page:

The thing to do with crazy dangerous people is to use force and defeat them. For crazy dangerous people at home, that's why we have police and sheriffs. For crazy dangerous people abroad, that's why we have a military, including a thermonuclear deterrent, if it comes to that.

We are NOT paying our government officials, and particularly the CinC and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to lie down and surrender when confronted by enemy threats. We ARE paying them to organize and coordinate the defense of the American land and people against enemy threats.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy