Free Speech and Islamic Outrage: What Was Said, What Should Have Been Said

What was said -

@USEmbassyCairo (Tweeted 9/11/2012):

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (9/14/2012):

"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. I would note that in today's world, with today's technologies, that is virtually impossible.

But even if it were possible our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."

Commentary by walford

She reiterated the point that the U.S. government had “nothing to do” with the “offending” video as she gave a speech while the bodies of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were later being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base.

President Barack Obama (9/25/2012):

“In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

He later gave a speech before theU.N. General Assembly saying that no religion should be denigrated, even allowing this for Christianity. This is an improvement for him, but it misses the point and thus leaves ambiguity for those who mean us harm to interpret to suit their own intolerant -- and self-serving -- needs. Our freedom of speech should have been at the forefront and our resolve to defend it unequivocal.

---

What should have been said -

This is what any President who has sworn to protect the US Constitution should have said on the day the rioting started and repeated ever since -- especially in front of the UN:

"The United States of America is a free country with free speech. That is what makes our country great. That is what makes our country prosperous. People who are free to express themselves without fear have their creativity unbound to the benefit of all. There is no individual and no group in our country who is too powerful to be exempt from robust and uninhibited criticism. And this right of free expression is extended to everyone, regardless of connections or lack thereof.

People who suffer under oppression and poverty owe their condition in great part to their lack of free speech. We in the United States will certainly not emulate this to appease those who will resort to violence because of speech that offends them.

Our government is not in a position to endorse or undermine in any way the free speech of private individuals. Our government has a responsibility to defend it, however. Specifically with regard to speech supporting, glorifying, lampooning or criticizing a particular religion, that is not prohibited in our country.

We understand that picturing or discussing the Prophet of Islam in a way that is not in accordance with Islamic teaching and scriptures is prohibited under Shari'a law, under penalty of death. We do not have Shari'a law in the United States of America. We have a Constitution which we are sworn to defend, even if that means with blood.

As President of the United States, I am prepared to defend our freedom of speech using all the means at my disposal. Those who would threaten or harm Americans lawfully expressing their freedom of speech should know unequivocally that they do so at risk of their very lives."

GOP's "War on Women" vs DNC's "Choice"

Risky Choice
The Democrats double down on abortion

National Review October 1, 2012 Issue

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Watching the Democratic convention in Charlotte, at least in the hours before the networks started covering it, one might have gotten the impression that the chief threat to the common good in America is that some people want to restrict what was variously called “reproductive health care,” “the right to choose,” and, most simply if least frequently, “abortion.”

This subject was the theme of speeches by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood; Nancy Keenan, the president of a group called NARAL Pro-Choice America; and activist Sandra Fluke, famous for having been called a slut by Rush Limbaugh. Maria Ciano, addressing the convention as a former Republican, endorsed the right to choose. So did Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and San Antonio mayor Julián Castro. Caroline Kennedy, herself famous for being the daughter of a former president, said that she was especially concerned about reproductive health care “as a Catholic.” Actress Kerry Washington mentioned the right to choose in her speech. The president did as well.
==================
Commentary by walford

The National Review article notes that several pro-abortion speakers addressed the DNC this year, increasing the prominence of the issue. The Republican Party's position on this issue has not changed and GOP candidates have not addressed it unless asked.

It was the Democrat Party that decided to make abortion and contraception synonymous with "women's health." In campaign ads, one of the things that is cited against the Republicans is that they oppose forcing employers and taxpayers to pay for abortion and contraception. That is true.

The Obama administration certainly cannot run on its economic record, so I can see how it would be tempting to divert attention elsewhere by fanning the flames of fear by showing videos of a Republican pushing an old lady off the cliff or implying that they will, as Obama had said, see to it that girls like his daughters would be "punished with a baby" should they "make a mistake."

Republicans object to controversial social issues like these being settled in the courts, understanding that the American people are divided and that their perspectives change over time. Law should only be made in the legislatures by our elected representatives, subject to revision and review.

In that arena, we can debate whether unlimited abortion and contraception are actually in women's interests [as well as society at large] and whether it is proper to force people to go against their conscience and/or religious principles -- in direct contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution -- by paying for these things. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the issue would revert to the states wherein multiple approaches would be tried and changed as is determined by the people themselves.

It is clear, however, that the dominant view in the Democrat Party, is that some issues are too important to be trusted to a popular mandate. They prefer that a non-elected coterie of berobed Philosopher Kings settle the issue once and for all.

So which party is actually "pro-choice" and which is not?

***

The Constitution does not guarantee abortion, but it does indeed explicitly address the right to life.

It is one thing to say that the government should not be involved in the removal of a liver or kidney -- which would make the argument that a woman should have the right to determine what is done with her own body. Secular humanist Utopians, in their self-serving hubris, seem to regard the fact that women of child-bearing age are vessels of life as some form of male-conspiratorial oppression. There is a palpable sense that they hold that the child developing in the womb is some sort of STD and should be treated as such.

Slavery, denying the vote and other forms of oppression were made legally possible by defining a certain class of people as second-class citizens -- if not as sub-human.

Many of the arguments in favor of killing an innocent baby in the womb can also be made in favor of a child who has been born.

Princeton ethicist Peter Singer advocates killing babies as long as a year after being delivered if the infant is determined [by whom?] to be "defective." And let us remember that Planned Parenthood was founded as a eugenics organization whose mission was to rid the world of undesirables [viz. people of color] and the disabled. One could argue if a mother had sex with her husband and was subsequently raped, the baby could be subject to execution if the child is determined to be the rapist's offspring.

These are the sorts of things should be subject to debate, revision and review according to a popular mandate. Neither those who are inconvenienced by someone's existence nor a panel of judges are qualified to resolve this issue on a personal level nor in issuing the Law of the Land, respectively. The defining of human life and whether someone is entitled to the protection under the law is much more than a personal choice. Society at large is affected and invested, therefor this essential human rights issue.should be subject to open and continuous debate.

To Our Vegan/Vegetarian Friends

 Commentary by walford

If our ancestors did not eat meat, we would not be sitting at our keyboards arguing this point at all. Period.

After the australopithicines diverged from the genuses that later became the apes [we are not descended from apes; we are related, via a common ancestor] there was a split in the evolutionary tree.

One of these was Homo, which later became man. The other was Paranthropus, which was a strictly plant-eating anthropoid. This creature had a crest at the top of the skull, much like the modern -- and herbivorous -- gorilla.

This cranial structure served to anchor the jaw muscles necessary to be able to chew on raw plant matter. These muscles, however, limited the possibility for brain development.

The Homo genus on the other hand, was omnivorous and had to develop brain capacity to overcome its physical disadvantages in order to take game -- oftentimes much larger than itself.

The physical difference between Paranthropus and the gorilla is that the former had a human-like body, with an ape head, while the latter was many times more powerful. Put simply, Paranthropus was stupid, weak and slow.

Consequently, this was a failed experiment and Paranthropus left no progeny that carried on into the present day. It was a genetic dead-end.

So if you wish to emulate this extinct species to make you feel better about yourself, know that you are being just as stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I have steaks to put on the grill.

An Open Letter to Mitt Romney on Illegal Immigration and Caving in General

Romney's immigration stance may soften to appeal to Latino voters

Mitt Romney may adopt a softer tone on illegal immigration now that the long and divisive primary is over and he gears up for a head-to-head battle with Barack Obama....

"We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he told donors, according to NBC. Latinos' overwhelming support for Democrats and Obama "spells doom for us," he said.

---

Commentary by walford

Not all Latinos support illegal immigration and those who do would NEVER vote GOP in the first place. We don't need them. They are either hell-bent on Reconquista or they are not eligible to vote. Both of those groups will be voting Obama in November.

Rather than enforce existing laws, is Romney willing to try to be more of an appeaser to illegal immigration than is Barack Obama? If so, he will fail at this and instead only serve to alienate the Republican base who will be only more inclined to either stay home or vote third party.

What should be done instead? We do not need to militarize the border, build a wall or seek mass deportations. Instead, three things that will cost no money will more than suffice in addressing the illegal immigration issue effectively.

1. Reserve all taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents. No driver's licenses. No welfare. No food stamps. No education. Such services should be sought in their native lands. The United States is not obligated to provide for the rest of the world.
   
2. Clarify the 14th Amendment so it applies as it was intended when enacted. Those born slaves or born to slaves in U.S. territory are citizens. Those born to non-citizens -- particularly those who are here illegally -- are citizens of their home countries. The United States is one of the few countries of the world that do not have this policy. There is no good reason for pregnant women braving the desert in pursuit of giving birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket.
   
3. All who are convicted of crimes in this country and found to be here illegally should be summarily deported.
   

These and similar measures will result in many who are here illegally deporting themselves as well as those who are contemplating coming here remaining home and reforming their own countries. The number of American unemployed will have more job opportunities and higher wages as the labor glut is alleviated. By all means, compare the number of unemployed Americans to the number of people in this country illegally.

It is said that Americans would not pick strawberries or pluck chickens, so we must allow illegal immigration, guest worker programs and/or amnesty. In actuality, Americans would not do such work at the wages paid to people here illegally by exploitative employers.

Fostering or even tolerating illegal immigration is not compassionate. It is cruel.

Mexican governments over the past couple of generations have been spared internal pressures to curb the cronyism, respect human rights and foster a business-friendly environment. Why? Because the United States has been serving as a political and economic safety valve for various despotic regimes in the world. The results have been bad for ordinary people on both sides of the border.

Gov. Romney, I implore you to reconsider on this and all other major issues that you may be considering conceding in pursuit of so-called moderate voters. Ronald Reagan won decisively in two national elections because he unabashedly held to the principles upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln was founded. Unity. Freedom. Family. Self-Reliance. Empowerment. God. Country. Security at home and abroad.

We have had enough of having the GOP leadership taking the base for granted and attempting to placate the squishy middle. They will be attracted to those who actually stand for something. Prove your conservative detractors wrong and don’t betray us. Show us the courage of convictions and don’t apologize for who you are or for America.

Both parties know well what the will and interests of the American people are with respect to illegal immigration and have let us down.

Too many Democrats consider them voters to be bought with taxpayer-funded largesse. Many also are attracted to the fact that they come from places where questioning government authority is hazardous to one's health.

Let us not count you, Gov. Romney as among those Republicans who are beholden to commercial interests that are addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor.

Redistribution, collectivism and economic freedom

Commentary by walford

Governments cannot redistribute wealth; they can only redistribute poverty. Governments cannot eliminate or curb poverty, they can only eliminate or curb wealth.

The only choice we have is a shared poverty under collectivism and central planning or "the disparities" that accompany the prosperity that is enabled by economic freedom.

There is no way to grow an economy to the benefit of all w/o the rich getting disproportionately richer. So if the very poor will have their wealth tripled, the very rich may have their wealth multiplied a thousandfold. Is this bad? Is a shared poverty preferable?

That is because Economic Freedom raises the bar on how much wealth that it is possible to create. And the concept of created wealth is something that collectivists cannot possibly fathom.

Do not begrudge Bill Gates his fortune. He did not attain it at our expense, taking a larger share of finite pies than the rest of us as the advocates of redistributionist central planning would have us believe. That may have been true under pre-industrial agrarian economies, but not since then.

Bill Gates and those like him have baked new, better, cheaper pies. In the process of enriching himself making computers more powerful and easier to afford, he has also increased what it is possible for us all to attain.

He is a greater benefactor to mankind than Mother Theresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.

Gay Marriage: "Conservatives Understand Liberals. Liberals Don't Understand Conservatives."

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives/%28page%29/1

"Liberals see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’ core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated by their own (non-moral) values of in group loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity. For instance, when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights."

---

Commentary by walford

When Rick Santorum was recently being interrogated at a college forum about his opposition to gay marriage -- when he wanted to talk about the economy -- a part of his response [that was ignored by the media] was that civil unions are available. [I would add that a person can designate anyone to have financial and medical power of attorney.] He also went on to say that those who wish to change existing laws should make their case [democratically] in the legislatures by our elected representatives rather than in the Courts [by an unelected elite with lifetime tenure whose rulings are only subject to review by other appointed judges].

I would go on to add that marriage is an institution that has developed independently in every society and pre-dates written history. The community as a whole is invested in it because a major aspect and result of marriage -- under what circumstances children are born and reared -- has an effect upon us all. When humans were rare and vulnerable, our ancestors developed social structures and norms that had a direct effect upon survival of the group. We are each descended from those who made the right decisions in that regard.

If the vital institution of the family is to change via government sanction as well as by social mores, this is something the general population needs to discuss at length and any laws enacted be subject to revision and review as consequences make themselves apparent.

Conservative opposition to taxpayer-funded birth control -- beyond any religious objection -- is that it, in combination with abortion, greatly contribute to Westerners selecting ourselves for extinction and women being expected to sexually service men with no commitment. We do not regard this as being liberating or respectful. Behaviors are enabled that in turn create opportunities for micro-organisms to develop -- which our vaunted technology then helps to spread globally -- that otherwise would affect local populations only. Our fertility and continued survival is thusly undermined further. Conservatives consistently hold that Nature's Laws cannot be cheated and that we cannot change the rules of life on this planet to suit fleeting urges.

The pattern is familiar enough. First we are lectured about being tolerant. Then we are pressed to be accepting. All too often it is finally demanded of us to subsidize.

I will be so bold as to say that the above more typifies the conservative mindset than the Straw Men that are so routinely offered to be knocked down.

Instead, it is alleged that conservatives are waging a war on women's freedom and prudishly desire to impinge upon everybody's fun. We are telling people with whom they can be intimate because we are homophobic. And let us entertain this widely offered accusation for a moment. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals because the afflicted person fears that exposure will bring forth his/her own latent homosexuality. A phobia is a mental disorder. Therefore, those who think that homosexuality is anything but something one is born as; if it is considered anything other than an equally valid alternate lifestyle -- are proof-positive mentally ill. This blanket diagnosis is issued on a regular basis, regardless of the nature of the contrary view -- be it religious, biological, psychological and/or..."ew".

This demonstrates how Leftist caricatures of conservatives are ultimately based upon elitism. They cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them without being by definition stupid, ill-informed, and/or evil. Also, it is quite possible for Leftists to insulate themselves into intellectual enclaves of the like-minded with little exposure to the contrary.

For our part, we conservatives would have to take great lengths to avoid the Leftist viewpoint. They dominate the entertainment industry, the media, academia and the political class. Predictably, they look upon this from an elitist lens as well. In candid moments, they let it slip that they think that this is so because they are better informed.

The reality is the Aristocracy has shifted from being by birth to that of political pull. It is no less medievalist. The general population is on a visceral level distrusted as incorrigibly ignorant and should therefore be silenced or marginalized if it cannot be manipulated into accepting dicta from Our Betters.

We are constantly barraged with The Cause from the schools, the news and entertainment. This in turn has created a hunger for alternatives -- hence the increasing interest in vouchers, home-schooling as well as the high ratings of conservative news and commentary. The general population may not have had the level of access to information as did the self-appointed elites -- the Internet has served greatly to equalize that disadvantage -- but they have always had Common Sense. People know when they are being lied to and when they are being sold a bill of goods.

We are neither stupid, ignorant nor evil -- as the Left thinks and hopes we are.

Hence, the majority -- knowingly or not -- still holds to the essential conservative values of freedom, individual responsibility, objective reality and morality as being something that is externally generated and thus must be discovered, rather than made.

This frustrates, infuriates and terrifies the Left.

Natural Law, Natural Religion

 Commentary by walford

"Natural Law" is a concept that developed under the Enlightenment. It essentially means that we are all born free and that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our freedoms. That means it should protect us from criminals..., foreign invaders and to settle disputes. It means that we can do anything so long as it does not adversely affect anyone else [hence pollution would still be illegal and the existing laws could be even more strict].

It does not mean that government should provide for us or coerce us to conform to an arbitrarily defined Utopian ideal designed by a self-appointed elite.

Natural Religion is that which is based upon the Laws of Nature, which are to be discovered, not made by Man. The Holy Scriptures are written in how the Divine operates directly rather than in the writings of man. Penalty and reward issue from the consequences of our decisions -- collectively and individually. If one puts his hand in a fire, he burns. If we engage in behaviors that create an environment that would spread disease, that tribe with be wiped out. If our government implements an economic system based upon faulty logic, the system will collapse.

In Natural Law and Natural Religion, the standards are understood as objective -- externally generated. Under Utopian ideology and dogmatic religion, the standards are subjective -- internally generated. Under those ideologies, rather than learning of the world and adapting, the object is to force others to conform to one's own perspective because we believe we each generate our own reality. The content of other people's minds is thus a potential threat as contrary thoughts can potentially destroy the arbitrary ideal.