The day after your ambassador is killed, why not defend free speech without question?



A few weeks after the attack that killed your ambassador, you felt you had reflected enough to address the UN General Assembly.



Very academic. Nice going. Did these Tunisian muslims, and millions of muslims all over the world, buy in to your lofty message?



I thought muslims only hated Bush? They're chanting your name, Sir. It appears that they're not happy with you. I am so confused by this, because you told us that our image would be restored in the world because you are so awesome.



Whoops...um...sorry to point out...your administration....uh....just became so arrogant that it stepped on its own dick. You're making us look bad now, Sir (by sending social justice champion Rice to the podium to speak on matters of national security).



Lastly, what was in this video that you say was so offensive? Did you know that it is still posted on YouTube because Google, YouTube's owner, still believes in free speech? Funny, they refused to remove it because they said it does not violate their policies. Imagine that. Why did you lobby so hard for them to take it down, because I just watched it again and it is just as insanely stupid as it was the first time.

This video is so slow on the uptake that if it can cause a stir in the muslim world, anything will. Get a life, rabid jihadists and political buffoons...both of you...for thinking this can, could, or should enrage people:



It is shameful that this video was even mentioned in the same sentence with the names Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods. It was not the cause of the Benghazi attack. An enemy committed to destroy us was responsible - an enemy whose numbers are growing.

In attempting to explain what transpired on September 11, 2012, and the reasons these men are now gone, try addressing the truth, Mr. President. It sets you free - the same thing free speech has done for the rest of us for the last 236 years.

In March 2001, the Taliban and elements of Al Queda destroyed the 'Buddhas of Bamiyan' statues. The statues were located 140 miles northwest of Kabul, Afghanistan. They were built by Buddhist monks at the heyday of their empire in the early to mid part of the 6th century.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) produced a 2011 film offering an account of what happened. This clip was taken from their film, which was produced to mark the 10th anniversary of the statue's destruction:


Notice there is no explanation of who actually is responsible for blowing up the statues. Keep in mind that the United Nations, UNESCO's parent, appointed Moammar Gadhafi to the UN Human Rights Council in May 2010, only to suspend Libya's membership nine months later as the progressive-backed Arab spring unfolded.

Unfortunately for UNESCO, they failed to hire me, a simple-minded brute lacking a college degree, to assist them in researching their video. My typing skills and the ability to navigate around the youtube video database would have yielded them quick (about 20 seconds), decisive results in figuring out who blew up the statues:



The word at the beginning - khilafa - translates to caliphate, meaning islamic empire. These guys seem pretty proud of their work. Were they motivated by islam? To help answer this question, we might ask the opinion of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (superior to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency), as he seems to be an expert on the muslim brotherhood:


If the muslim brotherhood is secular, Jimmy, they sure did pick a funny name.

Why does it seem that the most liberal elements of our society consistently fail to openly criticize the most conservative elements of islamic society?

Why do the most conservative elements of our society get called 'islamophobes' when they openly address certain very troubling aspects of islamic doctrine?

Between these two approaches, which is actually more culturally sensitive? If we are a just society, is justice not best served by identifying perpetrators of an attack by name? Do the victims benefit from the knowledge that others stand with them to face a common threat?

Why did the United States government recently remove of 900 pages of material from FBI and military intelligence training manuals because it was "offensive" to islam? Can these people work more or less efficiently when they lack training in religious fanaticism? If they are efficient in addressing islamic extremism, is that offensive?

Why did the word 'islam' fail to appear a single time in the official summary report detailing the actions of Nidal Malik Hassan's shooting of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood?

Answer to the last question: It failed to mention islam as being Hassan's motivator for the same reason the UNESCO video failed to mention who blew up the 1600 year old Buddha statues. For two reasons: 1.) lack of character to address the truth 2.) moral weakness to stand up for one's own values.

We now know that the video produced by a recent American immigrant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt, was not behind the Consulate attack that killed our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department has recently confirmed that there were no protests prior to the assault - a position that was relayed from people who were actually in Benghazi on the ground.

Were these first-hand accounts relayed to the public by designated spokespeople in the U.S. government? Answer: Probably. How did these leaders forward the message to the American public. Watch:

• Why does Susan Rice, speaking on Meet the Press five days after the attack, place so much emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why aren't more people acknowledging that the video was first viewable on youtube in June 2012 - a full three months prior to the attack?
• Even the president of Libya admitted that the attack was preplanned a week and a half prior to our own government conceding the point (their admittal, however, was ambiguous at best).
• The FBI team sent to sort through the rubble of the Consulate arrived three weeks after the attack and was on the ground for a total of three hours. How much evidence do you think was left after three weeks?
• We know that CNN had people on the ground almost immediately following the attack - they recovered the dead Ambassador's personal journal. Why was our government so slow to respond?
• Why did Vice President Biden just double down on the administration's assertion that they received no request for additional security from Benghazi Consulate officials, when the Ambassador's own journal said the opposite (as reported by Anderson Cooper)?
• What the eff is going on?

Either elements of our government are grossly incompetent, or something smells foul.

• Is the Obama administration trying to obscure convincing evidence that their foreign policy has proven to be tremendously naive? Are they humble enough to reassess their strategy and change course?
• Why did Hillary Clinton sign on to United Nations resolution 1618 in July of 2011, whereby it would be a crime of the World Court to blasphemize the prophet of other religions?
• Should a lengthy, persistent, and neurotic emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence be considered to be a positive outreach to the muslim world? Should we see it as demonstrative of the implementation of UN resolution 1618? Is the arrest of the film's producer in California proof?

Blasphemy laws in Western culture have been irrelevant since the early 18th century. Today they are still life-and-death relevent in all 57 islamic countries around the world. Yes, you will be thrown in jail or could be sentenced to death there if you speak out against islam. Even in the UAE, a progressive place by islamic standards, Western couples have been thrown in jail for kissing in public.

• Does these types of laws move society forward, or backward, in terms of progressing the rights of human kind?
• Are we really moving in the right direction when we advance the same sort of agenda in our own country?

Lastly, to further assist UNESCO with its protection of human and cultural rights, I will give them something the FBI calls a clue: radical islam has a problem with everyone who is not them, including moderate muslims. Its called jihad. Google it. This is not a Christian thing. Far from it. Why haven't we heard more about this attack on Buddhists in our news, considering that it happened only two weeks ago and comes on the heels of Libya?


Leave it to Russia Today to bring in a guest, author Serge Trifkovic, that gets it 100% right in his description of recent events in the Middle East. I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the situation. Put simply, it is an intelligent response. To him, 2+2 = 4.

I wish I could say the same of our country's academic elites, media progressives, and professional political operatives. To them, 2+2 = 5. They are so obviously in the tank - so much so that they are a national security threat to the American people. Because of their cooperation with a dangerous administration hell bent on fundamental transformation, I fear that very soon someday we will wake up to a very, very bad day in this country.

And the people who haven't daily looked for and found alternative media sources will wonder what happened. They will wonder how such an event could have happened. The reason the mainstream media is a threat is because they are consciously denying people the type of warning information that could be used to lobby their political leaders and demand that a new course be set.

With no night light, a man takes a risk that he pees in the dark all over the floor. With no honest media, citizens are put at risk by their doctor when he tells them to always pee in the dark, and that if it feels like razorblades when they pee, it's normal.

united nations-sponsored anti-blasphlemy laws will NEVER silence Our Free Speech

Fight islamic totalitarianism with Gangnam Style powers. Yes, you are correct, I believe movements that wield humanity and some delightful bebop should be considered proper nouns and should be embraced to help shed light on how much the other side's worldview sucks.

Who is the "other side" you ask? They're the ones so exceedingly insecure about themselves, so patriarchal, that they force Women to wear hoods over their faces in public and who sometimes pour acid on them for religious non-compliance because they cannot cope with a Woman's right to make choices on Her own. They're the ones who kill Ambassadors and call for the free speech of 7 billion People to be suspended because they cannot accept criticism of their supposed prophet mohammed, the guy who they believe condones them to pour acid on a Woman when She does not comply. To them, We the People, say this:

You are not a proper noun, and until you suspend your extreme despotism, your name and that of your prophet will not be afforded the tribute of capitalization when written. Take your hateful, seditious quest for world domination out of Our lands to whatever dreamland your hellish mind has envisioned for Mankind.

The rest of Us will enjoy Free Expression, The Free Exchange of Ideas, Free Trade, The Liberation of Women, and of course, Gangnam Style - all of which are more of a proper noun than you will ever be. Now go, go go go get your Gangnam Style on:

Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence

General Dempsey phones Terry Jones

By Bill Ardolino of the Long War Journal (a project of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff phoned the fundamentalist pastor who stoked outrage in 2010 by publicizing his plan to burn Korans. Via Reuters:

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests - including one that ended with the death of America's envoy to Libya. "In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause," Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, told Reuters. "He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film." U.S. military officials are concerned that the film could inflame tensions in Afghanistan, where 74,000 U.S. troops are fighting. The Taliban earlier on Wednesday called on Afghans to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.

It's difficult to wrap one's mind around the inanity of the top military officer of the United States genuflecting in an official capacity to a screwball pastor in Florida. Mario Loyola cuts to the chase in National Review:

Nobody in the U.S. government, least of all the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acting in his official capacity, should be calling Terry Jones or any other American citizen about the Mohammed spoof. Not only does that elevate Jones to some sort of semi-official status, but spoofs of deities are entirely within our rights and absolutely no business of the government's.

Yes. While there are very real practical implications to radicals using offensive movies and publicity stunts to stoke anti-US outrage, there are two fundamental problems with Dempsey's response. First, it's vaguely chilling for a US military leader to try to influence the public speech of a private citizen, no matter the security concerns that motivate the impulse. Second, giving random pastors or filmmakers the credibility implied by a phone call from a top official followed by a press release creates incentives for attention-seekers and scam artists to engage in the very behavior that Dempsey is trying to mitigate.

There may be little that the US military or government can do to stop Islamist radicals from seizing on aspects of our free society to generate violence, but trying to influence the speech of private citizens in this century's media environment is futile and counterproductive. It lends credence to the unrest, empowers those who author offensive speech, and blurs the lines surrounding the intended roles of the military and government in a free society.

Sooner or later, the portions of the Muslim world that take violent offense at aspects of Western speech will need to absorb the concept of free speech and grasp the distinction that private entities do not represent America, the West, or associated governments. More individuals will undoubtedly die, and this cultural lesson may never penetrate the consciousness of Salafists and others who view religion as irrevocably indistinguishable from government, speech, culture, and thought itself. But it's better for the American government and military to prepare to reinforce and defend these Western values than to clumsily attempt to 'manage' them.

Brandon Raub Speaks Out

Psychologists: the 'go to' for a tyrannical government

I am routinely thanked by members of both political parties for my military service.

In almost the same breath, however,  political and media Progressives would not hesitate to label me an extremist for having a steadfast belief in the Constitution. 

If you are a logical thinker, you see the obvious inconsistency: how can Progressives both applaud military service, which is really an oath to defend the Constitution (every person in the military raises their hand and takes this oath), while simultaneously assailing Constitutionalists as 'extremists' for simply believing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

The answer in Sesame Street terms is that one of those things is not like the other. 

Here is the enigma: Progressives wish to bring about a situation where oaths are no longer subject to the Constitution. They want the Constitution to be a living document that can be remolded in shape more near to their hearts desire. They want to create public sentiment that wishes for the Constitution to be transformed into a charter for positive liberty, by getting regular folks to believe that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberty, and therefore must be fixed.

Some historical background to the Constitution in the Progressive era:



The intent of the Constitution was to be a document that fully protected the rights of citizens in a simple and predictable way, leaving little wiggle room for the government to do as it pleased. I argue that  Progressives, in stark contrast, wish to bring about a situation where allegiance is given to men, instead of being fixed in support of limited and well-defined law. 


So they like the idea of service, but what is being served is what matters to them. Or, more accurately, whom is being served is what matters most to Progressives.

 
How does the Constitution (1789) get painted as a document of extremism but not the Bill of Rights (1791)? The two are literally and legally inseparable. The Bill of Rights contains all the amendments to the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a pretty damned good thing, right? The Founding Fathers thought so too, that's why they put it as the First Amendment. 

Now, if I told progressives that I support the Bill of Rights, I'm sure that I would get no objections (at least publicly). But for some reason they don't like the restraints of the Constitution. That's because the Constitution emphasizes the point that the government has negative liberty in affecting the lives of the American People.  

So how can Progressive mock those who adamantly defend the Constitution, but fail to reject the Bill of Rights, considering the fact that the Bill of Rights is merely an extension of the Constitution?


The answer has to do with the Progressive obsession with controlling the use of language.

It is why Nidal Malik Hassan's killing of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood was labeled a 'workplace violence' incident. The politically-correct final investigating summary report never even used the word Islam, even though Hassan refers to himself as a 'soldier of Islam' and shouted Allah-u-Akbar!' while killing American Servicemen?

In contrast, before the sun set on the day of Wade Page's rampage at a Wisconsin Sikh temple, the incident was called 'domestic terrorism'  and it was reported that he was a veteran of the U.S. Army having been discharged in 1998. That is a lot of detail reported in a short amount of time.

The point is how we portray veteran-committed crimes depends on the ethnicity or religion of both the perpetrator and victim. Violations of the law are not characterized in an objective way. That is the goal of Progressives. It is how they great divide among the populace, and subsequently, the pillar of their platform to attract emotional votes to their cause.

Early in the morning on August 16, 2012, former Marine Brandon Raub awoke to a squad-sized element of FBI and Secret Service agents on his doorstep. They were backed by local police. Raub is a combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

They asked if he would voluntarily go with them; he said he would not. They asked him if they could search his home; he said they could not. He challenged them for a warrant. They didn't have one.

Undeterred, they proceeded to forcibly arrest him, subsequently forcing him to the ground during his transit to the squad car. Watch some footage of the incident unfold here:
:

Police at the scene admitted to Raub and his friends that he wasn't going to be charged with anything. Ponder that for a second. 

Being charged with something means that one’s detainment must be justified under current law; it is actually a protection to you under the Fourth Amendment (forbids warrant-less search, seizure, and detainment) and Sixth Amendment (forbids failing to inform accused of the nature and cause of the accusation). That is why what happened to Raub is incredibly troubling, that is, if you believe the government is bound by fixed law.

These times in which we're living are not normal. FBI agents said Raub was detained because of his facebook posts under Virginia's "civil commitment laws” where a psychologist must justify detainment because a person poses an imminent threat to society.

So here’s how it goes: the FBI monitors Raub’s posts, decides against approaching a judge to get a warrant for his arrest. Instead, the FBI contacts their social worker of choice,  and this is enough to grant the FBI authority for Raub's initial involuntary detainment. Then, the FBI gets a ‘magistrate’ to authorize his movement to a mental hospital, where a psychologist evaluates him and decides to involuntarily detain him for 30 days.

What were his posts? You can find them here.

John Whitehead is Raub’s lead attorney and is president of the Rutherford Institute. Commenting on Raub's case, he said, “Before the police arrive and put their hands on you, they are supposed to have, under the Fourth Amendment, credible evidence that you are doing something illegal. In the Brandon Raub situation, they told him he had committed no crime, they’re not charging him with any crime. In fact, the day they took him in they said ‘well, we’re not charging this guy with any crime, it’s just his Facebook Posts."

So the FBI is concerned about revolution-oriented sensational comments. Maybe some of Raub's posts did warrant a degree of attention. That is a matter of opinion. But all revolutionaries are not apparently equal in the eyes of the U.S. government.

The New Black Panther Party has very recently and publicly called for people to kill babies, women, and “crackers” by the hundreds. Yet they go unprosecuted.



Countless radical Islamic groups call for Islamic unification under a new caliphate. They don't hesitate to threaten death upon public figures who criticize or mock Islam.

Standards for detaining individuals in our society for questionable behavior must apply to all equally. Clearly that is not the case.



Getting back to Brandon Raub's case, an official report by the State of Virginia cites that 20,000 people were detained there under civil commitment law in 2011. Go to page 36, paragraph 1.

"I knew there were civil commitments but I thought they were rare," said Whitehead. "There has to be something more here than meets the eye. It doesn’t make any sense. I doubt that most of these people are dangerous. Because if there are 20,000 plus crazy people that need to be taken away by police in Virginia each year, then we are facing a national epidemic that should be on the front page of every newspaper and it isn’t. No one even knows about it, that’s the point."

Whitehead also commented on a phone call he received from Raub while in custody. Raub told him that "a psychiatrist came in and closed the door, pulled a chair up in front of him and said, ‘OK buddy, I’m going to brainwash you… You listen to me and you do what I ask or I’m going to brainwash you or force medication on you.’"

For the time being, the Virginia civil commitment laws seem to be limited to a period of 30 days of confinement, but what if that increases? Or what if they just ignore the maximum the same way they ignore the fourth amendment?

To be certain, nothing is certain. They appear to be using the power of the psychological and sociological professions to justify their actions. Since that is that case, consider the following: USA Communist Party stated goals – read aloud during an open session of the U.S. Congress in 1963. Be sure to focus in on number 38 and 39.

If you’re curious to know what the department of Homeland Security thinks of people, particularly veterans, who question big government, you can find their report here. The report equates the act of questioning big government to white supremacy. There is another commissioned DHS report here.

For now, Brandon Raub has been released due to Judge W. Allan Sharret ruling his confinement as being unconstitutional. I believe Brandon will remain free due to the high degree of attention his case has received. But what does the future hold for other political dissidents that ‘fit the targeted profile?”

Time will tell, but the situation for him and others doesn’t look good if things continue along the current trajectory.

In any event, I issue a challenge: Come get me, big brother. You know my name. I live in Tennessee. I am a former Marine infantryman and combat veteran. I run in a secluded park near my house four times a week. I take the same route almost every time. 

I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Understood?