Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Has the First Amendment Become a "National Security Threat"? (The last sentence says it all)
Townhall.com ^ | September 12, 2010 | Austin Hill

Posted on 09/12/2010 7:20:03 AM PDT by Kaslin

"This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”

That’s how President Barack Obama, in a national television interview on September 9, described the plans of an American Pastor to hold a September 11th “Koran burning” event at his church in Florida.

Prior to the President’s TV interview, the Pastor had already been chastised by some of the highest-ranking officials in the Obama Administration. Attorney General Eric Holder had described the Pastor and his plans as “idiotic,” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had stated that it was all “disgraceful.”

Yet President Obama apparently believed it was necessary to speak about this himself, and try to stop the Koran burning festivities.

If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained, adding that "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance..."

These are strong words from the sitting U.S. President, aimed at one, private citizen. And the fact that the stated intentions of one private citizen would draw criticism from the President and his Administration – and would touch-off death threats on American lives– is seriously troublesome on multiple levels.

First, let’s accurately assess what has been at the epicenter of this controversy in the first place. At the time of this writing (I’m composing these words on the afternoon of Friday September 10), it is unclear whether the Florida Pastor will stage a Koran Burning event on September 11th, or not. This is to say that the Pastor has only stated his intentions, and we don’t know if he will ever carry them out.

Describe the Pastor and his plans in whatever derogatory and demeaning terms you wish. Stupid. Inflammatory. Insensitive. Intolerant. Misguided. Ill-advised. My observation is that the man seems quite inarticulate, and a bit “nutty,” and I wish the Obama Administration and the worldwide media industry had not drawn so much attention to him (notice that I am not stating the man’s name – it makes no sense for me to give this character more attention).

Yet this nutty guy is merely speaking his mind – and in America, we regard this as constitutionally protected “free speech.” For much of our nation’s history, Americans have possessed an attitude that says “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it..”

But we now seem to have turned a corner on this type of freedom. In this instance, some of the most powerful people in our government determined that if this one private citizen were to exercise his legal right to burn copies of a particular book, such an excursion in human liberty would threaten the security of Americans both domestically, and abroad – and thus, this one private citizen should not exercise his legal rights.

A President who was more appreciative of the uniqueness of American liberty, might have taken the opportunity to explain that American freedom is a good thing, and that freedom itself is not a problem. Yet when one lacks the discernment as to how to wisely exercise their freedoms, therein lies a problem. That could have been a true moment of presidential leadership - a “teachable moment” if you will – but that is not how President Obama and his Administration has responded to the rhetoric of our nutty fellow American.

Second, the fact that mere rhetoric can incite “death to America” demonstrations in Afghanistan and can rise to the level of a national security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture, and President Obama’s assessment of that culture.

In June of 2009, our President delivered a now-famous speech at Cairo University, wherein he stated “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Those were beautiful words, words that were perhaps meant to inspire. Yet polling conducted by the Brookings Institute two months ago shows that President Obama faces a near 65% disapproval rate in the Middle East, and the Muslim world remains as hostile as ever towards the West.

If indeed Americans and Muslims shared the “common principles” of “tolerance and dignity of all human beings” as President Obama has stated, then American lives would not be endangered because of the words of one man in Florida.

Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 09/12/2010 7:20:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tyranny this way cometh.


2 posted on 09/12/2010 7:21:42 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem.”

It is a problem when you don’t acknowledge individual rights and liberty. This is perfectly logical to the Communist mind.


3 posted on 09/12/2010 7:25:14 AM PDT by vanilla swirl (We are the Patrick Henry we have been waiting for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
This could all be set right if it were acknowledged by the courts that any ideology, religious or not, loses any constitutional protections it may claim to enjoy if it advocates the violent overthrow of the government or poses a clear and present danger to national security.
4 posted on 09/12/2010 7:27:38 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Who would have “standing” to bring that before a court?


5 posted on 09/12/2010 7:29:14 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 596 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Describe the Pastor and his plans in whatever derogatory and demeaning terms you wish. Stupid. Inflammatory. Insensitive. Intolerant. Misguided. Ill-advised. My observation is that the man seems quite inarticulate, and a bit “nutty,” and I wish the Obama Administration and the worldwide media industry had not drawn so much attention to him (notice that I am not stating the man’s name – it makes no sense for me to give this character more attention).

I fine this quite condescending and unnecessary. Whether someone is adept at public speaking or not doesn't make some one nutty.

6 posted on 09/12/2010 7:29:20 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why isn’t the City of NY using eminent domain to “confiscate” the property and set up a homeless shelter.


7 posted on 09/12/2010 7:30:05 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Yet this nutty guy is merely speaking his mind – and in America, we regard this as constitutionally protected “free speech.” For much of our nation’s history, Americans have possessed an attitude that says “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it..”But we now seem to have turned a corner on this type of freedom. In this instance, some of the most powerful people in our government determined that if this one private citizen were to exercise his legal right to burn copies of a particular book such an excursion in human liberty would threaten the security of Americans both domestically, and abroad – and thus,this one private citizen should not exercise his legal rights.

This is collectivism and the evil theory of "Greatest good" gone amok. By saying what's best for the collective is always what's more important, regardless of how small the decision, we have and will continue to lose freedom after freedom.

8 posted on 09/12/2010 7:30:22 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility ("In a time of universal deciet, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vanilla swirl

One Queston. Why have there been more terror attacts under 0 appeasement policy than GWB?


9 posted on 09/12/2010 7:30:29 AM PDT by barb-tex (Nov. 2!(Election Day) Dia de los Muertas. ( Day of the Dead), Them or Us. Nov 5, Guy Falkes Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Kaslin this is an EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!! THANK YOU for posting it!!!!!


10 posted on 09/12/2010 7:31:58 AM PDT by NordP (COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVES - Love of Country, Less Govt, Stop Spending, No Govt Run Health Care!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We have a set of unintended consequences when radical Islam hides behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights and exploits a warped sense of social "tolerance".

If a movement uses our "rights" to practice a religion which calls for the destruction of the very country and seminal documents that protects their "rights", they will destroy us and implement Islam and Shari'a Law.

This is the perverted view that Islam is the "Religion of Peace" - a peace which will occur, in their minds, only when Islam is the sole accepted religion, and only when Shari'a Law is used on our shores...then there will be peace, under their definition.

When is enough enough?

11 posted on 09/12/2010 7:32:03 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Every liberty, every freedom comes at a cost. If the cost of our freedom of speech is an increased need to be vigilant and protect ourselves from those who don’t share, and deeply resent, that freedom then so be it. And that includes the President of the United States and any members of legislative or judicial body whose actions make them an enemy of out freedoms.


12 posted on 09/12/2010 7:32:35 AM PDT by jwparkerjr (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

Only the insecure strive for security.
Wayne Dyer

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy

If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.
Henry Ford

The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
Thomas Paine

And to this August list, we add...

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Barack Obama

13 posted on 09/12/2010 7:33:14 AM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

Yeah and Bloomberg would go along with this. /s>


14 posted on 09/12/2010 7:33:22 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The response from multiple “leaders”, especially the “leader of the free world” (how do you lead what seems not to exist) is far “nuttier” than the pastor in Florida.


15 posted on 09/12/2010 7:37:38 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a leftist is like trying to catch sunshine in a fish net at midnight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Of course we have free speech, citizen.

Here’s is your list of approved words and phrases. Feel free to say any of them.


16 posted on 09/12/2010 7:37:58 AM PDT by seowulf ("If you write a whole line of zeroes, it's still---nothing"...Kira Alexandrovna Argounova)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
<< One Queston. Why have there been more terror attacts under 0 appeasement policy than GWB? >>

You might not have realized it, but you answered your own question

17 posted on 09/12/2010 7:40:21 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
the fact that mere rhetoric can incite “death to America” demonstrations in Afghanistan and can rise to the level of a national security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture

This was one of the points the pastor was trying to make*. There's a difference in the way the two religions recommend dealing with insults or harm. Christians turn the other cheek. Muslims react violently.

*As heard in his interview with Hannity last week.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating Koran burning, just relating a salient point.

18 posted on 09/12/2010 7:42:18 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Compact Theory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NordP

You’re welcome, and I thought it was too.


19 posted on 09/12/2010 7:42:27 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I know. It is just a comment on the hypocracy. Has anyone heard if these provacateurs have paid their taxes on this property?


20 posted on 09/12/2010 7:45:05 AM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Since that would have no bearing on this situation, I can only interpret that to be an attempt to skirt everyone’s rights.


21 posted on 09/12/2010 7:45:13 AM PDT by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel

The existence of islam has no bearing on this situation?


22 posted on 09/12/2010 7:48:21 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

“When is enough enough?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

For the communists (let’s call them what they are) or for the muslim slavedrivers (let’s call them what they are) enough will only be when they rule America and the other ninety nine percent of us are in fact worse off than slaves on a South Carolina plantation in 1800. We will be worse off because unlike the plantation slaves we will have NO monetary value.

As to whether in the end the communists will wipe out the muslims or vice versa, I don’t know but atheistic communists cannot coexist with cultists who worship the moon god unless one submits to the other and that ain’t likely.

Who knows maybe 12/21/2012 really is the end.


23 posted on 09/12/2010 7:48:56 AM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a leftist is like trying to catch sunshine in a fish net at midnight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT
You are so correct.

This is why, in my opinion, anyone wishing to establish Sharia Law has rejected the central tenet of the American Creed and is not, should not and never will be a citizen of the United States.

Non-citizens should be deported regardless of method of entry.

24 posted on 09/12/2010 7:49:26 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (Fear God and Government - especially when one tries to become the other!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro signature on Aug 13, 1968 passport renewal making a declaration about a family member previously included on her passport:

Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Passport Renewal 1968 signature

Close up of declaration Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro signed off on:

Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro declaration 1968

Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) struck from his mother's passport because he is Soebarkah, Indonesian National, 1968:

soebarkah passport struck soetoro


25 posted on 09/12/2010 7:50:19 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Soebarkah renounced his US Citizenship in 1968.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

IMHO...the Left..and the Rinocratic Party... intends to use Islam as the battering ram to break breakdown the First Amendment.


26 posted on 09/12/2010 7:51:53 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Oops. I read that wrong. So sorry.


27 posted on 09/12/2010 7:52:26 AM PDT by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

If I am not mistaken it was reported that they over $180,000 in property taxes. I could be wrong on the amount though


28 posted on 09/12/2010 7:52:29 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Just one more reason for me to believe this whole episode is one big "Reichstag Moment".
29 posted on 09/12/2010 7:53:56 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The last sentence can be explained by accepting that obama is a muslim.

Please pass the following on. I heard it first hand.

A co-worker of my wife’s said her ten year old son came home from school on Friday and said they had talked about 911 that day in class. During recess a ten year old muslim kid told him a man who had lost the lease on the Twin Towers had gotten mad and bombed the buildings.

This is what “moderate” muslims are teaching their children. This is what they’re being taught in those mosques we’re allowing them to build all over America. In only ten short years these ten year old kids will be TWENTY YEAR OLD TERRORISTS. Yet both parties tell us to be tolerant. In other words we’re being told to TOLERATE this crap. This country is doomed if a majority don’t wake up immediately!


30 posted on 09/12/2010 7:54:29 AM PDT by Terry Mross (If we don't try to stop this soon it will be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army? It started out as a religion.


31 posted on 09/12/2010 7:55:50 AM PDT by Terry Mross (If we don't try to stop this soon it will be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

[quote]Tyranny this way cometh.[/quote]

Yep, and tyranny is going to find out it’s marching into a massive meat grinder. Americans will not simply submit as they hope.

Americans take a lot of crap and shoulder it well. However, when we reach the breaking point, we will tear your punk butt up in ways you have never imagined. The Japanese found out the hard way in 1945.

Message to Islam... you poked what you thought was a hornets nest, you found it was a dragon with an attitude. Our Government would do well to remember that as well. They are here to serve US, not the other way around. I abhor violence but I see our nation being pushed into it. We won’t draw first blood, but it’ll be our enemies that refresh the liberty tree.


32 posted on 09/12/2010 7:57:39 AM PDT by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Hmm, this is interesting. I have never seen this


33 posted on 09/12/2010 7:58:22 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

I thought you were suggesting that burning the koran poses a clear and present danger. Sorry about that.


34 posted on 09/12/2010 7:59:06 AM PDT by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No big deal. Hollywood will hold a fundraiser for part of the taxes and the government will waive the rest on the grounds of tolerance.


35 posted on 09/12/2010 7:59:39 AM PDT by Terry Mross (If we don't try to stop this soon it will be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

thanks to the left (and sadly some dummies on the right) muslims now have veto power of our constitutional rights.

If exercising your constitutional rights makes muslimes mad, than you can’t do it.


36 posted on 09/12/2010 8:01:18 AM PDT by Cubs Fan (American Constitutional rights ARE NOT subject to muslim approval)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Donald Defreeze alias Cinque? Yeah I remember that insanity.


37 posted on 09/12/2010 8:01:20 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Does anyone have quotes from then Senator Obama when many were claiming that the release of Abu Garab (spelling) pictures would endanger our soldiers?

I don't know if he commented then or not, but it would be interesting to juxtapose those statements.

38 posted on 09/12/2010 8:04:02 AM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture, and President Obama’s assessment of that culture. “

Mr Obama has a skewed perception of Islam...

.....ever wonder why zero is popular with the muslims?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2585916/posts?page=27#27


39 posted on 09/12/2010 8:05:56 AM PDT by himno hero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If the things we say in our day to day lives create a national security threat and burden upon the government perhaps it's time they started doing their jobs and 1) defending the Constitution at home, and 2) defending America abroad.

...and if the "religion of peace' cannot abide our freedoms perhaps 1) they are not as peaceful as they say, and 2) it is NOT just the radicals among them that are the problem, it is Islam itself that cannot coexist.

40 posted on 09/12/2010 8:10:37 AM PDT by infidel29 (Since 0bama is NOT a uniter, can we change the acronym to just plain P.O.S.?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
I would like to believe that - I know I am the resistance. However, I've been saying it for 2 years now here on FR & what do I get back? "Call, write, email, fax your congressperson." Or, how 'bout this one: "Come to D.C. for a rally."

As I've said on FR for 20 months - all things changed on 11/2/08 - nothing is the same. That means the old tactics aren't going to mean anything. In fact, the Left loves it when we admonish people to call, fax, march....

41 posted on 09/12/2010 8:23:23 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is another one of those articles that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. They seem to be appearing more frequently.


42 posted on 09/12/2010 8:37:44 AM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

Looks like Annie got her gun and it’s loaded.


43 posted on 09/12/2010 8:47:44 AM PDT by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Obama explained, ...That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance...""

At least most atheists know the Bible well enough to formulate an argument when they debate their beliefs, but obama - a "Consititional Professor" just makes up the Constitition and history as he goes along. See if you can find the word "tolerance" in the First Amendment.

FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


obama uses the First Amendment when it's convenient to him, like in the GZ mosque situation, however, when he speaks in aq Christian venue, he has all of the crosses covered up.

Wouldn't that fall under freedom of religious express for that venue to display that cross. Yet, the kenyan says a real American has no right to burn a koran.

Michelle Maulkin called islam the "religion of perpetual outrage", as they are always raging about one thing or another. I guess if I had to live under that kind of tyranny I'd be pissed all the time too.

Well, obama would LIKE us to live under that kind of tyranny - sharia law - and he would like to be the grand poo-bah who runs it all. He and Mrs."Vacations-R-Us" like living the high life and spending other people's money.

After years of enduring muslim attacks, hijackings, beheadings, flag burnings, and terrorism, WE are not the ones being IN-tolerant...but Imam Obama conveniently forgets about that.

Why wasn't our "president" at ground zero yesterday. The cowardly lion - excuse me - "dog" went to the Pentagon instead. As the Commander in chief of the military I suppose he felt "safe" there...he knew there would be some folks at the GZ site that were not exactly his friends.

We need to start a slogan - "No Tolerance for Terrorists". Tip-toeing around islam for fear they might get angry is not something I give a crap about. Islam is an "abusive husband" at group level. Eventually the spouse has enough and either leaves, or fights back...WE have no place left to go.

Major Hasan - the islamic Fort Hood shooter said that "muslims love death" like we love life. Well, if that is true, then wouldn't we be most intolerant denying them the things they "love"?


tolerance


44 posted on 09/12/2010 8:59:42 AM PDT by FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

I know, and I feel your pain... pardon the phrase.

Just remember, we have the ballot box, the soap box, and the ammo box. We cannot use the third option unless they use it against us. Once they open that door, we have no choice but to put a stop to it with absolute conviction. I pray that they never go down that road.

Until that happens, we must use our resources wisely and work together to stop the destruction of our nation. Three rules that must always apply to patriots is...

1. Never blindly submit to their will.
2. Always have a plan
3. Never, ever, under any circumstances surrender your means of defense.

And yes, I’m saying that if they ban all guns, we must not submit to such a law. However, we cannot instigate violence. If they do it, fine, it’s their trip to hell. We must continue to maintain the moral high ground.


45 posted on 09/12/2010 8:59:58 AM PDT by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Obama and his entire Administration is the problem.
46 posted on 09/12/2010 9:01:07 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”

This line of reasoning springs forth from the mind of a coward, IMO.

47 posted on 09/12/2010 9:02:42 AM PDT by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained...

Of even more concern, some of our own Freepers could have written that speech for him. I've seen some of the same things posted in messages here. No one, but no one here, wants to heap more trouble on our troops, but the First Amendment is no small issue. If we keep chipping away at the Constitution, they'll have no reason to fight, nothing left to defend in our country. I don't think the troops want to see that come about.

48 posted on 09/12/2010 9:24:06 AM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You are so correct in your headline—the last sentence truly says it all. Great column, so glad you posted it!


49 posted on 09/12/2010 9:27:51 AM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating Koran burning, just relating a salient point.

The taboo we have on bookburning of any kind comes from horror at the practice as done by Nazis; they burned books of all kinds not in peaceful, non-violent protest, but as a means to destroy valuable information by "degenerate" authors, "degenerate" as defined by the madman Hitler; it was the STATE burning books, classic literature, and it was done to control Germans and keep them in ignorance, to hold classic Western knowledge in contempt.

Applying this taboo to burning Korans is very wrong. Burning Korans was the RIGHT thing to do on 911 for many reasons, the primary one being that it was civil, peaceful, and symbolic in showing American resolve to stand and defend American freedom from a creed that openly, brazenly seeks to subjugate Western-style societies to Islam's Sharia law and slavery.

If it was the State that was burning Korans, then we'd damned well better be concerned. But it wasn't -- it was individual Americans who were engaging in PEACEFUL, non-violent, symbolic protest and WARNING to Islam: don't step over this line or this symbolic fire will become literal.

I have come to advocate Koran burning and make no apology for it: burning Korans is a powerful symbolic statement that not only is non-violent and peaceful, but may HELP AVOID BLOODSHED LATER. When Muslims understand that Americans will refuse to roll over and be "civil" ala France, England, and the Netherlands, then perhaps they'll think twice about attacking us on our own soil. We burn Korans in peaceful protest; Muslims kill people in bloody aggression. There is a HUGE difference and peopel who morally equate the two are engagning in self-gratyfing hysteria.

50 posted on 09/12/2010 9:35:32 AM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson