Ben Stein is a great writer and comic. (Loved him in Ferris Beuhl's Day Off.) In this posting he really hits the nail on the head when it comes to the events of the past week. A clever and insightful article and worth the time to read.
Conservative Tom
By Ben Stein on 9.14.12 @ 6:09AMThere is that feeling in the air.ThursdayStrange day.I awakened to a text from a close friend who is a devout Christian and who was so angry at the elite media that she could not sleep. "I am so frikkin' sick of the media telling us that Islam is a 'religion of peace,'" she said. "Look, people make fun of Jesus all of the time and I mean ALL of the time and we don't kill them or harm them. But do anything at all that offends any Muslim and they start killing Christians and Jews -- and then Obama apologizes for it. How long can this go on? The times of Tribulation are at hand."I got up, walked out on the deck and looked out at the perfect fall day over Lake Pendoreille. An absolutely perfect Fall day, blue skies, light breeze, just a slight chill in the air.At breakfast, my wife suddenly said, "And then I beheld a red horse ridden by a man with a great sword....""What is that?" I asked her."It's Revelation," she said."I know, but where does that come from?""I just feel as if something big is about to happen," she said. "Something feels like we're about to live in a totally changed world. It feels like end times. Why are we apologizing to the Muslims? They're killing and expelling their Christians and we don't say a word. End times."I nodded. There is that feeling in the air.I got another text from my very devout Christian friend. "Don't tell me Obama isn't a Muslim," she said. "I don't care what he calls himself, he's a Muslim. That's why he's always apologizing to the Muslims."I think she's bit off the mark here. If Obama says he's a Christian, he's a Christian.I slept for a long time while listening to Mozart and the trains. Then I went to the mail box and got the latest news from the Obama/Biden campaign -- oops, meant to say, "The New York Times." Naturally, it was filled with rage against Mitt Romney There was very little vitriol against the killers in Libya, but plenty against Gov. Romney.I sure hope that the people at the Romney campaign don't read The NY Times. It is just endless propaganda against Republicans. Nonstop. We Republicans should campaign on our own issues. Mr. Obama's idiot foreign policy is such an issue.I went off to do my errands in Sandpoint. A visit to a super pleasant post office. A helpful clerk was patient with my terrible handwriting. Then a visit to the Alpine Shop to see my pal, Tim Farmin, who looked happy but told me my boat needed a new battery. Then, a visit to Ivano's to pick up some grub for tonight.At Ivano's, I talked to a man who seethed with rage against Mr. Obama. He simply could not believe that Mr. Obama would make time to be among his Hollywood big shots but not make time to see Benjamin Netanyahu. "These are getting to be Biblical days," he said. "The final days."A trip to the art framer, then to the drug store, then to the Safeway to buy a cake. The woman in the bakery told me that the days of tribulation and the dictatorship were upon us. She is looking to move to the mountains "to find refuge...""Be careful," I said. "That's what Vicki Weaver was looking for and it didn't work so well. Our refuge is in The Lord."(I am up on Vicki Weaver because I am reading an astonishingly good book about the federal killings at Ruby Ridge called Ruby Ridge by a writer of unique talent by the name of Jess Walter. It is terrifying.)Back to Ivano's to pick up my grub. Then back home to read the latest about the murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three of his staff.Apparently word had been out for months that the most extreme of the anti-Qaddafi rebels were working with al Qaeda for 9/11. The State Department and the Defense Department had done nothing meaningful to protect the Ambassador. When the killers attacked the U.S. compound, they were heavily armed with anti-aircraft automatic cannon (a very deadly weapon) and RPG's. They were a recognizably violent group connected with al Qaeda.It's amazing that Qaddafi kept saying that the people fighting against him were al Qaeda and we kept helping them -- and sure enough, they turned out to be al Qaeda. And Qaddafi, who had become our friend -- although a cruel and vile man -- was killed by the rebels so now Libya is in large measure in the hands of al Qaeda.Same with Egypt. Mubarak was no one's idea of a great guy, but he was our pal. He kept the peace with Israel. He suppressed the terrorists. So, naturally, we stabbed him in the back. Now, we have worked to create an "Arab Spring" that has given us a fantastically more anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-al Qaeda Middle East.But incredibly, Mr. Obama considers this an achievement. An achievement? To help al Qaeda and its pals, the Muslim Brotherhood, take power in the most populous Arab state? To help al Qaeda take over in oil rich Libya? What are they talking about?I hope Mr. Romney will not let himself get pushed around by the Obama smear machine. I see that at a rally today in Virginia, his speech was derailed by a lone Obama heckler asking, "Why are you politicizing Libya?" That apparently rattled Gov. Romney badly.The answer, should it come up again, is, "Because this is a democracy. We debate big points of foreign and domestic policy, especially during election campaigns. The failure of the administration to stand up to Muslim thugs is a big issue. Apologizing to terrorists is a big issue. The failure to protect our diplomats is a big issue. The failure to stand up for free speech is a huge issue. We are supposed to debate those things. If you don't like that, move back to Iran or wherever you came from."Meanwhile, time for Mr. Romney to go back to attack mode. Why did the State Department not protect our Ambassador in Benghazi? Why isn't Mrs. Clinton resigning over this? Why isn't Secretary of Defense Panetta apologizing and resigning? There was a colossal failure here. The President is accountable. Why isn't he taking some responsibility here?The Obama smear machine is making much of the supposed time line of this week. That supposedly the worst attacks came after Mr. Romney criticized The State Department for apologizing to the Muslims for an anti-Muslim film. But of course, they are missing the point totally and on purpose.Why should we have been apologizing as a nation to Muslims for one person making a cartoon? We didn't apologize to the Russians when people in the USA made anti-Communist remarks. We didn't apologize to Hitler when people in America made anti-Nazi remarks. Why do the Muslims get this special apology treatment? What's up with that? We respect all religions, but we are not going to apologize to anyone as a people for what one guy does in his garage.What is with Mr. Obama's special deference to the terrorists? I am well aware that he's done a darned fine job using drones to kill them and God bless him for it. But then why apologize to groups of people we feel are so terrible that we kill some of them without a trial or a declaration of war?Let's get it straight, once again: We live by the first amendment and the Constitution. Our people have freedom of speech. Even the nutty ones. We do not apologize for our Constitution.Well, enough of that. It is time for a quiet dinner listening to the lake and the trains. For now, it is paradise. The time of tribulation has not yet come for us all, and God bless that brave Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, who was murdered and had his body dragged through the streets by people we put in power. God help us when Judgment Day comes
Fact-checking…
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Libya embassy statement: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Romney's statement: "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Conclusions:
1. There had been no such attack on our diplomatic mission in Egypt at the time the embassy statement was released.
2. There is nothing in the embassy statement that sympathizes with the (nonexistent) people who waged the (nonexistent) attack referenced in Romney's statement.
3. There is no apology for First Amendment free speech in the embassy statement. Quite the contrary, in fact. The embassy statement acknowledges the "universal right of free speech." Can't we deplore this video without denying that the producer has the constitutional right to make it? In my opinion, the video falls into the same category as the hateful signs displayed at the funeral of the homosexual soldier. I believe the legal issue in that case was whether there was any redeeming free speech value in the signs or were they deliberately designed for no other purpose than to inflict "emotional pain" on people. In that case, it was the family of the man being buried. In this case, it was Muslims.
-- David
Sorry, I think I said Libya where I meant to say Egyptian in my last post.
ReplyDelete--David
The first amendment is nearly supreme to "emotional pain." There are very little reasons to give up that right.
ReplyDeleteThe video was NOT the cause of the riots, it was a planned attack, so any argument in that vein is a waste of effort.
Romney was right to condemn those who attacked the embassy and killed our ambassador and three others.(and sodomized him before and after he was killed!)
Freedom of speech has to be paramount!
Again, the embassy statement is not apologizing for the first amendment and nobody is proposing to give up that right. I believe you were the guy who told me that it has limits, and suggested the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" as an example. That is not protected speech. Child pornography is not protected speech. Is a video or sign that is produced with the deliberate intent to inflict emotional pain on the family at the funeral or on Muslims and has no other discernible value or purpose protected speech? I think not. We can debate that question all day, I can certainly argue that it falls in the same category as yelling fire in the theatre. Both are done to cause pain or death. Even though we may disagree on where to draw the line, surely you will agree that someone can take a position contrary to yours without calling for us to entirely "give up the right." Correct?
ReplyDeleteThe video was not involved in the murders in Libya. But it was the motive for the demonstrations in Egypt. Romney thought he was talking about an attack on the consulate in Egypt, but at the time of embassy statement no such attack had occurred. Ergo, the embassy statement was not some kind of "apology" for a (nonexistent) attack much less "sympathizing" with the attackers.
Of course, Romney can condemn the murders in Libya. So did the administration as soon as it was known. That has nothing to do with free speech, though.
--David
David, I condemn the President for claiming that a "trailer" of a movie can be used as an excuse for murdering, burning and looting. The movie trailer was not the cause of the initial actions but has been a handy excuse by Islamic radicals.
ReplyDeleteThe White House from the beginning of the riots used the movie as cover for their lack of action to protect State Department employees and American assets. Only recently did they change the topic to the truth.
The handling of this situation is exemplary of the incompetence of Obama and crew not only in foreign affairs but domestic issues.
You wrote, "I condemn the President for claiming that a "trailer" of a movie can be used as an excuse for murdering, burning and looting."
ReplyDeleteGood grief, Tom. Where are you getting this stuff? Here is what Obama said in his press conference the next day after the attack…
"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
Like me, he deplores both the video and the violence. How could he have said that any clearer? Here is the C-SPAN video of his full speech. Please watch it….
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/308123-1
I don't support American foreign policy, and that is why I am voting for Ron Paul. But we can't have an informed discussion of Obama's statements on this topic or Israel or anything else so long as you misrepresent what he says. If you have a quote from Obama that says something different about the Libya attack, let's have it.
--David
Does this sound like "sympathizing" with the attackers….
ReplyDelete"Mrs. Clinton said the film at the center of the controversy was provocative and that it had been condemned by the Obama administration. “We found the video that’s at the core of this series of events offensive, disgusting, reprehensible,” she said.
“But that does not provide justification for violence, and therefore it is important for responsible leaders, indeed responsible people everywhere, to stand up and speak out against violence and particularly against those who would exploit this difficult moment to advance their own extremist ideologies,” she added."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/21/clinton-denounces-violent-anti-film-protests-pakis/
--David
You need to read what the Islamists are saying and not listen to the Islamist sympathizer in the White House. They used the film as their rationale for burning embassies.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the White House had knowledge of the attacks prior to them. They are responsible for the death of the Ambassador and his aids as much as those who did the actual killing.
Let's start over. You wrote, "I condemn the President for claiming that a "trailer" of a movie can be used as an excuse for murdering, burning and looting."
ReplyDeleteI asked you to show me one quote from Obama to support your claim. We are not talking here about what Islamists are saying. We are talking about what you claim Obama said. Where's the evidence? Did you watch his U.N. speech today? It was a very strong defense of free speech, a condemnation of the film, and yet another restatement of rejection of violence. Any objective-minded person would find no "sympathizing" for the attackers in this speech. Obama swore to bring them to justice (again).
I understand that this is a blog and so you are not going to hold to full journalistic standards regarding facts and accuracy, but some of the polemics on Obama are now going W-A-Y over the top, Tom.
--David
"They used the film as their rationale for burning embassies."
ReplyDeleteYou have to separate the Egyptian attack from the Libyan attack. The video was the motive for the attack in Egypt but not in Libya. Both were condemned by the administration. You know that, don't you?
"BTW, the White House had knowledge of the attacks prior to them."
That depends on what you mean. The U.S. was warned by the Libyan government that there were al-Qaeda types in that area. American intelligence probably already knew that. Except for Iraq, I doubt that any American consulate anywhere is totally safe from this kind of well-planned attack with military arms.
Have you noticed that tens of thousands of moderates in Libya have gone on the offensive against these militias since the ambassador was killed?
--David
"And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, 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. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well."
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/transcript-obama-address-to-un-general-assembly/#ixzz27iAs1Egh
What Obama said in the statement you quote is that "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." You only have to see the statements from Muslims demonstrators around the world against this film to understand that they are outraged. However, contrary to what you claim, Obama is not saying here that the film can be used as an excuse for murdering people.
DeleteMitt Romney's comment about the video..
"I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment -- the good judgment -- not to be -- not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing."
But does that mean Obama said that the film can serve as a valid "excuse" (your word, not his) for killing people? No. Here is what he said about the killers. Does this sound like "sympathy" for the killers…
"There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."
Here is what Obama said about free speech and freedom of religion….
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened."
To sum up, an objective-minded person reading Obama's speech would conclude three things about what Obama believes.
1. The film is a disgusting offense to the American ideal of tolerance for other people's religions.
2. It is nevertheless protected speech under the First Amendment. (Personally, I have doubts about that, but it is Obama's opinion.)
3. Neither this film or anything else justifies the murders. He swears to bring the killers to justice. He says it over and over in every speech.
--David
This article confirms our statements and blows up your argument, David.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/obama-s-shaky-libya-narrative.html
It confirms what I said about the CIA being aware of al-Qaeda type militias in the area. The administration jumped the gun in assuming at first that just because Muslims were protesting the video all over the world that the Libyan attack was a spontaneous response to the video instead of a well-planned and executed terrorist attack by pros with military armaments.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you think it is that we disagree about here, unless you are proposing some kind of crazy conspiracy theory the U.S. government knew and approved a plan by al-Qaeda to blow up our consulate and murder our ambassador.
--David
I thought you said that Obama did not say that the movie trailer caused the riots. If not, sorry. He said it and so did all the people in his administration. He is an embarrassment.
ReplyDelete