Advertisements
Home

Obama Shakes Raúl Castro’s Hand

4 Comments

This is from The Weekly Standard.

Mandela managed as his last action got all of his fellow

Communists together.

Obama fit in with all of the Communist despots and

was eager to shake their hands.

It looks like Obama bowed slightly to Castro.

At Nelson Mandela‘s memorial service today in Johannesburg, South Africa, President Obama shook hands with Raúl Castro:

“Castro, he’s shaking hands with Raúl Castro,” said an excited Christiane Amanpour.

“As Christiane points out, President Obama just shook hands with Raúl Castro from Cuba,” Chris Cuomo explained.

Amanpour says of Mandela, “This is a man, it is so true, who brought people together in life and he continues to bring people together today.”

Advertisements

FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador

3 Comments

 

This is from Godfather Politics.

Why isn’t finding these murdering scumbag’s top priority?

Limiting free speech is a Obama administration priority.

This movie is what is causing these goat humpers to riot.

But Obama bragging about killing Osama would not offend anyone.

 

The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials:

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

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance.

Just because you’re able to shut someone up doesn’t mean that you’ve convinced that person that your position is correct.

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.

Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,

“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”

Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.

Neal Boortz writes, “Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech.”

It’s possible that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.

I’ve posted the article “Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?” on the Political Outcast site.

 

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington

8 Comments

 

The article below is from News Busters.
Colin Powell is half right in his comments.
The media and the DemocRat party are to blame.
The Tea Party is trying to save America.
Obama is a community agitator that strives for division.
Gen.Powell is correct about compromise is a dirty word.
That it is dirty in the meaning defined by the left.



Colin Powell on Sunday blamed the media as well as the Tea Party for the divisive political tone in Washington.

Not surprisingly, neither the class warfare stoked by President Obama and his Party nor the resulting Occupy Wall Street movement was mentioned during this seven minute interview with Christiane Amanpour on ABC’s This Week (video follows with transcript and commentary):

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/107783

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: What about this tone in the country right now? It’s still very divisive. It’s still very sort of brash, some say poisonous. I mean, you can barely get anything done on Capitol Hill, just behind me there. What needs to be done, to actually improve the tone and the ability of people to work together?
COLIN POWELL: The tone is not — is not good right now, and our political system here in Washington, particularly up on The Hill — Congress — has become very, very tense in that two sides, Republicans and Democrats, are focusing more and more on their extreme left and extreme right. And we have to come back toward the center in order to compromise.
A story I like to tell is our Founding Fathers were able to sit in Philadelphia and make some of the greatest compromises known to man — tough, tough issues. But they did it. Why? Because they were there to create a country, where we have a Congress now that can’t even pass an appropriation bill, and we’re running this country on a continuing resolution which is — what else are they here for but to pass appropriations bills?
And so we have got to find a way to start coming back together. And let me say this directly. The media has to help us. The media loves this game, where everybody is on the extreme. It makes for great television. It makes for great chatter. It makes for great talk shows all day long with commentators commenting on commentators about the latest little mini-flap up on Capitol Hill.
So what we have to do is sort of take some of the heat out of our political life in terms of the coverage of it, so these folks can get to work quietly.
AMANPOUR: I get your point about heat and light, but what about the fact that, in fact, it is one of the political parties, although — or rather the big political influence, which is the Tea Party, which quotes left and right the Founding Fathers? They say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

 

POWELL: They compromised — the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. They had to in order to create a country. They compromised on the composition of the Senate, of the House, of the Supreme Court, of a president — what are the president’s powers? Can you imagine more difficult compromises today?
Compromise is how this country was founded, and unless two people in disagreement with each other don’t find a way to reach out to one another and make compromises, you don’t get a consensus that allows you to move forward.
But the Tea Party point of view of no compromise whatsoever is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win.
AMANPOUR: General Powell, thank you very much indeed.
POWELL: Thank you, dear.
It goes without saying that I very much agree with Powell’s point concerning the media’s role in the political divide in the nation.
However, although the question was asked by Amanpour, any discussion of the Tea Party’s involvement in the current tone should certainly have involved the Occupy Wall Street movement and what its participants both overt and covert are doing.
This is particularly important given the press’s adoration for a group so antagonistic to the most successful members of the society.
Also missing in this segment was how a president and a political Party that are stoking the flames of class envy fit into the current caustic environment.
When the leader of the nation continually talks about the rich not paying their “fair share” – doing so in a fashion that defies any knowledge of the current tax code as well as who’s actually paying most of the costs associated with the federal government – this has as much to do with the divisive tone as anything else if not more.
Not at all surprisingly, this wasn’t addressed by Amanpour or Powell.
Exactly why might that be?

 

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/27/colin-powell-blames-media-and-tea-party-divisive-tone-washington#ixzz1exXmgjAU



 

%d bloggers like this: