Kristinn Taylor:
A check of media reports shows that as of 11 p.m. Central time there has been no statement from President Barack Obama or the White House on the terror attack in Garland, Texas that occurred shortly before 7 p.m. Central time.
One police officer was wounded in the attack. Two attackers were shot dead by police.
The target of the attack was a free speech event hosted by Pam Geller that was awarding prizes for drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Workplace violence!
The Islamic, terrorist, pres fool is going to deny it all.
The idiot has started the invasion of the US.
Of course there is silence. He already said they were the JV team and secondly he is one of them. Do your research. He spends an inordinate amount of time justifying the islamic culture, the muslim religion and the acts of terrorists. The enemy, as bill ayers once said, will be amd is within.
Who knows?
He might send some White House representatives to the funerals.
Seriously?
These weren’t ”real” Muslims.
Note the photo of Obama’s murdered American Anwar al-Alawki (sp?) as one of the gunmen’s Twitter photo.
Islam is a religion of peace!
Obama and Muslims in the States will distance themselves even though other Muslims, outside the USA, celebrated this attempt.
It’s OK that Muslims are inciting blacks in the USA to riot, just watch, however, as they keep mum about this ”murder” of two of their own.
Be patient with the administration. They are probably working to confirm whether or not they were really ISIS that way they’ll know how much spin them and their media allies will have to engage in. I’m sure when Obama has his next press conference after his next few appearances on “The View”, the MSM reporters will ask him some really tough questions like if he thinks the Chicago Bulls are going to go all the way.
This, of course, is the act of an isolated few and in no way representative of real Muslims.
However, one bad cop or even the misrepresented, justified actions of good cops, means all cops are racist killers and the entire lot should be fired and replaced with Sharpton’s hand-picked justice warriors.
You can cut the hypocrisy with a chain saw.
We shouldn’t find this surprising at all. It’s how he approaches everything – ignore it until he’s forced to address it.
Is Obama supposed to comment on the crazy gunmen that opened fire with assault rifles, or the on crazy woman who organized a “free speech” event calculated to enrage crazy gunmen?
If she wants to repeat this moronic stunt, maybe she should do so in her own hometown.
Obama weighs in by planting his feet firmly on both sides:
“We have seen extremists try to use expressions that they considered to be offensive as a way to justify violence not only in this country but around the world, and in the mind of the president there is no form of expression that would justify an act of violence,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.
So, there you have it.
@Greg: Concur Let her throw gasoline on her own home–Wacko from Waco??
@Greg:
Well, he has a statement when a punk tries to beat a neighborhood watchman to death and gets shot for his efforts. He comments when a common punk thug tries to beat a cop and steal his gun, getting killed in the process. Is it too much to expect him to address an actual terror event?
She could have an event in Baltimore or Ferguson; leftists are destroying them anyway.
Seems like ancient history, but Obama has been trying to impose Sharia’s blasphemy laws that criminalize criticism of Islam on the entire world through the United Nations.
That would make ”the truth,” no defense.
Think you’d be safe?
Think again.
How often have non-Muslims thought they had an agreement (dhimmitude) with their neighboring Muslims only to be slaughtered by those Muslims when they felt like it?
The Muslims manufactured an ”offense” for each occasion.
How often have Muslims thought they were safe from more extreme Muslims who they called ”brother,” only to find themselves being labeled as apostates and blasphemers?
Happens all the time in Islamic countries.
You can’t paint yourself into a tiny enough corner.
Even ”converting” is no sure protection.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367132/coercing-conformity-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/398706/under-sharia-speech-law-europe-has-and-obama-wants-truth-no-defense-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396323/im-glad-obama-skipped-paris-andrew-c-mccarthy
@Greg:
Please. You are implying Gellar is at fault for 2 muslims attempting a terrorist attack because she exercised her 1st Amendment right to free expression?
Tell me, would you engage in the same idiocy had a couple of Christians tried to shoot up the “art” show that displayed Serrano’s picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine?
God bless Pamela Gellar.
@Pete: GELLER?? Nuf said—Ultimate wacko.
@rich wheeler: So Rich and Greg, neither of you believe in free speech? It’s in article 1 of the constitution. Wasn’t those people free to say what they want to say?
Most US Marines believe in the Constitution, I guess at least one doesn’t.
I have concerns about one person’s calculated and provocative exercise of free speech that puts some other person at an increased risk of getting killed—and I’m not speaking of the dead gunmen, who pretty much got what they were asking for.
Every right we have carries with it a burden of responsibility.
@Greg:
So if I understand you, Free speech is not really free speech. You only have the right to say what others want you to say? Is that what you mean? Are you saying that free speech doesn’t include the right to have a controversial opinion? Then just what good is this ‘limited’ free speech if the true meaning is that you only have the right to speak as long as no one objects. Free speech?
@Redteam I agree with you. Geller has every right to be a loud mouthed idiot..
@Pete: Greg thinks burning CVS’s is a freedom of speech issue. Don’t expect him to understand actual freedom of speech.
@rich wheeler:No criticizing the terrorists though. Never thought I’d see the day where a former Marine sides with terrorists over U.S. citizens. We must have been in different militaries.
@another vet: Of course I condemn the gunmen–but what the hell was Geller thinking?
A rabble rouser like Sharpton.
@rich wheeler:
And what the hell are you thinking? To compare Geller to Sharpton is the height of hypocrisy. Sharpton caused the deaths of innocent people (Freddie’s Fashion Mart) and because of Geller, two radical jihadists were killed.
And since when do we decide what speech should be free? When PissChrist was unveiled, along with the Madonna made of camel dung, where was your outrage and demand for a limit of “free” speech? And when the Muslims, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISNA, held a rally at the very same venue as Geller did, where were the radical Christians shooting at them?
It is not speech that we decide is acceptable that should be free. It is speech that we object to that should be free.
The best part of Geller’s art contest were the drawings that were made on the concrete street around the bodies of two dead radical Islamists.
@rich wheeler:
Oh? Did Geller lie in order to incite violence that got cops and innocent people killed? Does Geller pay her taxes?
Sharpton is in a class (without class) by himself.
@Bill: Geller– Promotes a Mohammed cartoon contest.
Compares herself to Rosa Parks.
Idiot may be too kind of a description.
@rich wheeler: As I clearly state, I do not agree with such expositions. However, it is free speech, whereas all Sharpton does is lie and manipulate. While neighborhoods burn, he gets richer (and screws the taxpayers). Find another comparison for Geller. Sharpton defies comparison.
@Bill: OK How bout they are both rabble rousing idiots—degree open to debate?
@rich wheeler: Everyone who attended that event were Americans exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Unlike recent events, there was no looting or violence. Whether their views are right or wrong is a matter of personal opinion and immaterial The two terrorists were the bad guys. Plain and simple. If we are unable to properly identify our enemies, how do you expect to defeat them?
As for the topic of this thread, we were just told within the last week or two that ISIS was not operating on our soil. Hence the reason for the silence. If we had a different President (R), the media would be all over this like flies on shit.
@Redteam, #17:
Do you always stop reading sentences halfway through? What I said was this:
@another vet:
So true, I was in the U S Navy, I had always assumed when RW said he was in the Marine Corps that he meant US Marines. But here he is, denying the right to free speech to an American citizen that pays her taxes. Seems as if he is opposed to someone that thinks Muslims are bad for the US.
@Greg:
Your standup routine needs more work.
This was your last sentence, and I read it:
point out in the constitution where the right to free speech carries that burden. Here is the entire statement in the First Amendment that carries the right to free speech, notice that there is no mention of a limitation:
So where do you get your qualifications to free speech?
The nation’s Founding Fathers assumed that their descendants would be intelligent enough to understand that the guarantee of any fundamental right is not the equivalent of the issue of a license. The right to free speech, for example, does not include a license to tell children that the poison in a bottle is completely safe to drink. It does not confer on anyone the right to assemble and incite a lynch mob.
No right is absolute. That fundamental truth should be so obvious that it goes without saying. Even the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be constrained. Ask any criminal serving time in prison.
@Greg:
Greg, would you post a list of their ‘assumptions’ regarding free speech? I’ve never seen this list. Who actually compiled the list and has it actually been published or do you just ‘assume’ that they had these ‘assumptions’?
Sure it does. however, if a child drinks that poison and is hurt by it, then the person would likely be tried for a crime, but the crime they would be tried for would not involve ‘freedom of speech’. Do you think it’s a violation of free speech for a wife to tell her husband it’s okay to drive them home from a bar when they’ve both been drinking? It’s clearly not a violation of free speech.
Sure it does. Inciting a lynch mob is not a crime. However if the lynch mob were to actually lynch someone, that would be a crime. Again, I don’t think the trial would be about ‘freedom of speech’, more likely for actually lynching someone. Maybe you just don’t have a basic understanding of rights. If all your assumptions were correct, that would put your buddy Sharpton out of business entirely. His entire function is to ‘incite’.
@Greg: I suppose you’d apply the same reasoning to owning a gun. Just because someone owns a gun is not illegal. Even if someone assumes they own it to shoot someone does not make it illegal. You have to be careful when you want to apply your ‘assumptions’ to what you ‘think’ someone else’s ‘assumptions’ were/are.
@Greg:
Does that apply to innocent persons serving time in prison also?
@Greg:
But then, the Founding Fathers also didn’t count on leftist (Socialist) lemming like yourself.
Remember, it wasn’t the anti-Islamists in Garland that created the problems. It was the radical Islamists themselves that objected to free speech, the same free speech offered to Muslims (who closed their conference to the press and all other outsiders) at the same venue in Garland just a few months ago.
I don’t remember you supporting limits on free speech when the “free speechers” were burning cars and homes and looting in Baltimore.
@Redteam, #32:
An absolute right to free speech and freedom of the press would make it OK to openly publish and distribute child pornography, wouldn’t it? I certainly wouldn’t approve of that. I don’t believe you would either.
@Greg:
Freedom of speech is not the source of the crime being committed in that situation.
I notice you didn’t bother to give us that ‘list of assumptions’ did you?
@Redteam:
Careful what he posts. He once supported an argument by another leftist who happened to be trolling by, that our Founders were all for wealth redistribution by posting a link “proving” Patrick Henry wrote Agrarian Justice. Even if one is ignorant of U.S. history, Thomas Paine’s name was clearly written in the byline.
@Redteam, #37:
The laws that make the possession and distribution of child pornography a crime are statutory restrictions on a couple of our fundamental First Amendment rights that a large majority of the citizens of the United States most likely agree with.
If you really want to compile a list of exceptions to our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, it should be very easy. Just take a close and thoughtful look at our laws. Absolute freedom in a society equals anarchy. Our Founding Fathers were not anarchists. Their intention was the establishment of a new social order. The words expressing that intention, in Latin, are on the nation’s Great Seal. Their documents expressed that new order’s highest ideals, from which the laws governing a nation are derived. Laws, by their nature, expand, limit, or clarify how ideals are expressed in the real world.
@Greg:
Well gee, thanks Greg. I’m happy you have awoken. so now that you’re awake, shoot us that list of assumptions that the founding fathers had. I’m especially pleased to ‘learn’ that they were not anarchists, I’m always worried about that so thanks for the assurance that they were not. That goes a long way toward my peace of mind.
The only person using the term ‘absolute right’ is named Greg. I don’t claim any absolute right to anything except dying one day.
I think you should re-read this sentence you wrote:
and tell us if that is what you intended to say. I’m gonna guess not. If you have a ‘constitutionally guaranteed right’ how can you have an exception to it. If you have an exception then it’s not guaranteed.
@Greg: The pornography itself is not illegal, Greg. However, when the subject matter is the abuse of children, it becomes illegal to stop the trafficking of the abuse. The same would be true of pornography including adults being brutally murdered… murder is illegal, so the literature is illegal.
@Greg: I must give you credit for your thoughtful analysis.
RT is a shucker and jiver–a carny act–you can’t take him seriously. He can’t possibly take himself seriously.
05 is all business -not an ounce of humor in her deliveries.
Truly an odd couple—makes for some fun at F.A..
@rich wheeler:
Of course you do. Gullible Greggie is a radical leftist.
What I would think RT can’t take seriously is a aged man trying to relive his youth by wearing muscle shirts.
I find nothing humorous in left wingers who dream of a socialist utopia, you know, like you and Gullible Greggie,
@rich wheeler, #42:
Basically I’m just trying to clarify my own thoughts. I’ve also been trying to figure out why people on the right think as they do. The hostility to common sense and willingness to accept assertions without evidence is puzzling—particularly when it supports an agenda that often runs contrary to the average person’s best interests.
@Greg: Well, look at it this way; when has the liberal left ever been right about anything?
@Greg: They are like robots–repeating over and over the same discourse.
blame the media for their losses.
“socialist utopia”
They are soul less and other than RT devoid of humor
It’s a soap opera–leave for a week–come back-nothing has changed.
@retire05: Glad you found me on F.B under my real name-
Wonder why R.T unable to do so
Mercy For Animals
@rich wheeler:
Right, because we all know that it is liberals that don’t support slaughtering unborn children.
Found you a long time ago, just never mentioned it. Someone needs to tell you that the term “sexy” abandoned you a long time ago.
@rich wheeler:
Easy to throw insults around. How about some proof of her alleged “whackoness”?
@retire05: I’m afraid the term sexy abandoned me at birth.
Fit is better –still running–actually jogging—5k’s and lifting weights.
What do you do to keep your girlish figure?
Pete For starters she compared herself to Mother Teresa.