Chuck Ross Highlights Free Speech Hypocrisy

by W.F. Price on September 13, 2012

I’ve been taken aback by the behavior and statements of US government officials regarding the lynching of US diplomats in Libya, especially their condemnation of American citizens’ speech. I thought they were civil servants, but I guess things have changed a lot over the decades.

Chuck compares the slutwalkers’ denunciation of a Toronto policeman’s advice that women dress modestly to the chiding some anti-Muslim Americans have been subject to lately for airing their opinions (apparently, the head of the Joint Chiefs actually called Terry Jones, an obscure, anti-Muslim preacher, to tell him not to provoke Muslims, which is surreal):

…In both instances we have groups becoming outraged that a state functionary proposed a first order limitation on free expression. In the case of the Slut Walkers, they opposed a lone policeman in Toronto. In the case of the people who created the video condemning Muhammed, they’re in opposition to a much larger state-run entity.

Regardless of whether or not Mitt Romney stuck his foot in his mouth and went overboard in politicizing Obama’s handling of that statement and the subsequent attacks in Egypt and Libya, there should have been no place for the following statement released by a State functionary *on the anniversary of 9/11* and *about the behaviors of individuals not affliliated with a government entity*.

This kind of thing makes me wonder what the hell happened to my country. Maybe the paranoid black helicopter guys back in the 90s were right about this One World Government thing…

Update: Our friends at the SPLC are explicitly blaming the killings on an American:

Klein of Hemet, Calif., who has a long history of ties to militant Christian organizations, has been identified as one of the brains behind the anti-Muslim film that triggered violence in northern Africa, including a rocket attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the murder of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Well, I guess we all know where they stand now.

{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }

greyghost September 13, 2012 at 03:16

National defense policy has now progressed to “don’t make her mad.” Right up there with “Couragious restraint”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 13, 2012 at 03:24

National defense policy has now progressed to “don’t make her mad.” Right up there with “Couragious restraint”

-greyghost

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Are Americans now going to be called “abusers” if they defend themselves? This is prima facie evidence of the feminization of foreign policy (courtesy of Hillary Clinton et al).

Mojo September 13, 2012 at 03:25

An outside perspective:

Your leaders are making the USA the laughing stock of the world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 September 13, 2012 at 04:39

“Your leaders are making the USA the laughing stock of the world.”

Making? The place has been a dump for decades; especially if you are a man. That is what happens when you abandon natural and moral principles.

Give me one example of something in America that is not a fraud?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo September 13, 2012 at 04:42

An inside perspective:

Our leaders are making us the laughing stock of the universe.

Let’s face it, the current stock of politicians are so overly bloated with their own egos that to tell them that other people do not value what they have to say; or that they should be replaced in an election is akin to murder in their eyes. The highly defensive posture they take will show how insecure they really are. This si not a good thing to possess in your nation’s leadership. What Obama did in firing that general for example due to his comments in Rolling Stone.

Our political elite have become so institutionilized in their own self-righteousness that they expect others to pay deference to themsleves and everything they say; purely nacissistic behavior. To do anything to the contrary is like wiping your ass with their face; in their eyes.

“They are the state” in their minds, and the state is deserving of worship, power, taxes, and praise. If you do not pay all of that in the “correct(read holy)” manner; you will be demonized. It is merely the institutionilization of themselves, the political elite and their wealthy sponsors, as a religion of which they are the god-head.

If you don’t believe me, watch a couple signings of bills that the president does. All that media coverage, and people kissing their ass goes to their heads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
hadenuff September 13, 2012 at 04:55

In America, non-whites that hate whites use white women as tools against white men, while women that hate men use racial minorities as tools against white men. And, after fifty years of indoctrination, many white men hate themselves have become nothing more than useful idiots to those two groups that hate them. Can anything change the direction we are going in? No.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brewski September 13, 2012 at 05:09

The SPLC’s comments insinuates that Libyan Muslims in the middle east are incapable of rational thought, and hence are not responsible for the four murders. The Florida preacher is a buff0on, but he didn’t even break the law!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Therapsid September 13, 2012 at 06:40

Most hate speech laws are applied more vigorously against anti-Jewish than anti-Muslim speech.

This makes sense because hate speech laws in the U.S. have for decades been promoted by the Anti-Defamation League.

A simple principle should be applied: all religions and races should be open to any and all criticism, period. Free speech is not negotiable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger September 13, 2012 at 07:17

Making? The place has been a dump for decades; especially if you are a man. That is what happens when you abandon natural and moral principles.

I can assure you that there are a lot of worse places. And a lot of more immoral and corrupt places too.

Give me one example of something in America that is not a fraud?

In what respect?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer September 13, 2012 at 07:42

Off-topic, but this “leadership guru” is writing a book titled Working With Under 35s the Way They Want To be Worked With.

Why We Must Rethink How We Lead the Millennials

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2012/09/13/why-we-must-rethink-how-we-lead-the-millennials

elmer can’t resist :

A good resource for understanding and dealing with Millennials is “How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35″ by R.Don Steele.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn September 13, 2012 at 07:53

Obama should invite over some of the angry Muslim leaders to the White House garden for beer and pretzels.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pirran September 13, 2012 at 07:53

@El Bastardo
“Our leaders are making us the laughing stock of the universe.”

It ain’t a bug, it’s a feature. From the Blair-lite Cameron to Obama to the provincial, bickering wussies of most of the EU, the gender politics of the last 40 years leaves most of the West vulnerable to any assault on it’s core principles.

Think of the craven lack of action over the hijacking of the American Embassy in Iran, or the capitulation in the face of Islamic intolerance with the Salman Rushdie fiasco. Then contrast that with the simplistic over-reaction during multiple Imperial interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and (probably) now Iran.

This is the Foreign Policy of impulse and emotion. Emoting manginas trying to placate a feminized electorate. There is no sense of strategic thinking or rational response. No idea of where to draw the line in the sand and when to stay out of it. These are not the decisions of cool male calculation. It’s the very essence of the feminized government; an entire polity brought up without a dad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 13, 2012 at 08:20

Funny there was little outrage over Bill Maher’s documentary “Religiosity”. Of course he ridicules and mocks Christianity most ot the time, while only carefully touching on Islam.

Those of the Muslim Brotherhood and their radical and violent branches wouldn’t understand the meaning of an open society with freedom of speech. They think the government MUST have colluded with Zionist Hollywood to produce a major motion picture that skewers the Prophet, and that all of America is lining up at the theatres to see it.

The leaders of the Radical Muslims will use any little slight they can as a pretext to foment anger among their sheeple. So we have to be really, really careful that we don’t hurt their feelings in any way. There’s even a UN resolution proposing making criticizing Islam illegal on a global level. If a key tenet of a religion is that you can’t say anything bad about it or it’s Prophet, then you’re not being insensitive to religious diversity.

Meanwhile our government can fund projects for “artistic expression” that display the crucifix dunked in blood, cum and urine…and everybody’s cool with that.

Where is the REAL “war on women”?
It’s over there, but that won’t stop the likes of Sandra Fluke whining about our government not paying for her diaphram. Liberals are both pro-feminist and pro-Islam (ostensibly the “peaceful” version). There’s the hypocrisy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Georice81 September 13, 2012 at 09:32

@Keyster

Liberals are not pro-Islam. They are just pro-AntiAmericanism from wherever it may come from. If the Muslims decide tomorrow to embrace the USA , the Liberals will attack them.

The main reason why Obama is anti-Pakistan is because it was an ally of the USA during the Cold War. For this reason Obama feels Pakistan needs to be punished. Obama didn’t really intervene during the Lybian civil war. That was being led by Nato, most notably France and the UK. Obama was ok with Kadaffi since this leader had always been anti-American. The same with Assad in Syria. Compare that to Mubarak who Obama was quick to pull the rug under since Egypt like Pakistan had also been an ally of the USA.

Liberals supposedly embrace diversity and encourage illegal immigration into this country for their political benefit. Yet there is one Latin American country that liberals have backtracked on because those people vote Republican when they become US citizens. That country is Cuba. Also compare the treatment that Mexicans and Central Americans receive by the media and the Cubans. Mexicans and Central Americans are eulogized and made to look like victims. Cubans, whenever they are mentioned, are denigrated, made to look like drug traffickers, ex- Mariel boat lift convicts, and ex- Batista death squad members. (I am not Cuban by the way.)

Liberals support feminism because it suits them. They encourage it because it serves to destroy America and Western Civilization in general. The one thing liberals fear at true conservative women that submit to their husbands, love them and have anti-feminist values. Look at how Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Ann Romney have been attacked viciously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh September 13, 2012 at 10:11

The cartoon that allegedly led to the attack on the embassy was created several months ago by a group of Egyptian immigrants living in America. But of course the media has to imply by omission that it was the big bad white people and that without the first amendment that ambassador would still be alive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh September 13, 2012 at 10:12

Also, only one diplomat was killed, the other guy who died was only a diplomat in EVE online.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
universe September 13, 2012 at 11:54

“Give me one example of something in America that is not a fraud?”
Walkinginhell2
– Many, and I mean many, people, common or otherwise, who inhabit that land. Those who, once realizing the benefits of their irreplaceable governing mandate, will step up and remove the gloves once having full disclosure of what ails their land. This is to reckoned with.
Given the divisiveness among many, conclusions and resultant actions may be slow in reaching but are an almost surety.
These are who I believe do not reside among the fraudulent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 13, 2012 at 12:17

Keyster, we both know what’s going on.

Slutwalkers are wimmen/wymen/wopersons/etc, a protected class, and so their free speech must be enshrined.

WhitemaleChristians, on the other hand, are not a protected class, and so they are not entitled to free speech at all.

Moslems are “The Other”, and thus they are holy to the left. They must be made haaaapy at any cost.

It’s easy. WhitemaleChristian = bad, all others = good.
And now, party like it’s 1979…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 13, 2012 at 12:37

Looks like the Marine guards in Cairo were not allowed to have any ammunition in their carbines. Per the order of the Ambassador, herself.

Pretty obvious conclusions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 September 13, 2012 at 13:23

Chuck compares the slutwalkers denunciation of a Toronto policeman s advice that women dress modestly to the chiding some anti-Muslim Americans have been subject to lately for airing their opinions

Both things are really about bullying. An aggressive group lambasts a less aggressive group using some cheap excuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer September 13, 2012 at 13:40

Slow day for comments. We need some controversy.

Here it is : Attack of the 50-ft Attention Whores

The Dialectics of Breastfeeding on Campus
Exposéing My Breasts on the Internet

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/05/exposeing-my-breasts-on-the-internet

Of course, Jamie Lynne Grumet noticed and is not about to be upstaged. She has more street cred with her black kid and all and what’s worse, a handsome, supportive husband as opposed to Professor Pine’s heroic single-mom-by-choice narrative.

The claws come out :

TIME’s Breastfeeding Cover Mom Is At It Again

http://blogs.phillymag.com/bewellphilly/2012/09/13/times-breastfeeding-cover-mom

I would post some of my breastfeeding handiwork but Price feels they are a little too provocative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Norm September 13, 2012 at 17:24

The video was not the real reason the embassies were attacked. It was a coordinated effort. According to a former Libyan Jihadist, he said the film had nothing to do with it. It is an Al Cia-da revenge attack for the drone attack of their second in command in Yemem. Listen to the first 10 -30 minutes of the Sept 12 of Micheal Savage’s broadcast. He smacks down the no men allowed State dept. and goes in depth. There is even a clip of hillary clinton giggling when talking about Khadaffi’s death. If you listen to the broadcast (commercial free) there is a mention of where the Russian’s warned NATO of regime change.
http://conservativereview.us/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila September 13, 2012 at 17:55

It’s pretty clear that certain interest groups want to BAN all criticism of religion-especially Islam.

Who cares what the Muslim world thinks of a stupid B-film? It’s a pretext so that they can look like victims and claim some form of moral superiority.

Since when is any religion untouchable? or anything?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric September 13, 2012 at 20:58

Anyone who actually believes that the Libyan riots have anything to do with some christian retard’s video is a walking example of Winston Churchill’s observation that “the strongest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Our government helped stage a coup to funnel Libya’s oil wealth into the global oil cartel.

Gee, I can’t imagine why there might be some people in Libya who might still be seriously pissed off about that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonxcf September 13, 2012 at 23:35

Don’t take this as an attack on free speech.

The video is absolutely MEANT to anger Muslims- Islamists, sure, but Muslims in general. There’s no real possible other purpose. The maker of the film claims to have been funded by a few hundred Jews (how on Earth would you get funding, and have it just be from Jews?). That feeds into anyone who believes in a “Jewish conspiracy”- which, of course, many credulous Muslims do, their racism giving them plenty of reason to believe that.

The “movie” itself isn’t available for purchase, and probably isn’t coherent in its full form. The “trailers” are just section after section of an actor, who doesn’t know he’s playing Mohammed, being a giant dick, or other actors, who don’t know they are talking about Mohammed, shit talking him in the worst way possible (“/mohammed!/” gets dubbed in poorly when they address him by name).

Who really made this film? What was the goal? Was it to rile up anger? I would argue that is the most likely result about it.

The comparison with slut walks…

Now, we wouldn’t say that a girl dressed in a sexy outfit down a dark alley “deserves to be raped” or “causes her own rape”. But we WOULD point out that she’s not minimizing her chances by putting herself in a potentially dangerous situation, right? We would be wrong to pass a law against her actions- she’s simply exercising her rights. And we should attempt to prevent anything bad from happening to her should she choose to do that thing. But at the end of the day, she isn’t acting wise.

In a similar fashion, wouldn’t say that a kook who produces this film is CAUSING these riots and violence. But we SHOULD point out that he’s not minimizing the chances of that happening. And this is in a much more directed way- my theoretical sluttily-dressed woman in the above paragraph no doubt has a reason to dress in such a manner, but it seems unlikely that this director is doing much except deliberately trying to rile up radical Muslims.

Anyway, yea, it’s bullshit that our government officials are half-assedly blaming this movie, and fucking apologizing for free speech. But know that this “movie” is no normal critique, no accidental event that it’s wildly offensive to Muslims. This is no “Satanic Verses”, this is a provocation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 September 14, 2012 at 00:09

@Eric

Glad to see you are back.

“Anyone who actually believes that the Libyan riots have anything to do with some christian retard’s video is a walking example of Winston Churchill’s observation that “the strongest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.””

A 100% perfect and truthful comment. I wish I could write like this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 04:43

@ Georice81 re September 13, 2012 at 09:32 -

Great analysis. Except:

“Look at how Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Ann Romney have been attacked viciously.”

These women are all nuts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 14, 2012 at 04:45

@ Eric re walking in hell2 -

“Glad to see you are back.”

Yeah. Where HAVE you been?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric September 14, 2012 at 06:17

@WIH2, Darryl X: My laptop fried a few months ago and I stayed offline for the summer before buying a new one.
Very refreshing. I highly recommend it every once in awhile.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray September 14, 2012 at 08:41

“This kind of thing makes me wonder what the hell happened to my country.”

This sort of hypocritical, PC, Marxist mindset is abundant on taxpayer funded colleges and universities all across America. Anything not considered PC by the campus thought police is openly and liberally (In every sense of the word) bashed. It is not surprising to see this behavior exhibited by so many graduates of taxpayer funded public education, given how pervasive this same kind of PC rhetoric is in America’s classrooms – as shown in “Marxist Valley College” at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/44btbq8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Georice81 September 14, 2012 at 10:11

@Darryl X

I wasn’t sure whether to mention these particular women or not specially Sarah Palin but at the moment that is all I could quickly come up with. I knew someone would comment on them. At least they are not all out feminists, look like they bathe regularly and do try to be feminine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NWOslave September 14, 2012 at 14:21

You forget the entire reason the US is anywhere besides the US. $$$$$$profit$$$$$$. If you take the top ten wealthiest families, Rothchild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Leman Bros, Windsor, Dupont, Oppenheimer, ect, they make more off of dead people than you can imagine.

They own all the worlds banks, insurances (obama care is run by the federal reserve), shipping, oil, mining, weapons manufacturing, Big Pharma/food, media, advertising, education, chemical manufacturing, ect.

Now ifI was evil, and I am, I would stir up hornets nests where ever I could. I supply a few weapons to some rebels in Yemen, who really aren’t rebels at all but I send in a few agitators. Then I spin a story about how the Yemenians are bad and their killing our boys out there. Bingo! Bango!

Now the Guv, whose really in cahoots with the corporation anyway borrows money from the federal reserve and bills it to the serfs. We buy the weapons, oil, medical, caskets from them. Each dead american is worth about a million bucks. Bring the wounded back home, pump em full a drugs, rehab them. No one’s going to argue with helping our boys who protected out country. Right? Of course the one source of misinformation that’s fed to us isn’t going to tell us that the enemy orginally was nothing but impoverished farmers with a few imaciated yaks, until the same powers that fed us the weapons and lies also fed them the same.

There’s only one enemy in the world today, and that’s the elite who’ve been running the show for centuries. It’s the same damn families pulling the same stunts over and over. There’s been more wars since the creation of the peace entity known as the UN than in all of history before it’s creation. If that’s the case, than that’s exactly what the plan has been all along.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray September 15, 2012 at 05:14

The Communist made AK-47 (Kalishnakov) is the greatest weapon of mass destruction in the history of the world. Some estimates put the number in circulation at 500 million. Of course peace-loving Communists have no power aspirations, money is never a consideration, and Commies and their ilk never stir up trouble throughout the world.
http://tinyurl.com/3hpscgx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mason September 21, 2012 at 06:22

All this furor is over an insulting video? Yeah right.

For anyone who’s been paying attention — i.e. reading well-reported news outside of the major Anglosphere news sources — knows that the “Arab Spring” in Libya was a NATO-led coup over a secular North African dictator. A quick reminder — remember that a large portion of the guerillas/terrorists in Iraq from about 2003-2005 were actually from outside the country, i.e. not native Iraqis (same as happened to the Soviets when they became bogged down in Afghanistan)? Well you should — it was reported on multiple times, particularly by actual in-field military staff. Well of those “foreign fighters”, the plurality were coming from Saudi Arabia (aka our bestest buddy in the Mideast, after Israel of course); the next highest number came from the Benghazi region of Libya. The tribes in that region had long been at odds with Gaddafi, whose power base was in the west of his large, lightly-populated country (remember these are still tribal societies, regardless of the lines on international maps). And apparently over the years extremist Islamic theology had made strong headway in that area, such that it provided a large number of men who were ready to plant IEDs to kill and maim our American military personnel in a country that is nowhere even close to Libya.

(As an aside, let’s also remember that the cool-down in violence in Iraq in about 2006 or so was largely predicated on a policy advanced by Petraeus and others that gave large sums of money to tribal leaders, mostly Sunni, so that their tribesmen would help enforce peace in their area rather than aid foreign fighters. In the years since I’ve gotten the distinct impression that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a significant number of enemy combatants are not ideologically-driven but monetarily-driven — they are unemployed men whose one option to earn some significant cash is by attempting to kill what are to them foreign occupiers. Yes, terrorism is often well-funded at least by local standards; and a lot of that money comes from nominal U.S. allies like Saudi, the UAE, and Pakistan.)

So now we have extremist Muslim tribes dominant in a formerly secular country (look it up — one of the main points of rebel rhetoric against the dictator was that he was too secular, although this was spread largely in Arab-language media). Big win for the West, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mason September 21, 2012 at 07:58

From Pirran:
“Emoting manginas trying to placate a feminized electorate. There is no sense of strategic thinking or rational response.”

I kind of agree with you – in that the mental acuity and well-tempered rationalism of the American electorate continues to devolve (although I wouldn’t characterize this a “feminization”). The breakdown in the family unit is certainly one factor — bastardry has become so common that the word is actually considered antiquated at this point, at least in most Western societies.

But I would hardly call our leaders, whether in Congress or the White House or at State or Defense or the Joint Chiefs “emoting manginas”. Their uniting factor is their ambition — and quite often their coldly calculating nature behind their gracious exterior. Jon Stewart loves to mock Dick Morris on his show, but Dick Morris I believe gives insight into a lot of major figures via his vituperative revelations about the “real Hillary” vs. the public face Ms. Clinton reveals that so inspires her fanatical supporters. (Granted, those reading this site would not be surprised by the reality behind the hype.)

But to play the devil’s advocate — rational response was hardly a hallmark of the Spanish-American War or WWI. And these occurred long before second-wave feminism entered the mainstream. What people like NWOslave are getting at is that entrenched “feminism” is simply a facet of a much larger problem. Some insightful commentators have noted that feminism could never have become mainstream without certain modern technologies — the Pill obviously, but also the automated washer and dryer, the dishwasher, the vacuum cleaner (now being supplanted by Roombas and the like), refrigeration, the Mixmaster, mold-resistant sliced bread, sewing machines, etc.

Getting a bit off-topic here, but when feminists talk about how “home economics” was and is condescended to by mainstream society, they ignore that this happened largely in the wake of a massive easing of the time requirements on the average housewife. See, I’ve actually travelled to places where women still wash clothes in a large washbucket, sweep the floors every day, and clean all dirty dishes by hand. And in those places men are just as eager as women to become married — not just for sexual reasons but because it is expensive and tiring to be a bachelor. All that “women’s work” takes way too much time and effort for the young man trying to secure a future for himself and the potential to support a large family.

So back to the larger picture — all this much-vaunted technology has paved the way for dystopian social patterns that could not have existed in centuries past. Americans have trouble recognizing this, though, because technological innovation (Whitney’s cotton gin, the McCormick mechanized reaper, Henry Ford’s assembly line, the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, everything associated with the film industry in Hollywood, the Manhattan Project, the transistor, the Apollo Program, etc.) has been a large part of why America is the sole superpower in the world today instead of an analogue to Australia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: