Robert Spencer speaks about the war against free speech

In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is a good (albeit a tough) angel of God.

Here: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/who-is-satan.html

Yes, whatever you do, don't, make those Mahoundians mad...

Your post, Kepha, reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the Marshall Court's decision in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, to wit, that the 3rd President was really ticked that the Supreme Court accorded to itself the sole right to determine what is, or is not, unconstitutional. The Constitution was unclear here, as it is in many other areas, for instance with the "necesary and proper clause" in Article I, Section 8, but Marshall and his fellow brethren sealed this ambiguity for all time, or least until the present.

There is, though, one "out" in the Constitution from Supreme Court appellate decisions. It can be found in Article III, Section 2, which accords to Congress the right to limit Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. The day might come when Congress has to do this with the entire First Amendment. I hope that day doesn't have to come, that it never comes, it will be a sad day if it does, but the idiocy of the Modern Left may drive Congress to this last Constitutional resort (assuming here that Congress has not also become a complete idiot). After all, with modern liberalism, as with Islam, anything is possible. And so, the Constitution might be tested to even greater limits than it has to date. Fluid times, no?

While I understand duh swami's chiding sarcasm, I do agree with you.

While many here would agree that we really don't know what our troops' mission is "over there", it is certainly not to explain, or to support, or to defend the U.S. Constitution to or for the benefit of illiterate, easily excitable Mahoundians.

IMO, the Generals' duty to prevent or minimize the violent riots that have all too frequently resulted in the murder of the troops in their charge is one of their most important.

While their pleas (particularly Allen's) seemed so disgusting, clueless, and gutless, I'd like to think they were for a specific purpose and have no reason to believe that either of them would ever actually subordinate our Constitution--or the UCMJ--to the shari'ah.

I truly do believe that the dangers posed by those Mahoundians to those in their command was the reason for their pleas.

My two cents.

Was it U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roberts who wrote Obamacare passes Constitutional muster? Didn't Speaker Boehener, after the elections agree, Obamacare is law?

Well, wildjew, I remember thinking during the 1970s, what with Watergate, Vietnam going down the tubes, the narcissism of the 1960s extending into the 1970s and the dismal Carter Presidency, that America was, as Paul Johnson wrote in his masterpiece, Modern Times, going through a suicide attempt. But along came Ronald Reagan who restored faith in America, gave us the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history and who turned the containment policy into a victory policy. After what happened in the 1980s I swore I would never underestimate this country again. It has enormous reservoirs of stength which even the foolish Obama will probably not harm permanently. Time will tell.

You are right. Time will tell. I take Obama at his word. He came to fundamentally transform America. That is what foolish Americans voted for this past election. More fundamental transformation of a once great nation.

Wellington, my guess is, you are among those who believe in American Exceptionalism. That is why you have this faith and confidence in the spirit of the American people, because Americans are an exceptional people. I tend to go with John Adams. Empires rise and fall. There are great empires like this one but none are an exception to the rule of great nations. The following is what one of Adams' biographers wrote:

"Although it was a propitious moment, the act of framing the new constitutions for the American republic was, he (John Adams) insisted, a decidedly human project taking place on this earth and not in the Garden of Eden: "It will never be pretended that any persons employed in the service [i.e., framing constitutions] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven." He went out of his way to dispel the mythology of America as an exception to the rules of history or the revolutionary generation as instruments of divine providence." (Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams," by Joseph J. Ellis, page 150)

IMO, the Generals' duty to prevent or minimize the violent riots that have all too frequently resulted in the murder of the troops in their charge is one of their most important.

There have been fifty or more of these murders, so the Generals have not been doing a very good job of protecting their men...So what do they do? They both call the same 'friendly' woman who has a thing for Generals, and ask her to protect American troops by using her influence on someone called Love Spounge...Here's the $64 question...If both of these Generals were so concerned about what Love Sponge was going to do, why didn't they call him?

My small town had a welcome home celebration for a returning Afghan vet, twenty years old, who was shot 5 times by one of our 'friends'...The Generals did not protect him or the other dead and wounded hero's...There were hundreds of people, yellow ribbons all over as weoo as Amerian flags, and cheers, lots of chears...

And this is also for Wellington. My guess is that Wellington and I are roughly the same age, for I share a lot of his memories about the Sillier 'Seventies--including memories of its inflation.

While Wellington's cautious optimism strikes a very resonant chord with me, I can sort of sympathize with your point of view, too--even if you may be my age, although I suspect you're younger. I've read a fair amount of history, and recognize that a polity can take only so many shocks and blows to its vitals. I'm also a believing student of the Old and New Testaments, and, after reading the Nevi'im a few times, the statement "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" is not just pretty,discomfit the bourgeoisie rhetoric to me. We've received a lot from God's hand in this country, and we seem eager to bite it (and not in the sense that a possibly waggish Roman Catholic friend might take it).

I see a lot of the same mess that you do. When I unhappily introduce myself as a professional swindler of the young (I am a teacher), that is an anguished cry from the heart at what I see in American public education, and some private. I wince when I see the politicization of science in support of homosexuality being "healthy", or insisting that government policies will save our planet, especially when I'm old enough to remember how we'd freeze to death or run out of oxygen by 1975. The subservience of major media to an Obama administration that plays fast and loose with the First Amendment horrifies me.

But I also remember the political shot in the arm of the Reagan years, the economic expansion between Reagan and Clinton after the malaise of the Nixon-Carter years, and a number of other things. I also sense a growing hunger for ethics in high places, even if our society is extremely confused about what constitutes sound ethics.

Maybe we have seen our Indian Summer and are heading for collapse. But, just as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (aka Shadrach, Messhach, and Abednego) weren't sure that the Almighty would save them when they were cast into Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace but were still unwilling to worship the Babylonian gods, there are a lot of people in the USA who remain skeptical towards the nostrums being peddled in the MSM and by the O's administration. Maybe a merciful God also has something better for our country, too.

I too remember the dismal Carter years (I was selling real estate then; between selling a house, securing a mortgage and the closing, interest rates often shot up) followed by the Reagan years. I voted for Reagan twice. He too slipped badly in the Middle East, with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc., but he had some core conservative principles that inspired the nation.

Back then, like Spencer wrote in "Islam Unveiled," Islamic terrorism was widely viewed through a political rather than a religious lense; especially Palestinian terror.

Even Bill Clinton - in spite of his many shortcomings - oversaw a pretty robust economy; maybe thanks to Gingrich and the Republicans in large measure.

As flawed as all these men were, Kennedy (I was too young to remember Eisenhower), Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, I cannot remember in my lifetime a president with a deep-seated contempt for this country. I cannot remember a president that viewed America as an evil colonial or neo-colonial power; who wanted to punish Americans for the "crimes" of our fathers; who hated the vision America's Founders had for this country and who wanted to "even" the score.

You mention the prophets (Nevi'im) in the Old Testament. A re-gathered / re-established Israel on the earth in the "last days" is a central theme in the prophets. Israel is God's time clock for the end of days. The prophet Zechariah wrote that "all" the nations would gather "against" Jerusalem, Israel's capital, in the last days. I think we are watching this become reality. Every American president I can remember, had at least some sympathy for the Palestinian cause, actually the Muslim world cause against Israel -- some more or less than others.

I cannot remember a president in my lifetime with as was deep a loathing for Israel and as much sympathy for Israel's enemies as this president. He tries to conceal it but his actions speak volumes. Americans (even American Jews) elected him not once, but twice. To me, this does not bode well for America's long term prospects.

One more thing on a related matter. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000. I am a life-long conservative. I have endured much criticism from fellow conservatives and libertarians for saying Bush dropped the ball after 9/11; more so during the Bush years than after Obama was elected. I am not necessarily saying Bush should have come out with a "we are at war with Islam" theme after the attacks. He should have carefully educated the nation that there is a problem inherent within the teachings of Islam from its inception that is problematic. I am certain Bush had sufficient brain-power and wisdom surrounding him, to come up with something better than Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few "terrorists" who are traitors to their faith. If he didn't have good advisers on Islam, he should have sought them out. There is no excuse for Americans to have elected a "Muslim-born" president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam (Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) only seven years after the 9/11 attacks, other than ignorance. For that I blame Bush and my party in large measure.

"I tend to go with John Adams. Empires rise and fall. There are great empires like this one but none are an exception to the rule of great nations."

1) It wasn't just John Adams who knew this essential truism: it's a standard mainstream Western principle of wisdom, going back to Plato, and given a fresh twist with Christian philosophy of history, but essentially the same thing.

2) That said, however, it's a double-edged sword: There's no reason to throw in the towel prematurely, espeically when neither John Adams nor you are a prophet with a definite timetable -- "Okay, America will dissolve at 3:30 PM on a Wednesday in March of 2057".

I. the fuck e., even granted that the American Empire (like all other empires in history) has a shelf life and is not eternal, that doesn't mean it won't last another 200 years, and who are you to tell our children, grandchildren, greatgrand children etc. that they don't deserve as much of a good, decent, prosperous and free life as they can during that time?

"but what will the economic, military, political, social and and other institutions look like in 200 years given the trend we seem to be on?"

Trends and fashions come and go more fickly, to be sure, than Empires. Surely what makes America (and the West) great is more enduring than this recent fashion PC MC.

P.S.: Unless you have an eschaton up your sleeve, then your logic leads you to have nothing worth fighting for.

I was referring to their respective pleas relative to Jones' Qur'an burnings and the garbage dump burnings; not the now so common blue on green attacks.

While I don't know if their pleas made any difference, I don't personally doubt their motive for doing so.

The method they used concerning "Bubba, the love sponge's" proposal, though certainly odd, doesn't change their motive in my mind.

"P.S.: Unless you have an eschaton up your sleeve, then your logic leads you to have nothing worth fighting for."

Do tell us. What have you done to fight for this country? Give me some specifics.

"P.S.: Unless you have an eschaton up your sleeve, then your logic leads you to have nothing worth fighting for."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do tell us. What have you done to fight for this country? Give me some specifics.

Nice try at deflecting with a red herring.

That's a nice verse. Nonetheless, the kingdom was destroyed, Jerusalem sacked and the Jews ultimately dispersed around the globe...

"Nice try at deflecting with a red herring."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK. Let's try it another way. What is worth fighting for and how do you propose fighting for it?

"What is worth fighting for and how do you propose fighting for it?"

My point was not to define what is worth fighting for -- but rather what comes before that: the question, Is there anything worth fighting for?

All humans know that, if they believe in something, anything, worth fighting for, then they believe in fighting for it, obviously. Not every human may be brave enough to do it, but the first step is to have something you believe in defending -- even if it's just one person you love and want to protect. Your comments indicated that you think the West is thoroughly rotten and a lost cause. So my natural and logical question to you was, well if the West is that bad, what's the point of fighting Islam?

You still haven't answered me, but are trying to lead me on a distracting path of avoiding my question.

First, I am curious. Are you the same LemonLime who posted on "Sultan Knish" (Daniel Greenfeild's blog over the years?

With the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, the West is THAT bad! What do you think? I will never stop fighting both here and in Israel (I hope to immigrate), I will never give in. How about you? I find my party (the GOP) abysmal. Romney was an atrocious candidate, albeit I voted for him November 6, 2012. What have you and are you doing to fight for our conservative principles from within?

“With the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, the West is THAT bad!”

Tragically so.

To paraphrase Moochelle, for the first time in my adult life, I fear for my country.

I feel deeply betrayed by those Americans who would so foolishly reelect a man, who is so obviously and thoroughly corrupt. A man who is at war with both capitalism and the very principles that founded this nation.

Who are these people who would so carelessly throw away freedom, so hard won, with toil and blood? I suspect they have no clue as to the predictable and terrible consequences of the choice that they have made.

I will fight to the death for what I believe in – but after the last election, I feel that I am a man without a country.

May God have mercy on America and Israel.

Dave

ever read G K Chesterton's 'The Ballad of the White Horse?'

If you haven't I think you'd find it encouraging.

All you can do is just keep on keeping on, humbly and patiently, waking up people you speak with, one by one by one.

Keep on handing out your leaflets - or buy a sackful of the Barnabas Fund pamphlets, 'What is Islam?', 'What is Sharia?', 'Islam and Truth', 'Islam and Slavery', and hand *those* out (they only cost about a dollar each, they are very professionally-produced (indeed, beautiful to look at), they contain minimal but authoritative references, and are plainly written, and they don't pull punches, e.g. the one on Sharia bluntly lists 'five main areas in which sharia is incompatible with human rights').

wildjew, No, I never heard of Sultan Knish until just now. Anyway, I'm glad you haven't thrown in the towel, Westwise.

Wildjew wrote:

You are right. Time will tell. I take Obama at his word. He came to fundamentally transform America. That is what foolish Americans voted for this past election. More fundamental transformation of a once great nation.
............................

While I make *no* excuses for the profound foolishness of my fellow Americans who voted for Obama—especially for the second time—it must be noted that most Americans consider "transformation", in aggregate, to be a positive.

Of course, this is ridiculous on its face. "Transformation" can be rejuvenation, or it can be destruction—all too often, it is the latter.

Certainly, I don't believe Obama is changing America for the better, to put it mildly. But living here in the bluest of blue states, I know that many Americans are in a state of almost complete denial about just what Obama is doing.

Of course, some people know what he is doing—especially in circumventing the First Amendment, and, horribly, approve—but most people remain utterly clueless.

Denial—especially on this scale—is *very, very dangerous*. But it is not as dangerous—or as hopeless—as if Americans were walking into this with open eyes.

I don't believed that most Americans share Obama's contempt for the values of the United States at all, and that means that we *can* take it back.

More, in reply to Wellington:

Wellington, my guess is, you are among those who believe in American Exceptionalism. That is why you have this faith and confidence in the spirit of the American people, because Americans are an exceptional people...
............................

I can't speak for Wellington, but for myself, I feel we must define our terms.

I *do not* believe in American Exceptionalism in the mystical sense at all. Of course, nations can be compromised or destroyed from without or within. Mighty Rome fell, and so can the United States. Great Britain, sadly, has been committing genteel suicide for years—and, as expected, that suicide has become much less genteel of late, with the corrosive rise of "Londonistan".

But what I *do* believe in is that the West in general, and the United States in particular, has a uniquely strong base. The very fact that we have a First Amendment gives us incredible strength in maintaining our fundamental values, even in the face of bad presidents, bad congresses, and even bad courts.

Obama will not be able to destroy the First Amendment—he can only circumvent it.

This is a real danger, and he has already been partially successful. But the existence of the First Amendment will always act on a brake to tyranny.

The country has been proclaimed dead many times before. The very fact that our existence is *not* automatically guaranteed by providence means that many of us will fight for it.

Don't count us out yet.