Header Image (book)


Friday, May 8, 2015

Double Standard On Display

Art by Bosch Fawstin

The full article Double standard on offending Christians and Muslims below the fold (emphases mine):
By George Parry

In 1987, Andres Serrano submerged a crucifix in a glass of his own urine and took a picture. Entitled “Piss Christ,” the photograph won first place in a contest sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts.

In 1996, another avant-garde artist, Chris Ofili, smeared elephant dung on a portrait of the Blessed Mother and displayed it in a government-funded Brooklyn museum.

And so the stage was set for the ensuing nightmare of Christian terror and violence that descended on the American art community.

Just kidding. Nothing of the sort happened. There were no canonical death warrants issued and no attempts on the lives of the artists or anyone else associated with these presentations.

To be sure, Christians objected to “Piss Christ” and the feces-covered Holy Virgin. And they rightfully wondered why their tax dollars had been used to promote these blasphemies. But their objections and questions were condescendingly dismissed by the secular left in the media and intelligentsia. As one prominent art critic sniffed, Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” was “deliberately provocative” in order to “jolt viewers into an expanded frame of reference, and perhaps even toward illumination.”

As if in one voice, the mainstream media and self-anointed intelligentsia argued that antiquated religious sensitivities must not be allowed to interfere with either an artist’s free expression or his right to government funding regardless of how offensive his work may be to Christians.

Well, it seems that things have changed.

In Garland, Texas, on Sunday [May 3, 2015], two radical Muslims died trying to replicate the Charlie Hebdo massacre by mounting an armed attack on a “draw Mohammed” cartoon contest. We are not talking about drawings of Mohammed dunked in urine or smeared with animal dung. No, the gunmen apparently deemed the mere drawing of Mohammed to be an offense punishable by death.

What has been the response of the liberal media to this act of lunacy? Have the talking heads come to the defense of the cartoonists’ right of free expression in a pluralistic society? Has anyone publicly observed that drawings of Mohammed might “jolt” Muslims "into an expanded frame of reference” or “illumination”? Far from it. The overall media consensus has been to blame the intended murder victims for recklessly provoking the terrorists. Such provocation, we are told, is unacceptable and irresponsible behavior given the risk of retaliation by offended radical Muslims.

By this bizarre logic, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma marchers should be condemned for instigating the melee on the Edmund Pettus bridge. Same for the three murdered civil-rights workers in Mississippi, the victims of Bull Connor’s police dogs, and anyone else who has taken a stand that might irritate violence-prone people.

For the mainstream media and chattering classes, dumping on peaceful, law-abiding Christians is good, safe sport. But pointing the finger of blame at murderous Muslim fanatics? Well, let’s not get carried away. Rather than draw the ire of radical Muslims by firmly and unequivocally condemning the attack, the infotainment industry has concentrated its attention on the provocative nature of the draw-Mohammed contest. After all, like a drunken, immodestly dressed rape victim, weren’t the draw-Mohammed contestants just asking for it?

Better to question the wisdom of cartoonists exercising their rights than to acknowledge and vigorously confront and expose the elephant in the room, i.e., that there is a disturbingly large number of radical Muslims in this country who oppose our Constitution and who believe that murder is an appropriate sanction for those who offend Islam. That, of course, is the real story behind the attack in Texas. But to grapple with that might inflame those radicals and pose a risk to careers and corporate profits, or result in expulsion from the preening ranks of the politically correct.

All of which leads to this question: Given their pusillanimous double standard, why should any reasonable or serious person believe, respect, or credit the self-serving mainstream media?

George Parry is a former state and federal prosecutor practicing law in Philadelphia. lgparry@dpt-law.com
(hat tip to Finntann of Western Hero for the above link)

It is not only the Left displaying a double standard. Franklin Graham has done so, too. He has been quite vocal stating his position that Islam is of the Devil, but now objects to mocking the Devil. A commenter at Infidel Bloggers Alliance stated:
The respected reverend, having recognized the evil of Islam, should also have a better recall and understanding of Christendom's history of tolerance of Islamic hegemony. His suggestions to tolerate, even 'respect' Islam demonstrates a callous disregard for centuries of 'forgiveness', 'turning the other cheek', 'tolerance' and 'respect' towards Islam utterly failed to tame the Islamic beast...

Byzantium shreiked and bled at the blade of Islam for nearly four centuries before finally resulting in the Crusades. The violence of those Crusades were directly a result of similar advice as this contemporary reverends. Thanks to which we now recognize Constantinople as Istanbul, why that region's once Christian majority which regularly celebrated mass at the Hagia Sophia has been annihilated by the sword of Islam.
The displays of dhimitude and double standard are not limited to the Left. Not by a long shot.


  1. Observing MSM attack the attendees of the event (yes, I was there....) gives me grave concern that they are busy licking LSD off postage stamps prior to going on the air. wink

    Regardless, they are anti-Constitutionalists. As such, they need to find their "happy place" elsewhere. Pakistan anybody? House of Saud - which Stratfor now crows is "revitalized" under the current monarch (Has Saudi Arabia extended their reach into the analyst' cubicle with financial largesse?), Somalia?

    Tammy Swofford

    1. Sorry, Off Topic: Does "ANYONE" have web link of IIIC's document when they "invented" the word Islamophobia! I'm working on a "FREE SPEECH" project in Denver to bring awareness of Islam to the "sheeple".

  2. The comparison to civil rights marches is inapt. In the 60's people were marching because they wanted the same freedoms everyone else had, those guaranteed by the constitution.

    Also, the civil rights marchers did not stick a finger in the eye of those it strove to convince. They instead appealed to shared religious and cultural values to win over the hearts and consciences of those who were oppressing them.

    This is a cultural battle, but it's different. We should be demanding that every news outlet who refers to 'The Prophet Mohammad' also use "The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ' when referring to Jesus.

    1. SF,
      The comparison to civil rights marches is inapt.

      In the ways that you mention, Yes.

      However, Rosa Parks did something "extreme" -- and that something was much like sticking a finger in the eye of certain Southern practices as far as many Southerners were concerned at that time.

      As for appealing to win over the hearts and consciences, the media and academia are not exposing the realities that the AFDI is trying to bring to people's attention.

      Furthermore, if artists have the freedom to satirize Christianity, then why should not artists have the freedom to satirize Islam?

      Just watch....What's next is that no venue will allow any more such events by the AFDI. In contrast, certain "works of art" (Piss Christ and the like) will continue to be put on display at taxpayers' expense in taxpayer-funded museums.

    2. That's quite a stretch, as are the other comparisons clanging around Right Blogistan.

      Geller's organization is better compared to Charlie Hebdo or the Danish Cartoonists. That is almost an exact match.

      If she goes to some Muslim country and leads women in civil rights protests against the Islamic overlords, then we can start comparing her to heroic historical figures. Until then, she's just another media hound chasing her 5 minutes.

      You are probably right about no other venue hosting her organization, and can you blame them?

    3. SF,
      We don't agree completely, my friend. Time will tell which one of us has the comparisons more accurate.

      I disagree with you about Pamela's motives. I worked with her back in 2008 through KFNX in Phoenix. On some level, I do know her personally -- although we certainly do not pal around at cafes.

    4. SF....it bugged me that she called it DRAW THE PROPHET DAY.....PROPHET? How about DRAW MOHAMMED DAY?
      He's not OUR prophet.
      And you know I've said the same thing; call him THE PROPHET MOHAMMED in the news right after you mention OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST on another story. Good luck on that!

    5. SF, I like what you said about civil rights and an appeal to shared religious and cultural values. But I don't agree in this sense: the jihadis are telling Americans to take our civil rights to the back of the bus and shut up. Look at what that ridiculous cleric said on Hannity the other day - that Geller deserved the death penalty. Un uh. Your laws from some backward, illiterate piratical pedophile DON'T apply here! In that sense, it's appropriate to compare Geller to Parks who would not give up her seat, and I have.

    6. AOW, Baysider and fellow Right Blogistanis,

      I'm not trying to pick a fight. I generally take a dim view of hasty comparisons of contemporary personalities with historical figures. It's even worse when the person himself/herself does it. That's one of the many things that put me off Newt Gingrich.

      Geller is in the vein of Charlie Hebdo much moreso than Rosa Parks. I'll have more to say on this in my Sunday blog post.

    7. SF,
      I'm not fighting with you. Rather, I'm expressing some of my concerns the best that I can in spite of having a schedule about to kill me.

      I understand what you said: I generally take a dim view of hasty comparisons of contemporary personalities with historical figures. Of course, at the time, people had no way of knowing that Rosa Parks would, one day, be a historical figure. And I suppose that she wouldn't have been such a figure if the Civil Rights Movement had died.

      What I'm trying to do is figure out the down-the-line consequences of the reactions to the event itself right now.

      Here's the thing....If jihadists hadn't attacked the event, the event would have gone unnoticed by the vast majority of people. The event wasn't very public -- certainly not as public as the AFDI bus ads, which have largely been upheld in court. The bus ads are in-your-face items; the drawing contest was not.

      Also let us remember the earlier event at the same building in Garland, Texas -- the event held by Muslims spouting Islamic supremacy. At least, that what I recall reading about that event several months ago.

    8. SF,
      I saw this online a few minutes ago:

      Alan Dershowitz said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File.”

      King [MLK, Jr.] purposely picked some of the cities he led protests in precisely in order to bring out the racists and show what kind of violent people they are, Dershowitz said

      “It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so that the world can see,” he said.

      Do you think that Dershowitz is accurate?

    9. I'd say Franklin and Baltimore conform to his thesis.

    10. AOW: Dr. King provoked, but he provoked peoples' consciences, and not by defaming what they held holy, but by invoking a shared religion and appealing to it.

      Again, I'm not trying to start a fight. I agree with your post: There is a double standard. Hollywood and pop culture speak of islam in reverent tones while holding Christianity in contempt.

    11. SF,
      Again, I'm not fighting.

      But let me point out a few things of which I have distant memories....

      not by defaming what they held holy

      Well, some professed Christians back in the day used particular passages from the Bible to support their views. I'm vague on all that. Something about the Tower of Babel, something about the slaves-masters passage in Ephesians, something about the eunuch in Acts returning to his own country instead of mixing.

      invoking a shared religion and appealing to it

      Yes, he did so. He was also influenced by others. See this in Wikipedia. As strange as it sounds today, mixing Christianity with Gandhi's teachings was controversial at the time.

      There was also the matter of King's association with Bayard Rustin.

      I think that it's difficult for us today to appreciate some of what transpired over 50 years ago.

      BTW, you may find this interesting:

      King stated that black Americans, as well as other disadvantaged Americans, should be compensated for historical wrongs. In an interview conducted for Playboy in 1965, he said that granting black Americans only equality could not realistically close the economic gap between them and whites. King said that he did not seek a full restitution of wages lost to slavery, which he believed impossible, but proposed a government compensatory program of $50 billion over ten years to all disadvantaged groups.

      He posited that "the money spent would be more than amply justified by the benefits that would accrue to the nation through a spectacular decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls, rioting and other social evils". He presented this idea as an application of the common law regarding settlement of unpaid labor, but clarified that he felt that the money should not be spent exclusively on blacks. He stated, "It should benefit the disadvantaged of all races".

    12. One thing worth understanding is that violence brings change.
      King knew that his protests would draw violence.

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
      -- Mahatma Gandhi

  3. SF,
    I wonder how the Muslim community in Fairfax County will handle the latest measure enacted by the school board last night: Amid Jeers and Cheers, FCPS Board Adds Transgender Protections.

  4. J. Allan Cartwright said

    Please take a moment of to rejoice at the decisive CONSERVATIVE ViCTORY in the UK.

    David Cameron may not be sufficiently conservative to satisfy you Yanks, but he's great better than that fellow who tried to unseat him.

    It's never a bad idea to be grateful for small favors. If you conservative Yanks can only get your act together, your GOP stands a good chance of seeing that dowdy old hag, Mrs. Clinton, vanquished, and out of politics once and for all.

  5. I'm so fed up AOW there are no words...Have a great weekend my friend!!!:-)

  6. Right now, at Infidel Bloggers Alliance:

    Imam at Mosque Where Texas Shooter Prayed Warned His Followers About the FBI Informant There to Keep Tabs on the Shooter
    Now this is the sort of Free Speech I'm sure the left can get behind.

    And if you think that's bad, THIS is even worse.

    Breaking: FBI KNEW Terrorist Was Heading to Garland, TX – DID NOT Notify Organizers

    Go to the above link for hot links.

    1. Hedda Hayer said

      Moslems don't PRAY, they PREY.

  7. I'm not sure why anyone believes there is a double standard in play.

    Possibly it's because of the statement that the NEA funded Piss Christ. That's a complete pant load.
    Serrano was one of several artists in a judged exhibit at the Winston Salem Art Center. Several organizations and businesses funded the exhibit including the NEA (I believe it was about $15,000).
    Generally the NEA funds projects and not specific artists.

    The Ofili painting did not smear dung on the image of the virgin. This was intended as an African image of the virgin and the mound of elephant dung has a meaning in African culture quite apart from the offensive conatation assumed. It's ambiguous and I imagine that was Ofili's intent. No public funding was involved although I believe that Giuliani played the crowd by objecting to it being part of an exhibit in a government exhibition center.

    The prophet is riciculed in America and retaliation is punished.
    When the South Park creators were threatened the moron American converts (so often it's converts) were given sentences of 11 -15 years.

    The perps in Garland are dead and unmourned.

    India forced a major Muslim painter into exile for painting a nude Hindu deity.
    The National Portrait Gallery removed David Wojnarowicz's work from a group exhibit.

    The story behind Jewish artists driving American expressionism because they were freed from religious stricture by abstraction is fascinating.

    The hitory of religious censorship is long and worthy of extended study.

    I'm still struck by Piss Christ. I find the image to convey a sense of Christ's vulnerability and suffering and if it weren't for the title there wouldn't be any controversy what soever.
    It's been defended by several Catholic clergy and Sister Wendy Beckett gave a positive analysis.

    The censorship of religious themed art has a long history as does provocative art. Conservatives have often ben at least partially sucessful in blocking it but can they really shoot up the joint in America without becoming pariah?
    They know they can't. They used to get scum like Dick Armey and Jesse Helms to do it in a less sanctioned manner.

    Some Muslim converts in America simply don't have any restraints and we are going to have to deal harshly with them. This business about a double standard is pointless.

    1. It's probably why the 'artist' gave it the name he did - to be SURE folks got the point he hated Christ.

    2. Duck,
      This business about a double standard is pointless.

      You're missing the POINT! This blog post isn't about what to do about Muslim converts, jihadists, etc. Rather, this blog post is about the various commentaries -- particularly the kill-the-messengers commentaries. What are the goals of these commentaries?

    3. And, yes, there is a double standard in play as mentioned in the body of the blog post.

      And don't forget that some of those criticize Pamela Geller "as self-promoter" are themselves self-promoters."

    4. Did he hate Christ, Baysider or maybe the church?
      Maybe he hated what was done to Christ?

      If you've ever seen the lifesize print you'd know what I mean.

    5. Nope, AOW.

      When the author opens with Serrano and Ofili he's playing a tired old game and implying that tax dollars were spent is just plain wrong.

      As I said, look at the life size Serrano (it's about 5x4) and tell me it has a similar purpose to the cartoons. Not to my eye.

      I'll be honest, though, Franklin Graham is a red light. Immediate hard stop.

      But the fact that Geller is called a psychotic jerk is quite independant of the other judgements and pretty accurate.

    6. Duck,
      When the author opens with Serrano and Ofili he's playing a tired old game and implying that tax dollars were spent is just plain wrong.

      Was or was not Serrano receiving grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, which is taxpayer-funded? According to this, which appears to be well sourced:

      In 1987, Serrano's Piss Christ was exhibited at the Stux Gallery in New York and was favorably received.[10] The piece later caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors, including United States Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms, outraged that Serrano received $15,000 for the work, and $5,000 in 1986 from the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts. Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy. Others alleged that the government funding of Piss Christ violated separation of church and state. The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ. Supporters argued that the controversy over Piss Christ is an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech.

      Pamela Geller is not a psychotic jerk.

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. Once again, the grant was made to the Winston Salem Art Center which made an award to Serrano and other artists as well as a judged exhibition.

      The award was never made directly to serrano and the NEA funds projects not specific artists.

    9. Duck,
      The award was never made directly to serrano and the NEA funds projects not specific artists.

      Even so, wasn't there something about no more funding for Serrano?

  8. The left celebrates pornography?

    Can you be a little more ridiculous?

    Once more for my Libertarian brothers and sisters. The Free Market (LMAO) supports pornography. Own it, bubba.

    Myself, I have a collection of well over 1000 films and I'd say two really push the limits a bit, Cavani's Night Porter and Oshima's Empire of Passion .
    I think both are serious works and Calvani's is part of a subgenre in Italian cinema that linked Nazism with sexual perversion (The Damned, Rome Open City, Germany Year Zero, The Conformist).

    But I'm hardly a supporter of pornography. To me it's useless and demeaning but I also despise censorship.
    Interesting that it was only a few years ago that I finally took a look at I Am Curious, Yellow . Terrible film. No idea what the fuss was about. It should have just been left to wither.

  9. Amil Imani has a good commentary at his site regarding the events of May 3rd.

    There is a good bit of cross-pollination of ideas going on in the aftermath of the terror attack. As part of the press corps contingency, Mr. Imani and others must be read to gain perspective.


    Tammy Swofford

    1. Tammy,
      Thank you for that link to Amil Imani's essay. Excellent!

  10. The free market also supports drug use and a thriving Christian book market. What's your point?

    The fat porno prince POS Larry Flynt is yours, a true hero of the left. Own it, Duckface

  11. Please consider this information: If You Think Pamela Geller Deserves To Die, Then You Also Believe Andres Serrano Deserves to Die.

    I'm not sure that I agree with everything stated in the video at that link, but there is some food for thought there, IMO.

  12. What does it take to be labelled a 'real sick POS.'? Provocative, yes. Sick? LOL.

  13. Yesterday on FNC, one of the FNC pundits referred to the two dead jihadists as "two gentlemen." Something along the lines of "Two gentlemen were killed in Garland at the cartoon exhibit."


  14. The Associated Press has apologized for a Tweet about Geller.

    See this.

  15. Silver, saying Larry Flynt is a true hero of the left is about as accurate as lefties saying David Duke is a true hero of the right. Just because smut producers and avowed racists belong to both parties, it does not follow that they are heroes of those parties. Or does it?

    It was conservatives who began and have been most vociferous in saying that the absence of vocal denunciation of extreme views of people by others is evidence of approval of those beliefs.

    Is that really where we are?

  16. Franklin Graham is a red light? An immediate hard stop?

    Yep. Just like Pope Francis.

    It is a red light, a hard stop - to reflect on how easily respected religious leaders justify reducing others to slavery to an ideology which relentlessly seeks to erase the spirit of the law expressed by our Founding Fathers.

    The Last English Prince

    1. What irks me about Franklin Graham is that he stated so many times that Islam is "of the devil."

      Now he, an evangelist, is unwilling to mock the devil?

      How can he reconcile those previous statements with what he's said about Garland?

      Maybe I am wrong to have expected that he understands the spirit of the law expressed by our Founding Fathers.

    2. Last English Prince,
      From Franklin Graham's Facebook page:

      The organizers of the cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, had the constitutional right to do what they did--but just because we have the “right” to do something doesn’t make it right! As a Christian I’m offended when people mock my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Muslims are offended when people mock their faith. I disagree with Islam. But just because I disagree, I’m not going to mock them or resort to violence. We need to show respect to people of other races and beliefs. What happened to civility and respect?

    3. Just because one CAN doesn't mean one SHOULD.

      That a homemade proverb that applies of hundreds of possible cases and situations.

      I originated with concern about the lack of wisdom and artistic value of performing certain pieces of music at breakneck speeds –– a mentality fostered inadvertently by International Piano competitions that has had a deleterious effect on musical artistry, because the focus has been transferred from the evocation of Beauty Meaning and Individuality to mere SPEED, thus turning these events into the moral equivalent of a horse race.

      The phrase could also apply very well to events such as the one featured in this post.

  17. AOW. In listening to Franklin I hear him say that we should not purposefully antagonize.
    If the only adherents to the notion that intentionally drawing Mohammad to provoke is an insult were Jihadis, then draw on!
    But if your intent is to draw all men to Christ, then it's not productive to start out by saying, "That's a silly hat you're wearing..."

    1. I understand what you're saying, Ed, and you make a very good point.

      "Do not tempt the Lord, thy God," and "Return not evil for evil." come easily to mind.

      And a homemade one of my own:

      "He that poketh sticks into hornets' nests, should not be surprised when he getteth stung." ;-)

    2. Well-stated, Ed.

      Obviously, good people can hold different opinions here, but I get uneasy when talk trends toward 'eye for an eye,' 'they did it to us first,' etc.

      The aim of preserving our freedoms is a good one, but it's all in the execution.

      You can't win in a tit for tat with Muslims. A quick glance at the history of the Middle East tells us that.

      FT, Glad to see you back!

    3. SF,
      You can't win in a tit for tat with Muslims. A quick glance at the history of the Middle East tells us that.


      But there is also this factor: Islam respects "the strong man." Kipling wrote about that in a poem which contains the words "East is east, and west is west -- and never the twain shall meet."

      The West today is sending the signal: "We are weak. We don't have enough commitment to Western values to stand up for those values."

      Muslims -- ones serious about certain aspects of geopolitical Islam -- are committed to their cause. In fact, they are only too willing to die for their cause because they believe that deaths during the pursuit of the cause guarantee a place in Paradise.

      It is that kind of commitment that many Christian martyrs of the early church had, and that commitment brought many others to Christ.

    4. AOW: You make a good point about "the strong man."

      The West has been making the noises of a bleating sheep caught in a thorn bush and the wolves are circling and licking their chops.

      Unfortunately, weak sister Western governments are inviting the enemy in and apologizing at every turn. We should have long ago told the Saudis to stick their proselytizing money where the sun don't shine.

      The dead jihadis converted in prison, and Saudi money funds that and almost all of the poisonous wahhabism in this country.

    5. SF,
      I will make time to read you post, which you mentioned earlier in thi this thread -- although I might be a bit late getting there. Sunday is not a day of rest in the AOW household.

    6. Pardon the typos. My iPad and I are not best friends.

    7. SF,
      Both of the dead jihadists were in prison? That detail is new to me. Do you have a link for that information?

  18. Ed,
    It was a private, ticketed -- not an in-your-face bus ad and not an exhibit on the sidewalk outside a mosque or other Islamic center.

    Where was this event advertised? Well, on Geller's, Spencer's web sites -- for starters, anyway.

    Furthermore, the event was a follow-up to a Muslim event in that same facility several months before.

    I submit that if jihadists had not attacked the drawing exhibit, relatively few would have know about it.

    Really, however, what matters in all this is the question of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. It seems to me that our nation is sliding toward "Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee."

    But if your intent is to draw all men to Christ, then it's not productive to start out by saying, "That's a silly hat you're wearing..."

    I get that. Was Franklin Graham clear about that in his statements on a couple of FNC shows? I didn't see all the shows on which he has appeared this week. Perhaps you did.

    1. I can't say he was, as I think he did, but I may be coloring it in my memory.

  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. FT,
      Yes, upvote!

      Thank you for taking time to made that comment.

      As I've been trying to say, I'm concerned about the down-the-line consequences of what amounts to the retreat being sounded by many on right, left, and center of the political spectrum.

      That any pundit would refer to the two slain jihadists as "gentlemen" beggars belief! I heard a pundit -- supposedly right wing -- say just that on FNC yesterday.

      "Gentlemen"? My foot!

    2. "Gentlemen"? My foot!

      Agreed. Similar kerfuffle occurred when GW Bush referred to the 9/11 terrorists as "folks".

    3. Thank you both for the approval, but I'm taking it down, because I've used at my place as the basis for a new post. Wouldn't want to be accused of "spamming", now, would I? ;-)

    4. FT,
      I certainly have no problem with your using something you typed in here at this blog and using your own work as a blog post at your own site.

      Too bad that you felt that you needed to take down your blog post.

  20. Dave,

    Hollywood liberals celebrated Flynt by making a movie about him. He appears in liberal media outlets where he is lauded.

    David Duke gets no such treatment from the right. In fact, they kicked him out and shunned him.

    Liberal ACLU lawyers, along with everyday liberals, are responsible for the public explosion of pornography, all in the name of free speech, dontchaknow...

    Nobody was denied their porn, it was just kept hidden from view behind counters and in plain wrappers where it belonged. No, my friend, this was about perverting our culture, and liberals celebrated it.

  21. AOW: It's all over the news NOW.
    I didn't know about it, nor I think did Franklin Graham or many others until the shootings.
    My name is on FB and my blog.
    I've been forthright when my son (a navy Senior Chief) warned me to back down on military family references (many nieces, nephews, a son):
    someone wants to attack a military family, email me. I'll give you my address.
    You will die at my hands or my wife's, or both.
    I have no problem with luring and killing Jihadis.
    Garland did that.
    But it also made us look antagonistic to all muslims.
    I have no problem with telling a Muslim that I think his religion is wrong.
    He's probably figured that out, already.
    But there is a large muslim population here, and I work with some of them, that wish me no harm (that I know of, beat ya :) ).
    They don't yell Allah Akbar in my face, I don't insult them.
    “Civility costs nothing, and buys everything.”
    Mary Wortley Montagu.

    1. Ed,
      Here's what looks antagonistic to me: that any Muslim living here in the United States would be so worked up about a cartoon that he would go on a shooting spree.

      “Civility costs nothing, and buys everything.”

      Not necessarily in the intellectual battlespace with an ideology that holds certain core beliefs such as Islam does. I know that I don't have to tell you which core beliefs I mean.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/20/wisconsin-home-invasions-walkers-supporters-targeted-by-democratic-prosecutors-column/26081903/

    AOW..check that out. WHo's heard about it? Typical

    1. Z:

      Western Hero visitor have known about it since April:

      Fascism comes to America

    2. funny, a friend sent it to me this afternoon and I wrote back this was FASCISM, and there's your remark here. absolutely FASCISM.
      It always makes me laugh when the Left calls conservatives fascists; they literally don't know the meaning.

    3. Come on!! I'd rather talk about the information than when we found out!! But, alas...... :-)

  24. Have we already forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001 when three thousand of our totally innocent Americans were murdered by a cowardly attack on the Twin Towers in New York and at the Pentagon in Washington? Well who did it? Were we offended when that happened?

    Where you offended, and you feel hatred with all their other attacks, Charlie Hebdo in France comes to mind, as does the Boston Marathon!

    Or are we going to say, as Hillary Clinton said, “What difference does it make at this point?” Did that attack and so many others after it just become ancient history?
    Is it going to take another 9/11 to wake us up again?

    Pamela Geller who leads the American Freedom Defense Initiative hasn’t forgotten. But as I read in so many blogs and other places, not to many of us stand behind her! I personally believe that Pamela Geller should be applauded, praised, and supported. for her guts to do what she did, not to be ostracized and ridiculed.
    And lets not allow Pamela Geller to become another Salman Rushdie. So please, stand up for your right of Free Speech, and your right to insult if you wish to.
    We must never loose sight of our right to say what we like, not because it is true, but to be allowed to say what we feel like, and our right to our own opinion.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.