Can Someone Explain It All To Me?

I am at a loss to understand events of this past week. Several American Embassies around the world were attacked. Four people, including an Ambassador, an Ambassador, were murdered.

 Until 1979, during the term of the second worst President in U.S. history, such actions would have been considered an act of war. Today, however, the perpetrators of those acts are considered poor innocent victims of having their feelings hurt. Everyone knows you are justified in committing murder if your feelings are hurt.

 I know such an irrational view from the current administration is to be expected, but such a view seems to be the norm from the denizens of Hollywood and the news media – those who purportedly are the most concerned with the freedom of speech. Christiane Amanpour said, “There is also 100-year law by the United States Supreme Court which says you can't cry fire in a crowded theater.”

 Is there such a law? No, that statement is attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes as part of the Supreme Courts decision in the case Schenk vs. United States in 1919. Charles Schenck distributed leaflets arguing against the draft during World War I. For his actions Schenck was charged with violating espionage laws. He argued that his actions were protected by free speech. Holmes stated that in times of clear and present danger certain restrictions can be imposed. Such a restriction could be described as someone falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Note that the word falsely is often left out of the quotation. If there was a fire in a theater, shouting “fire” could be considered appropriate.

What is the danger of falsely yelling fire? It could cause panic by making people be in immediate fear for their lives resulting in injury and death for no justifiable reason. That would be a clear and present danger.

Does this apply to the video and the attacks on the embassies? Is it reasonable to assume that mature adults will go on a rampage and commit murder because their feelings are hurt?

President Obama stated, “We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion — including Islam.” Does the United States reject the denigration of religion?” No, if someone denigrates Christianity the government gives that person money. 

What happens if a conservative Christian objects to government grants paying for “art” such a crucifix in a jar of urine or a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung? Those people are accused of trying to deny others their right of freedom of speech. The arguments I heard against those grants asked, “Why can we not use government funds for something that supports religion but it is acceptable to use government funds to insult it?” When it comes to Judeo-Christian values, the liberal mind sees an unwillingness to pay someone else for speaking against those values as denying that person the right to speak out against those values. 

How can it be that liberals say, among other things, that the producer of an anti-Mohamed video should be charged with murder? Did that producer tell those people to attack the embassy and commit those murders? Did he tell those people to go out and act like uncivilized animals? No, he made some insulting comments that hurt the people’s feelings. However, how many leftists in the U.S. have flat-out called for the deaths of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Oh, but that is acceptable political discourse (but disagreeing with Obama policies is inciting violence against the President).

I personally do not believe in insulting another’s religion for the sake of insulting another’s religion. However, it makes no sense to avoid calling a group of people a gang of murderous thugs because that might hurt their feelings and make that group of people act like a gang of murderous thugs. There comes a time that the truth must be told.

Using the logic of the left, if abortions cause shootings and bombings at abortion clinics then abortion clinics should be illegal. I am sure the left will get behind that idea in a hurry. What is the left’s reaction to those crimes? They hold anyone and everyone who speaks out against abortion responsible – even though the reaction of conservative political and religious leaders is almost exclusively that such actions are crimes that should not be tolerated and those responsible should be punished to the fullest extend of the law.

Now I realize that those on the left who are selectively outraged will be among the first to fall if a totalitarian society comes to the United States. I will be laughing at them from beyond the grave, as I am sure that I will go down during the fight.

 It is just so saddening that western society, the greatest society in the history of the world, the society that has given freedom and prosperity in greater amounts to more people is being washed away to protect the tender feelings of those who want subjugate the world.

And those who always seem to bemoan the denial of rights are leading the cheers for it all to happen.