It’s not just a “great idea”

From Hot Air:


Lindsey Graham on Koran-burning: “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war”

posted at 4:00 pm on April 3, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Skip ahead to 2:05, bearing in mind that this guy might have ended up as Attorney General under President McCain. A few minutes earlier, Harry Reid told Schieffer that Congress will “take a look” at Jones’s act and the ensuing “protests” in Afghanistan, so at a minimum there’ll probably be some sort of congressional resolution of disapproval. Maybe hearings too: Reid wouldn’t commit to that, but he didn’t rule it out. As for Graham, “I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable,” he laments, clearly deflated by the thought that the First Amendment applies even while we’re “at war.” And if you’re not sure what he means by “at war” — well, I’m not either. Are we “at war” only if troops are in the field? No Koran-burning, in other words, until the last U.S. serviceman has left Iraq and Afghanistan (and Libya)? Or are we “at war” as long as Al Qaeda and other anti-American jihadist movements exist, ready and willing to demagogue acts like Jones’s for their own uses? Even if all Islamist outfits in the world were eliminated, wouldn’t Graham want to continue the ban on Koran-burning lest it inspire new jihadist outfits to spring up? There’s no limiting principle to this idea, realistically. It’d end up being his own version of an “emergency law.”

Here’s the tape; the part in question is around the 2:20 mark.

No, Senator Graham, free speech isn’t a “great idea,” it’s an unalienable right of man, something our Framers realized was not granted by the government, but simply recognized by the government.

We need every Republican vote in Congress, but it’s a crying shame that we have to depend on statists like Senator Graham for one of them. He needs a serious, conservative primary challenge, though he won’t be up for re-election until 2014.

39 Comments

  1. The bigotry of low expectations: We can’t expect Muslims to behave rationally (ie not killing people) to a free speech exercise.

  2. Let’s assume that we “hold Pastor Jones accountable” for the actions of others over his burning of the Koran. I’d argue that the anti-war demonstrations in the United States emboldened the Viet Cong and the Iraqi insurgents, leading to the deaths of additional American soldiers. If Pastor Jones is to be held accountable, ought not we to round up the anti-war demonstrators from years past, and put them on trial? Why would such be any different?

  3. Precisely, Dana. ‘Ya think Graham, Reid, et. al. would be calling to “take a look” at someone who had burned a flag … the act of which “caused” Tea Partiers to kill several people in protest?

  4. Here we go again with Dana Pico’s kneejerk reaction against anyone who violates his absolutist concepts to logical limitations to free speech.

    Of course Pastor Jones is not directly responsible for the hyperbolic reaction of the Afghan protesters to his irresponsible action. He has used extremely poor judgment, for which he should be publicly reprimanded by others who wish to exercise their free speech against his action.

    As for Lindsay Graham, I think it fair to translate his not well chosen words into his obviously intended reaction against Pastor Pastor Jones’s action to incite and inflame, with the thought in mind that innocent people lost their lives as a result. It does not require a PhD to understand that what Jones did was a disgustingly hateful act designed to get this evil Pastor the publicity he obviously seeks. Pastor Jones is in the same boat as the Westboro Baptist Church idiots who protest funerals of fallen soldiers who happen to be gay. And I have to say, our own Hitchcock’s behavior comes out of a similar mold. These behaviors must be condemned!

  5. Here we go again with Dana Pico’s kneejerk reaction against anyone who violates his absolutist concepts to logical limitations to free speech.

    What is kneejerk about this precisely, Perry? What precisely is a “logical limitation” to free speech in this case?

  6. I like this part: “…an unalienable right of man, something our Framers realized was not granted by the government, but simply recognized by the government.”

    It reminds us that the rights of Man aren’t limited to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It also reminds us that those rights aren’t limited to American citizens.

    Just planting a seed. Carry on.

  7. Oh, and sort of on topic… I support that lunatic’s right to free speech and all. But how would everyone feel if an American radical Muslim got it into his head that he could kill lots of Americans… by pretending to be a Christian and publicly burning Korans all over the place? How would you feel if he was successful every time?

    We didn’t set ourselves an easy task when we decided on the ideals in the Constitution.

  8. “What is kneejerk about this precisely, Perry? What precisely is a “logical limitation” to free speech in this case?”

    A logical limitation, Hube, is a self-imposed limitation by rational individuals motivated by a desire to be civil yet forthright. I hardly think that Pastor Jones has exercised such restraint, nor have the Afghans who responded with violence.

  9. A logical limitation, Hube, is a self-imposed limitation by rational individuals motivated by a desire to be civil yet forthright. I hardly think that Pastor Jones has exercised such restraint, nor have the Afghans who responded with violence.

    Well, of course. What Jones did is disgusting; however, it is nowhere on par with how the Afghans have reacted. Not even close.

    And, again, would you be in here advocating “self-imposed limitations” if some progressive burned an American flag … and several Tea Partiers reacted with violence? I sincerely doubt it.

  10. “Well, of course. What Jones did is disgusting; however, it is nowhere on par with how the Afghans have reacted. Not even close.

    And, again, would you be in here advocating “self-imposed limitations” if some progressive burned an American flag … and several Tea Partiers reacted with violence? I sincerely doubt it.”

    I consider burning a Koran, burning a Bible, and burning a flag all having the same reading on the inflammatory meter, therefore should be avoided.

  11. Seems to me the last time we talked about Freedom of Speech we defined it as the right to carry Bushitler signs, burn the American flag, submerge a crucifix in urine, cover the Virgin Mary in dung, post pornography on the internet and occupy the Wisconsin State Capitol with a mob. Now we may have encountered a unique exception: burning a Koran.

    The above paragraph is a paste of an email sent to me this morning from my friend, Bernie. Seems he’s correct. Freedom of Speach and worship are incompatable with moslem/sharia law.

  12. Nangleator says:
    4 April 2011 at 08:38 (Edit)
    Oh, and sort of on topic… I support that lunatic’s right to free speech and all. But how would everyone feel if an American radical Muslim got it into his head that he could kill lots of Americans… by pretending to be a Christian and publicly burning Korans all over the place? How would you feel if he was successful every time?

    We didn’t set ourselves an easy task when we decided on the ideals in the Constitution.

    I did not like the outcome of the Westboro Baptist Buildin vs Phelps by the SCOTUS mostly on the grounds it was traumitizing an already traumatized family. If anything, they should have been charged with assault. BUT, Westboro, you, me and us have that right. It’s a matter of being an adult and understand what you are doing.

    Too many people in this country have not grown up and taken responsibility for their actions. Too many people believe it is the Govenrment that covers their need, not themselves. We would be a much better country if all adults acted as an adult and take personal responsibility. That’s what was given to us by the Bill of Rights in the Constition.

  13. Hoagie says:
    4 April 2011 at 10:30

    The above paragraph is a paste of an email sent to me this morning from my friend, Bernie. Seems he’s correct. Freedom of Speach and worship are incompatable with moslem/sharia law.

    The whole Constitution is fully at odds with Sharia Law. At least in Communism they never dictated what a woman must wear, and how to appear in public.

  14. Perry says:
    4 April 2011 at 10:20
    I consider burning a Koran, burning a Bible, and burning a flag all having the same reading on the inflammatory meter, therefore should be avoided.

    But not outlawed. Just use commonsense which is in an extreme short supply. Just check Grahamnisty and Reid.

  15. “Seems to me the last time we talked about Freedom of Speech we defined it as the right to carry Bushitler signs, burn the American flag, submerge a crucifix in urine, cover the Virgin Mary in dung, post pornography on the internet and occupy the Wisconsin State Capitol with a mob. Now we may have encountered a unique exception: burning a Koran.

    The above paragraph is a paste of an email sent to me this morning from my friend, Bernie. Seems he’s correct. Freedom of Speach and worship are incompatable with moslem/sharia law.”

    No, Hoagie, that is not Bernie’s message. His message is to single out Muslims as somehow being represented by the actions of a violent mob in Afghanistan, with an aside aimed at vilifying the pro-union/anti-Walker protesters in Wisconsin. And you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, of course!

  16. Perry: Would you be demanding more “self-imposed limitations” of those doing heinous acts of expression if an American flag burner was killed by Tea Partiers?

  17. Here we go again with Dana Pico’s kneejerk reaction against anyone who violates his absolutist concepts to logical limitations to free speech.

    Well, he makes sense. People have teh same right to burn Korans as they do to use American flag toilet paper.

  18. ” His message is to single out Muslims as somehow being represented by the actions of a violent mob in Afghanistan….”

    Oh really? Then pray tell me who those violent mobs represent. I’m sure they don’t represent the Coptic Christians who were slaughtered by yet another violent mob, do they? Perry, until such time as whatever moslems remain who are non-violent step forward and deal with these “violent mobs” then how is one to tell them apart? And since these violent mobs always seem to be made up of moslems I’d guess (wheter you like it or not) they do represent moslems, at least de facto. So who does represent these poor misunderstood moslems? CAIR? Which takes funding from Hammas, a terrorist organization. Or perhaps the Moslem Brotherhood, who is in fact itself a terrorist organization? Show me the moslem version of the TEA Partiers protesting the acts of their leaders. With a thousand acts of moslem terror perpetrated around the world every year, how could one remain so blind?

    And was there one item in Bernie’s email that was not true? One item he mentioned that we do not consider free speach? He did miss one other exception beside burning a koran: drawing cartoons of their profit. That too can get one killed.

  19. More here on the antics of the Devil Pastor Jones:

    “But in the end, his [Jones'] desire to shed light on what he calls a “dangerous book” won out. The Koran was burned in a spectacle streamed live on the Internet. To reach out to Muslims overseas, Jones included Arabic subtitles.”

    This so-called, self-proclaimed Christian is nothing more than a really nasty troublemaker, for which he has proven himself to be eminently successful, most unfortunately! Odd that this is not bothering any of the Righties on this blog, at least so far, Yorkshire and Hube excepted; kudos to them!!

    [Added: Moreover, Hoagie John continues with his bigotry, by trying to make an unruly and violent mob in Afghanistan representative of over 1 billion peaceful Muslims worldwide. Should I claim that Pastor Terry Jones is representative of all Americans, or even all Christians? Does Terry Jones' behavior represent you, Hoagie John?]

  20. “Perry: Would you be demanding more “self-imposed limitations” of those doing heinous acts of expression if an American flag burner was killed by Tea Partiers?”

    Yes!

  21. And since these violent mobs always seem to be made up of moslems I’d guess (wheter you like it or not) they do represent moslems, at least de facto.

    “ONITSHA, Nigeria, Feb. 22 2006 — Christian mobs in this southern city attacked Muslim motorists and traders Wednesday, leaving more than 30 people dead, according to witnesses, as religious riots sparked by the publishing of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad continued into a fifth day in Nigeria. Nationwide, the death toll reached at least 80.

    Hordes of angry men marauded through Onitsha armed with machetes, guns and boards with nails pounded into their ends, witnesses said. The mobs burned two mosques and looted and destroyed Muslim-owned shops as they sought vengeance for similar attacks against Christians in two predominantly Muslim cities in northern part of the country.”

    Well, there’s Christianity represented.

    Goddamn, but you Christians are nothing but a bunch of violent murdering thugs.

  22. Perry wrote:

    “What is kneejerk about this precisely, Perry? What precisely is a “logical limitation” to free speech in this case?”

    A logical limitation, Hube, is a self-imposed limitation by rational individuals motivated by a desire to be civil yet forthright. I hardly think that Pastor Jones has exercised such restraint, nor have the Afghans who responded with violence.

    As long as you are talking about internally imposed self-restraint, I’m fine with that.

    And the government can punish the direct consequences of speech, such as the old shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, if it causes a panic which harms someone. But Mr Jones actions seem too far removed from the reaction to make such a case in this instance.

  23. “Well, there’s Christianity represented.”

    Well, nobody nor group is perfect. However to kinda have to note as to why they did it: “they sought vengeance for similar attacks against Christians in two predominantly Muslim cities in northern part of the country.”

    So once again, had the moslems not started slaughtering people the Christians would not have reacted.

  24. Well, he makes sense. People have teh same right to burn Korans as they do to use American flag toilet paper.

    Absolutely.

  25. “Moreover, Hoagie John continues with his bigotry, by trying to make an unruly and violent mob in Afghanistan representative of over 1 billion peaceful Muslims worldwide. Should I claim that Pastor Terry Jones is representative of all Americans, or even all Christians? Does Terry Jones’ behavior represent you, Hoagie John?]”

    Oh, if only were only one “unruly violent mob” that would be the exception. But it is not an unruly mob, it’s thousands and perhaps millions of adherants to islam worldwide. That’s why shit blows up all over the world. Certainly isn’t Terry Jones blowing up shit and killing people, now is it? And no that nit-wit dosen’t represent me at any level. I have more respect for other peoples beliefs than to defile their holy books.

  26. So once again, had the moslems not started slaughtering people the Christians would not have reacted.

    Bwahahahahah.

    Ignorant fuckwit, that’s what the Muslims say about Christians too.

    “Oh, but it’s different when we do it…”

  27. Oh, if only were only one “unruly violent mob” that would be the exception. But it is not an unruly mob, it’s thousands and perhaps millions of adherants to islam worldwide

    You advocate murdering one and a half billion people.

    How exactly are any Muslims worse than you?

  28. Perry wrote, “Pastor Jones is in the same boat as the Westboro Baptist Church idiots who protest funerals of fallen soldiers who happen to be gay.”

    That’s just wrong: factually incorrect.

    Perry, if you actually think it’s gay solders Westboro is protesting, you haven’t been paying attention. Take a closer look and try again. You’re well wide of the mark.

  29. ““Did you say this Hoagie John? Answer: Yes. Then you are out-of-control, man!!!”

    Yes I did say that you have a good memory. Unfortunately it’s a selective memory because I later noted that the phrase is one I grew up with and is not meant to be taken literally. I also grew up with “eyes wide shut” which is also not literal. Where I come from those are throw-away terms but if you feel some deep need to believe them as literal you would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks (also non-literal).

    Are we clear now? I am not a proponant of genocide. Got it?”

    Copied from another post so the crazy NZ can understand and realize that he is a liar. I explained the comment and I specifically reputed genocide. Now if you can’t get your ignorant brain around that too bad. But from now on any time you make a blatent lie like;”You advocate murdering one and a half billion people”, I will reprint this and prove you’re a liar.

    Secondly, do you really think making an idiotic charge like that could ever make a case? Do you think anyone here would get sidetracked that easily? Cause if you do then you really have no valid arguments, do you? Just more con-man jibberish.

  30. The hell with genocide, it’s a stone loser. No one with any brains openly favors genocide. Only Islamic extremists, New Black Panthers, inebriated Democrats, and African potentates are willing to go on record as advocates of mass murder.

    Compulsory public education is the way to go these days, it eliminates most problems early on and if it fails to nip difficulties in the bud, at least it identifies troublemakers and marks them out for low level occupations where they can’t cause any real problems.

    Psychological re-orientation, cooperative personality programming, and lengthy stays in forced re-education camps will keep any pain-in-the-ass late bloomers from causing unwanted disruptions in the great leap forward to the worker’s paradise.

  31. Hube wrote:

    Well, he makes sense. People have teh same right to burn Korans as they do to use American flag toilet paper.

    Absolutely.

    Yes, absolutely. I thought I had made a comment to that effect earlier, but don’t see it now; I guess that I fouled it up somehow.

  32. Are we clear now? I am not a proponant of genocide. Got it?”

    Uh-huh.

    Unfortunately, Dana responded with a George Bush answer. My answer is: we don’t distinguish. When my father arrived in Normandy in 1944 he shot every German he came across, whether or not they were Nazi’s. When my uncle Tom flew his B-17 over Berlin he bombed everybody, not just Nazi’s. When a country declares war on you they are all your enemy. When a religion declares war on you they too are all your enemy. Until such time as moslem’s either surrender or declare they will kill their own terrorists in the name of world peace, I say kill them all and let Got sort them out. That’s how you win, anything else is doomed to failure.

    “Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.”

    You advocated the murder of one and half billion people because of their religin. The mass murder of a religious group is genocide. You advocated genocide.

    But from now on any time you make a blatent lie like;”You advocate murdering one and a half billion people”, I will reprint this and prove you’re a liar. </i.

    Please do. I'll just keep quoting your exact words in rebuttal.

  33. The hell with genocide, it’s a stone loser. No one with any brains openly favors genocide.

    Hoagie does. For once you may be right.

  34. Rope identified part of the problem:

    Compulsory public education is the way to go these days, it eliminates most problems early on and if it fails to nip difficulties in the bud, at least it identifies troublemakers and marks them out for low level occupations where they can’t cause any real problems.

    Much of the problem is due to the educational systems in place in the increasingly Islamist areas, the so-called Madrasah. Originally schools of Islamic religious instruction, many have been moving toward Islamist political instruction, pushed by those who seek Islamist political expansion.

    No one would care if the Islamists were interested only in governing the countries in which they now hold sway. We do care when they want to expand, by attacking Israel, and by attacking Western interests.

  35. The following is from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

    MARK STEYN ON Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment: “I agree with the Instaprof: Lindsey Graham is unfit for office. The good news is there’s no need for the excitable lads of Mazar e-Sharif to chop his head off because he’s already walking around with nothing up there. . . . Claire Berlinski has it right: The real ‘racists’ here are not this no-name pastor and his minimal flock but Reid, Graham, and the Times — for they assume that a significant proportion of Muslims are not responsible human beings but animals no more capable of rational behavior than the tiger who mauled Siegfried’s Roy. If that is true, certain consequences follow therefrom. The abandonment of the First Amendment is not one of them.”

  36. Nangleator: We didn’t set ourselves an easy task when we decided on the ideals in the Constitution.

    As the post directly following this one demonstrates beautifully.

    Hoagie: So once again, had the moslems not started slaughtering people the Christians would not have reacted.

    Wow, I haven’t heard “but they started it!” as a legitimate argument since the third grade.

    Anyway, I think we can all agree on the following three statements:

    1) Terry Jones is a twit. Unless we’re talking about the rhythm guitarist from Carbon Leaf, because he’s cool.

    2) The Afghans who reacted to someone halfway around the world burning a book by going into a violent rage are worthless wastes of oxygen.

    3) There’s no way to punish Jones for anything, lest we do to the Constitution what he did to the Koran.

    That is all.

  37. “Wow, I haven’t heard “but they started it!” as a legitimate argument since the third grade.”

    Then you haven’t been listening to the Obama Administration or Perry talking about “pushing back”.

    Now of course, the response to an assault on your family by a Muslim or another collectivist of some stripe is NOT to go out and find some random Muslim to hit back at.

    To illustrate. Some little while ago, a typically masochist lefty, out to prove what it thought was a moral point, asked me if, after his having struck my wife, it entitled me to go respond by beating his wife.

    I told him “no, of course not”. It morally entitled me to put the quietus on him. Point cleared up.

Comments are closed.