The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Feds Put Target on Filmmaker’s Back

By on 9.14.12 @ 6:09AM

A frightening violation of human rights by Eric Holder’s corrupt Justice Department.

It is hard to know who should frighten Americans more: radical Islamists or our own government.

I say this with only the slightest hint of hyperbole following Thursday’s Associated Press story about the evil genius (not!) behind the sophomoric film “Innocence of Muslims,” which Islamofascists across the Middle East and North Africa are using as a flimsy excuse — an excuse only believed by the Obama administration and other blame-America-first naïfs — to kill American people and destroy American property.

The scary part of the story is not that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was described as having a “checkered past” including a criminal prosecution two years ago.

The scary part of the story is not that we now know that “Sam Bacile” is an alias used by Nakoula while making the film and publishing it online.

The scary part of the story is not that Nakoula, a Coptic Christian, was claiming, when talking about his ridiculous film, to be Jewish (as if my tribe doesn’t have enough problems with people from the Middle East to Foggy Bottom).

The scary part isn’t even that Steve Klein, a “Christian activist” who was involved with making the film, told the AP that he “warned the filmmaker that ‘you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.’” Van Gogh was the Dutch filmmaker who was shot eight times and nearly decapitated by a Dutch-born Muslim of Moroccan descent who disapproved of Van Gogh’s short film Submission.

No, the frightening, terrifying, chilling part of the story is that Mr. Nakoula was identified to the AP by “a federal law enforcement official… who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation.”

The AP notes that Attorney General Eric Holder, who presides over the most corrupt Justice Department of my lifetime, is launching a criminal investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other embassy staff in Benghazi, Libya.

It is inconceivable (to the extent that anything is inconceivable with this Attorney General) that Mr. Nakoula could be a legitimate target of such an investigation, regardless of what else he might have done wrong (such as misleading his actors and dubbing their dialogue with references to Mohammed after the film was made). Nakoula’s First Amendment rights in this situation are absolute.

But even that misses the point: Our government just identified to a news organization the real name of a person who is undoubtedly the highest on the hit list, the forefront of the fatwas, of every hypersensitive but well-armed Muslim radical on the planet.

As if publishing the name isn’t enough, the AP then tells the world that they found Nakoula “outside Los Angeles.” Yes, I realize that’s a rather large area and not exactly like giving his street address, but do you think that makes Mr. Nakoula feel better?

But wait, there’s more! The Washington Post (and presumably other papers) later in the day named his home town as Cerritos, California. And as if that’s not enough, we learn that at Nakoula’s property, “county authorities were present because roughly two dozen reporters and film crews were waiting to interview Nakoula.”

It is exceedingly likely that the Nakoula family will never be able to inhabit that home again… and that the people who live there next might always live in fear. (I wonder how much that will damage the Nakoula’s selling price for the home.)

I stipulate that the AP already seemed on Mr. Nakoula’s trail, having traced a phone number used by “Sam Bacile” to Nakoula’s address.

I admit that Nakoula clearly knew that he would be taking a risk by making and releasing this film, despite it appearing more like a bad Monty Python production than serious social critique.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (308) |

Darin| 9.14.12 @ 6:35AM

Maybe he should hire the New Black Panters to protect him. That way he can be sure the Justice Department will leave him alone.

Jack in Wi| 9.14.12 @ 8:05AM

In no way do I believe the people behind this were Christian. They are trying to use this so called Coptic Christian stooge as a goat. This has all the stink of a false flag operation by the people who do it best. They want passions to be embroiled between Christians and Muslims. One thing I am sure of is many millions of Christians in Muslim countries will be the ones to suffer. It is time to bring the troops home now, end foreign aid. and close up these massive embassies.

My cousin, a retired graduate of West Point, goes around the world recruiting 3rd world people to work as government contractor guards for our embassies and other installations. The Marines do a lot less then they used to. There are too many people of ours in these counties. We should get the hell out now. Pat Buchanan has a great colum availible today at many conservative webbsites like Human Events about pulling out now. He has been right for decades as has Ron Paul.

TLP| 9.14.12 @ 9:52AM

THERE IS A CONTEST that can be found on Paul Kengor's Article.

Everyone is Welcome, and I hear that there will be Prizes.

Those who missed the last one?

Here's your Chance.

mike 3/505| 9.14.12 @ 11:21AM

Can prior winners play?

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:04PM

I'm sure that they were Copts, actually, if not stooges funded by you, Jack. You are stupid enough to do this and then try to blame the Jews.

Besides, don't you know that the hallmark of Mossad is smoothness and skill?

Moron.

irish19| 9.15.12 @ 5:53PM

Christians in Muslim countries are suffering now. They always suffer in Muslim majority countries.
They suffer more when the Salafis and Wahabis are in power. Thanks to zero, this is becoming the norm throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 10:17AM

Darin,

Call Patrick Fitzgerald. He found who leaked Valerie Plame's name in just a couple of weeks. Of course, he'll indict Paul Ryan for perjury in a couple of years in the bargain.

Tom Kyba| 9.15.12 @ 1:58PM

I guess if this behavior is OK for Spike Lee, it must be okay for Holder.

Aristocat| 9.16.12 @ 10:08AM

They also went out of their way to identify him as a Coptic Christian, thus putting all Coptic Christians in Egypt under a death sentence.

Sean| 9.14.12 @ 6:58AM

The sad part is that we are allowing muslim immigrants into this country that could even possibly threaten this guy. We all know though there is a plan to flood the US with third world dirt bags to unseat our traditional society.

Martin kzovich| 9.14.12 @ 7:23AM

The real motivation which anyone with an quarter of a brain should realize is that this garbage of an Aministration's motive is to th5row away our Constitution period. They exploit anything for this purpose.

Thus: One goal; Defeat Obama and the Marxists.
Period. We are in danger till we get rid of them They are a danger to this nation because they view their political opposition more their enemy that Radical Islam.

John786| 9.14.12 @ 7:39AM

This writer must be complete idiot: he puts all the facts found in the media, concerning the infamous director, in one place. Well done idiot. It would appear that the director was also trying to pass himself as Jewish: so not only an Islamophobe but also antisemetic. Deranged Christians, of which there are quite a few on this site, trying to encourage the end times.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 8:11AM

I made it very clear that the director was trying to pass himself off as Jewish. What part of that don't you understand? I think you may be confused on who is the idiot.

Von Mises Jr| 9.14.12 @ 8:23AM

Ross, John786 (for which no Passage can be found) is the worst of all despicable scum. Christ warned those wolves in sheep's clothing that would use His Word to lead his flock astray.

He is an Obamaboy that follows his Dear Leader in using Parables regarding the "Poor of Spirit" to advance socialism.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 8:33AM

Thanks...wasn't aware of this particular troll. I am now warned!

Alan| 9.14.12 @ 8:56AM

Deranged Christians? Shove it muslim, you don't see deranged christians dragging people out of embassies and murdering them because of a you tube video do we? But then they aren't part of a 7th century cult of murder and mayhem are they? But I keep forgeting, its fine for muslims to murder in the name of God isn't it? Cmon muzzie, tell us murder is just fine when somebody decides to insult your cult worship and its everybodies elses fault when it happens. And you call anybody else "deranged"? Seriously? A bunch of religious cultists drag innocent people from a national embassy and murder them and you have the nuts to call anybody else deranged?
Religion of peace? Its not a religion, and peace has never had anythng to do with it.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.14.12 @ 9:06AM

VMJ;

I'm not sure that John786 is a fan of Obama, but he gives every indication of being an Islamist weighing in from the West (apparently the UK).

John786| 9.14.12 @ 9:53AM

Ross,
If indeed you are the above writer then don't you think it's at least ironic that you lambast the government & media outlets for disclosing personal information on the producer while you collect the same information in one convenient place for everyone to see.

John786| 9.14.12 @ 10:01AM

Sometimes I feel that I live in a parallel universe. Only in my universe has the centre of the Islamic world been hollowed out by western interventions. Which is ongoing. Caused millions of death. And theres more to come-Iran- this will be the mother. But, apparently it's the Muslims causing the violence. Go figure.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 11:42AM

What in the world are you talking about, John?

What information am I collecting?

Furthermore, even if I were collecting info, which I'm not, what info am I disclosing to the public?

And if you mean that Spectator collects info from commenters, participation is voluntary.

John786| 9.14.12 @ 12:48PM

Ross,
Are you now denying putting the personal information regarding this infamous producer in one convenient place ( collected allegedly from other outlets) . Have you read your own article. Incredible.

John786| 9.14.12 @ 1:07PM

Ross,
Its not your fault. You're an American. So irony is not your strong point. I understand. As churchill said the English and Americans are a people separated by a common language.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:06PM

And logic is not yours, 786. I certainly HOPE TO SEE the Islamist world hallowed out. It needs to be so that it can act in a civilized fashion and stop condemning teenagers with Down syndrome to death, FOR EXAMPLE.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 4:52PM

John, your argument is simply ridiculous.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:50PM

John, that is totally ridiculous. In fact, the local TV news reporters have for days been identifying the guy, interviewing his neighbors, going to his residence, talking to local Coptic church leaders and the people who acted in the film. It was all out there long ago.

Tom Kyba| 9.15.12 @ 1:59PM

Declares he with personal experience of derangement.

Von Mises Jr| 9.14.12 @ 8:16AM

The Obama regime is creating a diversion with their lap dog "Press Corpse" to shield attention that Hillary knew of the threats 48 hours before Ambassador Stevens was allegedly sodomized before he was assassinated. Barry got a good night's sleep for his busy schedule of fundraisers while the three staff (including 2 ex-Navy Seals) was butchered.
Reports are surfacing on Breitbart apparently originating from the British press, whom still has a press. It is alleged that the few Marines protecting our Embassy in Egypt had rifles with no bullets. I wonder if they at least had bean bags like Brian Terry.

Mike G| 9.14.12 @ 10:03AM

Isn't it interesting that while Homeland Security, Social Security Admin., and Education Dept. are stocking up on ammo, that our marines, who are protecting our embassies in dangerous places, are denied the right to carry bullets?
I'd like to continue, but must hurry to buy some more ammo for myself.

irish19| 9.15.12 @ 5:56PM

This site needs a "like" button.

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:20AM

Well, I "like" you, Irish, my man.

Doctor_X| 9.14.12 @ 8:27AM

I have to wonder if the corrupt “Justice” Department will try to bring charges against Mr. Nakoula citing Brandenburg v. Ohio. They could argue (incorrectly in my view) that the movie “ is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action”. That would have a very chilling effect on any speech that is Anti-Islamic.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 8:34AM

I wonder, even if that were a valid theory in this case, whether it could apply to inciting something in a foreign country.

Nina in MA| 9.14.12 @ 9:32AM

You know, this shouldn't even be a discussion! So what if he made a movie someone didn't like! Where are our tax paid, WH politicians speaking out FOR his right to make that movie? Nooo, instead we have @#$ kisser Clinton making mamby pamby apologies that gee, she really can't go after this guy because well, we have rights in this country...but gosh I really wish I could arrest him for this depiction of Islam and how insulting it was to you all over there, blah, ,blah, blah! WHAT? And hey, it wasn't because of the MOVIE! That was an excuse used to make us all sheep to follow the idiots because after all, we need to learn to tolerate idiots who HATE us...No? In their countries, 9/11 is a HOLIDAY...they celebrate is and if they can take out some Americans again at the same time, party on!

Nina in MA| 9.14.12 @ 9:37AM

Can't fit everything into this comment section! Anyway, is this not censorship? Where are the independent film makers? Where's the celebrities who don't like censorship? If we go after every single person who has done us wrong, said the wrong thing, did the wrong thing...?? We have to mollify and tolerate the middle eastern "religion" of peace? We have to change OUR lives for them?
What's wrong with this picture? Clinton should have said too bad for you! we have laws in the US that protect his right to make movies like this...we have a constitution that protects him! but nope, the second apology tour is out and running full steam ahead. Why do we have to make THEM feel good when they could care less about us? I say breing home all our US citizens,close the bloody embassies, stop pouring money into these countries so they can turn on us! Now this guy and his family have to live in fear and hiding because our gov didn't stand up to protect his rights! We have to stop the insanity people!

Stan Redmond| 9.14.12 @ 2:00PM

Most film makers especially indie film makers are liberals. Muslims are just another tool to use for liberal goals. Liberals see Muslims as a poor minority in need of big governments help to save them from the big bad youtube poster and evil rich white Republicans.

Mike G| 9.14.12 @ 10:05AM

They'll get around that by saying the acts occurred on U.S. property, as all embassies and consulates are.

Warrior| 9.14.12 @ 12:21PM

Interesting. So if Michael Moore makes a film that incites someone to murder the film maker. Then Moore can be charged with inciting his own demise. Talk about poetic justice.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:53PM

The cases are legion denying filmmaker responsibility for criminal actions taken by others who respond to what they have viewed.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:52PM

The Brandenburg analysis would plainly not apply to this case, since it requires the statements be made at the time a mob is assembled and "steeled to action." If the criminal actor has time to dispassionately reflect and then act, it's the criminal actor, not the speaker, who is responsible for those actions.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.14.12 @ 8:31AM

Don't worry. Soon, Obama will be releasing a statement describing the attackers "as bitter clingers, hanging onto their Muslim religion and scimitars. "

RFisher66| 9.14.12 @ 9:02AM

Does it never strike anyone as odd that when Christians are made fun of and their religion denigrated that they don't take to the streets and murder people? The examples are so legion that it would several books to document just the most recent incidents. However, does Christ on the cross in a jar of urine ring a bell? Mary on a canvas covered with dung? We wrote letters and publicly spoke out about this and other incidents but no one rioted, no one died and no fatwahs were issued. Islam as a religion of peace is a joke and the sooner we admit that fact the better. We should have awakened the next morning to the site of the capitol of Libya a smoking ruins with 1,000 dead. They understand that not the pink panties wearing, limp wristed yellow spined simpering response of this administration.

Jade12| 9.14.12 @ 11:26AM

Agreed!

Stan Redmond| 9.14.12 @ 2:02PM

Or the Jews. How many films have been made showing the most rediculous things about the Jews? On daily television there is Martyr Mouse extolling the virtue of blowing up Jews. But no. We have to crawl at the feet of the Muslims so we don't hurt their widdle feelings.

RFisher66| 9.14.12 @ 9:04AM

Oops, I hope Eric Holder doesn't have my address.

Gary B| 9.14.12 @ 9:06AM

The underlying theme here is that the rule of law is long gone. A Soviet-style "Justice" Department running amok, militarized cops kicking in doors at 3am and opening fire, unrestrained domestic spying, government confiscation of corporations, currency printing presses running 24 hours, etc. The dark side of human nature is loose in America. Can civility and the rule of law ever be regained? With our current Supreme Court, I think not.

It's pretty bad, isn't it?

Alan| 9.14.12 @ 9:17AM

Yes it is, and its going to get far worse. The days of convincing others are over, the days choosing where you stand are here.

2Anglico| 9.14.12 @ 9:08AM

According to some screeching leftest woman on TV the other night, the Embassy in Egypt (read Obama) put out the apology PRIOR to the riot. She lamely tried to say that it was not an apology because it came BEFORE the riot.
So, why was the apology/statement released? Was it to show the Islamic radicals what nice people Americans really are? Or, was it a preemptive strike to draw attention away from the FACT that the radicals were mad at Obama for killing Osama? Could the Embassy, knowing an attack was coming (see today's headlines of 48hrs prior knowledge), have put out the statement to deflect attention from their TOTAL incompetence? Marines with no live ammo for starters. What say YOU, Hillary?

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 9:21AM

It may be true before the apology came out before the riot, or at least before the major part of it. BUT, the embassy put out a tweet reaffirming the apology well after the riot had started, and perhaps after most of it had finished. It's hard to tell on the precise timing.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 12:26PM

It is true, Ross. Not "it may be true. " Chronology and facts are important.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 1:14PM

And, words are important, Mikey.

Here is the apology issued by the Egyptian embassy staffer:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

How exactly was the "universal right to free speech" ABUSED in this case, Mikey?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:43PM

You see an apology. I see a statement of America values issue before the attacks commenced in order to try and stave off those attacks.

I get it. Your definition is the right to free speech is the right to shoot off your mouth anytime and i any place without regard for consequences. I don't see it that way.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 2:06PM

I asked you how it was abused, Mikey.
A simple question, I thought.

That statement/apology was issued "several hours" before the protest, according to FactCheck.org. So, how were they trying to "stave off those attacks"?

I also assume that you condemn the ACLU's long history of defending the nazis, when they want to march in Jewish neighborhoods, correct?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 5:11PM

How was free speech abuse? Do dead diplomats count in your book? Apparently not.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:28PM

You're a moron, Mikey.

Ralph Novy| 9.16.12 @ 6:18PM

Forget about Nick. Lost cause. He said "That statement/apology was issued 'several hours' before the protest, according to FactCheck.org. So, how were they trying to 'stave off those attacks'?"

That's about as stupid as it gets -- unless you're brave enough to trend into Santorum Country. LOL

Stan Redmond| 9.14.12 @ 2:07PM

Bravo. Way to stick to the leftist talking point spin cycle on the apology being a non apology. Maybe I would believe you if I heard Obama's administration's DOJ look in to John Dobson or Bill Maher for the nasty things they say about the religious on a daily basis.

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 9:10AM

What scary radical morons we have in charge of our government.
So hack Holder wants to punish an American for exercising his Constitutional rights, which apparently, are not to the liking of 7th century fanatics in the Middle East, who take offense at any damn thing directed at Islam and Mohammad. What crap!!
It was Obozo spiking the Osama football, not a unknown preacher or a minor movie, that set these fanatics off.
Yet under the radical left, we are supposed to change our entire philosophy and way of life to accomodate these 7th century fanatics because they get upset when their religion is impuned. BOO FU*KING HOO.
It's time we cleaned house in America and rid ourselves of these moronic leftist radicals, who practice this inane form of moral equilivance, before we are totally done in as a nation.
If Christians can withstand a cross of Christ in a jar of urine without cutting off heads, these demented 7th century fanatics had better learn to grow up and become members of the 21st century.
And if Holder and Obozo can't see the logic of this, they got to go!!!

FastJohnny| 9.14.12 @ 9:13AM

This is something I find interesting and it goes to prove that radical Islamists do not need a reason to hate Americans and the US. While watching 'The Five' , an interesting fact was brought up. Now, I am not sure if this is the truth, but if it is then all of this about a movie sparking violence is a sham. At the time of the start of the violence in Libya and subsequently in Egypt, there were only 1000 views of the movie on youtube, or wherever it was posted. My question to all, is how can something that had only 1000 views be responsible for creating this situation.I think it just convienantly fits the Islamic and Obama narrative, rather than put the blame where it lies: at the feet of the current US administration and the radical Islamists, it is being redirected. Just a thought, anyone care to add to this observation?

Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.14.12 @ 9:24AM

I don’t think that those who protest this film (and many in the Obama administration and the Left) understand the relationship between the US government and its people, or at least the relationship that the Constitution is supposed to establish.

In the dictatorships of the Middle East, nothing happens amongst the people that is not sanctioned by or subject to the punishment of their leaders. It seems incomprehensible that there could be a country where the government is constitutionally forbidden from enacting laws that prohibit anyone from religious expression, offensive or otherwise.

The irony is that during the controversies about the elephant dung Mary or Mapplethorpe’s crucifix in urine, the Left tried to characterize the attempt to withdraw the funding of these projects by the National Endowment of the Arts as major First Amendment violations.

I have yet to see the question pondered as to what Hillary Clinton or the POTUS would have to say if it was learned (or even falsely reported) that this latest offensive film was funded in part by an NEA grant, or with the help of a local PBS affiliate.

irish19| 9.15.12 @ 6:06PM

That wasn't Mapplethorpe. He was the one producing gay pr()n on an NEA grant and passing it off as art. I can't quite remember the other guy's name.

Louis Jenkins| 9.14.12 @ 9:38AM

Hoder, you are worse than skunk. Fast and Furious anyone? Now you're going after a coptic Christian for expressing his first amendment rights? Why didn't you spring to the Coptic Christians defense when they were persecuted in Eygpt? Syria? Since everyone who is black has the luxury of Rights, how about those people? You are jilted Mr. Holder. You are a coward. You've accused the white Americans of being cowards, but in truth, you are worse. Selective name calling. I hope there are more movies produced calling Islam what is. A disaster, a way of life that includes buggery, thievery, killing, no respect for women, and lying. All you have to do is prostrate yourself 5 times a day, and utter God is Great, there is no other, and Mohammed is his profit. A small price to pay for being a good Muslim.

Bob Grant| 9.14.12 @ 9:46AM

Doesn't this sound vaguely familiar?

You could replace Spike Lee for Eric Holder and replace George Zimmerman for Mr. Nakoula and ,viola, you'd have exactly the same storyline!!!

The dynamics are the same, the mobs are the same, the victims are the same, ...

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 9:50AM

So, Ross, you are claiming Freedom of Speech is absolute even when the Supreme has said it isn't, you argue for this freedom but say nothing about the responsibility that should attend its use (this from a philosophical perspective that champions personal responsibility) and you think the more dastardly the work the more people are entitled to do that work under the cover of darkness. I suspect your animus for Obama and Holder has caused you to temporarily lose sight of values you, in fact, really hold. I also suspect we would see a full throated defence of those values if the person and deed involved someone playing for the other side.

Nina in MA| 9.14.12 @ 10:09AM

Why is it that it always works for the progressive liberals? why is it okay to insult every single thing that's Christian and no one is out dragging bodies thru the villages? Yeah, responsibility goes along with everything but apparently not for those mentioned above. This guy has rights and our gov thru him under the bus by revealing everything they know about him putting his wife and children at risk, and that's okay with you? And anyone seeking vengence will not care about age or sex, as long as they make a statement against his movie. And since when has personal responsibility become the battle cry of liberals?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:02AM

It is true that Christians endure insults without dragging body through the street. We are taught to turn the other cheek. But, I would remind you that history teaches us that Christians once did horrible things to each other because of sectarian differences and Christians gleefully slaughtered Jews on many occasions. Among the reasons we no longer do this is the Enlightenment, a liberal movement, and the fact that much of the Christian world is prosperous.

I would argue that the film maker bears some real responsibility for throwing our ambassador under the bus.

mike 3/505| 9.14.12 @ 11:26AM

No he doesn't. He has not one iota of responsibility....none, zero, zip. The only responsibility lies with the animals, yes animals who killed our ambassador and dragged his body through the streets and with the administration who has so diminished our stature in that area of the world that we are perceived as an easy target.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:33AM

I am unaware that our ambassador's body was dragged through the streets. Where did you read this?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:54AM

Why, does it make a difference to you, Mikey?
Is dragging "through the streets" the point where your outrage begins?
Or, is it not enough that 4 Americans were murdered?
And, according to reports, the O'Bama regime had 48 hours notice, and DID NOTHING!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 12:09PM

Again, Nick, please leave the debate to the adults.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 12:45PM

Again, Mikey, please show me the liberal adults.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:46PM

It does. You don't get anything right if your facts are wrong. Not scientific theory, not policy. Nothing. Ask Ross Kaminsky if he makes money operating from a set of incorrect facts

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:54PM

Seems to work for Obama. Making money, that is. Not the getting of anything right.

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:21AM

Mike: he was sodomized, our ambassador was, as well.

Drunken Sailor| 9.14.12 @ 2:03PM

Try here for starters.
http://communities.washingtont.....ir-graves/

Or how about here

http://www.examiner.com/articl.....s-benghazi

Drunken Sailor| 9.14.12 @ 2:03PM

This is for Mike in N.C.

FastJohnny| 9.14.12 @ 4:11PM

There were pictures of his body being dragged through the street. Of course the MSM would never show those pics since they are too damaging to their and the current administrations agenda.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:09PM

Sodomized and then killed, Mike.

By the way, political speech is the most highly defended of free speech rights---it's the WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF THE AMENDMENT!

This film, moronic and juvenile as it may be, was clearly political and should be defended as political free speech.

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 11:48AM

Nonsense Mike!!! You are engaged in the same radical leftist thinking that I call our foreign policy equilivance of defining deviancy down.
You, like Holder, Obozo, and the rest of the radical left, appear to have distain for Western Civilization and the values that made the West great.
You want to apologize for the values of Lock, Adam Smith, and the rest of the great 18th century philophers that give us the birth of our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
By claiming the Christians did unGodly things in the distanct past is a form of apology without merit or a sensible relation to the madness of the Islamic extremists.
If you engage in the false dicotomy, you will forever be apologizing to these 7th century fanatics, because all of Westen values are an AFRONT TO THEM!!. Don't you see this?? It's a losers gambit.
The only person(s) who may have direct culpability, is/are not some unknown film maker, but rather, Obozo, Clinton, and the whores in the MSM who have spiked the Osama football for Obozo as his only accomplishment in office!!!!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 12:14PM

When your apoplectic fit has passed, go back and re-read what I have posted. In your current state ov mind you are too interested in accusing me of holding positions I don't and you are not really arguing your own cogently.

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 12:59PM

Nice try Mike, it's you that can't make a cogent argument. You stated, "the film maker bears some real responsibility for throwing our ambassador under the bus".
And how exactly did he throw our ambassador under the bus, Mike? By making the movie? He's not a member of our government, he's an ordinary citizen, like the rest of us. So how exactly does an ordinary citizen throw an American ambassador, thousands of miles away, under a bus???
What you are engaging in is the defining deviancy down that I stated in my post. We are to supress all our rights and values as Americans for some vague fear of insulting 7th century fanatics that have no idea what they are killing people over.
So if a film offends, we are to supress it. What next Mike, perhaps your wife wearing a burka, because women need to be covered up at all times?
You are a moral coward, like Obozo and Holder, who doesn't have the guts to stand up for our values, because of your idiotic fear of offending foaming at the mouth radicals! That's defining deviancy down, brother!!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:32PM

Try again when you don't need to talk about my wife wearing a burka. This is right wing nonsense.

Drunken Sailor| 9.14.12 @ 2:06PM

Let me get this straight. You saying the film producer bears responsibility for throwing the ambassador under they bus?

Yet

You do not see how Eric holder and company bear any responsibility for throwing the producer under the bus by putting out his name and personal info?

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 2:45PM

Mike, You are a loser, just as I thought. It's not about your wife wearing a burka, that's your pathetic stawdog attempt at avoiding answering me, because my point was spot on.
Of course, you can't respond intelligently to my post, because you have nothing intelligent to counter me with.
Sorry I wasted my time with you. Go back to comdemning American values, while the jihadists sharpen their blades for useful idiots such as yourself.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:35PM

9/11/11 attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....istan.html

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:36PM

By the logic of Mike in N.C., all we conservatives need to do is start slaughtering people whenever we are offended, and liberal speech will become illegal!

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as criticizing evil. The former elicits hazardous responses from reasonable, law-abiding people. The latter only causes bloodshed if the perpetrators respond criminally. There is a clear line of demarcation which these hypocritical liberals, who have always loved to tell the world that conservative Americans hate Muslims (what are the consequences of that?), choose to ignore.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 10:25AM

Mike in N.C.,

Do you see no difference in publishing "The Satanic Verses" and Salman Rushdie's address?

Bob Grant| 9.14.12 @ 10:58AM

Good point, one that will be missed on Mike in NC.

Who REALLY yelled fire in a crowded movie theater?

Holder or Mr. Nakoula?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:11AM

If you poke a mentally disturbed person in the eye and that person takes a baseball bat and smashes the windows out of your car, the disturbed person is responsible for what he did. But how rational, how responsible was it of you to poke him in the eye knowing his mental condition?

Before anybody jumps on me for claiming that Islam is mentally disturbed, something that many posters at this site assert in various ways, let me say that I don't believe all Moslems share in the beliefs or support the actions of the most violent ideologues in their society. There is a picture in today's Wall Street Journal (Page A8) showing a man in Libya holding a sign: "Sorry People of America. this is not the behavior of our Islam and Profit"

Oldefarte| 9.14.12 @ 11:34AM

'....The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed.".....'

Oh and also, it's not "Profit" but instead PROPHET!!!!!!!!!!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:45AM

I defy you to cite an example of any tolerant behavior in the year 634 or an example of any religion that did not claim all others to be false.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 2:01PM

Indeed, most belief sets are mutually exclusive. That's why it's all the more ludicrous for politicians, mostly on the Left, to claim to embrace them all simultaneously. Obama, for example, observes Muslim and Jewish holidays while claiming Christianity. Such duplicity should offend all three groups!

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:15PM

Judaism has a concept of "the Righteous Gentile," Mike. LOOK IT UP. It was there in 634, as well.

St. Augustine wrote his works, which were quite conciliatory towards Jews, in the fifth Century.

Bit of a moron, ain't cha?

Many of us who write at this site have Doctorates and beyond.

Oldefarte| 9.15.12 @ 3:06PM

Any religion that counsels/instructs its congregations to kill non-believers, to rape their wives, to kill their own children for sexually associating [or marrying] with non-believers is false, and only morons would be so stupid as to not be aware of same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:38AM

I'm glad you clarified, Mikey.
When you wrote "mentally disturbed person," I assumed you were talking about liberals.

Which department should your movie gestapo be a part? Homeland Security or Justice?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:45AM

Nick,

Why don't you leave the debate to the adults?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:56AM

Sure, just show me where the adult liberals are, and I'll debate them, Mikey.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:16PM

Ad hominem alone does not an argument make, Mike. Try attacking the argument WHILE doing ad hominem attacks, like I did, above.

Bob Grant| 9.14.12 @ 5:04PM

The fact that muslims react in such a Pavlovian manner after any "perceived" slight against their religion shouldn't prevent ANYONE from exercising their First Amendment rights.

There's no grey area here, Mike.

What's the point of protecting only non-offensive speech?

Oh, by the way, where's the ACLU and other liberal groups who generally salivate over the free speech issue?????? (crickets chirping).

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:12PM

Mike---that is a crap excuse. I'm a psychiatrist dealing with severely mentally ill patients. Are you attempting to justify evangelical Christians ghaving the right to kill you because you are offensive to them?

I have never seen a mob of aggressive mentally ill patients EVER in 20 years of work, and never in public. These people were very conscious of their actions. Moronic, putrid, highly offensive argument. You owe Mentally Ill people an apology.

Oldefarte| 9.15.12 @ 3:10PM

Oh and genius, a "mentally distrubed person" is highly likely to smash the windows of your care whether poked in the eye or not, SINCE THEY ARE BY DEFINITION MENTALLY DISTURBED AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY TYPICALLY DO [AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE USUALLY LOCKED UP INSIDE ASYLUMS]!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 12:31PM

But John - there is no causality between The Satanic Verses and a fatwa against Rushdie, is there. The two things are entirely coincidental.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 12:53PM

Jack London,

Just as causal as the association of higher murder rates with ice cream sales. I explained this to you yesterday in our logic lesson. You weren't paying attention, now go stand in the corner with the dunce hat on.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 1:19PM

Yes John - you're right. The remarkable thing about the fatwa was that it was actually a controlled experiment - the mullah who issued it had been locked in a room with no external input for five years before Rushdie wrote the book. After the book came out the mullah came out and the first thing he said was - 'I issue a fatwa against Rushdie'.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 1:23PM

Jack London,

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Fool!

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:25PM

No - you're a fool John. You've looked up 'logical fallacy' on the net and think you're showing off. But in this case you are wrong - the Qur'an or whatever interpretation is in modern currency among extremists has explicit instruction about defamation of the prophet. Your argument fails because people such as extremists on the other side such as this so-called film-maker know this instruction and want to throw the switch.

Truth to Power| 9.14.12 @ 3:27PM

When terrorists can so easily manipulate the current administration or fools like Jack it makes one wonder. Given the nature of Islam, the first cause of this event is a weak administration. It is time for a change.

Skippy| 9.14.12 @ 3:50PM

So, all I have to do to justify killing you, is to state I will not be insulted; read your words as insults, and voila!
You're dead and it's your fault!
Thanks!

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:45PM

Jack, here's another 9/11/11 attack---this time on the American Embassy in Kabul AND the Nato Headquarters:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....abul.html.

In short, every 9/11 anniversary is a high attack possibility and should be guarded against.

I hold Muslims up to the same standards as I hold myself when it comes to child molestation, rape, sodomizing an American ambassador and them=n killing him, car bombing, etc...

these things are wrong and should not be done. Incidentally, the LEGAL BAR to surmount to get a "not guilty by reason of insanity" is very very high in this country, as I know very well. You and Mike in NC make excuses for criminal vermin.

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 1:29PM

John, I saw your posts late last night in response to Jack London's, and commented on your brilliant attempt at teaching logic to this nimrod.
I hope you saw them. I doubt London has any clue of what you ment by "denying the antecedent".
It's scary just how stupid and ignorant half of America has become.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 2:02PM

Anthony,

I did see your comment. Thanks.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:18PM

John N. and Anthony: I did forget to tell you guys how much I appreciate you and what a joy you guys are to read. Sorry.

Bob Grant| 9.14.12 @ 10:54AM

What "responsibilities" should be "attendant" when exercising one's First Amendment rights?

What are those "responsibilities"?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:14AM

I would argue that one responsibility is not to exercise my right from the safety of my home and place my fellow Americans, diplomatic and military, who are serving in harm's way in more danger than they already face.

Oldefarte| 9.14.12 @ 11:38AM

If it walks, talks, acts, looks etc like a duck, then there is a responsibility to define it as such, no????????????????

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:47AM

Define "it." I'm unclear as to your reference.

Oldefarte| 9.15.12 @ 3:13PM

"it" equals= "a mentally disturbed person" [ie Muslims or "ducks"]!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Grant| 9.14.12 @ 5:10PM

Olde,

He refuses to define it because he would expose the fallacy of his argument.

He doesn't realize he will be called out here for inane, platitudinous statements.

Oldefarte| 9.15.12 @ 3:15PM

BG, he's just one of those typical DUCK-sympathizers [as is found inside the Oval Office....or presently campaigning in Las Vegas]!!!!!!

spike59| 9.14.12 @ 11:59AM

"I would argue that one responsibility is not to exercise my right from the safety of my home and place my fellow Americans, diplomatic and military, who are serving in harm's way in more danger than they already face"
===========================
you mean, like basing a political campaign with the endlessly repeated slogan, "Bin Laden is Dead?"

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 12:22PM

Not only bin Laden. The President has responsibly ended a costly and unnecessary war of choice that eliminated one of Iran's major enemies. How is that working out for us? He is getting out of the quagmire of Afghanistan and he continues to pursue our real enemies wherever they are. If you think the neo-cons had any better insight about the direction the Arab spring would take than the current adminstration, you haven't been paying attention for the past two years. Basically, they have put forth nothing other than criticism of whatever the administration is doing.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:50PM

He's right, Mike, and you had no answer. Killing bin Laden and trumpeting it likely contributes more to Muslim offense than a stupid movie.

Your propaganda belies reality in every foreign sphere. Things aren't going well, and Obama hasn't handled a thing well.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:39PM

So now you're condemning Obama for taking Bin Laden out?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 2:48PM

Yeah, after Valerie Jarrett told him NO!, three times, Jack'o.
Who wears the pants in this regime?

Anthony| 9.14.12 @ 2:55PM

Well Jack, according to moronic leftists such as you and Mike, if Obozo, or any American for that matter, does something that offends radical Islam, then it must be condemned.
Do you see the fallacy of your insane appeasement thinking now? Two can get caught up on your moral equilivance pitard.
However, to set the record straight, it wasn't an insignificant movie that set these fanatics off, as the whores in the MSM keep telling us, in order to protect Obozo's stupidity, it was Obozo spiking the Osama football.
So yes, Obozo's spitting in the eyes of these Muslims, by lauding over the death of Osama, was reckless, stupid, and led directly to the death of 4 Americans. Hence, according to your logic, Obozo must be condemned.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 4:44PM

No, Jack, but I'm not surprised you tried to imply otherwise.

I pointed out that IF we're to condemn anything done in America that might offend Muslims, THEN Obama is as guilty as anyone. However, WE do not condemn offending Muslims. Mike did. We don't.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 5:07PM

Of course not and you know it.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 7:02PM

"I would argue that one responsibility is not to exercise my right from the safety of my home and place my fellow Americans, diplomatic and military, who are serving in harm's way in more danger than they already face."

You suggested here, quite clearly, that it was irresponsible to offend Muslims. The entire conversation since has explained that Obama is similarly irresponsible, requiring you to either retract the initial statement, condemn Obama, or be a hypocrite.

Oldefarte| 9.15.12 @ 3:19PM

Smoke on this one: bin Laden's ELIMINATOR-IN-CHIEF has now been the sole cause of the middle eastern riots, the deaths of marines and Navy Seals and an ambassador!!!!!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:19PM

Mike: then why is our President releasing confidential procedural details of operations?

That is a problem, you see. Protecting your right to tell scumbags who would rape American little girls to screw off is what the guys in uniform gladly signed up for.

irish19| 9.15.12 @ 6:17PM

So I must temper the exercise of my First Amendment rights to cater to the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended, to the most thin-skinned among us?

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 12:27PM

Mike, there is no right not to be offended. And I have not said a single word in favor of this guy's film. Indeed, I have said that it's sophomoric and ridiculous. I am close to a First Amendment absolutist, short of calling for people to be killed or saying something likely to cause immediate physical harm, such as the old "fire in the movie theater" thing.

Please tell me where you think making a movie that makes a "prophet" and his religion look bad would not be OBVIOUSLY protected speech?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 12:42PM

So you don't think that inflaming anti-American feeling is likely to lead to harm? As I said yesterday, the point about this is not to ban this movie but to recognize what might happen when you do make such a thing. If the maker admitted that his intent was to stir extremists into attacks, what would you say to him?

The other point is that you seem to think the government should protect the identity of this man while the media were busy trying to find out. You can only be guilty of wanting to suppress free speech - he has done nothing to deserve such protection.

Truth to Power| 9.14.12 @ 1:14PM

It is always revealing when progressives demonstrate through their actions who their friends are. Jack is willing to use mobs of rabid dogs to achieve a political purpose. We already knew I guess but we should all remember just what kind of guy Jack is. The left knows that something was going to happen on 9/11 and the supposed cause is a distraction. The real cause is a weak US government. It is time for a change.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 1:27PM

You're lying, Jack'o.

You asked me, yesterday, whether I should tell anyone, if I saw them making such a video.
And I replied, "Tell who[? You fascist dictator.] The movie police?"

You never answered. As usual. Why do you always run away from a debate when you can't answer simple questions?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:31PM

I did respond. I asked you if you saw a 9/11 hijacker making a video for release after his death you'd keep quiet because that is his free speech. You did not respond.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 2:41PM

You're lying, again, Jack'o.
I replied to that, except for the unintelligible part. Which you never corrected.

This question is stupid, by the way. You are making an apples-to-oranges comparison.
This should surprise no one, as Mr. Navratil proved you have no concept of logic, yesterday.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:59PM

No it's a valid comparison because I want to establish if there's a line you would cross and where that line is. But you are hiding. With the case in question, I'm assuming that you (and Ross K) would extend full federal protection to an extremist group in California producing hate videos directed at Muslims - is that right?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 3:13PM

No, it is not, Jack'o. Because the hijackers were conspiring to make war on the American people. That violates the Laws of War. Hijacking airliners also violates federal law.

What was this "movie" maker conspiring to do? What law was he violating, Einstein?

If by "extend full federal protection to an extremist group" you mean the First Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, yes, I would.
What is a "hate video," by the way?

Bill Maher & Joy Behar attack Christians all the time. Are those "hate videos"? Should they expect to be attacked by extremists? Or, prosecuted? Are they asking for it?

Are you going to run away now? Or, will actually answer today?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 3:32PM

I too extend full First Amendment rights to anti-Muslim film-makers. I though though you'd want to ban the media from identifying them and surround their house with marines - is that right?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 4:06PM

Are you just incapable of answering questions, Jack'o? Is this really that much to ask?

What crime did this "movie" maker commit by making his "film"? What did he conspire to do, when he made it?

"I too extend full First Amendment rights to anti-Muslim film-makers."

No you don't!
You want them to be reported to.....someone, remember? You asked me if I wouldn't tell someone, if I saw my neighbor "making that anti-Muslim movie." Again, whom am I supposed to tell?

"I though though [sic] you'd want to ban the media from identifying them and surround their house with marines - is that right?"

In English, please?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 4:21PM

I meant to type 'I thought though' - not hard to work out. You are just evading the point. Other than the First would you do anything else for this film-maker?

And you're confused. I support his right to make the film. Let's say you know he's about to release it just before the 9/11 anniversary. You keep saying who do I tell? That's not the question - it's whether you think you should do something. (And if you do want to call someone the last time I checked we still have the FBI). But the really interesting question is whether you'd be cool with his film and an intent to inflame Muslims.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 4:51PM

You keep moving the goal-posts, Jack'o Putz'o.

Let me put it in ALL CAPS and bold, and maybe you'll understand:
IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE AN ANTI-MUSLIM MOVIE AND RELEASE IT BEFORE THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY!!!!!

Are we clear on that? Do you understand that this is America? Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

Okay, now: I never said that the media couldn't try to find out who this guy is. It's the crooked AG, Holder, who has no right exposing him.

"You keep saying who do I tell? That's not the question [...]."

YOU asked the question, moron! Man, you're dumb.

Plus, call the FBI for what? The FBI is not the Gestapo. Again, this is America. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

You still haven't explained how this guy is like the hijackers. Are you conceding that you were wrong ? That you were making an apples-to-oranges comparison?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 4:58PM

OK - we're getting there. Now answer the question: we agree the film is not against the law. But is that the only criterion for you to be worried? In other words, as I asked "the really interesting question is whether you'd be cool with his film and an intent to inflame Muslims". We can debate what could happen next based on a simple yes or no to this question.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 5:08PM

Answer my questions, first, Jack'o.

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 5:24PM

Nick,

Jack London is a tar baby. Valiant fight, but a waste of time. You can beat him into submission (or silence), today, but he will be back tomorrow with the same swamp water. He is truly incorrigible.

I wonder what the wonder-boy would do if he pissed off a Muslim.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 5:28PM

Why don't you answer this question too John:

"The really interesting question is whether you'd be cool with his film and an intent to inflame Muslims. We can debate what could happen next based on a simple yes or no to this question."

John Navratil| 9.14.12 @ 6:24PM

Jack London,

You set up a black-and-white fallacy (yet another you can't seem to avoid). It's perfectly consistent to say that I do not support someone making an inflammatory film while defending his right to do so. That is my position. The problem is with the S.O.B. whose God says it's OK to kill the film maker or any other person. There will be no peace until the Muslims get tired of this and that won't happen until a lot of them are dead.

Debate with you is pointless.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 6:47PM

'I do not support someone making an inflammatory film'

That's OK John - thanks for the answer. We agree.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:26PM

Except that I don't think calling Mohammed a pedophilic mass murdering thief is inflammatory---it is truthful according to the Koran and the Hadiths.

As a Jew and a Zionist, I have to put up with a LOT of crap. Sorry, I don't riot or kill people. Neither do you, Jack. And neither should they. And I'm willing to see them killed until they stop trying to physically hurt, rape, sodomize, stone, beat, or murder others. You, on the other hand, are willing to let them determine the limits of your freedom of speech. Fool.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:04PM

I know, Mr. Navratil.
But, I think it may be informative for other liberals who read these threads. To see how obtuse their fellow travelers truly are.

You'll notice RCV hasn't tried to defend Jack'o or Mikey. DRed hasn't commented, at all, this week.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:29PM

RCV is NOT fond of Jihad---opposes it (he mistakenly believes that Obama opposes it too, but that's a different matter).

DRed is NOT an antisemite, and, indeed, is pro-Israel and Jews.

That's why the lack of comments.

I disgree with them a lot, but I try to be fair. The two jacks I have absolutely no use for. I doubt Mr. London knows who Ernest Everhard was, or cares.

Ralph Novy| 9.16.12 @ 6:40PM

Well, Nick, that's because he doesn't NEED defending. He's doing quite all right for himself against you screaming nitwits.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 5:25PM

I didn't say he was like the hijackers. I was extending the argument to see where you are. So far you've said it depends on legality. Now answer my question, which is the key point.

"The really interesting question is whether you'd be cool with his film and an intent to inflame Muslims. We can debate what could happen next based on a simple yes or no to this question."

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 5:59PM

" I asked you if you saw a 9/11 hijacker making a video for release after his death you'd keep quiet because that is his free speech."

"No [sic] it's a valid comparison because I want to establish if there's a line you would cross and where that line is."

"I didn't say he was like the hijackers."

Do you have Alzheimers, Jack'o? Is English your second language?

I could care less about this video. In fact, I haven't watched one frame of it. I try not to attack other people's religions, but, I can't stop other people from so doing. I can't stop them from attacking my religion, either.

Plus, there is nothing I can do about stupid movies. You can't do anything, either. Nobody can. Because this is America.
If I had such power, there would never be another Jackass or Adam Sandler movie.

In case it didn't get through to you, NO, I don't have a problem with this twit making his stupid anti-Moslem movie. Probably, because I'm not Moslem.
If he'd asked me for my advice, I would've said don't smear or attack Moslems. Making fun of them, if it's tasteful, would be okay.
Okay, now what?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 6:17PM

"If he'd asked me for my advice, I would've said don't smear or attack Moslems."

Thanks for finally answering the question. That's what I'd do too.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:26PM

"Thanks for finally answering the question."

I wasn't avoiding answering, unlike you, Jack'o.

"That's what I'd do too."

No, you'd report him to the FBI. Or, you'd tell someone. Or, do something. At least, that's what you've been writing for the past two days.

Because you don't think he should be able to make such a movie. Because it MIGHT inflame Moslems around the world. Because that MIGHT result in Americans getting attacked.

You perfectly represent the wimpy, girly-man foreign policy of the Apologist-in-Chief.
Sorry, I prefer Ronuldus Magnus' "Peace Through Strength" foreign policy.
And, so does America.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 6:45PM

It's OK - I'm happy with your response.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:58PM

Are you happy with being fascistic, marxist totalitarian, Jack'o?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 7:00PM

Aw Nick - just as we were getting on.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 7:26PM

You're the one who wants to hold the guy who made this video responsible, not me, Jack'o.
You're the one who wants to hold the maker of the video accountable for the actions of psychopathic mob of Islamic fanatics, not me.

That's a little totalitarian. And scary.
Should we hold directors of violent movies, like The Basketball Diaries, accountable for mass killings like Columbine?

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:33AM

We have a perfect right to inflame or smear Muslims, because the word "smear" indicates that there is no basis in truth.

Do they: have sexual relations with girls whose ages are in single digits? Yes.

Do they: screw their wives after death? Yes.

Do they: sodomize ambassadors and act like animals? Yes.

Do they routinely molest and rape Western female reporters? Yes.

Do they: strap bombs to their children and pregnant women, sometimes without informing them of same? Yes.

Do they: behead 3 month olds? Yes.

How do you "smear" people like that?

If he had asked me for my advice, I would have told him that it was dangerous and that Islamic catamites like the Jacks would act like pussies, but that more power to him for hitting Mohammed.

Islam is a totailitarian belief system with a little religious seasoning. It is worthless and disgusting. Any man that would criticize my daughter for not wearing a Burkha would need to get used to his new nickname of "Art," because he would be a Legless and Armless man hanging on a wall. I despise these vermin and their beliefs with every cell of my body.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:30PM

I'm happy to attack Islam all day long and twice on Fridays. It is a repressive political system wrapped around a little religion of a horrifically evil man.

spike59| 9.17.12 @ 6:25AM

there's a HUGE difference between banning the media from identifying them and having the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT giving the media a map to their front door

Drunken Sailor| 9.14.12 @ 3:46PM

Why not. We extened those same freedom to idiots that want to burn the flag. Or to hate groupls like the Black panthers in Philly. Would it be right for a mob to attack and kill them? Afterall they should have know better, using your logic.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:31PM

Jack, you are a hypocrite.

Democrats have always been happy to condemn a variety of Americans' actions, exaggerating and distorting them for political gain. These "inflame anti-American feelings" routinely.

There's a lot more truth in attacks on Islam than there is in Democrats' condemnation of rich Americans as "greedy, evil instigators of a global recession" (a recession that harmed lots of people worldwide). Or the false accusations of conservative racism you love to spread.

"Islamophobia" is a word you invented specifically to tell the world that your political rivals are evil, hateful people who are enemies of all Muslims. You trumpet this lie in global media. Don't you think THAT inflames anti-American sentiment?

You're despicable.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:37PM

Your post is incoherent JD. Try and construct a post that makes sense and report back.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 4:46PM

Now it is my failing if I write too intelligently for you?

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:23PM

You piss me off every day, London. And I'm sure I piss you off. I don't think you are entitled to hit me because I call you a neurosyphilitic leukoencephalitic wanker, and I don't think I am entitled to hit you because you call me an Islamophobe ( I think of myself as an Islamorealist, instead).

Time for Islamics to learn to behave like civilized adults. If they can't do so by reasoned argument, then pain is a MARVELOUS teacher, and needs to be employed until they do.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:48PM

Jack, I'm saying that the filmmaker had an absolute right to make that movie. It is protected political speech. Period. If it offends, well, so did Borat. My wife, being from Alabama, was greatly offended, and I daresay that the movie was more offensive to people from Alabama and Conservatives than this movie was.

But both are protected by the laws of this incredibly awesome country. Holder is an asshole.

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:25AM

Jack,

I'm saying, who cares?

I have to put up with shitloads of antisemitic propaganda and that does not give me a right to go into a mosque spraying bullets. They DON'T have the right to kill people for speech they don't like on sovereign US territory.

It's a funny thing, London, that you support the right to vicously offend catholics and Evangelical Christians but think we ought to tiptoe around Islamists. Is it because Christians are more CIVILIZED than Muslims, or what?

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 12:52PM

Ross,

The DOJ may or may not prosecute under hate crimes statutes. If they do, the courts will likely rule that it is protected speech. Like you, I strongly suuport free speech. But, I give the maker and the supporters of this film no support. I say push them into the light of day and make them stand up and take responsibility for what they did. I would not complain that Holder put a target on their back. They are afraid of revenge? Maybe they should have consider that when they posted the film. Whether the film was the cause or the excuse for the attacks is irrelevant to me. Same consequences either way.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:44PM

Your hypocrisy is blinding. You're actually justifying the act of helping a murderer track down the person he means to murder.

People should face the consequences of their actions, but WITHIN THE LAW.

It's amazing how often liberal actions resemble those of the mob. Their entire economic ideology involves doing "favors" for people in order to oblige them to open-ended "favors" in return. Now here we see how they support the idea of outing "snitches" to be "offed".

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:50PM

I'm not advocating illegal behavior. If someone acts illegally, they will be brought to justice.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:53PM

"I say push them into the light of day and make them stand up and take responsibility for what they did. I would not complain that Holder put a target on their back. They are afraid of revenge? Maybe they should have consider that when they posted the film. Whether the film was the cause or the excuse for the attacks is irrelevant to me. Same consequences either way."

You most certainly did advocate illegal behavior. There are no "consequences" implied except for illegal behavior, and you know it. "Target"? "Revenge"? Those words don't exactly imply a civil suit.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 5:00PM

Would your altruism extend to someone who doesn't share your prejudices?

JD| 9.14.12 @ 5:39PM

What altruism? It is no gift from me to NOT violate another person. That is simply the natural state of affairs; a passive behavior from me. It is liberalism which necessarily conflates the active and the passive in order to justify requiring activities by citing passive natural behaviors as justification. I do not accept such "logic".

And what prejudice? Prejudice is unreasonable and/or preconceived bias. My judgments are logical responses to statements and actions.

After correcting for your misuses of language, the answer is obvious. There is no ACTIVE support or harm done in NOT actively trying to connect a person to those who mean to murder him, and I would happily remain so inactive regardless of whether a person deserved scorn or admiration.

I do not need thugs to kill people with foolish opinions. They hang themselves with their words soon enough, as you did when you advocated "pushing" a person into the "light of day" so that those who mean to kill him can find him.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 1:58PM

You don't care about free speech, Mikey. Because it is an American ideal.

All you and Jack'o are trying to do is take the spotlight off of the Foodstamp President's ineptitude & disgraceful behavior.

There is a report that there was "credible" intelligence 48 HOURS PRIOR, about American missions being targeted.
The O'Bama regime put none of our embassies on alert. (Remember how you lefties would make fun of the color-coded threat levels?)
The O'Bama regime provided NO ADDED security on the anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
While the consulate in Benghazi was still smoldering, and the bodies of FOUR DEAD AMERICANS were still on foreign soil; the Apologist-in-Chief was whooping it up at a fundraiser in Las Vegas.
(This was after he skipped his intelligence briefing that same day! Which he usually does, by the way.)

Oh, and the apology issued by the Egyptian embassy on the 11th, which you lefties have spent so much time defending, was repudiated by the O'Bama regime the next day.

Remember when Shrillary the Hut asked if democrats could trust O'Bama with the 3 A.M. phone call? Looks like she was right for once!

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 2:45PM

Well Nick I may surprise you - I agree that it is a big failing if they did not act on intelligence. I think you'll agree though that the film did not help. I think you'll agree too that intelligence failings are hardly confined to one administration, given the briefings Bush had before 9/11.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 3:01PM

Nice try, Jack'o.
President Bush had no actionable intelligence about the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

The Apologist-in-Chief has failed this country, and FOUR AMERICANS ARE DEAD, as a result.
Marines didn't even have live ammunition, for crying out loud!
The "film" had nothing to do with these attacks. All the evidence points to a deliberate attack.

To top it off, O'Bama is holding a political rally disguised as a memorial for our fallen heroes.
Who's politicizing this atrocity?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 3:28PM

Nick – I said I agree with you. The problem is the volatility of these countries after the Arab Spring. our diplomats were much safer with people like Ghaddafi in charge. We have also removed people before trouble in other places, such as Syria. I don't think any administration has or will get this right all of the time. You'll maybe know that we lost 63 people in our Beirut embassy under Reagan.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 4:12PM

It was the ELEVENTH ANNIVERSARY of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, Jack'o!

It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out that our embassies, IN MOSLEM COUNTRIES, need extra security.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 4:53PM

What's special about an 11th anniversary? I don't think anyone could have foreseen these attacks, which are also against embassies of other countries. The only casualties inside have been in Libya, and the ambassador was a Libyan specialist in a now pro-US country. I don't think we know enough yet about the situation there.

Of course, the video has made no difference to anything - it might as well have been Spongebob Squarepants.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 4:58PM

"What's special about an 11th anniversary? I don't think anyone could have foreseen these attacks [...]."

No wonder you support the Apologist-in-Chief.
You're as clueless & inept as he is!

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 5:01PM

So why didn't they happen on the 10th anniversary? What do you know?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 5:06PM

They should be on alert EVERY SEPTEMBER 11TH, dope.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 5:30PM

Sure - since 9/11 our government sends our explicit instructions to be much less careful on the anniversary. Got to admit - you're a smart guy to have spotted that one.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:17PM

Is that what I wrote, moron?
Really, is English your second language?

They should've been on ELEVATED alert.
They should've been told about the credible intelligence.
The Marines should've had LIVE AMMUNITION.
The Foodstamp President should've stayed AWAKE until he knew the status of Ambassador Stevens.

But, your right, Jack'o. Things have turned out much better this way.
Our embassies across the Middle East are on fire thanks to the fecklessness of the Apologist-in-Chief.
You must be sooooo proud!

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 6:41PM

What makes you think they weren't on elevated alert? And there has been denial that there was warning - it's easy to believe a newspaper story over the government though and I can understand why you'd do that.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:54PM

Because I was in the Army, and am a veteran of Operation Desert Shield/Storm, Jack'o.
I know that you lefties hate the military, which is why you are ignorant of such things.

Marines on elevated alert......HAVE LIVE AMMUNITION!
Ambassador Stevens would have had more of a security detail, if they were on elevated alert. Or, he might not even have been in-country, like the Egyptian Ambassador wasn't.
Comprende?

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:56PM

Do you really enjoy being embarrassed this badly, Jack'o?

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 7:06PM

I'm sure there'll be an inquiry. But I did say i agree with you - the fact that he's dead means something went wrong. Whether it was foreseeable is another matter.

In the case of Reagan and Beirut, after the 63 were killed he moved the embassy somewhere 'safer'. Next year, that was hit too and more died.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 7:29PM

You keep saying that you agree with me, but, your actual words belie this, Jack'o.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:50PM

Thank you for your service, Nick, and G-d Bless.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:46PM

Your welcome, Occam. Thanks for the list of terrorist attacks from last year. Totally slipped my mind.
G-d Bless!

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:37AM

You are most welcome, sir. By the way, Nick, do tell Ken or Con Chef if you ever plan to be in Fargo or Grand Forks.

I don't think the attacks "slipped your mind," Nick. They weren't well publicized, and you might not have seen them---I know you would have remembered them otherwise, as you hjave an excellent mind. Check out "The Religion of Peace" website for more deatails, or Atlas Shrugged.

May G-d Bless and Keep you and your family, and remember to check out The Great White North!

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 3:51PM

You're right, Occam, they weren't reported very well. I vaguely recall the attack in Afghanistan.
Thanks again, and will do.
I trust that your anniversary weekend was all that you hoped it would be? It sounded perfect.
G-d Bless!

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:33PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....ndon.html.
10th anniversary

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:37PM

Another attack on the 10th Anniversary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....istan.html

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:49PM

They did, they did, Jack. they weren't as publicized, but I've posted a few. The wounded were higher. Our Embassy in Kabul was attacked around 9/11/11.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:39PM

I could do the 9/11/11 posts of attacks by Islamists on Westerners all day long, jack---your comment was idiotic.I have a flag burning outside an Embassy during the moment of silence, a truck bombing that killed two and wounded 80 in Afghanistan last year on 9/11 outside a US military base, and I'll dig up one more. You are a moron.

Stan Redmond| 9.14.12 @ 2:20PM

Ross,

You are falling for Mike's foolish premise that the entire mess is the fault of a youtube posting.

The riots just happened to occure on 9-11-2012, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the year Orambo jumped from the skies and killed Osama Bin Laden?

My quick research shows the first posting on Youtube was JULY 1 2012!!!

If this video was never made the savages that attacked our soverign soil and murdered our citizens would have found another excuse. Anyone who is going to attempt to blame our first amendment rights for this is a damned fool.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 5:42PM

I'm not ready to make the 9/11 connection. People in Muslim nations have frequently shown themselves to be ignorant of Western affairs until someone shoves something in their faces. It's entirely possible that they didn't know about the film until this week.

And it's entirely reasonable to believe that such a pitiful film WOULD motivate such a reaction. That's the way these people are.

The blame is still entirely theirs, of course.

RonRonDoRon| 9.14.12 @ 11:10PM

I don't think Kaminsky claimed in his article that freedom of speech is absolute - if he did, point out where.

To the extent that the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is not absolute, the circumstances where it can be restricted are extremely limited - advocating violent government overthrow, incitement to riot (in the immediate time and place), etc.

Why do so many commenters I've read on various sites seem to be calling for more restrictions on free speech? Is this the logical progression of the speech-code idiocy rampant on college campuses?

To you, particularly, Mike, what exactly are you calling for. If just civility, I can only agree - but it's no business of the government

Nina in MA| 9.14.12 @ 9:51AM

This country has become a country of "trash". And I say that as in a heap of everything thrown in together (okay, melting pot) which is a good thing except that we have people who think that not one of them is AMERICAN..stop the hyphens. We need to stop calling ourselves anything but American. We need to stop trying to do the right thing by ALL nationalities and start doing right by AMERICANS. We will never, can't ever, please everyone with trying to keep 60 languages in schools, tolerating every single thing people do in the name of their religion/nationality/culture if it results in harm to another! Keep your culture and heritage alive in your homes and community but as a whole, start being AMERICAN! Until that happens, we will see more of these incidents, see more stupidity, more bending over backwards to appease a certain nationality all in the name of tolerance and diversity. It won't work.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:19AM

Nina,
This country is not "trash." It is the best country on earth. We are angry because of recent events. We have a right to be angry. But what makes us better than others is that we don't behave like the impoverished, uneducated mobs who are easily manipulated by bad actor with evil motives. Do we?

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:26PM

Must... Resist... invoking... Obama... as... bad... actor...

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 1:28PM

Ha-ha! Love it, JD!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 5:03PM

But you already have.

LindaF | 9.14.12 @ 9:56AM

I've heard that Basile/whatever is NOT a Coptic Christian, but a Salafist.

http://rau.3littlefoxes.com/?p=202

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 12:29PM

Please tell us where you have "heard" such a thing, because it most surely is not in the link (which doesn't work) or in the story you were trying to link to. Really, what was quite an ignorant statement.

Bob K| 9.14.12 @ 9:57AM

In 2010 the country elected enough Republicans to take over the House of Representatives by a large margin. The first thing they did is elect a Speaker of the House who thinks that it is OK for him to cry in public.

His first item of business should have been starting impeachment proceedings against Holder and continuing them until his usefulness to the Obama administration was gone. Fat chance ofthat!

The Republican leadership in Congress is composed of an assorted bunch of quivering wimps. The people who edit and publish Conservative journals of political opinion like A.S. know that but are afraid to hold the feet of these Republican Wimps to the fire.

Instead they give us articles like this!

"Ooooh! Look at Holder! See what he is doing! OOOOH! He's a bad, bad man! OOOH!"

This crap is getting tiresome!

Nina in MA| 9.14.12 @ 10:12AM

Your right, just as the dem party has become communist over the years, so the repub have sat back and watched it happen, they too are guilty. But is this article about some guy making a movie and no one standing up for his right to do it? Why does Holder even get involved? It's censorship and NO ONE likes that, do they? And yes, we need people in office who will stand up to protect the people of this country with the laws and constitutional rights that we have!

Alan| 9.14.12 @ 11:04AM

Its an age of cowards Nina, nobody is willing to defend the foundations of this country. Everybody is afraid. Its like watching brigands looting the Titanic and then sleazing into a seat on the lifeboats.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 11:40AM

Nina,
The Democratic Party is not communist. It is a party that defends progressive policies and programs that date back to the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican president. These policies and programs have been supported and added to by both Democratic and Republican presidents. I would remind you that the most recent was George Bush's Medicare, Part D. A good program. Too bad it was enacted in the amidst of two unpaid for wars and tax cuts that burned through a budget surplus and ran up and enormous debt.

Extremists in the Republican Party have gain ascendance. This happens occasionally. It was last most evident when Barry Goldwater ran for the presidency.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 12:30PM

Mike, I admit that some rather conservative people have gained ascendency in the GOP, but in terms of "extreme" the GOP isn't close to the radical leftists running the Democrat Party, including the president.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 12:45PM

Ha ha - Ross that's the funniest thing you've ever said. The scary thing is you probably believe it too.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:24PM

It's your belief that is scary, Jack.

Our tax code is larger, more complex, more "progressive" than ever, and more redistributive than ever. Our government spends more in relation to our private sector than ever, and is larger than ever. We have more rules than ever. In every measurable way, we are further left than we have ever been, and continue moving left.

Even the so-called "far right" no longer talks about ending big entitlement programs, which were considered to left-wing for many liberals in FDR's day. Now you have the "far right" trying to save entitlements. No wonder the election of "moderate" Republicans grew deficits and the government in 2001-2008 almost as quickly as Democrats have grown them since!

Despite all this, today's Democrats have the audacity to suggest that the reason we're worse off than before is a move to the right, and that some Republicans are "further right than ever". Have they no perspective at all?

CJW| 9.14.12 @ 1:26PM

Purpie/jack
You give yourself away purpie. "Ha ha" is one of your signature brilliant comments.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:10PM

Ross,

I don't see the radicalism on the left. The president continued, even doubled down, on Bush's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan while looking for an honorable exit from those two countries. Some think the President has been as cavalier about civil rights in the war on terror as were Bush and Cheney. The policies initiated by Paulson and Bush to address the economic crisis were continued by Obama. The President nearly had a budget deal with Boehner that many on the left hated as much as did those on the right. So, what's left? Obamacare? The policy forged by the right leaning Heritage Foundation and implemented successfully by Romney in Massachusetts? The stimulus? It did work. And, yes it did add to the large debt Obama inherited from Bush. We all know we have to address our deficits and debt, but when I look at Ryan's budget, I don't see a hair on fire urgency to do this. I do see a hidden agenda that is, in reality, truly radical.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:23PM

Not a one of the supposedly right-wing policies you cited is actually right-wing. Not a one. You cited examples of Bush's leftism, mislabeled them "right-wing", then inferred that Obama's echoing them must also be "right-wing". Wrong on all counts.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 1:37PM

You validate my point. There no Eisenhower Republicans. In fact, there are no Reagan Republicans. Only radicals intent on completely changing our system over night.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:46PM

If modern Republican "extremists" got their way entirely, we'd still be left of JFK. You believe your party's lies too much.

Jack London| 9.14.12 @ 3:02PM

Did you learn any American history at school JD? I'll admit one thing - if you are a product of our public school system then it certainly does need reforming.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 4:54PM

I'm just going to repost what I wrote above until you come up with the faintest hint of a counter-argument:

Our tax code is larger, more complex, more "progressive" than ever, and more redistributive than ever. Our government spends more in relation to our private sector than ever, and is larger than ever. We have more rules than ever. In every measurable way, we are further left than we have ever been, and continue moving left.

Even the so-called "far right" no longer talks about ending big entitlement programs, which were considered to left-wing for many liberals in FDR's day. Now you have the "far right" trying to save entitlements. No wonder the election of "moderate" Republicans grew deficits and the government in 2001-2008 almost as quickly as Democrats have grown them since!

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 5:02PM

I don' think so.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 5:54PM

Mike, you seem like a landslide winner of the "most reasonable liberal here" award, if only for lack of competition, so while you doggedly stick to your side, even to the point of supporting efforts to expose an American to those who would kill him over a video... ...ok, this compliment is turning out really backhanded, so I'm going to move on.

My point is, I think you'll at least try to process data, so I'd like you to look at some.

First, the net of ALL federal taxes paid by a person, broken down by income category:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....?Docid=456
Note the unmistakable collapse in what the poor pay. Meanwhile, the rich have actually seen far more of their cash flows taxed as "income" than under Carter - this is not captured in this data but means the rich's taxes have grown more than it seems.

Second, the impact of social welfare:
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....family-mak
Admittedly, this doesn't include the value of the employer-health care that the higher-paid guys likely receive. Still, far more redistribution than we used to have.

Ross Kaminsky| 9.14.12 @ 6:15PM

Mike,

What is radical about Ryan's budget? Is it that it doesn't balance for two decades, or that entitlements continue to grow as a share of GDP?

JD| 9.14.12 @ 7:05PM

It amazes me what the Left considers "radical Right"
these days. "What? You're going to balance the budget in under a century? EXTREMIST!"

JmsA| 9.14.12 @ 2:03PM

Hear! Hear!

Dave Williams| 9.14.12 @ 2:35PM

...and the country would've been a whole lot better off if Goldwater had won, instead of that horse's patoot LBJ. We were functioning reasonably well until he dragged us into TWO unnecessary wars, against the Vietnamese and against poverty, and in both of which we were soundly defeated...and the scars of neither have healed. Yeah, Barry G would've been a LOT worse *sarc button off*.

Gary B| 9.14.12 @ 11:23AM

Bob K: Everything you said about Republicans is, of course, true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't heap a mountain of deserved criticism on that lawless mutt, Holder.

LyleLovett666| 9.14.12 @ 10:51AM

We're done as a free society.Every administration pushes the line of what they can legally do,but the next admin never pushes the line back.The current administration has pushed that line so far that there is no going back to the constitutional freedoms that we once enjoyed.This is the first step of governmental implementation of shartria law.Welcome to dhimmi America.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:21AM

I read that AP report last night and couldn't believe my eyes. These marxist totalitarians are something else.

Yesterday, I actually had to debate Jack'o London (along with John Navratil) on the propriety of prosecuting the guy who made the video and whether it was appropriate to report one's neighbor for making such a video!

When asked by the fascist Jack'0 whether, or not, I would "call" someone if I discovered that my neighbor was making such a movie, I asked who was I supposed to call? The movie police?
Jack'o, as usual, had no answer.

Mikey in NC was making the same argument, yesterday. He and Jack'0 want a motion picture Gestapo installed, so Americans can inform on each other if they dare make fun of he who should not be made fun of, peace be upon him.
They want sharia law in this country, like many O'Bama supporters do.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:25AM

Just to be clear, I wasn't debating Mr. Navratil. We were both smacking Jack'o the fascist around. I didn't indicate that as well as I should have. Sorry.

spike59| 9.14.12 @ 12:06PM

it may actually be true, given that psychopathic mobs and terrorists have attacked our embassies and consulates, killing our citizens and destroying our property, and the main response from our government and media is to screech about some boob who made a stupid movie no one has actually watched and to all but hand over a Google map to his home, that 'the terrorists have won'...if so, it's because the Leftists in our government and media have unilaterally surrendered!

CJW| 9.14.12 @ 1:28PM

Nick
I think Jack London is another of Purpie's names.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:56PM

They're all different people. Fraudulent though some votes may be, there ARE a lot of liberals out there.

CJW| 9.14.12 @ 5:24PM

Similar style, similar drivel, girlie talk like "ha ha," no logic, blind worship of O, the circumstantial evidence is there. They are beyond liberals, they are lefty totalitarian loons. Hence, I adress it as purpie/jack. Even if different persons, they are all functionally the same.

Who Knows?| 9.14.12 @ 11:36AM

The old saying, “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” has been updated for 2012.

History? What’s history?

How could anyone who “successfully” matriculated from the America-last public schools forget what they never learned?

The reason I start this way?

Hitler attacked Poland on September 1st, 1939. But, first, he sent some of his own troops disguised in Polish uniforms, to “fire” on Germany. Thus, Adolf could assert he was only reacting, LEGALLY, to this affront on national borders.

Who knows?

Maybe the guy who made this anti-Muslim film is a---MUSLIM.

Gotta spark the fire somehow. Anything goes, for Islamists.

There’s a whole lot of confusion for a whole lot of people, Muslims included.

It’s actually quite simple. Islam is barbarism. America is civilization. There’s no “negotiating” that black verses white difference.

Most Muslims don’t truly understand the gist of their “religion”, IMHO. Most non-Muslims are equally confused. Guys like Max Boot.

Jade12| 9.14.12 @ 11:38AM

Leftist's always blame the wrong people.
The more you appease Muslims they more they will continue to attack.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.14.12 @ 12:03PM

"Leftist's always blame the wrong people."

There are still people out there who don't think Lee Harvey Oswald was a committed communist.

Philo Vaihinger | 9.14.12 @ 1:39PM

I pretty much never agree with anybody at this site.

But I agree with you and the bulk of conservative outlets on this free speech issue, 100%.

And I agree that not just the administration but leading Democrats are doing their shameful best to divert public wrath from the Muslims who deserve it to some pitiful schmuck who does not.

I say this as a liberal who will vote the straight Democratic Party ticket this fall.

Dave Williams| 9.14.12 @ 2:42PM

Philo, you appear to be a reasonable person. Does it not bother you that for the first time in history, our country no longer has an AAA credit rating? That Obama has piled up more debt than all previous presidents COMBINED? That we are abandoning our sole ally and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel? That gas, which was under $2 a gallon when Bush left office, is now in the stratosphere?
....just wondering.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:53PM

Dave, my the non-existent one smile upon you and your (hopefully) many, many progeny. Have a lovely weekend.

It is SO important to tell god people that they are appeciated. Life is short.

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:38AM

Sorry: "good" people. Dang.

Philo Vaihinger | 9.14.12 @ 1:40PM

As for Oswald, he was a patsy.

;-)

Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.14.12 @ 2:31PM

That's what Oswald used to say before his untimely demise, but in my conversation with the Dallas police officer (McDonald) who apprehended him (whom he also attempted to kill, as he had Officer JD Tippit), he thought differently.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:08PM

Mr. Constantine,

Did Officer McDonald ever say why there were no stenographers present, or, tape recordings made of Oswald's interrogations?
Just curious.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.15.12 @ 1:17PM

He didn’t, and I didn’t ask. He didn’t really talk about the SOP for Dallas PD at the time, but I would speculate that since Miranda v. Arizona was not the law of the land until after it was released in 1966, that in 1963, the process of interrogation and obtaining confessions there did not lend themselves well to being recorded.

Officer McDonald is (or at least said he was in October of 2001 when I heard him speak and spoke to him at a homicide conference) a believer of Oswald as the lone assassin. I did hear at least one conspiracy theorist challenge his thoughts, but he was pretty steadfast. Keep in mind, this is the man who wrestled Oswald in the movie theater, grasping the revolver that Oswald had killed JD Tippitt with, while Oswald was trying to shoot him with it. While not an expert on ballistics, or the angle of shots from the Book Depository versus the grassy knoll, I did find his eye witness account of these events compelling, authoritative and believable. While there remains many questions unanswered (including yours here, for the most part), I learned from his presentation and enjoyed the opportunity to converse with him.

CJW| 9.15.12 @ 3:27PM

Albert and Nick
Mark Furhrman, the OJ detective, wrote a good book on Murder in Dallas, and Vincent Bugliosi has a huge book exaimining all the evidence and theories. Both believe Oswald was the lone gunman.

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 3:40PM

Thanks, for your reponse, Mr. Constantine. Very informative.
I, too, believe Oswald was the lone assassin.

I used to be a HUGE conspiracy nut. Like, Oliver Stone crazy. I even went to Dallas for 2 weeks, went I left the Army. That trip actually helped lead to my conversion in believing that Oswald acted alone.

I stood where Abraham Zapruder stood that terrible day, and saw for myself that you can see right over the stockade fence. If a shooter had been there, about 20ft away, Zapruder and his secretary should've seen him, or flinched, when the shot went off, no? The Zapruder film shows no sign of flinching throughout the entire shooting.

Unless, they were in on it. Which I actually considered, at one point. Such is the life of a conspiracy nut. Everyone is suspect. Even Jackie!

I still have unanswered questions. Oswald could have been involved with other leftists.
But, questions about the grassy knoll or the so-called "magic bullet" no longer bother me. All the physical evidence points to a shooter firing from the sixth floor of the TSD.
And that shooter was Oswald.

Thanks, W. I'm familiar with both books, although I haven't read either.

RCV| 9.17.12 @ 12:30PM

Most convincing analysis of Oswald as the lone gunman is Gerald Posner's "Case Closed".

spike59| 9.17.12 @ 12:36PM

as for Oswald, he was a Leftist, doing what Leftists dream of doing...

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 1:55PM

Local news here in SoCal reports that the "filmaker" is a twice convicted felon who may have violated his parole conditions by using the internet. In addition to a conviction for drug dealing, the local station reports that he served time in prison for online fraud and one of the conditions of his parole is that he stay off the internet. I have no personal knowledge whether the report is accurate, but that's what the news report was.

As Ross has noted, he also tried to deflect anger toward Jews by falsely claiming that he was an Israeli and that his financing came from American Jews.

Even scumbags like this guy have the protection of the First Amendment, but if he violated his parole, put him back in the slammer.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 1:58PM

Fine with me. But this "mob justice" tactic of exposing him to violent retribution and all-but-encouraging it is very anti-American.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 2:03PM

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as criticizing evil. The former elicits hazardous responses from reasonable, law-abiding people. The latter only causes bloodshed if the perpetrators respond criminally. There is a clear line of demarcation which these hypocritical liberals, who have always loved to tell the world that conservative Americans hate Muslims (what are the consequences of that?), choose to ignore.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 2:34PM

The Apologist-in-Chief is currently holding a political rally disguised as a memorial for the FOUR DEAD AMERICANS killed on September 11th, 2012.
Complete with four hearses in the background, and TV cameras.

Who's politicizing this atrocity, again?
I'm about to throw-up.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 3:31PM

It's what Presidents do when our diplomats are killed in the line of fire, Nick.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 4:14PM

Name one, RCV.
(And, Bubba "The Rapist" doesn't count.)

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:17PM

I know Richard Nixon attended Ambassador Cleo Noel's funeral in 1973, after he was murdered by the PLO in the Sudan. It was at a church in Washington and the burial at Arlington. There were similar funerals for other ambassadors killed by Islamic extremists -- Adolph Dubs in 1979, Francis Meloy in 1976, both of whom were buried in Arlington. I would be astonished to learn that President Carter didn't attend those, but I can't attest to that.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 6:34PM

Those are funerals, RCV.

Were they at the hangar when the bodies arrived, with a crowd, and TV cameras, televising it live?
(Oh, in the middle of a neck & neck presidential election, too?)

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:57PM

This is just a lame argument, Nick. The President should be there. These were American diplomats and supporting personnel murdered by Islamic thugs while serving our country. They deserve the honor. You're letting your rabid partisan views cloud the thinking of your otherwise fine mind.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 7:15PM

Well, RCV, if Team O'Bama hadn't gone ballistic on Romney, saying that he was "politicizing this tragedy," I might be inclined to agree with you.

But, since they did, I find it highly suspicious. Especially, since O'Bama went to sleep before he knew the status of Ambassador Stevens. Or, didn't go to his intel briefing so that he could go to a fund-raiser in Las Vegas.

Yes, I am upset about this. I'm upset about 4 dead Americans, whether they were Republicans or Democrats.
And, I'm just as upset that the actions of O'Bama will probably get more Americans killed.
Weakness always does. Sorry.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 7:28PM

We're all upset that 4 Americans were killed, Nick. And President Obama has been relentless in tracking down and killing every Al Qaeda terrorist wherever they are hiding. That's not weakness. That's determination and steel.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 7:37PM

No, RCV, the members of our military and intelligence agencies have been relentless in tracking down and killing every al Qaeda terrorist.

Thanks to the system left in place by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld. A system O'Bama has tried his darndest to unravel.

As evidence, I present the events of this past week.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:56PM

No, no he really hasn't, RCV. He has been eliminating humint sources and revealing confidential details of Special Forces Operations. He has also been doing his best to backstab Israel.

You'll see what Steel looks like when Romney gets in.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 9:50PM

Just not so. His policy was to unleash drones on Al Qaeda targets wherever they hide, and whether or not the Islamic countries concerned give their permission. In fact, he was roundly criticized by Republicans when he said he'd go after Bin Lade in Pakistan without their permission - a promise he followed up on. The claim about Bush putting this system in place is false. Bush diverted his attention from Al Qaeda with his ill-considered war on Iraq, which with the sacrifice of countless American lives, has given us a Shiite regime and a growing ally of Iran. It was a policy disaster whose implications we will live with for decades. Ironically, his intention was that a democratic regime in Iraq would inspire Arabs elsewhere in the Middle East to overthrow dictatorship in their countries. Well, it worked. And we're reaping the whirlwind.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:44PM

I'm not going to re-fight the necessity of Operation Iraqi Freedom tonight, RCV. Sorry.
Maybe tomorrow. Take care.

JD| 9.14.12 @ 4:55PM

RCV frequently excuses misbehaviors as "what politicians do", but only if those misbehaviors are perpetrated by Democrats.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 6:57PM

Just not the case, JD.

Truth to Power| 9.14.12 @ 7:22PM

Absolutely the case.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 7:29PM

Give me examples of when I have ever excused misbehavior as "what politicians do". You're such a blatant liar.

Truth to Power| 9.15.12 @ 12:58PM

1. You are a California Democrat.
2. You are an Obama supporter.

Both things have required non stop excuse making.

Say hi to your composite family. It is time to take out the trash and that should worry you.

RCV| 9.15.12 @ 7:30PM

Maybe someday you'll grow up enough to make some substantive contributions to the discussions here, instead of your juvenile ad hominem insults. You're really embarrassing to the intelligent conservatives at TAS.

Butch| 9.14.12 @ 5:59PM

The "President" went to sleep before he knew whether the diplomat was alive or dead. That's how much he cared.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 7:30PM

The President "staying up" would have done absolutely nothing. You guys will grasp at anything to slander our President.

Occam's Tool| 9.14.12 @ 7:57PM

On a completely different topic, Child's introduction to the Constitution, RCV? Any suggestions?

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 9:52PM

Occam - I've given you lists several times that you've asked, but you just ignore them! There are lots of great books my wife uses, including on by Lynn Cheney.

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:41AM

I don't ignore them, sir---I just don't see them! I am so sorry. Please forgive me. ou should know by now that I would have profusely thanked you if I saw them, as I am doing now. Lynne Cheney. Got it. Thank YOU!

Occam's Tool| 9.16.12 @ 2:42AM

Sorry: "You" should know by now---

and again, I thank you. (See, I don't ignore, and I will scan RCV and Lynne Cheney and see what I find).

RCV| 9.16.12 @ 7:48PM

At least I know you got the message! Thanks, Occam and Happy New Year!

spike59| 9.17.12 @ 12:32PM

well, i would have to agree; the President staying up, or sleeping, would have done absolutely nothing....just ask the protesters in Tehran who werer peacefully protesting their brutal government....oops, that's right, you can't-they were mowed down in the streets while he did nothing....or you could ask those people in Syria who are protesting their brutal government...oh, wait, you can't; those who aren't in hiding or under attack are already dead while he did nothing...doing nothing seems to be what he does best

cicero| 9.14.12 @ 3:29PM

Ross, the name of the government agent who was responsible for leaking the name of the movie maker was none other than Eric Holder. The same government official who was responsible for NOT prosecuting the Black Panthers who were violating the voting rights of other citizens; the same Eric Holder who was responsible for supplying guns to the Mexican cartels who murdered American boarder agents; the same . . . But you get the idea. The other government agent who should share a large portion of the blame is the guy who appointed Eric Holder.

Four more years! Four more years! fFour more years! Four. . .

Jimbobogie| 9.16.12 @ 12:48AM

Cicero, I must commend you on your investigative talent-who was your source? (Unless you're a professional journalist, of course!) I can't find any corroborating evidence.

Mike in N.C.| 9.14.12 @ 4:54PM

Have a good weekend, all.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 5:13PM

Running away, like your comrade Jack'o, Mikey?
Understandable. I wouldn't want to defend the Foodstamp President, either.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 8:48PM

I agree with the great Mark Steyn: "Every American should be ashamed of their president."

"'I thought that thing last night with the president saying he had "a tough day" and comparing the dead Americans in Libya to campaign supporters, which he did — I thought was one of the most disgraceful, inept and embarrassing performances by a head of state or government that I have ever seen,' Steyn said."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09.....z26UjMPHJJ

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 11:07PM

And there in a nutshell is the difference between today's Republican Party and the one Ronald Reagan once led.

The morning after Carter's botched Iranian hostage rescue attempt, Reagan - in the midst of a Presidential election - refused to try to gain a political advantage with a cheap shot. He said, this is not the time to play politics, but for all Americans to stand with the President. Romney has shown that he's no Reagan, and the American people recognize that and will demonstrate that judgment on election day. What should be the loyal opposition is not.

Nick| 9.14.12 @ 11:34PM

Apples and oranges, RCV.
Who was being rescued on Tuesday?

The deaths of the 4 Americans are the result of incompetence.
Why weren't all Middle Eastern embassies on high alert, during the week before the 9/11 anniversary?
Why was the "credible information" obtained 48 hours prior to the attacks ignored?
Why didn't the Marines have live ammunition?
Why was that stupid apology/statement from the Egyptian embassy released without approval from Washington?

Former Governor Reagan hammered Carter on the Iranian hostage crisis during the campaign. I remember it well. I was 12, and it was first presidential campaign that I followed closely.

Bringing up the attempted hostage rescue is a liberal talking-point that has been making the rounds for over a day, now. It is not analogous, at all.

RCV| 9.14.12 @ 11:50PM

You accept every half baked rumor you hear on its face as long as it puts our government in a bad light, Nick. The administration flatly denies it had any actionable credible information before the attack. I've seen no detailed info to dispute that. When all the actual information is in -- as it's continuing to come in on the Bush administrations's ineptness before 9/11 -- we'll be in a position to assess what mistakes, if any were made.

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 2:41PM

Since when is a news story in The Independent considered a "half baked rumor," RCV?

The administration flatly denies. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.
What else are they going to say?

And, try as you might, you can't blame this extreme case of incompetence by the O'Bama regime, that resulted in the KILLING OF FOUR AMERICANS, on former President Bush.
Deal with the facts and quit trying to deflect attention away from the Apologist-in-Chief.

RCV| 9.15.12 @ 12:24AM

It's been a talking point for over a day now, and not just among liberals, Nick, because it's a valid point. Reagan knew when partisan attacks on the President were appropriate, and when they're not. Not while tha ambassador's body is still warm.

Romney has displayed once again that while he may be a competent little technocrat, he's out of his league on the world stage. Like criticizing the Brits in the midst of their Olympic celebration. It's partly a product of having no real convictions on anything.

Truth to Power| 9.15.12 @ 1:02PM

The administration has decided to go all in with the Florida guy excuse instead of their own weakness and appeasement of bad people. We don't need to follow him down that road. It is time for a change.

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 3:02PM

It is not a valid point, at all, RCV.
As previously stated, former Governor Reagan had no problem severely criticizing Carter over his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. It was entirely appropriate for him to support the failed rescue attempt that killed 8 Americans, because the attempt was the right thing to do, even if it was too little, too late.

And, Carter was criticized heavily for the failed rescue attempt, from both sides. People were saying, "What took so long?" and "Did the military have all the support they needed?"

The left condemned the attempt to use force, as usual. Carter's own inept & cowardly Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, threw a hissy-fit, and resigned, remember?

Again, try as you might, you can't blame this extreme case of incompetence by the O'Bama regime, that resulted in the KILLING OF FOUR AMERICANS, on former Governor Romney.

Here's the Independent article, RCV, since you seem to be unaware of it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....35797.html

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 3:14PM

Also, try to remember that less than a decade ago, O'Bama was a little known state senator from Illinois. Mitt Romney was Governor of the State of Massachusetts.

If anyone is over their head, it is clearly the Apologist-in-Chief.
Which sort of explains why he went to sleep before he knew the status of Ambassador Stevens. And why he went to fundraisers on Wednesday and Thursday, instead of leading, like a real president would.

But, he did make time to receive the bodies.
Albeit, with TV cameras in tow.

RCV| 9.16.12 @ 7:55PM

...and in a few short weeks, you'll be telling us how Governor Romney was such an inept and unqualified candidate, and how Republicans should have known not to nominate him, and how conservatives knew he was headed for defeat from the start!

Nick| 9.16.12 @ 11:34PM

I doubt it, RCV. But, we shall see.
It's no secret around here that I'm no fan of Romney. But, his selection of Paul Ryan as running mate and his statement criticizing the O'Bama regime's apology, has really shown me something. (It was Romney's rebuke that caused O'Bama and Shrillary to repudiate the apology, by the way.)

If you'd read the article, you'd seen that they said, "According to senior diplomatic sources [...]." Is that what they call a "half baked rumor" in your world, RCV?

RCV| 9.16.12 @ 7:52PM

I read the Independent article, Nick, and it was devoid of any specifics that could constitute "actionable information.".

spike59| 9.17.12 @ 6:21AM

"What should be the loyal opposition is not."
=================================
and, in 2008, WAS not, at least on the part of CANDIDATE ObaMao:

http://riehlworldview.com/2012.....ccain.html

Martin kzovich| 9.15.12 @ 4:16PM

I saw on a web site that this film maker for the Cannes film festival ( You know what film I am talking about ) gave lots of money to Obama . Is this accurate ?

Martin kzovich| 9.15.12 @ 4:33PM

Watching the so called demonstrations I notice certain things. First of all the presence of the Al Quaida flag. Second the constant reference to Osama and Obama. The burning of not only American but German and Israeli and other flags.
And their occurance in so many countries.

My view this was planned, a terrorist attack, related to 9/11. Not the movie. Obama lies and so do the media and trolls. Period.

Intelligent Design| 9.16.12 @ 5:29PM

Most likely the Muslim Brotherhood coordinated the attacks. For those who don't know, the MB runs Egypt now, and it is the parent company of the terrorist organization, Hamas. The MB has pledged to destroy Western civilization from within, and it is actively involved in subversion in the U.S. via fake charities, campus groups, and mosques.

Jimbobogie| 9.16.12 @ 12:40AM

Assuming that the information was indeed "leaked", it can just as easily be argued that the source was somebody who wanted to discredit the Obama administration by generating an article like this. The last time I checked, members of the civil service are specifically hired independently from the political process. For all we know, the "leak" might have come from somebody who was hired during the "previous" administration (Republicans seem to have an aversion to saying the name "George Bush" these days). In any event, a writer with nominal experience in "Investigative Journalism" would have been able to identify the producer in a fairly short time-are you suggesting that "Freedom of the Press" should be revoked? If an Islamic filmmaker had produced something that depicted Jesus in an unfavourable light would you want his/her identity to be kept secret? Perhaps that's an unfair question since Christians seem to be far more tolerant towards those who blaspheme their religion, perhaps preferring to leave judgment to a "higher authority".

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 9.16.12 @ 3:08AM

F'ing CNN and all the other American news outlets want an outright ethnic cleansing of Coptic Christians in Egypt. To hell with the media...Western liberal scum all of them. May God protect the Coptics.

Martin kzovich| 9.16.12 @ 7:07AM

How much money are trolls being paid ?

More question: Just who is the guy who made the "film" What are his connections ? What was his motive ? ( Oh I do not believe for one secondo
that the film is the issue except as a vague analogy to the Reichstag Fire. Protein Wisdom claims that this guy gave money to Obama . Any further info on this ? It is my belief that there is a lot more to this story than we are being told for my part I suspect Obama having a hand in this scenario.

Intelligent Design| 9.16.12 @ 5:24PM

A great book to read is Marked for Death, by Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders. He's been under a Muslim death threat for years, and his book rips Islam a new one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....th-decker/

Ralph Novy| 9.16.12 @ 6:10PM

"I say this with only the slightest hint of hyperbole ...." and then you proceed with nothing but stinky, hyperbolic crap.

LMFAO.

I'm no fan of Holder -- but he apparently has more integrity in his pinky finger than you do ... blah, blah, blah.

You "stipulate" this and "admit" that regarding what this filmmaker and other "provocateurs" have done ... but then go on to put the lion's share of blame on the DOJ nonetheless.

Listen to yourself, sometime, pal!
You've become a blindered political hack.

Better yet: STOP listening to yourself and start listening to voices of reason and comity.

spike59| 9.17.12 @ 12:26PM

funny how the people who have spent so much time and $$$ chanting 'we killed bin la-den, we killed bin la-den' along with bragging about all the drone kills over the past 3 1/2 years, try to spin that it's some stupid little film trailer hardly enyone has ever seen that has our embassies and consulates under attack....

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Special Report

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?

May 14, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want

May 14, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/14/feds-put-target-on-filmmakers

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|115 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|56 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|102 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|56 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 1:07PM

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 11:14AM

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.