Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Gen.Petraeus Betrays the First Amendment

When a renowned Muslim cleric calls for the beheading of a Dutch politician, we hear nothing from Western leaders. However, when some reverend in Podunk, USA decides to burn some Quran's on his lawn, we get fiery condemnations from General Petraeus, the State Department, and the White House.

"Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt our reputation among members of the Taliban, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, or Hamas...

What if some Northerners wanted to burn a picture of Jefferson Davis during the Civil War. Could you imagine General Sherman publicly warning them not to engage in such acts lest we offend the South? Same in World War II or any other war where America's leadership actually had bothered to identify and fight our enemy. Would Petraeus have asked us to goose step around and wear swastikas while we fought the Nazi's so as not to offend them?

The very fact that an American General must issue a warning to Americans not to engage in actions protected under our Constitution is proof of the danger of that enemy! The enemy is acting to quash dissent and subjugate individuals to the dictates of Islamic law. That is why they are the enemy!

Now, I am not a fan of burning books, and I am certainly not a fan of this reverend, however, this protest is perfectly legal under the First Amendment and should be vigorously protected by our government. The First Amendment is not about protecting speech that will make everyone happy. It is about protecting speech that is likely to upset a lot of people. The armed forces exist to protect the individual rights of Americans, not to goad us into not exercising our freedom in order to not make those who oppose that freedom angry at us!

10 comments:

Perplexio said...

It was either a college professor or high school teacher who once put this ever so perfectly-- "The first ammendment is not an easy one."

The trouble in years of late is that there is a knee-jerk reaction to the first ammendment. Those who support it to uphold the rights of people who say really abhorrent things are painted as supporters of the really abhorrent things that are being said-- not as being supporters of protecting our first ammendment rights regardless of how loathsome the speech that they're attempting to protect happens to be.

Doug Reich said...

Thanks for comment.

And, what business is it of the government what private individuals do if their actions are legal? Their only job is to protect rights, not tell us what they think is right and wrong!

frank black said...

In the quote provided, he's not condemning or condoning the action, just stating the reality of the situation.
It will indeed be used as propaganda which in turn will inflame some people.

Cato said...

Hey man, I'm a student in this Podunk little town. I completely agree with your other comments though. There is a sizable movement to protest the burning here, I've been trying to explain to the those going to protest the true relation of Islam to America and Islam, enmity. We didn't shy away from identifying the Japanese as religious nutjobs, or from identifying State Shinto as a major cause of Japan's aggression, we ought to do the same in dealing with Islam.

Doug Reich said...

Frank,

I have to disagree. He expressed "concern", etc. and didn't come out and say "don't do it", of course, but just for someone of his stature to mention it at the same time intimate that it will incite violence and put troops in jeopardy is a way of saying "don't do it."

This is not the place of a General of a free nation. It is a demonstration of weakness and a resounding PR victory for the enemy. He is essentially saying to the radical Islamists, "if you threaten our people from speaking out against you, we will back down and discourage them from speaking." How should the enemy react? Should they be nervous that our military will crush them if they threaten or attack us, or should they be emboldened to continue to threaten us?

madmax said...

Here is a link to a Diana West blog post where she shows the reaction to Terry Jones from the establishment.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1508/Closing-In-Updated.aspx

I am no fan of book burning either, although I am tempted in making an exception for that loathsome book the Koran. The point is that none of this is done when a Bible or an American flag is burned, or when a figurine of Jesus Christ was placed in a jar full of urine and called art. I am not defending Christianity, only pointing out how this outrage against Jones is not motivated by anything good. It is motivated by Leftist hatred of Christianity and their desire to safeguard Islam. It is a sick perversion of the Left that they hate a watered down version of Christianity (today's Western version) but protect and embolden barbaric, Medieval Islam.

I really hate the F***ing Left.

Doug Reich said...

mad,

check out recent post at The Dougout. cartoon captures your comment perfectly.

Doug

Anonymous said...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

-
Thats it in a sentence general. You swore an oath and we pay you and every soldier to do just ONE THING, defend the constitution. Its none of your business if one koran is burned or we erect a permanent bonfire and fuel it with korans, your job is to kill anyone that tries to stop us.

Doug Reich said...

YES!!!

Doug Reich said...

Anon,

See my recent post, where I essentially make the same point:

http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2010/09/america-officially-in-dhimmittude.html

thanks!