Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Hillary to the Muslim World: "We Have Extremists, Too!"

Obama may have wrapped up his Apology Tour, but Hillary continues reassuring the world's dysfunctional cesspools that the US is no better than they are.


It really pisses me off when Americans go overseas and commiserate with the locals, voluntarily dragging down this country in a vain attempt to ingratiate themselves with people from a dysfunctional society.  It's bad enough when Ditzy Chix do it, but when a government official engages in such behavior it is particularly detestable.

Democrats in general, and Clintons in particular are especially adept.  Here’s a quote from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while visiting the Arabian peninsula, that world-renowned seat of religious tolerance and cultural understanding …
"We have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords, was just shot by an extremist in our country," she added.
"We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence." (Reuters)  
Bull Excrement! 

We do not punish women accused of adultery by burying them from the torso down and throwing rocks at their heads until they die.  We do not kill daughters for looking at a boy.  We do not collapse walls on homosexuals.  We do not blow up each others’ houses of worship and slaughter people leaving them. 

Clinton's statement is a prime example of the mushy moral equivalency and intellectual flabbiness that now grips this nation.   


Western civilization has advanced mankind to the 21st century and enjoys a level of equality for all that is unprecedented in the history of the world.  Much of the muslim world remains mired in 7th century religious bigotry, misogyny and obscurantism, witnessed by the paucity of scholarly output and the copious amount of violence spilling out of that cauldron of hatred and ignorance. 

More stupidity from our Secretary of State...
"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions,"
Again, BS!  There is no equivalency.

It is a gross insult to equate tea parties with the inflamed, sweaty middle eastern hordes with blood in their eyes, burning, bombing and slashing.  We don’t kill cartoonists here.  Christians do not murder blasphemers who sculpt our religious figures in elephant dung and dunk them in jars of urine.  Political assassinations are thankfully rare.  We don’t throw acid in womens’ faces, and we raise our daughters to believe they are in every way equal to boys and that there are no barriers to their success. 

I was starting to develop a grudging respect for Hillary, but I now see she is just another liberal with a visceral disdain for our culture and for the ordinary people that make this nation great.  

28 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Gah!

Hillary apologizing for America! That's what several of her statements amount to, anyway.

Divine Theatre said...

I purchased Hillary's book at a used book store years ago. By the way, I despise her! I convinced the clerk to sell the book to me for less because it had been defaced...Hillary had autographed it!

Lisa said...

DT -lol!!!!

I think I figured out where the term "Put a sock in it" came from.
When people like Hillary ,Obama,Pelosi, Biden, Reid stick their foot in their mouths,they should leave the sock in place.

Rob said...

The one thing I do like about this is that she used the word "extremists" rather than "terrorists."

Maybe it subtle, but I do feel that by calling nutjobs (here or abroad) "terrorists," we're giving them a certain amount of power. We're admitting that they've accomplished their goal - they've terrorized us.

Maybe Bush had it right with "evildoers." At the time, I thought it sounded kinda juvenile, but I'm starting to see the rationale behind it.

I think the President should consider mandating that anytime they're referred to in the media - be it print or broadcast - terrorists are referred to as "shitheads." Awfully hard to take 'em seriously with that moniker! "Rat bastards" would be my personal preference...

Bastiatarian said...

>"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are

Actually, she's right. We're not Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Kieth Olbermann, or any other such extremists and crazy people.

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

This is nothing new from the progressive camp. It is however by design. They need victims to survive. This applies to both American socialists and ismaofacists.

Detestable to be sure but also predictable.

thedaleygator said...

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jersey McJones said...

What are you guys upset about? Are you saying we don't have violent extremists in America?

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

There is hardly a corner of humanity without its extremists, but there is no equivalency between the civilized world and the middle east.

Also, it appears that Hilary's characterization of the murderer as an extremist is inaccurate, but liberals have done an excellent job not letting this tragedy go to waste.

Think I'm being harsh? Wait till tomorrow...

Jersey McJones said...

Americans are among the violent people on the planet, Silver. Our violent crime rates are ridiculous. We have the highest percentage of people in prison on the planet. We are a violent culture. We are a backwards culture, gun-happy and violent. Our politicians on the right pander to an imaginary notion of America as a Wild West frontier country that never was. We're quick to go to war, quick to anger, proud and boastful, arrogant, and easily led to hatred, paranoia and xenophobia.

Seems like a pretty similar problem to me!

I really don't know what you're talking about.

JMJ

Divine Theatre said...

Jersey, it is quite evident that you do not know anything about the topic of which you spew.
Americans have the lowest violent crime rate on the planet compared to countires who have outlawed guns. Further, you can thank the Drug War for the high incarceration rate, along with the prohibition of other victimless crimes such as prostitution.
Canada and England have a much higher rape and violent crime rate, per capita, than the US.
Americans are not gun happy. That is utterly asinine. Americans are freedom happy. That means we have the RIGHT to protect ourselves without waiting for some government lackey to do it for us.
Americans outgive EVERY other country on the planet. We are a charitable people, not to be confused with the Bilderberg-led thugs who run our government.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

If Hillary had won the election in 2008, our nation would still be in the same mess (or worse) as it is today under Obama. Hillary is just as much a radical leftist as Obama. They are both cut from the same 'one world' mold.

Karen Howes said...

Gah! This is what leftists do best.

And Loughner was not an "extremist", he was a NUT.

Only on the planet inhabited by "progressives" was he in any way conservative. But we can't let facts-- or tragic deaths and injuries-- get in the way of scoring cheap political points.

Jersey McJones said...

All extremists are nuts. That's why they become extremists.

Look, guys, you are suffering the failure of logic that is conservatism for the sake of conservatism.

This argument reminds me of the "global warming" "debate"...

Whether or not there is even such a thing as anthropogenic global warming, isn't it always a good idea to pollute less if we can?

Same goes for this: whether or not this was the act of a political extremism, isn't always a good idea to speak reasonably, intelligently, respectfully, truthfully and responsibly - especially in the public, political arena? Isn't that what grown-ups are suppused to do anyway?

And speaking of speaking the "truth" - Divine Theatre here says, "Americans have the lowest violent crime rate on the planet compared to countires (sp) who have outlawed guns."

That is a lie.

Only a nut... uh, er... political extremist would say such a stupid thing.

Who is he comparing us to? Third World and failed states? And even then violent crime is usually lower! I mean, really, what planet do you live on? These are the kinds of irresponsible lies that make nutty people extremists.

JMJ

Divine Theatre said...

Unfortunately the Lefty cannot discern between statistical evidence and the way he would like things to be! LOL!
Typical...and expected.
Check out the facts regarding violent crime in other countries...THEN spew, kiddo!

Finntann said...

Jersey, try these violence statistics on for size:

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1Am5HjY4o

Jersey McJones said...

Divine, (I keep picturing the late great transvestite actor from the John Waters movies ;) just kidding!), violent crime is measured in different ways by different countries. Most Western states have experienced steep declines in crime in general since the 90's. In America we only count murder (or negligent homicide, rape, robbery (not burglary), and aggravated assault as violent crimes. In Britain, which has a "higher" rate of "violent crime," they measure common street fights outside the local pub. We do not.

The United States ranks twenty-fourth in murder rates in the world. Most of the countries listed in that top twenty-five are torn by civil war or are just very poor or failed states. And remember, America has a high rate of violent crime period - not just "gun crime." Americans stab each other, beat each other, and generally physically abuse each other, in a victimizing rather than equal-fighting way, more than most other countries.

The gun makes for a great way for cowards to settle disputes, and we have far more guns than we need. And when I say "we," I mean that America manufactures far more guns than the legitimate market should be able to sell.

JMJ

Divine Theatre said...

I beg to differ with regard to which crimes are counted and which are not in this country, but I see you are not here to learn. You are here to play semantics games.
Thanks to the advent of the Welfare State the US has created lovely microcosms of violent crime, specifically in inner city arenas (pun intended)...add to that the failed Drug War that fuels and funds violent crime.
Over 99% of legal guns are never used in the commission of a crime. That is a fact.
Tell you what, you scream like a girl and throw lamps at home invaders, if that is your tradition. I will shoot them in the head.

Finntann said...

Do you want to know what the difference between America and the Middle East is Jersey?

A possibly schizophrenic nut job in America assassinates a congresswoman and >99.9% of Americans think he ought to be either executed or spend the rest of his life in prison or a mental institute.

A member of the security detail assigned to the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province assassinates him by shooting him 26-29 times for the offense of filing a mercy petition on behalf of a Christian woman (Asia Bibi) who has been sentenced to death by hanging for making derogatory remarks about the Prophet Muhammad.

A poll conducted by SiaSat.pk shows that 19.12% of the people agree with the statement "His (Salman Taseer's) statement regarding “black Law” (blasphemy) was NOT right in (a)democracy and (he) should be murdered and (the) guard is hero"

500 Scholars from Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat advising Muslims in Pakistan to refrain from joining or leading Taseer's funeral prayer or offering prayers to his soul:"There should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.”

The Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat Pakistan group of scholars making the veiled threat is actually from a moderate school of Islam in Pakistan.

In a survey released Dec. 2nd by the Pew Research Center that measured attitudes towards religion and politics among Muslims in seven nations: Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey:

In all but one of these countries, a majority of the population feels that Islam's influence in politics is a good thing. Positive reponses ranged as high as 91% (Indonesia) to 58% (Lebanon).

Attitudes towards the harsher punishments of Sharia (Islamic religious law) varied a little more though. 82% of those surveyed in Egypt and Pakistan favor stoning people who commit adultery. Similar majorities there favor whippings and/or the cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery. 84% of Egyptians and 76% of Pakistanis also favor the death penalty for apostates (people who leave Islam).

Gender separation in the workplace was favored by majorities in three of the countries (Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan, with Nigeria split 49% to 48%).

Support for suicide bombings being justified often or sometimes achieved double-digit favorability ratings in all but two of the seven countries.

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW?

If you are going to compare America with the Middle East don't you think it "isn't always a good idea to speak reasonably, intelligently, respectfully, truthfully and responsibly - especially in the public, political arena? Isn't that what grown-ups are suppused to do anyway?"

Lisa said...

Jersey did it ever occur to you that the murder rate is high due to gang activity where many murders are committed.
Yes mostly they kill each other but innocent bystanders or mistaken identity is also up among gang murder. getting hit by stray bullets.
Do you think stricter gun laws will stop that kind of violence?

Jersey McJones said...

This is a fun debate. You guys are pretty good.

Let me proffer this: American gun manufacturers produce more arms than the legitimate market can absorb.

I've looked at this question from a few different ways, admittedly seeking counter-evidence. I can't get it. Why do we produce so many more arms than the legitimate market can absorb?

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=smoking_guns_113002

JMJ

Divine Theatre said...

I suggest you read the 2nd amendment...

Silverfiddle said...

Well Jersey, you're an intellectually honest man.

I share your concern that gun manufacturers may be putting guns in the hands of criminals.

Illegal gun sales and use impugns all gun owners, which is why law-abiding gun owners are so pro law and order.

Silverfiddle said...

Finn and Divine: Thanks for bringing it! I'm honored an humbled to be in your presence.

And Lisa, thanks for the extra firepower.

...and we all argued vociferously without resorting to violent rhetoric!

Divine Theatre said...

I suppose we need to ask...how many guns do you deem to be too many?

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, you're an honest man.

Divine, I don't know. If I did, I'd tell ya'. I just think that if we as a people looked into it, we might find the arms sector over-producing weapons, and by "over-producing" I mean intentionally selling arms to disreputable marketers.

JMJ

Finntann said...

First, a little background: 25 year retired military, Marksman on M-9 and M-16, qualified on M-60, M-249, GAU-5, M870, and M1911.

Who defines "legitimate market"? And who decides what is too much? 1,2,6?

A gun is a tool, and like many tools comes in many varients with many different uses. Like a combination wrench, one caliber does not fit all applications.

The two most popular calibers for varmints are .223 or 22-250

The most popular for deer is the 30-06, although in some states deer are hunted with shotgun (NJ I believe is one of them)

For Elk the most popular calibers are the .270, 7mm Mag, or .308

For Moose I wouldn't use anything smaller than a .300 Mag

If I'm partial to small birds I might be hunting with a .410

For turkey, probably a 12 gauge.

Some folks hunt bear with a sidearm (I'm not one of them), in which case your talking something from a .357 up to a .500

If I'm hunting in black powder season we're talking a .50 muzzleloader most likely.

If I hunt in different states, regulations vary... I could hunt in primative weapon season with a sidehammer in some states, a centerline in others.

If I engage in competition shooting I might have a high quality .22 but I wouldn't use it for home defense.

Personally, I would use a .45 or 10mm for self-defense, but I'm a big guy... my wife would probably better off with a 9mm.

What am I up to? 11 guns just for me? All with legitimate and legal uses. 12 if my wife has a self-defense gun? What? 22 if we are both avid hunters and hunt together?

Most hunters I know have more than one weapon, each for a different application.

Just as people collect Hummel figurines, some people collect guns, antique or otherwise. The majority never engage in criminal activity with them.

Your cited article equating firearm registration with auto registration falls short. First, I don't have a constitutional right to an automobile. Second, automobile registration illustrates two things, the payment of excise tax and in most states proof of insurance at the time of registration. Taxes for the Department of Wildlife, or Fish and Game depending on where you are are collected through the appropriate license fees for the game you are going to take, not off the weapon.

Personally, I have no qualms about requiring a firearm qualification card being required for purchase of a weapon, perhaps two classes of license one for handguns, one for long weapons.

As far as gun laws go, I live in an open carry state (Yes, I can strap a .45 on my hip and go wandering about town...or the woods), and concealed carry must be issued absent a felony conviction or history of mental illness.

The violent crime rate for my metro area is 4.9/1000 and the murder rate is .04/1000... compare that to places with restrictive gun laws (non-permissive open carry) of roughly the same size population:

Boston: Violent Crime 9.92 and a murder rate of .08

Miami: Violent Crime 11.09 and a murder rate of .14

Oakland, CA: Violent Crime 16.79 and a murder rate of .26

Newark: Violent Crim 9.3 and a murder rate of .29

Washington DC: Violent Crime 12.65 and a murder rate of .24

These are all medium sized metropolitan areas with a population roughly between 300K and 600K

Figures all come from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009

Are there restricted carry areas with better figures than my area? Not realy. Are there open carry areas with worse figures? Yes.
The point is that restrictive gun laws do little to improve the crime statistics in the areas they are imposed. Statistics also tend to indicate that where gun laws are liberal (hey...isn't that funny?) violent crime goes down.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey,
Finn pretty much nailed it. I read the article and it featured criminal gun dealers. Shut them down and put them in jail. End of story.

I didn't see any data pointing to them producing more than the market can bear. I own a lot of guns, I won't say how many, but if our house was under attack we'd have one for every window with a few left over for backup.

So I'm open to the argument, I just haven't heard any facts yet.

Here's more food for thought: Why does gun-grabber New Jersey have more per capita gun violence than open carry Colorado?