Islamofascists declare war on America— and Obama administration apologizes!

And there are people who believe he deserves a 2nd Term. I DO NOT AND NEVER WILL.

Islamofascists declare war on America— and Obama administration apologizes!
Written on Sunday, September 16, 2012 by Nathaniel Davidson

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.”—Winston Churchill
“It’s OK to burn a Bible, that’s OK. OK to burn a flag, OK, that’s all right. But just, you know, for heaven‘s sake don’t say anything that might offend someone of the Islamic religion.”— Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), parodying Obama and his lackeys

On the 11th anniversary of the 9-11 atrocity, more Islamofascists launched a murderous assault on several American embassies in the Middle East. According to centuries of tradition and international law, an embassy from any country is a part of that country. Even worse, the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was brutally raped and murdered, then dragged through the streets by the baying bloodthirsty mob. Ambassadors legally have the full authority to represent the government of their host country, and are formally addressed by a form equivalent to that of the head of state himself, “Your Excellency.”

Obama administration apologizes—to murderers of Americans!

The twin outrages of attacking American soil and the representative of the American head of state should make it clear that they were acts of war against America. But what has the Obama administration done? Why, it apologized for offending the delicate sensibilities of the Muslim darlings.

The most infamous came from the US embassy in Egypt, and it was actually before the atrocities:

“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.”

Among other things, it shows that the Islamofascists don’t care about apologies. Most Patriots would rather see an apology to the families of the ambassador and the three other murdered staff. And while they’re at it, how about apologizing to Catholics and Evangelicals (like Hobby Lobby) for having their religious consciences trampled by Obamacare, casualties of Obama’s war against the Church.

Newt Gingrich showed up the Democrats’ cowardice and self-delusions in his usual brilliant fashion:

“President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again perpetuated the kind of intellectual dishonesty that cripples the U.S. response to radical Islamists. The president asserted we have to oppose “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.” Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, “We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence.”

“This concept of ‘senseless violence’ is at the heart of the left’s refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists. These are not acts of senseless violence. These are acts of war.”

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/islamofascists-declare-war-on-america-and-obama-administration-apologizes#ixzz26gtT9rzw

15 Comments

  1. Yorkshire quotes this, then misconstrues it as apeasement and apology:

    “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.”

    Only someone on the radical right would this statement ever be considered an apology. As a matter of fact, this screed is every bit as radical as the Islamofacists themselves are. That, Yorkshire, is exactly the position in which you have placed yourself. You ought to think about that.

    The fact is, the Egyptian embassy statement was indicating that the message of the amateur video in question did not reflect either American attitudes or policies. We do not paint all those of the Islam religion with the broad stroke of condemnation which was indicated in the message of the video.

    That you would need a person like myself to come here to point out this obvious fact to you reflects on your radicalism on this issue, Yorkshire. Personally, I expect better from you. If it had been John Hitchcock, well this brand of extremism is to be expected; but I would expect better from you!

  2. WW, did the filmmaker have the right to make his film, no matter how misguided it was, under the first amendment? If not, why not? What law did he break? Inquiring minds want to know.

  3. Yorkshire, yes, the film maker had every right to make and promulgate his film. And, government officials and others had every right to publicly rebuke the film and the authors for it. There was no appeasement and apology there, which is the point I tried to make.

  4. Passive-Aggressive Idiot Perry: Tell that to the federal officials who took one of the filmmakers into custody. I am certain you would LOVE this to happen to those like myself, Hitchcock, Eric, Hoagie, et. al.

    No, wrong again koolo; another “F” for you for relying on anything that InstaPundit says.

    Here is the truth:

    Nakoula was taken in for questioning early Saturday morning, but was not under arrest.

    Being taken in for questioning is not being taken into custody, because he was not detained or arrested!

  5. WW:
    Here is the truth:

    Nakoula was taken in for questioning early Saturday morning, but was not under arrest.

    Being taken in for questioning is not being taken into custody, because he was not detained or arrested!

    So why is he being questioned at all? If under the first amendment he was able to make his film, it should be case closed no laws were broken. Questioning him suggests he broke a law. Or is this intimidation? If no law is or should be in question, then it’s intimidation which then becomes a slippery slope.

  6. Now it’s coming out that the raid on the Consulate in Benghazi was “Preplanned” by Al-Q instead of what Amb Rice has said. No demonstrations were going on before they raided the Consulate. It seems Amb. Rice’s “Protestors” came heavily armed with heavy weapons and a few RPG to fire at the Consulate. It also has been reported the Amb. there was raped or sodomized several times by the adherents of the religion of “Love and Peace”. (Guess they ran out of goats) And don’t forget this happened on 9/11′s 11th anniversary. It strongly appears this was NOT about the movie. The movie is a cover story by the BO Maladministration. And BO said all muslims will love us when he took office. Another promise shredded.

  7. So why is he being questioned at all? If under the first amendment he was able to make his film, it should be case closed no laws were broken. Questioning him suggests he broke a law. Or is this intimidation? If no law is or should be in question, then it’s intimidation which then becomes a slippery slope.

    Here is my guess, Yorkshire: He may have been under suspicion of being a terrorist himself, intending to foment unrest and anti-American feelings in the Middle East. Were you a law enforcement authority in the vicinity, I am pretty sure you would have taken the same precautionary action, correct?

  8. Here is my guess, Yorkshire: He may have been under suspicion of being a terrorist himself, intending to foment unrest and anti-American feelings in the Middle East. Were you a law enforcement authority in the vicinity, I am pretty sure you would have taken the same precautionary action, correct?

    So, I perceive you want to charge this man of a crime he didn’t commit.

  9. Were you a law enforcement authority in the vicinity, I am pretty sure you would have taken the same precautionary action, correct?

    No, because there was zero evidence he had done anything wrong. It’s not illegal to make a movie poking fun at Muslims, and that was all he did.

  10. Two FACED Muslims, or Dems. Take your pick:

    Anti-Islam Filmmaker Donated Million Dollars to Obama Campaign
    Monday, September 17, 2012

    Bill Maher made a comedy/documentary called “Religulous” that’s most famous for mercilessly mocking Christianity. But what people forget is that the last twenty-minutes or so of the film make a damning case against Islam.
    Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.

    Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC.

    And I’m sure that upon being reminded of this, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tremble with self-righteous indignation and demand Maher take his money back.(HAHAHAHAHAHA, Yeah, RIGHT!)

    After all, if movies create the terrorists who in turn create the terrorism, what about Bill Maher?

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/29539/anti-islam-filmmaker-donated-million-dollars-to-obama-campaign#ixzz26m4FGcae

  11. And, government officials and others had every right to publicly rebuke the film and the authors for it.

    And when will those same government people rebuke those who offend Christians, like Bill Maher? Oh, that won’t happen, Maher gave $ 1million to Obama’s campaign.

  12. What dids you say. “And, government officials and others had every right to publicly rebuke the film and the authors for it.”

    Are you of your fucking mind? TThere are zero…say again..ZERO”government officals” who can say about our Free speach. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. What, are you some knid of fuckin’ nut?

  13. Being taken in for questioning is not being taken into custody, because he was not detained or arrested!

    LOL! Riiiiight. He was taken into custody for questioning. Better?

    (Just imagine PAP’s reaction if this occurred under a Republican administration, and the filmmaker did a parody of evangelicals …)

Comments are closed.