Hot Air’s Tina Korbe has put up a post regarding Sandra Fluke’s rejection of Rush Limbaugh’s apology. Does this really surprise anyone? Does anyone think that a woman who spoke before a Democrat-only Congressional hearing and lied that she and her friends spent nearly a thousand dollars a year (three-thousand during her time in law school) on contraceptives, would show the slightest bit of class and accept Rush’s apology? Let’s be honest, she’s a political prostitute. She’s willing to sell herself to push a radical feminist agenda, and to accept Rush’s apology now would not be in her interests.
Before discussing this point further, let’s go back to who Sandra Fluke actually is. Despite what we’ve been hearing in the media, as Jammie Wearing Fools uncovered, Fluke is a 30-year-old political activist, more specifically, a radical feminist, who targeted Georgetown Law because its insurance didn’t cover contraceptives. She’s the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, a pro-abortion group that is dedicated to fighting the “criminalization of abortion.” If you want to know what that means, give some of their writings a read. Here’s a quote from Mallory Carlberg, a member of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, responding to a pro-life rally at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
I was so glad that OU LSRJ was able to take part in bringing conversations about the potential for State abuse to the law school. Unfortunately, the student population at most law schools is still overwhelmingly white and middle to upper class. For most, privilege allows us to ignore the ways state policies like the drug war are being used in a racist and classist manner to target certain populations for control. We are more likely to trust state actors because our experiences with police and judges are often positive. It is critically important that we be exposed to discussions on ways State power can be used to oppress not protect people since we are the next generation of policy makers. It is unlikely that many law students will ever experience this oppression firsthand, but it is a reality for countless people in this country. Ignoring this reality perpetuates an unjust judicial system – an unjust judicial system that, as last night’s talk and the recent push for personhood amendments across the nation show, has the potential to be used to strip anyone of their status as a full Constitutional person upon becoming pregnant.
An “unjust judicial system” that oppresses non-whites and the poor? Being “white and middle to upper class,” we can’t understand the tyranny of “State power”? This group is anything but mainstream. This kind of nonsense is fringe-left radicalism. As Mark Levin said last Friday, Sandra Fluke and this group represent the radical feminism of the 1960s. This has nothing to do with “women’s rights.” It’s about forwarding a radical pro-abortion agenda.
Now who is Roxana Mayer? How does she fit into this? Patterico’s Pontifications exposed her as a political prostitute. She pretended to be a pediatric primary care physician at a town hall event hosted by Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee. She didn’t even live in Jackson Lee’s district, and yet, went to the event, pretended to be a doctor to provide the Houstan Democrat cover for supporting ObamaCare. Just like now with Sandra Fluke, the media wasn’t willing to challenge her claims, let alone do their jobs in determining whether she was who she claimed to be. It was only when those like Patterico exposed Mayer as a fake, that the media took steps in corrected their stories.
As of now, the media still pretends that Sandra Fluke is a young student who is somehow being put upon by Georgetown Law. Why haven’t they asked her about her being the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice? Why haven’t they questioned her claim about the cost for contraception she quoted before Congress? Why haven’t they asked why she was brought before Congress in the first place? As HowTheWorldWork’s Lee Doren asked, why didn’t the media investigate her extrodinary claims?
I’m sure Lee knows why there were no follow-up questions. As with Roxana Mayer, the truth doesn’t matter when it could jeopardize their political agenda.
In the end, I don’t think Rush Limbaugh should have apologized. His point was clear, he repeated it to make sure it was clear, and yet it was twisted by Democrats and the media to portray him, as well as all conservatives commentators (as per Sandra Fluke’s statements on ‘The View’ concerning a “a segment of our political commentators” hat-tip NewsBusters.org) as misogynists. Apologizing, even the way he did, is a surrender. Rush wasn’t mistaken in his argument, and while his choice of words may be offensive to the easily-offended (are they also offender when Ed Shultz and Bill Maher insult women or just when conservatives use certain words?), he was correct in his assessment of Fluke’s character.
If the media wasn’t dedicated to discrediting conservatives and forwarding Barack Obama’s radical agenda, maybe they would have done their job and exposed Sandra Fluke. All this fiasco really does is prove that many of them are also political prostitutes. Pathetic…
UPDATE:Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain has uncovered even more about Sandra Fluke. As Byron York at the Washington Examiner stated, Fluke was added to February 16 House hearing on the contraceptive mandate issue at the last minute without the mandatory 72-hour advanced notice, and thus wasn’t allowed to testify. We are now beginning to understand why Democrats wouldn’t want Republicans to challenge Fluke’s claim to expertise relevant to the subject of the hearing. The 30-year-old activist, it seems, not only wants contraceptives covered by private insurers, but “gender reassignment” surgeries too. I wonder what else she would want taxpayers to pay for eh?
Hot Air’s Tina Korbe has been following this story (here’s the link to her previous post). Rush Limbaugh doesn’t actually say it, despite what you’re hearing in the media, but it is certaintly implied that Sandra Fluke isn’t a lady. Here’s the video via therightscoop.
Today White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that Barack Obama expressed “disappointmnent” that Sandra Fluke has been subjected to “inappropriate personal attacks.” So it’s okay to bring her out to attack Catholics and religious freedom, but to challenge Fluke’s claims and to treat her like the sex-crazed individual she apparently is, according to CNS News’ Craig Bannister who ran the numbers on how much sex she and her friends must be having to be spending $3000 on contraceptives during their time in law school, that’s is somehow wrong?
This whole contraceptive argument has been about one thing, and it’s not “women’s rights.” It’s about forwarding a pro-abortion agenda against the wishes of moral Americans. Catholics and their supporters aren’t standing outside pharmacies to keep women from getting contraceptives, but this administration wants the American people to believe that that’s exactly what is going on, and somehow, by forcing religious organizations to go against their faith, we will perserve the status quo.
Rush Limbaugh is right. Sandra Fluke is, by any definition, a prostitute. She’s sold herself to politicians who have a warped political agenda to push. What’s pathetic is that she’s a cheap prostitute, selling herself for contraceptives.
UPDATE:Michelle Malkin is weighing in on this. While I don’t agree that she isn’t a prostitute, I do agree that she is indeed the latest “tool of the Nanny State,” and “a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.” Malkin also makes the point that this incident once again shows the doublestandards of the left who are constantly referring to conservative women by deragatory terms. I would say that at least when we use these words, it isn’t baseless slander.
I recommend my readership give Michelle Malkin’s post a read. There’s a link there to Jammie Wearing Fool’s post on this 30-year-old activist, not 23-year-old student. Apparently, Fluke chose to attend Georgetown Law specifically because it’s insurance policy didn’t cover contraceptives. With the Democrat’s attack on religion through this contraceptive mandate just starting, doesn’t this whole affair sound a little too convenient to anyone else?
UPDATE:Blazing Cat Fur just posted a link to quickmeme’s Sandy Fluke page. If you have don’t have delicate sensibilities and aren’t easily offended, I recommend you give it a look.
UPDATE:Here’s another link because the content at the one above was being removed for some reason.
Found this pinned to an announcement board at Carleton University. Thank God for the horrible weather we’ve been having lately eh?
What’s puzzling about these ‘Occupy’ groups is that they really have no reason to come to Canada. The protests around the United States don’t even have a coherent message, so what’s the reason for starting protests here? We just had two elections recently, one federal and one provincial, so what’s this nonsense about “we will no longer remain silent.” If you voted, you weren’t “silent,” your political desires were heard. Like it or not, that’s how our political system works.
Shortly after protesters learned they’d be able to stay in Zuccotti Park indefinitely, violence broke out Friday morning as a group marched away from it.
Demonstrators clashed with officers while marching to Wall Street’s landmark Bull. Police said arrests — of which there were more than a dozen — were mainly for blocking traffic. Protesters chanted “The whole world is watching” during the arrests…
Does this really surprise anyone? This isn’t the first incident of violence we have seen so far, and I’m positive it won’t be the last.
In any event, residents of Ottawa will have to prepare themselves for the presence of an unruly mob for at least the next few weeks. One can only hope that the weather will be bad enough that even with the kind of funding the other ‘Occupy’ protests have been receiving (you didn’t really think this was an actual “grassroots movement” did you?), they won’t be occupying Confederation Park for long.
UPDATE: Thanks goes to MrAdBaculum for this video of a Marxist-Leninist at the ‘Occupy Ottawa’ protest not only defending Muammar Gaddafi but calling for the destruction of Israel (hat-tip Blazing Cat Fur).
Did anyone else find his anti-Israel/anti-semitic comments just a bit too much to stomach? Blaming the Jews for the world’s problems is one thing, it’s fairly common on the far-left, but calling for the destruction of the state of Israel really crosses the line.
He’s not the only one with these belief though. In fact anti-semitism seems to be a common theme at these ‘Occupy’ protests. Here’s a video from Reason TV of a Los Angeles Unified School District worker doing her best impression of Adolf Hitler.
Zombie at the PJ Tatler has many more examples of anti-semitism from the ‘Occupy Los Angeles’ protest for those who believe these displays of Jew-hatred are just isolated incidents.
One has to wonder how long it will be before the media reports on this. Will it be before or after these protesters express their Jew-hatred through violence? Pathetic…
Before I start I would like to say that my thoughts and prays go out to the victims and families of the victims of today’s attacks. I couldn’t imagine the horror they must be going through at this hour as we’re all still trying to sort out what happened, who’s responsible and what their motives were. As of now, it appears that a Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, is to blame. This from the Toronto Sun(hat-tip Michelle Malkin).
Anders Behring Breivik is a conservative Christian who enjoys classical music and the video game World of Warcraft.
Breivik has been named by several Norwegian media outlets as the suspected shooter at a youth camp in Oslo, where 10 people were killed Friday and he may be linked to a bombing near the prime minister’s residence that killed seven others.
On his Facebook page, which appears to only have been started July 17, Breivik mostly posted music videos and said his interests include hunting and bodybuilding.
Under education, Breivik wrote he studied independently, noting he has “approximately 14,500 hours of study” equivalent to a bachelor of business administration and masters in history, as well as “3,000 hours of study in micro and macro finance, religion.”
His profile also says he’s a director at a company called Breivik Geofarm.
He lists himself as single and has five profile photos – four of which are headshots, and one of him at a wedding with two women, one of which is the bride.
A Twitter account is also being linked to Breivik, although there is just one tweet on July 17.
“One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests,” he wrote.
The television station TV 2 in Norway reported Breivik had right-wing extremist tendancies and had two guns registered under his name.
VGTV reported Breivik was unknown to police prior to Friday’s shooting.
So, at this time, the main suspect for the horrific attacks is the exact opposite of who many assumed was behind this attack. Once this information came to light, however, those on the left quickly blamed Christianity and conservatism for these terrorist attacks. Anyone looking for examples of this twisted logic need not look any further then the comments section of the Huffington Post’s most recent article on this tragedy. Here are some examples.
ElBruce – So this means all Christian conservatives must be subjected to additional scrutiny and security procedures? You know, like they were saying Muslims should?
Szanbar – If a Muslim had done this, it would have been the Main news for at least next week, on this website, CNN, FOX, BBC, Drudge report, Yahoo etc etc.. Since the killer is a Christian terrorist, this news has been so conveniently dropped to 3rd or 6th place, on this website and is already missing from all the major media outlets (At least in USA).. That stupid Drudge is still linking to a bogus story about some Global Jihad BS.. Good Job media. Lets get back to Obama bashing, since it wasn’t a muslim…
lonewolfwisconsin – Holy Cow!! Teabagger disease has spread to Norway???
aonorat – Just another example that proves that no particular religion or group has exclusive ownership of terrorist acts. Plenty of other examples exist, to include Timothy McVeigh here in the USA. Hope we don’t send our troops to Norway to prevent Christian terrorists from establishing a safe haven there. (sarcasm) These are crimes against humanity by fanatics or lunatics which require bringing the specific culprits to justice as opposed to engaging in broad scale military ventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eddy333 – The minute they said the shooter was blonde and spoke Norwegian I knew what was coming next. All too predictable given the delusions the far right engage in–no matter what the country.
lovethesinner – “… he describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.”
I half expected them to say, “and Fox News analyst” at the end, there.
PanFx – Regardless of how real the proof that the perpetrator is a white Christian male, conservatives will deny it. Most of those deniers will do it only because they want to get a reaction out of their counterparts. It helps soothe their bruised ego after realizing that they are no better than the Taliban. It also soothes their cognitive dissonance, which as of late, is in overdrive.
TeraWatt60 – We now have proof that the Tea Party is helping the American Economy ….they have exported their nutt.iness to Norway!! Sharron Angle and her “2nd Amendment Remedy” is now an international sensation !
This is just some of the twisted comments I found in the comments section. It’s good to see that many have been removed by moderators, and that there are quite a few comments from more individuals pointing out that this isn’t “Christian terrorism” or “conservative terrorism.” The problem, however, is that the majority of comments are similar to those I have posted. As per usual, the Huffington Post’s readership doesn’t fail at reaching new lows.
Aside from these anti-Christian and anti-conservative comments, there are many, on the Huffington Post comment section and on other pages from people who believe that the media was too quick in blaming these attacks on Islamic terrorists. In response to them, I have two points to make. Firstly, Islamic fundamentalism has become a serious problem in Norway. If it isn’t Islamic radicals like Mullah Krekar, who preaches about the “eventual” Islamic domination of Europe and his support for armed jihad, its the assault raping of young Norwegian girls by Muslim men. Secondly, it was only after “Helpers of Global Jihad” took credit for the attacks that the media began treating this as another case of Islamic terrorism. The Guardian has a timeline of today’s events which puts this at roughly two-and-a-half overs after the first attack. It definitely wasn’t a rush to judgement, especially seeing as many in the media would rather ignore stories about Islamic terrorism. Case in point, the lack of coverage of the United Airlines Flight 944 incident earlier this month.
In any event, at this point we don’t know exactly why Anders Behring Breivik committed these horrible acts. My best guess is that he believed Norway’s Labour Party was to blame for the country’s problems, and that destroying them would somehow save his country. This kind of twisted nationalism is reminiscent of Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage in Tucson, Texas. Until we have more details, there isn’t anything more I can say.
I will hopefully be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Michelle Malkin’s newest post raises two points in particular about yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. The first point is that, despite what those on the left believe, it wasn’t Christians who were praising the actions of Anders Behring Breivik. Matter of fact, Christians were condemning the attacks before and after it was learned who was responsible. On the other hand, as the Jawa Report reported yesterday, Muslims leaders like Britain’s Anjem Choudary were praising the attacks. Choudary himself tweeted that “The Norwegian regime & Stoltenberg should not have sent their troops to kill Muslims in Afghanistan or mistreated the scholar Mullah Krekar!” Aside from the fact that “Helpers of Global Jihad” initially took credit for the attacks, is it any wonder why the media was focused on Islamic terrorists?
This leads to the second point, that the left somehow believes these Muslim extremists are owed an apology for being blamed for yesterday’s terrorist attacks. It isn’t just the usual suspects at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos either who believe this nonsense. As Michelle wrote, a writer for the Atlantic, James Fallow, believes that Jennifer Rubin, who wrote a piece earlier yesterday for the Washington Post concerning Islamic fundamentalism in Norway, should apologize for it. The only thing Fallows’ incoherent rant does is highlight the warped mentality of those who share his social and political beliefs. Why should there be any apology when these people not only praised the attacks, but some even took credit for them? Only those with a twisted sense of reality could believe that these wannabee terrorists were mistreated by yesterday’s media coverage.
Once again, I will be updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE:Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik. As usual, I recommend my modest readership give his post a read. Ed draws a comparison between Breivik’s actions and those of Timothy McVeigh, instead of Jared Lee Loughner. It’s easy to understand why considering the use of an explosive device to attack a government building, but we don’t know at this point whether or not Breivik was part of paramilitary group, or whether or not his actions were fueled by political ideology similar to McVeigh’s. I won’t make definite statements about his motivations without the evidence to back it up.
Aside from this, I would like to address this idea that Breivik is a “Christian conservative terrorist.” At this time, there are conflicting reports about his religious beliefs. I have been reading various sites which claim that Breivik wasn’t a Christian, but instead a Freemason. That being said, none of the eye witness accounts have him quoting the Bible or any Masonic text, as Islamic terrorists do. Simply put, just because he is a member of a particular faith, it doesn’t mean that he is a religiously motivated terrorist. In fact, I believe all signs, at this point at least, point his actions being politically motivated.
So if this is politically motivated, does that mean he is a “conservative terrorist”? Once again, as I stated previously, his political beliefs are warped. Just as Jared Lee Lougher’s motivations were only understandable only to him alone, I believe this may also be the case for Breivik’s motivations. If his actions were indeed due the result of his hatred for Islamic fundamentalism as many have been saying, why didn’t he target a Muslim leader like Mullah Krekar? At least then his actions would have made more sense. If it was the Labour Party’s push for multiculturalism, why didn’t Breivik’s writings, as far as we know, speak of his hatred for non-Muslim minority groups? Why were was the target of his attacks the Labour Party and not minority groups? Simply put, there is some warped reason for these attacks that makes sense to Breiviki, but probably won’t make sense to anyone else.
In any event, aside from reports of a possible second gunman, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of new information. When more information does become available, I will update this blog entry.
The whole world now knows Anders Breivik is a heartless, cold-blooded killer.
The suspected right-wing zealot has already taken responsibility for the deadly bombing in Oslo, Norway, and the shooting spree on nearby Utoeya island that, together, have claimed nearly 100 lives, most of them youths, and wounded at least as many more.
But on Monday, the 32-year-old is expected to answer the question everyone is asking:
Why?
“He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” defence lawyer Geir Lippestad told TV2 news on Saturday.
Lippestad’s client apparently has told him he is willing to explain himself when he makes his first court appearance on Monday.
Shortly after the bombing of a downtown Oslo government building, a man dressed in a police uniform opened fire on hundreds of youths on the island 30 kilometres away.
The shooting rampage went on for 90 minutes.
When a SWAT team finally arrived, acting police chief Sveinung Sponheim said Breivik immediately surrendered and confessed to both attacks.
Police also said the accused, who belonged to an anti-immigration party and wrote blogs attacking multiculturalism and Islam, had been unknown to them.
In a YouTube video promoting a fight against Islam, Breivik is seen wearing a wetsuit and pointing an automatic weapon.
Forensics officers gathered evidence at a small farm in the village of Aasta, about 160 km north of Oslo, that was allegedly leased by Breivik two months ago.
Half a dozen bags of fertilizer could be seen stacked against an outbuilding on the property. But it’s not yet known if fertilizer was used to make the bomb that rocked Oslo.
Arild Tangen, a taxi driver who claims he drove Breivik from a train station to the farm on Thursday around 1 p.m., said he did not know the accused, but he seemed to be “a nice guy.”
“He seemed like an up-and-coming businessman coming right from the job,” Tangen told Reuters. “I could never imagine he could have done something like that.”
If Breivik is convicted on terrorism charges, he would face a maximum of 21 years in prison, police said.
It seems that the we’re all going to be learning more about Breivik’s motives very soon. I still, however, find it troubling that there seems to be a significant disconnect between his anti-Islamic positions and these attacks on the Labour Party. If he was so intent on a fight with Islam, why didn’t he target Muslim leaders like Mullah Krekar? Does he believe that the Labour Party is a pawn of Muslim fundamentalists? I expect his reasoning to be that of a deranged conspiracy theorist.
I will continue updating this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE: Here’s a few more posts concerning the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway.
Donald Douglas at American Power Blog has a post up concerning Anders Behring Breivik’s apparent political motives. Douglas makes the point that an anti-immigration, pro-homosexual and pro-Israel is far from the platform of a far-right extremist, especially in Europe where far-right groups are traditionally anti-homosexual and anti-Israel.
Mark Humphrys points out in his post that “for all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.” Looking at Breivik’s manifesto, which includes the forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity, the destruction of mosques and Islamic centers, and the use of terrorism against political opponents, it’s not hard to see why Humphrys would make this assertion. I highly recommend my modest readership give Humphrys’ post a read because sheer amount information it provides on Breivik’s political beliefs.
Celestial Junk has a post up concerning the ninety minutes it took for police to get to Utoya after receiving calls for help as Breivik, and possibly another suspect, started opening fire on Workers’ Youth League (Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking or AUF in Bokmål) summer camp attendees. As Celestial Junk pointed out, considering that the region is dominated by water and mountains, why wasn’t there any boats or helicopters on standby? Do Norwegian authorities even have a special police force on standby in case of such an emergency? If so, why did it take them so long to get to Utoya? One wonders if the media will tear itself away from the “Christian conservative terrorist” meme long enough to ask these questions.
…Within its Judaic mundane-societal context, the Sabbath Goy [Breivik] is simply there to accomplish some minor tasks the Jews cannot undertake during the Sabbath. But within the Zion-ised reality we tragically enough live in, the Sabbath Goy kills for the Jewish state. He may even do it voluntarily…
Atzmon wasn’t the only one pushing this warped belief. Swedish-Algerian journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya also believes at Breivik’s actions were part of a greater Israeli conspiracy against Muslims.
I blame two parties in the West [for the Norway attacks] – the extremist right and the Israeli Mossad… You will witness similar operations in Denmark, in Sweden, in Iceland, in Finland, and in Britain. This is [part of] the Zionist strategy of ridding Europe of its Muslim population under the slogan of preventing Islam from settling in Europe, so that Europe will continue to support the Zionist entity…
In my opinion, this derangement rivals Breivik’s. As I stated previously, Muslims weren’t the target of Breivik’s attacks. If this was an Israeli conspiracy against Muslims, why would they target Norway’s Labour Party? I also recommend my modest readership give Aussie Dave’s post a read, if for nothing else than to better understand how twisted those who believe this nonsense are.
Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for posting these links to posts about or related to this story.
UPDATE: More nonsense from those on the left about how those on the right are to blame for the terrorist attacks in Oslo, Norway. Here’s the segment from ‘Jansing and Company’, with Chris Jansing “interviewing” (and I use that term loosely) Michael Isikoff (hat-tip Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs).
Is it any wonder why MSNBC’s ratings are so bad? This wasn’t an interview, it was a rant, a collection of loaded questions and baseless claims. Firstly, there is no proof of a “surge in right wing attacks.” There’s a surge in Islamic terrorist attacks, but unless you count mentally deranged people with far-left political beliefs (Amy Bishop, Joseph Andrew Stack and John Patrick Bedell to name a few) as “right wing extremists,” then there isn’t any evidence to back up this claim.
Secondly, this talk about how the “real threat” is the “fringe, extremist terrorist groups on the right feeding off islamophobia” is nonsense. What about the very real threat of Muslim fundamentalism? Those like Isikoff would rather invent bogeymen than address issues like the assault raping of Norwegian girls by Muslim men (same link as above). How about the calls for jihad by those like Mullah Krekar? To those on MSNBC, to even raise that issue makes you an “islamophobe.” To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, there isn’t anything irrational about a fear of people who advocate violence against unbelievers.
If MSNBC had standard, not only would they apologize for airing this segment, but fired Chris Jansing for this unsupported and downright hateful nonsense. Pathetic…
UPDATE: Instead of updating this post, I have put up a new post discussing this anti-Christian narrative the media is now pushing. While it’s pathetic to see how dishonest and irresponsible these so-called “journalists” have become, it was inevitable when Anders Behring Breivik was revealed to not be a Muslim terrorist. Pathetic…
Benjamin Haas, communication studies graduate student, will burn an American flag tomorrow at noon on the Parade Ground as part of a peaceful protest, according to Cody Wells, Student Government president.
Wells said Haas is exercising his First Amendment right to burn the flag. The burning comes nearly a week after Isaac Eslava was taken into custody after cutting down and burning the American flag flying over the War Memorial and stealing the University flag.
Wells said Haas went through University procedure to host tomorrow’s protest, and he also went through the procedure to organize a “peaceful assembly in response to recent flag burnings.”
“We’re going to respect his First Amendment right to burn our American flag,” Wells said.
He added he and others will then “exercise our own First Amendment rights” by holding their own ceremony.
Tomorrow at 1 p.m., Wells is organizing a ceremony to say the pledge of allegiance and sing the national anthem. Wells said he has a trumpet player lined up for the ceremony and he hopes he will have cadets there.
Though Wells is the SG president, he said his assembly is not related to or sponsored by SG, but by him “as an individual.”
If you want to know more about Isaac Eslava, I recommend Weasel Zippers’ post. Suffice to say, Benjamin Haas, the student behind today’s event, probably wasn’t expecting this kind of reaction from the student body. Thanks to Aurelius at Pundit Press for the videos.
and…
Does this mean that the crowd managed, through their protest, kept this misfit from burning an American flag? It would certainly seem that way, but this story isn’t over yet. Here’s the transcript of Haas’ speech.
Funny Facebook said that there were only going to be 64 of you. I initially began this flag burning protest to define due process for students and suspected terrorists alike, to call on LSU and universities across the country to defend basic human rights and avoid putting students into the criminal justice system when it can be taken care of internally.
Solidarity means standing with those who are treated as guilty until proven innocent, instead of the other way around. That’s what freedom is, standing with those who express their constitutional rights in ways that may be unpopular, especially the accused and the marginalized no matter the consequences.
In the name of peace, there will be no flag burning today. This country and the flag that flies over it stands for freedom, democracy, love, peace and the ability to question our government.
It turns out the whole event was a stunt, and not a well-planned one at that. Instead of getting his message across, Haas has now become an outcast on campus for his apparent display of disloyalty to the United States of America. He should have realized that with pro-American sentiment being high since the death of Osama bin Laden last week, defending a twit who burned a flag and defaced the LSU War Memorial in front of a group of flag-waving patriots wasn’t a bright idea. Would it have been better if American’s weren’t still celebrating the terrorist leader’s death? Definitely, but even then I have a hard time believing that a generally left-leaning student body would turn out in large numbers to protest the arrest of this criminal. Anti-Americanism only goes so far, and Eslava’s crimes were well-beyond what most Americans, let alone law enforcement, believe is an acceptable form of protest.
Benjamin Haas could have saved himself this humiliation, and everyone else a lot of time and trouble, if his protest wasn’t so public. Spouting tired rhetoric about due process is one thing, but it takes a real desperate attention seeker to deliberately inflame passions to get a point across. Twit…
UPDATE:Hot Air’s Allahpundit is now weighing in on this story. Aside from angry chants, students protesting Benjamin Haas’ event were throwing water balloons at him and were becoming pretty aggressive. I have no doubt that Haas feared for his safety, but, once again, what did he expect? His fake flag burning came shortly after bin Laden’s death, and with patriotic feelings running high across the country, the reaction to his apparent display of disloyalty to the United States of America would be extreme harsh.
What does that say about free speech in America? Not much. I think Allahpundit has this wrong. It’s a mistake to believe that a constitutionally guaranteed right would allow someone to say or do something offensive, but not allow someone else to be offended and protest that offensive statement or action. Unlike Michelle Malkin and others who’s events are interrupted by angry protesters who prevent them speaking, Haas had police protection and was able to deliver his speech, despite the loud chants of protesters. Those protesting his event might have crossed the line by throwing water balloons, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right to be at his event and protest.
Benjamin Haas isn’t a martyr for free speech. He’s just an attention seeker who’s poorly planned stunt backfired. Pathetic…
