timely quote

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.

Theodore Roosevelt

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Straight from the comments section

I was beginning a discussion with an Anonymous commenter on this post, and it occurred to me that this deserves it's own post. Anonymous, welcome to the front page.

He (?) had picked a quote from my post about the Obama flag: "This flag shows the misunderstanding, contempt, disrespect and hatred they have for all this country really is." His comments were as follows.

For all YOU BELIEVE this country really is.

Please don't confuse facts and opinions, it is a common mistake that has caused a lot of hate, anger and suffering in this world.

Respect is the keyword here, and that goes to all commenters here.
So I asked him about his opinions about what this country is and he responded, in part:
I don't have an opinion about what the American country is, since I live in Holland.

I stumbled upon this blog (and blogs related to this one), and was surprised by how much hate and contempt some of these posts and comments contain.

And unreasonable things too, even I can tell that Obama changing certain laws in order to stay president is not going to happen. How can you seriously discuss Obama becoming the next Castro?
My first response was that since he was not here and seeing what we consider to be the breakdown in the fabric of society like we have, that perhaps he didn't have the experience to judge our opinions so harshly. But rethinking it, I decided that this was a better response.

First, this is a blog. It's pretty much the internet's comment section. Anything that isn't directly referenced (and a lot of what is) you can assume to be opinion. But we thrive on opinion. The is our place to place our opinions. Just as you have placed yours.

While I do my best to avoid confusing facts and opinions, the internet is certainly one place where that can happen, without malice. However, I am only one voice out of many. When I started reading more and more after Obama's election, I found that I am not the only one who was as concerned about the things he said and the people he associated with.

Second, what many people here and around the world don't understand (although, being in Holland, you may have the better experience) is that there is a slow migrationary invasion going on. Our free societies are allowing people to enter that have the desire to destroy what we have created. In to democracies around the world have come millions of Muslims believing the Wahhabist teachings and attempting to Islamicize their new homes. They want to turn them from the established society they were in to a new, Muslim society where mideval laws apply and non-Muslims are secondary citizens.

Example: Russia. Saudi Arabia wants to build yet another mosque in Moscow, but Russia turned the table on them. Needless to say, there will be no new mosque because there will never be an Orthodox church in Mecca. And we are told that we have to respect their religion or we are intolerant. But they have no respect for ours, and in their societies, other religions are openly persecuted, but that's not intolerance, somehow. This is fact.

Example: France. France has been under attack for years. There are places in France that aren't French anymore.

Third, there has been a long struggle in this country between people that believe that the founders did a pretty good job when the wrote the rules that we should run our country by and people that believe that there are a lot of "rights" that were missed and that the "pursuit of happiness" isn't enough.

Timely example: Mortgages. Several years ago, there was a push by Democrats to expand mortgage availability under the guise of racism. Now businesses understand that business is business, but because the majority of people that could afford mortgages were white that it was said that the mortgage industry was inherently racist. The end result was to change the way credit reports were read, and create the sub-prime mortgage program. People who couldn't afford mortgages were given them (in opposition to reasonable business practices) and the government (through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) guaranteed them.

Since loaning money to people who can't afford to pay it back is generally a guarantee of loss, millions of new "homeowners" are now facing bankruptcy and the American economy is suffering. Banks are facing massive losses and, in some cases, are freezing new loans. And the same democrats who created the problem in the first place are lauded for creating yet another entitlement and bailing out the banks. And somehow, these democrats aren't to blame. This is fact.

Fourth, there has been a push for two things. The first is a new Constitutional Congress, where anything is possible, and the second is for an amendment to remove the two term limit on the office of President. When you hear people speak of Obama being "president for life," that is due to an actual possibility that it could happen.

Many of Obama's planned policies will cement him as the most socialist president in the history of this country. He wants to create many new entitlements, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and he believes that it is the government's job to redistribute wealth. If he is able to implement these policies, he will be able to guarantee himself a huge, non-taxpaying voting bloc. Add a lack of term limits and you have president for life. Probable? Maybe. Possible? Absolutely. This is fact.

There are several opinions that have been incorrectly advertised as facts recently, though.

Global Warming is a hoax. The earth is in a geological cooling trend and scientists back that up.

The Government doesn't need to fix the economy. Umm...the first bailout did such a good job, I can't wait for the second one. Ronald Reagan fixed the economy in the 80's by giving the money back to the people who spend it in the form of tax cuts. That works. Economists will tell you that it works. Creating trillions of dollars in new governement spending and taxing the most productive among us will cause a decrease in overall consumer spending, cause inflation and further destabilize the economy.

As for my comment about the desecration of the flag, well, there are laws in place that restrict what can be done with an American flag. US Code 36, Chapter 10, §176. Respect for flag:
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
For those who believe that the law only affects them when they want it to, having Obama's picture on it seems to be ok.

Also, it doesn't take long to go from one of these to the other.

So, Anonymous, I understand that from the outside, Obama's election may seem like a good thing, but to those of us who have watched our liberties get eroded one little thing (think of the children) at a time, this is not a good time. And this is a fact.


Anonymous said...

Well, reading this post confirmed my expectation of you, folly. You do well in backing your opinions with facts, and reasoning intelligently.
Although some things may seem out of place or exaggerated in the posts and comments, you seem to have done your research. This is a different impression from my first look at your post and the comments to those posts.

What happens everyday on the internet and blogs in general is people venting their frustrations, and pretending their rants are fact. I applaud you for acknowledging and avoiding this. But even if some things are (loosely) based on facts, they can be very hateful and offending.
I see this in Holland too with people like Geert Wilders. Sure, they have a valid point to make. But the way it is made creates more problems than it solves.
Although I am not advocating that we should put not offending Muslim fundamentalists before freedom of speech, respect is still a big issue here. It is my opinion that hate always creates more hate, while respectful dialog and communication will at worst not improve things. This goes more so for the internet, where comments can be - and often are - interpreted in the most offending way possible.

I certainly understand some of the frustrations you have. And I see some of the problems America has, especially the economical ones. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your economy is basically a time bomb about to explode, right?
But what these blogs look like to an incidental reader (me, for example) is basically "our country is going to h*ll". Of course it is more interesting to talk about the bad things, but I hope you still see the good.

Anyway, I am pleasantly surprised to find a reasonable voice on the internet, and wish you the best with your blog.

Greetings from Holland

folly said...

I appreciate your input and hope that we can continue this dialogue as we go along.

Believe me, there is a great deal of frustration right now in this country. The conservative among us see a very real possibility of moving farther down the path to socialism than we have already. The problem there is that personal freedoms and socialism are pretty much incompatible. Obama has espoused on multiple occasions that he wants to implement "reforms" and "programs" that are straight out of the Communist Manifesto. This, of course, scares those of us who think it is our own responsibility to care for ourselves and those around us, and overjoys the ones who believe that the government should be the source of all good things. Ronald Reagan once said, "I do not believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."

As for Geert Wilders, I support him and what he does wholeheartedly. I do this because of the fact that he absolutely puts freedom of speech above everything else. Muslims are free to speak to the desctruction of the Jews, criticize Christianity and blaspheme against my God, but if we criticize Islam, it's hate speech. This is not freedom of speech. I want any Muslim who cares to have the freedom to worship in any way they so choose, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights to speak, worship in my way or live my life. I have fought to protect those rights. I will continue to fight for these same rights. But as soon as someone practices their religion by blowing someone up or burning cars or flying planes in to other people's buildings, they have crossed that line and have forfeited their rights. What about the millions of non-fundamentalist muslims? I'll quote Filip DeWinters and say, "... that majority is totally irrelevant, because they are not in charge. It is the extremists who are pulling the cords of the Islamic societal groups." Much like the millions of Americans that did not vote, they chose to be silent and therefore their opinions are of no real consequence. If you choose not to speak, you choose to be marginalized.

As soon as you say that I cannot criticize someone or something because they may be offended, you and I are on opposite sides of the fence. My religion is criticized all the time, within my country and all over the world. It's not hate speech, it's free speech. What Wilders is doing is not hate speech, it's free speech. His methodology is his own, and I will not speak to it. I will say that he does not deserve the persecution he is receiving, and his trial will most likely be a sham. Already the presiding judges are speaking in the press about their beliefs and bias. To quote an old American saying, "First we'll give him a fair trial, then we'll hang him."

The reason that people like Geert use the methods they do is because the majority of people are unaware of the true scope of the fundamentalists desires and plans. If people do not awaken now, they will later, in a new society not of their making. Perhaps you should open your eyes a little more and look around at some of the more disturbing trends developing in your country.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you posted this, folly.

Anonymous brings up something interesting and rather troubling, in my opinion, in the comment on this post: what is wrong with being offensive? Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, as well as the freedom to ignore what one so desires. The left has this whole thing with not wanting to offend people. But if we voice our opinions based on the desire not to offend others, topics that should be discussed will remain taboo, and therefore nothing will be able to be done about them. I mean, would it not seem ridiculous if someone were to suggest that we not discuss the Holocaust at all because it might be offensive to Germans today? The whole idea is absolutely absurd. Just because something is offensive does not make it any less true.

folly said...

I agree. When did offending someone become hate speech? Let's look at the last 8 years. Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler. That's pretty offensive. Of course, that's ok because democrats were saying it.

Muslim Imams call Jews and Christians the "sons of apes and pigs" and threaten to wipe Israel off the map all the time, and that's ok. Jews don't insult anyone. They just want the rockets to stop. If a Christian says that the terrorists that blew up the twin towers were Muslim, that's a lie and hate speech. If a Christian says that Hamas is a terror organization, that is hate speech. Because Islam is a religion of peace, right? Heh.

Instead of addressing the facts contained within an argument, the speaker is attacked. This is standard practice for the left, and for Muslims. Do all Muslims do this? Of course not. But as I posted earlier, that majority is irrelevant because they are silent in the midst of this war.

I will change my opinion as soon as I see the "million Muslim march" denouncing terror and hate speech by their own Imams and organizations like CAIR. Until that point, those who choose not to speak choose to be marginalized. And, they choose to be defined by the ones who speak.

Anonymous said...

But if we voice our opinions based on the desire not to offend others, topics that should be discussed will remain taboo, and therefore nothing will be able to be done about them.

But if you voice your opinion in an offending way, the situation might actually worsen, and you will be further from a solution than you were before that comment.
Some problems have to be solved by talking, not offending.

You see my point?

I see yours also ;)

folly said...


I certainly do see your point, and when you're dealing with a rational person, then that is an effective way to deal with it.

When you're dealing with people who send their children out to blow themselves up, who demonstrate with signs that say "behead those who insult islam," who want to "drive in to the sea" the "sons of apes and pigs," who will SCREAM that any criticism, valid or not, rational or not, is offensive, then you kind of limit your options.

The same people that say Geert Wilders is offensive are the ones teaching muslims to blow up their children. Geert Wilders produced a movie that was critical of islam.

You can guess which one is offensive to me.

We (the non-children-blowing-up-ones)) are the only ones being rational in this debate.

folly said...

I woke up this morning with a thougt in my head, and it occurred to me that we're not that far apart, Anon. You are saying that there's no reason to be offensive if some other way will work. Granted.

I'm saying that Geert Wilders was NOT trying to be offensive. His film is designed to educate the ignorant on the threat of militant islam. This is not offensive, just informative.

Look who are offended by this. Muslim militants and the people who apologize for them. You didn't seem to be offended by the film specifically, but you were told by your press and government that it was offensive. Have you seen it?

The ones criticized will always be offended. The ones criticizing will always feel righteous. The question of offense is in the eye of the apathetic.