« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“How is burning paper with ink on it an act of violence?”

By: ColdWarrior (Diary)  |  April 5th, 2011 at 08:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Hmmm. Makes perfect sense to me. I seem to recall something like that being posted here once before, a few months ago when Terry Jones threatened to burn a Koran in Florida.

But I digress.

Here’s Ann Barnhardt schooling Sen. Goober Graham (RINO, SC) regarding his foolish and cowardly remarks, phrase-by-phrase, about the First Amendment and the burning, by U.S. citizens, of pieces of paper with ink on them.

Hat tip to TheRealRevo: Beauty, Brains And Balls. You can watch the second video there, where she actually — gasp! — burns paper with ink on it!

I did. (Watch the second video, that is.) And learned some more about what the Koran instructs the perfect follower of the “Religion of Peace” is to do with infidels, prepubescent boys, and so forth. You know, to strive to be like the perfect man, Mohammad.

Ms. Barnhardt’s videos are going viral. She has more grit and fight in her little finger than most Americans, it seems. And certainly more than Sen. Goober Graham.

Here she is interviewed by the folks at iOwntheWorld.com.

For Liberty,

Cold Warrior
————-

Will YOU help make 2011 “The Year of the Precinct Committeeman?”

Where it all started.

Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    Some may find it provocative, dangerous, or harsh.

    But she’s making a point here that not only needs to be made, but needs to be made in just this way. A line needs to be drawn that identifies enemies of the constitution both foreign and domestic for who and what they are. Islam (insert the obligatory “not ALL Muslims” here) and its enablers and apologists stand on one side of that line, and those who hold to God-given constitutional principles stand on the other.

    Either Islam is a sick, twisted, perverse ideology of hate and subjugation that compels its followers to view all others as sub-human and worthy of death, or it is not. Either Islam is solely responsible as a motivator for the hateful evil enacted in its name and for its sake, or its not.

    In America, we have that discussion, in whatever way we damn well please. If evil sub-humans on the other side of the globe go into a murderous rampage when we have that discussion, the responsibility is theirs alone, and the consequence of their violence fall squarely upon their shoulders and the ideology that compels them. To even entertain the notion that somehow the burning of a book should not happen because these people freak out gives their point of view a shred of credibility that it does not deserve.

    And never forget, these people who reactively kill for whatever excuse they are provided – these people who wail and gnash their teeth and fire their AK-47s into the air at the slightest provocation – burn Christian Bibles routinely.

    Pray for Ann Barnhadt’s safety. She has taken the somewhat convoluted, inarticulate, and bumbling action of Pastor Terry Jones, fed it steroids, and shot it out of a laser cannon.

    Islam and the Left will be gunning for her.

  • slimmu

    of our freedom of speech and the more subtle and often conflated freedom of expression. Burning down someone’s house to make a political point for example is not protected under freedom of expression, nor is burning a cross when the intention is intimidation at least so says the Supreme Court. It would be a stretch to define Koran burning as hate speech but I’m sure someone out there will soon try.

    But the government does have precedent to ban or make illegal “burning paper with ink on it”. Congress had passed legislation doing just that when they made it a criminal act to burn a draft card during the Vietnam War era. As this was a popular form of protest for anti-war demonstrators it very quickly reached the Supreme Court and they upheld the law despite our freedom of speech rights. They determined that speech and expression were different, being “speech” and “nonspeech elements”. And found that “a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.” So if congress thought that actions like burning a Koran could endanger troops abroad, they could probably pass legislation banning that act and there is precedent it would remain law despite the First Amendment.

    And Robert Mapplethorpe wasn’t the artist responsible for the “Piss Christ” it was Andres Serrano.

    • silentcal2012

      This looks like a parody. It makes all conservatives look bad. Censorship in time of war is controversial. I don’t support what Graham said but equating it with Shari’a law is ignorant. I also understand rhetorical flourish but suggesting that Graham would drag her before Congress for committing a crime is silly. There is a lot of over the top rhetoric. And even if one has the right to burn a Koran what purpose does this serve? It accomplishes nothing good. Those that have to live, work, or socialize with Muslims probably wouldn’t condone this. Its usually people that have little interaction. This is more damaging than birtherism.

      Historically, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR practiced wartime censorship of speech that makes Graham’s suggestion look tame.

      • jerry39

        There are two reasons in play here to burn korans. The first reason is that of Reverend Jones who wanted to make a point that Islam is not a “religion of peace.” Something I would consider wholly acceptable under the first Amendment, but also something wholly acceptable to condemn by counter-speech. Something I would not do, precisely for the “PC” reasons you suggest.

        However, when the reaction to the Reverend’s speech is to commit violence and threats of violence, a second reason to burn Koran’s emerges. That is solidarity with the concept of free speech itself. If American free speech is to be stiffled by murderous scumbags in the name of a “peaceful religion” then I stand by the Reverend and have 1/2 a mind to post my own U-tube Koran burning.

        Maybe you have children. If your 3-year old sticks her tongue out and your 5 year old smacks her upside the head with a TV remote in response – who do you grab first? Do you imagine that any good can come from indulging your 5 year old and blaming the 3 year for sticking out her tongue?

        If a whole class of people lack the moral intelligence of treefrog – they do not deserve to be protected from their violent tendencies by coddling their warped worldview, as if it held validty in some alternate universe.

        No – I have no problem with a million u-tubes of a million koran burnings to show these vermin that if you really want to protect the Koran – you better act like a human being. I do have a problem with all the moron talking heads whether they be R’s or D’s – who justify violence as an acceptbale response to speech.

    • spainishirish

      were in effect, Graham and Reid would have been tried before military tribunals and awaiting execution, mosques across the nation would be shuttered and Muslim-Americans rounded up and placed in detention centers, and Pastor Jones would be feted at the White House. I don’t think you really want to go there. I suspect the only USSC justice who would uphold such a ban on free speech as you propose is Mr. International Law himself, Breyer, and even that is in serious doubt.

      This isn’t a place to come and make statements contrary to history and law, as I imagine you will quickly find out.

      • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest
  • ebone

    So, neither of you agree with what she is basically saying. For you two, it’s more about not upsetting Lindsey Graham or making conservatives look bad. That she really, technically, is breaking the law by burning pages of the Koran. To say she accomplishes nothing and you both agree, speaks volumes. So life is an intellectual experience. Better to focus on understanding. Comprehension. Cerebrial at best. So if either one of you, while driving a nail into a wall, would accidently hit your tumb, your response would be something to the effect. I have struck my tumb. What terrible pain I feel. I better take an aspirin.

    Are either PC’s. Did you walk your precint. Do you know your number. Or, is it safer to critize and just be an Hurray Henry. Don’t want to offend anyone, really. Can’t wait for your response to me. Love to see what CINO’s say. Usually something about my punctuation is included. Did you guys go to a Catholic school?

    • slimmu

      and I don’t think she makes conservatives look bad, she just makes herself look bad for not understanding the basics of the First Amendment. She didn’t “school” anyone “about the First Amendment and the burning, by U.S. citizens, of pieces of paper with ink on them.”

  • taylerdog23

    Seriously? Seems like a parody video to me. Wow.

  • progressivelibertarian

    second video that’s a must watch.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    War Is No Excuse For Forgetting One’s Manners — War Etiquette Tips from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC).

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    From the good folks over at TheRealRevo. Follow the links.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • jamesbell

    This made my day!!

  • volunteerstate

    TOTALLY AWESOME…. And the way she connects Miss Lindsey Graham RINO , SC, and a variety of adjectives , especially his jackass remarks made on Sunday, well…. it is making me fall in love. Who is this LADY ? She is really incredible.

  • Donald Ayotte

    I wouldn’t want to be on her bad side.

  • redwood

    It is saddening some do not understand what is being expressed. She is the voice of American superiority.
    Too long has our superiority been removed from or
    denigrated in our national dialogue.

    God bless America!

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    … to eschew the notion of American superiority, because to say that America is superior infers that other countries and cultures are inferior, or, in this case, evil.

    If a thing is true, what is to be gained by pretending it is not, or accepting the truth of it in silence out of some sense that speaking it will offend the subject of the truism?

    Thank God Ann has suffered no such conditioning. Sad that some conservatives have.