The Cheesy Movie Trailer that Islamic Extremists Gave Credibility To

  Bookmark and Share  President Obama and the Clinton State Department may be struggling with how to react to the still unfolding developments that led to incursions on the American embassies in Egypt and Libya and the subsequent killing of 4 Americans working at the Libyan embassy but most Americans are not struggling with their own reaction  to those events.  Unlike the State Department’s initial condemnation of free speech by those who are not fundamental Islamic extremists, most Americans have a problem with the terrorist mentality and the terrorists who are free to invade sovereign U.S. territory to shred our flag and kill our citizens.  So today, I have decided to exercise my freedom of speech and present to you a copy of the movie trailer which is said to have triggered the vicious crowds involved in the horrific events of the last day in Egypt and Libya.

The trailer promoted a movie called “Innocence of Muslims”, a film so cheesy and childish, that  its quality alone should be enough to offend the senses of anyone with an ounce of taste.  The trailer and movie were made by Sam Bacile, an inconsequential an apparently brainless, but wealthy Israeli-American real estate broker who lives in California.  Bacile posted the trailer on Youtube where under normal circumstances, it would have gone largely unnoticed by most citizens of the world, but it was not missed by Islamic fundamentalist who used the film as an excuse to set the stage for what we are now learning was a planned attack on at least the U.S. Embassy in Libya on the 11th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation.

To be clear, I am not offering an opinion of the film’s message which is that Islam and it’s God, Mohammed are evil and blood thirsty animals with one purpose and one purpose only… to kill non-Muslims.  Personally, I believe that there exist some extremist elements who bastardize Islam and use it as a reason to promote hatred of non-Muslims and even the death of non-Muslims.  However, there is a distinction between those who practice their faith under such hate-based interpretations of it and those who don’t.  The ones who do adhere to such violent interpretations are terrorists.  They are the enemy of not just America, but of all freedom loving people of all faiths, including the majority of Muslims worldwide who do not share the extremist practices and more violent teachings of the Koran.   So my presentation of Sam Balice’s trashy and truly stupid movie trailer, is not an attempt to condone the movie.  In fact, posting it is not something I am comfortable with.  But I post it because I believe it is very important for the world to understand what  supposedly played a part in the murder of four Americans, including the first American Ambassador to be killed on foreign soil in nearly 4 decades.

After seeing this trailer and realizing how truly ridiculous and childish it is, one can’t help but be bewildered by how anyone could take it seriously.  Yet  this trailer was the excuse used for killing people.  So I believe it is important for people to see it.  I also firmly believe that as Americans, we have a responsibility here.  The extremists behind the violence perpetrated upon the U.S. yesterday claim their actions were a  be reaction to the film and its ugly portrayal of Islam and Mohammed.   If true, then we have a responsibility for everyone, everywhere to see what was behind their actions. Furthermore, the terrorist need to know that their actions achieved an effect e exact opposite of the one they wanted.    Instead of complying to their wishes and denouncing the film and pulling the plug on, let it be known that their actions have defeated their purposes and exposed even more people to the film and its message than would have been originally exposed to it had they respected freedom of speech and not resorted to violence.

I show this trailer to also point out how terribly ironic the Islamic extremist are.

Their killing of Americans in protest of the film happens to actually gives the film’s message some credence.  At the very end of the clip, the embarrassingly incompetent actor portraying Mohammed states “Every non-Muslim is an infidel.  Their land, their women, their children, are our spoils”.  These remarks are made as the buffoon repeating them wears a blood splattered garb and swings a sword, all to convey the filmmaker’s message that Islam is driven by the desire to kill all Christians and Jews.  Ironically, after carrying out yesterday’s attacks, the Islamic extremists behind those attacks actually did a good job at making it harder for people to believe that the film’s portrayal of Islam is actually wrong.

Bookmark and Share

And that’s time

In a short hour and a half, made up of minute responses and thirty second followups, the GOP candidates once again took the stage to answer questions from semi-respectful moderators.  In a debate most looked forward to by Ron Paul fans, Paul received very little time. We have seen pretty much all there is to be seen about candidate style, and many of these questions were repeats.  So here are the winners and losers:

The Good

Mitt Romney won this debate.  His answers were calming, yet clear and determined.  He portrayed the very stature Americans are looking for in a Commander in Chief, and he highlighted American Exceptionalism.  This area is a strong suit for Mitt, and one that does not involve any sort of past flip flops or policy changes.  His answers should give him a bump among social conservatives who are inspired by terms like American Exceptionalism.

Newt at one point had to school the moderators on war versus criminal law.  In some ways this debate seemed frustrating for Newt, but that is an aspect of him his followers often like to see.  Newt brings the fight to the moderators and to the left and usually wins.  Many of his answers were right on, but others were somewhat vague.  One thing that Newt will lose points for is how loosely he called for covert operations in countries like Iran and Syria.  This is something Newt has brought up as a policy in debates and speeches in the past, but is something better left unsaid.

Jon Huntsman did well in the debate.  The question on a tradewar with China is a favorite of most media moderators because it gives them a chance to toss Huntsman an easy softball.    Foreign policy hits many of Huntsman’s strong points without touching many of the issues that conservatives hate him for.  It won’t matter though, Huntsman is done.

The Bad

Santorum did pretty well.  He has the unfortunate bad luck of being a candidate on the back end of two long wars and sharing a policy that sounds eerily like Bush’s.  On the other hand, Santorum seemed to be saying that we need to keep funding Pakistan and being their friend because they have a Nuke.  True or not, Santorum is not going to win American hearts saying implying that we must borrow from China to pay off Pakistan to be our friend.

I have a feeling that media moderators purposefully cut Paul’s debate time short on debates like this to get his supporters riled up.  Get ready, we are going to hear about that for the next week or so.  Paul didn’t do bad for most of the debate, but some of his stances are really not correct.  The idea that the United States must capture a citizen who has declared war on the United States and bring them in to face civilian court, or that non-uniformed terrorists have any sort of rights under US law is wrong and violates precedent.  Gingrich and Perry were absolutely right on those counts.  Paul’s supporters were being their typical selves in the debate as well, to the point where the mods had to admonish them to be respectful.  They are another liability of Paul’s with the overall GOP.

Herman Cain reminded me a lot of Rick Perry in recent debates.  Without 9-9-9 to fall back on, Cain was slow in responses, vague, and seemed as though he would happily defer to a future self, surrounded by knowledgeable generals and advisers.  That’s great, but that is not leadership.  In that respect, Huntsman showed up Cain, and even Gingrich, when he said if a nuke was loose in Pakistan he would secure it.  Cain really did not give a performance that screamed “I am a leader”.  Instead, each response sounded like “How can I answer this without ruining my campaign”.

The Ugly

Michele Bachmann continues to be unimpressive and unmemorable.  She scored some points rebutting Ron Paul, but seemed to spend most of the night trying to get the moderators to let her respond to other candidates.  She also seemed to get less time.  However, I will give her a great deal of credit for her answers on ways to trim military spending without hurting the military.

Rick Perry still doesn’t debate well.  And once again he found himself as the butt of several jokes, made both by the moderators, himself, and Senator Graham.  Perry’s idea of zero based budgeting for foreign aide is a great idea, but the only reason it’s his is because he got to say it first.  Gingrich and Romeny both articulated it better when Perry was done.

But allow me a Newt Gingrich moment to say this.  The real loser was Barack Obama.  The candidates made it clear, once again, that every single one of them would run foreign policy better than Obama.  Several drove home the point that Obama had a range of good choices and bad choices and made all the bad ones and none of the good ones.  The only ambivalent candidate who actually seemed to end up on Obama’s side for some things was Ron Paul.  This is one of the aspects of Newt Gingrich’s leadership because he has focused these debates on defeating Barack Obama, and when Newt sets the tone the other candidates usually follow.

The Neapolitan Party

Early on in this race, we are starting to see a clear breakdown in the Republican party into three distinct flavors. The question will be whether one candidate can unite the party once the others have melted away.

Can Republicans compromise on one flavor?

The social conservatives are known for their stances on family values, morality, and for some, Christianity. They are the candidates that the Family Research Counsel and American Family Association would love to see win. They are openly supportive of the TEA Party movement and are popular among talk radio listeners and Glenn Beck fans. They are big on national security, small government, and spending cuts, but these stances are drowned out by their social values. They are often controversial and pull no punches in attacking the Left. This flavor includes Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Jim DeMint, Herman Cain, Haley Barbour, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum.

Then you have the fiscal conservatives. They are proven businessmen. They have cut costs in government, they have balanced budgets, they have produced growth, and many of them have large personal fortunes. They have made the tough, controversial decisions having to do with the size of government, and they have produced incredible results. However, even though many of them are pro-life, pro-family, and generally socially conservative, this does not come out strongly in their campaigns. They are willing to work across the aisle, and sometimes alienate their own party by doing it. Social conservatives don’t trust them, but they enjoy a closet relationship with the TEA Party movement. They are strong on national security and foreign policy. These candidates include Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump.

Finally, there are the libertarians. Although they may live socially conservative lives and oppose things like abortion on a personal and state level, they will die by the principle that such things are beyond the scope of the Federal Government’s regulations. They oppose foreign wars and take a very cynical approach to free trade, the UN, and other foreign entanglements. They oppose the war on drugs and would take a chainsaw to the Federal Government’s authority without hesitation. Secretly, many conservatives love them, but most would not actually vote for them. These include Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

And then there is Newt Gingrich. Newt can be credited with helping bring about one of our nation’s most prosperous times as he worked both across the aisle and strongly against a Clinton administration to balance the budget.

Newt can win the general. Can he win the primary?

Newt also is a dedicated social conservative, who despite his own personal family issues from a decade ago is a strong advocate for socially conservative issues. Newt also advocates for limited government, but certainly not anywhere to the extent that Ron Paul does. Gingrich is smart on foreign policy and thinks outside of the box.

His American Solutions website and conservative crusade starting from when he was considering a presidential run in 2007 have helped to codify and establish the conservative brand going into 2012. He has been a strong TEA Party ally without appearing to be a one dimensional TEA Party candidate.

Could Newt be the candidate who can unite enough of the Republican Neapolitan breakdown to win in 2012? He could certainly defeat Obama in a debate and would have a strong showing in a general election. The question is if he can get enough of the social conservative, fiscal conservative and libertarian Republicans to abandon their favorite in order to unite behind him in the primary.

Gingrich Is In

Gingrich said on Sean Hannity’s Fox show last night that he expects to be a candidate at the end of his exploratory committee’s work.

Gingrich also talked about what he would do as President. He discussed spending cuts, and called Obama’s budget a joke. Gingrich criticized Obama on education and Democrats in New York who are planning on solving their budget crises by avoiding a union fight and firing the newest most energetic teachers.

Gingrich signaled that he would favor a major and permanent tax cut and suggested that the two year extension of the Bush tax cut is what is responsible for economic growth and lower unemployment so far this year.

Gingrich discussed foreign policy as well as energy. Gingrich talked about Obama’s backwards response to Egypt and Libya and said that he would support every form of American energy including oil and nuclear.

Watch the interview here

Go to Newt’s exploration website at newtexplore2012.com

%d bloggers like this: