Free expression for we, not for ye

By now, many of you have heard of an artist's depiction of President Barack Obama in the motif of Jesus Christ being crucified on the cross.

The composer of this piece, a Michael D’Antuono, essentially dismissed the outrage of Christians by saying his "First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings.” The same dismissive attitude was conveyed when people expressed their dismay over "artwork" which depicted a crucifix being soaked in a jar of urine. And while the Obama administration strongly condemned a You Tube video defiling the prophet Muhammad (which they falsely used to blame for the 9/11/2012 attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya), their silence was deafening in regards to the "Piss Christ" artwork.

With all that in mind, one could persuasively concoct the following logic: If depicting a certain human as Jesus Christ (our Lord and Savior) is not offensive and we needn't be all uptight over the degradation of the symbol of Christ's sacrifice, then why can't a model of the aforementioned human be soaked in urine?

I'm not a big fan of radio guy Glenn Beck, but I believe he came up with a brilliant idea in which to express his own free speech.







In response to Beck's "free expression", I'm sure we'll be treated to a plethora of indignation from the same crowd who used such verbiage as racist, war monger, murderous thug, Idiot in Chief, etc. when referring to President George W. Bush.

---------------------------------------