The democrats are pleased, very pleased, with President Obama’s speech at the U.N. today – it was perfect. The balance between strength and reasonableness was perfect. On the surface, I agree, the speech was good and the delivery was excellent.
The problem was in the nuanced speech. President Obama parses words. His actions are often the opposite of what he says but if you dissect each word, the truth is usually there somewhere.
During President Obama’s U.N. speech today, he seemed to support the first amendment by saying that there is “no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.” He added, “I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”
He continued with his defense of free speech in a most eloquent way.
But then he said that the anti-Islam film is “an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well” and he said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” He added that slander against Christianity must also be condemned.
I can’t wait to hear Obama’s defense against the painting called Piss Christ which is going back on tour next month.
Piss Christ featured a crucifix soaked in urine. Let’s not forget the painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung which was so beloved by the artsy crowd. I don’t remember any Christian riots over it though.
The New York Times, on October 2, 1999, reflecting on Piss Christ stated that:
“A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.”
Oddly, they changed their tune on Sept. 12, 2012 , when they decided it was different when it is a video against Islam:
“Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths.”
The NY Times is an arm of the Obama campaign so what they have to say matters.
While claiming to defend free speech, President Obama poured cold water on our free speech rights by attacking the video and, by default, the filmmaker, before the U.N. today.
This filmmaker has been dragged into the sheriff’s office on an old probation beef. His arrest has been ordered by Egyptian President Morsi and a Pakistani minister has put a bounty on his head.
The video is the ruse and Obama is playing into it for political reasons. Our free speech is compromised every time he does so.
CNN’s Anderson Cooper recently admitted that their reports about Ambassador Stevens fearing there was a hit out on him came, in part, from his diary.
The State Department called the use of the diary “disgusting” and Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s senior adviser, said it is “Not a proud moment in CNN’s history.”
CNN has one version of how the sensitive diary was handled and the family and State Department have a different version of events.
Cooper never mentioned the diary in his initial reporting. He reported that the information was from someone familiar with the Ambassador’s thinking, undoubtedly to not embarrass the family. Personally, I don’t like the shading of the truth but it is interesting that the State Department cares about this information.
If Ambassador Stevens did fear the increased presence of Al Qaeda and felt there was a hit out for him, is it likely that he did not mention it to superiors? Where was his protective detail? Where were the Marines? Would that have been too un-PC?
Cooper had to release this information form the diary. There was something far more important than the family’s feelings in this matter. The safety of our embassies takes precedence. This information seems to reveal a serious problem in the way our government is handling U.S. embassies throughout the world. Stifling this is an unacceptable stifling of free speech.
Worse yet is the State Department condemnation. It slams the first amendment down for the count when a news outlet is demeaned by the highest levels of government.
Morsi was interviewed by the NY Times Sunday and said the U.S. must limit free speech if it insults Islam. He added that we are not allies, which should help clarify things for President Obama.
“Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” Morsi told the Times, referring to Washington lending support to dictatorial governments over popular opposition and to Israel over the Palestinians.
Morsi said if Washington wants Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, it should fulfill its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. “As long as peace and justice are not fulfilled for the Palestinians, then the treaty remains unfulfilled,” he said.
He urged the U.S. to respect the Arab world’s history and culture, even when it did not match Western values.
We give Egypt billions in aid and they still hate us. We recently gave them almost $2 billion in military aid and they are buying $1.5 billion of old subs from Germany to menace Israel’s energy fields no doubt.
More importantly, for the purpose of this discussion, by paying off and appeasing Egypt, Obama is catering to a region that wants to limit our free speech to principles of Shari’ah law, i.e. if it is deemed an insult by anyone, it is not allowed.
Free speech is being limited by our PC police. Our open borders crowd has found it a useful tool. One illegal immigrant reporter, who was brought to this country as a child, is on a campaign to disallow the use of the words “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” in any media.
In his article in the Times Ideas printed on Friday, he said he wants people here illegally to be called “undocumented immigrants” only.
People aren’t looking to deport innocents brought here by their border-hopping parents, but that is not the problem here.
The problem is that this man is trying to tell us we are not allowed to use certain words because they are deemed as insults. The fact that he got a megaphone at the Times is even more problematic. Are they advocating for PC only?
Banning words is no different from banning books.
New York City suffered through the Muslim Day parade this past Sunday. The black Al Qaeda-style Islamic flag was visible in amongst floats and placards proclaiming Islam is the religion of peace.
One Imam from Coney Island said the U.S. government must ban the anti-Islam video (the government did vainly try to bully google and YouTube into removing the video). He said the government should not allow anybody to disrespect the prophet in the future and the U.N. must pass a law banning such speech against Islam. This is not an uncommon refrain from Imams in this country.
They are a growing population, exceeding over 6 million people with 1400 Mosques. They will be a powerful voting bloc and need to be watched if we are to protect what is left of our Constitution. They are not assimilating. Japan doesn’t allow them to live in their country. They can go to Japan if they work for a company in the country – that’s it. What do the Japanese know that we don’t?
President Obama says he is for free speech but his actions show a president committed to limiting it or he would not have asked google to remove the video. He would not have decried the video if he respected free speech. He would not have said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a Marxist, told reporters in New York on Wednesday that “free speech” has limits, especially when religious beliefs are involved. [wnd.com]
“All of this freedom of expression should not be abused by individuals. … Some people abuse this freedom. This effort to provoke, to humiliate others by using (religious) beliefs cannot be protected in such a way.”
Our free speech is being directly attacked and our president agrees if are really listening. Just remember how Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the alleged filmmaker of The Innocence of Muslims, was dragged out of his home in the middle of the night on an expired probation charge. If this doesn’t wake you up, nothing will. What do you think President Obama will do when he has “more flexibility”?