First Amendment Under Assault

There was an age where liberals defended the First Amendment.  Perhaps they did so as a guise to advance their progressive agenda.  None the less, their defense of freedom of speech is now a thing of the past.

Consider the facts:

—  An unknown man puts a video on YouTube.  It gets 2,000 views when the Adminstration decides to blame the video for an outburst of anti-American protests across the Middle East and Muslim world.  The government blames the film and apologizes for a citizens exercise of his First Amendment rights.

—  The government demands YouTube pull the clip down and, to their credit, YouTube tells Obama to pound sand.

— The FBI “identifies” the producer of the film.

—  The government then hauls the filmmaker in for an “interview.”

—  Liberals demand that the United States enforce blasphemy laws against Islam.  Bill Press of something called “Current TV” says,

“Now here’s the question though and the question that I ask you and it’s not an easy one, I understand that.  What, if anything, should happen to the people who made this video? I gotta tell you, I think they are as guilty, that’s my opinion, I think they are as guilty as the terrorists who carried out those attacks against our embassy in Libya. Look, we don’t know everybody who was involved, but we’ve seen, I’ve seen some of them on television. This is a group of extremist, Muslim-hating, so-called Christians in southern California who are using their religion to stir up hatred against Islam. They’re basing this on their Christian beliefs. They are, I believe, every bit as guilty as al Qaeda members who, think about it, who use the Koran and abuse their religion to stir up hatred against the United States. These so-called Christians, anybody who uses religion to stir up hate, is not a true believer. And certainly Christians who do so are not true Christians.

So these so-called Christians using their faith to stir up hatred against another of the world’s great religions, it is absolutely disgusting and they’ve gotta know, they had to know what would result in that. After what happened with those Danish cartoons, right, or cartoons drawn for that Danish newspaper. After what happened with that nutjob Terry Jones down in Florida burning the Koran and people getting killed in Afghanistan over the protest that that, that that triggered. After what happened when we saw the video of American troops urinating on Muslim soldiers, right? After that, you had, they had to know that a video like this, not saying that the Muslims are not overreacting. I mean, they’re hypersensitive about this stuff, I mean, Jesus, you know, just cool it, right? I mean, we show Jesus naked all the time hanging on the cross.

But, at any rate, their reaction is way overblown. But these, I hate to call them Christians, these so-called Christians had to know that that video would result in certain parts of the world, it would result in violence, it would result in lives being lost. I think, again, they are every bit as guilty and I think the United States, this is not freedom of speech. It’s just the old thing, you can’t cry fire in a crowded theater and have people trampled to death and say, oh, I was just exercising my freedom of speech. This is an abuse of the First Amendment. It’s using, abusing their freedom of speech to cost innocent lives and to cause the taking of innocent lives in certain parts of the world. So, I think the United States ought to identify, yeah, we oughta be going after these terrorists that carried out the attacks in Libya and we are. I think we also ought to be identifying the people who made this video and go after them with the full force of the law and lock their ass up.

—  The San Francisco Chronicle publishes an article entitled “Revisit Free Speech” advocating that free speech against Islam not be allowed.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  The president refuses to defend our freedoms.  His supporters refuse to do the same.  These are certainly perilous time for freedom.

Lost in the Fingerpointing

The Obama Administration is an excuse machine.  They have blamed Bush, tsunamis, hurricanes, ATM machines and now a YouTube video as excuses for their weakness and inability to govern effectively both domestically and internationally.

But lost in the finger-pointing is another dangerous threat to our liberties.

When President Obama was in the Senate and the Democrats were in the opposition, they were willing to criticize obvious abuses of civil liberties by the Bush Administration.  But no longer.  Obama has become a champion of the “security state.”

Now that Islamic radicals are in the street of Cairo, the Administration has decided to fight back — by shredding the First Amendment.

Yesterday, I spotlighted the unmourned casualty of Obama’s foreign policy/national security disaster bus: The First Amendment.

The LA Times is reporting that the White House pressured YouTube to censor the anti-Islam movie blamed for inciting the riots:

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.

YouTube blocked access to the video in Egypt and Libya, where protests in Benghazi erupted in violence that claimed the life of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other embassy workers. However, the video remains on the site. Protests have spread to Yemen, where hundreds stormed the U.S. Embassy.

Hillary Clinton is promising to use her power to “pressure” and shame private citizens into not producing similar films.

A true leader would defend our Constitution, defend the First Amendment and tell the Islamists to learn a lesson in freedom.

Those Sneaky Dutch

From the New York Post:

She gave a whole new meaning to Dutch Masters.

Brooklyn Rep. Yvette Clarke insisted before a national TV audience Tuesday night that there was still slavery in New York City in 1898 — and the oppressors were the Dutch.

The epic fail on basic US history came during an appearance on Stephen Colbert’s Comedy Central show, where the Crown Heights congresswoman was asked what she’d do if she were back in 1898, when Brooklyn surrendered its independence as a separate city.

“I would say to them, ‘Set me free,’ ” responded Clarke.

“From what?” asked the host.

“Slavery,” shot back Clarke, a three-term congresswoman, adding that it was the Dutch who were the slave masters in 1898, a good two centuries after they had left town.

Colbert seemed to try giving Clarke a chance to correct her massive flub, saying, “Slavery. Really? I didn’t realize there was slavery in Brooklyn in 1898.”

But Clarke stuck to her stunning screwup. “I’m pretty sure there was,” she said.