Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Obama White House: Moral Responsibility To Abrogate The First Amendment

The end of anti-jihad journalism and anti-jihad blogging?

Enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws?

Shari'a via executive order? 

The real explanation as to why Obama didn't send a high-level representative to the march in Paris on January 11, 2015?

The Daily Caller article White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles in its entirety below the fold (emphases mine).
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

In 2012, “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.

“That is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously,” he added, before saying that “the president and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

In December, Congress approved and the president signed a $585 billion defense budget to train and equip soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen to defend Americans — including journalists — from foreign threats. The nation’s media industry does not have a defense budget to protect soldiers.

Earnest tried to rationalize the president’s opposition to the publication of anti-jihadist materials as a moral duty.

Whenever journalists consider publishing materials disliked by jihadis, “I think there are a couple of absolutes,” he told the reporters.

The first is “that the publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence, let alone an act of violence that we saw on the scale in Paris,” he said.

The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

He repeated the two-fisted formulation a moment later. ”What won’t change is our view that that freedom of expression in no way justifies an act of violence against the person who expressed a view. And the president considers the safety and security of our men and women in uniform to be something worth fighting for,” he said.

Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.

But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.

“I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons” after the January attack, he said. “In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this.”

“What I’m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves,” he said. “I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists.”

“I’m confident in saying that for the vast majority of media organizations, that [fear is] not the only factor. But I would readily concede that it is one in the minds of many of those news executives. But again, that is a decision for all of them to make,” he said.

Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has tried to shift the public’s focus away from the jihadi threat toward his domestic priorities.

He also repeatedly praised Islam and Muslims, and criticized criticism of Islam. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” he told a worldwide TV audience during a September 2012 speech at the United Nations.

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he declared in a 2009 speech in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar [seminary] — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” he claimed.

Obama ha also tried to elevate the status of Islam in the West. “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam,” he told his audience in Cairo. “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

To reduce the public’s focus on jihadis, Obama has even named the jihadi threat as a non-specific issue of “violent extremism,” and has repeatedly said jihadis have no connection with Islam. “Those who have studied and practiced this religion would tell you — Islam is a peaceful religion. … [Violent acts are] entirely inconsistent with the basic principles of that peaceful religion,” Earnest said Jan. 12.

But that claim of a peaceful Islam was repeatedly coupled with Obama’s policy of pressuring journalists not to anger aggressive Muslim believers. ”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform,” Earnest said.

“I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again,” he added.
Barack Hussein Obama at the United Nations, September 25, 2012:


Additional reading: Obama Backs Government-Run Internet.

33 comments:

  1. No Matter what anyone else has said. Facts are hard to disprove! Especially when you altered the FACTS to fit your own misguided agenda! This is your opinion and nothing more.

    "I Will Stand With the Muslims Should the Political Winds Shift In An Ugly Direction."

    So said Barack Obama on Page 261 of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Forever defending the Muslims against the bad people that might hurt them. Odd, isn't it?

    And this is one promise he seems to have carefully kept. Specifically, those Muslims known as The Muslim Brotherhood, famous for their terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. In God we Trust, all others need NOT applyJanuary 16, 2015 at 8:34:00 AM EST

      That stupid "Fact Check" site, is owned by the Liberal Media.

      Delete
  2. Free Speech Can Get You Killed? Support It Anyway.

    That is the title of an article at American Thinker today. Clearly, President Obama does not think like an American.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'Islam is peace' is one of the 'absolutes' Obama and other Western leaders cling to like a barnacle to a jetty pile, along with 'nothing to do with islam' after every islamic atrocity. Now to bring in a closed season on barnacles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Curiously, the graphic meme above, omits the full quote.....

    "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect no one here is better qualified to analyze prose than our hostess, AOW is. Words have meanings, not only in how we define them, but also in how we order them. Most lawyers are skilled in the use of words.

      What I find as curious is the fact that Obama appears to give greater deference to the prophet than he does to the Son of God. In doing this, Obama reveals either his adherence to Islam, or his ignorance in the use of the English language. Only a Moslem will place this prophet on a higher level than that of Jesus Christ ... they do this because they do not see Jesus as the Son of God, but rather a minor prophet, emphasis on “minor.”

      Beyond this, we should also imagine that an attorney would know that it is rare in American courts to successfully sue on the basis of slander someone who is already dead, and especially one who has been deceased for fourteen hundred years. It is therefore impossible to slander the prophet of Islam because any harm resulting from the use of such words only exists in the minds of severely dimwitted people. Again, Obama reveals who he really is and I think we owe a debt of gratitude to CI who brought this to our attention.

      Delete
    2. "I suspect no one here is better qualified to analyze prose than our hostess, AOW is."

      And I agree she is.....but I rather doubt that she authored the photo in question. I find it curious the political deference paid to deities and their prophets, at least in a secular nation. Words have meaning, but actions always speak louder.

      Delete
    3. CI,
      I assure you that I know all of what Obama said in that speech on September 25, 2012. I chose an online graphic that contained the excerpt that pertained to the article in the Daily Caller; the portion about Jesus Christ doesn't pertain to the cited statement on the part of the White House. There was nothing said yesterday about preventing journalism statements slandering Christianity.

      Delete
    4. Sam,
      Yes, it is obvious what Obama considers priority one: greater deference to the prophet [of Islam].

      Islam views Jesus as a prophet of Islam -- but a prophet lower that MTP.

      Delete
    5. "I assure you that I know all of what Obama said in that speech...."

      I'm glad that you do, and didn't doubt you. Being informed of context is a dying art in the internet age. I would prefer that our elected representatives opted out of defending or attacking fairy tales, and deciding for us what is acceptable speech.

      Delete
  5. Remember that Cairo Speech? You know, the speech where Barrack Obama told the Muslim world that America isn't really that great but he would be happy to wash the Muslim world's feet and kiss their backsides. And that America was too arrogant! And at some point along the way he mentioned America isn't a Christian country but that Islam has been with America since our founding. Apparently I missed that last point when I was absent in my American History class.

    We only have to back about 2 years or so to the Benghazi coverage . Yeah, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI
    !

    On Septembe the 14th at 9:30 AM, when Ben Rhodes sent an e-mail saying State Department's concerns needed to be addressed and "... we will work through the talking points tomorrow morning." State Department's concerns, of course, were they didn't want to be blamed for the deaths of four Americans nor have the world know Al Qaeda terrorists were involved. And then there is that nasty little gun-walking problem still to be addressed in a hearing.

    The final and twelfth draft of the talking points excluded all references to terrorism and Al Qaeda and, two days later, Susan Rice went out with the ridiculous trailer story. And later, I watched as the flag draped coffins arrived and Hillary Clinton, standing by the coffins, repeated the story of the trailer no one had seen or even heard of in Libya or Egypt. She assured the audience America had nothing to do with the despicable video. She and President Obama then hugged the grieving parents and assured them all again it was the video and they would get to the bottom of the matter. And they never flinched while telling this lie. They are so good at it.

    Hillary was the most disturbing to me, however. I expect President Obama to lie. Having read his own books and many others about him, I am aware his entire life is a lie, including how Selma, Alabama, was such an important part of his life, having been conceived there when in fact, he was already 4 years old when Selma happened.

    Hillary lies so well it is stunning. She actually seems at ease lying. If you didn't already know the truth, you could easily believe her, which is probably why so many liberals do. Some actually believe the lie that she was a spectacular secretary of state when in truth she has been a complete disaster.

    Watching her by the caskets, saying the ambassador was her friend, then lying made me shudder. I was reminded of that day long ago when I stood ironing in front of the TV and watched Bill Clinton stare right into my living room and say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Having already kept tabs on Bill, I knew that was a lie, so while shouting back at him I burned my hand with the iron. More reason to not like him.

    Bill and Hillary deserve each other. If nothing else, their marriage has saved two other people. However, America has not deserved any of these three. No, we have deserved much better then this LYING bunch, including some accurate reporting of all the news instead of the daily coverups we have grown accustomed to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My god your tin foil hat is on tight tonight!

      Delete
  6. I have read a number of nonsensical statements in my day, but this one must rank as one of the more ludicrous of the worst of those:

    The second absolute is the president’s duty to lobby editors and reporters against publishing anti-jihadi information, he said. ”And there is — this president, as the commander in chief, believes strongly in the responsibility that he has to advocate for our men and women in uniform, particularly if it’s going to make them safer,” Earnest said.

    To me, this sounds precisely like an executive order to submit to the will of Islam. This I will never do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stephen T. Sicks says

    MY FAVORITE FANTASY:

    To see the day when Obie and His Consort are dragged from the White House to the Capitol steps by a howling mob, stripped naked, held down, spat on, stomped, then disemboweled with a red hot poker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Stephen T. Sicks ,

      Why would you treat this situation so lightly?

      Delete
  8. Obama's White House, A House of Lies, Corruption, Tax Cheats, and Crooks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. Where would conservatism be without quotes taken out of context?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The leftwing screamers like Huff and Puff Po, Daily Kook and Moonbats Spouting Nothing But Crap have built a wheezing, anemic empire on quotes taken out of context and rightwing 'outrages' that upon further investigation are just normal activity.

      Delete
    2. The same place Liberalism resides. The land of politically correct memes.

      Delete
  10. “there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk,” Earnest said.
    -------
    Provides some context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, yes...I'm sure the soldiers are shaking in their boots.
      Yes, by all means, let's just shrink back, never criticize, just accept, ignore the signs, and move on, right?
      We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings or get "them" angry, do we.

      "context?" rubbish

      Delete
    2. During the Vietnam War, a lot of anti-war freedom of expression was exercised. Remember the photos we all saw every night on the news and on every newsstands?

      I don't recall that the press was told to stop so as not to endanger our military and their families.

      Delete
  11. Maybe he should consider it a moral responsibility to see the 2nd amendment vigorously used, too, but he never seems to go there.

    Once again, I am reminded of the story from British India where a family was planning to carry out the practice of burning the widow of a man who had just died. "It's our custom" they said. The governor responded that "it's our custom and law to hang men who do this." The lady didn't burn.

    Maybe Obama should reconsider his approach. Enough of this pandering to untoward touchiness as the 'custom' of the malignant. As long as they know there is a real and terrible price to pay for doing as Ducky suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, there will be no talk of jihad, but 6 months of non stop yapping about one mike brown who was killed (fortunately) in his attempt to kill an armed police officer with his bear hands is Okey Dokey. Furthermore, let's send his deadbeat mom and dad to the UN to bloviate about it as well. There isn't anything more disgusting in the display of libTardism than stuff like this. No Thing.
    Congrats libtards, you've lowered the bar even lower than Satan's butthole.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is it clear now why liberals want to call themselves “progressives”?

    One has to only read the crapola written by the dimwit above called "The One". Obviously, they recognize that most Americans reject liberalism for the corrosive, anti-American, self-destructive doctrine that it is. So they have to “repackage” their poison with a better-sounding name to fool people into buying the same old rot. Incidentally, “progressivism” is really a regressive ideology, one centered around the old-world regressive idea that elites can run your life better than you can, the pre-American idea that the average person doesn’t need and shouldn’t have too much freedom.
    Is it clear now why, in the “mainstream” media, we never hear mention of “liberal” policies or “liberal” politicians. There are no liberals, in their liberal minds. In the minds of the “mainstream” media, there are only evil conservatives (which interestingly, still comes in at a very popular 62% despite decades of relentless and non-stop slander and demonization by the “mainstream” media and other elites), and “moderates” (another rehabilitative name for “liberal”).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lime Rickey said

    A misfit who joined with Islam
    Thought all problems best solved with a bomb,
    So because of his wishin'
    He went to a mission
    And killed all caught singing a psalm!

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective