McCarthyism I can support
Andrew McCarthy is one of our most percipient commentators on law and on Islam, writing with a clarity and knack for grasping the essential that are a joy, and an education, to behold. In his PJM column today, both aspects of his expertise are on display. The column is called “It’s Not Just Obama’s Lies — It’s the Premise of Obama’s Lies,” and it takes off from Candy Crowley’s effort in Tuesday’s debate to save face for Obama over the Libyan disaster. We all know now that that attack, which left an American ambassador and three other Americans dead, was a coordinated assault timed to coincide with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
He wishes to forget it now, but President Obama spent the first two weeks following the attack claiming that the attack was sparked by a jejune Internet video that is rude about Mohammed. He sent his ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, on a TV-tour to say just that (the attack was “spontaneous, not premeditated”), and he himself said essentially the same thing September 19 on David Letterman’s show. Crowley fudged the point, “aided and abetted” President Obama’s lies, and doubtless ended her career as a debate moderator by her immoderate, clearly partisan behavior.
That point, I believe, is pretty widely understood. But Andy makes the important further point that what’s most troubling about the episode is not Obama’s lies — perhaps “misrepresentations” sounds a bit better — but the premise that stands behind his lies.
Remember the way the controversy evolved. The president’s contention was that the violence was caused by the video. It turns out that the violence was not caused by the video but, pace Susan Rice, was a carefully premeditated attack. The unspoken premise here is that if the president, Rice, et al. had been correct about the video’s having triggered the violence then the filmmaker in question would be responsible for that violence. (By the way, what happened to that filmmaker anyway? The last time I checked, he had been arrested and, according to some reports, was being held in solitary confinement.)
Here’s the issue: You pursue your constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. Ahmed over there doesn’t like the cartoon you drew, the book you wrote, or the film you made, ergo he murders some nuns in Somalia and burns down assorted embassies around the world. Is it the author of the cartoon, the book, the filmmaker who is responsible for the carnage? Answer: no. It’s Ahmed and his friends who perpetrated the violence.
As Andy notes, “It is as though we have conceded that, if the movie had actually triggered protests that led to violence (as Islamist protests are wont to do), responsibility for that violence would lie with the filmmakers. The culprit would be our culture of liberty and reason, not the anti-democratic culture of the Muslim Middle East.” But that, as he argues, “is dangerous nonsense.” Here’s the bottom line:
Constitutionally protected speech can never be legitimized as a cause of violence. Period.
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this point. As various (mostly Islamic) governments and other international bodies around the world contemplate bringing back laws against blasphemy, the central, bedrock principle of free speech, a veritable lifeline of democracy, is at risk.
All Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do.
–Ari Fleischer
That was wrong then and this is wrong now.
Here is why the “anti-blasphemy” attacks on free speech are particularly egregious at this time:
In the name of exactly what … are the terrorist attacks against the West being perpetrated? Does, or does not, Islam have anything to do with it?
Anyone who thinks that Islam, as a motivator and as a common cause, has nothing to do with it has an ideological tumor of the brain that has destroyed his ability to think or see the truth.
I posit the “despicable” (Hilary’s word) truth that Islam has something to do with the worldwide terror campaign which is a threat to the entire civilized world. As such, it is of overwhelming importance that we be able to talk about it. Putting a victim of Islamic violence against the Copts in jail for venting his feelings about Islam, albeit under the pretense he was jailed for a previously ignored parole violation (limiting his speech rights), is as despicable an act as our government under Obama’s watch has committed. Far worse is the support it gives for limiting our speech rights against our enemies.
What could be more wrong and more insane than chilling criticism of Islam at a time when, all around the world, people inspired by Mohammed and what he founded are preaching hate and violence against us, are acting on what they preach, and are doing their best to destroy us. It is not a time to persecute, in the name of multiculturalism, people who speak ill of Islam and its prophet.
Those who aid and abet the anti free speech movement against “blasphemy” aid and abet our enemies. They wish, ludicrously, to call us bigots. Fine. In return, I call them traitors.
It’s that important, and it’s that simple.
Yes, Fleischer was right, we do need to watch what we say and do. We need to hang together and not say terrible bigoted things like remarks that he was criticizing. What has that got to do with this article? Even if this Nakoula person (or whatever his real name is, whatever his real agenda is, and wherever he really got his funding) shouldn’t have made the movie, he still had the right to do so, and that right is still protected by the first amendment. His arrest is flagrantly unconstitutional, because it’s clear retaliation for his having exercised his constitutional right.
Exactly…..Bill Mahr has said and continues to say much worse things on his show about Christians and or Mitt Romney’s faith than this poorly made film has said about Mohammad and or his faith…..Mahr’s liberal audience explode’s with applause….Should we cut off Bill Mahr’s Head?….On second thought….. Naw…..We don’t even want to go there!
When in doubt, return to first principles and the Founding Fathers. In 1789, most if not all Staes had blaspemy laws. The original penalties extended to death, although I believe the last man executed for blasphemy was in England in the early 19th Century (that would be 18?? Anno Domini, by the frikkin’ way, not B.C.E. or whatever our own anti-Christian, anti-Europesan, anti-Western-Civilization shysters are suing about today). The Founders did not entertain for one nano-second the thought that anti-Mohammedan blasphemy would ever be punished in their Christian country. How ridiculous. The Enlightenemnt evil was planted and growing, but hadn’t put any shoots above-ground then. The essential point was/is/will always be that every society has to ‘be’ something. The world-historical record for an atheist society is about 70 years (the USSR). And how many millions had to be killed to extend that freak-show of a society even that long? Human Nature, the immutable, innate, hereditary arrangement of the human brain that the Enlightenment fools denied, follows certain simple, but ruthlessly-enforced rules. One of them might be summed up as : “F*ck them; they’re not our people.” You can unilaterally renounce normal human behavior, but be prepared to pay the ultimate price for abandoning natural social rules. As Jefferson summed it up, in a realistic moment — “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will be doing the plowing for those who do not.” Similary, those who do not defend their religion against serious infidels will be serving those infidels as slaves PDQ. Hey, Christian Europeans have learned this lesson more than once already (ever heard of the Balkans?) — it isn’t even debatable any more, except with brain-damaged utopian geeks.
Just because a progressive is dressed in elephant hide rather than donkey doesn’t make him right. The problem is that we’ve been forced to vote for the lesser of two evils my entire life.
I couldn’t have said it better myself SDN. Progressives, whether they are Democrat or Republican, are enemies of liberty.
Do you remember the context of that statement?
When a leadership’s goal IS protect some speech, at the expense of others, then the insane gobblygook about ‘the video made them do it’ makes sense.
The point being, the Radical/Islamist-in-Chief (and his surrogates) truly want to suppress any mention of Islam as a violent construct. At the same time, anyone who utters a peep against said outrages is subject to punishment & censure. So, they want to make sure there is price tag to be paid for certain ‘free’ utterances.
In no uncertain terms, these strictures empower anti-Americans and eviscerate liberty and freedom. And THAT is their plan.
The following tells part of the tale – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/17/when-is-the-u-s-others-near-bowed-when-israeli-flags-christians-too-are-banned-in-a-city-near-you-addendum-to/, but there is so much more.
“Rubbish masquerading as art is nothing new.”
Why call the video rubbish? CYA? Have you even seen it?
I would go one step further. The president, our civil authorities and our military have an affirmative duty to protect and defend the Koran burners and Muhammad insulters among us.
Absolutely right.
After 911 I read a few books and watched a few documentaries. My honest conclusion is Mohammad sucked and Islam sucks. I gave it a fair chance but it blows and as an informed citizen that is my opinion and I can defend my opinion.
I watched one documentary going on and on about the great water systems in Islamic cities of Syria. If you capture a city built by the Romans don’t tell me you invented the aqueduct.
People who know a little history know that almost every ancient “discovery” by Islam was in fact something that existed before Islam. Something about conquering two of the greatest empires ever to exist, the Byzantine (West Roman) and Persian Empires, gave the Muslims access to the greatest architecture, medicine, science, mathematics and literature the world had at that time. What have they discovered since then?
I think you mean Eastern?
Forgive me for possibly being off topic, but this is about ObamaLies, is it not?
Well, if you don’t pay back taxes, your chances at getting hired by the most corrupt White House in the history of the United States raise to more than 70%.
Upon hearing this, Obama not only says he finds these allegations offensive, but said, if true, he wasn’t to blame because he had been kept in the dark regarding these hiring practices, much like his “kept in the dark response” to Operation Fast and Furious and his similar, “kept in the dark response” to the lack of security at Benghazi. Apparently, the buck stops at the President’s desk for only a drink of water.
Perhaps, as Mr. Fleischer said, I need to watch what I say, but if somebody doesn’t speak up, Obama might run roughshod over the Constitution. Which, in my view, would not be good.
My sense tells me Obama is a very bad President, not just because of hiring practices, but because he takes tax payer money and tends to waste in by putting it in the pocket of his money bundlers.
So if (as implied by his denials) his sppointees are a incompetant as this, maybe he should ask Mitt to lend him some of those binders?
Don’t forget Owebama was “kept in the dark” for 20 years about Rev. Wright’s anti-American tirades from the pulpit. I personally think he’s just too plain stupid and easy to fool to be President. You can’t have it both ways, Barry. Which is it–too stupid or too corrupt?
stupidity and corruption are not mutually exclusive.
Has anyone done a critique of the video showing where it actually incorrect (as opposed to being politically incorrect)?
Is the film maker still held as a political prisoner without bail by the regime and its surrogates?
At this point, they have a tiger by the tail. Should they let him go free and he is murdered by fanatical muslims, then they will have screaming phosphorescent blood on their hands going right into a presidential election. May God help this man after 3 November.
Mark E., actually, it’s a pretty fair depiction of what is in the Koran and Hadiths though it is very badly done. The Islamists seem to take offense to non-Muslims mentioning Mohammad and what he did even though it is exactly what is written in their own sacred texts.
It is important to remember that the Demunist mayor of LA commands the LAPD. It is he, not Obama, who must have ordered the film-maker’s arrest at this time. Even if someone in the administration did phone LA’s mayor asking for the arrest, the White House has no means to enforce such an order.
This mayor is the same tool who shut down the opposition of his own party at the Dem convention.
Thanks to both McCarthy and Kimball for these articles.
So, if there was a violent demonstration against America because we tolerate openly gay behavior and women having equal rights as men, how would the One respond to that?
He would send in an inadequate number of insufficiently armed Marines under selfdestructive rules of engagement to occupy space, consume oxygen and be killed off.
Our greatest danger is from our own tendency, when angry mobs form and men with followings threaten bloodshed, to seek the easiest way out:
Steyn realized this long before any other major commentator. It deserves every American’s sober reflection.
…most troubling about the episode is not Obama’s lies — perhaps “misrepresentations” sounds a bit better — but the premise that stands behind his lies… the central, bedrock principle of free speech, a veritable lifeline of democracy, is at risk.
Barack Obama doesn’t like Americans having freedom of speech. His remarks, his attempts to shut up his detractors in the early months of his administration, demonstrated that. He does it less now, apparently having recognized the futility of accomplishing that goal.
At least for the moment. He seems to think now (has said as much) that re-election would give him a kind of mandate to get ‘er ALL done.
Leftists as a rule don’t like Americans’ freedom of anything. What we have, what we earn…is all, ultimately, the property of government. Government then re-distributes based on its assessment of whether or not we’ve been good little boys and girls.
Statists also determine what we can and cannot say.
“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors…That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny…Only the wicked Governours of Men dread what is said of them…”
~Benjamin Franklin
Thank you, Messrs. Kimball & McCarthy, for these insightful reflections!
As a Christian minister (Presbyterian), it continues to trouble me when images that desecrate Holy symbols of our faith are widely displayed (and publicized!) as art. Yet, I must restrain my anger with the thought that I am blessed in the United States of America with the right to speak freely against said art from the pulpit. I am humbled, and my anger subsides as remember my brethren under oppression in nations which legislate that one religion is the sole, true religion–and thus they suffer without a dis-establishment clause in a constitution.
How do I preach? Do I plant seeds in young minds that violence is somehow the answer? Do I organize a march with incendiary posters that may end in mob violence against museum curators, staff, the artist and his/her family?
No, rather, I remember words from one who hung on a cross as he surveyed the crowds from many ethnic groups and nations who sent him there:
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”. (Luke 23:34a).
I think they (leftists) know exactly what they do.
With the utmost design and intentionality.
From more serious and complex considerations of free speech such as Nazis marching in Skokie in the late ’70s to less serious expressions such as “artistic” photos of a crucifix in urine, the lesson has been to take it and like it; it is free speech.
However, whether we like it or not, in such cases, a debate about whether violence might be incited was present. In that sense, it IS the potential reaction of a given group that is taken into account. When Terry Jones wanted to burn a Koran early last year, the concept of breech of the peace, rightly or wrongly, was taken into account.
There is our personal opinion, the law and then how the law is actually expressed, and they may differ according to the situation; that difference is often the source of our frustration.
In the case of this so-called anti-Islamic film, no matter how bad it is, it is essentially no different from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.” If that is the case, then the Obama administration is simply doubling down on stupidity, using a cement life preserver as it were.
Your insight, that the Obama administration is refusing to defend the citizens’ right to free speech, is one that needs to be promulgated more widely. Too bad the mass media do not bother to make the same point.
Also negligent are the clergy of the major religions in the West. I was raised Catholic and learned very early in life that an important task of a believer is to avoid sin. So, for instance, if something routinely makes a person commit a sin, then the person should take care avoid the temptation to sin by avoiding that thing or situation. If a TV program or a video tends to induce a person to sin, then the person should avoid the TV program or video. Surely Islam has some similar or identical approach to sin and temptation. So why don’t the clergy in the West simply stand up and say–if watching a video makes you want to kill, and if killing is a sin, then don’t look at the video. After all, nobody is compelled to get on their computer, spend time googling to uncover an obscure movie trailer, and then watch it. Indeed, why didn’t the Obama administration point this out to the Islamic protestors?
It ought to be obvious to any truly religious person, even to those adhering to the Islamic religion, that the Islamic clergy ought to be trying to help their people avoid sins, like murder, rather than ignoring the sins. The fact that the Islamic clergy do not speak out against hatred and murder indicates that the Islamic clergy are totally corrupt as religious leaders.
Nice sentiment, Gloria, but here’s the reality: Murdering Infidels, Blasphemers, and most especially Blaspheming Infidels, is not a “sin” in Islam. On the contrary, it’s more like a virtue. That means, as well, that their “clergy” are NOT corrupt for not calling the “sheep” on it. Far from it, THEY would be considered corrupt if they criticized the perps. That’s how fundamental Islam works. That’s why it is utterly incompatible with our core Western values. It makes no compromises and takes no prisoners unless it is in a distinctly weaker position. It turns our value of tolerance on its head and uses it against us. This is the ultimate reason why O’hillary’s, O’rice’s and O’bama’s rhetoric and actions are essentially treasonous, regardless of their pretended justification.
Re: “Here’s the bottom line: Constitutionally protected speech can never be legitimized as a cause of violence. Period.”
The precedent has already been set in stone, when we, the people, sat back and allowed Congress to pass federal law making it a “hate crime” to use certain “inflammatory” statements or use certain “racist remarks” or use certain “names” that could incite an individual or group of people to violence. (That is not the legal wording, but y’all know what I’m talking about.) If I use the politically-incorrect “N” word, then I can be put in jail, whereas the person who beats the snot out of me for using that word is deemed “justified”. College kids can hang a rag doll in a basement, as a poorly-conceived prank but have not done any physical harm or damage, and those kids can be charged with a “hate crime” and go to jail, because it “recalls negative memories from times past for people of a certain race” and that makes them unhappy. Whatever happened to what our moms always said: “Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names (or “words”) can never hurt you.” Go figure!
The Left operates according to one-way street principles. In this case, free speech for me, but not for thee.
Let’s replace the identities of the players in this drama and see where blame falls:
Hothead Christians burn down a museum and murder its curator over Piss Christ. Andreas Serrano is blamed by the leader of the world’s most powerful (and brokest) nation and is jailed.
Bush voters torch a theater showing Farenheit 911. Michael Moore is incarcerated without hearing or trial. The ‘leader of the free world’ and a cabinet member make a commercial apologizing for the ‘art’ and the ‘documentary’.
You get the idea. In other words, it’s never fascism when they do it.
Hey “cousin” Vinny: “…torch a theater showing Farenheit 911. Michael Moore is incarcerated without hearing or trial.” I’m beginning to like this idea. /sarc
The ultimate safe crime seems to be when not only the victim is blamed, but also the perp gets to assess blame. Now that’s the kind of Mafia even I would join. /
Obama and the rest of the vile left would have us believe that Benghazi was simply a movie review that got out of hand. They have no intention of defending that most quintessential American value, the right of free speech. That proves they have no concept of what it means to be an American, which to me also means that, regardless of what it says on their passport, they are not Americans. Once again, they have proven that they are nothing but a tumor on the American body politic.
In a free society, there is no right not to be offended. Only in a warped society with a feminized mindset catering to hurt feelings could such an idea even be contemplated let alone accepted.
When there’s a fire in the theater, it’s your duty to yell “fire”.
I read an interesting thread last year on a British newspaper. The commenter was an Austrian woman. She said she belonged to a book club and they met once a month. In a book club discussion, she remarked that one of the behaviors of the founder of the Islamic religion was illegal in Austria. She named that specific behavior. She was reported to the police and convicted (a misdemeanor) for insulting a religion.
Now she has to go the the police station to get permission to leave the country. Her passport has been blocked without obtaining special police permission to take a vacation in Italy.
I don’t know if that is an Austrian law or if the EU passed that law and it applies to all 27 countries of the EU. A very slippery slope.
I have also read that the UN is planning a treaty to make insulting a religion a crime. I also read that Hillary met with OIC (57 Islamic states) representatives, and agreed to support such a UN treaty. If president Obama is re-elected, and this is reaches his desk, I expect Obama would sign away our first amendment rights, but would the Senate ratify? If UN treaties ever override our first amendment rights, what’s next?
The ultimate point is whether individuals are responsible for their actions. According to the president, they are not. Moslems clearly don’t believe that individuals are responsible for their actions, blaming all and sundry for murders they themselves commit.
As noted above, the president, and members of his administration, don’t believe in individual responsibility. That is clearly demonstrated by their rationalization that the deaths found their origin in an internet film trailer, rather than in the actions of the “demonstrators.”
Against this background one might well ask, “Whither freedom of speech?”
It’s called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Obama’s clique, indeed the entire gaggle of progressive drones would be aghast if somebody dismissed the riots and attacks with “Well, what do you expect from a bunch of wogs?” and yet their speech and behavior is based upon that very sentiment.
But bigotry is at the base of nearly every cherished progressive ideal. Affirmative action? “Well, it isn’t as if those people could get into a decent school on their own, you know.” Women’s rights? “Don’t worry your pretty little head, dear, here’s your free contraceptives.” Poverty? “Okay, you’re hapless and incompetent, we get it. Here, have some food stamps and rent vouchers and free bus tickets.”
Really their foreign policy is just another manifestation of their world view: a denial of inherent human nature and a belief that if only the right people are in control the world will be happy, happy. In criminal justice: it’s not the murderer who is responsible, it’s the gun manufacturer. In education: it’s not the parents who set the tone, expectation and maximally control the outcome, it is the quality of the teacher, the quality of the book, the lack of the “right” nutrition, the hours spent at school, the lack of a lap top, the lack of access to the Internet, the lack of enough math teachers….on and on. In the civil aspects of life: it’s not the person’s choice to smoke or inability to kick an addiction or perhaps a conscious desire not to because they enjoy smoking, it’s the cigarette company’s false advertising and failure to warn about something we all know anyway. It’s not the bully, it’s the lack of a really good anti-bullying strategy, because if we tell everyone how great it is to be nice in a really effective communicative way, everyone will be nice. If we call all children scholars, all children will aspire to read Shakespeare and love learning above all else. It is the worldview of Pollyannish, nine year olds.
If a film or a cartoon or the burning of a Koran is to be held up as the direct cause of violence or murder or breach of the peace, then how much more responsibility for retaliation and terrorism must Team Obama be due for the actions they have taken? Obama brags about getting Bin Laden, then the film reliving the story of the victory of Obama over the Muslim leader…again. Muslim terrorist leaders (along with many “acceptable” collateral innocent victims and families) massacred in drone attacks without trial or due process, leaders of sovereign nations murdered, their cities left in shambles, their riches frozen or pilfered or sanctions placed on them, their peoples left to defend themselves from rebel forces. Makes one sick to realize that waterboarding could never even come close to what this administration has wrought in our name and with our tax dollars. But if it comes down to assigning responsibility for stirring violence and inviting retaliation, then Obama and his “kill list” should be the very first one arrested. Oh but then he’s nothing if not a hypocrite. What a disgrace.
If you had a copy of the Koran on your computer and you deleted it, would that be a crime?
Uh-oh. Short answer, yes. Longer answer, even posing the question is a crime.
“Behead those who reformat Islam’s hard drive!”
Morally, freedom of speech is limited not only to “the shouting of FIRE in a crowded theatre”; but also to the point at which falsehood begins. As long as it is true, speech must be free. To the extent thatgiven speech is untrue, it must be punished. But our constitution does not make that differentiation.Various court decisions do.
Islam is Evil, in fact and in history.
Evil must be destroyed.
Ergo, Islam must be destroyed.
I do have a problem with you title: “McCarthyism I can support”
McCarthy was right.
yes, even more than right. History records the treasonous acts of the Truman administration: refusing to interdict the communist chinese crossing the Yalu into North Korea after we had, for practical purposes defeated the North Koreans and won the war. Conspiring with another traitor, George Catlin Marshall to end arms shipments to Chiang Kai Shek and so abandoning China to the communists. Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, Owen Lattimore, etc., ad nauseum, all traitors and communists spoonfed by Truman. His betrayal of our Marines at the Yalu exceeded even Kennedy’s betrayal of the Freedom Fighters at the Bay of Pigs.