Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
Jihad Watch has several days worth of posts on Muslims and their enablers who are aggressively working to submit us all to Islamic sharia law. Some examples just from this morning:
- Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calls for international criminalization of insults to prophets
- Grand Imam of al-Azhar urges UN to criminalize insults to Islam
- Dearborn Imam Hassan al-Qazwini calls on U.S. to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws
- CNN, Islamic supremacist pseudo-academic Omid Safi come out against the freedom of speech
There are a dozen more examples including many voices in the U.S. Atlas Shrugs has been at the forefront of fighting Muslims and their enablers (CAIR, ISNA, ACLU, etc.) who are hell bent on enforcing Islamic sharia blasphemy laws (and more) on non-Muslims around the world. And she is winning. But the same people who defame and oppose her will stand with violent Muslims who want to enforce sharia law on all of us.
It’s not about a movie. It’s about our freedom. Who is going to fight for it if our own leaders refuse to do so?
George Washington put it clearly centuries ago:
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
And remember, Muslims in U.S. mosques are taught that there is no freedom of speech in Islam (watch video). Some perspectives from respected sources:
Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.
What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.
Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).
And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.
What’s more, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who are happy to stoke hostility. . . . That’s why it seems to me to actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, “murder won’t get you what you want.” Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than “murder will get you what you want.”
“This is the latest triumph of politics over principle by the Obama administration,” Turley told The Daily Caller in a phone interview. “The position of the White House is rather transparent. It does not want to be seen as limiting free speech. This request was couched as a review.”
“The film was simply an act of free speech. The position of the United States should be clear. Violence was not caused by any film,” said Turley. “Free speech is not a characteristic of America. It defines being an American.”
Turley added that the administration has done “unprecedented harm” to principles of free speech.
White House press secretary Jay Carney has denied that the White House asked YouTube to censor the video, a position Turley called “perfectly incoherent.”
“What would a review entail that was not an implicit request for removal?” Turley asked.
Google has blocked access to the video in Egypt, Libya and India amid concerns the film is inciting violence.
“YouTube has been very successful in creating a platform for global dialogue,” Turley said. “It is a mistake for the company to yield to extremism and intolerance.”
Again, for those in the know, Youtube yielded to extremism and intolerance long ago. They have permitted jihad videos and recruiting to flourish on their site and banned users who post videos critical of Islam. Most egregiously, Youtube banned an anti-sharia video by a candidate for Congress running against Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison.
Andrew McCarthy: Obama vs. the First Amendment
In 2009, the Obama State Department ceremoniously joined with Muslim governments to propose a United Nations resolution that, as legal commentator Stuart Taylor observed, was “all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.” Titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” — a name only an Alinskyite or a Muslim Brotherhood tactician could love — the resolution was the latest salvo in a years-long campaign by the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”). The OIC’s explicit goal is to coerce the West into adopting sharia, particularly its “defamation” standards.
Sharia severely penalizes any insult to Islam or its prophet, no matter how slight. Death is a common punishment. And although navel-gazing apologists blubber about how “moderate Islamist” governments will surely ameliorate enforcement of this monstrous law, the world well knows that the “Muslim street” usually takes matters into its own hands — with encouragement from their influential sheikhs and imams.
In its obsession with propitiating Islamic supremacists, the Obama administration has endorsed this license to mutilate. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits sharia restrictions on speech about religion. As any Catholic or Jew can tell you, everyone’s belief system is subject to critical discussion. One would think that would apply doubly to Islam. After all, many Muslims accurately cite scripture as a justification for violence; and classical Islam recognizes no separation between spiritual and secular life — its ambition, through sharia, is to control matters (economic, political, military, social, hygienic, etc.) that go far beyond what is understood and insulated as “religious belief” in the West. If it is now “blasphemy” to assert that it is obscene to impose capital punishment on homosexuals and apostates, to take just two of the many examples of sharia oppression, then we might as well hang an “Out of Business” sign on our Constitution.
The Obama administration, however, did not leave it at the 2009 resolution. It has continued to work with the OIC on subordinating the First Amendment to sharia’s defamation standards — even hosting last year’s annual conference, a “High Level Meeting on Combatting Religious Intolerance.” That paragon of speech sensitivity, Secretary of State Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton, hailed as a breakthrough a purported compromise that would have criminalized only speech that incited violence based on religious hostility. But it was a smokescreen: Speech that intentionally solicits violence, regardless of the speaker’s motivation, is already criminal and has always been exempted from First Amendment protection. There is no need for more law about that.
The sharia countries were happy with the compromise, though, because it also would have made unlawful speech that incites mere “discrimination” and “hostility” toward religion. Secretary Clinton’s feint was that this passed constitutional muster because such speech would not be made criminally unlawful. Yet the First Amendment says “make no law,” not “make no criminal law,” restricting speech. The First Amendment permits us to criticize in a way that may provoke hostility — it would be unconstitutional to suppress that regardless of whether the law purporting to do so was civil, as opposed to criminal.
But let’s put the legal hair-splitting aside. Knowing her legal position was unsound, and that traditional forms of law could not constitutionally be used to suppress critical examination of religion, Secretary Clinton further explained the administration’s commitment “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The government is our servant, not our master — besides enforcing valid laws, it has no business using its coercive power to play social engineer. More to the present point, however, the administration was effectively saying it is perfectly appropriate to employ extra-legal forms of intimidation to suppress speech that “we abhor.”
And that brings us full circle, back to the LA Times cover
up story. See their update to quell the masses now that Americans are figuring out that you don’t send a platoon of cops to bring a man voluntarily to his probation officer. Days ago the Associated Press already let the world know they had traced his cell phone and located him and the Feds were investigating. Investigating what?
The LA County sheriff’s were infiltrated by sharia-espousing Muslims long ago and is at their mercy. See many back posts here. Carrying out Eric Holder’s orders on behalf of Obama and the Muslim world took a man into custody because he made a film about Islam. He may go to prison for it.
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
Educate Yourself Before They Do: