January 14, 2015
Obama administration working 24/7 to enforce blasphemy laws
By
Carol Brown
Obama is a shill for Islam. Hardly a day goes by when he, or someone in his administration, doesn’t do something that proves it. Some days, the garbage spews so fast it’s difficult to keep up. Just this week alone, the cow manure that was dumped on the American public (and the entire world) came fast and furious and without shame.
There was the predictable refusal to name the enemy, even after the jihad attacks in France. Obama’s determination to avoid taking this most basic step has become a dangerous obsession.
Islam has been at war with the rest of the world for 1400 years. And here we are in the 21st century going backwards; the President of the United States refuses to name the enemy. We can’t even get to square one.
Meanwhile Islam steadily advances. Despite being stuck in the 7th century, jihadists are light years ahead of us in this battle of the ages. We’re in a fight for our lives and we’re losing on all fronts.
Including free speech.
The White House is now peddling a new slogan intended to distort the way Americans understand acts of terror unfolding before their eyes. Here’s the latest meme: We are fighting extremism of all kinds.
Never mind that terror sweeping the globe is based on Islamic law. Never mind that jihadists are telling us the reasons for their actions. (And even if they didn’t, one can readily educate themselves by studying the Koran. In fact, please do. Then educate others.)
The vague and false idea that we’re fighting extremism in all its forms is the latest piece of propaganda offered up by an administration bent on concealing the truth. Obama and his minions have set out to convince Americans that what they’re seeing, what they’re hearing, and what they’re perceiving about Islam and terror, is false. In short, the administration is actively enforcing blasphemy laws. Welcome to the implementation of Sharia law by the President of the United States.
And so this week started out with dangerous words and ideas tumbling from the mouths of administration officials.
There was the news that Obama is moving up a summit originally planned for October that will now take place in February. The topic: “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” CNS News reports:White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced in a written statement today that President Obama will host a "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism"--not radical Muslim terrorrism--on Feb. 18 and that the event will be held "in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney and Paris."
The statement said one "theme" of the summit would be "religious leader engagement," but made no mention of radical Islamic terrorism. It also made reference to "foreign terrorist fighter recruitment" generically, but made no specific mention of radical Islamic terrorist groups recruting (sic) fighters in Western nations. Also addressing the summit and the administration’s policies on terror, Martha MacCallum (sitting in for Megyn Kelly) had an excellent segment on Monday. Below is an excerpt from the Fox News transcript of the opening of her program. (Link to video and transcript, here.)
MARTHA MACCALLUM, GUEST HOST: …There are new questions about the White House strategy to fight the war on terror. The critics say there is no cohesive strategy for one simple reason they say --the Obama administration refuses to recognize the real enemy and call it what is, radical Islam. Ed Henry pressed White House press secretary Josh Earnest on exactly this issue of strategy today…. (snip)
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Why wouldn't you use the phrase right there, that we are gonna take on Islamic extremism. You said all forms of violent extremism –
(CROSSTALK)
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: She asked me what the summit would discuss and all forms of violent -- violent extremism would be discussed, and obviously the most potent and certainly the most, you know, graphic display that we've seen in recent days is, again, is motivated by those individuals that seek to invoke the name of Islam to carry out these violent attacks, and that's certainly something we wanna work very hard to counter and mitigate and we've got a strategy that we've been discussing for some time to exactly do that.
HENRY: What is the most potent form according to you of extremism, why isn't the summit on countering Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Because violent extremism is something that we wanna be focused on and it's not just -- it's not just Islamic violent extremism that we want to counter there. There are other forms of –
(CROSSTALK)
HENRY: Paris, Australia, Canada, isn't the thread through them that it's Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Well, certainly those are -- the examples you cite are examples of individuals who've cited Islam as they'd carry out -- carried out acts of violence. There's -- there's no -- there's no arguing that.
(I wish Henry had rattled off a longer list of jihadist attacks, including those in the United States. And it’s always frustrating when people talk about Islamic extremists rather than Islam itself. But, ok. You have to start somewhere and considering how far behind the eight ball we are, as long as journalists are moving generally in the right direction, let’s just keep moving.)
After the clip, Fox News ran MacCallum’s interview with Marie Harf who picked up where Earnest left off, repeatedly asserting the idea that the administration wants to counter extremism in all its forms. MacCallum was dogged, but got nowhere against the blond with the horn-rimmed glasses doing a poor job of acting the role of an intelligent adult. Here are some excerpts. (The entire transcript and video can be found here.)
MACCALLUM: You know, every time we see this exchange, it seems like the answer is so tortured like it's so difficult to say what everybody around the world seems to feel so clearly it is and what the leaders have said in Canada and Australia and Paris where they have felt it so potently and personally. They've all said quite clearly that the battle is against Islamic extremism. Why is it so hard to say?
HARF: Well, it's not hard to say, but it's not the only kind of extremism we face…. (snip)
MACCALLUM: -- tell me, what other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?
HARF: Well, look, there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes…. (snip)
MACCALLUM: …I just think a lot of other countries probably listen to the way we're talking about this and scratch their heads and wonder why it's so hard to spit it out in a lot of these -- these conversations. (snip) ...I think the world is looking for a leader, you know, someone in the van (sic) of Winston Churchill or FDR who says, "Look, we know what we're facing here. This is a global war. This is, you know, girls taken by Boko Haram. This is 132 students massacred in Pakistan. This is people who are going out for coffee in Australia. This is people who were come -- just showing up for work in Paris."
And there's a common thread here of radical Islamic extremism and until President Obama or John Kerry or someone else in their position stands up and says, "Look, we know we're facing a global threat of radical Islamic extremism. We must ban together and we must fight it." That's what everybody is longing to hear, it appears, Marie.
Where is that message? (snip) -- let me ask you this, Marie, do you believe that there is a common thread in everything that I just mentioned? Is there a common thread?
HARF: I think that's a little overly simplistic to be honest with you, Martha….
As predictable as these spokespeople for the administration are, it makes them no less terrifying and dangerous. How they live with themselves knowing they are participating in something so malicious I do not know. But I guess malice (among other traits) is a common commodity.
But I digress.
On the topic of lies and enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws, there was more to come this week as Obama’s unrelenting efforts to enforce Sharia law continued to ramp up with increasing intensity. Per a tweet sent out by CBS news correspondent Mark Knoller, the administration would very much appreciate it if you wouldn’t say “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.”Also @PressSec says US prefers phrase "violent extremism based on a warped view of Islam" to "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam."
If I may be so presumptuous as to correct one wee detail: It’s not the “US” that prefers the phrase the press secretary claims we prefer. Many of us – I hope most of us – prefer words and phrases that reflect the truth. But, yeah, I get it. The administration is doing their level best to brainwash Americans (and the rest of the world) by whitewashing Islam. But, no, I won’t be incorporating the absurd phrase/lie “violent extremism based on a warped view of Islam” into my lexicon, but thanks anyway.
Sharia law is alive and well in the Oval Office.
Alas, there was still more this week on the issue of blasphemy: Obama is going to use our troops as human shields in the battle for free speech, for truth, and indeed for the survival of the west (and indeed all of civilization).
How?
By framing the need to clamp down on speech that offends Muslims as necessary in order to protect our troops. As Ed Lasky noted, The Daily Caller reports:
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.
This president had the gall to increase the risk to our troops with insane rules of engagement and now turns around and uses them as a bogus rationale for enforcing blasphemy laws. Our troops, who have fought against jihad, are now being held up as the reason we must take care not to offend Muslims.
It is beyond disgusting. Sometimes there really are no adequate words to be found.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3OnoVC8wF
Politics
White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles
White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles
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 defense 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 those 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.
Re: Paris: Terror Attack at Newspaper
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by American Patriot
Bookmarks