web analytics
July 24, 2014 / 26 Tammuz, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
IDC Advocacy Room IDC Fights War on Another Front

Student Union opens ‘hasbara’ room in effort to fill public diplomacy vacuum.



Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

The Innocence of Obama

The more people die of Muslim violence, the more the principle of the innocence of Muslims must be upheld, because it is no longer just the innocence of Muslims that is at stake, but the innocence of the political establishment that has looked away while the fires burned.
Barack_obama_6

Photo Credit: YY

The innocence of Obama is intertwined with the innocence of Muslims. If Muslims are innocent of terror, then so is the foreign policy that has empowered them. But if Muslims are guilty of terror then the politicians who have pandered to them are guilty of enabling it at the least. If Muslims are innocent of terror, then Obama is innocent of complicity in their terror. But if Muslim terror is a true thing, then the man who helped them unleash it by toppling stable governments and replacing them with Islamist movements and militias shares in their guilt.

Censorship is only truly necessary when censoring the guilt of governments and protecting their policies. And the censorship of the War on Terror is not the censorship of dissent from the policy of fighting terrorists. Such dissent can be found in every newspaper editorial office and in the offices of every third Northeastern Congressman. It is the dissent from the policy of fighting the symptoms of terror, rather than the roots of terror, from the policy of not fighting Islamic terrorism, that is censored and punished, that is a firing offense and a locking away offense.

In the age of terror, the dangerous ones are not those who denounce the war, but those who denounce the lack of a war, who upset the balance of an inept policy that seeks a small controllable conflict by closing our eyes to the larger threat. It is these dangerous ones who must be censored so that we may go on safely losing our nation building wars, bringing home coffins, Korans and refugees without ever questioning whether this should be so.

The War on Terror has not impeded the civil liberties of those who oppose the war, but of those who oppose the terror.

In 1919, the same year that Goldstein’s appeal was being heard, the Supreme Court ruled on Schenck v. United States. The case is obscure, but it has given us a famous phrase from the legal mouth of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater.”

This timeless phrase, long since legally discredited, came to life when Muslims began burning embassies while the White House claimed that the fault lay not in its foreign policy, which had overturned allies and replaced them with murderous Islamists, but with a movie. Pundits dug up  Schenck and began penning essays suggesting that offending a Muslim should be as illegal as shouting fire in a crowded mosque.

Under the new civil liberties, the right of a Muslim to praise terrorists, upload videos promoting terrorism and even funding terrorist charities would be sacrosanct under the Bill of Rights. But make a movie mocking Mohammed and suddenly the Bill of Rights won’t be returning your phone calls as you are being frog-marched to your new cell.

In civil liberties circles it is claimed that the war against terrorism has deprived Muslims of their civil rights, but in reality Muslims have gained rights, while we have lost them. The balance between the civil rights of Americans and the need to avoid offending Muslims has been shifting their way and we all pay the price when we fly and soon enough we will begin paying it when we talk.

America’s first political prisoner in generations is under arrest for offending Muslims and as a cover for the failed policy of appeasing Muslims. If history is any guide, then he will not be the last. The more bombs go off, the more buildings burn and the more questions are asked, the more Youssefs will be needed to deflect those questions and protect the innocence of Muslims and of their political panderers.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater,” Holmes said, and modern day Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has suggested that burning a Koran may be considered a modern day version of the same thing. But what if a man isn’t falsely shouting fire, what if there really is a fire? And what if the theater management has him dragged away for causing a panic even while the smell of charred flesh rises into the air and the red curtains around the screen begin to burn?

About the Author: Daniel Greenfield is an Israeli born blogger and columnist, and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His work covers American, European and Israeli politics as well as the War on Terror. His writing can be found at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/. The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of The Jewish Press.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

Please use the Facebook Tab below to leave your comment:

7 Responses to “The Innocence of Obama”

  1. Allan Enkin says:

    Well argued, I commend the clarity you have brought to the question.

  2. Gil Gilman says:

    The article is accurate in its logic, but needlessly long. It would be worth it to the casual reader to focus on paragraphs 14, 22, and 23. Number 14 deals with the purpose of governmental censureship, although I can't agree with the notion of "only" in the paragraph, certainly child pornography would come as legitimate heading under censorship. Paragraphs 22 and 23 deal with an analysis of ideas regarding free speech, and was thoroughly enjoyable, so much so that I chuckled out loud and everyone glanced my way as if to ask if I'd lost my senses. The only idea I would interject is "this is the way they treated the prophet Jeremiah, and all bearers of truthful bad tidings." It is also the reason that the at large public will not heed the warning herein presented. They have been so busy lying to and deluding themselves they are afraid to open their eyes and unstop their eyes long enough to see the calamity coming upon them.

  3. Is it not true according to the sharia laws that they will kill all lesbians and gays, well then Hillary Clinton and obummer had better run for their lives, right?

  4. Liad Bar-el says:

    Excellent article Daniel.

    There's a fire in the White House!

    As I have learned from Yehuda Cohen, the Rambam, Rabbi Mosheh Ben Maimon (Maimonides), wrote a formal didactic (teaching) letter to the Yemenite Jews in 1172 informing them that Muhammad is a false prophet and insane.

    With the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, http://www.Muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com this criminal craziness as you have expertly written has been established as sanity and anyone who opposes it as criminally crazy.

    Before you are taken away from us by telling the truth about Islam, please inform your relatives to post your address on the Jewish Press so that we can at least send you a box of chocolates.

  5. "Under the new civil liberties, the right of a Muslim to praise terrorists, upload videos promoting terrorism and even funding terrorist charities would be sacrosanct under the Bill of Rights. But make a movie mocking Mohammed and suddenly the Bill of Rights won’t be returning your phone calls as you are being frog-marched to your new cell.

    In civil liberties circles it is claimed that the war against terrorism has deprived Muslims of their civil rights, but in reality Muslims have gained rights, while we have lost them. The balance between the civil rights of Americans and the need to avoid offending Muslims has been shifting their way and we all pay the price when we fly and soon enough we will begin paying it when we talk."

  6. It is a lie to follow muslimehoods , hogwash and buzzard bait, look even Egyptians don't like the muslim brotherhood,they protest against the brotherhood and it is good they will kill in their name,obummer is the front runner for the muslims here in USAmerica, he is despicable , nothing but lies will bring him his fate to

  7. prove that "God" doesn't like liars!!!!

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Loading Disqus Comments ...
Current Top Story
Israel Air Force bombed a Hamas terrorist command center based in a hospital. The UN confirmed the hospital was evacuated before the raid.
3,400 Targets Hit by IDF So Far, Tunnels Remain Major Threat
Latest Indepth Stories
Rabbi Meir Kahane at the National Press Club ~ 1985

Rabbi Kahane spoke of transfer, because it was what the Torah spoke of.

Hamas terrorists in Gaza have been using human shields to protect them from the IDF as they launch rocket attacks against Israel.

People test Israel every day to see how serious we really are in knowing when we are right.

Jews inside Paris synagogue surrounded by protesters throwing rocks, holding bats and chairs.

Should Jews in Europe take more responsibility in self-defense of community and property?

Map_of_the_Continent_of_Europe

Germany’s The Jewish Faith newspaper ominously noted, “We Jews are in for a war after the war.”

The truth is we seldom explore with kids what prayer is supposed to be about.

Almost as one, Jews around the world are acknowledging the day-to-day peril facing ordinary Jews in Israel and the extraordinary service of the IDF in protecting them.

So on the one hand Secretary Kerry makes no bones about who is at fault for the current hostilities: he clearly blames Hamas.

King Solomon said it long ago: “Cast your bread upon the waters” because you don’t know when you’ll hit something. Our job is to do.

The anti-Israel camp does not need to win America fully to its side. Merely to neutralize it would radically alter the balance of power and put Israel in great jeopardy.

We mourn the dead, wish a speedy recovery to the wounded, and pray that God guides the government.

Charges from the court of world public opinion and their refutations.

It is up to our government to ensure that their sacrifices were not made for short-term gains.

Supporting Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, has become dangerous in Malmo.

Proportionality Doctrine:The greater the military gain the greater the justifiable collateral damage

More Articles from Daniel Greenfield
Titian's rendering of the Biblical killing of Abel by his brother Cain.

It is not Cain’s fault that he kills. It is Abel’s fault that he builds.

No matter what the PLO did, you blamed Israel. Like you blamed America, no matter what the Viet Cong did.

Passover is a road that we still travel, a long journey from slavery to freedom.

We’ve become very good at symptom management and at not thinking about the underlying problem.

Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place.

Mohammed beheaded Mahuddin Mahmud making it a case of Mohammed on Mohammed violence.

At the Benghazi hearings, Hillary famously demanded to know what difference it made. The same can be said of her life.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-innocence-of-obama/2012/10/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: