web analytics
November 25, 2014 / 3 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
IDC Herzliya Campus A Day on Campus

To mark IDC Herzliya’s 20th anniversary, we spent a day following Prof. Uriel Reichman, IDC’s founder and president, and Jonathan Davis, VP for External Relations, around its delightful campus.



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.

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

Current Top Story
Police protect MK Feiglin from Arabs on Temple Mount.
Police Chief: Think of 1 Billion Muslims and Don’t Pray on Temple Mount
Latest Indepth Stories
Red Line Obama

“What’s a line between friends?”

West_Bank_&_Gaza_Map_2007_(Settlements)

Unrest in YESHA and J’m helps Abbas and Abdullah defuse anger, gain politically and appear moderates

Thousands of rabbis pose in front of Chabad-Lubavitch headquarters in Brooklyn on Sunday during the annual International Conference of Chabad-Lubavitch Emissaries.

A “Shliach” means to do acts with complete devotion and dedication in order to help bring Moshiach.

Arabs create opening for terrorists to walk the security wall between Ramallah and Jerusalem and Ramallah.

Here, things seem to get a little hazy, why should a Jewish State “based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel” confine itself to ensuring “complete equality… irrespective of religion, race, etc.”, especially when this includes “Arab inhabitants” who launched an “onslaught” against the State, months before it even existed? […]

“We don’t just care for the children; we make sure they have the best quality of life.”

“Why do people get complacent with the things they’re told?”

Arab opposition to a Jewish State of any size was made known by word and deed in the form of terror

Operation Moses: First time in history that non-blacks came to Africa to free blacks from oppression

As Arabs murder and maim Jews, Jordan’s leaders bark the blood libel of “Israeli aggression.”

Perhaps attacking a terrorist’s legacy broadly and publicly would dissuade others from terrorism?

R’ Aryeh yelled “Run, I’ll fight!” Using a chair against terrorists to buy time so others could flee

Riot started when Muslim students wore the Pal. kaffiyeh and Druze students demanded them removed

The “Media” didn’t want us to know what a kind, giving, loving young woman Dalia was.

A “Palestine” could become another Lebanon, with many different factions battling for control.

Maimonides himself walked and prayed in the permissible areas when he visited Eretz Yisrael in 1165

Having a strong community presence at the polls shows our elected officials we care about the issues

More Articles from Daniel Greenfield
Queen_Carolyn_of_Ladonia-317x350

It’s Time for Israel to Recognize the Royal Republic of Ladonia!

467976-b437d904-1dd3-11e4-96c6-79c9953f9ece

Dead Yazidi children won’t inspire any protests or much in the way of outrage.

It’s because in Gaza, Hamas and the UNRWA are the same thing.

Obama went to begin the Arab Spring in Egypt which is still his target; Israel is just the lever.

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.

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

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: