Video Is Misdirection

No one is more devious than a government official defending free speech:

Islamic law does not nullify 1st Amendment!
Diana West blasts Obama, Clinton for concern over hurting Muslims' feelings'
by DIANA WEST

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/islamic-law-does-not-nullify-1st-amendment/

The diplomat who wrote that statement for the embassy probably does not realize that a lot of people living under Islam’s thumb are asking themselves “Why should I risk my neck for American values when the American government tells my oppressors they can’t be criticized?”

Irrespective of what anyone living in a foreign country thinks, every American liberal knows that the most offensive speech requires the most protection, yet Democrats demand First Amendment exemptions while spouting the sanctity of free speech. In that way their own offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment while their exemptions act as their censors. The way Hussein & Company responded to recent events in the Middle East show how far the exemption protecting Islam has progressed since 9-11-2001.

Political free speech is supposed to be absolute. Insofar as the First Amendment applies, all speech can be interpreted as political speech and should be protected. Assuming that Islam is a religion and not a political movement why does a religion get the exemption? Answer: If a religion is protected from offensive criticism the day will soon come in this country when the government, and government officials, will also be above criticism.

A lot has been said about free speech because of the murders in Libya. I doubt if riots alone would have triggered the volume of free speech analyses I’ve read and heard in the past few days. Sad to say the topic of free speech is quickly fading from the Administration’s talking points. Media mouths have been ordered to blame an amateur video for the “unrest” that triggered the attacks across the Muslim world. I’ll wager that not one demonstrator in a hundred thousand saw the video in question.

Blaming a video is misdirection designed to take everybody’s eyes off the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of all the Administration is desperately trying to convince Americans that Muslims are NOT rejecting Hussein’s foreign policy. The video in question is the best they can come up with.

Finally, I want to point out that the Administration is cashing in on Ambassador Stevens’ murder. His death was tragic in every way, but the manner he died does not make his worldview the best policy for America. When I read that Stevens’ had served in the Peace Corps I knew his entire political philosophy from A to Z. Daniel Greenfield puts the Administration’s efforts to douse the fire consuming its failed foreign policy in perspective.

Christopher Stevens Feeds the Crocodile
Posted by Daniel Greenfield Bio ↓ on Sep 14th, 2012

Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” On September 11, Christopher Stevens, a career diplomat, became one of the first Americans in Libya to feed the crocodile of Ansar Al-Sharia and learned too late that while appeasers may hope to be eaten last, they are often eaten first.

Christopher Stevens was a Middle Eastern diplomat who typified the new breed going from the University of Berkeley and the Peace Corps to desks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. He taught English to Moroccan children in the Peace Corps and helped Palestinian Arabs in the East Jerusalem Consulate, which has a firm policy of pretending that Israel does not exist.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Christopher Stevens that he “made other people’s hopes his own” and that may serve as a fitting eulogy both for Stevens and for the disastrous foreign policy of making “other people’s hopes” our own that brought on the Arab Spring.

Stevens, like Clinton and Obama, made the hopes of Islamists his own and they repaid him for it, just as Afghans repaid America for supporting them against the Soviet Union, as Lebanon and Somalia repaid America’s peacekeeping efforts by killing American troops and on down the litany of gratitude in bombs and bullets that have come America’s way from the Muslim world.

“He risked his life to stop a tyrant, then gave his life trying to build a better Libya,” Hillary Clinton said, but if anything his murder exposed the lie that there is a better Libya now than there was before Hillary and he intervened in Libya. Clinton’s eulogy comes perilously close to conceding Stevens’ real mission and the degree of American intervention in the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Stevens was the connection between the Islamist Benghazi rebels and the Obama administration’s illegal war to overthrow Gaddafi. His mission, like the true mission of the war, was secret, and the consulate, marginally fortified and devoid of Marines, reflected that secrecy. Stevens did not think that he had anything to fear from the Islamists because they were his friends.

In the Wikileaks cables, Stevens cheerfully described fighters who saw “resistance against coalition forces in Iraq” as “an important act of ‘jihad’” and local businessmen who took pride in the number of suicide bombers who had come out of the area. For years he had walked safely in their company without understanding that he was just as much of a target as a Marine in Baghdad, but without the training, the weapons or the survival skills.

The only reason Christopher Stevens had lasted this long is that the jihadist fighters had known a useful man when they met him. And Stevens proved to be very useful, but his usefulness ended with Gaddafi’s death. Once the US successfully overthrew Gaddafi and began focusing on stabilizing Libya, Stevens ceased to be a useful idiot and became a useless nuisance. Attacks soon followed on the Benghazi consulate and on other consulates as well, but the Marines were not brought in and Stevens continued relying on local goodwill to secure his offices. It was only a matter of time until the attackers got through.

Clinton, her State Department and its media allies appear unnaturally eager to paint Christopher Stevens as an American martyr to the cause of Libyan Islamism, a kinder, gentler Rachel Corrie who willingly died so that the Islamists might have their dream of an Islamic state in Libya.

We will of course never know what was going through Christopher Stevens’ mind on September 11, 2012, as he battled the choking smoke, experiencing what so many New Yorkers had experienced on September 11, 2001. Like them, he was faced with a terrible dilemma, a choice between remaining in the fire and committing suicide by going outside.

Many in the World Trade Center chose to jump to their deaths, but Christopher Stevens chose to remain inside and die rather than face the tender mercies of his attackers. Stevens had spent enough time in Libya to have seen what the jihadist fighters did to their captives and must have known what horrors he could expect at their hands. The photos that have been released, along with claims by Libyan jihadists that they sexually assaulted his corpse, suggest that he made the right choice. And perhaps in those final moments, facing that terrible choice, Christopher Stevens finally understood the true horror of the Muslim world that he had fallen in love with as a Peace Corps volunteer.

“He was an avid student of Islam and the Middle East, and consistently strove to build the proverbial bridge between our two cultures in the face of sometimes overwhelming antagonism and bitter misunderstanding,” a friend from the diplomatic service tells us. But though Christopher Stevens may have studied Islam, he had learned very little about it, and so his final lesson was the bloody one that Westerners who never really learn what Islam is about end up receiving.

“The world needs more Chris Stevenses,” Hillary Clinton said, but does it really? Does it need more tall dead blond Americans lying bloodied in the gutters of Muslim cities? Does it need men who give up the hopes and dreams of their country to take on the dreams of their enemies without ever realizing where the fatal road of those dreams leads?

Stevens’ former Peace Corps colleague says of him, “Chris devoted his career, and life, to improving relations between the Arabic/Islamic world and the West.” That he did and he died doing it, losing whatever career or life he might have had if he had not embarked on a futile errand to make the Muslims who killed him and paraded around his body like him. And like all those who have died over the years in the same cause, the effort was to no avail.

“It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save,” Obama said, repeating the same lie that he used to drag America into his illegal war. Benghazi was not in any need of saving, it was the Americans who came to Benghazi, like Chris Stevens, who needed saving.

That is the terrible blind spot in our vision which, like Christopher Stevens, tells us that we need to save the Muslims who hate us, rather than showing us that we need to save ourselves.

http://therese-zrihen-dvir.over-blo...er-stevens-feeds-the-crocodile-110079969.html

 

The enclosed 2 brief articles give me a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. A stupid homemade video is a poor excuse for the things going on in Hussein’s administration; especially in foreign policy over at the State Department under Hillary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin. It all reminds me of the Golden Age of Traitors With Impeccable Credentials. Big names like Alger Hiss, Guy Burgess, Donald MacLean, and Harold "Kim" Philby shook the West to its foundation when they were caught. It’s getting to the point where I dread the stories I’ll find on my favorite websites.

Posted on September 15, 2012 by Steven Hayward in Obama Foreign Policy, Terrorism Chaos at the State Dept?

I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: “Chaos.” The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida. Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told (except by the Independent newspaper report John and I linked to here on Thursday).

The consulate in Benghazi was an interim facility, with only a standard door lock for security, and worse, Ambassador Stevens was traveling with only a light security detail, rather than in the heavily armed convoys our diplomats in the region usually employ. The attack on the Benghazi was no mere target of opportunity spurred by reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film; the film is just a pretext. The killing of Amb. Stevens was a premeditated hit, planned and carried out as retaliation for the recent drone strike that killed the number two Al Qaida operative in Afghanistan recently. The vulnerability of Stevens at the Benghazi compound was scouted out carefully. All the other embassy protest activity is just covering theater.

As Drudge would say, developing. . .

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/chaos-at-the-state-dept.php

XXXXX​

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation
by Ben Shapiro14 Sep 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

“This country has reached the point of absurdity. There are people dead because we don’t have security details for them. But she’s privileged to have a full Secret Service detail on vacation?”

Caddell points out that Americans are already unhappy with President Obama on foreign policy aside from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Caddell, along with Republican pollster John McLaughlin, runs Secure America, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “We’ve just finished two polls coming out in the field today,” says Caddell, “but we already know that people feel strongly about Iran; they feel strongly about the administration’s policy with regard to Islamic extremists. They don’t like the Obama administration’s handling of these issues. And this election won’t only be about the economy. The American people aren’t stupid. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Caddell does reserve heavy criticism for the Republican establishment, which he believes has ignored foreign policy issues for far too long. “When three quarters of the American people believe Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, you can see that Americans care about this issue. And people overwhelmingly believe that Obama’s sanctions policies will not work. The pronounced minority who disagree with those positions seem to be centered in the mainstream media – and ground zero seems to be at NBC and MSNBC.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/14/valerie-jarrett-pat-caddell-libyan-embassy

 

Had I known better in my youth I would have become a professional writer. I could have made a nice living writing about the hypocrisy of liberals. The field is richer than Sutter’s Mill. Hardly a day goes by that I do not stumble over another nugget. Recent events in the Middle East yielded boulder-sized hypocrisy made of pure gold.

Go back to Libya last Tuesday. The Administration invoked free speech defending the homemade video, Innocence of Muslims, as a way to explain why four Americans were murdered. The folks who invented politically correct speech defending free speech of any kind is the very definition of hypocrisy. They must have realized they were tripping over their own tongues because within 48 hours free speech all but disappeared from Administration statements and media chatter. Now, hypocrisy is being piled on top of hypocrisy:

Of course, Internet Gatekeeper Hillary Clinton stands tall among Democrat hypocrites:

September 17, 2012
Hillary Cheered Broadway's Book of Mormon, Condemns Innocence of Muslims
By Jack Cashill

On Thursday of last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the video project Innocence of Muslims, the one that may or may not have provoked riots worldwide, "disgusting and reprehensible."

Although Clinton could have seen no more than a 13-minute trailer for the video, she condemned it in no uncertain terms: "Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."

One would think that Clinton might have had a similar reaction to a musical comedy by the name of The Book of Mormon, a satirical, scandalously potty-mouthed riff on the Mormon religion. What follows is one of the show's printable lyrics, this from the song "All-American Prophet."

You all know the Bible

Is made of Testaments old and new.

You've been told it's just those two parts,

Or only one, if you're a Jew.

But what if I were to tell you

There's a FRESH third part out there?

That was found by a HIP new prophet

Who had a little...

Donny Osmond flair.

Apparently, Secretary Clinton has flexible standards. The Associated Press reported soon after The Book of Mormon's opening that "[t]he show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim." Indeed, the show has been the biggest hit on Broadway these past two seasons, winning nine Tony Awards along the way.

True, when the show premiered in 2011, the media were shocked. NPR accurately called it "blasphemous." The Washington Post called it "acidic." The New York Times called it "more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak."

But the media did not stop there -- not at all. In context, NPR called The Book of Mormon "blasphemous, hilarious and oddly endearing." The Post called the show "one of the most joyously acidic bundles Broadway has unwrapped in years." And the Times called it, foul-mouthed or not, "a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical."

Although some likely found The Book of Mormon as "offensive and reprehensible and disgusting" as White House spokesman Jay Carney found Innocence of Muslims, the Obama administration chose not to denounce it. Nor could I find any protest from Carney when his former employer, TIME Magazine, praised The Book of Mormon as "bright and enjoyable, and good enough to make even a grumpy critic's 10 Best list."

The White House certainly did not ask the Eugene O'Neill Theater "to review" whether The Book of Mormon "violates their terms of use," as it asked Google to review the trailer for Innocence of Muslims.

Nor did the White House ask the FBI to interview everyone associated with the show, from the set designers to the producers, as it has done for Innocence of Muslims. "We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country," said Jay Carney. "It is a foundational principle of this nation." That bromide should reassure those people now being grilled by the FBI.

The media, even more than the White House, have been almost comically hypocritical about Innocence of Muslims. When Washington Post reviewer Ann Hornaday called the film "vile," she stopped there. It was not "vile, but." It was just simply vile.

Hornaday struggled to rationalize her contempt for its producers. "The jumble of cheesy-looking scenes and badly dubbed dialogue on display," she concluded, "look less like promotional scenes culled from a fully realized motion picture than a primitive piece of cynical agitprop." That is all true enough, but the left's openly voiced hatred for this project has little to do its with its admittedly awful production values.

The Huffington Post, whose reviewer was "praying" that The Book of Mormon would be "a huge hit and lead the way for more original shows like it," was now leading the way to expose the culprits behind The Innocence of Muslims. The publication has been running banner headlines that read "'Innocence Of Muslims' Filmmaker Identified By Law Enforcement" and "'Innocence Of Muslims' Shot On Hollywood Set, Film Permit Connected To Christian Charity." If the FBI asked the editors to hand out pitchforks and publish a map to the filmmaker's house, they likely would have complied.

The response by the media and the Obama administration would not have surprised Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens discovered the moral emptiness of his colleagues on the left when he labored to shelter his friend, Salman Rushdie. Rushdie, a westernized progressive, provoked a deeply serious death threat from the Iranian mullahs for his artful book The Satanic Verses.

In his memoir, Hitch-22, Hitchens relates his surprise upon finding the "postmodern Left in league with political Islam." He cites one prominent leftist after another denouncing Rushdie for having disturbed the status quo. The moral cowardice of his friends on the left depressed him almost as much as the sight of crowds in British cities demanding not only "less freedom," but also "the destruction of an author's work and even the taking of an author's life."

For the left, Hitchens came to understand, the sensitivity to Islam had much less to do with respect for religion than it did fear of offending its allies in post-colonial anti-Americanism. The "undercurrent of menace and implied moral and racial blackmail" paralyzed them. Given Rushdie's status as one of their own, more or less, leftists could not exactly demand his head. But the producers of Innocence of Muslims enjoy no such grace. If they can be tied to a "Christian charity," even an Egyptian one, the folks at the Huffington Post will be leading the lynch mob.

By contrast, the Mormon response to the Broadway show that profanes their faith has been exemplary. Church elders have said that "the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon, the scripture, will save your life." Individual Mormons have been lining up across the street from the theater -- not protesting, but handing out copies of the actual Book of Mormon.

According to TPM, a leftist blog, Mitt Romney has been "echoing [the] White House position" on Innocence of Muslims. "The idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong," Romney said. "And I wish people wouldn't do it." But this is hardly an echo. Wishing people would stop is not quite the same as dispatching the FBI.

The real difference, though, between Romney's response and the White House's, certainly the difference between his and Hillary's, is that he could and would have said the very same thing about The Book of Mormon.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._of_mormon_condemns_innocence_of_muslims.html

 

id translate this

Noting the 9/11 anniversary, the embassy statement continued: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

Roughly as

These guys are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s don’t attack us and are stuff because were not with them there just aloud to say what they want we don’t agree