Enemies without, enemies within and the battle for free speech

Scott Swett
As the fires burn across the Middle East, Barack Obama and his surrogates loudly insist that the wave of Islamic attacks on American interests, including the brutal murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, has all been caused by a YouTube video. As many observers have noted, this tactic is useful in deflecting attention from the administration's security failures, but it also serves a more sinister purpose: facilitating the suppression of political speech in America.

Federal officials are investigating the maker of "Innocence for Muslims," which sat unnoticed on YouTube for months before the current Islamic violence began on September 11. The Obama-appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who presumably swore an oath to defend the Constitution, personally requested that Pastor Terry Jones withdraw his support from the film. Obama's minions are also pressuring Google, which owns YouTube, to blacklist the video.

All this is taking place under the constraints imposed by the upcoming election. Should Obama be returned to office, his increased "flexibility" -- that he infamously advertised to Russian leaders -- will very likely be used to silence dissent. This administration is already fighting in court to fully implement a new federal law under which American citizens can be arrested and detained indefinitely, even if their actions were protected by the First Amendment. A federal judge recently struck down the key provision on the grounds that it "impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protection to meet the requirements of due process." Administration attorneys instantly appealed the ruling.

At the United Nations, the U.S. State Department has joined with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation to pass "Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance based on Religion or Belief," which advances the OIC's goal of criminalizing free speech on any and all topics related to Islam.  The State Department and other federal agencies already disallow any mention of Islamic terrorism.  Muslim Brotherhood agents are invited to help develop America's national security policies.  Our military is so fearful of offending Muslims that Maj. Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood jihadi mass-murderer, received plum assignments, glowing reviews and promotions from the Army, despite being professionally incompetent and an obvious security threat.

Overshadowed in the turmoil of international events, party politics, and the desperate efforts by the old media to elect Democrats is a singularly appalling fact: a badly-produced YouTube clip that insults Mohammad inspires much more anger and outrage in our leftist leaders than acts of war against America. Worse, by adding their voices to the Islamic rage chorus, they help to justify the violent actions of our enemies, and legitimize their excuses for their vicious attacks.  

Perhaps the most incredible act of submission in the present crisis was the Ramadan celebration Hillary Clinton hosted for the Libyan ambassador at the State Department, just two days after Libyan security forces betrayed Chris Stevens to his murderers. The ambassador said this "shows the world how much the Americans are standing by the Libyans and the Libya revolution." 


In his pilgrimage to Cairo three years ago, Barack Hussein Obama vowed to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." He went on to argue that "America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition." But Islam's endless demands include the silencing of all criticism, by violence if necessary. There can be no middle ground between such demands and the God-given rights that form the core of the American idea. In this, the land of the free, what the appeasers of Islam would gladly surrender is not theirs to give.

Scott Swett is the author of To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry and webmaster for SwiftVets.com and WinterSoldier.com.   

As the fires burn across the Middle East, Barack Obama and his surrogates loudly insist that the wave of Islamic attacks on American interests, including the brutal murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, has all been caused by a YouTube video. As many observers have noted, this tactic is useful in deflecting attention from the administration's security failures, but it also serves a more sinister purpose: facilitating the suppression of political speech in America.

Federal officials are investigating the maker of "Innocence for Muslims," which sat unnoticed on YouTube for months before the current Islamic violence began on September 11. The Obama-appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who presumably swore an oath to defend the Constitution, personally requested that Pastor Terry Jones withdraw his support from the film. Obama's minions are also pressuring Google, which owns YouTube, to blacklist the video.

All this is taking place under the constraints imposed by the upcoming election. Should Obama be returned to office, his increased "flexibility" -- that he infamously advertised to Russian leaders -- will very likely be used to silence dissent. This administration is already fighting in court to fully implement a new federal law under which American citizens can be arrested and detained indefinitely, even if their actions were protected by the First Amendment. A federal judge recently struck down the key provision on the grounds that it "impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protection to meet the requirements of due process." Administration attorneys instantly appealed the ruling.

At the United Nations, the U.S. State Department has joined with the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation to pass "Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance based on Religion or Belief," which advances the OIC's goal of criminalizing free speech on any and all topics related to Islam.  The State Department and other federal agencies already disallow any mention of Islamic terrorism.  Muslim Brotherhood agents are invited to help develop America's national security policies.  Our military is so fearful of offending Muslims that Maj. Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood jihadi mass-murderer, received plum assignments, glowing reviews and promotions from the Army, despite being professionally incompetent and an obvious security threat.

Overshadowed in the turmoil of international events, party politics, and the desperate efforts by the old media to elect Democrats is a singularly appalling fact: a badly-produced YouTube clip that insults Mohammad inspires much more anger and outrage in our leftist leaders than acts of war against America. Worse, by adding their voices to the Islamic rage chorus, they help to justify the violent actions of our enemies, and legitimize their excuses for their vicious attacks.  

Perhaps the most incredible act of submission in the present crisis was the Ramadan celebration Hillary Clinton hosted for the Libyan ambassador at the State Department, just two days after Libyan security forces betrayed Chris Stevens to his murderers. The ambassador said this "shows the world how much the Americans are standing by the Libyans and the Libya revolution." 


In his pilgrimage to Cairo three years ago, Barack Hussein Obama vowed to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." He went on to argue that "America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition." But Islam's endless demands include the silencing of all criticism, by violence if necessary. There can be no middle ground between such demands and the God-given rights that form the core of the American idea. In this, the land of the free, what the appeasers of Islam would gladly surrender is not theirs to give.

Scott Swett is the author of To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry and webmaster for SwiftVets.com and WinterSoldier.com.