Now it is official, when it comes to free and open discussion, Islam appears to be off limits. That is of no surprise. The ikhwan in the WH must protect his brothers at the expense of America.
How much more erosion of our Bill Of Rights needs to take place before the citizenry truly understands just how much it has lost in the name of ideology, or hyped phony wars against different segments of the population? Although many get this, unfortunately, there are far too many that do not.
OUTRAGE: Obama Will Take “Necessary Steps” To Make Sure American Journalists Don’t Slander Islam
Following the release of the newest Charlie Hebdo cover, the first after last week’s massacre, many major American media outlets have chosen to publish the “offensive” image (except CNN) that depicts some guy named Muhammad.
Now, the White House and President Obama are pushing back against the decision in the name of political correctness, saying that American journalists should submit to jihadi threats and stop the publication of all images deemed “offensive” to Muslims.
Moreover, the White House claimed the President will not shy away from taking any actions, or expressing any views, necessary to force the media to put a stop to it.
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. …
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.
Really try to wrap your mind around that twisted logic.
According to the White House, any act of violence taken by some Muslims over the publication of “offensive” images is morally reprehensible. This is fine, as far as it goes. President Obama has always taken a strong stance against the use of violence as a response to what he considers injustice.
The second part of the argument, however, states that the President must act to secure the safety of American armed forces, which is compromised by attacks by some Muslims over the publication of “offensive” images.
These two parts are both “absolutes,” according to Obama.
And if the premises really are absolutes, then so is the conclusion. Right?
But what’s the conclusion?
Let me break it down for you:
1. The President’s moral obligation is to provide for the safety of our military.
2. The safety of our military is compromised by attacks on Americans over the publication of “offensive” images.
Therefore, the President’s moral obligation is to stop the publication of “offensive” images.
Or, the argument might also read, with the same conclusion:
1. The publication of “offensive” images causes some Muslims to attack Americans.
2. An attack on Americans endangers our military.
3. To provide for the safety of our military is the President’s moral obligation.
Therefore, stopping the publication of “offensive” images is the President’s moral obligation.
The Daily Caller gets it:
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 Muslims 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. Instead, he hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats. …
Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, and to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.
Now, the White House has never admitted the conclusion that it has a moral obligation to stop the publication of “offensive” images. But during yesterday’s press conference, as the Daily Caller correctly noted, spokesman Josh Earnest flirted with that conclusion FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.
And Obama also said, during a 2012 speech at the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Based on the administration’s “absolute” arguments, the conclusion that the President has the moral obligation to stop the publication of offensive images is also “absolute.” They just aren’t coming out and saying it directly, at least not yet.
But it inescapably follows from what they have already said.
original post
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.
Really try to wrap your mind around that twisted logic.
According to the White House, any act of violence taken by some Muslims over the publication of “offensive” images is morally reprehensible. This is fine, as far as it goes. President Obama has always taken a strong stance against the use of violence as a response to what he considers injustice.
The second part of the argument, however, states that the President must act to secure the safety of American armed forces, which is compromised by attacks by some Muslims over the publication of “offensive” images.
These two parts are both “absolutes,” according to Obama.
And if the premises really are absolutes, then so is the conclusion. Right?
But what’s the conclusion?
Let me break it down for you:
1. The President’s moral obligation is to provide for the safety of our military.
2. The safety of our military is compromised by attacks on Americans over the publication of “offensive” images.
Therefore, the President’s moral obligation is to stop the publication of “offensive” images.
Or, the argument might also read, with the same conclusion:
1. The publication of “offensive” images causes some Muslims to attack Americans.
2. An attack on Americans endangers our military.
3. To provide for the safety of our military is the President’s moral obligation.
Therefore, stopping the publication of “offensive” images is the President’s moral obligation.
The Daily Caller gets it:
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 Muslims 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. Instead, he hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats. …
Obama’s willingness to pressure media outlets, and to quit defending First Amendment rights and also to mollify jihadis, reflects Obama’s overall policy of minimizing conflict with militant Islam.
Now, the White House has never admitted the conclusion that it has a moral obligation to stop the publication of “offensive” images. But during yesterday’s press conference, as the Daily Caller correctly noted, spokesman Josh Earnest flirted with that conclusion FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.
And Obama also said, during a 2012 speech at the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Based on the administration’s “absolute” arguments, the conclusion that the President has the moral obligation to stop the publication of offensive images is also “absolute.” They just aren’t coming out and saying it directly, at least not yet.
But it inescapably follows from what they have already said.
original post
No comments:
Post a Comment