Has the First Amendment Become a "National Security Threat"? (The last sentence says it all)

Townhall.com ^ | September 12, 2010 | Austin Hill

[Kaslin]

"This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”

That’s how President Barack Obama, in a national television interview on September 9, described the plans of an American Pastor to hold a September 11th “Koran burning” event at his church in Florida.

Prior to the President’s TV interview, the Pastor had already been chastised by some of the highest-ranking officials in the Obama Administration. Attorney General Eric Holder had described the Pastor and his plans as “idiotic,” while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had stated that it was all “disgraceful.”

Yet President Obama apparently believed it was necessary to speak about this himself, and try to stop the Koran burning festivities.

If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained, adding that "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance..."

These are strong words from the sitting U.S. President, aimed at one, private citizen. And the fact that the stated intentions of one private citizen would draw criticism from the President and his Administration – and would touch-off death threats on American lives– is seriously troublesome on multiple levels.

First, let’s accurately assess what has been at the epicenter of this controversy in the first place. At the time of this writing (I’m composing these words on the afternoon of Friday September 10), it is unclear whether the Florida Pastor will stage a Koran Burning event on September 11th, or not. This is to say that the Pastor has only stated his intentions, and we don’t know if he will ever carry them out.

Describe the Pastor and his plans in whatever derogatory and demeaning terms you wish. Stupid. Inflammatory. Insensitive. Intolerant. Misguided. Ill-advised. My observation is that the man seems quite inarticulate, and a bit “nutty,” and I wish the Obama Administration and the worldwide media industry had not drawn so much attention to him (notice that I am not stating the man’s name – it makes no sense for me to give this character more attention).

Yet this nutty guy is merely speaking his mind – and in America, we regard this as constitutionally protected “free speech.” For much of our nation’s history, Americans have possessed an attitude that says “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it..”

But we now seem to have turned a corner on this type of freedom. In this instance, some of the most powerful people in our government determined that if this one private citizen were to exercise his legal right to burn copies of a particular book, such an excursion in human liberty would threaten the security of Americans both domestically, and abroad – and thus, this one private citizen should not exercise his legal rights.

A President who was more appreciative of the uniqueness of American liberty, might have taken the opportunity to explain that American freedom is a good thing, and that freedom itself is not a problem. Yet when one lacks the discernment as to how to wisely exercise their freedoms, therein lies a problem. That could have been a true moment of presidential leadership - a “teachable moment” if you will – but that is not how President Obama and his Administration has responded to the rhetoric of our nutty fellow American.

Second, the fact that mere rhetoric can incite “death to America” demonstrations in Afghanistan and can rise to the level of a national security threat says something about the predominant Muslim culture, and President Obama’s assessment of that culture.

In June of 2009, our President delivered a now-famous speech at Cairo University, wherein he stated “I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Those were beautiful words, words that were perhaps meant to inspire. Yet polling conducted by the Brookings Institute two months ago shows that President Obama faces a near 65% disapproval rate in the Middle East, and the Muslim world remains as hostile as ever towards the West.

If indeed Americans and Muslims shared the “common principles” of “tolerance and dignity of all human beings” as President Obama has stated, then American lives would not be endangered because of the words of one man in Florida.

Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem.

[anniegetyourgun]

I would like to believe that - I know I am the resistance. However, I've been saying it for 2 years now here on FR & what do I get back? "Call, write, email, fax your congressperson." Or, how 'bout this one: "Come to D.C. for a rally."

As I've said on FR for 20 months - all things changed on 11/2/08 - nothing is the same. That means the old tactics aren't going to mean anything. In fact, the Left loves it when we admonish people to call, fax, march....

[Kevmo]

This is another one of those articles that I never thought I would see in my lifetime. They seem to be appearing more frequently.

[Gadsden1st]

Looks like Annie got her gun and it’s loaded.

[FrankR]

"Obama explained, ...That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance...""

At least most atheists know the Bible well enough to formulate an argument when they debate their beliefs, but obama - a "Consititional Professor" just makes up the Constitition and history as he goes along. See if you can find the word "tolerance" in the First Amendment.

FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

obama uses the First Amendment when it's convenient to him, like in the GZ mosque situation, however, when he speaks in aq Christian venue, he has all of the crosses covered up.

Wouldn't that fall under freedom of religious express for that venue to display that cross. Yet, the kenyan says a real American has no right to burn a koran.

Michelle Maulkin called islam the "religion of perpetual outrage", as they are always raging about one thing or another. I guess if I had to live under that kind of tyranny I'd be pissed all the time too.

Well, obama would LIKE us to live under that kind of tyranny - sharia law - and he would like to be the grand poo-bah who runs it all. He and Mrs."Vacations-R-Us" like living the high life and spending other people's money.

After years of enduring muslim attacks, hijackings, beheadings, flag burnings, and terrorism, WE are not the ones being IN-tolerant...but Imam Obama conveniently forgets about that.

Why wasn't our "president" at ground zero yesterday. The cowardly lion - excuse me - "dog" went to the Pentagon instead. As the Commander in chief of the military I suppose he felt "safe" there...he knew there would be some folks at the GZ site that were not exactly his friends.

We need to start a slogan - "No Tolerance for Terrorists". Tip-toeing around islam for fear they might get angry is not something I give a crap about. Islam is an "abusive husband" at group level. Eventually the spouse has enough and either leaves, or fights back...WE have no place left to go.

Major Hasan - the islamic Fort Hood shooter said that "muslims love death" like we love life. Well, if that is true, then wouldn't we be most intolerant denying them the things they "love"?

[BCR #226]

I know, and I feel your pain... pardon the phrase.

Just remember, we have the ballot box, the soap box, and the ammo box. We cannot use the third option unless they use it against us. Once they open that door, we have no choice but to put a stop to it with absolute conviction. I pray that they never go down that road.

Until that happens, we must use our resources wisely and work together to stop the destruction of our nation. Three rules that must always apply to patriots is...

1. Never blindly submit to their will.
2. Always have a plan
3. Never, ever, under any circumstances surrender your means of defense.

And yes, I’m saying that if they ban all guns, we must not submit to such a law. However, we cannot instigate violence. If they do it, fine, it’s their trip to hell. We must continue to maintain the moral high ground.

[SandRat]

The Obama and his entire Administration is the problem.

[Pox]

“This is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda...”

This line of reasoning springs forth from the mind of a coward, IMO.

[MizSterious]

If the disgraceful and idiotic private citizen were to carry out his intended disgraceful and idiotic plans, then “you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan” the President stated. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities," Obama explained...

Of even more concern, some of our own Freepers could have written that speech for him. I've seen some of the same things posted in messages here. No one, but no one here, wants to heap more trouble on our troops, but the First Amendment is no small issue. If we keep chipping away at the Constitution, they'll have no reason to fight, nothing left to defend in our country. I don't think the troops want to see that come about.

[MizSterious]

You are so correct in your headline—the last sentence truly says it all. Great column, so glad you posted it!

[Finny]

Disclaimer: I am not advocating Koran burning, just relating a salient point.

The taboo we have on bookburning of any kind comes from horror at the practice as done by Nazis; they burned books of all kinds not in peaceful, non-violent protest, but as a means to destroy valuable information by "degenerate" authors, "degenerate" as defined by the madman Hitler; it was the STATE burning books, classic literature, and it was done to control Germans and keep them in ignorance, to hold classic Western knowledge in contempt.

Applying this taboo to burning Korans is very wrong. Burning Korans was the RIGHT thing to do on 911 for many reasons, the primary one being that it was civil, peaceful, and symbolic in showing American resolve to stand and defend American freedom from a creed that openly, brazenly seeks to subjugate Western-style societies to Islam's Sharia law and slavery.

If it was the State that was burning Korans, then we'd damned well better be concerned. But it wasn't -- it was individual Americans who were engaging in PEACEFUL, non-violent, symbolic protest and WARNING to Islam: don't step over this line or this symbolic fire will become literal.

I have come to advocate Koran burning and make no apology for it: burning Korans is a powerful symbolic statement that not only is non-violent and peaceful, but may HELP AVOID BLOODSHED LATER. When Muslims understand that Americans will refuse to roll over and be "civil" ala France, England, and the Netherlands, then perhaps they'll think twice about attacking us on our own soil. We burn Korans in peaceful protest; Muslims kill people in bloody aggression. There is a HUGE difference and peopel who morally equate the two are engagning in self-gratyfing hysteria.

[anniegetyourgun]

There is a step in between the soap box & the ammo box. It’s called civil disobedience (e.g., construction workers refusing to build a mosque near GZ), and I’m not sure that Americans are even willing to trip that wire. There are a million ways to get the attention of pols who don’t listen - but one has to be willing to (peacefully) lay it all on the line.

[itsahoot]

Our troops allowed Hassan to go on a shooting spree, when his temperament was well understood. If we had a Patton or MacCarthuer, then maybe we could expect something, but personally I doubt the military would disobey orders from a sitting President.

[stevie_d_64]

Well, if he has a problem with what he thinks is my problem, he’ll make it a bigger problem, if he pursues making my problem go away, just because...

[stevie_d_64]

I bet there is a court that would hear the argument...

Pick a number between 8 and 10...

[BCR #226]

That is true. Unfortunately, in my industry, many of my competitors and peers often can’t see past the dollar signs and will jump to get their product in anyone’s hands no matter what country, government or agency it might be.

I refuse to sell any of my products to any government entity that I cannot sell to the average law abiding consumer.

It’s pissed off some government types but all they have to do is repeal some of the existing laws if they want me to provide them with what we make. I guess that is a type of civil disobedience in itself... maybe.

[little jeremiah]

Pinging a few of you so you don’t miss this from Sven.

[Gritty]

That deserves repeating...

Rather than honestly acknowledging the serious problems of Muslim culture, the Obama Administration has instead chosen to define American freedom as a problem - Austin Hill

[Christian4Bush]

bump

[familyop]

"That means the old tactics aren't going to mean anything. In fact, the Left loves it when we admonish people to call, fax, march...."

That's right. Don't buy anything that you don't really need. Do something to become more self-sufficient every month. Learn to produce something of necessity. Show contempt for politics.

Generally, lazy, dishonest people won't follow suit. In time, they'll lose.

[Red Steel]

Yes, that statement that Ann Soetoro signed explains why Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) name was struck from the 1968 passport application since he had a Kenyan citizenship and very likely had an Indonesian citizenship.