Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Unfit for Office

Obamas America

One Amendment at a time.

From Glynn Reynolds

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.’

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to ‘grow the economy.’ He does not swear to institute ‘fairness.’ The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Read the rest, this is unutterably vile.

H/T Catallaxy Files

10 Comments

  1. GW says:

    It’s even a bit more outrageous than Prof. Reynolds notes. The film maker made the movie under an alias and, until two days ago, his identity was unknown. It was the FBI that publicly announced the actual identity of the film maker. It was, perhaps, the single most outrageous act of the Obama administration and Eric Holder’s Justice Dept. to date – and that is saying a lot.

    To be clear, it doesn’t matter WHO produced this film. It is not a crime. So what possible justification is there for the FBI to publicly identify the “key figure” behind this film? There is none. Our 1st Amendment absolutely forbids any legal action against this man. This is thuggery in its purest form – endangering the life of the person fingered and sending a message to anyone else in the U.S. who might want to make their feelings on Islam known but are too afraid to exercise their rights without anonymity because some Salafi nut job might behead them.

    What is really going on here is an attempt by the Obama administration to wholly deflect blame for the Libya and Cairo 9-11-12 violence onto the film as a way of hiding the fact that virtually all of the Arab nations of the Middle East are now in or near to being in the hands of the radical Salafists. Obama is running on the canard that he has been a great success at foreign policy – citing only to the execution of bin Laden and the success of the drone strikes. Acknowledging that 9-11-12 violence was violent anti-Americanism using the film as a pretext would shatter Obama’s narrative. And thus do we see this utterly obscene act by the Obama administration taken against the film maker. This is the most blatant and grotesque violation of the First Amendment I can ever recall. Heads need to roll over this, and I do not mean the film maker’s

  2. Sam Duncan says:

    Bob Cringely, computer historian extraordinaire (and, apparently, ex-Carter staffer) says that he expects to see an executive order demanding the removal of the trailer from YouTube if it isn’t done “voluntarily”. (To be fair to him, he also says his blog is non-political – which it always has been, to my knowledge – and that this is an observation, not a suggestion.) That would be crazy. If Obama wants to kill his chances – already diminished after the events of this week – stone cold dead, that’s exactly how to go about it.

    “the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none.”

    Heh.

  3. Schrodinger's Dog says:

    Cats,

    I absolutely agree with you on this. But I would also wager this will be largely forgotten about in a week.

    Some people have defined two types of rights. Negative rights are those like freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The term comes from the fact that nothing has to be done to provide them, although I still agree with whoever it was (Mark Steyn?) who asked, “What’s so negative about freedom of expression?” Positive rights include the right to things like housing and healthcare and, by contrast, do have to be provided by someone.

    Nowadays, people see to care much more about their positive rights. Just look at the example of the last British Labour government. It dismantled civil liberties, some of which, like the prohibition on double jeopardy, had existed for centuries, with hardly a peep of public protest. But the current Conservative (albeit in name only) administration has only to even hint of cuts in benefits and people take to the streets.

    That’s when they think about their rights at all. For the most part they seem to be far more interested in sport, or celebrity gossip. I found out long ago that talking about things like loss of liberty is a great way of making myself unpopular. Much better to talk about the ball game, while saving my thoughts on freedom for blogs like this.

    Finally, let’s not forget a brand-new right has recently gained very widespread acceptance: the right not to be offended. How many people out there think it was wrong of that filmmaker to offend Muslim sensibilities and it was right to effectively arrest him?

    Most likely this will all be forgotten by November – I cannot see it being an issue during the election – and Obama will coast to a second term.

  4. Bill Sticker says:

    To put it in the Canadian vernacular; “Land of the free, eh?”

  5. The brown shirt analogy is brilliant.

    Naming the guy is puting him massively at risk. This is a warning to others that the state will sacrifice you.

  6. Phil B says:

    It’s worse than Brown shirts – those shirts are beige.

  7. Lynne says:

    SD has said all that I wanted to say. People tend to forget all too easily. I mean, look at how the history of the Hillsborough tragedy is being altered right before our very eyes?

  8. Paul Marks says:

    Comrade Barack is Comrade Barack – of course he would use murders as a excuse to establish the principle of de facto internet censorship – and to destroy any other freedom he can.

  9. [...] Midnight raids by the Feds – in a matter where they had no jurisdiction, now this: The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that led to violence in many parts of the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in federal prison for probation violations in an unrelated matter [...]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: