Saturday, January 12, 2013

WH defends Piers Morgan's free speech rights, while using others as scapegoats for exercising theirs

By now many of you have probably heard about the heated exchanges between Piers Morgan and pro-gun advocates -- which took place on Morgan's CNN show recently. In the exchange Piers Morgan called one of the advocates a "stupid man" for his views that a legally armed citizenry would reduce gun violence rather than increase it, and Morgan went on to question whether the Second Amendment itself should even be upheld as is.

Viewers took exception to the fact that Morgan, while a legal US resident, is not a US citizen, and in their mind, had no right to insult our Second Amendment rights. To back up this complaint, about 100,000 petition signatures were collected demanding that Morgan be deported back to Britain on grounds he tried to "undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

Whether you agree with this demand for deportation or not is beside the point for now. What stands out as the real issue is that the White House is staunchly defending Morgan's right to free speech under the First Amendment, while US resident Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Sam Bacile) -- the man who made the video that mocks Islam - sits in jail ostensibly for a “probation violation.”

Youssef's video was used as the reason for the violence in Libya that lead to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four US citizens, including an ambassador, dead.  The US Justice Department immediately dispatched federal agents to Youssef’s home in the dark of night to arrest him, but if Youssef's only crime was probation violation, since when do the Feds pursue such transgressions with such a vengeance?

The answer lies in the fact that after the terrorist attack in Libya, reports soon surfaced that showed Obama knew the attack was being planned as a terrorist attack, yet he did nothing about it, then upon learning the attacks were underway, he went to bed. The next morning he learned about the murders of our fellow citizens, and simply hopped a flight to Vegas for a fundraiser party in his honor. Since then he and his cronies have been desperately trying to cover their tracks, using the most convenient scapegoat they could find: a little-known filmmaker who made an impossibly ridiculous YouTube video depicting Islam in an unflattering light. 

In court, the assistant US attorney leading the persecution said Youssef was “not here because of the content of the movie.” But the same lawyer also told told the judge at the sentencing hearing that Youssef “betrayed” the actors in his movie by not telling them about his criminal record, and by dubbing over some of their lines.

In other words, a federal prosecutor (plus the DOJ and the judge in this case) have decided that the feds can dictate what a movie maker can say and do with his work. Youssef may be no angel, but if this is not a violation of free-speech rights, then what is? 

Piers Morgan's right to free speech is defended by the White House, but Youssef is used as a scapegoat for exercising his. This hypocrisy can only be interpreted as the White House playing politics with the Constitution by playing favoritism to those who share its views and ideologies, while using people like Youssef as scapegoats to cover their backs. 

Perhaps it's ironic that, while most of us would fear being on a target list of radical Muslims, apparently offending President Obama's sensitivities to Muslims is dangerous too. Why else would he allow the the Justice Department to pursue Youssef and demand his silence? The president seems to care more about offending Islamists in the Middle East than he does about protecting the First Amendment here. 

Essentially, Piers Morgan is given a national outlet to spew his hatred for American's Constitutional rights and is defended by the Administration in the exercise of that freedom, while another US resident sits in jail as a scapegoat so the same Administration can save its own skin. That's pretty nauseating. If this is preview of what we we can expect from Obama's second term, we have good reason to be afraid.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

1 comment:

  1. We are all entitled to our opinion.This constitutes as our freedom, specifically in speech.However, the question of what is free? And up to what extent are we free in our freedom of speech is always the question.