The “Obama Flag” and the President’s Stunning Hypocrisy on Freedom of Expression

So overnight, we learned that the Obama campaign has come up with a redesigned U.S. Flag.  Here it is:

This led to some of the expected denouncements.  This was example #362 of the creepy cult of Obama, for instance, documented decently here.  For instance, even before he won the nomination in 2008, we had this embarrassing piece by Lili Hayden, called Why Obama is Like a Desert Lover, demonstrating that her love life is way too intertwined with her politics:

Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino. We who have felt apathetic, angry at two (likely) stolen elections, K-Street hegemony, the “pornography of the trivial”* in journalism and culture; we who are heartbroken over a war we knew was wrong, we who thought (especially after Baby Bush got in a 2nd time) that America got what it asked for; we who stopped wanting to participate ‘cause it doesn’t matter whether we do or don’t; we have a crush. We’re talking about it; we’re getting involved, we’re tuning in and turning out in numbers we haven’t seen in ages. My musician friends and I are writing songs to inspire people and couples all over America are making love again and shouting “yes we can” as they climax!

Dear reader, I wish that was parody.  As I wish this was, too:

There is indeed a website called Is Obama the Messiah, which I am 90% sure is a site set up to mock Obama worship.  But really these days it is really hard to tell deadpan parody from earnest statements of faith.

And equally there are some people noticing that the “smear style” of the stripes bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the smears of blood at one of our embassies.  Which is interesting but it probably amounts to nothing more than bad timing and cluelessness.  I presume this is a design that is some time in the making and thus was in the works long before these events—similar to the way the title of the second Lord of the Rings movie, The Two Towers took on additional meaning after 9-11, but was in fact the name of the second book in the series long before there even was a World Trade Center to knock down.  But choosing a “smear” style to the paint on the Obama flag was inevitably going to bring up this comparison when some subsequent event.  After all, as any elementary schoolchild can tell you, the red on our flag is meant to symbolize the blood spilt in the name of freedom.  So this juxtaposition was going to happen sooner or later, it was just a matter of when.

And there are those who are offended by it.  A number of people have pointed out, for instance, that this is in direct violation of the flag code, where it admonishes people that “[t]he flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”  But of course the flag code is advisory only (except maybe in the military), and not even the President is bound to obey it.

But what if, pray tell, someone was to get so offended that they were to get violent about it?  Well, the Supreme Court has something to say about that.  In Texas v. Johnson, they confronted whether one had a right to burn the American flag and everyone by now knows they held one did have this right.

Now of course when we talk about the fear of violence in relation to speech, there is unsaid an important divide between violence being advocated by speech, and violence by those who disagree with your speech.  As regular readers know, Brett Kimberlin has accused me of the former, arguing that merely by pointing out that he has engaged in reprehensible conduct—pointing out that he is the Speedway Bomber, pointing out that he has attempted to frame me for a crime, pointing out that he has abused our court system in an effort to suppress freedom of speech—while not only advocating against private violence but even taking active steps to make such violence less likely to occur, that nonetheless I have whipped up a mob against him.  The courts first failed to, and then finally did, apply the correct legal standard enunciated in Brandenburg v. Ohio:

the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

And that plainly doesn’t apply here, because the display of this "Obama flag" cannot be read as advocating violence just as I never did.  No, the fear of violence is that someone disagreeing with the speaker would be so offended by this image that they might be engaged in violence.

And that is where the opinion in Texas v. Johnson comes in:

Texas claims that its interest in preventing breaches of the peace justifies Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration. However, no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson’s burning of the flag. Although the State stresses the disruptive behavior of the protestors during their march toward City Hall, Brief for Petitioner 34-36, it admits that “no actual breach of the peace occurred at the time of the flagburning or in response to the flagburning.” Id., at 34. The State’s emphasis on the protestors’ disorderly actions prior to arriving at City Hall is not only somewhat surprising given that no charges were brought on the basis of this conduct, but it also fails to show that a disturbance of the peace was a likely reaction to Johnson’s conduct. The only evidence offered by the State at trial to show the reaction to Johnson’s actions was the testimony of several persons who had been seriously offended by the flag burning. Id., at 6-7.

The State’s position, therefore, amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). See also Cox v.Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 551 (1965); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 U. S., at 508-509; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 615 (1971); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988). It would be odd indeed to conclude boththat “if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection,” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, 745 (1978) (opinion of STEVENS, J.), and that the government may ban the expression of certain disagreeable ideas on the unsupported presumption that their very disagreeableness will provoke violence.

The court goes on to say that suppression of speech to prevent breaches of the peace must meet the Brandenburg standard, which of course is never met without the key ingredient of advocating lawlessness.

All that is well and good, and liberals are probably getting the warm fuzzies that we live in a country which supports the right to freedom of expression so strongly that we allow a person to burn our own flag.  One might even swell in patriotic pride in reading Justice Kennedy’s concurrence when he adds: “It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.”

“Yes!  Yes!” Liberals intone, “our flag stands for the freedom of expression, including the right to burn that very symbol.”  That is the sentiment and I agree.

But... why aren’t we applying this principle to Islam?

I won’t get into the debate about whether this violence is really about some crappy film about Islam.  And it really is crap, as this extended trailer demonstrates:

It’s crap, and it is protected.  During the 2 Live Crew controversy, Dennis Miller mused (paraphrase): “Why do we always have to go to the mat protecting freedom of speech for crap like this?  Why can’t we be fighting for the right to play Purple Haze?”  That is a paraphrase, probably way off in the wording, but I believe it is a fair representation of his sentiment.

And you have to suspect that to a certain extent that is on purpose.  Consider for instance how much protest there was over Motley Crue and their use of satanic symbols, which after a time became a marketing gimmick to convince teenagers that listening to them was rebellious.  By comparison, I barely ever heard a peep about the band Alice In Chains which used both satanic imagery and endless references to drug use, including lyrics like:

“What’s my drug of choice?

Well, what have you got?

I don’t go broke,

And I do it a lot”

And you can listen to the whole song, here:

That isn’t an out of context quote.  That is the chorus to a song that is as pure an advocacy of drug use you are likely to hear in rock music.  And of course that message that doing drugs isn’t so bad, and so on is kind of blunted by the fact that Layne Staley died of an overdose about ten years ago.

So why did so many Christian leaders get so upset over Motley Crue and not Alice in Chains?  Well, dare I suggest that Alice in Chains was a self-evidently better band.  Seriously, here’s their song Rooster:

I suggest you close your eyes and just listen because the video...  well, they are trying to make something serious with this video but it is a little too amateur hour to qualify.  But the song itself is discussing the hell of the Vietnam War, with pointed lines about spitting on soldiers.  In other words, there is something there even a conservative would like in it, go figure.

And by comparison here is Motley Crue singing about strippers:

Hey, close your eyes and listen to just the music, or don’t, either way the difference in quality is self-evident.  Whatever you think of Alice in Chains, they are trying to say something that means a damn, and they are ten times more metal than Crue ever will be.  They rock harder, they are better musicians, and they actually try to say something.  And that is precisely why hair bands like Crue and Poison went the way of the dinosaurs when Nirvana launched the Seattle Revolution with their album Nevermind.  Because bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden showed us that a band can rock without being brain dead.

(And for the record, for all my critique of the morality of Alice in Chains’ music, I love the band to death and wish it had found a way to stick around.*  Dirt is one of the greatest rock and roll albums, ever.  Period.)

And the point of all of that is to say that I have to believe that the outcry over Motley Crue, as compared to Alice in Chains might be traceable to quality.  People might have sensed that Crue was more vulnerable because of the craptitude of their music, and thus it might have encouraged the protests.

Which is not to suggest that the controversy over Motley Crue is comparable to the violence allegedly triggered by this crappy film, The Innocence of Muslims.  I don’t recall any Christians using violence—either private violence or the violence of the state—to suppress Motley Crue.  At most some parents probably threw out some albums, which is their right as parents.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the response to Crue was just counter-speech, wasn’t it?  And that is indeed the way things are supposed to happen in a free republic.  If someone says something wrong or offensive in your eyes, you are supposed to answer that person with criticism if you are inclined, not by censorship. yet that hasn’t been attitude toward The Innocence of Muslims, now has it?  First we had our embassy’s official twitter account apologizing to their attackers that some American has gone and hurt their feelings.  They eventually deleted that tweet, but I screencapped it and sarcastically replied, here:

u know what hurts my feelings? Killing Americans & invading our embassies. How about u work on that? @usembassycairo twitter.com/AaronWorthing/…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) September 12, 2012

And while the Obama administration disavowed that response, their own endorsed statements said pretty much the same thing: Gosh, we deplore that movie.  We don’t think that anyone should insult religion.

I mean besides Bill Maher.  Bill Maher has made an atheistic opus called Religulous, that even takes twenty minutes to put down Islam as violent and then to denounce all religion as a mental defect or something to that effect.  Maher represents personified a certain breed of militant atheism that has grown up since 9-11 that has decided that because the terrorists did their deeds in the name of a fascist interpretation of Islam, that all religion is dangerous and thus we need to wipe it all out.  I consider that to be a myopic view of faith and its role in society, but that is undeniably a strong view among many modern atheists and Maher’s movie personifies it, and to his credit, he spends a good amount of his time punching directly as Islam, instead of merely fighting an intellectual proxy war against Christianity, or Mormons.  So at least he is roughly even-handed in his hatred of all faith.

And Obama’s super PAC has graciously accepted Maher’s donation of a million dollars.  So apparently the Obama administration has no trouble with Maher’s denunciation of religion.  Perhaps it is because it is a better movie that The Innocence of Muslims.  Or perhaps it is the donation itself.  Or just the lack of outrage.

By the way, that movie is on Netflix right now and indeed I watched the final twenty minutes while I was writing this piece.  But at the same time, you can’t watch the episodes of South Park featuring Mohammed, even though the depiction is utterly inoffensive.  For instance, you cannot watch the old episode of South Park featuring the SuperBestFriends, where they depict religious figures from all over the world as superheroes similar to the famous SuperFriends on Saturday Morning TV.  Here’s a YouTube clip of what Netflix won’t let you see:

But you can see Religulous, in its entirety, even though it is a full frontal (verbal) assault on all religion including Islam.  Go figure.

Besides our government’s apologies for the existence of this film being rightfully denounced as cowardly, there is also a First Amendment problem, here.  When it comes to most subjects the government has a right to send messages.  It can say, for instance, that we prefer democracy to dictatorships, capitalism to communism, and so on.  They can even say, “we really hated this movie that depicts capitalism in a bad light.”  But you know what the government can’t say? It can’t say “we prefer Catholicism to all other religions.”

Well, mostly it can’t.  There is some room for ceremonial prayer in the capitals of this country, and there is room to put “In God We Trust” on the currency, but you have to understand that these are very specific exceptions that the Courts allow and as a rule, the government cannot say, “X is the preferred religion.”  Nor can it say, “we would prefer you didn’t criticize X religion.”  As Justice Fortas wrote in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

And lest you think I am taking things out of context, the issue in that case was an

Arkansas law [that] makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university “to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,” or “to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches” this theory.”

The teaching of evolution is offensive to many Christians and Jews (and Muslims, by the way), because it contradicts certain interpretations of the Bible (and the Koran, I suppose).  I myself can reconcile the two,** but I respect the fact that other people cannot. But the court held in Epperson, and rightly so, that you can’t prohibit the teaching of evolution just because it is offensive to certain religious beliefs and indeed might result in some people no longer believing in particular beliefs about our origins.  You cannot prohibit teachings that are offensive to one faith just because it is offensive or even tends to make people stop believing.

And indeed the government cannot even be hostile to such criticism, which is the first way where the endless apologies for this critique of Islam go wrong.  They are endorsing the view that Islam should not be criticized.

But there is another problem here.  The government equally has to be neutral among all religions.  For instance, if a law was passed making it a crime to burn a Christian or Jewish place of worship only, that law would be struck down for failure to protect Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, etc. houses of worship, too.  Indeed, a law singling out places of worship generally seems dubious under the Constitution; it would probably have to be a general anti-arson ordinance as in “don’t burn down anything that doesn’t belong to you.”

And yet our government not only is silent about virtually all criticism of Christianity and other faiths besides Islam, it very often sponsors it.  Let’s not forget that the Piss Christ got a $15,000 grant from the NEA, which is a very dubious act under the Constitution.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has declared that “[t]he United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”  But I have yet to hear the Secretary of State denounce works like the Piss Christ, or even calling for our government from funding it.

The message cannot be missed.  Obama may assure us that Islam is peaceful, but his actions betray what is really in his heart.  He and others may denounce people who criticize Islam as bigots, but they are the real bigots for believing that Muslims cannot and should not be subject to the same insults that free societies hurl at all other belief systems.  As Mark Steyn once put it when he denounced Lindsay Graham for wishing there was a way to criminalize the speech of Pastor Terry Jones:

The real “racists” here are not this no-name pastor and his minimal flock but Reid, Graham, and the Times — for they assume that a significant proportion of Muslims are not responsible human beings but animals no more capable of rational behavior than the tiger who mauled Siegfried’s Roy.

Obama and his administration that have denounced The Innocence of Muslims while being silent as to every blasphemy upon Christianity, Judaism, and so on, demonstrate that they do not believe Muslims can be expected to control themselves.  I would call it the soft bigotry of lowered expectations, but its results are anything but soft:

And if that was as far as it went, that would be bad enough, but then we started to see people calling for the criminalization of this conduct.  Here is Mike Barnicle saying proving he is clueless both about the First Amendment and the meaning of the term “accessory to crime:”

By the way, there are three essential elements to being an accessory to a crime in most jurisdictions: “(1) a [crime] was committed; (2) the accused knew that the person he received, relieved or assisted was the person who committed the felony; and (3) the accused rendered assistance to the felon personally.”  Some jurisdictions also add that you have to intend that the crime occur although that is often presumed if you committed meet the other elements of being an accessory.  So for instance, if a man says, “I plan to murder Mr. Smith,” and you say, “okay, well, here’s his address” then you are an accessory to any harm that comes to Mr. Smith.  Do keep that in mind, because it will be important in a moment.

We saw a Professor of Religious studies advocate for the filmmaker’s arrest both on Twitter and in a clueless USA Today editorial where by some bizarre logic she claims she respects the first amendment but hey, that’s just our thing and we can’t expect the rest of the world to understand it, so he should be jailed.  Yes, really.  The editorial is that stupid.

And please, for the love of God, can we stop using “shouting fire in a crowded theater” as a metaphor?  First off, the actual phrase was “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”  Notice the word “falsely” for instance.  It is not, and indeed cannot, be criminal to truthfully warn people that a building is on fire.  And it was about a very specific situation where your words would directly and immediately create a danger not because people object to your expression, but because they would believe they need to save their own lives.  You cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, but you can burn a flag in front of a hostile crowd.

So when these talking heads rattle off the line about shouting fire in a theater, they do not sound smart to me, but profoundly dumb.

And of course Christiane Amanpour, who has been blaming the victim for barbarism since September 11, 2001, is the worst offender in this round, thinking apparently that this fire in a theater bit was a law passed by the Supreme Court, when it was only dicta in a court decision.

And there were more examples than I could count.  And if that was where it stopped, that wouldn’t be too horrible, but it went further.  We also had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs call Pastor Terry Jones and implore him not to continue antagonizing the Muslims, because they can’t be expected to control themselves (again, if I was a Muslim I would find this sentiment far more insulting than anything in The Innocence of Muslims):

The military’s top uniformed leader decided on his own to phone an extremist Florida pastor linked to an inflammatory anti-Islamic online video, the Pentagon said Thursday – no one else asked him to do so.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey called Florida pastor Terry Jones on Wednesday to ask him to withdraw his support for the video that some reports have linked with anti-American unrest in the Muslim world, a spokesman said.

“He called of his own initiative over concern that the violence incited by the film would pose risks to U.S. service members around the world,” said Marine Col. Dave Lapan.

(Source.)

And if it stopped there, it would be bad enough, but it got worse.  Then our Federal Government used its powers to discover and out the man who made this film:

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi. It was not immediately clear whether authorities were focusing on the California filmmaker as part of that probe.

A federal law enforcement official said Thursday that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was the man behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film denigrating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that sparked protests earlier in the week in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen. U.S. authorities are investigating whether the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya came during a terrorist attack.

Of what proper concern was it for the government to determine his identity?  I doubt that they had even a scintilla of evidence that this man had committed any crime, and if they did, they need to come forward now, and demonstrate it, so at least we will know that the Department of Justice will not investigate you merely having exercised your constitutional rights.

And I read various reports that he may have been on parole prohibiting him from any access to computers, and that he may have violated that.  I even read that actors and actresses are claiming to have been tricked by the film maker into thinking they were not making an anti-Islam movie.

Of course I don’t support a person violating any valid court order (with at most a Martin Luther King "Birmingham Jail" exception), including the conditions of his probation.

As for tricking the actors, well, I don’t think it is necessarily something horrible.  For instance, famously most of the people on the set of The Empire Strikes Back had no idea that Darth Vader was going to reveal that he was Luke’s father.  Everyone but Mark Hammil was told that Vader would say that Ben Kenobi killed Luke’s father: that was supposed to be the big revelation.  Even the guy in the Vader suit thought that would be the line and said it, and it was only after the fact when James Earl Jones was dubbing Vader lines that the correct words were put in.  Now that is deception, but I don’t think it anything anyone has a right to object to.

So I think it has to be a trick about something so fundamental that the person is likely not to have participated if they knew the truth.  So if D.W. Griffith tricks a black man into appearing in Birth of a Nation by claiming it would be an anti-Klan movie (speaking hypothetically—I know of no evidence that Griffith engaged in any deception***) that would seem to be deeply wrong, if not actually actionable fraud.  But tricking the guy in the Darth Vader suit into thinking he knew what the big revelation was in Empire doesn’t’ seem to qualify.

And incidentally as I was writing this, Dan Collins sent me a link to a story about one of the actresses trying to get YouTube to pull the video based on this alleged trickery.  You have to sympathize with this woman who says she has lost work for participating, especially if it turns out to be true that she was tricked into participating.  It’s one thing take on the risk of offending people who think it is okay to murder a person for that reason, but another thing entirely to be tricked into it.  Having not seen the complaint, let alone any evidence, I can’t speak to the merits of her claims, but it is worth noting that the judge himself refused to grant preliminary injunctive relief finding that this woman was not likely to prevail at trial.  So the judge saw something in the legal theory, or the evidence that led him or her to conclude that this woman didn’t have a strong chance of victory.  That tells us something.

But who are we kidding, here?  Do we think the DOJ would be investigating if the movie insulted Christ?  Or Moses?  Or Buddha?  Just last week the Onion produced an extremely NSFW cartoon featuring an orgy of many religious figures besides Mohammed.  You can look here if you want but their article captures the essence of it and their point in drawing it.  I would apologize to those I am about to offend, but recognize that the offensiveness is part of the point:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

Well, you can amend the first line...

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday.

…to add the following:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, and its creator was not investigated by the DOJ, sources reported Thursday.

(Emphasis added.)  We all know that no one would have cared about Nakoula’s little film but for the rioting in the Middle East.  We all know therefore that he is being discriminated against based on the content of his expression, indeed because he criticized the wrong religion.  And then once they figured out who he was, they didn’t even keep it to themselves for his protection and the protection of those who surrounded him.  No, they outted him before the entire world.  And while that isn’t quite enough to make the government an accessory to any crime committed later against Mr. Nakoula, it is far closer to the line than I think anyone wants our government to come.  They investigated a man and then outted him because he said the wrong thing.

(And by the way, that might not be a crime, but it is extremely likely to be a tort for which Nakoula will be entitled to recover, not the least including intentional infliction of emotional distress.)

And that investigation resulted in this (see right):

Other people subsequently acted badly.  Geraldo Rivera proudly proclaimed on Twitter that he would put the man’s pictures on the air and I presume he did.  And Cnn did as well.  I don’t know if MSNBC did this, too, but I guess their ratings are so low it raises the old if-tree-falls-in-the-woods-and-no-one-is-around type questions.  Again, it’s not quite accessory to a crime, but it is uncomfortably close to the line.

But I want to keep our eyes on the ball, the reprehensible conduct of our government and this administration.  Glenn Reynolds doesn’t comment much on his blog on the stories he covers, but his post on the subject is a must-read.  Here’s a sample:

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 [the oath of office]. 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.

No, you can’t dress this up and make it smell good.  Even if he was on probation we all know this is a pretext.  This is about appeasing the Islamic world. 

And the fact that the President’s campaign is engaging in the very same freedom of speech it is denying tonight to Nakoula only makes the hypocrisy even more savage.  We Americans are expected to endure this slap in the face to every person who loves our flag:

But at the same time we are told not to insult the Muslims or their faith, or else they might get all murdery on us, that they can’t be expected to control themselves, a view that is both destructive to freedom of religion and bigoted toward Muslims.

The better approach was that taken by Gen. Sir Charles Napier.  To quote Mark Steyn again:

When I’m speaking on this subject, I often get asked to reprise the words I quote in my book, from Gen. Sir Charles Napier in India explaining to the locals his position on suttee — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier was impeccably multicultural:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Of course that is a flippant view of what the duties of the government are under this circumstance.  The correct response would be to shoot anyone who tried to burn that poor woman alive.  Likewise the correct response as people breached our embassies would be to shoot the rioters and demand full prosecution for those who got away, and to protect (with deadly force if necessary) any person who tries to do Nakoula or anyone else who worked on that film any harm.  As I said before, the government exists to protect our rights; and when it violates our sacred freedom of religion and expression, or merely fails to protect it from those who would take those rights away from us, it delegitimizes itself.

Which is not to say it is time for a violent revolution, but Reynolds is right: Obama should resign.  And since his enormous ego won’t allow it—for that “Obama flag” I have denounced is as offensive for the egotism behind it as anything else—we need a revolution not of bullets but of ballots.

We have that tradition in America of revolutionary elections.  In the late 1790’s the Federalists passed oppressive laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts and in the election of 1800 we threw the bums out for it.  We called it the Revolution of 1800.  In the late 1850’s Americans came see the South as becoming tyrannical in its efforts to protect slavery, even going as far as suppressing anti-slavery speech, and wehad what many called second revolution by electing Abraham Lincoln.  It is plainly time for another revolutionary election.  It is time to throw this bum out.

---------------------------------------

* I am studiously ignoring the current effort to use a Layne Staley soundalike to fill in.  Sacrilege.

**  How do I reconcile faith with science on the origin of life and the universe?  Easy, in a very Calvinist way.  I do believe unquestioningly in God, and I equally believe that if you leave God out of the equation, the Big Bang and Evolution is the best explanation for how we got here.  But that’s just the rub, isn’t it?  Once you admit to the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God, then literally anything is possible.  I mean that is what it means to be omnipotent.

So maybe God created the first atom and them blew it up into the big bang, just so, so that everything in the universe would turn out just so it did, down to me sitting at this computer right now writing this post.  One tiny tweek different and I could have been born a woman, or not born at all.  And yes, God’s control can be that fine, given that he is both omniscient and omnipotent.

Or maybe God really did create the earth in seven days and then made it look like we had the Big Bang, evolution, etc.  That is, he buried dinosaur bones in the earth, and so on, until every piece of evidence is inconsistent with young earth creation down to the carbon dating evidence, even though in fact the Earth is actually very young.  Again, easily possible for an omniscient and omnipotent God.

And honestly, I don’t know which of those is the truth, or if there is a third possibility no one has even thought of.  But equally I believe that the Bible is handed down by Him, and it is His word.  So He taught us this story of Genesis, and whether it was true or not is actually kind of beside the point.  The real question is why did He teach us this story?  What was He trying to say to us with it?  Whether it is a literal catalogue of events is beside the point, in my humble opinion.

And of course if you are atheist who believes that the Big Bang happened, and so did evolution, you will notice that my religious beliefs have no practical difference when it comes to science.  I still believe that evolution either happened, or God set up the evidence to lead us to that conclusion and more importantly, I think it is happening now.  I think much of the wild kingdom can be understood as an expression of evolution.

And I know that lots of good Christians, and good people of other faiths will disagree with my views.  More power to you, but if you are wondering, that is what I believe.  Agree or disagree as you wish; you probably don’t need me to encourage you.

*** Griffith reportedly told his black maid she should see the movie, believing she would enjoy it.  She reportedly saw it and then promptly told him off and quit.  And while that earns a proper “you go, girl!” for the maid, if true the story demonstrates that Griffith actually believed that his story was fair and even promoted good race relations, as hard as that that might be to believe.  It is an example of evil convincing itself it is good, something I have seen too much of in others.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.