Charlie Hebdo, the french satirical newspaper who was attacked by Islamic terrorists a little more than a week ago, defiantly printed the very next issue on schedule. A rally of solidarity and celebration of free speech preceded it. The actions throughout the world have varied. In America, land of the free, the reaction was a little different. The head of the least transparent administration in American history, as declared by the Associated Press, did not attend this rally. They also do not approve of journalistic free speech in the U.S., in the name of tolerance.

The Daily Caller reported on Tuesday that Obama press secretary Josh Earnest, the less pretentious and non-glasses wearing Jay Carney, said that the president has a “moral responsibility” to “push back” on U.S. Journalists when they print “anti-jihadi” articles. The reason for this? They might retaliate against our military.

“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.”

So, essentially, our Dear Leader will suppress the first amendment for the sake of overly sensitive Islamists. France stands strong for free speech, at least publicly, while America breaks its back to bend over to make good with the those of the offended.

This should come as no surprise, under the current administration, because they took sides against 'Charlie' when they were attacked in 2011. On Tuesday, Earnest defended the Obama administration's decision to speak out in objection to the french newspaper's original cartoons, after the first attack.

“there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers at risk.”

He also feels that publishing anything that offends delicate terrorist sensibilities, giving the president the ability to assume the role of editor for each and every publication. Though, Mr. Obama's press secretary claimed that “publication of any kind of material in no way justifies any act of violence”, he continued with “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”.

President Obama has never really taken the specific threat seriously. He called the Fort Hood attack “work place violence”, and refuses to label terrorist as “Islamic”. He prefers “violent extremism”. It is kind of like when, as the Washington Times reported, a New York City council decided to try to ban cops from identifying suspects. I'm sorry. It banned “identifying a suspect’s age, gender, color or disability”. So, again, banning identification of suspects. Terrorists, like ordinary criminals, love these types of rules.

He went on an Islamic love fest during his 2012 United Nations speech, that included insulting anyone who criticizes the religion. He went as far to say that the “the future must not belong” to anyone who will “slander the prophet of Islam”. Besides repeating the claim that Islam is the religion of peace, Josh Earnest further expressed the Obama administration's desire to regulate journalistic free speech,

”I will say that there have been occasions … where the administration will make clear our point of view on some of those assessments based on the need to protect the American people and to protect our men and women in uniform. I wouldn’t rule out making those kinds of expressions again.”

It begs the question, what country does Barack Obama think he's president of?

This continues what has been a disturbing trend of attacks on press freedom and free speech from the most “transparent” administration in history.



Facebook Comment
JOIN U.S. HERALD Subscribe for FREE today and find out what's REALLY happening in America!

Send this to a friend