A week after United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and three other brave Americans, were murdered by Muslim terrorists in 2012, on Sept 19, 2012, Jay Carney, on behalf of the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, issued a statement that “We [specifically President Obama] are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we [especially President Obama] have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we've spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution."
Press Secretary Carney went on to say that the White House didn't question the magazine's right to publish the cartoons, but "the judgment behind the decision to publish it." In essence, President Obama publicly accused Charlie Hebdo's publishers of bad judgment, and, hence, instead of condemning those who might act on their umbrage, gave a green-light for last weeks' Islamic terrorists to go on a rampage and murder anybody and everybody they could.
It wasn't a casual West Wing blunder that kept Obama from flying to the anti-terror demonstration in Paris. Obama simply didn't want to memorialize the Hebdo cartoonists who, he feels, had slandered the one whom Obama calls "The Prophet Muhammad" rather than just Muhammad.
The real problem was that Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists hadn't "gotten the memo" that they had unwittingly violated Obama's executive-order anti-Muslim speech-crime against publishing something that is "deeply offensive to many [Muslims] and [might] have the potential to be inflammatory [to many Muslims]."
CBS' release of the 2012 Carney/Obama/Hebdo story now shows just how disconnected CBC News is from the real world. CBS News re-released the 2012 archived story not to put Obama in a bad light, but because CBS thought that it showed everyone how wise the president was for warning us that Muslim terrorists were going to take revenge on Hebdo's editorial staff because of its cartoons.What it did, though, was show how Obama had laid the very intellectual predicate and foundation for the last week's Islamist murderers to make good on their threats.
Imagine if an "artist" took a statue of Jesus on a crucifix and immersed it in a clear plexiglass vat of the "artist's" own urine, and the Federal Government helped pay for the artist through the National Endowment of Arts and to add insult to injury, this defamation was exhibited in an American museum. Well, you don't have to imagine it, because the "Piss Christ" art story actually happened in 2012, and when it came tothat slander against a religion, Obama was totally silent. To Obama, "Piss Christ" is art deserving absolute 1st Amendment protection and its offensiveness can be ignored.
Any Christian terrorists who harmed an American Ambassador because of "Piss Christ" would have been labeled Christian terrorists, just like Muslim terrorists should be labeled "Muslim terrorists." But, outside the United States, Obama only shows understanding for Islamic terrorists to commit murder and mayhem because Obama believes it is reasonable that they get upset when someone writes or draws something "deeply offensive to many" and that has "the potential to be inflammatory."
What Jay Carney, on behalf of the Leader of the Free World, did by attacking Hebdo in 2012 was to imply that with respect to supposedly protected first amendment free speech that involves Muslims, the "prophet Muhammad," insulting Islamic terror, or even Islam itself, any anti-Islam comment is like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater where people can get killed running for the exits.
So, even though Obama claimed he was upholding freedom of expression, Obama actually said that it's not "good judgment" to exercise freedom of expression when it comes to statements against Islam, or against the terrorists that directly base their terrorism on Islam. Obama wasn't upholding free speech, he was eliminating it. The job of the President of the United States is to protect free speech, not question and derogate the speaker's "judgment."
In short, seemingly by executive-order, Obama deleted First Amendment free speech when exercised to criticize Muslims, turning anti-Muslim speech into a Muslim-self-enforced speech-crime. Obama defines this as speech that "is deeply offensive to many [Muslims] and has the potential to be inflammatory [to Muslims]", meaning that you must avoid it because the Muslim enforcers will get violent, execute judgment and murder you - and the United States won't protect you.
Another instance of this approach to the First Amendment occurred at about the same time in 2012, when Obama made good on his new executive-order on anti-Muslim "speech crimes" by arresting on a trumped-up charge Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian who made the short movie trailer of the "Innocence of Muslims". The White House claimed the trailer had caused the "spontaneous" Benghazi massacre of Amb. Stevens, and the 3 other brave Americans, an attack later proven to be well-planned in advance.
Every Muslim terrorist in the world got Obama's message when Obama arrested Mr. Nakoula: it was a shout-out to all the world's Islamic Terrorists. Mass-murderers, said the message, Obama has your back, he'll arrest anybody in the US who draws "the Prophet" or criticizes Islamic terror derived from Islam, and will understand if you use their "offensive" speech as a reason to kill anybody you want.
Let us take this a logical step further. The subtle consequence of Obama's message is applicable to what used to be protected free-speech concerning Israel, and the fight for Israel's existence. As a Newtonian thought-experiment, isn't any speech supporting Israel and supporting Israel's right to militarily defend itself against Muslim terrorists bent on Israel's eradication "deeply offensive to many [Muslims]" and doesn't it "have the potential to be inflammatory [to many Muslims]"?" Will Obama's criticism extend to an understanding that one cannot publicly defend or support Israel anymore because supporting Israel will get the Muslims, and anti-Israel psychopaths upset and violent?
Under the president's executive-order anti-Muslim speech crime, criticism of Islam can justifiably cause Islamic violence and murder. Perhaps that explains why he continues to consider the Fort Hood mass-murdering terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan's murder of all those precious soldiers at Fort Hood just "work-place-violence." Hasan had overheard US soldiers denigrating the Muslims terrorists killed by American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan who supported Bin Laden's murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11. Obama may believe that Hasan and the entire Muslim world were insulted by the US soldiers' failure to respect Islam, and "the Prophet Muhammad.". Calling Muhammad a historical figure, and not "the Prophet" is, in and of itself, blasphemy and deserving of punishment. To Obama, Hasan wasn't an Islamic terrorist when he was screaming Allahu Akbar and murdering American soldiers, he was enforcing the executive-order ban on anti-Muslim speech-crimes. Obama empowered offended Muslims to execute "self-help" enforcement of his executive definition of such speech-crimes.