Storyteller in Chief (Part III of III)
Two weeks have passed since the terrorist attack on the interim facility with grossly inadequate defenses some would call a US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The avalanche of evidence of a militaristic attack with the indelible marks of Al-Qaeda overwhelmed the President and his Administration’s cover story designed to protect the integrity of the sensationalized ‘Arab Spring’. After over a week of propping up a story for a week, the White House finally conceded when Jay Carney spoke up and said “It is self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”
When examining the timeline and the implosion of the Administration’s Libyan facade, it’s disgusting to note that the day after the attack on September 12th the Administration asserted that “”It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.” when confronted with questions about pre-planned and terrorist motivations for the embassy attack. However, just two days later on September 14th continued to contend that “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy. … The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not, at this moment, have information to suggest or to tell you that would indicate that any of this unrest was preplanned.”
So in summary, it took two weeks for the Administration to conclude the obvious and self-evident truth of the embassy attack in Libya was indeed a terrorist attack but a mere two days to determine that the motivations for the attack was not the anniversary of 9/11, not US foreign policy, and not the US presence in Libya (by way of an embassy) but because of a YouTube video which denounces Islam. This YouTube video was uploaded in July and makes the Monty Python series look like Casablanca.
It took the blood-thirsty media little over twenty-four hours to hunt down and unmask the film’s producer. The media shamelessly released and circulated his photo, address, and name. On Saturday the 15th, this man was taken in for “questioning” voluntarily and was not arrested nor handcuffed. The details related to this man’s criminal record revealed a current probationary period for a crime completely unrelated to national security. The media promptly expounded on this relatively insignificant detail.
The first photo released by the media shows the producer covered head to toe with only his eyes uncovered so that he may see as he is escorted from his home for “questioning”. Given the reputation of the “drive-by” media to destroy American lives all in the name of pursuing a story, he certainly has the right idea. However, with the release of his personal information, simply covering up his face did not protect him for long. Within a week Egypt had charged him with a crime punishable by death and Pakistan had issued a $100,000 bounty for his head (hopefully not to be paid with our billions of dollars of aid sent to Pakistan every year).
How can the media be so complicit in the scapegoating of our own American citizens acting lawfully under our laws and well within the bounds of his constitutionally protected freedom of speech? Why was this man brought in for “questioning”?! What crime (under US law) has he committed?! At what point did the American citizen pause for a moment and think critically about this? And what a utterly nauseating display from the President to shirk the responsibility of this attack and lay it promptly on the shoulders of this man! A true display of cowardice that is not fit for the White House. However, in an election year what could you expect.
If for a moment you could write off the media frenzy as a spell of bloodlust in which they truly didn’t understand what they were doing (farfetched, I know) then next we look at how the lawmakers in Washington look to exploit terrorist attack. Here we have Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Perez from the Department of Justice under the benevolent and sanctified Attorney General Eric Holder had this to say about your first amendment rights.
Arguing about context and flat out avoiding the question, under the current administration your rights are simply a governing fiat which may be revoked. Let us contrast this progressive vision with the words of presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“I think it’s dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn’t do it,” he said. “Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do.”
Now let me ask you. Are your rights natural and secured by the Constitution or are they merely privileges, afforded to you by the government? The choice is stark and the answer is self-evident.
This tale was written with the implicit purpose of protecting the integrity of the ‘Arab Spring’. This neo-con fantasy is shared by the statist. Barack Obama cannot ‘hang his hat’ on much these days but one accomplishment he has tried to peddle is the growth of democracy in the Middle East. Toppling dictators in Libya and Egypt are two events that Obama has referred to as indications of growing stability in the region. Much like his other stories, the myth of the ‘Arab Spring’ and democracy in the Middle East ignores some very important details.
As a pre-requisite to democracy, a civil society must be established. When a society is able to respect the rights of others then a democratic form of government may take hold. In America, contrary to the Statist Media, we have a very tolerant and civil society. The clearest comparison I can draw between the Middle East and the US in terms of measuring the civil society comes in the form of the Westboro Baptist Church.
After living in Kansas for a little over a year, I have not crossed paths with members of this congregation but I am well aware of their extra-curricular activities. Most Americans condemn and flat out reject the views of the Westboro Baptist Church. The protests they hold at soldiers funerals are repulsive, much of America can agree to that. As radical as their views are, how can it be that no one has burned down their buildings or murdered their members? The civil society in America respects the rights of others, no matter how radically different they are to our own.
What have we seen of the ‘civil’ society in the Middle East? Strict adherence to sharia law stands in direct opposition to the nucleation of a civil society. The expressed principle of sharia law is the supremacy of Islam. There is no room for tolerance or civility when dealing with other world views. Beheading Christians, inhumane treatment of women, and violent reactions to Islamic dissent all stand in the way of the creation of a civil society in the Middle East. Without this foundation to lay a democratic form of government upon, the roots of a free society will never take hold.
I will leave you with this thought. During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama explained that he understood and had sympathy for the Muslim world. Now that Egypt has toppled it’s dictator and replaced him with the Muslim Brotherhood front man Mohamed Morsi, Barack Obama cannot commit to thinking of him as either an enemy or an ally. With the recent wave of Islamic dissent, Morsi has issued a stark ultimatum to the United States; the US must change. Barack Obama is certainly looking forward to his ‘flexibility’ after his potential re-election, combined with his disdain for the principle of the United States, could his desire to ‘fundamentally transform America’ be spring boarded by international pressure?
About forty days remain until you are presented with a choice. Will you choose America or Ameritopia?