The nice thing about having a Democrat in the White House is that there is never any bad news...

...and even if there is bad news the president can go on television as "eye candy."

A week after an American ambassador was brutally murdered, Obama finally reaches to reassure...

...the world that he too suffers slander.

Via Hot Air:

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

Just his way of reminding the Muslim world that he understands them because he too is horribly villified by the same American enemy.

He's got to inject himself into the issue every single time.

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

John Nolte at Breitbart writes:

Not only are we seeing the White House and State Department call more attention to the Mohammed-mocking "Innocence of Muslims" than any terrorist network ever could've hoped for, but the President's indefensible scapegoating of the film and filmmaker to draw attention and blame away from U.S. security failures apparently knows no bounds.

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president's speech to the UN General Assembly next week:

"UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World."

"As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]

My God, between the media and the Obama White House, we are finally witnessing Orwell's "1984" blossom to life.

Notice how the media works - Muslims are not identified as Muslim when they engage in terror actions, lest Americans unfairly generalize that all Muslims are terrorists.

But it's perfectly hunky-dory to toss a Christian under the bus in order to defend Obama's reputation. Rather than defend the Christian's right to say whatever he thinks as something that the American government has no legitimate concern, Obama is reinforcing the Islamic stereotype that Christians ought to be persecuted.

This country is in the best of hands.

It's really simple - Stop Apologizing to Barbarians.

But history's greatest President doesn't think American values are something he needs to defend, so he's funding an "apology ad" to be aired in Pakistan:

Call it a video reprise of the Obama Apology Tour: "The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video," the Associated Press reports.

The 30-second spot was released yesterday and is running "on seven Pakistani networks." It's also getting some free airtime here in the U.S.; yesterday Fox News Channel's "Hannity" ran it before an interview with Sarah Palin (who was, not unpredictably, critical).

The ad rehearses, with Urdu subtitles, last week's statements from Obama and Mrs. Clinton in which he declares that America "respects all faiths" and she asserts: "Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."

Basically, Obama's message is the tactic of liberals for the last 40 years, i.e, "Don't blame us, we're good Americans. We hate those bad Americans that you hate."

James Taranto explains the problem - Obama's Anti-Americanism isn't the same as the Islamofascist's Anti-Americanism:

The Reuters report underscores the basic conceptual problems with the Obama-Clinton apology. For one thing, it assumes that militant Islamic anti-Americanism is based on essentially the same critique as the multicultural left's anti-Americanism. But how is the claim that America "respects all faiths" supposed to appease people who burn churches? Nor is the secretary's assurance that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do with this video" responsive to the demand that its maker "be handed over to us so we can cut him up into tiny pieces."

It seems likely that this Mohammed Tariq Khan faults the U.S. government for failing to do so. Now of course Americans understand what Mrs. Clinton means when she says the government has nothing to do with it. The video's makers are alive and free not because the government has permitted it but because the Constitution prohibits the government from doing anything else. Don't blame Obama, don't even blame George W. Bush. Blame James Madison.

Too bad for Obama - the Islamofascists will think he's a "Bad American" so long as he doesn't submit to Islam.

That Obama reset in Cairo is really working well... ....Egypt threatens to execute more Americans. World Affairs writes:

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day. Cairo has issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans—seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt—who are allegedly involved with the anti-Mohammad video everyone’s rioting over. The prosecutor’s office also issued a warrant for Terry Jones, the Koran-burning nutjob in Florida, just because, and says if convicted the defendants may get the death penalty.

Mostly Christians, so it doesn't matter.

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama not stressed about anti-American riots because it doesn't have anything to do with him...

...it's only about bad Americans, not "well-meaning Americans."

One of the ways of understanding the strange nonchalant response of the administration to prior warnings of trouble in the Arab Spring countries, and its contextualization of the violence on the anniversary of 9/11, is its belief that it is somehow separated from the object of the violence. Raging crowds and Islamic wrath could not possibly be connected to the enlightened Obama administration or, more generally to a U.S. that has been “reset” on his watch — given the three years of laborious Muslim outreach and the long-ago departure of George Bush. So we are to think away all those burning flags, stormed consulates, and dead Americans, and instead remember that the violence “is a response,” a sort of cry of the heart against a couple of America-residing video makers — and has nothing much to do with any anger at well-meaning Americans per se.

Apparently no one in charge seems to grasp that this latest video pretext is simply yet another tool, in a long line of many, for premodern Islamists to manipulate and galvanize their fury against the United States, whose success and power obsess them no end — no matter what we do or who happens to be in the White House, soaring Cairo speech and “leading from behind” or not.

Obama fails job one - defending the Constitution.

Our marines can't have real bullets to defend our embassies, but, God help you, the police that will come to arrest you in a midnight raid after you do "improperly" exercise your constitutional rights sure as hell will have bullets.

And this is not a trivial matter. One thing we know is that when anyone interacts with the police there is a real risk that they can be killed just because the police officer was having a bad day.

Glen Reynolds writes:

Here’s the key bit:“Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.”The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

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 that oath. 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.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Related thoughts from Ann Althouse:

That’s a scarf wrapped around his face, not a “towel.” Is the L.A. Times nudging us to think of this man as a “towelhead”? And look at this headline in the Daily Mail: “The man who set the Middle East ablaze hides his face in shame….” Shame? If I were imputing a motivation to this man, I’d say he has a fully justified fear of becoming a recognizable face.
But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would — if they knew the facts — see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage. They don’t believe the necessary premise: freedom as the superior value. As long as they favor a system in which blasphemy is outlawed and severely punished, they will continue to blame the American government for standing back and allowing blasphemy to flourish and flow everywhere. What good does it do to ask them to please understand our system? They hate this system.
Meanwhile, our government would scapegoat a free citizen. It’s not even effectual scapegoating.

Note Althouse’s strikethrough. You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course. . . .

It’s the deputies who should be covering their faces out of shame, but the real shame is on the man at the top of the hierarchy.

Sharia law in effect in America.

Glen Reynolds writes:

"THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, POLITICALLY TROUBLESOME INDEPENDENT FILMMAKERS WOULD BE HARASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES — AND THEY WERE RIGHT!"

Alleged ‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker taken in for interviewing by deputies.
This running gag isn’t as funny as it used to be. Imagine the uproar if we had a Republican in the White House — but it’s the absence of uproar over these tactics that is really revealing. It’s going to be really hard for the press and pundits who should be raising a stink about this, but aren’t, to play their “have you no decency?” games during a Republican Administation. They’ll try, of course, but they should be treated with the contempt they deserve. And that should start now, actually.

From the LA Times:

Just after midnight, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Arab world.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a towel over his face. He kept his hands in the pocket of a winter coat.

Sheriff's officials could not be reached by The Times, but department spokesman Steve Whitmore told NBC4 that deputies assisting the federal probation department took Nakoula to the sheriff's substation in Cerritos for interviewing.

[Updated at 1:40 a.m. Saturday: Whitmore told the Times that Nakoula was taken in for a voluntary interview with probation officials and has not been arrested or detained.]

Authorities waited until most media had left for the day.

Earlier Friday, sheriff’s deputies had to escort attorneys through a scrum of news cameras into Nakoula’s home. This time, authorities only had to avoid a lone photographer for The Times and a few other lingering reporters.

Nakoula has told the Associated Press he was a logistics manager on the "Innocence of Muslims" movie, not the director. He told a Coptic bishop Thursday that he had no role in it, the clergyman told The Times.

Nakoula is believed to use the alias Sam Bacile, which was the name a caller who took credit for the film gave to the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal.

On Friday, U.S. courts spokeswoman Karen Redmond said the Office of Probation in the Central District of California is reviewing whether Nakoula, who was convicted on bank fraud charges, violated terms of his probation in relation to the video and its uploading onto the web.

He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Web without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.

So, it's now permissible for the courts to deny rights of freedom of speech where it has nothing to do with protecting the public from a crime?

I can understand this if Nakoula was using the internet to scam people, but insofar as the video involved only religious or historical or political speech, then it should be protected by the Constitution, even if Nakoula asked for money.

The principle is not so far off from that which got Judge Howard Broadman in trouble for making norplant a condition of probation for convicted child-abusing parent. The point being that Constitutional rights cannot be abridged any further than necessary to protect the public.

Moreover, this looks like Hell. The Muslim world demanded that America prosecute this individual because of the film. The Muslim world killed Americans and attacked our embassies in order to pressure America to prosecute this individual because of the film. Now - Lo and Behold - we can say to the Muslim world that America is prosecuting this individual because of the film.

That gives the appearance that the Muslim world can force America to take actions against its principles by violence.

That's outrageous and dangerous.

Obama Administration acts as censorship arm of Islamofascists.

Obama administration asks Youtube to review the video that the Islamofascists used as a pretext for attacking Americans; the LA Times "outs" the video's producer.

Obama administration officials also flagged the trailer to YouTube and asked the company to review whether it violated the website's terms of service.

If we're going to have anti-blasphemy laws, I want them official and passed by Congress and reviewed by the courts. I don't want this executive-only implementation of a despicable law.

By the way, the LAT does, yes, tell jihadists exactly where the filmmaker lives, so they can kill him:

But Duarte's deputy city manager said she had been told by sheriff's officials that the permits to shoot the movie had been issued to Media for Christ. An actor who appeared in the movie, Tim Dax, said he was paid $75 a day in checks drawn on the bank account of Abanob Basseley Nakoula — a name linked to the Cerritos property where Nakoula Basseley Nakoula resides. The home's distinctive front door with triangle windows in a half-circle pattern is visible in the 14-minute trailer for the movie posted on YouTube.

Islam is part of the fabric of our nation...

...according to President Obama.

The United States continues to stand with those who seek the chance to decide their own destiny, to live free from fear and violence, and to practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, Ramadan reminds us that Islam is part of the fabric of our Nation, and that—from public service to business, from healthcare and science to the arts—Muslim Americans help strengthen our country and enrich our lives.

If the idea is that Muslims are equal citizens in the United States, then it is fair to say that Muslims are part of the fabric of our nation. Presumably, insofar as Muslims are part of the fabric of our nation, then the faith they hold is part of that fabric.

But is Islam qua Islam a part of the fabric of the nation? Well, obviously not. Islam has played no part in the shaping of the institutions and culture of this attitude, and to the extent that Obama means to imply that it does, he's simply pandering.

A further thought, though, ism what happened to Obama's approach to role of religion in the public square? Has he ever identified Christianity as part of the "fabric of our nation"? His approach to Catholicism clearly distinguishes between the faith of Catholics - which gets no special recognition from him - and Catholics as part of the fungible mix of deracinated people without any particular commitment to anything in particular.

Bottom line, Obama is awfully solicitious of Muslims.