First, the Pentagon called Pastor Jones to ask him to withdraw his support for the film that is being used as a lame pretext to explain the Islamist mobs attacking our embassies. Today, Press secretary Carney did the same. And the White House contacted YouTube in order to get the video removed. The violent attacks and burning embassies aren’t a result of Islamists who want to kill us. No, no. They are all about a crummy video.

Free speech, shmee speech! Obama and his lapdogs in the media have an agenda to push, even if it means stomping on The Constitution and attempting to quash free speech.

Citizens are, of course, outraged.

Did they not have far to look, to boot? Some are claiming that he is a federal informant.


Iowahawk continues with his epic drubbing.

Not if the Obama administration and DhimmiTube have their way, as Twitchy founder and CEO Michelle Malkin notes.

Longtime readers of my blogs will not be surprised by YouTube’s dhimmitude. I encountered the AllahTube/Dhimmitube censors in 2006 during the Mohammed Cartoons conflagration, when I first posted aninnocuous, little homemade clip about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage’s war on Western free speech titled “First, They Came.”Over the years, the whitewashing of Google/YouTube to protect radical Muslim sensitivities has been well-documented.

Carney, of course, dodges.

And members of the media? Helping to run the witch hunt against the filmmaker.

And, as Ace shows, it’s not just Brian Ross:

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.


Chuck Todd tries to cover for the White House and blame the filmmaker as well.

Pesky facts!

The media and the Smarty Pantsers don’t believe in free speech. In fact, they think that standing up for free speech is actually betraying it. Or something. Just ask Slate’s William Saletan. And these Twitter users sum it up.

The Obama administration is once again seeking to quash free speech by condemning its free exercise. This time, they are making sure it’s totally quashed and not just condemned. To Team Obama, the principles upon which this great nation was founded are just a pesky hurdle to overcome.


Google says the video doesn’t violate the YouTube TOS and will remain online.

  • J.N. Ashby

    It’s not really unconstitutional if they just asked them, though it sets a precedent. It DOES show however, where YouTube’s allegiances lie. EDIT: Apparently YouTube told them to sod off. Good on them.

    • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

      It is… well, maybe not. The WH isn’t Congress, and asking isn’t passing a law. Which is what the first amendment says.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      • J.N. Ashby

        Indeed. It does kind of set the kind of pseudo-precedent that the Statist party would use to expand Federal power, though. Besides, If der fuhrer asks you to do something, you bloody do it!

  • Raphael Gluck ツ

    How soon before the White House asks Youtube to remove the @MittRomney channel?

    How soon until international monitors from Cuba & Venezuela come to oversee US elections ?

  • EB71

    This just in; Obama has asked Britain to extradite Salman Rushdie to the US for prosecution, because a lot of Moslems rioted over a book he wrote in ’88. If the UK doesn’t comply, a drone strike might be forthcoming.

  • American Knight

    Whitehouse ask youtube to take down video. Translation, take down the video if you know whats good for you.

    • CoastalMaineBird

      “Nice video shop you got dere. Be a shame if sump’n was to happ’n to it”.

  • Guest

    So, that means the government just flushed the 1st Amendment down the toilet, eh. Fabulous.

  • donttreadonme53

    Anything to deflect the blame…even if it means shielding themselves with the tatters they have made of the Constitution. It’s not about the film…it’s about appeasement BO…it’s about you being weak.

  • Tim Peacock

    Last I checked, the First Amendment prohibited Congress from passing laws that abridged citizens’ speech. Nowhere does it mention the Executive Branch nor does it mention that branch’s efforts to save American lives abroad through these types of measures. Why does Michelle Malkin value argumentative debate over American lives?

    • jdog

      Congress holds the power to enact laws. Perhaps you could read up on the Constitution? You know that dusty old document lefties hate? That’s why the prohibition applies to Congress. Back in the old days before Obama, the Executive Branch wasn’t allowed to simply make up its own laws.

      Michelle Malkin, like most Americans, values free speech. Argumentative debate is part of free speech. Free speech as embodied in the First Amendment is intended to protect offensive speech. Nobody has a problem with inoffensive speech, and the First Amendment isn’t needed to protect it. Free speech is far more important to the continued viability of the American way of life that the lunatic fringe Islamic terrorists throwing their intolerant, murderous temper tantrums.

      The administration’s jihad against the movie and its makers notwithstanding, the movie isn’t marching on our embassies in Mideastern capitals acting like lunatics, burning buildings and murdering people. The evil movie is a straw man argument just like the so called war on women, designed primarily to give the administration cover and cast the blame upon anything but its own policies. The buck passer in chief never met any blame he can’t pass onto someone else, nor any credit he can’t claim for himself – deserved or not.

      • J. Cox

        Unfortunately,they know this to be the truth,and the entire “video” debate is a false narrative redirecting blame.This does two things,emboldens their resolve by us appearing weak through appeasement,and giving the left an excuse to power grab whatever the cost.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Because the president does not have the authority to make laws, and Executive Orders are 1 not laws and 2 may not act to circumvent other Const. protections in any case, or it is meaningless. And even if He is not ‘ordering’ the vid be taken down, wouldn’t you agree that a request directly from the White House, directly from the President, is a pretty powerful inducement? It takes far less in the law to assert the well known ‘chilling effect” onfree speech. In short– yes, Dear Leader is ABUSING the power of His office to achieve what cannot be effected legally – yet. In some circumstances this is known as ‘extortion ‘. Got it, you pretentious poncing dishrag?

      • Tim Peacock

        If it means saving American lives, I would be all for a Presidential request. And btw, who ever said he was issuing an Executive Order? Please stay on topic.

        Speech isn’t unlimited – when it incites violence, speech is prohibited. You can’t shout fire in a theater, and you can’t promote a virulently anti-Islamic video that you admittedly knowing it will spark international violence against Americans.

        • J. Cox

          Sorry,but a movie depicting something in a bad light is not incitement to violence.If tomorrow they were to burn a embassy down because someone made a PSA about abortion..would you then demand the “Pro choice” crowd remain silent?The fact is,the movie is not the reason for the violence,and you know it.Has there been violent outbreaks,and bombings by the islamofacist before this movie was made….way back in july?Will they use any excuse to do what the stated goal of these organizations are?Your argument is based on a fallacy,and is nothing more than another power grab from the left.

          • rinodino

            Malkin sure doesn’t want Jason biggs to have freedom of speech… Righties are such hypocrites

          • J. Cox

            ERR wrong one ever said he could not say what he wants to say,our issue is the forum in which his asinine statements were made.Now that Nick has took away the link to his twitter,you see he has become a non issue.But of course that is a actual logical statement..please go back to playing WOW in mommies basement and think real hard,then learn how to read AND comprehend.

          • J. Cox

            BTW..when was the government brought in to this issue with him?Never you say..oh,so no actual constitutional crisis here.

    • J.N. Ashby

      Yeah! Who cares if we can’t say what we like, so long as the government can take any measure to ensure our safety? The ends justify the means, especially if the means are to keep the people safe!

      • Tim Peacock

        Speech has limits. When its purpose is to incite violence, it’s absolutely justifiable to restrict it. Just as the WH has requested the video be removed, you would be asked to leave a theater (and possibly arrested) if you shouted fire in a crowded theater to incite panic.

        • J.N. Ashby

          Mocking a religion, regardless of how those savages react to it, is not a statement made with the purpose to incite violence. Shouting fire in a movie theater is not a valid analogy.

          • AMERICAN Kafir™(KAdams)

            Not to nitpick, but what if that shout of ‘Fire’ caused a stampede, and someone was trampled and killed? Or had a heart attack out of panic? If the person shouting ‘Fire’ was just being a ‘prankster’. We’re (or I was, anyway) told when we’re children, that if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it. I’m not against this person expressing his views, and I really don’t think that this movie started all of this, but the freedom of speech has consequences. I’m not saying lawful or legal, but psychological. For both parties involved. Most times, awful/graphic/terrible things are said, just to get a reaction out of people. In this case, though, it’s pretty extreme, and I’d say verging on psychopathic. Just the Muslim reaction to the “infidels”, that is. Sorry, I rambled off subject a bit.

          • J.N. Ashby

            For the fire part, a prankster would be doing that with the intention of causing the people to “freak out,” or, more legalesey, “incite panic,” thus, that does apply. If someone dies because of it, I think it’s probably manslaughter anyway.
            Further, to hold the filmmaker responsible for this savagery is patronizing to the Muslims, because you’re essentially saying “Well, you shouldn’t have made a movie that would make them mad…you know how THOSE people react to things like this.” For example, if I made a movie calling out the historical crimes of the British, and they destroyed the American embassy in London, everyone would condemn their behavior, because people like Peacock hold people in “the west” to a higher standard of behavior.

    • RblDiver

      In looking at the First Amendment, you seem to have forgotten the Tenth. Prohibiting free speech is NOT a power given to the Executive Branch, and thus they do not have it. Period.

    • TugboatPhil

      So you were calling for Martin Scorsese to be arrested when he made Last Temptation of Christ, a very sacrilegious film? Because that would be consistent for what you want now. Oh wait, NO Christians killed anyone over that film, so I guess you give it a pass.

      And in case you hadn’t read it before, but the Executive branch of our government is SUPPOSED to obey the laws passed by the Legislative.

  • RalphyBoy

    In other news… jihadies are now claiming that Obama must not be made fun of in video, photo, text, whisper, thought or by any other means not yet discovered… To do so will “hurt their feelings” and lead to riots and murdering of innocent bystanders.

    So it is written in the book of The Obamanation.

  • jdog

    We now know more about the filmmaker than we ever knew about Obama.

    • sally808


      • Garth Haycock

        Yes. Really.

      • Garth Haycock

        Yes. Really.

  • [email protected]

    This has nothing to do with a movie.
    The movie is a pretext. This is about attacking America and our right of free
    speech. I understand the the Oblah blah administration not long ago supported a
    UN resolution to outlaw free speech with regards to insults to islam. To speak
    out against islam would be a violation of international law. Bye Bye free speech. Vote this socialist loser Oblah
    blah out of off. Mitt 2012!

    • Gladys Crump

      All I know is during the attack on the embassy they were shouting “Obama Obama take a picture, we are all Osamas” and “We are one million Osamas” that doesn’t sound like they were mad about the film to me, more like they were pissed because Obama mentioned how he killed Osama over 27 times during his speech at the DNC. I think this guy will turn out to be a muslim, but I don’t think his movie had anything to do with the PLANNED attack that happened. That was pure Obama, putting God back into his DNC platform and admitting that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and his incessant bragging about killing Bin Laden.

  • douchie

    I’ve never been someone who thought that a single administration could bring down the republic, yet lately I’ve had this heavy sense of dread about the future that is very disconcerting.

  • Jack Offelday

    Apparently, the Obama administration has located the US Embassy terrorists and brought them to justice. They’ve been residing on You Tube since July.

  • PennyRobinsonFanClub

    I need a thesaurus. I’m getting tired of repeating Appalled and Sickened and Disgusted these last couple of months. ASAP, we all need to download this vid and keep reposting it if it goes, or set it up as a torrent file and just keep seeding it, or set up websites dedicated to it. This is beyond hurt feelings and bad movies. You don’t like a movie, you write letters and hold signs. This is cowardly capitulation to lunatic terrorists, and abuse, egregious abuse of the power of the Oval Office to shut somebody up. Appalling and sickening.

  • NWFL Conservative

    And if YouTube had any stones, which they clearly do not, they would tell him to repeatedly go eff himself, keep your stinking nose out of their business and refer him to the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

    That useless waste of $5 dollars worth of chemicals will NEVER admit it was a planned attack, even in light of the fact that the Libyans say it was, and that his foreign policy failures and backing of the “rebels” (spelled muslim brotherhood) all contributed to these attacks. He is a royal eff-up from the word go and he does not have the stones to ever admit it.

    And I just found out that Shillery actually pulled the Marines OFF security duty at our Libyan embassy. One of the most volatile hot spots in that part of the world and she REDUCES our security there. If she had a single clue about what she was doing, she would have TRIPLED the number of Marines there.

  • Mini14’sBlkStrat

    hussein obama you and your cronies are showing what rank amateurs you really are.. You can’t show weakness to these scum. You’ll just embolden them and their crimes will be even more heinous. If it upsets the poor sensitive goat humpers so effing much, tell them not to Watch IT! CHANGE THE CHANNEL, Just like any normal person would do.

  • twolaneflash

    Tell them Ann Barnhardt made the movie. She publishes directions to her house and would welcome the target practice.

  • Marco Anders

    No you don’t need to take down a da-mn thing! You go over there and wipe the earth with these morons and put fear into those who see it. Quit kissing the ass of these people Mr. President and SOS Clinton. We don’t owe these evil perpetrators jack. Give me a break!!!!

  • Marco Anders

    These people are offended because we are alive Mrs. Clinton!! Don’t you get that???? Should we all off ourselves just so we don’t piss them off? God help us! Come November, please come quickly!

  • Brett McMicken

    2012: Big Obama is Watching You

  • NWFL Conservative

    On Fox right now, the video stays. Eff you and the camel you rode in on Obama.
    First Amendment 1
    Obama 0

  • BeeKaaay

    I wonder if Obama will ask anti-Christian bigots to take their crap down on youtube.

    NOPE! Leftwingwackos hate Christians so they seek to hurt them.

  • disqus_Q8vDDW3aIF

    The home’s distinctive front door with triangle windows in a half-circle pattern

    “Not the one across the street,with the undistinctive front door. Looking at the sprawling awning over the distinctive door,the one with the triangle windows in a half-circle pattern,I thought to myself “Why,that’s a perfect place to plant an improvised explosive device,if one were particularly angered about an affront to a historical personage,such as The Prophet Mohammed” (peace be upon him)…”

  • EastValleyConservative

    The bigger problem I have here is this song and dance all while Obama and Co. force taxpayers to fund the murders of American citizens and to add insult–then castigates Americans by appeasing radical nutjobs. AGAIN.

  • BeeKaaay

    Meanwhile, youtube, a subsidiary of Google, will say “Yah vohl mein praesident!” and take down the video dutifully. After that, they’ll attend a conference call with the Chinese government about which videos to take down which criticize the Chicoms…

  • BeeKaaay

    Meanwhile, youtube, a subsidiary of Google, will say “Yah vohl mein praesident!” and take down the video dutifully. After that, they’ll attend a conference call with the Chinese government about which videos to take down which criticize the Chicoms…