NO, BECAUSE SHE’S A FRIEND OF THE REGIME: If Kathryn Bigelow’s Movie About the Killing of Bin Laden Inflames Muslims Will the Brownshirts Be Sent to Her Home?

OBAMA AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: THE QUICKMEME. I like this one:

Make your own here. Share liberally.

UPDATE: “First they came for the lousy auteurs, and I was all ‘Do cheesy Downfall parodies count?’”

“SMART DIPLOMACY:” US closes embassy amid reports Sudan rejected request to send Marines.

TONY WOODLIEF CRUNCHES THE NUMBERS:

The thing is, I didn’t know we’d all gotten together and decided to officially call this guy “the Prophet Muhammad.” I know that’s what he is to 2 billion or so Muslims, but that leaves around 5 billion of us who are undecided on the matter.

It seems to be the case, however, that major news outlets have begun using the honorific title far more frequently. I don’t think that’s very good journalistic practice. I mean, to 2.2 billion Christians, Jesus Christ is “Lord Jesus Christ”—but we don’t expect The Washington Post to call him that.

History demonstrates that violence is an effective tool, especially when directed toward people without strong beliefs of their own.

ANN ALTHOUSE QUOTES TED STURGEON AND OPINES: “If there’s a crud exception to freedom, we are only 10% free.”

PAUL RAHE: The Unofficial Campaign’s Latest Disinformation Offensive.

In support of the administration’s attempt to deflect attention from the defects of its policy, our Department of Justice, which is by now little more than an arm of the President’s re-election campaign, has responded by having its subordinates track down and identify the film-maker, release his name and that of at least one of his associates to the press, and haul him in after midnight to check whether he has violated the terms of probation imposed on him two years ago in a bank fraud case. And, of course, the mainstream press – which constitutes this year, as it did four years ago, what one Journolist member in 2008 accurately termed Barack Obama’s “unofficial campaign” – has loyally fallen in line, reporting that the video “sparked” the disturbance in Benghazi and intimating thereby that the attack was a spontaneous outburst.

All of this is meant to obscure the obvious – that the attack was planned well in advance. To begin with, it is not fortuitous that it took place – months after the video was posted – on 11 September. Nor can it have been the case that the perpetrators simply picked up in a fit of righteous anger the rocket launchers in their closets. Equipment of this sort is rarely ready to hand. Moreover, if the attackers bagged an American ambassador, it was surely because they had advance warning of his visit, and this means in turn that they had excellent intelligence of the sort that presupposes the cooperation of someone inside the consulate or the inside the embassy in Tripoli. . . . For the most part, the press’s contribution to the administration’s disinformation campaign is deliberate and calculated. But one must not underestimate the role played by stupidity.

Read the whole thing. And as a reminder that it wasn’t about that dumb video: Al-Qaeda Says Attack On U.S. Consulate In Benghazi “Revenge” For Recent Drone Killing Of Abu Yahya Al-Libi.

YA THINK? Michael Barone: Obama Stumbles In Response To Embassy Attacks.

UH HUH: If You Barf When You See Barf, Congratulations: You’re Empathetic.

BRITAIN: 42% of Drivers Use Mobiles While Driving. “Around 20% admitted using a mobile to send a text, 4% checked emails and 2% even sent emails while behind the wheel. Some 2% read Twitter or Facebook updates while at the wheel and 1% even tweeted while driving.”

I see this all the time — and on more than one occasion have seen law-enforcement officers texting while driving. In fact, it’s so common that it’s hard for me to believe that it’s as dangerous as they say, or there would be no one left alive on the roads . . .

AT AMAZON, Gift Cards Galore. Customizable, and suitable for any occasion!

WHY BARACK OBAMA SHOULD RESIGN. Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:

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.

UPDATE: Reader J.M. Hanes writes: “I went berserk over the L.A.T. Nakoula photo too, but on top of the brownshirted Constitutional debacle, one incredibly consequential point has gotten lost in the shuffle: Could any visual more effectively reinforce the Arab street’s belief that the U.S. government can, in fact, punish blasphemers if it so chooses?”

Good point, and it ties in well to these comments by Eugene Volokh.

Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.

What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.

What’s more, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who are happy to stoke hostility. . . . That’s why it seems to me to actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, “murder won’t get you what you want.” Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than “murder will get you what you want.”

Read the whole thing. Especially if you work in the White House or the Justice Department.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More from Donald Sensing. “There is no possible justification for voting for this man in November. None, period.”

And reader Joel Mackey writes: “For the people that think that man had it coming due to prior run ins with the law, they should realize that they commit 3 felonies a day, the feds have all the reason they need to knock on your door at midnight, if you cause problems for them.” Yes, given that the laws are so complex that pretty much everyone is a felon, prosecutorial discretion rules. And that discretion needs to be bounded by political norms that you don’t abuse it just to go after people who express ideas you don’t want expressed. Those norms come from the First Amendment, but if there’s no cost to violating them, they won’t last.

MORE: Reader Richard Eastland writes:

Those who think he had it coming because of probation are sticking their heads in the sand.

He wasn’t hounded because he violated probation. He was persecuted because he made a video that the federal government is upset with.

Regardless of the “how” they are justifying their actions, the “why” is completely clear.

If you use his, please use my name. I refuse to be bullied by those who would use force to silence, be they terrorists or my own government.

Good for you. And reader Paul Crabtree writes: “Although the midnight raid to punish free speech is beyond deplorable, I guess we should be relieved that the Nobel Prize winner didn’t order a drone strike on his house.” Heh. We probably don’t have to worry about those . . . in the first term.

MORE STILL: Reader Jack Moody writes:

Prosecuting someone because they broke the law is one thing.

Only prosecuting someone who broke the law, after they embarrassed the administration, is gangster government, extortion, and the road to totalitarianism.

And that’s pretty clearly what’s happened here. Though to be fair, they didn’t actually prosecute him. Just took him downtown to answer a few questions. Voluntarily. After midnight. With a lot of TV cameras there, somehow.

And sorry, claims that this was just a routine probation matter don’t pass the laugh test. They’re just pure hackery.

And reader Rob Beile paraphrases Dean Wormer: “Incompetent, Thuggish and Cowardly is no way to lead The Free World, Mr. President.”

MORE STILL: Reader Jack Moss writes: “Probation is not a law enforcement function, it’s under the court. If his probation officer wanted to question him about the use of a computer, that broke his probation fine. But that wouldn’t include questions about making an anti-Islamic movie. It’s irrelevant. That means that the FBI showed up outside their jurisdiction for a reason given by their superiors. The question then is who ordered them there.”

MORE ON THOSE UNDERFUNDED/OVERGENEROUS PUBLIC PENSIONS: Pension system is a bankrupt promise. “The Kentucky Public Employee Pension System is a bankrupt promise that the state legislature cannot keep. Taxpayers should be furious that lawmakers – through greed, mismanagement and inaction – have allowed this system to deteriorate. State employees should be equally as angry at the prospect that they may never collect the pensions they have been promised.”

That’s the pattern around the country, alas. Meanwhile, private corporations have more flexibility: New York Times Cuts Pensions In New Offer To Former Staffers.

THE COUNTRY’S IN THE VERY BEST OF HANDS: Money Mismanagement Storm at the National Weather Service. “When whistleblowers sounded the alarm, the inspector general let the potential wrongdoers investigate the alleged wrongdoings.” Kinda like letting Chris Dodd oversee Wall Street — oh, wait . . . .

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Fewer modern farmers rely on almanacs for insights. “Many farmers like Freitas say farmer’s almanacs, known for their catchy weather predictions, are no longer a go-to source in the Information Age. Some, however, still turn to the centuries-old booklets for long-range weather predictions. The 2013 edition of the Old Farmer’s Almanac hit shelves Wednesday.”

A “POP DOWN” RESTAURANT in an underground mine.

COATS AGAINST THE COLD WINTER: At Amazon, Up To 60% Off On Coats And Outerwear. For men, women, and children.

Also, fall markdowns in Kitchen & Dining.

ANN ALTHOUSE: “You start disputing my God, and you’ve got a problem.” “Says a man the filmmaker mocks as crazy. Are the federal authorities calling on the L.A. Sheriff to drag this filmmaker out of his mansion in the middle of the night?”

UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark writes: “Has Maher shredded the DOJ and, by extension, Obama over the ham-handed attempts to intimidate the video maker and to suppress the You Tube video?” Not as far as I know. Maybe he’s afraid he’ll get a midnight knock on the door. Welcome to Obama’s America.

SECURITY: Don’t Blame the Marines: Here’s Who is Supposed to Protect U.S. Diplomats. Evidence suggests we need more marines. Also, flamethrowers. #Reynolds2016

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Worst College Majors for Your Career.

READER BOOK PLUG: From Reader Stephen Sopko, Confidence Call: Success In Telephone Job Interviews.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Sex Can Make You Smarter.

THIS SEEMS LIKE A SMART IDEA: Parents offered childcare to make time for sex.

Danish nursery workers are offering free childcare – so busy parents can find the time to make more babies.

They have promised two hours’ free childcare on Thursday evening, so parents can go to bed, reports the BBC.

Dorte Nyman, of the Grasshoppers kindergarten in North Fyn, said the country’s low birthrate was threatening the future of local nurseries.

She expected nearly half of the nursery’s families to accept the offer.

I would expect more than that.

CHAOS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT? “I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: ‘Chaos.’ The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida. Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told.”

KIRSTEN POWERS: President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence.