Wednesday, July 18 , 2018, 3:14 pm | Mostly Cloudy 70º

 
 
 
 

David Harsanyi: Hillary Clinton Would Rather Blame Free Speech Than Islam for Terrorism

It's one thing to watch liberals euphemize "Islamic terrorism" into a vacuous, politically correct word salad. It's quite another to hear them blame free expression for Islamists' actions. And they do it often.

When Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump of giving "aid and comfort" to ISIS and other extremists because of his crude rhetoric about Muslim immigration, that's exactly what she's doing. And she's not the only one.

For one thing, the idea that an average Muslim can be driven to purchase a pressure cooker and blow up Chelsea, N.Y., or massacre infidel children because a U.S. candidate says unkind things about Muslims, inadvertently concedes a terrible truth about the state of Islam today.

Moreover, this thinking dangerously underestimates the power of ideology and religion in the world. It's hard to quantify the depth of self-importance it must take to believe that your patronizing words are more powerful than someone's faith.

This trivialization of the problem is reflected when the administration offers an idea as simplistic as "When it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight with them, a narrative battle."

Also, Islamists are fully capable of ferreting out propaganda whenever they want, anyway. Anyone who's paid 5 seconds of attention to the Israeli-Arab conflict understands the Islamic world is saturated with conspiracy theories and institutionalized hate that makes what we actually say largely irrelevant.

The problem is that you're an infidel, not that you're a rude infidel. ISIS is no stronger because Trump got into an argument with a gold star father (although supporting policy that made Libya an anarchic state might be a different story).

Yet, intimating that Americans should watch what they say is now embedded into the left's response to every terror attack. I remember the repulsion liberals felt when former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told Americans they should mind their opinions. I guess chilling speech is awful, depending on the topic.

It's also not new. You'll remember when President Obama and Clinton blamed a promotional trailer for that obscure anti-Islam film rather than admitting that extremists used our liberalism as a pretext to gin up mobs across the Islamic world, and cover their coordinated attack on Americans.

The administration didn't go onto Pakistani television and defend American values by saying: "Since its founding, the United States has been a nation that respects free speech, and unlike illiberal regimes (some of which we support), America allows all viewpoints."

Instead, Obama decided to, in essence, apologize for our obnoxious habit of allowing free expression: "Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others."

This is not only debatable but also completely irrelevant. The founders were concerned about religious liberty, not hurt feelings.

Then again, Democrats generally have been more likely to blame Republicans — or the Second or Fifth amendments — for terrorism than they have been to blame Islam. Sen. Chris Murphy is far more disturbed by the National Rifle Association than he is Islamism. This allows him to accuse Republicans of "selling weapons to ISIS," and Clinton to praise his efforts.

This is just one way the left uses terrorism to chill speech. Anyone who's ever brought up the entrenched violence and illiberalism of Islam is to be immediately scolded for being "Islamophobic." If the terrorists use a firearm, blame the NRA. If the terrorists use an improvised explosive device, blame Republicans for being mean.

Above all of that, Clinton has just accused the GOP nominee of treason because he says things she dislikes. Referencing U.S. law, she said that anyone who gives our enemies "aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere" is "guilty of treason." Those guilty of treason may "suffer death."

One ISIS propaganda expert claims that the group "talks about (Obama) more" than Trump. Should we accuse the president of giving aid and comfort?

Clinton loves to say that "words matter." So surely, as well-versed as she is in law, and as important as accountability is to her, she couldn't have merely been throwing around this specific language, right?

Remember when Trump blamed Obama for the Orlando, Florida, shooting? You should. Understandably, every major news organization covered it.

We were plunged into a national conversation about the irresponsibility of the Republican candidate.

Do you remember how Republican National Convention attendees chanted "lock her up" when Clinton's name was mentioned? You should.

Afterward, a very serious discussion about civility in politics ensued. I wonder whether we'll be allowed to have another one.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @davidharsanyi, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >