Why supporting Sam Bacile's constitutional rights is essential

  Watching the Middle East both implode and explode from your living room tv is something we take for granted in this modern age of technology; we have become accustomed to watching history as if we are a part of everything that happens in the world.
  What motivates the protesters to act so viciously, murdering and oppressing human beings--Christian, Coptic, Jew, female, homosexual--in their wake across the globe is inexplicable to Americans.
  The proffered excuse for the Cairo, et al, demonstrations is a lame video that purportedly disrespects their spiritual leader.
  To us in the West it doesn't make sense to try to beat people into submission when we disagree with them. 
  Is there another more ominous long term purpose behind the demonstrations protesting a silly video?
  Taranto at the WSJ speculates a different motive for the wild behavior exhibited in the past week.

But those condemnations, which we quoted yesterday, rather miss the point. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, in its infamous apology statement, deplored "efforts . . . to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the video "inflammatory" and suggested its message is counter to "America's commitment to religious tolerance." Obama rejected "America's commitment to religious tolerance." 

But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:

  The rest of the article is over at WSJ but Taranto's point (and CNS's) is that the goal of these riots is to get the fellow Bacile who made the film, an action that Eric Holder's DOJ is exploring, right on command.
  For the preservation of our republic, it is essential that the filmmaker NOT be charged with anything for making this film.
  The right to free speech is essential to the bedrock commitment of this country to the Constitution and to the natural rights afforded us by Nature's God.
  Yet  numerous individuals, including professors and celebrities, have called on the DOJ to prosecute the filmmaker for murder, even though the video itself is just an excuse for bad behavior.
  So let's be honest about what's going on here.
  The real goal of these protests is to introduce a global legal prohibition against offending the most radical Muslims' religious sensibilities; in other words, to introduce Shariah law on a global scale, thus upending our Constitution and placing a very big foot in the door of every government on the planet.
  Taranto says Egypt's Morsi, who was educated in the US, has been "emboldened" by Obama's "weakness."
  While Mitt Romney has been roundly criticized for his statement protesting the appeasement doctrine so apparent in the Cairo embassy's statement (not repudiated by the White House for many, many hours), Obama has been spectacularly weak-kneed in supporting the First Amendment.
  The Daily Caller notes that Obama, leading from behind as usual, only endorsed the idea of free speech after being pushed and after some pretty uncertain hours of confusion, perpetuated by Obama's lack of interest in intelligence reports and his eagerness to flee DC to meet with his admirers and cash cows.
  While the media may scoff at the notion that a primary goal of Shariah law will be fulfilled if Eric Holder pursues the filmmaker Bacile, the truth is that there is a name for this kind of behavior in response to radical Islamic threats.
  Wikipedia: 

In Bat Ye'or's use, "dhimmitude" refers to allegations of non-Muslims appeasing and surrendering to Muslims, and discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim majority regions.

  Militant Muslim groups complain the term is a political and discriminatory hot potato, not a reality, but over and over we see what it means to Christians if they capitulate to the most radical elements of Islam.
  We will see what Eric Holder's DOJ does with the prosecution of the individual who made the film; certainly he has a checkered past includes some really shady deals. 
  But making a film that disrespects any religion is not prosecutable. Think of the implications of what prosecuting such free speech would mean, now and in the years to come.
  Have we not come incrementally to an incredible place 11 years after 911?
  Groped at airports, train stations and even political rallies, prosecuted for selling raw milk? Snooped on by drones, just as we snoop on our enemies?
  How did we get to a place where an unelected aide said to be a shadow president receives full Secret Service protection but Marines are not allowed to bear armed weapons to defend the Cairo embassy?
  While Taranto says the conflict between Shariah and our Constitution as "irreconcilable," and that no "accommodation is possible," with this Department of Justice and this Preezy, one never knows.
  Our law and our Constitution seem to be no barrier as Holder and Obama set about accomplishing the "fundamental transformation of America."