As tempting as it may be for some to point to the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula as a political move by the Obama administration that warrants a defense of Nakoula, we urge people not to fall into that trap. In so doing, you risk siding with a nefarious individual that deserves to be locked up.
Yes, we admit, the optics of the arrest favor the pro-Muslim / anti-free speech narrative but that’s only because the layers that hide Nakoula’s past, true identity and associations haven’t been peeled back by some media personalities who are apparently inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of exposing who he really is.
Fox’s Megyn Kelly and Rush Limbaugh appear to be cases in point, at least according to a couple of liberal sites.
Opposing Views had the following account of one of Kelly’s segments:
She (Kelly) opened with “new questions against the man allegedly behind the anti-Muslim film…” While showing video of Nakoula being escorted from his home, on his way to a court hearing regarding violation of his probation, she asserted that the case has become “more controversial.” (Only on Fox and right wing blogs).
She added that “in a very unusual move, a judge ordered this man held without bail, for” (her voice rose into a question) “a probation violation” and noted that his removal from home,”in the middle of the night,” was also very unusual because of the number of officers. She drew attention to the court sketch of Nakoula who (her voice rose again) “could be facing years in prison.”
Media Matters excerpted the following from Rush Limbaugh’s September 28th broadcast:
LIMBAUGH: And now the filmmaker is in jail. Have you heard this? They finally got the guy in jail. We are going out of our way to apologize to the Islamist supremacist world. This guy is in jail on a parole violation. Something with a fraudulent check. But they’ve got the guy in jail. And don’t believe he’s in jail for parole violation. I mean, that’s the legalese, that’s the legal. They’ve got this guy in jail for the world to see that the United States can and will throw the First Amendment in the trash and will jail somebody who says something that the regime doesn’t like. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/28/12]
Limbaugh is right about the optics but those optics are what they are. The answer to this puzzle is to reveal who Nakoula really is, not to defend him in a political battle of wits.
The fact of the matter is that Nakoula should be facing years in prison. Heck, he even gave the court an alias during his 2010 trial in which he copped a plea and became a federal snitch to… wait for it… lead the feds to a Muslim fundamentalist named Eiad Salameh. Read all about that connection here.
Unfortunately, we agree with these liberal sites but for different reasons. They’d like to point to Kelly and Limbaugh as defending criminal behavior by defending Nakoula. We believe Kelly and Limbaugh are well-intentioned but don’t see where a little more digging might lead.
Nakoula was a partner in crime with a Muslim fundamentalist and terrorist financier who hates Coptic Christians, which is what we’re to believe Nakoula is. Instead of defending Nakoula as a pawn in a battle between Islam and the west, the likes of Limbaugh and Kelly should do more to expose who Nakoula truly is. Doing so could put the Muslim world on its heels.
Walid’s cousin, Eiad Salameh, could very well hold the key.
Unfortunately, painting Nakoula as a victim may play right into the Obama administration’s hands.