Conservatives Keep Falling Into Obama Trap By Applauding Google

As a point of clarification, Daniel Greenfield is an excellent reporter at Frontpage Magazine but his defense of Google relative to its insistence that The Interview and Innocence of Muslims remain available via YouTube is seriously misplaced. To be fair, he’s by far not the only one. While qualifying his stance by saying he’s no fan of Google, Greenfield then applauds the internet giant for standing up to the North Korean and U.S.  Governments respectively.

Greenfield’s point is that Google stood up to the Obama administration by keeping the anti-Muhammad video up on YouTube in the wake of the Benghazi attacks and then stood up to the North Korean government by making available a movie depicting Kim Jon Un’s assassination, further ingratiating Google with constitutional conservatives.

He writes:

The first time was when Obama leaned on YouTube to take down the “Innocence of Muslims” trailer which it was busy pretending had been behind a series of internationally coordinated Jihadist attacks on US diplomatic facilities on September 11, the most famous of which was the Benghazi attack.

I don’t like Google as a company, but it did the right thing with Innocence of Muslims, continuing to keep the movie trailer up even when the White House was telling it to take it down, and continuing to defend the right to show the trailer even now in a case that has gone to the Supreme Court.

With the “Innocence of Muslims” many felt that the amateurishness of the production and its crude qualities meant that it should be dismissed. But that was never the point. Just as the non-existent artistic merits of The Interview aren’t the point.

Foreign totalitarian entities shouldn’t be put in the position of being able to censor anything in the United States, no matter how offensive it is or how badly it’s made, whether they’re Muslims or Communists.

As Greenfield accuses others of “missing the point”, he misses a huge one of his own. Before getting to Innocence of Muslims, as reported, it’s worth noting that highly reputable internet security experts are finding the FBI’s claim that North Korea was behind the cyber attack on SONY as highly dubious. Such a reality would indicate Google isn’t really ‘standing up’ to North Korea at all.

As for the Innocence of Muslims, if Greenfield is referring to Garcia vs. Google, that case is not yet in front of the Supreme Court. As reported recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit’s full panel heard arguments on December 15th.

To be fair, Greenfield is not alone in choosing to side with Google and by extension Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Innocence of Muslims filmmaker. In so doing, Greenfield and other conservatives end up opposing the plaintiff in Garcia vs. Google. Her name is Cindy Lee Garcia, someone conservatives should be defending, not solely because she wants the video off of YouTube but because there is overwhelming evidence that the Obama administration itself was behind the production of the video.

In fact, as reported, Google ironically holds the key to confirming that. Few people know that Nakoula is not responsible for naming his video Innocence of Muslims. The purveyor of a YouTube channel that no longer exists was – NewsPoliticsNow3 (NPN3).

NewsPolitcsNow Avatar tied to Stanley, which does work for Obama administration.

NewsPolitcsNow Avatar tied to Stanley, which does work for Obama administration.

Note the screenshot from Nakoula’s YouTube page. Neither of the Innocence of Muslims videos he posted were titled as such:

Note the names of the video (Neither is identified as "Innocence of Muslims").

Note the names of the video (Neither is identified as “Innocence of Muslims”).

As mentioned, the now defunct NPN3 channel is the first known entity to coin the video Innocence of Muslims. It so-named the video hours before the Cairo protests or the Benghazi attacks:

NPN3 YouTube Channel on 9/12/12. First to name video "Innocence of Muslims"

NPN3 YouTube Channel on 9/12/12. First to name video “Innocence of Muslims”

As has reported, Google has the power to reveal who was behind NPN3. There are indications that it was a creation of a company that does contract work for the U.S. Government. That company – Stanley Associates – is owned by CGI, the same company that built the Obamacare website.

When conservatives cheer Google in any fight with the Obama administration, it’s a game of good cop / bad cop with people like Greenfield choosing the Google over Obama. Unfortunately for Garcia, that puts her on the same side as Obama in the eyes of conservatives who have either ignored her or chosen to view her as an anti-first amendment liberal.

She is not.

Garcia insists she was deceived by Nakoula. You know, the guy with a rap sheet a mile long that includes fraud AND TIME AS A FEDERAL INFORMANT FOR OBAMA’S FBI? Garcia has no such record.

Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Nakoula (L), Attorney Cris Armenta (C) and Garcia (R)

Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Nakoula (L), Attorney Cris Armenta (C) and Garcia (R)

As reported, Nakoula was given a lighter sentence in 2010 in exchange for his alleged help in arresting his partner in crime and ringleader Eiad Salameh. In 2011, Salameh was arrested by the Canadian Peel Police but the FBI didn’t want him so he was put on a plane to Palestine.

As pointed out, this raised two very important questions:

1.) If Nakoula was a Coptic Christian as he claimed (after telling people he was Jewish), why was he partnering with a Muslim fundamentalist in Eiad, who hated Copts?

2.) If Nakoula became an informant to help the FBI nab Eiad, why did the Feds refuse to take Eiad when offered on a silver platter by the Canadians?

The logical answer to those questions was that Nakoula was not a Copt and was not given a lighter sentence to help the Feds catch Eiad.

What was Nakoula doing when Eiad was finally sent back to Palestine after seven months? Well, he began casting for Desert Warrior, which was really Innocence of Muslims in disguise.

The other trap that conservatives fall into is that Benghazi was not about a video simply because there was no protest there. If there is one truth Americans have learned it’s that Muslim mobs can easily be whipped up into a frenzy over cartoons, videos and other types of expression that are critical of Islam. Debating whether there was a protest outside the Benghazi mission on 9/11/12 is a red herring. The real issue is whether or not the video had anything to do with the attack.

As has reported, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it did. In fact, of all the protests that took place outside various U.S. diplomatic installations, we’re to believe that Benghazi was THE ONLY one without a connection to the video?

Nonsense. Check out this map of where all the protests took place in response to the video. Two of them occurred in Benghazi AFTER the attacks on the 11th:

Locations of all protests in response to "Innocence of Muslims" (was Benghazi the only one that wasn't about video?)

Locations of all protests in response to “Innocence of Muslims” (was Benghazi the only one that wasn’t about video?)

Garcia is suing Google for multiple reasons. According to her, she was deceived by Nakoula into appearing in a movie Nakoula had no intention of making (go figure, Nakoula’s history involves fraud); her five second appearance included words coming out of her mouth she did not utter (they were dubbed in later during post-production); the words attributed to Garcia led to death threats against her; Garcia wanted nothing to do with charges that she was involved in the deaths of four Americans.


, , , , , , ,