PBS NewsHour Omits Obama's Support for Blasphemy Law
During the September 25 broadcast of the PBS Newshour, anchor Gwen Ifill invited Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass and former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns to discuss President Barack Obamaâ€™s foreign policy and his recent address to the UN. Reporter Judy Woodruff also had a segment on the president speech. Yet none of the segments dealing with the address mentioned the fact that the Obama administration has expressed support for anti-blasphemy measures that are completely incongruous with the freedom of speech as protected by the U.S. Constitution....
You can't really say you support free speech until there is speech that offends you and you still support the right to say it even if you detest the content. All making way for the Antichrist...anyone speaking against this world leader will be dealt with....
John Yurich USA wrote: Why would PBS Newshour omit footage of Obama supporting that blasphemy law?
It is PBS (government funded TV) if it could stand on its own it wouldn't be PBS. Consider the source, PBS has always been a liberal left leaning source of information. This is just PBS being PBS. Need to stop wasting tax dollars on it, but not counting on that to happen.
My John Y., you're hot this morning! However, there is doubt that President Obama doesn't support free speech.
Frida Ghitis wrote: Obama staked out a position that is generally accepted in Western democracies, and enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day," he said, "and I will always defend their right to do so." He added, "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with." And he made the fundamental argument that "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech."
Why would PBS Newshour omit footage of Obama supporting that blasphemy law? The United States would not be required to submit to that law would it? That would be in direct violation of the United States Constitution First Amendment right of Free Speech.