Wolf Bytes: The Freedom To Draw Mohammed

The picture above, drawn by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin, was chosen as the winner of the Draw Mohammed contest held in Garland, Texas on 3 May 2015.

UN Reveals Horrifying Islamist Sex Markets

From Allen West's blog:

Yes, Islamists are terribly offended by pictures of Mohammed, but they don’t seem to have much problem with enslaving, raping and brutalizing women. Nope, that’s just business as usual – at least according to a report prepared by a United Nations official.

As reported by the Daily Mail, “an Islamic State terrorist group forced a sex slave to marry 20 fighters and even made her undergo surgery each time to restore her virginity, a United Nations official said.

The group paraded and traded Syrian and Iraqi girls in ‘slave markets’ before the victims were shipped to other provinces, according to Zainab Bangura, special envoy on sexual violence in conflict, who travelled to five countries and interviewed dozens of women and young girls who had survived brutal sexual abuse.

She said the girls were routinely stripped naked before being categorized and shipped off.

‘ISIL have institutionalized sexual violence and the brutalization of women as a central aspect of their ideology and operations, using it as a tactic of terrorism to advance their key strategic objectives. . . .

I am waiting for all the neo-Stalinist left, including the radical feminists in the U.S., to immediately rush to condemn these atrocities and the Salafi ideology being used to justify them in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

"PAM GELLER IS AN ISLAMAPHOBE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF TWO MUSLIM MEN (who wanted to commit mass murder)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Okay, not the condemnation I was expecting. Actually, for the most part, that has been the response from the left. But to give credit where credit is due, see the next eye-opening entry below:

Salon Author Says It Is Time Progressives Faced The Truth About Islam

After a full throated defense of Pam Geller, and in between a slander of all three monotheistic religions, Jeffrey Taylor at Salon writes:

What is it about Islam that simultaneously both motivates jihadis to kill and so many progressives to exculpate the religion, even when the killers leave no doubt about why they act? The second part of the question is easier to dispense with than the first. Progressives by nature seek common ground and believe people to be mostly rational actors – hence the desire to blame crime on social ills. Unfamiliarity with Islam’s tenets also plays a role, plus, I believe, the frightening future we would seem to be facing as more and more Muslims immigrate to the West, and the world becomes increasingly integrated. Best just to talk of poverty and the like, or a few “bad apples.” But to respond to the question’s first part, we need to put aside our p.c. reading glasses and examine Islam’s basic elements from a rationalist’s perspective. Islam as a faith would not concern progressives, except that some of its adherents choose to act as parts of its dogma ordain, which, to put it mildly, violates the social contract underpinning the lives of the rest of us. . . .

The canonical glorification of death for the sake Islam, or martyrdom, similarly belies those who would argue that the religion’s nature is pacific. . . .

All those who, à la Reza Aslan, maintain that Muslims today do not necessarily read the Quran literally have lost the argument before it begins. What counts is that there are those (ISIS, say, and al-Qaida) who do, and they are taking action based on their beliefs. To the contention, “ISIS and al-Qaida don’t represent Islam!” the proper response is, “that’s what you say. They disagree.” No single recognized Muslim clerical body exists to refute them. . . .

Islam’s doctrinaire positions on women are infamous enough to merit no repetition here. Their sum effect is to render women chattel to men, as sex objects and progenitors of offspring, and foster the most misogynistic conditions on the planet: nineteen of twenty of the worst countries for women, according to the World Economic Forum, are Muslim-majority. Some Muslim countries are deemed more progressive than others, but their progressivity varies inversely with the extent to which Islam permeates their legal codes and customary laws – the less, the better. Not liberal at all, that.

The above are the stark doctrinal and practical realities of which no honest progressive could approve, and which form the bases of the religion. Regardless of what the peaceful majority of Muslims are doing, as ISIS’s beguiling ideology spreads, we are likely to face an ever more relentless, determined Islamist assault. We can delude ourselves no longer: violence is an emergent property deriving from Islam’s inherently intolerant precepts and dogma. The rising number of ethnic Europeans mesmerized by Islam who set off to enroll in the ranks of ISIS attests to this; and may prefigure serious disruptions, especially in France, the homeland of a good number of them, once they start returning. There is nothing “phobic” about recognizing this. Recognize it we must, and steel ourselves for what’s to come.

This is no call to disrespect Muslims as people, but we should not hesitate to speak frankly about the aspects of their faith we find problematic. . . .

. . . We must stop traducing reason by branding people “Islamophobes,” and start celebrating our secularism, remembering that only it offers true freedom for the religious and non-religious alike. And we should reaffirm our humanistic values, in our conviction that we have, as Carlyle wrote, “One life – a little gleam of time between two eternities,” and need to make the most of it for ourselves and others while we can. There is nothing else.

This is not a battle we have chosen; the battle has chosen us.

It’s time to fight back, and hard.

Amen. That should be required reading for all the progs in this land, as well as, it would seem, several blowhards on the right. Yes, Congressman King and Bill O'Reilly, I'm talking to you.

Kirsten Powers & How The Left Is Killing Free Speech

Today's left can best be described as neo-Stalinist. They are enemies of freedom of speech and would much prefer to demonize rather than debate. Gone from the left are such American icons as Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But their breed is not completely extinguished. Some exemplars remain, most notably Kirsten Powers, a Fox News contributor as well as a columnist for USA Today and the Daily Beast. She and her new book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, are the subject of very good article by Peter Berkowitz at RCP.

. . . This is not to say that all members of the left today are instinctively intolerant and bent on stifling liberty of thought and discussion. Yet all too rare is the contemporary liberal who is instinctively appalled by the contempt for speech emanating from Democratic Party politicians, the university world and elite media, and who is willing to call his or her comrades to account.

Kirsten Powers is one of these rare liberals. In "The Silencing,” she methodically documents—and exposes the hypocrisy, incoherence, and sheer contempt for evidence and argument that underlie—the delegitimization of dissent that has become the stock in trade of what she characterizes as the "illiberal left." . . .

Kirsten Powers is one of these rare liberals. In "The Silencing,” she methodically documents—and exposes the hypocrisy, incoherence, and sheer contempt for evidence and argument that underlie—the delegitimization of dissent that has become the stock in trade of what she characterizes as the "illiberal left."

Because she is intellectually honest, while I disagree with her more often than not, I always have to make sure that my disagreements are on sound footing and give due consideration to her arguments. She is a voice of reason to be taken seriously by people on both sides of the aisle.

The Regulatory Bureaucracy

Nothing pushes my hot button more than talk of our regulatory agencies and their unconstitutional abuse of power, something I bang the drum about constantly. But beyond that is their practical effect. Powerline explains here:

The regulation of low-cost competitive street retail isn’t limited just to food service where legitimate health concerns come into play; according to a report from the Institute for Justice, 45 of the nation’s 50 largest cities maintain extensive regulation of mobile vending of a wide range of products with no health risks at all (such as handmade clothing), “making it needlessly difficult or even impossible to set up shop in many cities.” Somehow the “disparate impact” these regulatory schemes have on lower-income minorities never reaches the threshold of a civil rights issue.

Bookworm Room, in a brilliant post several years ago that I cannot find at the moment, made the point that the only legitimate use of regulation was to protect us against those dangers that are not open and obvious to a reasonable person. All too often, regulations are misused to protect business from competition or to enforce ideological goals, neither of which is a legitimate use of the regulatory power. Were we ever to apply Ms. Bookworm's rule of thumb, I would imagine we could do away with upward of 75% of the regulations now crushing down upon us.

Malarial Parasites With Woodies

There is an article today at Real Clear Science, "Viagra Could Halt Malaria By 'Stiffening' Infected Cells." Malaria is a disease caused by a parasite that enters the human blood stream through the bite of a mosquito. It then reproduces in vast numbers, causing debilitating, potentially even deadly illness. It is a scourge in many countries, particularly Africa, so this is big news.

If you read into the article though, you'll find that the viagra isn't affecting cells, it's affecting the parasites. It is, in essence, giving them a woody, which, it just so happens, makes it easier for the spleen to trap the parasites, stopping reproduction. There is something just so, so wrong about giving any male the gift of wood, then using said woody to entrap him. But I guess that is human nature, is it not. From humans to parasites apparently, males sporting wood oft are easily led astray.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Juan Williams & Canards Of The Left

Juan Williams comments on the fact that our modern left does not believe in a free and fair airing of opinions; rather, they attempt to punish any who dares articulate a position with which they disagree. This from Williams during an interview with the Daily Caller:

I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side,” he said. “In fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way that they want it told.

Juan Williams is a smart man. Thus I find it telling that Williams wasn't able to see this reality until he was raped by the left in 2010 for daring to say that he got nervous when getting on a plane with men dressed in Muslim garb. The left's preference for demonizing over debate and their intolerance of dissenting opinions has been blatant and obvious for decades. That our left are "liberal" is one of the great canards of the left - but it is only one of many.

The other great canards are that the left champions the middle class and minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth. The left champions these groups only to the extent that they are, at any given moment, pathways to power and money. For instance, blacks are to be protected - but when it comes to a point where blacks and the teachers unions interests diverge, the moneyed teachers unions win. The left speaks of protecting the middle class - but when it comes to things such as cheap energy, the green special interests win out.

If you want to understand the left's actions, look at what they do, now what they say. Rarely do their actions match their rhetoric - and indeed, often that are complete odds. That is one of the reasons the left are so intolerant of dissenting opinion. That is a level of reality that hasn't dawned on Juan Williams yet, but give him time.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Wages Of Straying Off The Liberal Plantation

Buzz Bissinger, the lifelong Democrat and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who recently came out for Romney, discovers that the left is surprisingly intolerant. Heh.



The most interesting part of the interview above was when the CNN's Howard Kurtz takes offense at Bissinger's quite accurate claim that left wing ideology pervades mainstream journalism and reporting. Kurtz defended CNN's stable of reporters. That would be the same CNN that gave rise to the "tea-bagger" joke and led the sliming of the Tea Party movement? That would be the same CNN whose last "town hall" debate had more plants than a florist shop. Kurtz is living in a bubble. CNN hasn't yet gone full frontal MSNBC or NYT, but they are not all that far away.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Progressive Freedom of Speech - Only For Me, Not For Thee

Only speech that they agree with is to be allowed. In the video below, Egyptian-American activist and frequent MSNBC guest Mona Eltahawy tries to obliterate a pro-Israeli poster, citing complete justification for doing so on the grounds of her own freedom of speech.



(H/T Hot Air)

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A Mo' Cartoon A Day

How to solve the problem of pretextual Islamic hyper-rage? A brilliant suggestion from Daniel Pipes in an op-ed at Fox News - use fire to put out the fire:

. . . What would happen if publishers and managers of major media outlets reached a consensus -- “Enough of this intimidation, we will publish the most famous Danish Muhammad cartoon every day, until the Islamists tire out and no longer riot”? What would happen if Korans were recurrently burned?

Would repetition inspire institutionalization, generate ever-more outraged responses, and offer a vehicle for Islamists to ride to greater power? Or would it lead to routinization, to a wearing out of Islamists, and a realization that violence is counter-productive to their cause?

I predict the latter. A Muhammad cartoon published each day, or Koranic desecrations on a quasi-regular basis, would make it harder for Islamists to mobilize Muslim mobs. Westerners could then once again treat Islam as they do other religions – freely, to criticize without fear. That would demonstrate to Islamists that Westerners will not capitulate, that they reject Islamic law, that they are ready to stand up for their values.

So, this is my plea to all Western editors and producers: Display the Muhammad cartoon daily, until the Islamists become accustomed to the fact that we turn sacred cows into hamburger.

Actually, it sounds a lot more likely to work than the Obama / Clinton apology for U.S. freedom of speech ad now playing in Pakistan. Here is my part, reprinting from Charlie Hebdo's edition this week:

(H/T Crusader Rabbit)

Yes, I know, they are over the top. Here is hoping U.S. cartoonists grow some testicles and come up with something more tasteful and critical. I still like Mo' with the bomb for a turban. It is certainly apropos.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

What Does It Say When The French More Avidly Defend Free Speech Against The Islamists Than Does The U.S.?

Until today, I thought the last people of French origin worthy of any respect were Charles Martel and his army of Franks - the men who heroically beat back the advance of Islamic armies into Europe. That was in 732 A.D. - a turning point in history.

It has been a long dry spell, but today, I can stand and salute France's stand on free speech, and in particular, the publishers of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that has had its headquarters firebombed previously for "blasphemy" against the Prophet of the religion of peace. The magazine is in the midst of publishing more caricatures of Mohammed and the radical Islamists, this time based on the movie "Innocence of Muslims." This from the USA Today:

France stepped up security at some of its embassies on Wednesday after a satirical Parisian weekly published crude caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. The prime minister said he would block a demonstration by people angry over a movie insulting to Islam as the country plunged into a fierce debate about free speech.

The government defended the right of magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish the cartoons, which played off of the U.S.-produced film The Innocence of Muslims, and riot police took up positions outside the offices of the magazine, which was firebombed last year after it released an edition that mocked radical Islam.

What, no phone calls to the publisher from the Chief of Staff? No statements of disgust at the content from the President or the Sec. of State? No calls from the left to have the publisher jailed for blasphemy against Islam? Government protection of the publisher instead of sending brown-shirts to drag him from his home after midnight for questioning - or fingering him for the Islamists?

Hey, this is France, people, the place that quite literally introduced the word "surrender" into Anglo-Saxon English. This is the place that probably has more white flag factories than any other place on this earth. This is the place that gave birth to socialism and the war on Christianity. And their government - albeit with some wavering - and at least a part of their media are showing more backbone than our current administration and media?

The small-circulation weekly Charlie Hebdo often draws attention for ridiculing sensitivity around the Prophet Mohammed, and an investigation into the firebombing of its offices last year is still open. The magazine's website was down Wednesday for reasons that were unclear.

One of the cartoonists, who goes by the name of Tignous, defended the drawings in an interview Wednesday with the AP at the weekly's offices, on the northeast edge of Paris amid a cluster of housing projects.

"It's just a drawing," he said. "It's not a provocation." . . .

On the streets of Paris, public reaction was mixed.

"I'm not shocked at all. If this shocks people, well too bad for them," said Sylvain Marseguerra, a 21-year-old student at the Sorbonne. "We are free to say what we want. We are a country in which freedom prevails and ... if this doesn't enchant some people, well too bad for them."

Khairreddene Chabbara disagreed. "We are for freedom of expression, but when it comes to religion it shouldn't hurt the feelings of believers."

Charlie Hebdo has courted potentially dangerous controversy in the past. Last November the magazine's front-page, was subtitled "Sharia Hebdo," a reference to Islamic law, and showed caricatures of radical Muslims. The newspaper's offices were destroyed in a firebomb attack just hours before the edition hit newsstands.

In 2006, Charlie Hebdo printed reprints of caricatures carried by a Danish newspaper in 2005 that stoked anger across the Islamic world. Many European papers reprinted the drawings in the name of media freedom.

Charlie Hebdo has also faced legal challenges. The weekly was acquitted in 2008 by a Paris appeals court of "publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion" following a complaint by Muslim associations. . . .

For refusing to back down and silence themselves in response to the violent animals of the Middle East - and those in their own midst - I can honestly say that I now have respect for a second group of French people very much in the mold of their great predecessor, Charles Martel. Let me utter words that I honestly thought would never pass my lips: Viva La' France.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

LA Times Op-Ed: Applying A Reasonable Radical Muzzie Standard To The 1st Amendment

Update: Welcome Crusader Rabbit readers. Unless you want to read an exposition on U.S. law of freedom of speech, the parts you want to read are higihlighted in yellow.
_________________________

Writing in the LA Times, Sarah Chayes, like many on the left, is demanding that the producer of the "Innocence of Muslims" be tried for inciting the violence of 9-11-12. Leave aside for the moment that this argument is a pretext to take focus off of Obama's failed foreign policy, just as for the radical Islamists, the movie was itself a pretext for their violence directed at the U.S.

The roadblock to the left's call for prosecution is the First Amendment. But Ms. Chayes has an answer to that - stop applying the test of how a "reasonable person" would react to particular speech, and apply the test of how radical Muslims would react to the same speech. Ms. Chayes would give radical Islamists control over our right of free speech and insert a de facto "blasphemy" exception into our Constitutional law, one applicable only to Islam. This from Ms. Chayes in the LA Times:

In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. "The most stringent protection," he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines . . .

The current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.

Likelihood is the easiest test. In Afghanistan, where I have lived for most of the past decade, frustrations at an abusive government and at the apparent role of international forces in propping it up have been growing for years. But those frustrations are often vented in religious, not political, terms, because religion is a more socially acceptable, and safer, rationale for public outcry. . . .

As a threshold matter, despite Ms. Chayes's obfuscations, the law applicable to the film in question is crystal clear and long settled. The Supreme Court held, in the 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson that the makers of a sacriligous film could not be prosecuted for their speech:

[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.

Ms. Chayes wholly ignores that case law to make her argument. But even then, and leaving aside whether the speech has any intrinsic "value," the Holmes test mentioned by Ms. Chayes is ultimately a test of how a reasonable person in OUR society would react in the circumstances, not how al Qaeda members living in Egypt would react. In America, a reasonable person does not react with violence, even when an artist displays a crucifix in a jar of urine, when Louis Farrakhan regularly denigrates Judaism, when Islam strips Christ of his divinity, or even when the Onion uses an obscene cartoon to make the point that reasonable people in our nation do not respond with violence to criticism of the basest sort against their religion.

Most importantly, there is a historical reason to treat Ms. Shayes's argument with utter derision. The questioning of religious dogma and customs were critical parts of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and such questioning was the entire basis for the Reformation. Those titanic events of Western History took all aspects of our civilization, including our religious practices, out of the Dark Ages and into modernity.

Without these titanic historical periods, we would still be living under the yoke of a Dark Ages interpretation of religion. Witches would be executed, as would blasphemers and heretics. Any criticism of religious dogma would be met with violence. Any who left our religion would be subject to murder. Corruption among the clerics would be beyond reproach. Religion, instead of being a faith, would be a central tool of political power and state control. Our civilization would be dysfunctional, not dynamic.  Our government would subject people of other religions to severe state discrimination. Modern science, sparked by the Enlightenment and the basis for all of the technological advances of Western civilization, would have been severely circumscribed. Wouldn't that be horrendous?

Well, take a look at Islam today as practiced in the Middle East, and that is what you will find - all those things and more in every country with a Muslim government. And as to science, do note that Saudi Arabia only put the flat earth theory behind them with the recent turn of the millenium. A fatwa issued by the Grand Mufti in 1993 instructed "the earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."

The radical Muzzies  have never gone through a period of Enlightenment, a Renaissance or a Reformation.  And they never will if criticism of their religion, in any and every form, is silenced. That is the world to which Ms. Chayes would consign Muslims, and if not altered, it is a world that will inevitably lead to an existential clash with our own civilization.  Ms. Chayes's proposal is the precise opposite of what is needed, both for the Muslim world and our own.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Prof. Ann Althouse on Free Speech Rights

In an addendum to a post that she wrote today, blogger and law professor Ann Althouse wrote a short and concise summary of Free Speech rights in the U.S., pointing in particular to a 1952 case in which the Supreme Court held that a state could not prosecute an individual for blashemy for producing a film with anti-Christian overtones.  This from Prof. Althouse, with a warning::

We're not that far from criminalizing blasphemy in the United States, though it seems obvious to educated Americans today that [blasphemy] laws are unconstitutional. Here's a quick summary of the history of blasphemy law in the U.S. And here's the 1952 case Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson where the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that banned showing "sacrilegious" movies. New York's highest court had interpreted the statute to mean "that no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule." The U.S. Supreme Court said:

[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.

My point is: it took a Supreme Court case as recently as 1952, to establish that principle in our country, with its rich free-speech tradition. Lawyers even saw fit at that time to argue that movies shouldn't get free-speech protection at all because "their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit."

Oh, wait, the President of the United States today argues that corporations don't have free-speech rights, and many Americans, including highly educated lawyers, are saying the Constitution should be amended to delete those rights. 

Let's not be so quick to assume the man with the "Shut Up America" sign is thoroughly alien. The threats to free speech lie within. They always have.

Do visit her blog daily.  It is always interesting and insightful.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Outrageous: Justice Dept. Publicly Fingers Key Figure Behind Anti-Muslim Film (Updated)

This is perhaps the single most outrageous act of the Obama administration and Eric Holder's Justice Dept. to date - and that is saying a lot.

Federal authorities have identified a southern California man once convicted of financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official said Thursday.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that Justice Department officials had opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other diplomats killed during an attack on the American mission in Benghazi. It was not immediately clear whether authorities were focusing on the California filmmaker as part of that probe.

The "key figure" had used an alias in making the film for his own personal security. The AP article quoted above goes on to provide the actual name of "key figure." I will not repeat it here.

To be clear, it doesn't matter WHO produced this film. It is not a crime. So what possible justification is there for the FBI to publicly identify the "key figure" behind this film? There is none. Our 1st Amendment absolutely forbids any legal action against this man. This is thuggery in its purest form - endangering the life of the person fingered and sending a message to anyone else in the U.S. who might want to make their feelings on Islam known but are too afraid to exercise their rights without anonymity because some Salafi nut job might behead them.

-------------

Update: Instapundit has gone nuclear over this in a series of long posts and round-ups, opining that "Barack Obama should resign." See here, here, here and here. -------------

You want to know the true canard of the Obama administration. Its that this film trailer, available world wide on Youtube for two months, was anything other than a pretext for the Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood to organize violence against the U.S. on 9-11. What our government should be doing is naming those bastards, either as part of an arrest or as notification of their next of kin. Instead, we apologize to them for our freedom of speech and now publicly finger the "key figure" behind the movie.

The modern left has nothing but contempt for "free speech" - at least to the extent that it is speech with which they personally disagree. The left's support of Islam does not arise out of respect for religion, but out of a common cause to undermine the Christian foundations of our society. Does Holder and the left really want to play this game of making "blasphemy" a crime in the U.S.? The same people who denigrate Christianity at seemingly every available opportunity want to make "blasphemy" a crime? Does this mean we can prosecute the "key figure" behind "Religuous?"

Salafi Islam and Iran's own version of it, the veleyat-e-faqi, are not religions, they are cults. The "Allah" they worship is immoral and bloodthirsty, barbaric and pitiless, irrational and intent on the destruction of all things not Islamic. Unless Salafi Islam, and indeed, all of Arab culture goes through a "rennasaince" and "reformation," we are ultimately headed towards a genocidal conflict not of our choosing. The only other alternative is to mobilize public opinion on a massive scale by unapologetically shining a blinding spotlight on these cults - the ones' that believe it is fine to assassinate anyone who leaves their religion, or who disagrees with their interpretation of the Koran, or that murdering 3,000 innocent people on a single day eleven years ago was a good thing, and that the perpetrators are in heaven enjoying non-stop sex and wine. We can fight this with guns or the pressure of public opinion on a world wide scale. But we are going to fight it one way or the other. Eric Holder and Obama would have it be with guns.

-------------

Update: ABC News is now reporting that the film maker might face jail time for his movie. The only "crime" here is that the Obama administration wants to deflect the reality of today's radicalized Middle East onto the film maker. This is the most blatant and grotesque violation of the First Amendment I can ever recall. It is Orwellian in its purest sense. And it really is a red line. If he spends a day in jail over this, this country needs not an election, but a revolution. -------------

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

A Red Herring: The Left's Opportunistic War On Rush

Rush apologized the other day to Sandra Fluke for referring to her as a prostitute (for requiring people to pay for her to have sex) and a slut (at $3k a year for contraception, various estimates are that she must be having sex 3 to 5 times a day, 365 days a year). Fluke and the left don't merely want her to receive free contraception paid for by all of America, but they think she should be free of moral judgment. Whether Rush should have apologized to Fluke is very much open to debate (see this from Cassy Fiano at PJM and this from Belladona Rogers, also at PJM), but the fact is that he did.

After Rush apologized, Sandra Fluke refused to accept his apology. And then today, in an utterly disgusting display of base partisanship, Obama himself refused to honor Rush's apology, saying that he "didn't know" what was in Rush's "heart." This coming from the same piece of pond scum who has made a cottage industry of apologizing for America. At any rate, it is not like the left is acting in accordance with some higher moral standard here. Compare and contrast the faux outrage of the left with Rush over their virtual cone of silence when it is someone on the left making truly inappropriate remarks about Sarah Palin, Palin's 14 year old daughter, or Laura Ingrahm. Likewise is Obama's acceptance of $1 million from Bill Maher, a man who regularly disparages women on the right in the crudest of terms. Or just read of the left's brutal disparagement of Michelle Malkin. This outrage over Rush's remarks is pure opportunism.

The left from top to bottom is refusing Rush's apology because they are, to quote Legal Insurrection, at total war with the right. The left is not aimed at righting a wrong, but rather aimed at silencing Rush and removing his voice from the public square. The modern left is an implacable enemy of free speech.

In what has become a tried and true tactic for the left, they are expressing their faux outrage to their target's advertisers. To this point, they have succeeded in having some 35 advertisers, bowing to a tsunami of complaints from the left, pull their ads from Rush's show.

This tempest in a tea pot will eventually wind down. But as long as it goes on, the biggest potential danger is not that it threatens Rush Limbaugh's continued viability, but that it may fix in the public's mind the utter canard that this really is all about some vague "war on women." It is a travesty. The two issues are that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendments Free Exercise of Religion clause, and equally, why all Americans should be forced to fund the sexual lifestyle choice of some women. That is what this whole debacle needs to be refocused upon - immediately.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Signs On To Silencing Criticism Of Islam

[UN Resolution 16/18, that calls for criminalization of defamation of religion that can be categorized as "incitement to violence," in addition to "countering religious profiling"] codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

Abigail R. Esman, Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure, Forbes Magazine, 30 Dec. 2011

Islamic texts call for the death of all Jews. In many Muslim countries, renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity is a death sentence. Every Muslim nation discriminates against all other religions. Go to MEMRI or Jihad Watch or any of the many other sites that focus on radical Islam, and you will see an endless parade of Muslim clerics engaging in the most vile diatribes against Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims. All of this is commonplace in virtually all Muslim majority nations. So what is the 56 member Organization Of Islamic nations (OIC) doing pushing through UN Resolution 16/18?

Clearly, this is meant to be a single edged sword. It is meant to apply in the West as a means of shutting down any criticism of Islam. It will be ignored in Islamic countries, where every effort is being made to wipe out non-Muslim religions. It is designed by the political Islamists not merely to allow the most vile forms of Islam to proliferate in the West without criticism, but to insure that those who advocate for reform and moderation of Islam will be silenced. Indeed, it is no surprise at all the America's leading advocate for the moderation of Islam, Zhudi Jasser, is the one sending out links to the Esman article quoted above.

I have been banging the drum against this particular UN Resolution for years. As I wrote in 2007, adopting this resolution would be "putting a nail into the coffin of Western civilization, in addition to insuring the ultimate domination of the Wahhabi philosophy in Islam." And yet now, the Obama administration has signed on the dotted line. Is there any policy of the Obama administration that does not seem directed at damaging our nation?

Read More...

Summary only...

Islam, U.S. Free Speech, & No Room For Concessions

For years, the "Islamic" governments of OIC have been pushing through the UN a declaration that criticism of Islam should be outlawed by all nations as defamation. Even leaving aside issues of free speech, the only proper response to such a request from the U.S. should have been a one-finger salute - both for the good of the U.S. and for the good of every Muslim in this world. Yet it turns out today that the Hildabeast is in a three day closed door session with the OIC to discuss the issue. This from the Daily Beast:

The more realistic explanation for the three-day event, Lafferty said, is that administration officials, progressives and OIC officials are tacitly cooperating to gradually stigmatize speech that is critical of Islam.

Lafferty pointed to a July statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she said that free speech will be protected, but the U.S. government will “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton’s statement was issued at Istanbul, where the United States and the OIC launched the joint project to combat “religious intolerance.”

I've previously written at length why the OIC's efforts should be rejected out of hand, not merely for defense of the West, but for the good of Islam itself. As I wrote over four years ago:

The reason we face the problem of radical Islam today is that, in its entire history, Islam has seen no Renaissance, no Reformation, no Period of Enlightenment. These titanic events in Western history led to the development of secular values that came out of, but were separate from, the Judeo-Christian religion that birthed them. And these events gradually took religion from the sphere of a government imposition and moved it into the realm of the individual and local community.

The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment were each developed through the process of critical thought - the questioning and challenging of religious ideals and dogma. It was this critical thought that allowed the West to seperate the wheat -- the belief in God and universal concepts of moral behavior -- from the chaff of religion – dogma that restricted development in all aspects of society: political, artistic, scientific, philosophical. Thus, today do our universities turn out the finest scientists, the finest writers, the finest mathematicians and astronomers, while the universities in Saudi Arabia primarily turn out Wahhabi clerics. And it is why the West leads the world in science and the arts while the morals police in Saudi Arabia hunt down sorcerers and the Saudi courts apply Wahhabi Sharia law to order the flogging of victims of gang rape.

There are seeds from which a Muslim Enlightenment could yet occur. They would require criticism and debate to take root. Yet these seeds are under mortal threat today from the growth of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam. . . .

Ultimately, in the world of ideas, it is only through questioning and critical reasoning that advancements occur. To put an Islamic face on that, it is only through the embrace of ijtihad and the concepts of Islam discussed earlier that there is any chance that Islam will finally see a great historical change to moderate and modernize from Wahhab’s vision of 7th century Islam into a form of Islam that can coexist with the rest of the world in the 21st century. And Western society has an obligation not to be coerced into silence, but to openly criticize what we find dangerous and wrong in Islam. If our voice is cowed, how can we expect the voice of would be moderates in the world of Islam to stand up - and withstand the inevitable Wahhabi onslaught to their existence. The cost to humanity and the world if Islam does not have its Reformation and Enlightenment will almost assuredly be apocalyptic. . . .

You can find the entire essay here. If you are not aware of the history of Islam and why any restriction of free speech rights would practically doom the West, do please take the time to read it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Geert Wilders On Freedom & Islam

The left and political Islamists have made common cause in Europe, and the left uses the police power of the state to punish anyone who complains of the ever growing influence of radical Islam in their countries. Dutch politician Geert Wilders is one man who has not bent to this intimidation. He has spoken out against what he sees as the incremental Islamicization of Europe. For this, he has paid a heavy price. So many death threats have been made against him that he now is surrounded by security 24 hours a day. And in his home country of the Netherlands, Mr. Wilders is on trial, charged with the crime of hate speech.

Wilders is making a swing through America and recently spoke at Cornerstone Church in Nashville, Tennessee. The following is the text of his speech:

Dear friends from Tennessee. I am very happy to be in your midst today. I am happy and proud to be in this impressive church.

My friends, I am here to speak words of truth and freedom.

Do you know why America is in a better state than Europe? Because you enjoy more freedom than Europeans.

And do you know why Americans enjoy more freedom than Europeans? Because you are still allowed to tell the truth.

In Europe and Canada people are dragged to court for telling the truth about islam.

I, too, have been dragged to court. I am an elected member of the house of representatives in the Netherlands. I am currently standing in court like a common criminal for saying that islam is a dangerous totalitarian ideology rather than a religion.

The court case is still pending, but I risk a jail sentence of 16 months.

Last week, my friend Lars Hedegaard, a journalist from Denmark, was fined because in a private conservation, which was recorded without his knowing, he had criticised the way women are treated in islamic societies.

Recently, another friend, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a human rights activist from Austria, was fined because she had criticised islam’s founder Muhammad. She had said that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had married a 6-year old girl and raped her when she was 9.

Unfortunately, there are many similar cases.

I am especially happy to be in your midst because here I can say what I want to say without having to fear that I will be dragged to court upon leaving this church.

My dear American friends, you cannot imagine how we envy your First Amendment. The day when America follows the example of Europe and Canada and introduces so-called “hate speech crimes” which is only used to punish people who are critical of islam, that day America will have lost its freedom.

My friends, let us hope that this never happens.

Last week, we celebrated Liberation Day in the Netherlands. We celebrated the liberation from the Nazi occupation in 1945. Many American soldiers, including many young Tennesseans, played a decisive role in the liberation of the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. We are immensely grateful for that. Young Americans gave their lives so that the Dutch might be free. I assure you: The Dutch people will never forget this.

Unfortunately, however, the Europe which your fathers and grandfathers fought and died for is not the Europe we are living in today.

I travel the world to tell people what Europe has become. I wish I could take you all on a visit to my country and show you what Europe has become. It has changed beyond recognition as a result of mass immigration. And not just any mass immigration, but mass immigration driven by the dangerous force of islam.

My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: “Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.” Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow islam to gain a foothold here.

Islam is dangerous. Islam wants to establish a state on earth, ruled by islamic sharia law. Islam aims for the submission, whether by persuasion, intimidation or violence, of all non-Muslims, including Christians.

The results can be seen in Europe.

Islam is an ideology of conquest. It uses two methods to achieve this goal: the first method is the sword. Do you know what figures on the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country where Christian churches are banned and Christians are not even allowed to wear a tiny crucifix? There is a huge sword on that flag, just below the Islamic creed. The message is clear. Without the sword islam would not have been able to spread its creed.

The second method is immigration. Islam’s founder Muhammad himself taught his followers how to conquer through immigration when they moved from Mecca to Medina. This phenomenon of conquest through immigration is called al-Hijra. My learned friend Sam Solomon has written a perfect book about it.

I had a copy of Sam’s book sent to all the members of the Dutch Parliament. But most of them are worse than Saint-Thomas in the Bible. Thomas did not believe what he had not seen. Most politicians refuse to believe the things they see before their very eyes.

In Europe we have been experiencing al-Hijra for over 30 years now. Many of our cities have changed beyond recognition. “In each one of our cities” wrote the well-known Italian author Oriana Fallaci shortly before her death in 2006, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – end of quote.

How did the Europeans get into this situation? It is partly our own fault because we have foolishly adopted the concept of cultural relativism, which manifests itself in the ideology of multiculturalism.

Cultural relativism advocates that all cultures are equal. However, cultures wither away and die if people no longer believe that its values are better than those of another culture.

Islam is spreading like wildfire wherever people lack the guts to say that their values are better than the Islamic values.

Islam is spreading like wildfire because the Koran explicitly tells Muslims that they are “the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” and that non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures.”

Islam is spreading like wildfire everywhere in the West where political, academic, cultural and media elites lack the guts to proudly proclaim, as I believe we all should proclaim:

Our Judeo-Christian Western culture is far better and far superior to the islamic culture. We must be proud to say so!

Multiculturalism is a disaster. Almost everyone acknowledges this today, but few dare say why. Let me tell you why: Multiculturalism made us tolerate the intolerant, and now intolerance is annihilating tolerance.

We should, in the name of tolerance, claim the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Let us no longer be afraid and politically correct, let us be brave and bold. Let us tell the truth about islam.

Before I continue I want to make clear that I do not have a problem with people. I always make a distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and islam.

Indeed, I have no problems with Muslims, but I do have a problem with the totalitarian Islamic ideology of hate and violence. The fact that there are many so-called moderate Muslims, does not imply that there exists a moderate islam. A moderate islam doen not exist and will never exist.

And because there is no such thing as a moderate islam, the islamization of our free Western societies is an enormous danger.

Only two weeks ago, the British press revealed how the so-called “London Taliban” is threatening to kill women who do not wear veils in the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

In some neighbourhoods Islamic regulations are already being enforced, also on non-Muslims. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor-killings where men murder their wives, daughters or sisters because they do not behave in accordance with Islamic rules.

Polls show that the influence of those Muslims who live according to islam’s aggressive requirements is growing, especially among young people.

Among 15-year-old German Muslims, 40 percent consider islam more important than democracy.

Among Muslim university students in Britain, 40 percent support sharia. One in three of those students considers it legitimate to kill in the name of islam.

Christians are asked to follow the example of Jesus. Muslims are ordered to follow the example of Muhammad. That is why islam is dangerous. While Christianity preaches love, islam preached hatred and practizes violence. Hatred and violence for everyone who is not a Muslim.

Muhammad personally participated in the ethnic cleansing of Medina, where half the population once was Jewish. Muhammad helped to chop off their heads. On his deathbed, he ordered his followers to cleanse Arabia of all Jews and Christians.

To this very day, Christian symbols are prohibited in Saudi-Arabia. If you wear a cross in Saudi Arabia, they sent you to jail.

And now, Europe is beginning to look like Arabia.

Just today, a poll revealed that in Brussels, the capital of the European Union, half the islamic youths are anti-semitic. It is dangerous for Jews to walk the streets in Brussels.

If you wear a cross or a kippah in certain urban areas in Europe today, you risk being beaten up. In the capital of my own country, Amsterdam, a tram driver was forced to remove his crucifix from sight, while his Muslim colleagues are allowed to wear the veil.

In June 2008, the Christian church authorities in the Danish town of Arhus decided to pay so-called “protection money” to islamic so-called “security guards” who assure that church goers are not harassed by islamic youths.

On March 31st, 2010, Muslims entered the Roman Catholic cathedral of Cordoba, Spain, and attacked the guards with knives. They claimed the cathedral was theirs.

Last month, the bishops of Sweden sent out a letter to priests advising them to avoid converting asylum seekers from islamic countries to Christianity, because the converts would risk losing their lives.

In the Netherlands, the city authorities in Amsterdam register polygamous marriages. The authorities in Rotterdam serve only halal meals in municipal cafeterias. Theaters provide separate seats for women who are not allowed to sit next to men. Municipal swimming pools have separate swimming hours for men and women, Muslim lawyers do not have to stand when the judges enter court rooms.

Meanwhile Jews are no longer safe on our streets. In Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank, Jews are again being harassed in the streets. Even political leaders acknowledged that life has become unsafe for Jews in Holland. Do you know what they said? They advised Jews to emigrate. Jews are already running for Israel. But I say: Jews must not leave, violent Muslims must leave!

What is needed, my friends, is a spirit of resistance.

I repeat: What we need is a spirit of resistance.

Why? Because resistance to evil is our moral duty. This resistance begins with expressing our solidarity to Christians, Jews, indeed, to all people worldwide, who are the victims of islam. There are millions of them.

We can see what islam has in store for us if we watch the fate of the Christians in the islamic world, such as the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, the Assyrians in Iraq, and Christians elsewhere.

Almost every day, churches are arsoned and Christians are assassinated in islamic countries.

In a report on the persecution of Christians in the world, Archbishop Twal of Jerusalem, wrote recently– I quote: “In the Middle East to be Christian means accepting that you must make a great sacrifice. All too often and in many places, Christians suffer various threats. On some occasions, their homes and churches are burnt, and people are killed. How many atrocities must we endure before somebody somewhere comes to our aid?” – end of quote.

Indeed, how many atrocities before we come to their aid?

Rivers of tears are flowing from the Middle East, where there is only one safe haven for Christians. You know where that is. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are safe is Israel.

That is why Israel deserves our support. Israel is a safe haven for everyone, whatever their belief and opinions. Israel is a beacon of light in a region of total darkness. Israel is fighting our fight.

The jihad against Israel is a jihad against all of us. If Israel falls, we, too, will feel the consequences. If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Rome, Amsterdam and Nashville will fall. Therefore, we all are Israel. We should always support Israel!

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. The Arab peoples long for freedom. However, the ideology and culture of islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible as long as islam remains dominant.

A recent poll in post-revolution Egypt found that 85 percent of Egyptians are convinced that islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates. The press refers to the events in the Arab world today as the Arab spring. I call it the Arab winter.

Islam and freedom, islam and democracy are not compatible.

The death of Osama bin Laden last week was a victory for the free world, but we will be confronted with Islamic terrorism as long as islam exists, because islam’s founder Muhammad himself was a terrorist, worse than Bin Laden.

And here is another truth: The rise of islam means the rise of sharia law in our judicial systems. In Europe we already have sharia wills, sharia schools, sharia banks. Britain even has sharia courts.

In my own country, the Netherlands, sharia is being applied by the courts in cases relating to divorce, child custody, inheritance, and property ownership. Women are always the victims of this because sharia discriminates women.

This is a disgrace. This is not the way we should treat women.

My friends, I told you that we have just remembered Liberation Day to commemorate the young Americans and all the heroes who offered their lives to free the Netherlands from nazi tyranny. It would be an insult to them if we Europeans would give up that precious freedom for another totalitarian ideology called Islam.

That is the goal for which my party and I work day after day. And we are having success.

In the Netherlands, we are successfully starting to roll back islam. The current Dutch government is a minority government which can only survive with the backing of my party, the Party for Freedom.

We have 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament and we support the government, in return for measures to prohibit certain aspects of sharia law.

We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the burka and the niqaab.

We will also restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are not going to allow islam to steal our country from us. It was the land of our fathers, it is our land now, our values are based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism and we will pass this on to our children with all the freedoms that the previous generations have fought for.

Let those who want to rob us from our freedoms, stay in their own countries. We do not need them. If you want to wear a burqa, stay in Saudi-Arabia. If you want four wives, stay in Iran. If you want to live in a country where the islamic ideology is dominant, stay in Pakistan, if you don’t want to assimilate in our society, stay in Somalia. But don’t come over here.

We are also going to strip criminals who have a double nationality – for instance Dutch and Moroccan, and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality. We will send them packing, back to their homeland.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. We can fight the islamization of our societies.

Dear friends, here is my warning. Make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. In fact, it is already here. America is facing a stealth jihad, the islamic attempt to introduce sharia law bit by bit. Last March, a judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled that a lawsuit against a mosque and involving the control of 2.4 million dollars, should proceed under Islamic law.

My friends, be aware that this is only the beginning. This is also how it started in Europe. If things continue like this, you will soon have the same problems as we are currently facing.

Leaders who talk about immigration without mentioning islam are blind. They ignore the most important problem Europe and America are facing. I have a message for them: it’s islam stupid!

My friends, fortunately, not all politicians are irresponsible. Here, in Tennessee, brave politicians want to pass legislation which gives the state the power to declare organisations as terrorist groups and allowing material supporters of terrorism to be prosecuted. I applaud them for that. They are true heroes.

Yesterday and today, I met some of those brave legislators. They told me that Tennessee in particular is a target of islam. Help them win their battle.

They need your support.

While Tennessee is in the frontline, similar legislative initiatives are also being taken in the states of Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Carolina, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana. It is encouraging to see that so many politicians are willing to resist islam.

This gives us hope and courage. I am not a pessimist. We can still turn the tide – even in Europe – if we act today.

There are five things which we must do.

First, we must defend freedom of speech.

Freedom is the source of human creativity and development. People and nations wither away without the freedom to question what is presented to them as the truth.

Without freedom of speech we risk becoming slaves. Frederick Douglass, the 19th century black American politician, the son of a slave, said – I quote – “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

I have already told you about my court case. This legal charade will not, however, prevent me from saying the truth. Never. I will speak out, even if they drag me before 500 courts and threaten to jail me for a thousand years.

The fact that we are being treated as criminals for telling the truth must not deter us. We are doomed if we remain silent or let ourselves be silenced. Let us not forget, this is our first and most important obligation: defend the right to speak the truth.

Second, we must end cultural relativism and political correctness. We must repeat it over and over again, especially to our children: Our Western culture based on Christianity and Judaism is superior to the islamic culture. Our laws are superior to sharia. Our judeo-christian values are better than islam’s totalitarian rules.

And because they are superior and better, we must defend them. We must fight for our own identity, or else we will lose it. We need to be warriors for the good, because the good is worth fighting for. Neutrality in the face of evil is evil.

Third, we must stop the islamization of our countries. More islam means less freedom. There is enough islam in the West already. We must stop immigration from non-Western countries, which are mostly islamic countries. We must expel criminal immigrants. We must forbid the construction of new hate palaces called mosques.

We must also close down all islamic schools because educating children in a spirit of hate is one of the worst things imaginable. We must introduce anti-sharia legislation everywhere in the free world. Enough is enough.

Fourth, we must take pride in our nations again. We must cherish and preserve the culture and identity of our country. Preserving our own culture and identity is the best antidote against islamization.

And fifth, last but certainly not least, we must elect wise and courageous leaders who are brave enough to address the problems which are facing us, including the threat of islam.

Politicians who have the courage to speak the truth about islam.

Politicians who dare to denounce the devastating results of the multicultural society.

Politicians who – without political correctness – say: enough is enough.

You and I, Americans and Europeans, we belong to a common Western culture. We share the ideas and ideals of our common Judeo-Christian heritage. In order to pass this heritage on to our children and grandchildren, we must stand together, side by side, in our struggle against Islamic barbarism.

That, my friends, is why I am here. I am here to forge an alliance. Our international freedom alliance. We must stand together for the Judeo-Christian West.

We will not allow islam to overrun Israel and Europe, the cradle of the judeo-Christian civilization.

My friends, we will stand together.

We will stand firm.

We will not submit. Never. Not in Israel, not in Europe, not in America. Nowhere.

We will survive.

We will stop islam.

We will defend our freedoms.

We will remain free.

Thank you.

Read More...

Summary only...

Compare and Contrast: Allen West In America, Geert Wilders In Europe

In the video below, a member of CAIR tries to score points on Congressman Allen West regarding the peacefulness of Islam - and gets an earful from West, who happens to be very well schooled on the history and dogma of Islam. Enjoy this bit of red meat.



The fact that we have intellectually honest people in our government, such as Rep. West, and that our Constitution gives them the freedom to express that honesty, give some small measure of hope both for our future and the future direction of Islam. As I wrote here, unless people like Rep. West and people inside the religion of Islam are able to change the current trajectory of Islam, we are all on course for a bloody, existential collision.

In Europe, however, speaking with intellectual honesty about Islam is not merely repressed, it is repressed with the police power of the state. Were Rep. West to have given this same short soliloquy in, say, the Netherlands, he could have well found himself on the wrong side of that nation's interpretation of its 'hate speech' laws, much the same way Dutch politician Geert Wilders has.

Wilders, currently on trial for hate speech, addresses Islam and the European repression of free speech in a WSJ editorial today:

"The lights are going out all over Europe," British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey famously remarked on the eve of World War I. I am reminded of those words whenever I read about Europeans being dragged into court for so-called hate-speech crimes.

Recently, Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, president of the International Free Press Society, had to stand trial in Copenhagen because he had criticized Islam. Mr. Hedegaard was acquitted, but only on the technicality that he had not known that his words, expressed in a private conversation, were being taped. Last week in Vienna, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian human-rights activist, was fined €480 for calling the Islamic prophet Muhammad a pedophile because he had consummated his marriage to a nine-year old girl. Meanwhile, my own trial in Amsterdam is dragging on, consuming valuable time that I would rather spend in parliament representing my million-and-a-half voters.

How can all this be possible in supposedly liberal Europe? . . .

Early in 2008, a number of leftist and Islamic organizations took me to court, claiming that by expressing my views on Islam I had deliberately "insulted" and "incited hatred" against Muslims. I argued then, as I will again in my forthcoming book, that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology aiming for world domination.

Last October, my former colleague in the Dutch parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, wrote in these pages of the way in which Islamic organizations abuse our freedoms in order to limit them. "There are," she wrote, "the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam," citing their strategy "to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in 'hate speech' against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU."

Indeed, in 2008 the EU approved its so-called "Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia," and the EU's 27 nations have since had to incorporate it into their national legislation. The decision orders that "racist or xenophobic behavior must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties." It defines "racism and xenophobia" so broadly that every statement that an individual might perceive as insulting to a group to which he belongs becomes punishable by law.

The perverse result is that in Europe it is now all but impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam, or about the effects of immigration of Islam's adherents. Take my own case, for example. My point is that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. To avoid misunderstandings, I always emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam, recognizing that there are many moderate Muslims. But the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions; the Koran orders Muslims to establish the realm of Allah in this world, if necessary by force.

Stating my views on Islam has brought me to court on charges of "group insult" and incitement to racial hatred. I am being tried for voicing opinions that I—and my constituents—consider to be the truth. I am being tried for challenging the views that the ruling establishment wants to impose on us as the truth. . . .

I should be acquitted. My trial in Amsterdam is not about me, but about freedom of speech in Europe. As Dwight D. Eisenhower, Europe's liberator from Nazism, once warned, freedom "must be daily earned and refreshed—else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die." Today in Europe, freedom is being neither earned nor refreshed.

George Washington once said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." When it comes to Islam, and particularly Islam in Europe, where Islamic minorities are not merely failing to integrate, but actively undermining traditional society, Washington's quote rings true indeed. The Islamist's are aided and abetted by left-wing governments wholly immersed in the toxic philosophy of multiculturalism. I thank God that our founders had the foresight to craft the First Amendment. While in America, we still might be able to influence the trajectory of Islam because of our rights to free speach, Europe is in a much more precarious state.

Read More...

Summary only...

Geert Wilders Opening Statement

God help Europe if the multiculturalists succeed in silencing Geert Wilders. I posted the text Geert Wilders opening remarks in his "hate speech" trial here. Below is the video with subtitles:



And just as a reminder, below is the movie FITNA - part of the speech for which Wilders is on trial:

Read More...

Summary only...

The New Left Wing Civility - No Change From The Old Left Wing Civility

I am so tired of outrageous acts of the left to silence the speech of those people they dislike. And I would really like to see the right grow some a set and refuse to cave in to left wing primal screams. This from No Oil For Pacifists:

A visit former U.S. President George W. Bush planned to make to Switzerland next week has been canceled because of security concerns, after left-wing groups called for mass protests and rights activists proposed legal action against him for allegedly ordering the torture of terrorism suspects. . . .

. . . Saying it received an "onslaught of personal attacks," a Colorado nonprofit announced in a news release today that it was canceling a scheduled May appearance in Glendale by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Conservatives really need to stop putting up with this. If the left wants to fight, we should, by all means, honor their request many times over.

Read More...

Summary only...

Heh: Liberals, Free Speech & Journalism

I don't know who is making these videos, but they have a talent for observation and a wicked sense of humor. Enjoy.



(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Read More...

Summary only...

The Enemy Of Speech & Debate

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

-- George Washington

The modern progressive movement is intellectually bankrupt. Natural statists, they desire to rule by edict rather than have to debate and convince. It is why they so often resort to the race card to end debate. It is why they inevitably seek to demonize their opponents rather than face them in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, this aspect of the left is so pervaisive and so deeply ingrained that it one of their defining characteristics.

Andrew Klavin, writing at City Journal, makes some cogent observations along these lines:

. . . [E]verywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on.

Take the e-mails that the Daily Caller obtained from the now-defunct lefty Web service Journolist. Never mind the personal or psychological implications of a radio producer who lovingly imagines Rush Limbaugh’s death or a law professor who doesn’t know that the FCC has no power to deprive Fox News of a license or a reporter who wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama’s pastor. The point is not these people’s animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence — the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever wished a liberal’s mouth closed forever? Really, who can deny that Rush would happily argue a point with absolutely anyone anywhere? When has Fox News ever done anything to its rival cable stations but trounce them in a free competition for ratings? When has Fred Barnes ever tried to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up? . . .

Freedom of speech and the market place of ideas are anethema to our modern left.

Read More...

Summary only...

Clinton & A The Long History Of Intolerance

Mark Tapscott looks at Clinton's efforts to silence Obama's critics by claiming their complaints to be demonization (boy is that projection) and that they are inviting domestic terrorism. Tapscott notes that Clinton is doing little more than those in power have been trying to do for millennia. It is a superb article. This from Mr. Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

. . . Take England's King Edward I, aka "the Longshanks" of "Braveheart" cinematic fame. It wasn't just William Wallace and the Scots who made Longshanks uncomfortable; he also took very unkindly to criticism from his own subjects. So much so, in fact, that he manipulated what in 1275 passed for the English Parliament to approve Westminster I, a re-codification of basic English law.

Westminster I made it a crime to sow “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the king and his people or the great men of the realm.” That law put a stop to criticism of Longshanks and his best buddies among the nobles.

Other English monarchs made the argument, too. Henry VIII had his six wives, but he also had a law regulating the then-new printing-press industry. Henry's law left no doubt about it in 1542: “Nothing shall be taught or maintained contrary to the King’s instructions.”

Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I, not only made the same argument Clinton is tutoring us with today, she upgraded its administration with the Star Chamber, a secret tribunal used to prosecute anybody writing or distributing books that were critical of the Queen or nobles.

Today, we call such government entities "administrative law panels." These are used to enforce bureaucratic regulations like the "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC.

Henry and Elizabeth had to make the "criticism-of-government-causes-violence-against-government argument often because the English Puritans were such a strong force at the time.

Being Protestant Reformation zealots, they not only insisted that every man had the right to read the Bible in his native tongue and to decide for himself the meaning of Holy Scripture, they also preached that every man had the right to speak and publish his opinions about government.

That is why for decades prior to the English Civil War, a succession of English monarchs beheaded, drew and quartered, burned at the stake, and otherwise executed a long succession of Puritan "heretics" who were indeed "demonizing" government.

Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans didn't do such a good job of it once they had sent the head of Charles I bouncing down the steps of Parliament, however, and soon enough the Royalists were back in power.

At the insistence of Charles II, the Royalist-dominated Parliament passed a new law providing that “evil disposed persons” would no longer be allowed to write or sell “heretical, schismatical, blasphemous, seditious and treasonable books, pamphlets and papers” that endanger “the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his Most Excellent Majesty and his government.”

It was largely against this historical backdrop of people in government prosecuting people outside of government for saying unkind things about them that led to the American Founders including in the First Amendment a guarantee of a free press, the right to assemble and petition for redress, and freedom of religion.

But within a decade of the Constitution's adoption, John Adams, one of our most esteemed Founders and our second president, was so worried about his critics - led by Thomas Jefferson - demonizing him and his friends that he got Congress to pass the Alien & Sedition Acts.

One of those laws made it illegal to “write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them.”

Then in the Civil War, there was Abe Lincoln saving the Union by suspending Habeus Corpus and jailing hundreds of political opponents and journalists for the duration of the war. Lincoln also put U.S. troops in newsrooms, took over daily newspapers, and destroyed printing presses. Obviously, demonizing government can't be tolerated during a war, right? Check out Harry J. Maihafer's "War of Words: Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War press" for the full story here.

Nothing much had changed by the time Woodrow Wilson was in the White House. Wilson and A. Mitchell Palmer, his attorney general, backed the Sedition Act of 1917 that made it a crime to "utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution..." Wilson and Palmer put hundreds of people, many of them anti-war Socialists, in jail for violating the Sedition Act, which was repealed in 1920.

In the 1960s, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson didn't need specific laws to suppress critics, they simply used the the Fairness Doctrine to silence critics who they deemed to be demonizing government and public officials. You can read about that in "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment" by former CBS News president Fred Friendly.

President Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine, which led to the explosion of Talk Radio and the flowering of hundreds of independent opinion-makers. But more recently, liberals like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Diane Feinstein are talking about reviving it or some form of it.

So Clinton's argument that criticism of government by peaceful citizens participating in Tea Party demonstrations leads to domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing really is nothing new. Monarchs and others in government have been using that line to silence their critics for hundreds of years. . . .

Read More...

Summary only...