AUDIO: How does a free society that values religious liberty handle Islamic supremacism that seeks to destroy it?

41OveQ31pwLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, May 29, 2015:

Former federal prosecutor and current National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy has published a slender but substantive new book coincidentally released eerily close to the recent Garland jihadist attack titled “Islam and Free Speech.”

We had the chance to sit down with McCarthy to discuss a variety of topics relating to his new book including a broader question that America has been grappling with for over a decade since Sept. 11, 2001: How can a free and pluralistic society built on protecting liberty including specifically religious liberty adequately counter a theopolitical Islamic supremacist ideology that seeks to use our freedoms and tolerance to undermine us.

Here is how McCarthy responded to the question:

 

The doctrine of Soviet Communism was … ultimately not just the complete and extensive undermining of [the U.S.], but when and if or if and when finally necessary, the violent overthrow of the United States, or the United States government.

So it’s not like this is the first time that we’ve dealt with a conquest ideology that seeks … to supplant the West with its own vision of what society should be. We’ve had this kind of a problem before.

The difference is, Soviet ideology never traveled under the banner of religious liberty, and there was never the kind of squeamishness about examining it that we have now. And … the best way to combat it is to get over that squeamishness.

What we have to understand is that there is a difference between what we ought to regard as Islam the religion … which is something that is adhered to by, you know, many many many patriotic American Muslims, who have no desire whatsoever to have a United States that’s structured like the totalitarian societies that a lot of them either left or reject for their own reasons.

So we have to distinguish that from this political Islamist ideology that is rooted in Islamic doctrine, and a very literal interpretation of it, and that rejects a division between church and state, or between mosque and state.

That ideology is — it has a religious component — but it’s a political ideology overwhelmingly. And it ought to be dealt with as one. And we should stop — you know our public officials should stop trying to label it as something it isn’t. It’s a political, totalitarian conquest ideology that has certain religious elements to it.

But the important thing from our perspective is it’s like every other political ideology that competes and has animus towards the west. And we have to see ourselves as in competition with it and needing to defeat it, rather than trying to figure out how we can accommodate it under the auspices of our commitment to religious liberty, because overwhelmingly it’s not a religious doctrine. The political element of it is overwhelmingly a totalitarian political doctrine. And we shouldn’t, just because it has a few religious elements to it, lose sight of the bigger picture.

You can listen to our interview in full below, or keep scrolling to listen to select clips on topics ranging from the ignored totalitarian nature of Shariah speech prohibitions to McCarthy’s defense of Section 215 of the Patriot Act and why McCarthy believes that conservative Americans frightened of a government that has targeted them through the IRS should be trusted with such powers.

Full Interview

 

The Clash of Civilizations Between Islam and the West

 

The Ignored Totalitarian Nature of Shariah Speech Prohibitions

McCarthy’s Defense of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, and Why We Should Trust Our Government With Such Power

 

What is In America’s National Interest in the Middle East, and How Should We Pursue It?

 

Assassin’s Veto: Our Muhammad Ad Spurs D.C. Metro Transit Authority to Ban All ‘Issue’ Ads

Screen-Shot-2015-05-26-at-9.57.21-AMPJ Media, By Robert Spencer On May 29, 2015:

The winner is clear, and to the winner be the laurels. There is one man only that all people — regardless of race, creed, color, political perspective, nationality, and whatever else — must respect: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has moved to prevent our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) ads, which feature a cartoon of Muhammad, from being featured on city buses. With this, Muhammad’s ascendancy is complete: he is the man of the hour.

On CNN, Chris Cuomo demonstrated the fealty we all owe to the messenger of Islam in a Thursday morning interview with my colleague, AFDI President Pamela Geller (I am vice president of AFDI). Cuomo repeatedly referred to “the prophet Muhammad.” As far as I know, Cuomo is not a Muslim and does not believe that Muhammad is a prophet. Also, CNN is not an Islamic organization, yet CNN’s chyron read: “PROPHET MOHAMMED ADS SUBMITTED TO BUSES, TRAINS.”

Cuomo and CNN are not the only ones offering this respect to Muhammad alone. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity are not Muslims, yet during their coverage of the jihad attack on our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas — Hannity and Kelly did defend our right to freedom of speech — they all referred to “the prophet Muhammad.”

How often do you hear the media refer to “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?” Muhammad is the man whom all must respect, whether they actually accept that he is a prophet or not.

Now, the taxpayer-funded Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has shown us what that respect is all about. To avoid losing a First Amendment lawsuit over our ad featuring the winning Muhammed cartoon from Garland along with the caption “SUPPORT FREE SPEECH,” the MTA has chosen to no longer accept all “issue-related” ads.

The cartoon is not obscene or profane. It simply lampoons Muslims’ attempt to intimidate the West into submitting to Sharia blasphemy laws. The cartoon depicts Muhammad shouting: “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist responding, “That’s why I draw you.”

The MTA’s decision was motivated — solely — by fear. It was motivated by the kind of respect that Bob Dylan described in his film Masked and Anonymous: “I got a lot of respect for a gun.” The D.C. MTA recognizes that if they run ads featuring a Muhammad cartoon on their buses, the buses could be — and probably would be — targeted by murderous Islamic jihadists. Realizing that, they have two choices: a) protect the buses and their passengers, and in doing so protect freedom of speech as the cornerstone of a free society, or; b) refuse to run the ads, thereby signaling to murderous jihadists that being a murderous jihadist is a successful position in a growth industry.

The MTA has shown that its respect for Muhammad can be obtained at the point of a gun. This action ensures that other Islamic jihadists will be encouraged to press American non-Muslims to show more respect for Muhammad and Islam. They will press for that respect in exactly the same way they have before: with threats of more violence. The MTA, with the eager support of the mainstream media, has canonized the assassin’s veto and assured that the veto will be exercised more than ever.

Cuomo rambled on CNN about wanting to avoid causing offense. This never crossed his colleagues’ minds when they hailed “Piss Christ” as a monument to freedom of expression. Christianity has not earned their respect because Christians have not attempted to gain that respect at gunpoint.

Whatever we may actually think about him, Muhammad is now “the prophet Muhammad” for all of us. Like Orwell’s equally absent and lethal Big Brother, we had better love him — or else.

All this sums up the order of the day: now we must do the bidding of whoever declares that he will kill us unless we do his bidding. CNN is fine with that. O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta van Susteren, and others putatively on the right are fine with that.

Fittingly, in this superficial and secular age, the most superficial and secular of all are carefully referring to Muhammad as “the prophet.” Their homage to the man who proclaimed “I have been made victorious through terror” is a notable emblem of their submission to the cult of violence that overshadows this era.

***

Also see:

‘Kelly File’ special: Defying the Sword

11100737_1662677840613741_2075106028_n

Transcript of interview with Ayaan Hirsi Al

***

Thank you note to FOX News from Mohammad

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Charlie Hebdo defends freedom under fire

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, a film critic for Charlie Hebdo, will receive an award for courage in freedom of expression from the PEN American Center. Credit Earl Wilson/The New York Times

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, a film critic for Charlie Hebdo, will receive an award for courage in freedom of expression from the PEN American Center. Credit Earl Wilson/The New York Times

American Thinker, by Andrew E. Harrod, May 26, 2015:

“We don’t negotiate with the freedom of speech,” stated Jean-Baptiste Thoret, film critic for the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, during a May 1 presentation before an audience of about 100 at Freedom House in Washington, D.C.  His words, stated during an American visit to receive a PEN free speech award for his colleagues murdered during a January Paris jihadist attack, have continuing importance, as the subsequent May 4 Texas jihadist attack showed.

PEN American Center executive director Suzanne Nossel introduced the panel by justifying her organization’s recognition of Charlie Hebdo for “rejecting the assassins’ veto … on behalf of all of us.”  Charlie Hebdo editor-in-chief Gėrard Biard explained that the publication’s past caricatures of Islam’s prophet Muhammad were a literary response to violence perpetrated by “Islam fundamentalists,” the “political part of Islam.”  Self-censoring such caricatures would “send the wrong message to people who use violence” – namely, “you are right to kill people, because it works.  People are afraid[.] … You can tell people what to do.”  Concessions are also no guarantee of security; he recalled Algerian journalists facing jihadist threats in the 1990s, stating, “[I]f you speak they kill you; if you don’t speak they kill you.  So speak.”

For Thoret, self-censoring Muhammad would have been the “beginning of the end” for any press freedom as exercised by Charlie Hebdo.  “You will always find someone who will be offended by what you do” and therefore groups besides Muslims would raise other censorship demands.  Yet “humor is a very serious thing,” he said with attribution to Mark Twain(more accurately, Winston Churchill), and a cartoon can sometimes make people think more than an article.  Every intellectual publication like a cartoon manifests a “little victory” for freedom, like the jury acquittal in the 1957 film classic 12 Angry Men.

Biard noted how unique were such “little victories” concerning speech on Islam.  Only Charlie Hebdo and another French publication republished the globally controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2006 after their initial French publication cost the job of France-Soir’s chief editor.  As criticized by Charlie Hebdo’s late editor Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, a chief target and victim of the January attack, Biard noted that the French “press turned its back to us” and “suffered a lack of courage.”  While many publications agreed in principle with the cartoons’ publication, they deferred to security concerns.

As event moderator Robert Ruby from Freedom House noted, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonist Rénald “Luz” Luzier had also joined the ranks of those who would no longer draw Muhammad, stating that he had lost interest in the subject.  Ruby asked whether fear motivated the decision of Luz, a man who escaped death in Charlie Hebdo’s office massacre by a fateful lateness in getting to work.  “I don’t know, maybe he doesn’t think it is worth it,” responded Biard.  He noted how Luz saw immediately after the shootings the bloody corpses of his colleagues lying on the floor with upturned buttocks, images that dominated his drawings in the following days.

Biard rejected criticisms that Charlie Hebdo’s Muhammad caricatures had exhibited prejudice, objections that had caused 145 PEN member writers to condemn its awarding Charlie Hebdo.  “We never published racist cartoons” at Charlie Hebdo, “historically … an anti-racist magazine” whose “DNA … is anti-racism,” he stated.  “We don’t attack weak people; we attack powerful,” he argued, including the powerful political force of Islamism.

Asked from the audience why French law allowed Muhammad satire but prohibited Holocaust denial, he responded that the “difference with the Holocaust is it is a fact.”  “You can mock a symbol, but you cannot deny the dignity of six million men.”  Muhammad satire simply is a part of how “we at Charlie Hebdo are against everything iconic.”

Thoret noted similarly that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons overwhelmingly treated non-Islamic themes.  A recent 10-year review of 523 magazine covers, for example, determined that 485 dealt with political and other matters, while only 38 involved religion, 21 on Christianity and only seven concerning Islam.  Observers who accused the Muhammad caricatures of racism also overlooked a French cartoon tradition of grotesque faces.  In any given case, the “quality or the intelligence of the cartoon” is the “most important criteri[on].”

“Our lives changed, it’s obvious” in the Charlie Hebdo assault, Biard observed; “in half an hour we became a world symbol” out of a small magazine.  Thoret likewise discussed how many cartoonists had previously lived carefree lives but now needed security guards.  Ruby noted a comment by a Le Monde cartoonist to the editor at the center of the Danish cartoons controversy, Flemming Rose, that the Charlie Hebdo attacks are merely the beginning.

Biard expressed feelings of Charlie Hebdo being overwhelmed in its newfound role as a sometimes isolated defender of free speech.  “It’s not our job to be a symbol.  Our job is to make people think and laugh.”  On the other hand, free speech “values belong to everyone and everyone has to stand up for these values,” something requiring more than additional security precautions.  “You must answer violence also by your behavior, the citizens’ behavior,” he stated.  In an era of global jihad threats, it is the “only way that democracy can survive.”

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

Pamela Geller and the hijacking of America

1281
American Thinker, By Larissa Scott, May23, 2015:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the ‘s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

When Muslims Assassinate

danish_cartoon_protest

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

When Muslims assassinate Kafirs who offend Islam, they are following Mohammed’s perfect example.  Any Muslim is permitted to carry out the death sentence, vigilante justice. This is why there was an attempted assassination at Pam Geller’s Garland, TX event.

But what is the perfect Sunna on assassinations? There are five examples of Mohammed ordering people to be murdered because of what they said about him. There was a Jewish poet, an Arab poetess, dancing girls who sang satirical songs, a tribal chief who was planning to fight Mohammed and another Jew who offended Mohammed.

So the next time a Kafir who offends Islam is killed, it is because of Mohammed’s standing orders.

Half of Democrats, A Third of Republicans Want to Ban Hate Speech

screen-shot-2014-04-21-at-2.27.23-pmTruth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, May 21, 2015:

A new poll by YouGov shows just how far toward totalitarianism Americans are slipping:

A’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups.

As Charles C. Cooke notes at National Review’s Corner,

It’s important to note here that “stir up hatred against” does not mean “instruct a crowd to kill” or “explicitly incite violence against.” Both of those things are already illegal under the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg standard. Rather, it is a fancy way of saying “be really mean to.”

Back to YouGov:

Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.

Unlike much of the rest of the developed world… the United States does not make it a criminal offense for people to make statements which encourage hatred of particular groups. For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as “cockroaches.”

Cooke again:

You will note that Hopkins did not threaten African migrants, and nor did she ask her readers to meet her the next day and embark upon a violent crusade. She merely said horrible, uncouth things. In America, she would have been absolutely fine. In England, she can — and may — be prosecuted under the Public Order Act.

Should Americans wish to become more like the British, they would have to do no less than to repeal the First Amendment.

The fact that even more than a third of Republicans would be in favor of repealing the First Amendment in order to criminalize offensive speech is alarming, to put it mildly.

Also see:

AFDI-Free-speech-ad-800x548

Critics of Islam Continue to Face Threats

"All is forgiven. I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

“All is forgiven. I am Charlie.” Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

by IPT News  •  May 19, 2015

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suspended a journalist who received death threats for writing articles critical of Islamist radicalism, according to Le Monde and reported by Daily Mail. In a move that many view as hypocritical, the magazine called columnist Zineb El Rhazoui to a preliminary dismissal hearing.

According to the French-Moroccan writer, Charlie Hebdo‘s management is seeking to punish her for being outspoken about the direction the magazine has taken since the Islamist terrorist attack at the magazine’s office which killed 12 people.

“I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,” Rhazoui told Le Monde.

Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, were subjected to death threats from Twitter accounts claiming affiliation with the Islamic State. Photos of Benaïssi and his workplace were published along with suggestions on how to kill the couple.

Thousands of people on social media expressed their disapproval of the magazine’s action on social media, including other Charlie Hebdo writers, accusing the magazine of blatant hypocrisy.

“…It is nasty and unfair to call a disciplinary meeting for a member of staff who is still suffering incredibly…It is paradoxical that the magazine receives prizes for freedom of expression while disciplining a journalist whose life is under threat,” writer Patrick Pelloux said.

Furthermore, senior Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Renaud Luzier – who drew the front-page cartoon of the prophet Mohammed for the magazine after the terrorist attack – has resigned citing personal reasons. He asserts that his resignation was mainly a result of personal difficulties ensuing after the terrorist attack and the trauma of losing his friends and co-workers. Luzier claims the decision has nothing to do with internal divisions at the magazine following Rhazoui’s suspension.

Meanwhile, a suspected jihadist standing a criminal trial for planning a robbery and possession of firearms is accused of discussing plans to attack Dutch politician Geert Wilders. According to Dutch intelligence, the suspect returned from fighting in Syria’s civil war.

These developments show that people, from writers to politicians, critical of Islamism and radical extremism continue to be threatened with their lives.

Also see:

Beheaded Christian Doesn’t Regret Faith

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Daily Caller, by Pete Hoekstra, May 15, 2015:

Only among the U.S. media would such a headline make sense.

Radical Islamist terrorists armed with AK-47s attacked hundreds of people at an event in Garland, Texas that sponsored a Muhammad cartoon exhibit and contest. The Associated Press headline that ran on countless websites and newspapers across the country declared: “Activist: No regrets about cartoon contest ended by gunfire.”

What’s next? “No apologies from Jews for inciting Holocaust?” or “No remorse from child aboard bus when bomb exploded?” Since when did it become acceptable, no less headline news, to blame the victim?

Apparently it started when violent Islamists and their sympathizers declared anyone who disagrees with them as Islamophobes subject to death for violating Sharia law. It became much safer and more politically correct to accept their bullying rather than to challenge them.

Numerous moralizing lecturers in the fourth estate piled on free speech activist and writer Pamela Geller for exercising her First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by hosting the event in Texas.

The Washington Post ran with the headline “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

The New York Times editorialized that Geller “achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.”

Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News Channel program: “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid.” He added that Geller hurts the cause of attracting the support of moderate Muslims in the war against jihadists in countries like Jordan and Egypt. Muslims in those countries are already fighting a life and death battle against ISIS and al Qaida, and let’s not be so vain to think that it’s because of whether or not they like us. They do it to stay alive and preserve their children’s future.

Do O’Reilly and writers at the AP, The Washington Post and The New York Times still think that appeasing fanatical jihadists will lessen their hatred of the West and stop them from murdering innocent men, women and children of different faiths?

Been there, done that. It didn’t work.

President Obama tried it in Cairo not too long after his inauguration in 2009. With the Muslim Brotherhood invited to sit in the front row, he told his audience that “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

The administration then banned the use of such words as “Islamic terror” from the White House in a see no evil, hear no evil approach to the building threat.

The outcome? Islamist terrorists have since turned Libya into a chaotic lawless state, ISIS continues to control large swaths of Iraq and Syria, al Qaida owns the Arabian Peninsula, and individuals and groups worldwide – including within the United States – are pledging solidarity with ISIS.

It’s grand Theatre of the Absurd when elites target the First Amendment rights of fellow citizens as opposed to condemning a movement that sees mass murder as a rational response to objectionable caricatures.

Also see:

VIDEO: Geert Wilders on Hannity

P1040295

By Pamela Geller, May 13, 2015:

Watch. this. now.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, was the keynote speaker at our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. He discussed with Sean Hannity his desire to plan to follow up on our event with a “Draw Muhammad” contest in the Dutch Parliament at The Hague.

Sean Hannity said last night that champions of free speech are refusing to back down after being accused of provoking radical Islamists to attack the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas.

One of the speakers at that event, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, is planning to stage a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

Hannity asked Wilders if he is anti-Islam

“Well, I’m certainly not anti-Muslim, but indeed I believe Islam is a threat to our civilization,” Wilders replied. “I believe that our country is based on values that are based on Christianity and Judaism, and that Islam is really a threat to our freedom.”

Wilders explained why people are offended by a Muhammad cartoon.

“For more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, Muhammad is a kind of role model, he’s an example,” he stated. “That’s why every time somebody depicts or mocks Muhammad, Muslims get angry.”

In responding to a question Hannity asked about Muhammad’s life, Wilders said that Muhammad was a “terrorist.”

“He’s certainly not a role model to so many Muslims,” Wilders said. “Muhammad, as a matter of fact, was a terrorist. He was a warmonger. He beheaded Jewish tribes … I believe that if Muhammad would be alive today, he would be tried and convicted of terrorism.”

Wilders remarked that people shouldn’t be intimidated by Muslims who are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.

“If our reaction is that we should not make more cartoons or not accept them, the terrorists will win,” Wilders said. “So we have to give them a signal that terrorism does not win. We will not be intimidated.”

He added that is the reason why he presented the idea of a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

“I want the Dutch Parliament to expose exactly the same exhibit—not to provoke, but to show the terrorists that if you make an attack, we will give you 10 times more cartoons of Muhammad,” Wilders stated.

Watch more in the video above.

***

Also see Pamela Geller’s archives: http://pamelageller.com/category/afdi/afdi-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest/

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

Islamists Hack Another Secular Writer to Death in Bangladesh

Ananta Bijoy Das

Ananta Bijoy Das

by IPT News  •  May 12, 2015

For the third time this year, Islamist radicals in Bangladesh hacked a secular writer to death in public.

Four masked men chased down Ananta Bijoy Das Tuesday morning as Das left his home in Sylhet. They hacked him with machetes after running him down.

“Ananta died on the spot,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Kamrul Hasan told theDaily Star. “Ananta was an organiser of local progressive publication outlet Jukti (logic) and a relentless writer on science.”

Das was 31.

On March 30, Oyasiqur Rahman Babu, 27, was murdered on his way to work. Like Das, Babu’s writings criticized religious fundamentalism.

Roy an BabuOn Feb. 26, American citizen Avijit Roy was killed, and his wife severely injured, when attackers jumped them at a book fair. Roy had been threatened for his writings against religion, including his statement that religious extremism is like a virus: “if allowed to spread [it] will wreak havoc on society in epidemic proportions.”

An al-Qaida branch claimed credit for Roy and Babu’s murders.

A fourth secular activist, Ahmed Rajib Haider, was attacked and killed in February 2013.

Das, Babu and Roy were part of a movement, Shahbag, which advocated the death penalty for Islamist leaders convicted for murders and other attacks at the end of the 1971 war that saw Bangladesh break away from Pakistan.

An official with the Islamic Circle of North America, Ashrafuzzman Khan, was convicted in October 2013 in connection with the kidnapping and murder of 18 intellectuals at the war’s end. He remains in the United States.

In a posting Monday that turned out to be his last, Das lashed out at police over their failures to stop the attacks on Roy and Babu even though officers were nearby. “Later the police claimed there had apparently been no dereliction of duty. One would love to know what their duty was,” he wrote.

He called them “paper tigers when women were being molested one by one before an audience of thousands at the new year celebrations.” When protests resulted, “the police pounced on them, injuring university students with the butts of their guns and their boots. Here too I was told that the police had not abandoned its responsibility. But I’m very keen to know what the real responsibility of the police is.”

Das, along with Haider, Roy and Babu, died because his opinions were deemed unacceptable to some of Bangladesh’s radical Islamists.

But this is an international phenomenon that shows no sign of waning.

Last week in Texas, two radical Islamists tried to massacre people who attended a cartoon exhibit and contest involving the Muslim prophet Muhammad. And, of course, 12 people were gunned down at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January by two brothers who boasted they had “avenged the prophet” by slaying those who dared to publish his caricature.

See Something, Say Something about Jihad

sharia1 (1)CSP, May 11, 2015:

Secure Freedom announces the launch of our new CounterJihad campaign with an ad calling for free people everywhere to speak their minds about the encroachment of Islamic law, known as shariah.

With jihadists on the march worldwide – including here – truth-tellers about Islam’s anti-constitutional shariah doctrine should be commended, not slandered.

Two armed jihadists were shot dead before they could murder proponents of free speech meeting in Garland, Texas. After the attack, some commentators have taken to blaming its targets, claiming they are “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes” who provoked the Islamic supremacists by drawing pictures of and denouncing their prophet Mohammed.

It is not racism or bigotry, let alone an unfounded fear of Islam that prompts courageous freedom fighters like Pamela Geller and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to defend our civilization against those determined to destroy it. They are willing to challenge a threat to freedom of speech that not just Islamists but others, including Hillary Clinton, insist must be accommodated.

So join the CounterJihad and stand up for the freedoms that make America, and all of our allies in the free world, beacons of liberty to oppressed people everywhere.

CounterJihad is a combination of education, advocacy and action designed to stop the spread of The Global Jihad Movement (GJM). Muslims declared holy war, jihad, on non-believers long ago. They have been killing, enslaving, torturing and putting more territory under their dominion every day. It is long overdue for the free world to stand up and fight back.

We call our enemy the Global Jihad Movement because regardless of how they name themselves, they share a common goal: The global supremacy of Islam. We advocate harnessing the full range of powers of the United States and our allies including Military, Diplomatic, Intelligence, Cyber and Economic forces. We must also champion and promote the power of our culture which values individual liberty and government by man-made, not religious law.

The GJM comprises two identifiable and mutually-supporting lines of endeavor: Violent Jihad and Civilization Jihad.

Violent Jihadists include al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and any of their ideological comrades who fly the black flag of jihad. The Violent Jihadists ply their deadly trade all around the world. The alliance between IS and Boko Haram creates a trans-continental Caliphate in the Middle East and Africa and it is expanding daily.

They are Hostis Humani Generis, Enemies of all Mankind, and we must defeat them.

Civilization Jihadists, as they refer to themselves, use a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to denote a stealthy jihad in its pre-violent stage of societal infiltration. They include the MB and its many associated organizations and front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others who follow the same ideology as the violent ones, but use covert means to advance it.

The Civilization Jihadists comprise perhaps an even more dangerous threat to US national security interests, culture. They convert and indoctrinate new generations to become the next violent jihadists, and they finance, and provide political cover for their violent brethren. They infiltrate in seemingly innocuous ways and use our own freedoms to advance their agenda of Shariah law and the eventual creation of Islamic states where democracies now exist.

Victory over the Civilization Jihadists requires government and citizens working together to counter the threat.

  • We must counter their lawfare by enshrining the supremacy of US laws
  • We must end government outreach to jihadist groups of all types
  • We must declare the Muslim Brotherhood, and affiliates, terrorist groups
  • We must investigate and close radical mosques that preach jihad
  • We must stop the infiltration of groups that promote Shariah

Join us in the CounterJihad to Secure Freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

The lengths we will go to for free speech

20150504001128911016-original
CSP, by Clare Lopez, May 11, 2015:

Beyond the sheer act of defiance in the face of tyranny that was the recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX, a deeper benefit is emerging: the swirl of controversy that erupted after two Muslim terrorists drove all the way to Texas from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Cultural Center of Phoenix, intending to commit mass murder, is forcing us to consider what exactly it means to ‘defend free speech.’ And what we want it to mean…or are ready to accept that it should mean. Most Americans have no trouble defending the First Amendment – in the abstract, anyway. But now that defending the right to defy Islamic blasphemy laws comes with specifics like an art contest, with actual drawings of Muhammad, and prize money offered by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and event organizers like AFDI co-founders Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and death threats—now some aren’t quite so sure anymore that this is the kind of free speech or these exactly are the free speech champions they had in mind.

So, there are the artists and cartoonists who draw images of Muhammad: the Albanian-born ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin (who won the AFDI contest), the Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And there is the Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders, who made a film that criticized shariah-sanctioned abuse of women. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard is a free speech advocate who has been critical of Islam, too. These (and many more, including Americans who increasingly are labeled ‘Islamophobes’) are the champions of free speech who actually create the material shariah would label ‘blasphemous’ (essentially for daring simply to depict Muhammad in an image or criticize anything about Islam at all). Many have been targeted for death by the enforcers of shariah.

Then there is the Jyllands-Posten Danish newspaper that published Westergaard’s drawings and the satirical Parisian magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that generally takes swipes at everyone and everything, including Islam. These and a host of online sites (including this one) posted the articles and cartoons and images, thereby incurring the murderous wrath of shariah-adherent Muslims, whose doctrine and law explicitly enjoin them to attack such media and their staffs with intent to kill.

And finally, there are those like Pamela Geller who display and encourage and feature such material, whether in city bus ads, transit stations, or at the recent contest in Garland, TX.

The question that so many of the wobbly set now seem to be stumbling over is, At which point in the free speech process – creation, publication, or public promotion – does it become ‘provocation’ that ‘goes too far’? Does it ever? Is it even possible for speech to be ‘too free’—in America? Why is the abstract defense of free speech and the First Amendment so laudable, but when the abstract takes form in ways that boldly challenge Islam’s attempts to silence those who criticize, when the abstract is personified in a Fawstin, a Geller, Hedegaard, Vilks, Westergaard, or Wilders, then it’s called ‘incitement’ that ought to be toned down? If not their statements, then what would be an acceptable demonstration of defiance against Islam’s blasphemy codes? That is, if defiance itself isn’t just a bit too much these days…

The point is that unless we champion and defend the actual people who are the physical embodiment of those abstract principles we all claim to cherish, the principles won’t stand a chance.

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBosch Fawstin’s winning drawing of Muhammad was neither crude, nor grotesque, nor tasteless. It was, in fact, the perfect depiction of the principle at the center of contention: the right to freedom of artistic expression. If the conquered civilizations of the Afghan Buddhists, Byzantium, Middle East Christianity and Judaism, Hindus, and Persians teach us anything, it must be that even the most determined defense over a span of centuries may not suffice to save a people targeted by Islam; anything less, never mind actual passivity in the face of jihad aggression, will lead inevitably to subjugation.

Some would say that Pamela Geller pushes the edges of the envelope. To the extent that this is true, it is because it is always out at the edges, at the frontiers, that the ghazi – the warriors of Islam – have probed and tested the defenses of their targets for any weakness. If no one confronts them at the frontier, they push onward, inward, to the soft centers of society. Those hardy defenders who hold firm out there on the frontiers stand between civilization and barbarism.

By all means, we need to have this discussion. Long overdue, actually. But let us understand that the debate is not about the principle of free speech, per se: we agree on that pretty unanimously. Rather, it’s about how far we are willing to go to support those who put that principle into action against an enemy that would shut it down completely if not stopped.

Also see:

SNL Sketch Effectively Mocks Fear of Drawing Mohammed

draw mohammedCSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 11, 2015:

Last Saturday, Saturday Night Live (SNL) did a skit that addressed the controversy stemming from the Garland, Texas “draw Mohammed” contest.
The sketch was a gameshow based on the game Pictionary in which one contestant is instructed to draw something and his teammate tries to guess what the drawing is.  Two contestants were so afraid when asked to draw “The Prophet Mohammed” that they left the paper blank.  Another teammate ultimately guesses what the drawing was supposed to be based on their fear of drawing it.

SNL deserves credit for taking on how the global Jihad movement is trying to use violence to curtail free speech.  This sketch broke with the mainstream media’s focus on attacking Pamela Geller, the sponsor of the “draw Mohammed” contest, for holding an event it claims was too provocative and “hate speech.”  By running a sketch in which the characters feared for their lives if they drew Mohammed, SNL portrayed what this controversy is really about and a side of it that some Americans probably had not heard about.

Although it conveyed an important message, the SNL sketch was cautious.  Clearly the show’s producers and actors were afraid to draw Mohammed and found a way to satirize this story without doing so.  While this is a shortcoming, the sketch effectively depicted the threat to free speech by the global Jihad movement and may help encourage more discussion about this threat.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,702 other followers

%d bloggers like this: