Judicial Watch: Newly Released Documents Confirm White House Officials Set Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Response

NATO Summit Lisbon 2010 - Day 1Judicial Watch, June 29, 2015:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council.  The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on June 13, 2014, and subsequently a lawsuit on September 4, 2014, seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

A September 11, 2012, email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack.  Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.”

Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”

Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.”

An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”

The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.”  The next line is redacted.  The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.

On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”

The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack.  The email has the subject line:  “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:

I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence.  In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …

The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response.  The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims.  The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.”  The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.

The State Department withheld communications on September 12, 2012, between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack.  At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.

The State Department also disclosed a document, dated September 13, 2012, entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.”  This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack.  The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].”  The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video.  The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”

The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.  The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified.  Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.”  The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than twelve years from now.

Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:

OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt].  Have responded “not to our knowledge.”

The State Department referred Judicial Watch to documents in the batch of 55,000 emails allegedly turned over by Hillary Clinton and searched in response to the court order in this lawsuit.  These emails were published on the State Department’s web site, but are also available here.  In addition, the State Department produced new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails.  In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?”

Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)

On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an Independent.co.uk news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.”  The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted.  The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

The documents include an email by White House operative Ben Rhodes sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” This “prep” was for Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her appearances on Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack and deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to the video.

The email listed as one of the administration’s key talking points:

“Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech.  It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people.  All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”

A proper edit of the OSCE meeting on security and free speech from May 2015

woman-silenced.preview

Update: Gates of Vienna has the background information on the OSCE session:

The OSCE Wants to Enforce the OIC Narrative

A few days ago we posted video excerpts from one of the OSCE sessions in Vienna last month. Since then Vlad has been working on a slightly longer version using the same material. The video below includes additional comments made by the panelists, and more detailed annotations.

These excerpts were recorded at the OSCE Security Days at the Hofburg, Vienna, on May 21, 2015. The event was the Night Owl Session: “How can the media help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism?” It was an official OSCE forum, with opening and closing remarks by OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier.

The BPE/ICLA team at OSCE included Henrik Ræder Clausen, Stephen Coughlin, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, and Renya Matti.

The panelists, from left to right, were:

  • Victor Khroul, a correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency and Associate Professor at Moscow State University. Rossiya Segodnya is wholly owned by the Russian government, as is MSU.
  • Leila Ghandi, a Moroccan presenter for 2M TV. She is “an award winning TV host journalist, producer, commentator, book author, speaker, photographer and civil society activist.” 68% of 2M TV is owned by the Moroccan government, with the Moroccan royal family owning 20.7%
  • Randa Habib, the director of the bureau of Agence France-Presse (AFP) in Amman, Jordan.
  • Dunja Mijatović, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, from Bosnia
  • Simon Haselock, Albany Associates

So the panel consisted of a Russian, a Moroccan, a Jordanian, a Bosnian, and a Briton. No Poles. No Danes. No Czechs. No Italians. No one from a sensible European country.

It seems reasonable to assume that the Russian gentleman represents the Russian government. The three women hail from three Muslim countries that do not enforce the wearing of hijab. But are they otherwise representing the interests of the Ummah? Based on the contributions of Ms. Ghandi and Ms. Habib to the discussion about truth vs. “hate speech”, it is at least plausible that they are.

Simon Haselock is a promoter of “global governance”, UN-style. He is described as a “pioneer in media intervention in post-conflict countries” — that is, he helps the United Nations manage the news flow in areas where the “international community” has discovered a compelling interest.

Take, for example this article from 2003 discussing his role in Bosnia:

In Sarajevo, [Simon] Haselock served as media spokesman for the Office of the High Representative, the European agency governing the Bosnians in the aftermath of the Dayton Agreement. In Kosovo, he became media commissioner.

The problem, in a nutshell: He’s British, and holds to a European view of how media should work, in terms of public responsibility, free expression, libel law, and similar issues. Haselock and others like him attempted to impose a European media regime on the Bosnian and Kosovar journalists, and there is every indication the same effort will be made in Iraq.

Put simply, this means that a governmental body will supervise media. It has already been reported that Haselock has written a proposal for control of broadcast and print media, including the establishment of state electronic media and the appointment of a board that will handle “complaints about media excesses” and levy fines for misconduct. These are exactly, down to the boilerplate vocabulary, the policies that were tried in Sarajevo and Prishtina. They failed miserably, and sometimes grotesquely.

IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, the stated mission of foreign media administrators embodied pure political correctness: It was to separate media from nationalist self-expression and political parties. This meant that although Bosnian Muslims felt they had survived a deliberate attempt at genocide, and while Serbs and Croats felt they had legitimate communal demands to put forward, their journalists were forbidden from dealing with these topics. The argument of the “internationals,” as the foreigners in the Balkans love to style themselves, was that any such commentary would constitute hate speech and would incite further violence.

Same shtick, different decade.

In his remarks, Mr. Haselock references non-Islamic terror groups that sprang from European roots. What he does not mention is that we were allowed to call them by the names they called themselves. We called them the “Red Brigades”, the “Bader-Meinhof Group” [Red Army Faction], and the “Irish Republican Army”, and we identified their ideology at the same time — which is what allowed us to counter them.

The rules are different for any group that has “Islam” and “Muslim” in its name. In such cases we are told not use the name that the group uses for itself. We must instead identify it by a pseudonym invented by Simon Haselock or some other “media administrator”. And we must never, ever talk about Islamic ideology or sharia.

Mr. Haselock refers to “the narrative we are offering”. But whose universal values does such a narrative enforce? And against whom? And who decides?

In essence, the UN establishes narratives that are to be enforced against national identities as a requirement. Everyone on the OSCE panel supports these narratives and their enforcement.

By Vlad Tepes, June 26, 2015:

This is the third edit of this video although the second one was only published for an hour or so, and deleted.

The reason for so much effort on it, is that two things make it very important that needed to be underlined in the video.

1. That this meeting and these panelists matter. They affect our lives

2. That their reasoning ranges from what appears to be a dedicated pursuance of an Alinksy narrative for the destruction of nation states world wide, to simple political correct naiveté at best.

I had the opportunity to sit down and go over it with one of the participants fully and this is the result. I hope you will all feel it is worth ploughing through for a second (and for a few of you, a third) time

Entire session:

 

AFDI Rolls Out New Free Speech Billboard Campaign Featuring Muhammad Cartoon

AFDI-billboard-640x480Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, June 8, 2015:

The human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has announced a new billboard campaign to defend freedom of speech and stand up to violent intimidation.

AFDI President Pamela Geller said in a statement: “Because the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Sharia without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we are running a billboard ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.”

The new free speech campaign went up on 100 billboards today in St. Louis.

Geller explained: “Drawing Muhammad is not illegal under American law, but only under Islamic law. Violence that arises over the cartoons is solely the responsibility of the Islamic jihadists who perpetrate it. Either America will stand now against attempts to suppress the freedom of speech by violence, or will submit and give the violent the signal that we can be silenced by threats and murder.”

“Speech that is offensive to some must not be curtailed, but protected (i.e., the Mohammed cartoons). Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. If speech that offends a group is outlawed, that group has absolute power, and a free society is destroyed. A group that cannot be criticized cannot be opposed. It can work its will no matter what it is, and no one will be able to say anything to stop it.”

Geller added: “There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence. It is within the established American tradition of satire. If America surrenders on this point, the freedom of speech is a relic of history.”

AFDI Vice President Robert Spencer stated: “Many people on both the Left and the Right are saying that we should do nothing to provoke Islamic fundamentalism. The immediate answer would seem to be that we should do nothing to provoke violent jihadis, that the prudent thing to do would be to avoid doing things that anger them. But if we did that, they would not they stop coming at us. Last September, an Islamic State spokesman boasted: ‘We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah, the Exalted. This is His promise to us; He is glorified and He does not fail in His promise. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.’

In light of that, what is the point of asking whether or not we should provoke them? They’re already provoked. A more useful question now is whether it is really productive and helpful to signal to them that we will acquiesce to their threats of violence and change our behavior accordingly, or whether we will instead signal to them that their violent threats are not going to frighten us into submission.”

The ads have been submitted to run on billboards in the St. Louis area. The next city will be going up tomorrow.

AFDI stands for:

  • The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
  • The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
  • The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Join the AFDI Facebook page here.

Egypt Proposes ‘International Law to Criminalize Contempt of Religion’

Reuters

Reuters

Breitbart, by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D, June 8, 2015:

On Sunday, Egypt’s minister for Religious Endowments, Mohamed Mokhtar Gomaa, called for an “international law to criminalize contempt of religion,” which would make it a crime to publish articles or cartoons showing disdain or ridicule of religions.

Contempt of religion is already illegal in Egypt, with a punishment of between six months and five years in prison and a fine of 500 to 1,000 Egyptian pounds. In recent years, many people have been arrested on this charge and faced trial. As recently as last week, an Islamic show host was sentenced to prison in absentia for accusations of being in contempt of religion.

A Ministry official announced the proposal in Gomaa’s name during a conference for world religious leaders in Kazakhstan this weekend.

Though Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has not publicly weighed in on the proposal, he has been calling upon Egypt’s Islamic institutions, including Al-Azhar, the Ministry of Religious Endowments, and Dar Al-Iftaa to “renew religious discourse” since early this year.

The president has emphasized the importance of “correcting religious speech so that it is in accordance with the tolerant Islamic teachings,” as well as insisting that it “eliminate sectarian disputes and confront extremism and militancy.”

This is not the first time such a proposal has been made. Last January, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, the Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars called for protection for “prophets” and urged Islamic countries to submit a draft law to the UN, outlawing defamation of religions. The union said the UN should then issue a “law criminalizing contempt of religions and the prophets and all the holy sites.”

Though Gomaa has said he believes such an international law should criminalize contempt of religion universally, “without any discrimination,” skeptics are already wondering whether a statute of this sort would not invite selective enforcement based on personal beliefs.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, a legal organization, warned that under such a law, “anyone could be presented to court” for publishing an article, images or any material on any religion if the opinion expressed is different from that of the ruling faction.

The warning is not an exercise in hyperbole. Complaints of selective enforcement of Mohamed Mokhtar Gomaa are a regular occurrence in countries that still have them, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and even Egypt itself.

According to Paul Marshall of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, while Islam is zealously guarded, people publicly insult Judaism and its adherents “everyday and every way in Egypt,” without anyone being called to task under the contempt of religion law.

Thus, while the Egyptian law is, in theory, meant to discourage people from offending people’s religious sensitivities, it is, instead, used to stifle free speech and intimidate those who do not subscribe to the standard.

More importantly, the principles of freedom of speech and of the press are meant not only to protect the speech of individuals with whom we agree, but above all, to protect those with whom we do not agree.

A healthy criticism of religion, like criticism of politics and culture, is a hallmark of a free society. All freedoms can be abused, but their abuse does not negate their value or the wisdom of defending them.

Also see:

UK’s Pat Condell Warns America Is Losing Free Speech

truth_is_the_new_hate_speechTruth Revolt, by Trey Sanchez, June 8, 2015:

British atheist writer and comedian Pat Condell’s latest YouTube video targets American progressives who seek to sabotage the First Amendment in a desire to criminalize speech they deem offensive.

With his tongue planted firmly in cheek, Condell delivers a scathing, though humorous, rebuke of Americans who are sitting on the sidelines watching their fundamental birthright being purged before their very eyes in the name of progress. His British perspective is unique as he admits his home country has long since bullied the right to free speech out of its citizens.

“The progressive tide is coming in, America, and it’s looking irreversible,” he warns. “Not least because the next generation is being carefully programmed right now by a progressive educational establishment to hold the First Amendment and all it represents in morally superior contempt.”

Though many of his videos are blows against liberal government, a great bulk of Condell’s offerings have targeted Islam and religion in general, including Christianity. Many have been offended by Condell’s words and many have leveled threats. Yet, Condell continues to exercise what little freedom he has left via these mini-episodes of free speech with a perspective perhaps only one from across the pond could truly understand. That is perhaps why his warning to America is so imperative:

You see, what you need to understand, America, is that feelings are the new truth, and truth is the new blasphemy in this brave new progressive world of ours. (I’m sorry, did I say brave? I meant cowardly, of course.)

To this mentality, the First Amendment isn’t simply an inconvenience, or an obstacle to be overcome. It’s a crime against humanity.

So the days of that pesky, troublesome First Amendment are clearly numbered, folks. And when you think of all the trouble it has caused, you can’t say that’s a bad thing. Well, you can now, obviously, but not for long.

CNN Interviews Pamela Geller

CGXKDHVW0AEV_6kCenter for Security Policy, June 4, 2015:

Freedom fighter Pamela Geller was reportedly the target of a second murderous plot at the hands of jihadists incubated in shariah-adherent mosques in America.  Her interview with Erin Burnett of CNN yesterday was must-see TV — both for Ms. Geller’s unwavering and courageous determination to stand up for liberty in the face of Islamic supremacists’ efforts to snuff it here and globally, and for the latest, appalling example of media submission to those efforts provided by Ms. Burnett.

And Robert Spencer was also interviewed:

William Kilpatrick: ‘How to Alienate Moderate Muslims’

Jihad Watch, JUNE 1, 2015, BY RALPH SIDWAY:

“If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting… Why should he stick his neck out?”

William Kilpatrick makes a compelling case for resisting encroaching Islamization and the creeping advance of sharia culture in America.

How to Alienate Moderate Muslims

by William Kilpatrick, Crisis Magazine — May 26, 2015

GarlandTX-muhammed-sword-winnerThe recent “draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas not only drew fire from two armed jihadists, it also drew fire from Christian leaders and media critics. One of the chief objections was that events of this type will alienate moderate Muslims and possibly drive them into the radical camp.

It can just as easily be argued, however, that caving on the cartoon issue is more likely to result in a defection of moderate Muslims than the drawings themselves. And caving seems to be the order of the day. The Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest has been roundly criticized not only by the usual suspects in the liberal media but also by conservative journalists and conservative religious leaders such as Franklin Graham. In general, the critics say that free speech is a wonderful thing, but that it should never be used to insult what is most sacred to others.

When Franklin Graham registers his disapproval, it’s undoubtedly because he genuinely believes that it’s wrong to mock another person’s deeply held faith. On the other hand, when secular opinion-makers voice the same concern, it’s probably because they are genuinely afraid. Any moderately informed moderate Muslim knows that secular pundits have no problem if someone mocks the things held sacred by Catholics or Mormons [or Orthodox!]. He will understand that what’s at issue is not whether religion is insulted, but whether Islam is insulted. And, if the most powerful players in the media are afraid of Islam, why wouldn’t he be?

If the moderate Muslim was inclined to resist the radicals, he will be less likely to do so if he looks around and notices that no one else is resisting, except for a handful of people whom the media has labeled as “haters.” Why should he stick his neck out? If the supposed guardians of free speech who are relatively safe from retaliation nevertheless bow to Islamic law, then prudence suggests that he do the same. The constant kowtowing to Islamic demands has the result of putting increased pressure on the moderate Muslim to do some kowtowing of his own. He won’t necessarily join forces with the jihadists, but neither will he do much to oppose them.

One of the ways that the ever-helpful mainstream media is helping the public come to the “right” conclusion about the Garland event is by neglecting to say much about the context surrounding it. Three months before the cartoon contest, Islamic activist groups staged a “Stand with the Prophet” rally in Garland calling for restrictions on speech that is offensive to Islam. It was held in the same room in the same conference center. So the Muhammad art exhibit didn’t pop up out of nowhere. It was a response to the earlier event.

The cartoon contest is best understood not as a gratuitous provocation of Muslims, but as a wake-up call to non-Muslims. It was meant, in part, to show just how far down the road to capitulation we have gone. If we have to abide by Islam’s rules about drawing Muhammad, we may be further down the road than most realize.

Where’s the line at which Americans will take their stand against encroaching Islamization? Judging by the media reaction to the Garland event, the right to robustly criticize the prophet is a line too far. What then? Will Americans draw the line when Muslims request that the sculpture of Muhammad be removed from the Supreme Court chamber? Probably not. Why make a fuss? How about demands for sharia law courts? I’m guessing that many Americans won’t find it difficult to convince themselves that Muslims should be allowed to settle disputes among themselves in their own courts of law. Burqas on buses? Compulsory courses on Islam? Court imposed fines for critics of Islam? All along the road to complete sharia compliance there will be numerous places where one might draw the line—and numerous reasons why it will be deemed prudent not to.

Islam is a religion that respects strength. As Osama bin Laden famously said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” This is not simply the idiosyncratic view of one extremist. As Lee Smith writes in The Strong Horse, it “represents the political and social norm” of the Middle-East. And of much of the rest of the Muslim world, as well. When Muslims view the controversy surrounding the cartoon event, they look upon it not as a contest between the forces of tolerance against the forces of “hateful” provocateurs, but as a contest of Islam against non-Islam. The Muhammad cartoon exhibit was a battle in a campaign to see whether or not Islam will dominate. The event organizers understand that. And so do most Muslims.

Many Americans think that if the contest organizers lose the opinion wars, then pluralism is the winner. Most Muslims will look at the issue in a different way. A defeat for the organizers makes it more likely that there will, indeed, be no future for those who slander the prophet of Islam. And that means not much of a future for those moderate Muslims who have only a lukewarm regard for the prophet.

The craven reaction to the cartoon incident comes on top of a number of other Western capitulations to sharia culture, if not always to sharia law. In view of these numerous victories, the moderate Muslim will reasonably conclude that militant Islam is the strong horse. When he places his bets for a secure future for himself and his family, he will place them on the side that looks to be the winning side.

If the citizens of the West are interested in keeping moderate Muslims moderate, they had better start showing more backbone when it comes to defending their freedoms. Many American Muslims no doubt hope that they can continue to live in a sharia-free society. But if their fellow Americans continue to kick the can down the road, it will become increasingly dangerous for them to express that hope. The surest way to push moderate Muslims into the arms of the radicals is to signal to them that if they resist sharia, they’re on their own—they can expect little sympathy and even less in the way of government protection. The response to the cartoon controversy suggests that no one will cover your back if you stand up to extremists. After all, it will be argued, people who won’t conform to Islamic norms are just asking for trouble.

Mary, Muhammad, and Hypocritical Media Dhimmitude, From The New York Times, to Fox News

By Andrew Bostom, May 30, 2015:

Clay Waters of Newsbusters (h/t Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch) underscores the rank “free expression” hypocrisy, and sheer dhimmitude, of the New York Times, resplendent once again, in its Thursday, May 28, 2015 “Arts” section. A prominent photographic reproduction of the 1996 Ofili painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary”, which accompanied the story about its sale, included an accuratedescription of the painting’s contents. The Times report also made a rathercontemptuous assessment of then New York Mayor Giuliani’s reaction to Ofili’s deliberately insulting work, an unabashed “artistic” exercise in scatology and pornography.

The Australian collector David Walsh is selling Chris Ofili’s 1996 painting “The Holy Virgin Mary,” which caused a furor when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum in October 1999 as part of Charles Saatchi’s touring “Sensation” exhibition of works by Young British Artists (YBAs). The eight-foot-high depiction of a black Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms [i.e., naked buttocks] from pornographic magazines, outraged religious leaders and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who described Mr. Ofili’s painting and other works in the show as “sick stuff.” Mr. Giuliani’s attempts to close the exhibition by withholding public funds were rejected by a federal judge.

Yet the Times remains steadfast in its refusal to show any drawings of Muhammad, despite their obvious centrality to—wait for it—the news, given the very recent mass murderous Muslim reactions to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in Paris, and the failed attempt at similar jihadist carnage in Garland, Texas. The latter occurred following an educational conference which displayed historical and contemporary Muhammad images, produced by Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, and also included a contextual discussion of Islamic “blasphemy law,”which is antithetical to free speech as enshrined in the first amendment to our U.S. Constitution.

It must be emphasized, however, that The New York Times’ acquiescent dhimmitude, vis-à-vis its self-imposed “ban” on displays of any images of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, is shared uniformly by all our major television media,notably Fox News (see here; here; here; here; and here). The abject dhimmitude of Fox News is particularly egregious given the network’s continuous preening verbal support for free speech, and its history of appropriately condemning the hypocrisy of displaying works like Ofili’s Virgin Mary, but not artistic images of Muhammad.

I have included both the Ofili painting, and. just below it, Muslim “apostate” artist Bosch Fawstin’s drawing of Muhammad—a pure free speech political cartoon, which garnered first prize at the Garland conference exhibition—for juxtaposition.

Any rational, honest, objective human being should discern—and acknowledge—the stark contrast between these images.

How profound is our media dhimmitude that even “alternative” Fox News, by its repeated actions— i.e. refusing to display Fawstin’s sober, thoughtful Muhammad drawing, not Fox’s empty “free speech support” rhetoric—has effectively conflated Ofili’s dung-clotted, pornographic buttocks-collaged Virgin Mary, an “artistic” exercise in gratuitous profanity, with a brave ex-Muslim’s plaintive, non-profane image extolling our bedrock liberty, freedom of expression?

Ofili-Mary-778x1024

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Fox and Friends Calls for Investigation of Phoenix Mosque

mosque-1-copyBy Pamela Geller,May 30, 2015:

I was on Fox and Friends this morning discussing the free speech rally in Phoenix in front of the Garland jihadi’s mosque, where he was a longtime member. Was it investigated? Even after the attack? If not, why not? The mosque lied repeatedly about the jihad members.

—-Simpon’s friend Courtney Lonergan remembers Elton Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere.

“He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque,” Lonergan said. “The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.”

—-when he sought a Muslim wife, Simpson turned to the men in the mosque to find a suitable woman, and his way of earning their respect was to show his devotion to Islam by quoting teachings verbatim….

—Mosque president, Usama Shami, tried to downplay the ties of the two Garland would-be mass-murderers. This included Shami’s claim to the press that neither was a regular member. In fact, Elton “Ibrahim” Simpson had been featured in a mosque fundraising video posted on ICCP’s YouTube channel in 2012 identifying him as a member.

Two other previous mosque attendees — Hassan Abu-Jihaad and Derrick Shareef — are currently in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.

—Mosque president Usama Shami claimed the mosque did not raise money for Elton’s Simpson’s legal defense. But point in fact the  Islamic Community Center of Phoenix posted $100,000 cash bond to release him from custody, Sitton said.

Clearly, the rally expresses the frustration of Americans that government and law enforcement aren’t facing the problem in the mosques squarely, and arent standing for the freedom of speech. They didnt go there to commit violence, but to show that they would not be frightened into silence.

America has a choice now – will we be frightened into silence and sharia submission, or will we stand?

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:

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,745 other followers

%d bloggers like this: