“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBy Mark Steyn, May 9, 2015:

As we mentioned a week ago, I’m none too well at the moment, and it so happens my preferred position in which to write causes me severe pain – which is presumably some kind of not so subtle literary criticism from the Almighty. But I’m back, more or less, with lots to catch up on. There were two big elections in recent days, with dramatic results: in Alberta, the Tories were wiped out; in Scotland, the Labour Party was slaughtered; in England, the Liberals were crushed. Strange times.

I’ll have more to say about the elections in the days ahead, but for now let me offer a whole-hearted good riddance to Ed Miliband, the now departed Labour leader who, in a desperate last-minute pander, offered to “outlaw Islamophobia“. That was the British political establishment’s contribution to a rough couple of weeks for free speech, culminating in the attempted mass murder in Garland, Texas.

That’s what it was, by the way – although you might have difficulty telling that from the news coverage. The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline “Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas“, while the Associated Press went with “Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths“. The media “narrative” of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong – oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH) – and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.

It’ll be a long time before you see “Washington Post Offers No Apology for Attacking Target of Thwarted Attack” or “AP Says It Has No Regrets After Blaming The Victim”. The respectable class in the American media share the same goal as the Islamic fanatics: They want to silence Pam Geller. To be sure, they have a mild disagreement about the means to that end – although even then you get the feeling, as with Garry Trudeau and those dozens of PEN novelists’ reaction to Charlie Hebdo, that the “narrative” wouldn’t change very much if the jihad boys had got luckier and Pam, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and a dozen others were all piled up in the Garland morgue.

If the American press were not so lazy and parochial, they would understand that this was the third Islamic attack on free speech this year – first, Charlie Hebdo in Paris; second, the Lars Vilks event in Copenhagen; and now Texas. The difference in the corpse count is easily explained by a look at the video of the Paris gunmen, or the bullet holes they put in the police car. The French and Texan attackers supposedly had the same kind of weapons, although one should always treat American media reports with a high degree of skepticism when it comes to early identification of “assault weapons” and “AK47s”. Nonetheless, from this reconstruction, it seems clear that the key distinction between the two attacks is that in Paris they knew how to use their guns and in Garland they didn’t. So a very cool 60-year-old local cop with nothing but his service pistol advanced under fire and took down two guys whose heavier firepower managed only to put a bullet in an unarmed security guard’s foot.

The Charlie Hebdo killers had received effective training overseas – as thousands of ISIS recruits with western passports are getting right now. What if the Garland gunmen had been as good as the Paris gunmen? Surely that would be a more interesting question for the somnolent American media than whether some lippy Jewess was asking for it.

As for the free-speech issues, some of us have been around this question for a long time. I wrote a whole book about it:Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West – well worth a read, and I’m happy to autograph it for you. On page 123 I write about Jyllands Posten and the original Motoons:

The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding. According to the chairman of the Danish Liberal Party, a group of Muslim men showed up at a local school looking for the daughter of one of the artists.

When that racket starts, no cartoonist or publisher or editor should have to stand alone. The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists’ heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said, “This Thursday we’re all publishing the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you’d better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all…”

But it didn’t happen.

The only two magazines to stand in solidarity with the Danish cartoonists and republish the Motoons were Charlie Hebdo in Paris and my own magazine in Canada, Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Ezra wound up getting hauled up by some dimestore imam before the ignorant and thuggish Alberta “Human Rights” Commission whose leisurely money-no-object “investigation” consumed years of his life and all his savings. But he was more fortunate than our comrades at Charlie Hebdo: He’s still alive.

In Copenhagen, in Paris, in Garland, what’s more important than the cartoons and the attacks is the reaction of all the polite, respectable people in society, which for a decade now has told those who do not accept the messy, fractious liberties of free peoples that we don’t really believe in them, either, and we’re happy to give them up – quietly, furtively, incrementally, remorselessly – in hopes of a quiet life. Because a small Danish newspaper found itself abandoned and alone, Charlie Hebdojumped in to support them. Because the Charlie Hebdo artists and writers died abandoned and alone, Pamela Geller jumped in to support them. By refusing to share the risk, we are increasing the risk. It’s not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it’s all the nice types – the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: “Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…”

And the minute you hear the “but”, none of the build-up to it matters. A couple of days before Garland, Canadian Liberal MP (and former Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler announced his plan to restore Section 13 – the “hate speech” law under whichMaclean’s and I were dragged before the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and which, as a result of my case, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada. At the time Mr Cotler was fairly torn on the issue. We talked about it briefly at a free-speech event in Ottawa at which he chanced to be present, and he made vaguely supportive murmurings – as he did when we ran into each other a couple of years later in Boston. Mr Cotler is Jewish and, even as European “hate” laws prove utterly useless against the metastasizing open Jew-hate on the Continent, he thinks we should give ’em one more try. He’s more sophisticated than your average But boy, so he uses a three-syllable word:

“Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” said Cotler, who was minister of justice under Paul Martin.

“However…”

Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the “but”, after the “however”. There’s no fine line between “free speech” and “hate speech”: Free speech is hate speech; it’s for the speech you hate – and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don’t have free speech, then you can’t have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is “Allahu Akbar”.

Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I’ve been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things – and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you’re under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you’ve been raised in the “safe space” of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it’s perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what’s the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?

Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom’n’pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it’s easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do – as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.

Do what the parochial hacks of the US media didn’t bother to do, and look at the winning entry in Pam Geller’s competition, which appears at the top of this page. It’s by Bosch Fawstin, an Eisner Award-winning cartoonist and an ex-Muslim of Albanian stock. Like many of the Danish and French cartoons, it’s less about Mohammed than about the prohibition against drawing Mohammed – and the willingness of a small number of Muslims to murder those who do, and a far larger number of Muslims both enthusiastic and quiescent to support those who kill. Mr Fawstin understands the remorseless logic of one-way multiculturalism – that it leads to the de facto universal acceptance of Islamic law. All that “Prophet Mohammed” stuff, now routine even on Fox News. He’s not my prophet, he’s just some dead bloke. But the formulation is now mysteriously standard in western media. Try it the other way round: “Isis News Network, from our Libyan correspondent: Warriors of the Caliphate today announced record attendance numbers for the mass beheading of followers of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…”

On Fox the other day, Bill O’Reilly was hopelessly confused about this issue. He seems to think that Pam Geller’s cartoon competitions will lessen the likelihood of moderate Muslims joining us in the fight against ISIS. Putting aside the fact that there is no fight against ISIS, and insofar as the many Muslim countries in the vast swollen non-existent “60-nation coalition” are going to rouse themselves to join the fight it will be because the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies and the Egyptian military understand it as an existential threat to them, put aside all that and understand that Islamic imperialism has a good-cop-bad-cop game – or hard jihad, soft jihad. The hard jihad is fought via bombings and beheadings and burnings over barren bits of desert and jungle and cave country in the Middle East, Africa and the Hindu Kush. The soft jihad is a suppler enemy fighting for rather more valuable real estate in Europe, Australia and North America, so it uses western shibboleths of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to enfeeble those societies. And it does so very effectively – so that when a British soldier is hacked to death on a London street in broad daylight, you can’t really quite articulate what’s wrong with it; or that, upon the death of the ugly king of a state where Christianity is prohibited, the Christian ministers of Westminster Abbey mourn his passing; or that, when Australians are held siege in a Sydney coffee shop, the reflexive response of progressive persons is to launch a social-media campaign offering to battle Islamophobia by helping Muslims get to work; or that, when violent Muslims stage their first explicit anti-free-speech attack on American soil, everyone thinks the mouthy free-speech broad is the problem. This soft jihad goes on every day of the week, and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even seem to be aware that it exists.

So on the one hand we have Pamela Geller. On the other we have Francine Prose, a former president of PEN and one of those dozens of novelists who’s boycotting the posthumous award to Charlie Hebdo. I’ve never read one of Ms Prose’s books, so this piece by her in The Guardian was my first exposure to her, er, prose:

The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either “for us or against us” in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.

This is a writer? This dessicated language is how Ms Prose deploys the tools of her trade? It isn’t a “narrative”, it’s real life.That’s real blood of real writers all over the Charlie floor – and it’s not all “white European” blood, either: it includes people with names like “Mustapha Ourrad”, Charlie‘s copy editor. Surely he’s a fitting victim for Ms Prose as she goes around “working so tirelessly”? But no. The Prose “narrative” is too simple for complicating factors like blokes called Mustapha for whom the point of living in western societies is to live all the freedom of those societies.

If you make the concessions that Francine Prose and Michael Ondaatje are implicitly demanding, what kind of art remains? There was a big fuss a few weeks ago when Steve Emerson said on Fox News that Birmingham, England was a Muslim no-go zone, and the BBC gleefully mocked him because it’s only 28 per cent Muslim or whatever. That 28 per cent is pretty spectacular in just a couple of generations. How long before it’s 40 or 50 per cent? So, if, circa 2030, you’re a PEN member in Birmingham and you want to write a novel about your turf, it will necessarily involve a consideration of the relationship between an ever more Islamic city and what remains of its non-Islamic elements.

But Islam is telling you that subject’s closed off. Not long after 9/11, some theatre group in Cincinnati announced a play contrasting a Palestinian suicide bomber and the American Jewish girl she killed. Local Muslims complained, and so the production was immediately canceled – because all the arty types who say we need “artists” with the “courage” to “explore” “transgressive” “ideas” fold like a cheap Bedouin tent when it comes to Islam. The Muslim community complained not because the play was anti-Muslim: au contraire, it was almost laughably pro-Palestinian, and the playwright considered the suicide bomber a far more sensitive sympathetic character than her dead Jewish victim.

But that wasn’t the point: the Muslim leaders didn’t care whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, Islam is beyond discussion. End of subject. And so it was.

So what kind of novels will PEN members be able to write in such a world?

Can Islam be made to live with the norms of free societies in which it now nests? Can Islam learn – or be forced – to suck it up the way Mormons, Catholics, Jews and everyone else do? If not, free societies will no longer be free. Pam Geller understands that, and has come up with her response. By contrast, Ed Miliband, Irwin Cotler, Francine Prose, Garry Trudeau and the trendy hipster social-media But boys who just canceled Mr Fawstin’s Facebook account* are surrendering our civilization. They may be more sophisticated, more urbane, more amusing dinner-party guests …but in the end they are trading our liberties.

A final cartoon from Bosch Fawstin:

1281

“Stay quiet and you’ll be okay:” Those were Mohammed Atta’s words to his passengers on 9/11. And they’re what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.

[*His Facebook page is back now.]

Also see:

And more videos have been added to my collection including Jeannine Pirro’s 5/9 great open on free speech but disappointing disrespectful interview of Pamela Geller.

Media Hypocrisy over the “Draw Mohammed” Contest

3022336959

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 7, 2015:

Many media outlets have spent more time condemning Pamela Geller’s “draw Mohammed” contest as unnecessarily provocative and “hate speech” and little time condemning the jihadists who planned to massacre the attendees at the Texas event.

In the 1990s, the mainstream media led by the New York Times took a very different view toward supposed “art” that was offensive to Christians: a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine and a painting of the Virgin Mary that was smeared with elephant dung and surrounded with pornographic images.

In October 1999, when then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani tried to pull funding from the Brooklyn Museum for displaying these works, the New York Times condemned him for engaging in politics and said museums are obliged to challenge the public.   A few days later, New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared Giuliani’s efforts to defund the museum to the Nazi’s 1937 “degenerate art” exposition of modern art.

While the Times championed these works of “art” offensive to Christians and published images of them, it declined to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoon lampooning Mohammed that led to the deadly Paris shootings last January.  The Times also has refused  to publish the winner of Geller’s “draw Mohammed” contest.

Americans can disagree over whether Geller’s event was unnecessarily provocative.  I did not agree with it and would not participate in such an event intended to offend Muslims just as I oppose events and artwork intended to offend Christians.   However, I don’t support violence against anti-Christian art and events since modern society’s response to offensive speech is peaceful protests, not violence.

I remember in 1992 when Sinéad O’Connor, an Irish rock singer, tore in half a photo of Pope John Paul II during a Saturday Night performance.  Due to angry phone calls and letters by viewers, she was never on the show again.  There are many American art museums that will never show the offensive anti-Christian works displayed by the Brooklyn Museum because they would cause reductions in funding from government and private contributors.

That’s how we deal with offensive speech in a free society.

The global jihad movement sees things differently.  It wants messages that it deems offensive to Islam exempted from free speech protections and to murder people who engage such speech.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali can attest that this goes far beyond “draw Mohammed” contests.  Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, fled the Netherlands for the United States in 2007 because of death threats due to her involvement in a film titled Submission on the mistreatment of women in Islamic society.  The film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by jihadist terrorists on November 2, 2004.

There are many others who have been targeted for death because they wrote or drew something jihadists didn’t like.  Salman Rushdie, Lars Vilks, Geert Wilders and others are on ISIS and al Qaeda death lists  This week, ISIS added Pamela Geller to a death list.

The most famous quote on the defense of free speech (often mistakenly attributed to Voltaire but actually written by his biographer, Beatrice Evelyn Hall) is “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”   This is the standard the news media must use in the “draw Mohammed” story.  The press should be aggressively defending free speech rights today just it did in the 1990s when it defended anti-Christian art in New York.  The media cannot let jihadists get away with using violence to weaken our right to free speech and stop piling on Geller for exercising her free speech rights.

Also see:

The Dallas Cartoon Attack and the New Gag Rule

Sky News' camera panned down when a former contributor to Charlie Hebdo tried to show the cover of the first magazine published after the attack.

Sky News’ camera panned down when a former contributor to Charlie Hebdo tried to show the cover of the first magazine published after the attack.

Appeasement of radical Islamists by the mainstream media will merely vitalize them and indubitably encourage future threats.

Clarion Project, BY BILL OZANICK, May 5, 2015:

In 1836, the House of Representatives passed a resolution known as the ‘Gag Rule’ that shelved all petitions relating to slavery without hearing them, thus forbidding open discussion on the issue.

During this time, scores of pro-slavery individuals would reference passages such as, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5) in defense of slavery. John Quincy Adams was one of the few congressmen who were adamant on discussing the issue of slavery.

Using a variation of tactics in attempting to read slavery petitions on the floor of the House, Adams retorted, “Am I gagged or am I not?” when Congress attempted to silence him from reading anti-slavery petitions. Adams understood that open dialogue was imperative in discussing critical issues. The Gag Rule would finally be annulled in 1844.

In the past couple decades, a newer, more subtle “gag rule” has slowly come into effect. This gag has been placed on the mass media by bullies who threaten violent rioting and even murder over cartoon drawings.

The majority of mass media companies have let pusillanimity – in the guise of religious sensitivity – triumph over objective reporting. This has been done on such an outrageous level that I am convinced there will be future college courses focused on the political correctness of our times – how and why it came about – and its nocuous implications.

Earlier this year, the office of Charlie Hedbo was attacked by those who explicitly said they conducted the operation to “avenge the prophet.”  In the wake of this event, the media had feigned solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and claimed that they supported free speech, but they would not even show the cartoons that had prompted such violence.

How is this not relevant to the news story? The Associated Press, CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News and The New York Times all decided to not show the cartoon images. Strangely, The New York Times had no problem showing images of the blood bath at Charlie Hebdo’s office. Apparently this was relevant.

Perhaps the zenith of this distressing cowardice was the interview by Sky News with former Charlie Hebdo contributor, Caroline Fourest (see video below).

Such appeasement will merely vitalize the radical Islamists and indubitably encourage future threats. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali correctly stated after the attack, “The more we oblige, the more we self-censor, the more we appease, the bolder the enemy gets.”

Thus, it should be no surprise that a month after the Charlie Hebdo attack, another terrorist attack followed at a free speech meeting in Copenhagen where a famous (or infamous) cartoonist was in attendance. The attack left two dead and six wounded. Now, two gunmen opened fire at a “Draw Muhammad Contest” outside of Dallas, Texas.

Parents often tell their children that when dealing with a bully, the worst thing one can do is to appease him or her. The best thing one can do is stand up to the bully.

At the moment, Islam is the last mainstream religion where millions of adherents react bellicosely when their religion is ridiculed.

Indeed, we are not far removed from the world-wide protests by Islamists in response to the tacky video that was uploaded to YouTube in 2012 entitled, “The Innocence of Muslims,” where hundreds were injured and more than 50 lives were lost.

Furthermore, it is hard to forget the rioting, burning and vandalizing of embassies by Islamists in response to a Danish newspaper that published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Ultimately, at least 200 people were killed as a result of those protests; a few Muslim countries even recalled their ambassadors from Denmark.

All ideas – religious or not – need to be openly questioned, ridiculed and debated. Any idea – particularly religious – should be able to withstand a few cartoon drawings.

Moreover, no one suffers more from radical Islam than Muslims. If the mainstream media outlets want to help expedite the process of ending such radical ideologies and open room for discussing critical issues, they must not give in to bullies. They must put an end to this current gag rule.

Educating CNN and Fox News About Pamela Geller and the Sharia Assault on Free Speech in Garland, Texas

Fawstin_Mohammad-Contest-Drawing-1-small-1024x814By Andrew Bostom, May 5, 2015:

Today we are getting confirmation (here; here) of potential direct ISIS involvement in the jihad terror attack on a Garland, TX free speech gathering, Sunday May 3, 2015. Mercifully, the jihadist assault-weapons wielding attackers were slain by an intrepid handgun-wielding policeman before they could complete their Sharia (Islamic Law)-compliant act of carnage.

Veteran journalist, author, and brave activist par excellence, Pamela Geller, organized the Garland event which featured artistic cartoon depictions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The conference was assembled in direct defiance of the Sharia’s First Amendment/ free speech-crushing blasphemy law—a form of medieval cum modern Islamic obscurantism, “enforced” by murderous violence, or non-violent coercion.

Geller’s courageous and informative effort (view the full 3-hour event here)—nearly terminated via jihadists desirous of mass-murdering “blasphemous” innocents—has been ignorantly misrepresented not only by the likes of Alisyn Camerota on CNN, but also Martha MacCallum, and even to a lesser extent, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News. More egregiously, neither of these networks have displayed the thoughtful Muhammad cartoon drawn by artist Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim freethinker of Albanian descent, whose depiction (above) was awarded first prize at the free speech exhibition. Indeed, Mr. Fawstin was told specifically not to show his cartoon drawing, prior to his interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren (see my twitter exchanges here, here, and here with Fawstin and Van Susteren).

Sam Sorbo graciously provided me a radio forum to attempt to educate news media talking heads Camerota, MacCallum, Kelly, Van Susteren, and their ilk. Over 13-years after the murderous jihad cataclysm of 9/11/2001, these news intermediaries evidence a woefully deficient understanding of the living Islamic doctrinal and historical basis for behaviors such as the thwarted Garland, TX attack. They are equally oblivious to hard contemporary data on both global, and U.S. Muslim attitudes toward such critically relevant matters as “blasphemy,” as well as what a preeminent, mainstream North American Muslim jurists association opines about “punishment” for criticism of Islam’s prophet. This professional knowledge deficit—a dereliction of journalistic duty—is manifest in their coverage of the free speech event, and/or their interactions with Ms. Geller.

The yawning gaps in Camerota’s, MacCallum’s, Kelly’s, and Van Susteren’s understanding are summarized in the following bullets, and within the Sam Sorbo interview (embedded below), and elaborated here, and here:

  • Muhammad’s prototype behaviors which sanction violent jihadism, non-Muslim (especially Jew)-hatred, misogyny, and lethal attacks on his—and Islam’s—critics.
  • Sharia, and Sharia-based blasphemy law, per Muhammad’s example, and its contemporary manifestations, include: widespread application in Islamic societies; the ominous support for Islamic blasphemy amongst U.S. Muslims—58% rejecting free speech criticism of Islam 45% wanting such “blasphemers” prosecuted, and 12% supporting lethal punishment for “blasphemy”; and sanction, i.e., a formal fatwa (Islamic legal ruling) by the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America that killing blasphemers remains valid for North American Muslims.

Finally, Sam Sorbo and I also discussed the issue of so-called “provocation,” versus rational, informed assessment of Muhammad’s pious Muslim biography, and the intimately related Sharia. This concluding exchange riveted upon demonstrable facts, not wishful, defensive, and accusatory ignorance.

***

See more videos here

Cartoonists are Controversial and Murderers are Moderate

garland1-450x330Frontpage, May 5, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

Controversial, intolerant and provocative. Mainstream media outlets broke out these three words to describe the “Draw the Prophet” contest, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Pamela Geller.

While the police were still checking cars for explosives and attendees waited to be released, CNN called AFDI, rather than the terrorists who attacked a cartoon contest, “intolerant.” Time dubbed the group “controversial.” The Washington Post called the contest, “provocative.”

Many media outlets relied on the expert opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a multi-million dollar mail order scam disguised as a civil rights group, which had listed AFDI as a hate group. Also listed as hate groups were a number of single author blogs, including mine, a brand of gun oil and a bar sign.

The bar sign, which hangs outside a bar seven miles outside Pittsburgh, appears to be made out of metal and plastic. It is reportedly unaware that it is a hate group and has made no plans to take over America.

The SPLC’s inability to conduct even the most elementary fact checking did not stop news networks from inviting its talking head on to suggest that AFDI got “the response that they — in a sense — they are seeking.” Neither CNN nor MSNBC were impolitic enough to mention that no AFDI supporter had used its materials to plan a killing spree, while at least one of SPLC’s supporters had done just that.

But being “controversial” and “provocative” has nothing to do with who is doing the shooting. It’s a media signal that the target shouldn’t be sympathized with. The Family Research Council, which was shot up by a killer using the SPLC’s hate map, is invariably dubbed “intolerant.” The SPLC, which targeted it, is however a “respected civil rights group” which provides maps to respected civil rights gunmen.

A contest in which Bosch Fawstin, an ex-Muslim, drew a cartoon of a genocidal warlord is “controversial” and “provocative,” while the MSA, which has invited Sheikh Khalid Yasin, who has inspired a number of terrorists, including apparently one of the Mohammed contest attackers, is a legitimate organization that is only criticized by controversial, intolerant and provocative Islamophobes.

Khalid Yasin has held such controversial and provocative views as claiming that the US created AIDS, that gays should be stoned to death and that women should be beaten. But the mosques and MSAs that he has appeared at have not been described as controversial, intolerant and provocative for inviting him.

Elton Simpson, the first gunman, attended the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix. The mosque was listed as being controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s North American Islamic Trust front group.

The Muslim Brotherhood holds such controversial and provocative views as “waging Jihad” against American infidels, “raising a Jihadi generation that pursues death” and “destroying the Western civilization from within.” Despite these extremely provocative and intolerant views, the Muslim Brotherhood is usually described by the media as a “moderate” group.

The Brotherhood’s American arm believes in launching a “Grand Jihad” to Islamize America. Its final phase calls for “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation” in the United State.

Some might say this is a slightly more controversial activity than drawing cartoons of a dead warlord.

The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix featured an appearance by Lauren Booth, a convert to Islam employed by Iran, who has been photographed with the leader of Hamas, and holds such controversial and provocative views, as the Boston Marathon bombing being faked and attacks on Jews being justified as “a frustrated backlash.

Some might say Booth’s views are controversial, provocative and intolerant. And that the gunman’s mosque was intolerant for inviting her. But don’t expect the media to call out terrorist intolerance.

Booth came as part of a fundraising effort for the Muslim Legal Fund of America, which funded the defense for Islamic Jihad boss Sami al-Arian and aided some of the terrorists involved in the provocative and controversial Fort Dix terror plot to “kill as many soldiers as possible.”

If the two Mohammed cartoon gunmen had survived, the Muslim Legal Fund of America might be having Lauren Booth spout Jewish conspiracies to fundraise on their behalf.

But if you believe the media, cartoonists are more controversial than killers. A former Muslim sketching a cartoon of Mohammed is bigoted, but justifying attacks on Jews is moderate. Plotting to overthrow the United States and replace it with an Islamic theocracy is right up the alley of your local civil rights group, but a cartoon contest threatens the nation and all of creation by bringing down the wrath of men who spent their time at moderate and Muslim organizations which only occasionally support terrorism.

Cartoons can be provocative, but the only people inspired to kill over them, are killers. No one took a shot at Gary “Punching Up” Trudeau, despite decades of mocking conservatives. None of the assorted arts projects that involve defiling and mocking the sacred symbols of Christianity and Judaism resulted in gunmen in body armor trying to storm a cartoon competition. And yet it keeps happening with Islam.

Satire exposes sociopaths and sociopathic ideologies. And it’s the very attack on the “controversial” and “provocative” contest that shows why exposing them is so important.

Elton Simpson had already been on the radar of the FBI. He should have been in jail, but Judge Mary H. Murguia, a Clinton appointee who has been bandied about as a possible Obama Supreme Court nominee, chose to believe a claim by his public defender that when he was taped talking about Jihad, it might have meant “an internal struggle to maintain faith,” instead of killing non-Muslims.

Simpson had said that Allah loves those who fight non-Muslims, that Jihadists go to paradise and stated, “I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… it’s time to roll.”

But that was just too ambiguous for Judge Murguia, who wrote, “It is true that the Defendant had expressed sympathy and admiration for individuals who “fight” non-Muslims as well as his belief in the establishment of Shariah law, all over the world including in Somalia. What precisely was meant by “fighting” whenever he discussed it, however, was not clear.”

“Neither was what the Defendant meant when he stated he wanted to get to the ‘battlefield’ in Somalia,” she added.

If nothing else, events like these help clarify the question of just what “fighting” non-Muslims involves, and whether it’s an internal struggle to maintain faith or an external struggle waged with assault rifles.

Satire helps expose the idiocy and absurdity of our betters, whether it’s Gary Trudeau or Judge Murguia. Every act of Islamic terror discredits them and their dishonest worldview even further. And they know it.

We cannot fight Islamic terrorism until we deal with it and we cannot deal with it as long as we are burdened by a political establishment that frantically censors any mention of its existence or its agenda.

The two gunmen did not attack the cartoon event simply because they were offended, but because they believed that their religion gave them a mandate to impose Islamic law on Americans. Until we deal with this supremacist reality, any effort to fight Islamic terrorists will be futile and will ultimately fail.

The Mohammed cartoons are so vital because they expose the theocracy at the heart of Islamic terrorism. When Muslim terrorists attack cartoonists, they’re not fighting our foreign policy; they are killing and dying to impose the foreign policy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous daughter groups, such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and ISIS, on us.

The controversial and provocative cartoonists go into battle with pencils in their hands. The terrorists come with body armor and assault rifles. This clash is what real political dissent looks like.

The cartoonists believe in the controversial, intolerant and provocative idea that America should not be a theocracy. But the only people who should be provoked by that provocative idea are the Jihadists who want to impose a theocracy on America and the useful idiots lying and denying on their behalf.

Lawsuit Alleges Sexism, Anti-Semitism by Al Jazeera America Official

A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York on Aug. 20, 2013. Reuters

A man works at a desk in the Al Jazeera America broadcast center in New York on Aug. 20, 2013. Reuters

by IPT News  •  Apr 29, 2015

A senior Al Jazeera America manager is facing serious allegations of sexist and anti-Semitic discrimination after an employee filed suit Tuesday for wrongful termination.

Matthew Luke is seeking $15 million in damages from the Qatar-owned network. The complaint filed in New York state court accuses Osman Mahmud of sexist discrimination, such as removing female employees from projects and excluding women from emails and meetings related to their assignments. Mahmud also allegedly made anti-American and anti-Semitic comments, such as “whoever supports Israel should die a fiery death in hell.”

According to the lawsuit, Luke was fired 10 days after filing a report regarding Mahmud’s behavior to Al Jazeera’s HR department.

Mahmud denied the allegations in an interview with the Washington Post.

Among the other claims, Mahmud ordered a senior news official to replace a photographer, an Israeli national, with a Palestinian who was less qualified.

When the official complained, she was reassigned to a less prestigious position and replaced by a male colleague. The lawsuit describes Al Jazeera America’s chief executive as believing a correspondent’s reporting was too pro-Israel, even though Al Jazeera is notorious for its highly critical stance against the Jewish state.

The network’s Arabic and English outlets have been plagued by reports that its biases trump its stated objective of providing objective journalism. Nearly two dozen staffers resigned in protest of the network’s sympathetic coverage toward the Muslim Brotherhood after the 2013 ouster of Mohamed Morsi as Egypt’s president.

In January, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre of cartoonists, other staffers and police at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, internal Al Jazeerah emails obtained by the National Review show executive producer Salah-Aldeen Khadr urging staff members to emphasize the magazine’s “racist caricatures” in their coverage.

He suggested they question if this was “really an attack on ‘free speech,'” and whether the spontaneous “I Am Charlie” signs held posted and displayed by outraged French citizens was an “alienating slogan.”

“Was this really an attack on ‘Free speech’?” one Khadr email said. “Who is attacking free speech here exactly? Does an attack by 2-3 guys on a controversial magazine equate to a civilizational attack on European values..? Really?”

The “Je Suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) signs were counter-productive, he claimed. “You don’t actually stick it to the terrorists by insulting the majority of Muslims by reproducing more cartoons – you actually entrench the very animosity and divisions these guys seek to sow.”

That sentiment was echoed by Qatar-based reporter Mohamed Vall Salem, who wrote, “what Charlie Hebdo did was not free speech it was an abuse of free speech in my opinion, go back to the cartoons and have a look at them!

“It’ snot [sic] about what the drawing said, it was about how they said it. I condemn those heinous killings, but I’M NOT CHARLIE.”

The Media and Jihad

Published on Apr 26, 2015 by Political Islam

Every time that there is a major jihad attack, the media responds in the same way. There is now a routine that the authorities tell us:
Islam is the religion of peace

***

Minneapolisairport1

Muslim driver tries to run down cops at Minneapolis Airport by Pamela Geller

The horror — and the media continues to whitewash these vicious savage acts. The Islamic State has called for Muslims in the U.S. to use their car to attack non-Muslims, especially military personnel and police. But “Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.” The politically correct fools continue in their denial.

“Suspect Injured Following Officer-Involved Shooting At MSP,” by Susan-Elizabeth Littlefield, CBS Minnesota, April 26, 2015:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — One man was hospitalized Saturday night after an officer-involved shooting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

After the shots were fired, police blocked off a portion of Terminal 1 for several hours to investigate.

According to the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, which was called in to help with the investigation, airport police were responding to a report of suspicious persons in the terminal’s car rental ramp around 9:30 p.m.

As the officers were walking on the second level of the parking ramp, a vehicle deliberately drove at them. A press release states that police shot at the vehicle. The driver was taken to a nearby hospital. His condition is not known. Authorities identified the suspect Sunday as 36-year-old Abdulkadir Sheikh Mahmoud. Once he’s out of the hospital, he’ll be facing aggravated assault charges.

Sheriff Rich Stanek said officers were interacting with a vehicle when a second vehicle intentionally drove at officers who were on foot. The suspect in the vehicle, identified as Mahmoud, attempted to run over the officers and he was shot. Authorities said the suspect drove at officers without notice or provocation.

The release also states that an officer was taken to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Stanek said they believe the incident was isolated and does not appear to have any ties to homeland security.

Why Christian Massacres Get Too Little News Coverage

Citizen Warrior:

ISIS massacring Christian Yazidis

ISIS massacring Christian Yazidis

I don’t read or watch mainstream news very often, but I’m always curious about which stories are being covered. So a few days ago I asked a friend of mine (I know he watches CNN) if he’d seen any stories about ISIS throwing gay people off roofs.

“Yes,” he said. He’d read about it.

“Have you seen any stories about the massacres of Christians?”

He asked, “What massacres?”

The reason I asked is because of something I heard Raymond Ibrahim say. He was explaining why you don’t hear much about the Christian persecution now happening all over the Muslim world. His explanation struck me as insightful. Brilliant really.

He said that the general narrative in mainstream news is that the Palestinians are the besieged underdogs who have been forced out of their homeland, and Israel is the powerful oppressor. And all the bombings and killings committed by the Palestinians are somewhat understandable, so this narrative goes, given that the Palestinians have been so mistreated.

But the reason Palestinians bomb and kill Israelis is that orthodox Muslimshate Jews (because Muhammad hated Jews and believing Muslims follow Muhammad’s example).

When Jews are mistreated by Muslims anywhere, it can always be explained by this mainstream news narrative that its source is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the burning of churches and the massacres of Christians by Muslims casts this kind of Islamic violence in a whole different light. The Christians are, in reality, a besieged minority in Muslim countries and the Muslims have no political grievance they can use to justify what they’re doing. They’re killing the Christians because they’re Christians.

So far, the news media seems reluctant to change their narrative, so instead they just don’t say much about these very “newsworthy” stories. If gays were being massacred, it would be headline news. If neo-Nazis were lining up Muslims on a beach and beheading them on film (as Muslims recently did to Christians in Libya) and burning down their mosques, you can bet everything you own it would be front page news.

In other words, the actions themselves are certainly newsworthy. But because it is Muslims massacring Christians, to cover it would not only discredit the Israeli-is-the-evil-one narrative, but it would also cast all that previous violence into a whole new worldview — a horrifying, frightening view of the world (that the problem might be the ideology considered sacred by 1.6 billion people) — and that is something that most news organizations seem as yet unwilling to confront.

A Revisionist Muslim History of America

1280px-Quran_Tunisia-450x338Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 13, 2015:

Turkish President Erdogan’s claim that Columbus encountered a mosque in Cuba (the explorer actually saw a rock whose shape he compared to the dome of a mosque) and a Saudi Imam claiming that Columbus had sailed to America to attack Muslims are typical of an emerging genre of Muslim revisionist history that lays claim to America based on an imaginary earlier Muslim presence here.

While these examples may be laughable, Muslim historical revisionism has taken root in academia. It can be found in PBS broadcasts and in a recent New York Times piece.

[See PBS: America’s “Most Trusted Institution” and its Coverage of Islam]

In the New York Times, Peter Manseau asserts that, “There is an inconvenient footnote to the assertion that Islam is anti-American: Muslims arrived here before the founding of the United States — not just a few, but thousands.”

The description of Islam as anti-American has nothing to do with the Muslim date of arrival. Instead it refers to Islam’s theocratic erosion of the line between mosque and state, its theological doctrines of violence against non-Muslims and women, as well as the belief of a succession of killers crying “Allahu Akbar” that they can achieve a paradise full of virgins by killing Americans. The Muslims who had the biggest influence on the United States were nineteen men who boarded planes on September 11.

But Manseau goes on to offer up three examples of Muslims in the early days of the United States.

“In 1528, a Moroccan slave called Estevanico was shipwrecked along with a band of Spanish explorers near the future city of Galveston, Tex. The city of Azemmour, in which he was raised, had been a Muslim stronghold against European invasion until it fell during his youth. While given a Christian name after his enslavement, he eventually escaped his Christian captors and set off on his own through much of the Southwest.”

Manseau neglects to mention that Estevanico or Esteban de Dorantes was African, not Arab. Morocco was a major slave market and Africans in Morocco today are still often taunted as slaves. If Estevanico was ever Muslim, it was because he or his ancestors had been enslaved and converted to Islam.

And Manseau’s history only gets worse.

Estevanico didn’t escape his masters. He set out as a scout for them. He did disobey them by resuming a faith healing routine that began during an earlier journey in which he along with some members of his expedition claimed to be a “Son of the Sun” and cured diseases with the sign of the cross.

It’s hard to think of a less Islamic form of behavior.

During his expedition, Estevanico pretended to be a shaman, gathered followers, including a harem, and demanded turquoise and women from the local Indians in exchange for magical healing. Meanwhile he sent back crosses of different sizes to his Spanish masters to show them the most promising Indian villages. Eventually he reached the Zuni who killed him for, in some accounts, wearing offensive shamanic clothing from other tribes or for demanding women from them.

Zuni accounts claim that he molested their women. A similar report comes from Coronado who said that, “The Indians say that they killed him here because the Indians of Chichiticale said that he was a bad man and not like the Christians who never killed women, and he killed them, and because he assaulted their women, whom the Indians love better than themselves.”

Black nationalists tried to make a hero out of Estevanico, but he makes a remarkably poor hero. He was a scam artist exploiting the native population, aiding the Spaniards and abusing women along the way. Some of this makes him a tolerably passing Muslim, but there is no real evidence that he was a Muslim aside from his land of origin. At times he appears to have practiced Christianity and later adopted the persona of an Indian shaman.  Manseau tries to put the best face possible on his history but deceives readers in much the same way that his hero deceived the native population.

But Manseau’s next “Muslim” hero is if anything even worse than Estevanico.

“The best known Muslim to pass through the port at New Orleans was Abdul-Rahman Ibrahim ibn Sori, a prince in his homeland whose plight drew wide attention. As one newspaper account noted, he had read the Bible and admired its precepts, but added, ‘His principal objections are that Christians do not follow them,’” Manseau writes.

This description once again leaves out quite a lot.

The so-called Prince Abdul Rahman Ibrahima Sori has been a major figure in Muslim revisionist history. He appeared in a PBS documentary which was targeted to black audiences. Unfortunately for them, Abdul Rahman was actually a racist who boasted that “not a drop of Negro blood runs in his veins. He places the Negro on a scale of being infinitely below the Moor.”

He was notorious for his abuse of slaves. A letter mentions that, “M. Foster actually made him manager of the plantation, had continually to keep an eye upon him and to curb his sanguinary temper to prevent him from exercising cruelty on his fellow servants.”

Abdul Rahman, by his own account, was a Muslim Moor sold into slavery by the Africans he had been attacking. He was a violent racist who despised Africans and abused the slaves under his power.

The parallel with Estevanico’s abuse of the native population is striking.

However much of what we know about Abdul Rahman came from his own mythmaking. It’s quite likely that he was never a prince of anything. Like Estevanico, he may have just been a talented con artist who was good at raising money by telling stories.

And during his grand tour of America, he promised to introduce Christianity to Africa.

As Muslim role models go, Abdul Rahman manages to be even worse than Estevanico. Manseau leaves all these details out because they change the narrative. Neither of his Muslim role models appears to have been particularly Muslim. Both casually dabbled in Christianity when it suited them.

But Manseau goes on. “Among the enslaved Muslims in North Carolina was a religious teacher named Omar ibn Said. Recaptured in 1810 after running away from a cruel master he called a kafir (an infidel), he became known for inscribing the walls of his jail cell with Arabic script. He wrote an account of his life in 1831, describing how in freedom he had loved to read the Quran, but in slavery his owners had converted him to Christianity.”

Manseau fails to mention that “Omar was regularly willing and able to reassure all visiting Christians that he was a true convert as he often wrote in Arabic what he called ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ and the Twenty-Third Psalm.” Or “Prince Moro’s” eager wish that “Mohamedans may receive the gospel.”

Not to mention Omar’s autobiography in which he wrote that, “When I was a Mohammedan I prayed thus… But now I pray “Our Father”, etc., in the words of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.”

Manseau’s description of Omar’s autobiography is blatantly dishonest. As with Estevanico and Abdul Rahman, he has to leave out basic facts of the lives of these “Muslims” to accommodate his agenda. But Manseau is following in the footsteps of other revisionist historians who insisted that Omar’s copying of material from the Koran in an Arabic he had mostly forgotten proved his commitment to Islam.

The basic fact he has to leave out is that Omar described himself as a devout Christian. His other two “Muslims” consist of a man who promised to bring Christianity to Africa and another who played a shaman when he wasn’t making crosses.

The deceits of Peter Manseau and the New York Times, which never bothers fact checking even the wildest Muslim claims, are in their own way every bit as dishonest as Erdogan’s Cuban mosque. The difference is that they have the protective coloration of academia and journalism. Their dishonesty is more sedate and buried under protective layers of omissions and distortions.

Revisionist Muslim histories of America should be rejected, whether they come from Erdogan or the New York Times, because they are built on lies. And a history built on lies cannot stand.

Propaganda and Astroturf: Recognize it

Untitled (1)Sharyl Attkisson:

“Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making it seem as if you’re an outlier–when you’re not.”

“Hallmarks of astroturf and propaganda include use of inflammatory language such as quack, crank, nutty, pseudo, paranoid and conspiracy.”

“Beware when an interest addresses an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding the issue rather than the facts. That could be astroturf.”

 

Published on Feb 6, 2015 by TEDx Talks

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business of Congress,” which included an undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red. Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts


main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

Why Charlie?

charlie_hebdo_wtc_1-30-15-1PJ Media, By David Solway On February 1, 2015

My friend Barbara Kay recently published a moving column mourning the twelve people killed at Charlie Hebdo. “Historically,” she writes, “the Islamist terror attack on Charlie Hebdo — I already think of it as 1/07 — will be seen as more devastating than 9/11.” The reason is that “those 12 people represented an institution that cannot be replaced with bricks and mortar. Those twelve iconoclasts were not collateral damage. They were the very spirit of freedom of speech, the pillar of democracy and free peoples everywhere. Spirits are not so easily rebuilt.”

It is a stirring piece expressing an unimpeachable sentiment. But the assault on Charlie Hebdo by no means marked a turning point, as she appeared to suggest. Far from a unique event, the Muslim campaign against free speech has been going on for many years now. Freedom, the right to dissent, the satirical genre — all have been dying for some time.

The Danish cartoons marked an identical watershed. The assassination of Dutch provocateur and filmmaker Theo Van Gogh marked an identical watershed, as did the death threats against his collaborator and Danish parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who had his satirical drawings removed at a Tallerud art exhibition and who has an ISIS bounty on his head and is living under police protection, marks an identical watershed. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the killing of his Japanese translator marked the same watershed. Geert Wilders living under police protection marks the same watershed. Though later acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court, Lars Hedegaard’s remarks about the lethal dysfunction of many Muslim families, which led to his conviction for hate speech under the Article 266b of the Danish penal code and a subsequent assassination attempt, marks the same watershed. TheSouth Park controversy over the appearance of Mohammed dressed as a giant teddy bear marked the same watershed — the producers instantly caved following a threat issued on the Revolution Muslim website. Molly Norris, of “Let’s all Draw Mohammed” fame, still in hiding, marks the same watershed, as does the imprisonment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for producing a low-rent, little-watched video trailer, Innocence of Muslims, ridiculing Mohammed. Yale University Press refusing to print the Danish cartoons in a book dedicated to the subject marks the same watershed. The list goes on.

It’s been a long time since most ordinary or even celebrated people would dare to represent Mohammed or say anything mocking or even critical about the religion of hate. Our pusillanimous leaders and members of the intelligentsia buckled under to Islamic triumphalism some years back and evince a growing tendency to Sharia-compliance. If, after the Danish cartoon controversy, every single intellectual or public figure of any note had posted the cartoons, we would be in a different place today. But instead they joined in the chorus about responsibility and not unnecessarily offending pious people.

My own country, Canada, is traveling the same route to cultural perdition. Anti-Islamic firebrand Eric Brazeau, just sentenced to a year and a half in jail for reading out the Koran on a subway train, marks the same watershed. And the much maligned Ezra Levant, one of the few courageous journalists who actually printed the Danish cartoons as legitimate news depicting what the violence was all about, was sued by an offended imam, lost his magazine The Western Standard, found himself over $100,000 poorer, and is once again fighting in court. Few of us can approximate to his moral stature and his willingness to put himself on the line for an essential cause.

Meanwhile, the hundreds of journalists around the world wearing Je Suis Charlie banners don’t have the cojones to show what Stephane Charbonnier and his colleagues died for. And how many of our news outlets have actually reported the whole story, cartoons and all? The failure to defend our freedoms began ages ago when almost no one had the clarity of vision and the moral courage — certainly not our journalists, our politicos, our academics, our intellectuals, our entertainers — to man the barricades and fight against those who would deprive us of our rights. In fact, many of these pundits and news outlets saw fit to blame the victims for provoking the jihadists. This isn’t just a paradox; it’s bad faith, cowardice, hypocrisy and a form of cultural treason of the highest magnitude.

We are told ad nauseam that the terrorist atrocities we are witnessing on an almost daily basis have nothing to do with Islam — this despite the 25,000-plus Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks since the slaughter of 9/11. As for the bloodbath atCharlie Hebdo, the disavowals quickly set in. French president Francois Hollande lost no time flogging the tired mantra,assuring us with a straight face that the Charlie Hebdo perpetrators were “fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam.”Assem Shalaby, president of the Arab Publishers Association, has condemned “this vicious attack that contravenes the principles of Islam and the message of its prophet” — which it manifestly does not, as anyone even passably familiar with Islamic scripture, jurisprudence and orthodox commentary is immediately aware. Clearly, Josh Earnest, President Obama’s press secretary, is not, deponing on CNN that the Paris murders violate “the tenets of an otherwise peaceful religion” — unless, of course, like his master, he is lying through his teeth. At the same time, to cite Honest Reporting, “Conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites claim Israel is responsible for the Charlie Hebdo terror attack. The International Business Timessupplies the oxygen” — as does CNN and, of course, the ever dependable Ron Paul. True to form, plying a double disclaimer, the BBC described the event as “an apparent Islamist attack.” A win-win for Islam.

Indeed, the expression of official horror over the Paris tragedy and the discharge of mass sympathy for its victims were only convenient forms of evasive self-flattery in the absence of both foresight and political action that might have prevented this atrocity, as well as so many others. How much more bracing and honest the response of Israeli author Bat Zion Susskind-Sacks, who writes of the Paris Unity March (“this dog and pony show”) attended by international criminals and jihad sponsors like Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas: “NO, I am NOT Charlie! I am the four Jews who died in the hostage situation in Paris on Friday; I am the four praying Rabbis who were slaughtered in their Synagogue in Nof Yofeh in Yerushalayim last November; I am the little baby who was killed at the stop of the Light rail, when a terrorist drove his car directly and purposely into the crowd waiting for the tram to arrive; I am the 3 Yeshiva students who were kidnapped and slaughtered in cold blood by Hamas Islamist Jihadists in Judea last Summer.” Her point is unexceptionable. I have not seen anyone marching in Paris wearing an apron reading Je Suis Hyper Cacher.

Freedom of expression is on life support and the powers that be are ready to pull the plug. The moral qualities of honesty and courage — honor as traditionally understood — now languish atavistically in the cultural and political wasteland of the West. The dark continent of Europe, the Commonwealth nations, and America seem prepared to extinguish themselves as they promote the erosion of values that once sustained them — in iconic terms, the triumph of a fatuous grotesquery like Michael Moore over manly duty represented by Chris Kyle. We live in an “official” culture in which cowards call heroes cowards and alien prophets are welcomed as benefactors. The only ray of optimism in this desolate landscape emanates from the small but illustrious band of truth-tellers still active among us. It’s not much, but it’s all we have.

Steve Emerson Speaks Out: It Was ‘Like I Was Guilty of Murder’

The Blaze, by Erica Ritz,  Jan. 21, 2015:

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Monday that the city will be suing Fox News over commentator Steve Emerson’s discussion of “no-go zones” in the city. Emerson appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday to discuss why he spoke about “no-go zones,” and said some have reacted to his comments as though he was “guilty of murder.”

“Governments don’t recognize that term,” Emerson began. “It’s an informal reference in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won’t go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it’s been reported on since 2002 in of all places, the New York Times.”

Though Hidalgo said Emerson’s comments “insulted” the image of Paris, Beck and his co-hosts said Emerson’s description was how they understood the term. They never thought it was an “official edict.”

But Emerson was quick to note that he did make a false statement when he referred to Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

“I made a total error,” he said. “I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology.”

When Beck asked how Emerson’s statements on Fox News became an international controversy, Emerson said he believes a “hatred of Fox” and a hatred of his work in exposing radical Islam “combined to spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder.”

“The irony of course is that the mayor of Paris — Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world … of free speech, having seen the massacre of people trying to exercise free speech — is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech?” Emerson said.

Emerson apologized for his comments about Birmingham, but took offense to being called a “complete idiot” by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL, all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they’re just monsters,” Emerson said. “That statement is more idiotic than any statement I’ve ever made.”

More video from the interview at The Blaze

Steve Emerson, Reza Aslan, and the mainstream media: some errors are more erroneous than others

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 14, 2015:

EmersonAslan2-300x188Over the last few days, the mainstream media has been howling with glee over Steve Emerson’s gaffe on Fox News. Emerson said that in Britain, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” and “in parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.” Birmingham is not actually totally Muslim, and so Emerson apologized: “There was no excuse for making this mistake, and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.”

The Leftist media and its Islamic supremacist allies are trying to use this to get all foes of jihad terror off the air: numerous mainstream media outlets used the incident to impugn the reliability not only of Emerson, but of all critics of terror and of Fox News as a whole. But as you might expect, their outrage and ridicule are selective. Emerson overstated his case, but he was talking about a problem that is real. “Muslim Patrols” that violently enforced Sharia in London were jailed late in 2013, and there are no-go areas for non-Muslims in Birmingham and elsewhere in Britain: commenters on a Daily Mail piece about Emerson’s gaffe stated: “Just shows Cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “Include parts of London in that too. Seen first hand.” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

While ridiculing and excoriating Emerson, the mainstream media is enormously deferential to Reza Aslan, a barely literate charlatan who regularly makes egregious errors of fact. But as far as the mainstream media is concerned, he is on the correct side, and so he gets an endless free pass, no matter how wild and stupid his statements become. Aslan thinks Ethiopia and Eritrea are in Central Africa. He called Turkey the second most populous Muslim country, which was only about 100 million people off. He has also referred to “the reincarnation, which Christianity talks about” — although he later claimed that one was a “typo.” Aslan has claimed that Muhammad outlawed slavery (he actually owned slaves). He has asserted that Marx and Freud “gave birth to the Enlightenment” (both were born after it ended). He has insisted that the idea of resurrection “simply doesn’t exist in Judaism,” despite numerous passages to the contrary in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Aslan has also claimed that the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long. Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the preferential option for the poor,” but the Jesuits were founded in 1534, and according to the California Catholic Conference, “the popular term ‘preferential option for the poor’ is relatively new. Its first use in a Church document is in 1968.” He invoked Pope Pius XI as an example of how “historically, Fascist ideology did infect corners of the Catholic world,” apparently ignorant of the fact that Pius XI issued the anti-fascist encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.

Similarly, Aslan has revealed that he can barely write English, indicating that his books are either ghostwritten or very heavily edited: he confuses “than” with “then”; apparently thinks the Latin word “et” is an abbreviation; and writes “clown’s” for “clowns.”

But to the mainstream media, Reza Aslan is a “renowned scholar,” while Steve Emerson, who has been on the front lines exposing the activities of jihad terrorists and Islamic supremacists for over twenty years, is a “self-proclaimed expert.” All you have to do is mouth the accepted establishment opinions, kids, and you, too, can be a renowned scholar!