It was disgusting to see the President of the United States say to the United Nations, “The future must not belong to those who slander Islam.” Besides disrespecting our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, the remark disregards that millions of Americans distrust the religion and its practitioners. It’s funny how a history of murders and terror in the name of Islam have a way of creating suspicion.
Plus, “slander” to Muslims covers any and all criticisms, the sort of thing that is written daily in dozens of blogs like this one.
On Wednesday, Canadian free speech defender Ezra Levant interviewed George Igler, who warned of how easily rights we thought safe can be rapidly eroded when not vigorously enforced.
Igler listed three measurements that indicate politicians are blowing off free speech rights, when protecting them becomes too inconvenient:
1. A change in values where truth become less important than the emotional response of the recipient: Complaining that a statement is offensive is now accepted as a rebuttal.
2. Incitement is redefined from urging physical attack to committing the thought crime of spreading hatred.
3. The media goes from examining an event to questioning the motive of the person stating a controversial opinion.
Here in northern California, we have a case of censorship/punishment of two local radio guys Armstrong and Getty over a rip on Muslims going nutso worldwide over an unfriendly video, and suggesting that a thousand Mohammed videos should bloom for a massive desensitization project. Actually, plenty already exist, like Geert Wilders’ Fitna and The Third Jihad.
Armstrong and Getty were removed from broadcasting for one day because of the following rant:
Incidentally, I disagree with the underlying supposition that Muslims simply have issues with anger management, which can be handled by western strategies of apology (Obama’s choice) or desensitization (Armstrong & Getty here). Another exponent of the latter approach is Islam scholar Daniel Pipes who thought a major print-in of cartoons by the press would create a “routinization” that would wear out the unfriendlies: A Muhammad cartoon a day.
Unfortunately, the MSM’s cowardice about defending free speech makes Pipes’ suggestion unlikely to take root.
The deeper problem with Muslims is the violent supremacism that comes from the Koran’s religious teaching. The book of Islam has over 100 verses calling for violence against unbelievers. If there’s instruction about how to graciously accept apologies from infidels, I haven’t heard of it. Mohammad told followers to offer Islam to outsiders, but if they refused, then they should be killed.
Most Muslims don’t want the secular state with free speech that we in the West understand as democratic governance, as a Pew poll of several countries shows.
A more reasonable approach for America would be to give up on the idea of Islamic democracy and even having friendly relations. Washington should work hard to expand domestic energy supplies with the possibility in mind that a Middle East flare-up could severely reduce oil. Elites must realize that dar al-Islam is a separate, irrational universe where being nice is seen as weakness.
Above all, end Muslim immigration to this country. It is crazy to endanger American society and safety by following Europe’s descent into hell.
Here are more details about Armstrong and Getty’s enforced day off:
Popular talk radio show hosts Armstrong & Getty were absent from Clear Channel’s live programming Tuesday amid controversy around one of the hosts’ on-air comments about Muslims.
KSTE (650 AM) aired a previously recorded “Best Of” morning show on Tuesday instead of its regularly scheduled live program featuring Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. Officials for the Sacramento station and its owner, Clear Channel Media and Entertainment, offered no explanation for the change, sparking questions and heated comments among fans on the show’s Facebook page.
During an on-air discussion Monday, Armstrong criticized the United States for what he characterized as apologizing for a crude YouTube video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and sparked anti-U.S. uprisings around the globe. He urged listeners to make their own “anti-Muhammad ads” and post them to Al-Jazeera, the Arabic news network. “We need to bombard them with ads until they grow up,” he said. Continue reading this article
Back before Obama was elected, he had rather expansive ideas of what his special charm could accomplish in the world. Specifically, he thought his Muslim childhood brought unique insight to the 1400-year clash between the West and dar al-Islam, a problem he could solve. (No shortage of self-esteem here!)
During a November 21, 2007, radio interview, he predicted that his election would end a millennium of Islamic violence:
I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently… If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view… My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world… then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer…
Since then, the administration’s fawning attitude toward the increased influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups has only encouraged the worst elements of Arab society. Violence in the Middle East and beyond against America has been a practically a daily event since the 9/11 terror attack in Libya that killed the Ambassador and three others.
Obama’s entire policy toward the Middle East and Islam has gone up in flames, while the President has avoided the subject, aided by his loyal servants in the Opravda media.
Nearly half of American voters – 45 percent — think relations between the United States and Muslims worldwide have deteriorated in the past four years, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday.
Only 18 percent said relations had improved in the four years since Barack Obama became president, while 31 percent said U.S.-Muslim relations are about the same.
The poll found 68 percent of all voters believe there is a global conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations, up five points since May. Just 15 percent say there is no conflict. Continue reading this article
But don’t worry about Abdi being deported to some dangerous backwater: his sister in Minneapolis is confident about Nuradin’s success, because of Somali culture’s well known clan structure, remarking that “his whole family … will be there to get him start his new life.”
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Federal authorities are preparing to deport a Somali immigrant who federal prosecutors say plotted to attack an Ohio shopping mall.
Nuradin Abdi completed his prison sentence last month and is in federal custody in Louisiana while final preparations are made to return him to Somalia.
The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting a plan to shoot up an unidentified Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 meeting at a coffee shop with two friends, both of whom were later convicted of terrorism charges. Early reports indicated the threat might also have included bombing a mall.
When investigators learned of the threat in spring 2003, authorities conducted top-to-bottom searches of Columbus malls late at night after shoppers had left, looking for possible explosive devices. None was found.
One of Abdi’s friends at the coffee shop that day, Columbus truck driver Iyman Faris, pleaded guilty in May 2003 to terrorism charges stemming from allegations that he scoped out the Brooklyn Bridge for destruction at the behest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks. Continue reading this article
Normal American minds may have a hard time imagining how radical Obama’s second term will be when he is freed from re-election constraints, if recent behavior is any guide.
Closing Gitmo has long been a liberal hobby horse, but the idea ran into trouble when it was noticed there was no better place to store hundreds of captured battlefield jihadists: the NIMBY factor was strong against a local prison filled with Islam-inspired killers. Plan B is to “transfer” them to home countries where they can be quietly freed from the local hoosegow in a few weeks.
So the idea that the President will release one-third of the remaining prisoners — who are the worst of the worst because the lightweights have already been let go — to return to fighting for Allah is rather shocking. Particularly when Sufyan Ben Qumu, the leader of the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens, was a Gitmo release beneficiary.
Below, showing weakness to Islam is not a good idea, because numerous Muslims work for a worldwide caliphate of sharia law under Allah, and they only respect strength, not foolish acts of “generosity.”
President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.
The large percentage of those scheduled to be released are Yemeni, according to a list made public by the Obama administration.
Obama stopped the release or transfer of Yemeni inmates in 2010, because the conditions in the country were viewed as too “unsettled” at the time.
A release or transfer of 55 inmates means Obama is moving out one third of the prisoners at Guantanamo. And while it doesn’t represent a shutdown of the facility, it’s certainly indicative of a move toward that end.
Could it be that Obama is trying to set himself up to campaign as the man who is taking steps to finally close Gitmo, just as he recently reversed the Afghanistan surge in order to campaign as the man who’s winding down the war in the Afghanistan?
The ACLU has praised the releases as “a partial victory for transparency.”
In diplomatic circles, a topic of discussion some years back used to be “who lost China” to Mao and the communists.
The next “lost” debate (if one is necessary) will certainly be “who lost the Middle East” to the Islamic enemies of the West. Rep. Louie Gohmert recently observed President Obama’s contribution to the creation of a second Ottoman Empire in that region by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood et al.
I’ve never been one who believed Hussein Obama was a secret Muslim, although Daniel Pipes’ series in the Washington Times made a rather convincing case. (See the compilation Obama’s Muslim Childhood, WT, Sept 10-14, 2012.) IMO, believing in just one religion may be too small for the narcissistic President. Plus, Obama has shown a definite interest in Muslim welfare over any other.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) on Friday accused President Obama of conducting a foreign policy that is helping to create a second Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. Gohmert was speaking on the House floor, where he accused the Obama administration of pulling out of Iraq after victory had been won, and allowing Iran to better influence Iraq. He said withdrawing means less American influence there, and said the results of that decision are already being seen in some of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle East and North Africa.
“This is the beginning… a massive beginning of a new Ottoman Empire that President Obama can take great credit for,” Gohmert said. “Thank you President Barack Hussein Obama. This will be quite a legacy for you.
“And I’m not one of those who says he’s not a Christian. All I know is that’s between him and God. But what I do know is he has helped jump start a new Ottoman Empire, and left our friend and ally Israel so vulnerable in this sea of radicalism that he has helped bring to the surface.” Continue reading this article
In St. Paul last November a 14-year-old girl was sexually attacked by nine Hmong males who had enticed her to a party for that purpose of gang rape, a practice that is more or less accepted in misogynist Hmong culture. The first trial has finished with a conviction and sentence of eight years for the perp.
Below, five adults of the nine Hmong members of the True Blood (TB22) street gang who were arrested for the gang rape of a 14-year-old girl.
As Roy Beck explained in his 1994 Atlantic article The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau the influx of many thousands of primitive Hmong into the midwest was a project of some church do-gooders who thought it would be nice to welcome refugees to their town. Little did they imagine that the numbers would only mount and the cultural divide would expand into worsened crime and social disfunction.
Interestingly, as the brutal crime spurred more investigation, the cultural component was described in a local paper:
[. . .] A clash of cultures may play a role in the crimes, some scholars and Hmong leaders say.
For instance, in Hmong homelands, a boy who wanted to marry a girl could get his friends or relatives to help him capture her. Even if he raped her, the assault could be forgiven if he married her. Ilean Her, executive director of the Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans, said she’s afraid those practices get handed down in some families.
“Some [men] are going to end up in prison as long as the mentality is still there,” Her said. “And lots of them are passing it on to their sons.”
For the same reason, some Hmong mothers aren’t sympathetic to daughters who have been raped, she said.
“The older ladies, they will tell you right away, ‘When I was young, I was molested. And that’s just what girls go through,’ ” she said. [. . .]
That’s interesting: hmongs consider rape to be a normal part of their culture, and girls are supposed to accept it.
Is this the sort of social norm that diversity enthusiasts want us to celebrate?
At least the crime is being punished American-style, although a longer sentence would have been appropriate.
A St. Paul teenager on Tuesday became the first person to be sentenced in the 2011 gang rape of a 14-year-old girl, receiving an eight-year prison term for his role in the November crime.
Shaileng Shong Lor, 17, pleaded guilty in July to charges of conspiring to rape the girl and to having committed the crime for the benefit of a gang. He was one of five adults and four juveniles accused of plying the girl with alcohol, driving her to a vacant St. Paul house, dragging her inside and sexually assaulting her.
“We told the public that we would rigorously prosecute these cases,” said Ramsey County Attorney John Choi. “What you’re seeing is that unfold.”
In addition to Lor, three others have entered guilty pleas. Five cases remain open, although Vang Tou Ger Vue, 19, has a plea hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
The county attorney’s office has run hard at the case. Choi put one of his top prosecutors, Heidi Westby, on all nine cases, and three juveniles were successfully certified as adults. One of them, Jim Her, 17, is appealing that decision.
“We’ve been working on this quite some time,” Choi said.
Prosecutors and police say the suspects were members or associates of the True Blood (TB22) street gang, one of St. Paul’s largest Hmong gangs, known for guns, violence and several burglaries throughout the metro area. Continue reading this article
Brooke did her homework and brought some great Supreme Court quotes showing that the principle of free speech is strong, not the wimpy item Obama avoids mentioning. She notes the Brandenburg decision means that prohibited speech requires direct incitement to violence, not mere rudeness to religion. In fact, a function of free speech is to invite dispute, not shy away from it, she quoted from another case, and is provided the highest protection by our system.
Meanwhile the craven Obama administration is spending $70K to advertise on Pakistani TV to apologize for America having free expression and offending Muslims.
Trying to blunt street protests surrounding a YouTube video that mocks the prophet Muhammad, the Obama administration paid $70,000 to buy ads on Pakistani television disavowing the video, the State Department said Thursday.
The ads, featuring President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, were airing on seven networks even as angry crowds tried to rush the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad housing the U.S. Embassy and other embassies on Thursday. Pakistani police kept about 2,000 protesters at bay.
The ads and a broader effort to solicit and promote pro-U.S. testimonials on YouTube are an effort by the State Department and White House to counter the pervasive view in Pakistan and other Muslim-majority nations that the crude video is either the work of the U.S. government or is condoned by it. Continue reading this article
Before he was Attorney General under GW Bush, Michael Mukasey was the judge in the trial of Omar abdel-Rahman, the so-called blind sheik for his direction of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which killed six and injured hundreds. So the AG knows the face of hostile Islam first hand, and sentenced Rahman to life in prison.
Mukasey was interviewed on Fox News Thursday regarding the possibility that Obama is considering the release of the killer sheik, which is a big issue in Egypt. in fact, the release was important enough to be promised as a goal by Mohammed Morsi in his Presidential inauguration.
The AG remarked that Rahman “aspired to become an Egyptian Khomeini by distributing his sermons on tape… and [Egyptians] want him out because he is a revered spiritual leader.” Mukasey is not impressed with the diplo-speak emanating from the State Department which carefully said there are “no plans” to release the fatwa-issuing criminal, and nothing has been discussed “recently.”
“I think the denials ought to come from the White House and from the Secretary of State. And they ought to be flat, clear and unequivocal. Nothing about recently, nothing about senior leaders, nothing that leaves any door open,” Mukasey said.
The Obama administration is weighing the release of blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman — the spiritual adviser to the 1993 World Trade Center bombers — in a stunning goodwill gesture toward Egypt that has touched off a political firestorm, officials said yesterday.
The Egyptian government “asked for his release,” an administration source told The Post — and Rep. Peter King (R-LI) confirmed the request is being considered.
The White House, State Department and Justice Department each issued statements denying any deal is in the works, but, “There’s no way to believe anything they say,” said Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant US attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman. “I believe there may already be a nod-and-wink agreement in place.” Continue reading this article
The video below is a rare ground-level example of the destructive nature of Muslim immigration. An American reporter is having a normal outdoors interview with a couple of English women whose daughters were targeted by Muslim men. Then rather quickly the mood changes as young men start to gather menacingly on foot and in cars. In a few minutes someone above in a building is lobbing glass jars at the reporter. It’s disturbing to see the everyday savagery.
One of the most memorable scenes in the 1972 film Cabaret (which portrayed the rise of the Nazi movement in 1930s Berlin) was a sweet-sounding song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” turning into a rally for fascism (see below for the clip).
More recently, Vladtepesblog used his video skills to rejigger the song to correspond to the current threat.
As a character asked in Cabaret, “Do you still think you can control them?”
Furthermore, these millions of enemies of Western civilization got to Europe and America via immigration. Isn’t national security more important than coddling the alleged tender feelings of jihadists? It may be too late for Europe, but America should learn from their disastrous experience and end Muslim immigration.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.