It Takes a Good Guy with a gun To Protect Free Speech

When two terrorists in body armor and carrying assault rifles came for a roomful of cartoonists and fans of freedom of speech in Texas, the media took the side of the terrorists.

CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group with ties to terrorists, spun the attack by claiming that the contest had been intended to “bait” the terrorists. The media quickly picked up the “bait” meme.

The New York Times, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Dallas Morning News, CNN and even FOX News all accused the cartoonists of “baiting” the poor Muslim terrorists into attacking them. The actual attempt at mass slaughter was dismissed as the terrorists “taking the bait” from the cartoonists who had been fiendishly plotting to be mass slaughtered by them for the publicity.

The Washington Post not only stated that the contest was “bait”, but its headline huffed, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.” And why won’t the 9/11 dead apologize?

Journalists often tell us that a free press is the best defense for a free society. Every major newspaper and news network once again proved them wrong. The best defense for freedom of speech came not from the journalists or the civil rights groups, from the speechmakers or the activists. It came from an off-duty traffic cop working security outside the event targeted by Muslim terrorists. His partner, an older guard, didn’t even have a gun, and took a bullet to the leg.

He could have pulled back and let the terrorists have a clear path. No doubt he had a family and plenty of reasons to live. Like so much of the media, he could have disguised this cowardice by blaming the cartoonists for bringing the attack on themselves. Instead he held the line. The traffic cop with a pistol took on two terrorists in body armor, armed with assault rifles and extra ammo. And when it was over, two Muslim terrorists were dead and freedom of speech was alive.

“He had two people shooting at him, plus he’s trying to take out two targets. And if he had to make headshots,” Mark Sligar, a firearms instructor, said, “That’s awesome shooting. And look at the people’s lives he saved, just because he was able to take care of that.”

Like Kevin Vickers, the retired 58-year-old Sergeant-at-Arms, who armed with a 9mm handgun stopped Muslim terrorist Zehaf-Bibeau from carrying out a massacre of Canadian parliamentarians, the unnamed older police officer did more to protect freedom than all the self-styled defenders of freedom ever have.

And he did it with the tool that many of those defenders of freedom want to outlaw; a gun.

The left promises us collective security through civil rights while taking away our freedom. Their idea of collective security is disarming the citizenry, then disarming the police and then appeasing the killers. There will be more murders than ever, but at least those carrying them out will be representatives of oppressed groups, such as inner city drug dealers and ISIS terrorists, ‘punching up’ at the privileged.

We’ve already seen how worthless collective security is. In Baltimore, the Democratic mayor turned over the city to rioters and looters. Every Democrat who was at all involved in fighting crime, from Bill Clinton on down, is frantically apologizing to the social justice mobs for daring to protect Americans. The media is busy explaining why the looters were right and the lootees were in the wrong.

After the Texas shootings, the media popped up to blame the attacks, not on the attackers, but on those who came under attack. CAIR’s “bait” meme, adopted by the media, reverses responsibility. It contends that anyone shot at by a Muslim terrorist has to prove that he didn’t intend to provoke the terrorists.

Despite the impeccable left-wing credentials of Charlie Hebdo, the PEN gala came under fire from authors denouncing the French cartoonists for provoking their disenfranchised and oppressed minority ISIS killers. And when the ISIS killers came for the Hebdo cartoonists, unarmed police officers ran for it.

A wounded French cop raised his hands and begged for his life, before the terrorist finished him off with a shot to the head. It’s not the first time that a disarmed West has been helpless in the face of Muslim terrorism.

During the Munich Olympics, German police provided security by handing out candy and flowers. An informant had passed along word that an attack was being planned, but nothing was done. The resulting massacre of Israeli athletes by Muslim terrorists was partially covered up by the German government which released three of the captured terrorists a month later and whose foreign minister met with the planners of the massacre to “rebuild trust”.

Just like Argentina and Iran, after the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, a dirty deal was struck behind the scenes and the terrorists got what they wanted.

When Israel independently targeted the terrorists, the German ambassador to Lebanon blasted Israel for killing the most “rational and responsible” members of the PLO. The Israelis had killed the terrorists, he accused, because they did not want peace.

But a bunch of good guys with guns had settled the issue of whether Israeli athletes should be able to compete in the Olympics even though the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Israeli “act of aggression” and the “loss of human life”; particularly that of terrorist boss Abu Jihad.

The Israelis, not the Muslim terrorists or the collaborationist German government, were the villains for forcing the terrorists to do what they did. If only Israel had surrendered to the PLO, the attacks would not have happened. Once Israel did surrender in the 90s and the attacks escalated, then it was Israel’s fault for not surrendering enough. It’s never the fault of the terrorists or their collaborators.

The accusations are all familiar. Bosch Fawstin, Charb, Pamela Geller, Theo van Gogh, Mark Basseley Youssef, Salman Rushdie, Molly Norris and a hundred others are at fault for provoking the terrorists.

There are lectures on “responsible speech”. The targets are accused of “hiding” behind freedom of speech and of deliberately planning to be killed for the publicity.

During WW2, Gandhi urged the Jews and the British to surrender to the Nazis.

“This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man. If you call it off today, he will follow suit,” he whined to the Brits.

“I want you to fight Nazis without arms or… with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity,” he suggested in another missive.

He also had some advice for the Jews. “If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives,” he mused.

That is where the insane mantra of non-violence and appeasement, the exploration of root causes and winning hearts finally leads, to mass graves and victorious mass murderers. And everyone who refuses to take their suicidal advice is blamed for provoking the killers.

We can either live in a paranoid politically correct world frantically trying not to offend the Hitlers and Mohammeds, and blaming their victims when they kill, or we can be free men and women who have chosen to take the power to defend our rights into our own hands. While a thousand organizations use the Holocaust as a platform for speeches about tolerance, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors is conducting firearms training. While Big Media attacks a free press in the name of the free press, a small group gathered in Garland and an off-duty cop helped keep it free.

The unnamed traffic cop who stood up to two offended killers did not follow Gandhi’s advice; he refused to lay down his arms or try to fight them with non-violent arms. His heroism reminds us that freedom is not defended with empty idealism easily perverted into appeasement of evil, but with the force of arms.

Gandhi and his Western disciples were wrong. The soldiers who fought Hitler did far more to save humanity than Gandhi ever did. A single traffic cop with a gun has had more of a positive impact on freedom of speech in this country than all the journalists of the free press fighting against freedom.

It takes a good guy with a gun to defend freedom of speech.


Obama: Against Free Speech Before He Was For It

As far as Barack Obama is concerned, Sony was wrong to capitulate to threats from North Korean hackers and pull the movie The Interview. “I wish they had spoken to me first,” said the free speech champion. “I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

Remember: this is the same man who said this at the United Nations on September 25, 2012.  “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Why did he say this? Because he was blaming a video about Muhammad for the murderous jihad attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. In that same speech, he called the video “crude and disgusting” and said: “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.”

Yet this was just empty verbiage. Before he made that speech, the Obama White House asked Google to remove the Muhammad video from YouTube. In fact, this was one of the first things the White House did, even as the Benghazi jihad attack was still going on. ABC News reported that “a still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the “ramifications” of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The memo suggests that even as the attack was still underway and before the CIA began the process of compiling talking points on its analysis of what happened, the White House believed it was in retaliation for a “controversial video.”

And it didn’t just believe this, it acted upon this belief. An email circulated among Obama Administration officials while the attack was still going on, entitled, “Update on Response to actions – Libya,” stated: “White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video.”

So the first thing Obama did in response to the Benghazi jihad attack was move to restrict the freedom of speech, and protect Muslims from material that some of them found offensive. Google refused this preposterous and unconstitutional request on free speech grounds, although later a court ordered the video removed.

In those days, Obama never warned anyone not to “get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

Indeed, the most ominous aspect of the Benghazi jihad attack for the long term health of the United States as a free society was the Obama Administration’s desire to blame it all on our freedom of speech. Obama’s declaration that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” was essentially a call for the U.S. to censor itself and voluntarily restrict our freedom of speech so as not to say anything that offends Muslims.

Yet restriction of the freedom of speech creates a protected class (whichever group cannot be criticized), thereby destroying the principle of equality of rights for all people before the law, and paves the way for tyranny by making it possible to criminalize dissent.

But now that a free speech case doesn’t have to do with outraged Muslims, Obama is suddenly a champion of free expression. This isn’t about endangering people, either: the North Koreans are just as capable of going on a bloody rampage as Islamic jihadists are.

For whatever reason, Obama shows a strange solicitude for the sensibilities of Muslims that he doesn’t appear interested in offering to the North Koreans. And as long as he opposes the freedom of speech in any context, his support for it in any other context rings hollow.


Obama DOJ forces city to pay Muslims $7.75 million

A proposed mega-mosque in the pretty little town of Bridgewater, New Jersey, was rejected by the town council last year, “citing an ordinance that limited houses of worship to major roads.” Reasonable enough. Municipal officials argued that the purpose of the ordinance was to “preserve the residential character of its various neighborhoods.”

But Islamic supremacists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR called upon their lapdogs at the Department of Justice, who sued Bridgewater. The DoJ has become the de facto legal arm of terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood groups in this country. What small town can go up against the U.S. government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle?

It speaks volumes about the three pillars (more like clubs) of the Islamization of the West; “interfaith dialogue,” “mutual respect” and “mutual understanding”, that they are absent when it comes to Muslim demands. Kuffar and infidels get no such mutual respect, mutual understanding and dialogue when it comes to mega-mosques and free speech. Where is reciprocity? Reciprocity with non-Muslims is forbidden under Islamic law (Shariah).

This New Jersey town was forced to pay Muslims $7.75 million to keep them from building a mega-mosque there.

It’s $7.75 million in Islamic blackmail. Jizya. But they beat the monsterous mosque. Cheap at the price. NJ Advance Media reported that “the Al Falah Center has agreed not to build a mosque on Mountaintop Road and will instead build one on a $2.75 million 15-acre lot the township will buy for it under the terms of a settlement. The township’s insurance carrier will also pay the center $5 million for alleged damages, costs and attorney fees to end the years-long lawsuit.”

In a striking violation of the establishment clause, Obama’s lawless administration is imposing the Shariah nationwide, allowing the rampant construction of rabats and jihad recruitment centers at a time when we should be monitoring the mosques and restricting construction of Muslim Brotherhood beachheads and Islamic State madrassas.

Many churches and synagogues and Walmarts and what have you have been unable to build because of zoning laws. So why is Muslim supremacism enshrined in Justice Department policy? And why are they given special rights? The United States of America is based on individual rights which also means no special rights for special classes.

These proposed giant mosques in small residential neighborhoods with even smaller Muslim populations are “rabats,” a beachhead to spread Islam. The first rabat appeared at the time of Muhammad. According to Iranian political analyst Amir Taheri:

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat – or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias [raids].

We have seen these giant mosques go up in small neighborhoods (despite local ordinances), establishing beachheads and turning the neighborhood on its head. Streets turned into parking lots as well as the noxious calls to prayer.

Millions of Muslims come to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government and establish parallel societies based on Islamic law. Back in 1999, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, ended up helping them in this when it expanded governmental protection of religious liberty in connection with the use of land for religious purposes. RLUIPA gave houses of worship a way to get around zoning laws that interfered with what kind of structures they wanted to build. Republicans backed RLUIPA, but they didn’t foresee how it would be used. Its original intent, although it applied to all religions, was “most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. In Native American religion, the land they worship on is very important. Often the particular ceremonies can only take place in certain locations because these locations have special significance.”

But the enforcement of RLUIPA shouldn’t interfere with the regulations and procedures that a town or city has in place. By introducing this religious accommodation into law, the Republicans unwittingly paved the way for the Islamic supremacists to destroy our freedoms and individual rights. The genie is out of the bottle, but RLUIPA ought to be repealed.

In passing these sweeping laws, there was concern that RLIUPA, “while intended to safeguard the core constitutional principle of religious liberty, could undermine another fundamental constitutional concern, that of ensuring equal protection under the law.”

Well, it has and it did. Religious liberty for all? What if a religion is supremacist and steamrolls over the rights of non-believers, oppresses women, and calls for the annihilation of Christians and Jews?

The movement to repeal it should be led by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, who introduced the bill in the Senate as S.2869 on July 13, 2000.

We beat the 16-story mega-mosque that Islamic supremacists planned at Ground Zero, and we can beat these rabats around the country. Repealing RLIUPA will be a start.

Nearly $8 million in jizya, or it can also be looked at as financial jihad.


Why do muslims murder Americans?

The latest talking point in the Western terrorism apologist camp is that Islamic terrorism against Americans began in 1968 when a PLO supporter named Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy. Thaddeus Russel, a radical professor and author of something called, “A Renegade History of the United States”, circulated the latest version of this meme when he wrote;

 

“Not one American died at the hands of a politically motivated Arab or Muslim until June 5, 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy was shot to death by Sirhan Sirhan. The killing came shortly after President Lyndon Johnson declared that the U.S. would become Israel’s major sponsor”

Of course there’s one problem with this claim. History.

The difference between History and Radical History, is that the former is a record of events that actually took place, and the latter is a distortion of history based on a political agenda. The idea that Muslim terrorists began murdering and trying to murder Americans, after an LBJ announcement isn’t history. It’s radical history. So let’s take a look at history instead.

beirut

In 1958, ten years before Sirhan Sirhan began polishing his gun, the United Arab Republic (a geographical Frankenstein’s monster under the rule of Egypt’s Hitler worshiping General, Gamal Abdel Nasser) funded and armed a Muslim revolt against the Christian Lebanese government of President Chamoun. Eisenhower responded by sending in the US Marines as peacekeeping forces. The Muslim terrorists responded by setting off bombs in public squares, restaurants and department stores where Americans were likely to be found.

A Beirut cafe filled with US soldiers was bombed. So was a bus outside the Capital Hotel, which was filled with Americans. The ABC Department Store, a five story building frequented by Americans was hit by a suicide truck bomber. The same building also housed the local offices of the Singer Sewing Machine company. A bomb went off 30 yards away from the car of the US ambassador. A US Sergeant was shot and killed by a sniper. But of course we’ve already forgotten the Marines storming Red Beach on 24 hours notice. But the terrorism still went on. The US embassy was bombed in 1967 and bombed again in 1969. And all this is only a snapshot of Arab Muslim terrorist attacks against the US in a single city, in one country.

But apologists for Muslim terrorists will go on to claim that we just shouldn’t have been in a Christian country, being claimed by Muslims. Just as they would similarly agree that we shouldn’t support Israel, a Jewish country being claimed by Muslims. Or Thailand, a Buddhist country also being claimed by Muslims. In essence we should just stay out of every non-Muslim country being claimed by Muslims. Which includes much of the known world, including parts of Europe, such as Spain.

So instead let’s stay at home. Surely Muslim violence will not trouble us here. Not before the dreaded year 1968, when LBJ and RFK said something positive about Israel. That has to work. Doesn’t it?

Then let’s go back to 1930, before there even was an Israel. Before US forces were carrying out peacekeeping operations in the Middle East. When the Nation of Islam was founded by W. F. Muhammad. That friendly religious order which claims that white people are subhuman and that America is the devil. The Nation of Islam is however more than just a letter on a baseball cap or a crazy leader occasionally appearing on talk shows to explain why he hates the very people who are giving him a platform. Like just about everything with Islam, it has had a long and bloody history from the very beginning.

In 1932 Robert Karriem, one of Muhammad’s followers, gathered 12 other followers together, along with his wife and children, as he tied down a tenant of his, James J. Smith, and stabbed him in the chest and then smashed in his skull. Karriem proclaimed “The unbeliever must be stabbed through the heart” and “every son of Islam must gain a victory from the devil. Four victories and the son will attain his reward“. All quotes from Muhammad’s teachings about Islam. Kerriem was caught and put away, but the violence only grew.

In that same year, the Reverend J.D. Howell, pastor of St. Stephen’s African Methodist Episcopal Church, warned against “the sinister cult of Islamism” which “toppled sanity into homicidal fantasies”.

Reverend Howell also emphasized that “The Negro race cannot, as such, be held responsible for the actions and teachings of fanatics. Their ‘Arabian’ leader is solely to blame. There must be quick and just punishment of those who come among us and, for personal gain, lead us astray. The Islamic ‘Bible’ and the Nation of Islam must go”

In 1955, the FBI described the Nation of Islam as an “Especially Violent and Anti-American Cult”. Its publication contained the quote, “Of all the governments in the world, there has never existed one so wicked as America, which has misled the holy people of Allah.”. The FBI internal bulletin found that the Nation of Islam presents “…a threat to the National Security of the United States.”

Muhammad

The Nation of Islam murdered “infidels” who left the movement or criticized Elijah Muhammad. Some were stunningly brutal, the murder of an entire family in Philadelphia, including drowning two infants<. But the worst was yet to come. Unlike the Son of Sam or the Zodiac killer, the Zebra Murders , which took place in San Francisco in 1973 have been generally forgotten because they are politically incorrect.

The full number of those murdered by the “Death Angels” of the Nation of Islam may never be known. Estimates range anywhere from 71 to over 200. Those targeted were children as young as 11 year old Michele Denise Carrasco and as old as 81-year-old janitor Ilario Bertuccio. Salvation Army cadets, college students, a retired coast guardsman. The victims were shot, mutilated, raped or decapitated. Some were so badly mutilated that their identities have never been learned.The killers were Nation of Islam members and in some cases used NOI businesses to carry out their atrocities. Their defense was paid for by the Nation of Islam. The horrifying crimes had been committed because the Black Muslim perpetrators believed that murder was their “ticket to heaven”.

The Zebra Murders were the worst acts of Muslim terrorism perpetrated on US soil, until September 11, 2001. Like virtually every Muslim atrocity, they have been swept under the rug, their memory scrubbed away and banished to the dusty archives. Because it is much easier to claim that Muslims began murdering Americans in 1968 because they were angry over Israel, than to admit the ugly and unpleasant truth. That Islamism, is not any fundamentally different than Communism or Nazism. It is an ideology which calls for world conquest and the absolute dominion of its leaders.

Let us step back then before 1973, before 1968, before even 1955 and 1932. All the way back to 1786. When Muslim pirates were preying on American ships, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Tripoli, to try and understand what his justification for these attacks was, the ambassador replied that, “It was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” 35 Americans died in the Barbary Wars, long before LBJ, RFK or Theodore Herzl were even born.

The justification of an 18th century Muslim ambassador for his piracy against the United States shares a common theme with the Zebra Murders taking place on American soil, nearly two centuries later. The Islamic Supremacism which insists that Muslims have the right to kill those who are not their kind, for reasons or religion or race, and that those who commit the murders will have a ticket to heaven. It also forms the common denominator with the ideologies of Muslim terrorist groups of the present day.

Apologists for Islam focus on the practical motivations behind Islamic atrocities. The Barbary pirates wanted slaves and money. The Death Angels enjoyed rape and torture. Hamas and Al Qaida want to rule over different countries. But they are united by the common denominator that Islamic teachings served to dehumanize their enemies and turn them into subhumans. And that is, and has always been the problem. The idea that others are subhuman, and that you can therefore enslave them, kill them and abuse them justifies any number of crimes of opportunity. This goes back to Mohammed and his followers, who embarked on epic sprees of murder, slavery, rape and robbery because they were doing the “Will of Allah”, and those who hadn’t gotten on board with Islam, were enemies and infidels.

barbary_coast_pirates

In the 1930’s, European countries tried to deal with Nazi Germany through appeasement, by ignoring the realities of Nazi ideology, and instead treating it as a symptom of economic and political grievances. The result was that Nazi power grew, and so did their atrocities. They went from street violence and a few murders, to conquest, war and genocide. Like the Barbary Pirates and the Death Angels and Hamas, the Nazis had practical motivations for their crimes. Some of them wanted loot. Some enjoyed torture and murder. But they had the same justification, that everything they did was correct and even praiseworthy, because their victims were subhuman monsters.

Most murderous ideologies will harness some sort of popular grievance and appeal to their follower’s baser desires to kill and plunder. But to ignore the actual ideology, is a dangerous form of denial. To try and appease it is even worse.

Muslims did not begin murdering Americans in 1968 because they were angry about Israel. They were murdering Americans in 1929, because they were angry at Jews. They were murdering Americans in 1909, because they were angry at Christians. In 1973 they were murdering Salvation Army cadets, homeless people and a teenager who was bringing a teddy bear to his little sister, because they were angry at Americans. In 1955, it was because the Americans were there with a peacekeeping force to prevent them from slaughtering Christians in Beirut. In 1786, they were killing Americans, just because they were just there.

That is the ugly bottom line. Islam justifies the murder of non-Muslims. It says that their property may be taken and their wives raped if they don’t submit to Islam. The Koran states that Allah is the enemy of infidels. It states that Jihad is mandatory for all Muslims. It promises paradise for those who join in. The non-Muslim has a choice of either submitting to their rule, and becoming a Dhimmi, a second class citizen, or being an infidel and a target for anything a Muslim cares to do to him or her.

Americans are targets because they are non-Muslims. That is why Obama emphasized in his Cairo speech that America is a Muslim country. That is why Russia joined the OIC. Both are ways of saying, “Don’t attack us, we’re one of you.” But why does that need to be said? It needs to be said, because Islam places Muslims and non-Muslims in different categories. Because it assigns different categories to Muslim and non-Muslim countries. In Islam, there is the Dar Al Islam (The Muslim Realm) and the Dar Al Harb (The Realm of the Sword). A country that is not Muslim, is not in the process of becoming Muslim, and does not have a treaty or truce with whatever a given Muslim faction considers to be real Islam, is part of the Dar Al Harb, to be made war on, conquered and subjugated.

daniel-pearl

Why do Muslims murder Americans? Because they’re not Muslims. And even when they’re Muslims, it’s because they’re not the right kind of Muslim. Because Americans have things they want. Because America occasionally interferes with their goal of recreating a Caliphate. Because American power is an implicit insult to Islamic Supremacism, which demands that non-Muslims cannot have more power or taller buildings than Muslims. But in the end as always, Americans are a target because they are non-Muslims, which makes them inferior, deprives them of equal rights in Islamic jurisprudence and renders them subhuman.

Had America never allied with any non-Muslim country or Muslim country, that Muslims have a grievance with, Americans would still be murdered. Because as long as an ideology embraces both violence and the dehumanization of those outside the ideology, murder is inevitable. This did not begin in 1965.

It began in 610.

And it’s not over yet.


Obama’s Eid message praises “contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation”

On Sunday, July 27, in his message congratulating Muslims on Eid al-Fitr, the holiday marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan, Barack Obama said: “Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.” That’s right: he said “many achievements and contributions.” I could only think of five. Maybe you will be able to think of some more.

5. Getting us here in the first place

This one predates the United States as a nation, but without it, the United States would not exist. Every schoolchild knows, or used to know, that in 1492 Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered America while searching for a new, westward sea route to Asia. But why was he searching for a new route to Asia? Because the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453 closed the trade routes to the East. This was devastating for European tradesmen, who had until then traveled to Asia for spices and other goods by land. Columbus’s voyage was trying to ease the plight of these merchants by bypassing the Muslims altogether and making it possible for Europeans to reach India by sea.

So the bellicosity and intransigence of Islam ultimately opened the Americas for Europe and made the United States possible.

4. Slavery

Slavery is condoned in the Qur’an as well as the Bible, and has been taken for granted throughout Islamic history, as it was in the West until the advent of the great abolitionist movements in the U.S. and Britain. The opening of the transatlantic slave trade provided Muslim slave dealers in Africa with a lucrative new market, one that they cheerfully and energetically exploited.

One consequence of this has been claims by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S. that the first Muslims in the U.S. were slaves imported from Africa. This, of course, feeds the sense of victimhood that CAIR so assiduously cultivates for the political power that it offers, but it cuts in the other direction as well: not only the slaves, but the slave traders who sold them to Europeans and Americans who brought them to the New World were Muslims, operating in accord with the sanction of slavery given by Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Arguably, then, if it weren’t for the Islamic slave industry on the African continent, there would have been no slavery in the New World, and none of the attendant national traumas that reverberate down to this day. This means, of course, that one way that Muslims have contributed to building the very fabric of our nation is by setting in motion the chain of events that led to ongoing racial tensions in the U.S., and ultimately to the election to the presidency of Barack Obama.

3. The Marines

“From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli…” The line from the Marines’ hymn commemorates the Marines’ actions during the First Barbary War (1801-1805), the first war the United States fought against Islamic jihadists. The war came about because President Thomas Jefferson refused to accede to the Barbary states’ demands for tribute payments – demands made in accord with the Qur’an’s dictum that the “People of the Book” must be made to “pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29). The Barbary pirates, also acting in accord with Islamic law regarding the kidnapping, enslaving and ransoming of non-Muslims, were seizing American ships and enslaving the crews, demanding exorbitant ransoms for their release.

The Marines put a stop to all that, and the line from the Marines’ hymn shows how pivotal their actions on the Barbary coast were to forming the Marine ethos. So for the Marines, too, we have Muslims to thank.

2. A drastically weakened economy

Osama bin Laden explained that he mounted the 9/11 jihad terror attacks in order to weaken the American economy. In October 2004 he exulted: “Al-Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost, according to the lowest estimate, more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars.” Then there are the further billions lost since 2004, and the billions wasted on the nation-building misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, such that if he were alive today, bin Laden could look with satisfaction on an America with a severely weakened economy, high unemployment, and no imminent prospects for genuine recovery.

We experience the effects of this every day in a thousand ways, large and small – in an America that is poorer, uglier, meaner, more dangerous, less productive and less efficient than it was on September 10, 2001. A veritable contribution to the fabric of our nation indeed.

1. The TSA

Once romantic and even glamorous, air travel today is an uncomfortable, uncertain, unpleasant, inhospitable, cramped affair involving intrusive and inefficient security procedures that annoy and humiliate travelers. At least everyone is humiliated equally. Passengers are poked, prodded, threatened, herded like cattle, beleaguered with delays, and treated as if they were criminals in a politically correct attempt to avoid focusing on the true source of the problem.

Meanwhile, the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security are two new bloated and ever-growing bureaucracies, further draining the already depleted American taxpayer.

And that, surely, is the crowning contribution that Muslims have made to “building the very fabric of our nation” as it stands today.


Allahu Akbar: Part Deux

No sooner does a Yemeni Muslim begin hammering on the cockpit door shouting “Allahu Akbar”, then the media speculates that he must have gotten confused looking for the bathroom. And on September 11, four groups of Muslim men with boxcutters got confused looking for the nearest post office.

hassan

The lead is invariably buried. Paragraphs fly by until it’s mentioned that the confused fellow may have been a Muslim. If it’s mentioned at all. And his cry of Allahu Akbar is translated as God is Great to render it more acceptable to readers. But like so many Islamic translations, it’s right enough to be wrong. Allahu Akbar doesn’t mean Allah is Great, in a “Isn’t ‘Allah and the Virgins of Paradise’ a great band”. It’s more like Allah is Greatest or Superior. And if you’re on the right side of the cockpit door, the one doing the shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ means that Allah is superior to your country and to you. And one of his followers is about to do his best to show you why.

News stories, which like fruit punch, carry 70 percent propaganda to 30 percent juice, are always eager to explain to their readers, that “Allahu Akbar” is just one of those things that Muslims shout at random occasions. Feel happy, shout, “Allahu Akbar”, feel sad, shout, “Allahu Akbar” till you feel better, feel a touch of homicidal rage against the infidels coming on, shout “Allahu Akbar” and open fire. If you believe them, then “Allahu Akbar” is the Swiss Army Knife of Arabic ejaculations. Whether you’re at a soccer game or a beheading, it’s the verbal black dress that fits any occasion.

The message of Allahu Akbar is the message of the Koran 61:9. “He it is who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” His messenger is Mohammed, the religion is Islam and the infidels who resist get beheaded or have planes rammed into their buildings.
Allahu Akbar represents the tribal pride of the Muslim, who in submitting to Allah, becomes greater than all the infidels who haven’t gotten around to falling on their knees and paying tribute to the ghost of a long dead pedophile. By asserting the exceptionalism of Allah and of Mohammed as his prophet, they assert the exceptionalism of all Muslims. The Slaves of Allah become the masters of the entire world. Not as individuals, but collectively.

Islam is that utter submission. A frustrated act of individual suicide that in the case of a suicide bomber involves actual death. But by dying, he proves himself immortal in the collective. When Muslims boast that they don’t fear death, and even demonstrate it by committing suicide, what they are really doing is embracing a collective existence, by rejecting individualism they shout their omnipotence. The individual killing himself to become immortal is one of the perverse paradoxes of tyranny. And it lies at the heart of Islam.

The Takbir emphasizes Allah’s superiority, not to praise the superiority of their creator, but to assure themselves of their own superiority. In a slave culture, willing slavery becomes a badge of honor. The willing slave is superior to the unwilling slave. In a slave culture there are no free people. Only ones higher up on the ladder. The house slave and the field hand. The eunuch bureaucrat and the stable boy, the Janissary and the street sweeper, the harem dweller and the woman lying moaning in a field after the armies of the Jihad have passed.

Muslim freedom is relative, not absolute. It is relative to the more comprehensive slavery of the non-Muslims under their dominion. And so for them in their own lands, slavery is indeed freedom. An illusory freedom that comes from the difference between their status and that of the non-Muslim.

allah akbar

That’s why the American model translates poorly to the Muslim world. Democracy to Muslims means the rule of majority. And they like that fine, so long as they are in the majority. And if they aren’t, they use the sword, the gun and the suicide bomb until they are. But notions of freedom or equality don’t translate. Muslims will tolerate Jewish or Christian populations at an inferior level, so long as they know their place. And their place is at the back of the bus. They are the slaves of the slaves of Allah.

Allahu Akbar is an assertion of individual superiority through collective superiority. “I am better than you because Muslims are better than you, and Muslims are better than you, because Allah is better than you.” It’s a longwinded way of getting to the point in English, but it’s concisely implicit in the Arabic.

The Libyan national anthem, ‘Allahu Akbar’, begins with a cry of “Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest” and neatly segues into “Allah is the Greatest Above the Conspiracies of the Enemies” and off to the usual killing and dying business. Allah’s superiority renders all others inferior. That’s the message of Allahu Akbar. And it’s shouted much more often as a battle cry, than by people looking for the bathroom in the cockpit part of the plane.

For the same reason it flies on the national flags of Iran, Iraq and the new Afghanistan (the Saudi Wahhabis go the extra mile by writing out the whole Shahada, but that is an elaboration which means much the same thing.

Conveniently this makes the national flags into sacred symbols, as hapless soccer ball manufacturers and one German brothel found out when they tried to promote international brotherhood and sales with the friendly use of Muslim flags. The brothel had meant to promote peace and love by including Saudi and Iranian flags among all the others in the World Cup, and the hooded Muslims who came bearing knives and sticks showed their own version of peace and love. For a religion that rewards mass murderers by fornicating with virgin demons in paradise, it was not so much a show of prurience as exclusivity. Only Islam holds the key to the eternal demon brothel of paradise. And to wave the Shahada or the Takbir above a mortal German brothel cheapens the value of a divine commodity, and blasphemously cuts into Allah’s monopoly.

The tactic of Islamic propagandists and their Western enablers has been to mainstream and normalize. In their translations, “Allahu Akbar” becomes “God is Great”. Not Allah, but God. And not Greater, but Great. The differences are significant. Every news story takes great care to explain that AA, (Allahu Akbar not Alcoholics Anonymous), is a common Arabic phrase shouted at various occasions. Which is true. Muslims don’t just shout Allahu Akbar when they’re killing people. The problem is that they do shout Allahu Akbar when they are killing people. And that shout reveals motive.

No one shouts Allahu Akbar when trying to get into a bathroom, but they do shout it when they think they have a shot at getting into a cockpit. An invocation of omnipotence and a battle cry. “Know your place infidels, Allah is on our side.”

The normalizers insist that Islam is no different than Judaism or Christianity, but what they can’t explain is the global body count, except by twisting the signposts around until it’s all the Hindus, Jews, Christians, Animists and Zoroastrians who are to blame for being murdered. And the body count like the “Allahu Akbar” pilots shows up as an anomaly on the normalizers’ radar. A blip that says something is wrong. The normalizers and their diligent pupils pay no attention to it, but everyone else does.

QuranRifle2

The normalizers say that all religions kill, but which religion hasn’t stopped killing. They say that all have made war in the name of religion, but who starts war in the name of religion today? They say that members of all religions have raped, but which religion’s founder openly kept sex slaves? They say that all religions have their bad seeds, but Islam began with a bad seed who used his religious authority to rob, rape and kill. To perpetrate ethnic cleansing and genocide. And over a thousand years later, that same religious authority is being used to rob, rape and kill in Africa and the Middle East. That authority is best summed up with a single cry, “Allahu Akbar.”

The Janjaweed militias who carried out much of the Sudanese genocide rode shouting joyfully, “Hail the name of Allah”. That much is recorded in the docket of the International Criminal Court. The hundreds of thousands murdered, countless more raped and mutilated, in the name of Allah. Indonesia’s 1950’s and 60’s massacres which claimed over a million lives began with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” and moved on to parading their heads around, disemboweling their bodies, burying them alive and even cannibalism. Obama’s beloved stepdaddy, Colonel Lolo Soetoro, likely played a role in directing these atrocities. And these are only two drops in an ocean of blood still flowing to Mecca. A red tide that threatens to sweep humanity away.

If Islam is no different than every other religion, and their deity is no different than every other deity, why are so many members of those religions and worshipers of those deities being murdered by the followers of a single religion. Not once or twice, but constantly. Year after year. A bloody faucet whose left handle reads ‘Allah” and whose right handle reads “Akbar” that never turns off. That bloody faucet is the best evidence that Islam is different and that its deity is different. Why else can’t the faucet be turned off?


Obama’s Internet Surrender: a “fate worse than death” for the Internet

Screen-Shot-2014-03-19-at-9_38_38-PM

The Obama administration has now endangered that hallmark of Internet freedom.

 

This is Obama’s next offensive in his war on freedom.

 

 

Global governance of the internet. “Global governance?” As in the UN? And who and what drives the UN? The largest world body drives the UN. Bat Ye’or describes the OIC this way, “The OIC is one of the largest intergovernmental organizations in the world. It encompasses 56 Muslim states plus the Palestinian Authority. Spread over four continents, it claims to speak in the name of the ummah (the universal Muslim community), which numbers about 1.3 billion. The OIC’s mission is to unite all Muslims worldwide by rooting them in the Koran and the Sunnah — the core of traditional Islamic civilization and values. It aims at strengthening solidarity and cooperation among all its members, in order to protect the interests of Muslims everywhere and to galvanize the ummah into a unified body.” The Organization of the Islamic Conference will undoubtedly demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and they won’t be referring to jihad forums that foment and incites to slaughter.

Eagle’s Nest readers are well aware of the goals of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. The OIC has already gotten passed a proposal in the UN, backed by Muslim nations, urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism. Islam is the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

Websites like mine are the ones that dare speak of the truth of Islam and report on the jihad and the terrible human rights abuses, the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu etc. persecution, the suppression of women and children, the murder of non-believers, the brutal imposition of shariah law, Islamic supremacism, academic jihad, social jihad, cultural jihad, shariah finance, stealth jihad and the galloping global jihad. The corrupt media are already subdued and self-censor themselves. The net is all there is. Back in 2009, Obama threatened such anti-freedom action; I blogged on this. He backed off after the American people and the Congress protested.

There have been no serious complaints about Americanstewardship of the Internet, no actual abuses perpetrated by American overseers. But were we to abdicate this stewardship, a number of difficulties could arise.

Domain names sometimes present political questions. Which side in a civil war should control Pakistan’s Internet domain? Should Israel’s .il be suspended as punishment for its being an “Apartheid state”? What about Taiwan’s .tw if China announces an attempt to “reabsorb its wayward province”?

Perhaps most serious, control of Internet names could become a lever to impose restrictions on Internet content. Many governments already attempt to control speech on the Internet. Some years ago, Yahoo! was subject to criminal proceedings in France for allowing Nazi memorabilia to be auctioned on its
website. Britain, Canada, and Australia all have mandatory nationwide blacklists of banned sites, managed by nongovernmental regulators with minimal political oversight. Such blacklists can have unpredictable consequences: Wikipedia was badly degraded to British users for some hours because of a poorly designed censorship system targeting child pornography.

If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that “insult Islam” or “encourage hatred,” and a number of European countries may well go along.

Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards. Many other First World countries already have government-imposed restrictions on Internet speech that we would not contemplate here. Even if Internet governance were shared only with First World democracies, they might urge and ultimately demand that domain operators impose restrictions on content.

And now Obama has done it. He had no right but the tin pot-head has gone and done it.

America’s Internet Surrender
By unilaterally retreating from online oversight, the White House pleased regimes that want to control the Web.

L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal

March 18, 2014

The Internet is often described as a miracle of self-regulation, which is almost true. The exception is that the United States government has had ultimate control from the beginning. Washington has used this oversight only to ensure that the Internet runs efficiently and openly, without political pressure from any country.

This was the happy state of affairs until last Friday, when the Obama administration made the surprise announcement it will relinquish its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which assigns and maintains domain names and Web addresses for the Internet. Russia, China and other authoritarian governments have already been working to redesign the Internet more to their liking, and now they will no doubt leap to fill the power vacuum caused by America’s unilateral retreat.

Why would the U.S. put the open Internet at risk by ceding control over ICANN? Administration officials deny that the move is a sop to critics of the National Security Agency’s global surveillance. But many foreign leaders have invoked the Edward Snowden leaks as reason to remove U.S. control—even though surveillance is an entirely separate topic from Internet governance.

ED-AR979_Crovit_D_20140318181201

According to the administration’s announcement, the Commerce Department will not renew its agreement with Icann, which dates to 1998. This means, effective next year, the U.S. will no longer oversee the “root zone file,” which contains all names and addresses for websites world-wide. If authoritarian regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere get their way, domains could be banned and new ones not approved for meddlesome groups such as Ukrainian-independence organizations or Tibetan human-rights activists.

 

Until late last week, other countries knew that Washington would use its control over ICANN to block any such censorship. The U.S. has protected engineers and other nongovernment stakeholders so that they can operate an open Internet. Authoritarian regimes from Moscow to Damascus have cut off their own citizens’ Internet access, but the regimes have been unable to undermine general access to the Internet, where no one needs any government’s permission to launch a website. The Obama administration has now endangered that hallmark of Internet freedom.

The U.S. role in protecting the open Internet is similar to its role enforcing freedom of the seas. The U.S. has used its power over the Internet exclusively to protect the interconnected networks from being closed off, just as the U.S. Navy protects sea lanes. Imagine the alarm if America suddenly announced that it would no longer patrol the world’s oceans.

The Obama administration’s move could become a political issue in the U.S. as people realize the risks to the Internet. And Congress may have the ability to force the White House to drop its plan: The general counsel of the Commerce Department opined in 2000 that because there were no imminent plans to transfer the ICANN contract, “we have not devoted the possibly substantial staff resources that would be necessary to develop a legal opinion as to whether legislation would be necessary to do so.”

Until recently, ICANN’s biggest controversy was its business practice of creating many new domains beyond the familiar .com and .org to boost its revenues. Internet guru Esther Dyson, the founding chairwoman of ICANN (1998-2000), has objected to the imposition of these unnecessary costs on businesses and individuals. That concern pales beside the new worries raised by the prospect of ICANN leaving Washington’s capable hands. “In the end,” Ms. Dyson told me in an interview this week, “I’d rather pay a spurious tax to people who want my money than see [Icann] controlled by entities who want my silence.”

ICANN has politicized itself in the past year by lobbying to end U.S. oversight, using the Snowden leaks as a lever. The ICANN chief executive, Fadi Chehadé, last fall called for a global Internet conference in April to be hosted by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Around that time, Ms. Rousseff, who garnered headlines by canceling a White House state dinner with President Obama, reportedly to protest NSA surveillance of her and her countrymen, also denounced U.S. spying in a speech at the United Nations. Mr. Chehadé said of the speech: “She spoke for all of us that day.”

The Obama administration has played into the hands of authoritarian regimes. In 2011, Vladimir Putin —who, as Russia took over Crimea in recent days, shut down many online critics and independent media—set a goal of “international control over the Internet.”

In the past few years, Russia and China have used a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union to challenge the open Internet. They have lobbied for the ITU to replace Washington as the ICANN overseer. They want the ITU to outlaw anonymity on the Web (to make identifying dissidents easier) and to add a fee charged to providers when people gain access to the Web “internationally”—in effect, a tax on U.S.-based sites such as Google GOOG -0.99% and Facebook. FB -1.37% The unspoken aim is to discourage global Internet companies from giving everyone equal access.

The Obama administration was caught flat-footed at an ITU conference in 2012 stage-managed by authoritarian governments. Google organized an online campaign against the ITU, getting three million people to sign a petition saying that “a free and open world depends on a free and open web.” Former Obama aide Andrew McLaughlin proposed abolishing the ITU, calling it “the chosen vehicle for regimes for whom the free and open Internet is seen as an existential threat.” Congress unanimously opposed any U.N. control over the Internet.

But it was too late: By a vote of 89-55, countries in the ITU approved a new treaty granting authority to governments to close off their citizens’ access to the global Internet. This treaty, which goes into effect next year, legitimizes censorship of the Web and the blocking of social media. In effect, a digital Iron Curtain will be imposed, dividing the 425,000 global routes of the Internet into less technically resilient pieces.

The ITU is now a lead candidate to replace the U.S. in overseeing ICANN. The Commerce Department says it doesn’t want to transfer responsibility to the ITU or other governments, but has suggested no alternative. ICANN’s CEO, Mr. Chehadé, told reporters after the Obama administration’s announcement that U.S. officials are “not saying that they’d exclude governments—governments are welcome, all governments are welcome.”

Ms. Dyson calls U.N. oversight a “fate worse than death” for the Internet.

The alternative to control over the Internet by the U.S. is not the elimination of any government involvement. It is, rather, the involvement of many other governments, some authoritarian, at the expense of the U.S. Unless the White House plan is reversed, Washington will hand the future of the Web to the majority of countries in the world already on record hoping to close the open Internet.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.