| March 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
LiveLeak today courageously restored hosting of FITNA, the powerful film that shows how many Imams, preaching hate per their understanding of the Koran, radicalize Muslims so that individual radical Islamists feel compelled to attempt to kill non-Muslims. I previously posted that only Islam produces such numbers of mass murderers; this video shows why that is.
LiveLeak previously removed FITNA from its servers due to death threats it received from radical Islamists. It restored the video after taking security measures to protect its employees:
On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules.
The primary duty of the government is to protect the safety and security of the citizens.
At this time government is falling short of achieving these goals. Our government is not yet doing enough to protect our rights to free speech. LiveLeak has had to courageously defend our free speech by using it in the face of such threats.
This is becoming like the wild west, when many citizens had to carry guns on a daily basis to defend themselves from attack - because there was little protection for citizens from those who threatened them.
The government must catch up to the strategy used by radical Islam, a strategy which has never before been used to attack the freedom of this country.
As in the first sentence of this post, the strategy is easy to describe:
Relevant supporting links:
According to one FBI agent interviewed in Ronald Kessler's new book The Terrorist Watch, about one in ten of the United States' 2,000 mosques are believed to preach hatred. That number was higher before 9/11, however, as radicals now seek to evade U.S. intelligence agencies.
But the problem extends beyond mosques. Islamic schools play a role, too. According to scholar Daniel Pipes, a Saudi textbook at the Islamic Saudi Academy of Alexandria, VA, teaches first graders that, "all religions, other than Islam, are false, including that of the Jews [and] Christians," while books used by New York City's Muslims schools include, "sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians."
A new report issued by the New York Police Department indicates that radical Islam continues to have an appeal among Manhattan's Muslims, often through "informal groups or clusters of young men…usually associated with a particular venue - community center, non-governmental organization, university group, housing project, café or even a particular mosque." NYPD also noted the, "growing trend of Salafi-based radicalization that has permeated some Muslim student associations (MSA's)."
This environment has undoubtedly impacted America's Muslims. According to a Pew Research Poll, roughly one-quarter of young Muslims (ages 18-29) in the United States believe that suicide bombing is justified under certain circumstances.
We as a people are coming to grips with the fact that under the guise of religion many mosques house preachers of mass murder.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a civilized society.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a society that seeks to protect its freedom of speech.
There can be no tolerance for such preaching in a society that protects its civilians from death threats.
The answer: our government must prosecute, expel, ban, arrest, and jail Islamist leaders who preach that the Koran says Muslims must kill non-Muslims, and who preach that the Koran says that our freedoms must be overthrown, and that Shariah must replace the American Constitution; and our government must do so regardless of whether such preaching is done under cover of freedom of religion.
See also this previous post:
To Eradicate the Islamist Killers, We Must Destroy the Mechanism that Produces Them
I recently posted an article titled, "Obama's Racism: He Calls His Grandmother a "Typical White Person"". I'm having a conversation in the comments section of that article, with commenter Aditya, who posts:
Again, you definitely have a point. It is a most unfortunate reference by Obama, especially his use of the word "bred". Also, at a time when more and more people are upholding looking at the individual rather than the group, it is very sad that he uses "typical" when describing the white ethnic group.
At the same time I would like to point two things out. He says reactions "have been bred into OUR experience" (emphasis added). He doesn't say her or their experiences - implying that he is not free of the 'faults' he is talking about.
I responded:
For him to express a view that is equally prejudiced against black people, is equally unacceptable.
The notion that prejudice is okay if black people are prejudiced too is a horror that Obama has attempted to perpetrate on the nation with this speech.
It makes him, not the first post-racial candidate, but the first pro-prejudice candidate.
Obama defends the racist remarks of Pastor Wright by saying that it must be okay since Obama's own grandmother is also - according to Obama - prejudiced. And as Aditya notes, careful parsing of Obama's comments from the infamous "typical white person" radio interview, shows that Obama is defending his grandmother's supposed prejudice by saying that all people, black and white, are equally forced to behave badly according to, per Obama, 'breeding'. The reference to breeding in particular is specifically racist, as it makes reference to genetics. He's not only defending prejudice - he's championing it by presenting himself as one who practices it.
Obama is not the first post-racial candidate.
He is the first pro-prejudice candidate.
There's no getting around this: Obama's a racist. Here's the audio, via PowerLine.
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity - she doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street, that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences, that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way.
That's racism in its most blatant form. As a white man, I'm extremely offended by his view that there is such a thing as a "typical white person" and how certain reactions are "bred" into me.
Obama's gone to Wright's racist church for the past 20 years because he buys into and accepts the racism preached by his best friend, the pastor Rev. Wright, who also likes to preach "God damn America."
Update 4-11-08: Additional racist words from Obama are here - from his own audiobook, as read out loud by himself. He's an utter racist. Obama makes numerous pejorative blanket statements about "white people" - he thinks white people are all the same, and he hates them.
Dick Morris has a new column that says, "Will the Gospel According to Jeremiah Wright sink the Obama candidacy? Not very likely." Morris argues that Obama can manage the controversy, and claims to be able to foresee just how it will develop:
As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.
I'm not buying it. A candidate who is best friends with - who takes his children to be taught by the preachings of - a pastor who preaches, "God damn America" - can never be elected President of the United States. Nowhere near a majority of the American public will ever vote for a leader who is best friends with a man who preaches "God damn America." The notion is absurd. It's over.
But look at the bind this puts the Democrats in. Obama is the winner of the popular vote in the primaries so far. If the Dems don't nominate him, it could lead to a massive implosion of the party, as many Dems will feel that the will of the people was ignored.
There's still a chance that the Dem voters in the remaining primaries will take their responsibility very seriously, and will destroy Obama by voting heavily for Hillary.
If that doesn't happen, the Dems will be forced to nominate the most snake-bitten - i.e. fatally cursed - candidate in American Presidential history.
How did it happen? The MSM has tilted the playing field in favor of the Dems for years, refusing to criticize them, refusing to examine their faults. So the truth about Obama's pastor remained hidden, when it should have come out a year ago. The result is a Democratic Presidential candidate who has all but won his party's nomination - yet can't stand up to the inevitable scrutiny.
MSM's support of the Dems is unearned, and therefore essentially false. False support is dangerous. And in this case, it's brought the Dems close to massive implosion.
Update 3-25-08: Victor Davis Hanson has a new article which supports a similar view:
Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama's candidacy - and framed the question with, "Don't you think that was a good speech?" The answers, without exception, were essentially: "Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright." In some cases, the reaction was not mild disappointment, but unprintable outrage.
..Where are we now? At the most fascinating juncture in the last 50 years of primary-election history. Superdelegates can't "steal" the election from Obama's lock on the delegate count. And they can't easily debase themselves by abandoning Obama after their recent televised confessionals about abandoning Hillary.
The perpetual separation of men from women is precisely what the author of this NY Times article left out of his analysis.
Think of your life growing up. Imagine if all the women were required to be covered from head to toe, with a burka, so that they could not be seen. Imagine if all the women needed permission to step outside of their own homes. Imagine if the men could go to jail for talking to a woman. You've just imagined what real life is like today for men and women living under Shariah law.
Yet astonishingly, last weekend the NY Times printed an article in defense of Shariah law. The first page of the web version contains this howler:
In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act.
That's right - male witnesses. In Shariah law, the testimony of a female is worthless against that of a man's. Yet this article takes this as an example in favor of Shariah.
From the same article:
Unlike in Iran, where wearing a head scarf is legally mandated and enforced by special religious police, the Islamist view in most other Muslim countries is that the head scarf is one way of implementing the religious duty to dress modestly — a desirable social norm, not an enforceable legal rule.
Such things are not 'enforceable legal rules'? Tell that to the American woman who was arrested last month for just talking to a man at a Starbucks in Saudi Arabia.
A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.
The article contains plenty of CYA statements to the effect that, for example:
How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands.
The 18th century - that's the 1700's. The author of this reprehensible article should recall that it's the 21st century now. And here's an example of the state of Shariah law's attitudes towards women today. It's good for a laugh too. From Memri:
And don't miss this:The Recommendations
A source in Saudi Arabia's Shura Council reports that the council has submitted a recommendation to senior elements in the country to permit women to drive vehicles, with the following stipulations:
- The woman driver must be under 30.
- The woman's driving is conditional upon the permission of a relative [father, husband, brother, or son].
- The woman driver must obtain a driver's license from the center for teaching women to drive.
- The woman driver must be modestly dressed.
- The woman driver will be permitted to drive alone in the cities, but outside the cities she must be accompanied by a relative.
- The woman driver will be permitted to drive Saturday through Wednesday between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
- The woman driver must have a cell phone with her, so she can call for help in an emergency.
- The woman driver must pay a certain sum when her license is issued; this sum will be set aside for car repairs.
The Shura Council also ordered the following:
- The establishment of a special women's transportation department; this department will collect the fees.
- The establishment of a telephone emergency center.
- The establishment of transportation centers for women in the cities, which will be under religious supervision.
- The council stipulated that a woman driver who violates these rules will have her license revoked.
In the framework of this recommendation, the Shura Council is required to impose a one-month prison sentence and a fine on anyone talking with a woman driver from another car, and an eight-month prison sentence and a fine on anyone who sexually harasses a woman driver.
The perpetual separation of men from women is precisely what the author of this NY Times article left out of his analysis.
The massive attack Shariah law makes on everyone in a society, is inconceivable. The women must stay locked up in virtual prisons in their own homes, unable to go out without permission from a man. When they go out they must be covered up in burkas that punish the men by preventing them from seeing the women, and punish the women by preventing them from being seen by the men. And the men can go to jail for merely talking to a woman. I have news for the author of this NY Times article: that's hell on earth.
Once again, we've seen a case in which a Palestinian killer goes into a public place and murders whoever he can.
JERUSALEM -- A man concealing an assault rifle and handgun in a box slipped into a cherished Jewish seminary here and opened fire in the library Thursday night, killing eight people in the deadliest attack in Israel in nearly two years.
Witnesses said the assault lasted more than 10 minutes before a seminary student and an off-duty army officer killed the gunman, identified by police as a Palestinian resident of East Jerusalem.
And just in case anyone might think this was some sort of random, isolated killer, whose actions were not supported by the broader Palestinian people, the Palestinians had public demonstrations celebrating the brutal murder.
Killings in public places have been carried out by the Palestinians whenever possible throughout this decade:
Such attacks killed hundreds of Israelis during a Palestinian uprising in the early part of this decade but declined sharply in recent years as Israel began sealing itself off from the West Bank with walls and fences.
Yet MSM coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is determined not to overtly pick a side. From LGF commenter Dar ul Harb:
Meanwhile, TIME Magazine commemorates today's "events" as best it can, with this totally passive nonjudgmental headline:
Death Comes For Israel's SeminariansGuess the yeshiva students all just had a stroke or something. :(
Or from the front page of last week's LA Times (February 28):
"Rockets follow Israeli airstrikes?" That is shocking. Many people who care about this subject are aware that Hamas has been hammering the Israeli city of Sderot with rockets for the entire decade:
Sderot lies one kilometer from the Gaza Strip and town of Beit Hanoun. Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in October 2000, the city has been under constant rocket fire from Qassam rockets launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Despite the imperfect aim of these homemade projectiles, they have caused deaths and injuries, as well as significant damage to homes and property, psychological distress and emigration from the city. The Israeli government has installed a "Red Dawn" alarm system to warn citizens of impending rocket attacks, although its effectiveness has been questioned. Thousands of Qassam rockets have been launched since Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in September 2005.
The AP article just linked also misrepresents the facts with its headline, "Israelis, militants trade deadly strikes."
The MSM has one core product: accurate information. And headlines like this tell the American people that the MSM is adulterating its core product, by hiding and misrepresenting the truth.
When we buy stuff, we like to get the genuine article we're paying for, not some adulterated ripoff fake product.
The American people are appalled that the MSM would support Palestinians who like to blow up or shoot up cars, buses, trains, restaurants, and in this most recent case, a yeshiva. If the MSM can't tell that people who do that are the bad guys, then MSM can't be trusted.
And so MSM circulation continues to decline.
This week the David Horowitz Freedom Center is launching a Declaration Against Genocide, with a call "to student governments, to campus human rights organizations, to Muslim Students Associations and to individuals in the academic community, to join us in drawing a collective line in the sand against barbarism and to declare ourselves for civilization and hope." From an email distributed by the Center:
David Horowitz Freedom Center Announces Declaration Against Genocide
The David Horowitz Freedom Center announced that it will distribute a Declaration Against Genocide and ask individuals and groups, particularly those on American college campuses, to sign it. The Declaration notes that the Sudanese and other Africans have been victims of a slow motion genocide, and that Islamo fascists in the Middle East are preparing a new genocide against the Jews and can be found here: http://terrorismawareness.org/petitions/140/declaration-against-genocide .
In describing the objectives of this new initiative, David Horowitz, President of the Freedom Center, said: "We are asking all campus groups to repudiate the genocidal passage in the Islamic Hadith which reads: "The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: 'The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!'"
Horowitz continued: "We are also asking all campus groups, including the Muslim Students Association, to condemn the Hamas Charter which says: `Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' Signers of the Declaration will also be asked to repudiate the Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has said `The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.' And Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, who called the Jews `a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment,' and has said, "If the Jews `all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.' These are hateful doctrines that threaten the lives not only of Jews, but of all Americans."
In addition to condemning the genocidal agenda of these leaders and organizations, the Declaration calls on campus groups to affirm "the freedom of the individual conscience and the right to change religions or have no religion at all; the equal dignity of men and women; and the right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation and coercion."
"Although a Declaration Against Genocide should be seen as a document with universal appeal," Horowitz notes, "a coalition of groups with ties to the Islamo-fascist jihad are bound to protest this effort. Our goal is to test universities' claims that they support religious and ethnic tolerance, and to challenge the campus left, which consistently overlooks statements by Islamic radicals which are nothing less than an invitation to mass murder."
Click here to sign the Declaration.
Islamic and leftist organizations on university campuses, will have the opportunity to show that they support tolerance and stand against genocide. Will they sign the Declaration?
Page 1 of 1 pages
