| May 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 |
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
Spread the news far and wide: CAIR made big moves this week to use the threat of lawsuits to destroy our freedom of speech - and Americans who heard about it are getting sick and tired of it, and are standing up to defend our way of life from those who seek to destroy it.
First came the news this week that CAIR had pressured PACE university to get a student, Stanislav Shmulevich, arrested for throwing a Koran in a toilet at PACE university. This move has generated millions of dollars in adverse publicity against CAIR, via talk radio, blogs, newspapers, and on TV.
Evidently emboldened by what they foolishly considered a success, CAIR then sent a letter threatening legal action against the Young America's Foundation, unless they shut down an event at which Robert Spencer was scheduled to speak. The YAF responded: “CAIR can go to Hell and they can take their 72 virgins with them.” This is a rallying cry ranking with "Nuts!" and "Give 'em Hell, Harry!"
On the front page of the Calendar section in today's LA Times is an article unlike any I have ever seen that paper - or any MSM newspaper - publish before. It is a passionate, brilliantly-written piece by Tim Rutten in his Regarding Media column. Every sentence of it calls on MSM, and all of us, to defend our freedoms, and our way of life, against the murderers who want to destroy them.
Rutten recounts how 19 years ago, "the Iranian revolution's spiritual leader," Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, called for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.
Rushdie survived by spending the better part of the next decade in what amounted to an "author's protection program" maintained by the British government. Several of his translators, however, were killed or wounded.
When news of knighthood spread last weekend, the flames of fanaticism rekindled. An Iranian group offered $150,000 to anyone who would murder the novelist. Effigies of the queen and the writer were burned in riots across Pakistan. That country's religious affairs minister initially said that conferring such an honor on Rushdie justified sending suicide bombers to Britain, then - under pressure - he modified his statement to say it would cause suicide bombers to travel there. Pakistan's national assembly unanimously condemned Rushdie's knighthood and said it reflected "contempt" for Islam and Muhammad. Various high-ranking Iranian clerics called for the writers' death and renewed their insistence that Khomeini's fatwa still is in force. Riots spread to India's Muslim communities.
Friday, the Voice of America reported that Pakistani "lawmakers passed a second resolution calling on British Prime Minister Tony Blair to apologize 'to the Muslim world' " and that, "on Thursday, a hard-line Pakistani cleric awarded terrorist leader Osama bin Laden the religious title and honorific 'saifulla,' or sword of Islam, to protest Britain's decision."
If you're wondering why you haven't been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it's because there haven't been any. And, in that great silence, is a great scandal.
It's breathtaking to read this in an MSM paper. The LA Times headline-writers backed him up, with a large-print headline all the way across the top of the inside page the article jumps to, saying, "Silence is unacceptable in face of violent intolerance and bigotry."
As a blogger, and a Pajamas Media blogger, I'm proud to say that Rutten takes inspiration in part from a Pajamas Media post by Flemming Rose, the editor who courageously published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed:
...one analyst who saw that clearly was Flemming Rose...
...In a column posted on the L.A.-based Pajamas Media website late this week, Rose began by reminding readers of legal scholar Ronald Dworkin's admonition that "the only right you don't have in a democracy is the right not to be offended,"...
Rutten continues:
...what is the societal cost of silence among those who have not simply the moral obligation but also the ability to speak - like American commentators and editorial writers?
What masquerades as tolerance and cultural sensitivity among many U.S. journalists is really a kind of soft bigotry, an unspoken assumption that Muslim societies will naturally repress great writers and murder honest journalists, and that to insist otherwise is somehow intolerant or insensitive.
Lost in the self-righteous haze that masks this expedient sentiment is a critical point once made by the late American philosopher Richard Rorty, who was fond of pointing out that "some ideas, like some people, are just no damn good" and that no amount of faux tolerance or misplaced fellow feeling excuses the rest of us from our obligation to oppose such ideas and such people.
If Western and, particularly American, commentators refuse to speak up when their obligations are so clear, the fanatics will win and the terrible silence they so fervently desire will descend over vast stretches of our world - a silence in which the only permissible sounds are the prayers of the killers and the cries of their victims.
Rutten and the LA Times have shown courage, insight, and leadership. It appears likely that other MSM papers will take note - and that those MSM papers that don't, will be left behind, in this great movement of our time to defend our freedoms and our way of life.
These ads were run by the ADL earlier this month in the NY Times. Sample text (to help people using search engines find this post): "700 HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DETAINED and TORTURED last year in ZIMBABWE. And BRITISH ACADEMICS are boycotting ISRAEL?"
In this previous post, I noted that Liberals like to attack the successful, and reward the unsuccessful. I discussed the ideological grounds on which Liberals do this.
More recently, Evan Sayet has brilliantly discussed the root causes among Liberals for this behavior.
The fiasco of the firing of Don Imus this week provides the latest example of Liberals attacking the successful - even the most successful among their own supporters.
From the LA Times:
Democratic politicians lose a mouthpiece with Imus
His show gave many of them a way to reach a national audience of white males - a critical voting bloc.
...with Imus' career in tatters, the fate of the controversial shock jock is stirring quiet but heartfelt concern in an unlikely quarter: among Democratic politicians.
That's because, over the years, Democrats [...] came to count on Imus for the kind of sympathetic treatment that Republicans got from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
Equally important, Imus gave Democrats a pipeline to a crucial voting bloc that was perennially hard for them to reach: politically independent white men.
With Imus' show canceled indefinitely because of his remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, some Democratic strategists are worried about how to fill the void. For a national radio audience of white men, Democrats see few if any alternatives.
Hillary went out of her way to slam Imus as hard as she could, saying, last Tuesday:
I've never wanted to go on his show and I certainly don't ever intend to go on his show, and I felt that way before his latest outrageous, hateful, hurtful comments.
In doing so she helped to harm her own party.
Conversely, prominent Conservative Ann Coulter went out of her way to defend Imus.
The left is so devoted to attacking anything that is successful, that it strikes at the most successful things in its own party. Lieberman was turned away by his own party and had to run (and win) as an Independent. Cindy Sheehan slams leading Libs, such as Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards. And now Imus, who per the LA Times was the closest thing the Dems had to Rush Limbaugh, has been taken off the air, because the Dems wouldn't stand up for him.
The results show the error of the Libs' approach. Those who promote the unsuccessful, and attack the successful, are harming all of us, and that includes - themselves.
"Koch Calls for Pundit's Ouster from Shoah Council":
Former New York City Mayor Edward Koch has called for Dennis Prager to resign or be removed from United States Holocaust Memorial Council, in response to the pundit's recent insistence that a Muslim congressman should not be sworn in using a Quran.
You know what else is a religion? Jedi Knight:
Umada and Yunyun, also known as John Wilkinson and Charlotte Law, want the UN to acknowledge "The Force" is worthy of being called a religion.
The couple claim to be part of the UK's fourth largest religious group, after 400,000 people recorded their faith as "Jedi" in the 2001 Census.
They say that as a religion, they deserve tolerance and respect. November the 16th is the annual International Day for Tolerance.
And as part of a global battle worthy of Luke Skywalker's efforts against the Empire, the band of self-styled Jedis want the UN to re-name the day as Interstellar Day of Tolerance.
More people claim their religion to be Jedi in England and Wales than those who follow Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism. And the cause has global support.
There are also 70,000 Jedi knights in Australia, 53,000 in New Zealand, and 20,000 in Canada.
By Koch's reasoning, a congressman could be sworn in on a stack of Star Wars DVD's.
Koch can't deny that the vast majority of terrorists in the world state outright that they are intentionally blowing up planes, busses, resturants, etc. in the name of Islam. Koch can't deny that Muslim leaders hold no major rallies, marches, or vigils, in which their leaders say that anyone who purposely blows up a train, bus, restaurant, etc., in the name of Islam, is lost to Islam. Koch can't deny that religious leaders throughout the Arab world regularly appear on TV and urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam.
So Koch has blinders on. Claiming that Islam is just like every other religion is ignorant to the point of absurdity.
Koch has made a mistake. He should own up to it.
Berlin stands up for free speech:
In September, Deutsche Oper head Kirsten Harms canceled Hans Neuenfels' interpretation of "Idomeneo" that had been scheduled for November following a vague security warning from police that the prop of Muhammad could incite Muslims.
After a storm of criticism over artistic freedom and an all-clear from police, the opera house rescheduled two performances for Dec. 18 and Dec. 29.
"What we can say is that, on the 18th, the work will be performed on stage with all the necessary props," Busche said.
The Liberal tactic of using a physical attack to prevent someone from speaking was seen again at Ball State this month:
Conservative activist David Horowitz got a 50-foot "not welcome" sign, 15 cheese pizzas and nearly a cream pie in the face before speaking at Ball State University about political agendas of professors Wednesday night.
Two women were arrested by university police near the Teachers College in connection with the pie-throwing incident, but the identity of the pizza pranksters remains a mystery.
Sgt. John Foster said one woman, Ball State junior Cassandra Reed, ran at Horowitz with a cream pie in her hand. Director of Public Safety Gene Burton stood between the two, and he and other officers were hit with the pie, Foster said.
"Gene saw it coming and got in the middle," he said.
The police pursued Reed and Grace Mitchell, Columbia City, who was with Reed at the time of the attack, Foster said.
Reed was arrested on suspicion of resisting law enforcement and three counts of battery of a police officer, and Mitchell was arrested on suspicion of resisting law enforcement, Delaware County Jail officials said. Reed remained in jail on $17,500 bail, but Mitchell was released Wednesday night on a $2,500 bond, officials said.
Libs are building a reputation as being authoritarian repressors of free speech. If they want to avoid that, they'd better stop things like this from happening.
The Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation states that they are suing Kerry associates:
PHILADELPHIA, Oct 10, 2006 -- The ongoing battle over the truth of alleged war crimes and atrocities committed by Americans in the Vietnam War moves to a Philadelphia courtroom this week.
An action filed in Philadelphia's Common Pleas Court today by a group of highly decorated veterans and POWs may finally hold Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and his allies accountable for the allegations they have propagated over the past 35 years.
On the same site, per Col. "Bud" Day:
Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as a "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.
Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.
The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
The VVLF site states that Kerry had previously sued the VVLF 2004 in order to halt distribution of the film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal:"
The suit seeks to recover legal fees and other costs associated with Sherwood and the VVLF's defense against legal actions brought by Kerry's associates. Those actions claimed that "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a film documenting the impact of John Kerry's allegations against POWs, defamed them by challenging their assertions and those of John Kerry that they personally committed or witnessed other U.S. Servicemen engage in war crimes. Those actions were suddenly withdrawn this summer.
During the 2004 campaign, top Kerry campaign officials circulated memos seeking to silence the film and used the Campbell and Bjornson lawsuit as a threat against at least one Philadelphia-area theater to not show the film. That theater ended up canceling the showing just before it was to be viewed. At the time the suit was withdrawn, The Legal Intelligencer (July 13, 2006) reported that the lawyer for Kerry's associates had said that bringing the suit had accomplished their goals of gaining publicity and stopping the film from being shown.
Kerry's suit against the VVLF has recently been dropped, under timing that leads the VVLF to the following obervation:
The suits by Kerry's associates were suddenly dropped earlier this year just as they and several of their allies faced depositions under oath and subpoenas of their military records.
If you have links to additional reports on this story, please post them or email them to me.
There are fascinating developments in England in the wake of Jack Straw's laudable request for Islamic women to stop wearing the veil that separates Muslims from the rest of society. The message is getting to some in the British Islamic community that they must assimilate or leave:
Senior MPs and peers signalled their alarm at the furore triggered 10 days ago by Jack Straw's call for women to reconsider wearing face veils. They said the Muslim community felt under siege following a succession of recent headlines generated by the Government.
...The Labour peer Baroness Uddin pleaded with the Government to work to help women lead the fight against extremism. She said: "We have attacked those who would be our greatest allies in meeting the current challenges of terrorism and radicalisation." She warned that the row over veils had caused "havoc" in the Muslim community and created "a feeling of vulnerability and demonisation of Muslim women".
Lord Ahmed, another Labour peer, said members of the Muslim community were considering leaving Britain because of the row. "People are asking: 'What is our future here, do you think we should be taking our money and going somewhere else because this country has so much Islamophobia?'"
One Islamic response was to issue a veiled (no pun intended) threat:
But Khalid Mahmood, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, warned: "There's been a huge hype over a small number of people and the only thing this has led to is Muslim-bashing. The only people this will benefit are the far-right BNP. It will also encourage extremists from the Muslim community who will say: 'We told you so."'
This is the response we see so often from Islamic leaders - 'You are saying you don't want our terrorists to attack you? You'd better not, because that will only encourage our terrorists to attack you even more.' Notice that he's threatening physical attacks ( "it will also encourage extremists from the Muslim community" ) in response to a use of free speech. Here again we see an Islamist using a threat of physical violence to restrict Western free speech. This is the message of the dictator and the oppressor. It's got no place in a free Western society.
Also notable is the cumulative effect of a series of statements from those who defend the free world:
The Labour MP John Denham, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, warned: "I'm worried there has been a series of pronouncements by government ministers, each one of which is individually unexceptional, but put them together it does look like a barrage of general criticism."
This is how we, who insist on protecting our free Western society and culture, gain power from standing together. We all seek to make reasonable statements, and the cumulative effect is very powerful.
Consider the following oddly similar current stories:
I just don't believe that YouTube, the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, or MySpace has an official policy biased against Conservatives. So what's going on here? What's the explanation?
Let's start with YouTube. With 65,000 new videos uploaded daily, there's no way for YouTube to inspect each one and even consider censoring it. In fact, the company's official policy is for the site's community to be self-policing:
YouTube said it does not monitor the content of video submitted by users, though it prohibits videos that are violent. The site relies on users to alert the company to offensive videos, and YouTube reviews requests for removal.
So if Conservative videos are being blocked on YouTube, it means that users are emailing YouTube claiming that they find the videos to be offensive. The Libs have cleverly found that they can shut down YouTube distribution of videos that show a point of view they want to suppress. All they have to do is claim that the video is offensive.
Given that this is surely happening in the case of YouTube, it appears to be a likely explanation for the similar events at the U.S. Dept of the Interior, and at MySpace. Libs are emailing to say that sites they disagree with are offensive, leading the proprietors to shut down those sites.
And of course, at Columbia University, the students left no doubt at all that they want to prevent people they disagree with from speaking, even though the views being expressed by Gilchrist are shared by so many Americans, that Congress has recently voted to build a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.
So this is the latest tactic of the Left. While claiming to support free speech, in fact, they oppose it for those who disagree with them. Using this new tactic, they are seeking to keep people from hearing, views that they disagree with.
My recent post on this subject is generating a lot of interest. To recap, Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed bill SB 1441, that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
One of the responses to the post was sheer disbelief. From comments posted on Digg:
Inaccurate as hell. Please pass it on.
...and:
There is a bill out there, waiting for his signature. I hope this is inaccurate or it will be headed for the Supreme Court.
(A quick trip to Google news turns up numerous confirming articles.)
Another response has been well-considered. One of my favorite bloggers, Rob Port at Say Anything, has posted a discussion of the article. An excerpt:
A Violation Of The Establishment Clause?
I don't think this [links to my post] probably is.
Here is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...If these schools/religious organizations fail to condone homosexuality, etc. the state of California won't close them down, they'll simply withhold funding. These schools and religious organizations would be free to continue to exist, but they wouldn't get government funding.
In the comments, Rob adds:
The government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nothing says they have to fund it.
Rob appears to agree with me in principal on the issue, but just questions whether the bill is unconstitutional:
Personally, I don't exactly like the idea of government bullying private schools and organizations in this manner, but this is the situation we have left ourselves in by becoming so dependent upon money from the government.
I agree with Rob on almost everything, and as always he's making great points here.
The argument, of course, turns on the meaning of the word "prohibit," and says, the government isn't prohibiting something by defunding it. A reasonable argument.
But I would respond that it needs to be remembered that the the subject of sexuality is only one of hundreds or thousands that is taught in schools. By legislating that all funding for the school as a whole will be removed if the school does not teach the view demanded by the state on one specific subject, the bill leverages the full financial power of the state against one single issue. The school must lose all its state funding, and all its students who receive loans from the state, or teach a view that the state demands. This overwhelming leverage may be considered prohibitive.
Now, let's turn to the freedom of speech issue, which Rob did not address, and which cannot be denied. When the subject comes up in class, schools are ordered to say something the state demands, even if the teachers themselves do not believe it, or lose state funding. This is not equivalent to saying that public schools may not say anything good about religion, as has previously been demanded under the false interpretation of the establishment clause of the Constitution. This goes far beyond that, by suppressing all discussion within a school on one side of the subject, and permitting only views approved by the state to be spoken aloud. Under this bill, the expression of a view on this subject that is not permitted by the state, will have dire consequences. And this is on a subject about which reasonable people in this country disagree. This is a massive and insupportable attack on freedom of speech, and it must not stand.
In practice, it will inevitably lead to schools being forced, not only not to say a view that contradicts that of the state, but to actively say things that the teachers do not believe. This is because, under the bill, only those supporting the state-approved view on this subject, will be able to speak their minds. All others would not be permitted to speak their minds. If they do they will meet massive, overwhelming punishment in the form of defunding by the state. Yet the subject will come up in class. It is inevitable that in practice the institutions would be forced to demand that all professors "profess" to believe as the state demands, whether they do or not. It's completely unsupportable under the freedom of speech guarantees of our Constitution.
Finally, lets turn to the so-called discrimination issue. Proponents of the bill argue that it's a matter of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals.
Here's how Randy Thomasson, President of the Campaign for Children and Families, put it in a debate yesterday carried on Fox TV:
It's a deception to say this is about quote unquote discrimination. Look who's being victimized: Christian colleges, day care centers, even after school programs. If they take a dime of state money, and we're talking about state scholarships for students, we're talking about child care vouchers for single moms, those institutions, those colleges, those schools, will no longer be able to say or uphold the standards that they support for marriage, family, and sexuality. Mr. Kors' bill is basically gonna force Christian colleges to hire men dressed up as women as professors, and this is a gigantic clash between church and state, and the religious values are being swept asunder by the gay activists' agenda. It's absolutely intolerant.
Video of Debate between Randy Thomasson and Geoffrey Kors.
The bill itself is discriminating against people based on their beliefs. It's discriminating against people based on their religion. It's discriminating against all who don't believe as the state demands. It discriminates against all who want to teach their children that being homosexual isn't appropriate for them. As an audience member shown in the above video puts it, to applause:
Well you know, I feel sexual orientation is nothing like the color of your skin, or nationality, and I get sick of it getting shoved down my throat.
So the discrimination argument is full of holes because the bill itself is discriminating against millions of people.
This bill has got to be challenged on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and establishment clause grounds.
Gov. Schwartzennegger has just signed a bill that ties funding to a repression of free speech in all schools, public and private:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding -- even if it's a state grant for a student -- to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
This is a violation of even the most liberal interpretation of the separation of Church and state clause, because it uses the power of the state to force religious institutions to say what the state wants them to say.
It is a violation of freedom of speech, because it not only punishes those who say something that the state doesn't want people to say -- it forces people to say what the state demands.
This bill has got to be challenged as a violation of our Constitutional right to free speech.
"The Shadow Party," the new book from David Horowitz and Richard Poe, is a New York Times bestseller.
Some of the things in this Frontpage interview on the book, with Richard Poe, are real eye-openers:
FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party?
Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive.
The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control.
FP: How does it work?
Poe: It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.
In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates.
The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him.
During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, "Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it"
...FP: Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy America?
Judge for yourself. In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States." He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to "puncture the bubble of American supremacy." Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.
On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation. At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants. These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation. However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job. A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project - a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones. Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.
On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror. Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal. Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.
FP: Why don't more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies?
Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception. It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them. Their true agenda remains concealed. As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, "[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected."
The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in America. In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, "The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."
...FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in America.Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse. Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech. McCain-Feingold Act was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.
Here's how it works. McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run. In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold's reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet. Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned. We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments.
Read the whole thing.
From Brigitte Gabriel:
I was invited to give a lecture sponsored by Professor David Patterson of the Judaic Studies Program. When news about my appearance spread, the Muslim community both on and off campus launched a full-scale campaign to stop my lecture. They demanded that Dr. Patterson cancel my speech. E-mails flooded the University of Memphis administration and Dr. Patterson from Muslim students on campus and Muslims in the community and mosques.
Thinly veiled threats of violence were used:
Here are some of their comments [sent to the administration to shut down the speech]:
..."Do you honestly think the scheduled lecture will serve any useful purpose other than inflaming the Muslims, insulting them and spilling poison in the community?"
And some not-so-thinly veiled threats of violence were also used:
Dr. Patterson introduced me by telling the audience what an eye opener this lecture had become because of the reaction. He stated that he never realized that here in Memphis a speaker should be threatened for his/her safety just to speak on a college campus. He introduced me and I delivered my speech with police officers on both sides as well as about eight others in the lecture hall and around the building.
...At the end of the lecture the Muslims immediately in front swarmed over me questioning and intimidating me. Police officers quickly moved in and pulled me out straight to the police cars as the enraged Muslims started shouting.
Gabriel shows the hypocrisy of such behavior:
It is interesting to see the reaction of the Muslim community to someone with Muslim shrapnel in her body who speaks against butchering innocent people in the name of Allah. If they would put the same energy into condemning the radical element within Islam and join us in saying that slaughtering people in the name of Allah is murder not Jihad, maybe we wouldn't question their loyalty as American citizens.
The American right to free speech was defended:
Dr. Patterson refused to bow to their intimidation and insisted on going on with the scheduled speech.
Gabriel got tough and commanded the room:
Fed up, I went straight to the podium and ordered everyone to sit. I told them, this is my lecture and I run the show. If they didn't like the way I conducted my lecture and my questions they could leave the room, now. Shocked at my behavior and authority they shut-up. The non-Muslim members of the audience applauded.
The anti-U.S. sympathies of this Muslim community in Memphis have already given birth to at least one would-be lethal terrorist living among them:
Unknown to me, a Muslim student attending the University of Memphis was arrested weeks prior to my lecture for, among other things, possession of DVD's on pilot training and charts on the layout of the Memphis airport. They found links on his computer to sites associated with a radical Sunni Muslim organization in Iraq, and searches for information on how guns and bombs can be smuggled past airport security. After witnessing the Muslim reaction to my lecture and what happened few weeks ago at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill when an Iranian Muslim student drove into, for Allah's sake, innocent students gathering on university grounds, the Memphis police was not going to take any chances.
I'll tell you what. I think we Americans are going to have to get tougher. Immigrants here are going to have to hear from us in no uncertain terms that we live by a code that includes freedom of speech, and that immigrants who threaten violence in opposition to freedom of speech, are going to pay consequences, possibly including arrest and/or deportation.
Let's consider the meaning of the signs displayed by 1,000 Islamists who protested against freedom of speech in our house -- in New York, NY. The following pictures are from the BareKnucklePolitics blog, via Michelle Malkin:
This is a protest threatening "Allah's Wrath", and that "Responsible Editors Must be Punished." There's no mistaking that this crowd opposes the U.S. right to free speech.
They are using the U.S. right to free speech, as a means of attempting to destroy it.
They have no place in this country.
They need to all be identified and thrown out. This is wartime. It would be highly advisable to deport all those who are threatening citizens of the free world in an effort to destroy our freedom.
Now let's look at the third photo, showing a sign saying, "Islam will Dominate." What does this sign mean? It certainly is intended to convey that Islam is incompatible with free speech and that Islam will destroy free speech. It is intended to convey that the Islamists in America will overthrow the U.S. constitution and U.S. law, and replace it with Islamic law, which will, among other things, remove the right to free speech.
BareKnucklePolitics (same link) reports on how this protest was organized:
A group organized by a Muslim leader protests cartoons published by a Danish newspaper, outside the Danish consulate in New York, Friday, Feb. 17, 2006."
So it was put together by "a Muslim leader."
One question I've been looking into on this site is, what's going on inside the mosques? This protest provides powerful evidence that what's going on inside at least one mosque in New York is incitement to oppose U.S. freedom of speech.
These Islamists are not seeking to assimilate into the U.S. culture. They are seeking to do in the U.S. what the Islamists are doing in France and in England. They are trying to destroy our culture.
