The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: March 2017 Page 1 of 2

The Rape Culture

More Perspectives from the Southern Cross
It is with pleasure that I publish another guest column
by Olivia Pierson of New Zealand.  I have
retained  the original spellings and
syntax  in her column. The illustrations and
extra links are my contributions. Please do visit  her blogsite, and Solo.

Rape Culture Carping

Submitted by Olivia on
Mon, 2017-03-27 05:38

Emma Sulkowicz toting that bale
in protest of her fictive rape.
Performance “art” at its nadir.
A few years ago, when
my 90 year old grandmother was still alive, I told her to make sure she kept
her ground floor windows shut to discourage any intruders so that she wouldn’t
get raped. “Pfft!” she sniffed, then smiled. “Chance would be a fine thing!”Did she want to be
raped?
Of course not, it’s
called a sense of humour. Sadly, the peecee social engineers don’t have one,
and listening to them try to engineer a public perception of a rape culture
defining New Zealand is just tedious – and dangerous.
It’s particularly
dangerous to men and boys.
I will say right at
the outset of this piece that in my eyes rape is a heinous, brutal crime. If
any male raped one of my loved ones, male or female, I’d want to kill them with
anything I could get my hands on, and probably would. There are no excuses for
that evil deed (though if some little hussy pulled her panties down in front of
a horny man and bent over the table saying “comeon” – followed by, “no, just
kidding,” I would probably consider it a mitigating circumstance).
In the aftermath of a
couple of Wellington boys making the statement on social media: “If you don’t
take advantage of a drunk girl, you are not a Wellington College boy,”
precipitating a much media-hyped protest, I think those comments can be safely
relegated to the world of edgy humour – much like my grandmother’s comment.
No rape was
committed, no young girl’s life was ruined and I certainly hope the young lads
who have been humiliated also have not had their youth spoiled.

Nicola Gavy: Academic
enemy
of embedded
reason and normalcy and the Self, 
one of countless foot
soldiers prepared
to subvert your
child’s mind
Some University of
Auckland psychology professor named Nicola Gavey drew
some typically ridiculous long bows from this incident. In a recent NZ
Herald article, she was quoted as saying this: “The thing with rape
culture, is that it is embedded. We are socially training young people by
setting up a gender hierarchy where, put simply, men are on top and women are
on the bottom. We don’t examine this and we don’t think about the ways we are
creating it right from kindergarten.”
Ladies and gentlemen,
feminist professors like Nicola Gavey are the reason why your lovely daughter went
into a New Zealand university a normal, good-natured girl but came out an
angry, complaining little minx with blue hair and a boulder on her shoulder.
Gavey believes “our everyday behaviour creates a culture where acts of male
aggression and entitlement are normalised to such an extent that it’s easier to
cross the line.”
Apparently in NZ,
from kindergarten, the royal ‘we’ are all training our sons to act entitled,
aggressive and superior to women. This is embedding a culture of rape in our
children’s future. Ye gods, this is the stinking poop they are teaching at our
universities. Is there any difference between these statements and the “all men
are rapists” attitudes of Marilyn French styled feminism?
I’ll tell you what
aggressive entitlement looks like… girls like Emma
Sulkowicz
. a.k.a “Mattress Girl” who probably went into Columbia University
a normal and good natured girl before Professors like Gavey got a hold of her
mind.
Emma accused a young
man and fellow student named Paul
Nungesser
of raping her. Due to believing the feminist invented nonsense of
a university rape culture, Columbia University supported Miss. Sukowicz and
allowed her to carry a cumbersome mattress around with her every where she went
on campus, a performance art display to protest “carrying the weight’ of being
raped by a lad who was not automatically expelled. She claimed that Nungesser
had anally raped her, violently choked her and smacked her about the head. News
media, social media and every other form of media under the sun obsessed about
this story.
Nungesser, who always
protested his innocence, had to complete his college degree under the intense
scrutiny of the university’s investigation into the case – with the whole of
America (and the world) watching and judging.
After opening a
second rape crisis centre, as well as forcing compulsory “sexual respect”
workshops on all Columbia students, Columbia University found that Miss.
Sulkowicz made the whole thing up. She was not expelled. After being exonerated,
Nungesser brought a law suit against Columbia University for abetting Miss.
Sukowicz in her highly dramatic and internationally publicised lie, which
frankly ruined his life at college. He did not win.
This case is not
isolated, a whole slew of university rape accusations erupted around this time,
remember the Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus”? It falsely reported a
gang rape at the University of Virginia, claiming they were all in the thrall
of a burgeoning rape culture. These assertions are the handiwork of gender
obsessed feminists, for whom – and I’ll never know why, men represent some
insidious, ever present threat.
There is no rape
culture in NZ outside of gangland. That is not to say that boys and girls do
not get raped, they do (and it makes me utterly sick that some bastards get
away with it).
What does exist
ubiquitously in the lives of our young people though (and it is not anything
new) is a revoltingly cheap “hook up” culture, often accompanied by drugs,
booze and oversexed baseness (these are the grandchildren of the Baby Boomer
generation after all). The sex at least is mostly consensual, but an accusation
of rape can follow from a girl who feels sexually used, or taken for granted,
and who seeks to inflict some measure of vengeance (like in the case of
Mattress Girl). By the time some of these girls even get to the tender age of
twenty they’ve been on a hook up carousel of being screwed and dumped, screwed
and dumped more times than the number of years they’ve been alive.
If the adult
generation want to get to insightful discussions with young people about sex
culture, they would be better off guiding them to develop a strong, authentic,
tenacious Self to combat the pervasive pressure of constantly “appearing cool”
– or worse – “pleasing,” in the eyes of their peers. Romantic love can be a
minefield to navigate even as an adult, let alone a young person. What business
ought teenagers to have with sharing themselves physically and intimately with
another person when they are yet to develop a defined individual Self to share?
I just got tapped on
the shoulder by the ghost of my dear grandmother – she just threw open the
ground floor windows of her mansion in heaven before heading off to bed and
she’s calling me old fashioned. (Just kidding… there’s no way she would’ve
made it to heaven.)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

News
from the Southern Cross
It is with pleasure that I publish here another guest
column by Olivia Pierson.  I have
retained  the original spellings and
syntax  in her column. The illustrations and
extra links are my contributions. Please do visit  her blogsite, and Solo.
By Olivia Pierson

The beautiful Somali
born ex Muslim, ex right-wing-Dutch-politician-come-American, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is
coming to speak to Australians and New Zealanders.
Being a much ruder culture than
we Kiwis, Ozzies have already started to protest Hirsi Ali’s arrival using
Australian Muslim women academics, business owners (and of course Diversity
Peddlers) as spokeswomen. They even have a little on-line petition. You can read it here.
The message of this petition is
laughable. Its dishonesty and hypocrisy are so palpably “on the page” I almost
cringed on their behalf. The powerful Hirsi Ali is just so intellectually
superior to these women that I don’t think she has anything much to worry about
– except for the usual death threats, but then, as an ex Muslim female with a
very persuasive voice, she’s used to those.
The group claim that their
disappointment in having Hirsi Ali come to speak in Australia is “reflective
of the huge diversity of opinion amongst Australian Muslim women. Although we
are not a homogenous group, we are united in our condemnation of Hirsi-Ali’s
discourse which is grounded in hate-mongering and bigotry.”
The petition has 348 signatories
so far – in a country of 23 million people where about half a million identify
as Muslim, they can’t even rustle up 0.1% from their “huge diversity of opinion
amongst Australian Muslim women.” Not that I’m complaining.
Really Lovees, just go home and
be quiet. Hirsi Ali is coming and she is going to blow your backward religion
verbally to kingdom-not-coming-for-you. The most enjoyable part is that she
will do this as she always does, eloquently, prettily, cleverly, without ever
raising her beautiful, sonorous voice. She will crisply slice your 7th Century
superstition to pieces – just as her Muslim family members once held her down
and sliced off her genitals with scissors and no anaesthetic.
Like all Muslim-flavoured
protestors, this group are supremely anti the great Western value of
free-speech – unheard of in their own (or their parents’) countries of origin.
This value is the only reason that these autocratic little Jezebels are allowed
to speak. The petition states:
“Hirsi-Ali’s sheer presence in Australia undermines
both intra and inter-community efforts toward social cohesion and in providing
platforms for Muslim women to champion their own causes.”
Take a note of that (within all
the intra, inter, social cohesion, platform weasel wordery) – they view Hirsi
Ali’s “sheer presence in Australia” as a threat. Never mind that we have to
breathe the very same planetary air as the likes of these sneaky vixens, who
want the benefits of our cultural gifts, like capitalism & freedom, yet seek
to culturally destroy our values as they set about thriving off them.
Not on my watch – nor Hirsi Ali’s
obviously. And why do Muslim women need to champion their own causes in Western
lands – the lands of freedom and tolerance? In this multicultural day and age,
who stops them from doing anything they want to do? Nobody. Only their
co-religionists would aggress them enough to warrant this nonsense about
“championing their own causes.” They are pointing their irrelevant fingers at
fake oppressors. It is either a twisted psychological projection inflicted via
Stockholm Syndrome, or it’s a blatant deception.
Either way, they are not telling
the truth.
Whenever Muslim activists start
this kind of chatter the term ‘Islamophobia’ will always be bandied about. Frankly,
an overwhelming proportion of Muslims are Infidelphobes and it’s about time
they are called on it. Hirsi Ali is a very high-profile victim of their
Infidelphobia. The undersigned women of the petition have put their names to
sloppy sentiments like this:
“Hirsi-Ali stated recently, ‘Violence is inherent in
Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.’
This is just one example of the vitriol frequently espoused by this individual.
Against a backdrop of increasing global Islamophobia, Hirsi-Ali’s divisive
rhetoric simply serves to increase hostility and hatred towards Muslims.”
How many news items recently have
you seen or read where Westerners are slaying Muslims as they innocently go
about their daily business? About two in ten years – one in Norway, one in Canada.
How many news items recently have
you seen or read where Muslims are slaying Westerners as they innocently go
about their daily business? What’s that? .. you’ve lost count? Exactly. Hapless
harpies such as these women are trying to flip the facts because they know
Hirsi Ali is right. They do lend their heartfelt endorsement to a violent,
nihilistic, destructive, murderous cult of death and slavery.
For those who like to buy the
ludicrous idea that these evils have nothing to do with Islam, read the Koran
and Hadiths
(the biographies about Mohammad founding their religion), then read the history
of the Ottomon Empire and the fall of Constantinople. Better yet, read the conquest of Hindu/Buddhist India by
Islam – 400 years of genocide, rape and slavery – exactly what
we have seen been dished out by ISIS & Al Qaeda.
This is not the religion being
hijacked by a few bad eggs, it is the religion itself as set forth by its
prophet Mo. Behold what a brutal 7th Century religion looks like in the 21st
Century when it has failed to undergo a Reformation encouraged by a
Renaissance.
Islamic violence and terror in
Western Democracies has grown meteorically in the last 20 years precisely
because Islamophobia is not in play. Political correctness has demanded that
everybody fawn over this Iron Age theocracy pretending it’s “the religion of
peace” – oh God! How’s that for trying to pull a fast one?! There’s more deceit
going on here than a Hillary Clinton charity event – one asks how do these
people get away with such boldface perfidy?
These mendacious women end their
petitioning words with “Australia deserves better than this.”

Au contraire! Australia and New
Zealand are damn lucky to be hosting a speaker as poignant on the world stage
as Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be. She has fought tirelessly and bravely for
years to expose the creeping evils which Islamic culture is importing into the
West, via the multiculturalist zealots. For all the years since the murder of
her friend and colleague, who was stabbed to death in a Dutch street, film
maker Theo Van Gogh, she has lived under a fatwa – violent fundamentalists
count it a duty to Allah to murder her, resulting in a full time security
detail. Why don’t the Westernised Muslima shriekers ever address this fact if
their religion is so unimpeachably peaceful?
To hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak, go here.

Adventures in the Surveillance State


Auditors of the ongoing
conquest of the West
by Islam, the nightmarish
bogeyman
, can’t help but notice that most Western governments, charged with
protecting their citizens from Islamic jihad, are cowards too afraid to
identify their enemy (other than the citizenry), or are in sympathy with it, but
 also are too sensitive to being accused
of censorship when they wish to have information suppressed or erased from
public knowledge.  That term, censorship, is so fraught with ominous,
negative connotations, that governments avoid it like the plague. Instead they work
by proxy, and require private communications entities like Google to do the
dirty work.

Melissa Cochran (pictured), the wife of US tourist
Kurt
who died, was left covered in blood on the pavement of
Westminster Bridge and comforted by a passer-by
after being badly injured.

And if these entities do not or refuse to do the dirty work, and let
slip unpalliative facts or ideas or videos, they will be punished instead.
Unlike in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen
Eighty- Four
, in which the government (or the Party), if it detected or
accused one of thoughtcrime, would
hustle you off to Room 101, where you would be tortured and made to become a
lover of and  true believer in the
Party’s aims, agenda, and methods, and  then
memory of your existence would subsequently be erased by the government’s
extensive “fake news” apparatus.  Breitbart London  has this revelation. It’s interesting that
Winston Smith, the protagonist in Orwell’s novel, was employed by the Party to
create the very thing he was an expert at doing: creating fake news. An urge to
discover the truth got him converted and erased.  

Trolled: The  Muslim pedestrian wearing a brown headscarf
and
grey coat was seen walking past a victim being treated
 on the pavement
while looking at her mobile phone.
“It’s just another dead kaffir, no big deal, Praise be
to Allah.”

On the very day of the attack, The
Independent
again reported Theresa May’s cross-eyed designation of Islam as
a “great faith”

The
Prime Minister has said the “Islamist” attack
on Parliament was not “Islamic” and Islam is a “great faith”.
Adding:
“This act of terror was not an act of faith. It was a perversion; a warped
ideology, which leads to an act of terrorism like that and it will not
prevail.”
Au
contraire
, Theresa,
it was an act of faith. Khalid
Masood
was certain that Allah would give him extra brownie points for
killing infidels and becoming a “martyr.”
Wake-up call for Theresa, per that
“great religion.” Is it “great’ to her because it underscores the virtue of
self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others?
Qur’an’2:191-193:
“And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they
expelled you; persecution is more grievous [sic]
than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you
there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of
unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving,
All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is
Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:89:
“They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be
equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in
the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them
wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or
helper.”
47:4:
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made
wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by
grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah
had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some
of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will
not send their works astray.”
Qur’an:8:39:
“So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all
submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Ishaq:
324
: “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and
religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’”
Qur’an: 9:14:
“Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover
them with shame. He will help you over(come) them.”
Had enough? There are a few dozen
more in the same vein. Yes, Theresa, Islam is a “great” religion – for
homicidal maniacs.
Rather, Theresa said, the London
attack was “Islamist.” Whatever that means. The distinction is lost on me. A
chocolate cake can be described as “cakist.” How can a “warped ideology” be
warped? The Islamic ideology is already “warpish.” The cross-eyed lady said
that the terrorist action was a “perversion.” Whatever that means about, as Islam,
which worships death, as do innumerable Satanic cults. Reason, however, is
prohibited from entering any discussion of Islam, or from entering May’s mind.

P.M.  Theresa
May: “You have no business or right to know
        the
identity of who threatens you or killed you. That would be racist
and Islamophobic!”

 Pamela
Geller
notes:

Islamism
is generally defined as a political interpretation of Islam. Some critics argue
Islam is intrinsically political – as the Quran mandates a religious state and
law – and say the term is irrelevant.
MPs
almost unanimously agreed with the Prime Minister, lining up to warn against
“demonising” and “stigmatising” Muslims, and to condemn “Islamophobia” and
“racial and religious” discrimination.
What was the name of that British sit-com
that mocked the government? Oh, yes. “Yes, Minister.” And then
it became “Yes, Prime Minister.”
And what do we see here? “Yes, Prime Minister.” “Hear, Hear!”
In the meantime, St. Theresa doesn’t want you
to know what’s imperiling your life. The London Telegraph, in its March 24th
article, “Exclusive:
Google and social media companies could be prosecuted if they show extremist
videos
,” wrote:
Google, Facebook and
other internet companies could be prosecuted if they do not stop extremist
videos from being seen on their websites by people in Britain, The Daily
Telegraph
can disclose.
Ministers are
considering a new law which would mean Google – which owns YouTube – and other
social media sites like Facebook and Twitter can be prosecuted if they allow
such videos to be disseminated.
Theresa May, the Prime
Minister, made clear her displeasure at internet companies that publish
extremist content on Friday, saying “the ball is in their court” over taking
action.
Google publicly
apologised this week after the growing scandal over extremist videos on YouTube
led to a series of companies pulling their adverts from the internet giant.
Google, which owns the
video sharing website YouTube, and other social media sites have an agreement
to take down extremist content within 24 hours when they are alerted to it.

Angela Merkel is listening to you, and
doesn’t like what she’s hearing. Expect
a knock on your door.
(CHRISTOF STACHE/AFP/Getty Images)

May is taking a leaf from
Germany’s Angela Merkel and her drooling authoritarian colleagues.

Breitbart London reported
on March 22nd, in “German
Media Watchdog Instructs Press to Censor Ethnicity and Religion in Reports
”:

 

Germany’s media regulator has revised its code of conduct on reporting
whether crime suspects belong to an ethnic or religious minority after
complaints the previous guidance was unclear.

 

The German Press Council – a
voluntary, industry-run body – says information about a person’s ethnicity shouldn’t
be published “unless there is a justified public interest in doing so.”
The wording agreed Wednesday
replaces previous guidance that said such details should only be published if
there was a link between a person’s ethnicity or religion and the crime.
Numerous German media outlets
complained that the old code was hard to interpret during a breaking news
situation.
They argued that withholding such
information left readers searching for it on questionable social media sites
and stirred conspiracy theories of media cover-ups of migrant crimes.
And that’s right up Theresa’s alley.
Got to police those social media websites! She’ll probably get Mark
Zuckerberg’s help, just as he helped Angela Merkel smother German dissent
against her migrant policies. Breitbart
reported on February
5th
2016 in “Facebook Censorship
and the War on Free Speech”:
Free
speech is under assault — not only in repressive dictatorships suddenly able to
influence global conversations through the Internet, but across the Western
world, and even in the American bastion of free expression.  Absolute
protection for speech as an inalienable right has given way to bitter
squabbling over how much free expression should be sacrificed for various,
ostensibly noble goals, and who the censors will be.
Writing at the Gatestone Institute, British journalist Douglas Murray
looked at Facebook as a battleground in the war on free speech Friday,
recalling a recent case in which the social media giant was “forced to back
down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring
equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.”
To this, Murray adds the
disturbing September incident in which German chancellor Angela Merkel was
caught on an open mike, asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg if he
would help suppress “anti-immigration” postings… and he replied that he was
already working on it.
“Oh, Mark! You’re such a
disgusting but well-behaved Jew – the Muslims have something there, don’t you
think? – but I need your help to keep my people pacified and in line, and,
frankly, shut up. I don’t want any backtalk from the hoi polloi. My
legacy is on the line here about all the badly-behaved savages I let into
Germany. Can you help me regulate German social media?”

You, the
average American, are now an NSA cryptoanalytic
cipher instantly retrievable any time an NSA wonk
wishes or detects an irregularity he does not approve
of.

And we mustn’t forget
the Big Brotherish surveillance of Americans by our own NSA. Fox’s Tucker Carlson’s eyes were opened wide
when he interviewed a
retired NSA spook
who described in detail the extent of domestic spying on
Americans.  Orwell’s Oceania all-knowing
and all-powerful ruling Party would turn green with envy with the scale and
abilities of the NSA. Binny, the retired spook, categorically denied that the “Deep State
was a conspiracy theory, but was a reality.
We are all in the clutches of another “Deep
State.”

Once Upon a Time in the West

Imagine my surprise when I learned that many British government
buildings are being subsidized by Sharia finance, and therefore come under
Sharia law. The Daily
Mail
ran this revealing story just after the
London-Westminster Bridge attack
. This is an instance of abject submission to
Islam.

Will the Royal Coat of Arms give
Way to the Islamic Crescent?
Admiralty House
is one of two more public buildings that are revealed today to operate under
Islamic law following the revelations that government properties were quietly
transferred to finance an Islamic bond scheme in 2014.
In addition to
two Department of Health buildings and the Department of International
Development property on Whitehall, the bond scheme also covers Admiralty House
and an unidentified building at 4-26 Webber Street in Southwark, south
London. 
It takes the
total number of government buildings that were transferred to fund the
£200million Islamic finance scheme to five. 
But
no imbibing of alcohol will be allowed
, per Sharia . Doubtless down the
road, criticizing Islam will not be permitted or you’ll be fined or attacked.
No pork products to be sold or consumed on the “new’ premises. No British beef
will be served unless it’s halal.
Under the terms
of the lease, the sale of alcohol is one of the activities banned on the
premises because they must conform to Sharia law. 
George Osborne
announced the move in June 2014 as part of an effort to make the UK a global
hub for Islamic finance.  
But critics said
the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal
systems by imposing Sharia law onto government premises. 
Due to the
Islamic bond scheme – known as Sukuk
the ownership of the leases on the five government buildings have been switched
from British taxpayers to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.
The money raised
will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn
rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned
in Sharia law…..
Submission to Islam will be painless if you’re willing to lease your
property (or the British taxpayers’ property) to the government per the
“generous” terms established by wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.
The money raised
will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn
rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned
in Sharia law.
Leave it to the British government to sell out its own citizens. And
also to the Canadian
government to sell out its real citizens, not the “refugees” in whose name the
Parliament there seems to legislate  Specially targeted: “Islamphobic” speech.

Will the Maple Leaf be replaced

 with the Islamic
Crescent?

for, and against freedom of speech.

Politicians
in Canada moved forward a motion, with a vote of 201 to 91, that gives Islam
special protections under hate speech laws. (M103)
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau is on board with the motion.
Liberals
and New Democrats supported the measure, which basically tells a special
committee to study how Canada might go about “eliminating” instances of
“Islamophobia,” Life Site News reported. It also gives the government the
authority to collect Islam-tied “hate crimes” data, and to analyze that data to
see if additional government action is needed.
With
the strong
backing of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, Canada’s
Parliament passed a motion this afternoon 201 to 91 that critics say singles
out Islam for special protection….
Tabled
by Muslim liberal MP Iqra Khalid, M-103 urges
the federal government to “condemn Islamophobia” and to “develop a
whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and
religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”
The
term “Islamophobia” is nowhere defined in the motion. 
[See
Elsa’s
blogsite here for more precedents and ramifications.]
Most people, including those with an intimate
knowledge and experience with Islam cannot reach the point of declaring that
Islam – not “radical,” or “extremist” Islam – is thoroughly evil no matter how
pacifically practiced, that is, if your typical Muslim doesn’t knife, or attack
infidels or is satisfied with being a Muslim male cipher or just a baby-factory
brood mare.  On March 23rd, after the
London attack, Tucker
Carlson of Fox
interviewed Ayan Hirsi Ali. He wanted to know what the
murdering jihadists wanted. Ali answered with forthright honesty. She explained
how the jihadist mentality works and why it works so well and so often.
“It
doesn’t matter how nice the liberals are, how accommodating, how obliging they
are,” the apostate said. “Whoever is in their way is their
enemy.”

“We empower them because every time we appease and appease and appease,
they see that as God’s hand – their perception of God – they see God’s hand
making it easy for them to advance their agenda,” Ali said. “They don’t see
that here is a decent, civilized society that is trying to understand them and
give them time, and try to persuade them to put their weapons down. That is not
how they see it.”

“That is wrong,” she said about efforts to assimilate Islamic
immigrants. “That is seen as weak and you are inviting aggression if you
do that.”
That is, it’s irrelevant how nice and accommodating liberals and other
dhimmies are towards Islam and Muslims . Allah via Mohammad says to go out and
slay or convert the non-believers. Period. 
It’s in the Koran. Nothing in
the Koran is lost in translation.
Ali is an “apostate” because she not only criticized Islam before and
after she left the Netherlands, and therefore has earned a non-expiratory death
fatwa, but continues to speak out and write about the perils of Islam. Ali in
her words reveals the pathological epistemology of Islam and its malevolent
metaphysics. Islamic jihadists cannot “put their weapons down” – whether or not
the weapons are SUVs or motorbikes or guns – because their malevolent world
view is an embedded mania, and an integral ingredient of their character,
instilled in them before they can even speak. Appeasing Islamic jihadists only
invites more violence against the appeasers.
However, Hirsi Ali has written that Islam must be reformed to rescue it
from the “extremists.” In a March 20th Wall Street Journal article, “Why
Islam Needs a Reformation
,”  she
wrote on the subject of Islamic violence:
Instead
of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace,
we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic
thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its
most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs
that are used to justify those acts.
As
it turns out, the West has some experience with this sort of reformist project.
It is precisely what took place in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries,
as both traditions gradually consigned the violent passages of their own sacred
texts to the past. Many parts of the Bible and the Talmud reflect patriarchal
norms, and both also contain many stories of harsh human and divine
retribution. As President Barack Obama said in remarks at the National Prayer
Breakfast last month, “Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition,
people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
Yet
today, because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of
Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have
come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence. There
are literalist fringes in both religions, but they are true fringes.
Regrettably, in Islam, it is the other way around: It is those seeking
religious reform who are the fringe element.
Any
serious discussion of Islam must begin with its core creed, which is based on
the Quran (the words said to have been revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the
Prophet Muhammad) and the hadith (the accompanying works that detail Muhammad’s
life and words). Despite some sectarian differences, this creed unites all
Muslims. All, without exception, know by heart these words: “I bear witness
that there is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is His messenger.” This is the
Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith.
The
Shahada might seem to be a declaration of belief no different from any other.
But the reality is that the Shahada is both a religious and a political
symbol.
Ali divides Muslims largely into two groups: those who believe in the
Meccan method, and those who adhere to the Medina method. The Meccan method can
be likened to Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses going from door to door in efforts
of peaceful conversion and proselytization; the Medina method seeks to emulate
Mohammad’s policy of  “the sword is
mightier than the word” of warfare and belligerence.
It
is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina
Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for
adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in
burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly
veiled.
With all due respect to Hirsi Ali, I think she is daydreaming when she
writes:
The
Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the
position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their
cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest
threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and
rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death
threats—or face death itself.
For
the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by
the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help
them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s
legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the
great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change.
Islam can’t be “reformed.” Why do westerners have a problem with
grasping Islamist’: it is altruism and giving Islam and Muslims the benefit of
the doubt because Islam is a “religion of peace.” See also my Bogeyman
remarks. And also

At this rate, the Islamic Crescent will
doubtless  beat the
Pacific Cross
Ali as outlined what she thinks are the five crucial amendments for
“reforming” Islam:
1. Muhammad’s
semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.

Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine
writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a
pre-modern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although
Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in
historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the
Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from
which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from
the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.
2. The
supremacy of life after death.

The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to
the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.
3. Shariah,
the vast body of religious legislation.

Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings
above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.
4. The right
of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.

There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and
politically empowered clerics.
5. The
imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.

Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the
imposition of religion by the sword.
But “reforming” Islam by gutting it of its engine would leave Islam as
kooky and whacky as Scientology or any California cult you care to name. What
would be the point of such a “reformation” unless one wanted to preserve a
mindset that claims that morality comes from an author who occupies the Kantian
netherland of the evidentiary realm of improvability?
I note in “Islam: A Complete
Way of Life
” from May of 2026:
And
what is a “religion?”
Every
definition of it I found boiled down to the same basic parameters: the
institutionalized worship of and reverence for a deity or supernatural being,
with obedience to the deity’s wishes in variance with the severity of the
creed. Some religions impinge on one’s daily life to some degree, or not at
all. One’s “way of life” can include following divinely given golden rules, or
none at all. But most religions allow one to set aside some quantum of
mortality for oneself.
Islam
does not. However, here are some excerpts from a handful of Islamic sites that
emphasize a “complete way of life.”
Argument
2: One could out of sheer academic interest look at every aspect of life
covered by Islam. Then one could develop alternative forms for each aspect and
thereby have a theoretically complete way of life (assuming that Islam is
indeed a complete way of life). However, the alternative way of life, although
complete, would obviously be a humanly-inspired way of life. Again, being a
complete way of life is not a sufficient condition for being divinely-inspired.
The very concept of divine inspiration includes the concept of being a complete
way of life.
This
assumption holds that the concept of divine inspiration logically entails, or
analytically includes, the concept of being a complete way of life. [Emphasis mine]
Assumption
3: If a way of life is not complete, then it is not divinely inspired.
It
says that while one may have a “religion,” it does not mean that the “religion”
is a “complete way of life.” It rejects the human element. Islam regards
man-made law as pernicious.
From
Islam 101:”
The Shari‘ah thus prescribes directives for
the regulation of our individual as well as collective lives. These directives
affect such varied subjects as religious rituals, personal character, morals,
habits, family relationships, social and economic affairs, administration, the
rights and duties of citizens, the judicial system, the laws of war and peace
and international relations. They tell us what is good and bad; what is
beneficial and useful and what is injurious and harmful; what are the virtues
which we have to cultivate and encourage and what are the evils which we have
to suppress and guard against; what is the sphere of our voluntary, personal
and social action and what are its limits; and, finally, what methods we can
adopt to establish a dynamic order of society and what methods we should avoid.
The Shari‘ah is a complete way of life and an all-embracing social
order.
[Emphasis mine]
Sharia
law commands that its “complete way of life” be integrated with an
“all-embracing social order.” Which means that Islam is totalitarian, from top
to bottom. It embraces everything you do, say, or think.
So, I do not understand how someone like Hirsi Ali,
who has experienced first-hand the brutal reality of Islam, and who has an
intimate knowledge of its evil, can claim that Islam can be “rescued” from its
violent practitioners, that is, its fundamentalists, unless she also is under
the pernicious influence of Judeo-Christian
ethics
coupled with a psychological need to found morality on
supernaturalism, on anything but unadulterated reason and individualism.
Founding morality on the unquestioned received wisdom of altruism has indeed
been a stumbling block for individuals and a culture looking for a way to
effectively combat Islam.
Tommy Robinson,
a British activist, excoriates Islam, the political establishment, and the MSM
in the right terms for the responsibility behind the London attack. He is certainly
not advocating a turning of the other cheek or simply putting up with terrorism
as a “way
of life”
advocated by the Muslim mayor of London,  Sadiq Khan, whose bogus
“stiff upper lip” panacea against Islam is a prescription for the death of more
Britons, and he knows it.
A
symposium
addresses this issue, and discusses key words: Altruism, Ethics, Civic Engagement, Key
Persons, Leadership:
Ethics
are commonly regarded as rules or standards of conduct which prescribe
acceptable behavior by public leaders. They are often codified in law, however,
they are viewed as something more intrinsic to human nature —a “moral compass” to
guide one through daily choices of right and wrong. There are four theories
concerning the source of ethics.
The
Empirical
theory holds that ethics are derived from human experience and conceived by
general agreement.
The
Rational
theory considers each ethical decision to be unique; requiring the application
of human powers of deduction to arrive at what is right or wrong.
Proponents
of the Intuitive theory hold the view that ethics are not necessarily
derived from experience or logic; instead, they believe that human beings
naturally possess an understanding of right and wrong.
Finally, the Revelation theory sees ethics as coming from a higher power where
religious teachings serve as the final arbiters of conduct
…[Italics mine]

Coming to America? Shut your
Mouth and your mind! Or
The Magic Crescent will punish you!
Revelation, and the philosophy of relativist ethics, can explain
the utterly irrational statement that Islam had nothing to do with the London
attack.  As Pamela
Geller observes
:
Digby
Jones is the former Minister of State for Trade and Investment in the UK. Here
he is denying the ancient adage that one must know one’s enemy in order to
defeat that enemy. The fact that Khalid Masood was a Muslim is only irrelevant
if his Muslim identity had nothing to do with his motive for mounting the
attack. But Jones doesn’t know whether it did or not; he is just assuming that
it didn’t because to say otherwise would be politically inconvenient.,,,
The
message
the mayor has sent to London residents is fitting, said Digby
Jones. “You’re safer in London than you’ve ever been,” he said. “If this turns
out to be an act of Islamic terrorism, I think the fact that the man is a
Muslim is utterly and completely irrelevant.”
Truth, evidence, Islamic utterances by a jihadist that reveal his
motive, and the bloody carnage left in a jihadist’s wake, mean nothing to such
people. Reality contradicts his assumptions, so reality must be discarded in
the name of political correctness, which answers to a “higher authority” than
reality.

The Bogeyman of Islam

Allah is greater than any other Bogeyman!
Allahu Akbar!

Few things set me off more than an utterly stupid, politically correct
statement about Islam; it causes me to tear out what little hair I have left,
it causes me to cuss a blue streak and employ a lexicon of purple language, it
transforms me into Harvey Wallbanger because it’s so perilously irrelevant. A Harvey
Wallbanger
, for those unfamiliar with cocktail argot, is a drink, a
Screwdriver topped with Galliano

The
mascot — named what else but Harvey Wallbanger — was a bleary-eyed, big-footed
dude who surfed, skydived, life-guarded and even ran for president, always
wearing a vacant expression of distress.
Dumb, cautious statements about Islam also leave me
bleary-eyed and big-footed, as well. Here is Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa
May on the terrorist attack on London’s Parliament and on the citizenry in
general, as reported by Fox
News
:
British
officials did not release the attacker’s identity or confirm a link with the
Islamic State group, though May did say it would be wrong to describe the
attack as “Islamic” extremism.
“It
is Islamist terrorism,” she said. “It
is a perversion of a great faith.”
Come again? You mean that after countless bombings, stabbings,
beheadings, rapes, attacks on Western art, all in the name of the great Islamic
Bogeyman in the Sky, Allah, the attacker was “perverting” a “great faith”?
The empty Nerf balls
rattling around in George W. Bush’s head are also ricocheting around Theresa
May’s. He claimed that on 9/11/01 the hijackers
and killers
had hijacked a great religion.
“Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim.
We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy
doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great
religion.”
Islam cannot be “perverted.” It is naturally perverted, by Western
standards of moral values and behavior. Islam “vibrates” with death. It
worships death. Its adherents dream of death. It is not “extreme,” no more than
Nazism or Communism were  “extreme.” They
were what they were and did not counsel “moderation.”  They were already “radical.” Islam is Islam.
A Bogeyman is a Bogeyman.  As
is Islam
.
As I noted in A
Complete Way of Death
”:
Lopez
and Lyons score Petreaus on his politically correct verbal soft-shoe about
Islam, pointing out that he overlooks or chooses to ignore the fact of the
Global Jihadist Movement (GJM), and that Islam is fundamentally not “religion of peace” that was
“hijacked” by “extremists.” Jihadists, they write,
…are
carrying out the core principles of Islam as specified in the Quran, Shariah
and the hadiths.
 Anyone who has bothered to peruse the Koran, Sharia law, and the hadiths, will
acknowledge that this is a true statement. I maintain a folder devoted
exclusively to violent Koranic
verses; there are over two hundred of them I could easily cite here. The core
principles reside in those verses and they are taken literally by jihadists of
the Sunni and Shi’ite branches of Islam – as they were meant to be taken and which do not leave any room for subtextual
interpretation. Those verses do not represent a guide to becoming flower
children, but rather to becoming conquerors and killers.
Britain
Against Islam
has published these politically correct talking points and
excuses for Islam that we can expect to hear ad nauseam in the coming days and weeks:
We all know the
protocol by now –
1. This has nothing to do with Islam.
2. The guy was a mentally ill ‘lone wolf’.
3. Those who object to points 1 and 2 are racist bigots.
4. Change Facebook profile to flag of inflicted country.
5. Light some candles, hold a vigil, and go on a
peace march.

6. Wait for the next slaughter to happen.
7. Repeat.
That being said, The
New York Times
reported this morning, March 23rd:
LONDON
— The Islamic State claimed responsibility on Thursday for the deadly
attack outside the British Parliament
, as Prime Minister Theresa May
described the assailant as a British-born man whom the country’s domestic
intelligence agency had investigated for connections to violent extremism.
The
London police identified him on Thursday afternoon as Khalid
Masood
, 52, who had a long criminal history but no terrorism convictions.
He had been living recently around Birmingham, England, where the vehicle used
in the attack was rented. The police released few other details about him…..
Barely
an hour after Mrs. May finished speaking, the Islamic
State group
issued a statement on the messaging app Telegram, declaring
that the attacker was a “soldier” who “carried out the operation in response to
appeals” to fight Western powers involved in military operations in the Middle
East.

Altruism can only succumb to
Islam
Will it ever dawn as a supernova in the minds of Theresa May and her reality-challenged
cohorts that it won’t matter if Britain is involved in military operations
against ISIS in the Middle East? Islam wants to destroy Western civilization
and then lord it over the ruins.
Yesterday, March 22nd, Katie Hopkins on the Daily
Mail
had a few words for all those refugee welcomers, multiculturalists,
and reality-resistant politicians like Theresa May.
They
lay in the centre of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a
knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on
the curb…..
This
place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we
face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because
to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the
liberals believe is wrong.
That
multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat
lie.
President
Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the
cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bended
knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.
The
war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the
right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around
the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own
culture.

A Christian Lamb and an Islamic
Wolf
I will say this about the weak cross of
Christianity. It is not strong enough to combat the lethal blows of Islam. The
blows are lethal because altruism
is our current moral gold standard; Islam’s “victories” are by default. If
Christ had emerged when Islam began to rise, he would have been slaughtered by
Mohammad’s “soldiers.” There would be no “turning the other cheek” for Christ,
except when a Muslim took a knife to his neck and severed his head.
I will say this here: no religion is “great,” especially
not if it holds a Bogeyman in the Sky as the final moral arbiter and arranger
of existence, as all the major religions do.

Scrubbing the Mind of “Thought Crime”

American politicians – particularly those with an appetite for controlling
and regulating human behavior – get their “best” statist ideas from Europe. Trending
now is the desire to shut up people who say unwanted things about the things
they hold dear, such as homosexuality, transgenders, pedophiles, lesbians, ad nauseam. The list of subjects about which
one may not say offensive things is long and arduous.  They want to establish a secular Vatican-style
Index Librorum
Prohibitorum.

Who elected two New York
politicians Vatican Cardinals?


The first catalog
of forbidden books to include in its title the word index, however, was
published in 1559 by the Sacred Congregation of
the Roman Inquisition
(a precursor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith).
The
notion of enforcing the deletion and/or punishment of “forbidden” texts or
statements in order to implement the “right to be forgotten” amounts to a
revival of the Inquisition.
New York State assemblyman David I. Weprin and
his colleague State Senator Tony Avella, have an appetite for  censorship.
Here is their idea. ZeroHedge
reported it on March 17th:
In a bill aimed at securing a “right
to be forgotten,”
introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New
York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccu
rate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others
….Within 30 days
of a ”request from an individual,”
….“all search
engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and
links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’,
‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
….“and without
replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or]takedown notice.”
….“inaccurate’,
‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
….“which after a
significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
….“is no longer
material to current public debate or discourse,”
…“especially when
considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other
harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional,
financial, reputational or other interest,”
….“with the exception
of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence,
or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the
requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”
….Failure to comply would make the search
engines or speakers [or authors] liable for, at least, statutory damages of
$250/day plus attorney fees
.
Both
Weprin and Avella are Democrats.  Democrats have always had a hankering to
regulate or control what individuals may or may not say or do. But what, you
may ask, is “the right to be forgotten”?
It
is a European
Union
device originally conceived as a kind of American-style “don’t call” rule by which
individuals would request that their names and telephone and/or /Internet
addresses be excised from commercial firms’ databases so the individuals are
not bothered by “junk” calls, solicitations, or “spam.” But Weprin and Avella
have absorbed the notion and expanded it to mean the censoring information.
For
example, if Assemblyman Weprin and Senator Tony Avella wished that their names
no longer appeared in print or elsewhere in association with the concept of
censorship, an enacted law would allow them to bring suit against me or Google for
justly linking them with such an association, at least if my remarks wound up in
New York under the aegis of New York State law. They could initiate legal
action in order that the association be “forgotten” by a public that may not
wish to live under censorship.

Not.


Further,
the law would stipulate that I could not replace their names with avatars, or
apologize for citing their names or pen a “disclaimer,” or even mention that I had
been compelled under duress  and  the threat of legal action and financial ruin
to “take down” the posting. The posting would simply vanish without explanation.
But Weprin
and Avella carried that concept to actions to stifle or suppress any mention of
them, misinterpreting or ignoring the EU’s
own ruling
on the “right to be forgotten.”
The Court in its
judgement did not elevate the right to be forgotten to a “super right” trumping
other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression or the freedom of
the media.
This is not what
Weprin and Avella have in mind. They want to censor what they, or their
bureaucratic lictors,
decide is or is not inappropriate or “forgettable.” Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge
quotes Washington Post journalist Eugene Volokh as he elaborates on the
significance of the Weprin/Avella bill:
As
The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh rages
,
under this bill,
newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online
encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored
whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the
speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse”

(except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating
to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).
Eugene Volokh “Eugene
Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations
law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of
Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar
on firearms regulation policy…”
Volokh
in his Washington Post article continued:
And of course the
bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest;
after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material
to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic
material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an
exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.
But the deeper
problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a
broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or
shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First
Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter
what rules other countries might have adopted).
Remember: There is
no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law
can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the
power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial
ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides
that they should stop
.
Who is
to determine what is
“inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or
‘excessive’ …. content”? Faceless bureaucrats charged with managing any information
you may encounter. You are not to decide for yourself what is ….“inaccurate’,
‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ … content.”
You
can imagine what Islamic “civil rights” organizations, such as the Council on American
Islamic Relations ( CAIR) would do with such
a law. They would run amok with lawsuits against anyone who seemed to offend or
defame Islam
or
Mohammad
or Muslims
and demand that someone’s book, column, or remark be removed from print or from
online publication. However, as Volokh reminds us, there is no “right to be
forgotten.” By the same token, there is no “right not be offended.” Which is
not the same thing as having a “right” not to be libeled, slandered, or defamed
(that is, if you are a living person and not some mystical deity or over a
century deceased).
Weprin
and Avella wish to insulate their favorite protected classes from ridicule, defamation,
and demonization because they are of the Left, and, not coincidentally, in
alliance with Islam. The Left and Islam are partners in the task of chipping
away at freedom of speech.
Weprin
and Avella would like to issue secular fatwa against speech they disapprove of.
Islam Watch has this advisory:
…There are many
scholars confirming the consensus on this ruling. For example, Imaam Is’haaq
Ibn Raahawayh stated that Muslim scholars unanimously agreed that anyone who
insults Allaah The Almighty or His Messenger or rejects anything that Allaah
The Almighty sent or killed any of the prophets of Allaah The Almighty
would  be considered a disbeliever. This is so even if he acknowledged all
that Allaah The Almighty revealed. Muhammad Ibn Sahnoon mentioned that scholars
have unanimously agreed that whoever insults or discredits the Prophet is a
disbeliever who is promised a severe punishment from Allaah The Almighty. The
ruling on such a person, according to the Muslim Ummah (nation), is death.
Additionally, anyone who doubts his disbelief or punishment is also a
disbeliever.
In terms of
forbiding certain kinds of speech or threatening dire punishment for uttering
or expressing it, there isn’t much difference  between an Islamic fatwa and the New York
Assembly and Senate bills. Both entities
want to shut up criticisms of their preferred icons: the Left wants to squelch
the

Smash Fascism with Antifa,
our brand of Fascism,
which is just a clueless derivative of Communism.


“defamation” of their favorite classes: homosexuals, lesbians,
transgenders, obesity, Muslims, and a long, long checklist of other
legislatively “protected” classes;  Islam’s list of protected classes is much
shorter, reserved almost exclusively by Islam, Mohammad and Allah. Both
entities wish to have the power to punish offenders financially or physically
or in one’s profession. It is an alliance of power-lusters that the
“hard” left and “Islamists” have actually hammered out over
a decade.

Pamela Geller
lives and works in New York City. Doubtless her blog, the Geller Report, would
be subjected to scrutiny by the “forgotten” speech police. She has inveighed
against the proposed Weprin/Avella legislation. In her March 18th column “Democrat
Unveils CRUSHING Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech
,” she
writes:
The liberals are on a death march. The death of
freedom. The death of individual rights. The death of America.
First off, let me
say that such a bill would personally benefit me enormously. There is so much
hate, lies, defamation directed at me online, it is staggering. But I endure
the smears and lies because that is what is required under the First Amendment.
That said, I vehemently oppose this bill. We will wage war against this bill. This
bill would be the club to silence those who oppose the left. This bill would
scrub the information superhighway of their crimes.
Freedom of speech
is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc
unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. Putting up with being offended is
essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a
group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group
will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups
curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the
violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
Let
me just say here that Weprin and Avella are the legislative auxiliaries of Antifa
and CAIR and every other liberal/Left gang that has arisen over the decades to outlaw
and punish freedom of speech. As Antifa relies on physical force and physical
intimidation to suppress or extinguish freedom of speech, so do the proposed New
York censorship laws rely on threats and intimidation.
Come
and get it Mr. Weprin and Mr. Avella!

The Nihilism of Antifa

The average Antifa recruit is a sociopath. He’s in the “resistance”
irrespective of the “cause.” He’s in the mob because of his basic nihilism;
freedom of speech means nothing to him. He would “oppose,” while carrying a
stick or wearing steel-toed shoes or knuckle busters, a speech about the
chemical composition of cow paddies. It could be about immigration, Brexit,
Trump, pro-Trumpers, or Milo Yiannopoulos. It matters not. He is an empty
vessel. There is
the chance to chant with countless others to feel “one”
with them is that is his driving motive to physically assault demonstrators and
be
paid for it.
Alone he is a non-performer, a non-entity. Antifac gives him a
chance to vent his malevolent universe soul, to lash out at anyone who stands
for something.
Hamas’s
domestic doppelganger: Antifa
The mentality of an Antifa “soldier” is parallel with that of an Islamic jihadist. The latter’s end is
his own death
, or arrest, or “martyrdom.” They have said that in so many
instances. But maybe it is also, if he survives being shot, the five minutes of
TV fame as his carnage is televised and he is shown being led away by the
police. But it is not “mental illness,” which is what European authorities
invariably ascribe to Muslim attacks on non-Muslims. It is plain, unadulterated
nihilism. Islam is a
nihilist, death-worshipping “creed.”
Antifa “soldiers” are impervious to the charge that their “anti-fascist”
mantra allows them to behave like fascists, just as Hitler’s brown shirts behaved.

Antifa’s doppelganger: Hamas


Nihilism is also Antifa’s
emotional fuel, just as it is of ISIS. The Encyclopedia Britannica
states that:

nihilism encompassed a
variety of philosophical and aesthetic
stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral
truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and
asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the
universe.
  a :  a viewpoint that traditional
values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless Nihilism
is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value. — Ronald H. Nashb

:  a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of
moral truths
  2a :  a doctrine or belief that
conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction
desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or
possibility;
2b capitalized
:  the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary
reform and using terrorism and assassination
Destruction of its own sake, and the terrorism of anyone attempting to
enjoy his First Amendment right to speak without fear of mob opposition or without
fear of mob violence, are the leitmotifs of both Antifa and Islamic jihad. That
is the nihilism of Antifa and Islam.
 It is without a
doubt that former President Barack Obama, blatantly pro-Islam, is engaged in “Deep State” tactics
to nullify President Donald Trump’s pro-America administration or to stage a “coup”
against Trump, and it is not  beyond
credibility that his actions and his Organizing
For America
(OFA) are linked beyond public scrutiny to Antifa. If Obama is
not providing operational funds directly to Antifa through circuitous
channels
, George Soros certainly
is
under his Open Society
umbrella. Obama’s OFA could also stand for “Organizing For Action” – action to
do what? Mount violent protests, and obstruct Trump’s immigration policies
in the federal judiciary
on the flimsiest legal pretexts, and to oppose
Trump in Congress and in the judiciary.  You
can sit in black robes on a court’s bench and still have much in common with
the black-garbed, arson-happy Antifa thugs.
The
New York Post
reported on February 18th:
Protesters, who may or may not be affiliated with OFA, are also
storming district offices. Last week, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher blamed a “mob”
of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer
at his Southern California office. A video of the incident, showing a small
crowd around an opening door, was less conclusive.
Separately, OFA, which is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers,
plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump and
Republicans over ObamaCare’s repeal.

Soros reviewing his masked Antifa troops
Daniel Greenfield on Sultan Knish, on March 13th, in his “Obama’s
Third Term is Here
,” outlines how Obama and his Progressive/Communist
allies have set themselves up to sink Trump:
After Trump
secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was
on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing
everything they can to bring him down.

It was always going to come down to this.

One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President
who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the
official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of
loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the
country from outside the White House. And that the “Obama Anonymous” network of
staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama’s
Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous
network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.

Valerie
Jarrett
has moved into the shadow
White House
to plot operations against Trump. Meanwhile Tom Perez has given
him control of the corpse of the DNC after fending off a Sandernista bid from
Keith Ellison. Obama had hollowed out the Democrat Party by diverting money to
his own Organizing for America. Then Hillary Clinton had cannibalized it for
her presidential bid through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Now
Obama owns the activist, OFA, and organizational, DNC, infrastructure.

Valerie Jarrett: the other Ma Barker
It’s interesting that Valerie
Jarrett
, who could be characterized as the “Ma Barker” of the
Obama gang, has moved into the alt-White House to better guide and advise Obama
in his war against Trump. Obama apparently heeds her advice without question
and answers to Jarrett for everything he does.
Greenfield divides Obama’s offensive into a
two-pronged assault
: one from “no-liberals-or-leftists-left behind”
personnel in the State Department, the military, and various government agencies
who job it is to sabotage Trump’s policies and legislative initiatives; and the
“Deep State” operatives who work to bring down

The original Ma Barker

Trump from outside the government.

After the election,
Obama Inc. began to spread out its bets. Some of his people migrated into his
network of political organizations. Others remained embedded in the government.
While the former would organize the opposition, the latter would sabotage,
undermine and try to bring down Trump.

An unprecedented campaign for full spectrum dominance was being waged in
domestic politics.

Former Attorney General  of the
United States, Loretta Lynch, coyly sanctioned
violent
opposition
to Trump
. Daniel Greenfield on FrontPage
on March 5th interprets her remarks, which are heavily laden with a verisimilitude
that was (and still is) the rhetorical trademark of Obama and his ideological sycophants:
We can expect Obama Inc. to be increasingly blatant in its
activism, with the man himself making a public reappearance before long. After
Perez’s win, Obama controls the Dems and has a large organization in the form
of OFA. His people within the government are organized and have proven to be
quite dangerous. 
Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our
rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”
“It has been people, individuals who have banded together,
ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and
supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve
bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have
done this before. We can do this again.”

Former AG Loretta Lynch: Go out and raise hell!

This is a call to action. All the empty references to our Founding
Fathers, a group that her allied racist activists are trying to eliminate from
history, or the civil rights movement, whose legacy of unity they rejected, are
empty words. The core is an incitement to confrontation and violence.

It is arguably unprecedented for a top member of the previous
administration to call for anti-government protests this early in a new
administration. But Obama and his crime family have always been unprecedented
Greenfield will not stop connecting the dots, or, so to speak, the
slimy, infection-on-contact tentacles of Obama’s shadow government.
There
is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government.
The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow
government than the real President.

The Obama network is an illegal shadow government. Even its “light side” as an
opposition group is very legally dubious. Its “shadow side” is not only
illegal, but a criminal attack on our democracy.
Obama
no longer legally holds power. His Deep State network is attempting to overturn
the results of a presidential election using government employees whose
allegiance is to a shadow White House. Tactics that were illegal when he was in
office are no longer just unconstitutional, they are treasonous. [Italics-bold
mine]

Obama Inc. has become a state within a state. It is a compartmentalized network
of organizations, inside and outside the government, that claim that they are
doing nothing illegal as individual groups because they are technically
following the rules within each compartment, but the sheer scope of the
illegality lies in the covert coordination between these “revolutionary cells”
infecting our country.
While not part of the shadow government, the MSM
is complicit
in its active, desperate opposition to Trump. It never needed
to be cued by Obama to oppose Trump. Dumping fake news, smears, allegations,
and innuendoes on Trump and his nominees and allies and against anyone who
opposed Obama over eight years has been their mainstay for over a decade. The MSM
may as well have seats in Congress across the aisle from the Dems and the
RINOs.

The mangy mutts of the MSM
Will we ever reach a day when Obama is no longer a threat and becomes
unnewsworthy? Will some intrepid, brave journalist ever delve into the
nihilist, subterranean connections between the Obama/Jarrett Kalorama household
and that third group of jihadists, Antifa, and expose Obama’s treason?  Obama’s policy from day one of his first
administration has been to flaunt the Constitution and “remake” America into
his own nihilistic image. Now that he is legally powerless to impose his will
on the country, he has chosen to impose it illegally.
Not as a yapping, mangy mutt snapping at Trump’s and America’s heels,
but as a rabid Rottweiler. 

Sanctuary Cities

A “sanctuary city” is no more than a haven for criminals and illegals.
I don’t think we need to flaunt the definition of “criminal.” An illegal,
however, is a person living in the U.S. who entered it illegally, and collects government
benefits, may or may not hold a job, and may even “vote” because of chiefly
democratic election rigging. If he’s found out, he can retreat to a “sanctuary
city” where, presumably, the authorities cannot arrest him or detain him for
deportation back to the pest hole he came from. He can be a murderer, but the
authorities’ hands would be tied. He can commit the most horrendous crime, yet
still be “untouchable.”

MS-13 members and their comical
“signs”: coming to aid Antifa?

Coming across the border are countless illegals, many of them
dangerous, many of them jihadists posing as Mexicans or South Americans.
Aaron Bandler of the Daily
Wire
, in an undated report, outlines the essentials of a “sanctuary city”:
1. Sanctuary cities are a blatant
violation of federal law. 
Some on the left have tried to
claim that they’re perfectly legal, but this is clearly false.
2. Sanctuary cities undermine law
enforcement. 
Not only do they refuse to cooperate with
federal agents in deporting illegals, sanctuary cities make it more difficult
for police officers to do their job.
3. Sanctuary cities are “akin
to roulette.”
For example, “Two-thirds
of all outstanding felony warrants in the city of Los Angeles involved illegal
aliens — as well as 95% of outstanding murder warrants.”
4. Crime has surged in sanctuary
cities. 
The Daily
Wire
‘s Hank
Berrien
 reported on the following from Louisiana attorney general Jeff
Landry:
Landry told the
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security,
that sanctuary city policies “allow illegals to commit crimes, then roam
free in our communities.” Landry’s appearance was prompted by the changed
status of New Orleans, where city police are now banned from asking an
 individual’s immigration status.
Using recent
statistics from Los Angeles, another sanctuary city, Landry asserted, “Los
Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up
10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies
up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent … (sanctuary cities)
encourage further illegal immigration and promote an underground economy that
sabotages the tax base.”
5. There are an estimated 300
sanctuary cities, counties, and states…. 

No individuals in MS-13; just
symbols of tribal unity, just as in Islam
Sanctuary cities can be terminated as havens for illegals, especially those
with criminal records. The Center
for Immigration Studies
  [CIS] has
several important recommendations:
The
Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within
the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and
the public safety problems they create.
Here’s
how to do so:
  • Rescind the
    Obama administration actions and policies that encourage and enable
    sanctuaries, including clarifying that local agencies are expected to
    comply with detainers;
  • Cut federal
    funding to sanctuaries;
  • Initiate civil litigation to enjoin state or local
    laws and policies that egregiously obstruct enforcement of federal
    immigration laws and regulations;
  • Selectively initiate prosecution under the alien
    harboring-and-shielding statute, which is a federal felony; and
  • When requested, issue administrative warrants to
    accompany detainers as a reasonable accommodation to state or local
    concerns. Negotiating over which aliens will be subject to detainers, as
    is current policy, is not a reasonable accommodation.
  • Direct ICE to begin publishing a weekly report
    providing the public with information on all criminal aliens released by
    the sanctuaries.
In
the past several years, a “sanctuary” movement has arisen in various states and
political subdivisions around the country. This movement intends to, and does
in fact, obstruct the efforts of federal officers to enforce immigration laws,
substituting instead the views of the state or local jurisdiction over how or
whether immigration laws will be enforced within its boundaries.
The
Center for Immigration Studies has tracked the movement, repeatedly spoken out
against it,1
and watched as it has grown under the policies of the Obama White House, whose
aims have more closely mirrored those of open borders advocates than those of
an administration constitutionally charged with faithfully executing the laws
of the United States.2
There are now more than 300 state
and local governments
with laws, rules, or policies that impede federal
efforts to enforce immigration laws. [CIS, by the way, has been listed as a “hate
group) by the SPLC – the discredited
but still active Southern Poverty Law
Center
].

MS-13 with its Hamas body guards?
Do we really want members of the brutal, tribal MS-13
gang
inhabiting our cities? A Mexican drug cartel overlord? Alien pedophiles?
Rapists? Murderers? No. Do we want
itinerate criminals
entering and reentering the U.S.  at will under the aegis of an “open borders” policy
or sympathy for the “illegals” by activists
and brainwashed students
? Do we want the Antifa thugs
masked in brown (or black) shirts/hoodies attacking anyone who disagrees with
their (global)
bizarre
anarchist
agenda (partly funded
by Soros
, who else by?)
NYU
SANCTUARY
” posted the following guidelines on how to protect NYU as a “sanctuary
campus”:
Why
is declaring NYU a Sanctuary Campus important?
President
Hamilton has stated that NYU will not be a Sanctuary Campus.
What
does Sanctuary at NYU mean?
By
declaring NYU a Sanctuary Campus, the University pledges:

Not to voluntarily share any information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or other federal agencies to the
fullest extent possible under the law;
This is akin to CAIR (the Council
on American-Islamic Relations
) advising Muslims
not to cooperate
with or talk to FBI agents investigating possible
terrorists or terror-preaching mosques. It’s the same “resist” mentality. CAIR
removed the poster from its website for public relations reasons. But it was
successful in promoting its shrinking
Newspeak lexicon/dictionary
by having the FBI
remove references
to Islam in its video game. This of course follows years
after the FBI removed all references to Islam from its
training materials
.

Not to allow ICE physical access to any buildings or land owned or controlled
by the university to the fullest extent possible under the law;

To train campus security staff to respond to federal agents seeking access; and
instruct security staff to refuse to participate in the actions of any agency
that deals with immigration regulation;

To prohibit campus security from inquiring about or recording any information
regarding an individual’s immigration status;

To prohibit all housing discrimination based on immigration status or religious
affiliation, and provide emergency housing for noncitizen students who cannot
go home during academic breaks;

To provide access to competent and expanded legal support for noncitizen,
Muslim, and LGBTQ students and staff, those with undocumented family members,
and others rendered vulnerable by federal, state, or city orders that
contravene the University’s commitment to diversity, freedom, and equality;

To expand access to financial aid for noncitizen students, especially those who
might be affected by a repeal or change in DACA;

To commit ongoing resources to create and sustain on-campus working groups to
assess and address the evolving needs of undocumented students and staff,
students and staff of color, students and staff with disabilities, LGBTQ
students and staff, and otherwise marginalized students and staff.

To distance the University’s investments from anti-immigrant measures by
divesting from companies or funds that stand to profit from these measures,
such as private prisons.
What are the
possible costs?
It is impossible to
know what the costs could be. The University will likely need to commit
financial resources.
The impossible never occurs to these people. Possible costs of becoming
a sanctuary campus might well be an increase in tuition. Or the lives of the
students.  Or a surge in campus crime,
such as rape, other kinds of assault, and property theft.

Antifa seems to have adopted Hamas’s “look” –

except for the guns, not yet.
Charleston is not a “sanctuary
city
” but that did not stop an
illegal alien from beheading his mother
and parading around with his mother’s
head before he was detained.
An 18-year-old man
who beheaded his mother in a small North Carolina town on Monday is an illegal
alien, The Daily Caller has learned.
Oliver Mauricio
Funes Machado was taken into custody after police say he decapitated his
35-year-old mother, Yesenia Funes Beatriz Machado, in their home in Franklin
County.
Machado, a Honduran
national, was found holding a large butcher knife in one hand and his mother’s
head in the other.
“When they arrived,
he was with the decapitation in his hand and it was a gruesome scene,” Franklin
Co. Sheriff Kent Winstead told WRAL, a local news station….
“ICE Enforcement and
Removal Operations (ERO) has issued a detainer for Oliver Funes-Machado, an
unlawfully present Honduran national, following his arrest March 6 on local
charges in Franklin County, North Carolina,” ICE spokesman Bryan Cox told TheDC
in a statement.

The similarity between Hamas gear and
Antifa’s cannot be coincidental.
 Only the guns are missing.
ICE has placed a
detainer against Machado, Cox said. It is unclear when Machado came to the U.S.
[Other reports say that Machado was a Mexican national.]
Berkeley can be deemed a “sanctuary city” because it appears to be a
safe place for Antifa black shirts (whose uniform was possibly modeled on Hamas’s)
to attack pro-Trump citizens or the freedom of speech.
America is now a crèche for two fascist groups whose slogans seem to be
Violence anytime, anywhere, to beat down
Americans who disagree with us.
” This is Obama’s true legacy, to grant Americans
no sanctuary from the barbarism.

Islamophobia Revisited

We all know – “we” being those who bother to read or think about it –
what “Islamophobia” is.

Geert Wilders said it
first
. Muslims are flattered.
I’ve discussed Islamophobia in dozens of columns over the years. Islamophobia
is a (morbid) fear of Islam, Muslims, about how they can reduce an advanced
nation to an Islamic pest hole (and hardly “multicultural).
It is the fear of anyone who swears unswerving allegiance to Islam, and starts
slaughtering infidels, or of anyone who blinks or submits in indifference to islam,
such as most of our politicians, and of dhimmies
(a.k.a. the dimwitted, clueless activists who believe that Islam is a “religion
of peace”), that is, of morons who carried “Refugees Welcome” signs in
virtually every Western country.
One correspondent ingeniously devised a new term, Islamo-hegemony,
which aptly describes and identifies the principal end of Islamic doctrine
and methodology (stealth jihad), which is to establish Islam as the supreme
political and religious “way of life” everywhere it turns Western gold into Islamic
lead. She also devised another apt term –
Islamo-catatonia – which is
unresponsiveness to negative information about Islam.” That is,
it is a shrug of the shoulders when reading that women have been raped and
beaten by Muslim migrants, or that another woman or girl has been “honor-killed,”
or that an infant Muslim girl has died after undergoing female genital
mutilation (FGM).
But islamophobia isn’t limited to those who know the score about the belligerent,
violent nature of Islam and want to fight it or speak out about it. It emasculates
and terrifies those who are first-hand witnesses to it, chiefly in Europe. Europeans
are rendered impotent not only by their own “Islamophobia,” but by fear of their
own governments, which have penalized any criticism of Islam with stiff fines,
prison time, or “shaming.” To be afraid of “blasphemy laws” – particularly when
they shield Muslims against legitimate or scholarly “trash talk” about them,
Allah, and Mohammad – which put freedom so speech and open discussion about Islam
at a premium. Europeans, especially Swedes and Germans, are in a catatonic
state afraid to “blaspheme” or to help victims of Muslim sexual assaults. If a
Swede or a German appeared in a public space carrying a “Refugees Not Welcome,
Go Home,” he’d be handcuffed and hauled off almost immediately. He wouldn’t
need to appear in person; the monitoring of his email account would be enough
for the state to beat him down.

The German or Swedish male, immobilized
by fear: “Gee! If I try to stop them from raping
my wife, those Muslims might kick my
head in! And then I’ll be arrested for
interfering with their culture! Or for hate speech!”
It’s frightening when a Western country, such as Canada,
seriously contemplates censorship by declaring that any utterance or print of
statements that can be declared “Islamophobic” and punishable by the
state. 
 Doubly frightening now is that two of President Trump’s
national security advisors, Lt. General McMaster and Sebastian Gorka,
advise that connecting Islam, such as in the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism,”
to terrorism is “unhelpful,” in the war against Islam, because they
claim that Islam has nothing to do with waging jihad; has been
“hijacked” by Islamic terrorists who quote the Koran chapter and
verse (clueless and literally dumbfounded George
Bush started the “hijack” meme
on 9/11) every time they slaughter people in
Allah’s name, and that the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” won’t
ever escape McMaster’ or Gorka’s  lips
(even though Trump said it during his speech before the Joint Session of
Congress, perhaps in defiance of McMaster and Gorka). I sincerely hope Trump
gets his facts straight and shows McMaster and Gorka the door.
On March 3rd, Gatestone carried a hard-hitting column by Judith
Bergman
, “The West Submits
to Blasphemy Laws
,” in which she details just how dhimmified Western governments
have become in the face of Islam. Blaspheme laws are becoming quite ubiquitous,
even in North America.
·        
“Now
that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the
beginning…” — Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Samer Majzoub, Canadian
Muslim Forum.
·        
The motion
still does not offer any definition or any statistics to support its claim that
“Islamophobia” is a problem in Canada.
·        
However, it
should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so
swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government
measures.
The West is
submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that
now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a
provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been
used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971.
Denmark’s Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a
Quran….
In
Norway, the provision against blasphemy was abolished in 2005. A poll conducted in January showed that 41% of Norwegian
Muslims believe that blasphemy should be punished, and 7% believe that the
penalty for blasphemy anywhere should be capital punishment….
In
Britain, at least one man has been prosecuted and sentenced for burning the
Quran (in 2011) and several arrested in 2010 and 2014 .
One hell of a motivational speech.
In
Canada, meanwhile, anti-Islamophobia motions, aiming gradually to prohibit all
criticism of Islam — and part of Muslim blasphemy laws — are being passed.
The Ontario Provincial Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion in February.
The motion called on the legislature to “stand against all forms
of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance; rebuke the… growing
tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments” and “condemn all forms
of Islamophobia.” Needless to say, no such motions were introduced to
protect Judaism or Christianity.
In
October 2016, Canada’s national Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, president of
the Canadian Muslim Forum. At the time, no one knew what they were condemning:
Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Discussing whether ISIS is a true
manifestation of Islam? No one knew, as no one had bothered to define it.
The
lack of definition, however, has not stopped Iqra Khalid, a Member of
Parliament from the governing Liberal Party, from introducing a new motion on
the back of the previous one, Motion M-103, in the Canadian parliament. The motion
demands that “Islamophobia” not only be condemned, but that the
government develop a comprehensive approach to reducing or eliminating
Islamophobia. The motion still does not offer any definition, or any statistics
to support its claim that “Islamophobia” is a problem in Canada. However,
it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has
so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government
measures. After the first motion was unanimously passed, the man who initiated
the original petition, Samer Majzoub, had this to say in an interview
with the Canadian Muslim Forum:
“Now
that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the
beginning… We need to continue working politically and socially and with the
press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have
to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada’s
supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we
need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the
Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all
ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and
humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive
policies.”

When pigs fly. And Muslims snack 
on sausage and gravy.

Quiet in the
peanut gallery, you dhimmies! European silence, and the suppression
of information
on the crime rates in Europe – crime rates ballooned
by Muslim “refugees
,”  together with
an alliance with Politically Correctness, is aiding in the transformation of
European societies into ones in which the byword among citizens is “Mum’s the
word!” Liam Deacon, in his Breitbart column, “Government
Report: Islamists Building ‘Parallel Society’ in Sweden Aided By PC Culture of
Silence
,” of March 4th, reported:

Aided by a politically correct culture of
“tolerance”, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is secretly building a “parallel”
society in Sweden by infiltrating organisations and political parties, a government report has concluded.
Surprisingly,
the document takes aim at “political elites” for fostering a doctrine of
multiculturalism and silence, which can help and facilitate the nefarious ends
of anti-democratic organisation like the Brotherhood….
The paper’s authors claim the Brotherhood is
working to increase the number of practicing Muslims in Sweden, encouraging
tension with Secular society, and targeting political parties, NGOs, academic
institutions and other civil society organisations.
They
also slam the “established structure of values among the country’s political
elite [which] places a high value on ‘acceptance’ and ‘tolerance’ of citizens
who are in some sense different from the mainstream”.
In
the report, the Islamism of the MB is described as a totalitarian political
ideology born out of Islam, a religion. This can make it “difficult to oppose what
on the surface appears to be (a vulnerable minority) religious rights”, it
explains.
Separate but equal “parallel” societies? Hardly. Islamo-hegemony
won’t hear of it.  Islam claims the whole
turf. No fences. No borders. No “good neighbor” policies.

Take a bus to see the Arc de Triomphe!
But be sure to wear an asbestos suit and
take a fire extinguisher.
Meanwhile, back in France,  Guy Millière reports on “France’s
Death Spiral
.”
In
1990, the “Gayssot law” was passed, stipulating that “any
discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is
prohibited”. Since then, it has been used to criminalize any criticism of
Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim
world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined and most
“politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from
bookshops.
At the end of the 1943 movie, “This Land is Mine,” a French
school teacher instructs her
students (under duress) to tear unapproved pages from their French history
books, unapproved, that is, by the occupying Nazis. M. Millière continues.

The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It
also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the
crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential
contribution” of Islam to humanity. All history textbooks are
“Islamically correct.”

The new “Sieg Heil” is the Islamic
“Blesssings and peace be upon you.”
Shall we call it Islamofacsism,
as well? It is, after all, a companion term to Nazism.
Basically, Islamophobia is the traumatizing, action-stifling fear of
intervening when Muslims commit rapes, murders, and just sheet nihilism against
anything Western.  Muslims would never,
as the MSM are in the habit of doing, ascribe their irrationality to “mental
illness.” However, I don’t know of any other “religion” but Islam that sanctions
mental illness as a normal state of
mind.

The Unbounded Malice of the Democrats

 “Curses!
Foiled Again!”
Snidely Whiplash: the
embodiment of the

Democratic Party

In fact, why limit the characterization of Democratic behavior to mere
malice? Why not call it unbridled hatred and hatred of the good for being the good? For their hatred’s target is not just President
Trump
, but the American people
for having made President Trump possible. One doesn’t have the frequent opportunity
to observe so many grown men in effect drop their pants and moon a whole country besides the
President. This is what they are doing, for all to see, practically a whole
political party behaving like petulant brats who’d rather see the country’s
continued destruction by Barack Obama’s policies instead of renewing the
country by the grace of Trump’s policies.
President Trump addressed a Joint
Session of Congress
on March 1st. Rather it was a Disjointed Congress, with
the Democrats ensconced on one side of the House and the Republicans on the
other. The Democrats largely remained literally unmoved by Trump in a peevish
demonstration of their small-mindedness and malice.
Daniel Greenfield on FrontPage
published a gallery of telling photos of Democrats reacting to Trump’s
Congressional address. I wondered:  Who
were all the women in a back row in white? At first I thought it was a school
choir that had been invited to hear Trump’s address to the Joint Session of
Congress.  But no, they
were distaff Democrats
led by Nancy Paleo-Pelosi, the House Minority
Leader, who  now resembles a melted Madam
Tussuad wax mannequin, her puffy Botox lips acting like a tongue sticking out
at Trump and everything he had to say or show. Some of the “white dress
privileged” women rose and applauded. Some of the Dems in the immobile side
of the House rose and applauded and got dirty looks from their colleagues. I
watched the whole address to Congress, and saw the glances and dirty looks

Democrats,
led by Paleo-Pelosi, who resembles a
 a melted Madam Tussuad wax mannequin, were
advised
to not stand or applaud Trump.

.

Daniel Henninger in his Wall
Street Journal
article revealed that:
There is one other relevant image from
the moments after the speech ended: Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin
standing—alone—to shake Mr. Trump’s hand.
Last week, progressive activists petitioned  [Senate] Minority
Leader Schumer to expel Sen. Manchin from the leadership team as retribution
for his vote in favor of Scott Pruitt’s nomination to run the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Apparently, Senator
Schumer would rather retain the costly swamps created by the EPA, rather than
see them drained.
 The
Dems also refused to applaud
or even look at the victims of immigrant crime
as Trump pointed them out; instead boos and hisses emanated from that side of
the House. The Free Beacon wrote that during the two-minute tribute and standing
ovation given to the widow
of Navy Seal Ryan Owens
,
The audience stood
and gave Carryn Owens a standing ovation and applauded for over two minutes for
her strength.
A majority of
congressional Democrats who stood up to clap sat down before the applause was
finished. At the 2:49 mark in the above video, NBC’s cameras showed several
Democrats sitting in their seats, with very few appearing to clap for
Owens.
It was an expression of the Dems’ malignant hatred of Trump and
everything he said. I fully expected one of the “Resistance” Dems  to break decorum and throw a shoe at Trump,
Arab-style
, as was what once happened to President Bush in 2008. The
drooling and frothing mouths were nearly palpable.
No wonder Democrats
aren’t connecting with Americans. Their hatred for Trump is stronger than their
love of country.
But, had
they ever any love of their country? In lieu of all the scandals, corruption,
and crimes committed by the Dems during the Obama administration, their “love”
is clearly based on an all-encompassing avarice for anything that can be looted
from America so they can continue to live in a gated elitist Elysium and the
status quo.

“Foiled again!” Keith
Ellison
, now deputy chairman of the DNC,
and Debbie
Wasserman Schultz,  
former head of
the DNC,
sit immobilized during
Trump’s Congressional speech,
 doubtless traumatized by the prospect of 4
years of Trump.
The behavior
of the Dems was laid bare before a whole nation – indeed, before the whole
world – to see them spite their own faces. For in 2018, when new, local races
are scheduled, the Dems are again going to suffer catastrophic defeats, unless
they can rig
elections
and snatch defeat from the jaws of popular disgust. At the
moment, the Dems are like the cartoon character Snidely Whiplash,
rubbing their hands together, cackling like the stereotypical villain, in
anticipation of obstructing
Trump
in every
way
possible. The electorate is not going to quickly forget the spectacle
of the discourtesy displayed by the Dems during the Joint Session.
They may as
well, every man and woman jack of them have been donned the pink
Pussy hats
of the Woman’s March on Inauguration Day, to confess how “nasty” they were on March
1st and promise to be for the next four years.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén