You don’t have to agree with what Charlie Hebdo published – I certainly didn’t – to stand up and LOUDLY shout that they protected everyone’s free speech rights against brutal, totalitarian Islamic terrorism and deserve to be remembered for their bravery.
The funny thing – if you can take anything funny or good from terrorism and murder – is that these islamist butchers and their supporters have made the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo into martyrs for the cause of freedom and have greatly increased the world’s interest in their work.
Sad to see so many in the media rushing to apologize for Charlie Hebdo and demanding that we censor ourselves and ‘live on our knees’ in submission to radical islamist terror.
Lest we forget – “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier (1967 – 2015), publisher, Charlie Hebdo.
This man has a powerful story. Well worth considering his words.
“Stand, and resist evil!”
There’s no other way to describe this than surreal. This animal actually believes that Islamic rules on beating one’s wife “honors” women and that this behavior recommends Islam as a political philosophy/religion worthy of the world’s acceptance. He believes that since he taught his followers to threaten first and then avoid hitting hit her “in the face” (which might “make her ugly”) or openly “curse” her, Mohammed has somehow helped women out. This learned religious leader believes that Islam actually “honored” the wife by smacking her around (no more than ten times).
Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian cleric Sa’d Arafat, which aired on Al-Nas TV (Egypt) on February 4, 2010:
Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV.
Interviewer: “Would you believe that the European women in our times yearns for a husband who would be like a guardian to her. I would like to provide the viewers with some statistics. 90% of British women do not want to marry a weak man, who sits down and cries the moment there is a problem. They say: No, such a man looks more like a woman. We want a manly man. […]
“Wife beating is a serious accusation [leveled against Islam]. Let us examine this matter bit by bit.”
Sa’d Arafat: “Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings.”
Interviewer: “Honored them with beatings? How is this possible?!”
Sa’d Arafat: “The prophet Muhammad said: ‘Don’t beat her in the face, and do not make her ugly.’ See how she is honored. If the husband beats his wife, he must not beat her in the face. Even when he beats her, he must not curse her. This is incredible! He beats her in order to discipline her.
“In addition, there must not be more than ten beatings, and he must not break her bones, injure her, break her teeth, or poke her in the eye. There is a beating etiquette. If he beats to discipline her, he must not raise his hand high. He must beat her from chest level. All these things honor the woman.
“She is in need of discipline. How should the husband discipline her? Through admonishment. If she is not deterred, he should refuse to share the bed with her. If she is not repentant, he should beat her, but there are rules to the beating. It is forbidden to beat her in the face or make her ugly.
When you beat her, you must not curse her. Islam forbids this.”
Interviewer: “With what should be beat her? With his bare hand? With a rod?”
Sa’d Arafat: “If he beats her, the beatings should not be hard, so that they do not leave a mark. He can beat her with a short rod. He must avoid beating her in the face or in places in the head where it hurts. The beatings should be on the body and should not come one right after the other. These are all choices made during the process, but beatings are allowed only as a last resort. […]
“The honoring of the wife in Islam is also evident in the fact that the punishment of beating is permissible in one case only: when she refuses to sleep with him.”
Interviewer: “When she refuses to sleep with him?”
Sa’d Arafat: “Yes, because where else could the husband go? He wants her, but she refuses. He should begin with admonishment and threats…”
Interviewer: “Allow me to repeat this. A man cannot beat his wife…”
Interviewer: “…over food or drink. Beatings are permitted only in this case, which the husband cannot do without.” […]
Did you ever wonder why it is that the cult-like religions (those that refuse to allow their followers to openly question teachings, or respond violently to any form of questioning) always seem to be OK with smacking women around, having several wives at the same time, and making it extremely easy for the husband to drop one woman (or several woman) when he sees another one that strikes his fancy?
Did you ever wonder why the guys who try to sell themselves as “manly men” also feel some strange compulsion to lord their so-called manliness over women with threats and physical violence?
Do you think that their actions might have more to do with certain men justifying their sexual perversions than it does with growing closer to God or god(s).
Now the islamist terrorists are targeting your computers and the computers at your bank and in our government.
A cyber-jihadist group may be to blame for the “Here you have” worm that reportedly struck organizations ranging from NASA to Wells Fargo.
According to Joe Stewart, director of malware research at SecureWorks, there are indications a group called the Brigades of Tariq ibn Ziyad is behind the attack, as well as another campaign that occurred in August.
Watch this video – via NewRealBlog – and see if you catch the threat from Imam Rauf.
First off, he is completely wrong on the notion of separation of church and state. The construction of the mosque has nothing to do with church and state. Pretty much everyone who is watching this issue unfold has said that Rauf has the right to build, BUT building a mosque on what amounts to a grave site that was created by followers of Islam is completely inappropriate.
Second, Rauf openly threatens all America by saying that if we do not build this mosque — exactly where he suggests that it be built — Americans around the world will be attacked. Listen to it again. If we do not submit to the dictates of islamist terrorists, they will attack us. If we do not admit to our dhimmi status, they will see our respect for those who lost their lives on 9/11 as an “attack” on Islam and respond violently.
Sadly, Rauf’s argument only serves to reinforce the stereotype that Islam is a violent and destructive political philosophy/religion. He plays — perhaps unwittingly, perhaps purposefully — to the notion that many Muslims are wholly incapable of controlling their behavior and will necessarily lash out if they do not get their way.
Rauf’s argument also reinforces the notion that building the mosque on this site is a matter (for him and many others) of showing the dominance of Islam over America. Not only did adherents of a violent and extreme sect of Islam manage to violently bring down the World Trade Center (thus striking a blow at the heart of America, Christianity & Judaism, and capitalism), but now they plan to erect a 15 story mega-mosque over the hallowed soil at ground zero. If they do not get to build the mosque, they will see it as an act of aggression against Islam and a setback in their jihad against Dar-al-Harb.
That mindset entails that those Muslims Rauf is speaking of see ground zero as rightfully theirs. They see it as a portion of the contested land (Dar-al-Harb – the House of War) over which they believe Islam will eventually rule. No other view of that ground could lead so quickly to threats of violent retribution. They see the ground as theirs and they believe it is our responsibility to cede the ground.
For a man who claims to want to build bridges between people of differing faiths and open paths of friendship internationally, his open threat of violent retribution should plans for the mosque be stalled or changed sounds oddly destructive and unfriendly.
From Reason magazine,
Why does a limited defense of free speech by the leader of a Western democracy provoke such astonishment from the press corps?
I’ve been beyond busy lately, so haven’t had the time to blog much. However, the reports about the pastor who is planning to burn copies of the Quran on September 11th are getting more and more heated. Protests are breaking out around the Middle East and the Obama administration and General Petraeus are stepping in and saying this fellow could have the blood of American servicemen on his hands.
The government turned up the pressure Tuesday on the head of a small Florida church who plans to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, warning him that doing so could endanger U.S. troops and Americans everywhere.
But the Rev. Terry Jones insisted he would go ahead with his plans, despite criticism from the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, the White House and the State Department, as well as a host of religious leaders.
Jones, who is known for posting signs proclaiming that Islam is the devil’s religion, says the Constitution gives him the right to publicly set fire to the book that Muslims consider the word of God.
As I noted in my post on the WTC mosque and in previous posts on actions that may be deemed offensive, this fellow is correct that he has the right to do what he wants to do. He is not harming anybody or infringing on any rights and part of having a right to free speech is that we sometimes have to endure speech that is offensive or inappropriate. But, make no mistake, what this pastor is suggesting is every bit as inappropriate as the construction of the WTC mosque. Openly burning a text, considered by billions of people around the world to be sacred, is an unnecessary affront and ultimately self-defeating approach. His protest does nothing more than coarsen the conversation. It wrongly paints the Christian faith as intolerant and destructive.
I get where he is trying to go with the protest. As he has said, he wants to take a stand against islamist terror. Taking a stand is important, but not all Muslims are islamist terrorists and his destruction of the Quran is an affront to all Muslims. Put more simply he is painting with far too broad a brush.
Having said that, the notion that an individual or group of individuals burning or desecrating any privately-owned book, flag, etc. will necessarily lead to violence is every bit as offensive as this pastor’s planned book burning.
First, that statement is a bigoted attack on Muslims. Are Muslims hard-wired to kill and blow things up? Do the adherents of this political system/religious belief possess some unique inability to control their behavior or actions? If Muslims possess the same rational thought processes and human intelligence as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. (and I personally believe they do) then they have the ability to control their response to this pastor’s actions. If their considered response is violence, then any shed blood is on their hands. Those who engage in violence deserve the outcome of any defensive actions required to stop their attacks.
Blaming the expected violence on this pastor for his offensive — but Constitutionally protected — speech is akin to saying the protester who burns an American flag brought the beating on him or herself. It was inevitable, someone HAD to stomp them into the ground for setting the match to Old Glory. There simply was no other option available. It’s also analogous to the notion that, should Imam Rauf build his WTC mosque, it is inevitable that it will HAVE to be attacked and destroyed. Either of these propositions are nonsensical arguments and have no place in reasonable discourse. Muslims — just like American Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. who are looking at a mosque two blocks from ground zero — can control their behavior and restrain violent impulses. Should they choose not to restrain themselves, the blame for any attacks rest squarely on their shoulders.
Second, any Muslim-led violence that occurs in response to the planned burning of the Quran is a clear statement on the intolerance and lack of faith of those specific Muslims. I’ve posted on this in previous blog entries,
The fact that numerous artists were unwilling to even consider creating a caricature of Mohammed – for fear of violent attack by extremist Muslims – speaks to the intolerance that many Muslims allow to define their religion. …
As has been evident in the media coverage of Muslim reaction to the cartoons, many Muslims appear to believe that any issue or situation they personally find offensive must be wholly avoided, forcibly stifled, or immediately denounced by the world. In contrast, they feel quite free to publish and/or advocate any words or positions freely, regardless of how another group may perceive those positions.
This pastor’s choice to burn the Quran is a misguided attempt to respond to decades of violence and intimidation perpetrated by a group of violent islamist extremists. I understand his frustration and desire to respond, but actions conceived and carried out in passion rarely have the desired effect. Far better to approach this tense and personal an issue with care and reason. He claims to be engaged in serious prayer about the situation. I’m not sure how he is wording his prayer, but several verses immediately come to mind on the issue of controlling our speech/actions/responses.
Perhaps this pastor would do well to spend some time considering and praying over these verses and see where that gets him.
That’s just getting started and only looking at verses that discuss the word “tongue” specifically. This pastor would do well to consider how “great a matter” this little “fire kindleth.” He should also be considering (especially as a pastor) how his “speech” is influencing and affecting others around him. (1 Corinthians 6:12, 8:13, and 10:23).
To the other side of the issue, sometimes we have to accept the fact that not everyone will agree with us.
Whether some people like it or not, free speech is very often offensive speech. Just because you don’t like, doesn’t mean you get to send someone to jail over it. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean you get to trample the Constitution to ban it. (In fact one of the people most closely involved with the drafting of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights went so far as to redact the Holy Bible — removing any mention of the deity of Jesus Christ and republishing it as his own version of the Bible. Many people consider what Jefferson did as, at the very least, offensive. However, the notion of prosecuting Jefferson … would be seen as nonsensical. He had a right to do it.)
President Obama, Ms. Clinton, General Patraeus, and the other members of this administration who are stepping dangerously over the line in their criticism of this pastor need to stop for a second, collect their thoughts, and remember their pledge to uphold and protect the Constitution of this country. They don’t have to like what is being said, but they do have a responsibility to defend the right to say it.
Looks like Ahmadinejad is getting a little paranoid.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unhurt on Wednesday after an explosive device, officially described as a firecracker, went off near his motorcade.
This comes after he claimed, on Monday, that the Israelis were hiring hit men to kill him.
“Stupid Zionists have hired mercenaries to assassinate me,” Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech to expatriate Iranians on Monday.
I don’t have all the details, but I’m willing to bet that if Israel really, seriously wanted Ahmadinejad dead, they’d use something bigger than a firecracker.
Jullian Assange hoped his WikiLeaks leaks would show how badly American forces in the Middle East had acted.
In reality, he has shown (far more forcefully) that American forces are facing off against a fundamentally evil enemy. With his leaked documents, Assange has demonstrated that our troops are dealing with a hate-filled, bigoted, and grotesquely violent group of people who will not hesitate to commit almost any atrocity in their global jihad.
the documents demonstrate just how pervasive the Taliban’s brutality is in this fight. The Taliban and its jihadist allies have an unparalleled lust for blood, beheading their enemies (both real and imagined) on a regular basis. It is difficult to think of a more savage act.
Epic fail Mr. Assange. Epic fail.
Is the hate and bigotry present in the extreme forms of Islam becoming more mainstream? You tell me.
Via MEMRI, we have video and excerpts of the “Gaza Friday sermon, which aired on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV.” Read through the excerpts and watch the video and tell me how this “sermon” sounds.
Preacher: “Dearly beloved, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is subjected to a vicious campaign of Judaization and defilement, at the hands of the filthiest creatures made by Allah – the Jews. […]
“Today, we see the brothers of apes and pigs destroying homes with their occupants still in them, uprooting trees from their land, and killing women, children, and the elderly. […]
“A levy of blood will be paid for the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Our people will never relinquish the Al-Aqsa Mosque or Palestine. We will redeem it with our souls, with our blood, with our sons, with what is most dear to us – regardless of the sacrifices we will have to make – until it is liberated, with the grace of Allah, and until this holy land is purified from the filth of the Jews. […]
“Brothers in faith, the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains under oppressive occupation. The Jews continue to defile it with their filth. The only way to liberate it is through Jihad for the sake of Allah. […]
“Jihad today is an individual duty, incumbent upon each and every Muslim man and woman. According to the Islamic legal principle, when an enemy invades a Muslim country, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim man and woman. A son should set out on Jihad even without the permission of his father, a wife should set out even without the permission of her husband, and a slave should set out even without the permission of his master.” […]
You can view this “sermon” on MEMRI TV: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2555.htm.
BTW, if you’re going to try and say that I am somehow attacking Islam, remember that I’m only quoting portions of a “sermon” presented by an Imam and expert in Koranic law.
If you have a problem with this fellow’s belief that the Koran teaches “every Muslim” has a “duty” to “liberate,” “redeem,” and “purify” the so called Muslim countries (dar-al-Islam) with a “levy of blood” from “the Jews” and “enemies,” I welcome you to cite (chapter and verse) where he has his gone wrong in his interpretation of your holy texts. I hope you can convince me that this fellow’s brand of hatred, bigotry, and violence does not represent mainstream views. I hope also that you then have the courage to take your more peaceful and tolerant interpretation of Islam into the mosques that are preaching hatred and bigotry and teach them where they’ve erred.
James Allen has this one dead to rights,
They’re just sooo edgy aren’t they…After editing out any Muhammad related content from a recent South Park episode, including Muhammad dressed in a bear suit, the BRAVE folks over at Comedy Central are planning a new Jesus Christ cartoon
They’re too scared to attack MO, but they’ll tear into Jesus any day of the week because they live life on the EDGE!!!
Pathetic. Comedy Central, the shows mocking Jesus have been done to death. Let us know when you grow a pair and come up with something truly on the edge.
Bush certainly had his share of faults and mistakes. However, one has to admit that his administration was admirably effective in stopping domestic terror attacks. In the seven and a half years after 9-11, we had zero domestic terror attacks. Several tried, but they were all stopped.
In comparison, in Obama’s first year, there have been over a dozen attempted attacks and his administration has missed three domestic terror attacks. As Jennifer Rubin rightly noted in this Commentary Magazine article,
You might not recall the three attacks, in large part because the administration refuses to recognize jihadist terror attacks as jihadist terror attacks. But Sen. Joe Lieberman rightly reminded us on Fox New Sunday that “we really did go to war with the Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11” and that we have had more than a dozen attacks on our homeland — three of which penetrated security (the army-recruiter killed in Little Rock in May, Major Nadal Hassan’s Fort Hood massacre on November 5, and the Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab’s Christmas Day bombing mission). To be blunt: after seven and a half years without a single attack on American soil following 9/11, we have had three in a year during the Obama administration.
Lieberman discussed this issue on Fox News yesterday,
Not surprisingly, people are starting to recognize that the Obama administration is too busy surfing, and vacationing. When he is actually on the job, he’s too busy apologizing for the U.S., calling terrorism “man-caused disasters,” changing the war on terror into an “overseas contingency operation,” and playing nice with those who are dead set on killing us.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 79% of U.S. voters now think it is likely there will be another terrorist attack in the United States in the next year. That’s a 30-point jump from the end of August when just 49% of Americans felt that way. The current level of concern is even higher than it was in the summer of 2007 when 70% considered an attack likely. In December 2008, 58% said an attack was likely.
The new number includes 42% who say another terrorist attack in America is very likely within the next year.
The U.N.’s defamation of religion resolution is a direct assault on the basic human right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, this resolution is a pathetic example of the U.N. kowtowing to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The U.N. doesn’t have the guts to stand up for basic human rights any longer, so it covers its cowardice with this fake attempt to “protect” religions from criticism.
The U.S. should vehemently oppose any and all of these international attempts to censor free speech.
Five years ago Chechen, islamist terrorists attacked and held hostage over 1,100 people in the gymnasium of Beslan School Number 1. After holding out for two days, the terrorists detonated the bombs they had strung up over the children in the gym. Russian officials rushed the gym and as a result of the ensuing gun battle over 330 people were killed — 186 children.
While questions still remain about how the Russian government handled the situation and whether they used excessive force in stopping the hostage crisis, the reality is that the islamist terrorists caused this massacre. They attacked a school full of children and murdered their parents and teachers on a massive scale. The terrorists detonated the bombs over the crowd of children. The terrorists used the children as human shields when the Russian military stormed the school. This massacre would not have happened but for the brutality and hatred of the terrorists.
Caution: some of the scenes in the video below are graphic and disturbing. They do, however, demonstrate the true face and outcome of islamist terror. We would do well never to forget.
“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman’ new racism is no better than old racism.”
“White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw,”
Click here to view the RealClearPolitics.com video
So people should be “exceedingly careful” if they are considering a critique of Sotomayor nomination as a SCOTUS justice?
Of course, the reasonable, freedom- and First Amendment-loving American, will then ask, “or what?” What happens if we aren’t exceedingly careful?
Was that a threat?
As a bit of background to the discussion. Gingrich was responding to Sotomayor’s statement that tweaked Sandra Day O’Connor’s statement that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor updated that statement by claiming that,
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
(On that note, Gingrich’s comment is accurate. If a white male nominee to the SCOTUS had said the same thing but had switched “Latina woman” with “white male” and “white male” with “Latina woman” (or “African-American male,” or “Asian-American woman,” or …), he would be quite rightly pilloried and made to step down.)
More here – Worldnetdaily.com has linked to an American Bar Association bio of Sotomayor that notes she is a member of La Raza. At the very least, La Raza (meaning “the race”) has to be described as an extreme separatist organization that aims — through the support of even more radical groups like MEChA — to fragment the nature and composition of the country as we know it.
From the Sotomayor bio on the ABA website,
In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers.
Of course, many are suggesting that if the Republican Party even sniffs around the edges of opposing Sotomayor, then they will suffer horribly in the upcoming election; the notion being that they will have voted against her, solely because of her race and/or gender and they will have stopped the
first second third Hispanic nominee to the SCOTUS.
One quick question suffices to answer that concern. If opposition to a person of color or a woman for any reason is proof of racism, why is it that the Democrats, who vilified and slandered Miguel Estrada, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, and Condoleeza Rice have suffered no ill effects at the ballot box?
(Remember folks that Democratic memos from Dick Durbin’s office famously opposed Estrada because his Latino heritage made him “especially dangerous” as an appointment to the SCOTUS. Remember also that it was Vice President Joe Biden who famously stated that, “I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don’t believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.”)
Update: I completely forgot about the vicious racist attacks that were leveled against Janice Rogers Brown by the Democrats across the country. Perer Kirsanow describes some of those attacks in this NRO post,
The black sharecropper’s daughter, born in segregated Alabama, has been excoriated as a closet member of the Ku Klux Klan who, at least according to the Senate minority leader, would like nothing better than to return America to “Civil War days.” Left-leaning political cartoonists depict her as an Aunt Jemima on steroids, complete with exaggerated physical features typically found only in the racist literature distributed by hate groups. She’s been called insensitive to the rights of minorities, the plight of the poor, and the difficulties of the disabled. Her opponents warn that she is “the far right’s dream judge” and that “(s)he embodies Clarence Thomas’s ideological extremism and Antonin Scalia’s abrasiveness and right-wing activism.” And her opponents are plentiful, a who’s who of Left-wing advocacy groups: Planned Parenthood, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, NAACP, NOW, People for the American Way, National Abortion Federation, Feminist Majority, and the American Association of University Women, just to name a few.