Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The War With Islam

by / Personal Liberty Digest

The War With Islam
Egyptians protested outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo against a film mocking Islam.
Around and around we go. Violence and death of innocents on Islamic soil seems to be a perpetual phenomenon. The most recent round of senseless violence was said to have been sparked by the surfacing of a sophomoric YouTube video that pokes fun at Muhammad.

A handful of Muslims in the eastern Libya city of Benghazi became so enraged by the incident that they attacked the U.S. consulate, killing U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens along with three other Americans.

It didn’t bother the executioners that Stevens had fought beside Libyans to free Libya from dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who had ruled the country for 34 years.

Also, protesters in Egypt scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner. Again, Islamic extremists have problems with their short-term memory. It was the United States that supported the revolution in Egypt that removed that nation’s dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

Those acts were the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country. There was a flurry of excuses for the murder of Americans whose only sin was trying to build Islamic civilizations in a region that refuses to become civilized.

Let me get back to that YouTube film whose very existence justifies a death sentence even to those who had nothing to do with its production.

You see, the video goes so far as to mock Islam’s holy prophet.

I don’t know if some of you watch the TV show “Family Guy” which FOX, of all networks, produces. It sometimes makes fun of Jesus Christ. In one episode Christ is shown as a hippie working at a used record store. That hasn’t resulted in attacks on the show’s creator, Seth MacFarlane, by Christians. Call it free speech and the Western world’s ability to laugh at itself even when it comes to our religious beliefs. We certainly don’t go on murderous rampages every time our sensibilities are hurt. That is not the way for much of Islam.

Further evidence of violent Islamic tendencies was provided last week when al-Qaida’s affiliate in North Africa urged Muslims in the region to kill U.S. government representatives.

“We encourage all Muslims to continue to demonstrate and escalate their protests and to kill their (American) ambassadors and representatives or to expel them to cleanse our land from their wickedness,” read the statement from al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

The group also called the killing of Stevens “the best gift you (can) give to his arrogant and unjust administration.”

There’s more. Also last week, a Taliban-allied insurgent group claimed responsibility for a suicide attack that killed at least 12 people, including eight South Africans, in Afghanistan. The group said it was in response to the YouTube video.

A spokesman for Islamic militant group Hizb-i-Islami said a 22-year-old woman named Fatima carried out the attack. She drove a car packed with 660 pounds of explosives into a van on a road leading to the Kabul International Airport.

Suicide attacks by women are rare in Afghanistan — maybe because it’s a sin for a woman to drive a automobiles.

“The anti-Islam film hurt our religious sentiments and we cannot tolerate it,” spokesman Haroon Zarghhon told The Associated Press.  “There had been several young men who wanted to take revenge, but Fatima also volunteered and we wanted to give a chance to a girl … to tell the world we cannot ignore any anti-Islam attack.”

That’s lucky for Fatima — although, I am not too sure what she is going to do with the 72 virgins that are waiting for her.

Radical jihadists can’t even come up with original reasons to be anti-American; they have to spend their days scanning YouTube to find some insult. Don’t these Islamic believers have better things to do, like build schools and roads? Yet it was determined that murder had to be meted out because some idiot made fun of Muhammad.

Isn’t it time for the West to wash our hands of Islam? A growing part of Islam, regardless of whether President Barack Obama will admit it, is at war with the United States and Western society. During the Cold War, the United States faced rational and educated leaders of the Kremlin. The opposition leaders in this war are crazed religious fanatics who have already demonstrated they are crazy enough to blow up themselves — and often many innocent Muslims who happen to be in the way — because they have nothing better to do than to kill Westerners.

You can blame it on the brain trust of Islamic militants. One man that helped shape al-Qaida’s philosophy was Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl.
In an article for The New Yorker, Lawrence Wright relayed Dr. Fadl’s doctrine:
Fadl contends that the rulers of Egypt and other Arab countries are apostates of Islam. “The infidel’s rule, his prayers, and the prayers of those who pray behind him are invalid,” Fadl decrees. “His blood is legal.” He declares that Muslims have a duty to wage jihad against such leaders; those who submit to an infidel ruler are themselves infidels, and doomed to damnation. The same punishment awaits those who participate in democratic elections. “I say to Muslims in all candor that secular, nationalist democracy opposes your religion and your doctrine, and in submitting to it you leave God’s book behind,” he writes. Those who labor in government, the police, and the courts are infidels, as is anyone who works for peaceful change; religious war, not political reform, is the sole mandate. Even devout believers walk a tightrope over the abyss. “A man may enter the faith in many ways, yet be expelled from it by just one deed,” Fadl cautions. Anyone who believes otherwise is a heretic and deserves to be slaughtered.
So here we stand in 2012; the Middle Ages intersect the Internet.

Obama continues to waste billions of dollars in aid to Islamic nations — even countries like strife-riddled Egypt which collects $1.5 billion a year from Washington. The Obama Administration played a crucial role in the overthrow of Mubarak only to witness the ascension to power of the latest Egyptian despots who are even worse than Mubarak. A recent headline from the Daily Beast said it all: “Obama’s Foolish Embrace of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mr. President: If by chance you get re-elected, please change your policies regarding Islam. Try not to take a society out of the Stone Age. Too many believers in Muhammad (like your father was) are committed to killing those who have done nothing other than invest themselves in trying to bring a better future to a rundown region which is becoming the globe’s gutter.

Hopefully, Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney will prevail in November. If so, he must understand he has an undeclared war on his hands with much of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining murderous momentum throughout the Mideast — especially in Egypt. It controls the Suez Canal, a choke point for petroleum and other essential trade.

To date, the Muslim Brotherhood has not renounced the doctrine of its late founder, Hassan al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Yours in good times and bad

Team Obama's Mendacity 

By: Frank Gaffney  / Townhall Daily

For the last two weeks, the American people have been encouraged by Team Obama - both official spokesmen for the administration, its champions in the press and other partisans - to believe a number of national security calumnies that can only be described as surrealistically epic lies and dangerous deceptions. Far more than the usual political slight-of-hand that can be expected in the run-up to an election, the mendacity of Team Obama is truly audacious, and the consequences of the public accepting it at face value are very grave.

Take, for example, Obama's insistence that the surging violence in dozens of countries is a "natural" response by Muslims to a video produced in America that trashes Islam's prophet, Mohamed. One can scarcely find an official or press account of these events that does not start with something to the effect that the attacks were precipitated by that (almost-entirely-unviewed) short film.

There are several things wrong with this proposition. First, in some places - notably, Libya where an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi resulted in the brutal murder of the American ambassador and three others assigned to that mission - there is no evidence that the film was even a pretext, let alone the real reason for what was, in fact, a disciplined, coordinated and successful act of jihad. In others, it was simply the latest excuse by Islamists to incite crowds to violence, just as Danish cartoons, burned Korans, a speech by the Pope and defiled Afghan corpses have been at one time or another in the past.

What this latest campaign of deceit by Team Obama is meant to obscure is its own national security malpractice, namely a dogged refusal to face the reality that America is at war with an enemy that they have been unwilling to name, have failed to counter and are actually emboldening. Such behavior has signaled to jihadists seeking to impose on the rest of us the totalitarian ideology they call shariah that acts of violence - or even threats of violence - against us will be met with accommodations and concessions whenever the stated justification is outrage over some perceived insult to Islam.

As recounted in this space last week, the Obama administration has already committed to engage in, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it, "old-fashioned peer-pressure and shaming" to discourage such offensive behavior. This is but a milestone (as Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb would say) along the trajectory of the White House's acquiescence to the shariah blasphemy agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood's state-level counterpart, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The course of this trajectory is utterly predictable: More violence, followed by more demands for more self-imposed restrictions on free speech, which are justified as necessitated by the national security. This pattern, in turn, translates into a rising perception of our submission to the Islamists' demands, which encourages another cycle of jihadism. And on and on. What started as the U.S. government's refusal to understand or even name the enemy for fear of causing offense, may soon metastacize into a cowed submission to shariah. All in the name of "keeping the peace," of course.

We are likely to be treated to another example of Obama's staggering national security disinformation campaign in connection with the UN General Assembly meetings in New York this week. The Muslim Brotherhood's Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, is expected to use his appearances to repeat his demand that the United States release a convicted terrorist currently serving a life-sentence in federal prison, Omar Abdul Rahman, better known as the "Blind Sheikh." The Obama administration wants us to believe that such a step is notunder consideration.

Yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department gave a visa in June to one of the Blind Sheikh's fellow terrorists, Hani Nour Eldin. The reason? To facilitate discussions of Morsi's demand in meetings at the White House, State Department and on Capitol Hill. Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who secured Abdul Rahman's conviction for conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, warns that, despite the administration's serial and artfully worded denials, President Obama is likely to release the sheikh after the November election.

Another Obama calumny I have experienced personally, but it touches every American that speaks clearly about the threat we face. Organizations closely aligned with the White House and supportive of its pandering to Islamists - like the radical left's Center for American Progress, American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Muslim Brotherhood's Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council(among others) - have taken to vilifying opponents of jihadism.

Without any basis in fact, we have been called everything from "racists" and "bigots" to "Islamophobes." Our expertise on national security and threats from the shariah agenda have been denied, basically on the grounds that we have not been approved by the Muslim Brotherhood, attended a madrassa or been trained as an Islamist cleric. And lately it has been suggested that, if anything bad happens in the future involving Muslims and violence, it will be our fault.

Presumably, this assertion is designed to set the stage for prosecution of the kind we have seen in Europe and Canada on hate speech or other charges consistent with what amount to shariah blasphemy laws - once our First Amendment rights have been further shredded by Mr. Obama and his team.

Presidential Polls 2012: Skewed Polling and Biased Media Coverage Give Obama False Advantage Over Romney 

By: John Giokaris  /

Editor's Note:This piece originally appeared at PolicyMic.
From its double standard on how the mainstream media has covered both campaigns, to the 2008-Democrat heavy polling models they use, to the lack of investigative reporting on the scandals associated with this administration, it has become blatantly evident that the mainstream media harbors a liberal bias, commits endless hypocrisies and will not hold this president up to the same standards it has for previous presidents.

Campaign Coverage
I find the messaging from both campaigns to be remarkably stunning. Despite both candidates being Harvard graduates and worth millions of dollars each, one is labeled as “out of touch” with mainstream America by the elitist New York news media, Hollywood celebrities and Washington insiders (as if they have any idea what’s “in touch” with mainstream America) while the other is not as he hosts $40,000-a-plate fundraisers and hob nobs on talk shows with these same millionaire celebrities and media personalities.

Furthermore, while the Romney campaign has kept its messaging solely focused on Obama’s record as president, his policies and his results, the Obama campaign has launched into personal character attacks against Romney, accusing him of waging a war on women, of being a felon by not paying his taxes, and even murdering a steel worker’s wife.

For its part, the mainstream media has done a thorough job covering Romney’s past, including tracing his family’s history all the way back to their Mexican roots, his father having once been on public aid, and the personal lifestyles of Mitt, his wife Anne, and their five sons.

But where was the mainstream media on Obama’s family history and professional career? Did you know that his grandparents deliberately moved to Mercer Island, Washington so that they could enroll his mother into the only openly Marxist school in America? Did you know that communist radical Frank Marshall Davis was chosen by his grandfather to be his political mentor? Did you know that he hasn’t released any of his personal records from his college transcripts to the list of legal clients he represented when he was practicing law?

These aren’t rumors, these are facts. Did it really take an independent documentary by an academic scholar to reveal this to the general public?

If the media is going to question Romney’s past, political views and “lack of transparency” in the national spotlight, I feel it is only fair that they do the same for Obama. But nothing short of a miracle would ever make that happen.

The liberal mainstream media and blogosphere are desperately trying to write Romney’s funeral using polls that oversample Democrats by as much a D+10, D+11 and D+13. In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. So was the 2010 midterm election: evenly split. The Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 and 2010 models than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support.

But as pollster John McLaughlin explains, “The Democrats want to convince [these anti-Obama voters] falsely that Romney will lose to discourage them from voting. So they lobby the pollsters to weight their surveys to emulate the 2008 Democrat-heavy models. They are lobbying them now to affect early voting. IVR (Interactive Voice Response) polls are heavily weighted. You can weight to whatever result you want. 

Some polls have included sizable segments of voters who say they are ‘not enthusiastic’ to vote or non voters to dilute Republicans. Major pollsters have samples with Republican affiliation in the 20 to 30% range, at such low levels not seen since the 1960s in states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and which then place Obama ahead. The intended effect is to suppress Republican turnout through media polling bias. We’ll see a lot more of this.”

A certain pundit on this site (guess who?) provided a link to some web site claiming that a national average of 2012 election polls (without citing which ones specifically) shows Obama leading Romney in several key states when excluding Rasmussen polls, implying Rasmussen has a Republican bias. What they fail to mention is that a Fordham University study concluded that Rasmussen had been the most accurate pollster throughout the 2008 election (and that was Obama’s good year).

I could just as easily provide a link to another website that claims to unskew the polls’ oversampling of Democrats to show that Romney actually leads Obama (and they even list which specific ones). But whether you look at Rasmussen, which has been accused of leaning right, Gallup, which has been accused of leaning left, both are showing the same thing: this race is virtually tied.

Absence of Investigative Journalism
Perhaps the biggest evidence of all proving the mainstream media’s liberal bias is the fact that it has thus far failed to push any further into this administration’s scandals such as Fast and Furious or the Benghazi attack.

Back in college, I remember reading Bob Woodward’s and Carl Bernstein’s All the President’s Men in journalism class, chronicling The Washington Post’s journalistic efforts to uncover the Nixon administration’s scandal regarding the Watergate break-in. It was a scandal in which President Nixon and his cabinet were exercising “executive privilege” to prevent the release of internal documents as well as trying to pin the blame on lower level subordinates to feebly deflect criticism and responsibility of the break-in.

Déjà vu 2012, where President Obama stopped the federal investigation into Operation Fast and Furious dead in its tracks by exercising “executive privilege” to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from having to hand over internal Justice Department documents on the federal firearms sting operation that allowed weapons to reach Mexican drug cartels. Fourteen lower level subordinates at the Justice Department and ATF then get pinned for the blame and that’s where the administration is hoping it ends. Will there be any further reporting from the mainstream media on this? Or is Obama’s rendition of Al Green more important?

Or what about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya? Within a week’s time, we witnessed this administration claim that it was a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic American film that got out of hand and caught them off guard to a reluctant admission that this was a pre-planned, coordinated attack with possible assistance from al-Qaeda of which they were warned about.

Watergate was a campaign stunt. These are scandals where U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others have died. But where are today’s Woodwards and Bernsteins?

Is it then any wonder that a new Gallup poll shows American distrust in the mainstream media is now at an all-time high?

You’ll probably be even less shocked then to find that a majority of Democrats (58%) trust the mainstream media “to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly,” while only 31% of independents and 26% of Republicans trust the mainstream media to do the same.

Romney clearly has his work cut out for him. Too bad he doesn’t send a thrill up their leg the way Obama does.

Supremes docket income tax challenge

Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count

The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.

But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including

Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.

Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.

Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.

He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.

In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”

WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.

Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.

Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.

Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.

“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.

“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”

A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”

Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”

Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.

Simply, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, so it is not “profit.” To determine otherwise would be to subject corporations such as Wal-Mart to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.

The court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”

And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”

“The elements of this case involve respondent/IRS administrative functions being implemented under color of law,” Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began requesting answers to constitutional questions regarding respondent’s positions in application of its taxation process, but which, since 2003, have been completely ignored and labeled as ‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he wanted any answers, it would have to be found ‘in the courts.’

“The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding ‘income’ taxation and tax authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law,” Maehr continued. “The original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by respondent in response to petition, claiming arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of these cited court cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’ outside hearsay and presumption.”

Among the specific questions raised: Is income tax a direct or indirect tax? What defined “income” when the income tax was adopted? What is the constitutional status of the IRS, and when do the IRS administrative procedures violate due process?

“The logical question to ask is, if petitioner is violating any laws … why is he NOT charged with criminal actions? Why is respondent taking the circuitous route using ‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer is because it has deceived the courts, and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it knows it cannot bring criminal charges against petition due to the record created by petition proving no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court, but would expose the ‘income’ taxation scam.”

The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11.

Maehr told WND that the IRS bases its existence on the “premise that the 16th Amendment allows direct unapportioned taxes on people, which it does not.”

The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said.
It’s actually not the first time the challenge has been in court. WND reported in 2007 when the Internal Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax.

At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told WND after a jury acquitted him of two criminal tax counts that the IRS was a “fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever.”

Cryer, who has since died, told WND that the simple truth is income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but a rather category such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.

He said at the time if ever such an argument were to be presented widely, there could be huge changes required in the way the federal government operates.

“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.

At the time, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”

Protesting the documentary "Innocence of Muslims": When you lack arguments, use violence

Muslims worldwide protest the documentary film "Innocence of Muslims." The film depicts their prophet as a child molester, womanizer and violent criminal. A simple entry in Wikipedia with all its links to original Islamic sources confirms that Muhammed had sex with a nine year old girl, had thirteen wives and waged bloody wars against the neighbouring towns.

We have all noticed the embarrassing fact that the protesting Muslims have not been able to produce any arguments against the documentary's claims. It seems that in their lack of evidence, they resort to childish screaming, setting fire to things, setting off explosives and killing innocents in a desperate attempt to silence their critics. The similarities between the film and Muslims' energetic protests against it are indeed striking.

The truth is apparently hard to hear. It is noteworthy how the followers of a faith that they themselves name as the religion of peace so often behave violently, especially when trying to convince us that their prophet does not inspire Muslims to violence.

In order to gain voters and keep their relationship with oil-producing countries, our (mis)representatives give in to the terrorists' demands by apologizing for our using our right to free speech and our long standing tradition of keeping a healthily critical and often humorous attitude towards religion. The same happens when the politically correct media follow sharia laws by not showing pictures and clips from the documentary, in spite of their obvious relevance to the news coverage. It is imperative that the West looks strong in such situations, but by misrepresenting us Westerners as weaklings who take threats seriously, our policymakers actually negotiate with terrorists -- which is a no-go. If there is one thing that Muslims hate and makes them increase their wish to destroy, it is signs of cowardice. Our appeasing politicians and the media's show of respect is therefore not perceived as an invitation to reconciliation, but as a vulnerability that can be, and is and will be exploited further.

The behaviour of our timid leaders is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans who in the centuries before us gave their lives to create and defend our humanistic societies built on free speech and secular laws against brutal kings and medieval religious institutions. By not standing up against the fanatics, which apparently constitute the majority of Muslims, they put their voters and our children in danger.
Some day very soon this will be clear to all.

Robert Spencer: The Suicide of the Free Press

From Jihad Watch

At Atlas Shrugs I discuss the media's strange eagerness to endorse restrictions on the freedom of speech:
As the Muhammad movie riots continue to roil the world, prominent Muslim leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere are calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech, including the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood – and in the U.S., Sheikh Husham al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan and Imam Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey. Given Sharia prohibitions on free speech, that is to be expected. What is more surprising – or should be more surprising, if the free press were doing its job -- is the alacrity with which the mainstream media has echoed these calls for self-censorship and submission to Islamic blasphemy laws. 
In the wake of the worldwide Muhammad movie riots, the Los Angeles Times, for example, published its second op-ed in four weeks calling for restrictions on the freedom of speech. To be sure, the second piece, by Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment, was far more sophisticated and well reasoned than the crude call for censorship of the first, which was written by the thuggish Nathan Lean. Where Lean had ham-fistedly smeared and demonized those whose speech he hates and then called for them to be silenced, First Amendment be damned, Chayes argued on the basis of a fine distinction that already exists within American free speech law: “U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.”
Indeed, but as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, the legal distinction to which Chayes was referring was formulated in response to the Ku Klux Klan’s advocacy of violence, and thus did not apply to the Muhammad movie filmmakers, who called for no violence from anyone. The Klan, said the WSJ, “advocated (but did not incite) violence on the part of their own supporters in order to promote their cause of racial supremacy. By contrast, the filmmakers provoked a violent reaction from the other side. To prosecute them would be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts.”
A point well taken. But the larger question is, why is the Los Angeles Times coming down on the side of restrictions on the freedom of speech in the first place? Are they not aware that such restrictions, if implemented, can and probably will be used against them? While the Los Angeles Times editors are no doubt serene in their certainty that they will never print anything that will insult Islam or Muslims, there could all too easily come a time when a governing authority deems something they have published to be “hateful” or even “deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk,” and – if free speech by then has been restricted – that will be the end of the Times as an outpost of the free press.
Bumps in the road...and other UN bloviations
By: Diane Sori

Just "Bumps in the road" said Barack Hussein Obama to describe the turmoil in the Middle East; just "bumps in the road" as thousands are being killed as the so-called Arab Spring turns into a full-blown Arab Winter; just "bumps in the road" as the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida are taking control; just "bumps in the road" as our American ambassador and three others were murdered; just "bumps in the road" as Iran is on the verge of a nuclear bomb; just "bumps in the road" as Israel is facing a critical decision that will affect us all...nothing really...just "bumps in the road."

And hearing it reiterated yet again during Obama’s address to the UN General Assembly that a privately made YouTube video ignited the flames of muslim discontention, the so-called just "bumps in the road," made me want to throw something at the TV.

“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity,” said Obama.

Yet a few short weeks ago he appeared on Pakistani TV to apologize yet again for America in relation to the video in question, which, by the way, was made and up online long before the current violence started.  In fact, if Obama had NOT gone on Pakistani TV to bloviate about it very few would have known about its existence and the violence would have been held to a minimum if not outright contained.

And four Americans would still be alive.

But the bottom line remains that this video had NOTHING to do with what’s going on, and is just a scapegoat to hide the fact that those muslim barbarians, and those who support them including Barack HUSSEIN Obama, will use any and all excuses to try to cover up the fact that they indeed are out to kill us all.

“For the first time in decades, Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans voted for new leaders in elections that were credible, competitive, and fair,” Obama told the UN.  NO, they were anything but fair as the Muslim Brotherhood rigged the elections and are now in power in those countries.  I do NOT call that fair but Obama relishes in the thought that the Muslim Brotherhood, who he willingly let into our country and into our seats of government, are now in power.

Obama went on to say, “It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well -- for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.”

One thing must be made perfectly clear...this video in NO way is an insult to America or Americans as we do NOT welcome “muslims who worship across America,” because islam is NOT a religion and does NOT deserve the respect given to legitimate religions.  Islam is a brutal and barbaric political system hiding behind the guise of calling itself a religion, therefore, it is NOT conducive to the fabric of our American society, our way of life, and most importantly to our one true living God, therefore, islam has NO place in America nor do its followers.  

Those who come to America for freedom try to assimilate into American society; they do NOT try and have America assimilate into their culture and ways.  Those that come to America do NOT try to change our rule of law and replace it with the abomination known as Sharia Law.  Those that come to America do NOT lie down in city streets with their butts up in the air nor do they cover their women in a head to toe garbage bag known as a burka.  Those that come to America do NOT kill their daughters because of perceived breeched honor.  Those that come to America do NOT insist we Americans respect their ways and customs while making a mockery of ours.  Those that come to America for true freedom are NOT followers of islam.  And while we are currently home to multitudes of muslims, we Americans do NOT want them here as they are the antithesis of everything America stands for and holds is Barack Hussien Obama.

“More broadly, the events of the last two weeks also speak to the need for all of us to honestly address the tensions between the West and the Arab world that is moving towards democracy,”  said Obama as he bloviated on.  NO, the Arab world is NOT moving towards democracy but towards a strict islamic islamic theology that has NO tolerance for those who differ with their set-in-stone ways for if you disagree you die.  And NO, we do NOT need to address tensions between the West and the Arab world for the Arab world has one goal in domination through death to all infidels...NO ifs, ands, or buts.

“Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism,” Obama went on to say. again Obama is wrong for muslims are NOT the victims...they ARE the extremists!  The followers of islam have been a thorn in the world’s side since 632 AD when this vile perversion of a so-called religion was spewed forth by a madman.  If islam was truly a 'religion of peace' as Obama claims, then why is it that islam and islam alone is the only 'religion' that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year...why are thousands of followers of islam willing to cut off an innocent’s head or blow themselves up while taking as many lives as possible with them or fly a plane into a building killing thousands while screaming praises to allah... why do they get worked up into a murderous frenzy over simple cartoons...and why is there NO outrage among so-called ‘moderate’ muslims when all this happens...why...because if you don’t condemn you condone, and violence and death is the way of islam for islam by its very nature is evil extremism personified.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”  How odd that Obama calls for NO future (NO future meaning NO existence...NO existence meaning death) for only those who slander islam but only mere condemnation for those who slander Jesus, churches, or Holocaust deniers.  Just more proof of where his true allegiances lie.

“In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors.”  Please tell me where is there peace and prosperity in Iran’s neighbors.  Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries on earth...Iraq is falling once again to the Taliban...Syria is engaged in a brutal internal war...Libya is a total mess...where is the peace, where is the prosperity...’s in Israel is where it is, the very nation Iran wants to wipe off the face of the earth...Israel, the ally and friend of America that Obama has turned hia back on...the very nation Obama wishes would just go away.

And lastly, when Obama said, “But when you strip it all away, people everywhere long for the freedom to determine their destiny; the dignity that comes with work; the comfort that comes with faith; and the justice that exists when governments serve their people -- and not the other way around,” it became all the more apparent that Obama was nothing but a liar standing before the UN pandering for votes and support for the simple fact is that in our country today millions of Americans have NO dignity in work for NO jobs have been created for them to have dignity in; there is little comfort in faith for Obama has made any faith but islam a dirty word; and need I remind him that government is NOT there to serve the people and indebt them to the government but is there to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing more.

So once again as Barack HUSSEIN Obama bloviated before the Useless Nations...oops, I mean the UN, he became even more of an embarrassment than before, all while continuing his work towards undermining our American values, ideals, beliefs, and morals.

As always, November 6th can’t come soon enough for me.