Archive for September 29th, 2006

The Quelling of Free Speech at the Hands of Islam

Friday, September 29th, 2006

This is a long post, but please take the time to read it, as it contains several different points of common interest.
The Islamic world continues to threaten violence against anyone who challenges any aspect of their faith system. Free speech in Islamic controlled countries is practically nonexistent, while the media in European countries, with large Islamic populations, pull articles critical of Islam and apologize for any supposed slights against Islam.
Islamic Terrorist reside, alive and well, in all these places, as they continue on a course, proven effective by the appeasers, of threatening, violence and death to all who oppose them.

Three European newspapers banned for “offending Islam”

Reporters Without Borders today condemned the Egyptian government’s decision yesterday to ban the sale of three recent issues of European newspapers containing articles which it considered “offensive to Islam.”
“Some people may indeed have felt offended by these articles but censorship is never an acceptable response,” the press freedom organisation said. “It is up to readers to form their own opinions and to have a debate about them, if they want. But it is not the job of the authorities to decide which information may or may not be made available to the public.”
Information minister Anas Al-Fekki issued a decree banning the sale of the 19 September issue of the French daily Le Figaro, the 16 September issue of the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the latest issue of the London-based Guardian Weekly.
Le Figaro’s 19 September issue had already been banned in Tunisia on the same grounds. It contained an op-ed piece by philosopher Robert Redeker headlined: “What must the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?”
The ban on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was prompted by an article in its cultural supplement on Islam and the recent controversy about Pope Benedict’s comments.

Teacher in hiding after attacking Islam

A French philosophy teacher has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving death threats for an article he wrote attacking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.
The teacher, Robert Redeker, was writing in response to the angry reactions around the Islamic world to a lecture by Pope Benedict XVI two weeks ago, in which he drew a link between Islam and violence.
His article, describing the Koran as “a book of incredible violence”, sparked death threats against Mr Redeker, and fuelled fears of rising tensions between supporters of free speech in secular western societies and their resident Muslim populations.
These concerns led to the removal of a controversial Mozart opera from the programme of Berlin’s Deutsche Opera this week because of fears the show, adapted to include a scene showing the Prophet Mohammed’s severed head on stage, would be targeted by Islamic extremists.
Dominique de Villepin, France’s prime minister, asked about the death threats against Mr Redeker on French radio, said: “It’s unacceptable and shows that we are living in a dangerous world, too often intolerant, and the extent we must be vigilant to have total respect of others in our society.”
Le Figaro on Friday published a front page editorial declaring: “We condemn as resolutely as possible the serious attack on the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech that this affair has provoked.”
Mr Redeker’s article, entitled “Faced with Islamic intimidation, what should the free world do?” was published in Le Figaro on September 19. In it, he attacked the Prophet Mohammed, saying: “Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous, this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Koran.” Tunisia and Egypt banned the issue containing the article.
Mr Redeker, who has not returned to his class in Saint-Orens-de-Gameville, a village near Toulouse in south-west France, since his article was published, claims to have received letters saying an order to kill him had been signed and his would-be assassins knew his address.
The philosophy teacher, who has earned a reputation for his outspoken anti-Islam views, complained he had become “homeless in the French republic, while all I did was exercise my constitutional right to freely express my opinion on a religion.”
However, he received only partial support from his boss, Gilles de Robien, education minister, who declared his “solidarity” with Mr Redeker, but argued that “a public employee should be prudent and moderate in all circumstances.”
Dailil Boubakeur, the moderate head of the French Muslim Council, condemned the death threats. “They are not Muslims threatening him, they are extremists, radicals. We leave them to take responsiblity for their threats, they do not represent us,” he said.
But one of Mr Boubakeur’s advisors told the Financial Times that Mr Redeker had a reputation for being “ideologically committed” to the theory of a clash of civilisations between Islam and the west.
As French state schools are part of the domain of the secular state, they are meant to be free of all religious influence. This concept led to France’s controversial ban on students wearing visible religious symbols, including the hijab, or Islamic headscarf.

Here is the English translation of Robert Redeker’s article:

What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.
Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?
However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.
This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”
A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.
Of , the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.
None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.
The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.
This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.
Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.
Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the frre World.

Link to Le Figaro.

Teacher who attacked Islam: ‘alone and abandoned’

Robert Redeker, 52, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a “book of extraordinary violence” and Islam as “a religion which … exalts violence and hate”.
He told i-TV television he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children, and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist Internet sites.
“There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ‘This pig must have his head cut off’,” he said.

Read the rest of the article.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.

And I say to the Islamic Terrorist:
“Lan astaslem!!!”
“I will not submit!!!”


Lan astaslem, I will not Submit

California Governor Vetoes Two More ‘Gay Agenda’ Bills

Friday, September 29th, 2006

Well done Folks!! You let Gov. Schwarzenegger know what you thought and he listened.

(CNSNews.com) – California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed all three “sexual indoctrination” bills passed earlier this year.
Conservative activists said Schwarzenegger was responding to election-year pressure from “irate parents and grandparents.” Advocates for homosexuality said the veto leaves California students “vulnerable to bias and intimidation based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Late Thursday, Schwarzenegger vetoed Assembly Bill 606, which would have required that state funds be withheld from any school district that does not adopt a “model policy” prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Critics say the bill would have forced schools to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality on school campuses. Supporters called it the “Safe School Act,” and they said AB 606 — in addition to creating a “model anti-discrimination and harassment policy for school districts” — would have required schools to track and document all bias-related complaints brought by students.
AB 1056, also vetoed on Thursday, would have allocated special funds for a Tolerance Education Pilot Program to teach kids about “tolerance and intergroup relations,” including “actual or perceived gender.”
“We thank God that children in California public schools will be protected from this direct assault for one more year,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), a conservative, pro-family organization.
“The Democrat politicians and teacher unions are relentlessly pushing to sexually indoctrinate kids. Schwarzenegger has delayed them for now.”
In his veto messages, Schwarzenegger said he vetoed AB 606 because it was “irresponsible” to create a new state mandate on schools, and he noted that existing laws already deal with discrimination and harassment in the schools.
The governor said he vetoed AB 1056 because it duplicated current efforts to provide “more avenues to teach about tolerance and human rights.”
Earlier this month, Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 1437, which would have changed school textbooks to require positive portrayals of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.
The Campaign for Children and Families thanked everyone who called and wrote to the governor. “Cherish the victory and pray to God that these sexual indoctrination bills never, ever return,” Thomasson said.

Original Link.

Survivor of Jihad Issues Challenge to Muslim-Americans

Friday, September 29th, 2006

I have said often that it’s time for the moderate Muslim to rise up and be heard. The silence is deafening. Their either are no moderate Muslims, or they are too scared of the extremist Muslims to air their ideas in public.

(CNSNews.com) – A survivor of Islamic Jihad in the 1970s is challenging Muslim Americans who reject radical teachings to “raise their voices” and to hold demonstrations in public venues across the country denouncing violent behavior.
Brigitte Gabriel is a journalist and news producer who said she had first-hand experience with militant Muslims as a teenager living in Lebanon. The Jihad launched against Christians in Lebanon in 1975 and its relevance to contemporary politics was the focus of Gabriel’s talk at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday.
She took the opportunity to call on moderate Muslims in the U.S. to take better advantage of the constitutional freedoms that are not available to like-minded moderates in the Middle East.
“This is the only country in the world where they (moderate Muslims) can march in the streets, where they can demonstrate and speak out without being intimidated by radicals. I can understand why they cannot do it in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya, Syria and Lebanon,” Gabriel said. “But there is no excuse why Muslims in the U.S. cannot take to the streets and rally and send a message to the radicals in the Middle East.”
That message from American-Muslims, Garbriel continued, should include an unambiguous proclamation of patriotism. “Where are their voices?” Gabriel asked audience members. “They should say we are Americans first, if you kill one of us, you kill all of us.”
Gabriel said she could identify only one American-Muslim who has tried to organize the demonstrations she believes are necessary. Gabriel said Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslims Coalition, was opposed by other Muslim organizations when he sought support for organizing anti-terrorism rallies in Washington D.C., last year.
Those Muslims who reject extremism, but choose to remain silent are repeating some of the worst mistakes in history, Gabriel told listeners. She also said Americans must “wake up” and come to terms with the “barbaric” nature of the enemy they face before “Islamo-fascism” can be defeated.
She accused the news media of doing the American public a disservice when it failed to show footage of the beheading of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, victims of Muslim terrorists.
While she acknowledged that the majority of Muslim Americans are peaceful, Gabriel said she feels that they do not express themselves with as much energy and vigor as their more radical counterparts. She is particularly concerned about the pro-Hizballah demonstrations held in Dearborn, Mich.
“They were free to demonstrate in our country in support of Hizballah and against the United States of America,” she said. “Yet, we haven’t seen this same passion come out of moderates to defend America.”

Original Link.

New Study Shows Pro-Choicers More Likely to Spread Violence

Friday, September 29th, 2006

This study may have some credence. What I do know to be true, and a simple Google seach of images will prove it, is that generally, Pro-Life demonstrators behave better then Abortion Supporter demonstrators. Before you start emailing me, please remember that I said “generally”. There are some demonstraotrs for Pro-Life who don’t know how to handle themselves in an adult manner.
But as a whole, Pro-Life supporters tend to be less likely to start a problem.
Now with that said, I also want to head off the people who are going to point to the abortion clinic bombers. Understand this:
Anyone who resorts to violence, using God as justification, is NOT following the teachings and Spirit of Jesus Christ.

(AgapePress) – A new research project is raising serious doubt about claims from abortion supporters who say pro-lifers are violent people. The study suggests that, despite their assertions to the contrary, pro-choicers may be the more frequent perpetrators of violence.
Throughout the abortion debate in America, pro-abortion activists have accused pro-lifers of spreading violence; however, Human Life International’s senior analyst, Brian Clowes, has just completed a project that suggests the complete opposite is the case. “Seven murders are carried out by so called pro-life people in the time period 1993 to 1998,” he notes, “and yet we’ve documented over 500 murders done by people who are pro-choice.”
Clowes documented those murders by pro-choicers in three categories: actual murders by abortionists and pro-choice advocates; men who killed their pregnant girlfriends and wives who refused to abort their babies; and other individuals who killed women because they were pregnant.
“For every single instance of so-called ‘pro-life extreme violence’ — which is murder, attempted murder, kidnapping and arson — we have 80 instances of pro-choice extreme violence,” the researcher says. Meanwhile, he points out, “We have a lot of news media that’s directed entirely towards talking about how pro-life people are supposed to be so violent, and the pro-choicers are all mild-mannered, nice people.”
In other words, Clowes explains, “what we have here is a kind of imbalance” between the truth and the common perception. “And I’d like to try to balance this out, showing that the abortion culture is really violent in all of its aspects,” he says. The details of Clowes research project have been made available online. The report can be seen on the website ProChoiceViolence.com.

Original Link.

‘Do-or-Die’ Vote Looming on Parental Notification Legislation

Friday, September 29th, 2006

Please be sure to contact your Senators today, and let them know that you want them to vote for this law.

(AgapePress) – Most schools require a parent’s permission for a child to go on a field trip or even take an aspirin while at school. However, a minor girl can cross state lines to have an abortion — without her parents’ knowledge. That, say parental-rights advocates, is exactly why the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) must be signed into law.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has filed cloture on S. 403, which means the U.S. Senate could conduct a cloture vote on CIANA as early as Friday (September 29). It passed the bill once already in July, when it was known as the Child Custody Protection Act, on a 65-34 bipartisan vote. But Democratic leaders had prevented it from going to conference committee with the House, which had passed a similar bill last year. On Tuesday, however, the U.S. House voted 264-153 in favor of S. 403, adding to the Senate’s version a provision that would require abortion providers to notify parents of a minor seeking an abortion at least 24 hours before it takes place.
If 60 senators vote for cloture on Friday, any filibuster attempts would be eliminated and the chamber would be required to conduct an up-or-down vote on the bill before adjourning — which is scheduled for either Friday or Saturday. A simple majority is necessary for passage of CIANA.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in the nation’s capital, is urging concerned citizens to contact their senators — now. “We must get at least 60 of these Senators to vote ‘Yes’ on cloture for CIANA, or the bill dies for the year,” he explains. “Senators are very busy, but they must show up for the actual cloture vote, or we might not achieve 60 votes,” he continues. “Please let them know you want them at the vote — and to vote ‘Yes’ on cloture.”
CIANA would make it a federal offense for anyone to take a minor across state lines for an abortion with the intention of getting around a state law that requires parental involvement in the abortion decision. Perkins notes that polls indicate that upwards of 80 percent of Americans support parental notification laws.
“The Senate must protect the rights of parents and the welfare of minor girls nationwide,” the FRC leader says. “This is the most important piece of pro-life legislation considered by Congress this session, and the Senate must get it done. It’s crunch time.”

Original Link.

“Sacrificing the National Interest” by David Limbaugh

Friday, September 29th, 2006

The New York Times has again selectively leaked sensitive national security information, this time cherry picking an April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report to support the left’s template that our attack on Iraq has spawned more terrorism. In response, President Bush declassified other portions of the report to complete the picture.

If anything, on balance the report emphasizes how critical Iraq is to our ultimate victory in the war on terror. But how dare Bush defend himself?

Caught crying wolf again, Democrats have pulled a familiar trick out of their playbooks. They are demanding Bush declassify the entire document, knowing he cannot afford to comply and reveal secrets to the enemy, to create the false impression that he has something to hide. In the meantime, the national interest be d*****. (Language Edit. -ed.)

———-

It’s understandable that they insist on dwelling in the past since they are incapable of offering any alternative policy on Iraq. But what, finally, is the point of their relentless cacophony? How does it contribute, constructively, to our policy on Iraq?

Their obvious point is that we were not justified in attacking Iraq. Does that mean they believe we should withdraw now? Well, they just aren’t sure, are they? They can’t even build a consensus around that issue. So their only purpose in repeatedly leveling the charge is to discredit President Bush and score political points. You see, Democrats believe that if they can show — which they cannot — that our attack on Iraq set back our cause in the war on terror, President Bush and Republicans will be revealed as inept in conducting the war and safeguarding our national security.

But the truth is that we were justified in attacking Iraq for a number of reasons, including that Saddam’s Iraq was a terrorist-sponsoring state and thus a threat to the region, to us and to our allies. We ended Iraq’s support of terrorism when we deposed Saddam.

———-

If Democrats want to cling to the deluded belief that Saddam’s Iraq was innocuous, not pursuing WMD, not violating U.N. and post-war treaties, not a threat to us and the region, let them dwell in the perverse nostalgia of their revised history.

Democrats can remain in denial, but Iraq is part of the war on terror again because the terrorists have chosen to make it so, just like they chose to attack us on 9/11. The April NIE report makes clear that our victory in Iraq is essential to our victory in the war on terror. If you want to spawn more terrorism, try withdrawing precipitously from Iraq and see how that emboldens Al Qaeda’s cause.

How can it reasonably be denied that Democrats are behaving as though they want to hand the terrorists their first major victory?

Original Link.