U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

This is the international counterpart to the administration's drive to muzzle talk radio and other voices of dissent.

Not long ago, a correspondent wrote to me about a "town hall" meeting with his local Congressman. One of his constituents challenged the Congressman directly: "What Constitutional authorization is there for the proposed federal health care bill?" The Congressman immediately and candidly replied that no such authorization existed -- and before the thunder could rise, followed it by asking, "So you want us to do away with Medicare, eh?"

There are many lessons here, but the most important of all is this: America is no longer a constitutional republic. Our supposed representatives do not consider themselves bound by the Supreme Law of the Land -- in anything. Wherefor, then should we expect that they'll honor the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech?

We have an aspiring Dictator-for-Life in the Oval Office. He has a filibuster-proof majority on Capitol Hill. Their allies in the Old Media are bound and determined that no hint of popular dissatisfaction with their program shall be aired, and their bully boys are doing their best to silence the few outlets for dissent. Predictions, anyone?

The correspondent mentioned above continued on to relate an exchange with his broker. Apparently, the broker was pessimistic about every investment possibility my friend suggested. After a few rounds of that, my friend asked him, "So what are you buying these days?"

The broker replied, apparently without sarcasm, "Canned goods and ammunition."

Food for thought.

A little over 200 years and the current crop of US govt. educated dummies has no idea what freedom and liberty means!

... but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions (anti-infidel hatred and commands to kill in Mein Qurampf/the glory-ass quran) , that's "negative stereotyping."

And Buraq Arafat Saddam Hussein Osama administration will bend over backwards to help make sure that hurting mahoundian feelings is criminalized.

What will be next? Will they to help decriminalize separating infidel heads from their necks when done "in the name of mahound's imaginary alter-ego, most merciful, most benevolent"? Though something that would hurt a hell of a lot more than just infidel feelings, it wouldn't be surprising if Buraq Hussein might want to support it in the name of appeasing the mahoundians he's surrendering to anyway.

A nightmare whichever way you look at it.

Obama is a Muslim, he always was and as such he is the Manchurian candidate, a puppet of Arabia.

Since his regime took over, he has done nothing for America, but everything to weaken it, to destroy it.

Think about it: Obama has done everything he could, to enable Islam and Muslims to further their cause and he will keep supporting them unless he is removed from power.

Fareed Zakaria, son of an imam, is now the darling Moslem (obfuscater) at CNN.

The advise he gives, laughable as it may be, is hair raising. He is telling us to "learn with terror" and now to "learn to live with a nuclear Iran".

At the time of the cold war, the Russians had to pay to place their agit props in positions of influence. Now, at this age of self-hatred and self-destruction, corporations like TimeWarner/CNN pay for enemy propaganda with shareholders money.

A fantastic, unreal situation. How much more of this can we endure?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/02/zakaria.iran.nuclear/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Oops, I meant to say that the effects of their actions ARE just the same.

The Resolution seems to have been originally introduced in 2005. Does that mean that in 2005 the American government decided that such a resolution made sense? It is unclear to me what the chronology of things is here. But whenever it was introduced, and by whom, the resolution itself, is disgusting, unspeakable, and dangerous.

Who thought it would be a good idea for the Americans to cosponsor such a resolution with Egypt, a world center of antisemitism (with the Protocols and Mein Kampf in Arabic not merely available, but taken deeply to heart by some with no attempt, in the official media, to attack antisemitism -- of the Islamic or the European kind, or that Special Blend of the two that is available, and for free, all over the Arab lands), and with those Protocols even serving as the basis for a well-known Egyptian television serial).

One more thing. Here is a phrase from Eugene Volokh's article that is unwittingly telling:

"...advocacy of mere hostility -- for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally -- is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition."

Note that in the list that Volokh offers, of hypothetical objects of hostility and hate, he has "radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity."

So he can't even bring himself to list Islam tout court, as he has no trouble doing, I note, with Catholicism. A braver version would have been to write:

"should hate and be hostile to Islam, to Scientology, to Catholicism."..etc.

Or is Catholicism, subliminally, regarded as on a par only with "radical strains" of Islam.

And what exactly are those "radical strains" of Islam, what texts do they rely on, and how do those texts differ in any way from those used in orthodox Islam? Is it possible that "radical Islam" is merely Islam that has been unmodified, tamed, nuanced, worn down, by practical considerations, by perceived weakness, by a local tradition of not being fully observant Muslims, but rather of being syncretistic (parts of sub-Saharan Africa), or relaxed or quasi-lapsed Muslims, while those described as "radical strains" of Islam are merely Islam itself, unmodified?

Volokh should examine his phrase here, and tell us exactly what defines "radical Islam" so we may understand what it is about Islam itself that is, in his view, so apparently acceptable.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/is-the-obama-administrati_b_307132.html

Take the people's voice, take the people's way to defend themselves and take their children.

Hmmmmmmmmm...... Where has that happened (or been tried) before ?

What am I talking about you ask ?

People are wondering 'what will be next'..........

The following two international treaties are as real and as dangerous to our national and state sovereignty, individual rights, freedom and liberty around the world as anything tyranny's hand has ever dealt.

These treaties are without question, two of the base pillars of a one-world government rooted in a literal form of Big Brother.

=== === === === ===

The Organization of American States has something called C.I.F.T.A. - The Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives And Other Related Materials.

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/arms.htm

The treaty name is a lie. If this treaty is ever ratified by The Senate, civilian ownership and/or possession of firearms/ammunition and anything else that can be construed as a weapon can become illegal anywhere in The USA at the stroke of a Presidential pen, The Constitution be damned.

Approved by and signatory to the document on adoption: William Jefferson Clinton, President of The United States, 14 November 1997 ; OAS 24th Session, Washington DC.

Senate ratification pending.

There are 34 seats in The OAS. All but 4 OAS nations have ratified and adopted this treaty as part of their nation's laws. The 4 who have not: USA, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Jamaica & Canada. Almost all of those nations have outlawed their citizens from owning and/or possessing any weapons.

Video of Obama regarding CIFTA and more..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbx08fbb-L4

If you think CIFTA is just a hoot-'n-holler short of wedded bliss, try this one:

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

www.unicef.org/crc

If this treaty gets ratified by The Senate, for all intensive purposes The United Nations then becomes your child's parents. They set the guidelines for just about everything, including education and 'healthy lifestyle' parameters.

What a surprise, William Jefferson Clinton signed off on this one as well.

In February of this year, Senator Barbara Boxer decided to speak up on the children's rights treaty...... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights

=== === === === ===

I'm not going to comment further on any of this. I don't trust myself to remain civil and non-inciting.

If you wish to forward this info to family and friends who believe in all this abject insanity and still back our nation's current administration, please do so with the understanding that you may be subject to some serious backflow.

Kenny Solomon
Senior Expediter,
The 72 Virgins Club Travel Agency.

cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt

Cosponsored...I think I can see Rasool Obama in the background...I also smell a rat...The good thing about rat traps is that rats can't resist falling into them...Rats are smart...and ambitious...cheese is their goal...What America needs is better cheese and larger traps...There are a few big rats that need trapping...Cheese will lead them to the door, but they may need a little shove to get them in there...America can give them this shove in 2010...Jan 20 2010...America's first annual Impeachment Day...trapped rats can be impeached...Impeach early...impeach often...

I'm not particularly fond of the term "infidel"..Can non-believers accuse or sue muslims who use this terminology? What an insulting,bigot-laced word!

What if free speech were your religion???

All right, I registered on Huffington post and left my comment on Volokh's piece. Man, it's frightening how many on the left are completely on board with banning speech they don't like.

All the more we should stand firmer than ever for those who are speaking out loudly and with a clear an factual understanding of what is really going on here.

This action taken by the US with of all countries; Egypt? should offer up a big wake up call to all those who work to preserve freedom of speech in America and the rest of the world.

Something is terribly wrong in America when we find our own nation backing OIC Nations to protect Islam from being criticized for its totalitarian ideology, experts on Islam have said that Islam is as much as 85Pct. Political with its sharia law and its adherence that presents most OIC 56 countries as non secular.

Who is behind this? Who is and should be speaking out loudly against this in our nations capital.

Millions have died to preserve this liberty and we need to speak out loudly against anybody in America that dares to trample on this most cherished of rights!!

Given this news and yesterday's (Obama's almost un-noticed surrender of control of the internet to the "international community"), we can see the day coming soon when Jihadwatch and other sites like it will be branded by the powers-that-be as hate sites and removed entirely from the net.

Enjoy it now, folks. There'll come a day sooner than you can imagine when we'll all marvel at the unrestricted freedoms we enjoyed in the early days of the internet.

You see, People - "never Again" is happening again.

Didn't the Nazis begin with banning any talk against them?

Sorry, OT

Yay! Yipeee! Great! Thanks Robert for making it to Berlin on our National Holiday (Oct. 3rd, Day of National Unity) to support free minded citizens in defence of Western Civilisation and adding your infutable knowledge to discussing freely the mohammedan threat!

http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2009/10/berlin-spencer.jpg

Hooray for Counterjihad!

I suppose this is just commonsense, but just imagine if you knew something intrinsically threatening to your town,city,or country about a group,a gang,or some organization, and God forbid a religion or a group defined as a religion and you where not allowed to speak ill of them no matter what.

You could not write anything critical of them in a newspaper,magazine,or the internet, you could not speak up about them on radio or TV, or in a public speech even though you knew that they represented a threat to a free society ---

Imagine if you discovered that speeches where being given that you over heard in a mosque and you went to your local FBI office to report it and the FBI ended up charging you with trying to incite hate because you could not produce any evidence of such a charge.

YES! JUST IMAGINE!

Robert is standing in front of the Gedächtniskirche (Memorial Church, a church-ruin as a reminder of WW2. An apt place to discuss and demonstrate against a centuries old totalitarian belief system. This is how the chuch looks like:

http://www.pi-news.net/wp/uploads/2009/09/gedaechtniskirche.jpg

The text (our call for the demo) says:

"BPE-demo - For human rightas - against suppression. October 3rd 1400 in Berlin. Breitscheidplatz at the Gedächtniskirche"

BPE is the "Bundesverband Pax Europa" - a non profit organization dedicated to educate about the mohammedan threat.

BTW: No Chuck - no Nazis here! Nor there. Nor everywhere. Chuckles!

Welcome to a NEW America, a compassionate America, an America that cares, desperately what Burkina Faso and Omar Gaddfi thinks of us.

The greatest ally for Americans in this fight to oppose the restriction of free speech is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The weakest link in this fight isn't any damn UN resolution, annoying and repressive though such a resolution is, but rather the American judiciary, especially the nine who make up the Supreme Court. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means and that's why justices who know the law, history, have common sense, are not infected with politically correct and multicultural gooey nonsense and are possessed of moral intelligence of a high order are so necessary to the preservation of freedom in America. And that's the single most important reason why I didn't want Obama elected President because he, far more likely than McCain, would appoint the wrong kind of people to the federal judiciary. This is arguably where Obama can do the greatest harm of all. The verdict is still out.

The greatest ally for Americans in this fight to oppose the restriction of free speech is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The weakest link in this fight isn't any damn UN resolution, annoying and repressive though such a resolution is, but rather the American judiciary, especially the nine who make up the Supreme Court. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means and that's why justices who know the law, history, have common sense, are not infected with politically correct and multicultural gooey nonsense and are possessed of moral intelligence of a high order are so necessary to the preservation of freedom in America. And that's the single most important reason why I didn't want Obama elected President because he, far more likely than McCain, would appoint the wrong kind of people to the federal judiciary. This is arguably where Obama can do the greatest harm of all. The verdict is still out.

Good observations Wellington...If it's worth saying once, it's worth saying twice...

German stream, terrible quality (turn off the volume to protect your ears), doesn't look like much, but look at Robert flying the israeli flag (right next to the tent).

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2273012

I post this so often because I am so honored Robert came for this event! It may seem amateurish in the eyes of Americans, but for German democratic citizens (who in contrast to the ever present left and Mohammedans aren't used to taking to the streets)it is a beginning.

My thoughts on this attempt to censor honest thinking:

Islam sucks.

But Mohammad blows enough to equalize the pressure.

They can take this resolution and stick it where the sun don't shine.

All intelligence REQUIRES discrimination.

Knowing Hot from Cold is discrimination.

Knowing Poison from Potable is discrimination.

These meddling, simplistic fools don't have the slightest understanding of the meanings of words~ first and foremost ~and yet they will attempt to regulate the mind of humanity with their irrationalistic twaddle and pious pap.

Not going to happen here!

The problem with the U.S. signing this resolution is not the effect it will have here in the short or medium term, as much as the effect it will have in the rest of the world, where free speech is not protected by First Amendment and powerfully entrenched legal and historical traditions. It seems to me implausible that a legal case will ever be successfully brought in the U.S. against Spencer (or other reporters on Islam), for something he says or writes about Islam -- unless huge changes take place in the U.S. (such as a terror attack that kills, say, ten times the number killed on 9/11 -- then all bets are off, and almost anything could happen).

But since this U.N. resolution may very well immediately damage free speech around the world outside the U.S., that could certainly weaken free speech over the long term in the U.S., which cannot stand alone forever.

Can anyone spell "G-E-N-O-C-I-D-E"? Since hate laws have been in effect in America, they have have been almost exclusively used against whites in the extremely rare circumstances where a black person was the victim and the white person the perp. Reality is that blacks commit almost 98.99999% of all interracial crime in the United States, more typically against white women and this is usually accompanied with rape and murder- usually,an unGodly brutal rape murder. Yet, Bush, Clinton, Bush again and now Obama largely ignore this evidence and continue to portray whites, esepcially white Christians, as the only evil people in the world and the only ones against who hate crimes are prosecuted.
In modern times, white Christians have emasculated themselves through self loathing and guilt, even though they haven't done a damned thing to anyone! But every other religion, race and creed are carrying out very, very violent acts against white Christian european-americans. In America, it is normal for blacks to teach and preach extreme hatred and be covetous of whites and non-blacks to the point violent acts against whites and non blacks are encouraged and awarded with hero like status in this country. Self hating guilty whites also encourage it, so long as their kids and themselves are not harmed.
Now, the muslims have figured out the best way to "conquer" America is to classify themselves as a harmless, helpless and oppressed minority. Since most muslims are nonwhite, they are succeeding. Since this culture is based primarily on submission through violence and subjugation, America will be easy. Obama knows of the superiority complex and self righteousness of islam as a culture and way of life which recognizes no other and has proven himself to eager to accomodate the muslims.
Now, he is co-sponsoring a bill which will further emascualte only majority white Christians in various nations in favor of islam.
World leaders in Europe and Russia are not afraid. They have already recognized that Obama is not about to assist any other country or harm any other country. It is interesting that Gore Vidal has noted what the rest of the world has already realized- Obama is planning to turn on American citizens- with a vengeance- Welcome to the world of the anti-christ, phase two has just begun.

It seems too obvious to be worth mentioning but...

This is not a level playing field. While Western countries that naively sign up will use their earnest endeavours to implement such a resolution, Muslim majority countries that sign up, based on their track record in Geneva, will always have sharia-compliance as their bottom line, and have governments, police and judiciaries that, again on their track record, will observe or ignore exactly what they please when it comes to the enforcement of such a resolution.

In importance this goes well beyond Volokh's Point 4 caveat on flexible and differing definitions.

Hugh you are one of the few exceptions from those who are atheist and do not lump all religions as equally bad. l have two brothers who profess to be atheist and they both think all religions are equally evil. What l try to show them is that islam alone is unique with quotes from the koran that includes the allowing of killing those non-Muslims.
It is easy to include all religions without taking the time
to investigate further. Their common sense has been taken over with blindness of hatred for all religions. Who would you rather meet in a dark alley, a group of Boudist monks,
Baptist church goers or a group of pious Muslims? If this person is honest with themselves the answer should clarify my point.

It would seem that Islam is controlling the West without a fight.A good source of hate is the Qu'ran and its followers.
Are we supposed to cow to the haters.Soon it would be mandatory to read and believe the Qu'ran, and to acknowledge that Mohammad is an universal prophet for all.

"l have two brothers who profess to be atheist and they both think all religions are equally evil."

This is just one of the many irrational tenets that hold together the PC MC paradigm. On a most elementary level, it fails rationality, if not common sense. It is premised on the notion that all things that share a common category must be all equally alike in one or more respects. Sometimes this is true of things that share a common category, but rarely so. The more complex the things in question are, and if they are sociological phenomena like religions, it becomes exceedingly unlikely that they will be exactly alike in any respect.

What is exactly alike in this equation is the opinion of the anti-religion person in his relationship to the religions he is contemplating. The anti-religion person believes, for example, that

a) superstition is bad

b) all superstitious ideas are equally bad

c) all religions are based in superstitious ideas.

However, there are other aspects to religions that can be compared. Religion X and Religion Y and Religion Z can all be based in superstitious ideas, but we can see at least two differences among these Religions:

1) in the realm of concrete effects the Religion has on its followers as measured by their behavior amongst themselves and in relation to outsiders

2) in the realm of the actual content of the tenets of the Religions being compared.

The anti-religion person most predominant in the West, the PC MC, more often than not seems to abandon empirical deduction with regard to these two crucial ways of comparing Religions -- instead opting to lump all Religions together by induction according to an abstract principle that ignores concrete empirical data. And their ignoring of the concrete empirical data with regard to Muslims often partakes to one degree or another of a complex quantum ignorance, whereby they weave complicated responses and counter-responses based on a complicated interlocking paradigm of logical fallacies, incoherence, and sophistical evasions.

Thus, to take one example, "all religions are evil" is the abstract principle by which Islam is defended as no worse than other religions. However, when one presses the anti-religion person to the wall on this with hard data, the anti-religion person will do a paradoxical little dance:

1) on the one hand he will show a willingness to condemn Islam as long as other religions (particularly, of course, Christianity, can be condemned with equal harshness;

but

2) to the extent that, in one or more rhetorical moments of the discussion, it dawns on the anti-religion person that the equal harshness implies that much harshness -- indeed, profound condemnation -- of Muslims, then suddenly the anti-religion person attenuates his anti-religion stance in favor of Muslims, only to ramp it up again whenever he can wedge in a condemnation of Christians.

This 1-2 dance is not coherent or logical, but it can occupy the anti-religion person for hours, having their cake and eating it too -- the cake of condemning Christianity under the rubric of "all religions are evil" while softening their stance with regard to Muslims.

Another tack they take is to dismiss the apparent force of empirical data that indicates that Islam is worse than other religions, in the effects it has on the behaviors of Muslims (e.g., all the mass demonstrations we have seen by Muslims calling for fanatical things, in contrast to no mass demonstrations by the followers of any other religion for similarly fanatical things) -- on the principle that the variability of ostensible data in comparing Religions is less important than the underlying abstract principle that they are all equally evil. Then when pressed to the wall, they may have recourse to other maneuvers, such as trying to reclassify certain data demonstrating a higher degree of fanaticism among masses of Muslims as having to do with "culture", or with Western "meddling" in the Muslim world (including support for the evil "apartheid" regime of Israel), and/or with the problem of "war zones" themselves the "desperate" response Western "interference"; etc.

This is shocking but not surprising.

Obama's playing for the other side.

I can't dissect the argument more astutely than Hesperado, but as far as PC MC people arguing that all religions are the same, it's really analogous to saying:

"Well, all forms of government do most of the same things, in that they regulate a civil society, provide for military defense, enforce laws, regulate commerce and relations with other countries, etc.; it follows that there's not really much difference between the different types of governments, and it's of little concern which one is in power."

Now most of your left-wingers would blow a gasket at that statement---they will argue night and day that Democrats are better than Republicans, that leftist governments are better than right-leaning ones---and that's not even broaching the differences between democratic, fascist, communist, theocratic, oligarchic forms of government. But when the designation of the belief system changes from "political ideology" to "religion"--then suddenly they all "say pretty much the same thing, and they're all equally prone to extremism." It's completely ridiculous and intellectually absurd, and it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

I'm really convinced that Multiculturalism itself is truly a religion, and the adherents stay loyal to it out of blind faith and emotional devotion, and despite all rational expositions of its illogic.

submitmya55, Are you working for jihadists and Islamic supremacists? Because it is they who so often try to turn this into a racial issue to discredit anyone who criticizes Islam. You act as though this is about defending "white Christians."

This is not about race. Islam is not a race. Nor is this about defending Christians. It's about defending non-Muslims of every stripe, including non-religious, non-white, non-Muslims, like Hirsi Ali. It's about the ideology of Islam seeking to subjugate and gradually wipe out all non-Muslim belief systems. Its leader, Muhammad, said,

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Hugh is absolutely right.

A responsible atheist cannot look at the world, as it is now or how it has developed over the last couple of millenia, and assert that mohammedanism is no worse than other religious ideologies.

I'll add that it is not only irresponsible but intellectually lazy.

To look at a religion, a theology and consider them as though they consist only of 3 or 4 basic ideas is a fool's game. Even the simplest and most straight forward of the ancient native paganisms of the world are broad and deep -- and the more documented and decorated theologies are enormous.

Religions, in their totality as practiced and taught, are a compound of many, often conflicting, ideas brewed together over time. And they have to be evaluated as such.

Extracting from a religion its chief, central and basic philosophical principles is a valuable exercise, for a philosophy class.

Evaluating a religion, which comprises not only a basic philosophy (usually implicit rather than explicit) but also an enormous body of ancillary thinking, custom, ritual and social habits, norms and moral standards is a whole other business.

Even between 2 monotheisms -- Christianity and mohamedanism -- there is a fundamental difference in something so basic as the universality of moral standards.

Christianity, starting from an all powerful and all knowing god, asserts that the same moral standards apply to all people under all circumstances at all times.

Mohammedanism, starting from an all powerful and all knowing god, asserts that moral standards vary according to the religion and sex of the people involved.

The universality of moral standards is a pretty fundamental concept, and not far removed from basic implicit premises. And yet, though starting with what looks like a single common basic premise, the two theologies arrive in very different places.

Proper understanding requires careful attention to such matters of meaningful detail and an accurate identification of how they come to be.

Assuming that proper understanding is really the goal of the activity.

;-)

Abduallh,

AM said: "Being a Muslim is not an ethnicity or something inherited by birth or nationality...It is a state of being based upon belief and action."
Ah, so Robert Spencer and others arn't rascist now for criticizing Islam then?

AM said (on "bascon stuffed Quran found on Mosque steps": "Racist skin-head, Jesus worshipping zionists must have been behind this criminal act. "
It seems people are the ones always asking you and other Muslims here "what race is Islam again?"

It's good you agree the "no true Scottsman" argument is a bad argument, and yes I agree making such an argument is borderline racist at least.
I suppose the "extremists" who are in places of government/religious leadership and general rabble-rousers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Gaza are not true Muslims then in your mind since they subjugate non-believers and inciting genocide against Jews?

You claim that problems with Islam is only because the media is focusing on Muslims who do evil, but when was the last major terrorist attack by a christian who claimed he was working on God's orders? the 9-11 hijackers seemed pretty convinced they were doing Allah's will. (And no Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic. This was pointed out with citations in another thread)

AM said: "And as far as insults from you you may or may not be aware but many "questions" you have and opinions you express are dire insults...thus I noted that you may not have been aware of it and asked you to understand I didn't intend to approach you with injury or insult I was merely responding to what insulted me...again, you may not be aware you are some times insulting." (Emphisis mine)
That's a LIE. I've been civil with you and you're the one who's been insulting. You responded to my questions not with the calmness you try to make people beleive, but with outright insults. I mean calling someone an "idiot" or "knuckle dragger" as you have.

Also, you paint QUESTIONING whether Islam might be false, or whether Mommad had sex with a 9 year old (the Hadiths say so), whether that's wrong, whether Mohammad said non-beleivers should be killed (Koran 9:111) or subjegated is a DIRE insult. I am only trying to assertain the truth about Islam. You claim verses are being taken "out of context" but don't give anything concrete to show a limit to a specific time and place. Thus you're trying to putting a social freezing effect on freedom of speech. Noted.

That reminds me, what do you think of the OIC's attempt to criminalize critisism of Islam? http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/us-consponsors-anti-free-speech-resolution-at-the-un.html
Is it unislamic?

I can go back and repost all your insults against me if you'd like. You're free to find any time I called you a name (no, quesitoning Islam is not an insult.) and we'll see how we match up.

Also, speaking of being insulting, you didn't answer this:

AM said: "This I agree with, but it is a question that is loaded such that the answer qualifies many other evil thoughts in people."
You take my honest question about how weak and strong hadiths/Koranic verses are sorted and you again turn that into an insult. As I said before, it was not "loaded" but I was honestly curious about how information is sorted between "weak" and "strong" in the Koran in cases of conflict. You yourself seemed to indicate that there are multiple ages given for Aisha's age at consummation. You are "projecting" (your favorite word) intent of this question that doesn't exist.

Again, no response to my request for your to make a statement about your false dichotomy of the "mature enough about pouring offal on someone/mature enough for sex".

War of Independence from Islam,
Foolster41

(Sorry posted in wrong topic)

Hugh writes:

And what exactly are those "radical strains" of Islam, what texts do they rely on, and how do those texts differ in any way from those used in orthodox Islam? Is it possible that "radical Islam" is merely Islam that has been unmodified, tamed, nuanced, worn down, by practical considerations, by perceived weakness, by a local tradition of not being fully observant Muslims, but rather of being syncretistic (parts of sub-Saharan Africa), or relaxed or quasi-lapsed Muslims, while those described as "radical strains" of Islam are merely Islam itself, unmodified?

The problem in which these questions figure, in our predicament of being outnumbered by the PC MCs all around us in the West, is one small but important piece of the jigsaw paradigm of PC MC. The problem is complex, so I will adumbrate:

1) Hugh in the quote above is not only describing the actual conditions and qualities by which an Islam and a radical Islam are concretely distinguished by the behaviors and attitudes of Muslims in question, he is also implying a more general principle by which a belief system in its abstract purity is relatively distinguished from the sociologico-psychological attenuations of that belief system among its believers.

2) The modern West (17th century to the present) has undergone the most profound process of attenuation of its predominant belief system (Judaeo-Christianity) of any culture in world history -- with this process accelerating and mutating exponentially with each passing century

3) the Muslim world, by contrast, has not undergone this process of attenuation to the same degree, neither in quantitative terms, nor qualitatively as the internal organic process involving self-examination, self-criticism, internal debate, and changes in Weltanschauungen which has characterized it in the modern West -- indeed, most of the attenuation we see in the Muslim world in this regard has been the result of external influences impinging upon it from the West; while probably the most important internal force for such attenuation in the Muslim world has been simply psychological aspects of human nature (laziness, distaste for regimented totalitarianism, seduction by materialistic appetites that go against Sharia; etc.) asserting themselves in varying degrees where they can amid the stifling atmospherics of Islam or better yet outside the clutches of its Muttaween by emigrating to the West. (These universal aspects of human nature in the Muslim world seem, however, to be powerfully counteracted by a mindset of fanaticism affecting far more people in society than that which we in the West are used to -- thus reflecting it seems fundamental and irreducible differences in the two cultures and also perhaps in two psychologies, almost to the point of forming two human natures.)

4) Western people whose minds have been deformed by PC MC (i.e., the majority of Western people) tend casually and unthinkingly to superimpose the modern Western model onto the Muslim world, and to simplistically assume that what pertains to the modern West with regard to the remarkable process of attenuation of religious practice and belief must also pertain more or less to the Muslim world.

5) Thus, with #4 (the particular piece of the jigsaw paradigm I have been analyzing) those Muslims who "twist" the religion, who "hijack" it -- i.e., the "extremists" -- are assumed to conform to the same countertype of "extremists" we see in the modern West: i.e., a tiny minority surrounded by a sea of more or less insouciant secularism. The thought that perhaps the Muslim world is in fact markedly different from the West, and that one key difference is that it has not been corroded by secularism anywhere near to the same degree as has happened throughout the West -- and that therefore "extremism" is not a relatively rare sociopolitical phenomenon in the Muslim world, but rather the norm -- is not entertained by the PC MC person, mainly because the PC MC person viscerally resists the logical repulsion and condemnation this would arouse in him with regard to all those millions of Muslims who, as mostly non-whites, would become suddenly cast in a negative light -- and only whites and particularly white Christians are to be cast in a negative light, and never non-whites, for that would begin to lead the PC MC person, as a Western white, down the slippery slope to which his white Western nature naturally gravitates, given half the chance -- the slippery slope down to abusing ethnic minorities, rounding them up, putting them in camps, and genocide against them. In order to prevent "another Holocaust", then, the PC MC person interdicts his own thought process and refuses to see the masses of evidence that would lead him to criticize, or even condemn, too many brown people. He must at all times limit the number of those being condemned to a "tiny minority" of "extremists" whose extremism, furthermore, must have nothing to do with what inspires and animates and motivates the masses of their brothers and sisters around the world.

6) A final point to be made is that the PC MC person at any given moment in his rhetorical dance tends to base that dance on incoherencies. One incoherence in this regard is that the PC MC person blandly and blithely sees no contradiction in his simultaneous insistence that:

a) according to the modern Western model, Christian extremism is so attenuated it is only a problem of a "tiny minority of extremists" and thus this applies to Islam equally

yet

b) there is a big problem with Christian extremism in the West -- so big, in fact, that it is worse than the problem we face from Muslims.

Islam insults my intelligence, my morality, my philosophy, and my spirituality.

Who do I sue?

Islam is a Bronze Age hate crime posing as a "religion".

Islam is retrograde and devolutionary.

Islam reverses the hard-won, heartfelt and humane gains of Jesus's Christianity -and Reformed Judaism -and reverts the Mohammedan concept of "faith" to the bloodthirsty, despotic, blustering Tyrant "God" of the darkest parts of the cruel, early Old Testament.

It enshrines the fallacy of partiarchy with a theocratic fist and sword.

Islam is hellish, and it belongs on the ash-heap of history.

The Koran is a desert warlord's "Mein Kampf" for Dummies.

If we are not allowed our honest assessment of things, like this mostly-plagiarized and centrally-vicious "religion", we are reduced to prisoners of a p.c. tyranny.

One that will only assist in the ascendancy the more horrific Tyranny of Islam.

Where no thought but Islamthought would be allowed.

To hell with that, and with Islam.

submitmya55: "Reality is that blacks commit almost 98.99999% "
Care to back that up with statistics?

Obama partners up with Egypt to fight hurtful cartoons - in the name of Human Rights. Is the teleprompter acting up again? Would more adult supervision be the answer?

I don't think this man have the ability to lead. He's way out of his lane.

Obama partners up with Egypt to fight hurtful cartoons - in the name of Human rights. Is the teleprompter acting up again? Would more adult supervision be the answer.

I don't think this man has the ability to lead. He is way out of his lane.

off topic, but the answer is islam fools!
Reuters) - An Afghan soldier on guard at a joint base with U.S. troops shot dead two American servicemen and wounded two others as they slept, a provincial official said on Saturday.

Shahedullah Shahed, spokesman for the governor of Wardak province west of Kabul, said the shooting took place after a combined team of Afghan and U.S. forces had returned from a joint operation late on Friday.

"The Americans were in the middle of sleep when an Afghan soldier on duty opened fire on them," Shahed said.

"We have no clue as to why he shot them."

Robert - I just heard you in part on the Michael Medved show; it was amazing how uninformed the callers were. And they otherwise seemed to be intelligent people, but totally ignorant of the tenets of the international cult that wants to kill them.

Of course it is mainly because the media for the common folk is just feeding them PC stuff on Islam and idiot diversions like American Idol, Letterman's latest scandal,etc.

Your voice is clearly needed on the airwaves to get people better informed, or at least interested in becoming better informed.

If Obama indeed takes over the internet (or the UN?!) as well as talk radio, we can kiss America as we know it goodbye.

Robert - I just heard you in part on the Michael Medved show; it was amazing how uninformed the callers were. And they otherwise seemed to be intelligent people, but totally ignorant of the tenets of the international cult that wants to kill them.

Of course it is mainly because the media for the common folk is just feeding them PC stuff on Islam and idiot diversions like American Idol, Letterman's latest scandal,etc.

Your voice is clearly needed on the airwaves to get people better informed, or at least interested in becoming better informed.

If Obama indeed takes over the internet (or the UN?!) as well as talk radio, we can kiss America as we know it goodbye.

Mr. Porretto, I suspect you are right that we in America have an aspiring dictator-for-life. It makes me extremely nervous that he is called "Son" by Moammar Qaddafy, spoken well of by Mad-pmonkey Ahmadinejad, and praised by Caesar Chavez and the Castro brothers. I am also weeping that my country is co-sponsoring a UN resolution with Jew-baiting, Christian-perscuting Egypt as well.

Jimmy Bones writes:

I just heard [Spencer] in part on the Michael Medved show; it was amazing how uninformed the callers were. And they otherwise seemed to be intelligent people, but totally ignorant of the tenets of the international cult that wants to kill them.

That kind of what could be called learned ignorance (not the mystical docta ignorantia of Nicolas of Cusa but more like an intelligent stupidity) typified by those callers is so common, it seems odd to be "amazed" by it.

Of course it is mainly because the media for the common folk is just feeding them PC stuff on Islam and idiot diversions like American Idol, Letterman's latest scandal,etc.

And being "amazed" by such a sadly ordinary mass phenomenon seems to lead to these kinds of simplistic explanations for why it exists. I doubt very much that most people are sheep who form beliefs mainly on the basis of what the media tells them -- at least not most people in the free and progressive West. Now, Muslims I can believe are sheep in that way (with a different set of media that brainwashes them, of course); but not for the most part free Westerners. While of course there are many people in the West, and in any society, who can tend to behave like sheep in this regard, we are talking about numbers, and the phenomenon of PC MC throughout the West is just too widespread and cuts across too many different strata and flavors of society to explain that way: it indicates that a subtler, more complex explanation is needed to account for it.

This means that the Qur'an itself will have to be severely censured due to the many verses in it that castigate, vilify, and deride Jews (as well as all other kafirs). Interspersed between flowery verses giving requisite homage to the Islamic deity are some of the most hateful and bigoted verses ever penned. This can not be allowed to be a one way street. The sword against religious ridicule that Islam wants the world to wield on its behalf, cuts into them even deeper than those that they want to censor. Perhaps all books of prose and hate like the Qur'an should be banned by this "law" as well. There are numerous anti-Semitic, anti-kafir verses in that wretched book that do not describe coexisting in a peaceful manner with other non-Islamic human beings on this planet. Then again we are talking about the UN; a wretched body of miscreants devising wretched laws that most rancid members of the UN don't obey anyway. What else is new?

Both the President and members of Congress have the 'Oath of Office' swearing in ceremeny upon assuming their office, which is:

"I, __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

This is not an idle statement, but on where first they uphold the Constitution against all enemies, and second that they will bear ar true faith and allegiance to it. So if any member of Congress, or Executive, should fail in his/her duty to do as they had sworn, there will be a swarm of legal actions against to have them removed from office. The UN resolution has absolutely no standing in these free United States.

Secondly, whether or not this is sworn on the Bible or Sears Roebuck catalog has no bearing on the oath as it stands, though swearing on the Koran presents certain problems, since it is written within its pages that Islam is the enemy to all non-believers in Mohammad's evil creed, both within a nation and outside. So Ellison by swearing on the Koran broke his oath as quickly as he spoke it. PC MSM in its slavish desire to please didn't catch that. Is it merely 'evasion' - or was it Treason?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration#Oaths_of_office

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

So then, Islam will be shut down mosque-by-mosque across all the nations of both the Country of Submission and the Country of War, right?

*** 3:19 ***

Wrong. This proposed illegal law comes to rotten fruition inside the word hatred, a nebula of linguistically charged do's & dont's.

Nobody should undrestimate the profoundly disastrous impact academe has had on Western society in general, most especially its political economy and security. They were on a roll before, but since 9/11 the tenured class has been working its black magic on Islam big-time.

But, with apologies to most ambitious and prestigious of schools of history, the worst ilk stinking up these Islands of Marxism dwell in the law schools.

The incoherence and disloyalty flowing from these once tolerable trade schools has resulted in perhaps the biggest of takes, to put in the terms a grifter would use, even a bigger take than the one taken on Oct 17, 1917.

*** 9:3 ***

Much bigger. Much darker. And much more dangerous.

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

So then, Islam will be shut down mosque-by-mosque across all the nations of both the Country of Submission and the Country of War, right?

*** 3:19 ***

Wrong. This proposed illegal law comes to rotten fruition inside the word hatred, a nebula of linguistically charged do's & dont's.

Nobody should undrestimate the profoundly disastrous impact academe has had on Western society in general, most especially its political economy and security. They were on a roll before, but since 9/11 the tenured class has been working its black magic on Islam big-time.

But, with apologies to most ambitious and prestigious of schools of history, the worst ilk stinking up these Islands of Marxism dwell in the law schools.

The incoherence and disloyalty flowing from these once tolerable trade schools has resulted in perhaps the biggest of takes, to put in the terms a grifter would use, even a bigger take than the one taken on Oct 17, 1917. The take this time is the Conversion to Globo-Socialism (applied Marxism) with a real big tip o' the cap to the Moslems.

*** 9:3 ***

Much bigger. Much darker. And much more dangerous.

ethoman, there are two big hurdles to treating Islam like Scientology as a cult:

1) Islam is 1400 years old and grew organically in the mists of time from the 7th century a.d., while Scientology was cobbled together a few decades ago.

2) Islam is mostly composed of brown people; Scientology is mostly white people. We know that the former are irrationally protected from all substantive criticism, while the latter are fair game for any kind of ridicule, mockery, criticism and condemnation.

With these two factors, there's no way the West, currently deformed by PC MC, is going to treat Islam like Scientology.

Proud Kafir, you're probably right about Barry Obama. Hugh, in 2005, we had a president who understood the First Amendment regardless of his other faults.

At this stage in my life, whenever I hear a leftist loftily declare, "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it", I go through all the drawers of my house to see if there's any silver or money missing.

It really isn’t so mystic;
It seems rather to be masochistic
To give up the right
To say or to write
That something’s “Islamofascistic”.

@ Hesperado | October 4, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply
ethoman, there are two big hurdles to treating Islam like Scientology as a cult:

Though I may personally see Islam as a fanatical Cult, of the likes of the Assassins or Kali cults, there is no reason to make it such in public policy as regards to how Islamic activities are cult-like, which they are. Both historically and currently, members of this Arab sponsored 'unquestioning obedience' in warfare against the un-believers who fail to accept Mohammad's evil creed, or who rejected da'wa to join his raiding parties for slaves, treasure, and women; they are cult-like in 'submission' to him. In essence this is all Islam is, spuriously legitimized with some sclerotic religiosity of Mohammad's and successors' lusts for material gains and power, as it is carefully spelled out in the Cult's bible of the Koran. Nothing in Scientology, for whatever criticism leveled against it, can even remotely compare to the evil Cult of Islam. But it is not really necessary to voice it publicly in policy, merely to understand it implicitly, that we are dealing with a religious-like zeal of cult fanaticism in Islam.

As this regards the UN resolution against freedom of speech, suffice it to be understood that cult behaviors are inherently contrary to our First Amendment, so they continuously break our laws, for which they should be, and often are, prosecuted. More insidiously, comically really, is the fact that most of Islam's official pronouncements regarding so-called Infidels, Jews especially, are rife with hatred and 'racism', so as earlier said, they condemn themselves into mosque monitoring, or closures and deportations. If they act like a cult and break our laws, and are prosecuted for it, not to mention terrorism and mob violence so easily given to Islam, then calling them a Cult is not necessary for anything other than discussion purposes, since legally they already fulfill conditions of their culthood and are prosecuted for it, even under UN resolution conditions. Stirring up hatred, especially against secular rule-of-law and Judeo-Christian values, is an Islamic specialty. Mob violence like the cartoon riots, and blow yourself up martyrdom, is a natural byproduct of this Mohammedan cult's nomenclature. It is a Cult, and we know it, just don't have to say so. ;)

The UN resolution against free speech holds no power, except to make more visible where Islam spreads hatred and violence. I can think of no better reason that validates our Founding Fathers' separation of 'church and state' than to disenfranchise cults like Islam, and it sharia ambitions, and stand by our First Amendment in the US Constitution to prosecute them when they break our laws.

Battle_of_Tours,

"calling them a Cult is not necessary for anything other than discussion purposes, since legally they already fulfill conditions of their culthood and are prosecuted for it, even under UN resolution conditions."

I disagree. There remain vast swaths of Muslims, Islamic institutions and associations that are protected by the "innocent until proven guilty" principle further bolstered by the irrational disinclination to be suspicious of Muslims, a disinclination so strong it often results in bending over backwards to hamstring efforts to widen our suspicion as part of a pre-emptive process based often not on particular facts but on the rational principle of suspicion.

Ordinarily, this principle, and the procedures based upon it, is a good thing. But, with regard to a global mass movement of supremacist expansionism one of whose methodologies is stealth; with a population of enablers and colluders we cannot sufficiently guage spread out in dozens of different nations all over the world including deep within our own West blending into pools of larger populations of Muslims deemed dogmatically by our PC MC to be harmless and therefore beyond the law because innocent until proven guilty; facilitated by complex grapevines of social networking we still cannot fully probe or understand let alone track; driven by a degree of fanaticism that is grotesquely dangerous; with the possibility of their procurement of WMDs of one sort or another to use against us at times and places we will not always be able to stop -- it's not good to have firmly established the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, for it continues to allow too many dangerous Muslims in, and to operate, under the radar. The method of only proceeding by going after Muslims who visibly break the law after the fact (or in the odd sting operation here and there, revealed to be plotting a crime) may work with something like the Mafia or the IRA or the KKK, but for a movement that is global with possibly millions colluding on various levels precisely camouflaged by our benefit of the doubt that most of them must be harmless because they are not visibly committing crimes -- we may be recklessly playing with millions of our own lives through the coming decades. We have to move beyond normal operating procedure and at the very least put all Muslims under suspicion, the kind of suspicion that warrants surveillance, wiretaps, breaking and entering, etc. But we probably won't, and who knows how many of us will be mass-murdered and how much infrastructure will be damaged and destroyed because we didn't.

In a world of dishonest religions, especially islam, having a UN is a bad idea in the first place.

Davegreybeard,

I agree that using the "cult" word would usually be counter-productive. I was more focused on trying to refute Battle_of_Tours' claim that "legally they [Muslims] already fulfill conditions of their culthood and are prosecuted for it, even under UN resolution conditions."

Hesperado,

I agree our legal protections under "innocent until proven guilty" are ill served when faced with an aggressive supremacist social control system, nay tyranny, posing as a "religion of peace", which must be the biggest misnomer in history. Calling them a Cult, my point, is superfluous since they already act like one and are prosecuted legally when they break our laws. Their presumed innocence should not blind us to their world control ambitions, especially Sharia's undermining our Constitutional laws and government, so there must be some modifying qualifier as to what it means for an Islamic to be "presumed innocent" if their stated goals are to conquer us. In effect, their declarations of Sharia law, which even CAIR supports in the US, makes them automatically seditious, and thus should be dealt with accordingly. Not civil laws, but sedition laws, or anti-mafia laws, would be more appropriate against Islamic Jihad.

My point was calling them a "Cult" publicly serves no real purpose if they already are under surveillance for their cult-like behaviors and criminal activities. The fine line that needs to be drawn by the likes of the ACLU and others defending Islam, PC MC media sentiments and academic studies of this Islam phenomenon included, is that they fall more in the domain of foreign infiltrators than common domestic criminals. Their Jihad condemns them, which can be construed as a cult of foreign origin, even by those already residing here. Whether or not they are named a "Cult" becomes irrelevant, as long as we got a bead on them round them up. I think this is already understood implicitly by the FBI and Homeland, so we monitor them and arrest them without being too sensitive to their sentiments, no matter their cries, and bring them to justice. And we are doing it without jack-boots stomping around like neo-Nazis, so our fundamental laws and protections had not been abrogated. Job well done thus far, and noted.

Battle_of_Tours,

I hope you're right and that the methods of the intelligence agencies are, and will continue to be, sufficient to ferret out all WMD plots against us. Somehow, though, I am less optimistic. As long as we refrain from "jackboots" (or what is perceived as "jackboots" -- not always the same thing), we might be missing one or more cells that will end up mass-murdering untold numbers of us. And would it have been worth it that we conducted ourselves without "jackboots"? I'd rather err on the side of being ugly and saving lives, than being pretty and losing lives.

I understand the threat we are facing largely due to this blog, and I am grateful that Robert and many others are speaking out about the truth about Islam and it's goals.

My question to all is this: what sort of action committees, PAC's, media campaigns (especially) etc. are we involved with? I don't see advertisements for web sites talking about this subject, and I just happened to stumble into JW by accident myself.

How do we spread the word on a national scale, hammer it home via Fox News etc., until a lot more people start to take notice and appreciate the scale and immediacy of the danger we are facing?

I would appreciate information about how we are organizing, perhaps I can assist in the effort.