AFDI/SIOA 9/11 Freedom Rally Welcomes Clergy, First Responders, 9/11 Family Members Banned From Official Ceremonies

Sweet to see the list of people attending this rally mourning the loss of 3000 citizens of this country!! To hell with the official memorial where the truth can't and won't be told - in their delusional world, the aliens came and attacked us.

Let the freedom ring and the truth about 9/11 be remembered well. All the best to AFDI/SIOA Freedom rally organizers and all those who attend it!!

Couldn't find a Catholic priest to appear? Adds to my disgust with the Church.

anyone here live in the city? if so what train goes down there? I am in mid town.
m

"while White House guidelines forbid official 9/11 ceremonies from mentioning who attacked the U.S. on that day or why, the 9/11 Freedom Rally features more honest speakers."

i find the use of the word 'more' to be redundant. the speakers are HONEST, period. end of story.
to contrast with the 'official ceremonies' featuring the bastard (litrally and figuratively) in chief, and the master dhimmi himself - bloomberg (spit!)

Can't say it enough: be careful out there. Stay alert.

http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/09/stateside-ieds.html

http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/06/read-hereabout-boeing-guards-who-somehow-let-twelve-or-was-it-fourteen-handguns-be-stolen-from-a-storage-locker-at-the-he.html

"And while White House guidelines forbid official 9/11 ceremonies from mentioning who attacked the U.S. on that day or why, the 9/11 Freedom Rally features more honest speakers....."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke today on how the United States is fighting "violent extremism" at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on Manhattan's West Side, she said that New Yorkers should remain vigilant but not let the latest threat affect their day-to-day lives.

“This should not surprise any of us,” said Clinton. "It is a continuing reminder of the stakes in our struggle against violent extremism, no matter who propagates it (whether it be environmental extremists, animal-rights extremists or simply conservative Christian extremists or returning American military men and women), no matter where it comes from, no matter who its targets might be."

http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/146777/secretary-of-state-clinton-outlines-anti-terror-efforts-at-john-jay-college/

I expected to see Mark Steyn's name on the list. Where is "America Alone" Mark Steyn?

Where is Allen "I am not going to sit here and dictate to Israel what their polices should be" West? Why isn't he on the list of speakers?

just had to point out....(from a post above)

Hillary Clinton: "conservative Christian extremists"

Such 'branding' goes to show the level of ignorance of Hillary Clinton, which is scary, when considering the power she has been given. There can be NO SUCH THING as "conservative Christian extremists" (in this case, according to hillary, those who carry out violence). The Christian Command is this:

Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not murder, Do not covet. Beyond that, there are no more commands in Christianity. Anyone violating the Commands of Christianity, - are not Christians, no matter how much they claim to be. And that's the difference between Christianity and Islam.

The so-called "Christian extremists" have no scriptures to support them. The 'jihadist' murderers do.

As the Christian scriptures warn, "No murderer has eternal life abiding within" - because "Vengence belongs to the Lord" (not humans). Hillary Clinton is either stupid, or a liar. In either case, she is supporting further bloodshed, by using a ridiculous non-existant term to avoid offending Islam with the truth.

Where can we get live coverage of our Freedom Rally? FOX News advertised that they are covering the Other One.

NO Muslim should be allowed to be anywhere near present during 9/11 memorial ceremonies. They need to be ostracized from civilized society.

Is it at all legal for people to be denied access to a public event sponsored by taxpayer dollars? Wouldn't this violate the freedom of assembly clause of the US Constitution?

Hillary Clintonista is no idiot, she's corrupt and rotten to the core. She made tens of millions of dollars in business dealings w/islamonazi gulf states. Somehow I doubt her abilities warrant that kind of pay.

BTW: My post should have read:

These papers were stolen in a coverup of their(the Clintons) "NOT" protecting Americans.

After reading what wildjew wrote about what Hillary said, I forced myself to go to the indicated website and listen to her. She did not say what wildjew indicated she said. She may have said it somewhere else, but not in the speech at John Jay. It was all about AlQueda and what we and others are doing to counter them.
Don't get me wrong...I don't like her and what she stands for; but, she did not say what wildjew quoted above.

Wild Jew:I viewed the video and this quote was not there. "(whether it be environmental extremists, animal-rights extremists or simply conservative Christian extremists or returning American military men and women)". Although I am no fan of Hilary and I absolutely abhor Islam, I believe you may have added some additional comments that Ms Clinton did not say. Is this correct or do you have the footage of her actually omitting Muslims in this context?

I'm hoping that in the near future concerned, conservative bloggers such as Robert Spencer et al will begin to publish positive news about the fight against Sharia and Islam. Perhaps bringing to light converts to Christianity or successful apostates.

It was such an inspiration to see Swiss MP Oskar Freysinger speak so passionately about what needs to be done to stop the Muslim horde in Europe and I thank Mr. Spencer for linking it.

In our struggle to halt Islam and Sharia in the West, perhaps featuring positive events as well as exposing the daily atrocities and injustices committed in the name of Islam will help all of us in the quest.

September 10, 2011, 11:00pm

After 18 hours on the road, I've finally made it to NY. I will be filming the entire rally, so hopefully I'll have some footage to upload ASAP as well as many pictures. I'm interested to get a TRUE accounting of the number of participants in order to counter the low numbers the MSM is likely to post.

As Pamela always says, Yours in Liberty,

Ima

Guys!

abnsat has done it again!.Watch this program (1 hr 20 min) about "The Global Impact of 9/11" with Anjem Choudhary and Sheik Omar,and both support Al-Qaeda.One has to admire their honesty,they say what they believe.

http://youtu.be/IxKlPatDXJw

PLUS

The article "Why the Jews Specifically Expected the Messiah in the 1st Century AD(because of the Daniel Prophecy)

It also includes the David Wood vs Samir Debate:"Was Muhammad a Prophet?

http://www.antisharia.com/2010/06/29/why-the-jews-specifically-expected-the-messiah-in-the-1st-century-adbecause-of-the-daniel-9-prophecy/

PLUS CHECK OUT

Check out the new website by Nabeel Qureshi,ex-Ahmadiya Muslim,now Christian,friend of David Wood(of answeringmuslims.com)

http://creed26.com/

PLUS

1.answeringmuslims.com

2.answering-islam.org

3.thereligionofconquest.com

4.See the videos (click on "online videos") of abnsat.com(like "Jihad Exposed","Debate","Jesus or Muhammad").
The videos are also on youtube,write "abnsat".

Plus a new blog about the Persecution of Christians(mostly by Muslims)

http://www.persecutedfourchrist.blogspot.com

5.Also PYEM Ministry:

http://pyemministry.blogspot.com/

(very critical of Islam)

6.The blog "Debunking Quranic Science":

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/

7.WIKISLAM(with 1,400 articles):

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

8."Confident Christianity by Mary Jo Sharp":

Home Page:

http://confidentchristianity.com/

Her blog:

http://www.confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/

Also read:

antisharia.com and:

avraidire.com:

http://www.avraidire.com/

(in French and English),you can translate the French by copying and pasting with Google Translate:

http://translate.google.com/#

Again, I will not be able to attend the NYC event -the REAL event led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. My son must be at our local rememberance, and I will be with him instead. My best to all!

Thank you, SIOA. The official ceremony will speak of "tragedy" - though 9/11 was actually an act of war; will speak of "highjacking" Islam, rather than the truth being that Islamists highjacked airplanes to make weapons of them.

It is astonishing that "The Crescent of Embrace" will be dedicated in PA. Whose great idea was it to use a crescent to commemorate the first resistance to the domestic jihad?

However, when you look at how the government manages its finances, foreign policy, etc., we should not be surprised.

Dear Muslim, did you think the Qur'an was perfectly preserved in its every syllable by Allah? Did you think it was only the Qur'an, of all religious texts, that had not been altered one iota from God's intent? Which Qur'an do you mean?

Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences gathering 35 different versions of the Qur'an for research purposes

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

A very good reason to remember 9-11!

Islam can be destroyed non-violently.

Last year's rally was effective to the extent that people who already agree with Mr. Spencer's point of view found that there were many others who had the same perspective. But we already knew that, since various polls have shown that 70% of the American population opposes the Ground Zero mosque. There is little evidence suggesting that last year's rally changed the minds of many people, or that it ignited a national discussion about the consequences of Islamic expansion, or even that it triggered some action that would effectively deter the Ground Zero mosque from being built.

I had predicted in advance that the strategy proposed for last year's rally, namely honoring the victims, shedding tears, and waving flags, would have little long-term consequence. This was based upon several factors. First, there were many nationally prominent people doing the same thing on that day (e.g. important government officials and various social groups), and they would get all the media attention as far as flag-waving and shedding tears goes. Second, the rally provided no significant drama (even the speech by Mr. Wilders seemed somewhat watered down from what I had expected), and the media will only cover such rallies if there is some drama to display on video. Third, as we all know the media is dishonest on the subject of Islam and actively attempts to downplay any honest criticism of Islamic expansion. Thus, they predictably underestimated the number of people who attended last year's rally.

In my judgment, one individual last year (namely the mustachioed pastor who threatened to burn the Koran) quickly got worldwide attention, and sparked much more discussion about what Islam actually is and the consequences of Islamic expansion, as compared to the thousands of participants at last year's rally promoted by Mr. Spencer. The mustachioed pastor did that by bringing out Islamic insanity as a consequence of a relatively trivial act (which actually was not even carried out by him until much later). Another individual who actually burned the Koran in New York last year on September 11 was fired from his government job. Both of these courageous individuals received a lot of FREE SUPPORT from a large number of people, including attorneys, even though the supporters may not themselves have wanted to engage in Koran-burning.

I raise these points to support my main conclusion, which is the following: TO OVERCOME THE NEXT HURDLE IN REDUCING ISLAMIC EXPANSION IN THE UNITED STATES, THE MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY IS TO BRING ISLAMIC INSANITY IN THE UNITED STATES TO THE FOREFRONT OF AMERICAN CONSCIOUSNESS AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. As a general matter, Americans are so conditioned to thinking thoughts such as everybody is a nice guy, all the religions should be equally respected, someone's religion should not be criticized, a religion is a matter of personal faith so Islam could not possibly have a political ideology, nothing intensely foul could happen in a country such as the United States, etc. etc. Because of such programming of the American mind, which begins in elementary school classrooms, Americans will take no effective action to oppose Islamic expansion until Islamic insanity IN THE UNITED STATES becomes so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored. (Americans pay little attention to Islamic insanity, or even other important events, elsewhere in the world.) Unless people who oppose Islamic expansion make active efforts to bring out Islamic insanity, that insanity will not spontaneously manifest itself at a large scale until there is a much higher percentage of Muslims in the United States, or until there is some major international incident. (Obviously, even the September 11 terrorist attacks were insufficient to trigger effective action by the American population to oppose Islamic expansion.) For this reason, stealth jihad and creeping sharia will continue in the United States unabated unless something effective is done.

I believe that the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks is a good opportunity to trigger some national debate on Islam, and possibly to initiate some effective actions against Islamic expansion. Waving flags and shedding tears alone will not do the job, even if accompanied by speeches. (The media uses sound bites, and they are likely to play only those parts of the speeches that serve the biases of the media.) I suggest a strategy, which I believe has never been done before in world history (Mr. Spencer should correct me with the facts if I am wrong), of CONFRONTING THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA WITH THE DEVASTATING FACTS ABOUT ISLAM IN A MANNER THAT THEY CANNOT AVOID.

I think the best way to do this is by using gigantic (e.g. 6 feet x 20 feet) signs containing the devastating facts. These signs can be made inexpensively (e.g. painted on bedsheets or large poster boards fastened together), and they may need two or more people to carry them, possibly mounted on large poles or wooden sticks. Below is the analysis that I posted last year regarding this strategy. (I believe that if my analysis had not been ignored, last year's rally would have been much more consequential.)

--------------------

THE REMAINDER OF THESE COMMENTS ARE FOR THOSE READERS WHO FEEL AN URGE TO SPEAK AND WHO WANT THEIR VOICES TO BE HEARD ALSO.

I THINK THAT THE BEST WAY TO HONOR THE 3000 PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED THAT DAY IS TO PUBLICLY IDENTIFY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHO THEIR REAL KILLER WAS. See if you agree with me on this. I say the 19 hijackers were merely hired hit men. I SAY THAT THE REAL KILLER WAS THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. That prophet made an offer of eternal paradise, limitless pleasure, and glory to people who would kill the unbelievers for the sake of Allah. His offer has been in place for 14 centuries. The hijackers merely accepted his offer. It was a contract killing on a massive scale, and not really much more. (I think that the hijackers have found out that they got cheated in that contract.)

If this point of view makes sense to you, or if you have other thoughts you want to express, I am offering the following suggestions for your consideration as to how to make your speech the most effective.

BENEFITS OF SIGNS AND BANNERS

If a lot of people appear at the rally, wave flags, and express sympathy for the victims, that will merely demonstrate that the organizers are able to assemble some sizable gathering. The number of people who actually appear will depend upon the weather, how many have been notified, and how easy it is for them to attend. After it is over, they will be labeled as flag-waving right wingers who are trying to capitalize upon the natural sympathy evoked by the victims of the terrorist attacks. There will be minor arguments about the estimate of how many people attended. The media will trot out Muslims who suffered in the same terrorist attacks, as well as families of the victims who are now supporting the Ground Zero mosque as a gesture of forgiveness. Muslims and mosque supporters, if they are determined to do so, will organize a counter-rally at some point which will probably have a larger number of people present. The whole affair will be seen as a competition for sympathy, and the net result will likely be no change in anybody's behavior or decision-making. Since 70% of the population is already against the mosque, if a very large number of people don't show up then the media will conclude that people do not feel strongly on this issue.

Moreover, if you were interested in having your voice heard, your voice will be limited to one tiny flag waving in a sea of several thousand.

Some people who attend such a rally try to have their voice heard by shouting slogans in a large group. While that approach may make you feel good because you have a lot of people on your side, to the media you will look like someone who is driven more by the emotion of a crowd rather than by knowledge and clear thinking. Also, Mr. Spencer's point would come into play -- namely that shouting slogans might appear to be inappropriate following a solemn ceremony. The slogans would only be heard for a short time, and the people shouting them would develop hoarse voices. There would undoubtedly be counter-demonstrators shouting opposing slogans.

People who use signs and banners will have substantial advantages. They will be communicating an idea that the media will not be able to ignore. It will be nearly impossible to distort that idea by selective editing or an inaccurate quotation. The communication will be quiet and will not interfere with the solemnity of the occasion. (You may want to not display your banner during the memorial itself.) Furthermore, the idea will be communicated for hours as long as the sign or banner is on display.

It is possible to make gigantic banners by stitching together bedsheets and painting your message on the banner. The banners can be suspended from windows in nearby buildings, or they may be held up by walking sticks. (You might want to check with the NYPD regarding what types of poles they will not allow, but I doubt they would seize walking sticks. I don't know whether there are any laws or regulations pertaining to suspending banners from buildings.) If the NYPD were to take some action inhibiting your ability to express yourself, which I very much doubt that they would do, you would have a very strong case for violation of your First Amendment rights. In that situation, there would be lots of lawyers willing to represent you for free and you would become a national symbol for free speech. The bigger the banner is, the more likely that cameras will focus on it. Remember that a large number of the media representatives from around the world will probably be covering the event.

MAKING AN EFFECTIVE MESSAGE

If you decide to use a sign or banner, the first question that comes up is what your message should be. Some people think that strongly worded, emotionally charged messages such as "Mohammed was a pig!" or "Islam is like Naziism!" or "Send the Muslims back home!" are the most effective. But remember that your message is going to a wide audience, most of whom may not know much about Islam, and many of whom may be relatively neutral on the subject. They will have a very hard time understanding what rational basis, if any, you have for your message if it is of this type. You will be seen as an irrational hate monger if you use such a message, and it will actually work against your goal of opposing the mosque. You will be labeled as somebody who suffers from Islamophobia in that situation.

Many people who are formulating a message don't think about the difference between facts and conclusions. If your message consists of a conclusion, then you leave the viewer wondering about what the basis of your conclusion is and whether you are biased. You essentially deprive the viewer of the privilege of making up his or her own mind about the situation. You also do not communicate any useful information, other than the fact that you have come to a particular conclusion. Conclusions by themselves, even if they come from very influential people, are not very effective. They only have some influence upon people with a sheep-like mentality who have already decided that they will go along with whatever the influential person is saying. Most politicians speak in conclusions with relatively little facts behind them.

A powerful fact, on the other hand, is much more effective. It forces the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion based in part upon the fact that has been expressed. If the viewer refuses to accept the fact, he weakens his own position and appears to be dishonest or closed-minded. The person expressing a powerful fact always gets the upper hand.

I have been following the debate about the Ground Zero mosque, and it seems that the people involved have not understood this principle. I have not seen even one article in the mainstream media nor even one public presentation by any person in which the powerful facts relevant to this debate have been expressed.

As far as I am concerned, as soon as I am told that a mosque is being planned so close to Ground Zero, the most powerful facts have to do with the character of the prophet and the holy book that will be glorified in that mosque.

If you agree with this thinking, you might want to decide for yourself what you believe to be the most important single fact about Islam that should be known to the public. I have thought hard about this question, and in my opinion the most important fact is that the prophet of Islam beheaded over 600 captive Jews and saw their heads fall into trenches that had been dug for this purpose. (The fact that they were captive means that they posed little threat, and the fact that trenches were dug means that the prophet of Islam may have been one of the first major historical figures to make an industrial activity out of killing people.) I think this historical fact is so important that no person in the world should be considered reasonably well educated if he or she does not know this fact. (I thank Mr. Spencer for making this fact widely accessible in Western countries.) This fact goes a long way to explaining why the 19 hijackers attacked on September 11, and why every person who says that the prophet of Islam is a divine messenger in fact directly or indirectly supports violence against unbelievers.

Now I submit that any institution that glorifies such a prophet has no rightful place anywhere near where 3000 people were murdered, and especially if they were murdered in the name of that prophet. What can any reasonable person think in the face of this fact? How can Mr. Bloomberg support a mosque that will necessarily glorify such a prophet? How can Jon Stewart make jokes about people who oppose the mosque if he is forced to confront this fact? Why has this fact never entered the public discussion about the Ground Zero mosque?

If you believe that this fact should be known to the public, you can make a large banner that says "THE PROPHET OF ISLAM BEHEADED 600 CAPTIVE JEWS AS THEIR HEADS FELL INTO TRENCHES!" In small print below this fact, you can give the source which is the Sirah Rasul Allah (the biography of the prophet of Islam).

Here are some additional facts that you might want to put into banners, along with their sources:

Koran 9:5. Allah ordered Muslims to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them.

Koran 8:39. Allah ordered Muslims to fight the unbelievers until the religion in the entire world is for Allah alone.

Koran 8:12. Allah revealed to the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Koran 9:33. Allah has sent the prophet Mohammed to make Islam superior over all religions even though the disbelievers hate it.

There are about 150 other verses in the Koran that support violence against the unbelievers.

Sahih Al-Bukhari is universally recognized in the Islamic world as accurately describing the deeds of the prophet of Islam. Here are some of theose deeds:

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88: The prophet of Islam married Aisha while she was six years old and started having sex with her while she was nine years old.

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: The prophet of Islam said, "If someone changes from his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Here is another interesting and important fact from June 2007:
2000 highly respected Islamic scholars and clerics of the Pakistani Ulema Council gave their highest honor to Osama Bin Laden.

There are many other similar facts to choose from, which you can find on this web site (JihadWatch) or on other web sites such as TheReligionOfPeace.com.

I don't think the television cameras will be able to avoid such banners. If you have a large banner with such a message, there is a fairly good chance that some reporter will want to interview you. So it will be important to make sure you are knowledgeable about the source of the fact in your banner.

If you want to have some fun with the media, and you don't mind spending a little extra money, you can carry such a banner with a factual quotation while wearing a burqa. (Make sure that bushy eyebrows and hairy arms are not showing if you are male.) The politically correct spineless mainstream media will be very afraid to criticize the fact that is expressed in your banner, since you will appear to be a devout Muslim. Nobody will be able to accuse you of being an Islamophobe. Meanwhile, members of the general public will get an accurate idea of what Islam truly is.

WHY THE RIGHT TIME IS NOW

I think that there is a very short time window for having a public discussion of the facts about Islam, and this rally may be one of the last important opportunities. Here is my reasoning.

In Europe, because of political correctness and the large influx of Muslims, it is now practically impossible to have a rational public discussion of the key facts about Islam. Mr. Wilders was on trial for doing nothing more than making an accurate movie about Islam. In the United States, I have found that practically on a daily basis there is some article in the mainstream media about so-called "Islamophobia" and about how Muslims are allegedly being victimized. This includes all major newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, as well as the major networks such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. They are all taking the position that they must allegedly "educate" the public about tolerance, religious freedom, and the prevention of bigotry. They are refusing to publish any article in which the facts and the points of view of people who oppose the mosque are discussed in a rational fashion. (I have actually tested this with the New York Times for example. To show that they are open-minded, they will publish comments containing opinions and conclusions from people who oppose the mosque. But when a comment contains devastating facts about Islam, they will almost invariably censor that comment.)

I think that the reality is that the mainstream media is suffering from "Factophobia" about Islam, which they refuse to admit.

On top of the labels of "Islamophobia" and "bigotry" that are being applied, pressure is mounting from the government and military to not criticize Islam. Their arguments are that criticism of Islam in the United States makes it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members (I doubt that is true), and that it makes it harder for American soldiers to operate in Muslim countries (which is likely true to some extent).

The one thing that practically nobody talks about in full detail is the looming nuclear weapon threat from Iran. People are willing to admit that Iran is not too far away from developing a nuclear weapon, practically everybody argues against an attack on Iran, but nobody talks about the consequences when Iran has a nuclear weapon. What will happen almost certainly (and will be facilitated by the likely slow disintegration of Iraq as American forces decrease military activity) is that Iran will engage in more provocative and threatening rhetoric against the United States after it has a nuclear weapon. Right now, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated, we can be almost 100% certain that it was the work of rogue officers in the Pakistani military. This reality keeps Pakistani weapons under control. After Iran gets a bomb, and after Iranians begin making threatening comments, if a nuclear weapon is smuggled into the United States and detonated it will be very difficult to determine quickly whether it was Pakistani or Iranian. (The problem will be much worse if three Islamic countries have the bomb.) The US military will be morally paralyzed because it will not know who to retaliate against.

Because of the likely vociferous Iranian threat, and because of the irrational (and practically suicidal) state of mind of many military and government people in the Islamic countries, Americans will be under great pressure from the media and from government officials to avoid criticizing Islam for fear of provoking attack by a smuggled nuclear weapon or a smuggled dirty bomb.

Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, if there is not sufficiently effective opposition, the mosque supporters may actually be starting their construction work very soon. By that time, it may be too late to prevent the mosque from being built.

All of this means that we have a very short time window in which to have a thorough public discussion about what Islam actually is. And I very much doubt that within the next year it will be possible to organize another large rally regarding the Ground Zero mosque, given that commemoration of September 11 is one of the important factors contributing to this rally.

Finally, to my knowledge there has never been a public demonstration recorded on camera in human history in which the basic facts of the incitement to violence in Islamic religious doctrine were on public display in the form of large banners. (Mr. Spencer can correct me if I am wrong.) Those of you who choose to make your voices heard may be doing something that has never been done before. To all such people, I say:

Make some history on September 11, 2011.

------------------

Important: I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting violence of any nature. THE PEOPLE EXPOSING THE DEVASTATING FACTS ABOUT ISLAM MUST REMAIN NON-VIOLENT EVEN IF PROVOKED BY ISLAM SUPPORTERS. Others should videotape the whole thing so it is clear who is doing the assaulting.

-------------------------------

(I think this analysis is important enough that in the interests of free speech Mr. Spencer should put it on the main page of JihadWatch, even if he disagrees with it. The number of readers of the comments section is relatively small. Others may agree with my analysis, and it may prompt them into some effective action. I am hoping that we do not have another repeat of last year's rally, which was largely ineffective and overshadowed by the mustachioed pastor.)

I won't be there in person today, but I will be with you in spirit. Thank you Robert and Pamela for all your hard work this past year. I was happy I finally had the chance to meet you both this summer in Tampa during the Fatimah rally. If my job situation continues to improve, I definitely will be there to lend my photography skills for the next rally.

I am not the only one living in Australia who will be with you all in thoughts !!

Be safe!
Continue the good fight!
Be thanked !

Pre-ordered the book, waiting for Amazon. Trusting they are so busy filling orders they haven't gotten around to mine yet