Sharia in the U.S.: Blasphemy police pick up Muhammad filmmaker

How many American politicians have been bribed, intimidated or sexually compromised by the OIC?

Wealthy men without visible means of support are known to police. Nakoula most likely was an informant for a shadowy intelligence agency. His probation officer was told to look the other way, while Nakoula followed instructions. He most likely will disappear in a federal lockup to prevent him from ratting out his network.

What is this ? I believe and sincerely hope that this unlawful arrest, is a means to protect this man from possible repercussions. If it's not, it's stark tyranny.

This man's people, the Copt's, are under an unbelievable totalitarian assault from Muslims. If the world was not semi-watching, the Muslims would murder vastly more Copts than they already have.

Regardless of his previous violations, Nakoula is a patriot to the suffering Copts when he could forget about them. It's probable he has family still in Egypt under assault. And Hillary Clinton, et al have the unmitigated gall to say he is provoking Muslims with a "abhorrant" film?

Muslims, have you no conscious? Do you understand you are zombies to your blood-thirsty, perverted imams? When will you send your imams to hell?

Politicians, diplomats, law enforcement, have you no shame? No cojones? Why not try to side with Nakoula in this instance, rathar than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Is this America or Soviet Union or any other communist/fascist country? Is there any difference? BTW, what the charges against this man that the man has been arrested? Sickening!!!

Using religion, for political gain, Islam's political fundamentalists have managed to incite good people, muslim and non muslim alike, against each other. This should be the message coming from our political leaders, instead of falling prey to their ostensive tactics, thereby aiding and furthering their theo/political agenda.

Given Nakoula's role in this film it certainly ended up putting a spot light on him.

"Law enforcement cannot act against him for making the film since it is a first amendment right.

The perception of course is different thing here because of the film, but if there is an outstanding warrant or some probation issue, law enforcement has the right to act or investigate. The time period is interesting because under normal warrant requirements there are serving time frames during a 24 hour period that apply unless there is a serious felony or officers are following what is deemed a "hot trail" or crime just committed within an hour or so.

At this time it is strictly voluntary and should not be defined as an arrest. I would not read to much into this in regards to the film.

Washington Post editorial this morning ("Romney’s missing worldview"), instead of standing for freedom of speech / freedom to criticize, wrote the following imbecilic statement:

"(Mitt Romney) appealed to the worst in the American people when he failed to stand up for religious tolerance by condemning the bigoted anti-Muslim movie trailer that incited riots this week, even as he rightly condemned the violence itself."

Nonetheless, WaPo editors link to the following story from "Foreign Policy Magazine" which quotes Romney aid Richard S. Williamson, a former George W. Bush Special Envoy to Sudan. Can't Romney find decent advisers? Does he have to look to failed Bush people for advise on Islam and the region? Obama "de-emphasized the Bush administration's "Freedom Agenda." That is what they want? Freedom? Not shariah?

"(Romney senior foreign policy advisor Rich) Williamson said that the Obama administration had reduced funding for civil society and democracy programs in the Middle East during its first years in office and de-emphasized the Bush administration's "Freedom Agenda." Romney expressed the same sentiment in an interview in Israel in July, where he expressed concern about the path of the Arab Spring.

"The Arab Spring is not appropriately named. It has become a development of more concern and it occurred in part because of the reluctance on the part of various dictators to provide more freedom to their citizens. President [George W.] Bush urged [deposed Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak to move toward a more democratic posture, but President Obama abandoned the Freedom Agenda and we are seeing today a whirlwind of tumult in the Middle East in part because these nations did not embrace the reforms that could have changed the course of their history, in a more peaceful manner."

In Egypt, the Obama administration stood by Mubarak for too long, thereby alienating the revolutionaries and reducing U.S. capacity to influence the new government, Williamson argued. In Libya, the administration "led from behind" and was dragged into intervening by Britain and France, he said, and then failed to follow up sufficiently to support their transition to a stable democracy.

Regarding Syria, Williamson referred to Romney's call in 2011 for the administration to engage more with the opposition, and said that the administration's limited supported for the opposition now was "a day late and a dollar short" -- insufficient to respond to the brutality of the Syrian regime and the deaths of more than 20,000 Syrian civilians....

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/romney_campaign_links_embassy_attacks_to_obama_s_failed_middle_east_policies

Well, what are the terms of his probation? Every law agency has access to that, and it only takes them seconds to find it out...So, I wonder what they are 'interviewing' him about?

While we all get our panties in a wad about about the sanctity of the First Amendment, our attention is, once again, being diverted from the real truth: This film was designed for the SOLE PURPOSE of being the "match" thrown into a cauldron of "extremely flameable liquids" the already fully fomented muslims everywhere.

The results themselves reveal the purpose: riots in 30 countries, American casualties and another huge embarrassment for American people, with unwitting assistance from the eunuchs Obama and Clinton.

The shadowy figure Nakula achieved his purpose with spectacular results. To focus only on asking him questions is to ignore the obvious: he got what he intended, which is to advance the Islamic Jihad. If the FBI cares to find this out it should not be too hard. Oh wait, they don't. They will create a myriad of false motives, the Jews did it, the Copts did it, and Americans will go back to sleep until next outrage occurs........

Somehow, when times are ripe, we come across a message that relates EXACTLY to the situations at hand.

I came across this from Christopher Hitchens(R.I.P.), from his book Hitch-22 p. 99:

"In the 1970s there was considerable nuisance from fascist and neo-Nazi groups in Britain, which mounted disgusting attacks on emigrants from the Commonwealth and began the recirculation of moth-eaten (or rather vermin-infested) anti-Semitic
and Holocaust-denying screeds.

It was one of one’s standard duties as a leftist to turn out on weekends and block the efforts of this rabble to stage a march or to put up a platform in a street market. Stones and fists would fly, posters would be ripped down: it was all part of a storied socialist tradition that went back to street combat with the Blackshirts in the 1930s.

The police often seemed to me partial to the fascists: you could be arrested “for your own protection” if you even looked as if you were going to make a fight of it.

Then one day I read in an American newspaper that, in the town of Skokie, Illinois, the American Nazi Party was going to hold a swastika-flourishing parade. They had chosen this particular suburb of Chicago because it had an unusually large population of Jewish refugees from Germany. Nice work. A temporary ban on the march had, I read, been imposed. But the same injunction was being contested in court by… the American Civil Liberties Union!

That had to be some kind of mistake. Socialist Worker (which I still read though I no longer helped to edit or sell it) published a viperous paragraph saying that this exposed the empty sham of American liberalism.

I went into the thing more closely, out of curiosity, and read an excellent defense of the ACLU by its director, Aryeh Neier, himself a refugee from Nazism.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, he said, enshrined the right of all citizens to free expression and to free assembly. If this protection was withdrawn from anybody, perhaps especially somebody repulsively unpopular, then it would be weakened or diluted in general.

It took me a space of time to assimilate this simple Jeffersonian point, if only because I had been raised in a culture where the law governing free speech and free
assembly was whatever the nearest policeman happened to say it was."

This simple Jeffersonian point is what the Muslim world HAS to be willing to accept if they want to be part of a modern, civilized society; and not the other way around.

This is the definition of Backbiting & Slander, according to Islam:

Prophet Muhammad said :"Do you know what backbiting is?" They said, "God and His Messenger know best." He then said, "It is to say something about your brother that he would dislike." Someone asked him, "But what if what I say is true?" The Messenger of God said, "If what you say about him is true, you are backbiting him, but if it is not true then you have slandered him." (Muslim)

The western world can not abide by the Islamic definition of "slander", if it expects to survive as a bastion of FREEDOM for all mankind.

As a point aside, the ACLU is defending the KKK in Georgia in a highway cleanup effort lawsuit:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/aclu-supports-ku-klux-klan-highway-clean-lawsuit

Just like in the past, and as now, the ACLU will have to step front and center in the defense of ALL those that are being attacked by the mad dogs of modern PC.

The persecution and demonization of those that are TELLING the TRUTH about Islam is an undeniable and well documented FACT, even if the MSM doesn't want to acknowledge it and insists on keeping their collective heads buried in the sand.

As my Mom used to say; if you walk like a duck, quack like a duck, behave like a duck; don't complain when you are called a duck.

Let us recall the woman cartoonist, I believe up in Washington who called for a "draw Mohamad day" which the stories can be found inthe Jihadwatch archives. She of course was encouraged to change her identity and go into hiding by federal authorities for her own safety from the rabidness of Islamic fundamentalism.

The same could possibly occur here for the safety of Mr. Nakoula not with standing his federal probation situation.

Guys, I am starting to wonder if the reason why our government is making such a fuss about Nakhoula isn't in order to start curtailing First Amendment freedoms for the rest of us.

If he is arrested I swear that I will make me own animated film about Muhammad and might just torch a Quran publicly.

There was no purpose for this film to be made but to mock Muhammad, anger Muslims, and blame the Jews. But the plan went wrong, an ambassador was murdered, and Nakoula the government informant has been disgraced. Michaiah!! the Jewish people have narrowly escaped another blood libel.

David Wood made this video when Pastor Terry Jones burnt the Koran, but it (video) applies even more today. Hope it won'd aply even more any more (in Shariamerica):
"just let Taliban revise bill-of-rights!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErzxOz3Dzv8

Goodbye USA. Hello USSR.

@n.a. palm

Cool ad hominem, bro!

Individuals are responsible for their actions, not movies, concepts, inanimate objects or other individuals exercising free speech. Muslims have been throwing a "match into a cauldron of "extremely flameable liquids" -if you wanna call it that- for decades, centuries and millenia against non-muslims, but non-muslims don't defend the undefendable, ergo they don't threat, assault, commit battery, murder, mass murder... etc. against those muslims who continue to throw a "match" at them.

Besides thief, buffoon.

Next time try harder on your trolling, be more creative and less conspicuous, dissimulate a bit. Work on the taqiyya a lil bit more. Ok papa?.

@chowching

"There was no purpose for this film to be made but to mock Muhammad, anger Muslims"---

I haven't seen the film -and i'm sure you haven't either- and don't plan to, don't care about it, so i can't comment about the film per se but even if that's what the film is all about -mocking" pedohammedans- that's free speech. People have the right to insult and be insulted, to offend and be offended, to disrespect and be disrespected, to mock and be mocked, to satire and be satirized, to parody and be parodied, to hate and be hated... that's all part of free speech, it's a two way street, but for scumbags like you who defend and justify the undefendable and unjustifiable free speech is a one way stret where pedohammedans can say and do whatever they want against non-muslims and non-muslims... well... they better STFU or else!.

Dear decent people trapped in Islam,
It's time to take a chance and leave Islam. It's time to send the blood-thirsty, perverted imams to hell where they belong. They threaten, they fall. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if they live or not, but they must go. Every single one of them.

The Western powers are cowards and quislings, but its really your war to win. You know you hate Islam. You know this Coptic filmmaker is factually correct about Islam. You know he has every right to make this film as a human being, and especially as a Copt whose people exist under a constant genocidal threat from the imams.

Will you become fully human and throw off your Islamist masters?

Nakoula's movie is absolutely true, he's got it all right about Muhammad. What he needs is linking to the islamic sources so that he can prove his point to the average viewer.
Check out this PPS "the Perfect Man of Islam". All the links are there, proving that Nakoula's movie is 100% true.

N.B. Download the PPS or the DOC version, click on any link. It will take you directly to the source.

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-man-of-islam.html

Have we thought about the possibility that maybe this person who put out this film is not in fact a Coptic christian? That it's another media scam? Just some rhetorical questions: Why are the media emphasizing the Copt angle? First it was a "Jew" who made it, then a "Coptic Christian" who was financed by "100 Jews" then they report that he is a felon who went by various aliases? a felon who turns into a film maker? and who previously was convicted of fraudulent checkwriting scams?Just your average Copt. I am not convinced about this person being a Coptic Christian. This film is so lame it's unwatchable. It would not surprise me in the least if it comes out that he is an islamist,no one else could make such a lame film. It just so happens that murderous muslims in thirty countries riot over this? Why this film? Why now? Will the next media move be to have this person publicly denounce the film, like a good Copt? Is it another tactic manufactured by islamists? Just asking.

I have not read the whole comment stream, so just in case nobody has already pointed out the obvious ...

The legacy media, and the officers of the federal gov't have exposed this guy's name and painted a target on his back.

They are acting in collusion with the rioters and those who would like to kill him. They are openly collaborating.

Furthermore, by revealing that he is a Copt, they are also painting a target on the entire Coptic population of Egypt. Not as if there weren't one there already. But they will have inspired additional anti-Coptic rioting over and above the normal levels of violence.

All they had to do was NOT to expose the guys name and ethnicity. To refrain from publicizing those two facts.

But the went public. Voluntarily and deliberately.

Wow. The pic of this guy being led away from his house in the middle of the night by the authorities provides horrible, un-American "optics" for the rest of the world. Even Nixon didn't pull this kind of crap. Shame on Obama.

Show the pic, RS.

n.a.palm wrote:

"This film was designed for the SOLE PURPOSE of being the "match" thrown into a cauldron of "extremely flameable liquids" the already fully fomented muslims everywhere."

First of all, only the filmmaker knows for certain what his "SOLE PURPOSE" was. Regardless of his intent, these muslims are solely responsible for their acts of violence in response to 'whatever' they are responding to, so "n.a.palm" shouldn't even attempt to blame the filmmaker. And btw, it doesn't take much to set a muslims hair on fire. An insult here, hurt feels there ...they are always getting upset over something.

Secondly, I find it rather humorous and ironic that said poster refers to muslims as "extremely flameable liquid" ...yes, he has that right--they are indeed, lol!

"NBC4 went to the home this week and saw the front door was missing a knob...."

The knob is in the WH directing affairs.

Robert, I have to disagree with you a bit. You wrote:

"He will be in prison not...for the technicality of the probation violation, but for insulting Muhammad...If Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is imprisoned, he will be nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new federal crime of blasphemy against Islam."

No, the truth is that if he is in violation of his probation then he in fact would be returned to prison for that violation, and not for any other reason. We cannot fall into that trap.

You see, the stealth jihadists and their dhimmi friends WILL say that he was sent to prison for blasphemy - or rather, some form of incitement, which will make a better precedent to use against us. You are very correct to point out exactly the arguments that they will use. But they will still be wrong, and we will need to say so.

Should Nakoula Basseley Nakoula return to prison we MUST NOT allow the idea to gain traction that he returned because he insulted Islam or Muhammad or some such thing, because that is exactly what the stealth jihadists want the American people to believe. We MUST maintain that "had he not been on probation and been prohibited from using the internet he would be a free man today", should the worst befall to him.

I know that you are attempting to describe a real philosophical truth here, but there is no reason for it to become a legal truth, and if it does we will all be very sorry.

BTW, there is one way in which you may turn out to be very correct. Suppose that the terms of probation prohibit certain internet transaction, and it turns out that those prohibited transactions never happened in the making of the movie and its posting to the internet. A decision to imprison him using a broad interpretation of these probation terms by the authorities would be a sign that a sharia compliant motive would be in effect. That would be the time to really protest the government's actions.

USA == Ummah Saudi Amrika

Who coined the phrase "Blasphemy police"? Was it Robert??

Its absolutely brilliant. Evokes shades of Czarist Russia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Hitler and his Third Reich which somehow missed "existing for a Thousand Years" - as Hitler had promised, and a host of equally dangerous lesser lights,historical and contemporary; the ultimate opposite to the Founding Fathers (USA),the British Parliament especially in more recent years, and the Rule of Law still common to most Western Democracies.

However phrases such as the "war on terror" emanating from the present US Administration, belong to the same family as the term "blasphemy police" and royally obfuscate the sources of our present danger which are Islamist extremism, born of and carefully nurtured for example by the Muslim Brotherhood since its initiation in Egypt 40 odd years ago, reared in the Arab world, spread by "da'wa" - a non-militant process designed to infiltrate, among others, Western Establishment organizations leading ultimately to a take-over by Muslim Brotherhood personnel and ideology. A stunning example of success is the organization C.A.I.R which is a frequent representative/guest at the U.S. White House and may well exert some consultative functions therein.

All such cartoons or films should be made by "ex-Muslims" so that blame cannot be placed on Jews, Christians, Hindus or other groups.