But the Matthews and Dobbses and Hannitys and Becks of the world would rather play pretend.

Part lazy, part ignorant, part cowardly, part craven, part hopeful, part blind, part stupid, part self-delusional --- these opinion celebrities are complex and nuanced.

Yes -- to confront the elements of Islam that the jihadists are using to justify violence...

By this, of course, you refer to Islam's central, defnitive, foundational elements, those that call for intimidation, extortion, theft, pedophilia, rape, pedarism, lying, terror, murder, and world takeover.

And now the House of Representatives of the United States of America has joined the cowering crowd...

The important question is the Supreme Court. We'll see. Anybody wanna place a bet? I'm saying part cowardly, part evasive, and a big part just plain dishonest.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 7:21 AM

Hold your horses with the predictions for 2008, Mr.Spencer. 24 hours is an eternity in politics, let alone 18 months.

Posted by: Witch-king of Angmar at May 4, 2007 7:46 AM

"will make it illegal to discuss the root causes of the problem ...."

why?....are people afraid to speak the truth?...The truth is one weapon that can be effectively used against Islamic terrorism....and Muslims hate the truth..especially if the infidels know it...

If you are afraid of the truth, you have already surrendered...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 4, 2007 8:06 AM

I think all the politicians in the word are no different from politicians. Though these muslims are minority in population, they bow to their pressure. They are ready to abandon the interests or majority for these cruel elements.

Here these fools talking about exclusive reservation to muslims. Our honorable(?) prime minister said "muslims should have the first claim on the resources". What these shits about? They are ready to abandon the majority people.

Posted by: Shivakumar at May 4, 2007 8:17 AM

Robert says:

"And now the House of Representatives of the United States of America has joined the cowering crowd, passing a bill that, if it becomes law (as it likely will once a Democratic president is in office in 2009), will make it illegal to discuss the root causes of the problem that threatens to destroy Europe within our lifetimes,..."

With all due respect Robert, I do not believe the bill makes it "illegal to discuss the root causes of the problem" as is discussed on this site and in the writings found herein (your books and by others).

I will do further research to confirm this but, it appears ( I did a quick google on it and very little by way of recent articles comes up, which in itself tells me its impact is not so broad. I will go more in depth though, but for now...). It appears to be more of a a penalty enhancement type statute. I do not believe it creates a new and seperate crime under which any of us (writers and readers at JihadWatch) can be prosecuted.

Example, murder is murder and has its penalties no matter who the victim is. If it can be proven the the motive for the murder is based on hate (really discrimination) there can be enhanced penalties. For some first degree murders where the penalty imposed is the death penalty there is no penalty enhancement impact. Thus, this law is useless. Let's say the crime is a burglary of a mosque by a person with rabid anti-Islamist beliefs that can be proven. I beleive this bill allows for an additional penalty for the burglary and, if local law enforcement needs assistance in investigating the burglary, federal assistance will be available. This amendment to existing law expands the number of existing groups groups covered by it to include homosexuals. So if you were a proven homophobe and burglarized a home owned by a homosexual, the new law might apply to that case.

Or, if you post here and say "We ought to nuke all the muslims in the world", and then go out and stab the first muslim you see, additional penalty could be added to your sentence for the crime of battery if your post was made available to the court.

I do not believe that this bill comes anywhere close to the anti-vilification laws that exist in other countries (Italy, Australia) that have been discussed here at JihadWatch. Those laws do criminalize the excercise of free speech.

I may be wrong about this and I will do further research and get back to this board.

If I am wrong and this law criminializes what would otherwise be our freedom of speech, then I agree this is a major event that needs to be addressed.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 4, 2007 8:18 AM

They are ready to abandon the interests or majority for these cruel elements.

The above line in my previous post should be this

"They are ready to abandon the interests of the majority for these cruel elements."

Posted by: Shivakumar at May 4, 2007 8:22 AM

People need to make note of the VOTES and eliminate all who voted for this bill.

Wake up America. The globalists are doing the same to us as they have been doing to the Europeans!

Posted by: The Goobs at May 4, 2007 8:35 AM

Equality of men and women is stupidity.
Our motto is constant jihad.
Terrorization is the best conversion tool.
All the world's knowledge is in the quran and hadiths.
Science and technology are bad for civilization.
http://www.islam-watch.org/JihadiUmmah/What-Islam-Wants-Nabiullah-Khan.htm

Oh dear, an interview with a leading Paki islamic party member says it all...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo at May 4, 2007 8:35 AM

With all due respect Robert, I do not believe the bill makes it "illegal to discuss the root causes of the problem" as is discussed on this site and in the writings found herein (your books and by others).

though it doesn't (if its true, then we are happy), these muslims can make a foul cry enough to make others believe talking about the "root cause" are "hate crime".

Already, we have seen them making this foul cry successfully. They often says "Islam is a religion of peace and only who doesn't understand the Islam are responsible for violence". If so, then why they are no co-operating with the governments to counter the terrorism. Instead, they often cry that the laws passed to counter terrorism are against muslims.

Posted by: Shivakumar at May 4, 2007 8:39 AM

You can trust the Dems to try and shut down this site inder the guise of "hate crime" lefislation,

Mostly a vile bunch of vipers, retards, and reality deniers.

Where else will one conflate a fogminded Murtha or a drunken Kennedy, a Pelosi or Harry the Creep ? Can you imagine the fellow who has to caucus these weirdos for a vote - he has to essentially round up the denizens of a Star Wars bar.

What a crock.

Posted by: dgene at May 4, 2007 8:40 AM

Hold your horses with the predictions for 2008, Mr.Spencer. 24 hours is an eternity in politics, let alone 18 months.

Not when it comes to the ultimate political organization, Islam. They've been holding steady for 1,397 years now. No 24 hr period is gonna change the course of the Good Ship Throat Slash, no way.

If you are afraid of the truth, you have already surrendered...

Then can't we issue a formal declaration of world wide surrender? That way we wouldn't have to listen to whiney Moslem activists and even whinier opinion celebrities any more.

Hold the Declaration of Surrender signature ceremony in Bruxelles, where the EAD was founded. Or maybe at the UN on the Upper East Side, where so much dirty work was done to advance the cause. Mecca or Medina would be symbolic sites for the rite, also.

Take your pick. But for God's sake if we ain't gonna fight, and we ain't, then let's get it over with and surrender.

I can see Nancy Pelosi beaming from the dais already....

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 8:41 AM

Well, it didn't take as long as I thought.

Decent article here:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6433544.html?q=ACLU

I am correct that this new act does not create a new crime and should not in any way inhibit our ability to talk about the problems with Islam.

In fact, the new amendment has a provision to make sure that any expressions of speech that cannot be linked to the commission of another sperate offense is protected.

from the bill itself:

" Evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness.

This provision will reduce or eliminate the possibility that the federal government could obtain a criminal conviction on the basis of evidence of speech that had no role in the chain of events that led to any alleged violent act proscribed by the statute.

This is much different than the law under which the Finnish blogger (see article at DimmiWatch from this morning) is having trouble with. Finland also has no freedom of speech protections in their consitution.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 4, 2007 8:43 AM

I disagree with this bill, a crime is a crime and should be punishable as such, regardless of motive.

But... if this becomes law, wouldn't it also trip up the Imams spewing hatred for homosexuals, Jews, kuffar, women?

Posted by: freedomschool at May 4, 2007 8:44 AM

In 1973, Supreme Court justice and liberal icon William Douglas said: "The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV and radio."

This kind of thing (thought crime legislation) can easily backfire. The proponents of "the fairness doctorine" were stunned when it was used to intimidate them (mostly by Nixon). The proponents of "thought crime" will suffer a similar fate one day.

The left, for many years, has been very effective at portraying the American conservative right as if it were/is fascist, similar to the European or even Arab authoritarian regimes. However, the right in America has very different historic roots (than European right, e.g.)and for a variety of reasons is very anti-authoritarian. The "conservative right" in America strongly supports the 1str Amendment and the 2nd Amendment for that reason.

The more one understands the roots of the political right in America, the more one knows they will be the group that will resist this thought crime legislation. The right in America understands that free speech is about the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.

George Will is typical of the American political right-the real conservatives...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366765/site/newsweek/

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 8:45 AM

oops!

insert end quotes " after "....act proscribed by the statute."

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 4, 2007 8:46 AM

"In 1973, Supreme Court justice and liberal icon William Douglas said: "The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV and radio."-George Will

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 8:47 AM

And speaking of politics....

Oh Mr. Spencer? You know I admire your work; you are a brave and great man. But I couldn't help but notice, you made great mention of Rep. Pelosi's visit to Syria, and now that Condi has visited, you "forgot" to note it.

Conservatism is a lost cause, the GOP is a failed experiment. They over reached, plain and simple. Some Conservatives have some good ideas... W does not embody any good conservative values, and has not implemented any good conservative ideas. His nation-building folly in Iraq, which cannot possibly have any good outcome, neither for America, nor for Israel, nor for Iraq, is the albatross that is going to crush the GOP.

The Democrats and liberals are ascendant, and the blame (or credit, if you will) falls 100% at the feet of Dumbya, Cheney, and Rove. And if some fringe liberals get in and whine and apologize for Islam, that is not going to surprise anyone.

Dubya COULD have done a lot of good, but squandered all his efforts, all his advanced potential (what with having the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court and the Media) by starting a war that CANNOT BE WON in Iraq. You and I, and Hugh et al. knew this from the get-go.

Even if we "win" in Iraq, we STILL LOSE: any Muslim "democracy" will promptly vote in the harshest flavor of Sharia. You know that, I know that, and anyone that has studied Islam knows that. They will become another Iran, period... Please, don't tell me it's not true; cite something that backs it up.

As a life-long liberal, I am often shamed and infuriated by my fellow liberals pandering to and apologizing for Islamic craziness... but that's part of the package. The only thing that the GOP is going have, at least federally, for the next few election cycles, is the Bush-appointed Federal judges. THAT was the prize that he (and his overlords) really wanted: the Judges.

Huzzah to you, Hugh, etc. Mr. Spencer. Huzzah, Hoo-ah, Ooh-rah. Keep up the good work; stay safe, and never stop. Maybe when the next terror attack hits America, the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Independents and the Moderates and the Extremists and the Libertarians will all get together and fight our common enemy. But for now, it appears that we are losing, at least from a propaganda standpoint.

"Look for the good and praise it" they say... our lost course will inevitably lead to disaster, and maybe the disaster will lead to some meaningul reforms in the way he gladhand and placate the Crazies... only time will tell.

And the in meantime, get used to the idea of a Democratic DC... your choices are: Obama, or Hillary. Those are the ONLY choices... just last night, Rudy and McCain lost the nomination by not hating abortion enough. Arnold is an Austrian. Mitt is unknown. Who else do you have? Fred Thompson? That would be like the Dems running Tom Poston (last year that is.) Newt? That is not even feasible enough to rise to the level of "absurd."

AND... the GOP is going to lose a net SIX Senate seats next year. The pendulum is swinging. I hope that you can alter your big plan to start trying to get some liberals on board... I talk to them... I talk to them at Earth Day, I talk to them at the bookstores, everywhere. I tell liberals about the threat that Islam poses to ALL of us.

Posted by: kj at May 4, 2007 8:51 AM

Mitt Romney - the only GOP candidate with the cojones to say "global jihad." For that courage and un-PC'ness alone, he should be celebrated.

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 8:57 AM

With time people such as Barry Goldwater look more and more prophetic re the dangers of authoritarian government. Barry Goldwater was a very great man. Very great. May Almighty God and the spirit of Barry help us re thought crime legislation. This has no place in America.

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 8:59 AM

Mitt Romney - the only GOP candidate with the cojones to say "global jihad." For that courage and un-PC'ness alone, he should be celebrated.

...yeah, and John Kerry is the first presidential candidate in recent history to mention the THREAT* that Saudi Arabia, and her limitless billions, poses on the world and America in particular. But "we" didn't want HIM, now did "we"?

Mitt Romney is a joke... there is no one in the GOP field that can both win the nomination and win the election. Sorry. Maybe the Libs won't help Islam as much as the Cons have.

kj

fanorollins@yahoo.com

* In his acceptance speech at the Dem-Con in 2004, no less.

Posted by: kj at May 4, 2007 9:06 AM

Freedomschool asks:

"But... if this becomes law, wouldn't it also trip up the Imams spewing hatred for homosexuals, Jews, kuffar, women? "

No. Once again, the speech itself is protected. It is when that speech is connected to a crime. Also, perhaps my burglary example in the first posts is not appropriate becuase it appears to only apply to "violent" crimes. Burglary is not in the category of violent. Battery, rape, murder are those to which the hate crimes law applies. The act is intended to protect persons who are singled out for criminal violence based on their race, or religion and your post raises an interesting point.

A logical extension of the statute could mean ( and should mean- I love it when you can use a tool created by the enemy against them!) that it can be used against any Muslim who commits a violent act against a non-muslim. After all, the Quran directs violence against non-believers ( that non-believers be killed). So, this could be a great tool to be used aginst Muslims in the US who wage any type of violent Jihad. What bettr evidence would a prosecutor have against an avowed Muslim who committed violence against a non-muslim than providing a copy of the Koran into evidence! If Robert ever gets before FBI agents again to speak, he may want to remind them of this statute.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 4, 2007 9:11 AM

I, nabi ZK, am in agreement with Frank about Sen. Goldwater, a great Arizonan.

kj, need I remind you of all the great nabified advice I have given to seemzies and others around here about predicting the future. Keep it vague dude. Nothing specific. No dates or exact outcomes at least for predictions that could be verified within the lifetimes of any listeners. Try endtimes first. Then work your way carefully back to the present becoming progressively more vague.

Nobody knows the future! Well except me, nabi ZK, of course. But you didn't even bother to ask, did you O' kj of little iman in the nabified one.

Sheesh!

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at May 4, 2007 9:13 AM

While this is misguided legislation which creates the prospect of different classes of victims, I agree that it can certainly be used effectively against CAIR itself, if CAIR individuals are ever involved a defendant in a crime covered by the law.

Maybe the Dems who jumped on this bandwagon should think about the application of the law to any burglar that attends a mosque - as mentioned above, the Koran can be used as a handy "hate" manual for any clever prosecutor.

Posted by: joeschmoe1000 at May 4, 2007 9:20 AM

Oops, sorry, "kj," I didn't mean that Mitt Romney should be President, which he obviously will not be.

Why do you consider him to be "a joke?"

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 9:21 AM

Leave Iraq Now-

It is very easy to point to passages in the Koran as incitements to violence and many comments by Muslims as incitement to violence. As you know, incitement is a call for violence, not the expression of opinion, it is not protected by the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment protects ideas (particularly unpopular thought). With an authoritarian regime in power, many Muslims could find themselves in prison as promoting "hate crimes". Mark my words, that day may come.

In any event, we must all be very careful re giving government powers that could be used to curtail unpopular thought. The 1st Amendment must be protected.

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 9:22 AM

Conservatism is a lost cause, the GOP is a failed experiment. They over reached, plain and simple.

Funny, didn't most of the Marxists on Capitol Hill approve the invasion?

But beyond that your dialectic holds some water cuz, since then, the Marxists (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, the mainstream media, et al) have demonstrated a strong attraction to Islam. And why not, given the principles the two share.

610 * 624 * 632 * 1453 * 1526 *1683 * 1848 * 1938 * 1948 * 1968 * 1996 * 2001 * 2005

How the Left (i.e., Marxism) naturally aligns with Islam

1) Government by Olympian Council

2) Primacy of central authority

3) Suppression of free speech

4) Use of central authority agitprop

5) Use of educational systems to program opinion favorable to the central authority

5) Dissolution of private property

6) Designation of certain groups as putative victims

7) Legal protections for designated classes as protected classes

8) Invasion of privacy by central authority

9) Diminution of the nuclear family

10) Prohibition of behaviors not harmful to others

* 2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *

That's a match.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 9:23 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Mr Spencer dissappointingly says "But the Matthews and Dobbses and Hannitys and Becks of the world would rather play pretend"

I'm not so sure....I believe these peoples are starting to see the same light as I do. What is the point of fighting for the rights that your forefathers put down...if all it's gonna do is cause confrontation with the newest peoples who make up the USA...

Their vision is one of becoming a citizen of the world...a wuslim....and that's dandy.

If this bill gets any further then I would like to see a cheerleading team set up to celebrate. I know that this first started at Princeton University in the 1880s with a crowd chant, as a way to encourage school spirit at
ball games with organized routines made from elements of gymnastics, dance or performance stunting/action.

These actions can be kept but all the womens would be wearing black hijabs ...but still do all the moves and the ra-ra-ra...and hold those little furry balls to wave.

Who are we .....wuslims....
Who do we all want to be ....wuslims

We are se-con-d to no-one
We will r-u-le by all-ah's (SWT)fl-at earth
pol-icy

We-eeee-rre Wu-si-lims......

I agree that adding in the SWT bit might be a bit hard ...but practice makes perfect.

Posted by: Naseem at May 4, 2007 9:30 AM

The article above is important. One hopes it will be reproduced all over cyberspace, hither and yon. But it should be subject to one slight modification. That slight modification is the need to omit the allusion to a celebrated story by Jorge Luis Borges ("Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote") which, some months ago, I suggested to Robert offered an apt case of art imitating life. And ever since, while Robert has completed a new book, given dozens of talks, and made some spectacular translocations, I have been avoiding completing the piece that he now threatens to write himself. For the spirit of Borges’s Menard hovers over the Muslim reaction to "The Truth About Muhammad.” Here is Robert, quoting the exact words of the Qur’an, hadith (carefully relying only on the most authoritative muhaddithin, Bukhari and Muslim), and Sira (relying just as carefully on early Muslim biographers of Muhammad and never on non-Muslim ones). But more of that anon.

And that is what maddens Muslim critics: that serene quotation from Muslim texts, Muslim authorities. When the very same texts and authorities are quoted, as they are all the time, by Muslim writers about Muhammad, they are fine, they are correct, no fault can be found by Muslims with them. What they cannot stand is that Infidels should dare to read, dare to quote, dare to write the exact same things, in a spirit not of blind and submissive worship, but in a spirit rather of inquiry into what Muslim texts teach Muslims about Muhammad -- about what he said, and what he did, and what he wished for, and what he counselled Muslims. For Muhammad is the great figure of Islam, the Perfect Model of Behavior, the Perfect Man in Every Respect, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. Whatever he did, was right. Whatever he said was right, is right. Whatever behavior he exhibited, is model behavior.

Most of us are by now famliar with his marriage to nine-year-old Aisha (he first spotted her, and was "betrothed" to her, when she was six. And yet if one brings this up with Muslims, many of them attempt to deny her age. They will claim such things as "oh, she was actually nineteen" or "oh, no one knows her exact age" or "the texts are unclear." (You can find all about this from the defectors from Islam -- in such books as iBN Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and at Ali Sina's site www.faithfreedom.org.) They attempot to distract attention -- the Tu-Quoque part of the Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque which long ago was alliteratively offered as a summary of Muslim propaganda techniques. Or they attempt to express amazement, surprise, and their own feigned uncertainty ("I'll have to check on that"). If, however, you are sure of yourself, and you hold your ground, and even dare to quote from the texts, quote the part about the little girl playing with her toys, if you adduce the evidence, then that embarrassed attempt at evasion becomes, suddenly, the fury it always was, and your Muslim interlocutor will reveal under the smiles and wiles, quite soon and quite often, a hysterical rage.

And then you will be told, as well, that you are bringing this up for no good reason, you are merely interested in attacking Islam. And then there is the one final attempt to undo you: you are told that the parts about little Aisha are, in fact, being "taken out of context" and in this case the context is not words (oh, there is plenty of "taking out of context" but it is all by apologists for Islam, as when they, and their good students such as Bush and Blair, quote 5.32 but not 5.33, thus changing the meaning of the passage entirely), but time: seventh-century Arabia. We are told that "in the context of the time" Muhammad's marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha conforms to generally accepted mating principles.

To this, of course, there are seveal answers. It is true that there were, and are, cases of child marriage outside the Western world. But these are cases, by and large, of arranged marriages (as in India) and the "marriage" is between two children, and not consummated at once. And it is true that in the West, a boy in his late teens might be "betrothed" to a much younger girl -- royal houses were known to do this -- but the girl would be fifteen, or twelve, not six, and certainly not having sexual intercourse with a 56-year-old man (that was Muhammad's age when he consummated his marriage to Aisha).

And furthermore, when it is implied that "that was then, and this is now" then one has two replies to give. The first is that Muhammad is the Perfect Man. He is above criticism. What he did with Aisha is not merely for that time and that place. And second, Muslims now alive, or at least the truest of True Believers, have demonstrated this view most vividly. For when the learned Shi'a theologian Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, virtually his first act was to make sure the marriageable age of girls in Iran was lowered to nine years -- the very age of Aisha. Khomeini himself had been married to a ten-year-old, long ago, before the Shah had raised the age -- and he was determined to put it back in conformance with the practice of Muhammad.

The story of Aisha naturaly sticks in minds, Muslim and non-Muslim. But there are so many other events in Muhammad's life. There is the decapitation of the hundreds of bound and helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. There is the attack on the innocent and inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, attacked purely for the loot, property and women, that the attacking followers of Muhammad could help themselves to. There is the assassination of the sardonic Asma bint Marwan, who said things that displeased Muhammad. There is the assassination of Abu Akaf. There are the tales of this or that Muslim murdering a friend or relative who had not followed him into Islam. There is Muhammad's treatment of his uncle, who had been good to him. There are a dozen, two dozen, many dozens of examples.

And the scholars of Islam, that is those who wrote and studied before the great Curtain of Correctness Descended (and the bill described above, the Thoughtcrime Bill, would make sure that the Curtain surrounded us on all sides, that we were enveloped in a Universal Darkness, unable to see things clearly, unable to fight for our own civilizational legacy, in a suicidal imposition of self-censorship that would go even farther than the voluntary self-censorship born of fear and confusion and a mistaken belief as to how to deal with what, some now realize, is a hideous problem created, quite unnecessarily, all over the Western world. For the political elites, and the media, whose duty it is to instruct and to protect the populace, have instead been careless, almost criminally negligent -- in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, in Spain, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in the Netherlands, in Canada, in the United States, everywhere. They allowed in Muslim immigrants, in some cases by the hundreds of thousands (and those hundreds of thousands have become millions and may become tens of millions) without investigating the nature of Islam, and have instead relied on hunches, on assumptions, on pieties, on modern Articles of Faith about "tolerance" and "diversity." The piety, in an impious age, is that Islam Is A Religion Like Any Other, and In Any Case, "Religion" Is a Good Thing. That is what George Bush appears to think. There is a variant on this: Religion Is Not A Good Thing When It Can Be Identified With, Say, the White Western World, But Otherwise It Is A Good Thing. And still a third version is this: Whenever Islam Appares to Clash With Any Other Faith, whether with Christianity (and Christians) in the Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, and the Middle East and North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, or with Judaism (and Jews), or with Hinduism (and Hindus) in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir, India itself, parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, or with Buddhism (or with Buddhists) in Thailand, or with the few remaining Buddhists in the Chittagong Hills of Bangladesh, or even with those monumental witnesses to the evanished Buddhism of Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddhas. Wherever that has happened, the non-Muslim Western world has schooled itself to find excuses, or even to take sides with, the Muslims as "victims" or as "misunderstood" or as "having a point" or, at the very least, as not to have their behavior, in too many places, over too many centuries, in ways too remarkably similar not to be based on the same promptings and ruled by the same laws, both in the justification of Jihad-conquest, and in the subsequent subjugation and mistreatment of all non-Mulims, from Spain to East Asia, over 1300 years.

And now, when everyone must offer An Opinon About Islam (Ian Buruma, Martha Nussbaum, Christopher Hitchens, the local college president, the local congressman, every columnist and editorial writer, the staff of NPR), but very fewwait until they have studied the texts and the history, and prefer to utter their opinions which they have formed or half-formed or not really formed coherently at all, on the basis of hunch or emotional inclination, or a desire not to be seen as intolerant (the worst crime of all, the Crime which Cannot Be Forgiven), or some article they read by Bernard Lewis, or Tariq Ramadan, or Amartya Sen, or heard Rosie O'Donnell or some other great figure pronounce with self-assured finality on television, and hovering over everything is the belif that what simply must be, what has to be, therefore is. It is little different from the psychic defenses thrown p by those unwilling to take in, and credit, the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change, for if one were to accept it, then the things that would have to be done would disrupt lives and entire ways of life, and possibly, some worry, their pocketbooks, and so, Podsnaps all, they simply prefer to deny or minimize or put it out of their heads, or claim it is all a "leftist" conspiracy as the disturbing truths about Islam, for many, must be the product of perferved "right-wing" imaginations. The two brands of reality-denial are tweedledum and tweedledee, but this is the real world, in which we live or die, not a Carrollian fable.

Meanwhile, this Thoughtcrime Bill, which would undoubtedly have that famous chilling effect just at the moment when people are trying to wake up (puttig one in mind of Milton's "Methinks I see a puissant power...." from his great argument against prior censorship, "Areopagitica") must be vetoed. Bush has a lot to answer for, with his business about the wonderfulness of Islam, his entrusting serious matters to the “public diplomacy” of Karen Hughes, his beginning what one hopes is a short-lived “tradition” of Iftar Dinners, his ignorance about the nature of Iraq, and the way in which many in his Administraitn allowed themselves to be misinformed and manifipulated, early on, by Shi’a in exile who were intent on having the Americans remove Saddam Hussein, and now, in the end game, by Sunni rulers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan who are just as intent on having the Americans remain in order to protect the Sunnis and promote their interests in Iraq.

Those who oppose the policy in Iraq are weaker than they should be – their case is overwhelming – because they are tongue-tied about Islam. How can they hope to pont out that the expenditure of men, money, materiel, and morale in Iraq is in truth a hideous nonsensical squandering, because the goals set by the Administration would, even if they were attainable (and they are not), do nothing to weaken the Camp of Islam, but are based on remarks and views (such as Bernard Lewis’s atrocious “either we bring them freedom, or they will destroy us”) that do not withstand even cursory inspection.

Having made so many mistakes, mistakes of definition (not a “war on terror”) which have been prompted by, and helped inturn to promote, mistakes of comprehension, mistakes of execution (not that this or that mistake in Iraq would in the end have changed the essentials which are, to wit, that the removal of the regime insured that power would be transferred to the Shi’a Arabs, that the Sunni Arabs would never acquiesce in such a loss of power, and the Shi’a Arabs would never give the Sunni Arabs what they demanded in their attempt to hold onto far more economic and political power than they have any right to claim), the Administration has not been paying attention to the need for pedagogy, the need to say things aright, or at least to asymptotically approach the truth. This is at the top. Lower down, in both the miiltary’s officer corps, especially amon g those who have served in Iraq, there is an awareness, however inarticulate it remains, that something is crazily wrong with how the Administration is betting on something happening in Iraq that will somehow ease the Jihad. But those below the serene level of generals (generals who too often are so fixated on the “mission” that they do not dare to question the “mission” itself, because they deem it ultra vires, beyond their pay grade, whatever that grade may be – when in fact it is only they who can stand up to the President and his hallucinatory advisors and tell them, or tell the public, or tell their colleagues, that the “mission” makes no sense if the goal is, as it should be, to weaken the Camp of Islam).

And the Camp of Islam will not be weakened if, all over the Western world, thoughtcrime legislation such as that described above is permitted to pass. It must not.

As for Pierre Menard, he is waiting in the wings for his closeup.

Posted by: Hugh at May 4, 2007 9:32 AM

Hugh-

Absolutely true. God bless you-you atheist. Socrates was also an "atheist".-LOL

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 9:43 AM

I don't like the concept of "hate crimes," but I would say that critics of the legislation at hand simply read that legislation. A google search for H.R. 1592 or S. 1105 will do the trick. None of the legislation criminalizes hateful writing, hateful publication, or hateful speech. Or hateful blogging. In all cases, for the legislation to appply, there has to be an underlying violent crime.

There is a case to be made against the "hate crime" concept, but it does no good to pretend that this directly stifles any First Amendment freedoms. I suppose it could motivate a synagogue bomber to be discreet about his antisemitism, since the sentence will be lighter if he just likes exploding stuff and the synagogue was just handier than the local church or mosque or whatever.

Posted by: Karl Pov at May 4, 2007 9:45 AM

As a life-long liberal, I am often shamed and infuriated by my fellow liberals pandering to and apologizing for Islamic craziness... but that's part of the package.

We haven't seen anything yet. If your "fellow" liberals get full control they will waste not time handing over our country to islam.

As all enlightened liberal elitists do, under the guise of multiculturalism and inclusion the USA will be sold out. Most of Europe is a glaring example, with the notable exception of Poland. Gee, I wonder why....

All this will go on while at the same time continuing a favorite liberal past-time, relentlessly attacking Christianity in the press, court room and legislation...

Posted by: adobe at May 4, 2007 9:47 AM

The White House has indicated that it will most likely veto the measure if it reaches the President.

MOST LIKELY! Please contact the White House and explain your views!

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at May 4, 2007 9:50 AM

word!

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at May 4, 2007 10:00 AM

What we all assume is that the people in Congress are intelligent and/or wise, and that they are looking out for us. They use the words 'the American people' when they want to push something through or trying to win some talking point. eg: 'the American people want this...'. While it is only something that they want in order for them to gain power, and sometimes money. Most times 'the American people' are their own private interests and/or lobbying groups. And what a big lobby group there is in the saudi funded CAIR organization. I notice that Ellison is right in the group of 'yea' voters. Gee, what a surprise. (note sarcasm)

Assuming things has gotten me in trouble many times.

Now with gas prices getting very high the saudis are probably getting more money to be able to spread around to each of our Congress' personal backyards. And since the saudi paychecks have been sent for many years - the debt that the saudis feel they are owed is coming due. Oh, and this won't be the only payment they will be required to make.

And people worry about Bush and saudi arabia. Bush is the one who went against saudi wishes to wage war in Iraq. Saudi arabia is the one financing the taliban and al qaeda, and some of those other radical terrorist groups - and they certainly are not doing anything to stop Iran from sending in terrorists now that Bush upset the saudis.

Wahabbism is going to spread even faster and deeper if this is allowed. It is spreading too fast even now with what laws we do have due to the apathy, and chosen ignorance, of the masses of people.

Posted by: R_not at May 4, 2007 10:00 AM

Actually this type of legislation will be extremely damaging to those CAIR would like to protect.

The old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for.

If passed, the law would allow the Attorney General to provide federal assistance to local law enforcement to aid investigations of crimes motivated by "...prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin..." of the victim.

Which groups could be nailed to the wall with actual or perceivedpredjudice [...] based on religion ?????

It would be way too easy.

Remember - If the enemy is in range - you are in range!!!

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 10:03 AM

"These actions can be kept but all the womens would be wearing black hijabs ...but still do all the moves and the ra-ra-ra...and hold those little furry balls to wave".
Posted by: Naseem at May 4, 2007 09:30 AM.

I don't care what you say people, I think Naseem is a great laugh!
We could learn a lot from Naseem.(and we do!)

I have to admit though your continued use of 'peoples' when referring to People and 'childrens' when referring to children is a bit grating on the eye so could you please correct that?

It's a bit like Violet Elizabeth who was that obnoxious spoiled child that used to lisp in the Just William stories in order to get her own way....
in your case however I have the sad duty to tell you that your head is well up your burka so it ain't gonna happen, lisp away!

Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at May 4, 2007 10:07 AM

Most of us are by now famliar with his marriage to nine-year-old Aisha (he first spotted her, and was "betrothed" to her, when she was six.

And, thanks to God, those were 3 very scorching hot feiry smoldering torrid searing burning fun activity-filled years:

You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.
--- God commanding pedophilia, for Moslem men at least in Koran 65:4

Our prophet married Ayesha at age 6 to comply with this aya. However due to her tender age he had to restrict himself to thighing before she reached age of 9.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

Thighing is defined by Islamic scholar Khomeini in "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 as follows:

"Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."

The following is from a committee of muslim ulema answering the question:

"The Prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, practiced "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her."

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 10:14 AM

Actually, if CAIR had its way, any thought that doesn't glorify Islam would be made a crime. After all, Islam demands total obedience-no thinking allowed!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at May 4, 2007 10:15 AM

The problem with "Thought Crime Laws" is it is impossible to ever prove. Worse it will be used by people like CAIR to attack those who report possibly useful information for fear of being arrested or sued.

We have every right to be worried. Hopefully G.W. has at last found his veto pen. However don't expect the next president to do so if a liberal. Bush for all his ineptitude on Islam at least has figured out something and if this is it he can still save his sinking ship.

Let me make something clear Bush is partially responsible for this mess in the first place. The democrats control congress because of his stupidity. Muslims are pouring into the country because of his love affair with the Arabian states. It was Bush who gave CAIR meetings after 9/11 and made them seem important. It was Bush who keeps up this farce with the Islamic world in the same way that many others do.

Nothing can change my mind on his legacy. However if he has any love of nation and common sense left he can still do very simple constitutional protective measures. This I would say is one.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 4, 2007 10:16 AM

"...perceived..." is the key point in this folly.

How can anyone know what another person "perceives"?

Except incompletely and hypothetically.

This bill presumes to read minds.

Which is more the realm of stage magicians than Congress.

We are being flim-flam by a pack of laughably-naive and philosophically-imbecilic con men.

Handing out a toxin that they mistakenly think is a harmless placebo.

Trying to cure an imaginary ill with a real poison.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 4, 2007 10:22 AM

If the thought crims bill passes, sue, sue,sue the shalwar off the next imam who talks about the Zionist plotters or apes and pigs, and sue, sue, sue the Hines off of the Rev. Al or Jesse if they dare talk about "Hymietown" when speaking of NY. You'll see a liberal federal judge somewhere browning his drawers to declare it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Sue any leftwing campus activist who shouts down Evangelicals for preaching Christ.

Hoist the bastards on their own petard! Lawsuit! Lawsuit! Lawsuit!

Posted by: Kepha at May 4, 2007 10:23 AM

I don't know why anyone should be suprised at this, we've accepted that government can punish people for their thoughts for a long time now.

They're called "hate crime laws." Hate crime laws don't punish you for breaking the law, they punish you for what you're thinking when you break the law.

This was obvious when these laws were first passed, but the American people, either because of intimidation or some misguided idea that it was the moral thing to do, stood back and allowed it to happen. Then of course, activist Federal courts ruled that these laws were perfectly constitutional.

Anyone with half a brain could see that the purpose of these laws was to bludgeon citizens into thinking only thoughts approved by the social engineers that really govern this nation.

We abrogated our rights to think and express our thoughts freely a long time ago. We willfully put ourselves on this slippery-sloop, and no one should be suprised that we're now in s free-fall.

No, this isn't just the beginning, that was was when we first permitted the virtues police in the federal government to estabilish a new state religion whose moral doctrines can't be questioned without being subject to reprisals.

If you let your emagination go, you might just get a picture of what kind of moral legislation you can expect in the future.

The judgement against us is that what other generations of Americans fought and died to preserve for us, this generation gives away out of some false sense of justice and morality.

Posted by: rational at May 4, 2007 10:23 AM

Plague - Where have you been?! Please go check out the great comments by such JW luminaries as Foehammer, awake, alarmed pig farmer, sounder, etc on the rev! (1st column on the Forum)

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 10:25 AM

It's a dumb bill, but let it pass. Start building the case against 80% of the Qur'an and Hadith literature, and the main schools of jurisprudence, of teaching this material and so on. CAIR and their overlords will backpedal so fast your heads will spin -- and they'll get rid of it for you. This bill can't touch Spencer's stuff because he does not ADVOCATE the hatred and discrimination advocated by islamist literature. Under this bill he should become the principal research associate of the DA assigned to seek prosecution. Go get 'em boys.

Let them come into our churches and synagogues and try to sniff out hate crimes. They are welcome, our doors are open. Of course, equal treatment for all, including the mosques!

Posted by: Archimedes2 at May 4, 2007 10:28 AM

Would someone "out there" please post a link to this bill's actual language so we can read it?
Thanks.

Posted by: desertdawg29palms at May 4, 2007 11:02 AM

Darcy -
Well, I do actually have to work for a living, despite my dedication to the counter-jihad. Currently I'm the lead project director and technical contact for a group of 20 people in an IT support team and I'm responsible for evaluating new technologies, adapting to changes in current technologies, creation of process & procedure, analysis, trending, database modeling, the dissemination of all of this to the staff of 20 as well as acting as a point of escalation in the group for difficult issues and the main point of contact for other groups and outside vendors for our team of 20 - which is staffed all day, every day and is split between two locations in the U.S. and Pune India

So sometimes I actually have to work... I'd like to get rid of this obstacle so I can join the counter-jihad full time, but until I can get an independent source of income ( which I'm working on without much success in the publishing world - have been rejected over 110 times now ) I can devote myself to counter jihad at all times.

I'm sure many of us are in the same position.

But Darcy, I went to http://www.lsureveille.com and looked under 'Opinion' and 'Forum' and it isn't obivious where the postings from Foehammer & company begin. Could you provide me a link or tell me the name of the article / forum entry?

Thank you.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 11:07 AM

Alarmed Pig Farmer,

Thighing - is this another Muslim ritual that is about to force itself into the public discussion? There is the Muslim footwashing fetish, anti-ham sandwhich obsession, equal rights for polygamists, banning bottles of wine and dogs in taxis etc. Now we have "thighing". Maybe we'll soon see NAMGTLA - North American Man Girl Thigh Love Association. We really needed these people in OUR country.

Posted by: RBLA at May 4, 2007 11:12 AM

LOL! Yes, that pesky "work" thingy - must get rid to join the counter-jihad full time!

Just go to the Forum, it's the first column, and scroll down.

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 11:18 AM

We already have these Jihad enabling laws in blighty - a new European version, and the slightly older UK own brand version. Either way, criticism of subjects such as Islam, even if truthful and accurate, can be fought as a hate crime in court. I believe the maximum sentence is 7 years - not bad for simply stating the fact that your country is in danger.

Posted by: Uriel Septim at May 4, 2007 11:41 AM

YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAVE A BED IN JAIL FOR ME, THEN

I will not allow under any circumstances a corrupt government to silence me from speaking the truth.

I will not allow under any circumstances a corrupt government to intimidate me from saying anything that is anti-leftist and anti-evil.

Looks like our corrupt government is going to start rounding up Christians because, as Jesus predicted:

"And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

"These things I command you, that you love one antoher. If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you."

Notice right away that Christians are not clammering to pass some legislation making it illegal to say bad things about Christ. Christ is slandered all day every day and Christians never seek retribution for it. Because we expect the darkness to hate the light, and we choose not to act like them. But evil Muslims want to arrest, and more speciically, murder, people for not believing in evil Mohammed. Evil liberals want to arrest Christians for believing in chastity and Biblical morality.

I'D RATHER ROT AWAY IN PRISON THAN LET A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW TO THINK AND ACT.

Posted by: Tookson at May 4, 2007 11:43 AM

okay -
Darcy I found it... it will take me some time to digest - there's a lot there.

Forum List » Recent Article Comments

This page displays the articles that have been commented on most recently. Click a headline to read the article's abstract and its list of comments.

Headline Last Comment Total
Columnist addresses common questions about Islam

http://media.www.lsureveille.com/media/storage/paper868/news/2007/05/01/Opinion/Columnist.Addresses.Common.Questions.About.Islam-2889576.shtml

Yeah... Foehammer, Sounder, stand fast in the liberty, Awake, Infidel, Alarmed Pig Farmer and Dr. Bulldog... I know you and love you...

dan w. taliaferro and Sam Deakins? you rock dewds... and crissy seems to be a regular poster against the columnist(by Shirien Elmasraya) based on comments I see.

St. Petersburg Declaration? Is that Hugh Fitzgerald? Sure sounds like him by another alias. -- the style is very similar.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 11:48 AM

Condensed from:

Christians Thrown To The Lions -- Not Rome, But In America
By Rev Bresciani
April 27,2007

Hate Crimes Bill HR 1592 is the most serious threat to religious freedom since this country began. And it seems the alarm has not filtered down sufficiently to the rank and file of the rest of Christendom.

HR 1592 is the most dangerous precursor to Orwellian-type thought policing that has ever come down the pike. It leaves any reasonable person wondering what could be next. If carried out it could lead to the arrest of every teenager who calls someone else a geek or a jock or blurts out "I hate you" to parents who have grounded them or corrected them in any way.. Writers, commentators, teachers and lecturers would have to tread the thinnest ice or face serious consequences.

If passed, this bill would produce a kind of fear that has always been associated with tyranny in any nation or civilization throughout history. Even among non Christians the threat of jail hangs heavy even for simply voicing an opinion. Ignoring HR 1592 is what happens when we retreat to fantasy.
Make no mistake the Christian Church was in place before the Nazi's swallowed Germany but were to busy with theological arguments, membership, cake and rummage sales and other innocuous pettiness to create the slightest resistance to Hitler's insanity. In America it may be more the building fund, the prosperity gospel or building cultural churches that is distracting us but the result will be the same. The lions are hungry.

What can you do? First familiarize yourself thoroughly with HR 1592. Google the sites mentioned and read up. Secondly pray and get your churches to pray about this dangerous bill. Thirdly, support those who are fighting HR 1592. Some organizations and ministries have spared no expense to fight HR 1592 and need your help to keep up the fight. Many of them, like the Traditional Values Coalition, have lists of your representatives in Congress state by state and e-mail addresses to which you can send your message of disapproval.

Finally, wake up! You have very little time left to join in this fight.

We all can remember that during the decades of the cold war and the fight against communism there were a few voices saying that America was most likely to fall from within rather than succumbing to communism.

Pull yourself away from American Idol and Survivor just long enough to see that we are on that slippery slope now.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech is what occupies the ground between diligent and dilettante. Lions can be released into that middle ground unless we all take this fight seriously.

After yesterdays vote May 3rd, it appears clearly that the majority of democrats have been taken over by the influences of the left.

Posted by: Mackie at May 4, 2007 11:53 AM

Anyone watched last night's GOP debate? Hugh, can we have a thread about that? There were so many references to Jihad - Romney persisting on it at every turn - to even McCain using the word once. And then there was the random question to Giuliani about the difference between Sunni and Shia, which he answered with seconds to spare.

There's so much that went on there - I'd rather see another thread on that.

P.S. Plague, I don't know whether you meant me, but I don't post there. I do occasionally post on Islam-Watch.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 4, 2007 11:57 AM

For the actual text of the Bill, try:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.+1592:

Glenn Beck (btw) opposes the passage of this bill. The poster "Leave Iraq Now" uses as his source (contending that "there's no problem here") the ACLU. The ACLU has its own suspect agenda. When has the ACLU ever opposed Islamism?

Why would CAIR be so adamant in support of this bill? Clearly, they must see something in the bill which furthers the cause of Islam.

On the Glenn Beck Show (I'll have to look up the transcript) a supporter of this bill claimed that the bill would allow Feds to intervene in state matters (this is another worrisome issue because it would allow Fed interference in States rights...particularly and potentially bothersome if a Democrat becomes President.) The supporter of the bill on the Beck program also gave a very strange reason why this bill is so important or needs to be passed -- it was that "they had seen sectarian violence occurring in Iraq" -- and what can happen when groups of people clash (??)...(must find transcript).

Posted by: J.S. at May 4, 2007 11:57 AM

Here is a link to the proposed legislation:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592

Posted by: Penfold at May 4, 2007 11:57 AM

Infidel Pride - someone going by 'Infidel' posted... but don't feel left out -- I read your stuff all the time too.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 11:58 AM

Great, Plague, I knew you'd find it.

Yes, I love them all, too! Uh huh - that crissy is a brave, enlightened soul. She roundly and regularly gets castigated by various Muslims and dumb non-Muslims, as well. She's a hero of mine.

As all of the brave souls on JW are hero's of mine, including Plague!

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 12:01 PM

So does that mean all the Korans and Hadith and other Muslim literature will be censored and made illegal because of all the hate speech in the?

Posted by: Abby at May 4, 2007 12:12 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270034,00.html
U.S. Raids Target Iranian-Made Weapons in Iraq
May 4, 2007
AP
BAGHDAD
U.S.-led forces raided Baghdad's main Shiite district on Friday and detained 16 alleged militants on suspicion of smuggling a powerful weapon from Iran into Iraq that can pierce armored vehicles, the military said.
The military also announced the discovery in recent months of several weapons caches south of Baghdad that included four of the Iranian-made weapons, known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFP.
In other developments, the U.S. military identified two more top Al Qaeda aides killed during an operation earlier this week targeting a senior propagandist for the terror network,

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do;jsessionid=B79AA902274DEF22841248AAF1EEA0DC?displayContent=133977&page=2
X-187

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI
I love this song!!!

More Islamic terrorist dead today!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at May 4, 2007 12:14 PM

Plague

I didn't feel left out - I was just pointing out that I don't post at lsureveille.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 4, 2007 12:16 PM

We need to make that pack of thieves and whores in Congress more afraid of us than they are afraid of CAIR.

Posted by: MP at May 4, 2007 12:17 PM

We need to make that pack of thieves and whores in Congress more afraid of us than they are afraid of CAIR.

Posted by: MP

I'm on it.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 4, 2007 12:18 PM

I wouldn't be too worried about this either. Bush will veto this. Plus, the last part of HR 1562 prohibits "thought crime". This is not like Europe, so it's much ado over nothing, at least for now.

Robert, save your worrying for 2008 if a Democrat wins.

Posted by: wrathofasma at May 4, 2007 12:24 PM

Does the first thing everyone does here is bite their own and chase their tails.

Get to the facts. Democrats passed this bill aimed at Christians whom they hate, because Christians will not suck up to welfare plans to sell their souls or their votes to Democrats.
So this is Democratic war on Conservatives who Democrats can not beat in internet Moveon, radio Air America and news CNN.

Democrats and CAIR will soon find though that bills bite both ways and will bite them as their Don Imus hate speech is what fills the subject.

and for the record, President Bush will veto this and Congress does not have the testicles nor ovaries to over ride.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 4, 2007 12:26 PM

This is a quotation by Eric Hoffer:

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you."

So, what does Islam fear most?

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 12:27 PM

Lessons in Hate, Misinformation and ‘Thought Crimes’

I quote you, Robert. Your insights this morning were dead-on the mark and so you saved me plenty of typing time. Thank you.

It is not enough to be concerned by this proposed bill, folks -- it must be stopped cold.

It will be.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 12:27 PM

"So, what does Islam fear most?

Posted by: darcy"

...they fear that the truth about Islam will finally be understood by the majority of the infidels...Muslims fear the truth...especially if the infidels know it...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 4, 2007 12:34 PM

Legislation like this needs to be stifled at birth. President Bush signed McCain-Feingold, even though he publicly stated he thought it was bad legislation. He looked to the Supreme Court to set things right. Today McCain-Feingold is the law of the land. "W" is perhaps the worst U.S. president in living memory, and that says something. I can no longer trust him to do the right thing.

Posted by: MP at May 4, 2007 12:37 PM

Sorry this is OT, but definitely dealing with islam.
I was searching for a fatwa about military service and ran across this:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwaList.php?fid=25
Did you know wearing pants longer than ankle length is a serious sin?
I am always amazed at the micro-management of islam.
How do moslems ever expect to go to "paradise" if virtually everything is haram? Wearing a bird on your shirt will send you to hell.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 4, 2007 12:39 PM

It would seem that we've succeeded in getting under Mahmoud's skin over at the Daily Reveille. I just left another comment but there will be the commensurate delay before it is seen. So far, I've been quite surprised I'm being allowed to post over there at all -- it seems that Freedom of Speech doth still reign in the USA and even on college forums.

GASP!

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 12:58 PM

Re: This is a quotation by Eric Hoffer:
"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you."
So, what does Islam fear most?-Darcy

exsgtbrown-

You are absolutely right, they fear critical analysis. Islam's fear of critical analysis is similar to the fear of USSR. The Soviets became more more and rigid as the system was subjected to critical analysis, questioned.

In the 1970's Brezhnev confided to his daughter that Communism "is a total failure". He told her he could not trust any economic data (production, etc.) from state systems. He complained they were all perfumed-up to avoid the plain truth about the economic irrationality of the system. Yet, Brezhnev became more rigid in response to criticism, calls for reform. I think he sensed the whole system would collapse once the cat got out of the bag.

Posted by: Frank at May 4, 2007 1:02 PM

Foehammer - loved your comments yesterday, your admitted and unabashed "plain-speaking." Hey - The R also allows Muslims to come on and speak horribly ad-hominemly to all and sundry non-Muslims. The "peaceful" ones can be quite savage - who woulda thought?!

What is this "Religion of Nature" regarding islam you made reference to?

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 1:14 PM

Oh, P.S. Freedom of speech does NOT reign at the Emory Wheel.

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 1:15 PM

What has this country come to? Why is CAIR acting as if they control the government? Are they going to insist we go through thought detectors? I can't believe it would ever come to this in my life time. This clearly violates the admendment of freedom of speech and the press. Its not enough for the p.c. gestapo to put a censorship to any content that may elicit homophobia or racism, exspecially if its a right wing conservative blog. The buck stops here. There has got be be someone who has the audacity to stand up to these throwbacks and show CAIR who is running America.

Posted by: Jew Chick at May 4, 2007 1:32 PM

Our honorable(?) prime minister said "muslims should have the first claim on the resources". What these shits about? They are ready to abandon the majority people.
Posted by: Shivakumar

I remember than one! Pretty damn incredible. Always giving the best to the worst. I can only imaine how well India might be off if there had never been moslem influx.

@Nazeem.. since mahomet married Aisha and his example is to be emulated.. If I became a wulsim as you suggest we all should.. can I marry your daughter? How old is she by the way? I mean if I am to become a wuslim I should immediately try to be a good mahometan don't you agree?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 4, 2007 1:36 PM

I would think that this is a two way street. What is the difference between being anti-Islam and commiting a crime against a Muslim, and being an anti-infedel and commiting a crime against an non-Muslim. Oh well, society will only allow what it can aford. If we as a society can nolonger tolerate Islam, we will do away with it.

Posted by: DeadRecknoning at May 4, 2007 1:43 PM

The White House, Bush has already said he will veto this bill, end of story.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 4, 2007 1:48 PM

Darcy asked:

'What is this "Religion of Nature" regarding islam you made reference to?'

---

Oh, in my Internet travels I've seen the reference to Islam as being the "Religion of Nature" several times. Here is an example:

http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries/2.html

Islam is called the religion of nature because its teaching is acceptable to the human mind when the human mind is freed from illogical thinking and superstition.

The Prophet Mohammad said:

"Every human being is born in a state of pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim"

--

Basically, it is just one more psychological method that Muhammad and his subsequent clergy used and still use to imprint a sense of greatness onto an otherwise transparent concoction of a diseased mind. My theory on this is very simple -- with Islam it has never been just a matter of telling a big lie often enough and loud enough -- it has been telling a lie, draping it with flowers, pouring perfume on it, giving it a bow and then, when it's still not good enough to sell, put a cake with 72 nubile virgins statues (veiled according to Sharia Law of course) on it next to the lie and promise the male followers that "all this will be yours for all eternity if only you follow Islam and praise Allah and his messenger."

Lonely goat-herders could not resist such temptation. And I'm sure more than a few goats were relieved.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 2:00 PM

Thighing - is this another Muslim ritual that is about to force itself into the public discussion?

Should be. But, as Spencer and Fitzgerald point out, Moslems always get a free pass, no matter how egregious the statement or behavior.

I attribute this to Islam's fake status as a religion, for my part.

I'll tellya, it was about a year ago when two women in here were exchanging posts about "thighing" and I thought they were making a sick joke. I challenged them to post a link to where the Ulema acknowledges the practice as part of the Sunnah. They posted a number of links. Couldn't believe it what I was reading on these devout Moslem websites. The reference to having sex with babies went over my head when I read Ishaq a few years back. Duh.

6:70-8:12-10:4-14:16-22:19-37:67-40:72-44:46-47:15-55:44-56:42-56:93-78:25-88:5

Just go to the Forum, it's the first column, and scroll down.

Where is this Forum?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 2:03 PM

Lonely goat-herders could not resist such temptation. And I'm sure more than a few goats were relieved.

That's a LOL. The mental image of relieved Arab goats is hard hitting. Haa.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 4, 2007 2:07 PM

Naseem stated....."I believe these peoples are starting to see the same light as I do."

You know, Naseem, it's no wonder you are "seeing the light", because satan himself masquerades as an angel-of-light.

And your ra-ra-routine needs a little work.

Posted by: champ at May 4, 2007 2:12 PM

If this goes through, there should be a test case sent quickly up to the Supreme Court, and have them rule against it, probably unanimously.

Posted by: elcordobes at May 4, 2007 2:32 PM

The Prophet Mohammad said:

"Every human being is born in a state of pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim"

Actually ole mo was telling the truth there.
If a person follows their inborn instincts they will lie, cheat, steal, maybe even murder. We are born in sin, only through careful cultivation do we overcome our sin-nature. So, muhammad (who followed the "god of this world" (you know who) was speaking the truth.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 4, 2007 2:34 PM

Alarmed Pig Farmer
Here is a video of the subject of abuse of little children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFrlQPvBmC0&NR=1

Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 4, 2007 2:38 PM

Ah, yes. Life in the state of nature. Isn't that what Thomas Hobbes called nasty, brutish and short?

Nasty, brutish and short.

Now were back to Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: freedomschool at May 4, 2007 2:39 PM

Naseem:

Wuslim? Shouldn't that be wuss-lim?

FYI,"Wuss" is American slang for a weakling.

Posted by: freedomschool at May 4, 2007 2:42 PM

LOOK At history one of the bills Bush vetoed in Tx when he was Govener was a hate crimes bill seams there was one already one on the books. Just like There is already a hate crime law on the books now.

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at May 4, 2007 3:03 PM

J.S. objects to the reference to the ACLU website as authority for my belief that this bill is rather innocuos.

OK mea culpa. Never again (anytime soon at least)

So J.S. google "hate crimes bill" and read as many opinions and articles from as far right as you care to go( perhaps there is a neo-Nazi site that has a say in this) get back to us to show how this bill is other than what the ACLU says it is.
(quoting directly from the statute to prove your point would be helpful). Until then, I stick to my opinion. Yuuuz guys are making more of this than is warranted.

BTW- if crunch time comes (unfortuntely that time could come in the 4 years post Jan '09, right after Mrs. Bill Clinton names Kieth Ellison as Secretary of State) some looney leftist (bought and paid for with good hard Saudi cash) is going to propose something that is as threatening as a thought control crime bill. When that time comes you know who is going to be on the front lines like a laser guided missile, never allowing it to see light of day? The ACLU.

In the arena of the slow jihad here in the U.S. I can see a day soon where battles over freedom of speech, religion, conscience, and a few others consitutional rights are in the headlines on a regular basis. I have a feeling the ACLU is going to be on the frontline there as well. I am no fan of the ACLU, but this may be a time for conservatives to start looking at the ACLU as allies in the War on Islam.

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 4, 2007 3:04 PM

Muhammad: "Every human being is born in a state of pure nature; but through the influence of his parents, he may become non-Muslim."

--

Just to be clear, Muhammad's intimation with that saying was that we are all born Muslims. Thus the entire "reversion" to Islam baloney most of us have heard of by now.

So, while at face value the wisdom might sound true, the subtext is patently false.

About the only thing any of us can be sure of at birth is that we were not hatched from an egg -- although Nancy Pelosi might be the exception to that rule.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 4, 2007 3:38 PM

LOL, Foe - a Dodo egg. That's why they went extinct.

"IndianTiger" - I enjoyed your post. You are so right. Hope you enjoyed your sandwich!

Posted by: darcy at May 4, 2007 4:02 PM

I think I must be guilty of Orwellian thought crime every 60 seconds :-)

I have just worked that if you are on a boat in the South Pacific Ocean, between Chile and Australia, at map location 21.4234S, 140.1738W - you better not take a crap if you are Muslim.

All directions face Mecca, it being the exact antipode, no direction is safe.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at May 4, 2007 4:03 PM

Here is a link to American Family Association:

http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/bills/?bill=9668611

Posted by: pvb at May 4, 2007 4:09 PM

oops that is a bit outdated I think. Sorry!

Posted by: pvb at May 4, 2007 4:21 PM

Leave Iraq Now,

I stopped supporting the ACLU a long, long time ago -- around about the time they began to exhibit a decided political bias (and I just don't think they are at all interested in the support of principles -- rather, they support a political agenda -- that's when the ACLU supported a march of neo-nazis in Illinois). I'm not living in the United States (I don't have the time to research in-depth this particular house bill), but, my instinct tells me, if CAIR is so adamantly supportive, then I'm wondering -- Why?

The ACLU (to support my contention that these individuals are motivated far more by a political agenda than principles) has failed over and over and over again to prohibit Koran texts (and worse -- that's allowing Da'wa into the classrooms) of the United States -- if the ACLU claims that it upholds the principle of separation of church(mosque) and state, then where are they when it comes to Islam? I suspect half the time, they're right there alongside their Islamist buddies. What the Islamists want, the Islamists get. ACLU is there as their lap dog.

Posted by: J.S. at May 4, 2007 5:11 PM

Someone asked about "thighing." I had to research it myself and this is what I found:

65.4 You can marry (and divorce) little girls who have not yet reached menstruation age.

Our prophet married Ayesha at age 6 to comply with this aya. However due to her tender age he had to restrict himself to thighing before she reached age of 9.

Thighing is defined by Islamic scholar Khomeini in "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 as follows:

"Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."

The following is from a committee of muslim ulema answering the question:

"the Prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, practiced "thighing" of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her."

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 4, 2007 5:15 PM

I have not read any posts since about noon Eastern. I think the JW staff assessment of this Bill is over the top, exaggerated, alarmist and worthless. The JW staff comments miss the point. The point is that these bills are designed to make lawmwkers feel good about themselves, and garner enough votes to get their fat rear ends re-elected. It adds penalties for an offense against a person. What does a second life sentence mean when it is added to a life sentence?

The following words are not in this bill: insult, stress, criticize, mental stress, offensive, jew christian, muslim, and property.

The word speech shows up in this section:

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

This is the point that at least one poster pointed out this morning. It is about the Feds usurping state's rights. It also another way for pols to dole out money to "the folks back home."

The only way this law could apply to speech is if the speaker is speaking with a shotgun, dynamite, or gasoline, for example.

We are all against these laws because of our concern that they will not be applied equally. If Tancredo or Romney become president, and more conservatives are elected, this could be used against Mohammedans. My advice to CAIR - Be careful of what you wish for, it might come true.

I dare somebody to point out the places in HR 1592 where someone can be punished through this law for an editorial, comments at JW/DW, carrying a poster, or spray painting insults on the front door of a Mosque.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 4, 2007 5:27 PM

BTW, "thought" ain't in it either.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 4, 2007 5:28 PM

Pelayo-

All "tempests" begin at the atomic level, and spread outward.

Each bogus "thoughtcrime" intrusion into the legal structure is one more bit of rot injected in the framework.

Cumulative rot need not look threatening at first.

These "feel good" rules are merely signs of the mindset that bow to these illusory "cures" to non-existent "crimes".

It is not what you thought, but what you did, that matters.

Otherwise criminals could attempt to be exonerated - and waste judicial time and money on a further level of entangling absurdist appeals- if they try to claim that they "thought" they were "helping" their victims to "find the right path" by bombing their house or church or business.

I don't care if the criminals "hated" or "loved" their victims. I care what they did to their victims.

"Perceived" crime is legal madness.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 4, 2007 6:02 PM

Unbelievable, the islamofascists mentality...first they claim to know how we do things here, yet are overjoyed when a bill gets halfway through the process as if already a foregone conclusion (indicative of one who is so used to totalitarian regimes they don't know any better).
There is a HUGE backlash on this bill here, and a veto will come as no surprise (there aren't enough votes to override a veto...unless the left uses it as a bargaining chip vs the military funding vote).

We've had enough of the thought police here, and this would guarantee the political correctness gestapo its place in history. *1934 alert*
Count on a fight over this sham.

Posted by: jcom972 at May 4, 2007 6:07 PM

Prifitsbeard, I've read the Bill and done several word searches. Before this Bill (when it is a law, if ever) can be invoked, there must be a real crime, you know, blood or broken bones. This bill does not yet make it a crime to wish that someone were dead. It will not be a crime under this Bill to take a picture of the Mohammedan villian du jour to a field and use it for sighting in my Mini-14.

I think is is significant that it does not appear to apply to property crimes - like pig heads in a Mosque or a bullet riddled Quran.

I agree that adding special motives to a crime requires a divining rod. If someoe mugs a rich Mohemmedan, is it because of hate or greed? Oh, I know, the perp hates the fact that the Moh is rich.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 4, 2007 6:20 PM

Frankly, I do not like this bill. (I tend to be libertarian -- the notion of Feds getting involved is problematic.)

A contentious issue is that if one reads the defining features of a "hate crime", one reads (the "C" portion): "is motivated by prejudice..."

Thus, we have the following scenario. An individual goes out and beats up, say, a Muslim. The police can then investigate the "motivations." In other words, ask: "Was the crime motivated by prejudice?" or some anti-Muslim bigotry? (There's the further business about interstate communications/commerce -- read "Internet.") The police would then be able to call up the Feds, and the Feds could check out, say, the person's computer. And, oh! Guess what? The person was reading/posting on what the Feds believe is an "anti-Islamist" "hate" site. The question then becomes, was the "hate" website involved in "incitement speech?" If what the thug read on the Internet is judged as "incitement speech" -- it is not protected under the First Amendment (contrary to views expressed on the Glenn Beck program, the First Amendment is NOT absolute), and the author of said incitement could be subject to prosecution...or investigation.

Back in 2004 Ted Kennedy attempted to introduce a similar bill. Here's what was written at that time:
[begin quote] Federal Thought Crimes
By Cliff Kincaid | July 19, 2004

...The Republican Study Committee produced an analysis of the Kennedy approach that concludes that it creates a federal "thought crime." The approach requires that prosecutors inquire into "an offender's overall philosophy or biases…" It declares, "Th