Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 28, 2015, 01:17:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86340 Posts in 2276 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)  (Read 104768 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #300 on: April 07, 2015, 12:16:10 PM »

http://www.clarionproject.org/news/pressure-university-south-dakota-cancel-honor-diaries
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #301 on: April 15, 2015, 06:05:00 AM »

http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/emails-leaked-hamas-cair-strong-arming-brooklyn-college-to-cancel-my-lecture.html/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4462


« Reply #302 on: April 21, 2015, 09:50:42 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-york-transit-agency-run-pro-israel-164735981.html
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #303 on: April 22, 2015, 07:41:58 AM »

This is fantastic.  Predictably, CAIR and the media are in an uproar:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/ny-daily-news-posters-slamming-islam-for-killing-jews-can-be-displayed-on-mta-buses-court.html/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #304 on: April 22, 2015, 07:43:40 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feOV1Hh9eOU

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #305 on: May 03, 2015, 10:34:49 PM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/

 By Victor Morton - The Washington Times - Updated: 11:28 p.m. on Sunday, May 3, 2015

Police in a Dallas suburb killed two men in a car during a gun battle as they attacked a Muhammad-cartoon drawing contest.  As the event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland was ending, “two males drove up to the front of the building in a car.” according to a statement Sunday night by the city of Garland.

“Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ISD security officer. Garland Police engaged the gunmen who were both shot and killed,” the statement said.

One guard was wounded in the melee, which was held under tight security.  More than 40 extra officers assigned to the event at the expense of the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative, which was awarding $10,000 prize would be awarded for the best cartoon depicting Muhammad.  The city’s statement said the vehicle may have been intended for use as a car bomb.

“Police suspect the vehicle may have carried an incendiary device and the bomb squad is on the scene,” the city said.

The city did not explicitly say whether the contest, led by conservative anti-Shariah activist Pamela Gellar and with Dutch ally Geert Wilders also present, was the intended target. Both Ms. Gellar and Mr. Wilders have been the target of both death threats by Muslims and attacks by liberals as hatemongers.  Muhammad drawings have resulted in several fatal attacks by Muslims in Europe and the Middle East.

Robert Spencer, co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, blamed the attacks on the environment cultivated by all forms of Islam.

“The shooting outside our free speech event shows once again that moderate Muslims are unable or unwilling to rein in their violent brethren,” he wrote on Twitter on Sunday night.

An officer dressed in SWAT gear took the stage around 7 p.m. CDT near the end of the event and told attendees, including an Associated Press reporter, that a shooting had occurred and everyone had to be evacuated.  About 75 attendees were taken to another room. Later, a group of 48 people were escorted to a school bus. Authorities told attendees they would be taken to a nearby high school. A second group was set to be moved shortly after.

“Right when we were beginning to drive away, we heard gunshots,” attendee Cynthia Belisle told NBC News. “We thought they were fireworks, but they were not.”

Mr. Wilders tweeted from inside the event that the attack was ongoing and that he was leaving the building. He tweeted a photo of himself surrounded by camouflaged men that he said was taken just before the shooting began.

Story Continues →
Shooting reported at Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest near Dallas, Texas



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/#ixzz3Z8YoTvuT
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



===========

“Thank God the heroes of SWAT-team prevented the worst,” he wrote.

Muhammad drawings are deemed insulting to many followers of Islam and have sparked violence around the world. According to mainstream Islamic tradition, any physical depiction of the man Islam reveres as God’s final prophet — even a respectful one — is considered blasphemous. In January, 12 people were killed by gunmen in an attack against the Paris office of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had lampooned Islam and other religions and used depictions of Muhammad.

There was a quick claim of responsibility by a Muslim twitter account called “Shariah Is Light,” which uses as its avatar Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born imam who blessed the underwear bomber in Detroit and Fort Hood attacker Maj. Nidal Hasan.

“The bro with me and myself have given bay’ah to Amirul Mu’mineen. May Allah accept us as mujahideen. Make dua #texasattack,” the account wrote at 6:35 p.m. Sunday, apparently before the Texas attack.

The term “bay’ah” is the Muslim word for a solemn oath of allegiance, and “make dua” refers to an act of prayer and/or supplication before God.  The claim could not be independently verified, but the account had long been sharply critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and was not established Sunday for the purpose of trolling after the attacks became public knowledge.

Another Twitter account known for pro-Islamic State sympathies went into divine praise for the attack.

“Allahu Akbar!!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) art exhibition in texas! #TexasAttack,” wrote AbuHussainAlBritani before the account was suspended.

• This article was based in part on wire-service reports.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/shooting-reported-prophet-muhammad-cartoon-contest/#ixzz3Z8YcL2vu
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #306 on: May 04, 2015, 04:03:19 AM »

Islamic terrorism? Probably workplace violence.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #307 on: May 04, 2015, 08:34:25 AM »

The cowardice begins.  This morning Donald Trump was on FOX criticizing Geller for looking to provoke a fight.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #308 on: May 04, 2015, 01:07:14 PM »

Our own Objectivist was there!  I spoke briefly with him this morning.  He says he will give a report here when he gets home.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #309 on: May 04, 2015, 07:51:27 PM »

No one say or do anything the Muslims don't like and we will all be fine!
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #310 on: May 05, 2015, 08:38:24 PM »

This is the sad state of our media and our intellectual discourse today.  Yes - I was at the event, and will post here what I experienced soon.  I haven't been home more than a few hours.  In the mean time, watch this interview with Pamela Geller (who I consider a friend and support 110% in this cause.)  It's very disappointing and adversarial on MacCallum's part, in my opinion.

www.youtube.com/watch?t=47&v=mnMRFSg8i2s



Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #311 on: May 05, 2015, 08:43:56 PM »

And still the cowardly media refuses to even show this man's winning drawing:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/afdi-muhammad-cartoon-winner-bosch-fawstin-goes-unto-hiding.html/

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #312 on: May 05, 2015, 08:50:18 PM »

The writer makes an excellent point.  The cowardice of most of our media sickens me - this is just the latest and most egregious example:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/pamela-gellers-war-on-radical-islam-and-everybody-else.html/

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #313 on: May 05, 2015, 10:13:25 PM »

I remember when this country was America.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #314 on: May 05, 2015, 10:33:23 PM »

As if this Administration gives a crap:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/fbi-under-increased-scrutiny-for-failing-to-prevent-garland-jihad-attack.html/

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #315 on: May 05, 2015, 10:38:33 PM »

Pretty damn impressive if you ask me , , ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdJgqDhbS4&app=desktop
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #316 on: May 05, 2015, 11:05:16 PM »

Yes I agree, Crafty - Pamela is an impressive woman and an excellent debater.  She defends herself quite eloquently and without malice to her accusers such as this idiot reporter.  Sadly, this is the state of our media today.  I attended this event in Garland because I am as passionate about the First Amendment as Pamela.  Her cause is righteous.  Americans need to wake up, as Pamela says, and fight back - not submit to this savagery, as this President and our media would have us do.  Freedom vs. slavery - it really is that simple.  I for one, will NEVER submit. I have and will continue to support both Pamela and Robert Spencer 100%, including but not limited to standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them at these sorts of events.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #317 on: May 05, 2015, 11:19:45 PM »

Good on you for being there!!!  cool cool cool
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6485


« Reply #318 on: May 06, 2015, 09:31:19 AM »

Good on you for being there!!!  cool cool cool

I, too, am impressed!
--------------------------

Islamo-non-phobia, and the value of defiance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/04/islamo-non-phobia-and-the-value-of-defiance/

Two apparent would-be jihadists drove to the Texas Muhammad cartoon drawing contest and opened fire. They wounded a security guard, who is expected to survive; they were shot dead by police.

Unsurprisingly, the organizers of the event — the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which has long been sharply critical of Islam — are being criticized for their “provocative” actions. Here, for instance, is a Twitter message from New York Times’ Rukmini Callimachi:

Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a “Muhammad drawing contest”?

This reminds me of the old joke: “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theater?” There is no “free speech aside” here.

But beyond this, I think there is a special kind of exercise of free speech here: speech as defiance. The organizers are sending a message that they are not afraid, either of those who would condemn us or even of those who would kill us — at least not so afraid that they will forgo their First Amendment rights.

Harsh critics of Islam are often accused of “Islamophobia”; and while the suffix “-phobia” means “aversion to” as well as “fear of,” I think “-phobia” terms usually convey (and are often intended to convey) an allegation of irrational fear. Well, the critics say, our fear is actually quite rational; it makes sense to rationally fear dangerous ideologies. But with events such as this, I think the critics are saying: it is those who condemn us for being “provocative” who are relying on fear of Muslim extremists, and we are the ones who actually act contrary to the counsel of fear. The winning cartoon (which got both the “people’s choice” prize and the jury prize at the contest) reflects that:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/05/MohammedContestWinner.jpg

A different, more earnest and perhaps less catchy sort of defiance than that from Charlie Hebdo, and many of the original cartoons struck me as wittier. (Hey, everyone’s a critic.) But the message is pretty clear — and it’s an important message to have out there.
... (more at the link)

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
 



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4462


« Reply #319 on: May 06, 2015, 10:37:57 AM »

She certainly has put a target on her back.

We'll see first hand if ISIS has reach here if they murder her.

Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #320 on: May 06, 2015, 11:23:26 AM »

CCP:

Both Pamela and Robert Spencer have had "targets on their backs" for many years now.  Both have received countless death threats, and have to travel with armed bodyguards routinely.  As for ISIS having reach here, this is a moot point.   The war IS HERE.  IT IS NOW.  Whether these two jihadists were directly or indirectly connected to ISIS is really irrelevant.  They were following the same sick, evil and repressive ideology.  Americans need to wake up and understand that despite what this President and most of our media would have us think - these people are here now, and are prepared to slaughter us at any opportunity.  This incident proves the point.  Take heed.  Be prepared.  You will be made to care about this situation. (Not that I'm implying you don't care about it, CCP - just making a general statement.)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 11:25:02 AM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #321 on: May 06, 2015, 11:53:34 AM »

http://bearingarms.com/pushed-forward-brave-garland-police-officer-advanced-brought-garland-terrorists/
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #322 on: May 06, 2015, 10:29:19 PM »

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/nypd-assessing-islamic-state-threat-to-pamela-geller.html/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #323 on: May 07, 2015, 10:50:33 AM »

Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX.  This is what we are dealing with.  Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6485


« Reply #324 on: May 07, 2015, 12:59:39 PM »

Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX.  This is what we are dealing with.  Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE

She makes a point most wouldn't think of.  By luring these terrorists a thousand miles out to a secure and guarded event, she saved lives.  The same people otherwise would go out shooting up shopping malls.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #325 on: May 07, 2015, 03:25:21 PM »

This ought to tell you everything you need to know about this administration, who as Pamela points out, has created an environment which has raised the stakes.
Absolutely inexcusable:

www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/fbi-homeland-security-have-not-bothered-to-contact-pamela-geller-after-islamic-state-threatens-to-murder-her



Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #326 on: May 07, 2015, 08:59:37 PM »

Bet you the IRS finds Geller to place her under audit first.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12451


« Reply #327 on: May 07, 2015, 09:01:25 PM »

https://mobile.twitter.com/BradThor/status/595961657546903554

Must be a bunch of offensive  cartoonists on that beach!

The vast majority of peaceful muslims are going to be so upset when they find out about this!
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #328 on: May 08, 2015, 07:00:53 AM »

Je Suis Pamela Geller

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 8, 2015

I was standing next to Pamela Geller just after our American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest ended last Sunday in Garland, Texas when one of our security team ran in and told us that there had been a shooting outside. As the audience was led to another area inside the building and the outside was swept for bombs and additional jihadis, Geller and I were hurried to a safe room. It was the last time since then that Pamela Geller has been safe.

The Islamic State quickly issued a communiqué that included this:

The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [actually wilayah, administrative district] in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer [pig] Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.

On top of that, instead of rallying to her defense and to that of the freedom of speech, the mainstream media, both on the Left and on the Right, has spent the week excoriating Pamela Geller for daring to “provoke” the poor jihadis, as if the two Muslim gunmen who showed up at our event would have become fiercely patriotic stockbrokers if only we hadn’t shown those cartoons.

It is therefore clear that if, God forbid, anything does happen to Pamela Geller, the talking heads will look soulfully into the cameras and say, Of course we are shocked…Of course we condemn….but…wellllll…she had it coming…she should have submitted to Sharia blasphemy restrictions like the rest of us…

The reality is that if the gunmen were “provoked” by the Muhammad cartoons, they would have been “provoked” by something else. What had the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket in January done to “provoke” the Muslims? They dared to be Jews. What had the people in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Australia done to “provoke” the Muslims? Dared to be non-Muslims.

People who say our cartoon contest deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction are under the apparent delusion that if we abide by Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers on his doomed plane on September 11, 2001, all will be well. Atta told the passengers, “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.”

They weren’t.

The jihadis are already “provoked.” As I show in my forthcoming book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS [2], they were already planning and preparing for massive jihad attacks in the United States long before our cartoon show was ever considered. No amount of submission on our part is going to change that. In fact, the more we submit to violent intimidation, the more violent intimidation we are going to get. Why should the jihadis abandon a winning formula?

The world rallied to proclaim “Je suis Charlie” after the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in Paris in January. But when those jihadis targeted our Muhammad cartoon event last Sunday, few were saying “Je suis Pamela Geller.” What’s the difference? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were reliably Leftist, while Geller is identified with the Right. And now it is clear: the Leftist intelligentsia would rather see the freedom of speech restricted, and Sharia censorship imposed, rather than stand with someone whose opinions they find unacceptable.

That really isn’t any surprise. The Left in America is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and opposed to the freedom of speech. Leftist thinkers speak only to each other, dismissing challenges from the Right with ad hominem attacks or ignoring them altogether. It would be easy for those who live in that echo chamber to think of the Garland jihadi gunmen, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, as ideological kin: assassins rather than character assassins, but with the same goal in mind.

Those who understand, however, that the freedom of speech, and free society in general, cannot possibly survive the imposition of censorship to avoid offending a group that reacts with murderous violence to being offended, are indeed saying Je Suis Pamela Geller today. If the free world ever remembers that obeying someone who will kill you if you disobey only reinforces your slavery, it will owe her a debt of gratitude of awesome proportions.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #329 on: May 08, 2015, 12:18:40 PM »

Siding With The Victims of Aggression

By CAROLINE B. GLICK - Jerusalem Post
05/07/2015
   
Last Sunday, two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammad cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.
The notion that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a tight outfit lights up all our red lights.

This is the case first and foremost because it absolves the rapist of responsibility for his crime.

Then too, attempts to blame a rape victim for her victimization infuriate us because they are substantively untrue. If men are more likely to rape women in tight clothing then rape should be all but non-existent in traditional Islamic societies. Yet the opposite is the case. Rape and sexual abuse are endemic to such societies. According to the UN, a whopping 99.3 percent of Egyptian women report having suffered sexual abuse.

There is a third, more general reason that we recoil from the thought of blaming rape victims for their suffering. One of the foundations of liberal societies has always been that victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ behavior.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page

Over the past few days, we have witnessed a dangerous erosion of this principle among American elites.

Last Sunday two Islamic terrorists armed with assault rifles tried to massacre participants at a Muhammed cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.

The goal of the contest was self-evident. The organizers wished to defend the freedom of speech – and the right to life – of critics of Islamic totalitarianism.

Rather than standing with the contest’s organizers and participants, the US media from MSNBC to Fox News attacked Pamela Geller, the event’s main organizer and accused her of responsibility for the attack.

For its part, the White House has refused to condemn the attack.

The White House failed to condemn the terror attack, and the media continued their offensive against Geller even after ISIS claimed credit for the assault, promised to “slaughter” Geller and anyone who shelters her or gives her a microphone, and announced it has a formidable infrastructure across the US it will use to launch more attacks against Americans.

To a degree, the White House’s refusal to condemn the attack, like the media’s pile-on against Geller is understandable. Most Americans ascribe to the overarching notion of “Live and let live.” And it is a good thing they do. It is impossible to maintain a liberal society without a basic tolerance of differences between its members.

But there are groups that a liberal society cannot tolerate without ceasing to be liberal.

When a group says that society as a whole must constrain its freedoms so its members can feel comfortable, it crosses a boundary that cannot be crossed. So too, when a group demands that society choose between it and another group that is not issuing a similar ultimatum, it is crossing the line. In other words, any group that demands a limit on liberty and rights of others is harming the foundations of liberal society. If a society wishes to remain liberal, it must constrain such groups.

Champions of totalitarian Islam test the strength of liberal societies because they force them to choose. Distressingly, as we see with the refusal of the White House and media elites to recognize that like the rape victim with tight clothes, Geller isn’t responsible for the jihadists’ decision to kill her and the participants at her event, elite American society is failing this test.

Geller and her colleagues aren’t the only victims that America’s elites refuse to side with against aggressors. In recent years, on college campuses across America, university authorities have failed to distinguish between tolerant and intolerant groups and so have effectively sided with the intolerant against their victims.

The primary victims of this abdication of moral responsibility on the part of administrators have not been counter-jihad activists like Geller and her colleagues. The primary victims have been Jews.

According to a study conducted by the Louis Brandeis Center in Washington last year, more than half of Jewish students at US universities suffered or witnessed anti-Semitism during the preceding year.

This week, Mosaic, the online journal of Jewish affairs published an essay by Prof. Ruth Wisse from Harvard describing the rise and spread of anti-Semitism on campuses throughout the US. To exemplify the process Wisse discussed at length the rapid rise of anti-Semitism at UCLA.

Jew hatred at UCLA burst into the headlines in March when it was reported that members of the student government initially rejected a student’s application to serve on an influential board because she was “very active in the Jewish community.”

The story caused waves of indignation and revulsion from all the right corners. But the incident was not exceptional. A similar incident occurred last month at Stanford. And more no doubt occur regularly under the radar.

These open anti-Semitic assaults are the foreseeable consequence of campus cultures sympathetic to anti-Semitism.

Wisse recalled that at the start of the year, a consortium of anti-Israel organizations asked that candidates for the student council sign a “statement of ethics.” The statement included a pledge not to participate in trips to Israel organized by Zionist groups including the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League or Aish International’s Hasbara Fellowships.

One of the candidates that signed on was elected president of the student council.

A group of pro-Israel organizations asked that UCLA’s chancellor officially condemn the so-called “statement of ethics.” Chancellor Gene Block refused, claiming it was “protected speech.”

Block’s response was shockingly hypocritical. Statements of opposition to homosexuals, women, Muslims, blacks, and any number of other groups are not considered protected speech at UCLA. His claim that anti-Jewish speech is protected when speech against other groups is not is itself a bigoted statement.

Moreover, his claim that the “statement of ethics” is protected speech is intrinsically false. The content of that “statement” was itself an assault on freedom of expression. Its authors and supporters sought to coerce candidates for student leadership into agreeing not to expose themselves to Zionist ideas, and so silence Zionist voices and prevent open debate.

Block made a mockery of free speech by claiming that the “statement of ethics” was protected speech.

A straight line connects Block’s refusal distinguish between anti-Israel aggressors and their pro-Israel victims and the student council’s rejection of a student’s candidacy for office because she is “too Jewish.”

Block made it acceptable to blame the victim at UCLA, as long as the victim is a Jew.

In campuses throughout America, anti-Semitism is legitimate. Anti-Israel goons do not always win their battles for campus boycotts of the Jewish state. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t achieving their what they have set out to accomplish. The primary purpose of anti-Israel groups on campus is not to pass boycott resolutions. Their goal is first and foremost to normalize anti-Semitism by normalizing the libelous claim that there is something intrinsically controversial if not evil about Zionism, Israel, and Jews who support Israel. 

Just as the media claims that Geller is responsible for the jihadist attack against her own event, so at US universities, pro-Israel activists -- and even non-activist Jewish students and professors who refuse to condemn Israel -- are accused of racism. According to the prevailing wisdom, the Jews are the bigots and the aggressors because they refuse to condemn Israel and even dare to support it. In so doing, they hurt the feelings of the anti-Israel activists that cannot peacefully coexist with people who support Israel’s right to exist.

The opposite of course is the case.

The anti-Israel students, like the terrorists in Texas cross the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a liberal society. By demanding that wider society on and off campus choose between them and the Jews who make no parallel demand, they demand that American society side with intolerance and against its foundational principle of “Live and let live.”

One of the great difficulties that those who fight the anti-Semites on campuses face is the fact that a significant number of Jews have joined the anti-Semites in their quest to expel Jews from the public square. Organizations like J Street and Jewish Voices for Peace were established to give a Jewish stamp of approval to anti-Israel campaigns. And they aren’t the only Jews stymying efforts to force university administrations to side with the Jews against their attackers.

Last month, the heads of the Jewish Federation in Orange County reportedly interfered with student celebrations of Yom Haatzmaut at University of California at Irvine on behalf of Muslim anti-Israel protesters who sought to ruin the festivities. According to a report of the events at the online Frontpage Magazine, the pro-Israel students separated participants in their event from Muslim student protesters by placing a line of students waving Israeli and American flags between them.

The move was angrily opposed by Federation Director Lisa Armony and Federation President Shalom Elcott. They reportedly insisted that the Israeli flags be taken down because they were “antagonizing” the anti-Israel protesters.

Next week a consortium of Zionist groups will be demonstrating outside the UJA-Federation building in New York to protest its promotion of groups that support boycotting Israel. The President of the UJA-Federation Alisa Doctoroff is reportedly a major donor to the New Israel Fund which funds pro-boycott groups.

The American elites’ – including the Jewish elites -- willingness to accept anti-Jewish discrimination on US campuses, like their willingness to accept attacks on anti-jihad activists like Geller is devastating for the American Jewish community and for America as a whole.

Their refusal to distinguish between the victim and the aggressor, not to mention their willingness to stand with the aggressor against the victim threatens the American Jewish community and weakens the liberal foundations of American society.

The rise and spread of anti-Semitism in elite circles in the US of course also threatens Israel.

What can the government of Israel do to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in America? How can the object of the demonization defeat those who demonize it?

Although its bare 61 seat majority makes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government unstable, a narrow coalition has a clear advantage over a unity government with the Left. If it wishes to defeat this threat, Israel cannot continue to speak in two voices.

Israel cannot fight the this fight when government ministers participate in J Street conferences. It cannot defend its defenders when members of the government say that Israel is only legitimate if it works actively to cede its capital city to terrorist groups that seek its annihilation.

The government’s response to this onslaught must be clear and uncompromising: The freedom of American Jewry to be Jewish, like the ability of the US to remain a liberal democracy is dependent on restoring the ability of Jewish Americans and American elites to distinguish between victims and aggressors and on their willingness to side with the victims.

www.CarolineGlick.com


Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #330 on: May 11, 2015, 01:55:47 PM »

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS:

www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/09/6-reasons-why-pamela-gellers-muhammad-cartoon-contest-is-no-different-than-selma/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #331 on: May 11, 2015, 02:03:31 PM »

I liked that.

Here even SNL gets it right  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_kuC35F06E
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #332 on: May 12, 2015, 12:56:13 PM »

This is an excellent, incisive piece, demonstrating admittedly, what we already know about The New York Times - fit only for a bird-cage liner:

‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com

[1]When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX,  as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate [2] those exercising their freedom of speech.

“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”

“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.

For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending [3] and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)

In 1998 the paper criticized [4] the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about [5] a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”

One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered [6] how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”

In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted [7] by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai [8] sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”

In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend [9] the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb  himself  canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the  editorial board asserted.

Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals [10] only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.

Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.

And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless [11] mainstream media outlets  are now wondering aloud [12] where the nonexistent  “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.

How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders [13] radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.



Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33330


« Reply #333 on: May 16, 2015, 01:16:11 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistans-biggest-city-has-unlikely-addition-to-skyline-14-story-christian-cross/2015/05/14/cc8cea3e-f268-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_story.html
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #334 on: May 22, 2015, 12:59:42 PM »

This interview appeared in The Objective Standard recently:

www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2015-summer/bosch-fawstin-on-islam-and-jihad/

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 716


« Reply #335 on: May 25, 2015, 07:21:59 AM »


Why I love 'hate speech'

By Mallory Millett - posted at: americanthinker.com - May 24, 2015

I love Pamela Geller.  I have known and loved her for years.  She is a great American!  If only everyone who has the honor of calling himself American could grow courage like hers we would be un-terrorizable as a nation.  Pamela gets that we are at war and stands as an example for those of us who have lost our way. 

Many of you under fifty have been educated by the whackerino indoctrinators crowding reality out of our High Schools and Universities.  These liars and fantasists are so busy obliterating, truncating or revising history (when they're not entirely ignoring it), that our true history has drifted out the window like so much smoke wafting in the wind. As a consequence there are few Americans left to say, "Hey, whoa, that's not the way it goes...that's not the way it is"; especially when it comes to our Constitution.

The First Amendment is in the Constitution because not one scintilla of it could be taken for granted; it's an anomaly which needed to be boldly, emphatically, unequivocally stated due to it's being nonexistent in all of the places from which we ran to reach sanctuary on this continent.  There seems to be some grand misunderstanding that human rights or free speech has ever existed anywhere else

But, the thing is...it didn't!

Forget about Greece.  I'm talking post-ancient.

The first time such rights came to be was the English Magna Carta, which mildly inspired such thinking. (Remember, many in 16th Century England lost their heads over "thought crimes.") It was America which took rights from that document and others and greatly elaborated on them. For this reason, the First Amendment needed to be drawn out most carefully so as not to be misconstrued. 

The entire point is that we have freedom of thought which flowers into freedom of speech.  Otherwise, if my speech can be curbed then so may my thought be curbed and then, of necessity, we will have "thought police."  America is where one comes to escape "thought police" who, to this day, predominate in the world.

Millions have died over this exact amendment. And here's the kicker:  the whole point is to cover detestable speech, the most hateful speech.  There would be no reason for its formation, were it just to cover acceptable speech.  It had to be put in there first and laid out meticulously as all the other freedoms are dependent upon it. 

Jonah Goldberg says, "She (Pamela) is contending that in America people are allowed to say offensive things (i..e. hate speech) without risking execution.  I am at a loss as to why anyone would disagree with that".

I wholeheartedly stand behind that along with Judith Miller and Alan Dershowitz. As Jeanine Piro says, "The First Amendment is "an ABSOLUTE".  This is contrary to Leftists, who would  re conform our culture of liberty to please the tastes of savage, knife-wielding hordes. According to a report, one-half of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to ban "hate-speech".  Whaaaa? Let’s just get rid of our sacred free thought amendment?

 

Has everyone forgotten Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie?  The KKK has the right of assembly and, by the way, Broadway just hauled in millions and many awards ridiculing, mocking and mercilessly pillorying The Book of Mormon.  If we harbored constraints against such stuff Don Rickles would have been separated from his head before we knew of him (wouldn’t you love to hear his riff on this?)

 

What is this new idea being put out by that wrecking-ball throng of teachers that anything is all right except hate speech!  Hate speech is the most protected speech. We're at liberty to spew hate-speech at anyone or anything.

Except the Muslims? ...because they are threatening to murder us because we object to their murdering us?  You are kidding me! We are free to object to whatever we wish and to hate whomever we wish. Because some primitives are holding a knife to our throats we should just throw it in and say, "Aw, shucks, guys, we never really meant free-free?

The smartest thing to get rid of these clowns and their love of menace would be regularly to hold a "Mohammad cartoon contest" in every town in the USA with every newspaper and outlet publishing them.  They will either go away and show themselves so we can dispatch them; or develop an ability to laugh at themselves and their shibboleths like every other person living in this motley nation.  We've had the foul-mouthed "Book of Mormon", the infamous piss-Christ, the Polish jokes, the Irishmen jokes, the Jewish and Catholic jokes.  It's an all-inclusive culture.  Everyone and everything is fair game in America.

We should become a nation of Pamela Gellers.  "Je sius Pamela Geller" needs to be our battle cry just as "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" came out of Paris in the same fashion as the Danes in WWII, who, to the one, put on The Star of David to stymie the Nazis.  Oops! I forgot history's been erased from our mind-screens.  Look it up. Denmark, WWII, Star of David.  Google it, millennials.   

Pamela sussed these beasts out of the woodwork.  They were here and planning horrific violence.  Let us drag the "lone wolves" and “terror-cells” who have come to invade and butcher us out into the open so we can weed them from our garden.

They came to kill and got killed.  Perfect! 

Pamela saved each life of those they would have massacred in whichever mall, theatre, school, hospital, church or gathering they had in their sights.  These men were planning a big hit like the ones in Australia or Paris; the bazaars, mosques and schools where they've wreaked havoc on their fellow Muslims.  Never forget: they are murdering Muslims by the hundreds of thousands.  But Pamela brilliantly provoked them and voila! they showed themselves. She deserves a medal. 

That's well-executed warfare.

Where are the men?  Where are the Christians?  Where are the Jews?  Where are the sane non-homicidal Muslims about whom we hear?  The war is upon us now and we have no choice but to win. Who, in this nation, is ready to face losing to these cutthroats?  They are already secreted among us.  Daily, hourly, we are being infiltrated...Ann Arbor, Florida, Minnesota, Idaho, the more innocent the place the better for entrenchment.

To win we must become inventive and clever like Pamela.

We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with her just as the Obamaless heads of state marched shoulder to shoulder through Paris. And anyway, this has nothing to do with speech. These radicals are here for the express purpose of murdering every one of us at random regardless of who we are, what we have done or what we say! 

What has happened to Americans? You listened to the liberals for forty years and now you have Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the radical jihadists.  Oh, yeah, you liberals, you "free thinkers" who never saw provocative art you didn't worship...you now have the gall to denounce Pamela?  Yeah, we want you governing us as we face marauders...we want to stand shoulder to shoulder through the Revolutionary, Civil, and WWs I & II with such as you?

An Imam, in defending the fatwa on Pamela, had the gall to say, "You have to know that when you say such things there will be consequences!"  Pamela exploded, "Not in America, sir!  There are no punishing consequences for speech here."  She was forced to talk over his incessant shrieking to be heard.  "I am an American, sir, and, in America, you don't threaten my life over something I say."  The Imam was covering her words because the very idea of such freedom makes him hysterical.  He can't stop chattering as it's unbearably threatening to him.  Terrorists are terrified people.

There is only one thing we tolerant Americans absolutely will not tolerate and that is the startling intolerance of these religious radicals. We are in the throes of a great war, perhaps one of the last great wars on Earth and we must win it at all costs...but never at the cost of our consciences, standards or souls.

We, every man and woman, must be ready to rise to the occasion, well-armed, to defend our dear land. We got relaxed; brain-washed by fools in our Universities and Media which opened up voluminous vacuums and, of course, the rapacious invaders have arrived.  It's a simple law of physics:  "Nature abhors a vacuum." Nothing new!  Millennia old!  Are we really so ignorant as to insist on turning a blind eye to this monstrous assault?  We owe it to everyone who’s given life or limb in preserving this exact same liberty to close ranks against our predators.

The other day a Japanese statesman was quoted as saying that the thing the Japanese most feared about America throughout WWII was that so many individuals were armed.  They said they believed they could never conquer a country where every citizen was armed and ready.  Nuff said!

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years.  She has lived, studied and traveled extensively throughout the Third World. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!