Tag Archive: human-rights


Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws

Published May 09, 2013

Associated Press

  • missourigunlaw12.jpg

    Dec. 22, 2012: People look over a table of handguns for sale at a gun show in Kansas City, Missouri. (Reuters)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

Supporters argue the measure protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and it includes language condemning the theft and illegal use of firearms. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Funderburk, said his aim is to ensure Missouri is the only regulator when it comes to firearms.

“We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods,” said Funderburk, R-St. Peters.

Opposition came mostly from House Democrats who said the measure would increase access to guns and make schools less safe. They argued the measure doesn’t address gun violence in urban areas.

“I don’t understand why this body continues to turn their back and ignore gun violence in order to increase access to weapons,” said Rep. Stacey Newman, D-University City.

In addition to declaring federal gun laws unenforceable, the bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by designated school personnel in school buildings. It would allow appointed “protection officers” to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety. The officers would also be required to complete a training course.

The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms.

Privacy rights of gun owners have been a hot topic this legislative session after lawmakers learned the state Highway Patrol shared the list of concealed weapons permit holders with a federal agent in the Social Security Administration.

The legislation passed Wednesday would prevent people from publishing any identifying information on gun owners. A person who publishes such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. It also would prevent doctors or nurses from being required to ask patients about firearm ownership.

The measure would also lower the minimum age required to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19.

Even if Gov. Jay Nixon signs the legislation, it may face legal hurdles that will prevent its implementation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas last month saying the federal government would challenge its recent gun law. The Kansas legislation would prohibit federal regulation of guns that are manufactured and remain in the state. It would also criminalize the enforcement of federal gun control laws.

Missouri lawmakers are also considering a constitutional amendment that would declare gun rights “inalienable.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/missouri-lawmakers-pass-bill-that-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws/?test=latestnews#ixzz2SrT3LOQ1

There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights

by  May 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights comes with restrictions and limitations. To think that the Second Amendment should be any different is absurd, writes Michael Tomasky.Every time I write a column on guns, the howl arises that I am talking about a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, buddy, and I better watch myself. The howl then transmutes into an extended harangue that this right is absolute, and no libtard fascist, whether me or the Satanesque Dianne Feinstein, is going to limit the right in any way. The first soldier to charge across this rhetorical veld is followed by hundreds harrumphing their assent. The only problem is that it’s an ahistorical, afactual, and barbaric argument. No right is absolute. In fact, the Second Amendment arguably has fewer restrictions on it these days than many of the other first ten, and there is and should be no guarantee that things are going to stay that way. In fact, if we’re ever going to be serious about trying to stop this mass butchery that we endure every few months, they cannot.

Let’s begin by going down the list and reviewing various limits placed on nearly all the amendments of the Bill of Rights (I thank Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center for helping me out here). The First Amendment, of course, guarantees the right to free speech and assembly, and to worship as one pleases. There haven’t been that many restrictions placed on the freedom to worship in the United States, although there is a steady stream of cases involving some local government or school board preventing someone from wearing religious clothing or facial hair or what have you. Sometimes a Christian school or church is denied a zoning permit; but more often it’s the freedom to worship of a minority (Muslim, Sikh, etc) that is threatened.

As for free speech, of course it is restricted. Over the past 50 or so years in a series of cases, courts have placed a number of “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech. To restrict speech in general, the government must meet four tests. But this is always being revised and negotiated. Here’s one restriction on the Bill of Rights that I’d wager most conservatives would happily approve of. In 1988, the HHS under Reagan promulgated rules prohibiting a family-planning professional at a clinic that received federal dollars from “promoting” (i.e. telling a woman about) abortion. This was challenged partially on free-speech grounds. In Rust v. Sullivan(1991), the Supreme Court held that these rules did not violate the clinicians’ free-speech rights. So far as I can see, this is still law. It’s just one example from many free-speech restrictions that have been imposed over the years, as you can seehere.

Let’s skip the Second Amendment for now. The Third Amendment—my personal favorite—proscribes the private quartering of troops. Not so relevant to life today—in fact, the Supreme Court has apparently never considered a Third Amendment challenge. Onward.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and of course there are loads of exceptions to this right, the most notable being that whenever an officer of the law has reason to think an imminently dangerous situation exists, s/he may invade a citizen’s privacy. Then there’s the question of the “exclusionary rule,” by which evidence deemed to have been improperly obtained can be excluded as evidence. Jurisprudence on this question goes back a hundred years, and this very interesting paper notes that it has been two decades since the Court upheld the application of the exclusionary rule in a search-and-seizure case. Since then, the Rehnquist and Roberts courts have ruled six times—every time for the government, i.e., limiting the constitutional protection. (Funny, isn’t it, how many of these other, non-gun limitations on the Bill of Rights are championed by conservatives?)

The Fifth Amendment most famously protects against self-incrimination. Kendall notes that there have indeed been almost no restrictions placed on this right—inside the trial courtroom. Outside the courtroom, however, limitations are rife, having to do mostly with circumstances of interrogations and confessions made within them. This amendment also provides for due process, and that means Miranda rights, and again here, we know from recent news stories that not everyone is immediately read them, and we also know that it’s conservatives who have always despised Mirandain the first place and seek to limit or overturn it today.

The Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel and a speedy trial, and here again, our time is witness to a slow watering down of these rights by the Court’s conservative majority, as in 2009’s Montejo v. Louisiana. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases, and this contains a blatant restriction: the Court has never “incorporated” this right to apply to states, where the majority of civil cases are tried, so most civil cases don’t include this right. And the Eighth Amendment, against cruel and unusual punishment, has been much contested with respect to issues like juvenile crime. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments don’t enumerate specific rights as such and so aren’t relevant.

The idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.

Now, back to the Second Amendment. I’m sure that pro-gun extremists know very well about Scalia’s famous opinion in Heller (2008), which dramatically expanded gun rights. But even in that decision, Scalia himself said that Second Amendment protections could apply only to weapons “in common use at the time.” Chris Wallace asked Scalia in 2012 about semiautomatic weapons and extended magazines, and he said: “What the opinion Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.”

Now I don’t trust him to rule that way as far as I could throw him, but if even Scalia is saying that, then yes, limitations are both possible and reasonable.

Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment—and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans. Hunters, sportsmen, collectors, and even defenders of their homes (misguided as they may be, according to the statistics certainly do have rights to keep and bear arms that are reasonable and should not be trampled. But the idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality. And the idea that a group of Americans possesses an absolute “right” to own and keep weapons that can—and in practice do—kill numerous innocent people in seconds, destroying families and communities and tearing at the nation’s collective soul, is barbaric and psychotic. As the old saying goes: if you want to shoot an assault weapon, go enlist.

For civilians, meanwhile, we’re one Supreme Court justice away from getting some sanity and balance to interpretations of the Second Amendment, and the only thing I can’t decide is whether it would be more delicious for Barack Obama to appoint that judge or for Hillary Clinton to do it.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

 

Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor ofDemocracy: A Journal of Ideas. Follow Michael Tomasky on Twitter at@mtomasky.

 

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

UNARMED AND DANGEROUS

UNARMED AND DANGEROUS

by Brother Gregory Williams
February 9, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

It has been suggested that we should mourn the children killed in schools by armed assailants instead of making a celebrity of the murderers who commit these crimes. I cannot argue with that choice but what we should really be doing is providing an effective solution to the problem.

In order to find the cure we need to understand the disease. We need to dig down to the root of the problem, the cause and effect.

First, lets look at what cannot work. When considering how to avoid massacres like what occurred at Sandy Hook elementary school in the future I was shocked by the suggestion we are hearing. They have already prohibited people from legally carrying guns at schools and campuses and some are also creating Gun Free Zones at malls and theaters.

How is that working out for you?

Well it is not working out because that is where these mass murders seem to want to go. They never go to gun shows or the shooting range. They go to where people do not have guns. Was the prohibition of alcohol or the war on drugs effective or did they create an underworld of violent crime?

Disarming citizens will not stop violence anymore than prohibition stops drinking. One individual stated that “The solution is to train people how to defend without firearms, using only themselves and whatever objects might be at hand.”

Charging an armed individual may be done as a heroic effort to save lives, but it will also likely be your last act before you are dead. It certainly is not a solution I would recommend. If we are going to find a real solution we need to approach this problem with some modicum of common sense. That is very rare these days and there is a reason for that which is part of the problem.

Samuel L Jackson recently said concerning these shooting: “I don’t think it’s about more gun control. I grew up in the South with guns everywhere and we never shot anyone. This [shooting] is about people who aren’t taught the value of life.” I have to agree with him on that but I am including the people who have taken common sense out of the equation of safety in society.

We are endowed by our creator with the right to defend ourselves. Having guns is about being safe and keeping our neighbors safe. Ownership of guns is not about hunting, it is about safety. We need to realize that every assault rifle is also an anti-assault rifle in the hands of honorable people.

Schools used to teach the use of firearms on campus and in schools. When I was a boy they had gun clubs at schools. No one came into the school shooting children. What has changed? And can we change it back? Taking guns away from the average person is a medieval solution that empowered kings and rulers to oppress the people and make them subjects. It has always ended in disaster throughout the course of history.[1]

People need and want real solutions, not debates over failed policies.

Of course they were still using the Bible as a school book back then. Probably more important on this topic is that they had not invented psychotropic drugs[2] prescribed for children yet. These drugs are not dealing with the problem but are covering the symptoms and bringing their own listed side evil side effects which we are seeing in these shooters. But trying to outlaw these drugs would not be a solution to the problem. We need something immediate that has proven itself effective in the face of violence.

Israel allows teachers and even some of the students to arm themselves in schools and it has both reduced violence and stopped it when people have tried to massacre the innocent.

In Texas the Harrold Independent School District allows teachers to bring concealed weapons to school. Texas and a half dozen other states[3] have allowed teachers and faculty to bring guns to school with permission.

This practice is both an antidote and prevention. While it would not be an absolute cure the presence of firearms in the hands of competent and courageous people has proven itself effective on both an individual and national bases.

Just the other day:

 A little girl thwarted two armed intruders with her mother’s pink 22 single action rifle without firing a shot.
 An individual in Clackamas, Oregon was trying to murder people in a local mall. After killing two people and looking for more victims Nick Meli pulled out his own legally carried gun and pointed at the shooter. He did not pull the trigger because someone was running right behind the shooter. As soon as the shooter spotted the armed man which he was evidently not expecting in this Gun Free Zone, he fled down a hallway and shot himself.
 Joel Myrick, an assistant principal stopped a school shooter in Mississippi [who had also killed his mother and several others] by retrieving a .45 from his car and confronting the armed boy. Joel is also a US Army Reserve commander.

The list goes on[4] but it should be clear that just the presence of firearms in the school in the hands of responsible adults could have ended the matter and likely prevented it before it started. But instead the killer was able to walk with impunity in broad daylight murdering at will.

There is a pretentious prejudice and perverted paranoia connected with the question of armed or not armed. Guns are tools and all tools can be weapons for assault and for defense including hammers and baseball bats, or a car or a law that excludes your right to defend yourself.

There are extremely armed societies and sections of society that are having no problem with mass murder. There are and have been far deeper and pervasive contributing factors to the problem and they will not go away with trying more of the same nonsense we have seen with Zero Tolerance policies. We will and do address those deeper issues but people need to take action now that will lead them to a long term and real solution.

The truth is these policies have allowed people to take away the faculty’s and administrator’s means by which they could effectively protect the children attending those public schools.

How many more have to die before you realize that you have a moral obligation to keep those children safe, which includes the right to keep and bear arms. How can people pretend to teach American history about Lexington and Concord’s stand against tyranny and the attempt by government to disarm the people while they have rolled over in the passive submission to disarming themselves.

We seem to be dealing with a mental wall that is exposing a people divided. I believe in understanding the root of that division we will expose the problem and the solution.

One commentator said “… I just cannot visualize teachers and principals having to be armed or worry about more weapons in schools.”

Why not?

What is wrong with this picture?

Did or did you not just entrust your children to be taught by these teachers and administrators? But now you are telling me they cannot be trusted to handle a firearm? They should worry about the fact that they are defenseless and advertised as defenseless to the whole world.

We are not talking about “more weapons in schools” we are talking about a practical means of self defense in the hands of responsible and honorable people so they do not have to die unnecessarily in the presence of menacing forces. This is what the right to bear arms is all about. Yet, some people cannot see it.

Gun Free Zones are a death trap for your children. As long as the foolish, irrational, unthinking people are going to continue to promote this failed policy of zero tolerance there will be more killings. There are lots of reasons to take your children out of public school.[5] This insanity alone should convince you to get your children out of public school. If you need help home schooling gather with others in a living network that cares about you and your rights as much as their own.[6]

Would you let your children go out on the ocean in shark infested waters in a leaky boat with no life-preserver and an incompetent crew?

The gun control advocates who took the guns from the school’s staff are are both foolish and complicit in these tragedies. The blood of these mass murders is equally upon their hands because they took away the means to stop the carnage and encouraged it by an imposed vacuum of self-defense.

There are two sides to the issue and the reason for that division is the foundation of a deeper problem. It is the wall that divides us. To disarm Americans in a most dangerous game.If people have the right to pursue happiness no one has the right to take the means of self defense away from responsible people while they do.[7] But some think they do and intend to do just that. The Gun Free Zones at school which has provided a stage for this violence.

Also hear broadcasts on Unarmed and Dangerous: [Link 1] [Link 2]

Same audio for slower connections: [Link]

Body count: In the last six months was 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago and 221 killed in Iraq with Chicago having one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

© 2013 Brother Gregory Williams – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Protection
2. XANAX, AMBIEN, LUVOX, PROZAC, PAXIL, TRAZODONE, EFFEXOR, CELEXA, RITALIN, ZOLOFT and other SSRI
3. School shooting; armed Classroom
4. School shooting; political impact
5. School to fool, Are schools and educational institutions used as a social tool?
6. Not forsaking the gathering together
7. I wrote a four part series for NewsWithNiews.com on Christians and Self Defense back in 2010 which was eventually used in a firearms training course for police and civilians. DO CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE? Part 1Part 2Part 3, and Part 4

Brother Gregory was born in America in 1948. His father was a practicing attorney and his mother the daughter of Norwegian immigrants. He Married in 1973, and is the Father of 6 children with a growing number of grandchildren. He grew up in southeast Texas, attending private schools, entering the seminary at 13, where he studied Latin, Greek, and theology. In the course of these studies he began to become aware of secrets hidden for centuries within ancient libraries that began to reveal a more fundamental purpose in the gospel of Christ. His quest to understand the “whole truth” has led him down a labyrinth of law and language, history and prophecy, fable and fallacy, in a unique portrait of bondage and betrayal, liberty and freedom, and the solution and salvation.

He is the author of several books, include The Covenants of the gods, Thy Kingdom Comes, and The Free Church Report, dozens of pamphlets, audio, and video recordings. He has appeared on radio and television “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” which is at hand, within your reach. His common theme is how are men brought into bondage and how are they made free souls under God. His hope and prayer is to bring man’s relationship with the God of creation and his relationship with the gods of the “world” into a new perspective and light. Knowing the truth shall set you free, if we will do the will of our Father in heaven.

He now lives near Summer Lake, Oregon where he continues to care for his family, tending sheep of the Church and overseeing the edification of the Church established by Christ in the hearts and minds of congregations of the people, for the people, by the people who will seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

Website: HisHolyChurch.org

E-Mail: gregory@hisholychurch.org

Hillary Clinton Blames America for Failures in Muslim World

Posted on February 4, 2013 by creeping

via Clinton Blames America For Failures In Islamic Regions‏ – OpEd Eurasia Review.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned over her office to Sen. John Kerry, she stated on Friday during her speech at the Council on Foreign Relations that America is at fault for the unrest in the Muslim world because of a failure to explain U.S. policies.

When a reporter questioned Clinton on why favoritism toward America by the Muslim nations during the Obama administration has been considerably lower than during the Bush administration, Clinton responded: “I take responsibility, along with our entire government and our Congress and perhaps our private sector.”

Favoritism during the Bush administration? Like 9/11?

Clinton made her remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington in her final address as secretary of state. She stepped down on Friday and is succeeded by Democratic Senator John Kerry.

The former-First Lady and U.S. Senator said one of the reasons is the United States has “not done a very good job in recent years reaching out in a public media way or in a culturally effective way to explain ourselves.”

But Obama’s continuous Muslim outreach effort included a variety of controversial moves, including the rewriting of the curriculum for training federal law enforcement officials in anti-terrorism by eliminating all references to Islamic terrorism or that portray Muslims negatively, according to Judicial Watch analysts in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Clinton claimed she had encountered many depictions on U.S. policies by media in Arab and Muslim world, which she believed are ” absolutely untrue.” “Our response has been — nobody will either believe it or we can’t possibly contest it,” Clinton said.

To change the dynamics, Clinton called for active engagement with the media in the region, including al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite television channel. Ironically, her husband’s vice president, Al Gore, recently sold his cable channel Current TV to al-Jazeera after turning down an offer by talk host and author Glenn Beck.

“You can’t be in the arena and expect there to be a change if you’re not willing to get off the bench,” she said. “And from my perspective, that’s our fault.”

Why exactly do we – private or government – need to be “in the arena” anyway? For all their hatred, Muslims have no problems with the tens of billions of U.S. dollars plundered from American citizens to prop up dictators and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then again, this is Hillary “Ikhwan” Clinton who just last week told the world she hopes to work with Islamic terror group Hamas.

 

CAIR-Michigan Goes After the U.S. Constitution

Thu, December 13, 2012

by:

Clare Lopez

There they go again. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has just put out an Action Alert that takes direct aim at the Constitution of the United States.

At issue is the Michigan state legislature’s House Bill No. 4769, which looks likely to pass in coming days. Quite simply, that bill states that no foreign law may take precedence over American law or Michigan state law in a Michigan court room.

The key provision of the bill is Section 2, which says:

“A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”

That’s it. Seems pretty straightforward and entirely in keeping with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

So why would CAIR call on its members to oppose legislation that protects all American citizens, upholds the U.S. Constitution and in no way interferes with the right of any individual to freely exercise his or her religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

CAIR (a Muslim Brotherhood front group) points to the answer in its own words. Its Action Alert decries “discrimination on followers of a minority faith” and terms the legislation “anti-Islam,” even though there is no mention of Islam or any other faith in the bill.

There’s also no mention of any specific foreign law, just the general proviso that if ever there is a conflict between any foreign law – be it French law, Islamic law, Japanese law, Zambian law or any other – and U.S. and/or Michigan state law, it is the American law and the Michigan law that will prevail.

So, then, in what way is such legislation “anti-Islam”?

It would seem that CAIR is saying that Islam is not just a religion, but actually a legal system (hint: it’s called “sharia.”) This is quite forthcoming of them, because in fact, of course, Islam is not merely about diet/fasting, devotion, prayer, worship, pilgrimage, and proselytizing (Da’wa), which are completely 100% protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No, as CAIR is rightly pointing out, Islam is also a “complete way of life,” encompassing a legal, military, political, and social system. The name of that “complete way of life” is sharia (Islamic law), which governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life and actually forbids a separation between faith and governance. It is unlawful under sharia for a devout, practicing Muslim to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”

The CAIR Action Alert against Michigan’s pending legislation perhaps unintentionally illustrates this in a most instructive way. The reason the Muslim Brotherhood and all other sharia-adherent Muslims cannot accept that shariaprovisions that conflict with U.S. law be superseded by Constitutional law in American courts is precisely the notion that Islamic law must dominate all other laws on earth in every respect.

Of course, this sort of legal supremacism is not only in direct contravention of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; if acted upon, it arguably also could be grounds for a charge of sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, or misprision of sedition.

Aside from the obvious need to ensure that American law prevails in American courts, the specific nature of Islamic law is particularly problematic. Of course, CAIR does not mention this in its Action Alert, but although sharia indeed contains legal prescriptions about devotion and worship as well as many other aspects of life, there are also multiple elements of sharia that are utterly antithetical to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Most important of all is that the Islam of sharia mandates legal inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women. Sharia also imposesbarbaric, mutilating punishments for theft, flogging for “fornication” and the death penalty for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and,  in some cases, slander/blasphemy. For those who do not accept the rule of Islam, sharia is a supremacist, violently expansionist doctrine that requires every Muslim to participate in jihad, which is “warfare to spread the religion.”

Clearly, then, CAIR, which was named by the Department of Justice an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, is presenting a misleading impression of Michigan’s “Restriction of Application of Foreign Laws Act” and also concealing its real reasons for opposing it.

This kind of deliberate dissimulation is called taqiyya and is often used by adherents of sharia to deceive the non-Muslim (infidel or kafir). Quite helpful for everyone, however, is the unintended way that CAIR provides a revealing look inside the operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in America as it seeks to protect the insinuation of sharia provisions into the U.S. legal system.

As a careful reading of Michigan’s House Bill No. 4769 will confirm, this legislation actually provides assurance that American Muslim families are afforded the same constitutional protections and liberties as other Americans. Unfortunately, as a June 2011 Center for Security Policy study demonstrated, Islamic law (sharia) is present already in the U.S. legal system in a significant way.

The data presented in the “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases” study documented a total of 50 cases from 23 different states involving a “conflict of law” between sharia and American state law.Sharia-based legal conventions or decisions from 16 foreign countries had been brought to bear upon these 50 cases.

Muslim Americans, many of whom came to the U.S. to escape the oppressive rule ofsharia in their home nations, are no less deserving of the protections of American law than other Americans born into the privilege of living in a free country where faith and state are kept separated by law.

Liberty-and-equality-protecting legislation like Michigan’s House Bill No. 4769 already has been passed in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee and has been introduced in more than 20 more states, including Michigan. Emails, letters and phone calls from constituents in these states to state legislators can help to ensure passage for such measures. Residents of Michigan can contact their state representatives here.

Ironically, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper himself supports the intent behind this legislation when it serves his purposes. When a Muslim woman working in Washington, D.C.’s Dulles International Airport for Aerotek, a local staffing agency for Air France, was told she could not wear her hijab to work because it was against Air France’s uniform policy, Hooper was quoted as saying:

Our position is that no company doing business in America has the obligation to enforce discriminatory foreign policies on American employees,” he said. “A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens.”

Mr. Hooper, we couldn’t agree more. Perhaps you could mention this to the folks in Michigan.

Don’t forget to LIKE this article to recommend it to all your friends.

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

 

INSULTING THE PROPHET OF ISLAM

 

By Pastor Roger Anghis
October 21, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

“The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” - Barack Obama

This column may not be very long but I want to describe to you what this fool, Barack Obama, is saying. Barack Obama has stated that he is a Christian. A Christian will never honor the so-called prophet of cult that demands the destruction of Israel. A Christian would never cancel the White House’s celebration of the Day of Prayer yet hold a celebration for a muslim holiday. From Obama’s own book, Audacity of My Father, he stated : ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’ He supports the Muslim Brotherhood and ignores the fact that the ‘Brotherhood’ continually murders the Christians that live in Egypt, Libya and all other muslim nations.

Think about his statement, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”. A Jew that simply exists is offensive to a muslim. Making the statement that Jesus is the Son of God is slander to a muslim. Saying that Jesus is the only way heaven, John 14:6, is offensive to a muslim. I have heard an immam recently state that Jesus is lucky because without the Quran and their pedophile prophet, Mohammed, He would never be able to get into heaven even though Jesus, the Son of God, is THE Savior of the world.

Any thing that is put higher than Mohammed is ‘slanderous’ to Mohammed. All that is Christianity is higher than anything islam. Christianity represents the real God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The god of islam is Satan. Allah is a moon god from the ancient Middle East. There is no truth about any claim of divinity concerning Allah. Satan is the god of all false religions in the world; islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and all other so-called religions. Islam is not really a religion but part of a political ideology that incorporates, law (shariah), religion (islam), personal living.

If a Christian states that Jesus is the only way to heaven, that will ‘insult the prophet of islam’. If a Christian calls upon the real God, Elohiem, and refers to Him as the real God, that will ‘insult the prophet of islam’. If any person of any religion refers to their ‘diety’ that will ‘insult the prophet of islam’.

I would like to know why we are so concerned about how the followers of islam feel when we tell the truth about islam and its pedophile prophet. They couldn’t care less about how we feel when they blaspheme our God, burn our Bible, and even kill Christians that live within the borders of muslim nations. The only thing they care about is their political ideology, nothing else.
It is obvious that Barack Obama means what he said when he said: : ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’ He apologized to those who assaulted and killed our Ambassador and his aides. What fool would do that? Would Ronald Reagan have apologized? This president appeases those who hate us. Secretary of State Clinton does the same thing. This is Obama’s administration and all of his ‘çzars’ are marxists, and communists. Here are a few exmples: Ed Montgomery – Auto recovery Czar–Radical anti-business black activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. University of Maryland Business School Dean ; teaches that US business has caused world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.

Van Jones - Green Jobs Czar (since resigned). Black activist with strong anti-white views. Member of American Communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party. Said George Bush caused the 9-11 attacks and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes.

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar – Liberal activist judge who believes free speech needs to be limited for the “common good”; essentially against the 1st Amendment. Has ruled against personal freedoms many times on private gun ownership and right to free speech cases.

John Holdren - Science Czar – Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club anti-business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.

J. Scott Gration - Sudan Czar – Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to support United Nations.

John Brennan - Terrorism Czar – Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military.

Ashton Carter - Weapons Czar – Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .

Gary Samore - Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy Czar – Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith.

I believe that Obama hates not just America but all that made America great and what America stands for. Our freedoms of speech, religion, association and press and our right to bear arms. He didn’t defend our freedoms, he condemned our freedoms! Will we allow this man to continue ‘fundamentally transform America’ as he said he would do in 2008 or will we send him packing? Will we stand for what America really stands for or allow Obama to finish his destruction of the greatest nation in the world? November 6th is the most important election in the history of this great nation. Will it be the last or will it be the one you tell your grandchildren that it was the one that brought America back from the brink of socialism? The choice is yours.

© 2012 Roger Anghis – All Rights Reserved

Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFreeSpeech.org, an organization designed to draw attention to the need of returning free speech rights to churches that was restricted in 1954.

President of The Damascus Project, TheDamascusProject.org, which has a stated purpose of teaching pastors and lay people the need of the churches involvement in the political arena and to teach the historical role of Christianity in the politics of the United States. Married-37 years, 3 children, three grandchildren.

Web site: RestoreFreeSpeech.org

E-Mail: editor@restorefreespeech.org

 

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Posted By Mark Musser On April 25, 2011 @ 3:45 pm In AIM Column | Comments Disabled

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet [1]. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one [2]. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC [3] Green Muslim’s website [4], Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM [5]).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C.  Matin was a fellow of “Green For All [6],” the very organization founded by communist Van Jones [7] to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy [8]. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action [9] calling for “Green Jobs Now,” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate [10] may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shia [11]s view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law [12]Islamic totalitarianism [13]terrorism [14] and violence [15], it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of the Muslim world have historically understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matin maintains [16] that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.”  This means that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood [17] has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused [18] that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage [19] to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name [20]for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies [21], and has even worked with communist front groups [22] like the National Lawyers Guild [23]. He even once went so far as to praise [24] the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised [25] the likes of Louis Farrakhan [26] and the Nation of Islam [27] during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s [28].

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts [29] the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes, to be a green Muslim [30]. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change. Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart [31]’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States, called the Islamic Society [32] of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA?  Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns [33], environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw [34] in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia [35], considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both have totalitarian [36] goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism [37] cannot be mixed with monotheism [38], even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.


Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/radical-muslims-environmentalists-and-the-green-jihad/

URLs in this post:

[1] Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet: http://www.greendeenbook.com/

[2] green one: http://www.aim.org../aim-report/the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[3] DC: http://arabnews.com/world/article20017.ece

[4] website: http://dcgreenmuslims.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

[5] EJAM: http://www.ejamn.org/

[6] Green For All: http://www.greenforall.org/

[7] Van Jones: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15455

[8] Green Economy: http://junkscience.com/2011/03/23/clean-energys-junk-economics/

[9] National Day of Action: http://www.greenjobsnow.com/

[10] caliphate: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1278

[11] Sunnis and Shia: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=754

[12] Sharia law: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/10/caliphate-and-sharia-law.html

[13] Islamic totalitarianism: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_muslim_mainstream_and_the.html

[14] terrorism: http://www.danielpipes.org/2798/what-do-the-terrorists-want-a-caliphate

[15] violence: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8882/caliphate-jihad-sharia-now-what

[16] maintains: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/author-wants-to-rebrand-muslims-from-terrorists-to-environmentalists/

[17] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

[18] espoused: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20

[19] pilgrimage: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/36417549.html?source=error

[20] name : http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/muslim-american-society-leader-admits-group-is-part-of-muslim-brotherhood/

[21] Hamas rallies: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/rep-keith-ellison-attends-ugly-prohamas-rally-in-minnesota.html

[22] communist front groups: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/times-helps-muslim-rep-ellison-obstruct-terror-probe/

[23] National Lawyers Guild: http://debs.indstate.edu/u588r47_1950.pdf

[24] praise: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/will-rep-king-expose-rep-ellison%E2%80%99s-pro-terrorist-record/

[25] praised: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/764obcsx.asp

[26] Louis Farrakhan: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/chajua22.htm

[27] Nation of Islam: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/NOI.html

[28] 1930’s: http://gulagbound.com/14685/nazi-political-biology-the-hotwiring-of-power-politics-naturalism-environmentalism-racism

[29] touts: http://muslimgreenteam.org/

[30] green Muslim: http://www.greendeenbook.com/author_malcolm.html

[31] smart: http://www.greensmartgridinitiative.org/

[32] Society: http://www.isgh.org/

[33] apocalypticizing their worries and concerns: http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2011/03/eco-fascist-prophecy-of-global-warming.html

[34] draw: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_690815.html

[35] Gaia: http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html

[36] totalitarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032069/only-global-fascist-tyranny-can-save-us-now-says-nice-old-man/

[37] Ecological pantheism: http://www.brontaylor.com/environmental_books/dgr/dark_green_religion.html

[38] monotheism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

Buffeted by debt crisis, European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize for fostering peace, democracy

By Associated Press, Published: October 12

OSLO, Norway — The European Union has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to promote peace and democracy in Europe, in the midst of the union’s biggest crisis since its creation in the 1950s.

The Norwegian prize committee said the EU received the award for six decades of contributions “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

“The stabilizing part played by the European Union has helped to transform a once torn Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace,” Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

The EU rose from the ashes of World War II, born of the conviction that ever closer economic ties would make sure that century-old enemies never turned on each other again.

The idea began to take on a more defined shape when, on May 9, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed that France and the Federal Republic of Germany pool their coal and steel resources in a new organization that other European countries could join.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

Barack Obama’s Cowardly “Munich Moment”

SEPTEMBER 23, 2012 BY  14 COMMENT.

Angela Merkel Barack Obama SC Barack Obamas Cowardly Munich Moment

In September 1938, the British prime minister had a problem. The Third Reich’s psychopath-in-chief was scorching the airwaves in one of his trademark rants, this time about the supposed oppression of Germans living in Czechoslovakia. He threatened war unless Western nations caved to his demands, which was the last thing the British and the French wanted, with torrid memories of the last European conflagration still burning in their thoughts. Thus, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French leader Edouard Daladier agreed to meet with Hitler and his ally, Benito Mussolini, in Munich on September 29, 1938. The rest, as they say, is history.

But what a notorious hunk of history this was. On an earlier excursion to Germany, Chamberlain was greeted with flowers and gifts and a band playing “God Save the King”, which seemed to justify his departing comment that his “objective is peace in Europe. I trust this trip is the way to that peace.” The result was a short-term peace in exchange for a German slice of Czechoslovakia, now virtually defenseless after being forced to relinquish the Sudetenland to the Reich at a meeting to which they were not even invited. No matter; Chamberlain still returned to his homeland waving a piece of paper that fluttered in the wind while he declared that he had achieved “peace for our time” to relieved audiences in Britain. This was Chamberlain’s Munich Moment.

What transpired afterwards has entered history books and international relations seminars on the object lessons of appeasing an aggressor. After promising not to demand any more territorial concessions, Hitler ordered his armies to absorb the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, after which the German Fuhrer made fresh demands for new territorial concessions in Europe, this time against Poland. And this time, German armies invaded their isolated victim, instigating declarations of war by Great Britain and France, which had learned their lessons from a year earlier.

Fast forward to the present era, with a different location and a freshly minted Western leader, President Barack Obama, who declared in Cairo in 2009: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.” Fair enough, and we may suppose, approximately equivalent to achieving “peace for our time” between Islam and America. However conceived, Obama’s Cairo address may now be remembered as his Munich Moment.

Then in September 2012, things began to get sour, though it took a little longer than the Munich betrayal—but then, Hitler was a gangster in a hurry, whereas radical Islamists believe they have plenty of time on their hands and that history is on their side. But even history has to be pushed now and then, which in this case resulted in the death of four American embassy personnel in Libya, including the incomparable Ambassador Christopher Stevens in a premeditated assault (and flag-burning frenzies of anti-Americanism raging throughout the Muslim world from Tunisia to Indonesia.)

Based on past experience, one could believe that events in the summer and fall of 2012 constituted teachable moments, just as German perfidy and aggression in 1939 convinced western leaders that Hitler was a fraud. Instead, the American embassy in Cairo responded with another Munich Moment, by issuing a statement of such breathtaking pusillanimity that one could wonder which side in the issue they actually represented. “The embassy of the United States … condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” it declared, referring to a video trailer produced in America that mocked the prophet Muhammad. So, that was it, declared an official organ of the American government—just like Hitler’s aggression against the Czechs and Poles was in response to German citizens being treated poorly. Even Chamberlain eventually saw through that. His Munich Moment had passed; recognition of reality set in.

Which is not to say that America should declare war against some Middle Eastern country. But it is to say that the Obama administration must recognize, as the French and British did in 1939, that hurt Muslim feelings have no more to do with radical Islamic hatred of the United States than mythical complaints about Germans under foreign rule had for Hitler; both were merely pretexts, excuses for aggression that would have taken place anyway. It also means that anti-Americanism in the Islamic world is going to get worse, not better, and that the United States had better be prepared for it with firm respect for our country and American interests abroad. In this case, responding with a cut-off of foreign aid to countries that murder or abuse Americans is a good start; perhaps stronger measures should follow. But issuing gag-inducing statements of apology and adhering to an untenable policy is out of the question.

In short, American foreign policy cannot be based on endless repetitions of a Munich Moment.

 

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled “The Thirteenth Commandment.”

©2012 The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College

 

Uh, Guys? Obama’s Really Sorry!

Your tax dollars at work, paying to air a message of weakness.

 

By JAMES TARANTO

Call it a video reprise of the Obama Apology Tour: “The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video,” the Associated Press reports.

The 30-second spot was released yesterday and is running “on seven Pakistani networks.” It’s also getting some free airtime here in the U.S.; yesterday Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” ran it before an interview with Sarah Palin (who was, not unpredictably, critical).

The ad rehearses, with Urdu subtitles, last week’s statements from Obama and Mrs. Clinton in which he declares that America “respects all faiths” and she asserts: “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.”

“Muslim protests against insults to the Prophet Mohammad turned violent in Pakistan, where at least 15 people were killed on Friday,” Reuters reports:

Tens of thousands of people joined protests encouraged by the government in several cities including Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore, Multan and Muzaffarabad.

The bloodiest unrest erupted in the southern city of Karachi, where 10 people were killed, including three policemen, and more than 100 wounded, according to Allah Bachayo Memon, spokesman of the chief minister of Sindh province. He said about 20 vehicles, three banks and five cinemas were set on fire.

Crowds set two cinemas ablaze and ransacked shops in the northwestern city of Peshawar, clashing with riot police who fired tear gas. At least five people were killed.

In Mardan in the northwest, police said a Christian church was set on fire and several people hurt.

Mohammed Tariq Khan, a protester in Islamabad, said: “Our demand is that whoever has blasphemed against our holy Prophet should be handed over to us so we can cut him up into tiny pieces in front of the entire nation.”

The State Department’s ad campaign looks like one of the greatest marketing efforts since New Coke.

The Reuters report underscores the basic conceptual problems with the Obama-Clinton apology. For one thing, it assumes that militant Islamic anti-Americanism is based on essentially the same critique as the multicultural left’s anti-Americanism. But how is the claim that America “respects all faiths” supposed to appease people who burn churches? Nor is the secretary’s assurance that the U.S. government “had absolutely nothing to do with this video” responsive to the demand that its maker “be handed over to us so we can cut him up into tiny pieces.”

It seems likely that this Mohammed Tariq Khan faults the U.S. government for failing to do so. Now of course Americans understand what Mrs. Clinton means when she says the government has nothing to do with it. The video’s makers are alive and free not because the government has permitted it but because the Constitution prohibits the government from doing anything else. Don’t blame Obama, don’t even blame George W. Bush. Blame James Madison.

image

Associated PressRioters in Pakistan today

What message does the ad actually send the Mohammed Tariq Khans? On the one hand, a message of weakness: Assemble a big enough mob, kill enough people, burn enough flags and churches, and you too can grab the attention of the most powerful man and woman in the world. On the other hand, a taunt. If Obama and Mrs. Clinton really mean it, the Khans must think, why haven’t they presented the video makers for public mincing? The State Department’s ad contains no answer to that crucial question.

If our government is going to run an ad to educate Pakistanis (or whoever) about American attitudes, wouldn’t it make sense to include an explanation as to why America’s leaders cannot and will not enforce the mob’s standards of blasphemy? To an American, what’s objectionable about this ad isn’t so much the apology for the video’s offense as the abject failure to defend basic American principles of freedom. That same failure makes the ad less than worthless as an educational tool.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers