• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite

Islamic blasphemy law enforced against Houston pastor

The Chaplain for the Harris County Republican Party was fired from his dhimmi Houston City Councilman’s staff after raising objections to a Muslim being sworn in as a Republican Precinct Chairman during a May 2016 meeting of the party executive committee. Rev. Trevor Gordon stated that a Muslim cannot practice Islam and agree to the foundational principles of the Republican Party, because the party platform and Islamic teachings are in opposition.

Subsequent to Rev. Gordon’s firing, the Harris County Republican Party and the Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson held a “Muslim pep rally” in southwest Houston. This pep rally was actually a celebration of the enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws—Rev. Gordon was striped of his right to free speech for daring to criticize Islam or Muslims.

harrisco

Harris Co DA Devon Anderson, front left, on the far right is Harris Co GOP Chair Paul Simpson. Sheriff Ron Hickman,  behind the speaker. Speaker is Syed Shahid Ali Sunni.

The Muslim in question, Syed Shahid Ali Sunni, is the founder of an organization called Muslim Council of USA, which engages in “inter-faith dialogue.” According to author Stephen Coughlin, the interfaith dialogue movement has been methodically co-opted as a prime vehicle for pro-shariah Islamic influence operations, and that the true purpose of IFD is to neutralize opposition to the shariah agenda.

MCUSA has partnered with both the Houston chapters of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Islamic Society of North America, both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Recall the strategic goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work 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 the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

Until proof surfaces that Syed Shahid Ali Sunni has publicly denounced the sharia agenda and any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Rev. Gordon stands exonerated.

http://bigjollypolitics.com/firing-trebor-gordon/

Bridge Building to Nowhere by Stephen Coughlin

BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

Deborah Weiss on “Freedom of Speech: Under Attack in America.”

The “Islamic Inquisition” and the Blasphemy Police

by Douglas Murray

…Last week, on the anniversary of the publication of the first Mohammed cartoons, Jyllands-Posten republished the original spread. The page and texts were laid out as they had been on that famous day ten year earlier. But one thing was missing: the cartoons. Where the original images had been — even the ones that did not depict Mohammed — there were only blank spaces. What had been possible in 2005 was no longer possible in 2015. One can hardly blame the publishers. After ten years of paying for security, and staff having to work in perhaps the most threatened newspaper office on earth, the editors of Jyllands-Posten signalled that they had had enough of the threats and enough of the danger. They censored themselves.

It took only ten years for most people across the West to learn about Islamic blasphemy — and in the end to abide by it. Today there might be thousands of people willing to publish cartoons of Mohammed on their Twitter accounts, but most of them hide behind aliases and complain about the cowardice of others.

A few days before the Mohammed cartoons’ anniversary, Mark Steyn, Henryk Broder and the Norwegian editor Vebjoern Selbekk addressed a conference in Denmark to commemorate the anniversary of the cartoons. It was held in the Danish Parliament, the only building there now deemed safe enough to withstand the now-traditional attack from the Islamic Blasphemy Police. Anticipating a terrorist attack, the UK Foreign Office and U.S. State Departments both warned their citizens to stay away from the area of the Parliament building that day. The restaurant in which we were meant to be having dinner cancelled the booking; they realized, when police and security officers scouted out the building in advance, who the guests might be.

Ten years ago, you could publish depictions of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Ten years later, it is hard for anyone who has been connected with such an act to find a restaurant in Copenhagen that will serve them dinner.

It is not just artists and writers who have learned the lesson; it is everyone — from newspaper conglomerates to the people who serve food in restaurants. Our societies like to think that terrorism and intimidation do not work. They do — or can — but only if we let them. Over the last ten years, a couple of brief eruptions of sanctimonious point-missing aside, it turned out to be fear — not Mohammed cartoons — that went viral.

Freedom, however, was never defended by more than a handful of people. Most prefer their comforts and a quiet life to anything that looks like a fight. But there are still more than a few good people across the world, and more than a handful of them in Scandinavia. If, in previous conflicts, one looked to pilots or statesman to lead the way, in this war against the new “Islamic Inquisition,” it is journalists, cartoonists, writers and artists who find themselves on the front lines and who need to lead. Some of them might be surprised to be in this position. They should not be. Freedom of expression and thought have always had vicious enemies. But the truth has always seen them off, and shall do again.

More

Stossel Censored Part 1

Assassin’s Veto: Our Muhammad Ad Spurs D.C. Metro Transit Authority to Ban All ‘Issue’ Ads

As the otherwise secular media addresses him as “The Prophet Muhammad,” it’s clear that the assassin’s veto works.

by Robert Spencer

The winner is clear, and to the winner be the laurels. There is one man only that all people — regardless of race, creed, color, political perspective, nationality, and whatever else — must respect: Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has moved to prevent our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) ads, which feature a cartoon of Muhammad, from being featured on city buses. With this, Muhammad’s ascendancy is complete: he is the man of the hour.

On CNN, Chris Cuomo demonstrated the fealty we all owe to the messenger of Islam in a Thursday morning interview with my colleague, AFDI President Pamela Geller (I am vice president of AFDI). Cuomo repeatedly referred to “the prophet Muhammad.” As far as I know, Cuomo is not a Muslim and does not believe that Muhammad is a prophet. Also, CNN is not an Islamic organization, yet CNN’s chyron read: “PROPHET MOHAMMED ADS SUBMITTED TO BUSES, TRAINS.”

Cuomo and CNN are not the only ones offering this respect to Muhammad alone. Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Sean Hannity are not Muslims, yet during their coverage of the jihad attack on our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas — Hannity and Kelly did defend our right to freedom of speech — they all referred to “the prophet Muhammad.”

How often do you hear the media refer to “the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?” Muhammad is the man whom all must respect, whether they actually accept that he is a prophet or not….

….The MTA has shown that its respect for Muhammad can be obtained at the point of a gun. This action ensures that other Islamic jihadists will be encouraged to press American non-Muslims to show more respect for Muhammad and Islam. They will press for that respect in exactly the same way they have before: with threats of more violence. The MTA, with the eager support of the mainstream media, has canonized the assassin’s veto and assured that the veto will be exercised more than ever.

Cuomo rambled on CNN about wanting to avoid causing offense. This never crossed his colleagues’ minds when they hailed “Piss Christ” as a monument to freedom of expression. Christianity has not earned their respect because Christians have not attempted to gain that respect at gunpoint.

Whatever we may actually think about him, Muhammad is now “the prophet Muhammad” for all of us. Like Orwell’s equally absent and lethal Big Brother, we had better love him — or else.

All this sums up the order of the day: now we must do the bidding of whoever declares that he will kill us unless we do his bidding. CNN is fine with that. O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta van Susteren, and others putatively on the right are fine with that.

Fittingly, in this superficial and secular age, the most superficial and secular of all are carefully referring to Muhammad as “the prophet.” Their homage to the man who proclaimed “I have been made victorious through terror” is a notable emblem of their submission to the cult of violence that overshadows this era.

More

Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

By Asra Q. Nomani

…The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

“Honor brigades are wound collectors. They are couch jihadis,” Joe Navarro, a former supervisory special agent in the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, tells me. “They sit around and collect the wounds and injustices inflicted against them to justify what they are doing. Tragedy unites for the moment, but hatred unites for longer.”

In an e-mail exchange, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations denied that the organization tries to silence discussion of problems in Muslim communities.

The attacks are everywhere. Soon after the Islamophobia Observatory took shape, Sheik Sabah Ahmed al-Sabah, the emir of Kuwait, grumbled about “defamatory caricatures of our Master and Prophet Muhammad” and films that smear Islam, according to the OIC’s first Islamophobia report.

The OIC helped give birth to a culture of victimization. In speeches, blogs, articles and interviews widely broadcast in the Muslim press, its honor brigade has targeted pundits, political leaders and writers — from TV host Bill Maher to atheist author Richard Dawkins — for insulting Islam. Writer Glenn Greenwald has supported the campaign to brand writers and thinkers, such as neuroscientist and atheist Sam Harris, as having “anti-Muslim animus” just for criticizing Islam.

“These fellow travelers have made it increasingly unpleasant — and even dangerous — to discuss the link between Muslim violence and specific religious ideas, like jihad, martyrdom and blasphemy,” Harris tells me….

More

Defending Islam from free speech

by Robert C. Blitt

Many have taken false comfort in blaming the cold-blooded attack of Charlie Hebdo on the fanatical action of a small minority of Muslims. But attributing the horror perpetrated in Paris to a band of Salafist radicals alone betrays a willful blindness to a longstanding campaign by broad-based Islamic groups to silence those they consider blasphemers.

The Islamic State and al-Qaeda are by no means the most powerful purveyors of the destructive idea that Islam demands unqualified protection against perceived insult. In the aftermath of the Paris attack, reputable Muslim groups around the world have denounced the violence, but important bodies such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, as well as many of the individual states comprising these groups, must bear responsibility for nurturing an environment that breeds violence in the name of defending Islam.

Moderates, radicals agree

The OIC, whose member states range from moderate U.S. allies such as Jordan to adversaries such as Iran, describes itself as the world’s largest international body after the United Nations. For more than a decade, “the collective voice of the Muslim world” has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression. Quashing “defamation of Islam” is enshrined as a chief objective in the organization’s charter.

With countless internal resolutions, relentless lobbying of the international community and block voting on resolutions advocating a prohibition on defamation of religion at the U.N., the OIC continuously pushes to silence criticism of Islam.

Translated into practice inside Islamic nations and increasingly elsewhere, this toxic vision breeds contempt for freedom of religion and expression, justifies the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and casts a pall of self-censorship over academia and the arts.

By building the expectation that dissent or insult merits suppression, groups such as the OIC and the Arab League have emboldened extremists to take protection of Islam to the next level. With the most authoritative Muslim voices prepared to denounce violence but not to combat the idea that Islam should be immune from criticism, a meaningful response to counteract the resulting violence continues to be glaringly absent.

An OIC statement released after a 2011 Charlie Hebdo issue “guest-edited” by the prophet Mohammed typifies this troubling position: “Publication of the insulting cartoon … was an outrageous act of incitement and hatred and abuse of freedom of expression. … The publishers and editors of the Charlie Hebdo magazine must assume full responsibility for their … incitement of religious intolerance.”

This ominously prescient declaration tepidly closed by urging that Muslims exercise restraint….

Read it all

%d bloggers like this: