• 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
  • Advertisements

Dr Wafa Sultan: Can Islam coexist with Western Civilization?


The innocence of Muslims

by Daniel Greenfield

…..Americans died in Benghazi for the same reason that American hostages had been taken in Iran and for the same reason that Leon Klinghoffer had been murdered on the Achille Lauro and US Marines had died in Beirut. They died because their government had appeased Muslims, had given their terrorist groups hope that they could achieve their aims if they killed enough people, had saved them at the moment of their greatest weakness and had elevated them to power.

The innocence of Obama is intertwined with the innocence of Muslims.

If Muslims are innocent of terror, then so is the foreign policy that has empowered them. But if Muslims are guilty of terror then the politicians who have pandered to them are guilty of enabling their terror.

If Muslims are innocent of terror, then Obama is innocent of complicity in their terror. But if Muslim terror is a real thing, then the man who helped them unleash it by toppling stable governments and replacing them with Islamist movements and militias shares in their guilt.

The real censorship of the War on Terror is not the censorship of dissent from the policy of fighting terrorists. Such dissent can be found in every newspaper editorial office. It is the dissent from the policy of fighting the symptoms of terror, rather than the roots of terror, from the policy of not fighting Islamic terrorism, that is censored and punished, that is a firing offense and a locking away offense.

In the age of terror, the dangerous ones are not those who denounce the war, but those who denounce the lack of a war, who upset the balance of an inept policy that seeks a small controllable conflict by closing our eyes to the larger threat. It is these dangerous ones who must be censored so that we may go on safely losing our nation building wars, bringing home coffins, Korans and refugees without ever questioning whether this should be so.

The War on Terror has not impeded the civil liberties of those who oppose the war, but of those who oppose the terror.

In 1919, the same year that Goldstein’s appeal was being heard, the Supreme Court ruled on Schenck v. United States. The case is obscure, but it has given us a famous phrase from the legal mouth of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater.”

This timeless phrase, long since legally discredited, came to life when Muslims began burning embassies while the White House claimed that the fault lay not in its foreign policy, which had overturned allies and replaced them with murderous Islamists, but with a movie. Pundits dug up  Schenck and began penning essays suggesting that offending a Muslim should be as illegal as shouting fire in a crowded mosque.

Under the new civil liberties, the right of a Muslim to praise terrorists, upload videos promoting terrorism and even funding terrorist charities is sacrosanct, but make a movie mocking Mohammed and suddenly the Bill of Rights won’t be returning your phone calls as you are being frog-marched to your new cell.

In civil liberties circles it is claimed that the war against terrorism has deprived Muslims of their civil rights, but in reality Muslims have gained rights, while we have lost them. The balance between the civil rights of Americans and the need to avoid offending Muslims has been shifting their way and we all pay the price when we fly and we have begun paying it when we talk.

America’s first political prisoner in generations was arrested for offending Muslims as a cover for the failed policy of appeasing Muslims. If history is any guide, he will not be the last. The more bombs go off, the more buildings burn and the more questions are asked, the more Youssefs will be needed to deflect those questions and protect the innocence of Muslims and of their political panderers.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater,” Holmes said, and modern day Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has suggested that burning a Koran may be considered a modern day version of the same thing.

But what if a man isn’t falsely shouting fire, what if there really is a fire? And what if the theater management has him dragged away for causing a panic even while the smell of charred flesh rises into the air and the red curtains around the screen begin to burn?

And what if after all the bodies are carried out on stretchers, the man is still brought to trial for shouting fire in a crowded theater, and in his defense he points to the burnt ruins of the theater as proof that there really was a fire, only to be told that if he hadn’t shouted, then there would have been no fire.

“There was only a fire because people panicked,” he is told, “and there was only a panic because you shouted. The thing to do was to remain in your seat and wait until the proper authorities had told you there was a fire. And if the authorities had determined that there was no fire, then it was your duty to remain in your seat and burn.”

Shout that Islam is violent and Muslims carry out violence and the fire marshal in charge of the tiny minority of fires arrives to inform you that if you had not shouted, they would not have turned violent. Whatever example of Muslim self-starting violence you may dig up, the fire marshal will find some first cause for it that began the violence, some offense committed by non-Muslims against Muslims, even if it was a shoving match a thousand years ago in Spain that started the whole thing.

The more fires break out, the more the fire marshal insists that fires do not begin unless someone notices them and warns other people. The more people die, the more the moral authority of the fire marshal depends on perpetuating the lie that fires are fueled by the human voice. And instead of a fire department, there is a department of silencing people who warn that a fire has broken out.

This is our War on Terror, a war which is waged to convince Americans that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism and to convince Muslims that they should stop being terrorists.

The more people die of Muslim violence, the more the principle of the innocence of Muslims must be upheld, because it is no longer just the innocence of Muslims that is at stake, but the innocence of the political establishment that  looked away while the Muslim fires burned.

A political establishment determined to protect its innocence will go to any length, and political prisoners are the least of it.

After the Arab Spring and the Libyan War, it has become impossible to untangle the guilt of Obama from the guilt of Islamists. That is the dirty secret that the fire marshals of the establishment are determined to protect.

The cover-up of Islam’s conduct has become their cover-up of their own conduct as well. So long as Islam can claim innocence, they can claim innocence as well, and those who challenge the innocence of Muslims and by extension the innocence of the political establishment will become the first political prisoners.


The wages of not keeping silent about Islam

How long before a pastor in American is hauled up before a “human rights tribunal” and tried for speaking the truth about Islam?

Beaten, chased, tried, convicted, and released, pastor Daniel Scot can’t stop speaking out about Islam.

by Mindy Belz

NEW YORK- Daniel Scot steps to the lectern wearing a buttoned-up shirt and carefully combed, close-cut hair-clearly the mathematics professor that he is, more at home in a classroom of students than this ballroom of chandeliers and cocktail dresses. A bit of numbers and history is necessary to understand what has summoned the 55-year-old Pakistani-born pastor to be guest of honor at the Metropolitan Club, a Renaissance revival mansion commissioned by J.P. Morgan just a block off New York’s Central Park.

Scot’s journey to the lectern began nearly five long years-and over half a million dollars-ago. In March 2002 he spoke at a seminar on the differences between Christianity and Islam and described ways Christians can reach out to Muslims. Like his speech in New York, his talks are sprinkled with frequent reference to passages in the Quran, traced out with the precision of a quadratic equation. For those remarks an Islamic council brought him up on charges of “religious vilification” and a judge found him guilty on 19 counts.

In his native Pakistan, where Christians make up less than 3 percent of the population and blasphemy laws quickly lead to death sentences, such a ruling would be tame. But this case unfolded in Australia, where Scot has worked as a professor and pastor since 1987 and is now a naturalized citizen. The charges were brought in Melbourne, a city better known for lively coffee bars and generous beaches than for restricting free speech. But a law passed in Victoria state in 2001, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, criminalized not only race discrimination but any “vilifying conduct” against “a religious belief or activity.”

Similar laws have been drafted but not passed in three other Australian states, including Sydney’s New South Wales. A law that bans “stirring up hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds” has been circulating the British parliament since 2001, repeatedly amended or voted down by the House of Lords. Such laws, legal experts contend, could ban both the Bible and the Quran from public debate and other forums. In Britain even comedians weighed in against such a bill, concerned that jokes with religious or ethnic tones could be criminalized under the legislation’s vague wording. In Canada Islamic groups this month are petitioning the government to deport a Muslim convert to Christianity after he spoke against Islamic extremism at a church in Ontario. They too cite an obscure criminal code against spreading hatred (see “Hate or debate“).

Scot calls these campaigns “intellectual terrorism.” He blames Islamic groups that take advantage of open democracy in countries where Muslim populations are growing rapidly. They lobby in favor of the restrictions as a way to stifle legitimate debate over Islamic-inspired terrorism and the meaning of Quranic texts. “Teaching about Islam is not a popular subject, especially if you know the Quran,” Scot told the Jan. 26 gathering sponsored by the Kairos Journal, where he received an annual award honoring pastoral courage and fidelity to Scripture.

Scot grew up in a Christian home in Pakistan and attended grade schools run by missionaries before graduating from an all-Muslim high school in Karachi and from the University of Karachi. He earned two degrees in applied mathematics and a seminary degree in theology. In a witness statement given at his trial in 2003, he told a Victoria court he became a Christian in 1973 despite a state education where he “read and re-read the Quran in its entirety at least a hundred times, and have extensively read and studied commentaries on it.” That expertise helped him to become one of only two Christians in Pakistan allowed to teach at the university level. It also led to his forced departure from Pakistan in 1986.

After five senior professors asked him to convert to Islam and launched an investigation into his religious beliefs, he became the first person successfully charged under Pakistan’s then-new blasphemy laws.

Quoting the Quran and the hadiths (collected sayings of Muhammad), Scot told the court that Muhammad offered no assurance of personal salvation while Jesus Christ offered full assurance of salvation. Once the charges were publicized, a mob came after Scot with pistols and knives, and he was forced into hiding in a church. When the mob threatened to burn down all the churches in the area, he fled the country.

Read the rest of the Pastor Scot’s story at:  http://www.worldmag.com/2007/02/kangaroo_court/

Ask your Congressman to break down the Benghazi stonewall

Write or call your member of Congress and ask them to sign H. Res. 306. 218 members need to attach their signatures to H. Res. 306 in order that Rep. Frank Wolf’s bill, H. Res. 36, can be recalled from committee and considered on the House floor.  The survivors and the victims’ families, and the American people deserve answers and justice. Find your Representative at house.gov.

Sep 11, 2013
Press Release

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) sent the following letter Wednesday to members of Congress demanding a full Select Committee investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012 killings of four Americans by terrorists in a coordinated attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Dear Colleague:

It has been one year since terrorists killed an American ambassador and three other U.S. citizens in a coordinated attack.

If four members of Obama’s personal staff had been killed there would rightfully have been a full investigation and congressional hearings.  But not one perpetrator has been brought to justice and requests for witnesses and information have been blocked.

Not one survivor has been allowed to testify to Congress and repeated requests for information have been blocked.

Two different hearings have been canceled after witnesses were confronted and some intimidated.

The usual channels for justice are being cut off.  We have no other choice than to file a discharge petition to force a vote of the full Congress on Congressman Frank Wolf’s bill creating a Select Committee with full subpoena power.

I have introduced discharge petition, H. Res. 306, to force a vote on Rep. Frank Wolf’s bill creating a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi killings.  If 218 members attach their signatures Wolf’s bill, H. Res. 36, will be recalled from committee and considered on the House floor.

The survivors and the victims’ families deserve answers and all Americans overseas deserve to know why their Commander-In-Chief left men to die at the hands of terrorists.  All Americans owe Congressman Wolf a deep debt for his bravery in demanding answers and justice.

Warmest wishes,

Member of Congress


Lars Hedegaard: Too Hot for American TV

by Andrew G. Bostom

American television nertworks, Fox News Channel among them, have decided that the attempted assasination of a leading critic of Islam in an American ally is unworthy of attention, so we must look northward for our information.

Danish historian and journalist Lars Hedegaard was interviewed by Canadian Sun TV’s Michael Coren for the third time since Hedegaard survived an assassination attempt in early February, ostensibly for his criticism of Islamic supremacism, and was forced into protective seclusion.   During this interview (Monday 3/18/13), Hedegaard observed,

Anyone who stands up and criticizes Islam is fair game. It’s like Mao said, “Kill one and frighten thousands.”

Hedegaard concluded that Islam must be freely criticized like any political ideology if the West is to harbor Muslim populations, yet maintain its bedrock freedom, freedom of speech.

Please watch the full interview


Charlie Hebdo Magazine: French Cartoons of Naked Mohammed (h/t Weasel Zippers)

The great Weasel Zippers has a photo spread of the cartoons published today by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo featuring cartoons of a naked mohammed.

Translation from French into English can be obtained from google translate, but definitely not safe for work or family

Well done WZ

Towards A Reform Of Islamic Shariah Laws? And What the West Needs to Do in the Meantime

Thomas Jefferson said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs.”[1]

This means that beliefs and practices that do not harm us monetarily or physically can be tolerated.

However, many parts in shariah have rulings that do indeed pick our pockets and break our legs. Just one example: Shariah says to persecute atheists (who believe in no God) and polytheists (who worship many gods).

Even Thomas Jefferson had his limits. He sent in the marines to take back captured American merchant sailors and to open up the trade routes that were hampered by the Muslim Barbary pirates in North Africa, who had sold the captives into slavery or demanded a ransom. [2]

Do the intellectual elites, usually on the left side of the political spectrum, have any limits?

Or are critics of shariah just to be brushed off as “Islamophobic”?

Will the elites help Islam reform, or just sit idly by and believe there is no need for reform? Islam is a world religion, after all, so it deserves respect, just as it is.

But many of us don’t share that naïveté.


This series of articles on shariah is about specific extremisms and shortfalls. The major theme, beyond pointing them out, is that we should never submit or inculcate them into our culture or especially into our laws.

The shariah laws listed in Thirty Bad Shariah Laws – however culturally insensitive it may seem to hear – need to be rejected, because they are aggressive and oppressive, not peaceful or benign. These practices are themselves intolerant or fail to respect all humans with full dignity.

They are extreme and thus deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, these harmful shariah laws are wrong. They (should) have expiration dates on them – back in the seventh century.

However, we need to be sensitive about benign customs like prayer, diet (e.g. not eating pork), reading or carrying a holy book in public, washing properly, or wearing a headscarf, even a burka or niqab. None of these things break our legs or pick out pockets.

But we must not be hypersensitive about excessive and harsh shariah rules that we can judge by these three principles – life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By those standards many of shariah rules come up short. We must pass judgment on them.

The West is accused of arrogance, and maybe the charge is sometimes valid. However, the refusal to learn from the West is also a sign of arrogance. We have learned our lesson about our three rights, after centuries of mistakes.

Until Islam genuinely reforms on these matters and follows the ten suggestions and builds up a long track record, intellectual elites in the USA and elsewhere around the world must use extreme caution in assuming that shariah is perfectly harmless or is just misunderstood. They must not form any policy, write any school curriculum, issue any ruling, or pass any law based on or referencing shariah. Islam must bend towards us, not we to it.

The elites must stick to or return to the Declaration’s three principles, which guides (or should guide) the USA and has served us so well: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our civilization will stand on them.

And our civilization will also stand by our outspoken courage to promote them. But it shall fall by our cowardly silence.

Read it all

%d bloggers like this: