• 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

Enabling Murder

By Bruce Bawer

Damn these jihadist murderers of children. And damn the politicians who have, in many cases, helped make these murders possible but who are quick, this time and every time, to serve up empty declarations of “solidarity”even as the bodies of innocents are still being counted.

London mayor Sadiq Khan (who recently dismissed terrorist attacks as “part and parcel of living in a big city”): “London stands with Manchester.” Orlando mayor Buddy Dyer (who, in the wake of the Pulse nightclub massacre, proclaimed a CAIR-backed “Muslim Women’s Day”—you know, the kind of event that proclaims hijabs “empowering”): Orlando “stands in solidarity with the people of the UK.” L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti (who went berserk when Trump tried to impose that temporary travel ban from a half-dozen Muslim countries): “Los Angeles stands with the people of Manchester.”

Meaningless words, all of them. But Angela Merkel takes the cake: “People in the UK can rest assured that Germany stands shoulder to shoulder with them.” Well, isn’t that . . . reassuring. In what way do such words help anybody to “rest assured” of anything? In any case, how dare she? This, after all, is the woman who opened the floodgates—the woman who, out of some twisted sense of German historical guilt, put European children in danger by inviting into the continent masses of unvetted people from the very part of the world where this monstrous evil has its roots.

Then there was this from European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker: “Once again, terrorism has sought to instill fear where there should be joy, to sow division where young people and families should be coming together in celebration.” Beneath the innocuous-seeming surface of this statement is a slick rhetorical ruse: Juncker to the contrary, these savages aren’t out to “sow division”—they’re out to kill infidels. By introducing the concept of “division,” Juncker, like so many others, is implying that the important message here is: Hey, whatever you do, don’t let this little episode put any bad thoughts about Islam into your head!

Read more

Advertisements

Clear Channel, Intimidated by Terror, Forbids Criticism of Muhammad on Their Billboards

They allowed an ad — from a terror-tied group — that falsely praised Muhammad on “women’s rights.” Then they refused our ad, which countered with the truth.

by Robert Spencer

….After the jihad attack at the Muhammad cartoon contest that Pamela Geller and I hosted in Garland, Texas, last month, we got a taste of those “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Many people — on both the left and the right — criticized us for gratuitously offending Muslims. Luminaries such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham acknowledged the point of our event — to stand for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation — but insisted that just because we could do something didn’t mean that we should do it.

They maintained that demonstrating respect to Muslim sensibilities would in the long run do more to fight jihad terror than defiance in the face of threats and murder.

Events have moved quickly. Now, just weeks later, we have moved from “you can do it, but you shouldn’t” to “you can’t do it” — at least on public billboard space.

If you dare to cross into political incorrectness, you’ll be subjected to “peer pressure and shaming.” As I wrote recently,Muhammad is now the man we all must love, and the billboard giant Clear Channel has now shown what that means.

Clear Channel ran billboards in Atlanta from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), stating:

Muhammad — peace be upon him — believed in peace, social justice, women’s rights.

When Geller and I tried to counter this ridiculous deception with the truth, Clear Channel was not so accommodating.

Our initial ad read:

Muhammad believed in war, denial of rights to women, denial of rights to non-Muslims, deceit of unbelievers.

All of these assertions are readily verifiable from core Islamic texts. But Clear Channel nixed this ad, so we developed a new one featuring quotations attributed to Muhammad himself in the Hadith:

I have been made victorious through terror; I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women); I have been commanded to fight against people.

That one got a thumbs-down from Clear Channel as well, even though we readily complied with their request to show the Islamic sources from which these quotes came.

Clear Channel’s Jack Jessen told Pamela Geller that he rejected our ad because:

[It had a] negative connotation to it.

But Clear Channel has no problem with negative ads in general. It readily ran atheist ads criticizing belief in God, and has had no qualms about running Palestinian anti-Israel hate propaganda:

Clear-Channel-atheist-billboard

Clear-Channel-anti-Israel-billboard

More

Nothing to do with Islam

Chechen Bombers Linked to ‘Russia’s Bin Laden’?

By Ryan Mauro

…The contradictions in the Tsarnaev brothers’ behavior remain puzzling. Tamerlan felt Americans were immoral but he was a fan of Borat and his brother quoted rap lyrics on Twitter. Tamerlan quit smoking and drinking as he became more devout, but Dzhokhar quoted rap lyrics and was known as a drinker and pothead.

They obviously pre-planned the Boston bombings, but they didn’t stock up on cash beforehand and had to kidnap a man to get his money. Dzhokhar actually picked up his car from the mechanic a day after the bombing and was visibly nervous. He took the car even though it still needed repairs. It’s possible that the brothers didn’t want to flee in a damaged, suspicious vehicle, but why didn’t they steal a car shortly before or after the bombings then?

They had no qualms about slaughtering innocents but let the hostage live. Nor did Dzokhar kill the man who found him in the boat. He was armed in his final hours and presumably sought martyrdom like his brother, but didn’t kill himself or force the cops to kill him. Perhaps, Dzokhar passed out from blood loss unexpectedly and that prevented him from making a last stand.

The unexpected capture of Dzokhar will enable authorities to get the full story and to inquire about their accomplices. Should this be only a two-man cell, we mustn’t lose sight of what caused the Boston bombings.

This atrocity wasn’t produced by a crazy older brother leading his impressionable younger sibling. It was produced by an ideology.

More

SOS: Save Our Adults

by DIANA WEST

There is one operative word in Andy McCarthy’s illuminating examination of some of the facts obscured by the weird and racuous apotheosis of Huma Abedin currently enlivening the hysterical demonization of Rep. Michele Bachmann by the media and John McCain, a grotesque and shameful display triggered by a question — one question — Bachmann and four other House Republicans have raised about Abedin’s close family connections to the rapacious Islamic supremacist group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

That word is “adults.”

Having outlined these connections, which are not, the former federal prosecutor writes, “contrived or weightless,” McCarthy notes it’s not “a crime to have close relatives who are either members of, or associated with members of such an organization. Again, however,” he patiently explains, “no one is accusing Huma Abedin of a crime.”

He continues:

The five House conservatives instead are asking questions that adults responsible for national security should feel obliged to ask: In light of Ms. Abedin’s family history, is she someone who ought to have a security clearance, particularly one that would give her access to top-secret information about the Brotherhood? Is she, furthermore, someone who may be sympathetic to aspects of the Brotherhood’s agenda, such that Americans ought to be concerned that she is helping shape American foreign policy?

These are rational questions. The fact that such questions now require a painstaking defense is a measure of how berserk — how subverted — our reasoning powers have become. The fact that such questions are only now being asked by just five House members is a measure of how very few adults hold positions of authority in our government. (NB: It is this same subversion of reasoning powers that led me to write my new book, American Betrayal, which became a “prequel” of sorts to The Death of the Grown-Up.)

The bottom line here is that adults responsible for national security have an urgent obligation to ask these questions — to bang the table and demand answers and oversight on what could well be a longstanding chink in our national security armor in the person always at the side of the Secretary of State — Abedin — who is also the daughter and sister of people variously aligned with an international movement dedicated to the destruction of Western civlization. There are rules about this, after all, in the State Department’s own code (see the section of Foreign Influence). Rather than uncover the facts of the matter, rather than seek even minimal clarification from the two public servants in question — Clinton and Abedin — the media have instead dropped all pretense at fact-finding, all responsibility for reporting, and have instead formed an impermeable phalanx around the two women, protecting them from questions and shutting down efforts to get facts to their viewers and readers….

….The dark theme energing here is that facts, history, evidence are of no concern to leaders in our public square today. This is an existential problem, a crisis, one that is taking our country down. It will require a showing from many more “adults” than five House Republicans to put things to rights. There is no time to waste.

The first order of business is to support  Reps. Bachmann, Franks. Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in their efforts to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood, through its identified domestic front groups, has gained influence over US policy.

More

%d bloggers like this: