Over at Breitbart, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer unveiled the contenders for the People’s Choice award in their Muhammad Cartoon Contest and I made the cut. I sent in 6 Mohammad drawings, and the one below can be voted on by you for the People’s Choice Award in the comments section of the following posts atBreitbart, Jihad WatchandPamela Geller. For some reason, my drawing is not being shown in large format on at least two of the sites, so I’m displaying it here so you can get a better look. I really appreciate your support.
I left this comment on a Jihad Watch column on Bachmann and Clinton’s “aid”:
A reader provided a link to Bachmann’s site. To post a comment, use Zip code 55003
Dear Representative Bachmann:
I must congratulate you on your firm stand calling for an investigation of the Islamic infiltration of our government, in particular of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin’s family, as well as other prominent Muslim-Americans working within the U.S. government, who have ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Such an investigation would likely reveal that the Brotherhood especially has been acting against this country for over a decade.
Frankly, I think you should ratchet up the charge to include Hillary Clinton herself. After all, how could she retain Abedin since 1996 without eventually learning of her connections to an organization dedicated to “conquering” the United States and bringing down its “miserable house”? And how could she then retain this person without being sympathetic to that “cause”? Even more, I would include President Obama in your call for an investigation; his foreign policy is obviously pro-Islam. His preferred “allies” are dictators and tyrants, e.g., Hugo Chavez and Saudi royalty, and he seems to have a yearning to be buddies with Vladimir Putin, who despises Obama and uses him as Kleenex.
The behavior and charges of John McCain and the House Speaker among other Republicans are disgusting. Is this a sample of Republican spine and backbone in the face of Islamic jihad? To cover for the enemy? And where is Mitt Romney in all this hullabaloo? Can we count on him to side with you, or is he, like House Speaker John Boehner, going to wuss out and join the lynching mob?
Islam is just another form of “gangster government,” and the Brotherhood is just like the Corleone family from “The Godfather.” Don’t give in to it. “Never give in,” said Winston Churchill, whose bust Obama returned to Britain.
The man who says he spent $10 million of his own money to bring Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 to the big screen vowed Wednesday to go through with his plans to make the next two installments, even though critics hate the movie and business at movie theaters has fallen off a cliff. […]
[John Aglialoro] defended his film Wednesday by accusing professional film reviewers of political bias. How else, he asks, to explain their distaste for a film that is liked by the audience? At Rottentomatoes.com, 7,400 people gave it an average 85% score. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, though, gave the movie zero stars, and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave it one. A dozen others were equally dismissive.
“It was a nihilistic craze,” Aglialoro said. “Not in the history of Hollywood has 16 reviewers said the same low things about a movie. “They’re lemmings,” he said. “What’s their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism.
Or, perhaps they liked Ayn Rand’s work of art and actually did hate Aglialoro’s movie (who did not use the script written by Rand). Let’s hope he doesn’t turn Part III into an opera.
Koran Burners Derek Fenton and Terry Jones: Free Speech and the First Amendment Bow Down to the Advocates of the Religion of Violence and Censorship
Thanks to the ACLU Derek Fenton, Koran-burning transit worker fired from his job after Ground Zero protest, re-hired reports the NY Daily News [22 April 2011]:
A Koran-burning New Jersey Transit worker, fired for his protest near Ground Zero last Sept. 11, is getting his job back – along with an extra $25,000 for his troubles. Derek Fenton, 40, will also collect back pay since his Sept. 13, 2010, dismissal for torching pages of the Muslim holy book on the site of a proposed lower Manhattan Islamic center. The deal additionally pays Fenton $25,000 for pain and suffering and restores his pension credits.
[…] “Our government cannot pick and choose whose free speech rights are protected, based on whether or not they approve of the context of our statements or actions,” Fenton said. “This is the very essence of the First Amendment.”
In related news Florida preacher Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp were jailed for planning a peaceful protest (“he hadn’t even attempted to go to the mosque yet”) outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan. Apparently, according to the judge and jury’s Alice in Wonderland “reasoning”, Jone’s attempt to speak against Islam peacefully would cause some Muslims act violently as they are unable to physically control themselves. (Does not anyone find this demeaning to Muslims who are equated as being rabid dogs who cannot control themselves when they hear the barking of the Florida Priest?) Therefore, as the pro-Islam supporters cannot control themselves Terry Jones should face going to jail!!!!
Apparently Jone’s opponents are allowed to physically surround him and scream in his ear and shout in his face and “chase him away” as show in the video clip:
Reports the Detroit Free Press:
A judge late Friday sent two Florida pastors to jail for refusing to post a $1 bond and barred them from visiting a Dearborn mosque or its adjacent property for three years unless the mosque’s leadership says otherwise. After a short time in jail they left on $1 bond each. The stunning developments came after a Dearborn jury sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Critics slammed the decision to jail them, the court proceedings, and Wayne County prosecutors, saying they violated the men’s Constitutional rights.Prosecutors asked Judge Mark Somers for $45,000 bond. Somers then set bond at $1 each for the two pastors. They refused to pay. And Somers ordered them remanded to jail.
Chaos broke out outside court as opposing factions yelled at each other. Jones and Sapp were led out of court by Dearborn police. That left Jones’ supporters stunned, given that he hadn’t even attempted to go to the mosque yet.
“This is a true miscarriage of justice,” Elmir said. “Rev. Jones has committed no crime. He should never have been facing jailed time for his protected speech.” [“Terry Jones goes free on $1 bond after jailing; judge bars him from mosque for 3 years”]
I think requiring anything other than a modest, content-neutral permit fee would be unconstitutional, as the Court held in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992). Forsyth County struck down an ordinance that required organizations to pay a security fee (capped at $1000) for “the cost of necessary and reasonable protection [for assemblies] … [that] exceeds the usual and normal costs of law enforcement ….” The Court found the security fee
unconstitutional because, among other reasons, the regulation included no objective standards directing how to establish the level of the fee. Instead, the amount of the security fee was left to the “whim of the administrator.” And even beyond the unconstrained discretion as to the amount, the Court held that a demonstration permit fee can’t be based on the likely risk that audience members will react violently:
The Forsyth County ordinance contains more than the possibility of censorship through uncontrolled discretion. As construed by the county, the ordinance often requires that the fee be based on the content of the
The county envisions that the administrator, in appropriate instances, will assess a fee to cover “the cost of necessary and reasonable protection of persons participating in or observing said … activit[y].” In order to assess accurately the cost of security for parade participants, the administrator “‘must necessarily examine the content of the message that is conveyed,’” estimate the response of others to that content, and judge the number of police necessary to meet that response. The fee assessed will depend on the administrator’s measure of the amount of hostility likely to be created by the speech based on its content. Those wishing to express views unpopular with bottle throwers, for example, may have to pay more for their permit….
The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.
A sound analysis, it seems to me, and one that would preclude jury-set fees for speakers who “might offend a hostile mob” a well as fees set by government officials. To its credit, the Michigan ACLU has publicly sided with Jones on the constitutional question.
Comments Amy Peikoff:
In addition, this is distinctly unlike restrictions on obscenity or profanity. The ideology of Islam, if adopted and practiced consistently, does appear, from everything I know about it (I plan to learn more, soon, starting with my Koran reading group), to be a threat to our way of life. Freedom to protest against it is as important as freedom to protest against any politician, political party, or political ideology. This is not an issue of defending one’s right to produce or consume tasteless pornography, simply as a matter of principle, so that we can preserve our right to political speech. In my mind, this is an unjustified restraint on political speech itself.
For more on this issue see Amy Peikoff’s post “When is Enough Enough?“
Geert Wilders in the WSJ on Islam/Multiculturalism vs Freedom of Speech:
The perverse result is that in Europe it is now all but impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam, or about the effects of immigration of Islam’s adherents. Take my own case, for example. My point is that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. To avoid misunderstandings, I always emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam, recognizing that there are many moderate Muslims. But the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions; the Koran orders Muslims to establish the realm of Allah in this world, if necessary by force.
Stating my views on Islam has brought me to court on charges of “group insult” and incitement to racial hatred. I am being tried for voicing opinions that I—and my constituents—consider to be the truth. I am being tried for challenging the views that the ruling establishment wants to impose on us as the truth. [ “European Free Speech Under Attack“, WSJ ]
Objectivist Cartoonist — perhaps the first major one since Spiderman creator Steve Ditko — whose debut graphic novel, TABLE FOR ONE, received the praise of Alex Toth, along with an Eisner Award nomination, has just released the first chapter/issue of his latest comic book, a graphic novel, in PDF form.
Fawstin’s THE INFIDEL, is a story about twin brothers whose Muslim background comes to the forefront of their lives on 9/11. One responds by creating a counter-jihad superhero comic book called PIGMAN, as the other surrenders to Islam. Pigman’s battle against his archenemy SuperJihad is echoed by the escalating conflict between the twins.
The Wall Street Journal on November 5th featured a report on Oklahoma’s referendum to bar foreign and Sharia law from being considered by state courts.
The state chapter of the Counsel of American and Islamic Relations (CAIR), a so-called “civil rights” organization founded with the goal of replacing the Constitution with Sharia law, and an un-indicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding operation, immediately filed a suit to negative the move (State Question 755), claiming the law violates “freedom of religion” and citing the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment, and also because it “stigmatized” Muslims.
I wrote this letter to the author of the article, “Oklahoma is Sued over Sharia Ban.”
The Wall Street Journal
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful report (November 5) on this disturbing development. Reading through the various legal and political opinions and positions cited in your article, I am dismayed by the confusion surrounding the issue of Sharia vs. Constitutional law. What is a clear instance of an organization attempting to subvert the concept of individual rights should be obvious to any American jurist and lawyer, but it appears it is not clear enough. The Constitution was written as a check on government powers, and the First Amendment states that the federal government shall not make any law
“respecting an establishment of religion,” nor impede “the free exercise of religion.” This revolutionary idea is what has prevented the U.S. from emulating or repeating the example of Europe with its past religious strife and wars.
Islamic Sharia law, however, is a barbarous, medieval system of religious law that is also easily translated into a political one. In fact, Sharia does not recognize a separation of church and state, or a separation of mosque and state. The religion is the state and the state is the religion. The legal institutions and legal codes of Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and even Iraq are founded on Sharia law, or the Koran.
Islam and the Koran do not recognize individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The “free exercise” of Islamic morality largely results in the violation of the rights of especially women and children and as a rule fosters and encourages horrific crimes. The “free exercise” of Islamic morality resulted in the Fort Hood massacre, for example, not to mention numerous “honor” killings in this and other Western countries of women and girls who disobey Islamic practices or neglect to do their Islamic duty. The last thing we would want to do here in America is protect individuals who commit horrific crimes because their actions are consistent with their “religious beliefs.” That claim is nearly tantamount and as evasive a claim as one of “temporary insanity” or a “lapse of reasoning powers.” That claim is not so much a sanction as it is an excuse. And the insanity is Sharia law as practiced among Muslims. Muneer Awad and his superiors at CAIR wish to literally excuse Islam and Muslims from the imposition and enforcement of rational, objective law that protects individual rights.
Nothing, not even a “religious belief,” can morally sanction the violation of an individual’s rights.
I do not know how Muneer Awad of CAIR can assert that Oklahoma’s SQ755 constitutes an “establishment of religion,” unless he is exploiting the common fallacy that this is a “Christian” nation and that its founding documents were based on Christian precepts, and so therefore Oklahoma is “establishing” the Christian religion over the Islamic and is violating the Constitution.
Nothing could be further from the truth, however. While most of the Founders were Christian, they sought to establish a secular government based on secular principles. They understood that individuals had a right to believe what they wished, so long as they did not act to impose their beliefs on others, or to commit crimes under the guise of religious fealty. If a man murdered another man, his motive was irrelevant, whether he was enacting his own interpretation of the Ten Commandments or not.
Awad and CAIR are setting up a Trojan horse with this suit. They are counting on the courts to fall into the religious trap and to either acknowledge (erroneously) that this is a Christian nation and that SQ755 violates the Constitution; or to sanction the notion of “religious belief,” which would allow Muslims to violate individual rights at will.
The courts needn’t fall into that trap. All they need do is uphold the sanctity of individual rights. It is as simple as that. Doing so would undercut any and all pretensions and rationalizations about the “free exercise” of murder, wife-beating, child-marriages, and “honor” killings. I am including here a link to a fascinating video that briefly explicates Islam and Sharia in uncommonly simple terms. I hope you avail yourself of it, although I am assuming that you are well read already on the subject of Islam.
If you write further on this subject, please let me know.
(Author: Sparrowhawk, First Prize, Presence of Mind, We Three Kings, Whisper the Guns, and contributor to Rule of Reason, Capitalism Magazine, Pajamas Media, and Family Security Matters)