‘Innocence of Muslims’ lawsuit is over

Cindy Lee Garcia

The Florida Family Association sent out a thank you email to the readers who participated in the effort to email bomb the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in the matter of Cindy Lee Garcia trying to prevent the anti-Islam movie that Barack Obama falsely blamed for his Benghazi debacle that got four Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists. The 9th Circuit tossed Garcia’s suit.

Although FFA sent this out three days ago the decision was handed down on May 18, 2015. With the Islamic terrorism being allowed into the USA (See Also HERE) by a U.S. President favoring Muslims over persecuted Christians (HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE) in Muslim dominated nations, it is good to remind Sharia-conscious Muslims the First Amendment trumps the Quran.

JRH 7/19/15

Please Support NCCR


‘Innocence of Muslims’ lawsuit is over

Courts back away from elevating Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment.

From: Florida Family Association

Sent: 7/16/2015 1:36 PM

FFA supporters sent close to 25,000 emails to each appellate court judge urging this decision.

The threat posed by the 9th US Circuit Court’s panel ruling that would have changed copyright law to respond to a fatwa issued by several Imams is over.

Courthousenews.com reports LOS ANGELES (CN) – The legal fight between Google and an actress who sued over her brief appearance in the movie trailer “Innocence of Muslims” is over. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald dismissed the action after Cindy Garcia, filmmaker Nakoula Basseley and Google filed a joint stipulation stating that all the parties had agreed to drop the case. Read more at Courthousenews.com. [cache version]

Fastcompany.com reports Copyright Law Was Not Created to Protect People From Fatwas. Read more at Fastcompany.com.

Florida Family Association launched several email alerts that resulted in 24,653 people sending emails through floridafamily.org to each of the 43 justices at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The prepared email urged the justices to perform an en banc review (larger panel of judges) and affirm the district court’s order in Cindy Lee Garcia vs. Google 12-57302 which denied Garcia’s petition. Additionally, the prepared email urged the justices to avoid making the errors written in Chief Judge Kozinski’s opinion. Instead of guaranteeing the free speech rights of Americans Judge Kozinski’s opinion empowered people who threaten violence. His opinion which referenced the fatwa against Garcia essentially elevated the Sharia law command to censor blasphemy of Muhammad over the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This is what CAIR’s Islamophobic Organization report says about Florida Family Association: The Florida Family Association, founded in 1987 by David Caton, has pressured companies and courts to adhere to anti-Muslim practices. Despite operating only in Florida, FFA has garnered national attention. FFA is part of the U.S. Islamophobia network’s inner core.

Christianpost.com has this to say about Florida Family Association: Don’t let the name deceive you. Florida Family Association is a national organization that harnesses online citizen activism through its massive email list to change organizations through economic and public pressure. They urge companies not to advertise on the Islamic terror apologist network Al Jazeera, remind universities to support free speech and not cancel films and speakers critical of Islamism, and hold the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) feet to the fire for their leaders past support for terrorism and saying Muslims are above the law of the land.

You, Florida Family Association subscribers, are the people who are making a difference that concerns CAIR and is applauded by Christianpost.com. Thank you for supporting Florida Family Association online campaigns. Your support is making a difference.



Email: ffa@floridafamily.org


Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-690-0060


From FFA About Page


General description


Florida Family Association is a national organization that is made up of tens of thousands of online subscribers across America who share in the same goal of defending American values.  These supporters send close to two million emails every month to corporate and public officials associated with issues posted on this web site.  Florida Family Association’s accomplishments are a direct result of the dedicated people across the country who support the efforts of this organization.  The organization is not an affiliate or subsidiary of any other group.  It is an independent organization with tens of thousands of supporters outside of Florida.


Florida Family Association does not sell online advertising, books or memorabilia.  This is done to maintain independence from the market place that Florida Family Association seeks to influence.   Therefore, all financial support comes from individual donors who donate their resources to help defend America values.


Non-profit status


Florida Family Association’s mission statement in our IRS approved 501C3 application is to:  Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values. READ THE REST


Donate to FFA

Fjordman & Clarion Project Defend Free Speech

Intro by John R. Houk

© June 13, 2015

In light of Muslims who believe in the words of the Quran and the model of Islam’s considered perfect man, some ISIS inspired terrorists attacked a Mo cartoon contest and other Muslims plotted the beheading of Pamela Geller – one of the promoters of the Mo-contest in Garland Texas.

I found two articles – one an essay and the other a news report – highlighting Muslim intolerance of Free Speech that is much more volatile outside of the USA.

Fjordman addresses Muslims who jihad against cartoonists because Islam tells Muslims to avenge insults to Islam, Mohammed or Allah. The Clarion Project reports on Iranian political cartoonist Atena Farghandani who was imprisoned for satirizing Iranian lawmakers for penalizing birth control among both males and females.

JRH 6/13/15

Please Support NCCR


The Cartoon Jihad Continues

By Fjordman

June 2, 2015


Originally Gates of Vienna

May 28, 2015 10:43pm

On February 14-15, 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark was hit by two closely related terror attacks in the space of a few hours. The first one hit a debate meeting about free speech and religion. The second targeted a synagogue and a local Jewish community. The presumed perpetrator of these twin attacks, the militant Muslim Omar El-Hussein of Palestinian Arab heritage, was eventually shot and killed during a confrontation with the police.

Some early reports suggested that Omar El-Hussein was a “lone wolf” terrorist. This is highly questionable. It was probably he who fired the actual shots that killed two men and wounded several others. Yet that does not mean that he acted in total isolation.

Within a few weeks, five young Muslim men had been formally charged with aiding the gunman Omar in his attacks, either by providing him with equipment he used or by trying to get rid of equipment for him.

Omar the terrorist certainly was not alone with his Islamic beliefs. Originally a violent criminal rather than a religious Jihadist, he seems to have become radicalized during his stay in prison. He apparently shared a prison cell with a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS).

Assertions have been made by media sources that the terrorist may have visited a radical Copenhagen mosque preaching hatred of jews just one day before his attacks. These claims remain uncertain. What is clear is that his acts were motivated by commonly held Islamic beliefs, inspired, by Islamic texts.

To some Muslims, Omar the murderer is a “great hero” who deserves “a place in paradise.” Hundreds of people attended his funeral. Not all of them were relatives. Some of those who were present probably attended Omar’s funeral not in spite of, but because of the fact that he was a terrorist and murderer. A few radical Muslims admitted this openly.

It is interesting to notice that Omar El-Hussein was a petty criminal before becoming a terrorist. It seems as if the step from violent crime to violent Jihad is not always that big. As I have observed in some of my previous essays, looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad himself and the earliest Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know where crime ends and Jihad begins.

Muslims make up a vastly disproportionate number of prison inmates in countries such as France and Britain. Some Muslims become further radicalized in jail, while some violent criminals convert to Islam behind bars. The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels has worked with criminal Muslims. He noticed that they rarely feel any sense of remorse for the crimes they have committed. Instead, they see themselves as victims of outside forces, scheming infidels or the will of Allah. Muslims are never guilty of anything. They are always victims.

Jyllands-Posten is one of the largest newspapers in Denmark. On September 30, 2005, it published a series of drawings of Islam’s founder and alleged prophet Mohammed. I was one of the very first people to write about this case in English. Already in October 2005, I was posting essays in support of Jyllands-Posten and free speech at my old blog.

Yet it took several months before the case really exploded on the international scene. Ahmad Akkari is a former radical Muslim. In late 2005, he traveled along with several others in Muslim countries to whip up anger over the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Unfortunately, this succeeded. In 2013-2014, Akkari publicly apologized to the Danish nation and distanced himself from his previous actions.

By early 2006, protests against the Danish Mohammed cartoons were becoming huge and violent in multiple Muslim countries. Several Islamic terror plots to massacre the staff of Jyllands-Posten have later been exposed and prevented. Some of the cartoonists have received death threats. One of the Danish artists, Kurt Westergaard, has been attacked by a militant Muslim in his own home. He managed to hide in a panic room and survived.

Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks

A decade after the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons controversy, the Jihad against artists and writers continues. It claimed new victims in Paris on January 7, 2015, when two armed militant Muslims brutally massacred the staff of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The Jihadist terrorists killed 12 people because the magazine had published satirical cartoons showing Mohammed. An amateur video of the assailants’ subsequent gunfight with the police showed the men shouting: “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad. We have killed Charlie Hebdo!” This was followed by attacks against Jewish targets in Paris.

On May 3, 2015, two Muslims attempted an attack in Garland, Texas on an exhibit featuring cartoons depicting Muhammad. Fortunately, the police killed the Jihadists before they could carry out a massacre. The event was organized by the group American Defense Freedom Initiative, led by the conservative Islam-critical writers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. It was attended by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim, won the contest for the best Mohammed cartoon.

This attack did not trigger the same mass media sympathy as the attack on the left-wing magazine Charlie Hebdo had done a few months earlier. Some accused Geller, Spencer and Wilders of having provoked this Islamic terror attack. Even alleged conservatives such as the businessman Donald Trump, or Bill O’Reilly from Fox News, denounced Geller and Spencer.

It is widely believed that the Swedish artist Lars Vilks was the primary target of the terror attack at the Krudttønden cultural center in Copenhagen on February 14, 2015. He had been an artist and art historian for many years. But then Professor Vilks decided to draw some cartoons of a man who may or may not have lived in the seventh century AD. As a result, militant Muslims want to murder him. Vilks has to be protected by armed police even when he visits the bathroom. He is now virtually a refugee in his own country.

Since the Copenhagen attacks, Vilks has now also been evacuated from his former home in southern Sweden. In the spring of 2015, a few journalists were able to meet him in a mobile home on a Swedish field. They were guarded by dozens of armed policemen and dogs, with a helicopter standing by. It was deemed too unsafe to meet Vilks anywhere else, so they settled for a caravan. Åsa Linderborg, a former Communist activist and now columnist at the left-leaning daily Aftonbladet, was present at this meeting. Linderborg questions how much the security surrounding Vilks costs, or should cost. There is obviously some security around the royal family and senior members of the government. Yet the most threatened person in all of Sweden today is not the King or the Prime Minister. It is a mild-mannered and polite professor of art history.

I have been fortunate enough to meet Lars Vilks several times. He immediately struck me as a very pleasant man, friendly to virtually everybody he meets. He is highly intelligent and educated. Yet he has none of the snobbishness you sometimes see in artists. Like Raoul Wallenberg before him, he is doing his best to save his nation’s honor in a dark age. And like Wallenberg before him, Vilks is paying a heavy price for doing so.

Meanwhile, every day Sweden lets in more Muslim immigrants who could potentially attack Islam-critics or others. The influx of asylum seekers is so large that the country barely has enough housing for all of them. At the same time, the understaffed police force can hardly keep up with the rise of foreign mafias and public gang shootings. A single Swedish city, Gothenburg, has produced more Jihadists fighting for the Islamic State than all of Italy, and a number comparable to that of the entire USA.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is one of the most brutal groups on the entire planet. They routinely engage in suicide bombings, mass beheadings, massacres of civilians, mass rape and open slave auctions. This savagery seems to attract a disturbing number of Muslims. It certainly does not repel them. One observer in Britain warned that the barbaric Jihadists of the Islamic State have become “pop idols,” similar to what The Beatles were decades ago: “The boys want to be like them and the girls want to be with them.”

In the 1960s, British youngsters were singing songs written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney of the English rock band The Beatles. Today, “British” youngsters are cheering for beheadings and Jihadist massacres. What a difference fifty years and a lot of demographic replacement makes. This transformation proceeded even faster elsewhere. Sweden went from Abba to Allah in less than four decades.

In response to this, Swedish authorities have engaged in very controversial policies of providing returning ISIS Jihadists with generous support from state institutions, including housing. Meanwhile, a decent, kind and honorable man such as Lars Vilks is homeless in Sweden, due to credible death threats from Jihadists.

Such is the state of freedom of speech today. The Jihad continues. Unfortunately, so does the appeasement.


Iran Sentences Political Cartoonist to 12.5 Years in Prison

Atena Farghandani – Iranian political cartoonist

Clarion Project

June 3, 2015

Yet, “according to our laws, activities on social networks on the Internet are not recognized as crimes,” said the cartoonist’s lawyer.

An Iranian cartoonist and civil rights activist was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison by a revolutionary court in Tehran. Atena Farghandani, 28, was arrested last August for drawing a political cartoon and speaking out against a law drafted last March that would severely restrict birth control for both men and women.

The cartoon portrayed legislators as animals casting their votes on the legislation.

Speaking to the International Campaign for Human Rights, Faraghdani’s lawyer, Mohammad Moghimi, said that the sentence violated Iran’s new Islamic Penal Code, Article 134, which states that when there are multiple charges, the maximum sentence allowed is that of the punishment of the most severe crime.

Atena Faraghani’s political cartoon

In Faraghdani’s case, the charge of “assembly and collusion against national security” was the most severe crime with which the cartoonist was charged. The maximum sentence allowable for such a crime in Iran is 7.5 years.

“We have 20 days to appeal, and we hope this ruling will be overturned by the Appeals Court,” said Moghimi.

“According to our laws, activities on social networks on the Internet are not recognized as crimes,” Moghimi added. “Additionally, Article 8 of the Iranian Constitution expresses that it is upon everyone to ‘prevent vice and promote virtue,’ and this is a two-way responsibility both the nation and the state have vis-à-vis each other.”

The Faraghdani trial was presided over by Judge Salavati. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran describes Salavti as “a notorious judge who is consistently handpicked to preside over ‘national security’ cases that security and intelligence organizations bring against political and civil activists, because of the harsh and maximum sentences he imposes.”

Salavati is also the judge presiding over the trial of the Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Farghandani’s lawyer noted that in addition to sharing her cartoon and government criticism on Facebook, evidence against Farghandani included her visits with families of political prisoners and protesters who were killed at the Kharizak Police Detention Center in 2009, following the presidential election.

Farghandani was originally taken to Gharchak prison for four months where she said she was beaten and interrogated for up to nine hours a day.

During a brief release in December, she posted a video in Persian detailing her inhumane treatment and was rearrested. Close to two months later, Farghandani went on a hunger strike and suffered a heart attack. She has been kept in solitary confinement in the notorious Evin since that time.


The Cartoon Jihad Continues




This blog is usually published in Danish.


Blog Editor: Donate to Fjordman via Gates of Vienna

If the PayPal link above doesn’t work go to the bottom of this post and look for the “Donate to Fjordman” button to donate via Gates of Vienna.


Iran Sentences Political Cartoonist to 12.5 Years in Prison


Copyright © 2015 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

To Speak or Not to Speak?

Rob Eshman

Rob Eshman
Ari and Norma focus this editorial essay on Rob Eshman, the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media. TRIBE media owns the largest Jewish circulated English Weekly The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. The “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel” duo write about Rob Eshman because of a recent unfavorable editorial written by him in the Jewish Journal concerning Pamela Geller’s Mohammed Cartoon Contest and subsequent attack by radicalized Muslim Americans Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland TX event. Here is a short journalistic profile of Mr. Eshman:
Rob Eshman is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media, a niche multimedia company based in Los Angeles.
Rob started his career as a staff writer at The Jewish Journal in 1993, when it was a small community paper.
In 2009, Eshman founded TRIBE Media Corp, reimagining the community paper for the future.   Tribe Media Corp. produces The Jewish Journal,  the largest independent American Jewish weekly, Tribe magazine, a glossy four-color monthly lifestyle magazine, and jewishjournal.com, with 1.5 million unique monthly users, now the largest Jewish news website outside of Israel.   In 2011, Jewish Journal launched the world’s first multi-platform mobile Jewish news app.  In 2013 he launched HollywoodJournal.com.
Both The Jewish Journal and Rob have won numerous local and national awards for writing, design and community leadership.
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Eshman has written for The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the Huffington Post.  He is a frequent commentator on Los Angeles-area radio and television, and has served as a Visiting Lecturer on journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication and the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Rob serves on the boards of the Media Policy Center, The Miracle Project and is a founding board member of the Daniel Pearl Journalism Institute in Herzliya, Israel.
In addition to his editing and publishing duties, Eshman writes the blog Foodaism, named one of the best food blogs in Los Angeles by CitysBest.com. At his home in Venice, Rob tends to fruit and vegetable gardens, as well as six chickens and two goats. (Rob Eshman; Alfred Friendly Press Partners; Copyright © 2013 Press Partners)
Ari and Norma offer some contrasting criticism and support of Pamela Geller per Rob Eshman’s editorial.
JRH 5/14/15

Please Support NCCR

To Speak or Not to Speak?
Pamela Geller – Two Sides of a Coin
By Ari Bussel and Norma Zager
Sent: 5/13/2015 11:02 PM
Rob Eshman, the editor of the largest-circulation English paper for the Jewish community in Greater Los Angeles, recently dedicated his column to Pamela Geller, declaring:  “You’re no Charlie Hebdo!” 
Eshman writes:  “In Texas, she just happened to frost her poisonous ideology with some free-speech icing.”
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it all wrong,” says Ari.
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it right,” says Norma.
Ari’s take is that Pamela Geller, rhetoric to the contrary, is not the enemy.  She is the guard at the crosswalk, keeping a watchful eye over the children on their way to or from school.  She raises her red and white “STOP” sign, warning drivers in stopped or approaching cars of their obligation to yield, be aware and not proceed until it is absolutely safe to do so.
Like her or not, call her “Bored Housewife,” “Fat,” “Shorty” (she is none of the above), insults will not deter her.  She is entrusted with protecting the children from a careless driver, from cutting their life short.  However, smearing her with insults may result in a punishment to the person doing the insulting.  Normally there is a police officer in sight, and then suddenly the rude behavior changes 180 degrees.
Someone needs to step in to protect Geller who is doing her job, and doing it well, not for the sake of the meager few dollars an hour she receives as a salary, but for knowing no one got hurt on her watch. Although that may not have been the case if one crack shot Texas policeman had not been on the scene.
One gets the distinct feeling Eshman really does not like Geller.  She spoils his kumbaya feeling and belief:  “Islam is a peaceful religion.  Muslims are good people (with the exception of those who belong to Isis, but they are an aberration).  We all get along so nicely together.”

To make the point stronger, Eshman points the finger at Geller.  She is the extremist, not those who say “Europe has fallen – America is next!”  She is the one who refuses to live in peace.  She does things “Davka” (to spite) and clearly is a menace to a peaceful society.  In short, she is worse than a troublemaker and must be a very troubled woman.
Geller indeed spoils the game.  She exposes the truth and puts it smack in one’s face.  The sights are not pleasant, but the dangers are real. She tells it like it is, as she sees the world, and of course she is not alone in her opinions.
The slick propaganda machine of the local Muslims (CAIR, MPAC, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.) is soothing to the ear and smooth as silk.  They are the victims, never the perpetrators.  All terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam do not belong to Islam but are singular acts by deranged individuals.  In fact, the word “Terrorism” and peace-loving Muslims are two concepts quite incompatible with one other.
Thus, continues Eshman’s rationale, Geller is at fault for painting Islam with a skewed brush.  She is a witch casting a devious spell on all Muslims, unjustly smearing their name.  And thus, Eshman who may disagree with her politically or ideologically paints a dreadful picture warning against the icing Geller applies.
Eshman is a pure reflection of the established American Jewry, the same “old guard” that surrendered to the Muslims and cancelled an appearance by Geller at the Jewish Federation of Greater LA building because some called to complain.  She was left in the street, doors locked in her face, lest she offend anyone for telling her truth.
When was the last time the local Muslims, out of consideration to Jews, turned down the hateful rhetoric against Israel (supposedly committing war crimes and being the new Nazis)?  When did they “disinvite” or even give a second thought when hosting a hateful speaker, one who not only uses blood libels, but also mobilizes listeners to action? Where is the outrage against Muslim students that prevent speakers and Jewish students from exercising their freedom of speech?
There is a tipping point where Eshman has no choice but to change his outer skin.  This was observed recently with the advent of the BDS movement and the thriving anti-Semitism found at local university campuses.  Even UCLA Prof. David Myers wrote a mesmerizing account against BDS, which Eshman to his credit prominently featured.  Yet, how pitiful that Prof. Myers is among those who contributed so much to the advent of this movement.
Editor-in-Chief Eshman got it wrong.  Geller is the warning sign that the light is changing from yellow to red.  She is trying to caution us to slow down to a complete stop, look around and be aware of the surroundings, before it is too late.
Geller seeks to wake us from our sleep – for our own sake, and for the benefit of the Jewish community at large. Allow me then to add a lesson history has taught us:  Those who helped the Communists attain power were the first to be executed.  That is good to remember even when one refuses to apply the lessons of the past to the present.
On another side of the coin – Norma’s – Eshman’s remarks are correct, although laced with insults and demeaning stereotypical comments.
There is a great difference between freedom and good sense. When the Nazis marched in Skokie many were appalled they should have the right to do so, but if Americans allow those who hate Jews to be denied free speech, who will be next? And most importantly who will make that call and decide whose speech is allowed and whose is not?
That is the slippery slope our forefathers in their wisdom wished to avoid when giving us that precious freedom. Do we all use it wisely and with restraint, perhaps not?
If every American agreed with one another’s speech, there would be no need for protection. It is most necessary when we disagree and was designed for that purpose.
Having said that, it is also important to note there are considerations of where and how to exercise that right.
Where the lives of oneself or others enter into the mix, perhaps a bit of wisdom and caution should prevail.
Did Pamela Geller have the right to do what she did? Absolutely and without doubt.
Might she have thought better of constructing a situation that would incite violence? Perhaps that would have been wise. Speaking your truth is fine, but when that truth endangers the lives of others, one should be compelled to use a rational and measured approach.
Personal attacks against Geller distract from the true issue inherent in her actions. They muddy the waters as much as anti-Muslim rhetoric emotionalizing a serious problem that must be addressed by today’s world.
As a Jewish woman I am offended by the “Housewife” remark as trivializing women as unfit to contribute in any remarkable manner. Was Betty Freidan no more than a bored housewife? Did she ignite the Feminist movement because she’d had her fill of “affairs?”
Are we not past the Philip Roth’s Sophie Portnoy era of marginalizing and demeaning Jewish women and stereotyping them as annoying and redundant?  If not, I strongly suggest we bury that offensive falsehood once and for all.
It is easy to find many on one side or the other of this issue. But free speech is an uncompromising and undeniable cornerstone of our democracy. When we deny it for any reason, we are giving in to the worst kind of terrorism.
Should we all exercise discretion in these highly charged and extremely volatile times? In my opinion, advises Norma, that would be the optimum way to proceed. No one benefits when gas is poured on an already raging inferno.
Is Ari correct? Yes.
Is Norma correct? Yes.
Would we all get along much better if the personal attacks were left at the door and intelligent and mannered conversation were allowed inside?
On that we hope we can all agree. 
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.
Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.
© Israel Monitor, May, 2015
First Published May 11, 2015
Contact:  bussel@me.com

ACLJ – Mr. President, Name the Enemy

Islam a Totalitarian Political Party

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015


The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been running a petition campaign called “Mr. President, Name the Enemy”. The last time I checked the campaign was just over 90,000 signatures. Now I realize such petition campaigns are typically fund raising programs. But eh … In this case I am pleased that nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Americans have expressed their displeasure that President Barack Hussein Obama REFUSES to acknowledge America’s most current national enemy at the very least is the Islam interpreted in its purist form called Radical Islam by those who believe that there are Moderate Muslims who don’t believe the Quran is the express word of Allah.


Cartoonist Gary Varvel: ISIS self portrait


So this is what I’m going to do to encourage people to bring those signatures way over 100K, I going to cross post two ACLJ posts about the ISIS-Garland attack on American Free Speech followed by the wording of the petition. Then click on petition link I’ll provide at the end (or click HERE if you want to forego the actually pertinent information).


After you sign you will be taken to the typical donation page. It is not necessary to donate for your petition signature to count. NONETHELESS, the ACLJ is a very good Christian Civil Rights activist organization to support.


JRH 5/9/15

Please Support NCCR


Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand


By Matthew Clark

May 5, 2015



Jihad struck Texas last night.  It’s just the latest skirmish in a global radical Islamic assault on free speech – on freedom.


It’s a war.  ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and al Qaeda are just a few of the named brigades in this radical Islamic jihadist army.


The two Islamic terrorists who opened fire on a free speech art exhibit in Texas are merely the latest casualties in this war.  But they are a reminder of who the enemy is.


These radical Islamists are clear on who their enemy is.  To them, free speech is the enemy.  Islamic radicals made this clear through their murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the free speech exhibit in Texas.  To them, Christians are the enemy, evidenced by the mass murders, propaganda beheadings, and vile statements carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.


The terrorists who attacked free speech in Texas last night made it clear what their goal was, what they were fighting for, and who their enemy is.  One tweeted just moments before the attack.


Sharia is Light Tweet

Sharia is Light Tweet


That twitter account has now been suspended, but it contained a litany of jihadists tweets, pro-ISIS retweets, and radical Islamic propaganda.


In short, to the jihadists, we are the enemy.  They have named their enemy. And by doing so they have inspired the Tsarnaev brothers, the Texas attack, Nidal Hasan, and many others to carry out deadly terrorist attacks throughout America.


Yet the Obama Administration still only references these as “extremists.”  President Obama time and time again refuses to acknowledge that these vicious and targeted attacks on freedom are carried out by one ideologically bonded group of people – radical Islamists, jihadists.  Last night was no exception, as the White House has merely referred to the jihadist attack on free speech in Texas as “an act of violence.”


In short, President Obama refuses to name the enemy.  And the consequences build every day.


The contrast could not be more stark.


The jihadists are crystal clear about their enemy.  Tens of thousands of radical Islamists have flocked to join ISIS and other terrorist groups – including attempts by at least one of the militants who carried out last night’s attack.  At the same time, America’s response to jihad, under President Obama’s (lack of) leadership, has weakened the cause of freedom.


This must end.  America must demand accountability from our leaders.  We the people must demand that our next President (and there are a lot of people vying for the job right now) is willing to name our enemy and committed to defeating them wherever they train, plot, and carry out jihad.


America must never back down.  We must never surrender our First Amendment freedoms.  The local authorities in Texas showed the resolve that we must all exhibit.


Free speech, even speech you and I might disagree with, must be protected.  But now it’s time for America’s leaders to speak out – to name the enemy – and engage the jihadists on the battlefields they are creating.  The only way to stop the threat of terror is to overwhelmingly defeat the jihadists who inspire it.


This article is crossposted on Red State.



Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech


By Edward White

May 7, 2015



A terrorist attack took place in Garland, Texas, this week in response to a free speech conference that took issue with the Islamic prohibition against creating images of the Prophet Muhammad. The event awarded a financial prize to the person who drew the best cartoon of Muhammad.


The terrorist attack (ISIS has taken credit for it) points out the stark difference between the American view of speech that offends some people and the radical Muslim’s view of such speech. We allow it; they don’t.


Americans have broad free speech rights. Our rights, however, are not unlimited. For example, we cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater to cause a panic. (This statement is often wrongly uttered by failing to include the word falsely; of course, we can shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire.)


The main idea behind our free speech rights is to allow an array of speech that is robust. Our free speech rights allow us the room to decide whether to say something (or hold a free speech conference) that is provocative. Our freedom allows for satire and debate, which allows ideas to be explored, and, possibly, allows for minds to be changed.


Deciding to engage in such speech at a particular time and place comes down to prudence and effectiveness. Such restrictions are not imposed by the First Amendment, just by a person’s sensibilities. Whether we like it or not, our First Amendment allows a group the freedom to hold a conference that may be considered blasphemous.


In contrast, sharia (the moral code and religious law of Islam) does not allow the same freedoms as does our First Amendment. It is restrictive. It allows little, if any, room for self-expression, satire, or dissent from orthodoxy. The consequences for holding a free speech conference, such as the one in Garland, under sharia are severe. The punishments for blasphemy include imprisonment, flogging, and death.


The terrorist attack over cartoons about Muhammad illustrates the extreme views of the radical Muslim. No one likes to see his religion blasphemed, but the proper response to blasphemy is debate, boycott, prayer, or protest—not killing those with whom you disagree to silence the speech you do not like.



Mr. President, Name the Enemy

The ACLJ Petition


Here’s what the Obama Administration believes:


The Taliban aren’t terrorists.


ISIS—the Islamic State—isn’t Islamic.


America isn’t at war with radical Muslims, merely with “extremists.”


It’s hard to believe, but the Obama Administration is afraid to name our enemies.


This makes no sense.


The Muslim world knows the Taliban are terrorists. The Muslim world knows ISIS is Islamic.


It’s time for the truth. It’s time to level with the American people. At the ACLJ, we speak the truth. We name the enemy. Why can’t the President?


Mr. President, Name the Enemy


President Obama,


By refusing to name the enemy, you’re choosing weakness over strength. By refusing to name the enemy, you’re hiding the true threat from the American people. Speak the truth and name the enemy. Americans deserve the truth.





Mr. President, Name the Enemy

John R. Houk

© May 9, 2015


Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand


Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech


Mr. President, Name the Enemy


American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2015, ACLJ


About the American Center for Law and Justice


Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.


As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.


Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the READ THE REST



First Amendment Assaulted by Sharia in Garland TX

Elton Simpson - Garland Muslim shooter

Elton Simpson – A Muslim Shooter at Garland TX

John R. Houk
© May 4, 2015
After the end of a Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Texas a couple of Muslims (one of which has been identified as Elton Simpson) from Phoenix Arizona drove up to the Curtis CulwellCar of 2 Muslim shooters Garland TX - Twitter 5-4-15 Center and began shooting. The two anti-Free Speech Muslims wounded security officer Bruce Joiner prior to meeting their demise by police. The attendees of the contest that still remained were escorted to a secure location within the Curtis Culwell Center where someone broke out a U.S. flag followed by everyone singing God Bless America, Star Spangled Banner and praying for the wounded.

Published by BreitbartTexas
Uploaded on May 3, 2015
[Blog Editor: I’m not sure how long video will be available because as if this posting it was marked as “unlisted” with a “think twice before sharing” marked request.]
Lost in all the drama of the shooting was the fact there was an actual winner to the cartoon contest actually entitled the Muhammad Art Exhibit. That winner was art blogger Bosch Fawstin.
Bosch Fawstin, Geert Wilders, Pam Geller- Mo toon Contest - 5-3-15
Bosch Fawstin, Geert Wilders, Pam Geller- Mo toon Contest – 5-3-15

Published on Published on Oct 13, 2014
Michael Loftus interviews ex-Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin on The Infidel, Pigman, Islam and the comic book industry.
Tom Trento of The United West live-streamed the Muhammad Art Exhibit of which is posted in its three hour entirety on Youtube. In the first couple minutes Trento interviews winner Fawstin on May 3.

Published by theunitedwest
Published on May 3, 2015
The first annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest will be held on Sunday, May 3, at the Curtis Culwell Center, 5-7 pm, CENTRAL TIME, in the Dallas suburb of Garland, Texas. It will be hosted by human rights and free-speech activist Pamela Geller and her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).

The exhibit will feature images of Islam’s prophet in both historical and contemporary settings, showcasing the top 200 artistic renditions that were submitted for consideration. The winner will be announced at the event, and a $10,000 prize will be awarded.

The keynote speaker will be Geert Wilders, a member of The Netherlands Parliament. Wilders led the fight for de-Islamization in his country, which has faced many of the same problems with Muslim assimilation as have other European countries, including the advent of controversial “no-go zones” inaccessible to non-Muslims, including public officials.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) page promoting the Muhammad Art Exhibit can be read HERE.
Fawstin Mo toon won in Garland TX 5-3-15
Fawstin Mo toon won in Garland TX 5-3-15
Below is the educational moment I originally intended on posting Sunday evening. When I caught the news about the Muslim (and probable ISIS – See Also HERE) attack in Garland I held up to acquire some facts on the – who, what and where – of that incident. Ted of Shoebat.com on Saturday May 2 posted a Raymond Taouk article explaining the nature of Islam. Considering a lot of Leftist MSM and of course Muslim apologists are complaining Pamela Geller brought the violence on themselves for – GASP! – offending Muslims, the education moment about Islam is even more relevant today. The article is a bit lengthy so I suggest you bookmark this page or the Shoebat.com page and digest the info in time frames that fit your schedule.
JRH 5/4/15

Please Support NCCR

What Every Christian Needs To Know About Islam
Posted By Ted
May 2, 2015
Islam and the Islamic Notion of Revelation
By: Raymond Taouk
Today we are living in a time in which we are living in a time in which we are beginning to witness the revival of Islam.
This is something that Hiliare Belloc the great English Historian of the 20th Century had prophetically states in his work “the great Heresies”. In this book written in the late 1930’s he states that Millions of modern people of the white civilization—that is, the civilization of Europe and America—have forgotten all about Islam. They have never come in contact with it. They take for granted that it is decaying, and that, anyway, it is just a foreign religion which will not concern them. It is, as a fact, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past. The suggestion that Islam may re-arise sounds fantastic but this is only because men are always powerfully affected by the immediate past: one might say that they are blinded by it.
Hilare Belloc 
Hilare Belloc
A Brief History Of Islam
The fact that most of the Mohammedans are mainly located in the far east is because the people known as today’s  “Arabs”, from whom Islamic religion spread,  were descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham who was born of the slave woman agar to whom God said he would multiply her seed. This is why the Ishmael is recognized as a prophet in the Islamic Religion (he is placed after Abraham but before Isaac).
These sons of Agar dwelt on the Arabian Peninsula and were roughly divided between a nomadic and a more or less urban oasis culture.
The Tribal-society aspect of pre-Islamic Arabia explains many of the things that can be found in Islam today. For example, it was perfectly in line with Arab morality to mount raids on other tribes in order to obtain wealth, wives, and slaves, and so the tribes were constantly at war with one another. These desert tribes lived by the code “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Vengeance was extracted whenever anything was done to hurt any member of the tribe. Forcing people into slavery or kidnapping women, hold them in a harem, and raping them at will was considered just and proper.
The harsh Arab climate produced a harsh tribal society in which violence was the norm. And violence is still an attribute of Islamic societies.
The Arab population was Polytheistic in orientation. The male and female spirits existed in trees; stones, rivers and mountains, and so they were they worshiped a various number of different “gods”. Sacred magic stones were believed to protect the tribes. The Quraysh tribe had adopted a black stone as their tribal magic stone and had set it up at the Kabah. This magical black was kissed when people came on their pilgrimage to worship at the Kabah. It was no doubt an asteroid/meteorite that had fallen out of the sky and thus was viewed as being divine in some way.
Arabian idols
Arabian idols
The Quraysh tribe,  (Muhammad’s tribe) which was one of the more larger and  more important tribes saw to it that there was an idol for every religion at the pagan temple called the Kabah (a another version of the Roman Parthenon – the temple dedicated to all the Gods. The word Kabah is Arabic for “cube” and refers to the square stone temple in Mecca where the idols were worshipped. The Ka’bah was a cube shaped construction which was about 50 feet high with side 40 feet wide enclosing an empty, windowless room with marble walls.
This temple contained a virtual smorgasbord of deities with something for everyone. At least 360 gods were represented at the Kabah and a new one could be added if some stranger came into town and wanted to worship his own “god” in addition to the ones that were already represented. – This Kabah will later play a major role in Islam because it is by means of this Kabah that Mohammed will claim to prove the apostolic character of his religion by simply saying that Abraham and Ishmeal had built the Kabah even though there is no historical proof that Abraham or Ishmeal were ever in Mecca.
The Beginning Of Islam
The founder of Islam is Muhammad (AD 570 – 632). Muhammad’s father died before he was born, and his mother died while he was still young. He was sent to live with his rich grandparents, who later sent him to live with a wealthy uncle, who in turn passed him on to a poor uncle who raised him as well as he could.
The Quarish tribe, to which Mohammed belonged, had established itself in the south of Hijas (Hedjaz), near Mecca, which was, the principal religious and commercial center of Arabia at the time of Mohammed. They had become the masters and the acknowledged guardians of the sacred Kaaba, within the town of Mecca — then visited in annual pilgrimage by the heathen Arabs with their offerings and tributes — and had thereby gained such preeminence that it was comparatively easy for Mohammed to inaugurate his religious reform and his political campaign, which ended with the conquest of all Arabia and the fusion of the numerous Arab tribes into one nation, with one religion, one code, and one sanctuary.
Mo riding Buraq
[Blog Editor: Mo riding Buraq]
According to the biographers and early Muslim traditions, Mohammed’s mother died when he was a little boy and so he was raised by his uncle Abu Talib who brought him up a pagan and introduced him in the trade business but As a whole very little is known about his early life mainly because he was simply a normal Arab boy who enjoyed talking with those who traveled in the caravans. He loved to explore the desert and particularly the caves. According to the early Muslim traditions, the young pagan Muhammad experienced different visions in some of the caves he went to.
He got married at the age of 25 to a wealthy women named Cadijah who’s camel trade he looked after, she was some 15 years older him, but it was through this marriage that he became much more acquainted with Christianity since his wife’s uncle (Zayd) was a Nestorian Christian who upbraided him for worshiping idols and instructed him in the faith. In fact Father Nicholas of Cusa, a well-known Catholic Theologian and Philosopher of the 15th Century, quotes another Arab, in his work “A scrutiny of the Koran” who states that Mohammed Himself had been influence by Sergius a Nestorian monk, which seems probable since most of the surrounding region and towns next to were Mohammed had lived had more or less accepted Christianity in one form or other.
Nevertheless at the age of 40 Muhammad (610) Mohammed began to experience have visions again. This time he claimed that Allah had called him to be a prophet (nabi) and an apostle (Rasul).
Muhammad at first shared his call only with the family and friends in secret. Indeed, his first converts were some members of his own family. But soon his message became public, and he became subject to ridicule and hostility by the population at large and even by members of his own family.
Satanic Verses
In order to appease his pagan family members and the members of the Quraysh tribe, he decided that the best thing he could do was to admit that it was perfectly proper to pray to and worship the three daughters of Allah: Al-Lat, Al-ussa and Manat! This led to the famous “satanic verses” in which Muhammad in a moment of weakness and supposedly under the inspiration of Satan succumbed to the temptation to appease the pagan mobs in Mecca (Sura 53:19).
Muhammad eventually fled to medina, in AD 622. This event is called hejira by the Muslims and marks the beginning of the Muslim era and calendar. In other words the year 622, is the year 1 in the Islamic Calendar.
While at Medina, Muhammad planned and organized the spread of his new religion. The only powerful method he could use was that of violence in the name of Allah – the jihad. This jihad was so successful, despite so many oppositions, that at Muhammad’s death in AD 632 half of the Arabic world had become Muslim, and by AD 750 the Muslims had conquered the Persian and large parts of the Byzantine empire.
From reading the Koran one would not suppose that an enormous number of Arabs were Christians. Though the people of the Hijas were predominately pagan, many of the surrounding tribes had accepted Christianity. There were some members of the Quraysh tribe that had accepted Christianity but they were generally few. However all along the Mediterranean Christianity was already fully established.   In fact it is reported that that when Muhammad entered Mecca in triumph in the year 630, paintings of Jesus and the virgin Mary, among others, were still visible on the inner walls of the Ka’ba.
Coming Islamic Invasion Of Europe

Posted by TradCatKnight
Published on Nov 22, 2013
The Meaning Of Islam
The very word is an Arabic word, which originally referred to an attribute of manliness and described someone who was heroic and brave in battle. However most expounders of the word will generally affirm that it means “submission” as the Moslems today understand it to mean. Most Moslem apologist will even go as far as saying the originality of this name is a sign of the divine origin of Islam and a clear indication that all must because Moslems since it is obvious to any believer that we must be in “submission to God”.
Face of Protesting Muslims
Face of Protesting Muslims
Divisions In Islam:
Despite the military success of the Muslims, Islam has divided into various sects of which the two largest are the Sunni and the Shiah.  The Term “Sunni” is derived from the word “Sunnah” which means “Tradition”. The Shias have their own Sunnah, not identical to that of the Sunnis. The Sunni uphold the legitimacy of the succession of the first three caliphs, (Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman, while the Shiah defend the Divine right of Ali as against the successions of these caliphs whom they call “usurpers”, and whose names, tombs, and memorials they insult and detest).  The Sunni make up the larger about 85 % while the Shiah make up about 10%.The major difference is that Sunni is more like a Church founded on the consensus of the community, while the Shite hold to an authoritarian form of Government where the imams have the right of say that which cannot be contradicted by the community since they are seen as having a sort of impeccability/infallibility.
That is a brief historical overview, however Before I get into the Islamic notion of revelation I want to mention something about the other sources of Islamic authority  and the Islamic beliefs so that you can understand what place the Koran holds in Islam and what it teaches the Moslems.
The Theology Of The Koran
It is a monotheistic – A strict belief in one God, who they call “Allah”. “Allah” has 99 names. For the Moslem Our Lord  Jesus Christ is merely a prophet, one of the many prophets with Mohammed being the last and the greatest of the Prophets and so the Moslems do not pray to or worship Mohammed, -not in the strict sense any way. They pray to Allah – They believe that with Mohammed the canon or revelation from God was finally closed. Their will be no more – It’s true that some Moslems deny this point but a general rule those are the tenants of the great body of Moslems. The theology of the Koran is quite simple and that’s what makes it most suitable for your any Godless pagan to embrace. – The Joe 6 pack religion.
For the Moslems Islam supersedes Christianity and Judaism in the way Christianity Superseded Judaism so according to them it is incumbent on all Christians to become Muslims and So we Should all convert and become Muslims.
Similarities and Differences:
Moslems do believe in heaven and Hell, good and bad angels. They believe in the Devil – the Shaitan -or iblis- who was condemned to hell because he refused to worship Adam – this same idea is found in the Talmud. They do believe in Adam and Eve, but they deny Original sin since for them the sin of Adam did not lose anything for the rest of men but only for Adam alone.
The pagan element that Mohammedans have maintained about angels is a believer in the spirits they call jinn, these spirits are said to have originated in fire and function as mediators between angels and humans. They claim that there are good and bad Jinn and that Mohammed had converted some of them to Islam.
While the Muslims do believe in Heaven and Hell, their notion of Hell is similar to ours, but their notion of heaven is clearly pagan although not totally since, they claim that Heaven has 7 levels. The seventh Level is the highest – somewhat equivalent to our heaven. There you are in the presence of Allah.
However the average Moslem is more familiar with the other levels of heaven which are presented in a materialistic and sensual way since these places a man’s sexual desires are fulfilled to the limited – a place which St. Alphonsus says is only fit for beasts!
In fact if you really want to understand why some Mohammedan would strap some bombs on himself and gladly let them explode at the cost of his life, it is precisely because he is promised heaven in return for killing the infidel. And so he goes to his death looking forward to an eternity of bliss in a land where there will be milk and honey and all wine and you can drink along with the most beautiful girls called “Houris” to fulfill their every desire!
Although the Koran does lay down most of what I have said so far about the Islamic beliefs, yet all most all the other things Moslems believe are derived from three other sources besides the Koran:
Other Sources:
1.   The Hadith, a record of words and deeds of Muhammad by his relatives and friends;
2.   The Sunnah, or acts of Muhammad;
III. The Ijma, consensus of the Muslim community or of its leading scholars.
The reason that Mohammedans have other authorities other than the Koran is that from the very beginning it was clearly understood that the Qur’án could not give all the rules for all the situations encountered by a Muslims in daily life.
Even during Muhammad’s lifetime a supplement to his message proved to be necessary;  his deeds and words were written down so as to be an example for future Moslems on how to conduct their lives. These stories about Mohammed were passed down orally until the 9th century before they were systematically collected and written down into what is known as the Hadith.  The Hadith Together with the Sira, constitute the Sunnah – that is the traditions of the Prophet.
While no absolute canon of the Hadith has ever been established, nevertheless certain compilers are recognized as more trustworthy – those compiled by al-Bukhari (d. 256 A.H., 870 A.D.), are regarded as most sahih – most true. The Hadith itself from a historical point of view as far as its reliability is a collection of hearsay statements which is not really worth the paper it’s written on, it is not only doubtful but like the Koran it is also latent with contradictions (Islam by Alfred Guilaume, pg. 106) but  even then while I might undermine the Hadith because of the fact it is historically unreliable for reasons I don’t have the time to get into but what you have to at least understand as that in practice it almost plays a far greater role than the Koran does for the average Muslim since without the Hadith, the Koran the Koran doesn’t stand as a Pillar of direction for Moslems on how to function in their daily life as Muslims and being Arabs unless a law is set down they will kill one another over even the smallest things.
The beliefs that are laid down for the Moslem to believe are 6 major beliefs:
The Beliefs of Islam
The 6 Major beliefs of Islam, according to the Quran and Muslim tradition:
I. Belief in Allah
Belief in the prophets
III. Belief in the day of Judgment (therefore belief in heaven and hell);
Belief in the revealed books;
Belief in the angels;
Belief in fate or providence – Calvinistic idea of Predestination.
Every Muslim must believe and profess these beliefs. If any Muslim renounces Islam or becomes an apostate, he will be liable to the greatest punishment, death and hell. Another Islamic belief is that is that it is absolute necessity for all male Children to be circumcised, while some Islamic sects prescribe it also for women. Divorce and Polygamy are allowed, Pork along with alcohol are forbidden as “harram” – evil.
The obligations of Islam
Muslims also hold to the teaching of “faith and good works” and totally reject the protestant notion “justification by faith alone”. Upon every Muslim there are incumbent various obligations which they are bound to observe. They are the following:
Belief in the oneness of Allah and his prophet Muhammad;
Offering of daily prayers;
III. Almsgiving; – They do believe in good works and reject the idea of “faith alone”
Observing the fast of Ramadan (30 days); – Ramada follows a lunar Calendar. During the month of Ramada Muslims cannot eat or drink during day time hours – not even their own saliva!
Performing hajj to the Kabah in Mecca once in a lifetime, if possible.
The Islamic Notion Of Revelation:
The Islamic bible equivalent is the Koran. The word Koran comes from the Arabic to recite or read since it was originally given to Mohammed as a recitation which he in turn recited to others who wrote it down. This revelation was intended to recited by all who accepted its message, that is why most devout Moslems now great portions of the Koran from memory.   The Koran is roughly equivalent in length to the New Testament and divided into 114 sections, known as suras. The book’s are organizing principle according to size.
While the Koran hold a similar prominence in Islam as the bible does in Christianity, yet strangely enough their notion of revelation is totally different. As you know, the Catholic teaching on revelation of the Sacred Text of the Bible is that various human authors wrote the various books or letter that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost while nevertheless maintaining their liberty and their various styles, temperaments and different degrees of human knowledge. For the Moslems on the other hand the Quran was supposed to be send down from heaven directly by God by the intermediary of one Man,  the Prophet Mohammed who while he disclaimed having any power to perform miracles, claimed that the divine revelations enshrined in the Quran were themselves miraculous signs of his apostle ship.   In the Koran Mohammed expressly states regarding the Koran that “God Himself and His holy Spirit composed this most true book.”- Surah 16:101,
For the Moslem because the Quran is supposed to have come down  “unfettered” by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah’s word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.
The Quran itself though is seen as merely a transcript of an uncreated and eternal tablet or book that had preexisted in heaven in which is written all that has happened and that will happen. It is supposed to have been revealed to Mohammed by the intermediary of the spirit of God.
The physical Qur’án, that they have in written text for them, is only the visible copy of that eternal and uncreated Quran. The Uncreated and eternal Quran is called the Mother of the Book. The role of Mohammed was to speak the truths of this Uncreated Koran, so that it could take on earthly form, and thus carry Allah’s eternal message to the world. And so not seen as a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is for the Moslems (sic) an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is for the Moslems. If you want a comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particular respect would be Blessed Virgin Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as she was the vehicle of the word of God… (Charris Waddy, The Muslim Mind [New York: Longman, 1976], p.14)
For this reason as funny as it might sound, Islam has had and continues to have its own Arians, etc. who debating and persecuting each other over the nature of the Quran as being created or uncreated. Some say it’s created while others deny it! After years of blood shed on the issue it is commonly held that the Koran is uncreated.
Nevertheless what is interesting about the Mohammedan claim of an uncreated Quran – even though we find it erroneous – the idea of a heavenly tablet was not a new idea invented by Mohammed the concept is as old as religion itself.  This idea was familiar to the ancient heathens (of Mesopotamia), not to mention the fact that Talmudic Judaism, in its traditional literature has crowned the Torah as pre-existent.
In Christianity pre-existence is ascribed to the word of God, the logos but of course it has a different significance since the Moslems don’t worship the Koran as God!
Nevertheless during Mohammed’s lifetime the verses that he recited and claimed to be revealed to him were written on palm-leaves, stones, the shoulder-blades of animals, and any other material that came to hand, because Mohammed could have his revelations at any time and so they often made use of what was handy.
While historically there were a number of different version of the Koran which contradicted each other, the Moslems wisely deceived to destroy them and decide on only maintaining one version because the Moslems feared that scriptural exegesis would pursue the course with them like it had taken among Jews and Christians who at that the time accused one another of corrupting and falsifying the text, it would have meant the end for this newly founded religion. The edition which they put out is till this day the authoritative text. Even though there are various versions of this text only the original Arabic version of the Koran is God’s inspired word since English versions cannot give you the true meaning of the Koran.
The earliest copy of the Koran can be dated at around 790 AD which is about 160 years after the death of Mohammed but there are some earlier fragments which date about 100 years after the death of Mohammed. But it’s only logical that the bones, stones, palm leaves, tree bark, etc.., which contained some of the material on which the Koran was supposed to have been written that these materials perished. Since these materials by their very nature corrupt. In fact that is what even happened to the divinely inspired of Gospels and Epistles the New Testament. The earliest copy of the Koran can be dated at around 790 AD which is about 160 years after the death of Mohammed but there are some earlier fragments which date about 100 years after the death of Mohammed. Yet while it’s true that most Islamic Scholars will dishonestly affirm that they still have the original version, yet it not only could they not produce such a text but humanly speaking it’s not possible since those materials by nature decay.
Moslems no not only have a different notion of Revelation but also of prophet hood. But this teaching of Islam was clearly only a latter development since if you read the Koran the notion of prophet hood resembles the Christian understanding. They firstly make a distinction between one who is a Nabi — that is one who deliver simple admonitions and warnings, and One who is specially chosen to proclaim a special revelation, the rasûl– An Apostle.
Moslems claim that not only are all the prophets/Apostles – Rasul of Allah, are inspired by God to reveal his will to the world,  but that these rasul/prophets especially Mohammed (the seal/culmination of the prophets) were all without sin and infallible.
It’s undeniably important to understand what Moslems do and don’t believe since Islam today is a reality that we have to deal with. The Moslems today dwell not in some distant land across the sea but in the same countries in which we also live and so it’s important to have at least some understanding of one of the world’s largest religions especially one which most westerners are more than likely to join since it appeals to the senses and isn’t too difficult to follow and that would suit the lifestyle of most materialist godless people today.
On this note, I would like to leave you with the thoughts of Belloc on Islam who in response to the vital question “May not Islam arise again?” He responds, “In a sense the question is already answered because Islam has never departed. It still commands the fixed loyalty and unquestioning adhesion of all the millions between the Atlantic and further afield throughout scattered communities of further Asia. But I ask the question in the sense “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world which will shake off the domination of Europeans still nominally Christian and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?” The future always comes as a surprise but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.”
It seems we are beginning to see that revival!
First Amendment Assaulted by Sharia in Garland TX
John R. Houk
© May 4, 2015
What Every Christian Needs To Know About Islam
Edited by John R. Houk
A spellcheck was utilized undoubtedly changing the wording of original repost from “Ted”.
© Copyright 2015 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.

Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert

Red-BHO- Change U Will Feel

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014


In America this is an ethical argument between Leftists and Conservatives on how to deal with illegal aliens slipping across the southern border in droves. Leftists are dedicated to the concepts involved with diverse multiculturalism. Conservatives are dedicated to the concepts of maintaining the core values and heritage that have made America an exceptional nation, the freest nation in the world and the nation which foreign nationals desire to move into seeking a better life than existed in their homeland.


The irony is Leftists would agree with the immigrants looking for a better life in America. The problem is diverse multiculturalism enables immigrants to subscribe to the legal and social traditions of the homeland they are escaping from. In the mind of Conservatives this is a problem because the refusal to assimilate to the American culture that extols the language and history dilutes that which America exceptional and great.


The largest amount of ILLEGAL immigrants to the USA today tend to be Hispanic Latin Americans. The traditions brought to Latin America come primarily from Spain which has a heritage of authoritarian elites subjugating the less fortunate as laborers that benefit those elites.

 Caution Undocumented Dems


Here is an excerpt that explains Latin America’s heritage (in full disclosure if read entirely blames in part “North America” [meaning USA] and European interference):



… Latin America’s problems resulted from the Spanish colonial system that had offered native-born whites little opportunity or responsibility in government. The tradition of autocracy and paternalism was a poor precedent for would-be democratic republics. The emphasis on executive power inspired presidents, generals, landowners, and church officials to wield authority with arrogant disregard for public opinion and representative government.

The colonial economic system, based on raw materials rather than industry, encouraged concentration of land and other forms of wealth in a few hands. The church with its vast properties, monopoly on education and welfare agencies, and command over cultural life complicated the politics of every new nation.

In addition, the new states were cursed by problems associated with the wars of independence. Some of the most productive areas were devastated. Hatred and division remained. Many men who had fought the royalists remained armed, predisposed to a life of violence and pillage and likely to group themselves about the caudillos, who promised adventure or profit in revolutions.


The final problem facing the new states was that of racial disunity. In 1825 there were from 15 to 18 million people in the former Spanish empire. About 3 million of them were whites, the wealthiest and most educated population. That figure remained constant until the last third of the century, when immigration from Europe in[c]reased drastically. There were about the same number of mestizos, who scorned the Indians, but were not accepted by whites. Their numbers steadily increased, as did their ambition. During the nineteenth century at least half of the population in some states was Indian. Deprived of the small protection once offered by the Spanish crown, they either sank into peonage or lived in semi-independence under their tribal rulers. Finally, in Brazil and most of the Caribbean island, blacks were in a large majority. Conflicts of interest quickly developed between these broad racial groups, particularly between the Creoles and the mestizos. The pernicious effects of these divisive factors can be seen in the experiences of each nation.


Despite its promising beginning in 1821, Mexico suffered a … (Latin America: Establishment of Latin American States; By Allen Pikermen; International World History Project; 2002)


The heritage of the United States of America as brought over from the English monarchy are quite different. Future Americans came to the New World to specifically find a life better than existed in their homeland. Those non-English colonials that came had to do so under the authorization of the English Crown. So even those earliest immigrants to North America that came from non-English but European roots still owed their legal-economic foundations derived from English law.


Here is an excerpt that a quick search on my part demonstrates (I could probably find a better source but I was in a hurry):



… The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the Protestant Reformation, and Gutenberg’s printing press. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.


The Philosophes


Europeans of the 17th century no longer lived in the “darkness” of the Middle Ages. Ocean voyages had put them in touch with many world civilizations, and trade had created a prosperous middle class. The Protestant Reformation encouraged free thinkers to question the practices of the Catholic Church, and the printing press spread the new ideas relatively quickly and easily. The time was ripe for the philosophes, scholars who promoted democracy and justice through discussions of individual liberty and equality.


One of the first philosophes was Thomas Hobbes, an Englishman who concluded in his famous book, Leviathan, that people are incapable of ruling themselves, primarily because humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader. Later philosophes, like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were more optimistic about democracy. Their ideas encouraged the questioning of absolute monarchs, like the Bourbon family that ruled France. Montesquieu suggested a separation of powers into branches of government not unlike the system Americans would later adopt. They found eager students who later became the founders of the American government.


John Locke


The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. … According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. …


Important English Documents


Ironically, the English political system provided the grist for the revolt of its own American colonies. For many centuries English monarchs had allowed restrictions to be placed on their ultimate power. The Magna Carta, written in 1215, established the kernel of limited government, or the belief that the monarch’s rule was not absolute. …


The Petition of Right (1628) extended the rights of “commoners” to have a voice in the government. The English Bill of Rights (1688) guaranteed free elections and rights for citizens accused of crime. …


The foundations of American government lie squarely in the 17th and 18th century European Enlightenment. The American founders were well versed in the writings of the philosophes, whose ideas influenced the shaping of the new country. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and others took the brave steps of creating a government based on the Enlightenment values of liberty, equality, and a new form of justice. More than 200 years later, that government is still intact. (2. Foundations of American Government; ushistory.org – American Government; © 1995-2014 by the Independence Hall Association, a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia, PA founded in 1942. Publishing electronically as ushistory.org.; online since July 4, 1995.)


The largest problem I have with the excerpt above is that nearly ignores the influence of Christianity on the Founding of the USA. It is typical in this day and age to bend to Left Wing humanist interpretations of history which is more often critical of Christianity than supportive of the great faith’s influence not only in America but Western culture at large in general.


It is my opinion that the Left has acquired the keys that disseminate education in the USA which is not a good thing for Christians. The Christian Right the best defender of the faith in the 21st century has reacted by perhaps overemphasizing Christianity’s influence of the Founding Fathers. In turn the Left has reacted by overemphasizing the non-Christian influences amplified in the above excerpt. I like the middle ground taken by Mark David Hall, Ph.D. written in 2011. Dr. Hall explains why the far Left and the Christian Right are both wrong on a limited basis. Yes the influences of the great Philosophes were paramount to the Founding Fathers, YET every single Founding Father (even Jefferson and Madison) and the majority of the new USA’s voting enfranchised citizens attributed their social foundations to Christianity especially as they governed their individual lives by morality. Even the most deist of the Founding Fathers believed that without Christian ethics and morality, government would fall into chaos or tyranny. Read Dr. Hall’s essay entitled “Did America Have a Christian Founding?


Ergo it is my assertion that that the Left’s political motivation in encouraging open borders to a Latin American culture will ultimately lead to a dilution of the American culture that has made our nation exceptional and free. Immigrants must be welcomed into America but not at the cost of American culture. Immigrants must assimilate! Sure immigrants can honor their heritage by maintaining their memories on an individual basis. However, to maintain the American culture the maintenance of the American version of the English language is a paramount stepping stone for assimilation.


This leads me to an emerging multicultural immigration problem. That problem is the willingness of our government (largely under the tutelage of the Obama Administration) to bring foreign born Muslims to the USA. Before the Left Wing multiculturalists and Muslim apologists scream Islamophobe racist, I actually believe individuals that idiotically choose to worship an antichrist religion like Islam should be free to do so according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.


The thing is that Muslims that revere Allah, Islamic holy writings and the religion’s false prophet Mohammed WILL BE INTENT to refuse assimilation into American culture.


Islam’s Sharia Law is absolutely contradictory to the Liberty and Freedom inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Most adherents to any religion have supremacist ideals about their faith. I know I do pertaining to Christianity. HOWEVER the Islamic faith supremacists requires the blood of all humanity that refuse to submit to Islam or insults Islam (including its crazy prophet).


Any foreign culture that develops an ideology among individuals living in or outside the USA that rejects assimilation into American culture and our constitutional government is a threat to the USA remaining free with individual rights and liberty.


It’s bad enough that illegal Latin American aliens are coming to America just as much to send money back to their homelands while enjoying taxpayer supported programs, it is worse to take in legal immigrants that have no intention to assimilate but rather to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with Sharia Law.


Those Muslims that identify the Quran and Mohammed as perfect and that people must be in submission to Islam are individuals that have the imperative to bring down our Constitution and culture of Freedom and Liberty. If those particular Muslims tell you differently they are either intentionally lying or are unintentionally self-deceived. Allah commands Muslims to eradicate or reduce the non-believers of Islam to a cruel second class citizenship of obeying the rules of Sharia (or else!).


This is as evil as when the old Soviet Union cultivated American Communists to use the American system to bring down America or a few radicalized self-starting Communists acting as anarchists (cough can you say Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrnfriends to Obama) to bring down the Constitution and the American heritage.


These thoughts are largely inspired by some Geert Wilders information posted by the Gatestone Institute. In case you don’t know who Wilders is, he became known to me largely through a mini-documentary entitled “Fitna”. Wilders takes the title from the same Arabic word that means “a state of trouble or chaos”. “Fitna” is roughly about 16 minutes long and worth the view. The tiny documentary caused quite a stir in the Western World and in Muslim dominated nations. Wilders’ home nation of Netherlands even prosecuted him for hate speech when the documentary is actually truth speech. The Netherlands prosecution lost.


Lo and behold the Leftist government of the Netherlands is once again going after Geert Wilders’ free speech rights by interrogating him about a speech encouraging his Dutch constituents (he is a member of whatever the Netherlands calls a Parliament) to support legislation that limits the immigration of Moroccan Muslims who refuse assimilation into Dutch culture.


Under heavy pressure by the Dutch left, national government, and the North African immigrants themselves for a rallying cry where Wilders asked a campaign-stop crowd in The Hague if they wanted ‘more Moroccans  or ‘less Morrocans’ in Holland (followed by predictably raucous cheers for the latter), the Dutch politician is fighting back and -per usual- speaking his mind…


With the new left-leaning government in charge, they now have the top public prosecutor attempting to build a case against Geert for ‘hate speech’, asking the the (sic) police to retain and question him, etc.


But of course, as a man of deep thought and clear logic, he says things for a reason- Wilders had no trouble explaining himself, and even issued a public statement. As is his manner, the Dutch Freedom Party leader didn’t back down a millimeter… while offering an eloquent defense of his position.


Some highlights:


·         I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures….
Because they are the truth.


·         I do not intend to hurt or offend people, either


·         In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by READ THE REST (Geert Wilders in Interrogation by State Police: ‘I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands…’; By The Reaganite Republic; 12/10/14)


Geert Wilders has made a statement about the interrogation according to what I have read was released while being subjected to the police questioning. I discovered through Google Wilders’ statement is all over the web but I am going with the Gatestone Institute version.


JRH 12/10/14

Please Support NCCR


Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police


By Geert Wilders

December 9, 2014 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute


As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see…. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. I rely on objective facts and figures…. Because they are the truth.


I do not intend to hurt or offend people either… Already for over 10 years, I have lost my personal freedom.


In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.


To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”


The Hague, December 8, 2014.


Today, Dutch parliamentarian and PVV leader Geert Wilders made a statement during his interrogation by the Dutch State Police. The State Police interrogated Mr Wilders on behalf of the Dutch Public Prosecutor, who is considering to prosecute Mr Wilders because the politician had asked his voters during the election campaign whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.


Our freedom is being threatened. Threatened by a violent totalitarian ideology – Islam – that brings with it death and devastation. Threatened by a politically correct elite that does not tolerate criticism of Islam and mass immigration, and that nurtures cultural relativism.


I rise up against this.


As a democratically elected politician I name the problems that I see. I name the dangers and disadvantages that we experience in the Netherlands as a result of cultural relativism, mass immigration and the ongoing Islamization. That is my task. That is my duty. That is why I have been elected. That is the reason why I am in politics and why I founded the Party for Freedom (PVV).


I am fighting for a better Netherlands.
To preserve our own culture.
Our own identity.
Our safety.
Our freedom.


I do not discriminate. I do not spread hatred, nor do I incite to it. I do not intend to hurt or offend people either. However, I do not mince my words when I defend our established freedoms and name the dangers to our society.


I dedicate my life to the fight against this evil ideology and the defense of our liberties. Every day, I pay the price for this fight. Already for over ten years, I have lost my personal freedom.


During the past 10 years, I have drawn attention to the Moroccan problem which we have here in the Netherlands. These include serious problems with integration, crime and welfare dependency. The majority of the jihadis travelling from the Netherlands to Syria is Moroccan. In order to see the whole context, the contents of the attachments that I deposit with you here today must be taken into consideration.

I rely on objective facts and figures. Facts that I must name. Because they are the truth. If we had had the same problem in the Netherlands with Canadians, I would have named them.


Those who do not understand that we have an enormous problem with Islam and with Moroccans in the Netherlands, though seeing, they do not see, and though hearing, they do not hear.


For the reasons above, while on campaign in The Hague, I argued that there need to be fewer Moroccans. And, at an election meeting in The Hague, I asked those present a number of questions, one of which was “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?”


Geert Wilders 3-2014 speech- 'Do you want more or fewer Moroccans'

Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)



Indeed, I want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands for the reasons and context that I have previously expressed in this statement as well as in Parliament and for which I refer you to the documents that I now deposit.


I have yet to meet the Dutchman who wants more Moroccans in the Netherlands. Asking for fewer Moroccans is something totally different than if I were to want all Moroccans to leave the Netherlands or than if I were to object to every Moroccan.


Like me, 43% of all the Dutch and 95% of my supporters want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. I have said what millions of Dutchmen think.


I also want less Islam in the Netherlands.


And like me, 65% of all the Dutch and 100% of my supporters think that the Islamic culture does not belong to the Netherlands.

Since the establishment of the PVV, I have advocated fewer immigrants from Islamic countries.

Since the establishment of the PVV, I have identified the Moroccan problem and presented (democratic) solutions for it, such as:


·         limiting the immigration of people from Islamic countries, hence also Morocco


·         promoting the voluntary remigration of non-Western foreigners, hence also Moroccans


·         expelling criminals with dual nationality after denaturalization, hence also Moroccans. Since Moroccans living in the Netherlands are significantly overrepresented in crime statistics and often have dual citizenship, this would also lead to fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.


I do not retract anything of what I have said.


Because I have said nothing wrong.


In my fight for freedom and against the Islamization of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be.


To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”


For these above reasons, I assume that the Public Prosecutor will decide not to prosecute me.

Any other decision cannot be interpreted otherwise than politically motivated.


Geert Wilders


Culture Assimilation Matters – Ask Geert

John R. Houk

© December 10, 3014


Statement of Geert Wilders during His Interrogation by the State Police


Copyright © 2014 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved.

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

HRC on Free Speech Punishment


Apparently Canada is growing closer and closer to the EU rule of law paradigm of punishing Free Speech that is truthful in its criticism of Islam due to the Left thinking of multicultural diversity. Elsa Schieder continues her report on the issue which follows her report on Canadian Free Speech persecution of Ezra Levant.


(To my fellow Americans: In case you are unaware I’m letting you know that Canada is officially a bi-lingual nation. Both English and French are the official languages of Canada. This largely due to Britain conquering French Canada in the 1700s from France. French Canadians have proudly retained their culture primarily in the Province of Quebec. This explains the French references used by Elsa that Canada is currently dealing with.)


JRH 12/8/14

Please Support NCCR


Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 12/7/2014 8:42 PM

World Truth Summit Update


Last week I wrote about a judgment, in Canada, against Ezra Levant.


This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)


For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:



***[Blog Editor: I posting the Google Translation to the French in the above link. There is a video which I am not including largely because I do not speak French. If you speak French and wish to listen, you’ll have to use the above link.]


I listened to the interview and once more felt: the world has gone upside down. “Anything you say may be used against you.” Watch out!


As usual, there’s no indication that, if the legislation goes through, those making the charges will need to pay anything, even if charges are shown to be frivolous, ungrounded, or even malicious. On the other hand, those defending themselves against charges will need to pay.


“Oh Canada, glorious and free.” Those words are part of the Canadian national anthem. Not appropriate with the legislation which is already in place, and even less appropriate with the proposed further legislation against freedom of speech.



Then, in case any of you should feel like wishing someone else Merry Christmas, here is Islamic cleric Abu Musaab Akkar:


“Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.”


His comments are available in many places, including:




Of course, according to the politically correct, all cultures are equal (including the one of the above cleric) and who are we to judge? It seems we are to ignore that the cleric is judging that saying Merry Christmas is worse than killing someone. But perhaps, in the weird world of the politically correct, the cleric is somehow entitled to judge, while for some inexplicable reason, we are not.


What do we do? How to show the absurdity of such opinions? Lots of us are trying to figure out the answers.


Here’s a politically correct guide to opinions about kittens. It starts:


All kittens are equal.

All kittens are not equal.

All opinions about

kittens are equal.

One must not judge

opinions about kittens.

Who are we to judge

if all kittens are equal?

Except Israeli kittens …



I will end with Professor Emeritus Joan Wiggins on politically correct people vs. human rights people.


But first, now or later, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and whatever else you may enjoy celebrating.


All the best,




Promo Photo Joan Wiggins

Joan Wiggins - PC vs Pro-Human Rights promo



***[Blog Editor: Here is the Google Translation to English of the link http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html.]


Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?


Poste de veille [Post standby]


After two terrorist attacks, the Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes to limit the freedom of expression. One comes to believe that terrorism is an effective weapon: freedom back, and Sharia advance.


However, the Islamists should avoid too excited because censorship can be a double-edged weapon.


The Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard announced recently the formation of a group of representatives of the Muslim community to “fight against youth radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia.”


As part of the fight against Islamophobia, President of the Commission on Human Rights of Quebec, Jacques Frémont, recommends * to add to the Charter of Rights a new provision that would prohibit “public incitement to hatred “to groups protected against discrimination. However, criticism of Islam is equated with “hate speech” by Islamists.


In an interview with Radio-Canada, Jacques Frémont   justified the relevance of limiting freedom of expression, relying in particular on the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on a case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, and on the UN Recommendations:


This new provision “would allow victims including about hate crimes and making complaints, and possibly receive compensation, if any.


“With Article 10.1 of the Charter, which recognizes the right to equality without discrimination or harassment, “it is necessary that the injury is personal and individual, that is to say, it needs to be a victim who comes and who demonstrates the victim, she was assigned, and is entitled to damages, and then section 10.1 is used for this purpose.


“Now it is clear that with the new provision we offer, such as when there is a web site that raves, which has about the hatred of incentives in relation to particular groups, think of Muslim groups we saw some of the sites currently no sufficient interest to be present with us and make the request. With the new provision, then, there is a way for us to investigate (ourselves, even if there is no person who shows up) and for a person who, for example, if the site web is Muslim, and it was a francophone Quebec person francophone Quebec person could come forward and make a complaint. “


The new provision “is much more general public incitement to hatred on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So you do not need to be a victim and particularized to demonstrate. “


“What we propose is a remedy that does not currently exist. If we had been complaints over anti-Muslim websites, for example (as we had in), we must reject the current situation – whereas now, if we had this provision there could accept them and move forward. “


“It is clear that what is being proposed, it has to be attached to discrimination, harassment and exploitation. These are the three criteria. “


“We, it was inspired by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because ultimately, it is the freedom of expression that is in question. And as human rights commission, freedom of expression is very important, so it should not restrict unduly. But the Supreme Court tells us that in cases of discrimination, harassment or exploitation, we can move forward. It is legitimate and what is legitimate for the provinces to act in that field. “


“There is a recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights, which is exactly in the same direction. And from what I understand in dispatches in the newspapers, even the Supreme Court of the United States, now when we speak, is ready to challenge for First Amendment when it comes to hate speech.


“In other words, there is a movement across the world is to respond to that hate speech of this kind are not acceptable in any society whatsoever.


“It’s when you have about generals, hateful general, incitement to hatred, etc. where there no casualties particularized, the group in general who is a victim – – that’s what we aim by this provision.”


The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada


Mr. Frémont refers to the case of William Whatcott (judgment of 27 February 2013), a Christian from Saskatchewan who had distributed pamphlets disparaging homosexuality, and was convicted of incitement to hatred of homosexuals.


Mario Roy had spoken in an editorial in La Presse in 2011, before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment. Roy placed the lawsuit against Whatcott in the context of the arrival in Montreal at the invitation of a Muslim student association at Concordia University, Muslim preachers known for advocating the criminalization of homosexuality.


If the Charter of Rights is changed according to the terms described by Mr. Fremont, homosexuals will be available to the new provisions against this type of preachers and those who invite them (student associations, mosques, etc.). The favorable Islamist censorship could see that this is a double edged sword.


Case to be heard by the US Supreme Court


The cause to which referred Mr. Frémont is Anthony Elonis case, which at first sight seems somewhat related to proposed amendments to the Charter of Rights. CBC summarizes well the cause:


On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has heard the arguments of both parties in the case of Anthony Elonis, a resident of Pennsylvania, which was found to have threatened to kill his ex-wife.


The man had displayed particular, on Facebook, a “poem” particularly violent in the place of his former wife. (… )


The Supreme Court must now determine whether these publications Mr. Elonis are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.


UN Recommendation


When Mr. Frémont speaks of a recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights along the lines of a limit on freedom of expression, it refers to the Istanbul Process, which is nothing but a result of the continuous efforts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for over ten years in order to prohibit “defamation of religions” in international law. This is a modern version of blasphemy.


In analyzing the “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process, Nina Shea reports on the conference held in Washington with the OIC in order to implement UN resolutions on the pretext to fight “religious intolerance” threaten to lead to the suppression of any criticism of Islam and Sharia. The Washington meeting was planned in Istanbul, hence the name “Istanbul Process”.


Sectarian rivalries within Islam


The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights could also be used by sectarian Muslims against peaceful Muslims. For example, the United Kingdom, Fadak TV satellite channel founded by a Shiite anti-Khomeini shiraziste, which promotes the freedom to criticize religions, is the subject of an investigation of the British regulatory authorities to “hate propaganda “following complaints from Sunnis and Khomeinists.


Federally, Ottawa is considering criminalizing the glorification of terrorism


According to the Press:


The federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, considering to pass a law that would make crime to applaud a terrorist act.


The law in the UK is tackling the “encouragement of terrorism”. This “encouragement” direct or indirect, is illegal. A person guilty of this crime may be assessed up to seven years imprisonment.


Civil liberties groups, the United Kingdom, are worried.


Initiatives to limit freedom of expression are worrying. Islamists seek to roll back the freedoms in the West, and particular freedom of expression, the foundation of democracy. A government that advocates censorship makes them a dangerous concession. In fact, one could almost say that it encourages terrorism, because after two attacks, Quebec wants to limit criticism of Islam. Or if you cannot criticize Islam is that already lives under Sharia law. What is the message? The message is that terrorism is an effective weapon: it pushed back the freedom of expression and advance the Sharia.


If Ottawa gives up his plan to punish advocating terrorism, we risk ending up in an absurd situation: the glorification of terrorism would be legal, but criticism of Islam which terrorists claim may be illegal.


The federal government had a provision similar to the one proposed by the Human Rights Commission, namely Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the person who gave the Canadian Human Rights Commission, investigative powers over “speech hate “online. Ottawa repealed this article, which was misused. These abuses are explained in an editorial in the National Post and a section of Lorne Gunter’s Edmonton Sun.


* I have commented out the Human Rights Commission, the relevant extract of memory on the proposal to amend the Charter of Rights.


See also:


Dossier: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)



The “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process



USA: the “Istanbul Process” is a bad idea



USA: State Department against Freedom of Expression



The OIC recovery efforts for the criminalization of defamation of religions



The International Humanist and Ethical Union laws against the “defamation of religions”



GB: A Shiite Sheikh shiraziste advocates for the right to criticize Islam



Canada: The Rights Commission loses his powers of censure



Canada: A bill abolishing censorship powers of the human rights commission


[Blog Editor: running a spell check on the Google Translation]


Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


From Elsa Schieder of World Truth Summit


Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

In French: Vers une interdiction de critiquer l’islam au Québec?


Poste de veille [Post standby] Homepage