Showing posts with label Sharia Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sharia Law. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2025

Muslims Claim New York City for Islam

Monday, May 6, 2024

Don Lemon Corrects Washington Post Reporter

It is insane for Taylor Lorenz to defend Hamas by suggesting that gay people in Texas and Florida don't have freedom.

Muslim Majority Nation in Canada

Sunday, May 5, 2024

Biden and Sharia Law

Just what we need! Bring in MORE anti-Semites. We don't have enough Jew-haters.

Biden's Palestinian refugee plan is not in the national interest.

"Let's bring more people to the U.S. to shout, 'Death to America'."

"Great idea!"

Good grief. Vote Biden and the radical Leftist Democrats out of power. End Biden's war on Americans.

Thursday, September 2, 2021

Women in America and Afghanistan

It is insane to state that women in America are treated worse than women in Afghanistan.

Insane.

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

'Moderate' Taliban Kill Woman Not Wearing Burqa

There is no equivalence between women's rights under Sharia law and women's rights in the U.S. There is nothing moderate about the Taliban and their abuse and oppression of women.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Saudi Arabia Arrest of Woman Wearing Skirt

Surely, no one would condone the arrest of a woman for wearing a skirt. Right?

Wrong.

Linda "Jihad" Sarsour, co-chair of the Women's March on Washington, supports sharia law.


Saturday, October 15, 2016

Milwaukee ISIS: Jason Michael Ludke and Yosvany Padilla-Conde



From Scott Anderson, Milwaukee Patch:

Jason Michael Ludke, 35, of Milwaukee, has been charged with attempting to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, ISIS.

Yosvany Padilla-Conde, 30, also of Milwaukee, was charged with aiding and abetting Ludke's attempt to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, ISIS.

...The two men were arrested by the FBI and local law enforcement near San Angelo, Texas. It is alleged in the complaint that the two were traveling from Wisconsin to Mexico where they intended to acquire aid and documents necessary to travel to Syria and/or Iraq.

Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Justin Tolomeo stated “Terrorism remains the FBI’s top priority in keeping Americans safe. The arrest of these two individuals from Wisconsin, underscores how the real threat of terrorism can occur anywhere, at anytime.

From the Associated Press, via the New York Times:

According to the complaint, Ludke and Padilla-Conde began corresponding on social media with an undercover FBI employee last month and said they planned to travel to Mexico, where they could get passage to Syria and join the Islamic State group in Iraq.

Ludke said he converted to Islam in 2003 and wanted to live under Shariah law. He also said he was tired of living under the infidel's system and wanted to strive for paradise.

The undercover FBI employee received an email on Oct. 1 containing a video of Padilla-Conde and Ludke with a handmade Islamic State group flag in the background. Ludke said Padilla-Conde was striving to reach paradise as well, according to the complaint.

...Ludke told FBI agents that he and Padilla-Conde left Wisconsin because they couldn't pay their rent and he was looking to meet his brother-in-law in Mexico, although he couldn't provide his brother-in-law's name or information on his whereabouts. Ludke added he and Padilla-Conde discussed traveling to Yemen so Ludke could study Arabic, according to the complaint.

Padilla-Conde told agents he left Wisconsin because he was about to be evicted and Lude wanted to travel to Iraq or Yemen to take part in jihad, an Arabic term for holy war, and often spoke of joining the Islamic State, according to the complaint. He said he tried to talk Ludke out of it, the complaint said.
This is not good.

It's great the two men were arrested, but it's not good.

Two in custody and how many to go?

Monday, May 4, 2015

Garland Shooting





Thursday, April 10, 2014

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brandeis University

Brandeis University has surrendered in a battle in the War on Women, buckling to pressure from critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Watch the shameless Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) attempt to justify the decision by Brandeis University to withdraw an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Watch the brave Ayaan Hirsi Ali discuss the controversy.




Ayaan Hirsi Ali released a statement in response to Brandeis University's decision to rescind the honorary degree.

“Yesterday Brandeis University decided to withdraw an honorary degree they were to confer upon me next month during their Commencement exercises. I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision. On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me—just a few hours before issuing a public statement—to say that such a decision had been made.

“When Brandeis approached me with the offer of an honorary degree, I accepted partly because of the institution’s distinguished history; it was founded in 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, as a co-educational, nonsectarian university at a time when many American universities still imposed rigid admission quotas on Jewish students. I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called 'honor killings,' and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices. So I was not surprised when my usual critics, notably the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against my being honored in this way.

“What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis. Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not “overlook certain of my past statements,” which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation – lines from interviews taken out of context – designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.

“What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The 'spirit of free expression' referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much.

“Not content with a public disavowal, Brandeis has invited me 'to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.' Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece. I have no wish to 'engage' in such one-sided dialogue. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck—and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.

“I take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported me and my work on behalf of oppressed woman and girls everywhere.”
She pulls no punches.

"What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The 'spirit of free expression' referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much."

Brandeis has betrayed its own principles.

Supposedly, the Leftists are advocates for women.

Actually, they're hypocrites.


Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Obama Administration Emails: Benghazi, Ansar al Sharia

According to internal emails obtained by FOX News, the Obama administration knew the attack in Benghazi was not an uprising about a video.

Nonetheless, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others in the administration kept pushing that lie, for two weeks.

Evidence continues to mount showing that the administration likely lied to the American people about Benghazi.

From Greta Van Susteren, FOX News:

Fox has obtained a set of internal emails which declare that the group Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility of the attack in Benghazi virtually as the raid played out on September 11th.

Ansar al Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be a an al Qaeda affiliated group. The emails were sent by the State Department to across a variety of redacted national security platforms including the White House Situation room, the Pentagon, the FBI, the Director of National Intelligence and the State Department. Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. Fox is told that figures directly receiving these emails work directly underneath the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.

The first email indicates that Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.”

The timestamps on the emails are all eastern time and often include the subheading SBU…which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The redacted email address @nss.eop.gov is the White House Situation address. The email address extension @dni.gov is the an extension that goes to figures working under the Director of National Intelligence.

The first email was sent at 4:05 pm et with the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”
It goes on to say “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 pm.

The subject line is “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)

“(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The third email came at 6:07 pm and was sent to a different email list, but still includes the White House Situation room address.

This email contains the key subject line that reads “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”
Read more. View the emails.

Why did Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, and others in the administration persist in declaring an obscure video to be what precipitated the Benghazi attack and the killings of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans?

They misled us.

They lied about a terrorist attack on our nation that took place on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

As more information comes out, it is hard to deny that the Obama administration was engaged in an orchestrated cover-up concocted to intentionally misled the American people.

______________

While the Obama administration's lies about Benghazi are exposed, the Left-wing media pretend not to notice.

From John Nolte, Breitbart:

Well, the corrupt media is relieved tonight. Reuters dropped a bombshell on the White House in the form of newly uncovered emails that prove that as it was happening, the White House knew the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. But from what I'm seeing on Twitter and at a number of news sites, the media is much more interested in using a perfectly reasonable pro-life statement made by Indiana U.S. Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock as a weapon against Mitt Romney.

...I should point out, though, that the indispensable Sharyl Attkisson broke the Libya email story at CBS News. She's a superb reporter doing excellent work. Reuters deserves credit, as well. But as of right now, as far as the rest...

Smoking gun emails that add another log on the fire of proof that the White House lied to us for somewhere around two weeks about the murder of four Americans is nowhere near as big of a deal as the media attempting to play a semantics game with a perfectly defensible pro-life statement from a U.S. Senate candidate. By tomorrow, these emails probably won't be as big of a news story as Romney's guilt-by-association with Mourdock.

This is what the next 13 days are going to look like. And this is why those of us in New Media must be as tireless and vigilant as the corrupt media.

Trench warfare all the way -- every inch.








Monday, October 24, 2011

Libya and Radical Islamic Law

Libya is liberated!

From the Los Angeles Times:

Reporting from Beirut— Libya's new leaders declared their nation "liberated" on Sunday, paving the way for elections and a constitution that the revolutionary government says will put the country on a path to its first representative democracy.

"Democracy" shouldn't be confused with freedom for all.

Libya is liberated but that doesn't mean the plan is for the country to be free from oppression.

The long-awaited pronouncement came with a heavy dose of Islamist sentiment, as Mustafa Abdul Jalil, leader of the transitional government, embraced the Muslim code known as Sharia law as a foundation for future legislation.

During his more than four decades in power, Moammar Kadafi viewed Islamists as a threat and jailed hundreds of suspected religious militants. But Jalil, a former justice minister in Kadafi's regime, signaled that Islam would have a central place in the new Libya, imposing two Islamic-style edicts — capping interest rates and lifting restrictions on how many wives men may have.

Islamists are one of a number of groups seeking a stake in the new Libya. Many Libyans are also advocating a secular state. The transitional leaders have repeatedly emphasized the nation's "moderate" version of Islam and dismissed as far-fetched the notion of an Iranian-style theocracy emerging in Libya. Still, some Western leaders who backed the rebellion have voiced concern about the possible rise of fundamentalist rule in Libya.

In his remarks about the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, Obama put a nice, shiny spin on the future.
OBAMA: The dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted. And with this enormous promise, the Libyan people now have a great responsibility -- to build an inclusive and tolerant and democratic Libya that stands as the ultimate rebuke to Qaddafi’s dictatorship. We look forward to the announcement of the country’s liberation, the quick formation of an interim government, and a stable transition to Libya’s first free and fair elections. And we call on our Libyan friends to continue to work with the international community to secure dangerous materials, and to respect the human rights of all Libyans –- including those who have been detained.

We’re under no illusions -- Libya will travel a long and winding road to full democracy. There will be difficult days ahead. But the United States, together with the international community, is committed to the Libyan people. You have won your revolution. And now, we will be a partner as you forge a future that provides dignity, freedom and opportunity.

It seems to me that it's nuts for Obama to say "[w]e're under no illusions."

Radical Islam doesn't mean "dignity, freedom and opportunity" for all Libyans.

Liberation?

I don't think so.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

James O'Keefe's NPR Investigation: Ron Schiller

Ron Schiller, NPR's Senior Vice President for Fundraising, wasn't ready for his close-up. Thanks to James O'Keefe's investigation, the ugly Leftist, bigoted underbelly of NPR was on display for all to see.

Schiller, thinking he was meeting with potential big donors, members of a Muslim Brotherhood front group, slams Republicans as "anti-intellectual" and not interested in funding "the pursuit of knowledge." Schiller calls Tea Party activists "racist" and "scary," "white, middle America, gun-toting." Meanwhile, he lauds liberals and their alleged superior intellect.

On the subject of Jewish influence in the media and NPR, Schiller says that a pro-Israel agenda is there, especially in the newspapers owned by Jews. He claims that bias doesn't exist at NPR.

Schiller goes on to declare that he's very proud of the way NPR handled the firing of Juan Williams, suggesting that Williams is racist, bigoted, and compromised as a journalist. He broke his basic ethics as a journalist and has no credibility.

NPR is busted.

Here's video:




See the two-hour raw video, complete and unedited, here.

From the New York Times:

NPR was jolted Tuesday by the release of a videotape that showed one of the organization’s fund-raising executives repeatedly criticizing Republicans and Tea Party supporters.

The executive, Ronald Schiller, was recorded secretly by the Republican filmmaker and mischief-maker James O’Keefe. On the videotape, Mr. Schiller tells people posing as Muslim philanthropists that the Republican party has been “hijacked” by the Tea Party and that Tea Party supporters are “seriously racist, racist people.” Mr. Schiller indicates that he is sharing his personal point of view, not NPR’s.

Dana Davis Rehm, a spokeswoman for NPR, said in a statement Tuesday, “We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.”

James O'Keefe is not a "mischief-maker."

He's a citizen journalist and a whistleblower.

Leftists love whistleblowers. They're heroes.

Naturally, the Times doesn't consider O'Keefe to be a hero. Whistleblower O'Keefe is the enemy, exposing the truth about NPR, a liberal outlet pushing a liberal agenda and strongly biased against the Right and the Tea Party.

The Leftists embrace Ian "F--- the Troops" Murphy for his prank call to Governor Scott Walker. Why don't they embrace O'Keefe?

Of course, Gov. Walker didn't say anything inappropriate as Schiller did, but the double standard employed by the Leftists is clear.

Notice how the Times rips O'Keefe's "stunt."

Mr. Schiller was essentially set up by Mr. O’Keefe, who has become well-known for such stunts. The people he is heard talking to on the videotape are posing as members of the Muslim Education Action Center Trust, a fictional group. They falsely claim that they want to donate up to $5 million to public media.

NPR said in the statement that the fake group members “repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.”

Mr. Schiller and another NPR executive, Betsy Liley, met the fake group members for lunch at Cafe Milano, a staple of the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington. A video camera was placed near the group’s table. Early on in the conversation, Mr. Schiller says, “Now I’ll talk personally as opposed to wearing my NPR hat.” Later, he adds caveats like “in my personal opinion.”

At one point, one of the fake group members jokes, “I like it when you take your NPR hat off.”

The fake group members bring up topics in an apparent effort to keep Mr. Schiller talking. For example, they tell him that their group was founded “by a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America” and that it donates money to Muslim schools.

Mr. Schiller answers, “I think what we all believe is if we don’t have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air, I mean, it’s the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn’t have female voices.”

Conservative blogs noted that a Web site set up for the fake Muslim group says it wants to “spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.” The Time magazine columnist James Poniewozik wrote Tuesday that “the prank — which uses ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ more often in screen titles than in the actual conversation — seems premised on the idea that meeting with a Muslim group and being in favor of including Muslim perspectives is inherently wrong,”

At another point in the secretly recorded lunch, Mr. Schiller criticizes what he calls an “anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican party.” He says that the pursuit of knowledge is “traditionally something that Democrats have funded and Republicans have not funded.”

Some Republicans in the House of Representatives have targeted NPR in recent weeks.

The Times does its best to defend Schiller and trash the "fake group members," using that term four times in four consecutive paragraphs.

It was a losing effort. The remarks on the video were so damning that there was no way to avoid addressing the embarrassment.

Still, the statements coming from NPR in response to the video are laughable.

We all know what NPR stands for, basically exactly what Schiller said on the video.

For NPR to pretend otherwise is pathetic.

Because of yesterday's revelations, Schiller is history immediately at NPR.

From Slate:

NPR Cans Ronald Schiller

That, from the new statement from NPR's Dana Rehm, is the shoe that took all day to drop. The entire statement, which also clarifies that Schiller decided to leave before the sting occurred:
The comments contained in the video released today are contrary to everything we stand for, and we completely disavow the views expressed. NPR is fair and open minded about the people we cover. Our reporting reflects those values every single day – in the civility of our programming, the range of opinions we reflect and the diversity of stories we tell.

The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality. The elimination of federal funding would significantly damage public broadcasting as a whole.

Prior to the lunch meeting presented in the edited video, Ron Schiller had informed NPR that he was resigning from his position to take a new job. His resignation was announced publicly last week, and he was expected to depart in May. While we review this situation, he has been placed on administrative leave.

Here's Schiller's statement:
While the meeting I participated in turned out to be a ruse, I made statements during the course of the meeting that are counter to NPR’s values and also not reflective of my own beliefs. I offer my sincere apology to those I offended. I resigned from NPR, previously effective May 6th, to accept another job. In an effort to put this unfortunate matter behind us, NPR and I have agreed that my resignation is effective today.

Schiller's statement is just plain goofy.

He says his remarks during the meeting don't reflect his own beliefs.

Really? Whose beliefs do they reflect?

Of course, they're Schiller's beliefs. Was he lying to the potential donors?

NPR was forced to terminate Schiller immediately, as if that restores balance and integrity to the operation.

It doesn't. For every "Schiller" moment caught on video, you know there's an army of others like him at NPR.

NPR's CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation) released a statement that hangs Ron Schiller out to dry.

Ron Schiller’s remarks are contrary to what NPR stands for and deeply distressing to reporters, editors and others who bring fairness, civility and respect for a wide variety of viewpoints to their work everyday.

Yeah, right.

We know what NPR is about.

The good thing about O'Keefe's video is that NPR was forced to address reality - its lack of fairness, civility, and respect for viewpoints that stray from the liberal line.

The statements from NPR in response to O'Keefe's investigation are silly. Schiller didn't behave in a manner contrary to NPR's values.

The fact is Ron Schiller was a perfect spokesman for NPR.

__________________

James O'Keefe says he investigated NPR because of the Juan Williams incident.

Video: Juan Williams reacts to O'Keefe's investigation.

__________________

UPDATE: NPR chief executive quits over hidden camera video
NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller resigned Wednesday under pressure from the news organization's board, a day after an undercover video showed one of her executives on a hidden camera calling the tea party racist and saying NPR would be better off without federal funding.

The shakeup comes at a critical time. Conservative politicians are again pressing to end congressional funding for NPR, money the organization said it needs to keep operating public radio and television stations in some of the nation's smallest communities.

Vivian Schiller told The Associated Press that the comments were outrageous and unfortunate.

"I did not want to leave NPR. There's a lot of pressure on NPR right now," Schiller told AP. "It would have made it too difficult for stations to face that funding threat in Congress without this change."

Poor Vivian. She's a victim.
_________________

UPDATE, March 10, 2011: New Video From Project Veritas: NPR Planned to Accept Donation from Muslim Brotherhood Front Group and Hide Origins From Government

Friday, February 11, 2011

Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law

I guess MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell just doesn't want to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood wants Sharia law.

On February 9, 2011, she's told by former Muslim Brotherhood member Ayaan Hirsi Ali of the Brotherhood's intentions and its extremism.

Then the following day, Mitchell claims that the Muslim Brotherhood aren't extremists.

Mitchell doesn't listen very well.


Video.



Actually, it's not that Mitchell doesn't listen. She's just following the Obama administration's talking points.

Obama seems incapable of understanding and responding to the unrest in Egypt.

Read: Impatient, Obama sharply questions Mubarak pledge

Earlier in the day, as anticipation grew by the hour, Obama said that what the United States wanted was transition to democracy in Egypt that was not just orderly but "genuine."

"What is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold," Obama said at the start of an overshadowed economic event in Michigan. "It's a moment of transformation that's taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change."

Of course, we're witnessing history unfold. Each passing day is always history unfolding. What a lame remark!

I fear Obama is encouraging extremists.

Is history repeating itself?

I'm afraid Obama is a 21st century Jimmy Carter.

Let's party like it's 1979.


Read: Muslim Brotherhood text reveals scope of radical creed

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Dana Milbank and Bill O'Reilly

Dana Milbank, the Washington Post, and his fellow Leftists are getting all bent out of shape because of what Milbank's calls Bill O'Reilly's "thuggish tactics."

Milbank is horrified by O'Reilly's "threats" of violence.

Milbank writes:

Bill O'Reilly wants my head.

No Milbank wants attention via a feud with O'Reilly. Beyond that, he wants to discredit FOX News.
On Thursday night, the Fox News host asked, as part of a show that would be seen by 5.5 million people: "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" He then added, "That was a joke."

Hilarious! Decapitation jokes just slay me, and this one had all the more hilarity because the topic of journalist beheadings brings to mind my late friend and colleague Danny Pearl, who replaced me in the Wall Street Journal's London bureau and later was murdered in Pakistan by people who thought sharia justified it.

The next night, O'Reilly read a complaint from one of his viewers, Heidi Haverlock of Cleveland, who said: "I thought the joke about whether sharia law would allow the beheading of the Washington Post guy was completely inappropriate." O'Reilly replied to her on air: "Well, let me break this to you gently, Heidi. If Dana Milbank did in Iran what he does in Washington, he'd be hummus."

O'Reilly is partly right about that. As an American and a Jew, I probably wouldn't last long in Iran. And criticizing the government there, as I do here, wouldn't add to my life expectancy. But what was he trying to say? That America would be better if it were more like Iran?

Certainly, O'Reilly isn't calling for anyone to behead Milbank. He has to know that.

Personally, I don't like "jokes" about beheading people and other barbaric acts. I find no humor in it.

That said, Milbank is being such a wuss.

I thought he liked "jokes" about violence.

In 2006, Milbank had a lot of fun making fun of Dick Cheney's hunting accident. He showed up on MSNBC wearing blaze orange while talking to Keith Olbermann.



When Olbermann asked if the blaze orange attire was intended to mock the Vice President, clown Milbank replied, "Oh, not so, Keith. It just happens that your studio's — I'm using the one uptown, which is not far from the Naval Observatory, which is his residence. So we can't be too careful."

Shooting jokes! Hilarious!

Milbank is such a hypocrite.

Milbank continues:

O'Reilly's on-air fantasizing about violent ends for me was precipitated by a column I wrote describing Fox News's election-night coverage as a victory party for the Republicans. This didn't strike me as a terribly controversial point, but it evidently offended O'Reilly.

...I suspect O'Reilly's fury - he went after me on three consecutive nights last week - has less to do with one sentence in one column than with a book and a series of columns I've written about O'Reilly's colleague Glenn Beck. I've argued that Beck, with his talk of violence, Nazis and conspiracy theories, is all but inviting fringe characters to take up arms. I've held O'Reilly up as a responsible alternative to Beck - but O'Reilly seems determined to prove this wrong.

On Thursday night, he made an eerie reference to The Post's editorial page editor. "Would you put Fred Hiatt's picture up on the screen here?" he asked. "This is the editor, Milbank's editor, Fred Hiatt. And, Fred won't do anything about Milbank lying in his column. I just want everybody in America to know what The Washington Post has come to. All right, you can take Fred's picture off. Fred, have a nice weekend, buddy."

Shortly after this, O'Reilly proposed to his fellow Fox News host, Megyn Kelly, a way to handle their disagreement with me: "I think you and I should go and beat him up."

The two continued on to a discussion of the attempt to bar sharia law in Oklahoma. That's when he made his little "joke" about beheading me, which led to his talk the next night about garbanzo puree.

Kelly, too, took issue with what I wrote, but to her credit she didn't join in O'Reilly's violent fantasies. "When somebody missteps, especially when it comes to any sort of speech or expression of opinion, the answer is to have more speech and opinion," she said.

"I'm not trying to muzzle the guy," O'Reilly replied.

True. You don't need a muzzle if your head has been cut off.

O'Reilly has every right to quarrel with my opinion or question my accuracy. But why resort to intimidation and violent imagery? I don't believe O'Reilly really wants to sever my head, but if only one of his millions of viewers interprets his message otherwise, that's still a problem for me. Already, Beck fans have been accused of a police killing, threatening to kill a senator and having a highway shootout en route to an alleged attack on liberal groups.

Let's drop the thuggish tactics - before more people get hurt.

It is ridiculous for Milbank to take this holier-than-thou stance, whining about "O'Reilly's violent fantasies," given the humor he finds in violent imagery.

The Leftists have no problem with "violent fantasies" when the subjects are conservatives.

Just one of countless examples of "violent fantasies" by Leftists, from NewsBusters:

Once gain, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann seems entertained by the thought of conservatives being shot. Less than five months after depicting the image of Rush Limbaugh as the target of gunfire during his Countdown show, on Wednesday's show Olbermann included a joke about shooting Dick Cheney during the regular "Top Three Sound Bites" segment of the show. One of the featured clips was from the Tuesday November 14 Daily Show with Jon Stewart in which Stewart asked his guest, former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, whom he would have "accidentally shot in the face" if he had been elected Vice President, to which Edwards responded "Dick Cheney."

Hilarious!!!

Milbank knows that O'Reilly isn't calling for him to be decapitated, yet suddenly the jokester Milbank gets very serious.

I think Milbank's real agenda is to do his part in the liberal media's orchestrated effort to marginalize FOX News.

_________________

More of the MSNBC Leftist media's "thuggish tactics" and "violent fantasies":

Ed Schultz: "SHOVE THOSE BASTARDS RIGHT INTO THE DIRTHOLE!"

(Audio)

Ed Schultz: "We ought to rip [Dick Cheney's heart] out and kick it around and stuff it back in him."

(Audio)

Friday, September 10, 2010

Terry Jones: Inconsequential Loon

Terry Jones has received more than his fifteen minutes of fame.

The guy has managed to get the world hanging on his every word. Even Obama got involved and commented on his stunt.

What is going on here?

From the New York Times:

First, Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who set the world on edge with plans to burn copies of the Koran on Sept. 11, said Thursday that he had canceled his demonstration because he had won a promise to move the proposed Islamic center near ground zero to a new location.

Then, hours later, after learning that the project’s leaders in New York had said that no such deal existed, Mr. Jones backed away from his promise and said the bonfire of sacred texts was simply “suspended.”

The sudden back and forth suggested that the controversy — the pastor drew pointed criticisms from President Obama and an array of leaders, officials and celebrities in the United States and abroad — was not yet finished even after multiple appearances before the news media on the lawn of his small church.

Mr. Jones seemed to be struggling with how to save face and hold on to the spotlight he has attracted for an act that could make him a widely reviled figure.

But Mr. Jones seemed to have been wrong or misled from the start.

Minutes after he announced the cancellation alongside Imam Muhammad Musri, a well-known Islamic leader in Florida who had been trying to broker a deal, Mr. Musri contradicted Mr. Jones’s account. He said that Muslim leaders of the project in New York had not actually agreed to find a new location. “The imam committed to meet with us but did not commit to moving the mosque yet,” Mr. Musri said.

Even that may not be accurate. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the New York project, said in a statement that he had not spoken to Mr. Jones or Mr. Musri, who said later that he received the pledge of a meeting from a staff member in Mr. Abdul Rauf’s office.

The saga of Mr. Jones appeared likely to continue — with more pressure likely to come as well. In just the past week, the list of his critics had come to include Mr. Obama, the Vatican, Franklin Graham, Angelina Jolie, Sarah Palin, dozens of members of Congress and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was among the first to declare that the burning of Korans would put Americans soldiers and civilians in danger.

That risk of violence seemed to be rising, as large protests against Mr. Jones were staged over the past week in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Jakarta, Indonesia. It led the Obama administration to work furiously to end Mr. Jones’s plans.

This is insane.

A pastor with a 50-member church in Florida is attracting worldwide attention.

WHY?

Why not ignore him and dismiss him as the nutcase that he is?

We know that in the Muslim world groups are always gathering to burn American flags and chant "Death to America" and "Death to Christians." It seems to be a favorite pastime over there. Thousands take part, but there's no concern whatsoever about inflaming the Western world. They don't care about offending us.

But here we have the doofus Jones and if he takes a match to a Quran, World War Whatever may break out.

It's crazy.

This is being fed by the media. The New York Times reports on Jones' latest statements and plans while it questions the media's role in the saga.

A renegade pastor and his tiny flock set fire to a Koran on a street corner, and made sure to capture it on film. And they were ignored.

That stunt took place in 2008, involving members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kan., an almost universally condemned group of fundamentalists who also protest at military funerals.

But plans for a similar stunt by another fringe pastor, Terry Jones, have garnered worldwide news media attention this summer, attention that peaked Thursday when he announced he was canceling — and later, that he had only “suspended” — what he had dubbed International Burn a Koran Day. It had been scheduled for Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Unlike the Koran-burning by Westboro Baptist, Mr. Jones’s planned event in Gainesville, Fla., coincided with the controversy over the proposed building of a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan near ground zero and a simmering summerlong debate about the freedoms of speech and religion.

Mr. Jones was able to put himself at the center of those issues by using the news lull of summer and the demands of a 24-hour news cycle to promote his anti-Islam cause. He said he consented to more than 150 interview requests in July and August, each time expressing his extremist views about Islam and Sharia law.

By the middle of this week, the planned Koran burning was the lead story on some network newscasts, and topic No. 1 on cable news — an extraordinary amount of attention for a marginal figure with a very small following. On Thursday, President Obama condemned Mr. Jones’s plan, and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that there were “more people at his press conferences than listen to his sermons,” in a bit of media criticism.

...The episode has given rise to at least a little soul-searching within news organizations. Chris Cuomo, an ABC News anchor, wrote Thursday afternoon on Twitter, “I am in the media, but think media gave life to this Florida burning ... and that was reckless.”

Yeah, it was really lame.

I suspect that on a daily basis the Bible is burned in protest in this country and around the world more often than the Quran.

The numbers don't matter. What matters is that the Jones case has been blown out of proportion and nearly into an international crisis.

Thank you, media. Good work!

It's nuts. Who is Terry Jones that he should be receiving this sort of attention?

Obviously, Jones doesn't really care about burning the Quran. He cares about satisfying his ego. Period.

Jones is like Richard Heene, orchestrator of the balloon boy hoax. They're media whores at heart, and the media are drawn to whores like moths to flames.

A protest doesn't have to be a media event, let alone a worldwide media event.

As an American, Jones and his flock can quietly burn Qurans. As long as he doesn't violate any fire codes or other regulations, he's good to go. End of story.

But Jones didn't want it to stop there, and I don't think the media wanted it to stop either until the whole thing started to snowball out of control and they realized how foolish it had all become. Plus, there was that added factor of the possibility of violence and death thanks to Muslim radicals being in the mix. Not good.

Now there's a lot of embarrassment to go around.

I think it's time for Jones to be stripped of his all-powerful monster status and sent back to being just another inconsequential loon.

Note: You can burn whatever book you want and there won't be any problem. Just don't alert the media or hold press conferences or post a recording of the event on the Internet.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Mosque at Ground Zero Rally

Read "Mosque and State: The Greater Implications of the 9/11 Islamic Center," by Andrew Mellon, Big Government.

On June 6th, the date of D-Day, scores of patriots from across the nation poured into Zuccotti Park at the corner of Liberty and Trinity, across the street from Ground Zero to protest the 9/11 mosque being built just 600 feet from our country’s most painful wound.

Many have spoken to the horrible insensitivity of this mosque, arguing that it is an affront to American sensibilities, a planting of the victory flag as evidenced by its 9/11/11 opening date and the name of the project itself, the “Cordoba Initiative,” and a reflection of the growing stealth Sharia in the United States given the mosque’s Imam’s pro-Islamic law stance. Indeed Muslims have been building mosques for centuries as symbols of conquest and dominance, and this one in particular will mark the first to stand on US soil.

The 9/11 mosque however has far greater implications with regard to the fundamental principles of our nation. As reflected by the guffaws of many in the crowd when one of the speakers at the rally argued in favor of the mosque on Constitutional grounds regardless of the abhorrence of its location, many find it hard to reconcile that Islam is allowed to use our freedoms to subvert or mock our freedoms. The religious tolerance of our culture alone deems us largely unable to prevent against mosques in which Islamic supremacism is preached, creating fertile protected grounds for jihadists both peaceful and violent.

...One crucial part to understanding Islam is the notion of abrogation. This refers to the fact that as Muhammad revealed his truth over a long period of time, his later words abrogated his earlier ones. This effectively means that the peaceful verses of the Koran that came chronologically earlier in the book are supplanted by the violent calls to impose Islam later in the book. This violence manifests itself not just in acts against non-Muslims but Muslims as well – for apostates, along with those who shame their families for example in dating non-Muslims are liable to be killed in accordance with Islam.

More generally, as Turkish Prime Minister Tayepp Erdogan said with regard to moderate Islam:
“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

But since we in the West fail to understand this either out of ignorance or fear, we are left believing that it is just a percentage of violent misinterpreters of the religion that threaten us, when in reality it is not just violent jihadists but stealth jihadists, their sympathizers and those who refuse to condemn these people who are all complicit in the war against our civilization.

If we are to win this war, we must study the ideology that is used by those fighting against us, and devise policy consistent with our understanding of it.

Because Islam is not just a theology, but a theology that requires a universally imposed political system, this has manifold implications with regard to our Constitution and our way of life. Until and unless we are able to grapple with this truth, Muslims peaceful and violent will continue to be able to exploit our freedoms by hiding behind the separation of church and state, regardless of the stark differences between what is taught in the church and what is taught in the mosque.

Interesting article.

Video of the rally.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Pardon for Gillian Gibbons

All's well that ends well, right?

KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Sudan's president on Monday agreed to pardon a British teacher jailed after letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad, and officials said she would be released and would fly back to England later in the day.

Lord Nazir Ahmed and another Muslim representative from Britain's House of Lords, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir Monday at his presidential palace to plead for Gillian Gibbons' pardon.

"The president has told us he has already signed the papers for her pardon," Ahmed told reporters afterward.

Sudanese presidential spokesman Mahzoub Faidul told The Associated Press that Gibbons would "be released today and will fly back to England today."

Gibbons had been sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation for insulting Islam because her students gave the teddy bear the same name as Islam's revered prophet — a violation under Sudan's Islamic Sharia law.

The case inflamed passions among many in Sudan, where demonstrators called for her to be put to death.

In a written statement released by the presidential palace and read by Warsi to reporters, 54-year-old Gibbons said she was sorry if she caused any "distress."

"I have a great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone," Gibbons said in the statement. "I am looking forward to seeing my family and friends, but I am very sorry that I will be unable to return to Sudan."

I think it's stunning that Gibbons is apologizing for causing "distress."

THOUSANDS of protesters called for her head!


...Sudan's ambassador in London, Khalid al-Mubarak, said he was "overjoyed" by the news.

"She is a teacher who went to teach our children English and she has helped a great deal and I am very grateful," al-Mubarak said. "What has happened was a cultural misunderstanding, a minor one, and I hope she, her family and the British people won't be affected by what has happened."

Demonstrations in Khartoum on Friday, in which some participants called for Gibbons' execution, "were an argument from the fringe," al-Mubarak said.

WHAT?

I wouldn't call this teddy bear thing a "minor" cultural misunderstanding.

When THOUSANDS of Sudanese arm themselves with clubs and knives, take to the streets, and say, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad," that's sort of a big deal.

Last week, the protesters left their mosques -- THEIR MOSQUES -- after Friday sermons and demanded that she be executed.

These THOUSANDS of people that wanted Gibbons dead are from the fringe?

Based on the number of participants and the intensity of their protests, it seems like that fringe is awfully wide.

Thankfully, Gibbons is expected to return safely to England. But I don't think this episode should be excused or readily forgotten.

The fringe is a serious threat and can do a tremendous amount of damage. That's the reality.

It took only nineteen members of the sfringe" to hijack four American civilian airliners, destroy the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon, and slaughter nearly 3000 people.





Monday, April 24, 2006

Sheikh Osama bin Laden and Senator Ted Kennedy

On Sunday, both Osama bin Laden and Ted Kennedy took to the airwaves.

There is still no transcript available for Kennedy's appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press.

Why the delay?

Is it so difficult to transcribe Ted Kennedy's words?


I thought he spoke relatively clearly during his interview, not too much of the slurring we've come to expect from Kennedy.

(Note: FINALLY, NBC posted its
transcript. The portions I transcribed more accurately depict Kennedy's stuttering and run-on delivery.)

Of course, Kennedy has been on a promotional blitz for his new book, America: Back on Track.

I think that's a poor title. Getting back on track implies that America has been off the road. Anything that subliminally conjures up images of Teddy and running off the road is a mistake.

But I digress. Back to Meet the Press.

I want to focus on two things -- what Kennedy said about Iraq and what he said about Osama bin Laden.

First, Iraq.

Kennedy wants the troops to come home -- NOW. He wants the U.S. out of Iraq, claiming that if we haven't solved things militarily by now, there's not much more we can do. The Iraqis have to stand up for their own country.

He said, "The fact is what we are talking about, we have been there now, we have been there as long as we have been there in the Korean war, and we'll be there as long as we've been there in World War II...

What?

Is Teddy having blackouts again. We're still in Korea and Europe.

He went on, "Let me just say with regards to cutting and running, the people that are cutting and running are the administration when it comes to truth about Iraq and about their policies in Iraq, about the misguided information, the lack of intelligence, and the misinformation that they gave the American people as the basis for the invasion of Iraq, and the continued misinterpretation that I think that has been more damaging to the United States, and the United States interests there."

I am so sick of Dems talking about the misinformation and lies touted by the Bush Administration when they spouted the same stuff about Iraq and Saddam's regime as the truth.

Kennedy said in October, 2002, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Read more from the Dems.

The world was in agreement about the threat that Saddam posed to peace.


It is misinformation on the part of Kennedy and others to state that the threat claims were concocted by the Bush Administration. That's a lie.

Now, bin Laden.

Russert brought up the latest audio tape to surface from Osama bin Laden. With all the innocence of a child, Russert asked, "Why can't we capture him?"

Kennedy blustered, "Why did we abandon the, uh, the effort to capture him and divert our attention? I think that is the diversion of the War on Terror.

"We went into Iraq instead of continuing to focus uh, the, uh, on Osama bin Laden and the War on Terror. We had them on the run. We had them in, uh, uh, the Tora Bora, in the mountains there. We had them in other areas, uh, in those mountainous regions. And we have effectively abandoned that to move into Iraq.

"That was a very dangerous mistake, and the idea that he hasn't been captured today I think is a, a real blunder by the administration. That is the direction we should be in a, fighting the War on Terror rather than go in, in a trumped up intelligence into the, into Iraq and the cost of Iraq is just overwhelming, and continuing, and ongoing, and that has to end."

Yes, he was rambling and stuttering.

I can't stand it when Kennedy and John Kerry, etc., whine about how we could have had bin Laden in Tora Bora, when Bill Clinton refused to take bin Laden when the Sudan offered him to the U.S. in 1996.

THAT was a "very dangerous mistake."

"The idea that [bin Laden] hasn't been captured today" is the "real blunder by the administration," Clinton's administration.

One cannot blame Bush for failing to get bin Laden without acknowledging that Clinton had the chance to take him but passed. Clinton's inaction on bin Laden stands as one of the worst errors made by a president in the history of our country.

So Sunday, we were treated to more of bin Laden's threats.

Transcript of bin Laden's latest message to the West.

Like Kennedy, bin Laden rambles.

(Excerpts)




Peace, Allah's mercy and blessing be upon you, as I am directing this speech to all the Islamic Umma, to continue talking and urging them to support our prophet Muhammad, and to punish the perpetrators of the horrible crime committed by some Crusader-journalists and apostates against the master of the predecessors and successors, our prophet Muhammad.

...The Palestine question is a manifestation of such injustices when the allied forces of the Crusaders and the Zionists decided to hand over Palestine to the Zionists to establish a state after committing massacres, displaced the indigenous Palestinians and brought Jews from all over the world to settle in Palestine.

The ongoing injustice and aggression did not stop in the last nine decades, while all attempts to reclaim our rights and exact justice on the Israeli oppressors, were blocked by the leadership of the Crusaders and Zionists' alliance by using the so-called veto power.

Such attitudes were also reflected by their rejection of the Hamas movement and its victory in the elections ... . Their rejection to Hamas has reaffirmed that they were waging a crusade against Islam.

...This is a continuous Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims. In this respect I am inviting the mujahidin and their supporters in the Sudan and other countries around, including the Arabian peninsula in particular, to prepare all that is needed for a long-term war against the Crusaders and thieves in western Sudan.

Our objective is obvious, that is defending Islam, the people and the land but not Khartoum government since our differences with them are so enormous, mostly when it backtracked in implementing the Sharia law and abandoned south Sudan.

...What does the reoccupation of Iraq mean by using lies and deception along with murder, destruction, detention, torture and creation of huge military bases to dominate the whole region? It is a Zionist crusade against Muslims.

What about the continuous cultural domination through the setting up of radio stations and TV channels along with the Voice of America, London and others to continue the cultural domination of Muslims, combat our beliefs, change our values, encourage vice and even interfere with school curricula?

How can we explain France's stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools, its relentless dealing with the Muslim community and its plan to establish a TV channel in Morocco to combat Islamic awareness there? This is a Zionist-Crusader war.

In conclusion, a war is under way to offend the messenger of Allah, his religion and his Umma (nation). The Muslim preparedness and their jihad should be on a par with these events. The duty of our Muslim nation over this Crusaders' campaign with its different aspects is to focus on supporting the prophet, his religion and the Umma to the best of our ability in all fields.

Despite the numerous Crusader attacks against our Muslim nation in military, economic, cultural and moral aspects, but the gravest of them all is the attack against our religion, our prophet and the our Sharia tenets. The epicentre of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the khalifate rule. They keep reiterating that success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US.

Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us. Your mujahidin sons and brothers in Iraq have taught the US a hard lesson while in the fourth year of the Crusaders' invasion, they are steadfast and patient and keep killing and wounding enemy soldiers every day.

It is a duty for the Umma with all its categories, men, women and youths, to give away themselves, their money, experiences and all types of material support, enough to establish jihad in the fields of jihad particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kashmir and Chechnya. Jihad today is an imperative for every Muslim. The Umma will commit sin if it did not provide adequate material support for jihad.

Bin Laden certainly has a long list of grievances, doesn't he?


Yes, he's a real motivational speaker.
Long story short--

Bin Laden is putting out the rallying cry to kill the infidels, and reminding Muslims of their responsibilities.

"Jihad today is an imperative for every Muslim."


If a videotape from bin Laden that called on Muslims to respect life, practice tolerance, and promote peace ran on Aljazeera, THAT would be news.

This is just more of bin Laden's typical rot.


To sum up the messages that Ted Kennedy and Osama bin Laden relayed to the television audience--

Kennedy hates Bush and wants to see his presidency obliterated.

Bin Laden hates Kennedy and Bush and all infidels and wants to see Israel and the West obliterated.






Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Abdul Rahman

This story is so sick on so many different levels that I don’t know where to begin.

Kim Baker of the
Chicago Tribune writes:


Abdul Rahman told his family he was a Christian. He told the neighbors, bringing shame upon his home. But then he told the police, and he could no longer be ignored.

Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.

"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail. "There's no need to see him."

Rahman's trial, which began Thursday, is thought to be the first of its kind in the country. It goes to the heart of the struggle between Islamic reformists and fundamentalists in Afghanistan, which is still recovering from 23 years of war and the harsh rule of the Taliban, a radical religious regime that fell in late 2001. Even under the more moderate government now in power, Islamic law is supposed to be followed, and many believe it requires the death penalty for anyone who converts to another religion.

"We are Muslim, our fathers were Muslim, our grandfathers were Muslim," said Abdul Manan, Rahman's father, who is 75. "This is an Islamic country. Imagine if your son told a police commander, also a Muslim, that he is a Christian. How would this affect you? It's very difficult for us."

..."He is my son," said Manan, crying. "But if a son does not care about the dignity of his family, the dignity of his father, God can take him away. You cannot make anything out of such a son. He is useless."


Rahman's jailer said, "We will cut him into little pieces."

Why? BECAUSE HE'S A CHRISTIAN!

Does that sound just a bit on the cruel and unusual side?

Rahman's father, too, believes he deserves to die.

Why? BECAUSE HE'S A CHRISTIAN! HE'S USELESS!

What does
Amnesty International have to say about this?

NOTHING!

Surely
Human Rights Watch is rallying to bring attention to Abdul Rahman's plight and demanding his release.

WRONG!

Where's Jimmy Carter? Off criticizing Bush somewhere, or making nice-nice with Hamas?

How about Jesse Jackson? Is he boarding the next flight to Kabul to negotiate Rahman's release? That's unlikely, unless there are guaranteed to be lots of cameras around.

According to Baker, "Many Islamic scholars believe that Muslims who convert from Islam should be killed, but liberal and moderate scholars disagree. One Afghan liberal scholar, Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, spent almost three months in jail last fall after publishing a magazine challenging many traditional views on Islamic law, including the belief that Muslims who convert to other religions deserve to die.

Where is the outrage from the liberal and moderate Islamic scholars? Why aren't they condemning the use of the death penalty for converting from Islam?

There's that familiar, disturbing silence coming from the peace-loving Muslim community again.

What about the celebrity Lefty circles? Hollywood went bonkers trying to save Tookie Williams. Will these libs organize protests and hold vigils and pour money into efforts to save Rahman?

No chance.

The word from Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office is that he will not intervene in the matter.

President Bush can't be too happy about that, with all his "Islam is a peaceful religion" talk.

Supposedly, Karzai's hands are tied because Afghanistan's constitution is based on Sharia law.

That means death for Abdul Rahman.

BECAUSE HE'S A CHRISTIAN!