Archive for March 2017
By Bob Owens
March 30, 2017
Sybrina Fulton, the mother of the Trayvon Martin, refuses to let reality intrude into her fantasy world. Sadly, biased news media like the Miami Herald allow her to spew forth her easily disproven lies.
On Feb. 5, my son Trayvon Martin would have been 22 years old. Just like every year, my family celebrated his birthday surrounded by friends and loved ones. And like every year since his death, I mourned my son, whose life was cut short by someone who decided to shoot first just because of the color of Trayvon’s skin.
Clearly, Fulton didn’t pay any attention at all during the trial of George Zimmerman, even though she did attend it. Zimmerman didn’t know Martin’s race when he called Sanford police, a fact proven by the recorded conversation with the dispatcher. Zimmerman became suspicious of Martin when he saw a shadowy figure lurking under the window of a recently burgled home in the rain. He only saw Martin’s face and race well after he began talking to the dispatcher.
Further, eyewitness evidence and forensics alike indicate that after Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman from behind as Zimmerman was returning to his truck in what may have been a gay-bashing attempt. Multiple 911 calls and witness statements establish that Martin viciously committed felony assault on George Zimmerman for the better part of a minute before a dazed Zimmerman pulled his pistol as a last resort and fired a single shot to stop Trayvon Martin’s vicious criminal assault.
Trayvon was only 17 years old when he was followed and killed by a stranger who believed he looked threatening. He was visiting with his father, walking home from the store, unarmed. He had just a packet of candy and a can of iced tea. This person killed my son for simply walking through his own neighborhood. He claimed that he was acting in self-defense, though Trayvon never approached him and he pursued my son before attacking him.
No sane person who watched any part of the trial or who knows anything at all about the case will believe Fulton’s lie that Martin was shot for “simply walking through his own neighborhood.” As noted above, Trayvon Martin waited four long minutes to sneak up behind George Zimmerman as Zimmerman was walking back to his truck, allegedly screamed, “What you followin’ me fo?!” then launched his attack on Zimmerman. Let’s be very clear on the point that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor.
Everything Fulton said about Zimmerman attacking Martin is an abject lie, unsupported by anything other than a mother’s refusal to face the facts about the son she raised.
Our state’s laws allowed him to claim he was standing his ground, and it took the public crying out for police to even make an arrest. This is common in Stand Your Ground cases. The law is applied inconsistently and studies have found that it is difficult for police to enforce it. The American Bar Association found that Stand Your Ground laws can actually increase homicides, and that the policy carries an implicit bias against African Americans.
Stand your ground laws played no role at all in the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation, a lie Fulton continues to spread. Neither the prosecution nor the defense in the Zimmerman case made any mention of Florida’s implementation of stand your ground laws for one very simple reason: George Zimmerman never had a chance to stand his ground. Zimmerman was approached from behind, sucker punched, mounted, and viciously attacked by a violent young criminal named Trayvon Martin. Zimmeran’s defense was a straight self-defense case.
And he was victorious.
Like almost all gun control advocates, Sybrina Fulton must lie to support her new career. If she admitted the truth that her son was a violent criminal justifiably shot during the commission of a felony assault, she’d have to get a real job.
By Robert Spencer
March 29, 2017
How incoherent is today’s dominant discourse about the jihad threat? Here is an illustration.
I reported here about the controversy at Rollins College, where Professor Areej Zufari taught “that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was God.”
That’s all that we get about what Professor Zufari said in the Central Florida Post story that both the Clarion Project (below) and I referenced. Both assertions are straight from the Qur’an. It says that Jesus was not crucified: “And their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but it appeared so to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.” (Qur’an 4:157)
It also has Jesus denying before Allah that he told people that he was God, thus indicating that his disciples, who were faithful Muslims (Qur’an 3:52, 5:111) would not have believed that he was God: “And when Allah will say, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, “Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?”‘ He will say, ‘Exalted are you! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, you would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within yourself. Indeed, it is you who are knower of the unseen.’” (Qur’an 5:116)
So Areej Zufari was simply restating Qur’anic belief about Jesus. For challenging her, student Marshall Polston was suspended and a police report was filed. As far as the Clarion Project, is concerned, Polston was suspended for challenging “radical Islam.” Clarion has to put it this way because it is an exponent of the mainstream conservative/Republican establishment (George W. Bush, etc.) view that Islam itself is wholly and entirely benign, and every problematic action by Muslims, from jihad terror to Sharia oppression, must be described as a manifestation of “radical Islam” (which is at least a trifle more realistic than the Left’s “violent extremism”).
However, the Islam/radical Islam distinction all too easily entangles in absurdity those who wish to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings, and this is an example. From the Central Florida Post report that Clarion picks up on, all Areej Zufari did was repeat Qur’anic teaching. According to Clarion’s official line, doing this ought to be an entirely benign, and indeed beneficial exercise. But in this case it sparked a controversy, and so Zufari’s Qur’an-invoking becomes “radical Islam.” Is the Qur’an, then, radical Islam? Of course Clarion officials would say no, it isn’t, it’s the beautiful holy book of the peaceful religion that has unfortunately been hijacked by radical extremists. But if that is so, then how is what Zufari said “radical”?
These issues cry out for clarification, and I would be happy to engage any Clarion Project official in public discussion or debate of them. Too often, however, they are covered over by name-calling (I’ve been called a “jihadist” for pointing out how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims) and sloganeering and left at that. The victims of jihad terror deserve better.
“Suspended for Challenging Radical Islam,” by Meira Svirsky, Clarion Project, March 28, 2017:
A Christian student was suspended from his Florida university after he challenged the views of his Muslim humanities professor and those of a radical Muslim student, wrote investigative reporter Jacob Engels in the Central Florida Post.
The professor, Areeje [sic] Zufari, of Rollins College located just outside Orlando, has a history of accusations of radicalism enumerated in a law suit filed by an FBI source and from her role as a leader in the Islamic Society of Central Florida.
Twenty-year-old sophomore Marshall Polston’s troubles began when Zufari began making disparaging statements about Christianity, claiming the religion’s most basic beliefs were a hoax.
Zufari asserted that Jesus was not crucified and his followers did not believe he was God.
“It was very off-putting and flat out odd. I’ve traveled the Middle East, lectured at the Salahaddin University, and immersed myself in Muslim culture for many years. Honestly, it reminded me of some of the more radical groups I researched when abroad,” Polston said.
“Whether religious or not, I believe even those with limited knowledge of Christianity can agree that according to the text, Jesus was crucified and his followers did believe he was divine,” he added.
After Polton challenged Jufari during a class discussion on these assertions, Jufari failed him on a major essay and refused to explain the reason…
By Micaiah Bilger
March 23, 2017
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards issued a scathing criticism of pro-life female lawmakers on Thursday ahead of a scheduled vote to defund Richards’ abortion chain.
During a press call, Richards said any Congresswoman who votes to defund Planned Parenthood is “betraying every woman in America,” according to Newsweek.
Congress scheduled a vote Thursday on the American Health Care Act, a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. A provision in the bill would prohibit states from using “direct spending” on “prohibited entities” with federal funds allocated from the legislation; and those entities include any entity that “provides for abortions.” That means the nation’s biggest abortion corporation — Planned Parenthood.
Richards, who earns nearly $1 million a year, blasted the bill and the women lawmakers who support it.
Here’s more from Newsweek:
Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said during a press call on Thursday that passing the American Health Care Act “would be catastrophic for women, especially for low-income women and women of color.” She called it the “worst legislation for women in a generation” and said unintended pregnancies, maternal mortality and instances of sexually transmitted diseases would all increase.
“We don’t even have to guess what the result of this would be,” said Richards.
Planned Parenthood currently receives about half a billion taxpayer dollars annually. It also is the largest abortion chain in America, aborting more than 300,000 unborn babies every year.
President Donald Trump recently offered Planned Parenthood a deal that would have allowed it to keep receiving tax money if it stopped doing abortions. The abortion group’s leaders refused.
A recent congressional investigation into the abortion business involving its sales of aborted baby parts concluded with lawmakers recommended that Congress defund it. Planned Parenthood also has been caught in numerous scandals involving Medicaid fraud and failures to report suspected sex trafficking and sexual abuse of minors.
The federal health care bill would redirect tax dollars to thousands of federally qualified community health centers to help ensure women continue to have access to quality, comprehensive health care when Planned Parenthood loses its funding.
Polls indicate that Americans want to see the abortion business Planned Parenthood defunded; and in November, Americans elected a new group of pro-life politicians who promised to defund the abortion giant.
By Jenn Jacques
March 23, 2017
A Collinsville, IL family is learning just how harsh zero tolerance is in today’s schools.
Kristy Jackson says her 4-year-old preschool son Hunter is growing up around guns, and sadly, that’s having a detrimental impact on his education. Jackson said when she went to pick the boy up at his school, Tuesday, she learned he’d been given a seven-day suspension.
“I was met with a stone-faced teacher who said that my son had a shotgun bullet and I was horrified, thinking ‘where could he have got this?’” Jackson said.
Turns out it wasn’t a shotgun bullet, it was a .22 casing the boy acquired on an outing with his grandfather, a Caseyville police officer, who is teaching the young boy about hunting and responsible gun use. Jackson said her son didn’t tell anyone that he had innocently picked up the casing and put it in his pocket that day.
“He’s cried about it and he doesn’t understand why his school hates him,” said Jackson, whose Facebook post on the incident has gone viral.
According to a letter Jackson received from Mallory Lengermann, Director of A Place to Grow in Troy, IL, if Hunter continues to be a typical 4-year-old boy, the next step the school will take is expulsion.
Hunter Crowe has continually chosen actions and behaviors that require a suspension from A Place 2 Grow Child Care and Learning Center.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, Hunter was seen showing his fellow classmates a bullet casing that he brought to school from home. He had the casing in his pocket. The casing was removed from the classroom by his teachers and taken to the office. Hunter has been told that guns, hunting, etc. are not subjects that are to be discussed at school. He has been redirected to other activities when he has chosen to make guns out of other toys. Hunter’s teachers have made multiple attempts to redirect these behaviors, however we believe that other actions need to be taken to correct these behaviors.
If after returning to school, these issues continue to be present or new issues arise, Hunter will be expelled from A Place to Grow Child Care and Learning Center effective immediately.
I hope that Hunter can take the next seven days as a learning experience and return to school with a new outlook and understanding about these issues and the safety of his fellow classmates.
A Place to Grow’s vice-president also informed Jackson that he was notifying the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) of the incident.
How toys being fashioned into guns or a spent bullet casing taken from an outing with a child’s grandfather is detrimental to the safety of preschool students, I’m not quite sure. Nor do I know what keeping a 4-year-old child out of preschool for seven days is supposed to teach him.
Hunter’s mom agrees.
“It’s paranoia,” Jackson said. “It’s something that’s become quite an epidemic where guns are automatically assumed that they’re bad…and I’m not sure how a 7-day suspension teaches my son anything about tolerance or anything about why he was wrong. It just means his school doesn’t want him there because of things he enjoys.”
By Elliot Friedland
The Clarion Project
March 22, 2017
There are many different ways to challenge radical Islam. Here are four of our top suggestions that you can take on in your own life.
The first step to defeating a toxic ideology like that of radical Islam is to understand it. If you understand what it is and what the goals of those who subscribe to it are, you will be much better placed to resist it.Radical Islam is a totalitarian ideology based on a theological interpretation of Islam that sees the faith as political. It seeks to impose the religion onto others and to establish sharia governance as a system of laws for states. Countries which have implemented this system, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, have governments that perpetrate widespread human rights abuses in the name of Islam.Islamist terrorists carry out attacks in order to advance the cause of this ideology by waging what they see as holy war against the West. Understanding this ideology is vital to putting these outrages in context and understanding how to bring about positive change. Start with Clarion’s introduction: Understanding Radical Islamism.
Support the Work of Muslim Human Rights Activists
There are many Muslim activists around the world who are on the front lines of the struggle against extremism, oftentimes risking their lives to promote change. Unfortunately they don’t get anywhere near the press coverage they deserve, despite the amazing work that they do. Support these brave activists on social media and share their work. This will empower them to have more clout against the radicals who don’t wish to see Muslims and non-Muslims getting along.We are proud to support: Raheel Raza, Dr. Zudhi Jasser, Dr. Elham Manea, Shireen Qudosi and Maajid Nawaz among others. Share this video of Raheel Raza speaking out.
Stand up Against Anti-Muslim Bigotry
No-one wants to feel victimized for things they didn’t do. Targeting ordinary Muslims for the actions of radicals is unfair and unjust. It also harms the fight against radical Islam. Increased anti-Muslim sentiment creates a sense of fear which makes Muslim activists less inclined to trust non-Muslims to defend their liberties and interests. If Muslims feel threatened in this way, they will be less willing and able to engage in difficult conversations about extremism.For the radicals, anti-Muslim bigotry make fertile ground for recruitment, since it enables them to stoke a sense of grievance in the vulnerable people they are seeking to radicalize.
Anti-Muslim bigotry and radical Islam empower each other. Say no to both and challenge anti-Musim bigotry whenever and wherever you find it. Read and share our statement on anti-Muslim bigotry.
Speak Out About Radical Islam
Once you have become educated about the danger posed by radical Islam, you can play a role in spreading the word. Movements don’t bring change overnight, and every person is vital in the greater effort to confront this dangerous ideology. Social media is a great place to speak out. With enough exposure, real change can happen and has happened on a number of issues. Individuals, companies and even governments are forced to respond when enough people demand action. Start with our bold informative video By The Numbers. Sign petitions, share stories and spread the message:
Say NO to [radical] Islam.
By Micaiah Bilger
March 23, 2017
When abortion activists talk about “humanizing” abortion, they are not talking about unborn babies. They mean getting rid of anything that makes abortion seem bad.
One of the key goals of the 1 in 3 Campaign is to normalize abortion through storytelling. The group encourages women to tell their abortion-positive stories publicly to help “end abortion stigma.”
The group’s name is based on a false statistic that claims one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. Abortion advocacy groups often use the statistic to claim that abortions are normal medical procedures for women in society. But in 2016, the Washington Post fact checker described the statistic as entirely “inaccurate.”
Vocative, which supports abortion, featured one woman’s story this week to highlight the 1 in 3 Campaign’s upcoming lobbying event in Washington, D.C. Vocative’s Tracy Clark-Flory wrote that the woman, Candice Russell, wanted to share her story to “humanize the issue of abortion.”
I would hear people talk about abortion in the media, but none of the stories were my story. They were mostly middle-class white women with wanted pregnancies — very valid but heartbreaking tales of the ‘good abortion,’” Russell told Clark-Flory. “But the reality of abortion is that a lot of the folks that are accessing care are low-income women of color with stories that looked like mine.
Russell began telling her abortion story late last year. She said she was struggling to make ends meet when she discovered that her birth control had failed and she was pregnant.
Writing for Glamour, Russell said she knew that having an abortion was “right” for her; but when she called an abortion facility near her home in Dallas, Texas, she was told that there was a two-and-a-half week wait.
Because she already was 12 weeks along, Russell said she was afraid that any delays could put her past the 20-week abortion cut-off in Texas. Instead of considering parenting or adoption, Russell decided to take out a loan, lie to her boss and fly to California to have her unborn baby aborted.
Vocative defended Russell’s abortion this week, writing: “Over the next two years, she was thrown into a cycle of debt while trying to pay off the money she had borrowed. Ultimately, she paid around $5,000 for the $450 loan — all to obtain basic, timely reproductive healthcare.”
Debra Hauser, a spokesperson for the 1 in 3 Campaign, added,
Too often the political has overpowered the personal in the fight for abortion access, and now more than ever we cannot afford to remain silent and let stigma invade the conversation around a procedure that one in three women will have in her lifetime.
Abortion activists’ attempts to “humanize” abortion really are about de-humanizing babies in the womb. They describe an abortion as basic health care and avoid talking about what an abortion actually is and does.
They don’t want there to be talk about the unborn baby, basic biological facts about human development, potential abortion risks and women who regret their abortions. These things put abortion in a bad light by exposing it for what it really is. An abortion destroys a unique individual human being’s life before birth.
Shame and stigma are associated with abortion, not primarily because of cultural attitudes toward women, but because of the basic moral belief that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong.
By Bob Owens
March 23, 2017
A woman on a multi-day violent crime spree who was firing at Tusla (OK) police officers trying to arrest her was intentionally struck and killed by another officer in a dramatic conclusion to a deadly-force situation.
A woman wanted for a string of gun-related crimes was killed Saturday afternoon when an officer intentionally ran over her in south Tulsa after she exchanged gunfire with police following a vehicular chase.
Madison Sueann Dickson, 21, was pronounced dead at 3:07 p.m., Tulsa homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said.
Officers roped off the scene in the 8900 block of South Harvard Avenue outside of Jenks East Elementary School.
Police had been searching for Dickson because of her alleged involvement in a spree of gun-related crimes over the past week.
Officers found Dickson at an apartment at 81st Street and Sheridan Road on Saturday, police spokesman Leland Ashley said. Dickson then got into a pickup as a passenger and fled from the officers, Ashley said.
Dickson eventually bailed out of the truck and presented a handgun, Ashley said, which was when at least two officers shot at her. She fired gunshots at officers, Ashley said.
During the altercation, she was run over by a patrol cruiser, Ashley said, noting police desperately were trying to stop her because of the threat she represented. He said no one was struck by gunfire.
“She had every opportunity to stop and turn herself in,” he said.
By Hugh Fitzgerald
March 23, 2017
Mother Jones is a left-wing publication that, while it seldom – and possibly never — has had a kind word for Christianity in its history, turns out to be a stout defender of Islam. How the Left fell so hard for Islam is a puzzlement, for a more retrograde faith — misogynistic, supremacist, homophobic, protective of slavery, one that severely restricts freedom of speech and thought, and even what kinds of artistic expression are allowed (for example, forbidding paintings and statues of people and animals because of what, according to various “reliable” Hadiths, Muhammad said about “pictures”) — can scarcely be imagined. Violent and aggressive, this is a faith whose adherents have a 1400-year history of conquering many different lands and subjugating many different peoples. None of this appears to have made an impression on the mickey-mockers at Mother Jones.
The magazine’s latest screed on Islam, by one Bryan Schatz, comes to the stout defense of that inexplicably maligned faith. According to Schatz, those who call Islam a “political ideology” rather than a “religion” must be wrong, not because he has himself made the attempt to see if it makes sense to define Islam, at least in part, as a “political ideology,” but only because the people who do so are President Trump’s loyal retinue, and therefore, in the logic of Mother Jones, whatever they say perforce must be false; there is no need for further discussion. If Lt. General Flynn (still a Trump adviser in spirit, if no longer in letter) says that “I don’t see Islam as a religion. I see it as a political ideology that…will mask itself as a religion globally….it can hide behind and protect itself by what we call freedom of religion,” that can’t possibly be true, because the right-wing General Flynn has said it. When Steve Bannon says that Islam “is a political ideology,” criticizes former President Bush for calling Islam “a religion of peace,” and suggests that there is an “existential war” between Islam and the West — statements that many thoughtful people who have studied Islam, or grown up in Islam only to reject it, agree with Bannon about – Schatz again dismisses this, because Bannon said it. And Bannon is part of some “right-wing,” “alt-right,” “hate- speechifying Islamophobic group” — we know this must be because it keeps being repeated — and therefore no argument needs to be offered against what he maintains. The Mother Jones writer describes Bannon’s as an “us-versus-them” argument; Schatz would have it that the war originates with “us,” Islamophobes, hostile to peaceful Muslims, and not as Bannon & Co. would have it, originating with “them,” the hatred of Muslims for Unbelievers mandated by the Qur’an and Hadith. No arguments, of course, are necessary. It’s all ad hominem; if Bannon said it, his reputation having been comprehensively and deliberately sullied by his political enemies, it must be false.
Nor is Samuel Huntington, the mild-mannered Harvard academic who died in 2008, spared for his views that the contemporary world could best be understood as now divided not among countries but according to eight “civilizations,” which he identified as: (i) Western, (ii) Latin American, (iii) Islamic, (iv) Sinic (Chinese), (v) Hindu, (vi) Orthodox, (vii) Japanese, and (viii) African. Huntington claimed that the most severe antagonism, the one that merited being described as a “clash of civilizations,” was that between Islam and the West. Schatz gives Huntington’s views complicated views only a one-sentence summary, and dismisses them for no other reason than that they have been echoed by “conservative evangelicals” and “the far-right fringe.” If Huntington’s views deserve criticism, it would surely be not that he was too hard on Islam, but too soft, that is he failed to see that Islamic civilization permanently “clashed” not only with the West, but with all seven of the other “civilizations” he identified.
Bryan Schatz goes after, too, those outside the government and universities, that is, the extremist, right-wing, Christian clergy, who spew their anti-Islamic rhetoric as such fanatical Christians always do (for Mother Jones, Muslims, funnily enough, are never fanatical), such people as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who called Muhammed a “demon-possessed pedophile.” Mother Jones carefully refrains from mentioning why Falwell might have described him thus – the fact of Muhammad’s consummation of his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine years old. Readers are thus left with the impression that Falwell pulls these preposterous charges out of thin air, without any conceivable basis in fact (but it’s a fact clearly spelled out in the most respected collection of Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, 34 and 36). Then there is Pat Robertson, another “right-wing” Christian, who claims that Islam is “not a religion…but a worldwide political movement bent on domination of the world.” Now where could Robertson have gotten that idea? Possibly from the Qur’an, with its more than one hundred “Jihad verses”? But Pat Robertson said it, and therefore it cannot possibly be true. And Schatz reminds us of Lt. General Jerry Boykin, who believes that Islam should not be given First Amendment protection, because “those following the dictates of the Quran are under an obligation to destroy our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.” Is there any evidence that the Sharia and the American Constitution flatly contradict each other on such matters as freedom of speech and the establishment and free exercise clauses? Shouldn’t Schatz have looked into Boykin’s assertions to see if there might be something to them, rather than treat them as self-evidently absurd to all right-thinking readers of Mother Jones, and thus not worth discussing?
As for Robert Spencer, who doesn’t quite fit into any mold, and certainly not that of a Trump-camp-follower or of the “right-wing” Christian-clergy, although he has written 16 books and many thousands of postings at several online sites, always copiously quoting from the Qur’an and Hadith, he is identified only as “the director of the Islamophobic site Jihad Watch,” without Schatz adducing a single sentence of Spencer’s as evidence of that claimed “Islamophobia.”
What is wrong with declaring Islam to be a “political ideology” — that is, only that and nothing more — is that one opens oneself unnecessarily to criticism that can easily be avoided. Why not concede that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology? Concede, that is, that the Qur’an establishes rules for worship for Believers, the Five Pillars of Islam, describes the characteristics of Allah and his relation to Believers, and also provides rules for Jihad, for the war against the Unbelievers that cannot end until the complete submission of everyone to the rule of Islam is attained, so that Islam everywhere dominates and Muslims rule everywhere. Having conceded that Islam is partly a religion, as ordinarily understood, we are then in a stronger position to insist, more in sorrow, that “unfortunately, Islam is also a political ideology, an ideology of conquest, and we have a responsibility to recognize this, in order to better protect ourselves and our own civilization. And we must remember, too, that this conquest need not take place on a battlefield. There are many instruments of Jihad. Terrorism, propaganda, the money weapon, and now, the newest and most effective and least understood weapon to spread Islam, demographic conquest, which Muslims discuss quite openly, for they assume that Europe, having opened itself up to millions of Muslims (there are now more than 50 million Muslims in Europe), can do nothing, at this point, to halt or reverse that human tide. And this we cannot ignore.” The tone is different, one of reason but also justified anxiety, and the information conveyed important.
Mother Jones can keep on with its mindless campaign of loathing and ridicule for all those who are dismissed as “right-wing” extremists, crazed Christians, or people who, like Robert Spencer, are pigeonholed as members of a “cottage industry of Islamophobic misinformation.” But not once in this article (or in many others that the magazine has published on the same theme) is there any attempt to rebut what has been said about Islam. The complacent dismissal of those whom “no one” can possibly take seriously is wearing thin.
Could any fair-minded person, having read and studied the Qur’an , fail to see how much of it is devoted to warfare against the Unbelievers? How could such a person not notice that Jihad is the supreme duty of Muslims, and that once conquered by them, Unbelievers are left with only three choices: to be converted, or killed, or required to pay the onerous Jizyah? Isn’t the uncompromising division of the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb a political matter? Isn’t the duty of Jihad against the Unbelievers part of a “political ideology”? Aren’t the rules of warfare, set down in the Qur’an and the Hadith, including even how the spoils of war are to be divided among the victorious Muslims (with Muhammad taking 20%) more properly described as being part of a “political ideology” and not part of what we think of as a religion? Doesn’t commanding Muslims to avoid taking Christians and Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with each other,” belong to a “worldwide political movement, bent on domination of the world,” as Pat Robertson said? Doesn’t Islam set out rules for the conquest of Unbelievers, describe what varied methods can be used to conquer them, and focus on Jihad through armed conflict, including acts which “strike terror” in the hearts of the Unbelievers? Isn’t it true that of the 200 times the word “Jihad” appears in the Sahih Bukhari (the preeminent Hadith collection), 98% of them refer to “Jihad” in the sense of armed conflict? Does that seem to you to be part of a “religion” or is it, rather, part of a blueprint for world conquest?
Finally, how long can Mother Jones get away with the transparent strategy of listing the names of those it vilifies as being “right-wing” or “Islamophobic” in order to spare itself the bother of coming to grips with the assertion that Islam is indeed, for the most part, a “political ideology”? What happens when the reality of Muslim behavior around the world leads more Unbelievers, by slow degrees, to see the wisdom of those who, based on their knowledge both of Islamic texts and 1400 years of Islamic history call Islam a “political ideology”? And they will do so because, as any Believer (and Unbeliever too) can understand, Islam sets out a plan for conquest and rule over Infidels everywhere, describes the ideal of the Islamic state, governed according to the Sharia, and details how this is all to be achieved.
Particularly of note is how writers in Mother Jones appear to believe that opposition to Islam is a new thing, the result of a whipped-up hysteria from these dangerous people now in the corridors of power who have been allowed to promote what Mother Jones calls “a crazy idea that went from the fringe to the White House.” Actually, ever since the 7th century, the real “crazy idea” in the West was that Islam is only a “religion,” that it is “peaceful,” and that it is absurd to be alarmed over its territorial conquests and increase in both numbers and power. We have, after all, 1400 years of history to examine, and in the long history of Islam’s encounter with the West, the “crazy idea” that Islam’s adherents were hellbent on conquest was shared by almost every thoughtful person. Statesmen, writers, philosophers, theologians, scholars of Islam — none of them to be dismissed as “right wing”– understood Islam in a no-nonsense, and therefore highly critical fashion. Many of their statements have been repeatedly posted on the web, but none of them make it to the pages of Mother Jones, for they eloquently undermine that magazine’s narrative.
There was Winston Churchill, who drew his conclusions from observing Muslims in the Sudan in 1898-99, when he was a war correspondent with the 21st Lancers as they fought the Mahdists:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
For the kind of people who write for, and read, Mother Jones, no doubt Churchill can be dismissed — too “right-wing,” too much of a “colonialist” to be taken to heart. After all, didn’t Obama remove Churchill’s bust from his office? Doesn’t that mean Churchill need not be heeded? But can they deny that “Mohammedanism” was and is now a “militant and proselytizing faith”? Or that in Islam women are in all respects inferior to men, if not always, pace Churchill, their “absolute property”? Slavery is part of Islam, as Churchill wrote truly, for slavery remains permanently sanctioned by Islam and by the practice of Muhammad, who owned and traded in slaves. Slavery was outlawed in Muslim countries very late, and only under Western pressure. There was no Muslim William Wilberforce. There are still Muslim clerics today, as well as members of the Islamic State, who maintain that slavery is part of Islam, and who are especially pleased to make sex slaves of the Yazidi and Christian girls (in Syria, in Iraq, in Nigeria) they captured.
But let’s leave Churchill’s vivid impressions of the “Mohammedans” aside, and turn to our most scholarly president, John Quincy Adams, and his 70-page study of Islam. Adams was an early opponent of slavery, who famously argued on behalf of rebel slaves before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case. John Quincy Adams studied Islam at length, and his conclusion, long before Bannon and Flynn and Pat Robertson, was eloquent, severe, and grim:
…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam’s capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.
As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.
That was John Quincy Adams, more severe on Islam than any of those accused by Mother Jones of “Islamophobia.” Has Mother Jones ever alluded to what that great liberal, and hero of the Amistad case, thought of Islam? Shouldn’t a decent respect for the opinions of mankind include the opinions of those who lived in the intelligent past? Were the texts and teachings of Islam in 1830 any different from its texts and teachings today?
Then there is Jefferson, who had dealings with those envoys of North African Muslims known to us as the Barbary Pirates, recording the words of Tripoli’s envoy to London:
In reference to the Islamic slave trade of Americans and Europeans by the Barbary states, Jefferson asked Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. He answered:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
And while Mother Jones seems to believe that it is fanatical Christians who are the most anti-Islam, it is that famous skeptic and freethinker, David Hume, an enemy to all organized religion, regarded by most of his contemporaries as an atheist and anti-Christian, who even harsher in his verdict on Islam than any falwell or robertson. To wit:
The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense; and it would have argued the greatest ignorance, not of morals, but of language, to have mentioned them with any epithets, besides those of applause and approbation. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.
Another famous scoffer at Christianity, Mark Twain, thought even less of Islam:
When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.
George Bernard Shaw, who took whacks at both Islam and Christianity, clearly found Islam the more disturbing of the two:
Islam is very different [from Christianity], being ferociously intolerant. What I may call Manifold Monotheism becomes in the minds of very simple folk an absurdly polytheistic idolatry, just as European peasants not only worship Saints and the Virgin as Gods, but will fight fanatically for their faith in the ugly little black doll who is the Virgin of their own Church against the black doll of the next village. When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes [that] they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration.
And then there is Bertrand Russell, whom one would have thought Mother Jones would approve of, for writing Why I Am Not A Christian and for setting up a War Crimes Tribunal, with America intended to be in the dock for the war in Vietnam, and for his general latter-day left-wing take on the world. But they don’t care, or dare, to quote Russell on Islam:
Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.
Immediately after his [Muhammed’s] death the conquests began, and they proceeded with rapidity… Westward expansion (except in Sicily and Southern Italy) was brought to a standstill by the defeat of the Mohammedans at the battle of Tours in 732, just one hundred years after the death of the Prophet… It was the duty of the faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam… The first conquests of the Arabs began as mere raids for plunder, and only turned into permanent occupation after experience has shown the weakness of the enemy… The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion.
Does this differ in any essential way from what Bannon or Flynn or Robertson or Falwell say today?
Then there is Oriana Fallaci. Even Mother Jones doesn’t dare to call her “right-wing.” She was for forty years the most famous left-wing journalist in Italy. As a teenager, she was in the anti-fascist resistance, which at the time also meant risking her life trying to prevent the Nazis from blowing up historic sites in Florence (they blew up all the bridges over the Arno – the Ponte Vecchio alone was spared). At seventeen she became a journalist. She spent time with the Viet Cong, and denounced the American war in Vietnam. She had a long-term lover, Alexandros Panagoulis, who was a one-man resistance movement against the Greek dictator, Colonel Papadopoulos. He died – was likely murdered — in a “road accident.” Fallaci wrote a book about Panagoulis, Un Uomo. She spent a lot of time reporting on Muslims in the Middle East, writing a book on women in Islam, The Useless Sex. She spent time with a PLO squad, coming under Israeli fire, and interviewed Arafat, Khomeini, and Qaddafi, among others. She came to detest, through living among and observing Muslims, the ideology of Islam and those who took it to heart. She was particularly disturbed as she saw Muslims entering and settling in Italy and especially in her beloved Tuscany, and busily building mosques, even in Colle Val d’Elsa, that most Tuscan of little hill towns between Florence and Siena.
She vividly describes how Muslim migrants would urinate and defecate on artistic treasures in Florence, including the celebrated bronze doors at the Baptistery – the “Gates of Heaven” by Lorenzo Ghiberti. Right after 9/11, Fallaci wrote a furious article about the behavior of Muslims in the West; it took up four full pages in the Corriere della Sera; she then turned it into a book, The Rage and the Pride, a full-bore attack on Islam and Muslims that does not mince words, and that has sold millions of copies. This biographical note is meant to show that it is perfectly possible to be politically on the left all of one’s life and also be furiously anti-Islam, a possibility which the writers for Mother Jones seem incapable of grasping. Perhaps if they read Oriana Fallaci, and saw how she out-bannons Bannon, or studied John Quincy Adams, who out-falwells Falwell, they might be persuaded to themselves read the Qur’an and Hadith with attention, to learn something of the history of Islamic conquest, and to treat with respect the views of so many of those in the intelligent past, such as Hume and Russell, Churchill and Shaw, Pascal and Twain, Montesquieu and Schopenhauer, who had nothing good to say about Islam. And one might ask the Mother Jones writers to take a look at the studied verdict on Islam of so many other distinguished students of Islam from the past. They might start here.
It would be interesting to see if the Mother Jones writers can come up with list of notable non-Muslims who were favorably impressed with Islam. How long and impressive would such a list be? Of course we all know one person who was deeply impressed by Islam. But I’m not sure Adolf Hitler ought to be used as a reference. And what did those who admired aspects Islam find to admire beyond the fanatical faith of the Believers that made them so willing to die? Try yourself to find anyone who praises Islam for something else.
And ask yourself, too, in the world today, which regime is now the most ferociously anti-Islam of all? It turns out to be Communist China, where worry over the Muslims in Xinjiang has led the Communist authorities in Beijing to impose a series of anti-Muslim measures much stronger than anything that has been done in the West. The Communist Chinese require that all restaurants remain open during Ramadan, and that fasting during Ramadan be banned. The same government requires that women be banned from wearing the burqa in public, and men with long beards prohibited from riding buses, the stated reason being that explosives and other weapons could be concealed behind burqas or beards. Muslim websites are unceremoniously removed from the Internet by the Chinese authorities. The Chinese leaders have denounced the Dalai Lama because he called for entering into a dialogue with the Islamic State. The Communist Chinese do not treat the Dalai Lama, whose remarks on Islam have become increasingly bizarre, with the automatic respect he gets, but no longer deserves, in the West. And in the last three months of 2016, the Chinese government demolished 5000 mosques, or 70% of those originally standing in Xinjiang. The stated reason was that of “public safety,” that is, the mosques were supposedly so dilapidated that they might collapse. No one in Xinjiang was fooled.
So what does Mother Jones think of the Chinese Communist view of Islam? Are the boys in Beijing just too “right-wing” and “alt-right” for the magazine’s taste? Is that what explains why the Chinese now prevent Ramadan from being celebrated, or why they recently demolished 5000 mosques in Xinjiang? Is it possible the Chinese know something about Islam, and the menace its adherents presents to Unbelievers everywhere, that doesn’t quite fit the world view of the mickey-mockers at Mother Jones?
Gorsuch Defends Hobby Lobby’s Pro-Life Values: “Sincerely-Held Religious Beliefs Cannot be Abridged by the Government”
By Steven Ertelt
March 22, 2017
Under tough questioning by pro-abortion Democrats during day two of his confirmation hearings, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch defended the pro-life values of Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. This was the second time Gorsuch defended Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby.
Pro-abortion Illinois Senator Dick Durbin questioned Gorsuch about his role in a case defending those companies from being forced by the Obama Administration to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans.
In the exchange below, Gorsuch defended them saying that “sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government” without a very very compelling reason and that no such reason existed for the Obama Administration to make them fund abortions.
DURBIN: “I’d like to go, if I can, for just a moment, to this famous case which you and I discussed at length, Hobby Lobby. I still struggle all the way through this, and it was a lengthy decision, with trying to make a corporation into a person. Boy, did the court spent a lot of time twisting and turning and trying to find some way to take RFRA and to say that Congress really meant corporations like Hobby Lobby when they said person. It was dictionary law and so many different aspects of this. What I was troubled by, and I asked you then, I’ll ask you again, when we are setting out as that court did to protect their religious liberties and freedom of the Green family, the corporate owners, and their religious belief about what’s right and wrong when it comes to family planning, and the court says, that’s what we’ll decide it what the Green family decides when it comes to health insurance. You made a decision that thousands of their employees would not have protection of their religious beliefs and their religious choices when it came to family planning. You closed the door to those options in their health insurance, and by taking your position to the next step, to all those who work for closed-in corporations in America, 60 million people had their health insurance and their family planning and their religious beliefs denigrated, downsized to the corporate religious belief, whatever that is. Did you stop and think when you were doing — making this decision about the impact it would have on the thousands and thousands if not millions of employees if you left it up to the owner of the company to say, as you told me, there is some kind of family planning I like and some I don’t like?”
GORSUCH: “Senator, I take every case that comes before me very seriously. I take the responsibility entrusted in me in my current position very grave. I think if you asked the lawyers and judges of the 10th Circuit, am I a serious and careful judge, I think you will hear that I am. I’m delighted to have an opportunity to talk to you about that decision. As you know, in RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress was dissatisfied with the level of protection afforded by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment to religious exercise. The court in a case called Smith v. Maryland written by Justice Scalia said any neutral law of general applicability is fine. That doesn’t offend the First Amendment, so laws banning the use of peyote, Native Americans, tough luck, even though it is essential to their religious exercise, for example. This Congress decided that that was insufficient protection for religion. And in a bill sponsored by Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer when he was in the House, wrote a very, very strict law. And it says that any sincerely held religious beliefs cannot be abridged by the government without a compelling reason, and even then, it has to be narrowly tailored, strict scrutiny, the highest legal standard known in American law, OK?”
By Beth Baumann
March 20, 2017
Amy Schumer, gun control group’s favorite advocate, decided to go on a gun rant in her latest Netflix special, The Leather Special.
In her rant, Schumer attempts to use sarcasm and “humor” – assuming you find her funny – to go after lawful gun owners. The problem with her rant is his logic is severely flawed. She’s simply spewing the typical gun control talking points.
Schumer explains she got into the gun control debate when two women were shot and killed in a movie theater when they went to see her movie.
“I found out that the guy who did this was mentally ill and a domestic abuser,” she says. “And I was like ‘Oh. Okay. Well, how could he get a gun?’ I didn’t – I wasn’t educated about it. I learned that if you’re severely mentally ill or have been convicted of domestic violence, there are loopholes where it’s not that hard to get a firearm.”
FACT: In order to legally possess a firearm, you have to go through a background check to acquire said firearm. Anyone who is convicted of domestic abuse would not pass a background check.
“I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, the Second Amendment. I’m friends with gun owners but what I learned was no matter what you say as soon as you say the word ‘gun’ with gun nuts here is just, ‘You want to take all our guns!’” Schumer explains, mocking gun owners.
FACT: Just because you have friends who are gun owners does not mean you’re in favor of the Second Amendment. Stop using your friends as your political get out of jail card.
“Then I found – and I’m sure most of you probably know this already – that if you’re on a terrorist watch list, not just the no-fly list but the straight up terrorist watch list, you can easily get a gun,” Schumer claims.
FACT: Again, background checks come into play. If you’re buying a gun legally from a federally licensed dealer, you have to go through a background check. If you’re on the terrorist watch list, you can’t pass a background check and you won’t be sold a gun. These “terrorists” you speak of are getting their guns off the black market because, you know, criminals – and terrorists – don’t follow laws.
Hey, Schumer – It’s insulting that you believe every gun owner in America is a white trash, trailer park hillbilly. The truth is simple, and it’s probably hard for you to understand, but gun owners come in every race, religion, creed, political party and all across America. The Second Amendment protects each and every one of us: even you with your armed bodyguards.
But if you pointed that out you would be called hypocritical, no?