A Case in Point...

Ahmed Mohamed

The twerp (Ahmed Mohamed) that America's national media has been making so much of an unwarranted fuss over lately...an idiot who brought a clock to school, made to look like...well, very much like an IED, is as you might expect, a very troubled kid from a family that has a history of precisely such acts. His sister, Eyman Mohamed, has acknowledged that she was suspended from a school in a prior bomb scare. Her suspension occurred in 2009 while she was attending middle school in the same district. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/23/ahmeds-sister-admits-school-suspension-alleged-bomb-threat-3-years-earlier/).

What's the big deal?

Well, not only is it a false alarm, it is exactly the kind of thing that terror groups do, setting up false acts to draw attention away from other actions planned either simultaneously, or at later dates.

Coupled with an inept and decidedly anti-police media, such groups also hope to get authorities here to let their guard down.

In a recent Op-Ed piece Kyle Smith wrote a surprisingly lucid piece on how white kids are disproportionately targeted for much stiffer treatment than Ahmed Mohamed received....and with no Presidential hugs, nor love notes from Mark Zuckerberg; "Josh Welch, a white Maryland kid with ADHD who was 7 years old when he was kicked out of school for chewing a Pop-Tart into the shape of a pistol and pretending to shoot other students with it, must be puzzled.

"Where’s his White House invitation? Where’s his chance to start networking at Facebook? His parents were forced to hire a lawyer and spent a year and a half just trying to get the suspension erased from the kid’s record. They were repeatedly refused.

“I stand with Ahmed, too. But I also stand with Alex Stone,” noted Reason writer Robby Soave. Alex Stone, a 16-year-old white kid from Summerville, SC, wrote a short story in which he imagined using a gun to kill a dinosaur. For this, his locker was searched and he was arrested, handcuffed, charged with “disorderly conduct” and suspended from school for three days...

"...In Dyer County, Tenn., Kendra Turner says she was suspended for saying “Bless you” after a student sneezed, and that her teacher told her that she would have no “godly speaking in class.”

"A school administrator said, “This was not a religious issue at all, but more of an issue the teacher felt was a distraction in her class.” Uh-huh. School leadership offered no explanation for the photos posted by students that showed “bless you” on a list of expressions banned in the classroom. Turner is still waiting for her call from President Obama, asking, "When is America going to get serious about the problem of white kids getting suspended from school for nothing?" (http://nypost.com/2015/09/19/how-ahmeds-clock-became-a-false-convenient-tale-of-racism/)

So there it is, once again, the incompetents in our media and government ignore the real problems (terror-sympathizers like Ahmed and Eyman Mohamed), while unduly punishing untold numbers of white kids for, in effect, doing nothing of any great consequence.

Again, this is a VERY BIG problem that we won't be able to kick down the road much longer.

Ben Carson and Islam

Ben Carson is absolutely right about Islam. That's NOT Dr. Carson's fault at all.

He's absolutely right that Sharia Law is absolutely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution AND that Sharia (Islam's moral code) is irreconcilably incompatible with Western morality.

Among other things, Sharia Law MANDATES the stoning of gays and adulterers. I support ANY Muslim country's right to adhere to that moral code. IT is NOT "barbaric," AND anyone who calls it that is a religious bigot.

That said, I DO NOT adhere to, nor support Sharia Law and like most Westerners don't revile gays, or adulterers and wouldn't subject them to death, as Sharia's moral code would dictate...UNLESS Sharia Law came to be instituted here. Then I'd "Go along, to get along," so long as gays and adulterers were "given fair warning."

HOWEVER, as I've noted numerous times, I very much DO like the Muslim/Sharia dictate of us each having "A mutual responsibility to society," which demands that a violent offender be subjected to the EXACT violence inflicted upon the victim. Beat someone with a hammer and you get beaten with a hammer, rape someone and you get raped....you get the idea. I also like the dictate that BOTH sides in EVERY transaction must "demonstrate an understanding and ability to meet/fulfill the obligations of that contract." However, despite my personal preference for more...uhhh....draconian methods of punishment for violent offenders, I fully acknowledge that even my own greatly modified and highly qualified acceptance of SOME aspects of Sharia morality is wholly inconsistent with prevailing Western morality.

As Ben Carson VERY correctly suggests, no true Muslim could abide by the "tolerance" and "non-judgmentalism" that are hallmarks of modern Western morality. Sharia Law and Sharia morality, under the rule of such "leaders" would HAVE TO supplant/replace our Western morality and legal canons.

ALL those who've excoriated Ben Carson on his stand opposing a Sharia-adhering Muslim (there is NO other kind, as EVERY Muslim, radicalized, or "Moderate" supports and adheres to Sharia) as President, have NO GROUND upon which to oppose the forced imposition of Sharia Law, nor even advocate for the reform of Sharia's moral code, because they themselves DIDN'T qualify, or make clear their own objections to "a Sharia-adhering Muslim," which would've amounted to ONLY being OK with a non-devout, or non-practicing Muslim.

I get it, that would've been a cop out, so it was best left unstated, BUT it also completely removes ANY objection by such people against a devout Muslim leader seeking to replace existing Western morality with Sharia's moral code and our current Western legal canons with those of Sharia Law, as that is precisely what Ben Carson objected to....the replacement of our Western moral code with that of Sharia's. In short, ALL those who've excoriated Ben Carson on the subject of a Muslim U.S. President, have tacitly endorsed Sharia, INCLUDING its lethal strictures against homosexuality and adultery.

I oppose Sharia Law and would happily support the slaughter of any and ALL adherents who would bring that abomination to the West....especially those (BOTH Muslim and Westerners) who would seek to bring Sharia's morality to the West "peacefully," as they'd be easier to slaughter...and EASIER is always preferable to harder.

Those who've opposed Ben Carson's stand have no moral ground on which to oppose the imposition of Sharia on the West...and worse still, CAN'T be trusted by either side in the inevitable conflict between Sharia and the West.

That's indicative of a very serious problem here in the West.

Chris Cuomo and the Widespread Misunderstanding of Freedom of Expression

CNN's Chris Cuomo

Everyone makes mistakes....and if you talk for a living you'll undoubtedly "misspeak" from time to time.

CNN's Chris Cuomo (the SAME CNN host who once described one of the French “Charlie Hebdo terrorists” as “African-American”), however attended Law School AND makes his living as a TV Commentator, so you'd expect him to have at least a cursory understanding AND a broad support for the 1st Amendment...BUT apparently that's NOT the case, at least not for those who disagree with the views of Chris Cuomo.

In the wake of the unprovoked jihadist attack in Garland, Texas, Chris Cuomo tweeted out, “Read the 1st Amendment, hate speech is excluded from protection.”

Funny story, the 1^st Amendment DOES NOT mention “hate speech,” moreover, “hate speech,” insulting speech and deliberately offensive speech are ALL protected by that 1^st Amendment.

Worse yet, his petulant “clarification” actually amplified his error; “For last time (today), I didn't mean the language of 1A, I meant the case law. And hate speech has been protected except for fighting words.”

FIRST, that’s NOT a retraction, which is required in this case, because what he initially said was unfounded and in error. SECOND, “fighting words” and “hate speech” are two different things, actually “fighting words” can be considered a very small and narrowly defined sub-strata of “hate speech.”

In 1949 the Supreme Court created the “hate speech doctrine” with the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision, when it ruled;

“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

That very doctrine is incredibly flawed. We DO NOT outlaw insulting speech, or "obscene," or "lewd" speech...those leave far too much to interpretation. The majority of Americans (I believe something like 82% of Americans oppose race/gender-based preferences) are "insulted" by pro-preference speech.

But even THAT doctrine is far from settled, as the ACLU, among other organizations have consistently fought against it. Back in 2007, the ACLU filed a “Friend of the Court” brief on behalf of an Oregon man (William Charles Johnson) who’d been charged under Oregon’s “fighting words” statutes for using his truck’s PA system to shout anti-gay slurs at two women who’d cut him off in their car.

Apparently Chris Cuomo hasn’t kept up with the case law on that very controversial doctrine. It appears we’re all going to get a lesson in how illegal criminalizing political and disagreeable speech really is, as the Wisconsin “John Doe Investigations” into Governor Scott Walker’s relationship with the Club for Growth and other “Right-wing” groups is not only going to be shot down, there will apparently be some very strong and negative repercussions for those who brought those investigations...and their SHOULD BE.

What’s more troubling is the hideous optic that all this media cravenness creates. Chris Cuomo and company expressed little, if any outrage over Andres Seranno’s “Piss Christ,” and Cuomo is allegedly a Roman Catholic. In fact, CNN, like the rest of America’s national media seemed to celebrate Serrano’s work.

Given that, Chris Cuomo and his ilk’s reticence at offending jihadist Muslims appears to be entirely motivated by little more than abject cowardice, otherwise they’d have exhibited a clear-cut consistency on the subject of offending religious observers.

The fact that Cuomo and others reflexively offered no sympathy for the intended victim of this very effectively thwarted terror attack is even more troubling, as that too smacks of a deep and abiding moral cowardice.

The fact that Cuomo and many of his national media brethren continue to assail Pam Geller as an “anti-Muslim bigot,” is also quizzical, considering that Ms. Geller has made abundantly clear that her ONLY opposition is to “jihadist Muslims.” Jihadist Muslims are those devoted to imposing Sharia Law (“political Islam”) on the rest of the world. THAT is NOT an opposition to or bigotry toward Islam (the religion), it is an opposition to a nefarious political ideology that stemmed from a perversion of that religion, called “Jihadism” or “political Islam.”

So, is Cuomo and his ilk so utterly ignorant on that issue, or is it that they actually sympathize with its anti-American and anti-Western agenda?

It would appear that it’s the former, as he seems blissfully unaware of the FACT that many Arab-Muslims stand with pam Geller’s anti-Sharia, anti-Jihadist movement, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born American activist, writer, and politician. She is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation, political Islam and supportive of women's rights), Irshad Manji (a Canadian author, educator at New York University, and advocate of a "reformist" interpretation of Islam) and Brigitte Gabriel (an American author and activist who teaches that political Islam keeps countries backward, and that it teaches terrorism.

Given that, WHY are Chris Cuomo and others who are so obviously ignorant and misinformed on the issue commenting on it for a living?

Yeah, I know, he comments on 1^st Amendment law, apparently without knowing much about that, either.

Kind of goes to the sad state of America’s media, doesn’t it?

The Garland Texas Incident Shows How Very LITTLE Many Americans Understand About Freedom of Expression

Pam Geller

In the immediate wake of the shooting deaths of two jihadists outside a garland, Texas “Draw a Picture of Mohammad” contest, the most striking thing was the outpouring of ignorance over what IS, and what IS NOT “free speech.” (See the comments section here; http://www.mediaite.com/tv/pamela-geller-battles-cnns-camerota-over-garland-shooting-why-is-media-targeting-us/#comment-2002300335)

In fact, the 1^st Amendment was written SOLELY to protect controversial, offensive, bigoted, rebellious speech. Pablum (agreeable speech) NEEDS no such protections.

YES, Pamela Geller’s contest was covered under the 1^st Amendment.

NO, it was NOT “baiting,” nor was it “reckless” (“crying fire in a crowded movie theater”) speech, nor even “hate speech,” which are also, by the way, protected by the 1^st Amendment.

To the charge that Ms. Geller “baited Muslim extremists”; SO WHAT?!

No more than Andres Serrano “baited” Christians with his art work “Piss Christ.

BOTH are protected under the 1^st Amendment.

It’s the SAME with ALL opinions and views. The ONLY reason pro-gay speech is permitted, is because the SAME Amendment that protects anti-gay speech exists.

Opinions are never “right,” or “wrong,” and because of that basic truth, ALL opinions must be protected.

Religious views are merely “opinions”...ALL of them.

Now, it can be argued that views like “Lowered standards in the Military and in the Emergency Services reduces the quality of the workforce and results in a variety of public safety problems,” that are backed up by facts, are NOT mere “opinions,” BUT those who disagree ARE still permitted to voice their own opinions on the matter.

Sadly, the outpouring of ignorance was NOT limited to some commenters on various websites. CNN directly challenged Ms. Geller’s speech as “overly provocative,” and FNC’s Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Susteren did the very same thing.

THAT’S a problem!

When so many media “talking heads” show how little THEY understand the essence of FREE EXPRESSION, it’s little wonder why so many “fans” are...a might confused.

David Horowitz on Political Islam....

David Horowitz is one American who fully understands both the self-contradiction and the seething, inherent bigotry against non-Muslims. This quote pretty much sums up the essence of the Muslim mind;

“In fact, radical Muslims hardly need facts to stoke their hatreds, let alone distorted perceptions of American policy... Muslim hatred of America is as rational as Muslim hatred of Jews.

"In the last twenty-five years, no one has killed more Muslims than Saddam Hussein. Yet, only two of 57 Muslim states lined up against him. In the same interval, no nation in the world has saved more Muslim lives than the United States (Afghanistan, Somalia, Kosovo and Kurdish Iraq); yet only 2 of 57 Muslim states recognized the debt enough to support America's war effort.

“The Arab world in particular is a collection of medieval theocracies and fascist regimes, who supported first Hitler and then the Communist empire.

“Its culture is xenophobic and its media is effectively controlled by the state.”

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz042903.asp