Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed. In a nation that values liberty, why shouldn't I be able argue for Sharia Law? It is up to those who value liberty to defend it. So long as they are peacefully arguing that 50% of humanity should be second class citizens in the eyes of the law, the government has no moral authority to stop them. Moreover, this provision simply would not pass the first amendment- isn't that something AFDI purports to support? That's very naive on your part. Look at what's happened to Europe with no-go zones and in the UK where towns are not recognizable to the original population because of the imposition of Sharia law -- gays are harassed, girls are harassed, liquor stores are closed down, etc. Or look at the violations of freedom of speech in Dearborn, MI when Christians went to preach on the public sidewalks. All this has happened in the name of multicultural tolerance. Further, see proposed legislation which recognizes this threat: USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385 PREVNEXT 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government USC-prelim US Code USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Current through Pub. L. 112-283. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

I'm surprised you don't realize that lots of gays have difficulty accepting themselves because they have internalized hatred from the attitudes they've been surrounded with from childhood. So how can you blame them for the hatred of straight individuals?

Just an observation based on reading the blog for 3 1/2 years, personal experience, and other things I have read online. I'd rather not be any more specific than that. Frankly you missed my point which is that regardless of Geller's personal opinions or prejudices she's risen above them for a higher purpose. I deeply respect and appreciate her efforts on behalf of "the gays" as I know it is unlikely that she will receive any recognition or appreciation from the gay community any time soon. So thanks, Pam.

Good for you. As Pamela says, I don't have to thank you for not wanting to kill me. No one says you have to accept anyone or everyone, just respect the law which requires people to be treated equally.

Talk about an inverted world. Someone who is fundamentally homophobic and would probably not accept a gay or lesbian child of her own is defending gays against a totalitarian system which punishes homosexuals with the death penalty, and on top of that has to fight against a gay community which absurdly defends that totalitarian system. It's almost too much to comprehend.

The only trouble I have with Jaz McKay is his need to make a big deal about his sexuality and flirtatiousness while pointing out how superior he is to homosexuals. Joyce Kaufmann does the same thing. What's with Conservatives who flaunt their sexuality while complaining about gays? Is it some kind of competition, or what?

Wasn't the whole point to be offensive? To remind people about jihadi murderers? Am I missing something?

PS -- Just another blaring example of where Islamic doctrine completely contradicts the values of the left -- equality of women.

Surprising report at Yahoo: Egypt's Brotherhood blasts UN women's document By SARAH EL DEEB | Associated Press – 21 hrs ago The Brotherhood, which won Egypt's presidency and controls parliament, called on other Muslim nations, women's groups and Islamic organizations to reject the document. It called it an infringement on the thought, culture and uniqueness of Islamic societies. Libya's top cleric also raised similar concerns, rejecting the document for violating Islamic teachings. With the rise of Islamic fundamentalist groups to power in the region following the past two years of protests against autocratic rulers, many women rights groups fear a regression in women's freedoms with a stricter interpretation of Islamic laws. Already, Egypt's speech at the opening of the commission meeting has set off a storm in the women's rights community. The speech was delivered on March 4 by Pakinam el-Sharqawi, an aide to President Mohammed Morsi, who hails from the Muslim Brotherhood. In her speech, el-Sharqawi praised Egypt's new constitution as protective of women's rights, to the dismay of members of the delegation who have been sharply critical of the charter. Her speech caused some in the delegation to walk out. Leading women's rights activist Nehad Abu el-Qumsan called it "shocking." http://news.yahoo.com/egypts-brotherhood-blasts-un-womens-document-201012747.html

That's that whole point. You have to expose how the Islamic doctrine actually contradicts the Left's values. Then the Left gets it.

I listened to that debate a while back and recall Jasser talking about his aspirations for his children and their generation to reform Islam. I don't think he ever claimed that reforming Islam was a goal he would accomplish or even see in his lifetime. However it's obvious that Spencer knows more about the details about Islam than Jasser or many other so called moderate Muslims. That's not hard to understand given that Spencer has devoted his adult professional career to the study of Islam while Jasser and others have inherited their religion. Jasser himself said that mainstream Muslims do not send their children for religious training or have aspirations for their children to become imams. Jasser asks, "If Islam teaches violence why aren't more Muslims violent?" Because besides being Muslims they are human beings and being violent is contrary to life and human values and is an irrational way to behave, so they ignore the violent teachings. Religion (search for God) is mostly part of the emotional and irrational side of human life, so unfortunately the more religious a person is the more danger of them becoming irrational if their religion is sick. (Recently Pope Benedict noted that with the passage of time “a weakness” of Nostra Aetate has become apparent: “it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion.”) http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/christianity-islam-and-atheism-the-struggle-for-the-soul-of-the-west/

Turns out you're Breitbart's spiritual heir, Pamela. I bet he'd be totally thrilled with this SF campaign. It's hilarious.

I've thought all along it's CPAC's loss, but that's coming from a person who would never be welcome at CPAC.

Ft. Hood was a jihad terrorist attack and everybody in Chicago knows it. Scathing ad!

death cult

Where's the example of that merciful and compassionate god those Muslims worship guiding their every action, or their prophet of social justice? Did they consult with an imam before sacking that lunch lady? I for one have to conclude those pious Muslims don't practice what they preach. Or maybe they just misunderstand their religion, excuse me, their perfect religion. "Just as it is important to believe in the mercy and forgiveness of Allah, it is also necessary to base human relations on forgiveness. We cannot expect Allah’s forgiveness unless we also forgive those who do wrong to us." Forgiveness in Islam http://www.islamawareness.net/Salvation/forgiveness.html

To the extent that an individual is bisexual they can play with their sexual identity. But someone who is genuinely homosexual and is never sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex is deluding themselves, or being fooled, if they believe they can alter that. The science is clear about this. There's been a lot of evidence that people, men mostly, who go through this so called therapy end up constantly struggling against their basic nature and desires. That's why Jonah and programs like it have been condemned by the psychological community. For example,"It has barely been a week since “ex-gay” Christian Post blogger Matt Moore sold his computer and locked his phone after being caught on Grindr, a gay cruising software app. Yet, the magazine had the chutzpa to publish a stunningly dishonest op-ed by “ex-gay” activist Christopher Doyle, who works for the notorious International Healing Foundation (IHF), a group founded by Richard Cohen, a therapist who was permanently expelled in 2002 from the American Counseling Association for multiple ethics violations." http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2013/02/33438/

Exactly the reason why talking solely about issues like halal food or hijabs doesn't get the message across. Leftists think the problem is one of intolerance on the Right. As Mr. Spencer explains, the real issue is Islamic supremacism which is an ideology which claims that their religion is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition, their prophet the final prophet, and their obligation to make the world Muslim and submit to allah is absolute. Not all Muslims believe all that, some claim to be devout and still not believe in supremacism, but the mainstream version of the religion does teach that. That's the big elephant no one talks much about: Islamophobia/Islamorealism. Terror is just a tactic to accomplish that goal of supremacism but the real goal is domination or as they call it, submission.

PS How can a US court make a judgement about the nature of Islam anyway? That seems preposterous. Your NYC ad was political not because it was about Islam but because it was about political actors in the Middle East -- Israel and Muslim terrorists. Is this court also asserting that jihad is a political arm of Islam? Very interesting. Thanks for keeping us all updated.

Didn't SMART run ads inviting people to Islam? If they did they violated their policy against political ads if Islam is now a political entity.

Newt Gingrich, appearing with Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen on POLITICO Live's Driving the Day this morning, defended Rep. Michele Bachmann for asking questions about the Muslim Brotherhood - and declined to hit his former presidential rival for raising questions about Hillary Rodham Clinton aide Huma Abedin. "There weren’t allegations, there was a question," Gingrich told VandeHei and Allen, adding, "the question ought to be asked across the board" about the Muslim Brotherhood's relationship with and goals in the U.S. are. Maggie Haberman http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/newt-defends-bachmann-on-huma-abedin-allegations-129896.html http://bcove.me/c3z6l07d Gingrich talks about the threat of radical Islam and how it is not being discussed due to PC policy of DC political elite.

Cultural misunderstanding. We call it Pedofilia.

This whole process reminds me of wading out into the ocean as a little child and suddenly realizing I'm in over my head and I can no longer feel the bottom and I'm no longer in control. Scary.

I also noticed a lot of comments about this story were along the lines of how no one is ever allowed to criticize Israel, and what kind of complaints would there be if there were anti Israel ads, etc. I kind of laughed and pointed out that there have been anti-Israel ads in Seattle, San Francisco, NYC already. Apparently those anti-Israel ads didn't make much of an impression, did they?