The techniques being applied to Nakoula are exactly those stated by Sec of State Clinton in Dec 2011 and known as the "Istanbul Process." That "process" involves using: "...some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor." Notice Clinton's vague use of we. Who is we? The OIC? The Sec of State? Who are the peers? Nakoula is receiving the "shame" treatment big time. The process is blatant intimidation and goes beyond harassment or bullying: 1. It is driven by government officials and so is effectively state sponsored. 2. Nakoula is being used as an example to others -- the threat and intimidation to everyone is clear: tow the line or the government will come after you.

Incredible that in a Western democracy this even has to reach a court!

Big Brother must be proud. The Ministry of Truth has arrived. Obama's team is already printing the bumper stickers: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Wake up People! Don't forget that the Left is now trying to make the case that our Constitution is no good -- that "modern" constitutions of other countries are better -- the implication being that our freedoms are outmoded and need to be upgraded to this year's model. There is a front page article in the New York Times on this topic today. The Left is saying our freedoms are old-fashioned and out of date, and the Shariaists are saying they have the answer.

This parent's actions are wonderful -- inspiring! The problem appears more wide spread than just Hamas High School. Yesterday, in frontpage.mag [link here], Ryan Mauro wrote in Report on Biased Textbooks Goes to 500 Superintendents: Guest speakers on current events at schools are also a problem. In 2010, controversy erupted at Clarence High School in New York because of a guest speaker named Hassan Shibly. I interviewed him extensively and reviewed his Facebook page and published the results. He denied that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, instead calling it a “resistance organization.” Since then, he has joined the Council on American-Islamic Relations as the Executive Director of its Tampa chapter. He [Shibly] recently was a guest speaker in over a dozen high school classes in the area, addressing about 500 students. I don't know if "the area" refers to the Tampa area or the New York area (I'm guessing Tampa), but either way, that's a lot of propagandizing.... BTW, from their website, Hillsborough County school district apppears to have at least 31 high schools. My head spins if Shibly has been making the rounds in even a fraction of those.

... and Newt has promised to ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State.

The feminists are too busy, busy, busy defending women from 3rd class status under Islam. You know... honor killings, marital rape, rape without legal recourse, child marriage, polygamy, genital mutilation, lack of legal rights, lack of legal equality, chattel status, to name a few. (Won't even go into day-to-day stuff such as clothing, mobility, etc....) Yep, the feminists are over that and just don't have time for OWS....

tb, the "clash of civilizations" is there -- and it has been there for 1400 years. Check your history books and your Islamic theology books. It faded for a few hundred years as the West got rich and dominant on its technology. Now Islam is catching up. It ain't PC and it ain't pretty, and you didn't learn about it in school and the MSM won't mention it. But it is absolutely a religious war -- it's Islam vs. the rest of the world. Islam is very loud and clear about its goals. Many Muslims are not so clear. Believe Islam, don't believe individual Muslims. You're fortunate to live in New York where religious freedom exists, and does not trump other freedoms. However, look at the 57 countries of the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference): none has religious freedom. Not one. (Oh, a few make some claims to a bit of "religious tolerance" to some select religions, but none can claim anything like "religious freedom" as we in the West understand it.) What a coincidence - in the countries controlled by Muslim majorities, POOF!, religious freedom is gone, and even religious tolerance is all but gone. The larger the majority, the less the tolerance of other religions. So, enjoy your "multicultural New York" while you can -- Islamic intimidation will make it increasingly less "multicultural" over time. (Heard any Muhammad jokes on TV lately?) To get a feeling of potential things to come, all you need to do is look at the countries in the OIC.

Hannity is certainly more qualified than Lane on Sharia -- Hannity understands the threat. Geller is also certainly much more qualified. Hannity was starting to hit the nail on the head towards the end of the interview (and now we're travelling into free speech country) -- Rauf's advocacy of Sharia is only a hair's breadth removed from yelling "Kill the Jews!" or "Down with the Constitution!" or "Enslave the Women!" Advocating Sharia is basically "Code Speech" for saying those things. Is that constitutionally protected free speech? Dunno -- that would have been an interesting discussion and it would be useful to get Lane's perspective. Does Lane believe there is ANY non-constitutionally protected free speech? Fire in a crowded theater? Libel? Slander? Advocating the violent overthrow of the US government? Advocating Sharia? The fact that Lane does not want to understand Sharia means that he does not want to address Sharia.

Huh? Free speech? There you go trying to change the subject! No one said anything about restricting free speech. Get your head in the ball game! Ok, Voltaire's original quote was about freedom of speech, but the variation concerns Lane's attitude of self destructive blindness to Sharia -- and its overt anti-constitutionalism. Lane doesn't even seem to care what Sharia is. Hannity is right -- Lane is not qualified to discuss the issue -- Lane does not even understand what the issue is, or what Geller, et al., are trying to do. (Lane didn't keep his mouth shut long enough to listen to Geller.)

David Lane will probably be smirking right up to the instant he is beheaded or blown up by one of his constitutionally protected clients. His attitude is, "I may disapprove of Sharia, but I will defend to my death, and everyone elses' death, your right to practice Sharia."

15,817 Islamic attacks across the world since 911 This is saying the fact in a sugar-coated, polite, non-offensive, almost casual way. That should be MORE THAN 15,817 DEADLY TERROR attacks. The site collecting this data makes both points. The "at least" part is clear -- they may not get the news about every single deadly attack (and they almost certainly don't get every such attack.) The "deadly terror" part is more important to note: These are deadly terror attacks -- they are not verbal attacks, or mere physical abuse attacks (those are probably in the millions), or attacks on property, or internet attacks, or political attacks, or whatever. No. These are attacks in which one or more people were killed in the name of Islam. This is almost 5 deadly attacks per day, each and every single day, since 9/11. August 10 was a typical day -- there were 5 deadly terror attacks in 3 different countries killing a total of 21 people. How many did your newspaper or TV station report?

And here all these years I thought Gettysburg was a battle between the North and the South. I never realized it was an attack by the Bapist Church on America! Shame on those Bapists for causing such pain. Pamela, brilliant comeback on the Danish cartoons not being run by MSNBC. From the look on the host's face (the way he leaned over the desk -- wow!), I don't beleive he knew what you were talking about (either the cartoons or the Comedy Central / South Park affair -- I doubt either issue (or, indeed, any Islam intimidation issue) has ever been covered by MSNBC, or even mentioned in the back rooms of MSNBC). "But it's not in America. We're in America, Pamela." Huh? What? It's unfortunate -- it's not the America the host grew up in -- but it is the America of today! And it's becoming more so.

Individual state laws still won't cut it the long run. States that can pass the National Popular Vote bill on a whim can revoke it on a whim. The state legislature of a large state that gets upset with the result of even a single election can repeal the legislation. The reason nearly all of the states went to the winner-take-all approach for their electoral votes was to maximize the state's (i.e., the politicians in the state) clout with a potential winner. I'd be surprised even if many of the states went to the proportional system of Maine and Nebraska. The dynamics that were in play in the 1800's when states (and the politicians that runs those states) went this route are still in play in the 2000's. It would take a Constitutional amendment to make everyone play the same way.

First, the big states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, etc.) should love this proposal, while the small states (Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, etc.) should hate it. The small states have much more voting power with the electoral college. Small states would be foolish to vote for this. Why Hawaii and Maryland have already voted for this is beyond me -- my respect for the intelligence of politicians lessens every day. Second, this proposal/experiment will not work beyond (at most) a single close election. Remember that these are state laws that can change at the whim of each state. What will happen is that some large states (say, Texas and Florida if a Democrat wins, or Illinois if a Republican wins) will be forced to vote against the wishes of their own people. If the election outcome changes because some states were forced to vote "wrong," the outcry in those states will be huge. The angry state legislatures will then meet and repeal the law for the offended states, and we'll be back with the original electoral college. A single close election will tear this scheme apart. It will then be generations before those states would want to try the experiment again. This is not a plan that will work for long.

Holder says the charges reflect a disturbing trend that leaders in Muslim communities in the United States are try to help law enforcement agencies address. Holder got the first part right -- this does reflect a disturbing trend. However, Holder did not get the "but" part right -- Holder gives no examples of where leaders are trying to help law enfocerment agencies, and Holder does not address that no Muslim leaders are trying to prevent this from happening in the first place. Holder's press conference here: http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100805.html Holder said less than 800 words. Not once did he use "Islam." He spent his first 450 words talking about the terrorists. Holder never identified the terrorists as being Muslim. Then he spent 150 words talking about the "Mulim community." Holder did use the word "Muslim" 5 times -- each in the context of the Muslim community and leadership -- not the terrorists. He had no explicit examples of how the Muslim community is helping, except for the questionable and ambiguous video that has been talked about in this blog and in other places. Holder then used 135 words to thank entities that helped in the arrests -- he did not thank anyone in the Muslim community for any help. In his remarks, Holder almost comes across as apologizing to the Muslim community for having to make the arrests -- keep up the good work all of you folks in the Muslim community, and please

Gotta love the legal logic here.... Well done!

"The reason why there are Muslim extremist is because there are radicals ..." "Muslim extremist," "Islamist," etc., are made-up Western euphemisms for observant Muslims. Islam is so alien to Western philosophy, standards, culture, and beliefs, that we have to make-up a reason, an explanation, an excuse, really, for what we see. We believe that no rational (i.e., Westernized) person could possibly be following a religion and be doing what these people are doing..... So, we pretend they are not rational. Think about this: What's a "Christian radical?" What's a "Jewish radical?" Why does no other religion have "radicals." And the answer is that there really are no "radicals" (at least in numbers you can't count on one hand). Similarly, there are no Muslim "moderates" -- There are only Muslims who are not practicing Islam. (Just as there are Christians who do not practice Christianity and Jews who do not practice Judaism.) To see Islam as Islam, look at Iran and Saudi Arabia. These countries' practices of Islam are still moderated somewhat by Western influence (e.g., no overt slavery, punishments are being toned down). "... that teaches kids Quran in its literal form." In Islam, the Quran has only literal interpretations -- there are no symbolic interpretations. If the Quran says "X," it means "X." There are also many things NOT in the Quran that many Westerners assume are in all religions. For instance, there is no "Turn the other cheek," "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." The kids are being taught what the Quran says (and does not say). There is a lot of "hate" within your movement ... please also consider that they are human beings as well The criticisms are about Islam, not Muslims. You know, there are many people in the world (billions perhaps?) that hate US policies and ideologies, and say so. Is that hate? Does that mean they hate Americans? If someone attacks US policy (and even lots of Americans attack US policy) or American ideologies, is that hate, and do those people hate Americans? The ideological part of Islam is the same thing. Simply substitute the words "American policy" for "Islam" and "Americans" for "Muslims" and you'll get lots of analogies hitting you. BTW, Americans who do not like American policy are encouraged to work to try to change American policy -- how many Muslims do this? (Well, it's part of Islam to forbid this.) Further, Americans who do like American policy, (for the most part) do not threaten to kill or intimidate anyone trying to make those changes -- how many Muslims do this? (Well, it's part of Islam to do this.) Nor does American policy condone Americans killing anyone because those people are trying to change American policy -- Islam does. Now, admittedly, American policies are more fluid and easier to change than Islam, but that's exactly the problem, isn't it?

The Post-American Presidency -- #1 on Amazon (US Politics) this morning!

Congrats! It's already a best seller! #6 in Amazon as of 6:00pm EST! (US Politics) I'm getting the CD version so I can listen during my commute.

Yep, I caught it. Here's the YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzfE4YWXKMQ Hannity had Jay Seculow (ACLJ) and Michael Gross(Civil Rights Atty and Dhimmi). Gross preached and demonstrated free speech by closing his ears and basically talking/shouting non-stop -- during/over/under/through/around Hannity and Gross. Hannity practically had to pull out a referee's whistle to get Gross to stop. The TV crew was fortunate that Gross did not have a stroke. My favorite quote from Gross was near the end when he compared acquiring knowledge of Sharia to looking at pornography (?huh? -- I guess he was trying to claim neither is necessary). If I interpret Gross correctly, he believes Rauf can put his Victory Mosque where ever he wants -- WTC, City Hall, the back porch of the White House, Yellowstone Park, your bedroom, your kid's second grade classroom -- anywhere is OK, it's all in the name of the First Amendment. Gross seemed to be implying (yelling :-) that there are absolutely NO restrictions, no exceptions, no restraints on locating places of worship. Perhaps the entire United States, from sea to shining sea, could be designated one large mosque?

Way to go Newt! Our politicians are starting to wake up! And in no small part due to Pamela and Robert. ---------------------------- An aside -- I hate to repeat myself on this, but I call 'em as I see 'em: Those Islamists and their apologists who argue for "religious toleration" ... Newt got this one right -- the apologists pointedly and carefully push the button for toleration, and pointedly and carefully steer clear of the word freedom. ...are arrogantly dishonest. However, Newt then falls in the trap of saying that the Muslims behind Cordoba house really don't believe in toleration. They are not dishonest, at least in this regard: Islam whole-heartedly supports, and indeed embraces, toleration -- Islam just doesn't support religious freedom. Indeed, Islam is the opposite of religious freedom. At times, these folks can be very straightforward about what they are doing (remember, they are also talking to and signaling their followers). "To Serve Man -- It's a cookbook, people!" The apologists use the words they want to use and assign the meanings they want to assign, and they can then speak with conviction and to their colleagues. They interpret the words one way, and we interpret the words a different way, and we are lulled, and we only discover our foolishness too late.

Kudos to Palin for recognizing and telling the truth and not hiding behind Political Correctness! That is what this country needs! And, we get a teaching moment -- Palin uses the phrase "religious tolerance" rather than "religious freedom." She means "religious freedom." Frankly, I cringe every time I see the phrase "religious tolerance." It's so misleading and so inviting to taqiyya. "Religious tolerance" is an Old World concept (Islam and Europe) where there are state religions. The state "tolerates" (i.e., puts up with) non-state religions. The Established (state) religion is not "tolerated" -- it is not necessary to "tolerate" it since it is the "official" religion. "Religious tolerance" does NOT infer any sort of equality among religions or their believers. Indeed, in Islam, the believers of "tolerated" religions have, at best, second class citizenship. American does NOT have "religious tolerance!" America DOES HAVE "religious freedom!" Americans do not "tolerate" religions -- Americans do not give "permission" to religions -- Americans allow them, and allow them rights, equally. Of course, your freedom ends where my freedom begins. Islam's freedom ends where Christianity's and Judaism's freedoms begin. And that is the fundamental problem with Islam -- it wants to pull in all freedoms and control them -- (true) Islam does not play nicely with religious freedom (or most other freedoms, for that matter). Why is this important? Because many Muslims go around saying "Islam supports religious tolerance." Muslims can say it truthfully, with a straight face -- they can say it without flinching -- they can take a lie detector test and pass. But, in America, "religious tolerance" is not the important thing. The phrase is a holdover from European usage, and not appropriate for America. "Religious freedom" is the key. But, (true) Islam does not support "religious freedom." Almost every time I've heard an Islamic apologist (Muslim or non-Muslim) speak on this subject, they have used the phrase "religious tolerance." The usage is disingenuous.

Well, that's what I get for not looking for even more examples -- one example was actually understating things. Actually, the date 1529 and Suleiman and Vienna are true. However, the Turks were back to Vienna in 1683. Assuming I did my math correctly, that's just 93 years before the Declaration of Independence, comparable in time span to World War I with today. Again, the point is that the Muslim world was militarily threatening central Europe not so long ago. There were certainly individual people who lived across both events. And we have forgotten.

I will give Bloomberg this: he is very wealthy (worth billions), so I doubt he has been bought. But unfortunately, Bloomberg is not unique in being blind to the problem. The fundamental problem is that many people do not understand Islam -- they believe Islam is just another variant of Christianity or Judaism. They believe Islam is something like Calvinism with prayer rugs and Arabic. (Kind of like many people in the world in the 1920's and 1930's thought Nazism was just another political party, something like Democrats with salutes :-( So, many people are Islamically-illiterate -- they have not discovered or explored either Islamic theology (inherently anti-Constitutional, with Islam denying practically every right enumerated in the Constitution) or Islamic history (more than a thousand year of military aggression against Europe and the West -- remember that Suleiman was at the gates of Vienna in 1529! That's not so long ago -- in context, Magellan had already sailed around the world, Leonardo da Vinci had already died, the printing press had been going for almost a century -- and at that time, the Muslim world was actively threatening the conquest of central Europe!) Now, to be fair, just as one has to separate American policy from individual Americans, one has to separate individual Muslims from Islam. However, in a kind of "law of large numbers," when you get a large enough group of Americans together, you get American policy. Similarly, when you get enough Muslims together, you get Islam. And Islam is still the same religion as it has been over the past 1400 years -- except that, if anything, much of it (Wahhibism) has become even more literal and strident since then. And Bloomberg and many Americans and many Westerners simply do realize the threat of Islam because Islam has not been a threat to the West for several hundred years and we have forgotten. Similarly, we have forgotten the fear of small pox or polio because we have no present day experiences with them.