In this new video, I calls on Americans to protest Sharia promoter Linda Sarsour’s commencement speech at CUNY. Linda Sarsour is pro-Sharia, so here is a thought experiment: what if her husband started to go all Sharia on her, and forbade her to speak, or even barred her from leaving their house? What would the […]
Archives for May 2017
“Drive them out from where they drove you out,” says the Qur’an (2:191), and that’s why Muslims throughout the world believe that Israel has no right to exist, and that they have a responsibility before Allah to do everything they can to destroy it. That’s why every negotiated settlement to bring peace between Israel and […]
More unreasonable accommodations to Muslims in the UK, as Sharia rules continue to encroach upon British society and subjugate Britons: Recommendations include schools should make adjustments to accommodate the needs of fasting pupils, hold exams in rooms in the shade, change times of revision lessons and provide prayer rooms as well as to make sure […]
The comment below appeared to the opinion piece “This Wasn’t a Speech About Islam” by Mustafa Akyol and Wajahat Ali (New York Times, May 21, 2017):
TDurk Rochester NY
I am not a supporter of Donald Trump. I find the man to be repugnant and his proposed domestic policies to be injurious to the interests of the American people.
That said, his speech focused on the responsibility of the Muslim people to stamp out Islamic terrorism. He correctly laid the issue at the feet of the states, the clergies and the money who have, either through benign neglect or quiet support, allowed barbarians to use religious fervor as an excuse to commit barbarous acts upon innocents. He correctly stated that the problem is not the problem of the US or of Europe to solve, although the west may need to eradicate the terrorist structures, root and branch.
In this instance, Donald Trump is right.
In the opinion piece, Mustafa Akyol, a contributing opinion writer, is a visiting fellow at the Freedom Project at Wellesley College and the author of The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims, whined:
A “speech on Islam” could have included some references to the faith, an acknowledgment that Islam is a great religion with values in common with Judeo-Christianity, and with a history of pluralism and tolerance. A “speech on Muslims” could have also been richer, with perhaps examples of how Muslims have contributed to the world, including to American society. This was a more modest, narrow and pragmatic speech, mostly appealing to Muslim leaders — in fact, only Sunni ones — for more cooperation against terrorism. But given Mr. Trump’s earlier views on Islam, it could have been worse!
Mr. Akyol is correct: President Trump’s Riyadh speech wasn’t nearly as sycophantic as the 2009 Cairo Speech spewed by Apologist-In-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.
The Riyadh Speech was as daring a speech that an American President could give on Arabian soil to an assembly of Arab nations.
As Kid mentioned at Infidel Bloggers Alliance, there was much nuanced threat.
Yes, indeed! Note this portion about condemned souls:
Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.
A deliberate salvo directed at the Wahhabist imams, many of them from Saudi.
President Trump also called out Hamas.
I also note that President Trump at one point said, “Islamic extremism.” Apparently, the original script said “Islamist extremism.” An accident on Trump’s part?
“Father, today I graduated…..All the fathers hugged their daughters, except for me, whose longing for you and the heartache over your absence overwhelmed me. But I am strong, steadfast in your way, father.” The audacity of Tala Abdullah al-Barghouti’s “heartfelt” letter to her Hamas terrorist father is sickening, and she promises “to complete the path […]
If this recent behavior displayed by hate-filled Democrats was being done by conservatives, we’d have 24/7 coverage on how ugly the “tone” has become and Republicans would be forced to condemn it. Yet since this ugliness mirrors everything coming from the … Continued
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel. In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie asks Would a Leftist Scream for a Victim of Sharia?, reflecting on a leftist student’s ferocious howls upon seeing a Trump sign on campus. Don’t miss it! And make sure to watch Jamie call out Joy Reid’s Smear of Sebastian […]
Israel was not the only country in the Middle East happy to see Barack Obama out of the White House. President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend served as a very public slap in the face of his predecessor. And it was the Saudis, not Trump, who delivered the blow. Israel Today Saudi newspapers […]
To this we have come.
But not all that surprising when we consider some of Wellesley’s alumnae who entered government and public service. That particular list includes Hillary Clinton.
We also read that Charlotte Anita Whitney is an alumna of Wellesley. She was an early Communist Labor Party of America and Communist Party USA organizer in California. She was named the national chairwoman of the Communist Party in 1936.
… The student editors say it’s fine to suppress and deny people the right to speak their minds if their thoughts offend others.
“We have all said problematic claims,” the editorial reads. “Luckily most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way.”
If that doesn’t sound like it was ripped from a dystopian novel, what comes next is truly Orwellian: “If people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.” In other words, if you say things some people find offensive, then there will be physical consequences.
This weird interpretation of free speech — that saying offensive or politically incorrect things deprives others of rights — is not exclusive to the faculty. Here’s how the student editorial staff describes the objective of free speech: “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.”…
Read the rest HERE.
Parents, beware when you send your children off to college! Our institutions have become bastions of the suppression and extermination of any and all ideas not in accordance with Leftism.