Year: 2016

You can smell the fear of Pauline in their sweat

By Lucas Rosas/ XYZ

Recently, the establishment narrative has taken a few hits, and the slimy weasels that rely on the docility of the average Aussie punter for their daily bread have started to show signs of panic.

The shock poll finding released this week, showing that most Australians are sceptical at best regarding continued Muslim immigration, was a direct rebuke to the almost frantic denunciation and mockery of the press regarding the One Nation maiden speeches in the Senate.

Peter Lewis, who organised the poll, was clearly expecting a different result, one that could have been used to further ridicule Hanson and her fellow patriotic Senators.

He did not get quite the outcome that the left desired:

“The result floored me.

“This not a “basket of deplorables” who sit outside the confines of polite society, that is 49% of the men and women who make up our nation.

“Yes, they are more likely to vote Coalition or “other” but 40% of Labor voters and one third of Greens agree too. Look around you right now, there are people in your workplace, in your street, on your train, who agree with Hanson.

“So here’s the challenge to everyone concerned or affronted by these findings. How do you tell half the population that they are wrong?”

Muslim immigrant, anti-free-speech activist and shameless self promoter Mariam Veiszadeh predictably used the results to call for greater restrictions on the ability of Australians to criticise her co-religionists:

Continue reading Cold Sweat

For some reason, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed thought he was just the man to tell Australians they were wrong to think Muslims don’t integrate and should be banned from immigrating.

What nonsense, sighed the Mufti, our most senior Muslim cleric.

The answer was simple: “What we need is collaboration and proper communication.”

And here is the joke: the Mufti, who moved here from Egypt in 1997, said it in Arabic. Through an interpreter.

Yes, after living here for 19 years, the Mufti still hasn’t integrated enough to speak English in public. The many integrated Muslims here will despair.

That kind of thing explains why 49 per cent of Australians in last week’s Essential poll said Muslim immigration must be banned, fretting that Muslims don’t integrate and some even want to blow us up.

But the issue here is not just that the Mufti refuses to speak English.

Continue reading Andrew Bolt: Grand Mufti needs interpreter to tell us Muslims can integrate

Smells like BS:
Government whispers: most Syrian refugees we take are Christian

Sources tell The Australian the special provision of 12,000 extra people to be taken from Syria will comprise a majority of Christians.

Much of the non-Christian ­remainder will be from other persecuted, non-Muslim ­minorities, including Yazidis, Druze and ­Zoroastrians. The Sunni Muslims who are included will comprise in part of Kurds, fierce opponents of Islamist extremism.– Herald Sun

And here, the truth about the N*99a  riots in Charlotte:

Part 2 of Killer Cartoons

The plucky little king and his glamorous Islam promoting wifey killed him. How? By not offering him protection. Simple.

Nahid Hattar was murdered outside the court where he was facing charges for insulting Islam. In response, if they make any response at all, Western leaders will no doubt say that Nahid Hattar should have been more respectful of Islamic religious beliefs. That is always their response: if Muslims will kill you for doing something, we are told that we shouldn’t do it, and that it is wrong and insulting and offensive to do it. No one ever tells the Muslim killers to stop being irrational, violent bullies.– Robert Spencer

Jordan: Murderer of Christian charged with insulting Islam was Muslim cleric

More on this story. “Imam kills Christian writer charged over anti-Islam cartoon,” by Ajomole Helen, Naij.com, September 25, 2016:

Jordanian writer, Nahed Hattar was shot dead by a suspected Islamist gunman today Sunday, September 25th, outside the courtroom where he was due to stand trial for insulting Islam by sharing a cartoon on Facebook. 

Hattar was arrested in August for sharing a cartoon on Facebook showing a bearded man in heaven smoking, lying in bed with women and calling on God to bring him wine and cashew. He captioned the cartoon which he deleted shortly after posting it: 

“It mocks terrorists and their concept of God and heaven. It does not infringe God’s divinity in anyway” 

Continue reading Jordan: Muslim Holy Man Assassinates Christian Cartoonist/Journalist

In Initially Airbrushing Orlando Jihadist’s Calls, DOJ Followed Obama-Clinton U.N. Resolution against Negative Speech about Islam

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Before reversing itself this afternoon amid rebukes from commentators and Republican leaders, the Obama Justice Department undertook to bleach the Islam out of Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s statements about his Islamist mass-murder attack — specifically, his pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State terror network and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the effect of which was to claim an Islamic doctrinal justification for the killing of 49 people, and the wounding of 53 others.

Even the White House appeared to be distancing itself from Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s original decision to release an edited version of one of Mateen’s 911 calls to the public. Obama, after all, had earlier conceded Mateen’s pledge of allegiance. Still, the Justice Department’s action was predictable. The purging of the transcript was a straightforward application of the Obama administration’s counter-constitutional U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which purports to mandate the suppression of speech that could cast Islam in a bad light — regardless of whether the speech is accurate or the negative impression it creates is justified. Lynch had said the Justice Department would edit out Mateen’s effort to fit his atrocity in the Islamic State framework. This purge was rationalized by the attorney general as a refusal to abet the spread of Mateen’s propaganda. In fact, it was a promotion of the administration’s own propaganda — much like the whitewashing of references to Islam in instructional materials used to train American law-enforcement, military, intelligence agents. From his first days in office, President Obama has forged a collaborative relationship with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is the largest United Nations bloc. It includes 56 nations with significant Muslim populations plus the Palestinian Authority (which these Muslim nations regard as a fellow sovereign). Throughout her four years as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was Obama’s point-person in the administration’s collusion with the OIC. Among the most significant “achievements” of this partnership — and, from a constitutional perspective, the most appalling one — has been the adoption of Resolution 16/18. In blatant violation of the First Amendment, this provision calls on Western governments to outlaw any speech that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” toward religion, on the rationale that such speech could provoke “religious hatred.” The resolution, if honored, is a drastic violation of First Amendment free-speech principles, which protect speech that constitutes political debate and promotes the introduction of accurate information in discussions of public policy. These are cornerstones of a self-governing, properly functioning republic. Let’s put aside the fact that Islamic supremacism, a mainstream interpretation of Islam, is not really a religion in the strict sense, but rather a radical, totalitarian political ideology with a religious veneer. Even if we were talking purely about religion, the First Amendment does not permit the government to prohibit speech or expression that could potentially incite mere hostility. There are many beliefs that deserve to be condemned; the Constitution safeguards our right both to be hostile to them and to engage in speech that promotes such hostility. (Indeed, that is just the most obvious principle. Besides inciting hostility, the resolution purports to prohibit speech that incites violence and discrimination. There is no need for an international resolution to prohibit the incitement of violence; it is already against American federal and state laws. As for speech that could incite discrimination against religion, the First Amendment would not permit a prohibition. We outlaw certain categories actual discriminatory action against religious believers, but not the mere statement or thought that a religion should be discriminated against.) The joint Obama-OIC Resolution 16/18 effectively imposes sharia blasphemy standards on American law. As I’ve previously outlined, sharia proscribes not only expression that is arguably insulting to Islam (e.g., burning the Koran, or cartoons that poke fun at Islam’s prophet Mohammed); it further forbids any speech or expression, by anyone, that constitutes an unflattering portrayal or belittling of Islam; and Muslims are forbidden to renounce Islam (which is deemed to include dissenting speech that denies any Islamic principle that is supported by scholarly consensus). Yet speech critical of religion is unexceptional in a free, pluralistic society — it is the kind of provocative or even infuriating expression that those provoked or infuriated are expected to tolerate for the greater good of promoting a marketplace of ideas.

Continue reading Obama’s DOJ Applies Shari’a

Australia: Muslim MP Anne Aly, Predictably, Gets All Het Up About Immigration Poll That Showed Many Aussies Want Ban on Muslim Immigration

 by Christina McIntosh

The ‘Je suis Charlie’ types have left the Middle East long ago. But this chap, didn’t he get the memo? How come he didn’t know that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?”

Gunman kills Jordanian charged over anti-Islam cartoon

Christian journalist Nahed Hattar, about to go on trial, shot 3 times outside Amman court; shooting suspect arrested

Times of Israel

AMMAN — A gunman on Sunday killed prominent Jordanian writer Nahed Hattar outside a court where he was facing charges for sharing a cartoon deemed offensive to Islam, state news agency Petra reported.

Hattar was struck by three bullets before the assailant was arrested, said Petra. Witnesses told AFP that a man had opened fire in front of the court in Amman’s Abdali district.

The 56-year-old Christian was arrested on August 13 after posting a cartoon mocking jihadists on his Facebook account.

He was charged with inciting sectarian strife and insulting Islam before being released on bail in early September.

How is it possible to insult Islam when we all know that ISIL is totally unislamic and has nothing to do with Islam at all?

Continue reading Killer Cartoons

Pamela Geller:

The New York Times has long been a mouthpiece for the forces of Islamic supremacism and apologists for sharia. But this article in the Times goes even farther, actively stumping for a practice that dehumanizes women and is still illegal in the United States — for now, anyway.

“A Site to Help Get Wedding Bells Ringing and Ringing and Ringing,” by Ben Hubbard, New York Times ^[1], September 20, 2016:

Add this twist to the panoply of websites that promise to fill the holes in your love life: Sites that are aimed at married men who want to add wives, and single women who’d be happy sharing a spouse.

Certain that there were plenty of people in the world who’d be interested in such a service — and willing to pay for it — Azad Chaiwala, a 33-year-old British entrepreneur of Pakistani origin, created what he said were the world’s first matchmaking sites for aspiring polygamists.

Continue reading New York Times shills for Islamic polygamy