No, we also hadn’t heard of it.

We learn from this article by Terry Jeffrey that it was the anti-Gaddafi rebel force. Some of its savages, we reckon, including al-Qaeda members, murdered US Ambassador Stevens in Banghazi last month.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they made it clear that the only time the president would have the authority to use military force without prior authorization from Congress was when, as James Madison recorded in his notes from the Constitutional Convention, it was necessary to “repel sudden attacks.”

It was thus fittingly symbolic that when Barack Obama announced he had ordered the U.S. military to intervene in Libya’s civil war, he did not do so from the Oval Office or the well of the U.S. House of Representatives, but from the capital city of Brazil.

In that speech, delivered March 19, 2011, Obama repeatedly used the first-person pronoun, I, in explaining who had decided America would intervene in Libya.

“Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians,” Obama said. “I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it’s not a choice that I make lightly,” said Obama.

On what authority had I, Barack Obama, taken America into war?

“In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people,” Obama said from Brazil. …

The U.N. Security Council’s permanent members include not only the United States, France and Great Britain, but also Russia and the People’s Republic of China, which, according to Obama’s State Department, is still governed by communists. In 2011, the Security Council also included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Columbia and Gabon, Nigeria and Lebanon, Portugal and South Africa, and the government of Brazil, which hosted Obama’s war announcement.

Obama’s case was plain: The governments of these nations – not the constitutionally elected representatives of the American people – had given him authority to decide whether America would go to war in Libya, and he had decided America would go to war in Libya. …

But what did Obama know about the revolutionary forces in Libya, the so-called “thuwar”, before he ordered the U.S. military to take up their cause? What sort of prudential analysis had he done about the potential aftermath of this intervention? What consideration had he given to who would restore order and security in Libya and how they would do it? Why did he believe a truly representative government in Libya was likely let alone possible? …

We now know that the revolutionary forces in Libya started committing war crimes even before Obama ordered the U.S. military to intervene on their behalf.

On March 2, the U.N. International Commission of Inquiry on Libya  published its report on human rights violations there. “The Commission received reports of executions by the thuwar  …  War crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by thuwar and that breaches of international human rights law continue to occur in a climate of impunity, … acts of extra-judicial executions, torture, enforced disappearance, indiscriminate attacks and pillage. [But] no investigations have been carried out into any violations committed by the thuwar.”

Had Obama followed the U.S. Constitution and sought congressional authorization for his use of force in Libya, the members of Congress who voted for such an authorization would have shared the responsibility for what that intervention helped bring about. As it is, the responsibility for exceeding his constitutional authority and intervening in a civil war he did not understand lies solely and deservedly with Obama himself.

At least insofar as he is answerable to the American people. But he could claim that the UN was the Big Chief who gave the orders. If he did, he would be confessing that he is a mere lackey of that appalling institution. He does not confess it. He does what he always does in a crisis: nothing. And he knows the mainstream media will protect his inaction by reporting almost nothing about the horrific events in Libya.

Here the thuwar introduces itself. No need to watch all of it. It’s just a loud unjustified boast. That lot would never have won the fight against Gaddafi without American and European intervention. Obama made their triumphalism possible. For which they have had their revenge on Obama’s ambassador. 

The revolutionaries who founded the United States of America were willing to kill and die to establish a Republic in which all would be free. The First Amendment, enshrining the principle of free speech, was passed on December 15, 1791,  two and a half years after the final ratification of the Constitution on June 24, 1787.

Are there still Americans willing to kill and die to preserve freedom? They may be found in the armed forces, but are there any in government? Or among those who vote for a government which urges the nation to submit to an aggressive enemy of freedom?

[That America] remains one of the very few places in the world, even among Western democracies, where freedom of speech is absolute, came about through stirring speeches, deeply felt debates, classical ideas and a passionate political culture — but most of all it came about because large numbers of people were willing to kill over it.

Currently large numbers of people are willing to kill over the idea that Islam is the supreme religion, that Mohammed is a deity whom all mankind should respect and that the infidels living in the suburban sprawl of a thoroughly explored continent should accept that or die. Our government calls those people a tiny minority of extremists. Our unofficial name for them is, “Muslims.”

Laws are decided by many things, but sweep away all the lawbooks, the pleas from tearful mothers, the timed publicity campaigns, the novel legal theories and the greedy bureaucrats expanding their turf, and under the table you will find a gun. The first and final law is still the law of force.The law begins with the power to impose its will on others. It ends with the enforcement of that power.

Law either has force behind it or it does not, and if it has no force behind it then it is an optional thing that is subject to custom. And every now and then the law is challenged, not with novel legal theories or with petitions, but with force, and it either responds with force or submits to a new law. That is what we call revolution.

Islam has made laws that it expects all of mankind to abide by. These laws are not backed by novel legal theories or by petitions, though its practitioners are willing to offer both, they are backed by the naked practice of force. And the imposition of these laws can only be defended against by force. …

The lawyers who run all our national affairs have chosen to respond to the Islamic legal briefs of bombs and bullets with the equivocation with which they meet all difficult questions. They will not abandon the principle of freedom of speech, but they will lock up the filmmaker whose imprisonment the murderous Muslim legalists called for. They will not censor YouTube, but they will encourage YouTube to censor itself. They will not ban speech that offends Islam, but they will strongly condemn and discourage it.

These equivocators offer to abandon the practice of freedom so long as they are allowed to retain the theory of freedom. The Bill of Rights will not change, but as in the Soviet Union it will not apply. The authorities will pay lip service to the freedoms that we only think we have until we actually try to use them and then we will discover that we don’t actually have any of these freedoms left in stock.

In theory America will be an independent country, in practice it will be a vassal state of the Muslim world whose displays of outrage will be our law telling us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot think, and what we can and cannot do.

This is the typical kind of bargain that decadent empires make with the barbarous warlords on their doorstep. The empire will keep its splendor and its titles, while the barbarians will tell the empire what to do. …

A demand for a code of conduct backed by violence is law. It is not our law, it is not the law of the civilized man, but it is the law that we are slowly adopting. It is the law of the decadents appeasing the savages. …

Under this code, Muslim violence dictates our permissible forms of speech. To know whether a thing may be said, drawn or filmed, we must first determine how Muslims will react to it. If they will react with violence, as they do to a sizable percentage of things, then it becomes incitement, retroactively, that must be punished and condemned.

Muslim violence has become our law. It is the law of action which determines our laws of speech. To understand what we can say, we first have to decide what Muslims will do about it. …

When we were revolutionaries, our government saw force as a way of dealing with other countries who wanted to tell Americans what to do. But since then our government has really gotten used to telling us what to do. …

Our new breed of lawyer-kings is composed of urban utopianists ruling through central government. To them the Bill of Rights is a piece of incomprehensible lunacy that prevents them from getting anything done. They are not concerned with rural government trespasses, they are worried about bombs and riots in their cities and they are terrified of their global goals being sabotaged by some movie trailer.

They are making Muslim violence into our new law, just as they made urban violence into our new law, just as they have made their own bureaucratic mandates backed by SWAT teams and prisons into our new law.

The age when laws were made by men, rather than machines of social progress composed of lawyers and activists, bureaucrats and think-tanks, lobbyists and judges, is long since gone. There is no law in our laws, but the law of force. The Constitution sits on a dusty shelf while the judges bang their gavels and practice the law that mandates something because those in power want it that way.

And now our utopian lawyer-kings, our armies of bleeding-heart social justice activists, our legions of bureaucrats stamping their papers over our skulls, our grinning black-robed activist judges wielding their gavels like swords, are cringing in terror before a Muslim mob. The bullies who have bullied us for so long have proven to be cowards. While they dismantle our army to sell it for scraps so that the EPA and HUD and the cowboy poetry festivals can get their billions, they order us to fall on our knees before the Army of Allah.

The liberal bullies who bullied us for so long have been successfully bullied and have handed us over to the bully’s bully. But bullies, of the liberal or Muslim kind, are cowards. Their bullying only works until they are successfully bullied and without their threat of force, their laws wither and blow away on the wind.

These quotations are from an article by Daniel Greenfield  at Canada Free Press.

Read it ALL here.

We see a logical link between the appalling murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, and the infiltration of the Obama administration by the Muslim Brotherhood.* 

There can be little doubt that diplomatic secrets – the Ambassador’s whereabouts, and the location of the “safe-house” belonging to the consulate – were betrayed from inside the legation. (How else would a “safe-house” become known?) Also, that there was a policy of trusting local Arab security personnel to guard America’s representatives and their staff. How could it come about that legations in that part of the world, recently emerged from violent uprisings and still in a state of instability and internal strife, should be exposed to such obvious risk? Why were those Marines – too few of them – who were nominally on guard at the Cairo embassy not issued with ammunition? These policy decisions issued from the State Department. The head of the State Department is Hillary Clinton, and her closest adviser, Huma Abedin, is intricately  and intimatetly involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, the  jihadist organization that has come to power in Egypt.**

But, you might point out, Ambassador Stevens was killed by al-Qaeda, not the Muslim Brotherhood. (See our post The Gitmo alumnus, September 28, 2012.) Yes, but observe  that the imam who preached protest in Cairo against the “anti-Muhammad” movie deliberately shown to Egyptian audiences for that very purpose is  the brother of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. (For a full account of this, see our post Al-Qaeda incited the Islamic world to riot, burn and kill, September 16, 2012.) Does that not suggest that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are co-operating with each other?***

Are we alone in finding it irresistible to “connect the dots” and see a picture emerging of the worst betrayal of America in all its history?

The administration has become tangled in a web of deceit in trying to cover up what really happened in Benghazi. The motive for the cover-up is ascribed to President Obama’s wish to claim that the “War on Terror” is over; that with the killing of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda was defeated – while in fact al Qaeda is bigger, stronger, and operating lethally in many more countries than it was before bin Laden’s death.

The estimable Rep. Peter King puts this argument forward in this video:

It may be, however, that the really terrible secret Obama and his henchmen are trying to cover up is that the betrayal stems not just locally from the inside of the US legation in Libya, but from Foggy Bottom and the White House.

*A thoroughly researched study of this, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration by Frank Gaffney, is published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and is available from them.

**Huma Abedin’s close connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are documented in Frank Gaffney’s study.

*** Go here to read about every al-Qaeda leader’s membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Times of Israel reports – quoting a British newspaper, the Sunday Times:

Israel could destroy Iran’s electric network with a specially designed electromagnetic bomb in the event of a military conflict between the countries …

[It] would be detonated above the ground, creating an electromagnetic pulse that would “disrupt all the technological devices working on the ground,” an American expert was quoted as saying to the London paper.

The use of the new technology by Israel was brought up in discussions regarding a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities …

Such a move would send Iran “back to the stone age,” the British paper said.

Such a bomb would not kill people, or destroy buildings. It would wreck communications systems.

This kind of bomb would operate based on the nonlethal technology of gamma rays… The outburst of energy would “fry” electric devicesand currents around the source of the explosion.

Will Israel use this powerful weapon?

In his speech to the United Nations last Thursday (September 27, 2012), Prime Minister Netanyahu said:

The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb. The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.

But he did not go on to say that if Iran crossed that red line, Israel would destroy those nuclear installation by whatever weapons it deems most effective. Having sounded strong and determined up to that point, the Israeli Prime Minister suddenly sounded weak.

I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.

Sanctions and diplomacy, tried for years now, have spectacularly failed.

As long as Barack Obama is president of the US, no red line will be drawn. He won’t even consider it.

Will Israel yet save the world from a nuclear-armed Iran? Will it even act to save itself? If it will, and if not now, when?

“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),”, to quote Wikipedia, “is a nonpartisan non-profit organization whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

But “not in the case of the Muhammad movie”, Investor’s Business Daily reports, referring to the video film titled “Innocence of Muslims”, which has been absurdly blamed by the Obama administration for Muslim protests and uprisings across the globe, violent attacks on US embassies, and the torture, sodomizing, and murder of US Ambassador Stevens in Libya.

The silly little film had been on YouTube for months without being taken notice of. Then it was found, pounced on and used by Arab media men, politicians, al-Qaeda leaders, and imams to boost an Islamic campaign to put an end to freedom of speech in the West, particularly in the US. And the Obama administration, ever sympathetic if not passionately devoted to Islam, is doing its best to help them achieve their aim.

And they’re not being opposed in this by the ACLU which exists to defend rights and liberties in America.

Here is more from the IBD report:

The ACLU’s executive director failed to release an official statement condemning the outrageous efforts of the White House to deep-six the film including pressuring YouTube to remove its trailer from the Web. …

Not until The Daily Caller contacted the ACLU did it speak out, and only meekly so. It said it was “concerned” about the White House request to censor the “repellant film.”

The ACLU’s strangely muted response contrasts sharply with its militant reaction to post-9/11 measures to crack down on Islamic terrorists.

“The government has gone to extraordinary lengths to squelch dissent (in the Muslim community) — from censorship and surveillance to detention,” it says on its website, complaining it was “encroaching” on the “free speech rights” of Muslims. …

Where is this bias coming from? Muslims. The ACLU now counts at least eight on its national executive staff alone. In fact, a Muslim runs the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, while another heads its National Security Project.

The irony is not lost on Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The ACLU was founded on the basis that there shouldn’t be any blasphemy laws,” said Emerson … “Yet in the last 10 years, they’ve appointed (to their boards) members of the Muslim Brotherhood who believe in blasphemy laws.”

The top Muslim lawyer in ACLU’s stable is [a Canadian named] Jameel Jaffer, … [who] successfully sued the U.S. to reveal CIA secrets for interrogating terror suspects. …

[Jaffer is] a Muslim activist closely tied to major Muslim Brotherhood figures and front groups. [He] now heads the ACLU’s Center for Democracy after heading its National Security Project.

[He is] pals with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Egyptian founder of the radical Muslim Brotherhood .. [who] was denied a visa in 2004.  …  Jaffer successfully sued the U.S. to get Ramadan’s visa restored. …  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the six-year ban in 2009. …

Jaffer has lobbied the Justice Department to remove CAIR and other Brotherhood and Hamas front groups from its blacklist of groups complicit in a criminal conspiracy to raise money for terrorists.

He’s also pressured the FBI to purge names of Muslim terrorist suspects from the no-fly list.

What’s more, Jaffer wants to deny the feds one of its most effective weapons in the war on terror — freezing the assets of terrorist front groups.

He’s also sued to kill the government’s drone program, perhaps its most effective weapon of all.

This is who’s controlling the agenda at the ACLU these days. It was bad enough when the group was run by leftists. Now it’s also run by Islamists.

The purposes of Islam could not be more different from the purposes for which the ACLU was created. Plainly the ACLU no longer exists to protect liberty. It is now run by adherents of a movement which opposes liberty.

Is there an American institution of any importance which has not been infiltrated and corrupted by Islam?

… and get an unwelcome answer.

Do Muslims “have a right to be offended?”  Right or no right, human beings take offense. But which is more offensive to a rational mind: a bad video, or acts of atrocious cruelty?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, self-emancipated from Islam, superbly intelligent, superbly lucid, speaks truth to a morally deaf TV interviewer, and is sharply cut off when she makes an inarguable point.

(Video clip via Creeping Sharia)

According to a February 2012 report, 27% of prisoners released from custody at Guantanamo Bay return to their vocation of terrorism.

We wonder, why only 27%?  What do the rest do? And why are any released while the jihad is still being waged against us?

One of those who graduated from Guantanamo, and was put in the care of that trustworthy fellow Colonel Qaddafi who promised to keep him from doing any more jihad fighting, was – it now transpires – leader of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in which US Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed on the eleventh of this month.

This is from RedState:

As the administration’s false narrative about the events leading up to the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi and the killing of our ambassador continues to unravel, a sordid detail has come to light.

The leader of the the attack is believed to be an alumnus of Guantanamo Bay who was released from custody via an anti-American left wing group headed by an Obama donor….

Abu Sufian bin Qumu, according to his Guantanamo file, was picked up in Pakistan in early 2002 after being identified by the Libyan government (that would be the same government we helped jihadists overthrow) as an al Qaeda operative. He arrived at Guantanamo in May 2002. He had extensive links to a wide variety of Islamist terrorist groups, including the men directly responsible for 9/11. …

Even though the US military recommended he remain in custody, the far left and wildly misnamed Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) took on bin Qumu as a client and worked to get him released. They were successful and in 2007 he was returned to Libyan custody. He was released from prison as Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi tried to mend fences with radical islamists in 2008. …

The head of the CCR when bin Qumu was released was Michael Ratner [who] endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and contributed $2,300 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. [He] remains “President Emeritus” of the CCR.

Read how Ratner boasts of getting jihadists released from Guantanamo here.

It now transpires that Innocence of Muslims, the anti-Muhammad video trailer that Obama blames for the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Libya and for setting the Islamic world on fire, was made by Muslims in order to incite anger against the US and inculpate Jews and Coptic Christians.

Walid Shoebat reveals this. A first cousin of his was closely associated in felonious schemes with the maker of the film, Nikoula Basseley Nikoula, who is not a Copt from Egypt but in all probability a Palestinian Muslim and terrorist supporter. Read Walid Shoebat’s story in detail here.

He also writes about it at Front Page:

When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media use a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. …

So lets examine facts …

Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.

He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards including many nationalities. He then places these identifications in the hands of dubious characters to use for fraudulent purposes.

In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted — in 2008, and the first knowledge of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14, 2012 … [by] court documents that prove these two connected in 2009 in a major financial scheme. …

Was the man arrested by the FBI actually Bakoula Basseley Nakoula?

No one … can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is even that man. He, after all, held several identifications … He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man in that I.D.

Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, including brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings, wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, pet names and all. Especially since Egypt sparked all the riots that spanned over 30 some nations.

In the Middle East you are known by your clan, yet Egypt cannot produce this man’s family and background?

Besides this, why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be the best schemer the Middle East has produced and has contacts with terror networks? …

The Daily Beast reported regarding Nakoula’s arrest:

“The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah.” …

Nakoula first presented himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad also did for years. He fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport. …

Both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple fraudulent identifications … [and they] were linked for at least a decade from the year 2000 …

Nakoula had used “P.J. Tobacco” and Eiad was linked to a tobacco smuggling operation into Syria in 2001 by using a fictitious name A&M Trading, as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001. Nakoula used M&A Trading in 2009 with his pseudoephedrine dealings. He simply switched letters; A&M became M&A. Nakoula used Eiad’s last name “Erwin Salameh” portraying himself as Eiad’s brother. … Eiad was also involved with someone with a last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas.”

Both clans “Nakoula” and “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village in Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. …

[Nikoula] embezzled millions with Eiad. The money [for the film] must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity. …

Nikoula was brought to trial on fraud charges.

Now to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complicit: the Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder and pushed for leniency, all because he supposedly promised to help them catch Eiad … [for whom] warrants were issued, [but] no arrests made … in thirty some years. …

Eiad was … finally caught and locked up in Canada in January 2011. … The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States, yet the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine.*

More will emerge about these men and the making of the film.

If it is confirmed that Muslims made it in order to rouse fury against the US and Jews, and to bring bloody revenge down on Copts in Egypt, what will President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have to say, we wonder. Nothing, we guess.

Though they should eat crow. Raw.

* “Palestine” does not exist, but we know what he means.

Sen. Rand Paul introduces a Resolution in the Senate to attach conditions to the aid given by the US to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya. He makes a good case against  giving foreign aid in general, and states plainly that he would like to stop it, but stresses that he is only asking for it to be restricted. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he reminds the Senate, is asking for aid to be increased to Egypt where the US embassy has been attacked and the US flag burnt. Libyans killed the US ambassador, but their country continues to get US aid. In Pakistan the doctor who helped the US intelligence services discover the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden has been imprisoned for life, and Sen. Paul wants aid to be withheld until this innocent man is released. He points out that China, to which America is heavily  in debt, continues to receive development aid from American taxpayers. China gets $27 million a year in “economic development assistance”, and $71 million goes to Russia. But  for all the aid Americans give, they get nothing back; not even the protection of their embassies. He describes how Arab and African dictators spend vast sums of US taxpayers’ aid money on luxuries and grand living for themselves and their wives while their peoples remain in abject poverty.

The video is an hour long, and Sen. Paul is not a very good speaker, but he is worth listening to because he makes a compelling case. We don’t agree with him on every point he raises, but we too are against giving foreign aid. And we certainly agree that if it is to be given to badly governed states, it should buy something for the donor –  at the very least, protection for US embassies and diplomats.

Sen. Paul says he knows that all but ten or perhaps twenty Senators will vote against his Resolution. (In fact they voted 81-10 against it.) But the people they represent, he tells them, voters in every state in the Union, are overwhelmingly on his side.

(Video via Creeping Sahria)

The greatness of the West resulted from the Socratean wisdom that all ideas must be questioned. (Though it endured a thousand dark years when the Catholic Church forbade and punished all such questioning.) Critical examination is the wellspring of science. Our superiority in science and technology – and economic and military might – came about precisely because we doubted, questioned, examined, and experimented.

Islam is backward because it does not permit criticism. It does not allow any questioning of its beliefs. It punishes doubt and dissent.

If we give up criticism at the behest of our implacable enemy, we will be abandoning the mainstay of our might and poisoning our civilization at its root. If we silence our objections to Islam, we allow Muslims to claim that it is the Truth.

Nothing is more important for our survival than freedom of thought. Thought is argument. Argument is progress. We cannot accept any restriction on our expression of ideas. None. Ever.

We should do everything we can to make this absolutely clear to those who believe in an unquestionable orthodoxy like Communism or Islam.

Islam cannot be allowed to claim immunity from criticism on the grounds that it is a religion. Religion is anti-reason, and of all ideas those of religion are the least defensible.

The sacredness in which some hold a belief cannot preserve it from doubt. Reason knows no blasphemy. If Islam appalls us, we must be free to say so in whatever terms we choose. If Muslims take offense, let them try winning us to their beliefs by arguing with us and not by killing us. Violence is no argument. Murder persuades nobody. It might compel obedience, but never intellectual conviction.

Let us express our offense at being assailed by blunt ignorance, and at being ordered by foolish politicians to hold our tongues. If Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot understand that Islam must be criticized, may – considering its doctrine and practice – be denigrated, they must not be left in a position to pay our mortal enemy the ransom of our freedom.

Jillian Becker  September 23, 2012