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.

This is by Libsmack, who sent it to us. Very catchy.

Listen to these radio interviews about the presidential candidates. A daringly mischievous interviewer and know-nothing interviewees may make your laughter rise even as your heart sinks.

Obama, a pro-life and anti-gay marriage Mormon, whose running mate is Paul Ryan, is favored for the November 2012 election by most of these voters over his opponent, John McCain. One exception will vote for Romney, who is black. Most of them would like Osama bin Laden to be killed, though one woman wants him only to be tortured because she doesn’t believe in killing.

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

YouTube has been praised for refusing to remove the video, titled “Innocence of Muslims”, which has been blamed for the latest explosion of Islamic rage against America, and even for the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

Well, now YouTube has removed it.

The reason they give:

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.

Sorry about that.

But it’s more than likely that they have given in to pressure from the Obama administration.

Were they threatened by Muslims? Or only by the government? If so, with what?

Now we are all under threat.

Goodbye, First Amendment? Goodbye, Freedom?

Openly giving to charity is a display of moral vanity, whether intended to be or not.

It can be argued that charity is always and only self-indulgence, done to make the giver feel good rather than to do good. Moral auto-eroticism. After all, it’s hard ever to be certain that a gift is well-bestowed.

Better to indulge in it privately, secretly – one might even say furtively, since it cannot altogether escape being something of a vice.

It has been discovered that Mitt Romney does it secretly.

This is from the Telegraph, by Tim Stanley:

For months now the Democrats have been hounding Romney, demanding that he release his most recent tax returns. Mitt refused, fuelling suspicions that he had something to hide. Turns out he did. The Romney camp finally released his tax returns on Friday afternoon and they reveal that rather than paying less that he had to, he’s actually been paying more. The cat’s out of the bag: Mitt Romney is a good citizen.

Here are the stats. In 2011, the Romneys paid roughly $1.9 million in tax out of a $13.7 million income; their effective tax rate was 14.1 per cent. On top of that, they donated over $4 million to charity – as astonishing30 per cent of their income. Here’s the kicker: the Romneys limited the charity tax deductions that they were entitled to, which pushed up their effective rate. They voluntarily paid more in tax than they had to. A cynic might say that anyone sitting on $13.7 million can afford to be generous, but the point is that all the innuendoes about tax avoidance were likely groundless. The Romneys will be waiting for an apology from Harry Reid.

Skeptics that we are, we doubt he’ll get it.

I’ll say one thing for these bloodsucking, poor-hating, conservative Republicans – they’re very generous with their money. Mitt Romney gave more than twice as much of his adjusted gross income to charity than President Obama did, although – to be fair – plunging book sales mean that the Obamas have less to give away. Joe Biden donated only 1.5 per cent of his salary in 2011.

If the tax returns prove that the Romneys are nice people, why did they take so long to release them? … One is simply that Romney’s campaign screwed up. … Perhaps on this matter, as on so much else, Mitt simply got bad advice. One of the great ironies of 2012 is that the candidate running on his organisational experience has proven dreadful at running an organisation.

But another explanation goes to the nature of Mitt Romney the man. Romney doesn’t like talking about himself or his charitable works, so it’s possible that his sense of modesty and privacy got the better of him.

The point is illustrated by a fascinating story about Romney that dates back to 1994.

That year, in the middle of his failed Massachusetts senate race, Romney went on a tour of a veterans’ hospital. The director, Ken Smith, told Mitt that the hospital was having trouble providing milk for all its patients. Romney said, “Well Ken, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows.” It was another “47 per cent” moment and the press went wild. Romney sheepishly called Smith to apologise, and Smith put the phone down convinced that he was dealing with another phoney.

The next day, the milkman turned up with all the milk that the hospital could possibly need at half the usual price. He said he wasn’t allowed to give the name of the donor. The milkman made the same delivery at the same price the next day, the day after that, and so on. It was only two years later, on the day of his retirement, that the milkman finally told Smith that it was Mitt Romney who had donated the milk.

He should not be blamed too harshly. He did his best to hush it up.

And for whatever reason charity is given, it is hugely to be preferred over government redistribution.

An apt symbol – a Muslim protestor wearing a blindfold.

A blindfolded Muslim protestor in Kashmir shouts anti-American slogans

See here and here and here many more pictures of raging Muslim mobs, urged by media men and politicians to protest against a YouTube video mocking their mythical prophet Muhammad.

It’s very unlikely that many – or even any –  of the protestors have seen the video, as it is banned in most of the Islamic countries where the riots have been incited.

They’re all clearly enjoying themselves immensely.

They direct their burning hatred particularly at Barack Obama (a fine irony, as he really loves Islam); an American pastor, Terry Jones (who had nothing at all to do with the making of the video but once announced that he planned to burn a copy of the Koran); Israel (of course); and the Egyptian-American Copt who did make the film and is now being harried by the FBI in the land of the free.

We find this article so interesting we quote it almost in its entirety.

Titled Evolutionary Innovation Caught In The Act, it is by Hristio Boytchev at the Washington Post.

Scientists following the evolution of a single strain of bacteria reported that it underwent several steps of mutation, surprising in its complexity, to acquire the ability to use a new food source.

The findings … are the result of an experiment started 25 years ago by Richard Lenski of Michigan State University.

“When I started that project, I thought I would find one or two mutations and be done with it,” said Zachary Blount, a member of Lenski’s lab. “But instead, there may be dozens of mutations working together.”

“Creationists sometimes argue that even two mutations for one trait is too much complexity, yet here we see that evolution manages that with ease,” he said.

To study evolution in real time, Lenski followed the descendents of a single E. coli bacterium, a bug that normally populates our intestines. Bacteria have short life spans and in this experiment went through more than six generations a day.

Every day for 25 years — over 50,000 bacterial lifetimes — members of Lenski’s lab transferred the E. coli into a new flask with sugar solution. Every 500 generations, a part of the population was stowed in a freezer, creating a fossil record that can be brought back to life.

One day in 2003, the scientists observed something peculiar: A flask was much more densely populated than usual. At first the scientists suspected contamination. But then they found that after 30,000 generations, the bacteria had discovered how to use a different chemical as a food source. Citrate, the chemical in question, is given to the bacteria to help them absorb minerals and cannot normally be digested in the presence of oxygen.

What the researchers found was that a gene, normally responsible for letting citrate into the cell only in the absence of oxygen, had moved to a new location in the bacterium’s DNA. There it was controlled by a different switch, enabling citrate to enter even when oxygen was present. But this was only the second of three steps …  An additional set of mutations were necessary in the beginning; the final step was multiplying the gene inside the DNA to make the bacteria much more efficient in their absorption of citrate.

The scientists conclude that these three stages may be universal evolutionary principles.

“Even evolutionary changes that seem to be very sudden and dramatic may typically require a series of multiple steps drawn out over much longer periods of time than meets the eye,” Lenski said.

Creationists could see evolution happening if they had any desire at all to know the truth. But they prefer to believe a lie.