Rutgers goes sharia-compliant

Frontpage Mag

Free Republic

 

Student newspaper destroys every copy of latest edition featuring cartoon of Muhammad.

The April 5, 2016 issue of The Gleaner, the student paper of Rutgers University–Camden, published a cartoon of Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus in a bar. Its content, however, cannot be known at this point, because at the behest of Muslims on campus, and in a case fraught with implications for the health of the freedom of speech today, the entire issue has been deep-sixed.

Two weeks after the cartoon was published, the April 19 issue of The Gleaner contained a letter from the Muslim Brotherhood campus group, the Muslim Students Association, saying that it found the image offensive and asking The Gleaner to remove the image from the April 5 issue and circulate a new edition of that issue without it. The MSA letter claims that Christians and Jews on campus told MSA members that they, too, found the image offensive.

The MSA letter states: “Even though freedom of speech and press is emphasized and is something all of us value as proud Americans, the University prides itself on diversity of people of different faith and backgrounds so we feel that it is necessary to respect those faiths and backgrounds by honoring their beliefs.”

The April 19 Gleaner also contains a response to the MSA letter, written by Christopher Church, the Editor-in-Chief of The Gleaner. Church apologizes to the MSA and agrees to meet with it “so that we can rectify this issue and ensure that it doesn’t happen again.” He also agrees to remove any copies of the offending April 5 issue from the Gleaner boxes around campus and destroy them.

The Jihad Watch reader who alerted me to this sums up what is wrong here:

Continue reading

Media Sides With Garland Terrorists Against Freedom of Speech

Star_Wars_Chess_Muslims

 

Moonbattery

The battle lines are clear. On one side you have patriotic Americans peacefully upholding our fundamental right of free expression. On the other you have Islamic savages who employ violence to deny that right. Whose side does the establishment media take? The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Texas has provided the answer:

Through implication, a variety of respected [sic] reporting outlets spent whole paragraphs outlining the conditions that might have inspired two radicalized Muslims to shoot up this event and wound a security guard.

The AP made note of the history of provocative acts in which Geller and her organization have engaged during their campaign of opposition to murderous Islamist extremism:

When a Chicago-based nonprofit held a January fundraiser in Garland designed to help Muslims combat negative depictions of their faith, Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event.

One chanted: “Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!” Others held signs with messages such as, “Insult those who behead others,” an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

In The Daily Mail, AP reporters contributed to a photo spread outlining Geller’s “long history of hatred.”

“The AFDI is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog organization that describes Geller as ‘prone to publicizing preposterous claims, such as President Obama being the ‘love child’ of Malcolm X, and once suggested that recent U.S. Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagen, who is Jewish, supports Nazi ideology,’” that report read.

This isn’t the first time an organization listed as a “hate group” by the SPLC was attacked by gun-wielding maniacs, but you don’t see many media outlets looking into the climate of murderous violence inspired by this liberal advocacy group.

Any organization suspected of harboring opinions to the right of Sheila Jackson Lee’s latest grunts is eligible to be listed as a “hate group” by the ultra-leftists at the grossly irresponsible Southern Poverty Law Center.

If your opinion of the human race can withstand a sharp downward plunge, check out McClatchy’s almost unbelievably vile coverage of the terror attack, which suggests that Pamela Geller should be arrested for offending the terrorists. I’m serious.

At least Fox News will choose the Constitution over the Koran, right? Wrong:

Pamela Geller is one of last public figures left in this country who deserves to call herself an American. Willfully stupid recreant dhimmis like Martha MacCallum belong in burkas and will eventually find their way into them.

A poll finds that 58% of US Moslems believe it should be illegal to criticize Islam, which would require the repeal of the First Amendment. I suspect the actual number is much higher. Among journalists, who as liberals instinctively side with America’s enemies, I am sure it is higher.

Since you won’t see it from the establishment media despite its crucial relevance to the story, here again is the winning cartoon:

you-cant-draw-me

Even Martha MacCallum could grasp the point if she tried.

Islam, and the Tail of a Scorpion

CFP

Islam does not apologize, does not assimilate, and does not accept any other law than Muslim law.  Their goal is absolute domination.  Anything or anyone that says otherwise is either lying, or have been fooled into believing lies.

islamaphobe

Freedom of Speech, according to Muslims, according to the socialists, and according to the liberal left appeasers, must be curbed.  You are allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it fits into the little bubble of allowed speech the rulers and terrorists tell you that you can say.  Everything else is unacceptable, because it might make the aggressors angry.

Continue reading

Don’t pretend Paris terror attack has nothing to do with Islam

france_newspaper_paris not afraid vigil

Family Security Matters

It’s absolutely right to call the Paris terrorist killings an assault on basic values that the entire free world believes in. But how can so many go on to say, in the same breath, “These barbarians have nothing to do with Islam?”

Those two sentiments, in various forms, dominated English-language TV broadcasts of France 24 yesterday. Both are valid, but they’re contradictory.

“This was an attack on freedom,” French President Francois Hollande said. But then, perhaps to avoid spreading the blame to all of France’s Muslims, the largest such minority in Europe, he added, “We must realize our best weapon is unity. Nothing must separate us or drive us apart.”

Well, something is driving us apart: We believe in freedom; the terrorists don’t.

The hashtag #JeSuisCharlie (“I am Charlie”) dominated Twitter in the hours after the attack on the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which killed 10 members of the staff and two policemen guarding them.

But are we all Charlie? Very few of us are cartoonists who revel in making fun of Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and other frequent targets of Charlie Hebdo. Even some press people scoff at such journalism.

Yet it’s easy to understand that when people who make a living using drawing pencils and computer keyboards are gunned down, everybody’s freedom of speech is endangered.

FINISH

ny post _ new york POST  LOGO

Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech and Operation Choke Point… you’d better watch out, you might be next!

Flopping Aces

The Constitution guarantees every American the Freedom of Speech. The very first Amendment to the document says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” Of course, what is speech that it needs such protection? Speech is more than just saying what’s on your mind, regardless of how profound or silly it is. Speech is communication. That’s the speech that needed protection and was incorporated into the First Amendment. It was the communication of thoughts and ideas that needed protection. Speech needed protection because of the impact it could have on others. Kings don’t like their authority questioned and a freedom of speech could potentially rile up his subjects.

It is that very reason that our Founding Fathers sought to protect speech: For the people to keep the government in check.

Continue reading

Racist? Kentucky Man Under Fire For Effigy Of Obama Eating Watermelon

xlarge1 620x348 Racist? Kentucky Man Under Fire For Effigy Of Obama Eating Watermelon

Western Journalism

A Kentucky man has sparked a public outcry after he put up a statue of President Barack Obama eating watermelon. His critics say the display is blatantly racist.

When asked why he chose to depict Obama, the nation’s first black president, eating watermelon, Danny Hafley said he “might get hungry standing out here.”

Hafley told LEX18 in Lexington said he is merely exercising his right to free speech and the statue is protected under the First Amendment.

“The way I look at it, it’s freedom of speech,” he said. “I don’t know how other people will take it.”

Read more at The Blaze. By Jason Howerton.

Photo credit: Gawker