YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU HEAR IT

HATE SPEECH ON THE STREETS OF NEW YORK. Americans are smart people. We know it when we hear it and when we see it. Unfortunately, many will still continue to ignore the obvious, make excuses for these true racists, these true haters, these true radicals, while turning their ire on those who would seek to protect our our culture, our nations, our cities, our families, ourselves from this vicious brand...

...of hatred.

While nations continue to pass laws against hate speech, this evil tongue roves wildly across the lands, and the nations tremble, cower in fear, and bow to their false witness. We must awaken, my people. Awaken to the obvious.

Think of it this way. When a marching Muslim man cries foul, he's just aiming to play the race and the victim cards, in order to camouflage the Islamic supremacist sharia-pushing agenda. Think of the strategy as one of disguise and ambush. In the US, Muslims are claiming to be the "New Blacks" just as in Europe they are pretending to be the "New Jews" even as an unspeakable anti-semitism froths or snarls from their mouths.

Frankly, these stealth imperialists would more accurately be described in the US, as "the new KKK" and in Europe, as "the New Nazis", given their fascist-style supremacist ideology which mocks as weak the Golden Rule and aims to set up a ghastly religion-based apartheid system with their Muslim Ubermenschen on top and dhimmis and all women on the bottom.

FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN NETHERLANDS

THE BATTLE TO DEFEND free speech against Islamic attempts to snuff it out is stirring in the Netherlands. The outcome of this case will affect the whole world. "Anti-Islam lawmaker appeals hate speech charges," from The Associated Press today.

An Associated Press newspaper in Amsterdam has reported that "a right-wing lawmaker says he has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to halt his prosecution on hate speech charges for anti-Islamic remarks. Bigot alert. Here we have a Dutch newspaper using the code "right-wing" to smear one of its own legislators. AP thus semaphores to its readers that Wilders is evil, not to be trusted, not to be supported.

But what century are we now living? Except in totalitarian regimes of which there are many examples, there is nothing "right wing" about supporting the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law against Islamic supremacism.

Geert Wilders says the remarks—including labeling the Qur'an a "fascist" work and calling for it to be banned—fall within the realm of normal discourse and his prosecution threatens his right to freedom of speech. In March 2008, Wilders released the film "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses with violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals....

Those "Islamic radicals," of course, are the ones who actually connected the Qur'an with violence. But it isn't they who have aroused the anger of the Islamic world. It is only Wilders, because he is an Infidel who has dared to speak out against this religiously sanctioned violence.

DEFINING IRRATIONAL DEFINITIONS

The following essay was sent in from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the anti-terrorist watch organization aptly called Act For America:

FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I've been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam. I have often been accused of "hate speech" and "Islamophobia." The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an "Islamophobe," but a "radical Islamophobe." This made me question what those terms really mean. What is the difference between "hate speech" and "free speech"? What is "Islamophobia" and who are the true "Islamophobes?"

"Hate speech" versus "free speech" is easy to define. All over the United States, so-called "progressive" individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries. That's called "free speech." When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that's labeled "hate speech" by many of these "progressives."

But what is "hate speech" and what is "Islamophobia"? When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources. When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest "hatefulness?" Certainly.

However, it's not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate. I wish they didn't. But wishing doesn't make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times). The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world: "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'" (Koran 8:12)

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes. In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated. It is the Koran that is guilty of "hate speech." I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

Which brings us to "Islamophobia" and "radical Islamophobes." According to the dictionary, the suffix "-phobe" comes from the Latin phobos, which means "fearing." Do I fear radical Islam? You bet. Do any of these locales ring a bell? London subways. Madrid train stations. Bali night clubs. Beslan elementary school. They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed. I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world. If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an "Islamophobe," then I am an "Islamophobe" in its healthiest manifestation. In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

Things get a little more complicated when we get to "Islamophobia." The dictionary defines a "phobia" as "an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is "exaggerated," "inexplicable" and/or "illogical" is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level. If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT "Islamophobia."

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix "-phobia" can include "intolerance or aversion for" the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes, I am. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes, I do. According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be "Islamophobia." However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a "Islamophobe," then I submit that my so-called "Islamophobia" is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.

The next question must be: what distinguishes a "radical" Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe? Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam. My "Islamophobia" motivates me to tell-the-truth. This definitely makes me a "radical." Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound. Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.

The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy. Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details. There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them. Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of "fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do...." The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were "offensive," and they were being "respectful" of Muslim "sensitivity." Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, "insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish."

The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper. The Times could have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans. Instead, the Times' fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead. This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.

And the Times is still playing dead. It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry. Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad's wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction. The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc. They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia. They've become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand. No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.

Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism? No. Do I fear radical Islam? I already admitted that I did. Maybe that makes me a "radical Islamophobe." But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists? Absolutely not. I will continue to stand up and tell the truth. Will anyone on the staff of the New York Times admit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear? Almost certainly not. On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true. But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations. They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe.

If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

—Brigitte Gabriel

SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME STRIKES DENTIST

Four years, perhaps out in little more than one year. That's the prognosis for the Paki-bred UK dentist who decided to take up arms against the British to avenge his Muslim brothers of the Taliban.

He claimed he was going to visit his family for the Islamic festival of Eid. Qureshi is the first to be convicted under new legislation targeting the preparation of terrorist acts. He was held after a joint operation involving Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Command and the Security Services. Investigations revealed Qureshi offered to help the war effort in Pakistan and Afghanistan. An intercept communication revealed him telling one of his contacts: "All I know is it's a two- to three-week operation. Pray that I kill many."

Qureshi pleaded guilty to preparing for the commission of terrorist acts, possession of articles for terrorist purposes and possession of articles likely to be useful to terrorists...

The biggest joke of the new year is that you can now, in Britain, be sentenced to seven years for "religious hatred". One doesn't actually have to do anything overtly (or even covertly), one just has to show hatred towards a religion (Islam mainly). And the US Congress is considering similar legislation on their docket. So basically a flag waving native son can receive a longer sentence for a thought crime against Islam than an Islamist continues to receive for attempting to go and murder the citizens of your host nation.

A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.

"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

"As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy. The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.

Get out the little red book, the Communists are truly in power.

DEFINING HATRED BY MANIFEST DESTINY

Here we go again, with this damnable moral equivalency argument. We are living in the year 2007, but some people, both the aggressors and their apologists just love to pacify us all with references to the deep past when it is the actions of the aggressors in today's world that is at issue.

In this video, this terse Muslim carefully lays out his asnine plan of destruction for Israel and the United States. Let's be clear about this singular point. Friends of Mohammed are no friends of mine.