"She Has No Right To Be Speaking"
Those are the words of Muslims or Muslim supporters shouting down Nonie Darwish as she spoke about the dangers from Islam (which she knows firsthand as an apostate and the daughter of a Muslim was considered a martyr for Islam) and about the evils of Sharia law.
And frankly, the "religion of peacers" gave her the perfect setup for her message:
"No right to be speaking? In America. That is Sharia," she responds.
This is a really excellent piece below, with a few words on Darwish's personal story, plus the details on jihad culture:
Just watch and listen as these primitive fuckers celebrate murder in the name of Islam. And where are all the "moderate" Muslims? Are they silent out of fear of the murdering barbarians? Or...do they sympathize?
Slightly OT, but- what is the piece of music used in the first video? I hear this all over the place on the Internet. Someone always pulls it out when they want to do something dramatic.
What's it called? It sort of reminds me of the soundtrack to The Fugitive.
Lynne at May 8, 2009 4:55 AM
Have you noticed that Muslim religious practices are accomodated by liberals on American campus' and some American cities? This is hypocrisy to allow it for Muslims and deny it for Christians. I didn't think you noticed. Somehow the establishment clause doesn't always work.
anon52353 at May 8, 2009 7:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/08/she_has_no_righ.html#comment-1647275">comment from anon52353Have you noticed that Muslim religious practices are accomodated by liberals on American campus' and some American cities? This is hypocrisy to allow it for Muslims and deny it for Christians. I didn't think you noticed.
Oh, don't be such a whiny victim. I'm irate about the footbaths at University of Michigan, for example. They aren't in the news right now. If anything, people are sick of me blogging all the time about the dangers from Islam, and the way Muslims are coddled. Read my blog instead of clinging to your preconceived notions as one of the oppressed Christian majority.
Amy Alkon at May 8, 2009 7:31 AM
It isn't about whining (the mere complaining). It's pointing out consistency, which is what you do after all.
As for being oppressed, I thought Christians do it to themselves when I listen to your propaganda. Yet, the real oppression is what happens when the state does it. The state has actual power.
I read your blog. Your bias is showing.
anon52353 at May 8, 2009 7:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/08/she_has_no_righ.html#comment-1647287">comment from anon52353Your bias is showing.
Oh, don't be silly. I'm friendly with Greg Lukianoff of FIRE and just went to some trouble to help him out -- cutting into my own work time to do it -- precisely because he stands for the free speech of all people, right, left, or whatever.
Amy Alkon at May 8, 2009 8:27 AM
Nothing like having millions of people hate you because of the country you live in to suddenly give you the shudders.
Seriously though, I don't believe that the 'war on terror' is the answer. I just gives the radicals something to point at and show "See, they are trying to kill us!" We cannot blow a billion people off of the face of the earth even if that was an ethical/honorable thing to do. Genocide doesn't work.
We need to truly evaluate the decisions that we are making when it comes to people we allow in this country. We need to force people to take an oath to this country when they come in on long term visas, and frankly I would like to see the draft restarted ... both for men and women. When a person knows that being a citizen/resident would require you to fight for this country, it might change a few things and people would loose interest. Not to mention, calls to war have a different feel when members of congress have to worry about their sons and daughters being called up as well.
Right now we are able to enjoy the freedoms of this country without the corresponding sacrifice. Serving in the military is one way to have people pay for the freedoms that we already have. Forcing the melting pot wouldn't solve this entire problem, but would likely make us more secure. And muslims could not state that they are conscientious objector, could they?
As far as Sharia law, we need to enforce our own laws within our own borders. Period. If someone wants to wash their feet so that they can pray at a certain time, then he/she needs to plan ahead and clear their schedule. I see it much like I see breast feeding. Stop the pomp, circumstance, and chest beating about how 'your way is better'. Do what you think is best for you and leave the rest of us out of it.
Women should be given the opportunity and ability to leave a Muslim marriage just like any other, and all women should have the ability to take appropriate assets from a marriage. Women in fear of honor killings should be allowed in domestic violence shelters and the men attempting to commit them should be brought up on charges, just like someone else attempting to do harm to another. We have the laws and framework in place, we just need to quit saying, "That isn't my culture, I can't say that it is bad".
-Julie
Julie at May 8, 2009 9:00 AM
In recent years I've noticed a strange marriage of convenience between the Radical elements of the Left and Muslims. On paper they might seem to be diametrically opposed, but in practice they have one very significant thing in common:
Neither believe in Free Speech whatsoever for those they disagree with.
To pretend otherwise is delusional to the extreme. Don't believe me? The examples are endless. Here are some that barely scratch the surface:
- Shouting down women like Nonie Darwish or gov't officials from Israel like Benjamin Netanyahu
- Threatening pro-Israel protesters at rallies with cries of "Go Back to the Ovens" and equally abhorrent intimidation, often directed at little children
- Trying to ban all Israeli professors from college campuses
- Banning Pro-Life groups from university campuses
- Trying to ban authors like Mark Steyn & Oriana Fallaci & Ezra Levant from publishing their writing
- Preventing the likes of Michael Savage & Geert Wilders from speaking on British soil, let alone setting foot on it
- Vigorously striving to destroy the lives & careers of Carrie Prejean & Joe Wurzelbacher simply because they "dared" to express heartfelt, considerate opinions which happened to be different from the worldview of the Left
- Striving to silence all debate on Man-Made Global Warming and associating those who wish to engage in debate & discussion as "deniers", with the not so hidden connection to "Holocaust Deniers"
- On a constant basis, labeling people they disagree with as "Racists", "Sexists", "Bigots", and "Nazis". This includes, but is absolutely not limited to Amy Alkon & Dennis Miller, two very strident centrists
The mindset throughout ALL of these examples is precisely the same. Whether one is a Radical Leftist Atheist or a Radical Islamic Fundamentalist, the same refrain can be heard over & over: "We will not tolerate ANY dissent from our views!"
Welcome to our world in the New Millennium. :-(
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at May 8, 2009 10:09 AM
and frankly I would like to see the draft restarted ... both for men and women.
If there ever is a military draft again, I agree that it should be an equal oportunity draft -- both men and women.
Not to mention, calls to war have a different feel when members of congress have to worry about their sons and daughters being called up as well.
Let's see how that works, Bush Jr. went ANG, Clinton went to England, Kerry did combat time, but take a look at the swift boats web site before you praise him; None of the Kennedy kids did it.
Serving in the military is one way to have people pay for the freedoms that we already have.
The draft, in general, is a bad idea. The U.S. Military has created a core of professional soldiers that are some of the best in the world. The draft would give the military some of the best young men and women as they graduate from high school. It also would grab the bottom end of the pool: the dumb, the mildly criminal, the ones you never want to have a fully automatic firearm in their hands.
I have no idea how old you are, but go find Vietnam era vet (especially early 70's). Ask them about how bad the drugs and crime that were rampant in the barracks. There were areas that officers wouldn't go without being armed and escorted by MP's; and that was before crack and meth.
So if you have an Islamic immigrant required to serve -- you'll have to issue him a weapon at some point -- in say Iraq or Afghanistan, would you really trust him to be behind you with a loaded M-16 or Squad Assault Weapon?
Just a point.
Jim P. at May 8, 2009 1:44 PM
I oppose a draft, mostly for practical reasons. The military doesn't want it, too many young people are physically unsuited anyway, and a civilian draft forcing young people to engage in national service of some sort will hurt in more ways than I can list in a single comment. If we're going to institute forced labor, start with the prison population.
Pseudonym at May 8, 2009 2:58 PM
Count me against the draft, too. I think that if the courts really looked at forced military service objectively, they'd find it (as well as any other mandatory national service) an unconstitutional violation of the 13th amendment (involuntary servitude), at least absent a declared war. And the last officially declared war was WWII.
Also, as a practical matter, not being able to count on an unlimited supply of bodies to fight all manner of foreign adventures serves to keep politicians halfway honest about what they choose to engage in. One of the reasons it turned out to be nearly impossible for the previous administration, having decided to involve us in Iraq, to bring it to a swift and successful conclusion, is that human resources were limited. In fact, the only reason we've been as successful as we were (if you can call it that), is that, due to the numerical limitations of a volunteer force, the govt was forced to shell out countless billions, both for increased inducements to re-enlist, and for the use of third-party contractors to do a lot of the incidental work over there. (The other reason success came so slowly was our leaders' lack of will to fight the war to win, doing whatever it took. I'm not saying it was necessarily right to get involved in the first place, but given that we did, we should have been "in it to win it".)
Sorry for the ramble.
cpabroker at May 8, 2009 10:18 PM
Leave a comment