Category Archives: Freedom Of Religion

Psychiatrist: Paris jihadis aren’t psychopaths, they’re Islamic fundamentalists

No. We can’t do anything this smart… The Politically Correct will have none of this.

In my opinion we should have special departments for fundamentalist Muslims in prison, so they do have the opportunity to indoctrinate the paltry jailbird Mohammed or Ismael sentencing for drug crime or violence, and who experience themselves marginalized in society and as treated unfairly.

Our legislation is simply not geared to understand and cope with the fundamentalist mind.

via Psychiatrist: Paris jihadis aren’t psychopaths, they’re Islamic fundamentalists.

Ron Paul: Charlie Hebdo jihad attack was a reaction to France’s foreign policy

Robert Spencer has this right. Ron Paul is an idiot for thinking this is about the West’s foreign policy. These killings and attacks are purely based on religion. This reminds me of pre-WWII when the West was stupidly ignorant of Hitler and what was, for the Nazi German, effectively a religion.

Ron Paul and other paleocons such as the pro-jihad American Conservative are fanatically attached to the idea that Islamic jihad is all a reaction to the West’s foreign policy — so much so that they have frequently turned a blind eye to the jihadis’ stated agenda, and see the depredations of Western foreign policy where it actually played no part. The Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre was not about French foreign policy; according to one of the jihadists, it was about avenging Muhammad — avenging him, that is, for the insult of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. The West’s foreign policy regarding the Islamic world and the jihad threat is cartoonish, but that doesn’t make the Charlie Hebdo massacre about the West’s foreign policy.

via Ron Paul: Charlie Hebdo jihad attack was a reaction to France’s foreign policy.

Howard Dean: Paris attackers not ‘Muslim terrorists’ | Fox News

This is a serious problem writ large. When we cannot tell the truth… These people ARE Muslims and they ARE carrying out their Jihad as CALLED FOR IN THEIR “BIBLE.” We must be able to see the threat before we can stop it.

Former Democratic Party head Howard Dean objected to calling the shooters in the Paris attack “Muslim terrorists,” though the attackers were witnessed shouting “Allahu akbar” as they fired.

Dean, speaking Wednesday on MSNBC, argued that they should be treated as “mass murderers” instead.

“I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am,” he said. “I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. And, you know Europe has an enormous radical problem. … I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.”

via Howard Dean: Paris attackers not ‘Muslim terrorists’ | Fox News.

Please go check out Robert Spencer’s page, Islam 101, Jihad Watch for details on how this terror IS deeply rooted in their “religion.” There, you will see:

Below are excerpts from Hasan Al-Banna’s treatise, Jihad. In 1928, Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which today is the most powerful organization in Egypt after the government itself. In this treatise, Al-Banna cogently argues that Muslims must take up arms against unbelievers. As he says, “The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.”

All Muslims Must Make JihadJihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come. (Emphasis added).

French Islamist mini-states grow into problem out of government control – Washington Times

Interesting for a religion of peace. No?

Nothing to worry about, folks. The massacre in France is  just workplace violence.

Over 1,000 French supermarkets are selling Islamic books that call for jihad and the killing of non-Muslims.

via French Islamist mini-states grow into problem out of government control – Washington Times.

The mass exodus of Christians from the Muslim world | Fox News

Ah, the Religion of Peace!  As Barry said, “one of the world’s great religions.”

A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway.  Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.

We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world, much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian, came into being.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedomrecently said: “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year.”  In our lifetime alone “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”

Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion:  Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators.

The 2010 Baghdad church attack, which saw nearly 60 Christian worshippers slaughtered, is the tip of a decade-long iceberg.

In 2003, Iraq’s Christian population was at least one million. Today fewer than 400,000 remain—the result of an anti-Christian campaign that began with the U.S. occupation of Iraq, when countless Christian churches were bombed and countless Christians killed, including by crucifixion and beheading.

via The mass exodus of Christians from the Muslim world | Fox News.

DoD: OK to Talk About Faith, Not to Push On Others |

Oh, I get it. What garbage. All it will take is for someone to complain that so-and-so was pushing his views and wham, down will come the anti-Christian brass…

We are losing our country to leftists who hate God (but love Islam).

WASHINGTON — It’s OK to evangelize. But it’s not OK to proselytize.

That’s what the Pentagon said Thursday, attempting to clarify its position on religious speech in uniform as controversy swirled up around press reports over possible prosecutions of troops for sharing their faith.

What it comes down to, officials said, is that discussing matters of faith and religious practice with a willing audience is allowed, but pushing religious beliefs on those who don’t want to hear it is a form of harassment forbidden under Defense Department policies.

via DoD: OK to Talk About Faith, Not to Push On Others |

My latest article at American Thinker: America’s New First Amendment

This is my latest article in its entirety, now publishable here because it’s gone to American Thinker’s archives.

By now, most people know of the latest episode of Islamists frothing at the mouth over what they claim is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Specifically, they are enraged by a movie titled “Innocence of Muslims.” The movie’s trailer was recently dubbed into Arabic and posted on YouTube. Four people have been killed already and, almost certainly, the violence is not over.

Much has also been made of an early statement by the U.S. Embassy that chastised those who, “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” with such an “abuse” of the right of free speech.

Robert Stephenson adroitly noted in American Thinker, notwithstanding the upside-down fact that the law-abiding must apologize for making Muslims mad, we must recognize that:

A human being is not absolved of responsibility because of a certain religious following.

While this certainly ought to be true, it clearly isn’t in the case of Islam.

I wrote about this in American Thinker when I discussed an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, where Christians were arrested one year and the next year threatened with arrest for upsetting the delicate sensitivities of Muslims. Recall what the Dearborn police said to the Christians protesting the festival:

Part of the reason they are throwing things [at you] is you tell them stuff that enrages them.

Ah, so the Dearborn police have established a new principle of American/Arab law. Do something to upset Muslims, and you are responsible for their irrational, illegal response. Or, more generally, do something that someone, somewhere, views as offensive, and you, not the ultra-sensitive, are examined for fitness.

We see this growing in our culture (sorry for the pun). It’s even being codified in new social codes of conduct.

For example, Illinois State University’s Code of Student Conduct, “To Be an Illinois State University Student,” notes that there are “non-negotiable values” including “civility” and an appreciation of “diversity” and “social responsibility.” Recognized for its absurdity by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in its “September Speech Code of the Month,” the Code states, in relevant part:

These values are the hallmark of the University, and will be protected diligently. . . . When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University.

As FIRE noted:

[B]y the plain language of this policy, if a student’s expression or behavior deviates from the university’s definition of what it means to appreciate diversity or be socially responsible, that student may be asked to leave the university.

Is there any question we are witnessing a denuding of our First Amendment? Is there any doubt that our education system, our political system, and even our government are teaching us that old, out-dated ways of doing things must yield to a New World Order where no one can offend certain protected classes of people, and where Muslims must be allowed to throw violent and even murderous temper tantrums?

We might legitimately ask: Where is this headed?

Here’s a glimpse.

ABC News reported that Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued the following statement on the violence over the movie, “Innocence of Muslims”:

Desecration is not a part of the freedom of expression, but a criminal act that has now badly affected the righteous sentiments of 1.5-billion Muslims all over the globe.

A criminal act?

While this is not the statement of a representative of the United States, when one can be expelled from school for undefined “uncivil” comments, when Christians can be arrested for passing out religious tracts, when the violent acts — the actual crimes of the “offended” — form the basis for punishing the “offender,” how far are we from that standard?

With Obama genuflecting to Muslim leaders around the world, with him supporting the creation of radical Muslim regimes, and with his administration supporting and spewing all manner of leftist drivel (see Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13) aimed at shutting down conservative voices, we might as well accept that our First Amendment has already been revised. Published first here, the new First Amendment now reads:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.

Mr. Reddy blogs at His controversial thriller, “By Force Of Patriots,” crystallizes the social, political, and legal issues created by this type of upside-down, leftist dogma. It’s available at

via Blog: America’s New First Amendment.

My latest article appearing at American Thinker

Update to the Update. I have no idea why my article disappeared from about 10:30am to 3:00pm. But, it went back on line and all was (is) well. I never got an answer as to why Harry Reid’s name appears in the title…

American Thinker article.

Update: Apparently I jumped the gun on this. My article did appear on their site, as I took a screen shot of it and even read it on their pages. However, it appears that Google had dug it from the AT servers and it wasn’t yet being “published” for public consumption.

So, I have to wait. And in the mean time, I”ll hopefully figure out why the title to the article had Harry Reid’s name in it.

Sikh rampage is Domestic Terrorism while Fort Hood is Workplace Violence?

So the murderous rampage in Oak Creek, WI is officially classified as Domestic Terrorism while the far more violent and religiously motivated rampage by Nidal  Hasan, (who screamed out  “Allahu Akbar!” as he killed 13 and wounded 29) was classed as Workplace Violence.

Hmm… Seems the Oak Creek villain sported tattoos and is otherwise linked to a hate group (will this be the Tea Party? Liberals are hoping so…).

Tattoos on the body of the slain Sikh temple gunman and certain biographical details led the FBI to treat the attack at a Milwaukee-area temple as an act of domestic terrorism, officials said Sunday. LA Times

Here is the apparent definition of Domestic Terrorism.

The designation of “domestic terrorism” under the FBI’s rubric — which was not applied to the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting — implies a political agenda. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” LA Times

So why wasn’t Hasan’s killing rampage considered Domestic Terrorism?

The same reason any mention of Islamic Terrorism has been stricken from government documents: Hasan is aligned with the same “religion” as is the man who occupies the office of the president of the United States.

Silencing Tea Party & Talk Radio calls for Violence

If it’s proper to quiet calls to violence from Rush Limbaugh, et. al., what implications does that have for public policy in general?

Here is an interesting clip from the transcript of Rush’s show the other day. Not only are we to ignore the inseparable connection between Islam and violence, evidence (proof, really) thereof occurring some 15,000 times since 9/11 (yes, there have been over 15 thousand Jihad killings worldwide), we are to fantastically equate conservatism with violence.

CLINTON 1995: We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that—by their very words, that—violence is a acceptable. You ought to see—I’m sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of (pounding podium) reckless speech and behavior.


FOLLOWERS: (applause)


RUSH: That was Bill Clinton, blaming me for the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19th, 1995. Yesterday we had the tea parties, and the Drive-By Media (I’m sure to its great chagrin) is filled with stories about how festive and how peaceful and how unthreatening all of the tea parties were. The effort to infiltrate these tea parties fizzled. They have stories on that that they probably do not like having to report. And, ladies and gentlemen, it’s very clear that these citizen uprisings—genuine grassroots citizen’s uprisings—are far more powerful than an attempt to drum up fake opposition to them from the White House. Yet, Bill Clinton is back in the game, expanding that threat via this sound bite.


CLINTON 2010: There was this rising movement in the early nineties that was basically not just a carefully orchestrated plot by people of extreme right-wing views but one that fell into fertile soil because there were so many people for whom the world no longer made sense. They wanted a simple, clear explanation of what was an inherently complex, mixed picture full of challenges that required not only changes in public policy, but personnel conduct and imagination about the world we were living in. So demonizing the government and the people that work for it sort of fit that — and there were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our economic problems was the federal government itself.


RUSH: So there you have it: Bill Clinton once again trying to rebirth his empty threat from 1995. He starts out tracing the plot that started in the eighties to “demonize government.” I have a question. We have two more sound bites of the president here specifying right-wing talk radio, but I have a question: How come we’re supposed to draw (on the basis of no evidence), a connection between conservatism and terrorism, conservative ideology and terrorism? Where is that connection? Yet we are told we must reject, despite tons of evidence, the connection between Islamist ideology and terrorism. So we can’t call Islamist fundamentalists “terrorists.” We can’t even use the word. But we can have ex-presidents and current presidents running around trying to associate conservatives with nonexistent terrorism at peaceful tea parties. Somebody needs to explain this to me.

So what should we think of all this?

Let’s assume, arguendo, that Timothy McVeigh was not only a talk-radio addict who listened daily to Rush crying out for violence, but a Christian right winger to boot. And let’s further assume that Timothy McVeigh shouted, when his bomb went off, “Praise be to Jesus, who shall smite our enemies.” Now, I hope you all recall that none of that is true. Tim was seeking retribution for Clinton’s WACO massacre. But, follow me on this.

Next, assume, arguendo, that I’m right about the Koran and that, in all its interpretations, the one aspect that remains true is Jihad against unbelievers. Assume, for the moment, that the text of the Koran actually commands that Muslims kill non believers.

OK, so now lets look at public policy. Taking my assumptions, would it be proper policy to outlaw conservatives’ calls to violence on talk radio and the violent-teaching aspects of Christianity? I doubt any of you would have a problem with the talk radio part, and you would probably agree that, if carefully done so as to not trench on the Constitution, we could outlaw those parts of Christianity that urged Tim McVeigh to do what he did. We would have to ensure that we didn’t prohibit the “free exercise” of Christianity as we took scissors to the bible and cut out the passages calling for death to government employees. But it seems to me excising calls to violence would be not only reasonable, but prudent. And a strong argument could be made that it wouldn’t violate the Constitution.

So, therefore, and again remember the assumptions, wouldn’t it be proper policy to do the same with the Islam?

Are you cringing?

Of course you are, because it’s hard to think straight through my wild assumptions. It’s had to assume, let alone believe, that a religion is diabolical.

But what if it is?

What if the fantastic assumptions are not assumptions at all. What if the Koran does, indeed, call for your death at the hands of any and all Muslims near you?