John R. Houk
© May 9, 2015
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has been running a petition campaign called “Mr. President, Name the Enemy”. The last time I checked the campaign was just over 90,000 signatures. Now I realize such petition campaigns are typically fund raising programs. But eh … In this case I am pleased that nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Americans have expressed their displeasure that President Barack Hussein Obama REFUSES to acknowledge America’s most current national enemy at the very least is the Islam interpreted in its purist form called Radical Islam by those who believe that there are Moderate Muslims who don’t believe the Quran is the express word of Allah.
So this is what I’m going to do to encourage people to bring those signatures way over 100K, I going to cross post two ACLJ posts about the ISIS-Garland attack on American Free Speech followed by the wording of the petition. Then click on petition link I’ll provide at the end (or click HERE if you want to forego the actually pertinent information).
After you sign you will be taken to the typical donation page. It is not necessary to donate for your petition signature to count. NONETHELESS, the ACLJ is a very good Christian Civil Rights activist organization to support.
JRH 5/9/15
****************************
Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand
May 5, 2015
Jihad struck Texas last night. It’s just the latest skirmish in a global radical Islamic assault on free speech – on freedom.
It’s a war. ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and al Qaeda are just a few of the named brigades in this radical Islamic jihadist army.
The two Islamic terrorists who opened fire on a free speech art exhibit in Texas are merely the latest casualties in this war. But they are a reminder of who the enemy is.
These radical Islamists are clear on who their enemy is. To them, free speech is the enemy. Islamic radicals made this clear through their murderous rampage at Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the free speech exhibit in Texas. To them, Christians are the enemy, evidenced by the mass murders, propaganda beheadings, and vile statements carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups.
The terrorists who attacked free speech in Texas last night made it clear what their goal was, what they were fighting for, and who their enemy is. One tweeted just moments before the attack.
That twitter account has now been suspended, but it contained a litany of jihadists tweets, pro-ISIS retweets, and radical Islamic propaganda.
In short, to the jihadists, we are the enemy. They have named their enemy. And by doing so they have inspired the Tsarnaev brothers, the Texas attack, Nidal Hasan, and many others to carry out deadly terrorist attacks throughout America.
Yet the Obama Administration still only references these as “extremists.” President Obama time and time again refuses to acknowledge that these vicious and targeted attacks on freedom are carried out by one ideologically bonded group of people – radical Islamists, jihadists. Last night was no exception, as the White House has merely referred to the jihadist attack on free speech in Texas as “an act of violence.”
In short, President Obama refuses to name the enemy. And the consequences build every day.
The contrast could not be more stark.
The jihadists are crystal clear about their enemy. Tens of thousands of radical Islamists have flocked to join ISIS and other terrorist groups – including attempts by at least one of the militants who carried out last night’s attack. At the same time, America’s response to jihad, under President Obama’s (lack of) leadership, has weakened the cause of freedom.
This must end. America must demand accountability from our leaders. We the people must demand that our next President (and there are a lot of people vying for the job right now) is willing to name our enemy and committed to defeating them wherever they train, plot, and carry out jihad.
America must never back down. We must never surrender our First Amendment freedoms. The local authorities in Texas showed the resolve that we must all exhibit.
Free speech, even speech you and I might disagree with, must be protected. But now it’s time for America’s leaders to speak out – to name the enemy – and engage the jihadists on the battlefields they are creating. The only way to stop the threat of terror is to overwhelmingly defeat the jihadists who inspire it.
++++
Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech
By Edward White
May 7, 2015
A terrorist attack took place in Garland, Texas, this week in response to a free speech conference that took issue with the Islamic prohibition against creating images of the Prophet Muhammad. The event awarded a financial prize to the person who drew the best cartoon of Muhammad.
The terrorist attack (ISIS has taken credit for it) points out the stark difference between the American view of speech that offends some people and the radical Muslim’s view of such speech. We allow it; they don’t.
Americans have broad free speech rights. Our rights, however, are not unlimited. For example, we cannot falsely shout fire in a crowded theater to cause a panic. (This statement is often wrongly uttered by failing to include the word falsely; of course, we can shout fire in a crowded theater that is on fire.)
The main idea behind our free speech rights is to allow an array of speech that is robust. Our free speech rights allow us the room to decide whether to say something (or hold a free speech conference) that is provocative. Our freedom allows for satire and debate, which allows ideas to be explored, and, possibly, allows for minds to be changed.
Deciding to engage in such speech at a particular time and place comes down to prudence and effectiveness. Such restrictions are not imposed by the First Amendment, just by a person’s sensibilities. Whether we like it or not, our First Amendment allows a group the freedom to hold a conference that may be considered blasphemous.
In contrast, sharia (the moral code and religious law of Islam) does not allow the same freedoms as does our First Amendment. It is restrictive. It allows little, if any, room for self-expression, satire, or dissent from orthodoxy. The consequences for holding a free speech conference, such as the one in Garland, under sharia are severe. The punishments for blasphemy include imprisonment, flogging, and death.
The terrorist attack over cartoons about Muhammad illustrates the extreme views of the radical Muslim. No one likes to see his religion blasphemed, but the proper response to blasphemy is debate, boycott, prayer, or protest—not killing those with whom you disagree to silence the speech you do not like.
+++++++++++
Mr. President, Name the Enemy
Here’s what the Obama Administration believes:
The Taliban aren’t terrorists.
ISIS—the Islamic State—isn’t Islamic.
America isn’t at war with radical Muslims, merely with “extremists.”
It’s hard to believe, but the Obama Administration is afraid to name our enemies.
This makes no sense.
The Muslim world knows the Taliban are terrorists. The Muslim world knows ISIS is Islamic.
It’s time for the truth. It’s time to level with the American people. At the ACLJ, we speak the truth. We name the enemy. Why can’t the President?
Mr. President, Name the Enemy
President Obama,
By refusing to name the enemy, you’re choosing weakness over strength. By refusing to name the enemy, you’re hiding the true threat from the American people. Speak the truth and name the enemy. Americans deserve the truth.
_______________________
Mr. President, Name the Enemy
John R. Houk
© May 9, 2015
_____________________
Jihad Struck Texas But Will the Obama Administration Continue to Bury Its Head in the Sand
Radical Islam In Conflict With Free Speech
Mr. President, Name the Enemy
American Center for Law and Justice | Washington D.C. | Copyright © 2015, ACLJ
About the American Center for Law and Justice
Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.
As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the … READ THE REST
No comments:
Post a Comment