“We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.”

That was the arrogant declaration of victory from the Organization of the Islamic Conference nearly two years ago, regarding the shrewdly orchestrated Muslim mayhem around the world protesting such infidel abominations as the Danish Muhammad cartoons and Geert Wilders’ short film Fitna.

“Red lines” indeed – a phrase chillingly reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s famous observation that “Islam has bloody borders.” Except that the red lines the OIC is referring to aren’t geographical – they are the ever-tightening limits that Muslim fundamentalists are imposing to choke off our freedoms.

The influential OIC is the world’s largest Muslim assembly, consisting of 57 member states (you know, the same number of U.S. states candidate Obama campaigned in). Its primary aim is “conducting a large-scale worldwide effort to confront Islamophobia.” (As I’ve written here before, Islamophobia is a mythical beast that the OIC and collusive groups like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, use to intimidate us into craven appeasement.) Their goal is to abridge our free speech by making criticism of Islam an international crime; their strategy works because the West has been so emasculated by multiculturalism that we’d rather embrace cultural suicide than offend the tender sensibilities of such violent barbarians as the Danish cartoon rioters. (more…)

Where’s the ACLU when you need them? 

On Sunday, the New York Post reported that the Metropolitan Museum of Art “quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011.”  The justification for the removal?  “The museum said the controversial images – objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder – were ‘under review.’” 

So here’s the bottom line: the Met decided it didn’t want to face the kind of murderous rage the global Muslim community often demonstrates when pictures of Mohammed are posted publicly (see: Danish cartoons).  

Aside from the obvious cowardice of the artistic community when it comes to images of Islam, there’s another problem: there’s a strong case to be made that removal of these images in order to “protect” Muslim sensibilities violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause under current Supreme Court precedent.  (more…)

Almost before the echo of gunfire from the massacre at Ft. Hood had faded, the news media launched a pre-emptive rationalization for the slaughter committed by Muslim traitor Nidal Malik Hasan. To divert attention from the shooter’s inconvenient name (“I cringe that he’s Muslim,” said Newsweek’s Evan Thomas), the talking heads began speculating sympathetically about the fragile mental state of poor frazzled Hasan, who had never seen combat but nonetheless must have “snapped.” After all, surely there could be no rational, ideological motive for the mass murder, which President Obama labeled “incomprehensible.”  And “it’s certainly not about his religion, Islam,” denied Senator Lindsey Graham. Indeed, from listening to such “experts” as irrelevant diet book author Dr. Phil (“this is not a well act”), you’d think that Hasan was the victim, not the fourteen dead* and the nearly thirty seriously wounded that he left in his heartless wake. Even as a mountain of accumulating evidence irrefutably exposed Hasan’s act as premeditated violent jihad against the U.S. military, stubborn left-leaning commentators clung to their theory of mental derangement.

George Clooney in 2005’s  Syriana

Meanwhile the national discussion has segued to our own collective insanity, political correctness, which we are now discovering paved the very way for the massacre. It is this cultural and mental straightjacket that forced a U.S. Army general to say diversity is more important than losing American lives; that compelled our Homeland Security Secretary to reassure the Arab world that we’re doing everything we can to protect against a mythical Muslim backlash; that prevented people from speaking out about red flags that could have saved the lives of everyone murdered at Ft. Hood; and that prevents our officials from even naming the enemy. No such ailment afflicts the jihadists, however, who are celebrating Hasan as a hero, who have no problem acknowledging his ideological intent, and who recognize our political correctness as a self-inflicted fatal wound. Unlike our leaders and media elites, they don’t sap their wartime focus with hand-wringing and navel-gazing. (more…)