Beyond the Cusp

May 11, 2015

As If Only Followers of Islam Take Offense

Filed under: 24/7 News Reporting,Administration,Allah,Amalekites,Amendment I,Amendment II,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,AP,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab Winter,Arab World,Arabist,Arabs,Armed Services,Assimilation,Battle of Khaybar,Blood Libel,Calaphate,Christians,Civilization,College Campus,Columbia University,Conflict Avoidnce,Consequences,Constitutional Government,Constitutionalist,Core Beliefs,Coverup,Debate,Domestic NGOs,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Pressure,European Union,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,Geert Wilders,Guns,Hate,Havard,History,Idividual Protection,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iranian Pressure,ISIS,Islam,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Islamic State,Islamists,Israel,Israeli Interests,Jihad,Judaism,Judeo-Christian,Leftist Pressures,Mainstream Media,Media,Media Bias,Media Censorship,Muslim World,Muslims,Myth,Nationalist Pressures,New York Times,Palestinian Pressures,Pamela Geller,Police,Politically Correct,Politically Incorrect,Politicized Findings,Politics,Religion,Robert Spencer,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secular Interests,Sharia Law,Shooting,Submission,United Nations Presures,United States,United States Constitution,United States Pressure,University,Victims,Washington Post,Washington Times,World Media,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 2:15 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In the wake of the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in Garland, Texas, the world of reporting and opinion journalism has largely taken the side of the Jihadists taking great offense each attempting to out-do the Muslims in taking insult. Their grand excuse is that what Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders were not expressing free speech but were expressing hate speech and therefore not worthy of Constitutional protection. I wonder if this exception which makes the “Draw Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” not protected speech as it gives strictest followers of Islam so upset that they believe that Ms. Geller, Mr. Spenser and Mr. Wilders, especially Ms. Pamela Geller, deserve to be put to death for their insult to Islam also apply to my distaste and deep seated ire when Islamic Imams and others when they call for “Death to Israel” or compare Jews to Apes and Pigs. Would the same self-righteous giants of the world of news and opinion journalism and other media moguls give the same leeway to Jews if they were to respond to such insult in a similar manner as the two would-be jihadists and assaulted the Imam making such reference and took out the same righteous indignation taken from such insult? We all know the answer to such a situation, they would claim that the Imam’s speech was protected as free speech and religious freedom and my insults taken were insufficient for me or others so taken with insults and angers to be permitted to take such drastic actions. There appears to be a slight difference of standards to which Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bahá’í, Buddhists, Shinto or virtually any religion other than Islam are held but to such behavioral expectations the most violent and easily offended practitioners of Islam are granted a special sympathy and understanding. So, according to some of the greatest stalwarts of the left, right and center of the media who control the reporting of news, opinion and the making of standards for the masses concerning that which is to be tolerated and that which must be persecuted as they deem that Islam has special rights when it comes to expectations of actions, commentary, even the simple drawing of pictures of the Prophet Mohammad even should they be honorable and perfectly good taste and distinctly noble by those outside Islam and even presumably by the adherents to Islam. Never mind that there exist a plethora of renditions representing the Prophet Mohammad in books and paintings from numerous periods of Islamic history.


Still, the lack of nerve shown by so many but at least there have been those who did stand upright and take a stand for free speech such as Foxx News Megyn Kelly and former CNN host Piers Morgan, while I doubt this will endear him to his old bosses and regain him his position with them, though perhaps it would be to their credit to take him back for showing a modicum of fortitude taking the path less taken. There were many others who have usually stood when others crumbled like a house of cards but this time they too tumbled and trembled from the fear of Islamist disapproval and violence. Such former heavyweights as Don Imus and the No Spin Zone’s own Bill O’Reilly among others went limp and wilted blaming Pamela Geller, and interestingly enough Pamela Geller alone not mentioning Robert Spenser and Geert Wilders taking on the most vulnerable target, the one already targeted for her standing against Islam and the attacks from so many Islamist groups such as CAIR which is tied to Hamas, Muslim American Society which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups which have also slandered and assaulted the reputation of Pamela Geller as well. It was a disgusting case of piling-on the weakest target. Fortunately for Ms. Geller, she has experienced such targeting before and continued to bounce back and continue in her crusade to uncover the less attractive sides of Islam and its most vehement and violent reactions which go beyond the accepted norms and expectations placed on all other religions.


The vehement attacks on Ms. Geller is a reaction she has faced before which will not have the effect which her attackers may hope it might as she has made a practice of walking the edge in her efforts to display the duplicity of the reactions to Islam and Israel and the media hypocrisy. We should not expect for Ms. Geller to calm her approach continuing forward though it is very likely she may not see any sympathetic media coverage with perhaps a few brave souls who have already warmed to her side already claiming that her freedom of speech though controversial is exactly the kind of speech the Constitution’s First Amendment was designed to protect. Where the First Amendment also protect the free exercise of religion, such freedom of religious exercise does not include murdering those who may not follow the precepts of ones’ religion and no matter what rules the religion exercises. Ms. Geller will continue pushing the envelope and continue proving that in the United States the people’s freedoms are paramount and will not be compromised simply because somebody’s sensitivities might be upset beyond measure and to the point of violence. Instead, if one uses violence to silence any American they may likely find the freedoms are better protected than initially believed. Let us hope that the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution continue to be kept sacred and not compromised in order to placate the sensitivities expressed and even to respond to the fact that some were driven to violence as a response. Violence must not be used to sacrifice freedoms as once such a response to violence destroys freedoms then all freedoms will become suspected as vulnerable to violence attacks over time. Such weakness can eventually lead to the compromise of all the Constitutional freedoms and the end of the promises of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which have survived just over two-hundred years. Could this be the first assault which will lead to the compromise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and an end to the freedoms which have been taken for granted by the American people since the institutions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified and took their place as laws never before enshrined by any government in history. That may depend on the reaction of We the People and fortunately not on the weak kneed media elites, and for that the world can be thankful.


Beyond the Cusp


December 4, 2012

Jewish Homes in Israel Infuriate the World

Jewish Homes in Israel Infuriate the World

Israel had promised the Palestinian Authority that should they actually go through with their petition to the United Nations for recognition as a nonmember observer state that Israel would consider the Oslo Accords rendered dead and there would be consequences. Israel announced the consequences when they announced plans to construct three-thousand new housing units in and around Eastern Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim. This almost instantly roused a universal outcry by virtually the entire world. Britain, France, Italy and others called their Israeli Ambassadors onto the carpet demanding an explanation as to what had possessed the Israeli leadership to build housing for Jews in and around the capital city of Israel. Oh, the audacity. Additionally, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and numerous others decried the injury this move by Israel was going to have on the peace process and the likelihood that the Two State Solution could continue to be viable. There were announcements from President Obama’s administration and others from the United States decrying the Israelis effrontery by building housing for Jews. Apparently the idea of Israel building housing anywhere near Jerusalem, and especially if it was built between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, was causing more damage to the possibility for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians than was the application earlier this week to the United Nations for recognition of statehood bypassing any negotiations with Israel by the Palestinian Authority.

The problem with the World reacting with such virulent bile to Israeli building of housing is that the number one complaint that by doing so Israel is breaking International Law is dishonest and most of these people are fully aware of their deceit. When the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, the suggestion for a partition of the lands which remained from the British Mandate was fully rejected by the Arab League, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Sudan, Transjordan, Yemen, numerous Arab entities and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and instead many of these same entities immediately attacked Israel with the intent of driving all the Jews into the sea or the grave. Their refusal to accept Resolution 181 made it null and void. By refusing and annulling Resolution 181 they then forced all the remaining lands of the British Mandate Lands to return to the previous negotiations between the British and the Zionists. The previous state of these lands was defined by the Churchill White Papers which established the country of Transjordan, later to become Jordan. In this agreement between the Arab Leadership, the Hashemites and the Zionist leadership it was decided that the 78% of the land existing east of the Jordan River to the border of Iraq to be given as the Palestinian Arab State and ruled by the Hashemite Family and the remaining 22% of the Mandate Lands west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea would remain undivided and constitute the Jewish homeland. Presumably, these lands cannot be divided again unless the Israelis choose to allow such additional partitions of these lands.

Even if one were to claim that Israel has given their intent to further partition the lands by signing the Oslo Accords, let us look a little deeper. The current divisions of the lands of Judea and Samaria, also referred to as the West Bank, are the only part in question as Gaza has been ceded by Israel to the Palestinian Authority who then lost it in a revolutionary coup by Hamas who now possesses all of Gaza. The areas of Judea and Samaria have been divided into three separate areas, Areas A, B and C. Area A is under complete Palestinian Authority control and over 80% of the Palestinian Authority population resides within Area A. Area C is under complete Israeli control and over 80% of the Jewish communities are within Area C. Area B is under Palestinian legislative control and joint Palestinian-Israeli security control and the area contains communities of both Palestinian and Jews. This is the closest the Israelis and Palestinian Authority have ever come in attempts to reach an accord acceptable to both sides. Logic would dictate that the presumed eventual peace accord which the World holds as the pinnacle of Middle East peace would leave Area A and Area C to be held by the Palestinian Authority and Israel respectively and Area B would be divided between the two entities thus setting the boundaries between the two sides. But it is much easier to spend a week granting the Palestinians recognition of statehood and demonize Israel for building housing for Jews within the areas which they have already reached agreement with the Palestinians that the area in question, all of which is within Area C, is under complete and undisputed Israeli control, both security and legislative. Something tells me that the World, if left to their innermost and deepest desires, would gladly hand all the lands over to the Palestinians and tell the Jews that this was for their own interests and to find a way to live with it. We know how that idea ends, but why would that upset most of the World.

Beyond the Cusp

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: