The Paris Attack Rachel Ehrenfeld

President Obama is wrong. Free expression and a free press are clearly not “universal values,” as he asserted in his condemnation of the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s office in Paris. The terrorist attack today was merely an enforcement of decades-long Islamist intimidation and terrorism campaigns against the West.

The leading Islamist terrorist group, the PLO, has pioneered the use of libel suit as threats against me and the Wall Street Journal and the National Review who published my documentation of the terrorist nature of the Hamas affiliated Holy-land Foundation in the late 1980s, and in the early 1990s, they threaten to sue me and the Wall Street Journal for publishing a detailed expose of Yassar Arrafat’s corruption. But they could scare us.

TABITHA KOROL: A NAME ON THE MAP

Collins Bartholomew, the map-publishing company of world-leading publishers, Harper Collins, removed the name of Israel from its Geography Atlas to accommodate “local preferences.” In other words, in the interest of selling maps to an enemy that hopes to also wipe America off the map, the company was willing to erase Israel, as well as dispense with scruples, integrity, conscience, ethics, and credibility. Let’s take this a step further.

I understand that Muslims cannot abide truth; thus they invented the accusation of Islamophobia – to squelch all things that reveal their essence. Islam is at war with the world and reality, and has been since the seventh century. Their culture is a dedication to war and conquest, so that even their people may not grow and prosper. From the moment their children are born, they are robbed of the human spirit – freedom, creativity, imagination – and are twisted into becoming hardhearted “weapons of mass destruction” against their perceived enemies. In the name of their god, they attempt to erase the past by destroying ancient artifacts, refuting history to support their own supersessionist narrative, and call “offensive” all actions that lay bare their true nature, barbarism.

HEAD-ON COLLISION AT CHARLIE HEBDO by NIDRA POLLER

Clash of civilizations, star wars, the big bang, a certain idea of France was murdered in cold blood on January 7th. An allahu akhbar commando stormed into the offices of Charlie Hebdo, executed twelve people, wounded another twenty; four of them critically. It is painfully difficult to sort out nuggets of accurate information from the sound and fury that fills the airwaves and the streets of Paris. [12 noon, one minute of silence has been decreed by the government, outside my window I hear car horns furious at someone blocking the street, rumbling machines working on a nearby building, almost drowning out the dirge sounded by the church bell on the corner, icy rain pelts on hurried passersby…].

“Islamophobia – Unfair or Understandable?” Sydney Williams

In a dozen incidents, four hundred and sixty-eight people died at the hands of Islamic terrorists in the month of December. The list does not include the discovery of a mass grave found in eastern Syria that contained the bodies of 230 tribesmen killed by ISIS. The attacks ranged from 140 killed at the Peshawar school attack in Pakistan, to the two who died in the Sydney, Australia hostage crisis. The scope of Islamic terrorism is global. The attacks in December occurred on every continent except South America and Antarctica. Like it or not, the civilized world is at war with militant Islamist extremists.

While Mr. Obama began his Presidency using euphemisms common to appeasers, he recently has been more circumspect. It has been several months since he has said that Al Qaeda was decimated. He still does not speak about a “war on terror” or even linked the words “terror” and “Islamic.” But there has been nothing recently about “overseas contingency operations.” His refusal to admit that the Fort Hood shooting – the worst Islamic-motivated attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – was anything more than “workplace violence” remains an outrage to the men and women who were killed that day, to the military as a whole, and as an insult to the intelligence of Americans. It is an outrage because the families of the victims would be eligible for additional benefits if their husbands and fathers had been killed in an attack classified as “terrorist.” On the other hand, Major Malik Hasan remained on the Army’s taxpayer-funded payroll for three and a half years, collecting nearly $300,000, until his conviction in mid 2013. Mr. Obama’s silence on this issue is an insult, as all Americans know the meaning of “Allahu Akbar,” which Major Hasan shouted as he shot his victims.

Islamic State Praise Paris Attackers as ‘Heroic Jihadists’

(Reuters) – The Islamic State militant group praised the gunmen behind this week’s killings at the Paris headquarters of the Charlie Hebdo weekly newspaper as “heroic jihadists”, a monitoring group said on Friday.

The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors radical Islamist organizations in the media, said Islamic State praised the gunmen in a brief note in its daily audio bulletin, which was distributed on Twitter and jihadi forums on Thursday.

“We start our bulletin with France. Heroic jihadists killed 12 journalists and wounded ten others working in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, and that was support for our master (Prophet) Mohammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him,” according to the audio bulletin.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER: ” “The international jihadist movement has declared war….we are going to have to confront it.”By Julie Gordon

DELTA, British Columbia (Reuters) – The deadly attacks in Paris serve as a vivid reminder that jihadists are at war with those they disagree with, and the world must confront them, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday.

“The international jihadist movement has declared war. They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they’d think and act,” Harper told reporters when asked about Wednesday’s attack.

When Will We Wake Up? By Bruce Thornton

The three Muslim gunmen who killed 12 journalists in Paris targeted not just those people and their satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, but a core ideal and human right of the West––the right to free speech in the public square defined by tolerance for different opinions. That’s why the killers, after they had called out the names of their individual victims before they shot them, bragged as they made their escape that they had “killed” Charlie Hebdo. That’s why they also cried, “The Prophet has been avenged,” since the magazine had frequently spoofed Mohammed, most famously in its reprinting in 2006 of cartoons parodying Mohammed. Apparently President Obama was prescient, at least in the case of the twelve dead Parisians, when he warned in 2012, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Laughing at Mohammed By Daniel Greenfield

Draw a cartoon of anyone. Start by exaggerating the features. Make his ears bigger, his nose longer, stretch out his jaw, push out his eyes and if your picture is wearing a turban, watch the bullets fly.

Islam frowns on images of its frowning prophet, not to mention images of anything else, but it is particularly offended by the institution of the cartoon. The photo keeps us human. The painting can even enhance and flatter its subject. But the cartoon reminds us of our flaws.

And Mohammed, despite his child-molesting, caravan-robbing, sex slave-keeping and occasional demonical possession ways (see Satanic Verses; The, the subject of yet another murderous censorship Jihad), is considered the perfect man. And anyone who disagrees must die.

Boys of the Taliban By Jamie Glazov

President Obama recently announced the end of the war in Afghanistan, thereby officially surrendering what he himself had once called the ‘Good War.’ With thousands of American lives now squandered as the Radical-in-Chief oversees the triumph of the enemy, Frontpage is re-running Jamie Glazov’s article “Boys of the Taliban,” from our Jan 1, 2007 issue, to help crystallize the true nature of the barbaric enemy Obama is now handing Afghanistan to. The article has been updated and edited.

*

Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.

Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake — such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what Islamic Jihad is all about: vile hate, death and destruction.

Frank Pledge The Left’s Unholy Alliance with Islam

Their philosophies are antithetical, but the common ground of their contempt for liberty, free speech and all who disagree has fused to spawn an alliance of convenience that never ceases to expand its frontiers. How much longer can a supine West tolerate the erosion of its institutions and values?
For many years we have been sold the idea of multicultural Australia as a significant and energising factor in our national evolution. Cultural differences are supposed to be gradually absorbed into the mainstream, leaving it enriched and reinvigorated in the process. When multiculturalism means colourful costumes, exotic recipes and unusual music, there may be some truth in this. At least there is little appreciable harm.

But what happens when those imported cultures involve more than mere fancy dress, when they arrive with their own power relationships, their own political ideologies and a parallel legal system, all of which is incompatible with Australian norms and traditions? What happens when new arrivals have no intention of relinquishing these features of their cultures and integrating into the mainstream? What happens when the intent is first to modify the host culture and, ultimately, to replace it? How do multiculturalism’s promoters propose to deal with a scenario in which one or more of its celebrated minorities is fully committed to promoting its own political agenda?

Take Islam, which is not simply a religion. Rather, it is a political movement with imperialist intentions, stated quite openly in its sacred texts, and a vision of religion as the ultimate source of legal authority and social control. Rooted entirely in a theocratic conception of the world as it must be, Islam remains in its essence quite incompatible with democracy.