The above 3/4-page ad appeared in the New York Times in 1943. The ad was placed by the Committee for a Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews (CJA), a pressure group founded by Peter Bergson, Broadway impresario Billy Rose, and Ben Hecht, among others, and was in response to an offer that had been made to the Allies by upper-echelon members of the Romanian government to assist in the transfer of some 70,000 Jews from their fascist state to Palestine or elsewhere.
Here is the latest filing in our free speech lawsuit against the US government’s unconstitutional denial of our SIOA trademark. Love the logo? Buy the poster (here). Want to donate to the cause? Own a piece of history, get an autographed SIOA poster for any contribution of $500 or more. Donate here.
The Ahmadis suffer persecution, oppression and slaughter at the hands of Muslims in so many Muslim countries because they attempted to reform/reinterpret jihad and Islam (claiming it to be “peaceful”). That’s bad enough. But the Ahmadis attack me for my defense of their rights. Oh yes, read this from Harris Zafar, National Spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, in the Huffington Post: Confronting Pamela Geller (Updated With Response). My response is below Zafar’s suicidal screed. And it took an army ot tweeters to get the Puff Ho to run it.
Recently one newspaper kicked up an international controversy – and showed the dangers of today’s far-left, pro-Islamic supremacist media. A story, a fiction, was created a couple of weeks ago and advanced by a well-known, unfathomably well-regarded newspaper: London’s Guardian. Taking a page from Der Stürmer, the Guardian published an Islamic supremacist incendiary fiction, the sole objective of which was to indict an entire nation of something it did not do – all to incite Muslims to violence and further impose Islam on a put-upon people.
Syria is the new rallying point for the worldwide jihad. There has not been a secular fighting force in Syria for close to a year. Instead, it has become the destination for jihadists across the world to engage in holy war. This war is not about nationality, borders, geography. Jihadists in Syria include British, American, French, German, and Norwegian Muslims.
This is not a close call. You may criticize Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and peacemaking, or toward the Arabs within Israel (although they enjoy political rights that are the envy of most residents of the Middle East), but you cannot accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and expect to be taken seriously by those familiar with the facts.
The authors’ references to America are just. plain. nuts. The fact is — it is dangeorus for non-Muslims, whether atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., to live under sharia. Islamic law is the problem. Read betwen the lines. It’s the only way to read the mainstream media these days. You have to translate from the sharia-compliant, politically correct language of subdued.
An official (name redacted) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote in a May 7 letter: “We do have concerns with some of the reasoning in the sub,” that is, the “subject profiles” that had been prepared on Spencer and me, “particularly citing pro-Israeli views.” The official explained that “pro-Israeli views (and also support for waterboarding) apply to a large number of Americans, including former presidents. If, for instance, Geller and Spencer were to request details of their exclusion under FOI/DPA or other mechanism, that being pro-Israeli is cited as a reason may be problematic and they could argue publically that their exclusion is on the basis of their support for Israel.”
During the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, the court invited the parties to further address the issue of whether Defendants have applied the MBTA’s regulations in this case in a constitutional manner. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not in that their application of the regulations to reject Plaintiffs’ advertisement constituted viewpoint discrimination and was unreasonable in violation of the First Amendment.1 Indeed, Defendants’ rejection of Plaintiffs’ advertisement was manifestly based upon a shifting standard of civility, consciously lowered for the anti-Israel advertisement and then raised artificially for Plaintiffs’ advertisement.
The independent free press at Boston University covered the hearing yesterday. It strikes me as odd and revealing that the writer of this article, Pariza Lovos, failed to mention (even once) the Boston Marathon jihad bombings. The bombings were mentioned several times particularly in the context of jihad. I expect that many of Pariza Lovos friends and fellow students at Boston University attended, even ran, in that Marathon. The point was made quite clearly that any reasonable person on the Boston transit system would know exactly what jihad was because of the marathon bombings. Why leave that out? It’s germaine.
It’s not lost on me that I find myself just a stone’s throw from Boston Harbor where the greatest of wars — the fight for freedom and individual rights — broke out in 1774. Nowhere, at no time, has there been a more righteous cause in the history of humankind.
Then, as today, an out-of-control government took outrageous and egregious actions against our most basic individual rights — and in this case, the most precious of all freedoms, the freedom of speech.
Sienkiewicz, who became interested in the MBTA’s pending case in federal court due to his studies in global media cultures and media theory, said the T will have to prove that their decision to deny an organization’s request to post billboards was not an infringement of their First Amendment rights. “It isn’t impossible. There is nothing wrong with banning demeaning speech, but you have to show you are doing it consistently,” he said.