Hypocrisy Alert: What’s Good For Mohammed Isn’t Good For Thomas Jefferson

In recent weeks, there have been protests at several college campuses involving Thomas Jefferson. At two colleges, statues of Jefferson have been covered in Post-It Notes as a form of protest, with words such as “RACIST”, “RAPIST” and “SLAVE-OWNER.” Protesters, predictably, want the statues removed from the grounds of the campuses because they feel threatened and psychologically harmed by seeing a statue of Jefferson each day.

See articles HERE and HERE.

Many have leapt to Jefferson’s defense. Mostly, their argument consists of something along these lines: “It was the time period, you’ve got to understand. Everyone had slaves. He made a huge and continuing contribution to society, despite his sins. No man is perfect. He needs to be looked at as a product of his time, and his less exemplary behavior should be minimalized due to his amazing positive historical legacy.”

Of course, this isn’t good enough for the BLM movement and other associated Social Justice Warriors. From the petition to remove the statue from the grounds of the University of Missouri campus: “Jefferson’s statue perpetuates a sexist-racist atmosphere that continues to reside on campus. Removing Jefferson’s statue alone will not eliminate the racial problems we face in America today, but it will help cure the emotional and psychological strain of history.” I can’t comprehend how a statue of someone who did so much to advance the cause of freedom and liberty would perpetuate a sexist-racist atmosphere on campus. When I think of Thomas Jefferson, I think of a man who believed in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I think of the man who founded the University of Virginia, and was a fine President of the United States. How is someone such an emotional snowflake that they are threatened by a statue? Jefferson’s positive ideas are still with us; his more negative views on race have been relegated to the dustbin of history by the weight of facts, and thus are no longer very important or worthy of attention.

Yes, even a man as great as Thomas Jefferson can be the victim of vile verbal attacks. He was used to it…he got enough of it during his lifetime. After all, it’s the first amendment right of these college kids to have their silly little Post-it protest, right? Sure it is. Just don’t try to exercise YOUR first amendment right to criticize some of the many horrid things Mohammed did, such as raping a 9 year old, or having slaves. If you do, you’ll be sure to hear something like this:

“It was the time period, you’ve got to understand. Everyone had slaves. He made a huge and continuing contribution to society, despite his sins. No man is perfect. He needs to be looked at as a product of his time, and his less exemplary behavior should be minimalized due to his amazing positive historical legacy…..”

There’s the difference. The good that Thomas Jefferson did lived on after his death. His work to make sure liberty and freedom endured for this young country was nothing short of heroic. His more negative views, such as the idea that blacks and whites could never live in harmony, have been proven false and discarded over time as we continue to become more enlightened.

With Mohamed, the evil that he did is what survives as his legacy today. The worldwide jihad; the apostasy and blasphemy laws; the general restrictions on the liberty of the people; the intolerance, ignorance, and repression. This is what survives as Mohammed’s legacy…all right from his mouth. Good thing statues of Mohammed aren’t allowed…because I think I would feel very offended and threatened if I saw one. Just sayin’.

~Mike S.

40% of Millennials Favor Censoring Speech, Says Pew Survey

A week ago, the Pew Research Center released an article entitled “40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities.” Their definition of Millennials was people between the ages of 18-34.

From the article: “We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.”

This shocks me in a few ways; the broadness of it alarms me greatly. They believe the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups. Do they realize what they’re saying? They are enforcing Islamic blasphemy and slander laws! The truth about Islam is unacceptable speech in many universities across this country…it offends people. So the government should make it stop, to ensure that the Muslim minority is not offended. It’s interesting how the Islamic groups are always using their right to speak out, their right to protest, their right to petition the government…and yet they would silence other people seeking to use these same rights. The millennials who feel this way are playing right into the Islamists’ hands.

What’s even more alarming about the article is that it shows how much further the freedom of speech concept has eroded in Europe. In Germany, 70% of the public believes the Government should be able to prevent people making statements that are offensive to minority groups. See these incredible results for yourself here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Freedom of speech is slipping away fast. It’s clear that my book will eventually be banned in Europe. It will be interesting to see what happens with Amazon UK…stay tuned.

Mike S.

Picture from: http://beasleygreen.com/2012/11/14/freedom-of-speech-as-long-as-you-agree-with-what-we-say/

Pew Forum Poll Proves “Poisoned Gumball” Meme About Refugees Accurate!

Recently a meme has been making its way around Facebook. I’ll let it speak for itself:

poisoned gumballs

Data from the Pew Forum survey “Concerns About Islamic Extremism On The Rise In Middle East,” makes it clear that, statistically, this is about right when applied not only to Syria, but to migrants from any Islamic country. The report spends a lot of time trumpeting the fact that many countries contain a majority of people who oppose groups like Boko Haram and the Taliban. It focuses much less on the fact that 10% of Nigerian Muslims think that Boko Haram is doing it right. 8% of Pakistani Muslims support the Taliban. The most interesting question asked was this:
“Suicide bombings can be ___ justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies.”

Survey participants were asked to fill the blank with one of five words: Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Don’t Know. When results from the Often and Sometimes categories were combined, only three countries surveyed— Pakistan, Indonesia, and Tunisia were still in single digits. In every other Muslim country, more than 10% of the population feels that suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified to defend Islam. In some countries, the number is much higher. 24% of Egyptians, 18% of Turks, 47% of Bangladeshis…think that suicide bombing is an option if their imaginary friend is maligned badly enough.
We need to consider our Syrian refugee policy carefully. 3 in 10 people from Lebanon are in favor of using suicide bombing against the enemies of Allah. While Syria was not included in this particular survey, it makes sense that their numbers would be comparable to all the countries nearby. Poisonous gumballs, indeed!

Here’s where to read the complete Pew survey for yourself:
http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2014/06/PG-2014-07-01-Islamic-Extremism-Full-Report.pdf

 

poison gumballs2

“Cryin’ Won’t Help You, Prayin’ Won’t Do You No Good…”

The anger rises in the country after each terrorist attack, anger growing on two sides of an issue. One side claims there is nothing to fear, while the other side is beginning to see, employing the long-dusty art of logic, that there might be a threat present in this “Islam thing.” The side that sees the threat is growing each day. Nothing can stop it, for nothing can stop the advance of the truth. The official government policy is that Islam is not a threat…we have nothing to fear whatsoever. We have a greater chance of getting bitten by a shark than attacked by a terrorist, Islam is a religion of peace, these terrorists are unislamic and not muslims…this and so many other propaganda yappings are mindless noise in the face of what is going on worldwide. We live in an America where the internet is as of yet mostly unfettered; we can seek out news around the globe. And for many of us who keep our ears on the world news, a common thread of violence all over the world exists…Islamic violence. Violence based on the fact that someone or other somewhere is not respecting Allah’s law for the world, laid out in the quran and the hadiths.
It’s a trip around the world, indeed. It’s hard to keep track of all the places where something that is supposedly a religion of a true and final god causes endless terror and misery. It’s hard to keep track of all the places where freedoms are restricted in one way or another by governmental legislation and judicial systems based on Allah’s Laws as told to the prophet and his companions. In many countries, this entire blog and my book itself will not be allowed to appear before users on the state-approved browsers. This is a little mind-blowing to me. How can words hurt someone SO MUCH that they need to be spared the pain of them by legal governmental action? Ridiculous. Where is today’s Voltaire? Where are the voices of reason today?
The rest of the world can’t put off dealing with this forever. We need to take action besides active denial. We need to hold Islam accountable. But I think that fact, inside, is really the source of our deepest fear…what happens when we try to bring Islam into line with the rest of the world? Obviously, Allah can’t be wrong about any of the things which he or his prophet said. None of that can be changed. Bringing them into line with man-made (but better) human-rights legislation is NOT something the Islamic world is going to appreciate. We should, as a planet, come to grips with this issue sooner rather than later. Islam itself is what we’re going to have to discredit. The ideology itself is what needs to go; not the people. We need to be better preachers, and convert them to reality. Part of doing this is ceasing accommodations for this ideology in America.
Another crucial part of this is that the governments must acknowledge the falsity of Islam also. This is a large part of what has fueled the growing anger in America…the rising idea that the government is blind to the crimes of Islam. People feel like the government is too stupid to recognize the threat that is manifest before their eyes. When the people feel that the government is not taking them seriously, is referring to them as haters, racists, and Islamophobes…that is when people get angry enough to start taking action. Last weekend it was twelve people with guns in front of the mosque in Irving. If there’s another attack somewhere, that number could rise to twelve hundred, or twelve thousand. People are getting fed up, and no one can say what the tipping point will be. I am hoping there is NOT a terrorist attack anywhere this weekend.
Inevitably, after each attack, there is an article somewhere about how “Muslims fear backlash.” The backlash never presents itself. I’m not sure how close to the “straw that broke the camel’s back” we are, but one thing is clear: we are certainly proceeding swiftly toward it, rather than pulling back and away from it. We need to be ready, because “when the levee breaks, Mama, you got to move.”
My book deals with the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s terrifying. It’s on special at Amazon, right now, just in time for any holiday you choose.

http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Take-Back-Michael-Shapson/dp/1518810098/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448316075&sr=1-1&keywords=Can%27t+Take+It+Back

Someone Wanted a Souvenir Shirt…

A reader messaged me and asked if I had any souvenirs of the book. This made me chuckle. I don’t have any licensed merchandise to support the book at this point. I bought myself a t-shirt from this site, and it’s a high-quality, heavy cotton. I figured I would support the school that Brandon, Kevin, Matt, Jayden, and Kacie attend in the book. It could become a kind of code…people will see others in the mall, sporting an Emporia Spartans t-shirt, and they’ll know that person has read the most important and controversial book of the year!

Here’s where to get one for under your Christmas tree:

http://www.prepsportswear.com/product/us/Kansas/Emporia/Emporia-High-School-Spartans/Fruit-of-the-Loom-Men-s-Heavy-Cotton-T-Shirt.aspx?schoolid=179905&productid=5078&pc=red&category=180&d=44975&up_ss2=m

spartanshirt

They come in a multitude of colors and sizes. I prefer the school colors shown here myself.

Go Spartans!

~Mike S.

 

Hillary On Wrong Side of Free Speech Issues….Again.

On November 18th, the site Judicial Watch released a story about Hillary Clinton “going after” five comedians who performed at a popular Hollywood nightclub, the Laugh Factory. The comedy routines apparently all mocked the candidate and said mean things. Very hurtful. They were then posted on YouTube, where an outraged Clinton campaign found them. Apparently, one of Clinton’s campaign minions called the Laugh Factory, and informed him that he would be put out of business if the video was not removed from YouTube. The minion also demanded the names and contact information of the five comedians who performed in the video. The owner of the Laugh Factory hung up on the minion without acceding to any of his demands. Here’s where to read the complete article:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/11/clinton-goes-after-laugh-factory-comedians-for-making-fun-of-her/

This is par for the course for Mrs. Clinton and free speech. Some of us remember the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was out to get her and her husband. More recently, Hillary as Secretary of State spent two years negotiating with the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to produce the ambiguous and first-amendment-threatening Resolution 16/18. You can get a free text of it here:

http://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Resolution16-18.pdf

One of the most dangerous sentences in this resolution can be taken to mean something completely different from what the authors intended. Here’s the section from page 3 included in measures the document believes member states should take:

“Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

What this means to a Muslim is endorsement of a blasphemy statute. If someone writes, says, or does something that offends a Muslim regarding Islam, and said Muslim goes out and commits random, indiscriminate violence, like burning down an embassy and killing an ambassador, the person who upset the poor Muslim in the first place should be held accountable.

Hillary thought this First-amendment-shredding resolution was quite the achievement. Read her official, Secretary of State reaction to it here:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/07/168636.htm

Notice that in her OFFICIAL REMARKS as Secretary of State of the United States, she repeated the exact words that are so pleasing to Muslims from the resolution:

“The resolution calls upon states… not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.”

Better not make a Muslim angry! If you make a Muslim angry, well, he might feel incited to immediate violence…and then we’d have a problem. Because your speech would be to blame. The poor muslim can’t possibly be called upon to be accountable for his actions, now, can he? That would be Islamophobia and religious persecution. So we couldn’t do that.

Based upon newly obtained documents, it appears that this same theme of “speech is criminal if it makes Muslims riotously angry” was applied to the Benghazi debacle. Judicial Watch obtained hundreds of pages of heavily redacted State Department emails during this time period. Even from the glimpses revealed, it is clear that Islamic forces within and outside the administration were involved in the administration’s response to Benghazi and had an indeterminate amount of influence in the “blame an obscure video” policy that emerged. We may never know the full extent of Islamic involvement in this diversionary and self-serving policy. However, investigation into some of the names and roles of people mentioned in this information dump could be fodder for many blog posts to come. Here’s where to see these documents for yourself:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Searchable-JW-v-State-14-1511-June-3-production-w-numbering.pdf

My book, “Can’t Take It Back” would undoubtedly be considered criminal by Hillary Clinton. The topics addressed will be considered “incitement to imminent violence” by a certain percentage of the Muslim population. She will undoubtedly call my book “not particularly helpful” since it doesn’t meet the agenda of appeasement she has been following for years. However, this country needs to have a discussion. We need to decide where we truly stand. Change is necessary, and it is coming, one way or the other. We can either be passively affected by it, or we can take steps to influence it. Read the book Hillary Clinton’s going to hate!

On sale now at Amazon for only $8.99! Click the link below!

http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Take-Back-Michael-Shapson/dp/1518810098/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448175519&sr=1-1&keywords=Michael+X.+Shapson

Has Hillary Clinton’s stance on Islam been bought and paid for by Muslims?

Hillary Clinton said the following in the Democratic debate on November 14, 2015: “I don’t think we’re at war with Islam.” This quote came after she was asked by the moderator if she believed we were at war with radical Islam. She couldn’t even bring herself to use the phrase! A closer look at donations to the Clinton Foundation makes it crystal clear why Hillary will find it very difficult to criticize Islamic countries in any manner whatsoever, if the unthinkable happens and she is actually elected President. Here’s a partial listing of donors to the Clinton Foundation:

Donations of $10,000,001-$25,000,000:

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Donations of $5,000,001-$10,000,000

Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi

State of Kuwait

Donations of $1,000,001-$5,000,000

Nasser Al-Rashid

Dubai Foundation

Friends of Saudi Arabia

Walid Juffali

State of Qatar

Government of Brunei Darussalam

The Sultanate of Oman

The Zayed Family

United Arab Emirates

If each of the donors on this list gave the minimum amount, Hillary’s foundation collected 29 million dollars from Muslim donors. If each gave the maximum amount, the foundation raked in over 90 million dollars.

It’s no wonder that Hillary characterizes the term “radical Islam” as “not particularly helpful.” She doesn’t want to upset her generous donors. It’s also no wonder that she “doesn’t want us to be painting with too broad a brush.” After all, not ALL muslims are terrorists. SOME of them are very rich and very willing to use their money to sway a politician’s viewpoint. Hillary will never have the courage to speak out forcefully against the egregious human rights violations in Islam. The Ummah has already bought her silence.

Link to official list of Clinton Foundation donors:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

~Mike S.