Bad Timing: Muslim Leaders To Hold “Stand With The Prophet” Rally In Texas

Screen-shot-2015-01-12-at-4.16.53-PM-550x328

In light of the fact that so many members of the MSM insist on reverently referring to Mohammed as “the Prophet of Islam,”  in addition to covering the event, they might want to join in the festivities, too.

Via Free Beacon:

Muslim leaders from across America will gather in Texas this weekend to hold the annual Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference, a weekend forum that is being billed as a “movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message,” according to event information.

The Saturday event, which seeks to combat “Islamophobes in America” who have turned the Islamic Prophet Muhammad “into an object of hate,” according to organizers, comes just a week after radicalized Islamists in France killed 17 people.

The victims died in events that began with the shooting attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its satirical cartoons that skewered the prophet.

Organizers of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media and so-called American Islamophobes who have “invested at least $160 million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,” according to the conference web page.

That’s an….interesting …take on why Islam might have a bad rep. Some might argue that it has to do with the violent attacks perpetrated by Islamofascists on a daily basis throughout the world, the most recent atrocities being last week’s slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris, the 2,000 slaughtered in Nigeria, the ongoing slaughters of Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds in Syria and Iraq.

But whatever. It is phobic to be wary of people who follow a religious ideology that forces non-believers to either Die, Fight, or Surrender and live in subjugation.

Meanwhile, the new Charlie Hebdo cover has been revealed – and in their own way – they are standing with “the prophet” by depicting him as standing with them.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.

WH: We Probably Should Have Sent an Official With a “Higher Profile” To Paris

In a rare admission that the White House messed up, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, today, that the White House should have sent a senior official to Sunday’s massive march in Paris.

Via White House Dossier:

“We should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there,” said Earnest told reporters at todays WH press briefing..

“I think the president himself would have liked to have had the opportunity to be there,” Earnest said, adding that security requirements for either the president or the vice president are steep, and would have had a “pretty significant impact” on others at the event.

Earnest also explained that the plans for the march “only begun on Friday night” for an event that occurred “36 hours later.”

When pressed by Fox News’ Ed Henry, Earnest could not answer where Obama was on Sunday.

Earnest has been unable to explain why the decision not to go was not brought to Obama but apparently he out of the decision making loop.

As I noted on Twitter:

SEE ALSO:

Haaretz: Hollande asked Netanyahu not to attend Paris memorial march:

Absence sought as part of attempt to keep Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of European show of unity; After Netanyahu insisted on coming, French made it clear Abbas would be invited as well.

CNBC’s John Harwood wonders if Obama got a similar request (I doubt it.)

It makes sense that a Socialist president would want to leave out the controversial (to the anti-semitic left) Jewish Prime Minister. Makes no sense that he would leave out fellow traveler, Obama.

Here’s what jumped out at me:

After the French government began to send invitations to world leaders to participate in the rally against terror, Hollande’s national security adviser, Jacques Audibert, contacted his Israeli counterpart, Yossi Cohen, and said that Hollande would prefer that Netanyahu not attend, the source said.

The French sent out formal invitations to world leaders to attend, and Obama couldn’t be bothered to send even his Sec. of State or his Attorney General who was already in town.

MORE:

Marie Harf “stumbles for six minutes trying to explain Paris No-Show in Paris:

Earnest was asked about Jay Carney’s criticism of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons two years ago.  Earnest defended the White House position by suggesting that their Criticism of Muhammad Cartoons Really About Protecting the Troops.

Forum: What Should Western Response Be To The Attacks In France, If Any?

question-marks (1)

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question :
What Should Western Response Be To The Attacks In France, If Any?

Simply Jews: I shall use as a starting point a precise example of what the Wester response should not be. It was helpfully provided by one of the more moronic representatives of the Guardianistas, one Simon Jenkins, concerned most of all about possible damage to Western democracy as a result of new laws, new controls, new additions to the agenda of illiberalism.

There is no need for new laws/controls/etc. The West has enough legal, law enforcement, intelligence and military tools in its disposal, the only problem the West has is with the will and the readiness to use them. First of all, the West should pound into the ground the many heads of the militant Islamism – Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIL (IS), Hezbollah, Bokko Haram, Hamas and all its other guises.

As long as all or even part of the above continue to exist, providing rich and fertile grounds for the so called “lone wolf” growth, there wouldn’t be a chance to destroy the domestic terrorism.

And then will come the second stage: integration. The choice that must be offered to the adherents of the militant Islam in Europe and US should be simple: accept the laws of the land or move to a place where the law of the land suits you. Which is elsewhere.

The Noisy Room :My answer to ‘What should the Western response be to the attack in
France, if any?’ is a mixture of responses from Allen West and from
Ralph Peters.

1. Accept that we are in a war with Islamist terrorists.
2. Name the enemy – Islamist terrorists/Jihadists.
3. Know that we cannot continue to make our culture and values
subservient to others.
4. We have to reconsider who we allow into the US and who can stay here.
We also need to profile.
5. Get the lawyers out of the way and off the battlefield.
6. Accept that there will be collateral damage and don’t apologize for it.
7. No nation building or rebuilding.
8. Do not just ‘try’ to hold ground.
9. Go wherever the terrorists are and kill them. Try to exterminate them
with prejudice.
10. When you leave a war theater, actually leave.
11. Leave behind smoking ruins and grieving widows. War means killing
and breaking things. Accept it.
12. If in 5 or 10 years, the enemy even thinks of raising his head, go
back and do it all over again. Finish it.
13. Never send American troops into a war that you do not intend to win.
14. We win, they lose and no soldier is left behind.
15. We don’t make deals with the enemy, no matter the immediate cost.
The long term cost will be far worse.

If we do these things, France and the rest of Europe, will benefit and
will finally have an example they can follow.

I think that about covers it. Any questions?

The Independent Sentinel : Curtail any Muslim immigration from terrorist countries.Stop using GITMO as the terrorist farm team.

Tighten surveillance on radical Muslims and Mosques.Move to arrest any Muslims returning from fighting with ISIS or al-Qaeda or from any known terrorist hotbed.Put the words “jihad” and “radical Islam” back into the FBI and Army manuals and use the words in my speeches.

Change the rules of engagement and start capturing some of these terrorists for the purposes of interrogation.
I’d immediately announce that I was leaving a residual force of 10,000 in Afghanistan. Stop aid to Yemen and other terrorist countries like Gaza until they come up with a plan to fight terrorism. Meet with al-Sisi of Egypt and re-establish that relationship after I met with Netanyahu and re-established that relationship.

Send weapons to the Peshmerga and tell the Iraqi government to pound salt. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards wouldn’t be my boots on the ground and I’d end those talks immediately. Instead, I’d meet with Congress about adding new sanctions.Talk about the need to stop the genocide in the Middle East and try to actually form a real coalition with allies, not with other terrorists.

I’d declare war on radical Islam, sit down with my generals and develop a comprehensive plan to defund them to start and all options would be on the table.

The Razor :It’s difficult to consider what the western response to the attacks in France that killed 18 innocents, considering we’re still waiting for the response to the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine that killed 298. It does pose a bit of a dilemma since it’s impossible to convert to Islam AND Russian Orthodox at the same time, though if anybody could do it the Europeans can.

The Glittering Eye : As I wrote in a post earlier today.

I have been asked what I think the West should do in response to the incidents. In preface I should mention that I object to the framing. I do not believe there is a “West” in any meaningful sense. Whom does it include? Western Europe, the British Commonwealth, Canada, the U. S., Japan, and Israel? More? Less? I think that the term was originally coined to distinguish between Greece on the one hand and the Persian Empire on the other and was resurrected at the turn of the last century to unite the United States with the older, presumably more sophisticated United Kingdom and Continental Western Europe. After World War I, it received new currency to tie the United States to Western Europe against Russia and its satellites. I think that distinction has largely lost its meaning and is no longer helpful to the United States.

However, I’ll divide my response into two questions. What should we (the United States) do? What should the countries of Europe do?
I don’t think we should do anything. France has its own distinct issues, quite different from ours. France is quite capable of dealing with its own problems and its citizens need to decide what response if any is appropriate.

What should the countries of Europe do? They really have only three alternatives. They can push their Muslim populations farther away possibly alienating and radicalizing them in the process, they can do nothing and determine that occasional mass murders by radical members of that population are an acceptable risk, or they can take affirmative steps to integrate their Muslim populations more closely into their societies.

I think it is up to the citizens of those countries to decide what kind of countries they wish to be. My preference would be that they accept their Muslim populations whether citizen or resident, not relegating them to second class status as is too frequently the case but that’s not a decision for me, an American, to make. They should do as they think best in the full knowledge that whatever they decide will have implications.

Ask Marion :The Western nations, minus the US, made a big stride forward in standing up to Islamic terrorism on Sunday in Paris as their leaders walked arm in arm in unity. And the French Prime Minister declared war on radical Islam.