Maher on Islam: “When There’s This Many Bad Apples, There’s Something Wrong With The Orchard”

bill-maher

Maher on Islam: “When There’s This Many Bad Apples, There’s Something Wrong With The Orchard”

HBO’s Bill Maher discusses the Paris terror attack and the threat of radical Islam with author Salman Rushdie, who received a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini, businesswoman and political commentator Carly Fiorina, and Democratic strategist Paul Begala.

Maher listed off some of the major attacks pulled off by Muslim extremists since 9/11 saying, “when there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard.”

“We tend to forget how often it happens and we’re Americans so we don’t want to single out people, but when you look at that list just since 9/11. We had the Madrid bombings in ’04; London in ’05; Mumbai; the Kenyan mall attack; Benghazi, which was one of 20 cities that erupted when that movie the Innocence of Muslims was on the internet; ISIS; Boko Haram, who killed an entire village this week; Pakistan this year, last year, killing all those kids at school; Canada, the parliament; Australia, that guy,” Maher said.

Maher also cited a report 60 Minutes did last fall on Muslim men accosting female Londoners about the way they dressed.

Relevant transcript below:

BILL MAHER, “REAL TIME” HOST: This was kind of a dark week for humor and for free speech and make no mistake about it our very way of life is threatened and under attack. But, you know me, I’m a cockeyed optimist. I want to look on the bright side and actually I feel like there was a bright side this week. I saw a reaction from non-Muslims and Muslims alike that I’ve never seen before when s— like this went down. Do you think we’ve reached a tipping point where people have just had enough of this s—?…

MAHER: We tend to forget how often it happens and we’re Americans so we don’t want to single out people, but when you look at that list just since 9/11. We had the Madrid bombings in ’04; London in ’05; Mumbai; the Kenyan mall attack; Benghazi, which was one of 20 cities that erupted when that movie the Innocence of Muslims was on the internet; ISIS; Boko Haram, who killed an entire village this week; Pakistan this year, last year, killing all those kids at school; Canada, the parliament; Australia, that guy.

And that’s just the terrorists, let’s not forget also governments. That’s the thing that I think gets lost. It’s inside the establishment and it’s outside. Saudi Arabia today, a blogger gets a 1,000 lashes —

RUSHDIE: They flogged the blogger for saying something that a priest didn’t like.

MAHER: Right.

FIORINA: And let’s not forget Syria slaughtering 300,000 of their own citizens.

MAHER: Right, but I mean like Turkey. The president of Turkey said, “Women are not equal to men. Our religion has a defined position for women, motherhood.”

I can’t imagine a Western government leader saying that. And what we’ve said all along is, and have been called bigots for it, is when there’s this many bad ideas, there’s something wrong with the orchard…

MAHER: There should be a distinction because obviously the vast majority of Muslims would never do anything like this, but they share bad ideas. This is the thing that caused the big raucous when Ben Affleck was here was that Sam Harris said Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas and everyone went f—ing nuts on this side of the panel. But it is!

The guy who shot up — these two guys who shot up the cartoonist the other day they were avenging the prophet when they did it. A bad idea. To martyrdom, a bad idea. Women as second class citizens, a bad idea. And unfortunately the terrorists and the mainstream share a lot of these bad ideas.

In a related story:

Ohio Man Arrested for Alleged ISIS-Inspired Attack Plot on US Capitol

PHOTO: A flag of the Islamic State is seen on the other side of a bridge at the front line of fighting between Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Islamist militants in Rashad, on the road between Kirkuk and Tikrit, Sept. 11, 2014.

The FBI has arrested an Ohio man for allegedly plotting an Islamic State-inspired attack on the U.S. Capitol, where he hoped to set off a series of bombs aimed at lawmakers, whom he allegedly considered enemies.

Christopher Lee Cornell -– also known as Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah -– was arrested earlier today on charges of attempting to kill a U.S. government official.

ISIS: Trail of Terror
U.S.Homeland Warns of ISIS Retaliation in US by Sympathizers
Tracking ISIS: Homegrown Terror Threat

Government documents say the FBI first noticed Cornell after he voiced support for violent “jihad” on a Twitter account.

Further investigation revealed his intent to attack the U.S. Capitol, and he planned to detonate pipe bombs there and open fire on any employees and officials after the bombs went off, according to government documents.

The FBI and Department of Homeland security issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies across the country, notifying them of the case.

“The alleged activities of Cornell highlight the continued interest of US-based violent extremists to support designated foreign terrorist organizations overseas, such as ISIL, by committing terrorist acts in the United States,” the bulletin read. “Terrorist group members and supporters will almost certainly continue to use social media platforms to disseminate English language violent extremist messages.”

Obama Will Never Stand With Figures Who Insult Muslims

slander

Obama Will Never Stand With Figures Who Insult Muslims

By Jim Geraghty

January 13, 2015 10:19 AM

Why didn’t President Obama go to Paris?

Monday brought a lot of quickly discarded excuses. 1) The excuse that the United States was adequately represented, as suggested by Kerry’s claim that critics were “quibbling” because the U.S. ambassador attended. White House press secretary Josh Earnest eventually retreated on that one. 2) The claim that there were security concerns, which suggested the security measures taken to protect the French president, U.K. prime minister, and Israeli prime minister were somehow insufficient. Also note that the entire point of the march was to send a message to the world that leaders will not be intimidated by extremists who threaten to kill them. 3) Complete and total staff incompetence: “White House aides were so caught off guard by the march’s massive size and attention that they hadn’t even asked President Barack Obama if he wanted to go.”

The simplest explanation — and one that doesn’t contradict option 3 — is that President Barack Obama doesn’t want to put his personal stature and credibility on the line to support something like Charlie Hebdo. Since those awful attacks, we’ve witnessed a lot of allegedly intellectual leftists offer versions of “the attacks were terrible, but —” and then explaining why Hebdo was offensive, hate speech, and unnecessary provocation, foolish, etc., and imply that the magazine isn’t really worth defending and that the world would be a better place if these immature, impudent cartoonists would stop making fun of one of the world’s great religions.

There’s very little evidence to suggest that Obama disagrees with this progressive intellectual reaction, that while satire of Islam is theoretically legal, the consequences of enraging Muslims is too much trouble and risk to be worthwhile. We saw this in the response to Hebdo before, and the infamous YouTube video that the administration cited as a scapegoat for the Benghazi attacks. To a lot of progressives, while depicting Muhammad or mocking Islam shouldn’t be banned, it should be discouraged, and a presidential appearance at that rally and march would be too close to an official endorsement of the magazine and its contents.

As then–White House press secretary Jay Carney put it in 2012 while discussing the French magazine’s Muhammad cartoons:

We don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

Obama would never support going into a magazine and shooting people. But he’s afamously thin-skinned public figure who thinks he has a particularly powerful connection and understanding of the Muslim world because he spent some childhood years in Indonesia. He is so mono-focused on “de-escalating” tensions with the Muslim world that he thinks about how he would advise ISIS. The last thing President Obama is going to do is take some sort of personal action that indicates a real show of solidarity with cartoonists who offend Muslims.

New York Times Reports On Muslim Proselytizing During Charlie Hebdo Attack, Then Deletes It

deleted

New York Times Reports On Muslim Proselytizing During Charlie Hebdo Attack, Then Deletes It

JIM TREACHER
 When Islamic terrorists expressly tell their victims why they’re being attacked, our mainstream media will do anything to cover it up. They’ll change the subject, they’ll blame the victims… they’ll even stealth-edit* their own copy.

Here’s the latest example of the New York Times censoring itself to avoid offending Muslims after an act of Islamic terror. This morning,BenK at Ace of Spades quoted an NYT story by Liz Alderman titled “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.” Take note of these two paragraphs from that story:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

I was intrigued by this quote, and it seemed worth exploring, so I went to the NYT story to quote it. But guess what?

Here’s what it says now:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

Nothing about telling her to convert to Islam. Nothing about telling her to read the Quran. Nothing about telling her to cover her face.

 Nothing about the very reason these animals did this.

So, imagine yourself as an NYT editor for a moment, if you can withstand the nausea. Why would you specifically take out the part about the Islamic terrorist proselytizing for Islam in the middle of the terrorist attack? Why delete this woman’s account of being threatened at gunpoint and being told to convert to Islam?

That’s easy. Because you’re one of America’s moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, and you don’t want it to be true. Your reporter hastily left that inconvenient truth in her story by accident, so you airbrushed it out, without any acknowledgment, to preserve the narrative. You turned it into, “Hey, maybe these guys aren’t so bad after all. They didn’t kill the women, right? Let’s not be too hasty.”

Because that’s your job.

The New York Times is garbage.

Senate vote a stinging defeat for Obama

March 05, 2014, 08:17 pm

Senate vote a stinging defeat for Obama

By Alexander Bolton and Ramsey Cox

Getty Images

The Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Wednesday in a stunning 47-52 vote in which seven Democrats abandoned their leadership.

The vote was all the more remarkable for the five Democrats in tough reelection races this year who voted in vain to move Debo Adegbile’s nomination forward.

mumia

The vote was a stinging defeat for the White House that showed President Obama is politically out of step with some centrist Democrats heading into the midterm elections.

Obama labeled the vote a “travesty” based on “wildly unfair” character attacks.

“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked,” Obama said. “As a lawyer, Mr. Adegbile has played by the rules. And now, Washington politics have used the rules against him.”

blog insert Jan 25

Adegbile was the director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund when it worked to commute Abu-Jamal’s death sentence. Faulkner’s widow, the Fraternal Order of Police and Republicans argued this should disqualify him from the Justice job, while supporters warned a rejection would set the ominous precedent of holding a lawyer accountable for a client’s behavior.

Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Walsh (Mont.), Chris Coons (Del.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) voted to block Adegbile, while several Democrats in tough reelection races, including Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Begich (Alaska), voted to advance him.

Every Republican voted against the nomination, forcing Reid to secure the support of at least 50 members of his 55-person caucus. Vice President Biden presided over the vote and would have been available to break a tie, but his vote was not needed.

It was the first time a nomination has gone down since Democrats changed the Senate’s filibuster rules to require simple majority votes on many procedural motions.

The Republican National Committee immediately pounced, highlighting the votes by Hagan, Landrieu and Begich.

John Boehner, Tom Graves

“Vulnerable Democrats running in 2014 just voted to confirm a radical nominee whose positions on civil rights, religious liberty, voting rights and the second amendment are far outside the mainstream,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted the vote was not a sign that Obama is losing support among Senate Democrats.

“The vast majority of Democrats voted to confirm him so I don’t think it says anything about the president,” said Reid, who switched his vote from “yes” to “no” in a procedural move that allows him to bring the nomination up again for a future vote.

Reid argued that Adegbile was being smeared by charges of guilt by association. The Democratic leader noted that as a young lawyer, he himself represented unsavory characters pro bono.

Democratic leaders immediately faced questions about whether it was wise to schedule a vote without knowing for certain the nominee could attract enough support.

“These 2014 Democrats can’t be happy with their leadership over the Adegbile vote. They all walked the plank while others got to vote ‘no,’ ” said a Senate GOP leadership aide.

A senior Democratic leadership aide said the White House and Adegbile were informed that he might fall short of the 50 votes needed to advance his nomination but both wanted to roll the dice and proceed.

The aide said Reid had little choice about whether to schedule the vote or not, arguing that floor action was inevitable once Obama made the pick because the assistant attorney general in charge of Justice’s civil rights division is such a high-profile position.

“There’s no scenario in which we would not come up for a vote,” said the aide. “That decision was made when he was nominated.

“We don’t avoid tough votes,” the aide added.

Abu-Jamal has long been a cause célèbre in leftist political circles who argue his case exposed racism in the criminal justice system — he even has a street named after him in Paris. But Republicans say he was an unrepentant cop killer and noted there was overwhelming evidence he shot and killed Faulkner at point-blank range.

harry

GOP senators claimed Adegbile’s record of “left-wing advocacy” would further politicize the Justice Department.

The choice of Adegbile split civil rights and law enforcement groups and put Democrats in an awkward position of having to pick a side.

“It was a tough one because you had the NAACP on one side and police officers on the other so people voted the best they could given the circumstances,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted for Adegbile.

The votes by Casey and Coons were notable but not entirely surprising given the attention Abu-Jamal’s conviction received in that are of the country.

Casey said the officer’s “vicious murder” more than 30 years ago has “left open wounds” for Philadelphia.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Adegbile’s nomination was a “thumb in the eye of our law enforcement officers.”

“The nominee inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers, and glorify an unrepentant cop killer,” McConnell said in a statement. “This is not required by our legal system. On the contrary, it is noxious to it.”

— This story was posted at 12:27 p.m. and updated at 8:17 p.m.