Le Journal du Dimanche Poll: 42% of French Opposed to Charlie Hebdo’s Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
And you wonder why Western Europe is considered to have already lost the war on terror to Islam?
In a recent poll by Le Journal du Dimanche, 57% of respondents stated that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ should continue to print cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; however, an amazing 42% oppose Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of Muhammad. So I guess that these people do not believe in Je Suis Charlie Hebdo. With nearly 50% of French not believing in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, does anyone wonder why many believe that western Europe has lost the war against Islam? What else would you expect when you allow Muslim “free zones” within a sovereign country?
More than 4 in 10 French people believe Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t publish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, given that many Muslims find the images offensive, according to a recent poll by a French publication, published Sunday.
A survey conducted by Le Journal du Dimanche, a French weekly newspaper, presented participants with this information: “Some Muslims feel attacked or injured by the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.”
In the final tally of responses, 42% checked a box to indicate that the country should “consider these reactions and avoid publishing these cartoons,” while 57% of respondents checked “we should ignore these reactions and continue to publish such cartoons.” The remaining 1% checked “no opinion.”
Pope Francis Claims There Are Limitations on Freedom of Speech, ‘One Cannot Make Fun of Faith’ … REALLY?
POPE FRANCIS SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE FUN OF FAITH …
Following the radical Islam terror attack at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper that had made fun of the prophet Mohammad in the past, that left numerous dead, Pope Francis stated that there were limitations of freedom of speech and said, “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.” Really? SORRY PONTIFF, YOU COULD NOT BE ANY MORE WRONG. So let’s understand this, the Pope thinks that people do not have the right to make fun of religion? The Pontiff made his point by comparing it to if an individual cursed at his mother, that person would be punched. So is the Pope saying that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ brought this on themselves? Would he say the same about a rape victim?
A note to the Pontiff, blasphemy is offensive, cruel and pretty much wrong, but it is not illegal and does not warrant murder.That is what is supposed to separate Christianity from radical Islam. Sorry, but the very essence of freedom of speech is to defend the very words that you would disagree with, offend you and make your blood boil. Wasn’t it Jesus who told us to bless those who persecute us (Romans 12:14), to return love for hate and good for evil (Psalm 109:5), and even to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Loving your enemies would include supporting the fundamental commitment to free speech, and defending the right of free speech, even, or especially, for those who offend you. Why am I telling a Pope this?
Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that “one cannot make fun of faith” and that anyone who throws insults can expect a “punch.”
The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that “every religion has its dignity.”
“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” he said. “There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”
The right to liberty of expression comes with the “obligation” to speak for “the common good,” Pope Francis said, cautioning against provocation.
To illustrate his point, he joked about Vatican aide Alberto Gasparri who was standing nearby on the plane.
“It’s true that we can’t react violently, but, for example if Dr. Gasbarri here, a great friend of mine, says a curse word against my mother, then a punch awaits him,” the pontiff said.
Pope Francis also said that killing in the name of religion is an “aberration,” but adding that those who deride other faiths can expect to provoke a strong, even violent response. An aberration?
“One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected,” the pontiff said. “There are a lot of people who speak badly about other religions. They make fun of them. What happens is what happens with my friend [who insults my mother]. There is a limit.”
The pope made the comments during an in-flight news conference from Sri Lanka to Manila, where he took up the second leg of a weeklong tour of Asia. He was greeted at the airport by President Benigno Aquino III and a performance by hundreds of jeans-clad young people. People cheered the pope’s motorcade to the residence of the apostolic nuncio.
In recent days, the 78-year-old pontiff strongly denounced the attack by two militant Muslim gunmen on Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical publication that has long derided Islam and other religions and their institutions, including the Vatican.
French Authorities Identified Terrorist Suspects Who Murdered Two Police Officers and Slaughtered 10 Journalists at Charlie Hebdo … Said Kouachi, Cherif Kouachi & Hamyd Mourad (Update: Mourad Surrends to Police)
Terror suspects ID’d in Charlie Hebdo slaughter …
Three terrorist suspects have been ID’d in the shooting rampage in Paris, France as two police officers and 10 journalists at Charlie Hebdo were murdered. France’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, said the three Islamofascists suspects are brothers, 32 year old Cherif Kouachi, 34 year old Said Kouachi and 18 year old Mourad Hamyd. The brothers were known to intelligence services. It is currently unknown what the relationship of the 18 year old is to the two brothers. AFP reported that they had been spotted at a petrol station in northern France.
The younger of the two brothers being hunted by French authorities had already spent time in jail for links to terrorism.
Cherif Kouachi, a 32-year-old French citizen, was sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 for being part of a jihadist recruitment ring in Paris that sent fighters to join the conflict in Iraq.
He was arrested in January 2005, at the age of 22, when he and another man were about to set off for Syria, via which they planned to reach Iraq where war was raging.
Kouachi’s lawyer Vincent Ollivier said at the time that his client’s profile was more “pot-smoker from the projects than an Islamist.”
But at trial, Kouachi was described as coming under the influence of a radical Muslim preacher, Farid Benyettou, at the Addawa mosque in Paris’s 19th arrondissement.
Much less is known about the elder Kouachi brother, who doesn’t appear to have as high a profile as his younger sibling.
Said Kouachi is 34 and also a citizen of France, according to French authorities.
CNN affiliate BFMTV reported that police found an ID document of Said Kouachi during the investigation.
“It was their only mistake,” said Dominique Rizet, BFMTV’s police and justice consultant.
The photo of Said Kouachi released by police shows him with close cropped dark hair and a short beard on his chin. He’s wearing a gray top with a collar.
BFMTV reported that like his brother, he was born in Paris and was known to police.
The Liberation report suggested that at the time of Cherif Kouachi’s arrest in 2005, the two brothers were both staying in Paris with a French man who had converted to Islam.
Said Kouachi’s name came to the attention of police during the investigation into the 2010 prison-break plot, but there wasn’t enough evidence to keep investigating him, Le Monde reported.
UPDATE I: 18 year old Mourad Hamyd turns himself in and surrenders to police after learning his name was linked to the attacks in the news.
18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, has surrendered to authorities in France. The two other suspects, identified by French police as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, who brothers in their early 30s, are currently still at large.
The 18-year-old Mourad is believed to be the suspect who stayed on the street as the two older brothers committed the shooting in Charlie Hebdo’s offices, killing 12 people.
Ben Affleck gets his “liberal” lunch handed to him by Bill Maher …
Poor Ben Affleck was just a perplexed mess as for once he was not surrounded by individuals who were just there to agree with him in an echo chamber. Affleck was given a lesson into the real war on woman. However, I hardly believe that he thought such a thing would happen with his appearance with Bill Maher. Affleck had a look of disbelief when Maher said, “It is the only religion that acts like the Mafia. They will F*cking kill you if you say the wring thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.”
It was not too long ago when Maher ripped Charlie Rose a new one and informed him that Islam was not like other religions.
Affleck was noticeably uncomfortable and frustrated throughout the discussion, calling claims that there are widespread problems within the Islamic religion “racist” and “gross.” Maher said liberals should stick up for liberal principles that many in the Muslim faith do not value, such as freedom of speech and equality for women.
Later in the segment, Affleck said the United States has “killed more Muslims” than radical Islamists have killed Americans while asking Maher to lay out his solution.
“I can show you a Pew Poll of Egyptians, they are not outliers in the Muslim world that say like 90 percent of them believe that death is the appropriate response to leaving the religion,” Maher eventually responded. “If 90 percent of Brazilians thought death was the appropriate response to leaving Catholicism, you would think it was a bigger deal.”
Posted October 5, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
al-Qaeda, Beheading, Bill Maher, Democrats, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speach, Good & Evil, ISIS, Islam/Muslims, Islamist, Islamofascist, Jihad, Liberal Intolerance, Liberals, Murder, Progressives, Radical Islam, Religion, Terrorism, War on Terror, You Tube - VIDEO | one comment
Sarah Palin launches her own on-line TV channel to eliminate the liberal media news filter and speak directly to the people. Subscribers to the Sarah Palin Channel will have the ability to post their own videos to the website, submit questions to her and participate in online video chats with her and other subscribers. Palin says, most importantly, I want you to talk directly to me. Palin says, the channel is more than just news, it is a community.
Go to Sarah Palin Channel and check it out for free.
The Sarah Palin Channel, which costs $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, will feature her commentary on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Palin serves as executive editor, overseeing all content posted to the channel.
“I want to talk directly to you on our channel, on my terms — and no need to please the powers that be,” Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor, said in a video announcing the channel. “Together, we’ll go beyond the sound bites and cut through the media’s politically correct filter.”
Rasmussen Poll Shows Many Americans Have No Concept of Free Speech … 55% Favor Government Oversight of Political Ads & Candidates’ Comments
ARE YOU INSANE … DID ANYONE TAKING THIS POLL UNDERSTAND WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS? DO YOU WANT TYRANNY?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
An alarming 55% if likely voters in a recent Rasmussen poll stated, “they believe the government should be allowed to review political ads and candidates’ campaign comments for their accuracy.” It gets better, they also wanted to punish those that it decides are making false statements about other candidates. OK FOLKS … HAVE YOU COMPLETELY LOST YOUR MINDS!!! You do realize that “Freedom of Speech” is intended to prevent a tyrannical government from trampling the speech, opinions and comments of ab individuals right? I could care less what party was in power, I would never want a government to control campaign speech. It is up to the voter to inform yourself as to whether some one is fabricating the truth. If that is too difficult, don’t vote.
So 55% of clueless voters would want whatever political party was in power to review and determine whether a political ad was truthful or not? Who could see anything going wrong with that because of course political parties are not partisan of course. The American Spectator has an idea, just create more government bureaucracy and a new agency, call it the Ministry of Political Truth, to oversee this brave new government power. Oh wait, you don’t want the government agency to do it, how about the media?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case aimed at overturning an Ohio law that makes it a crime to make false statements in a political campaign. But most voters favor government policing of the truthfulness of campaign ads and statements.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should be allowed to review political ads and candidates’ campaign comments for their accuracy and punish those that it decides are making false statements about other candidates. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 31% oppose such government oversight. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Presently we have a president in Barack Obama who thumbs his nose at the US Constitution, you would actually give him the power to control political speech for campaign speech, REALLY? WAKE UP AMERICA, many brave souls fought and died to bring freedoms and independence to the colonies and form a United States. Act like it!
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says that Conservatives Who are Right to Life & for 1st and 2nd Amendmends ‘Have No Place in the State of New York’
More liberal tolerance … What has taken over the Democrat party … So much of a government in NY state of, by and for the people, all people.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said during a WCNY radio interview with Susan Arbetter that that if “extreme conservatives” are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” then “they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Seriously? Isn’t the governor of a state supposed to represent all the people? Could you imagine if a governor from a “red” state said that no one who was pro-choice, pro-gay or pro-gun control has no place in their state? The MSM would be in a complete and total uproar. Cuomo went on to say that “moderate Republicans have a place in this state” and noted that he can work with moderate Republicans, as they’ve consistently passed his agenda. So only those that agree with Cuomo have a place in New York state. UNREAL! Imagine if Chris Christie made such a comment? Once again we are witness to another double standard. Let’s hope this socialist clown never runs for president.
“Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”
This intolerance is coming from a state governor, this is why the framers and Founding Fathers wrote a Bill of Rights to the US Constitution to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
So let’s get this correct, an individual who expresses their First and Second Amendment rights of the US Constitution have no place in New York state? I thought it was the Democrats who claim to have a big tent and are oh so tolerant. The sad reality of Andrew Cuomo’s comments is that he is being seriously and this is what the liberal, socialists who have taken over the Democrat party believe. So for all you folks outside of New York City and who live in upstate New York, you best not be for the rights of new born babies, you best not support the right to bear Arms and you best not be for religious freedom and the right to follow your religious beliefs.
SUPPORT PHIL ROBERTSON & DUCK DYNASTY … Sign the A&E Boycott … Get Ready for a Chick-Fil-A Boycott Response on Steroids!!!
DUCK, DUCK …
A&E really stepped in it by their knee-jerk reaction to the pressures for gay activist groups like GLAAD. The permanent suspension of Robertson family patriarch Phil Roberson for basically espousing his US Constitutionally protected free speech and religious beliefs may just be more than many are willing to take lightly. In many respects this is not a case of one’s religious beliefs, it is greater than that … it is a free speech issue that affects even those who may not have the same beliefs as Phil Robertson. This situation reeks of the Gay activists attack on Chick Fil-A when CEO Dan Cathy was attached for his free speech as well. Hmm, how did that support turn out for Chick-Fil-A? I will say that the support for Duck Dynasty will look like Chick Fil A on steroids.
Governor Jindal said, “Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended “
Several prominent conservatives have expressed their support for “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson following his suspension by A&E for making controversial remarks about homosexuals.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a picture of herself with Robertson and his family on Facebook Wednesday night. The caption reads: “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.”
EXIT QUESTION … Wonder how incumbent Louisiana Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu is feeling right about now? In the past we have had the voting blocks of Soccer moms, NASCAR and now we have the Duck Dynasty voters.
Official Statement from Robertson Family Regarding A&E’s Suspension of Phil Robertson … ‘We Cannot Imagine the Show’ Without Phil Robertson
‘Duck Dynasty’ Family: ‘We Cannot Imagine the Show’ Without Phil Robertson …
So what is the state of affairs of the reality TV show ‘Duck Dynasty’ going forward on A&E following their knee-jerk reaction to suspend family patriarch Phil Robertson indefinitely for stating his Constitutionally protected freedom of speech and region as a result of pressure from gay activist groups? The family makes it very well known that are about God and family first and foremost which would signal that the future of the show continuing on A&E without Phil is nil.
The Robertson Family Official Statement from Duck Commander.com:
We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
Check this out, not only did sponsor Skyjacker pledge their support to Phil and the Robertson family and that they would stay with ‘Duck Dynasty,’ but according to TMZ, so is main sponsor Under Armour (UA).
The company adds, “We are obviously aware of the situation. And his comments are not indicative of Under Armour’s views.”
UA insists the company is committed to treating all people equally and with respect … even if Phil isn’t.
Tennessee Judge Lu Ann Ballew Orders Baby’s Name be Changed from ‘Messiah’ to Martin DeShawn McCullough
Huh, who knew that a judge could order your child’s first name be changed? So what would the judge have done if the child’s name was Jesus and the actual last name was Christ?
Talk about some judicial over-reach … A Tennessee Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew who serves the 4th Judicial District ordered a 7 month old’s name be Martin DeShawn McCullough. It includes both parent’s last names but leaves out Messiah.The issue came before the court initially, not because of the child’s first name, but because the parents could not agree on a last name. The judge stated, ‘the word Messiah is a title and it’s a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ.” The judge went on to say, she made this the decision is best for the child, especially while growing up in a county with a large Christian population. Wow, how is this allowed because of a judge’s religious beliefs? Also, the judge claimed it was in the best interest of the child. So if the family was not in a predominately Christian area, it would have been OK? The case is supposed to be appealed on September 17th.
What ever happened to the First Amendment of the Constitution of Freedom of Speech and Religion?
Hmm, although I think it is poor form and sacrilege for the family to have named their child “Messiah,” there is no way in Heaven that a judge could be allowed to make this family change the child’s name because of her religious views. Sorry, but it is not the court’s right to do so. Look for the ACLU to be ll over this one. Does a court really have the right to determine what your child’s name should be? Really? Obviously, this case has some extreme religion undertones, but where does the government think they have the right to order a child’s name be changed? The only reason why this went to court was because the mother and father could not agree on a last name. So had that never happened, it would have been fine for the child to have gone through life as Messiah?
A Newport mother is appealing a court’s decision after a judge ordered her son’s name be changed from “Messiah.”
Jaleesa Martin and the father of Messiah could not agree on a last name, which is how they ended up at a child support hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court on Thursday.
That is when the first name came into question.
Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew serves the 4th Judicial District of Tenn. including the following counties: Cocke, Grainger, Jefferson, and Sevier.
What would Barack Obama, the Obamamessiah have to say about this?