How dare this man tell the truth! He’s obviously a rabid Islamophobe… During a debate over Islam in the US, Rev. Franklin Graham used a familiar argument against the religion: It’s unfair that Muslims can build mosques in the US while Christians can’t build churches in Saudi Arabia, according to Graham. “I understand what the Muslims want to do in America,” said Graham on ABC’s This Week Sunday. “They want to build as many mosques and cultural centers as they possibly can so they can convert as many Americans as they can to Islam.” “And I just don’t have the freedom to do this in most Muslim countries. We can’t have a church. We’re not able to build synagogues. It’s forbidden.” But an imam who is trying to build an Islamic center in Tennessee disagreed. “For someone to say we are not allowed to build a church in a Muslim country, this is absolutely not right,” said Imam Osama Bahloul. Bahloul and Franklin were also at odds over whether violence towards women was allowed under Sharia law. “I have great difficulty with the — with the religion, especially with Sharia law and what it does for women — toward women, toward non-believers, the violence that is given in — under Sharia law,” said Graham. “For you to say that Islam is asking Muslims to beat a woman, this is absolutely not right,” replied Bahloul. “I think to — to take your daughter, because you think that — and the religion gives you the authority — Sharia gives you the authority for honor killing,” said Graham. “It does not,” interrupted Bahloul. Peter Gadiel, whose son died on 9/11, spoke up. “Your people justify it from the Koran,” he said. Note : See part one of today’s Franklin Graham sharia-smackdown.
Read more here:
Rev. Franklin Graham Part II: Sharia Law Gives “Authority” For Honor Killings…
Happy Friday! In case you’re not a regular follower of the Net Neutrality issue, over at Frum Forum Jon Henke outlines the state of the debate . The Frum title sounds like advocacy, but Henke doesn’t promote the Google-Verizon Net Neutrality proposal here. It’s worth a read if you’re catching up. And for more basic catch up material, here’s Glenn Beck on the progressive agenda to get true state-run mass media in America. I know it’s become popular to call the lefty press “state-run,” but I don’t think that’s harsh enough. MSNBC and friends don’t get tingly and enthusiastic for Obama because a Rhodesia-like knife hangs over their necks. They do it because they want to. Free Press and friends would force the issue. And yes, Free Press can’t tell the truth, because to do so would expose how unpopular their radical agenda actually is. So Free Press is lying about the IETF now , and DigitalSociety.org is calling them out for it. the radicals have to misrepresent even Internet standards now in order to make their case for greater state run control of mass media. They’re desperate enough to do that because they’re losing allies all the time now, from the left and the right. New research suggests that alarmist claims about Greenland icecap melting have been exaggerated. By how much? By 50% . But The Science Is Settled™, eh? One last point tonight, a nice use of technology by government for a change. Mississippi prisons are working with wireless phone companies to block all calls to and from any phone in a prison that has not been approved by prison staff. Over 200,000 illicit calls have now been blocked, they say. I hope this success can be repeated nationwide. Enjoy the weekend. We don’t get the benefit of a short week next week, plus we’ve got the Red State gathering next weekend, so I know I’m getting all the rest I can get right now.
Read the rest here:
Tech at Night: Net Neutrality, Google, Verizon, Glenn Beck, Free Press, IETF, Mississippi, Greenland
A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia. No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it. Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.” Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.
