In what can only to be described as a throwback to the seventh century, Dutch Parliamentarian and anti-jihad warrior Geert Wilders was back in court Monday on specious “hate speech” charges filed by a corrupt, criminal dhimmi court in the Netherlands.

How dare they subjugate their Western values to Islamic supremacism in this dangerous farce?

Wilders has explained what’s at really on trial in Holland in his case: “I am standing trial,” he said, “because of my opinions on Islam … and because the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence me. I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. In Europe the national state, and increasingly the EU, prescribes how citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself – should think and what we are allowed to say.”

For a moment it looked as if the Dutch might come to their senses and stop harassing this warrior for freedom. On Monday, just as his heresy trial resumed, Wilders said, “I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens. I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it.” Then, according to the notoriously leftist and morally bankrupt Guardian, he “asserted his right to remain silent for the rest of the trial, prompting a comment from the presiding judge, Jan Moors, which was challenged by Wilders’s lawyer.”

Moors said, according to the Guardian, that Wilders “was known for making bold statements but avoiding discussions,” and concluded by saying: “It appears you’re doing so again.” (more…)

Kathleen Parker is an allegedly conservative columnist at the Washington Post, but if there’s any evidence she is, in fact, conservative, it’s certainly scant. About the only support for this allegation comes from liberals, who always cite her as a “conservative” they like.

Here’s her latest.  You be the judge:

The Ground Zero mosque must be built

Right — you love it already, don’t you? An exercise in morally preening, fatuous sophistry now follows:

The mosque should be built precisely because we don’t like the idea very much. We don’t need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.

This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the mosque, principally that there’s no law against it. Precluding any such law, we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people’s feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws. And, really, don’t we want to keep it that way?

Parker goes on to say that she, personally, would prefer the mosque to be built somewhere else, but hey: (more…)

We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.

That was the arrogant declaration of victory from the Organization of the Islamic Conference nearly two years ago, regarding the shrewdly orchestrated Muslim mayhem around the world protesting such infidel abominations as the Danish Muhammad cartoons and Geert Wilders’ short film Fitna.

“Red lines” indeed – a phrase chillingly reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s famous observation that “Islam has bloody borders.” Except that the red lines the OIC is referring to aren’t geographical – they are the ever-tightening limits that Muslim fundamentalists are imposing to choke off our freedoms.

The influential OIC is the world’s largest Muslim assembly, consisting of 57 member states (you know, the same number of U.S. states candidate Obama campaigned in). Its primary aim is “conducting a large-scale worldwide effort to confront Islamophobia.” (As I’ve written here before, Islamophobia is a mythical beast that the OIC and collusive groups like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, use to intimidate us into craven appeasement.) Their goal is to abridge our free speech by making criticism of Islam an international crime; their strategy works because the West has been so emasculated by multiculturalism that we’d rather embrace cultural suicide than offend the tender sensibilities of such violent barbarians as the Danish cartoon rioters. (more…)

Except to say that I never thought I would see the day when Americans would so meekly accede to threats, or even hints of violence, this news from Comedy Central is hardly surprising anymore.  From the Hollywood Reporter:

‘Muhammad’ now a dirty word on ‘South Park’

Now “South Park” can’t even say the words “Prophet Muhammad.”

After last week’s episode of the Comedy Central series sparked a threat (and yes, it was certainly a threat) from a radical Islamic website, the network has cracked-down-for-their-own-good on creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone during last night’s continuation of the show’s storyline.

For their own good… right.

For those who missed the drama, the show’s 200th episode last week mocked the one “celebrity” that the series has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A U.S.-based website RevolutionMuslim.com then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show’s production office. The site has since been shut down.

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what happened to Theo Van Gogh for the crime of making a movie that criticized Islam: (more…)