The Muslim Riots: Those Aren’t Videos They’re Burning…

Yesterday, in front of America’s Press Corps and the entire world, Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, lied his bespectacled backside off.

Here’s the exchange, courtesy of realclearpolitics.com:

JAKE TAPPER: Wouldn’t it seem logical that the anniversary of 9/11 would be a time that you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, we are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9/11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on all the precautions being taken. But, Jake, let’s be clear. These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.

TAPPER: At Benghazi?

CARNEY: We certainly don’t know. We don’t know otherwise. We have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary, that we know of, or to U.S. policy.

Mr. Carney…if movies caused people to riot, we Southerners would have burned Hollywood down to the ground because of that awful “Dukes of Hazzard” movie.

RadicalIslam.org very adroitly chronicles the real reason that the barbarians are rioting:

The apparent cause for this latest spasm of carefully-coordinated, anti-American violence in the lands of the so-called “Arab Spring,” where direct intervention by the U.S. was decisive in bringing to power the jihadist forces of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a film (soon to be released) deemed offensive to Islam and the Muslim prophet Muhammad that was made in the U.S.

The Salafist president of an Egyptian TV channel, Wesam Abdel-Wareth, deliberately whipped up Egyptian fury when he issued a call for a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy over the film. Most Embassy personnel had left before the chaos began and no one appears to have been injured in the Cairo attack; ominously, though, the Egyptian security presence outside the facility was notably light even as the mob was gathering.

As Andrew McCarthy wrote at The National Review Online, these were acts of war. There can be no question but that they were coordinated acts of war, purposely timed to fall on America’s solemn day of commemoration of the worst jihadist attacks ever committed on the U.S. homeland (by Iran and al-Qa’eda, which sprang from the Muslim Brotherhood).

Diplomatic facilities are the sovereign territory of the country to which they belong. The host country is responsible for their security – and even though neither Egyptian nor Libyan uniformed government forces directly participated in the attacks, it is obvious that their Muslim Brotherhood supporters, the ones who elected them to office and who are now calling for jihad and sharia, were.

Moreover, it is also clear that the U.S. Department of State was aware of the impending threat to its facilities over the film because its Cairo Embassy issued a despicable statement of abject appeasement in advance of the attacks that offered up the treasured right of American free speech on the altar of Islamophobia.

U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement

September 11, 2012

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

That statement came directly out of the talking points of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on its Ten-Year Programme of Action and is intended by both the OIC and the U.S. Department of State to impose legal limits on Americans’ freedom of speech by criminalizing criticism of Islam. Recall that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, D.C. in mid-December 2011 to discuss implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.” If now the measure of “incitement to imminent violence” is a “test of consequences” that imposes prior restraint on freedom of expression because of the unpredictability of volatile Muslim populaces easily roused to murderous fury, as in Benghazi and Cairo, then Islamic law on slander will have been enforced.

This is the real meaning of these attacks, which were purposefully calculated precisely to elicit the craven press release quoted above from the U.S. State Department. This is how dhimmitude is implemented. Islamic Jihad and Gama’a al-Islamiyya demands for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”), now serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, also have been issued, along with a threat to burn the U.S. Cairo Embassy to the ground if these demands are not met.

The sixth President of the United States of America, John Quincy Adams, wrote the following about the nature of Islam:

THE ESSENCE OF HIS [MUHAMMAD’S] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adams’ capital letters]… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

I’m sure that there are those among you saying, “Well, KJ, what about all the nice Muslims, who aren’t involved in this mess?”

I have met many nice Muslims in my life. My question, though, is, “Why aren’t those Muslims who have pledged allegiance to OUR flag speaking up against this wanton violence against their own countrymen?”

Hmmmmm?