Enemies Within

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Michelle Malkin

http://www.townhall.com/

November 2, 2001

More Muslim enemies from within

There was a venomous hatefest in the nation's capitol on Halloween night. It was hosted by Malik Zulu Shabazz of the militant New Black Panther Party. Deadly rhetorical spores of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism permeated the air for more than four hours.

But there has been no panic. No uproar. Nothing.

If this event had been an anti-Muslim rally, the story would be front-page news. Editorialists and academics would be decrying racial and religious intolerance. Left-wing celebrities and MTV veejays would be hectoring us about the need for unity and harmony. Politicians would be condemning the hatemongers as radical extremists who undermine the American way of life.

Instead, the Muslim marathon of malevolence I watched Wednesday night on C-SPAN-2 received absolutely no mainstream media criticism. In fact, it got no mainstream newspaper press coverage at all -- an especially ugly irony since it was held at the prestigious National Press Club in the heart of Washington, D.C. Where are all the dogged, brave-hearted members of the Beltway press corps when you need them to cover a war story in their very own lounge?

This was no ordinary forum of scholars, journalists and bureaucrats of the sort who normally show up at the National Press Club to rub elbows and nibble croissants. It was a super-charged, anti-American grievance session populated by Muslim crackpots and conspiracy theorists. The so-called town hall meeting in the spacious ballroom of the Press Club was "moderated" by Shabazz, a Howard University law school graduate and fanatical racist agitator who was once described admiringly by a Washington Post reporter as "tall and lean as a pine" with "the grace of an athlete."

He wore his usual garb -- a dark Goebbels-like uniform with patches and stripes, close-cropped hair and Malcolm X designer glasses. Surrounding him were peace-loving Muslims in black berets and paramilitary gear, who defiantly chanted "Black power!" on cue.

Shabazz defended Osama bin Laden, blamed President Bush for the 9-11 attacks, called our founding fathers "snakes" and likened them to terrorists, lambasted Catholicism, Christians and Jews, and repeated his avaricious call for societal reparations to blacks. This is old hat for Shabazz, who rose to power under ex-Nation of Islam exile Khalid Muhammad. Among Shabazz's resume highlights: stoking the recent Cincinnati race riots; organizing a legal support group for O.J. Simpson; leading a boycott of a D.C.-based Korean grocery store that was later firebombed; urging followers in Maryland to "crush" any "straw-chewin', tobacco-chewin' racist redneck" that assaults blacks; and threatening to kill whites and police officers if they interfered with his "Million Youth March" two years ago in New York.

"The only solution any time there is a funeral in the black community is a funeral in the police community," Shabazz told the marchers at the time.

Consumed by hate of law enforcement, not a single person at the Press Club forum had a shred of gratitude for the hundreds of mostly white cops and firemen who sacrificed their lives to save their fellow Americans of all colors and creeds on 9-11. Instead, panelists and audience members stewed about racial profiling, blamed whites for drug abuse in black communities, and practically danced on the graves of the victims of 9-11 terrorism with repeated references to "the chickens coming home to roost."

One audience member claimed that the hijackings, destruction and deaths were "nothing more than a Hollywood lie." An "imam" named Abdul Alim Musa agreed, assailing the "Zionists in Hollywood, the Zionists in New York, and the Zionists in D.C." who "all collaborate" to oppress blacks and Muslims. Another audience member refuted the politically correct notion that the Muslim religion is rooted in peace. After all, he noted, true followers believe that "Paradise is under the shade of our swords."

Co-hosting the Press Club forum was Mohammed Asi, an official of the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. -- where President Bush proclaimed that "Islam is peace" less than a week after the terrorist hijackings. Asi said and did nothing to quell the racist, anti-American terrorist sympathizers in the room.

Sept. 11 taught us that our greatest enemies lurk from within. Before the war, the Malik Shabazzes of the world were treated by the press as curious nuisances in funny costumes. It's long past time to call and condemn them for what they truly are: Treacherous threats.

---

In the spirit of our usual debates, I ask that this one be kept civil as always.

Opinions on our inside enemies only please. Most other topics already have a thread, I am separating this one from those. Please send opinions on other topics to the appropriate thread.

When does free speech go too far?

What is considered seditious and treasonous?

Is this constitutional free speech?

And many other points.

Let the debate begin!

[Gallion]

Get a life $ilk

TTFN

[Guest]

He has a right to say what he wants, BUT, he is trying to incite people. I believe this has reached the limit that the 1st amendment provides.

He should be arrested and tossed in Prison, keys thrown away until this war is over. Charge him with Sedition, Incitement to violence, and racism, and various Hate Crimes against whites, Asians, etc, Jews, and Christians etc. Then if they riot to get him out. Shoot until they stop, end of story.

This is Treason and racism in it's worst form, it should be stomped on and stomped on until it is dead.

They say that ignorance breeds racism, this man must be one of the most ignorant around. Oh, I forgot, he's black so he can't be racist. No offense to anyone here, but this REALLY pisses me off.

The most racist people I ever met while in the military were some of the black soldiers that I had to deal with. When called on it, that was thier reply. I am Black, I therefore cannot be racist, and it is my right to hate whitey.

When they were called on it by other Black soldiers, they called them Cracker lovers, never had even heard the "cracker" thing before. Blew me away, totally blew me away.

[Supreme Cmdr]

If this is true, I hope he gets arrested and tossed in prison under the new anti-terrorist legislation.

[TRD]

Why would you arrest him? Unless the protest turns violent he hasnt done anything wrong, as far as I can see, under your law. You may not like what he has to say, but thats a price you pay for having free speech.

I have to put up with the same thing in this country when it comes to groups like the BNP, if it was up to them I wouldnt be in this country. They are allowed to march through London every year because they are not breaking the law, if violence breaks out as a result then people on both sides are arrested.

As for it being considered treason, unless he is seen to be helping terrorists its hard to call it anything else than a controversial view.

[Guest $iLk]

That's what this debate is about. What are the limits of free speech?

You can be arrested for implying that you are thinking about killing someone if they deem it a credible threat.

You can be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

You can be arrested for calling in false bomb threats.

why shouldn't you be arrested for treasonous behavior?

It's one thing to critisize and disagree with the US government. I do alot of times. But there is a difference between disagreeing and selling out to terrorists.

I'm going to hold off on a full statement until I hear more of what you guys have to say.

[TRD]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

why shouldn't you be arrested for treasonous behavior?

It's one thing to critisize and disagree with the US government. I do alot of times. But there is a difference between disagreeing and selling out to terrorists.

---

If he was selling out to terrorists and openely claiming to support them then he should be arrested, but from the article, I cant see much that you could accuse him of, in terms of breeching his rights to free speech.

[jstuart]

You wouldn't have to arrest him.

Depending on the audience or mix of people involved in the discussion or protest; some people may get pissed off at his comments.

If that happens, then some people may or will take him out back near the woodshed and exact there own form of punishment.

Does it make it right for beating the crap out of someone for expressing his or her own feelings and beliefs, no not really!

But after hearing this individuals thoughts, its sounds like he has a problem with the people and policies of the US!

My solution would close to what SC said, but first a trip to the local woodshed with some rednecks might also be applicable!

[Guest $iLk]

It's the same man who is praising Osama bin laden as a hero to Muslims. The idea of free speech seems to be limitless when it comes to anti-Americans. However when you disagree with them they accuse you of censorship. Therefore you cannot disagree.

Anyway I'm throwing in my snipish comments waiting for an opportunity to formulate a workable solution. I'm just interested in your guys opinions on this.

[Menchise]

Shabazz can be as loud as he wants to be as long as he's not involved in deliberately causing any terrorist activities or hate crimes. Unless strong evidence is found of this (from what I've read, that is a likely possibility), he can't be arrested on the grounds of any anti-terrorism legislation.

In order for the concept of free speech to have any meaning, it must have consistency and equality.

I have little doubt that Shabazz is racist (he sounds like the opposite extreme of the KKK), but having racist thought is not a crime (if it was, at least a quarter of the populations of Australia and America would be in prison right now). Racism is only criminal when it's applied to infringing on civil liberties and/or alienating groups from participation in the community.

From what I've seen, I think the New Black Panthers should receive the same treatment as the Klan: allow them to speak, even in public if they behave themselves, but they cannot act upon what they're saying or incite other people to act upon it. Whether one agrees with their reasons or not, to do what they urge is wrong.

[Gallion]

quote:

---

...I think the New Black Panthers should receive the same treatment as the Klan: allow them to speak, even in public if they behave themselves, ...

---

This is an oxymoron IMO. Since when has the klan ever behaved themselves?

The village idiot should declare all malcontent organizations within the US (Greenpeace, NBP, KKK, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Libertarion party, NOW, etc.) as terrorist organizations and clean house

TTFN

[Menchise]

quote:

---

This is an oxymoron IMO. Since when has the klan ever behaved themselves?

---

I said if they behave themselves.

quote:

---

The village idiot should declare all malcontent organizations within the US (Greenpeace, NBP, KKK, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Libertarion party, NOW, etc.) as terrorist organizations and clean house

---

You're joking, right? Right?

[Guest $iLk]

Yeah Gallion that's a bit much

However pleasing it would be...

I don't think hate crimes are constitutional. Let's say I was killed by a black man who called me a "cracka" before "capping" me. Am I more or less the same amount of dead? Let's say I was killed by someone for money. Is my family less upset because, even though I am dead,at least the perpetrator didn't "hate" me? Guilt and punishment is determined on what a person what "thinking" when he killed me instead of actually killing me. Bring out the thought police? I think that the crime of murder, regardless of intent, is still murder. Someone shouldn't recieve an extra sentence by "hating" the victim.

As far as Shabazz (these names are so silly, I bet his real name is alfred or something) he threatens murder on all "whites and police officers" That's a crime in itself. You cannot threaten to kill someone - it isn't protected by free speech.

At least the Klan is smart enough to remain subtle about it, this man absolutely hates and wants to kill people strictly because of their color or profession.

What's even worse, and what makes me mad - the liberal media won't even cover this story. It happened in Washington D.C. for crying out loud. He praises the terrorists that killed those on 9/11 and threatens to kill white people and police officers. He's an extreme version of what liberals think. He wants slavery reparations even though he never spent one day in bondage, and quite possibly his family moved here AFTER slavery. He wants people who have never owned slaves, and who's ancestors probably came here AFTER slavery, to pay money so he can have a free ride.

He's free to say these things (besides the murder part). But it's sickening how our media and most of our government ignores it, and refuses to punish those no doubt accessories to murder.

Thankfully most black people are smart enough to see through his racist propaganda.

[Guest]

quote:

---

The village idiot

---

This offends me, calling the commander in Chief such a thing is terrible. Now if it had been Gore in the white House, it would have been true, but to call George W Bush this is not accurate, nor proper.

Bush's credentials are so much above Gores it is ridiculous, yet you call HIM a village Idiot. He is allowing the military to run this operation. He tells them what he wants and let's them do it. Gore would have micromanaged from the get go.

No far from being a village Idiot, Bush is doing the job and doing it right, whether you agree with his politics or not. But calling him that is way above and beyond.

[Gallion]

But ... perfectly legal

Just look at the guy will ya - that mug doesn't exactly inspire confidence now does it

Comparing the village idiot to that tobacco farmer bore is like comparing a Pinto to a Rolls Royce - IOW there is no comparison. The village idiot has the house of perpitraitors eating outta his hand.

TTFN

[Steve Schacher]

The problem, as I see it, is that this event was held at the National Press Club in Washington. That forum has always been used for thoughtful speech and debate between journalists and invited guests. Having Shabazz and his crowd at that forum gives it a sense of legitimacy that is troubling.

I do agree that Shabazz has the right to free speech and the right to assemble, but organizations don't have to go out of their way to enable him to exercise his rights. For the journalism profession to be mostly silent about this after letting him use their favorite speech forum, says a lot.

People are still shy about publicly confronting certain "protected" groups, and may be reluctant to criticize Shabazz openly. That may be why he gets the publicity that he does, because there is no loud, national opposition voice to challenge him.

The extremes of Political Correctness.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

People are still shy about publicly confronting certain "protected" groups, and may be reluctant to criticize Shabazz openly. That may be why he gets the publicity that he does, because there is no loud, national opposition voice to challenge him.

---

Just one question: How does Shabazz get so much publicity if the so-called 'liberal media' ignore his entire forum?

quote:

---

I don't think hate crimes are constitutional.

---

I never said that they were.

Were you replying to my post, $iLk?

quote:

---

As far as Shabazz (these names are so silly, I bet his real name is alfred or something) he threatens murder on all "whites and police officers" That's a crime in itself. You cannot threaten to kill someone - it isn't protected by free speech.

---

I agree. Death threats are out. So we seem to have one person who is not behaving himself in public.

The only potential problem with this issue is where the line between dramatic expression of dislike and death threat would be drawn. There isn't much doubt that Shabazz was threatening death since he's so overt about it, but there are some grey areas in different situations. For example, could the burning of an effigy be interpreted as a death threat?

By the way, what are the details of the law that forbids death threats (ie official title of the law, punishment etc.)? Just curious (no, I haven't done anything ).

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Just one question: How does Shabazz get so much publicity if the so-called 'liberal media' ignore his entire forum?

---

I did not say 'liberal media,' at least not in this thread. Both conservative and liberal media are giving him publicity.

They're using him, the media, that is. That's the simple answer.

Shabazz has to think that he's getting something out of it by going on the air. He know's what they're going to say to him. He know's how he's going to come across, especially with those goons standing behind him whenever he's on TV.

People like Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes also have to think that they're getting something out of it. I don't know if it's The Scoop, or The Exclusive, or just the chance to show everyone what side they're on. The media control the cameras, so in the end it will be the media's purpose that will weigh the most in deciding who get's what publicity.

[Supreme Cmdr]

OK - OK, I'm all for free speech and all that abusive rubbish, but lets refrain from calling our political leaders (e.g. The President) names in this forum. OK?

Thanks

ps: No, I didn't vote for him either