Metro North posts anti-Israel posters on the first day of Passover

I'm going over to my station right now with my video camera. don't worry I won't attack anyone like Mona Eltahawy did to Pamela Hall

(Carl)And afterward they'll tell us that there were no complaints....

Billboards calling for an end to US aid to Israel were erected this week at 25 train stations in suburban New York and Connecticut.
The billboards that went up Tuesday, on the first day of Passover, in Metro North train stations are sponsored by a group called American Muslims for Palestine.
The ad also calls Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a form of apartheid, and features a quote by South African social rights activist Desmond Tutu. They are scheduled to run for one month, and were reportedly timed to coincide with US President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel this month.
“The campaign against US aid for Israel targets neither Jews nor Passover, but rather Israeli apartheid and injustice. And the best way to honor Passover, which celebrates Jewish liberation from ancient oppression, is to champion Palestinian human rights today,” said Michael Letwin of Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, who spoke at Tuesday’s launch of the billboards at the Metro North Harlem station.

I wonder how many American Jewish morons are funding this....

Landmark Case: Government argues that Islam is political

Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of American Freedom Law Center and Pamela Geller

What began as a clear first amendment issue has exploded into a landmark case regarding the the status of Islam as a political entity. Today the Detroit Transit Authority (SMART), a government entity, argued before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that our "Leaving Islam" ad was political because Islam is political.  At least two of the three judges seemed to go along.
If the Court rules against us, it will be ruling that Islam is political and that Sharia is a political program -- something that other government agencies have strenuously denied. If that happens, will Islam and Sharia deserve the protection of a religion?

The case was argued today before 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Kethledge, John Marshall Rogers and Algenon L. Marbley. Chris Hildebrand, the lawyer for Detroit SMART, began by referring to and based his whole argument on our recent victory over the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority in another First Amendment case about a completely different ad (a pro-Israel ad). Hildebrand argued that the Judge in that case, Paul Engelmayer, had said that that ad was political, and thus that the MTA had to accept it in accord with their guidelines. Hildebrand asserted that our "Leaving Islam?" bus ad, which Detroit SMART rejected, was also political, and thus was rightly rejected by SMART, which (in contrast to the MTA) does not take political ads. His client, said Hildebrand, does not reject ads because they're provocative (as he claimed that ours was), or controversial, but because they're political, and SMART does not and will not take political positions.
Judge Rogers then told him that he had gotten SMART into a "blurry area" to be making a distinction between the political and religious. Hildebrand countered that while the ad may be anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, and anti-Sharia (actually it was designed wholly and solely to offer help to people whose lives were threatened), it was also political. Judge Marbley then pointed out that an imam, who would issue a fatwa (referring to the part of our ad that asked, "Is your family threatening you? Is there a fatwa on your head?") was not an elected official.
Hildebrand then dropped the bomb that has extraordinary implications for the debate about anti-Sharia laws and the status of Islam in the United States: he said that yes, imams have a religious function, but they also "control Sharia law," and Sharia is political. Marbley said that that might be so in Iran, but not in Detroit, where they had a purely religious function. Hildebrand then dug in even deeper, saying that imams in Dearborn deal with Sharia on both a religious and political basis. When Marbley then asked him how our ad was different from one that SMART accepted from an atheist group, calling on people to become atheists, Hildebrand said that it differed because Islam is not only religious, but also a "political series of laws." Marbley then pointed out that the same thing could be said about the Catholic Church, since the Vatican was a political entity, and that could be used to rule out advertising from Catholic groups. Hildebrand then argued that our ad was both religious and political, and that the reference to a fatwa made it primarily political and not religious -- which would only be true if Sharia itself is primarily political and not religious.
Judge Kethledge seemed to go along with this argument, telling our own lawyer, Robert Muise (who ably argued for our side), that Sharia is "arguably" political as well as religious. Judge Rogers then outrageously compared our ad to an ad repeating a vile and disgusting blood libel against the Jews as part of Jewish law (which it most certainly is not, but the death penalty for apostasy most certainly is part of the sharia) -- showing the truth of his and Marbley's admission that they knew next to nothing about Islam (or Jewish law). Clearly they were unaware of Islam's death penalty for apostasy. If they did, they would never have said that our public service ad constituted "scorn and ridicule."
Kethledge clearly had his mind made up already, getting testy with Muise and helping Hildebrand with his case, inviting him when he returned to the stand to explain why our ad -- designed to save lives -- constituted "scorn and ridicule" of Muslims and thus was also disallowed on those grounds according to SMART's guidelines. This entangled SMART in a self-contradiction: Hildebrand said that they didn't disallow our ad because it was "controversial" but also that our ad constituted "scorn and ridicule" -- but none of the judges seemed to notice and certainly no one challenged Hildebrand on this. Hildebrand did not, and could not, explain why our ad constituted scorn and ridicule, and instead simply kept asserting that it did. He did not argue his case persuasively, but with Kethledge and also Rogers so clearly on his side, he had a clear advantage.
If SMART wins, however, the implications for the status of Islam and Sharia as political will be enormous. Incalculable. SMART may end up winning the battle for Sharia in the U.S., but losing the war.

Brain trust: Robert Muise, David Yerushalmi and Robert Spencer confer after the hearing

via atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com

ok... thought about this some more. Peanuts can be a substitute Protein which would offend the meat industry. Thus Peanuts are political and can be banned by "SMART". Peanuts are political, therefor we can ban Jimmy Carter who grows Peanuts. Islam is political, but then why was Islam posting on SMART? But being against Islam is Political... double standard. Peanuts could be a religion too? Give me five minutes and I could find away to yarn that one. The court needs to admit it's bias and push this to a higher court if they are thinking about this.

Truth in Advertising

(gatesofvienna.blogspot.com) As reported in the live-blog earlier today, the high-court judge in Vienna actually quoted an authoritative hadith in the courtroom: “Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.” He then acknowledged that the passage was already public knowledge, and thus repeating it could not be punishable under the law.
He upheld Elisabeth’s conviction, however, based on a somewhat peculiar interpretation of Austrian law: to say “Mohammed had a thing for little girls” is an “excess of opinion” that cannot be tolerated. It constitutes ridicule, and is not justifiable.
An interesting and useful corollary can be derived from today’s ruling: it is now completely legal to quote in public the authoritative hadith about Mohammed’s sex acts with a nine-year-old girl. A precedent was established today — at least in Austria.
The judge’s decision gave one of our Austrian contacts a brilliant idea: rent space on a billboard and blazon that (legally acceptable) statement in four-foot-high letters where everyone in Vienna can read it!
With that notion in mind, I took the liberty of placing the relevant virtual text on an existing billboard in the city of Vienna:


“Muhammad’s wife Aisha entered the marriage at age 6, which was consummated at the age of 9.”— Higher Court of Vienna, decision Dec 20, 2011
An image with the same text in German is below the jump:

„Mohammeds Frau Aischa wurde mit 6 Jahren verheiratet. Die Ehe wurde vollzogen, als sie 9 Jahre alt war.“ — Laut OLG Wien, Urteil vom 20.12.2011
Once again, bear this fact in mind: displaying these words is now completely legal in Austria.
The high court has ruled. It’s on the record. An Austrian can publicly utter, write, chant, print, sing, or declaim those sentences without fear of legal retribution.
This means that Austrians who have enough money and initiative can recover at least a small measure of their freedom of speech, and at the same time educate their fellow citizens about the authoritative teachings of Islam.
It’s truth in advertising.

I've had a similar issue dealing with the first Amendment in America. I got the right to post the truth on the web, but commenting was libel. This had nothing to do with a world ideology, but a person... but this is the way the present generation of judges are ruling. It's quite threatening to those who believe in free expression... sadly people are just not alarmed. This really has little to do with Mohammad and Islam and has more to do with liberal culture.

The new Pepsi logo sucks

NY Subways to Carry Anti-Israel Ads

(Arutz Sheva) Pro-Arab lobbies are funding anti-Israel posters that are to be placed at 18 New York City subway stations this month, part of a nationwide campaign supporting the Palestinian Authority and urging a halt to American military aid to Israel.
The slick advertising program includes pictures of cleanly scrubbed Arab and Jewish children as well as depictions of armed Israeli soldiers detaining Arab terror suspects.
The “Two Peoples, One Future” group is carrying out the “Be On Our Side” campaign.
The national campaign has sparked controversy over the definition of political advertising and whether public companies should accept such advertising. The Supreme Court, in a previous ruling, decided that the political advertising is protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech. However, Seattle nixed an anti-Israel campaign earlier this year because it was deemed offensive. (MORE)

Yuck! Pro-Islam Ads On My Site! «

Gross. If you want to know the true Islam, see the below pic-this ad here we DO NOT endorse!!

Ads by Google

(And dont tell me the Jews from Israel did it.  They cant even stop giving land away, and their government does ZERO while their people are MURDERED by bloody savages from the “Religion of Peace”)
THIS IS ISLAM:

via themadjewess.wordpress.com

the only way to do advertising is to call people. NEVER TRUST GOOGLE!
I regret trusting Blogger to do the site I use. They CENSOR. I know they do. They did it to me. They CENSORED the Israeli government during Cast Lead and you should see the things they leave up there that are murder threats to me.

Viral Marketing

Carlos Slim and the New York Times

Israel may let sponsors beam messages onto Western Wall - Haaretz - Israel News

Most people go to the Western Wall to pray, but now some will also head there to pay.

The cabinet is set to approve a plan that would allow for sponsorship messages to be beamed onto the Western Wall, sources in the Prime Minister's Office told Haaretz Saturday.

If the law is passed by the Knesset, any company will be able to project the image, logo or slogan of its choice on the ancient stones, for a price. Advertisement The proposal, drawn up by MK Mordechai Hidud, will take advantage of technology being developed by Kfar Sava-based start-up Kotelad. The company - the brainchild of U.S.-born Joe King - has come up with an innovative laser projector capable of beaming high-quality images onto walls, domes, minarets and steeples. "After thousands of years of just being there, the Western Wall will finally be able to fulfill its commercial potential," King said. "The religious and spiritual center of the Jewish people should reflect Jewish heritage - and thus be dedicated to bringing in a healthy profit." Kotelad held a trial run of the system last week, beaming the Coca-Cola logo onto the Wall, much to the bemusement of worshipers gathered below. And it seems that the trial was not only a technological success, with local vendors reporting a 14 percent increase in the sale of soft drinks. The Western Wall Heritage Center plans to open an ad sales division, and sell wall space on a per-stone basis. Prices are expected to be upward of NIS 1,000 per stone per day. When no advertising is running, the wall will have the message "What are you waiting for? The Third Temple? Advertise now!" a source in the Heritage Center said. Some companies that have already expressed an interest in the project, including Bank Discount ("Feel like you're talking to a brick wall? Talk to us instead"), Netvision ("If God didn't get your note, why not send an e-mail?") and Ytong ("If it's not Ytong, I'm not praying"). G. Yafit is reportedly also in talks to have her likeness beamed onto the wall 24 hours a day. According to Hidud, the money raised will be used to replace the paper skullcaps that are stolen by the thousands by visitors to Judaism's holiest site, to set up a searchable online database of the notes that people place between the stones of the Wall, and to build a 14-foot high partition between sections reserved for men and women.

via haaretz.com

UPDATE:

In his zeal to find something wrong with Israel, Leftist Richard Silverstein posted a Haaretz spoof about selling ads to be beamed on the Western Wall as a real story.

Details (with screen capture of the ranting post) here.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Enter anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein, whose hatred of all things Israel is so overwhelming, he failed to see this Purim spoof for what it was (http://tinyurl.com/yl25tyz).

In case any of you actually still take this numbskull seriously (hat tip: Amir).

Update: Wow. After finding out about his mistake, Silverstein has taken down his original post instead of posting an update to it, and then provided one of the most laughable excuses I have seen. Ever.

http://tinyurl.com/yddt5sk

For the sake of my honor, I’ve got to explain a real boneheaded set of errors that happened last night, which happened to also be Purim. This holiday is the equivalent of April Fool’s and it’s common to read wild newspaper stories attempting to take in the reader in a good natured way. Of course, I was silly not to realize that Haaretz wrote just such a story claiming the Israeli government was planning to beam high tech ads onto the stones of the Kotel (Western Wall). I got halfway through writing a post criticizing this plan when I realized the article was a Purim joke. And a very funny one that took me in for the few minutes it took me to get halfway through writing the post.

I hadn’t published the post yet, so I saved it as a Draft. For some strange reason insted of deleting the post (that’ll teach me) I decided to make some formatting changes and after one of those changes instead of hitting Save Draft out of habit I clicked on the Publish button. I immediately realized my error and changed the status of the post from Published to Draft, but I didn’t realize that I needed to click another button, Update, in order to change the post back from Published to Draft. So unbeknownst to me the post was still sitting out there for all of the pro-Israel right-wing to see, and call me a fool.

via israellycool.com

Gay Arabic Speakers in the Military

Should Madison Avenue Public Relations help fight for America if they speak Arabic?