There was nothing particularly new about President Obama's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast the other day.  Not that it's unimportant.  It's extremely important. 

But the unfortunate notion that all religions, and indeed all cultures, are morally equivalent has been with us a long time, and it's very fashionable. 

It's now the conventional liberal wisdom, as a matter of fact.  Even Pope Francis is a member of the liberals' Multi-Culti Cult.

I'm not going to dwell on the silly anachronisms and false parallels in the speech - Governor Jindal did it best, I think, when he told the president to relax about medieval Catholicism and focus his concerns on contemporary Islamism - but rather on what we're supposed to do when we encounter religious views that offend us, or seem threatening to us.  

Obama basically said we should just shut up. His remarks weren't made in a theoretical debate.  They come shortly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, and other barbaric acts in the name of radical Islam.  They are part of the doctrine of multiculturalism or "multi-culti," which started as "culturalism," early in the last century.

The Main Enemy:  Islamism
Chapter III: The Ideology of Radical Islam

How did all the recent advances of Islamism, which we summarized in Chapter II, come to pass with little notice in the space of just a few decades?

It is, of course, true that dogmatic orthodoxy and extremism, including its most violent forms, is nothing new in Islam and that Moslem history is replete with movements and individuals who have tried to impose their version of Islamic orthodoxy on fellow Moslems.

Yet the actual practice of Islamic societies, as shall be shown in the next chapter, has been considerably different, in that sharia law, despite being paid lip service to on a regular basis, was seldom applied to governance except as family law.

Contemporary Radical Islam, on the other hand, though seeking religious legitimization in sharia and age-old Islamic dogma, is a modern phenomenon that has more in common with totalitarian revolutionary movements than with any kind of transitory "Islamic revival" as many have argued.

Understanding its Nazi/Communist totalitarian ideological nature and its modus operandi as a highly organized revolutionary movement is essential for comprehending the nature of the threat it poses and designing a strategy to defeat it.

I can't adequately express how appreciative I am for all the prayers by TTP members for me and my family in response to What's Dhimmitude in Russian? 

There were even a number of offers to bodyguard my family or provide us with safe houses!  It was so very touching I don't have the words.  A number of the messages brought tears to my eyes.  Thank you all so much.

I also must tell you how much your prayers for Paul Joyal have meant to his family.  Paul's wife Liz sends you her deepest thanks.

As of today (Thursday 3/15), Paul is still in intensive care.  He has begun to talk, but only physically, not lucidly - he can make sounds but not any sense.  To be in this state after two weeks shows how horrible the attack on him was by the Kremlin-hired gunmen.

And now, two weeks later, I know why the Bush White House has been quiet about it.

I received this terrific idea from TTPer Chris Landrum from Kennewick, Washington. It was in response to the No Apology article last week, describing how a number of folks at State and the Pentagon are sick and tired of our kowtowing groveling constant apologies to Moslems. Inspired by John Wayne’s famous line as Captain Nathan Brittles in She Wore A Yellow Ribbon - “Never apologize, son, it’s a sign of weakness” - these folks even sent a DVD of SWAYR to the White House.

Chris Landrum’s idea is to have a SWAYR to the White House campaign - hundreds, hopefully thousands, of Americans ordering the movie at Amazon and having it sent to President Bush at the White House, together with a letter demanding No More Apologies to Moslems.

Want to participate? It’s easy:

President Bush, along with Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, has not rallied to the side of the Iranian people, even though the Iranians have abundantly demonstrated their desire to be rid of the mullahs.

Two weeks ago there were massive demonstrations and work stoppages in the oil-rich regions, centering around the city of Ahwaz. The demonstrators called for an end to the regime, scores of people were killed, and hundreds were beaten and arrested. On May Day, workers again demonstrated against the regime, this time in all the major cities. In Tehran, strongman and likely president-in-waiting Hashemi Rafsanjani was hooted down by the crowd, and pictures of him and Supreme Leader Khamenei were torn down and trampled.

Yet no one in the American Government spoke a word of support for the demonstrators, and no one has yet endorsed the one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of Iranians, whatever their political proclivities: a national referendum on the legitimacy of the regime itself. If there were a national ballot on the single question — Do you want an Islamic republic? — the regime would pass into history overnight. But there is silence in official Washington.