Copenhagen cafe shooting: 1 dead in terror attack

At least one gunman opened fire Saturday on a Copenhagen cafe, killing one man in what authorities called a likely terror attack during a free speech event organized by an artist who had caricatured the Prophet Muhammad.

The shooting, which also wounded three police officers, came a month after extremists killed 12 people at a satirical newspaper in Paris that had also sparked Muslim outrage with its depictions of Muhammad.

Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been repeatedly threatened after depicting Muhammad as a dog in 2007, organized and attended Saturday’s event but was not hit by gunfire, police said.

“I saw a masked man running past,” said Helle Merete Brix, one of the event’s organizers. “I clearly consider this as an attack on Lars Vilks.”

She and Vilks were quickly ushered away by the security detail that accompanies the artist whenever he is in Denmark.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the shooting, which took place shortly before 4 p.m. (1500 GMT, 10 a.m. EST). Denmark’s security service, PET, said the circumstances surrounding the shooting “indicate that we are talking about a terror attack.”

Danish police said the gunman used an automatic weapon to shoot through the windows of the Krudttoenden cafe, which TV footage showed were riddled with bullet holes. The gunman then fled in a carjacked Volkswagen Polo that was found later a few kilometers (miles) away, police said.

“I heard someone firing with an automatic weapons and someone shouting. Police returned the fire and I hid behind the bar. I felt surreal, like in a movie,” Niels Ivar Larsen, one of the speakers at the event, told the TV2 channel….

Francois Zimeray, the French ambassador to Denmark who was at the event to speak about the Charlie Hebdo attack, tweeted that he was “still alive.” Police said he was not wounded….

By Associated Press, Jan Olsen, Karl Ritter, & Thomas Adamson –

Pope: There are limits to free speech

Pope Francis said there are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it insults or ridicules someone’s faith, in comments that the Vatican later said Friday did not mean justifying the attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks while en route to the Philippines on Thursday, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one’s mind for the sake of the common good.

But he said there were limits.

By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasbarri, who organizes papal trips and was standing by his side aboard the papal plane.

“If my good friend Dr. Gasbarri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said half-jokingly, throwing a mock punch his way. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God’s name couldn’t be justified and was an “aberration.” But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, who collaborates with the Vatican press office, issued a statement early Friday stressing that the pope was by no means justifying the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

“Pope Francis has not advocated violence with his words on the flight,” he said in a statement.

He said Francis’ words were “spoken colloquially and in a friendly, intimate manner among colleagues and friends on the journey.” He noted that Francis has spoken out clearly against the Paris attacks and that violence in God’s name can never be justified.

By NICOLE WINFIELD – Associated Press –

French Government Hates Freedom Of Speech

The photos of 40 of the world’s government leaders marching arm-in-arm along a Paris boulevard on Sunday with the president of the United States not among them was a provocative image that has fomented much debate. The march was, of course, in direct response to the murderous attacks on workers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo by a pair of brothers named Kouachi, and on shoppers at a Paris kosher supermarket by one of the brothers’ comrades.

The debate has been about whether President Obama should have been at the march. The march was billed as a defense of freedom of speech in the West; yet it hardly could have been held in a less free speech-friendly Western environment, and the debate over Obama’s absence misses the point.

In the post-World War II era, French governments have adopted a policy advanced upon them nearly 100 years ago by Woodrow Wilson. He pioneered the modern idea that countries’ constitutions don’t limit governments; they unleash them. Thus, even though the French Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, French governments treat speech as a gift from the government, not as a natural right of all persons, as our Constitution does.

The French government has prohibited speech it considers to be hateful and even made it criminal. When the predecessor magazine to Charlie Hebdo once mocked the death of Charles de Gaulle, the French government shut it down — permanently.

The theory of anti-hate speech laws is that hate speech often leads to violence, and violence demands police and thus the expenditure of public resources, and so the government can make it illegal to spout hatred in order to conserve its resources. This attitude presumes, as Wilson did when he prosecuted folks for publicly singing German songs during World War I, that the government is the origin of free speech and can lawfully limit the speech it hates and fears. It also presumes that all ideas are equal, and none is worthy of hatred.

When the massacres occurred last week in Paris, all three of the murderers knew that the police would be unarmed and so would be their victims. It was as if they were shooting fish in a barrel. Why is that? The answer lies in the same mentality that believes it can eradicate hate by regulating speech. That mentality demands that government have a monopoly on violence, even violence against evil.

So, to those who embrace this dreadful theory, the great loss in Paris last week was not human life, which is a gift from God; it was free speech, which is a gift from the state. Hence the French government, which seems not to care about innocent life, instead of addressing these massacres as crimes against innocent people, proclaimed the massacres crimes against the freedom of speech. Would the French government have reacted similarly if the murderers had killed workers at an ammunition factory, instead of at a satirical magazine?

And how hypocritical was it of the French government to claim it defends free speech! In France, you can go to jail if you publicly express hatred for a group whose members may be defined generally by characteristics of birth, such as gender, age, race, place of origin or religion.

You can also go to jail for using speech to defy the government. This past weekend, millions of folks in France wore buttons and headbands that proclaimed in French: “I am Charlie Hebdo.” Those whose buttons proclaimed “I am not Charlie Hebdo” were asked by the police to remove them. Those who wore buttons that proclaimed, either satirically or hatefully, “I am Kouachi” were arrested. Arrested for speech at a march in support of free speech? Yes.

What’s going on here? What’s going on in France, and what might be the future in America, is the government defending the speech with which it agrees and punishing the speech with which it disagrees. What’s going on is the assault by some in radical Islam not on speech, but on vulnerable innocents in their everyday lives in order to intimidate their governments. What’s going on is the deployment of 90,000 French troops to catch and kill three murderers because the government does not trust the local police to use guns to keep the streets safe or private persons to use guns to defend their own lives.

Why do some in radical Islam kill innocents in the West in order to affect the policies of Western governments? Might it be because the fruitless Western invasion of Iraq killed 650,000 persons, most of whom were innocent civilians? Might it be because that invasion brought al-Qaida to the region and spawned ISIS? Might it be because Obama has killed more innocent civilians in the Middle East with his drones than were killed by the planes in the U.S. on 9/11? Might it be because our spies are listening to us, rather than to those who pose real dangers?

What does all this have to do with freedom of speech? Nothing — unless you believe the French government.

By Andrew Napolitano – The Trumpet –

Obama to restrict media’s reporting of anti-jihad articles

At Monday’s White House press briefing, chief spokesman Josh Earnest indicated that in light of the terrorist raid of Charlie Hebdo’s Paris offices by jihadists, President Barack Obama would be taking a serious swipe at the First Amendment freedom of the press as it pertains to future anti-Jihadist articles.

The Daily Caller reported:President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of
our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Back in Sept. 2012, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney criticized Charlie Hebdo for its publication of cartoon images lampooning Mohammad….

By Michael Dorstewitz – Liberty Unyielding –

Al Qaeda group in Yemen claims responsibility for Charlie Hebdo

The militant group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, took responsibility on Wednesday for the bloody attack one week ago on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in which 12 people, including cartoonists and police officers, were killed.

The group accompanied its claim with an image of the Eiffel Tower dissolving.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo signaled the start of three days of bloodshed in which five more people died, four them customers at a kosher supermarket.

The group said in a statement on the Internet that it claimed responsibility “for this operation as a vengeance for the messenger of Allah” — an apparent reference to Charlie Hebdo’s frequent lampooning of the Prophet Muhammad with depictions that many Muslims consider sacrilegious.

The group said it “chose the target, laid the plan and financed the operation.”

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI & ALAN COWELL – New York Times –

French President On National TV: Illuminati Attacked Paris!

The Vigilant Christian is getting an awful lot of attention on the internet for what it claims: France’s President Francois Hollande admitting on Live TV that ‘the illuminati’ were responsible for the attacks upon Paris. While those who have followed what was once called ‘conspiracy theory’, it is not surprising that the NWO/Illuminati were once again responsible for carrying out a terrorist attack; for France’s own President to come out and admit in this public address that the Illuminati were responsible takes this ‘conspiracy theory’ to an entirely new level.

You can hear Hollande’s words yourself, also translated within for your further knowledge. Is this the ‘beginning of the end’ for the Illuminati or will they suddenly pick it up another level as they appear to be being publicly exposed here, for the entire world to see? This video should be the eye-opener that every American needs to see…why hasn’t the MSM reported on the statements made by Hollande here as the alternative media is now doing?

By Live Free or Die – All News Pipeline –

Reaping the Whirlwind With Charlie Hebdo

A handful of Muslims brutally murdered some French cartoonists for blaspheming their holy man. Have we learned something new from this?

Yes, it turns out Muslims (well, the fundamentalist types, not many, but more than you’d think, although not the majority, but a significant number, in no way “all,” but in some sense “all”) don’t believe in free speech, although we Westerners know that God wrote “free speech” on tablets of stone, and emblazoned a desire for it onto all human hearts. And free speech is, of course, the cornerstone of Western society (whatever that now is). Ergo, the Muslims (some, not all, but a lot, though not too many) are attempting to destroy Western society, blasting away at the very foundation by silencing “journalists.”

With that in mind, it is not enough for us to denounce the evil that is the coldblooded murder of mortal men, no matter what their line of work, by Muslim terrorists. No, the nature of the crime behooves us to identify with the pornographers at the now-understaffed French smut magazine Charlie Hebdo. Conservatives naturally begin with the caveat that we may find some of the products of their free speech—the ones that depict incest among the Holy Trinity, for example, an image I refuse to insert here—to be distasteful. (The pornographic depictions of Muhammad, on the other hand, we may qualify as “insults real or perceived.”) Yet even if you happen to find some of the journalistic enterprise of Charlie Hebdo to be distasteful, you must nonetheless stand with Charlie Hebdo and say “I am Charlie Hebdo” in French, or at least “you can and should be in solidarity with those dead journalists . . .”

Ultimately, we are being told that the Charlie Hebdo massacre teaches us the vital importance of pornographic insults, both to the Muslim god and to ours. Celebrating shockingly dirty, blasphemous magazines is our way of standing fast in the liberty wherewith the Enlightenment has made us free. How can we not identify personally with French cartoonists who depicted our Savior as a ravening sodomizer of His (and our) Heavenly Father? To do otherwise would be to undercut the very foundation of a free society, would it not? (One pauses to reflect on what it was that motivated David to take up his sling.)

….T.S. Eliot, in Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, asks “whether any culture could come into being, or maintain itself, without a religious basis.” Our civilization has rejected Christianity and now finds such things as “blasphemous or offensive speech” to be sacred. This is the illogical ideology of Western liberalism. Today, the false religion of Western liberalism is clashing with another false religion called Islam, because their people wish to occupy the same spaces. Neither is tolerant of the other, and both are intolerant of Christianity. One has Pussy Riot to desecrate churches, and the other has imams who preach murder in the name of Allah. But Western liberalism is not only a false- but a pseudo-religion. Its platitudes derive not from divine revelations real or imagined but from denatured Christian morality. No culture can “maintain itself” on the basis of Western liberalism. Instead, the very ideology that demands abstract “free speech” with no divine revelation, even vestigially, to restrain it is the same ideology that cannot say no to Muslim invaders who wish to kill the purveyors of the sickest incarnations of “free speech.” We have sown the wind, and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Today’s Charlie Hebdo episode is yesterday’s The People Vs. Larry Flynt, Western liberalism’s celebration of transcendent porn for freedom’s sake. In response to that film and its message, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg presciently wrote that

The argument from supposedly liberty-loving liberals goes like this: We protect “extreme” and unpopular speech because if that is safe, they’ll never get to our core liberties. If they can ban trash, argue the slippery-slopers, what’s to stop them from banning criticism of politicians?

Goldberg also said that “the notion that smut is the canary in the coal mine of our liberties is a profoundly asinine and dangerous myth, and it may be costing us the things that really matter.”

I couldn’t agree more. And yet, unfortunately, we are now getting the same argument from liberty-loving conservatives. Out of the dankest clap-ridden cesspool of the Playboy Mansion’s grotto has crawled a dogma of conservative ideology. In this ideology, to refuse to celebrate the “journalism” of Charlie Hebdo is to suggest that its staff deserved to die. That, of course, is absurd. In addition to the Muslim killers, what really deserves to die is the liberal notion that free speech is guaranteed by unfettered obscenity.

By Aaron D. Wolf – Chronicles –

Paris march draws over 1 in 20 of France

Estimates for Sunday’s Paris march attendance have soared higher, with some outlets reporting as many as 3 million people swarmed the heart of the French capital to support free speech.

The Associated Press reported that around France, up to 3.7 million people marched on Sunday — which could mean more than 1 in 20 French, 5.6 percent of the nation’s population, had taken a public stand.

What do those numbers mean in context?

Sunday’s march was enormously larger than some of America’s biggest protests — even more so when you account for the size of the country.

Given France’s population of 66 million, 1.5 million marchers could mean nearly 2.5 percent of the entire country’s population participated in the march — though plenty of foreigners converged on the French capital to rally as well.

What kept Obama from attending Paris rally?

As you know, President Barack Obama did not attend the huge rally in Paris Sunday that attracted nearly 4 million people standing up for freedom of speech and expression in the face of terrorism after Islamic extremists murdered 17 people there last week.

Some 50 world leaders attended Sunday’s rally, and the White House was close-mouthed about the president’s no-show.

So Bill Kristol tried to get to the bottom of it, tweeting: “I figured President Obama must have been awfully busy not to go to Paris today. So I checked out his schedule…”

Here’s what’s on Obama’s public schedule Sunday: The three-word entry reads, “No public schedule.”

By Dave Urbanski – The Blaze –

Police Commissioner investigating Charlie Hebdo attack commits suicide while writing report

Shockingly Police Commissioner Helric Fredou, 45, reportedly killed himself with his own gun while preparing a report just after meeting with a family member of a victim who was shot during the recent attack which took place at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W26uPD0ZNw8&feature=player_embedded

Although reports claim that Helric Fredou suffered from “depression” and “burn out” some, like myself, remain skeptical that Fredou was ‘suicided’, murdered, by a third-party in an attempt to quell information he gained after speaking with key individuals during his investigation.

By Shepard Ambellas – Intellihub –

Charlie Hebdo Shooting’s Chilling Effect On Free Speech

After three radical Islamic terrorists killed a dozen people in Paris, France, the Politically Correct Police promptly pointed out how the victims at Charlie Hebdo provoked the attack by poking fun at Muslims.

Leftists ignore paper’s attacks on all other religions.

12 Dead in Shooting at French Satirical Newspaper

PARIS (AP) — Masked gunmen stormed the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper Wednesday, killing 12 people before escaping, in France’s deadliest terror attack in at least two decades.

French President Francois Hollande said the attack on the Charlie Hebdo weekly, which has frequently drawn condemnation from Muslims, is “a terrorist attack, without a doubt,” and said several other attacks have been thwarted in France “in recent weeks.”

France raised its alert to the highest level, and reinforced security at houses of worship, stores, media offices and transportation. Top government officials were holding an emergency meeting.

Paris prosecutor’s spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre confirmed 12 people were killed.

Luc Poignant, an official of the SBP police union, said the attackers escaped in two vehicles. A witness, Benoit Bringer, told the iTele network he saw multiple masked men armed with automatic weapons at the newspaper’s office in central Paris.

The extremist Islamic State group has threatened to attack France, and minutes before the attack Charlie Hebdo had tweeted a satirical cartoon of that extremist group’s leader giving New Year’s wishes. Charlie Hebdo has been repeatedly threatened for publishing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, among other controversial sketches, and its offices were firebombed in 2011.

The 2011 firebombing came after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad on its cover. Nearly a year later, the publication again published crude Muhammad caricatures, drawing denunciations around the Muslim world.

Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre, spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor, confirmed the deaths of the editor and cartoonist who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu.

A police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, said two police officers were also among the dead, including one assigned as Charb’s bodyguard after prior death threats against him.

President Obama said “I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris… and I have directed my administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice.’

By Dave Urbanski – The Blaze –