Monday, April 30, 2012

How Muslims treat dogs. Does Muslim Obama approve of this?

Since Muslim Obama has admitted to eating dog, can we expect the dog he ate was killed in the same way these poor dogs were. Anyone watching this video still voting for Obama needs to have their head examined. Obama jokes about this. There's no joke in what you are watching.

Remember this video when you go to vote in November. Remember Obama joking about eating dog. Remember how that dog must have been treated before it was killed. Muslims are savages always looking for something to kill. I'd rather kill a Muslim then a poor helpless dog.

There is nothing animal-like about Muslim behavior. Just ask any Muslim

Muslims are the scum of this earth. Much below apes and insects. As the world has progressed, Muslims remain in the stone age
Thanks to BNI for providing this Video. 

EUROPE vs ISLAM : Decide NOW before it is too late?


The Astute Blogger

April 30, 2012


EPA manager who called 'crucify' quits

April 30, 2012

Regional chief submits resignation, boasting of 'integrity, hard work'

The regional Environmental Protection Agency executive who told an audience his “philosophy of enforcement” was to “crucify” and “make examples of” energy companies has quit.
It a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson over the weekend, Al Armendariz, the former top environmental official in the South and Southwest Region, said he regretted the comments but boasted of his “integrity and hard work.”

“As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator,” he wrote. “As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator.”

He continued, “I take great pride in having built a career based on integrity and hard work. These are the principles that guide me personally as well. While I feel there is much work that remains to be done for the people of this country in the region that I serve, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work.”

His words came in a Texas meeting in 2010.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” he said.
He later apologized.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called for an investigation into the agency after highlighting Armendariz’s comments last week.
The author of a new book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America,” says the EPA officials words were telling.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Brian Sussman asked, “Would the EPA official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a perfect representation of eco-tyranny.”
In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman contends “green authoritarianism” was inevitable from the beginning. He explains that President Richard Nixon, who “wanted to be liked,” according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As Sussman jokes, “Needless to say, it was not returned.”

According to Sussman, the EPA and the legislation that empowered it, notably the Clean Air Act, “[were] flatly unconstitutional.” Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
But Sussman notes that “somehow this turned into the ability for Congress to regulate the conduct of individual businesses, the output of specific industrial processes, and the makeup of the atmosphere itself. And as we’ve seen, they can’t wait to shut down businesses they don’t like.”

“Eco-Tyranny” also exposes what Sussman calls the Obama administration’s “war” on oil and gas production. He notes that the Obama administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, costing an estimated 137,000 jobs and $400 million to the state of Louisiana.
Furthermore, Obama also suspended exploratory drilling in Alaska, with his Department of Interior stonewalling any applications.
According to Fox News, Inhofe says the resignation will make no difference in the investigation he wants.

“We will continue our investigation into the situations surrounding EPA’s apparent crucifixion victims: the American people deserve to know why, in at least three separate cases, EPA tarnished the reputation of companies by accusing them of water contamination; then when the results of their study did not turn out the way they hoped, and they had no definitive evidence to make that link, they quietly walked back their accusations. We will get to the bottom of this,” he said in the report.
See the Armendariz rant:

The result, Sussman charges, “is a deliberate effort to keep our country dependent on oil imports from the hostile nations of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). If our president would simply unleash American industry, OPEC would soil their tunics.”
Instead, Sussman states: “As I explain in ‘Eco-Tyranny,’ the green agenda is sworn to punish any individual, business or corporation who attempts to garner a profit through the sale of a natural resource. The oil and natural gas industry provides Americans with a product vital to the pursuit of happiness, presents a valuable investment for its shareholders and directly employs 3.3 million people in the U.S. alone. The EPA has become an official government-sponsored Gestapo operation.”

Tommy Robinson in Luton today

Vlad Tepes Blog

This is brilliant. God bless Tommy Robinson.

Biderman's Daily Edge 4/30/2012: QE to Infinity and Beyond!


Sunday, April 29, 2012

The missiles next door: Rooftop London bases to protect Olympics


EPA ‘Crucifixion’ Video Pulled From Youtube, The Liberal Cockroach Behind the Move

Earlier in the week a video surfaced on Youtube of Al Armendariz, head of the EPA office in Dallas, saying that he and his agency planned to “crucify” any business that crosses them. The video caused a lot of consternation on Capitol Hill as well as recriminations for the EPA. But by Friday the video had been pulled by Youtube because of complaints from the man that originally made the video. Turns out he’s an extreme environut connected with the gay community.
To quickly recap the video, Armendariz noted that his job as an EPA enforcer was like that of the ancient Romans. He joked that the EPA’s philosophy was like the Roman’s who, when mollifying a populace, would “find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.” This, he laughed, would make the town “easy to manage for the next few years.”
So apparently Armendariz felt that the EPA’s job was that of indiscriminate intimidation as opposed to law enforcement.
That said, how does one guy get a video like this pulled and why did it happen?
First of all, we cannot really blame Youtube. They rush to pull any video that is the subject of a copyright question. You have to admit that Youtube would be setting itself up for major legal trouble if it dallied over such incidents. And that is what was invoked here. Essentially the original poster of the video said use of it by others was copyright infringement.
The man that originally posted the video is a fellow by the name of David McFatridge. Research shows he is an activist for the radical environut group the Sierra Club, has been active in the fight against energy independence and the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as well as a member of the “LGBT” community — or what ever set of letters they are going by this week.
He claimed that use of the small segment of his original recording that had been used by all the TV and radio shows as well as those users that clipped out that segment and put it on their own Youtube account violated his ownership of the video.
Of course, his complaint is absurd. Fair use states that the less than 2-minute segment that others used to show the newsworthy address of a public official does not violate his ownership of the whole recording. McFatridge’s claim is absurd, really. But these laws can be a bit hard to judge, so Youtube rushed to pull the piece from other Youtube accounts to be on the safe side.
So why did McFatridge have Youtube pull the piece and why did he eliminate his own copy of it? Why did this liberal try to send the recording down the memory hole?
I’ll tell you why McFatridge pulled it. There is little doubt that he loved the clip originally. After all, as an extreme envronazi how could he not love it? It showed a government official treating businesses as the enemy, a sector of the economy that should be summarily “crucified” and executed without either trial or cause. That is why he posted it in the first place. It sated his hate. McFatridge is a fan of destroying American businesses and was happy the government’s iron boot heel was about to come down on them.
But as the days rolled on and it began to look like sane Americans didn’t share his hatred, once it became clear that the video was causing trouble for his heroes in the EPA, he panicked.
McFatridge realized that the negative reaction from so many quarters was actually hurting his desire to have the private sector “crucified” by a power mad, Roman-styled government. And so he hastened to have the video deep sixed.
It’s really pretty simple. Like most leftists he hates it when people come to fully understand his real goalsand he understands that few Americans agree with him. He knows that the wild-eyed, nuts in the environmental movement are as insane as he but that most people, once they become fully aware of how crazy these nuts are, shy from their methods and his end goals are harmed. So when his real goals get some light shined upon them, he wants to go back into hiding and he scurries away like a cockroach.
That’s what we are seeing here; a cockroach scurrying back into the woodwork so that he can continue his stealth campaign through a government in thrall to his sort of lunatic fringe. McFatridge feared that if too many Americans came to understand that the Obama administration was his kind of extremist they might take action to excise these anti-American nuts from government and remove from power the statist radicals that he so loves.
Yep, it’s really pretty simple.

Marc Faber : The Middle East to Blow up in Flames

Marc Faber Blog
Sunday April 29, 2012 

Marc Faber : The Middle East to Blow up in Flames
Marc Faber : "let's put it this way , equities have more or less doubled in price from the lows of March 2009 , we are in 2012 so we are 3 years into bull market I do not think that equities are a great bargain I think that the money printing has also flowed into corporate profits , so we have a corporate profit inflation we have a record corporate profit in the US but I don't expect it to go on for ever so I am very cautious about equities right now , in fact I think that we may have seen not just a temporary high a few weeks ago when the S&P went to 1422 , I think this could be the longer term high in other words , we don't exceed this April high this year , but equally I think it is a risk not to own any equities at all for the following reason , I think it is increasingly obvious that the central banks of this world will keep on printing money and that as a result of this money printing the purchasing power of paper money will diminish over time irregularly but it will diminish and so you have to own some assets , I happen to think that home prices in southern US are now relatively low , relatively attractive and I would probably if I were a US citizen and live in the US buy some homes remodel them and sell them out you will get a high return compared to say zero interest rate on deposits .....

Human flesh kebabs - Muslim cannibals in Britain

Muslim gangs continue to prey on young white British girls with little being done by the politically correct authorities. Why?

Muhammad Manipulated the Koran

Gates of Vienna
Sunday April 29, 2012
The following article by Geert Wilders was published in Dutch at thr Dagelijkse Standaard website. Many thanks to a Dutch reader for sending a translation.

A note on Mr. Wilders’ book: we were sent an advance copy for review purposes, and will indeed be reviewing it.

Rotterdam Mosque, Geert Wilders

Muhammad Manipulated the Koran
by Geert Wilders

My book about Islam (Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me) is being launched in New York on Tuesday. It posits that the Koran is not a book that was written by Allah, but on the contrary, one that was written by Muhammad. That is the truth, but to Islam that is outright blasphemy.

Islam claims that the Koran was written down by Allah in person before the beginning of time. It was written in Arabic, says verse 20:113. The original copy of the book — the Umm al-Kitab, the “Mother of the Book”- lies on a golden table in heaven. Consequently the Koran is of a totally different order than the Jewish or Christian bibles, which were written down by prophets or apostles. The Koran was written directly by Allah himself.

According to Islam Muhammad simply noted down what the archangel Gabriel read to him from Allah’s book. Whoever doubts that must fear for his life. That is why historic and linguistic research into the origin of the Koran are taboo.

In 1991, Suliman Bashaer, a professor at the Palestinian university in Nablus, was thrown out of a second storey window by his students because he questioned the historic truth of the Koran. A Lebanese or Syrian linguist, whose identity is known to no-one and who writes under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg, maintains that the Koran cannot have been written in Arabic but was written in the related Syro-Aramaic language. His life, too, is in danger, because Allah himself said that the Koran was written in Arabic. Whoever denies that commits blasphemy. When Newsweek published an article about Luxenberg’s theory some years ago it was promptly banned in a number of Islamic countries.

Yet the evidence that not Allah, but Muhammad is the author of the Koran is overwhelming. When one reads the Sira, the biography of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq in the eighth century, it is striking how Allah produced texts that catered directly for Muhammad’s political, sexual and covetous desires. One must be blind not to see that Muhammad was an opportunist who adapted texts as it suited him.

Take the example of the so-called Satanic Verses. In the early period of Islam Muhammad did not get much support in his home town of Mecca. His fellow citizens did not believe a word of what he told them about the so-called messages of Allah. As a consequence, Muhammad, who sought the support of the Meccans, allowed the Muslims to pray to Mecca’s main female deities. He said they were the daughters of Allah. They were perfect intercessors, said the Koran.

Later, when Muhammad quarreled with the Meccans, he revoked these verses, claiming that they had been inspired by the devil instead of by Gabriel. This story is in the Sira, but Muslims do not like to be reminded of it. Salman Rushdie incurred a death sentence for his book The Satanic Verses. The Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was murdered; two other translators and the Norwegian publisher of the book narrowly escaped the same fate.

As Muhammad failed to convince Mecca’s polytheists, he attempted to win the support of Jews and Christians in the city. This explains why Allah was friendly towards them in the early verses of the Koran. But when the Jews and the Christians refused to recognize Muhammad as God’s latest Prophet, the Koran began to threaten them with hell and damnation. New verses commanded the Muslims to wage war on them.

As a result, many Koranic verses contradict each other. Muslims have solved this problem with the abrogation concept: Later verses overrule earlier ones. This, too, is something they do not like to be reminded of. In a speech in Regensburg in 2006, Pope Benedict unwittingly pointed out that there is a difference between the tolerant verses of the early period, “when Muhammad was still powerless and under threat,” and the hostile verses of the later period. At once savages burned down churches in Islamic countries and murdered Catholics. The Pope quickly apologized.

Muhammad not only manipulated the Koran for political reasons. He also did it out of lust. When Muhammad desired the wife of his adopted son, he forced the latter to divorce her. Arab incest taboos, however, did not allow a man to marry the ex-wife of an adopted son. And behold, Allah produced a Koranic verse (33:37-38) ordering him to marry the woman so that “it should become legitimate for true believers to wed the wives of their adopted sons. Allah’s will must be done. No blame shall be attached to the Prophet for doing what is sanctioned for him by Allah.

Muhammad also manipulated the Koran to satisfy his greed for material things. After the raid on a Meccan trade caravan at Badr in March 624, Muhammad wanted to have all the spoils for himself. Lo and behold, there was Allah with a verse (8:1) stating “The spoils belong to Allah and the Apostle.”

All this aroused the suspicions of Muhammad’s scribe, the man who wrote down the prophet’s revelations. The scribe renounced Islam and ran away.

This, too, is something the adherents of Islam do not like being reminded of. However, that the Koran was not written by Allah in heaven is a fact. The Koran was made up by Muhammad as it suited his according to his opportunistic goals. We must confront Muslims with this truth. Because only the truth sets people free. And if the truth is that the Koran is not the word of Allah, it does not need to be taken literally.

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom. He is the author of the book “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me” (Regnery). This article was first published in Dutch at the Dagelijkse Standaard website.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Fitna - Full movie

Rumors of War III

Meanwhile our Muslim In Chief continues to weaken our defenses. Refuses to even utter the words Islamic Extremism.

2012 04-26 Gowdy questions Sebelius about Mandate.wmv

This the kind of dingbats Obama has put in charge of your healthcare.

Video shows Syrian rebel buried alive
Elior Levy Published: 04.26.12, 20:12 / Israel News

Syrian rebel allegedly buried alive at gunpoint by Assad’s forces in most horrific video yet to emerge since Syria's brutal civil war began. Helpless man called 'animal, dog' before buried alive

Gruesome video footage allegedly showing a Syrian activist being buried alive at gunpoint by soldiers loyal to President Bashar Assad’s regime has gone viral on Thursday and is considered to be the most horrific video to have emerged since the Syrian uprising began.

The footage, which was uploaded onto YouTube, shows a blindfolded man with only his head above ground and screaming for his life as Assad's soldiers' surround him.

In the video, the soldiers appear to point their gun barrels at the buried rebel. As the unit's commanding officer approaches, one of the soldiers' turns to him and says: "Yes sir, we placed him in there as you have ordered."

סגורשליחה לחבר
כתובת דוא''ל של החבר שמך כתובת הדוא''ל שלך נושא הקלידו את הקוד המוצגתמונה חדשה

הסרטון נשלח לחברך

סגורהטמעת הסרטון באתר שלך
קוד להטמעה:

Syrian activist buried alive

The officer then asks: "What's he got? Did you find anything with this damn animal?"

The helpless man, described as being from Al-Qussair, a city in western Syria near Homs, is then accused of carrying a camera to capture footage of Assad's forces to send to television networks.

The rebel is called an "animal" and a "dog" several times before the order is given to bury him.

In the disturbing video, which was shot with a mobile video camera, the surrounding soldiers are shown shoveling dirt over the rebel's head as the man cries, "I bear witness that there is no God by Allah."

As his head disappears from view under the ground, the soldiers taunt him by ordering him to say: "Say that there’s no God but Bashar, you animal."

Muslims Building Mosque in Murfreesboro Tn

Who's funding this Hellhole? You can bet much is coming from the Middle east. Its Islams way of forcing their ideology upon America, one Mega Mosque at a time. Just say no to these houses of hate. In Islam if your not a muslim, your an infidel, or nonbeliever that either must submit or be killed.


Vlad Tepes Blog
Saudi Arabia, a place where one can still visit the seventh century, and not be in a museum.  
The subject of necrophilia in Islam has risen to the forefront once again, just lately it was being reported that Egypt was planning a ‘farewell intercourse with dead wife’ law, but has since then been labeled as nonsense. However, there still remains a (respected) Moroccan “Islamic scholar” (an oxymoron) who issued a fatwa allowing for a husband to have intercourse with the remains of his dead wife. One stipulation is that the corpse must be ‘fresh’.

Saudis behead and crucify Sudanese national for raping corpse

CAIRO: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia beheaded and then crucified a Sudanese national after he was convicted of murdering a Saudi woman and then having sex with her corpse.
The man had confessed to murdering the Saudi housewife by strangling her in her sleep.
He then had sex with her corpse, stole her money and jewelry and fled after opening the gas cylinder in an attempt to kill the other family members.
The court sentenced him to death and crucifixion.
He appealed, according to a report in the Saudi Arabian Arabic language daily, Ajel.
The appellate court gave him the same sentence, which was upheld by the supreme court and then ultimately endorsed by King Abdullah.
The defendant, identified as Abdul Rahman Zain Al Abidin, was given a public execution and crucifixion in the kingdom’s capital Riyadh.
The preferred method of execution in Saudi Arabia is beheading by sword.
This entry was posted in KSA Saudi Arabia. Bookmark the permalink.


Its called Sharia Law. Is this what you want here in America for your wife and daughters?

Unfortunately this Muslim women still doesn't get it. Islam is the problem yet she still continues to remain Muslim. Perhaps she fears for her life as any Muslim that leave the cult is condemned to death by Muslim law.

Islam : Egyptian cannibal Cleric

This guy looks like he needs an enema and fast.

Homeland Security taking Over America

Homeland Security taking Over America

Max Igan - Surviving The Matrix - April, 27th, 2012 - Systems of Control and Social Subtext : The United states Government is in the process of erecting an iron curtain around America The development of grand economic systems doesn't seem to be as insidious as presented, nor the collection of 'paper' to support one's life. Government's key role is to establish human ethics, not law, at that transformation point in system processes where psychopaths take control vs. where systems service humanity.All social constructs are, in the end, about consensus. Even "rule of law" is because we as a people agree to it. The problem is when belief is engaged over critical thinking. Belief obviates a moral center, that part of humans which engages empathy. Belief makes it okay to harm another person because that person is not living in line with the proper ideology. Critical thinking, on the other hand, weighs all of the ideas along with the physical realities, and makes appropriate choices.The system is ingenious I would admit that too, but it will be awesome to see it collapse!

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find
money cannot be eaten.
-Cree Prophecy

Friday, April 27, 2012

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood MP Seeks to Abolish Female Rights and Enforce Female Genital Mutilation

Jihad Watch
April 26, 2012

According to the Egyptian website Youm 7, Azza al-Jarf, a female Member of Parliament representing the Muslim Brotherhood's "Freedom and Justice Party," is trying to abolish several laws currently enjoyed by Egyptian women—including preventing them from divorcing or even separating from their husbands, because "the man has the authority and stewardship" (see Koran 4:34); mandating that fathers must circumcise their daughters; and trying to get the Egyptian educational system to ban the teaching of the English language—on the grounds that it is an "infidel" tongue—while separating boys and girls in classrooms and forcing girls to wear the hijab.
Ms. Jarf, of course, is not the first Muslim female in Egypt opposed to her own gender; earlier, another female politician declared that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion," and that, in agreement with Sharia law, they are banned from running for presidency.
At any rate, repressive and discriminatory laws, not to mention laws that mutilate the human body—such represent the Muslim Brotherhood's idea of "Freedom and Justice," the telling name of their political wing.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Egypt, Sex and gender relations | Raymond Ibrahimreceive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

German Islam Conference Ends in Failure

Gatestone Institute
by Soeren Kern
April 27, 2012 

Muslim representatives insisted instead that the German government amend its "misguided" approach to Muslim immigration. Many want to establish a "Koran-state" in Germany; they believe Islamic Sharia law is a divine ordinance that will replace democracy, a man-made form of government.
Senior German officials gathered in Berlin with Muslim leaders from around the country on April 19 for the seventh annual German Islam Conference. The official focus of this year's forum -- aimed at furthering Muslim integration in Germany -- was finding ways to deal with the spiraling rates of forced marriages and domestic violence among the estimated 4.3 million Muslims who now reside there.
The main topic for discussion at the conference, however, was not on the official agenda: it was the unprecedented nationwide campaign by Islamic radicals to distribute 25 million free copies of the Koran, with the stated goal of placing one Koran into every home in Germany.
Muslim representatives attending the forum this year were in no mood for compromise, and refused to accept responsibility for any of the myriad irritants in German-Muslim relations, insisting instead that the German government amend its "misguided" approach to Muslim integration.
German officials were left trying to put the best spin on this year's event, which ended without a joint press conference, reportedly because of lingering Muslim pique at "offensive" comments which were uttered at the press conference that ended last year's event.
Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich opened the one-day conference by declaring that Islamic extremism has no place in Germany. "We all agree that Salafist extremism is not acceptable and does not work in a free society, as we have in Germany," he insisted. "Religion must not be abused in an ideological bid for power."
He was referring to the mass proselytization campaign -- called Project "READ!" -- being organized by dozens of Islamic Salafist groups located in cities and towns throughout Germany, as well as in Austria and Switzerland. The bid to convert non-Muslims has provoked uproar in Germany.
Salafism is a branch of radical Islam that seeks to establish an Islamic empire [Caliphate] across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe -- and eventually the entire world. The Caliphate would be governed exclusively by Islamic Sharia law, which would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
But Friedrich did not say what, if anything, the German government was doing about the Salafists, who analysts say have launched a Europe-wide "frontal assault" against people of other faiths and "unbelievers."
Although Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), regards the Salafist groups as a threat to German security, Salafists have free rein in the country, and Salafist preachers are known regularly to preach hatred against the West in the mosques and prayer centers that are proliferating across Germany.
According to the BfV, there are an estimated 29 Islamist groups in Germany with 34,720 members or supporters who pose a major threat to homeland security. Many of them want to establish a "Koran-state" in Germany; they believe Islamic Sharia law is a divine ordinance that will replace democracy, a man-made form of government.
German authorities view the Koran project as a "most worrisome" recruiting campaign for radical Islam. Security analysts say the campaign is also a public-relations gimmick intended to persuade Germans that the Salafists are transparent and "citizen friendly."
Although Friedrich urged Muslim representatives attending the conference to join him in condemning the Salafists, Muslims declined to meet him even half way. Instead, they dismissed fears over the Koran being distributed in every home as "hysterical" and "misguided."
Kenan Kolat, chairman of the Turkish Community in Germany, intervened personally to prevent the Salafist issue from becoming part of the official conference agenda. In an interview with the Rheinischen Post newspaper, Kolat justified his action by saying: "A hysterical debate is not helpful."
Ali Kizilkaya, chairman of the German Islamic Council, told German public radio that non-Muslims were engaged in "a panicked discussion" about the Salafist campaign. He insisted: "It is definitely not the spirit of the Koran to foment unrest in society."
Muslims were equally unwilling to discuss the main item on the official agenda of the conference, "Gender Equality as a Common Value" (Geschlechtergerechtigkeit als gemeinsamen Wert leben).
Conference attendees refused even to acknowledge any connection between Islam and forced marriage.
Instead, they issued a statement which says: "Domestic violence and the practice of forced marriage do not originate from a particular religion, but come from certain traditional, patriarchal structures… Muslims taking part in the German Islam Conference state explicitly that Islam is an open and tolerant religion that opposes physical and psychological violence and forced marriage and encourages individual self-determination, self-development and freedom of opinion and expression."
Regrettably, thousands of young women and girls living in Germany are, in fact, victims of forced marriages every year. Most of the victims come from Muslim families; many have been threatened with violence and even death.
According to a 160-page report, "Forced Marriages in Germany: Numbers and Analysis of Counseling Cases," commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of the Family, the problem of forced marriage is far more widespread than previously believed.
The study -- the first and most detailed of its kind in Germany -- reveals that in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 3,443 people sought help at counseling and social services centers across the country because they were being, or already had been, forced into marriage.
The vast majority of these victims are women or girls, although 6% are young men. Almost one-third of those forced into marriage in Germany were 17 years old or younger. Another 40% were between the ages of 18 and 21.
Many of the victims experienced extreme violence. More than half (70%) were beaten or otherwise physically abused to convince them to marry, and 27% were threatened with weapons or with death if they did not go through with the forced marriage.
The vast majority -- 83.4% -- of the victims of forced marriages were from Muslim households.
Friedrich did not press the issue of forced marriage apparently to avoid offending the Muslims in attendance. Instead, he later told reporters that he was pleased about the "forged consensus" on forced marriage and domestic violence, and that these problems "do not come from religion, but from the patriarchal structures and traditions in the countries of origin."
Friedrich then congratulated himself for this achievement: "It is the first time that so many Muslim organizations and individuals were able to agree on such a declaration."
Commenting on Friedrich's kid-gloves approach to Muslims and Islam at this year's conference, Kenan Kolat, the leader of Germany's Turkish community, told Deutschlandradio: "I think he is learning."
To be sure, conference attendees were able to agree on one thing: The official focus of next year's conference will be…Islamophobia.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.