Iran: Be afraid, be very afraid.

"Cyrus the Great, the ancient Persian king who allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and wrote the first charter of human rights, must be spinning in his grave."
Alister Heath, The Spectator, February 9, 2006

In "A Monster of Our Own Making", Alister Heath, writing in The Spectator (UK), says,

Once the world's most advanced civilization, Iran is yet again descending into barbarism under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the rabid fanatic who took power in a rigged election last year.

And guess who he blames?

The demise of Iraq, together with Iran's dash to nuclear capability, another development that the West has disastrously mishandled, has meant that the balance of power is changing radically in the Middle East, with Iran firmly in the ascendancy. Control of Iraq, together with the acquisition of the weapons of mass destruction that all serious experts believe to be the aim of its nuclear programme, would make Iran the Gulf's uncontested hegemon as well as the pre-eminent force within political Islam, a stunning double victory now within Tehran's reach.

I think he makes a good point. With Saddam Hussein in control in Iraq, the Mullahs in Iran had a check on their murderous intentions. With Hussein gone and a government in place in Iraq that is too weak to protect itself from even the Sunni murderers, the Mullahs are having a field day and Ahmadinejad, or Ahmadinejihad as I prefer to call him, is spearheading the march.



Heath says, and rightfully so, I'm afraid,

It is no wonder, therefore, that a senior retired State Department official has told this magazine that it is becoming clear that the invasion of Iraq was "the biggest strategic blunder in recent US foreign policy" -- not because of the failure to discover the expected weapons of mass destruction, but because by removing one of the main bulwarks to Iranian expansionism without replacing it with a viable alternative, the West has unleashed a hostile regional superpower it is unable or unwilling to contain.

He says that the only thing stopping the Mullahs from taking control of Iraq is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani whom the Mullahs do not dare challenge. But al-Sistani is in ill health and the anti-American Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stands as the next in line in influence among the Iraqi Shia. Al-Sadr has already thrown his lot in with the Mullahs, promising to support Iran against the US if, or rather, when war breaks out. Heath continues:

With propaganda rife on Iranian TV, an official policy of Holocaust denial and presidential calls to wipe Israel off the map, it beggars belief that anybody can still think that Iran poses no threat to world peace

Heath is correct in his assumption that the Israelis cannot stop the Mullahs. Any attack would probably be unsuccessful and the resulting uproar would make the ongoing Mohammed cartoon violence look like an afternoon tea party.

However, questions remain. What, exactly, should we have done in Iraq? Is it Heath's position that we should never have attacked at all? He is unclear on this. I don't think anyone, up to and including President Bush, can call the Itaq war a success, at least in the short term. Too many mistakes, too many dead and wounded Americans, too much political uproar in the Middle East and now a disaster in the making with the ascendancy of the murderous Mullahs all show that the way that we did it was wrong. As to the what that we did, I think it was probably to correct thing to do. The world of Islam needed to see a show of force. I think that now it needs another, unfortunately.

And that is, probably, our fault. If the Iraq affair had gone more smoothly, had it been better planned and executed, then maybe we wouldn't be in this predicament. The world of Islam would have seen what the exercise of American power and political will could wreak rather than wreck. That did not and has not happened. I don't know that it will ever happen relative to Iraq.

There's no sense crying over spilled milk, I guess. But we may be down to the exercise of power, that is, massive and overwhelming firepower, as our only remaining option. And what an unpleasant option that will prove to be.

TAGS: Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iraq, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr, The Spectator (UK), Alister Heath

Jackie Mason on the Muhammed Cartoons

Writing in The Spectator (UK), Jackie Mason speaks on the Muhammed Cartoon crisis. His article is quite short making it difficult to excerpt without reprinting the whole thing, but I'll give it a try.

On the Muslim's reactions:

Muslim fundamentalists have decided that even if you never saw or heard of the cartoons, you deserve to be hit with rocks, have your car wrecked and your embassies destroyed.

Ironically, the cartoonists were not insulting Islam; they were satirising fanaticism. Now the fanatics have decided that there are no laws, limits or boundaries that apply to their behaviour. They not only have the right to take your life; they now have the right to rob you of your freedom of expression.

On what a Jew would do:

Could you picture a Jew killing anybody for such meaningless reasons?

Examples he gives are football and, especially, hockey:

Hockey players spend all their time hitting each other in the mouth with sticks. When Jews saw how Gentiles played hockey, that is how Jews found out that instead of becoming hockey players they would become dentists, and that way they decided to let other people play the game while they found a way to make a profit from it.

Jews are never known to get into unnecessary physical battles. That is why people are never afraid of being attacked by a Jew. Did you ever hear anybody say, "Don’t go into that neighbourhood, it is very dangerous, there are a lot of Jews there"?

No, we never have. He continues, poignantly:

Jews have so long been accustomed to being threatened and persecuted all over the world that they could never dream of creating needless violence anywhere, because they would be grateful to find a place where they are allowed to live in peace.

And then, on what some of us have done:

Meanwhile, the world is reacting with an amazing cowardice. Instead of a collective fury, we are pleading forgiveness and promising not to offend them with any more cartoons. Could anything be more perverted?

TAGS: Muhammed Cartoons, Jackie Mason, Muslim violence, Jewish dentists

Muhammed Cartoons: Religion or Politics?

I received this email from the Drs Dan Reiter and Rohringer

Religion and Politics The freedom of religion is the product of the separation between politics and religion; what we in Western Society call the separation of Church and State. When those two are separate, and to the degree that they are in any society, religion is a matter of personal conscience. Under those circumstances no one has the right to criticise the personal belief of any other law abiding citizen.

When societies set up Religious States, when they infringe on the personal freedoms of their own citizens, and persecute them for not abiding by Religious Law, when they kill their opponents in the name of their God in other countries across the Globe, they have in fact dragged their Religion into the sewer of politics and degraded it to the point that criticism is not only fair game, but a moral obligation of any moral person and even more so of any true believer.

The cartoonist had the courage to say what needed to be said. He was not degrading Islam, he was demonstrating the degradation of Islam produced by a significant number of its adherents. The response struck a raw nerve because the criticism is valid. The extreme violence of the response only confirms the point.

I would agree that the violent reaction to the cartoons which has been drummed up, first by the Danish Imams and their 3 faked cartoons and now by the governments of Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, does confirm the point. Islam has been been returned to its roots as a religion of violence. Those who claim there is some vast silent majority of Muslims who do not agree with the violence and death and destruction being manifested upon us in the name of Allah, Muhammed, bin Laden or whomever need to answer these questions. Where is that silent majority? Where do they live? Why are they too fearful to speak out? Why are they too fearful to wrest back control of their religion? Where are their leaders?

If we had the answers to these questions, I am sure that we could help them. I personally don't think they exist in sufficient numbers anywhere to make a difference no matter how much help they might receive. In other words, they do not, in fact, constitute the majority.

TAGS: Muhammed Cartoons, Islam, violence, death, destruction

Muslim outrage over Muhammed Cartoons?

• Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
  
• A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
  
• Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
  
• Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
Neil Boortz

Boortz also quotes Salman Rushdie:

As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?

Thanks to Christopher Calandro, Atlanta

TAGS: Muhammed Cartoons, Muslim outrage, Neil Boortz, Salman Rushdie

BBC fanned flames of Muhammed cartoon fiasco

The BBC has admitted that it fanned the flames of Islamofascist hysteria over the Muhammed cartoons by repeatedly showing a faked cartoon in its reports over the world-wide anti-cartoon protests. The BBC admitted that it continually showed the "Muhammed with pig snout" cartoon which was actually a photo from an annual pig-calling contest held in France.

The BBC says,

Twelve cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten. None showed the Prophet with the face of a pig. Yet such a portrayal has circulated in the Middle East (The BBC was caught out and for a time showed film of this in Gaza without realizing it was not one of the 12).

This picture, a fuzzy grey photocopy, can now be traced back (suspicion having been confirmed by an admission) to a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders who went to the Middle East in November to publicize the cartoons. The visit was organised by Abu Laban, a leading Muslim figure in Denmark.

According to the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, the delegation took along a pamphlet showing the 12 drawings. But the delegation also showed a number of other pictures, including the "pig" one. The delegation claimed they were the sort of insults that Muslims in Denmark had to endure. These also got into circulation.

Ekstra Bladet has also published a letter taken by the delegation on its mission. This gives the delegation's account of how the cartoons originated and what the reaction to them was. But it also mentions other pictures, which it said were "much more offending." These presumably included the "pig" picture, whose origin is now known.)

Then, in a burst of hilarity, the BBC says,

One aspect that these governments might also want to examine is how they can counter false information.

In other words, how can these governments (in the West) counteract false information being disseminated 24/7 by an international news organization like the BBC. Good question. Answer: Fire the top 500 or so BBC executives and replace them all with people who know how to do some research and aren't willing to dumbly echo the rants of anybody and everybody who opposes Bush/Blair/Israel/Christians/Jews. But, the BBC gets even more hilarious:

Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely and seem to have made no attempt to counter some of the arguments in the pamphlet or to distinguish between the various portrayals.

When did the BBC begin to counter the faked Muhammed cartoons it was broadcasting 24/7 and distinguish between the various portrayals? Uh, today, parenthetically.

It might not have made much difference but it shows how rapidly propaganda can add to fuel to the fire.

Yeah, no sh*t, Sherlock. Especially when the propaganda is being trumpeted all over the world by you at the BBC, you twits.

Paul Belien at The Brussels Journal ponders,

One wonders why the BBC did not check with Jyllands-Posten, and ask them for copies of the original cartoons, before broadcasting the news to a worldwide Muslim audience. One wonders also whether BBC journalists ever consult blogs. The twelve cartoons have been available on the internet for months. Moreover, if the BBC had published the cartoons on its own website, instead of pondering whether or not to show them, and fulfilled its duty as information provider this would not have happened. Perhaps extreme violence and some fatalities could have been avoided.

Isn't there a disclaimer somewhere in the BBC's website and appearing periodically throughout its world-wide, 24/7 broadcasts that states,

"The BBC is not responsible for the consequences, however fatal they may be, of errors, distortions and mis-representations made in its broadcasts due to:
shoddy reporting, agenda promotion, anti-Americanism and/or anti-Semitism."

I thought I saw that, once. Maybe it was the New York Times or CNN, I don't remember.

More here on the Muhammed cartoons and the BBC.
Ace of Spades HQ, carboncopy, HIWired Blog, Frank Jordan, Sissy Willis


TAGS: Muhammed cartoons, Danish cartoons, BBC, fake Muhammed cartoons, Brussels Journal, Paul Belien

Saddam Shark

In Mark in Mexico's neverending quest to bring to you all the news in pictures not fit to print anywhere else, here is the banned-in-Belgium "artwork" called "Saddam Shark". Together with the 12 Muhammed Cartoons, also known as the Danish Cartoons, along with the 3 faked cartoons, also known as the Danish Imam's Clumsily Forged I Could Have Done Better With A Magic Marker Cartoons, I have now posted more images in one week than in the past year.

The above image is an artwork by Czech Republic artist David Cerny, originally set for showing at the Beaufort 2006 art festival in the Belgian seaside town of Middelkerke, before the sculpture was banned by the mayor. Quoth hizzoner, Michel Landuyt,

In my view, it was too shocking.

They wanted to put this piece in a location where many children come, so that couldn't be allowed.

When you go to a museum and are prepared to see those things and there is an explanation, perhaps there is no problem. But when you come somewhere where you don't expect that, it can be a problem.

You can get another look at it by visiting Cerny's homepage. I give you two links to it because you really need to go to Cerny's opening page, first. Hmmm, veddy intelesting. Mr. Cerny probably has some commentary about his sculpture, including a possible explanation as to why we should consider it "art" in tehe first place, but his site is in the Czech language and the only Czechs I can understand are Wheat Czechs, Rice Czechs and Corn Czechs.

Mr. Cerny gained fame in 1991 when he painted a Soviet tank on display in Prague, pink, indicating, I think, that the USSR's hold over the Czechs was, finally, kaput. I'm not sure what message Mr. Cerny is trying to convey with his "Saddam Shark" scupture, but he may just be lampooning another artist. In 1991, art collecter Charles Saatchi commissioned sculpter Damien Hirst to do a piece called "Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". Hirst's finished product, for which Saachi paid about $90,000, was a shark floating in a tank of formaldahyde. That shark artwork won the 1991 Turner Prize for Art in Great Britain, demonstrating that the British have no better taste in artwork than they do in food (see haggis).

Note to Sullivan, Digby, Kos, Black et al; This is NOT a just-released photo from Abu Ghraib. Those are being held by Mary Mapes and Dan Rather for release 72 hours prior to the 2006 mid-terms.

TAGS: Saddam Shark, David Cerny, Belgium, Muhammed Cartoons, Danish Cartoons

1 Faked Muhammed cartoon identified

Gateway Pundit reports that one of the Muhammed cartoons that was faked by the Danish Imams has been identified. Dennis Nixon at Neander News reports that AP photographer Bob Edme posted this photo on August 15, 2005 in an MSNBC story about the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise’s annual festival. The "pig" pictured is the contest winner, Jacques Barrot of, er, France.

Danish Imam's Muhammed with pig snout

AP's French pig squealing contest photo

As you may recall from my earlier post, the Danish Imams who carried the 12 Danish Muhammed cartoons as well as the 3 faked cartoons to the Middle East had claimed that all 15 cartoons appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. Now, the Danish Imams say that the 3 faked cartoons were sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. The Danish Imams refuse, however, to identify those Danish Muslims who allegedly received the cartoons. Apparently the Danish Imams, led by Ahmad Abu Ladan, have so far been unable to scrape up even one more Danish Muslim willing to help propagate their slander against Jyllans Posten and the Danish people.

Take a close look at the second "cartoon", the one purportedly of Muhammed having sex with a dog. That is pretty obviously a photo also. As for the third one, it looks like what I could get if I told my six year-old, "Draw a picture of a bad man holding two children."

I might add that Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, who are still squealing like pigs, can certainly sympathize with the Danish Imams.

Lots more here:
Michelle Malkin and also here, Sissy Willis, Sierra Faith, Independent Christian Voice with a very un-Christian photo of Michelle Malkin

HiWired Blog, Myopic Zeal, Hyscience, Junk Yard Blog, Harry's Place

Classical Values, The Counterterrorism Blog, James Joyner at OTB, All Things Beautiful, Silent Running,

Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit, Little Miss Attila, On The Third Hand, Spinning Yarns, The Anchoress

Everyday Thoughts Collected, This Must Be the Place is ready to burn some shit, too, California Conservative, American Daughter, Harry's Place, again,

PoliBlog, Bling, Bill at INDC Journal, Right Wing Nuthouse, USS Neverdock

TAGS: Muhammed Cartoons, Danish Imams, pig squealing contest, Jyllands Posten, Islamofascists, slander

Mohammed Cartoons - my Muslim hate mail

Just an example (he sent it twice):

From: cedrickarness@yahoo.com

mark just wanted to say that you are racist
idiot.Furthermore, as Muslim I have little or nothing
to do with backward narrow minded xenophobic little
punks like you.I have always wondered about you so
called conservatives.It seems to me that you are just
plain simple minded neo-nazi without the heart and
courage to admit it.So you hide behind equally
backward mantle of so called conservatism.What a slimy
dog you are.I also noticed that in your silly little
website you have links to all the other equally
asinine inbreed backwards brain dead websites.You even
have links to that homophobic homosexual matt
drudge.He should be you retards poster boy, a self
hating homo.He or she fits right in with that other
thing,the junkie bashing junkie lush limbaugh.They
both exemplify what you clowns are, walking
contradiction.You love war but you wont fight in one
yourself.You are for less government unless you can
steal a few dollars from it and run up multi billion
dollars deficits.You are for free enterprise until
because of your inherent greed and ignorance you fall
behind the rest of the world,then you want protected
markets.You claim you love freedom but you would have
others fight your wars to enslave other people.You
claim you love this Great Country but you put partisan
politics above honor and turn a blind eye to the
republican politician that are stealing this Republic
blind.Loathsome evil men that would ruin this country
for personal gain.Yeah what a piece of work.mark, why
don't you do the Mexican people a favor,why don't you
leave Mexico and just go to hell..

"... other equally asinine inbreed backwards brain dead websites."? ok there, taylor, i'll remove them asap. I wonder if I can get them all in one shot with SpyBot Search and Destroy (free plug - I'm not getting paid for it)? I visited Gaza City, once, so I've already been to hell - and back! And, what? No death threat? You can't call this a hate mail worth its salt without at least one death threat, taylor.I feel, er, unsatisfied.

But, anyway, what's your opinion on the cartoons?

TAGS: Mohammed Cartoons, Muslim hate, xenophobic little
punks, simple minded neo-nazis, slimy dogs, homophobic homosexuals, other equally asinine inbreed backwards brain dead websites

Congratulations Pittsburgh Steelers

The Pittsburgh Steelers win Super Bowl XL and deservedly so. But Fox Sports Daryl Johnston (3 Super Bowl rings with the Cowboys) needs to brush up on his knowledge of NFL versus college football rules. The Super Bowl was almost ruined for me down here in Oaxaca when Johnston, doing the game with Dick Stockton, went completely nutzo over the fumble by Matt Hasselbeck. The fumble call by the officials was reversed after review but not for the reasons being touted by Johnston.

When the official closest to the play first called the fumble, he ruled thusly because he did not see any Steelers player touch the scrambling quarterback. In the official's view, Hasselbeck lost his balance, fell to the turf, the ball squirted out, and, in the NFL, that's a fumble.

Note to Johnston: There is no "The ground can't cause a fumble" rule, as such, in the National Football League. The rule is that, if you are "downed by contact", when a knee or your body or the ball strike the turf, the ball is dead instantaneously at that point. Hence, the ground cannot cause a fumble if you are down by contact. Johnston's problem is that he thinks "down by contact" means contact with the ground. That's a college football rule, or at least it used to be.

In the NFL, a player is only down and the ball is dead if he is "down by contact" WITH A PLAYER ON THE OPPOSING TEAM. If the ball carrier is knocked down by his own player or falls on his own, as the official in yesterday's game believed, the ball is live. If it is knocked loose due to contact with the ground, the ball is still live. The official, based on what he saw, ruled correctly that the ball was fumbled and the Steelers had recovered it.

The replay showed that a Steelers defender had, indeed, gotten a hand on Hasselbeck just before his legs slipped out from under him. Therefore, the fumble and recovery ruling by the official on the field was overturned. Hasselbeck was downed by contact as stipulated in what I consider to be a pretty easy to understand (and a very long-time) NFL rule. Dick Stockton tried, as discreetly as possible, to gently remind Johnston that the ball carrier had to be downed by contact with an opposing player. Johnston wasn't listening.

Fox broke for a commercial and I thought that Stockton would take the opportunity to explain the rule to Johnston. If he did, the lesson didn't take. Johnston started hollering, "This is the worst officiated Super Bowl I've ever seen," or something to that effect. Finally, Johnston lamely stated, "There are just too many gray areas in the NFL rules." Jeez! Gray area? What gray area?

The contested offensive pass interference penalty called against Darrell Jackson was not a bad call. A pass receiver can get away with a push-off if, 1) he does not fully extend his arm(s) during and after the push and, 2) he doesn't do it right in the officials face in the end zone. The official is not granted the right to stand there and try to determine if it was just a little push or a medium sized push or an in-your-face-disgrace type push. Is pushing-off by a receiver legal or illegal? It is illegal and the official had the perfect right to make the call as he did.

In this piece, Fox Sports continues its unfortunate game coverage as Kevin Hench blames the officials for Seattle's loss. To be fair, almost everybody is laying for the officials, both last night and today. That is not being fair to the officials.

Read what Hench says:

But Chris Gray was called for holding James Farrior. When Farrior pushed upfield, Gray did hook him with his right arm, and Farrior went down. When referee Bill Leavy flagged Gray, it was a bad omen for the Seahawks.

Is hooking a defensive pursuer and taking him down legal or illegal? If it is illegal, and it is, then why would an official who saw it refuse to make the call? More from Hench:

The replay showed receiver and defender hand-fighting, with Jackson getting the slightest push into Hope's chest before turning to catch the ball.

The replay also showed that Jackson's left arm was fully extended, meaning that he gave Chris Hope all the push that he could muster at the time and from his position. The replay also showed that Jackson accelerated away from Hope with the push and Hope's head and shoulders moved backwards as a result of the push. The replay also shows that the official was standing right there. Hench doesn't mention any of this. In my opinion, the hesitation was due to the official reaching back for the flag and struggling to find it, like he had put it in the wrong pocket or reached back with the wrong hand. I'm not real clear on that flag groping and would have to see the replays again. All of that aside, is Hench's "slightest push" legal or illegal? Did the receiver gain an advantage with the push or not? I think the replays show that he did gain an advantage and that is illegal in the NFL, period.

More from Hench:

The flag came in during the runback and it looked pretty minor.

Where in the NFL rulebook does it declare that "pretty minor" holding during a 33-yard punt return in the Super Bowl is legal? Where in the NFL rulebook does it delineate the difference between pretty minor, minor, average, pretty average, major and pretty major? It doesn't. Holding is illegal. Holding occurs on every play in the NFL. The officials can't see them all and can't call all of them that they do see because the holders are usually pretty clever about hiding it. In this case, it occurred right in front of an official and he correctly flagged it.

On the disputed touchdown by Roethlisberger, it appeared to me that the ball initially broke the plane of the end zone and it was a touchdown. Hench admits that even if the touchdown had been taken away, the Steelers would have scored, anyway.

I can't remember the next disputed holding call. I'll have to see the replays, again.

Again, in the interest of fairness, the illegal blocking penalty on Hasselbeck on the runback after he had thrown an interception looked like a bad call. It had no effect on the game, it was all over by that time, but it appeared to be a bad call. It may be that the officials cannot permit a tackler to cut through the legs of a blocker to make a tackle. I dunno.

All in all, I think it is grossly unfair for "experts" like Hench to declare that Seattle should have won the game but for bad officiating and that the Steelers do not deserve their trophy. That is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

TAGS: Super Bowl XL, Pittsburgh Steelers, Fox Sports, Daryl Johnston, Kevin Hench

WITH OUR BLOOD WE WILL REDEEM OUR PROPHET

Ok.

Have at it.

TAGS: Michelle Malkin, Muhammed Cartoons, Islamofascists, Denmark, Danish Cartoons

What really started the Muslim anti-cartoon rampage

As reported many places over the past few days, most recently here, there is a lot more to this Muhammed cartoon row than meets the eye. When Danish Imams who originally protested the cartoons could not drum up enough of the appropriate outrage and violence against the newspaper and the governments of Denmark and Norway, these Islamofascists took their show on the road.

They took the 12 cartoons, added three more cartoons which they claimed were also published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, and hand carried them to the Middle East, principally to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That's when the conflagration rapidly spread from a local Muslim protest over perceived blasphemy to the more typical and expected world-wide Islamic violence. Such as the flag burnings, death threats, hand grenades, fatwahs and embassy bombings that are occurring as you read this.

The 12 original cartoons have been widely published, including in this blog, but what about the other three that were surreptitiously added? Here they are. While the quality is pretty bad, the three cartoons which the Danish Islamofascists masquerading as Imams claimed were also published by Jyllands Posten can be seen to depict Muhammed with a pigs snout, Muhammed having sex with a dog and Muhammed as a pedophile. Here are those three cartoons as drawn by Danish Muslim Imams (thanks to zombietime.com).

Muhammed with pig snout

Muhammed having sex with a dog

Muhammed as a pedophile

It is important to note that the Danish Islamofascists had to gin up three more poor quality and insulting cartoons in order to incite the desired outrage and violence that is going on now. Without these three false cartoons added to the mix, this whole uproar might never have happened.

The original twelve Jyllands Posten cartoons were first published in the Danish newspaper in September, 2005. So why the explosion of Islamofascist rage in January of the following year? It is easy to see that Islamofascist rage was ginned up and fanned by falsehoods so typical of Islam, today. The twelve cartoons didn't ignite the expected anti-Christian, anti-Western, Anti-American and anti-everybody-who-isn't-a-slave-to-Muhammed/Allah/Imams/Islamofascists rage. So, the Danish Imams faked it.

And it worked.

Much, much more here:
A Blog For All, Wizbang, Guide To Midwestern Culture, Stop the ACLU, TMH's Bacon Bits

Michelle Malkin - with her own movie, Capitol Region People, Andrew Marcus, Never Yet Melted, This isn't writing, it's typing,

Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, Gaze Theory, A North American Patriot, Musing Minds, The Political Pit Bull,

BizzyBlog, The Pink Flamingo Bar and Grill, Protein Wisdom to whom I cannot trackback, Right Wing Nut House, The Brainster, Basil's Blog,

The Truckin' Blog, Don Surber, Stuck on Stupid who threatens Muslim martyrs, Freedom Folks, Samantha Burns,

Kokonut Pundits, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Pirate's Cove, A Lady's Ruminations, QandO

Buy Danish, I Am!, The Discerning Texan, The Politburo Diktat, CDR Salamander

INDC Journal, Darklight 1138

TAGS: Denmark, Islamofascists, Muhammed cartoons

Iran between steel jaws of a trap?

I found this very interesting, albeit disturbing article in Asia Times Online through Lucianne. The article is titled Iran and the jaws of a trap. It was written by a Paul Levian who is identified as a former German intelligence officer. Interestingly, a Google search for Paul Levian turns up exactly zip, zilch, nada. A search of Google News turns up the same article, but this time on a UK news site called mathaba.net, subscription 2.95 pounds Sterling per month. Hmmm.

Mr. Levian, whomever he might be, is of the opinion that the United States

has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw.

He says that the Iranians are in for a shock.

If the Iranian leaders think they can deter an attack because the US is bogged down in Iraq they are already between the jaws of a well-set trap. Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia.

Levian believes that China and Russia have been forced by the US, UK and France to bail out on their support for Iran. If Iran refuses to allow the enrichment of uranium in Russia, then Levian says we're on.

Levian claims that Iran is basing its intransigence and belligerence on four fallacies.
1. Iran is much stronger militarily than was Iraq, a much larger state, much tougher terrain and much more difficult to attack, defeat, occupy and pacify.
2. Iran is counting on the threat of world-wide condemnation of any attack to forestall just such an attack.
3. The interruption of the flow of Iranian oil would be devastating to the world's economy.
4. The US and UK forces are too busy in Iraq to constitute a threat to the Mullahs.

Levian then sets about to debunk all 4 of the Iranian misconceptions.
1. The US has no intention of occupying and pacifying Iran as it is trying to do in Iraq (more on that later).
2. With all of the big 5 (US, UK, France, Russia, China) on board, who cares about world-wide condemnation?
3. The attacking coalition would go right for the oil fields. Any interruption is assumed to be minimal.
4. The US and UK forces can be quickly re-deployed, especially under the cover of the first few days of an allied air assault. Levian doesn't say so, but he seems to hint that this has been planned for a long time. Also, Levian claims that the US has more than adequate forces already in position along the Iran/Iraq border to contain the expected initial surge of Iranian forces. Levian adds, almost as an afterthought, that any widespread uprising against US and UK forces in Iraq would be viewed as a nuisance and would simply be met with overwhelming firepower.

Levian says that, based on Russian and Chinese war games, this is how the Iran war will go.

An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.

Then,

And Israel will use the opportunity to deal with Syria and South Lebanon, and possibly with its Palestinian problem.

That should be a bit disconcerting to Hamas, Hezbollah and Assad. Then Levian makes a somewhat astonishing statement and one that's a bit chilling, too.

The character of this war will be completely different from the Iraq war. No show-casing of democracy, no "nation-building", no journalists, no Red Cross - but the kind of war the United States would have fought in North Vietnam if it had not had to reckon with the Soviet Union and China.

In other words, a real "shock and awe" war, reminiscent of the first Gulf War.

Well, I don't know what to think about all this. It would help if some background on Paul Levian were available. I can't find anything. That makes it impossible to determine if he has any idea what he is talking about. There is no doubt that we are planning a military strike on Iran. That's not news. We constantly plan and re-plan military strikes on everybody, even Canada and Massachusetts. That's what planners do. It's their job to make us as ready as we can possibly be to strike anywhere at anytime against anybody.

But are we truly prepared to strike at Iran? I dunno. It would probably be a lot easier job if the Iranians did, in fact, lash out with chemical weapons. Levian says the US would then retaliate with nuclear weapons. End of war. Wow! I just don't like the sound of that at all. I don't even like the thought of it. I can, however, imagine President Bush issuing the orders and giving assurances to his military commanders as well as those of the UK and Israel that he would use nuclear weapons in such a scenario. If we have learned anything about George Bush, he doesn't back down. If Iran hit us or UK forces or Israel with chemical weapons, Bush would not cancel his previously issued orders. We'd strike.

The nuclear weapons we would use would be nothing like those used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were strategic nuclear weapons, designed and used to kill as many people as possible. Our strategic nuclear arsenal still exists but it exists for the doomsday scenario, or the "mutually assured destruction" strategy. That is aimed primarily at the Russians and the Chinese. The nuclear weapons that we would use against Iran would be tactical nuclear weapons. They are designed and would be used only against military and possibly manufacturing infrastructure. Still, hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops and people would die.

C'mon diplomacy. I just became a big cheerleader for Chinese and Russian diplomats.

TAGS: Iran, war, nuclear weapons, Paul Levian

Hugh Hewitt sides with Islamofascists, misspells "ought"

Just kidding.
JUST KIDDING!!
He did misspell "ought", however.

Hugh makes a good point. And that is:

The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers.

I think I used the term "foolishly" in this post about the publishing of the cartoons and used the same terminology to describe the Jyllands Posten's call for the cartoons in the first place.

Hugh does make one statement with which I am afraid I do not agree. Or, better, about which I harbor some serious doubts. He says,

"The jihadists are the enemy, not the Muslim world."

Man, I wish I could have the same level of confidence as Hugh that this were true. Maybe I'll just wish and hope that it is true. I'll wish and hope that he is right and that my feelings of foreboding concerning another 50-year war just over the next horizon are ill founded.

I would ask Hugh this question: Do you think that Julian Bond represents mainstream African American thought? I think that he does. I think that of the 900 people sitting in the auditorium listening to Bond's speech, 4 walked out and 896 agreed, in whole or in part, with what he said. I think that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Kanye West, The Congressional Black Caucus et al represent current mainstream African American thought. The 15% or so who do not subscribe to the above mentioned spokespersons are NOT the mainstream. We might wish that they were so, but wishing it were so does not make it so.

The same is true in the "Muslim world" of which Hugh speaks. The 85% or so of Muslims who believe the US to be evil, bin Laden to be a hero, that Jews are sons of pigs and dogs, want Sharia law established worldwide and demand that the cartoonists be punished ARE the mainstream. We might wish that it were not so, but wishing it were not so does not make it not so.

My feeling is that the only reason that a world war between civilizations has not already broken out is that the vast majority of Muslims living in the world today are so desperately poor that they have the time, energy and resources for only the occasional burst of AK-47 fire into the air from the garbage and sewage laden streets outside of their mud huts. Give them resources and I fear that they will come after us everywhere that they can find us, which is to say everywhere.

I hope I'm wrong and Hugh is right.

Lots more discussion here:
Junk Yard Blog, All Things beautiful, The American Princess, Michelle Malkin with 62 TRACBACKS!!!, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Argghhh!!!, bRight & Early, The Brainster, Joe Gandelman, Reid Blog - Oh my. She's blaming Bush for all this.

There are too many to count, let alone read, but see Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice for a huge list of writers to visit.

TAGS: Hugh Hewitt, jihadists, Muhammed Cartoons, Islamofascists, mainstream

Julian Bond joins Ted Kennedy in nuthouse

Unbelievable. There was a time, long, long ago, when I had a lot of respect for Julian Bond. He was a hard working soldier in the army of black liberation. He was held up as a moderate alternative to Stokely Carmichael, the SNCC, the Black Panthers and other extremists of the black freedom movement. No more.

When a black family gets up and walks out on your speech you know, or should know that you have a problem. Bond equated the Republican party to "Nazis", called President Bush's Supreme Court nominees the "Taliban", Secretary of State Rice and the former secretary Powell "tokens", president Bush a "liar" whose lies were more serious than Clinton's lies because Bush's lies "killed people", and called former Attorney General John Ashcroft "J. Edgar Ashcroft".

The talk so infuriated at least one black family in attendance among the 900 in the auditorium that they got up and walked out in protest.

"He went on and on name calling," said Lee Wilson. "I walked out in the middle of his speech with my wife and three kids"

Bond has been sliding slowly but surely off into the deep end for some time. In 2001 he said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." Outrageous and inexcusable are only two of many descriptors that come to mind. David Duke, StormFront.org (White Pride World Wide) and others must be licking their chops. Irresponsible slander like this is fodder for those who live by the feud.

From the Christain Wire Service: LOS ANGELES, Feb. 3 /Christian Wire Service/ --

Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND) Founder and President Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson issued the following statement in response to NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) Chairman Julian Bond’s speech Wednesday at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina comparing the Republican Party to Nazis and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens":

"NAACP President Bruce Gordon and the NAACP Board of Directors should repudiate the reprehensible remarks made by Julian Bond. Over the past several years, the NAACP Chairman has repeatedly made bigoted remarks about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other black conservatives. It’s time that he’s held accountable for his words.

It’s no accident that Bond delivered his hate-filled speech at a historically black university during Black History Month. The NAACP Chairman is intentionally maligning the character of black conservatives in hopes of poisoning the minds of black Americans to keep them on the racist liberal Democrats plantation.

If the NAACP leadership does not repudiate Julian Bond’s remarks, then we can only assume Bruce Gordon and others are in agreement with Bond’s lies and hatred of black conservatives."

I'm awaiting Project 21 and their comments on Bond's latest racist slanders. As of 1:30 PM EST Project 21 had not responded. They will.

I'm not the only one outraged by this:
California Conservative asks, "Who's the bigot?" and says, "It’s obvious that Mr. Bond is a hate-filled old man."

A Blog For All says, "if you don't fit Bond's particular political viewpoint, you're just a token or an Uncle Tom."

Sister Toldjah is aghast that it happened, "Right here in North Carolina."

Confederate Yankee says, Julian Bond is right about one thing, however: if you are black in America you have no freedom today. He intends to make certain of that, by chaining blacks to the Democratic Party with every innuendo, invective, and slur that slithers past his lips.

Big Lizard views the politics: "Hence, what Julian Bond does is actually crucial for Democratic campaigns: the Democrats must convince black voters anew each election cycle that Republicans are all vicious Nazis, David-Duke cheerleaders, and white-hooded nightriders out to lynch blacks and reinstitute Jim Crow. If they fail to accomplish that task, if their portion of the black vote drops below a critical level, then numerous states swing from the Democrats to the Republicans... and the Democrats lose."

Macsmind reminds us that it's a free country: "I get mad when I see idiots like Julian Bond speak with what is left of his mind, but then again, his opinion doesn't equal my self-image. Might make me mad, I might even respond. But I would never remove his right to say stupid things."

The Jawa Report asks, "how much lower can the left fall?"

RightWinged.com says "I'm not sure this should be news that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond is comparing the GOP with Nazis, because it's not really out of the ordinary for this nut."

Stop the ACLU says "It won’t take long with this kind of crazy talk for many more families to walk out."

Conservative Blogger says "It's disgusting to me that people like Julian Bond do more to set back the cause of civil rights than they ever do to advance it."

4 the Little Guy asks for fair play: "If Mr. Bond is truly interested in people who are trying to keep black Americans down, perhaps he should spend some time condemning the African-Americans who have been throwing Oreos at Maryland’s Lt. Governor Michael Steele while he tries to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Of course, he’ll never do that because helping a black Republican who is running for the Senate won’t further Bond’s personal political agenda."

The Political Pit Bull says, "Let the NAACP know how you feel about Mr. Bond's disgraceful comments by emailing their Washington office at washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org.

Expose the Left features a video of Lawrence Guyot on Fox's Hannity and Colmes equating Hitler burning a town to President Bush “eavesdropping” on terrorists.

And what are some black bloggers saying as of the publishing of this post? (through the Black Blog Directory at SistersTalk)

The BP Report - nothing
SistersTalk - nothing
A Mind of Our Own - nothing
No Bastard Kids - nothing
Julius Speaks - nothing

Peace on That - nothing on Julian Bond but does have a great Top Ten list on LA Driving Techniques - worth a read - it's pretty funny and I may come back to that.

Black Hacker - nothing
State of the Qusan - nothing

The Black Informant - nothing on Julian Bond but I think Duane will get there. This is why I think so:

The Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, and various self-appointed black leaders have all been on record of supporting an organization that is responsible for the death of many of our young black children: Planned Parenthood.

And this:

Although I generally disagree with Liberals, I do not hate them. Politics to me is just that–Politics. Hatin’ on people because they have a difference of opinion is generally not by flow. I think that life itself is a lot bigger than politics so I constantly try to look for similar interests with those I may disagree with politically.

Yes, I think Duane will light into Mr. Julian Bond.

That's all I had time to look for. I checked out a lot more black bloggers but only listed those who had posted yesterday or today. Also, I left out some well-known conservative blacks, like La Shawn Barber. She doesn't have anything up yet on this Julian Bond travesty but I think we all know what her opinion is going to be.

Maybe La Shawn is embarrassed. I'll be the first to admit that David Duke embarrasses me. So do John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell. And, oh yeah, Jimmy Carter.

TAGS: Julian Bond, David Duke, Stormfront.org, racists, Jesse Lee Peterson, Project 21

No communication with Washington Post re: Toles cartoon

I can't sign in to the Washington Post.com page.

To our Readers:
washingtonpost.com is undergoing maintenance and some sections of the site are temporarily unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience. Of course, the latest news and updates will continue to be available on our home page.

I know that WaPo published the letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a letter to the editor without comment from the editor.

I know that Howard Kurtz has a piece published in WaPo today titled "Toles Pen Too Pointed" but I can't get the article to open. The first line is "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assails a Washington Post cartoon as 'beyond tasteless.'" I don't know if Kurtz is fer it or agin' it.

Does anybody have Kurtz's article anywhere besides washingtonpost.com?

Is everybody having the same problem with washingtonpost.com?

I should have posted about this hours ago but my LAN connection has been kaput. (My favorite line in Saving Private Ryan: the Germans in a town being besieged by the Americans were blasting propaganda at their attackers through loudspeakers. A German shouted, "Zee Statue uff Leeberty iss kapoot!" Hanks mutters, "The Statue of Liberty is kaput. That's disconcerting.")

Lack of communication with an MSM web service for which I pay nothing is, er, disconcerting.

UPDATE: I got it open through Memeorandum. Thanks, Gabe!

I see that Kurtz's opinion, while not stated outright, must support the WaPo's and Toles' opinions that there was nothing offensive about the cartoon and it accurately reflects the condition of the United States Army. Hmmm. Kurtz publishes ripostes by Toles and Fred Hiatt, The Post's editorial page editor, in a defense against the Joint Chiefs' letter. Kurtz makes no statement of opinion about the cartoon or the letter or WaPo's defense of the cartoon.

Kurtz also quotes Dave Autry, deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, as saying that he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon.

"It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point, that there are critically ill patients that certainly need to be attended to."

That was not the point of the cartoon at all. The point of the cartoon was to derogate SecDef Rumsfeld and his statements earlier in the week when he said the U.S. military is "battle hardened" and an "enormously capable force."

The cartoon had nothing whatsoever to do with wounded veterans except to use the caricature of a quadruple amputee to score a political point. Dave Autry needs to remove his head from his, er, kapoot. Political cartoonist Toles and editor Hiatt need to remove theirs from their respective kapoots, also.

TAGS: Washington Post, washingtonpost.com, Tom Toles, Howard Kurtz, WaPo, political cartoon, Joint Chiefs of Staff, SecDef, Donald Rumsfeld

Donovan McNabb plays the race card

My opinion of Donovan McNabb just went right into the toilet. He tells ESPN that if Terrell Owens had described the Eagles playing with Michael Vick (black) at quarterback as, "I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation," or

if Terrell Owens had described the Eagles playing with Daunte Culpepper (black) at quarterback as, "I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation," or

if Terrell Owens had described the Eagles playing with Steve McNair (black) at quarterback as, "I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation," or

if Terrell Owens had described the Eagles playing with Byron Leftwich (black) at quarterback as, "I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation," then that would have been OK.

But, since Owens described the Eagles playing with Brett Favre (white) at quarterback as, "I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation," then that

"was a slap in the face because, as deep as people want to go into it, it was black-on-black crime."

Wow! Can you imagine the uproar if Favre, a Louisiana white boy, had said the same thing if one of his white team mates had claimed that the Packers would be bettter off with Michael Vick or Daunte Culpepper or Steve McNair or Byron Leftwich? Imagine Farve, or any other white quarterback for that matter, claiming that it was "white on white crime" to suggest he be replaced by a black quarterback. The guy would be run out of the league. The NAACP would be screaming for sanctions. The Reverends Jackson and Sharpton would be pounding the podiums. Julian Bond would be blaming racist Republicans, Bush and Rove.

McNabb's full statement:

"It's different to say, 'If we had Michael Vick or Daunte Culpepper or Steve McNair or Byron Leftwich.' But to go straight to Brett Favre, that kind of just slapped me in the face like, 'Wow ...'"

"It was like, it's unreal. That's like me going out and saying, 'Hey, if we had Steve Largent (old, retired white guy, former congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, Oklahoma District 1). If we had Joe Jurevicius (another white guy).' It was definitely a slap in the face to me. It was a slap in the face because, as deep as people want to go into it, it was black-on-black crime."

Since McNabb is a black guy, he'll get a pass. And by the way, ESPN's Michael Irvin should be fired because it was he who brought up Favre's name in the interview with Owens and suggested that the Eagle's would be better off, all in an attempt to get the volatile Owens to bite, which he did, and which exploded in Owen's face and helped to destroy the Philadelphia Eagle's season. But Irvin is black so he'll get a pass, too.

The double standards be rife and the hypocrisy runneth thick.

TAGS: Donovan McNabb, Terrell Owens, Philadelphia Eagles, Brett Favre, black-on-black crime, NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, double standards, hypocrisy

Rev. Larry Elder takes Bush's confession

The Rev. Larry Elder has taken George Bush's confession. Here are some exerpts but you need to read it all:

I'm corrupt, incompetent and racist. Oh, sure, in order to help deal with the problem of illegal aliens, I have offered a guest worker program, but "guest worker program" spelled backwards means "shoot to kill." Or at least I think it does.

And

Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation is Islam is right. I ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to blow up the levee in New Orleans in order to flood and kill black people. Oh, sure, we snagged a lot of whites -- that's why they came up with the term "collateral damage."

And

I'm pretty stupid. Martin Sheen, the man who played a real president on "West Wing," got it right -- I am a "moron." Aaron McGruder, who illustrates the comic strip "The Boondocks," also got it right when he called me "functionally illiterate." Maybe someday I'll wake up from this dream in which I make an SAT verbal score higher than Rhodes Scholar Bill Bradley, get better college grades than Al Gore, graduate from Yale, and get an MBA from Harvard.

And

I've been a lousy economic steward. I came into office with an economy headed towards recession, and shortly thereafter we endured the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We then invaded two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, most recently, our economy endured hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since I've been in office, our productivity growth has averaged over 3.5 percent per year, with inflation remaining low. Unemployment stands at 4.9 percent, 400,000 new jobs were created in the last two months, and homeownership is at an all-time high.

And

I agree with Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan that I am the world's greatest terrorist. I'd have to go some to emulate my idols -- Joe, Mao and Adolf -- but a fella's gotta start somewhere.

Yep, I not only lied, I got the British to lie. I also got the worldwide intelligence community -- the United Nations, the French, the Germans, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Russians -- all to deceive the world by agreeing that Saddam possessed WMD. And who says I can't bring the world together?

And, finally

I would recommend impeachment, but then you'd just get Cheney. I would go to my White House bedroom and kill myself, but then you'd just get Cheney. Oh, if only I hadn't been born. But then, as my daddy used to say, if a dog's butt were square, he'd poop bricks.

TAGS: Larry Elder, Townhall.com, Bush confession

Europe's editors support Danes, heads start to roll

European editors of various newspapers and magazines began to publish the 12 cartoons of Muhammed (shown here) in a gesture of support for the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten. The cartoons, all or in part, were published in France by the newspaper France Soir; in Germany, the conservative Die Welt printed one image on its front page; in Italy, the Turin daily La Stampa and Milan's Corriere della Sera published the 12 cartoons; in Spain El Periódico published the 12 cartoons; in Switzerland, the Swiss newspaper Blick published two of the cartoons; in Norway, a small Norwegian evangelical magazine, Magazinet, published the cartoons last month; and the editor in chief of Switzerland's Tribune de Genéve said he planned to publish the cartoons tomorrow.

But he may change his mind.

Jacques LeFranc, editor in chief of France's newspaper France Soir was fired by the owner of France Soir, an Egyptian, Raymond Lakah, who said he fired LeFranc to demonstrate "respect for the intimate beliefs of an individual." Apparently that only includes religious beliefs and not those silly ideals of liberty, freedom of speech and freedom from Islamofascist extortion.

Msr. LeFranc had stated that France Soir had published the cartoons, "not because we like provocation but because they are the object of a worldwide controversy where nothing less is at stake than the balance between the respect for religious belief and the freedom of expression." Msr. LeFranc had that stake replanted through his heart.

In Copenhagen, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Carsten Juste, said he regretted his paper's decision to run the caricatures, saying the "costs were simply too high" given the current boycotts and threats against Danes. He also said, resignedly,

My guess is that no one will draw the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark in the next generation, and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won."

And in the United States? Well, the faint hearted cowards at CNN showed, without any sense of decency or fear of reprisal, the Washington Post cartoon of a wounded veteran in bed with both arms and legs amputated that drew a letter of rebuke and protest signed by all 6 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can see the despicable cartoon and the Joint Chiefs' letter at Michelle Malkin's. Then, 30 seconds later, CNN reportedly showed the 12 cartoons of Muhammed but blurred the images making them indiscernable. CNN said the Muhammed images were blurred, "so as not to offend some members of the audience."

Much more comment here:
Two Babes and a Brain, Ace of Spades HQ, Cathouse Chat, Momento Moron,

MacStansbury, Blackfive, Small Town Veteran, Right Winged.com, Media Lies,

My Pet Jawa, Toad Pond, Kn@ppster, INDC Journal, AJ Strata, cdr salamander,

Caerdroia, Alphabet City, In Search of Utopia, The Galvin Opinion,

Angry in the Great White North, Sissy Willis, Robert A. Green, Limey Rants,

TFS Magnum, Stuff I've Heard, THE AUTONOMIST, Dreams Into Lightning,

Winds of Change, Faith at the Front, Blogging Man 2007,

Roseville Conservative Blog,

TAGS: Muhammed cartoons, Denmark, freedom of speech, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Cindy Sheehan's weighty problem

Cindy Sheehan's statement to all of her "friends" after she was arrested in the gallery before President Bush's State of the Union speech last night. The security guard who hauled her out of the gallery was Mike Weight.

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight. I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

CindySheehan's diary: There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy

She says, "I am speechless with fury at what happened . . ." and then proceeds to speak for another 18 paragraphs, 57 sentences.

She says, "I did not wear it (a protest T-shirt under her jacket) to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech." She could not have unzipped it during the president's speech because she was arrested 45 minutes before the speech started.

She says that as she was being fingerprinted, "That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights." Her son Casey was killed April 4, 2004 in Iraq. Her activities, from the protests outside the Crawford ranch all last summer to last week's appearence with Hugo Chavez and his stooge Harry Belafonte where she called George Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and "10 times worse than bin Laden" have been well documented. But, she just then (last night) realized her loss?

She set up a site called Casey's Peace Page in memory of her fallen warrior son. I call him her warrior son but she does not. Casey's Peace Page has not been updated since May 5, 2005, or 9 months ago. Maybe what she meant to say above was that she had forgotten her loss and just remembered it during the arrest procedure.

I have tried to avoid the name-calling and more critical comments re: Mrs. Sheehan, but, Lord-a-mighty, enough is enough. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Since I saluted her last summer when she took a stand in Crawford, Texas, it seems only fair that I make another public gesture now that Cindy Sheehan has removed one of her "Camp Casey" hiking shoes and stuck her foot firmly in her mouth.

That gesture is to raise a hand and cover up my wincing eyes.

And from another,

"But I'm trying to concentrate locally, on the families at Fort Lewis." Ruger said. "And I wouldn't want her (Sheehan) to go there and deliver that message. (The one calling the president the world's greatest terrorist)."

"Military culture says that, while we respect our leaders, we may also question them. But calling them terrorists moves the line," she said.

And from another,

Finally, former peace activist and military mom Vicky Monk said that, like me, she winced when she saw the words Sheehan used from her international platform.

Monk has separated herself from Military Families Speak Out since her son came home from Iraq. She's concentrating on his needs now.

She said she was troubled by being pressured to make more radical statements than she was comfortable with when she did travel to speak against the war to Japan and elsewhere. While her politics are conservative, "I have some criticisms about Bush and more important, questions about this war," Monk said. "When my son was there (in Iraq) I was asking the questions he had but couldn't ask. But some of the things people say really disturb me. When they talk in terms of extremes they're really losing people in that greater middle."

And even this:

She can say she didn't know. I can choose not to believe her. I like Cindy. I like her cause. I just don't believe this excuse.

But then, she still has these people in her corner:

I wish Freud or Fromme or somebody were still around so they could explain what the (bleep) is going on here. (reference is to Squeaky Fromme who tried to assassinate President Ford)

And this genius,

She was NEVER EVEN ASKED TO PUT HER JACKET ON... THEY JUST HAULED HER OUT....SHOOT FIRST, NO QUESTIONS ASK...(sic)

Welcome to the Police State.

And Cindy Sheehan wasn't the only one removed from the gallery:

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young (news, bio, voting record) of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."

And this is not the first time House rules have been violated in this manner. Another commenter has his timing a bit skewed:

In fact, as Cindy Sheehan was being dragged out of the Royal Speech, His Majesty was regaling us with the importance of respecting civil debate, the virtues of diversity and freedom, and the need to protect minority views.

Sister Toldjah has a roundup and many, many links.
More here:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce

TAGS: Cindy Sheehan, SOTU, State of the Union, arrested

Most hilarious lefty comment-of-the-day

Re: Sheehan getting arrested:

Did you know that in 1971, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a "F--- the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse? (Cohen v. California, you can look it up.) So now Alito's on the court for 45 minutes and your civil liberties are already going down the toilet. You were warned.

TAGS: Alito, Sheehan, George Bush, SOTU, State of the Union