I guess it is back to the dark ages in the Islamic world (if they ever left).

The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.
'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

Pharmacists have also vowed not to sell such medicines, Rao said.

The association is advising patients against using medicines from the offending countries if they are mistakenly prescribed by doctors, he added.

Because after all, better that many should die than a couple of cartoons appear in the press.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didn’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasn’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didnÂ’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasnÂ’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

The Manchester Union-Leader used to be the standard-bearer for conservatism. Not any more, based upon this editorial.

And yet, while this episode has further exposed pockets of intense intolerance and misunderstanding in the Muslim world, it also has exposed the arrogance and insensitivity of many in the West, who have forgotten simple manners. This is not just a matter of press freedom; it is a matter of common decency.

Christians and Jews know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of vicious, spiteful satire. Decent people protest when someone callously mocks Christianity by sinking a crucifix in urine. They protest when people spread anti-Semitism by drawing Jews as cash-obsessed misers with hooked noses. Why no protest when someone attacks Islam by drawing Mohammad with a bomb for a turban? Surely Muslims are equally deserving of consideration.

If this were September, I would agree with this editorial – there was no need to reprint the editorial cartoons then. They were merely poorly done and provocative then.

But today there is, because of the reaction to those cartoons. The threat of the Islamocensors to free speech and open discussion (and yes, that includes derision) of Islam and other religions is too great to remain silent. Five months ago, I didnÂ’t put the cartoons on this website. I did this weekend, because the issue is now precisely one of the limits of freedom of speech. That is recognized by the European newspapers that have reprinted the cartoons.

Sadly, the importance of standing up for press freedom is being ignored by the sensitive multi-culti press in this country. And the once proud conservative newspaper now shows itself to be the Manchester Liberal-Follower.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

National Review has come down on the same side of the issue that I have in the race between ersatz Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee and Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey.

Even if Laffey were to win the primary but lose the general election, beating Chafee would send a helpful message to the kind of Republican who thinks Chafee's "independence" is something to admire and emulate. (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine come to mind.) That message: that Republican voters will not be taken for granted just because they are in the minority in their state. Then there's the tantalizing possibility that Laffey might actually win both the primary and the general election. It's a chance worth taking. What do conservatives have to lose? The worst possible outcome is only that Rhode Islanders will trade a virtual Democrat for a real one.

So show Laffey some love, and send some cash his way.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Zacarias Moussaoui made a scene in court today, and had to be escorted from the courtroom as jury selection began for his sentencing hearing.

Proclaiming "I am al-Qaida," Zacarias Moussaoui was escorted from a federal courtroom in Alexandria on Monday at the outset of jury selection in his terrorist conspiracy trial. As he was removed by federal marshals, he shouted, "This trial is a circus."

The acknowledged al-Qaida conspirator, often a volatile figure in the courtroom, got almost immediately into an argument with U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, demanding "I want to be heard" and saying of his lawyers, "These people do not represent me."

He left with his hands on his head, offering no resistance.

Prospective jurors filed into a heavily guarded federal courtroom Monday as U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema began calling the first prospective jurors from a pool of 500 to fill out questionnaires about their attitudes on the death penalty and knowledge of the case. Jury selection is expected to take a month, a painstaking process that sets the stage for deciding whether the 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent is imprisoned for life or put to death.

We donÂ’t need a jury here, simply a judge to impose a culturally sensitive sentence for his crimes.

Public beheading, as is done by al-Qaeda affiliates around the world.

Seems quite appropriate to me.

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

In light of the threats of boycotts by Muslims, I wonder if these terrorist-sympathizing Islamists will take matters to their logical extreme, as suggested by Scottish columnist Muriel Gray.

The other European papers which published the cartoons were, with a couple of exceptions, not trying to further provoke Muslims, but were engaging in an “I am Spartacus” moment, showing solidarity for Denmark and trying to gain enough similar support throughout Europe that it would make it harder for the extremists. What if everyone publishes? Going to kill everyone? Going to boycott goods from every European country? If only the Czech Republic would publish the cartoons then Hamas would have to boycott Semtex.

So can we get one courageous Czech editor to publish the Mohammad cartoons? After all, it could end terrorism in our time!

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe there are a few Muslims with a lick of common sense out there. Rather than respond with violence, they decided to go after a European icon -- Holocaust victim Anne Frank

A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site in response to the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in Danish papers last year and offended many Muslims.

The cartoons were posted on the Arab European League's site on Saturday. It was not working Sunday morning because of exceeded bandwidth.

The cartoons depicting Mohammed wearing a turban-shaped bomb were first published in Denmark, and then in newspapers elsewhere in Europe in a show of solidarity with press freedoms.

The Islamic site carried a disclaimer saying the images were being shown as part of an exercise in free speech rather than to endorse their content - just as European newspapers have reprinted the Danish cartoons.

One of the AEL cartoons displayed an image of Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, and another questioned whether the Holocaust actually occurred.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, the party's founder and best-known figure, defended the action on the Dutch television program Nova Saturday.

"Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're not religious sacred cows," he told the program.

I won't reproduce this vile cartoon on this site in all its glory, though I make it available for those who choose to click the thumbnail below.

Hey, at least these folks are behaving in something resembling a civilized fashion, even if it involves perpetuating the anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial common in the Arab press. Having Europe's best known Holocaust victim raped by Hitler just isn't that shocking, when considered in that context.

Besides -- the Hadith tells us that Muhammad raped a 9-year-old in addition to murdering Jews, so he makes Hitler look like an amateur.

MORE COMMENTARY AT: Western Resistance, Clarity & Resolve, Michelle Malkin, Noisy Room,

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

When you consider that this sign provoked no particular response at yesterday's anti-war/anti-Bush/support the terrorists rally in Washington, DC, I think it is clear that we can do so with little fear of contadiction.

But hey --it is only an image of the President of the United States murdered by our nation's enemies. It's not like they are depicting something offensive, like a cartoon of Muhammad.

Here's hoping the Secret Service is interested in the bitch mentally-defective creature holding the sign.

H/T -- Michelle Malkin. OTHER VOICES -- The Anchoress, Brainster,

Posted by: Greg at 04:51 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Jeff Jacoby gets right to the heart of the matter in his latest column.

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.

We know, of course, that this did not happen.

But we also know that the mere act of publiching editorial cartoons has produced another Islamorgasm of violence around the world. We've seen brave European newspaper editors run the cartoons in their own pages as a show of solidarity.

We have seen no such courage in America, either in the print media or the broadcast media. Folks who don't mind offending Christians and jews in the most gratuitous manner argue that "sensitivity" and "taste" dictate that they not run the "provocative" cartoons. In other words, they won't offend anyone who will do more than write a nasty letter

Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.

Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.

Muslim author and critic Ibn Warraq argues the matter this way.

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

And so let me make my act of solidarity.

The fundamental principles of freedom matter more than the religious sensitivities of extremists.

Any Muslim who is offended by these cartoons and wishes to write or shout angry words at me has my deepest apologies -- you are not my target and I regret any offense given.

Any Muslim who is offended by these cartoons and wishes to do me violence can copulate with a pig.

Posted by: Greg at 04:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 5 kb.

"Could the President legally and legitimately order the targetted killing of a terrorist on US soil?" That is the essence of a question raised recently by Senator Diane Feinstein.

In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

I would take it a step further -- he can do it in any circumstance. Anyone who disagrees with that analysis is still sleeping soundly in a 9/10/01 world, refusing to deal with the the realities that were brought home on 9/11.

First, we are at war with the terrorists. In war, you kill the enemy. Taking some prisoners is something that happens, but the reality is that you try to kill them before they kill you. While we are dealing with smaller concentrations of enemies in this war (cells rather than armies), the principle remains the same -- killing the enemy may be preferable to capturing them.

Second, there are no civil liberties, no due process, in battle. There are no warrants, and there are generally no trials (other than war crimes) for prisoners. Too many folks don't recognize that, as the constant belly-aching over Gitmo demonstrates. Prisoners are held for the duration of the conflict. You don't get a warrant to conduct intelligence operations agains the enemy. And you don't need a judge, jury, and executive to sign off on a death warrant before you march into battle.

But for those who still don't get it, let me ask the question differently. If al-Qaeda were an invading army that got a foothold in the United States, would the President have the authority to order the targetted killing of the commanding general? Of particular officers? Or an attack on the enemy that resulted in the deaths of common soldiers?

If you answer in the affirmative, then there can be no objection to the targetted killing of terrorists in the US.

If you answer in the negative, you are really too stupid to bother with.

OTHER VOICES (including many in the latter category): A Democrat on the Redneck Riviera, Leftist Grandpa, LittleWhiteDog, Blue Collar Politics, Phlips Rants, GOTV, Swimming through the Spin, NoisyRoom, Disenfranchised Conservative, Entropy Erika, The City Troll, Eat At Joes, Aquarian Conspirators, The Lantern, Wally's Diary, Manchester Bloggers, Left Wing=Hate, Random Thoughts and Soul Searching, Copeland Institute for Lower Learning, Sideshow, Howl, Tawdry Talk, Humint Events Online, Terrorism and Security Analysis, Old-Thinker News, Expose the Left

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Don Surber, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, third world country, Jo's Cafe, Adam's Blog, The Real Ugly American, Bullwinkle Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Free Constitution, Median Sib, Point Five, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 7 kb.

The Venezuelan dictator has decided to threaten actions that clearly violate centuries of international law and custom.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened to jail diplomats and close refineries belonging to the U.S. unit of the state oil company in an escalating war of words with the President George W. Bush.

U.S. diplomats continue to engage in espionage in his country, Chavez told hundreds of thousands of supporters today during a government rally commemorating the 14th anniversary of his abortive coup attempt in 1992 against former President Carlos Andres Perez. He said he would jail U.S. diplomats caught spying, while challenging the U.S. to break diplomatic ties.

The two countries exchange tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats earlier this week. Chavez expelled the U.S. naval attache to Caracas on Feb. 2, which was followed the next day by Washington declaring a Venezuelan diplomat persona non grata.

``If the government of the U.S. wants to break relations with Venezuela, and they take the decision, it would cost me nothing to order the closure of the refineries we have in the U.S.,'' Chavez said. ``Then we will see where (the price of) oil will go, or a gallon of gasoline. It would cost me nothing to sell oil to other countries in the world.''

Come on, Hugo, just try it.

The US will simply seize the refineries, and we still have enough members of the US military available to rescue our jailed diplomats AND take you into custody for trial in the United States for the violation of the US Embassy (which is legally US terrirory).

And lest Hugo does not understand my English, how about some Spanish -- Chingate, cabron.

Posted by: Greg at 03:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

I may have finally found a monarch I would almost be willing to have as my own -- Her Majesty Queen Margarethe II of Denmark. She certainly has not minced words in the face of the recent growth of Islam in Denmark. her words are quite applicable to the current situation in her country.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad.

* * *

She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

* * *

The queen told her biographer, Annelise Bistrup, apparently referring to Muslim fundamentalists: "There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave."

She said she understood how disaffected young Muslims might find refuge in religion. This tendency should be fought by encouraging Muslims to learn Danish so they could integrate better, she said.

"We should not be content with living next to each other. We should rather live together."

n age world when politically correct "tolerance" leads many to refrain from speaking the truth about the world around them. Queen Margrethe has done exactly that -- pointed to the problem of Islamist fundamentalism and its threat to freedoms that we in the West hold dear. Muslims in the west must assimilate. If they refuse, they need to find new homes in societies more to their liking.

OTHERS WRITING: The Briefing Room, NoisyRoom, LGF, Islamic Century, nomad, Quantum Skyline, Fresh Tasty Ideas

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Don Surber, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, third world country, Jo's Cafe, Adam's Blog, Bullwinkle Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Free Constitution, Median Sib, Point Five, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 5 kb.

I've never noted such concern about being offensive in the past. Have you?

Associated Press, the world's largest news agency, decided against transmitting the cartoons despite carrying detailed articles about the drawings and the ensuing uproar.

“Our practice is to not move material that is known to be offensive,” said Santiago Lyon, the New York-based director of photography.

So newsworthyness takes offense to offensiveness? And will they apply the same standard to offensive material directed at Christians and Jews? Or is this just an "affirmative action" offensiveness policy, with some groups excluded from the senstivity?

Posted by: Greg at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

A leading Canadian Muslim really puts a fine point on the matter.

“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”

But then we already knew that -- at least in regards to a large segment of the Musim fraithful.

Which is not to condemn all Muslims. But when there is the sort of reaction to the Danish cartoons that we have seen, there can be no question that a large chunk of the Muslim population -- including those living in the West -- are decidedly uncivilized.

Offense is one thing. So is voicing outrage and demanding an apology.

A violent response is another.

And until that is recognized by Muhammad's followers, a deferential concern about giving offense is not only pointless, but is actually counterproductive.

(H/T HyScience and Lost Budgie)

Posted by: Greg at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Follow this little piggie to market.

We must not let the followers of this guy win.

The Washington Post presents a good overview of the conflict.

Michelle Malkin points out that some in the American media are so "sensitive" that they won't even show the cartoons --effectively giving in to the Islamo-censors.

OTHER VOICES: Michelle Malkin, HyScience, Noisy Room, Dr. Sanity, Face of Muhammad, MVRWC, Secular Blasphemy, Belmont Club, Down With Absolutes, Common Folk, Small Town Veteran, Capital Region People, Kerfuffles, America...F*ck Yeah!, RightWingFascist, Woody's News, HiWired, aaron, A Tic In The Mind's Eye, Generation Why?, Palmetto Pundit, Magic Statistics, Right Thoughts, Right Side Of The Rainbow, Narcissistic Views

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is doing yeoman's (yeowoman's?) work documenting the anti-freedom actions of the Islamo-censors.

Doesn't this one say it all?

And she is coordinating a blogburst of the "offensive" cartoons.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 05:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Not after the State Department let this statement go out.

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

“By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons, which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist. That is in contrast to European media, which responded to the criticism against the original Danish newspaper that printed the caricatures by republishing the offensive images themselves.

Gee, the anti-Semitism and terrorism engaged in and supported by a huge part of the Muslim religion is a hell of a lot more offensive than a couple of cartoons. The out-of-proportion reaction of the Islamic world to the cartoons is significantly more troubling than a few cartoons that indicate that not everyone accepts or respects Islam – especially when that religion is the source of terror, violence, and oppression throughout the world. And that the American government – a government which subsidizes, not merely defends, speech and art which is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians and Jews – would dare to insist upon “responsibility” and “tolerance” is offensive in the extreme.

Maybe we Christians and Jews simply need to bomb, riot, take hostages, and behead innocents to get the same sort of tolerance and respect that the Bush Administration has called for in this infamous act of dhimmitude.

OTHER VOICES: Pink FlamingoBar & Gril, Dr. Sanity, Conservative Outpost, sisu, kaiser.com, NoisyRoom, News O'Rama, Michelle Malkin, TacJammer, Small Town Veteran, RightWinged, Jack of Clubs, Euphoric Reality, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Thieving Monkeys, Restless Mania, Irregular Times, My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, All Things Beautiful

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 9 kb.

Not after the State Department let this statement go out.

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

“By inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States could help its own battered image among Muslims.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added.

Major U.S. publications have not republished the cartoons, which include depictions of Mohammad as a terrorist. That is in contrast to European media, which responded to the criticism against the original Danish newspaper that printed the caricatures by republishing the offensive images themselves.

Gee, the anti-Semitism and terrorism engaged in and supported by a huge part of the Muslim religion is a hell of a lot more offensive than a couple of cartoons. The out-of-proportion reaction of the Islamic world to the cartoons is significantly more troubling than a few cartoons that indicate that not everyone accepts or respects Islam – especially when that religion is the source of terror, violence, and oppression throughout the world. And that the American government – a government which subsidizes, not merely defends, speech and art which is blasphemous in the eyes of Christians and Jews – would dare to insist upon “responsibility” and “tolerance” is offensive in the extreme.

Maybe we Christians and Jews simply need to bomb, riot, take hostages, and behead innocents to get the same sort of tolerance and respect that the Bush Administration has called for in this infamous act of dhimmitude.

OTHER VOICES: Pink FlamingoBar & Gril, Dr. Sanity, Conservative Outpost, sisu, kaiser.com, NoisyRoom, News O'Rama, Michelle Malkin, TacJammer, Small Town Veteran, RightWinged, Jack of Clubs, Euphoric Reality, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Thieving Monkeys, Restless Mania, Irregular Times, My Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, All Things Beautiful

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 9 kb.

They hate the President, and hate the troops. They hate the cops, too.

The Capitol police officer who arrested activist Cindy Sheehan went home from work early on Wednesday after receiving death threats. He's a plainclothes officer when Congress is in session and in uniform when they are out of sessionÂ…. The threat is ironic when you consider that Sheehan represents a peace group.

Not ironic at all, when you consider that many of the so-called “peace” groups are really “hate America” groups that side with our enemies.

By the way – while I praise the folks at the Washington Examiner for reporting this overlooked story, I cannot help but be astonished that they would also report his expected assignment for the weekend. What were they thinking????????

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

I teach high school, but I certainly havenÂ’t encountered anything quite as outlandish as this at my school. Has anyone heard about this stuff in their part of the world?

Alair is headed for the section of the second-floor hallway where her friends gather every day during their free tenth period for the “cuddle puddle,” as she calls it. There are girls petting girls and girls petting guys and guys petting guys. She dives into the undulating heap of backpacks and blue jeans and emerges between her two best friends, Jane and Elle, whose names have been changed at their request. They are all 16, juniors at Stuyvesant. Alair slips into Jane’s lap, and Elle reclines next to them, watching, cat-eyed. All three have hooked up with each other. All three have hooked up with boys—sometimes the same boys. But it’s not that they’re gay or bisexual, not exactly. Not always.

Their friend Nathan, a senior with John Lennon hair and glasses, is there with his guitar, strumming softly under the conversation. “So many of the girls here are lesbian or have experimented or are confused,” he says.

Ilia, another senior boy, frowns at Nathan’s use of labels. “It’s not lesbian or bisexual. It’s just, whatever . . . ”

Since the school day is winding down, things in the hallway are starting to get rowdy. Jane disappears for a while and comes back carrying a pint-size girl over her shoulder. “Now I take her off and we have gay sex!” she says gleefully, as she parades back and forth in front of the cuddle puddle. “And it’s awesome!” The hijacked girl hangs limply, a smile creeping to her lips. Ilia has stuffed papers up the front of his shirt and prances around on tiptoe, batting his eyes and sticking out his chest. Elle is watching, enthralled, as two boys lock lips across the hall. “Oh, my,” she murmurs. “Homoerotica. There’s nothing more exciting than watching two men make out.” And everyone is talking to another girl in the puddle who just “came out,” meaning she announced that she’s now open to sexual overtures from both boys and girls, which makes her a minor celebrity, for a little while.

The again, maybe it is just a question of our conscious decision to supervise our students in the halls, while “enlightened blue-state educators” in New York think group sex in the hallways is nothing more than a learning experience.

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

It has happened again in Chicago. Accusations of abuse have resulted in the removal of priests from their parishes. Criminal charges have been filed in one case, for these are current charges.

But is an accused priest ever "innocent until proven guilty", or is he "guilty, and never permitted to be proven innocent"?

Due process does not apply to priests accused of molesting kids and it never has, according to both a priests advocacy group and critics of the Catholic church.

For different reasons, both priests and church critics say due process hasn't been observed when it comes to allegations against priests.

Priests say they're practically guilty upon accusation. Critics say the church for too long gave accused priests a pass and simply transferred them to other assignments without adequately investigating or addressing the problems.

Recent abuse allegations against Chicago clergymen show that in the court of public opinion, "innocent until proved guilty" stops at the church doorstep. "I don't know of any priest who is not afraid," the Rev. Robert Silva said.

Silva is president of the National Federation of Priests' Councils, an advocacy group that represents 26,000 of America's 43,000 priests.

"Anyone can accuse them, and they'll have to step down," Silva said.

"How do you restore people's confidence? How do you restore your reputation if you get accused?"

And that is a question that needs to be asked. Are some charges -- perhaps even most -- true? Yes, beyond all question. But are some false? Undoubtedly, whether due to different interpretations of events or malicious falsehood.

But for the innocent, the stigma stays. Ask my old mentor, Father Dan, who was accused of misconduct in the mid 1980s. The charge was reported, investigated by both the church and the state, and found to be unfounded. Several years later, in the mid 1990s, when an unrelated scandal broke in the diocese, he was abruptly yanked from his parish and subjected to an extended investigation by the diocese and the local prosecutor under the theory that any old accusation needed to be reinvestigated as a matter of due diligence. Cleared a second time, he was suspended and reinvestigated again, after the nation's bishops adopted their sex abuse investigation standards nearly a decade later. He was cleared again -- but was targeted for a civil suit by a disgruntled parishioner who had a history of mental instability. I don't doubt that when he finally is called home to the Lord, the first paragraph of the local paper's obituary will highlight the false accusations, not his years of faithful service as a priest.

This reality bothers me, for as a teacher I am in another field where accusations are easy to make and hard to defend.

It offends me, because good men are destroyed by a process that often does not give them a reasonable chance to defend themselves.

And it worries me, because I know that false accusations happen.

And because this time, one of the priests suspended in Chicago is an old friend, another Father Dan, who was a year ahead of me during my time in the seminary. I don't know whether or not he is guilty, and I don't pretend to know. If the charges are true, I hope that justice is truly and righteously done. But if the charges are not true, if Father Dan is not guilty, I hope that justice is also truly and righteously done -- and that he can return to active ministry without being forever branded as "the priest who was accused".

The article raises that issue.

Today, in the public's mind, [Father Dan] McCormack already is guilty, many say: Even if he were acquitted, one priest said, McCormack could never return to St. Agatha.

He probably can't come back to Chicago. His name is now forever linked to crimes he is accused of committing.

When it comes to priests accused of sexual abuse, attorney Frederic Nessler said, "Ruining lives is not a priority issue, because I feel they've ruined so many children's lives."

Nessler has represented nearly 100 victims of clergy abuse.

"In my opinion, (offending priests) should be given very little quarter," he said.

While I agree that the guilty should be given no quarter, I think that Nessler and those like him need to rethink their position that because of the failings of the Church as an institution in the past, that concerns about ruining the lives of innocent priests should be given low priority. After all, while a diocese or archdiocese is an ongoing entity that can be held accountable over time for the actions of its leadership, justice is not done when individual priests are falsely accused and destroyed for crimes they did not commit on the theory that "they've ruined so many children's lives." That is the mentality of the lynch mob, not the honest searcher for justice.

Posted by: Greg at 02:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 827 words, total size 5 kb.

All he did was murder filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for making a movie critical of Islam.

The prophet Mohammed justifies Islamic violence in the battle between the faithful and unfaithful. Paradise awaits the faithful who die as a result, Mohammed Bouyeri claimed yesterday in the district court of The Hague.

Bouyeri hoped for paradise himself when he assassinated Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam on 2 November 2004. But after a shoot-out with the police, he was taken alive, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder with terrorist motives. Yesterday, he made a 2.5-hour plea in the court case against the Hofstad alleged terrorist group, of which he is allegedly the leader.

"When you compare me to Osama Bin Laden, you are seriously wronging him and giving me too much honour that I do not deserve," Bouyeri said to the Public Prosecutor (OM). "But the fact that you see me as the black standard-bearer of Islam in Europe fills me with honour, pride and happiness."

Bouyeri began his plea with a sort of profession of faith in Arabic, which was translated by an interpreter. The 27-year-old Amsterdam-born Moroccan was dressed in a traditional black robe and had tied a scarf around his head. His plea consisted primarily of quotations from books on Islam from the prison library.

And this is the religious faith to which the news media is deferring when they refuse to show the Muhammad cartoons or apologize for showing them? This is the faith defended by politicians when its followers demand blood atonement for blasphemy? DoesnÂ’t the belief in the values of civilization mandate the rejection of such a faith by all reasonable men and women?

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you believe that this frigging moron is at it again?

Civil rights activist and NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina last night, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor, Colin Powell, as "tokens."

"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged.

This man is a racist who uses the color of his skin to obscure the (lack of) content of his character. He should be repudiated by anyone who believes in the cause of civil rights, for his rhetoric does nothing but sow division.

OTHER VOICES: Sister Toldjah, Confederate Yankee, Big Lizards, Macsmind, The Jawa Report, Blog For All, RightWinged.com, Stop The ACLU, Conservative Blogger, 4TheLittle Guy, Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 2 kb.

Now let me begin with the observation that I defended Cindy Sheehan's arrest on Tuesday, a position that I believe to be consistent with what I am about to say. I believe the arrest -- and the eviction of the more cooperative Mrs. Young -- were both legally and constitutionally defensible. After all, courts have long recognized that the government may impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on speech without running afoul of the expansive language of the First Amendment. Try, for example, to engage in free speech about the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a courtroom during a trial -- you will find yourself in cuffs faster than you can say "contempt of court".

At the same time, I think the policy on political speech -- at least as regards t-shirts -- is absurd. So did someone on Capitol Hill -- the rule was changed, but no one told the cops.

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

As a result, charges have been droppped against the Ditch Bitch and apologies have been issued to both her and Mrs. Young. But I think the policy was defensible, despite the claims by some folks that the Supreme Court decision in Cohens v. California some 3 1/2 decades ago should have settled the matter. In that case, the offending profanity ("Fuck the Draft") had only been visible in the hallway -- Mr. Cohens had folded the jacket so it could not be seen prior to entering the courtroom. The justices noted that the expansive right to free speech might not have protected that expression in the courtroom, where it was more likely to disrupt the proceedings -- and one could analogize that ruling (and others expressly permitting time, place, and manner restrictions on speech) to the case at hand, where a shirt permissible in the Rotunda might be inappropriate in the Gallery, especially during a televised address to the nation.

But I think such the arrest was a bad idea -- as was the removal of Mrs. Young and at least one other individual. Captain Ed puts it very well, and I want to echo his position.

I suspect that CQ readers will disagree with me on this one, but I concur with Gainer. Neither woman should have been arrested or made to leave the gallery on the basis of their t-shirts, especially at a public event like the SOTU speech. I don't think that the two women had equivalent standing, nor do I think that Mrs. Young's t-shirt would have been as potentially distracting as Mrs. Sheehan's. However, the point is that as long as both women behaved themselves, their t-shirts would have had no disruptive effect on the speech. Yes, I know that there is a tradition of restraint in the gallery, but politicians of both parties make extensive use of those guest passes for political purposes during SOTU speeches. Every president in the television age put people up there that they used to emphasize major points of their speech, and no one barks about that exploitation of the gallery.

When I first heard that Sheehan had been arrested, the reports said that she had attempted to unfurl a banner in the gallery. That kind of action certainly would have justified the removal of Sheehan from the gallery but hardly qualified as a criminal act, especially under the amorphous terms of "unlawful conduct." Having to face charges for wearing a t-shift with a slogan on it is flat-out ridiculous. What laws does that "conduct" break? And since when have we become so fragile that the wearing of a protest t-shirt become so unsettling?

Both women should have reconsidered their wardrobe for the speech. However, a fashion crime should not equate to police action, and arresting someone for wearing a dumb t-shirt should not happen in America.

This is exactly right. While the mode of dress of these individuals is indicative of the breakdown of decorum that exists in contemporary society, the conduct did not rise to the level of the criminal. And while I have no doubt that Mrs. Sheehan was going to engage in a disruption of the speech (frankly, I think the Secret Service should have objected to the loony lefty's presence in the Gallery given her rhetoric and conduct), she had done nothing meriting suspicion (though I suppose the arrest could possibly be justified on the grounds of her failure to cooperate with security).

Mark in Mexico notes this little detail about Mrs. Sheehan's missive to her fellow moonbats.

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?

My response to Mark is this -- the Ditch Bitch is a self-obsessed narcissist who never learned a basic lesson taught in every astronomy class (an understood by mentally healthy individuals) -- "the Earth revolves around the Sun, not around Uranus".

On the othe hand, maybe some time in jail would have allowed Mama Moonbat to get the psychological help she really needs. She is, after all, a rather sad, pathetic character who has clearly lost contact with realit following the death of her son. Folks on the Left should be ashamed to use her as they do.

UPDATE: My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey points out that Sheehan as much as admits that the purpose of the shirt WAS, in fact, to grab the cameras and thus engage in a political demonstration in the Gallery. He also asks a great question.

Well, it seems Cindy Sheehan wanted to make "a scene" at the State of the Union Address after all. In her latest Daily Kos entry, she admits as much, although some have zeroed in on the fact that she was "merely hot" and just wanted some relief (she thus exposed the "protest" T-shirt she had on). While the Kos entry does mention she "was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs" and hence unzipped her jacket, she goes on to note

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.

The debate over free expression is a good one here. Some have argued that Sheehan's 1st Amendment rights were violated (she herself says she is filing a lawsuit ... hey, if she didn't it wouldn't be America after all, eh?) whereas others have stated that it wasn't the time and place to protest. If, for example, Sheehan was allowed to wear such a shirt for that event, why wouldn't she be "within her rights" to take the microphone from President Bush to rebut him after each point he made? Where is the line drawn? And is a dress code a violation of free speech rights in this case?

An interesting issue indeed.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1487 words, total size 10 kb.

Just a reminder that Christians are attacked by many different groups.

Cardinal Ivan Dias condemned a "violent attack" suffered by a bishop and some priests of the Vasai Diocese on Sunday and called on the authorities to take action.

"We are deeply shocked to learn of the violent attack made yesterday by certain unruly elements on the Most Reverend Bishop Thomas Dabre of Vasai and the priests who were accompanying him on a very praiseworthy humanitarian mission," said the archbishop of Bombay in a statement.

The statement was published today by the bishops' conference of India.

The Vasai bishop and priests were attending the inauguration of a boarding school for tribal youth at Gosali in Mokhada Taluka, in the Thane district, in the state of Maharashtra.

Cardinal Dias said that Bishop Dabre and the priests were pelted with stones. One of the priests, Father Brendon Furtado, suffered an ear injury.

The incident took place when Bishop Dabre, 60, along with 10 priests, nuns and social workers, went to the village to inaugurate the Suryodaya Ashram, a boarding school for 60 tribal boys and girls, the SAR News reported.

Just before the inauguration ceremony, 40 to 50 suspected members of the Bajrang Dal and Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad, organizations of the fundamentalist Hindu group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, began to throw stones.

They were under the false impression that the Catholic bishop went there to convert students, SAR said. Other sources reported a much higher figure of attackers.

Fearful

A visibly shaken Bishop Dabre said: "It was the most horrible experience as stones were pelted in all directions in and around the building. There were about 200 parishioners within the building and outside, who had gathered for the inauguration of the ashram." They feared for their lives, he added.

"The fundamentalists who attacked us do not know that we have come to serve the poor tribals and we are opposed to forceful conversion," Bishop Dabre observed.

For his part, the archbishop of Bombay added in his statement: "Such a barbaric and unwarranted outburst of violence is indeed a disgrace to our Indian culture of respect and tolerance, and it sadly reveals a serious lack of a sense of civilized democracy in the politico-religious groups which instigated it.

"It is particularly painful that the incident occurred on the eve of the assassination anniversary of our beloved father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of 'ahimsa' [nonviolence], which was the weapon with which he fought and won independence for a secular India."

Archbishop Dias added: "I am confident that the authorities concerned will take prompt action against the perpetrators of the criminal deed and will adopt such corrective measures so as to dissuade the repetition of similar episodes which seriously endanger communal harmony and wreck the secular fabric of our dear motherland."

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 12:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

Intolerant Muslims are boycotting Denmark because they don’t like the legitimate exercise of free speech. The solution is therefore obvious to the former editor of one Danish newspaper – non-Muslims should build a mosque for Muslims as a sign of tolerance!

Building a mosque in Copenhagen would help to relieve tensions between Denmark and the Muslim world, says Herbert Pundik, a former editor of daily newspaper Politiken.

The country's 200,000 Muslims currently are relegated to some 50 makeshift mosques throughout the country. Pundik suggested that construction of a permanent mosque could serve as an olive branch to Muslims angered by drawings of the prophet Mohammed printed in daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

'It should be dramatic and have the purpose of taking the brunt of the current anti-Denmark sentiments. It could illustrate that another Denmark exists than the anti-Muslim society that dominates in the Arabic world right now,' he wrote in Politiken on Wednesday.

Private donors could contribute the DKK 50 million needed for construction.

That isn’t good faint, Mr. Pundik – that is dhimmitude.

I award you the Order of Osama, Second Class (since you arenÂ’t a Muslim), with IED Clusters.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

This is just sick. And not just because of the casting of a no-talent skank like Britney Spears as a Christian.

Britney Spears will guest star on an episode of "Will & Grace," NBC announced Tuesday.

The pop star will appear as a Christian conservative sidekick to Sean Hayes' character, Jack, who hosts his own talk show, on the April 13 episode, the network said.

Jack's fictional network, Out TV, is bought by a Christian TV network, leading to Spears contributing a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's."

Utterly tasteless!

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

She caused a disturbance – she got arrested. Why should that come as a shock to anyone?

Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night after demonstrating in the spectators gallery of the House of Representatives as part of a larger war protest that was held outside the Capitol.

Sheehan, who was apparently given a gallery ticket by a member of Congress, began to attract notice about 30 minutes to an hour before President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

Now lest you think this was a politically motivated arrest on the part of Capitol police, consider that Sheehan was not the only spectator removed from the gallery over a “message shirt” regarding the war in Iraq.

The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn't a protest but a message of support.

In other words, it was not simply a question of who Sheehan was or the content of her message – it was a broad, general policy respecting time and place. But the moonbats will not mention Mrs. Young’s experience.

Not that this is even a new policy, as Drudge points out, and was used to shield Bill Clinton from criticism in 1999.

The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

So you see, there really is not much of a story here – a clear and consistent policy was clearly and consistently enforced in an even-handed manner. Sheehan was arrested only because she refused to comply with the directions of those charged with enforcing the policy. Not every location is a public forum.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 599 words, total size 5 kb.