Daniel Pipes brings us this quote in regard to the displaying of posters featuring the image you see here of the Prophet as a porker:
The United States has given great thought to this over the last couple of days, and I mean at the very highest levels of our government. We condemn the outrageous, crude and sick portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed by an Israeli settler the other day. This woman is either sick or she is evil.... We are very pleased that she is going to be put on trial by the Israeli Government. She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam. We are grateful that President Weizman and Prime Minister Netanyahu have denounced her and her actions and her sick cartoon in very clear terms.
Those were the words of Ambassador Nicholas Burns, who was on Bill Clinton's National Security Council, and he spoke them back in July of 1997.
An Israeli settler had drawn this picture and posted copies of it in Arab areas of Hebron to express her contempt for Muslim extremists and terrorists. What did she get for her trouble?
In the judge's view she was guilty of incitement, racism and perhaps even endangering world peace! He even went so far as to compare her childish "pig poster" to the most evil anti-Semitic forgery ever conceived -- the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion!" And on January 8, 1998, twenty-six year-old Tatiana Soskin was sentenced by the Jerusalem District Court to two years in prison plus a one-year suspended sentence for ATTEMPTING to post drawings of a pig named "Mohamed." She was convicted of committing a racist act, supporting a terrorist organization, attempting to give religious offense and attempted vandalism.
I wonder whether the Israeli courts would do such a thing today.
Charles Johnson points us to the AP's photos of today's graduation ceremony for a police academy in the Palestinian town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip.
That's right: Palestinian policemen are circus performers.
I always thought of graduation ceremonies as sedate affairs where the speakers go on too long, but where everybody's happy. Is that what this shit is? It looks to me like retarded, psychotic behavior. Jesus!
Division of Labor = Hierarchization of Political and Moral Responsibility Now Playing:arbeit macht frei
Societies where one is not allowed to advocate war if he has not served are fascistic. "What do those outside the warrior cult know of our sacrifices? They are puny subhumans, good for nothing but working in our textile mills. Only we have earned the right to call for war ---or not!"
"But, my liege, I hate the war because I never served. I only want peace. Can't we all just get along---?"
"Slave! What difference do you think your protests mean to us? We don't require your moral measure to act as we will. We don't even recognize your political rights. Let us make a stepping stone of your skull instead!"
Prop Down Now Playing: "Lost Cause" by Beck
My man over at The Mudville Gazette has a post up about Iraqi War veteran ---and Democrat--- Paul Hackett, who has been forced out of the Senatorial race in Ohio so that the party big-shots can push Sherrod Brown instead.
Hackett was running against seven-term Akron Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in a May primary, with the winner going on to face two-term Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in November (assuming DeWine wins his own primary against a longshot Republican challenger). DeWine is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbent Republicans, and the national Democratic Party is pulling out the stops to defeat him.
But first, the Democrats had to get Hackett out of the way. The weapons used in the rubout included economic sabotage, whisper campaigns, and threats.
Apparently, Harry Reid was in on the rubout himself. He asked Hackett if the rumors were true that he had participated in war crimes while in Iraq. Hackett was appalled at this ---realizing then that the party bosses were trying to brush him off the plate.
Why is the Democratic Party shutting out one of its most justified voices in a year where they have the electoral momentum? The wrongness and the wastefulness and the bloodlustfulness of the War for Iraq is their constant refrain ---and they don't want to bring Hackett to the table to talk about it some more with the people of Ohio and America?
As a matter of fact, the high counsels of the Democratic Party have decided to not make the War for Iraq a point of contention for any Democratic candidate this cycle ---instead insisting that one's position on the war is a matter of individual conscience.
Maybe they have decided that the dissenting veteran gambit is a loser after Kerry went and failed in Ohio himself.
If you people don't want to see a one-party nation, how about trying sometimes? Even if you fail, at least have some balls to put up someone you believe in. It would make believing in you a lot more likely.
There are surely billions of people on Earth who should be saying "We've just got to get over our dependence on hydrocarbons" before Bush the Younger does, right? Is there anything he is doing now or ever has done to make anyone believe that he could possibly mean that?
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 12:14 AM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 18 February 2006 12:15 AM CST
The Eyes of College Station Are Upon Me Now Playing:twelfth man, inc.
All the live long day.
Breaking It Over Now Playing:ridin' shotgun
How bad will the overreach be on this Cheney thing?
Enough to make the Democratic Party look like the estranged and incoherent spouse to the Government they are.
It's no surprise that the Vice President of the United States's shooting of a man this past weekend gives them lots of wood. The very phrases that would succinctly convey the fact of the incident are nearly erotic in their mouths: "The Vice President of the United States has shot a man in the face and chest."
It's a stunning idea, isn't it?
But are the public going to countenance this coming tide of chickenshit remarks when Cheney has shown as much personal contrition in his words to Brit Hume this afternoon as he has ever shown in public before?
It was an accident, after all. People do make them.
What can I say? You got lucky, Dick. Extremely lucky. If the worst that comes of this is giving History and Comedy a little piece of your dignity, it will be a blessing. But, for now, accept that those who hate and fear you are having their time of it and love their new metaphor for you. Don't fight it. Let it break over you.
More Cartoon Violence (and Some Sort of Sex) Now Playing:some motorhead on blown-out woofers
Robert Spencer writes in FrontPage Magazine (my emphasis):
A disgraceful art exhibit in Milan has illustrated once again the deep affinity between the Left and the forces of the global jihad. In these days of Muslims the world over calling for the deaths of those who have “insulted Islam,” anyone who wants to see Oriana Fallaci beheaded need look no further than the Galleria Luciano Inga-Pin in Milan, which is exhibiting Giuseppe Veneziano’s “American Beauty” from January 19 through March 18. This is a series of paintings designed to highlight the “weakness and perversity of the ‘American way of life.’” It accordingly features straightforward, if somewhat lurid, portraits of Michael Jackson and Ronald McDonald, along with the distinctly non-American Harry Potter. Then comes a bizarre depiction of a nude man having sexual intercourse with the Pink Panther, five artistic renditions of the Abu Ghraib prison photos (each with “American Beauty” scrawled across the top), and — Oriana Fallaci’s decapitated head.
Although I find the picture of Fallaci decapitated deeply offensive, I have no plans to attack the Italian embassy, boycott Italian wine, phone in a bomb threat to the Galleria Luciano Inga-Pin, kill innocent people who had nothing to with the painting, or threaten to kill those who are actually responsible for it. Veneziano’s painting is the sort of obnoxiousness that has become commonplace on the Left, and is one of the prices of freedom of speech.
Is this painting, as my old friend from New York once taught me to suspect of other pictures, a "visual pun"? I don't know. It's funny, though.
But the painting of Fallaci is not. It is, instead, a demonstration that the Left and Islamofascism are useful to each other. The former wants to bring down the existing order; the latter ---oh, yeah...
They are natural allies, aren't they?
Totalitarians at heart; desegregators, but really homogenizers; and secret ---but not so secret--- haters of Christians, Jews, and Rome herself, my N-words. Rome herself.
Well, at Least They're Not Idolizing a Calf or Something Stupid Like That! Now Playing: "Make a Move On Me" by Olivia Newton-John
Charles Johnson tells us about today's demonstration of Islamist psychopathy. The report comes from The Australian (emphasis mine):
THOUSANDS of people flocked to southern Egypt today to seek blessing from a calf they believe was born as God's reply to the publication in Europe of cartoons depicting the prophet, police said.
Some 20,000 thousand people had gathered in front of Mohammed Abu Dif's house in the village of Tunis to see the holy mammal, whose skin folds when he was born reportedly formed the words "There is no God but Allah", a police official said on condition of anonymity.
He said the villagers flocked from all over the southern governorate of Sohag to the farmer's house and had to be dispersed by police, who feared the gathering could get out of control.
Witnesses said they believed the calf was "Allah's response to current attacks against Islam", the official said.
These people are absolutely mad. Sure, we have our share of Jesus Tortillas and Virgin Mary Oil Slicks here in the West, but only the heat-addled brains of goat-pokers could come up with some horseshit like that.
As far as I know of these madmen, Allah made Mohammed the messenger with the Last Word on whatever forever. And now come along the folds of a calf's skin to spell out a slogan?
Almost a President, Irredeemably a Sympathizer Mood:
don't ask Now Playing:gorebot of arabia
You know, if the Vice President of the United States hadn't shot a man this past weekend, what we'd all really be talking about is the disgusting speech that Al Gore gave to a bunch of Arabs in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia yesterday.
What is this anti-American dolt's constituency on this?
Former US vice-president Al Gore on Sunday said that the US government had committed ‘terrible abuses’ against Arabs living in America after 9/11 attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Why is this inexcusable nutbag saying such things overseas? Is there really some need for it? Al Gore is doing all he can to validate these people's views of us as a nation of Abu Ghraib prison guards. Why? Is it just the money?
Mr Gore said the Bush administration was playing into Al Qaeda’s hands by routinely blocking Saudi applications for US visas.
Yes. Heaven forfend that we should see Saudi Arabia as a natural cradle of Islamofascism and that, whatever else we might say in the interest of not antagonizing our dealers, we could not simply allow the same old "visa express" to keep running unchecked. I lose absolutely no sleep over the great shame that a slightly more stringent immigration policy has visited upon all those innocent Saudi princes who can't just waltz into my country anymore.
So, again, what is the Gorebot's constituency on this?
“The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake,” Mr Gore said at the Jeddah Economic Forum. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”
Sure, but this is a departure from what many on both the Right and the Left say with respect to Saudi visas. But Gore is not likely to pique any curiosity in his party on this point since the vastly more important point is that he is overseas, speaking [truth to the power] of his own country. That's what gives these Leftists I read every day the courage to go on: the potential for their party's biggest names to take the side of Muslim extremists against the United States.
The Protocols of the Whiners of Weaseldom
What the hell's the matter with the White House Press Corps? Did you get enough of NBC's David Gregory today? What a fucking whiner! Apparently, the White House and/or Dick Cheney's office failed to inform them first that the Vice President had shot a man. Is that the protocol now? David Gregory and the other clowns in the third-rate Greek chorus that sits in judgement of this Administration every day on our TVs are to be informed first whenever something of that (potential) importance occurs?
Horseshit! Time to learn that the media world does not turn on the axis of you network weasels anymore. Our flow of information does not necessarily pass through your screen, David ---and that's a good thing.
I suggested here and elsewhere a few weeks back that the White House should make it a point to engage small media outlets on big items as a way of whacking the Big Media craphounds across their collective snout a little. I doubt, though, that that's what was on Cheney's mind Saturday night.
Let's face it: the reason why no one in the media was told that a sitting Vice President shot a man until the day after it happened is because Cheney and the White House could not fucking believe how lucky they were that Harry Whittington hadn't been killed. They probably had a night of nervous laughter and spinnery before they told Katharine Armstrong (the woman on whose ranch the accident occurred) to go ahead and tell her local newspaper about it. Which she did at Dick Cheney's insistence.
These guys are human beings who make mistakes and scramble like thieves when they fuck up a caper. Let it go. Especially you, David Gregory. Who the fuck are you?
CORRECTION: I originally referred to Harry Whittington as "Bill." Good thing I didn't refer to him as "Dick Whittington".
You know why these whacked-out Islamist protesters are so fond of burning the Danish flag? It's not because they know anything about Denmark, per se, but because they are using that particular symbol as a proxy for burning the cross of Christianity.
Perhaps this small insight will be of some assistance to those who do not yet appreciate the necessity of our strongest possible response as Westerners to the threat of Islamist extremism.
Better to be reborn through the liberation of Christianity than to die a Submitter to a message of brutality and ignorance.
Jimmy Carter Is a Sorry Hypocrite
Ed Morrissey tells us about this report in the Washington Times:
[...In] 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
"Inherent authority," eh? That sounds eminently reasonable.
But you will notice that this monstrous abuse of authority happened a year before the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Hmmm... is Carter himself the reason why we are now saddled with an unConstitutional law that gives our enemies free rein to work against us on our own soil?
For one reason (or the other), you have to know the answer's yes.
Never More in Earnest Now Playing:i keep on thinking of lines from oliver stone's jfk
With a big tip of the hat to Steve Soto of The Left Coaster, let's spend a few minutes with him and Josh Marshall. The boys are powerful upset with how the Associated Press is characterizing a very particular connection between Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and the "disgraced" Jack Abramoff ("disgraced" being the epithet applied to the poor bastard with the insistency of Homeric Greek).
Marshall says that AP reporter John Solomon is not being fair to Reid when he describes the Senator's connections to Abramoff with regard to a bill that would affect the minimum wage of workers in the North Marianas Islands.
I shit you not. Now we're through the looking glass, people! Now we're finally getting down to the real divide between the Right and Left.
Marshall's problem ---although he does not know how to articulate it--- is that Solomon mentioned something Marshall believes should have been left unmentioned since the result of whatever entreaty Abramoff and his people might have made to Reid's office with regard to the miminum wage in the Marianas was one that did not go Abramoff's way.
Got that? Since Reid didn't sell out the wage-earners in the Marianas, it's almost like the constant communications and financial dealings between Reid and Abramoff are irrelevant:
In other words, whatever Abramoff and his crew might have tried to persuade Reid to do, he didn't do it.
That has to be a key part of the story, if you're discussing contacts between Marianas lobbyists on this issue. Only it's a part of the story the AP just neglected to mention.
I would suppose that in the world of sleazy bastards (elected or otherwise), where the cultivation of one by another and vice versa is a way of doing business and having a relationship, it is understood that not every pass is going to score. Lobbyists know they have to sometimes play a shit hand for the very purpose of giving themselves plausible deniability on any questions of influence-seeking.
Are Marshall and Soto denying that there were multiple interactions between Reid and Abramoff that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in donations and huge favors being done? Look at the rest of that AP report. Reid's people knew Abramoff and his people well.
That, after all, is what the Marianas angle was intended to indicate: a long-term business relationship between the most powerful Democratic Senator and the disgraced Jack Abramoff ---contemporaneous with donations, meetings, and letters made in this and many other cases.
I am tempted to believe that Marshall's reaction to this AP story is some sort of parody of what the Left believes is the Right's approach to spinning bad news. Am I right, Steve?