Shut Up And Act

Alec Baldwin opens his mouth and drivel pours out. His latest tirade on the Huffington Post is so inane that it is actually funny. Funnier still is the fact that it represents what passes for the far-left's actual thought processes:

So, I suppose the question is...what kind of civil trial will we see, or not see, between Cheney and Whittington? Whittington is certainly no stranger to a court room and to civil litigation. Will Cheney pay him off, preemptively? Will they go to court? I would imagine if a guy with a few beers in him shoots you in the face on a hunting trip, how could you turn down that opportunity?


What would Cheney do about the whole secrecy thing then? I mean, this is the guy that sicced Enron on Gray Davis and the state of California to embarrass Davis, trigger the recall and then watched Arnold Schwarzenegger become governor of California. (To this day, perhaps, still the low point in American political life.) Then Cheney covered it up.

The only instance of which I am aware of Alec Baldwin saying anything remotely intelligent is when it was scripted by Tom Clancy.

I found this little gem linked on Drudge Report. I read. I laughed. Then I decided to read the comments too, and it just got funnier. At first, it was all agreement by leftoids with their typical Halliburton crap, but then it became apparent when the Drudge readers like myself began to show up. Baldwin's pathetic accusations were thoroughly eviscerated, debunked, and refuted. I hope he doesn't read the comments himself, I doubt that his fragile self-image could survive the pummeling. He should just shut up and act.

Thomas Sowell: Point of No Return

Thomas Sowell's column over at Townhall.com brings much-needed perspective:

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

Terrorists and terrorist governments are giving us almost daily evidence of their fanatical hatred and violent sadism, as the clock ticks away toward their gaining possession of nuclear weapons. They not only hold a harmless young woman hostage in Iraq, they parade her in tears on television, just as they have paraded not only the terrorizing, but even the beheading, of others on television.

Moreover, there is a large and gleeful audience in the Arab world for these gross brutalities, just as there was glee and cheering among the Palestinians when the televised destruction of the World Trade center was broadcast in the Middle East.

Yet what are we preoccupied with or outraged about? Whether the
American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.

Read it all here...

Cartoons, But Not the Funnies

Over at RealClearPolitics, Tony Blankley writes:

There has been intense debate in the blogs and elsewhere on whether newspapers and television networks should republish or not. The quite plausible, expressed argument against re-publishing is that: 1) just because one has the right to speak doesn't mean one must, 2) restraint is often exercised, particularly when being respectful of other religions or cultures, 3) tensions are particularly high amongst Muslims now, 4) only a madman or, if there is a difference, those who want to instigate the "clash of civilizations" would pour gasoline on that already raging fire.

That argument would be not only plausible, but persuasive, if the cause of the violent Muslim reaction to the cartoons was merely a transitory phenomenon -- a brief, spontaneous, bizarre overreaction.

...the reaction to the Danish cartoons is merely the latest predictable, intolerant response of radical Islam to any opposition to their view of man and God...

Those who argue for republication of the Danish cartoons are not "instigating" a clash of civilization. Nor are they pouring gasoline on a fire. Rather, they are defending against the already declared and engaged radical Islamist clash against the Christian, Secular, Jewish, Hindu, Chinese world by expressing solidarity with the firemen.


Here is a cartoon that pretty well sums up the western media's cowardly coverage, courtesy of Cox & Forkum:

"Religion of Peace" or Riots

George Neumayr at NRO acknowleges the elephant in the room:

Only radical Muslims would consider rioting a rational rebuttal to descriptions of Islam as violent. What other religious group riots or issues death threats after it is criticized? It is precisely because Christianity is so tame that Western liberals often feel safe to lampoon its history as violent. They wouldn't dare level similarly harsh criticism of Islam.

One of the unstated reasons for hesitating before calling radical Islam violent — the reason the fog of political correctness thickens around it — is that it does contain elements of violence. Western society falls silent lest its criticism of Islam result in an explosion of anger validating the criticism.

This amounts to nothing less than surrendering liberty to a violent minority group, and the beginnings of the tacit imposition of oppressive sharia upon a free society. Why is this tolerated?

A 5-Letter Word That Means "Hypocrisy?" I-S-L-A-M

"The Religion of Peace." What a joke. Newspapers in Islamic countries routinely publish articles and cartoons that spew hatred and redicule of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, But if anyone else dare to criticize Islam or anything remotely "Islamic" they will respond thusly:

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times hits the nail on the head:

Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.

Each attempt to expose the violent intolerance of Islam for what it is succeeds wildly, and yet few in the West can really believe what they see with their own eyes. It is widely assumed that there must be some other underlying motivation at work here, because such virulent reactions to seemingly innocuous provocations are simply too surreal to accept at face value. What the doubters need to realize is that, throughout history, Islamic aggressors have never minced words regarding their objectives. It is time to truly listen to what they say and understand that this is what we will surely get. The war is being televised around the world; will the West realize it time?

So Who Do I Have To Kill To Get My Own Fatwa?

Actually, that probably wouldn't work. Muslims don't issue fatwahs for merely killing somebody. No, fatwas are generally reserved for something really serious, like... cartoons!

Yes, cartoons. Finally, here is my ticket to truly ticking off the Religion of Peace. It seems that portraying the prophet Mohammed is considered blasphemous in Islam. Who knew (not Google Images, who coughs up plenty of examples)? This might be why the Rennaissance bypassed Mecca and it's suburbs. "Lets see, I can't paint Mohammed but I can paint all the Madonnas that I want? Well, an artist has to make a living, you know."
After Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons depicting Mohammed back in September, a world-wide outpouring of righteous Muslim rage has erupted this week, with protests being staged anywhere an Imam can incite one and a Danish flag is available for burning. All things Danish are being boycotted across the Middle East, and the mobs are behaving with typical Muslim restraint.
Several papers across Europe republished the 'Toons of Blasphemy this week in support of the beleaguered Danish, and to make a point about freedom of expression (which, as you are certainly aware, does not include freedom from being offended). Naturally, this fueled the fire even more, with Muslims mobs denouncing Europe in general and floating suggestions for measured responses such as kidnappings and beheadings, along with the usual killkillkill.
So, just how bad could these cartoons be? From the response, one might think they all portray Mohammed in flagrante delicto with various farm animals (like pigs, for example). This is not, however, the case. By any measure, these are about the tamest political cartoons I've ever seen. For example:


This is an interesting image. I don't know how any honest Muslim can really get too upset with it because, with the eyes blocked out, you can't say for sure that this is really Mohammed. It could be Achmed or freakin' Aqualung for all they know. Or maybe its some kind of Muslim-Virgin-Pinata thing, which could explain the looks of alarm on what little you can see of the women's faces...






This one pretty much covers all the major religions of the world, so I guess we can expect stern letters-to-the-editor from the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus any day now. Nothing really says "you care" like kidnappings and beheadings, though.







This one is actually kind of funny, a rarity among political cartoons on any subject. But it must be particularly disturbing to homely dweebish Muslim males whose only hope of ever getting laid is to take the Martyr Express to Paradise. Or maybe they are just pissed-off about the depiction of Mohammed in what appears to be Heaven. Tacky.






Of course, this is but a small sample of the "vast collection" of cartoon blasphemy about which the Muslim world has elevated their collective dander. It makes one wonder how they might respond to other "provocations," such as:

• Sock Mohammed. This would be easy to make, just take a "sock monkey," stick a beard and turban on it, and you're done!
• Rock'Em Sock'Em Prophets. Just take a Rock'Em Sock'Em Robots set, stick beards and turbans on them, and you're done!
• Mr. Mohammed Head. Another easy one. Take a Mr. Potato Head, stick a beard and turban on it, and you're done!
• All Purpose Mohammed Beard & Turban Set. Heck, just get this and convert all your dolls, action figures, and stuffed animals into Mohammed!

Ok, that should just about do it. Time to sit back and wait for the fatwa's to start rolling in.

P.S. I also think Salman Rushdie is a swell guy! Just in case...

Update: Your humble blog-host is now part of Michelle Malkin's Blogburst, a compendium of bloggers who have republished the 'Toons of Blasphemy in defiance of Islam's petulance. This is my 15 minutes of blog fame! Thanks, Michelle.

Has the NYTimes Violated the Espionage Act?

From Michelle Malkin, a link to a very interesting article:

"Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary magazine, frames the debate about the NSA terrorist surveillance program in a new piece available online. Excerpt:

What the New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a cut-and-dried case of espionage. . . . . The real question that an intrepid prosecutor in the Justice Department should be asking is whether, in the aftermath of September 11, we as a nation can afford to permit the reporters and editors of a great newspaper to become the unelected authority that determines for all us what is a legitimate secret and what is not."

Read it all here.