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.

Must Read: TRIBES

I was following blog-crumbs today and found this essay by Bill Whittle on his excellent blog, Eject! Eject! Eject! (now added to my links list). Let me warn you up front, this is not a short essay. It is, however, time well spent. An excerpt:

"I believe that the human animal – the raw material of our physical bodies – is essentially interchangeable. By this I mean that I could take the children of Fallujah and turn them all into Astronauts, convert Jewish babies into fanatical, mass-murdering SS guards, and shake a generation of the poorest Voodoo-worshippers in Haiti into a cadre of top-flight nuclear physicists, chemical engineers and computer scientists.
Race has nothing to do with this – precisely nothing. The mobs of murdering Hutus and swarms of slaughtering Serbs are as different racially as it is possible to be, and they are cut from precisely the same cloth.
I know this is so because there have been murdering scumbags of every stripe and color in the long history of the human race – which is depressing – and that these animals, at any given time, represent only a small percentage of the majority of people, also of every stripe and color – which is not. There is no corner on virtue, and no outpost of depravity. Human hearts are indistinguishable and interchangeable. Anyone who claims otherwise is, without further argument or statements necessary, a complete God-damned idiot.
Now, with that said – have we all heard that loud and clear? – there are light-years of difference in how various Tribes will behave.
Only a few minutes ago, I had the delightful opportunity to read the comment of a fellow who said he wished that white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself could have been herded into the Superdome Concentration Camp to see how much we like it. Absent, of course, was the fundamental truth of what he plainly does not have the eyes or the imagination to see, namely, that if the Superdome had been filled with white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself, it would not have been a refinery of horror, but rather a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion.
That has nothing to do with me being white. If the blacks and Hispanics and Jews and gays that I work with and associate with were there with me, it would have been that much better. That’s because the people I associate with – my Tribe – consists not of blacks and whites and gays and Hispanics and Asians, but of individuals who do not rape, murder, or steal. My Tribe consists of people who know that sometimes bad things happen, and that these are an opportunity to show ourselves what we are made of. My people go into burning buildings. My Tribe consists of organizers and self-starters, proud and self-reliant people who do not need to be told what to do in a crisis. My Tribe is not fearless; they are something better. They are courageous. My Tribe is honorable, and decent, and kind, and inventive. My Tribe knows how to give orders, and how to follow them. My Tribe knows enough about how the world works to figure out ways to boil water, ration food, repair structures, build and maintain makeshift latrines, and care for the wounded and the dead with respect and compassion.
There are some things my Tribe is not good at at all. My Tribe doesn’t make excuses. My Tribe will analyze failure and assign blame, but that is to make sure that we do better next time, and we never, ever waste valuable energy and time doing so while people are still in danger. My Tribe says, and in their heart completely believes that it’s the other guy that’s the hero. My Tribe does not believe that a single Man can cause, prevent or steer Hurricanes, and my Tribe does not and has never made someone else responsible for their own safety, and that of their loved ones.
My Tribe doesn’t fire on people risking their lives, coming to help us. My Tribe doesn’t curse such people because they arrived on Day Four, when we felt they should have been here before breakfast on Day One. We are grateful, not to say indebted, that they have come at all. My Tribe can’t eat Nike’s and we don’t know how to feed seven by boiling a wide-screen TV. My Tribe doesn’t give a sweet God Damn about what color the looters are, or what color the rescuers are, because we can plainly see before our very eyes that both those Tribes have colors enough to cover everyone in glory or in shame. My Tribe doesn’t see black and white skins. My Tribe only sees black and white hats, and the hat we choose to wear is the most personal decision we can make.
That’s the other thing, too – the most important thing. My Tribe thinks that while you are born into a Tribe, you do not have to stay there. Good people can join bad Tribes, and bad people can choose good ones. My Tribe thinks you choose your Tribe. That, more than anything, is what makes my Tribe unique.
I am so utterly and unabashedly proud of my Tribe, that my words haunt and mock me for their pale weakness and shameful inadequacy.

Membership in my Tribe is not free. "

Read it all (please!) here.

Want To Help Stop the ACLU?

From conservative Mega-Babe Debbie Schlussel's website:

"You've no doubt heard that, today, the ACLU--and assorted other enemies of America--filed a lawsuit against the government for NSA "spying" (interesting that there was no such lawsuit when Bill Clinton was doing the same thing--Remember "Echelon" and "Carnivore"?).

Since the lawsuit was filed in U.S. Federal Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, where I practice, I've already been contacted by concerned U.S. citizens who wish to intervene in the case as interested parties (whose interests and welfare are affected by this case) in support of the government's activities. And we may do so. You may feel free to contact me regarding this if you are interested in adding your name."

Click the post title above or here to find out more. Other links and info can be found at Michelle Malkin and Stop The ACLU. It costs nothing (unless you want to contribute) to join the fight against the treasonous ACLU, other than the time it takes to have your signature notarized on the affidavit Debbie will send you, and the postage to return it to her. I have personally responded, if for no other reason than I want Debbie Schlussel to have my email address! Yowza!

Viacom, Kellogg threatened with suit in Massachusetts

From Overlawyered:

"Wakefield, Mass., mother Sherri Carlson doesn't like the commercials on the Nickelodeon network or the fact that Nickelodeon characters appear on boxes of cereal that she disapproves of. Thus (helped by a couple of nanny-state activist groups), rather than cancelling her cable bill, turning off the tv, or saying "No" to her three children, she's announced plans to sue Viacom and Kellogg for billions of dollars under Massachusetts "consumer fraud" law, sending the required "intent to sue" letter. (Libby Quaid, AP, Jan. 19; Sarah Ellison and Janet Adamy, "Activists Plan to Sue Viacom and Kellogg Over Ads to Children", Wall $treet Journal, Jan. 19; Hit & Run blog Jan. 19 Sullum and Gillespie). As Sullum notes, the reality-satire lag time is now down to a week. "

This adds new meaning to the term, "Serial litigator." (ba-dom BOM!) But seriously...

This suit is doomed to fail, because the cartoon character they are targeting (SpongeBob) is too popular, and even the people who think SpongeBob is gay will rally to his cause. If they want a chance to win, they need to tackle a cereal manufacturer with a real product liability vulnerability, like Cap'n Crunch. Ever eat that stuff dry? After about 4 mouthfuls it abrades the roof of your mouth off.

America's Earliest Terrorists

Ideas don't gain entrance to the Cliche Club without possessing, at some level, a fundamental truth. Case in point: those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Heard that one before, right? Joshua E. London at the National Review Online has a valuable lesson which illustrates this notion:

At the dawn of a new century, a newly elected United States president was forced to confront a grave threat to the nation — an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim terrorists. Worse still, these Islamic partisans operated under the protection and sponsorship of rogue Arab states ruled by ruthless and cunning dictators.

Sluggish in recognizing the full nature of the threat, America entered the war well after the enemy’s call to arms. Poorly planned and feebly executed, the American effort proceeded badly and at great expense — resulting in a hastily negotiated peace and an equally hasty declaration of victory.

As timely and familiar as these events may seem, they occurred more than two centuries ago. The president was Thomas Jefferson, and the terrorists were the Barbary pirates. Unfortunately, many of the easy lessons to be plucked from this experience have yet to be fully learned.

Read it all here.

Iranian Intentions

Here is an interesting analysis on Iran's nuclear ambitions which focuses on their underlying motivation for developing nuclear weapons:

On Nov. 16, [Iranian president] Mr. Ahmedinijad stated: "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi." In all his public statements in Iran and abroad, Mr. Ahmedinijad's messages are on target: Iran under his leadership must rise as a global power to lead the world in the footsteps of the prophets. He clearly follows up with actions -- moving on to develop nuclear weapons.

Yet, despite the evidence, neither the international community, nor the United States seem to comprehend Mr. Ahmedinijad's serious commitment to advance the arrival of the 12th Imam. Indeed, by continuing discussions with Iran, they are playing along, giving it the time and latitude needed to achieve nuclear proliferation.

We can only hope that the US gives Israel all the support it needs to counter what would surely become an unmitigated global disaster.

Read more here.

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: The true character of the European Left

Glen Greenwald hits the nail on the head with a pile-driver:

Take the time to read the comments too, if possible.

Recommended Reading

Been reading Treason by Ann Coulter, and came across a passage at the end of chapter 11 that really resonated:

[Al] Gore said America will only create more enemies if "what we represent to the world is an empire." We must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction. He also complained that we have "abandoned almost all of Afghanistan" - rather than making it part of our empire, evidently. He seemed to think it was our responsibility to "stabilize the nation of Afghanistan," "pacify the countryside," and send them valentines. Liberals think war is a Miss Congeniality contest.
One could mine every war-making text throughout history - Sun Tsu, Carl von Clausewitz, Alfred Thayer Mahan - without finding a single reference to being liked by your enemies as a tactic associated with winning a war. Gore said foreigners are not worried about "what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do." Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry - wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs.
America is fighting for its survival and the Democrats are obsessing over why the barbarians hate us. Instead of wondering why foreigners hate Americans, a more fruitful inquiry for the Democrats might be to ask why Americans are beginning to hate Democrats.

This was written two years ago, and Bush's approval numbers have fallen quite a bit since then, but make no mistake. You and your children will be far less secure if the Democrats wind up running the War on Terror. Failure is the only option for them. Here are some recent remarks by soft-spoken, clear-headed Howard Dean:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

That's just great, Howie. You can bet that all the terrorists will be marking their calendars.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

What was happening was Nixon (Republican) inherited a fucked-up war that was started by Kennedy (Democrat), micro-managed into a quagmire by Johnson (Democrat). He then proceeded to undo the idiocy of their policies and get back on a winning track again with less than half as many troops. We would have won too if, all full of themselves after Watergate unfolded, the Democratic Congress hadn't betrayed South Vietnam and summarily withdrawn all support and basically thrown them to the wolves. But hey, all those millions who were killed by the Communists after the fall of Vietnam weren't registered Democrats so who cares, right?

Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

Bush and the Republicans have had a single"position" since Day 1: win. Keep your proposals, Howie, the War on Terror isn't a political science experiment. As for "coalescing," isn't that roughly synonymous with "getting your shit together?" Definitely not synonymous with the Democrats...

Here are some other examples of sedition by Democrats.

Just In Time For the Holidays - the Airline Screening Playset!

This is sure to be the next "Tickle Me Elmo" must-have mega-hit for the kids this Christmas. Or not...

Get it here, if you must.