Reality Is a Dish Best Served Cold

When asked yesterday whether she agreed or disagreed with one of the world’s top climate-change scientists that there had been no statistically significant global warming over the last fifteen years, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco would only say “that it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend.”
 
In fact, Lubchenco twice avoided directly answering a yes-no question as to whether she agreed with the observation that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the last decade and a half. (CNS)

But in 1975, it was Global Cooling. I guess it all depends on the liberal definition of “short term” which means they can change it on a dime (because it became Global Warming well before 15 years after Cooling) but you can’t point out to them that they are wrong anyways.

Reality is not a liberals strong suit.

Environmental concerns have caused one high-ranking UN official to declare that “the West” does not need more cars, televisions, and other consumer luxuries.

United Nations Development Programme head Helen Clark told AFP in an interview: “So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world’s poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West – we don’t need more cars, more TV, whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.”

Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, also stressed the responsibility of richer countries to reduce their environmental footprint: “There is, in my opinion, a very heavy responsibility on the countries of the north to look at how they sustain their living standards with a much lower environmental footprint.”

Could that be with redistribution and environmental whacko regulations to strangle everyone?? 🙂

And if you think the Liberal Media will be fair to anyone or anything they don’t like, well, get a load of this…

Barack Obama’s adoring cheerleaders at NBC are back in the editing room distorting the truth, and, not surprisingly, Andrea Mitchell has the gall to make no apologies for it.

First it was their vile attempt to make George Zimmerman sound like a racist to gin up racial conflict, and now they’ve set their sights on Mitt Romney who they’re desperately trying to paint as an out-of-touch, silver spoon Republican wowed by Wawa sandwiches.

This is a brazen attempt by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell to create a modern “supermarket scanner” moment for Mitt Romney where one clearly does not exist. This “gaffe” is a complete fabrication deliberately perpetrated by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. Her attempt to right this wrong by playing a few more seconds of video today is a slap in the face. Romney was making a valid point about the efficiency of private sector innovation. He was not amazed that he could order a sandwich with a touchscreen. His message is clear as day to anyone who watches the full video of his stump speech, and should sicken anyone who compares it to Mitchell’s sensational hatchet job.

And remember, she’s a “journalist” 🙂

Now comes the non-apology apology from a devout Liberal who doesn’t mean a word of it because she was proud of her hatchet job but has to keep up the pretense that she is a “journalist”.

She plays a few seconds after their cutesy cut BUT nothing before it! and then blows it off and just continues like it was nothing.

Because to a devout Liberal Obama hack it was nothing. It was beneath her to even do it. But the pretense has to be maintained.

Another “journalist”: “What the President’s got to do is say, ‘Hey, don’t forget about George W. Bush. Things got really, really bad under him.'” –NBC’s Meet The Press Host David Gregory.

Co-host Matt Lauer was skeptical: “I hear him saying that all the time….do you think that strategy works, the blame Bush strategy, or do people want you to take ownership of this economy at this stage?” Gregory was undeterred: “…they’ve got to prevail in providing context. Saying, ‘Look, it’s not about blaming the previous president, it’s that the hill was so high to climb. And we’re making some progress but the hole is still so deep.'”

I can tell you what’s deep…The Bovine Fecal Matter and the media bias that’s a blackhole at NBC.

2011, David Gregory: “How does the President try to harness this anger, this sense of unfairness about the economy, about income inequality in this country, about the middle class stagnating for the past 30 years? That’s what the President wants to try to tap into here.”

So the Middle class was stagnating under Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Good to know. 🙂

Thomas Sowell: Many people may have voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because of his charisma. But anyone familiar with the disastrous track record of charismatic political leaders around the world in the 20th century should have run for the hills when they encountered a politician with charisma.

What is scarier than any particular political policy or issue is the widespread tendency to treat political issues as personal contests in talking points — competitive skill in fencing with words — rather than as serious attempts to find out what the facts are and what the options are.

For a long time, Democrats have gone to Washington to win at all costs, while too many Republicans went to Washington to compromise with Democrats. The rise of the Tea Party may change that.

Increasing numbers of people seem to have convinced themselves that they are entitled to a “fair share” of what someone else has earned. Whole nations now seem to think that they should be bailed out from the consequences of their own reckless spending by nations that lived within their means.

Wishful thinking is not idealism. It is self-indulgence at best and self-exaltation at worst. In either case, it is usually at the expense of others. In other words, it is the opposite of idealism.

So the “journalism” “crusader” is dead.

Governor Mike Huckabee (2009): I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

Amen.

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama simply cannot run on 40 months of 8 percent–plus unemployment, a June 2009 recovery that sputtered, $5 trillion in new debt, serial $1 trillion–plus annual deficits, and dismal GDP growth. Few believe any more that what he and the Democratic Congress passed in the first two years of his administration worked — and fewer still that the Republicans are to blame in the last 17 months for stopping him from pursuing even more disastrous policies. He cannot turn instead to the advantages of Obamacare, a dynamic foreign policy, national-security sobriety, a scandal-free administration, or stellar presidential appointments. The furor over security leaks makes it harder to keep conjuring up the ghost of Osama bin Laden.
What then to expect if the race remains tight or Obama finds himself behind?1. There will be lots more “the dog ate my homework” excuses for the dismal economy. The troubles in the EU, the Japanese tsunami, the East Coast earthquake, ATM machines, Wall Street, inclement weather, the Republican Congress, the Tea Party, and George W. Bush have pretty much been exhausted. But there is always hurricane season, a Greek exit from the euro, or a Middle East flare-up. Expect sometime before October to hear that a new “they” upset the brilliant recovery and is to blame for the chronic economic lethargy. One of the strangest aspects of Obama’s rationalizations is their utter incoherence and illogic: He brags that America pumped more oil and gas under his watch, even as he did his best to stop just that on public lands; he brags that he put in fewer regulations than did Bush, even as he boasts that he reined in business; he brags that he had to borrow $5 trillion to grow government in order to save the country, even as he claims he reduced the size of government. Why does Obama try to take credit for things on Tuesday that he damned on Monday? Is his new campaign theme: Despite (rather than because of) Obama?

2. Mitt Romney is a tough target. If Obama once loudly admitted to abuse of coke, Romney quietly confesses to avoidance even of Coca-Cola. His personal life is blameless. His family seems the subject of a Norman Rockwell painting. And Romney has more or less succeeded at most things he has attempted. No matter, he is Mormon. Expect legions of Obama surrogates to focus on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially its supposed endemic racism, sexism, and homophobia. Religious bigotry is not especially liberal, but the race/class/gender agenda trumps all such qualms, and in any case Obama and his team have never claimed to be especially tolerant or fair-minded in using any means necessary to achieve noble ends. Whereas the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church were off the table in 2008, Mormonism will be very much on it by late summer.

3. We will read and hear about race 24/7. Racism is not an easy sell today, given that without tens of millions of white voters, Barack Obama would not have been elected. Nor is it easy to condemn America as racist when the white vote in 2008 was split far more evenly than were the 96 percent of African-American voters who preferred Barack Obama. Nonetheless, racial relations are at an all-time low. Almost weekly a member of the Congressional Black Caucus levels yet another bizarre charge of racism, and a Hollywood actor or singer blurts out something that would be deemed racially offensive were he not African-American; the polarization over the Trayvon Martin case threatens to overshadow the polarization over the O. J. Simpson trial; flash mobbing in the inner cities is as much daily fare on the uncensored Internet as it is absent from the network news; and both Barack Obama (the Skip Gates affair, the Trayvon Martin quip, the “punish our enemies” call, etc.) and Eric Holder (“cowards,” congressional oversight is racially motivated, “my people,” etc.) have made it a point to make race essential, not incidental, to their governance. If in 2008 liberals celebrated the election of Barack Obama as proof of a new postracial harmony, in 2012 a tight race will be cited as greater proof of a new ascendant racism. The idea that to elect Obama wins the nation racial exemption, and to defeat him earns condemnation, is illogical. No matter: By late fall, expect a desperate Obama administration to be dredging up the charge overtly, nonstop, and in person.

4. We should look for new furor against the “system” in direct proportion to the praise heaped on it in 2008 for being redeemed. The polls, if unfavorable, will be described as innately biased. The uncivil Rush Limbaugh, talk radio generally, Fox News, and tea-party bloggers, we will be lectured, are subversive, peddle hate, foment violence, and should be silenced. Whereas David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Christopher Buckley were recommended reading in 2008, given their balanced and fair-minded critiques of George W. Bush and their appreciation of Barack Obama, in 2012 we will learn that they are right-wing attack dogs for losing their enthusiasm for the first-class mind and temperament of Barack Obama. Whereas a Pat Buchanan on MSNBC railing against Bush’s war and McCain’s neocon advisers was a reminder of how the libertarian Right has positive affinities with the liberal Left, in 2012 such a paleocon “racist” must be kept off the airwaves. Voter-registration laws and voter-ID requirements, remember, are designed to exclude the oppressed and must be relaxed. Advertising has warped American politics. Super PACs are Romney conspiracies. If big Wall Street money went for Obama in 2008 and thereby won investment banking and the stock market exemption from charges of greed and corruption, in 2012 investors may swing to Romney and thereby incite calls to rein in “big money” and furious op-eds about the toxic mix of politics and cash. If Romney outraises Obama, we will hear again the calls for public campaign financing, which were ignored when a cash-flush Obama renounced public financing in 2008. In 2008, academics, foundation people, the Hollywood crowd, journalists, and liberal politicians confessed that they had fallen in love again with an America that had proved it was not hopeless after all; in 2012, America may prove unsalvageable, with thousands vowing to move to Canada.

5. Suddenly around October the world will become absolutely unsafe. In these dangerous times, Americans must forget their differences, come together, and embrace a bipartisan unity — given that it may be necessary, after all, to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities, since we’ll have learned that the bomb may be a reality by, say, mid-November. Just as we have been reminded that Barack Obama has saved us by his brave decisions to use double agents in Yemen, computer viruses in Iran, Seal Team Six in Pakistan, and philosophically guided Predator assassination hits, so too a strike against Iran may suddenly be of vital national-security interest, though keenly lamented by a Nobel laureate nose-deep in Thomas Aquinas. Cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline delighted greens; the war on the war on women pleased feminists; gays are now on board after Barack Obama decided he really did favor gay marriage; Latinos got nearly a million illegal aliens exempted from immigration law. And yet all those partisan gifts have not yet resulted in a 50 percent approval rating or a lead over Mitt Romney. Something more dramatic is needed, given that there are only so many Obama heroics that can be cobbled together and leaked from classified sources.

We do not know who is going to win the 2012 election, only that it will be closer than the 2008 one — and if Obama keeps it up at his present rate he may destroy the Democratic party for a generation. There is no longer an incumbent George Bush to blame. Romney is a feistier candidate than was John McCain. Fundraising is no longer lopsided. The novelty of the first African-American president has become passé. And “hope and change” has been replaced by a concrete record of three and a half years. Given those realities, if his being an unknown quantity was a reason to vote for Barack Obama in 2008, his being all too familiar will be cause for rejecting him in 2012.

Unless the “journalist” persuade you that what they are selling is reality. It just doesn’t happen to be ACTUAL reality. And their “facts” are more laced with arsenic for those who disagree with their almighty selves than punch from Charles Manson.

The Ministry of Truth is on 24/7/365 full frontal assault mode. And they are proud of themselves.

Remember that.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Brian Farrington

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

One Small Detail….

Political Correctness hits Comics
Superman tired of “Truth, Justice and the American Way”
…Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Despite very literally being an alien immigrant, Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way,” from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue of his costume. What it means to stand for the “American way” is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.

This would be another reason why I gave up comics and stay away.
Next thing you know, he’ll be for Amnesty and call Americans racists and imperalists…
An “instrument of US Policy!” Are you f*cking kidding me!
It’s F*ucking Superman for god’s sake not the Real F*cking State Department!!
It’s a F*cking Comic book!!! Not The Huffington Post! or MSNBC!!
From a “realistic” standpoint it makes sense; it would indeed be impossible for a nigh-omnipotent being ideologically aligned with America to intercede against injustice beyond American borders without creating enormous political fallout for the U.S. government. (Comics Alliance)
Time change that big red S to a Multi-cultural inclusive UN symbol.
If an American Icon doesn’t believe in American anymore….
Even a child’s icon is not safe from the Left.
So how long before Superman cartoons of old are banned as “insensitive” or even “racist”??

Not long enough I suspect.

In a blog post at The Weekly Standard, senior writer Jonathan Last questioned Superman’s beliefs, now that he seems to have rejected the United States.

“Does he believe in British interventionism or Swiss neutrality?” Last wrote. “You see where I’m going with this: If Superman doesn’t believe in America, then he doesn’t believe in anything.”

Sounds like the Left to me. 😦
So naturally when the Leftist who came up with this crap get heat for it, they downplay it as not such a big deal (which is what the Left always does) so peshaw…“In a short story in Action Comics 900, Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy from Smallville,” they said.(Reuters)

They came for our School Boards and we said nothing.
They came for a our Mayors and we said nothing.
They came for our Cities and we said nothing.
They came for our courts and we said nothing.
They came for our food and we said nothing.
They came for our newspapers and we said nothing.
They came for our social media and we said nothing.
Now they want our childhood Icons…

If Superman is no longer on our side the only reasonable government response is to make sure he cannot harm the United States. The Defense Department should embark on a program to harness the power of kryptonite in various forms to provide a robust series of options should Superman decide that something the United States is up to does not pass his new rarefied sense of internationalist propriety. Perhaps Lex Luthor, wherever he is, would be interested in an amnesty deal in exchange for some of the anti-Superman technologies he has developed over the years. The government should also stockpile whatever types of kryptonite are available, and issue a statement to the supervillains of the universe that the United States is no longer responsible for Superman’s actions. Clark Kent’s new tax status will have to be determined by the IRS.

So long Superman, you illegal alien ingrate. (Washington Times)

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

One Small Detail:

A few months after the Obama Administration bragged about enacting “sweeping” legislation to protect the nation’s food supply, experts at a federal symposium reveal that half of what Americans eat comes from foreign countries not covered by the measure.

This leaves the nation vulnerable to bioterrorism via tainted food, according to experts participating in the FBI’s International Symposium on Agroterrorism http://www.fbi-isa.org/(X(1)S(l42untmfulwen2ud5kp3ycmf))/default.aspx?MenuItemID=73&MenuGroup=Home+Left+Menu&&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 The annual event, taking place in Kansas City this week, aims to protect the world’s food supply from terrorism through information-sharing and collaboration among governments, the private sector and academia.

The world-renowned agroterrorism experts attending this year’s symposium have some rather worrisome news for Americans, despite the president’s political horn-tooting. Because it’s nearly impossible to know where 50% of our food comes from, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to protect consumers from tainted supplies as well as intentional bioterrorism attacks.

*************

Satellite navigation system maker TomTom indirectly sells details of motorists’ driving behaviour to the police for use in determining where speed traps should be placed, the AD reports on Wednesday. Almost half the country’s police forces use this method of deciding where to put cameras and speed checks, the paper says. This is over in the Netherlands, but would anyone care to bet whether Google and Apple, for example, sell their Satnav data? You do realize that your pretty GPS in the car is well-aware of exactly how fast you’re driving at any given point in time, right? And that this information is their data, not yours, right? Just like driving with a video camera in your car pointing right at the speedometer along where an exact location at all times. In fact, that’s exactly what you just let the cops do. Welcome to the police state, where your “convenience” becomes their ability to hand you a $500 ticket. (Freedomphoenix)

****

Facebook’s current feature uses facial recognition technology to pick out faces in your photos. Once you’ve uploaded your album, Facebook will take you to a new screen where you can enter the name of each person below their face. Sometimes (depending on your privacy settings and the clarity of the photo), Facebook will go a step further: If a face matches one you previously tagged in another album, Facebook may suggest that person’s name for you. Facebook quietly added the feature to the Privacy Settings, allowing users to disable the peppy-sounding ‘Suggest photos of me to friends’ option.

It’s just one small detail…We’re so doomed…



Going Green

Just not Greenbacks.

President Obama declared today’s 41st annual Earth Day proof of America’s ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn’t include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.” (at a prior town hall)

Green Day: The day set aside to save the planet has become a second Halloween where we fear imaginary planetary ghouls and goblins. Greenies get the treats, but the trick has been on us.

It is appropriate that Earth Day comes a week after Tax Day, for our slavish dedication to saving the planet rather than saving jobs imposes a hidden tax on all of us in the form of reduced economic growth and rising inflation.

This Earth Day, we have more to fear from rising gas and food prices than from rising sea levels.

We have long argued that wealthier societies are healthier societies and that reducing emission levels to those desired by such entities as the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change and treaties like Kyoto was a recipe for global poverty.

Consider that a 2008 MIT study showed that even the carbon footprint of a homeless person in the United States is more than four times the U.N. recommendation.

Last week, after a record 92 tornadoes struck North Carolina over the weekend, a Time magazine blog seriously asked the question, “Did climate change play a role in this violent outbreak of tornadoes?”

It is such constant fearmongering that drives climate change hysteria. Consider that the worst tornado outbreak in U.S. history occurred in 1974 — the year Nixon resigned.

That was also around the time that major media outlets like Newsweek were warning of a coming Ice Age. That year, there were at least 163 tornadoes in 13 states.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has produced a chart showing tornado frequency fluctuating over time but in general decline even as levels of carbon dioxide increased since that record year and as improvements in storm detection, reporting and monitoring occurred.

Hurricane frequency and intensity, as well, are a natural cyclical phenomenon, made worse only by growing numbers rushing to the coasts, not fleeing from them.

Chalk this latest fear mongering next to the myth of Himalayan glaciers that were supposed to banish by 2035.

Fear is the warm-mongers’ stock in trade. Facts are not. But they lead us to do things like ban offshore drilling to save the fruitful and multiplying polar bears and to put corn in our gas tanks in the form of ethanol.

This only drives up demand for corn and food prices while the gas used to get to the supermarket soars in price as well.

We are still looking for the 50 million climate refugees the United Nations Environmental Program predicted in 2005 would be fleeing coastal areas and soon-to-be-submerged islands by 2010. At last report, the coastal cities to be affected are booming in population, as are the islands that are still well above sea level.

As Indur M. Goklany of the Cato Institute wrote recently in the New York Post: “Climate-change remedies can lead to greater poverty, starvation and disease, as well as widespread ecological destruction — some of the very misfortunes that they’re supposed to prevent. In our haste to address global warming, we have yet to think seriously about our policies’ unintended effects.”

Certainly the war on fossil fuels and energy consumption in general lead to reduced economic growth and lower standards of living.

It is based on the irrational fear that carbon dioxide, the product of human respiration and the basis of all life on Earth, is a dangerous pollutant.

These days the U.N. is seriously considering a proposed treaty granting human rights to the planet itself.

This is being pushed by those who consider the human beings on the planet a plague upon Gaia, the Earth goddess, and that efforts to reduce their numbers are to be encouraged.

These are the inmates that are running the global warming asylum. Boo! (IBD)

As all this suggests, environmentalism has become our newest religion. According to Joel Garreau, professor of law, culture and values at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, a religion is characterized by “a distinction between sacred and profane objects; a moral code; feelings of awe, mystery and guilt; adoration in the presence of sacred objects and during rituals; a worldview that includes a notion of where the individual fits; and a cohesive social group of the likeminded.” Environmentalism, Garreau concluded in an article last year, fits this definition of religion very well.

Environmental historian William Cronon of the University of Wisconsin, Madison — president-elect of the American Historical Association — writes of environmentalism that it has “certain landscapes — usually the wildest and most natural ones — [that] are celebrated as sacred”; it is “openly prophetic”; it develops frequent “parallels to biblical prophecy in the Hebrew and Christian traditions”; and it offers “practical moral guidance about virtually every aspect of daily life….from the apocalyptic to the mundane.”

Contemporary environmentalism prophesies virtually the same set of environmental calamities resulting from global warming: rising seas, famine, drought, pestilence, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Often without realizing it, environmentalism is recasting traditional biblical messages. The Endangered Species Act replaces Noah’s Ark; wilderness areas are the environmental “cathedrals”; Earth Day is the new “Easter,” a time for deep religious reflection and revival.

Environmentalism thus is literally, not simply metaphorically, a new religion.(DC)

So Happy Green Day. Happy, Happy, Joy Joy!

Save the Planet!

Just not any greenbacks. They’re evil! 🙂

And Satan is the $5 a Gallon for that evil Gas for that evil gas-guzzling behemoth you own.

And it’s “the rich” people’s fault!

Oh, and the EPA has declared your exhales as a “danger to human life” already.

And “green” products cost more.

But you must save the planet from you, or else you’ll go to HELL!

AMEN! 🙂

I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Big Brother Wants You!

imtenet-censorship.jpg

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

So yet again, the liberals idea of the only way for you to be free is for the government to control whatever it is.

Orwell would be proud you my sons.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And my 4th Precept: FEAR IS HOPE. (https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/the-4th-precept/)

It’s very typical of the modern Liberal to want to control everything for your own good, because you’re far too stupid to it yourself.

Health Care, Finances, Education,News,Entertainment, Food, and now the Internet.

Freedom is slavery to the government. Government is here to protect your stupid ass self from the evil capitalist exploiters.

Gee, aren’t you happy? 😦

What has the Liberals’ panties so much in a bunch?

People like me. Little ole me. And all the other anti-liberal progressives out there.

Matt Drudge, Daily Caller, bloggers, etc.

We can’t attack in frontal assault so we’ll do what all Liberals always do, attack from the rear, in seemingly innocuous ways by “fairness” and “concern” that creep like a cancer that just grows and grows until it kills the patient.

Leaving Dr. Liberal is control of everything.

What liberal wouldn’t like to control everything?

None, that are in power right now.

The government, The Liberal Progressive one is  your only hope.

You can’t possibly do it without us.

So what if you have ever since the Internet exploded onto the seem 20 years ago. You can’t now.

Why?

Because they say you can’t.

And if you learn only one thing about Liberals, and that is that they believe they are incapable of error and are vastly superior to the mere mortal  both morally and intellectually.

So questioning them is impertinent.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC’s action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of “reasonable” network management for years to come. How’s that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn’t ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter’s night for Internet freedom. (WSJ)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

And Lame Duck Cancer is a disease we are already suffering. We just don’t need another dose of it.

But the Liberals are thinking, we have to do it now because if we don’t the evil Republicans won’t let us next year. So it’s now or never!

And they are hardly the only ones.

The very liberal and toothless namby-pamby UN wants to get into the act.

The U.N. has been wanting to run the Web for years and is not letting a crisis — the WikiLeaks releases — go to waste. Following the Chicagoland model, it has plans to form an intergovernmental group that would “attempt to create global standards for policing the Internet.”

The meeting delegate from Brazil, which is pushing the proposal, told iTnews that the plan isn’t to take over the Web. Which is no reassurance at all. Whenever an elected official or bureaucrat says a program won’t cost much or the regulation being considered won’t be a burden, history teaches us to expect the exact opposite.

This big idea is coming only a few months after the Internet Governance Forum, a group that consults with the U.N., met in Vilnius, Lithuania. Its goal: to save the Internet with an international treaty that would include net neutrality.

So you could have the FCC, The US Government and the the UN all look after you.

Gee, don’t you feel better now. 🙂

The Internet is in no need of supervision from the U.N. or Washington. It is an energetic, broadly accessible marketplace of ideas.

Ideas, that the Liberal Left wants to control. For your own good, of course.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

As Rod Beckstrom, president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said in September at the Vilnius meeting that the Internet works. It lets us communicate on an unprecedented scale, and its relative lack of regulation has made “it a fertile field for innovation and competition.”

The best thing for the U.N. and Washington to do is just stand back and let it flow. (IBD)

But Liberals, especially, and Washington in general has Control Freak issues.

But it’s for own good.

We are from the Government and we are here to protect you. 🙂

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski:

As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet is unprotected. No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for the Internet service providers, so that they can manage and invest in broadband networks.

That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order…

On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.

I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework – one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Barf Bag anyone?

The FCC’s new, ostensibly softer approach comes on the heels of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision earlier this month, which ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to directly regulate internet providers nor require them to offer equal treatment to all Web traffic. Comcast sued the FCC, arguing that the commission could not force the company to be “net neutral” in regards to the file-sharing program BitTorrent, which Comcast at one point was filtering on its system.

In response, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced the “third way” which consists of simply removing ISPs from their current classification in order to “have enough of a legal footing in place to make sure the agency can protect consumers and achieve goals presented in the National Broadband Plan.”

Currently, the FCC categorizes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as Title 1 “information service.” The classification meant that the FCC lacked the direct authority to regulate these providers. The FCC’s other option, however was to classify ISPs as Title II “telecommunications service,” which internet providers say would bring with it regulatory madness and  the same red tape that wireline phone agencies find themselves in.

Genachowski’s “third way” then will be an attempt to run between the two classifications:

The chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,” the official said.

The confirmation from the FCC comes only hours after two senior Democratic politicians sent a letter to Genachowski saying that imposing Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon is “essential.” And Free Press, the liberal lobby group that’s led the fight to hand the FCC more Internet regulatory authority, hastily convened a conference call to warn that Genachowski would be leaving President Obama’s Net neutrality promises unfulfilled.

Net neutrality proponents have bemoaned the recent Appeals Court decision and wish to see a “free and open internet.”  But those opposed to interference from the FCC have argued that regulation will only suffocate business and innovation in an area that has thrived without government interference.

Yesterday, one FCC official said Genacoswki was trying to have it both ways, hoping:

to balance “a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach.” Title I refers to lightly regulated information services; Title II refers to heavily regulated telecommunications services, such as legacy telephone networks.

The balancing act between what the FCC has been told it cannot do and what it wants to do, has caused the committee to run over itself more than once. As BetaNews reports:

“The Third Way,” as the FCC now calls it, is a clear effort to defer to US Supreme Court decisions that suggested the FCC has the authority to declare what it does not regulate. As a model for deciding what’s in and what’s out, Schlick refers to the classic dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2005 Brand X decision. There, Justice Scalia argued that since it doesn’t make much difference to the customer whether he receives service through one route or another, it shouldn’t make much difference to the law, either.

Dancing lightly over the fact that Scalia’s argument was a dissent from the decision, and not actual law, Schlick suggested this morning that the FCC should now embrace an approach that it had vehemently rejected just weeks earlier.

Currently, the “third way” contains only six provisions from Title II regulations, although “the FCC could decide it needs more or less as this process wears on,” according to Engadget.com.

Republicans in Washington rejected the “third way” characterization and accused the Obama Administration of once again seeking to expand the power of government over the private sector.  House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said, “Under this job- killing big government scheme, the Obama administration is seeking to expand the power of the federal government.”

Republican FCC Commissioners Rob McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker issued a joint statement, saying: “This dramatic step to regulate the Internet is unnecessary.”

“It is a stark departure from the long-established bipartisan framework,” they said. (Daily Caller)

Bi-Partisan, wonder where I’ve heard that before?

Oh, yeah, it’s when you roll over and let the Liberal do what they want to do without objection.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

You have been Gore-d Again!

Saturday Nigh Live skewers the TSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Om2Evyubc

Be Sexually molested for Freedom and Security! Hurrah! 🙂

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Former Vice President Al Gore admitted Monday that his pivotal 1994 Senate vote for ethanol subsidies was bad policy but good politics. That says a lot about the reality of environmentalism in government.

As the ethanol tax credit comes up for renewal in Congress on Dec. 31, it’s worth noting it only came about because the vice president cast the decisive 51st vote in favor of it in 1994.

At the time, he packaged it as a big move to preserve the environment in a market-friendly, sustainable manner, and for years defended his vote because it was supposedly good for us.

“The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be,” he recounted in 1998.

Now the real story emerges. On Monday he matter-of-factly told a bankers group in Greece it was actually about helping himself.

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.

One is tempted to praise a man who admits mistakes, but the magnitude of what Gore actually did through his cynically cast vote as an elected leader in a position of trust suggests sorry isn’t enough.

Gore’s vote drove food prices higher, trashed the environment, and drew American capital into inefficient energy sources over efficient ones. This should be an object lesson in the importance of not trusting politicians on the environment.

Start with what it is — a tax credit for special interests that has cost U.S. taxpayers $16 billion. And costs are rising. The centrally planned ethanol mandate has risen from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 35 billion by 2022. In the last year alone, it’s cost $7 billion.

From the tax credit, refiners make a profit on blended ethanol even when it costs more than gasoline, an unfair price distortion.

No wonder refiners told farmers they could buy all the corn they could grow — Uncle Sam was picking up the tab. Today, 41% of all corn grown in America goes to ethanol — not to the dinner table.

As corn exports fell, inflation soared abroad. In Mexico, riots broke out over rising tortilla prices. Inflation hurts the poor most.

Then there was the product itself, ethanol, a fuel that’s been around since the days of Henry Ford. It burns 30% less efficiently than other forms of energy, such as oil, clean coal, shale and natural gas. As IBD wrote earlier this month, ethanol “has never made much sense economically or environmentally.” Gore confirms this.

Still, ethanol mandates did wonders for Gore’s political life, bringing him everything from a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for environmentalism to big bucks to speak in places like Athens, Greece.

By his own admission, Gore’s mistake came at our expense and for that he deserves scorn. More importantly, the feel-good era of environmentalism by government diktat must end.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism to satisfy one man’s ambitions.

Among the unintended consequences, farmland that had been efficiently planted with multiple crops ended up as monolithic cornfields, using 1,700 gallons of water to make a gallon of ethanol. Food prices surged as the government’s ethanol monster got fed. (Ibd)

So does this whole sorry mess of enviromentalist whackos come down to one man’s ambitions unrealized. Is that why liberals are STILL mad about the 2000 election and have gone off the rails ever since?

And just think of all the food shortages and hunger (and there was in other countries) because 1 man decided that his presidential ambition out weighed the nation or the world.

Gee, sounds like Obama  now. 😦

But it’s hardly over. “Green” has gone GREEN. As in Money!

A high-ranking member of the U.N.’s Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth.

Money, they say, is the root of all evil. It’s also the motivating force behind what is left of the climate change movement after the devastating Climate-gate and IPCC scandals that saw the deliberate manipulation of scientific data to spur the world into taking draconian regulatory action.

Left for dead, global warm-mongers are busy planning their next move, which should occur at a climate conference in relatively balmy Cancun at month’s end. Certainly it should provide a more appropriate venue for discussing global warming than the site of the last failed climate conference — chilly Copenhagen.

Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.

Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

In his IPCC post, Edenhofer was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Based on anecdotal evidence, it contained unsubstantiated claims that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear and Bangladesh would be totally submerged.

Edenhofer claims “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community” and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes, the postage stamp countries of the world. He admits this “has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

It has everything to do with a different kind of green. U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket.

We’ve seen such plans before. Just before Copenhagen, a group of “chicken littles” along with some gullible corporations ran an ad campaign titled “Hopenhagen.” It pushed a global wealth redistribution scheme based on the theory that Western nations, particularly the U.S., owe a “climate debt” for having initiated the Industrial Revolution and plundered the world’s fossil fuel resources in the name of unbridled capitalism.

According to a Hopenhagen pocket guide, there will be a “Green New Deal” that “will be based on the polluter-pays principle, on the historically high emissions of developed nations and on the capacity of the rich nations to help the poor.”

This sounds like the Marxist principle: to each according to his need from each according to his ability — with a guilty conscience thrown in for good measure. As President Obama might put it, U.N. officials are seeking a “fundamental transformation” of the globe.

Given this administration’s willingness to compromise American sovereignty, we could soon see Americans taxed to fund a global scam — the ultimate form of taxation without representation. (IBD)

The only cure for this is flush every Democrat out of the system. Otherwise, this cancer will just keep coming back and keep growing. It will kill the patient eventually.

The patient being US.

Political Cartoon by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert

The Infidels

Mark Steyn: Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven’t touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It’s one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it’s hard to see why it’s in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the president of the United States to denounce him, and the secretary of state, and the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the Western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama’s famous “teaching moments”? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the president, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where’s the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones’ First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a Bible, U.S. government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys Bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for “respect” and “sensitivity” toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

Maybe Pastor Jones doesn’t have any First Amendment rights. Musing on Koran burning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued:

[Oliver Wendell] Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater… Why?  Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?

This is a particularly obtuse remark even by the standards of contemporary American jurists. As I’ve said before, the fire-in-a-crowded-theater shtick is the first refuge of the brain-dead. But it’s worth noting the repellent modification Justice Breyer makes to Holmes’ argument: If someone shouts fire in a gaslit Broadway theatre of 1893, people will panic. By definition, panic is an involuntary reaction. If someone threatens to burn a Koran, belligerent Muslims do not panic – they bully, they intimidate, they threaten, they burn and they kill. Those are conscious acts, at least if you take the view that Muslims are as fully human as the rest of us and therefore responsible for their choices. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer’s remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human.

More importantly, the logic of Breyer’s halfwit intervention is to incentivize violence, and undermine law itself. What he seems to be telling the world is that Americans’ constitutional rights will bend to intimidation. If Koran-burning rates a First Amendment exemption because Muslims are willing to kill over it, maybe Catholics should threaten to kill over the next gay-Jesus play, and Broadway could have its First Amendment rights reined in. Maybe the next time Janeane Garafolo goes on MSNBC and calls Obama’s opponents racists, the Tea Partiers should rampage around town and NBC’s free-speech rights would be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, in smaller ways, Islamic intimidation continues. One reason why I am skeptical that the Internet will prove the great beacon of liberty on our darkening planet is because most of the anonymous entities that make it happen are run by people marinated in jelly-spined political correctness. In Canada, an ISP called Bluehost knocked Marginalized Action Dinosaur off the air in response to a complaint by Asad Raza, a laughably litigious doctor in Brampton, Ontario. Had his name been Gordy McHoser, I doubt even the nancy boys at Bluehost would have given him the time of day. A similar fate briefly befell our old pal the Binksmeister at FreeMarkSteyn.com: In other words, a website set up to protest Islamic legal jihad was shut down by the same phenomenon. In America, The New York Times  has already proposed giving “some government commission” control over Google’s search algorithm; the City of Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, is now so removed from the spirit of the First Amendment that it’s demanding bloggers pay a $300 “privilege” license for expressing their opinions online. The statists grow ever more comfortable in discussing openly the government management of your computer. But, even if they don’t formally take it over, look at the people who run publishing houses, movie studios, schools and universities, and ask yourself whether you really want to bet the future on the commitment to free speech of those who run ISPs. SteynOnline, for example, is already banned by the Internet gatekeepers from the computers at both Marriott Hotels and Toronto Airport.

But forget about notorious rightwing hatemongers like me. Look at how liberal progressives protect their own. Do you remember a lady called Molly Norris? She’s the dopey Seattle cartoonist who cooked up “Everybody Draws Mohammed” Day, and then, when she realized what she’d stumbled into, tried to back out of it. I regard Miss Norris as (to rewrite Stalin) a useless idiot, and she wrote to Mark’s Mailbox to object. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the bit about her crappy peace-sign T-shirt. Now The Seattle Weekly informs us:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris’ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.

On the advice of the FBI, she’s been forced to go into hiding. If you want to measure the decline in western civilization’s sense of self-preservation, go back to Valentine’s Day 1989, get out the Fleet Street reports on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, and read the outrage of his fellow London literati at what was being done to one of the mainstays of the Hampstead dinner-party circuit. Then compare it with the feeble passivity of Molly Norris’ own colleagues at an American cartoonist being forced to abandon her life: “There is no more Molly”? That’s all the gutless pussies of The Seattle Weekly can say? As James Taranto notes in The Wall Street Journal, even much sought-after Ramadan-banquet constitutional scholar Barack Obama is remarkably silent:

Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Unlikely, since he is too busy campaigning to save his ass to care. But what does it say about the backbone of America?

Weak.

Since when can those living in other parts of the world threaten American citizens with impunity?

Now, apparently. And everyone will roll over out of fear.

Who knows? Given his highly selective enthusiasms, you can hardly blame a third of Americans for figuring their president must be Muslim. In a way, that’s the least pathetic explanation: The alternative is that he’s just a craven squish. Which is odd considering he is, supposedly, the most powerful man in the world.

Listen to what President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, The Seattle Weekly and Bluehost internet services are telling us about where we’re headed. As I said in America Alone, multiculturalism seems to operate to the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that “in my country everyone is free to criticize the President”, and the Soviet guy replies, “Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your President.” Under one-way multiculturalism, the Muslim world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance, and, likewise, the western world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam’s loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than western liberals’ loathing of their own.

It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threaten it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ “bad cop”. Ooh, no, you can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us “Islam is a religion of peace” then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people.

While I was in Denmark, one of the usual Islamobozos lit up prematurely in a Copenhagen hotel. Not mine, I’m happy to say. He wound up burning only himself, but his targets were my comrades at the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I wouldn’t want to upset Justice Breyer by yelling “Fire!” over a smoldering jihadist, but one day even these idiots will get lucky. I didn’t like the Danish Security Police presence at the Copenhagen conference, and I preferred being footloose and fancy-free when I was prowling the more menacing parts of Rosengard across the water in Malmö the following evening. No one should lose his name, his home, his life, his liberty because ideological thugs are too insecure to take a joke. But Molly Norris is merely the latest squishy liberal to learn that, when the chips are down, your fellow lefties won’t be there for you.

Molly Morris:

At the urging of the FBI, Molly Norris, the Seattle-based illustrator and cartoonist whose satirical drawing marking “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” resulted in death threats, global protests and impassioned debate about religion and censorship, has been forced to change her name and abandon her former life as a result of her controversial cartoon.

The news that Morris had, out of concerns for her safety, decided to go into hiding was first reported in the Seattle Weekly today, a paper where Norris’ cartoons had regularly appeared:

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program — except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

Norris originally posted her tongue-in-cheek cartoon announcing May 20 as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on her website, which no longer seems to be operating. It was dedicated to the creators of the Comedy Central animated television series “South Park” after one of their episodes was censored for its portrayal of the Islamic prophet.

As expected, Norris’ creation touched a nerve, and her drawing soon became a viral hit on the Internet, posted to a variety of high-profile websites and forwarded in countless e-mails. Soon her fictitious drawing morphed into an actual event as Facebook groups championing the idea popped up and started attracting fans.

With media outlets covering the phenomenon, word of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” spread across the globe, and the government of Pakistan announced it was suspending the use of Facebook to residents there.

Norris seemed caught off guard by the whirlwind. She removed the original cartoon from her website, took pains to disassociate herself from an actual “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” and pleaded for tolerance.

“I did NOT ‘declare’ May 20 to be ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,'” she said on her website.

“I never started a Facebook page; I never set up any place for people to send drawings to and I never received any drawings,” she continued, adding, “I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this ‘day’ be called off.”

In June, despite her renunciation of the event spawned by her cartoon, Norris was placed on a hit list by Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida-linked figure who has been tied to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre as well as the failed bombing in Times Square, the New York Daily News reported. Shortly thereafter, the FBI contacted Norris.

Seattle Weekly: The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It’s all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon.
We’re hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.

Don’t count on it. We are all Infidels, after all.

I am curious to see what happens when President Obama invites Molly Norris to the White House for a beer (like he did once before with different incident). Oh, Wait…Molly Norris can’t go to the White House for beer because Molly Norris no longer exists; any trace of her has been wiped clean.

It’s too bad that Norris didn’t pick-on Christians. Imagine if, instead of encouraging her fellow cartoonists to draw Muhammad, Norris had implored them to draw Jesus Christ (Bill Maher would have excoriated her, but he’s nuts). Sure, she would have been the subject of a few fiery Sunday sermons, received some nasty letters, and even been the object of some loud protests, but she would still have her life. In fact, there are even those Christians that would have prayed for her, rejoicing that drawing Christ might be the first step in coming to Christ.

Moreover, she may have even become a star in the artistic community, celebrated as a “provocative, post modernist, commentator on contemporary religious life.” But, alas, she chose to throw a punch at Islam and practitioners of the “religion of peace” threatened to kill her.

And the guardians of free speech—those same good folks that expressed such indignation at protesters of the Ground Zero mosque, that would have hailed her as a hero had she pointed her pencil at born-again Christians—have simply shrugged their shoulders and whispered, “what a shame. I knew Molly when.”

“The saga of Molly Norris has elicited hardly any notice from political leaders, elite journalists, and celebrities. Nor has it stirred to action [among] those who claim to represent America’s Islamic community. Nor have I seen anything from Human Rights Watch. The ACLU is actually defending al-Awlaki. At the UN, Islamic countries are pushing to ban criticism of Islam under international law.”

And you could be next. say is that a knock at my door… 🙂