Monday, February 06, 2006

About Freedom Of Expression

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

From a February 4, 2006 editorial in the New York Post (hat tip to Jason over at Liberty and Culture):
"Bushies Betray Free Speech

"...Even as European and Asian leaders appealed for calm and understanding in the wake of escalating violence, the State Department yesterday came out foursquare in support of the demonstrators — and condemned the 'offensive' cartoons.

"'These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims,' said department spokesman Kurtis Cooper. 'We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility.'

"He'd have done better to call instead for respect for freedom of the press, rather than kowtow to rampaging mobs attempting to intimidate newspapers worldwide.

"We don't doubt that many Muslims consider the caricatures, originally published in a Danish newspaper and later reprinted by other European papers in a show of free-press solidarity, offensive; Islamic law prohibits any physical portrayal of Mohammed.

"But the 12 images in question [The images are here] — one showed the prophet wearing a bomb for a turban — are pretty benign, particularly when compared to the anti-American and anti-Jewish tripe that regularly appears in Arab-language news media.

"As Roger Koeppel, editor of the German paper Die Welt, noted: 'When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were silent.'

"Someone in the administration must have considered this a perfect opportunity to score some sensitivity points by sending a pointed reminder that the United States is waging war against terrorism, not the religion of Islam.

"[T]he State Department has, in effect, endorsed terrorism by expressing sympathy for the motives behind the current onslaught...."
From the February 3, 2006 edition of Der Spiegel Online:
"Democracy in a Cartoon
By Ibn Warraq

Best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq argues that freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it against attacks from totalitarian societies. If the west does not stand in solidarity with the Danish, he argues, then the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest.

"...The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

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

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

"This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize. Do we have to go on apologizing for the sins our fathers?...

"On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience....

"Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values."

Born in 1946 in India and raised in Pakistan, Ibn Warraq was educated in Koran schools in Pakistan and later in England. He currently lives in the United States and writes under the pseudonym Ibn Warraq, a pen name traditionally used by dissidents in Islam. He is the author of the best- seller "Why I am Not a Muslim" and the editor of "The Origins of the Koran" and "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad."
In London, cartoon protesters carried signs which read "Learn the lesson from 9/11" and "Behead those who insult Islam." If the West backs down on upholding freedom of speech because the exercise of that freedom is blasphemous to Muslims, shari'a law will be on its way to tacit application in our society. Is that where the West wants to go?

This item appeared last summer and did not receive much coverage in the media:
"Sculpture banned from the Venice Biennale

"A sculpture by German artist Gregor Schneider was banned from the 51st Venice Biennale because the event’s organisers said it might be offensive to Muslims. The sculpture was a 15-metre-high cube covered in black fabric modelled after the Ka’ba in Mecca and was set to be displayed in St. Mark’s Square. A spokesman for the Venetian arts authority said there was a danger that Muslims would feel provoked by the work, heightening the risk of the city being vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Schneider insisted that the artwork was not meant as a provocation. He said he wanted to symbolise a connection between European and Arab cultures. The organisers tried to place the sculpture at another site, but finally decided not to display it at all. Instead, Schneider showed a video explaining his failed attempt."
On June 23, 2005, Hugh Fitzgerald of Dhimmi Watch had this to say about the above news item:
"Statues, like paintings of any living creature, are forbidden in Islam....

"For in Islam, the pre-Islamic or non-Islamic artifacts are of no interest, no valuable. They can be destroyed, they should be destroyed. The tens of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed by the Muslim invaders, a partial list of which was compiled by Sita Ram Goel, are perhaps the best-known example....
"The greatest destruction of art works in human history is that wrought by Muslim conquerors on the non-Muslim lands and peoples they invaded, conquered, and subjugated.

"What will happen in Europe if it is islamized? If there are already people removing statues, however banal those statues may be, from art expositions now, what will happen in 10 years? In 20 years? Already statues have been vandalized or destroyed by Muslims -- in the Piazza del Popolo, and in a church in northern France (a statue of Mary and Jesus). Muslims have been recorded discussing their plans to destroy a celebrated fresco in Bologna that depicted Muhammad in Hell. What else is happening, and is being suppressed from us by worried European governments...?"
Now back to the offensive cartoons. Felis over at Democracy Frontline recently posted the following information:
"Drawing cartoons with the controversial Musulman 'prophet' Muhammad is not a new activity. Have no illusions about the sudden religious Muslim sensitivity. The Muslim powerbrokers are proceeding just one step further to gain full protection of the European law. If they win now nobody will be able to criticize Islam as a religious or political doctrine. Nothing happens in the Muslim world spontaneously. There is always some sinister group of people who plan, pay expenses press buttons and unleash their hounds when the time is ripe.

"Well before the Danish cartoonists, who probably by now wished to be somewhere safe in Israel, various artists depicted Muhammad probably thousands of times. Initially it was the Persian and Turkish Muslim artists. Muhammand was depicted also by Western artists before....

"Why wasn’t the Muslim fury released then (apart from some mild whining from Islam on Line)?..."
Good question.

55 Comments:

At 2/06/2006 12:07 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Interesting assertion by Hugh Fitzgerald that nothing happens in the Muslim world spontaneously.

If this is so, then the reason for that would be because Islamic culture, generally is totalitarian. Individuals do not feel the right to assert themselves, generally.

Therefore, change is left to a nefarious group of power elite.

Of course, this was proven to be the case with regards to the Danish Cartoon Jihad. An Imam from Denmark traveled the Middle East with faked drawings of Mohammed getting anally raped, and said that they were done by a Danish person.

 
At 2/06/2006 12:09 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

It is interesting that Bush would choose "sensitivity" over Free Speech, considering he had been telling everybody to read Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy.

His statement is the opposite of anything Sharansky's book teaches.

When a society limits speech, people become double-minded, then confused, and then, they forget who they are and what they want.

The inhibiting of Free Speech is the first step towards totalitarianism.

 
At 2/06/2006 12:39 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pastorius,
Actually, it was Felis who noted that nothing happens in the Muslim world spontaneously. But I imagine that Fitzgerald has also so asserted.

On FNC, I saw a brief clip mentioning what you said: An Imam from Denmark traveled the Middle East with faked drawings of Mohammed, except that I don't recall the "faked" part. I might have missed that part, though, because I was getting together a load of laundry and didn't hear all of the item, which was very short. I've said from the beginning of the cartoon fracas which occurred this past week that something else is behind this story. I asked, "How did the word about the cartoons get spread to the Muslim masses?" I think I may also have mentioned that I doubted that Muslims read evangelical-Christian newspapers.

If I rioted every time I felt offended, I wouldn't have any time to blog. LOL.

Of course, there really is nothing funny about this cartoon jihad, is there? When a society starts watering down freedom of speech and freedom of the press, totalitarianism is not far behind.

So, why are were hearing about "sensitivities" from GWB?

 
At 2/06/2006 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saw this posted (by ignorant atheist)at DW earlier . . .

american ambassador in Denmark firmly behind Denmark and apologizes for previous luke-warm support!

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=333867

It was about time! but im more than willing to forgive! I think our spam-campaign to the administration worked!

 
At 2/06/2006 3:23 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

AOW,
Here's an article about the Danish Imam and his faked drawings:

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/02/cartoon-intifada-is-worldwide-and.html

 
At 2/06/2006 4:19 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Sad that the Doj took the PC stance

 
At 2/06/2006 4:46 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

My goodness, AOW, you expect a strong statement from Bush?

He's doing whatever the hell the Saudis tell him to do.

If they say lie low then he will lie real low.

 
At 2/06/2006 5:23 PM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Mr. Ducky is 100% correct. Bush caves in, thanks to David Forte and Co. Bush is pussified when it comes down to Muslims.

We need a hardliner conservative in the White House that knows how to call a spade a spade. Bush is obviously not one of them.

 
At 2/06/2006 7:36 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

Pastorius,
"If this is so, then the reason for that would be because Islamic culture, generally is totalitarian."
If left alone, most Muslims will hang about their little dwellings or leaning agains the walls, pehaps sipping very sweet tea and smoking cigarretes.
Only their mind control freaks (imams) can break this letargic hybernation.
Have you noticed how all action among the Muslims always starts after Friday "shit stirring" (pardon me I should've said sermons)?

 
At 2/06/2006 8:19 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Did anyone else hear Bill O'Reilly tonight? Are the gloves off?

 
At 2/06/2006 8:32 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

MR DUCKY SAID IT ALL.

Haven't I been repeating like a retarded parrot, over and over that our president is a political whore?

Sure, he's the best we got, but crap, what a mess.

He claims over and over that we're not in a war against Islam as a religion. (COUGH) Funny, our enemy has never said it was anything else!

Islam is at war with the west, the world, and EVERY religion on the planet - by its own words!

... and rubes say we can't declare war on 1.3 billion people. What? Did they get this wisdom from GOD or something?

 
At 2/06/2006 8:44 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

There is an end to this mess an the Arabs know it . We should seriously work on a plan to reduce the cost of producing Oil from shale beds. The break even point is $75.

OPEC knows there is a limit to this madness. If the cost is lowered to fifty we can bankrupt Chavez and OPEC.

As far as the President is concerned he has failed to use the big stick with the Saudis. A serious conversation was overdue years ago.

 
At 2/06/2006 9:49 PM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

It also means that freedom of speech now must seek sanctuary on the web. And that is where the infidels excel.

I saw Newt Gingrich on O'Reilly tonight and he made a clear point that this appeasement by Bush and Condi is the absolutely wrong position. I hope they heed Newt's advice.

 
At 2/07/2006 1:14 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Isn't it funny how the left is now criticizing Bush for not rushing to the defense of cartoonists disparaging Islam?

And that's tonight's moment of Zen.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:40 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

John Sobieski,
I saw the early portion of O'Reilly's show last night. In that portion, O'Reilly was interviewing two Muslim men--a professor and Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslims Coalition. The official statement of the FMC, from this source is as follows:

FMC Condemns Reaction of Muslims to Unfavorable Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad

The Free Muslims Coalition condemns the reaction of American Muslim Organizations and Muslim governments to the unfavorable depiction of Prophet Mohammad in European News papers.

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in European news papers of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Outrage over the cartoons has ignited demonstrations from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, and prompted a boycott of Danish products throughout the Middle East.

In Pakistan, hundreds demonstrated on Thursday, chanting "Death to Denmark" and burning Danish and French flags. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak warned that the decision by some European papers to publish the cartoons could encourage terrorists. Consequently, government ministers from 17 Arab nations have asked the Danish government to punish the newspaper for what they called an "offense to Islam" and some countries have even pulled their ambassadors from Denmark.

The controversy intensified on Wednesday when a French news paper, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here".

The response by Muslims to the cartoons is absolutely pathetic and depressing but revealing. The reason Muslims are responding with anger and threats of violence is because most Muslims live in countries where democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts.

Moreover, the Muslim world suffers from a lack of visionary leadership. In this particular case, when Muslim leaders, including American Muslim leaders, realized that Muslims are furious they joined the chorus of fury rather than explain to their people that they must be reasonable and that freedom of speech is healthy even if it is insulting. What is even more disgusting is that most American Muslim organizations, who should know better, have joined the chorus of instigators rather than taking this opportunity to teach their members about the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

One would think that Muslims have learned a lesson from the mishaps of the radical Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini when in 1989, he called on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book, The Satanic Verses. The childish and stupid reaction by Khomeini caused an otherwise poor book to become a number one seller. Similarly today, the stupid reaction by Muslims has caused many more news papers to publish insulting images of the Prophet Mohammed.

When will Muslims wake up and realize that their intolerance of opposing opinions is keeping them in the dark ages? When will Muslims realize that respect must be earned and not forced through violence and coercion? When will Muslims realize that individual liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights? When will American Muslim organization provide solutions to Muslims rather than instigate problems? The Free Muslims Coalition hopes that the answer to all these questions is soon.


When Nawash was interviewed last night, he stressed that the cartoons offended him, but that learning to accept such criticism is the price of living in a free society; he strongly supported the concept of freedom of speech/press. The professor, on the other hand, was more supportive of the Muslim reaction to the cartoons and seemed to feel that censorship should apply to anything which deprecates MTP.

Earlier in the evening, on Brit Hume, the closing panel discussion made the point that more than a few radicals were involved in the demonstrations. Krauthammer made the point that Islam teaches Muslims that they are superior and that this teaching leads to reactions such as those we're seeing to the cartoons. Brit Hume also showed some of the Middle East cartoons, which are particularly offensive to Jews.

Making excuses for and appeasing these recent outbreaks against the cartoons may calm things down for a while, but the problem will still be there, just waiting to erupt again.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:42 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
Worse than sad! The administration's position undermines our individual freedoms.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:47 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I am not a Bushite when it comes to this administration's dealings with Saudi and with regard to immigration policies.

I agree with you: He's doing whatever the hell the Saudis tell him to do. And I think that David Forte and Grover Norquist have a lot to do with this administration's policies and even the term "The War on Terror," a term which is meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

If I recall correctly, Saudi took the position of ending diplomatic relations with Denmark over these MTP cartoons. And we all know that GWB goes out of his way not to upset the Saudis.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:55 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
He claims over and over that we're not in a war against Islam as a religion. (COUGH) Funny, our enemy has never said it was anything else!

Three points about GWB:
1. He's of the persuasion that all religions are good and speak to that which is good in human beings.
2. Advice from Norquist and Forte pushes GWB even further in the direction of point one.
3. Oil dollars speak loudly.

Now, all religions have a certain attitude of exclusiveness, as in "my faith is the way to heaven." But Islam has not only that attitude but the militancy to enfoce that Islam become the worldwide way. And because Islam is so entwined with geopolitical ideology, its practice as a personal faith involves a lot more than worship. We're seeing that aspect now, with the cartoon furor.

And another thing about Islam...Of all the world's "faiths," Islam stands alone in its lack of the concept of the Golden Rule. Or so says Ali Sina, apostate; his material is available at here.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
The conversation is so long overdue because of the matters of who's-got-the-oil and who's-got-the-oil-bucks. I can't think of a single one of the West's leaders who even wants to have that conversation!

 
At 2/07/2006 5:58 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
Yes, the imams definitely stir the pot. They know how to manipulate the masses. And the services at the mosques is one of the main venues.

Did you hear about the recent escapees in Yemen? They tunneled out and escaped through a mosque. Of course!

 
At 2/07/2006 9:13 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

It may have been pointed out many times here already, but it's worth adding to my parrot act.

Islam is violent today and its members prone to violence because of the religion.

Consider:

Jesus brought the gospel (good news). His command was simple - spread it and be my witnesses.

Muhammed's command for Islam was equally simple - slay, murder, and ambush the infidel!

The exemplars of both religions are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Jesus = peace. Muhammed = violence... no, let's just say it properly - murder.

Every Islamic reaction to anything an infidel does will be heavily influenced by Muhammed's examples. A muslim strives to imitate the prophet in all they do.

Is it any wonder they murder children while screaming "allahu akbar"?

This is why there are no Islamic "moderates" and can never be any.

The violence will continue to worsen and America will need to wait for GeorgeSaudiBush (Islamic Apologist Extraordinaire) to leave office.

 
At 2/07/2006 10:11 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Well Mussolini, who do you think will take Bush's place and why will it matter?

His Nibs has wrecked the army and exposed serious weaknesses. Do you honestly think Iran is frightened?

The military crowd has taken us down a dead end. Time to look for solutions.

 
At 2/07/2006 12:37 PM, Blogger Ouzian said...

bush is trying to calm those raging muslims by clearly defining to them that its their savage behavior that is creating the mess around the world (although a portion of it comes from islam).... and not islam in general... its a bufeer that will let them think....we need them to be thinking atleast and not bomb all foreign embasies....

 
At 2/07/2006 1:06 PM, Blogger David Schantz said...

I'm starting to have a problem with this. As a rule I support freedom of speech. There always have been and always will be cartoons about religion and politics, get over it. I do have a problem with Westboro Baptist Church members protesting military funerals. I've posted several messages about that at my site. There are some things I feel you just should not do. Holding a protest at a funeral would be one of them.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

 
At 2/07/2006 3:26 PM, Blogger Mark said...

As a Brit, I would like to see Newt Gingrich take over the White House. He talks sense and IS sensible. He understands the complexity of these issues. Moreover, he is an educated, well-read man.

The current President is a let down. At the start, he showed some promise; but now he shows none.

He's too friendly with the Saudis for my liking. The Bush family has been friendly with the bin Ladens for years. What's going on behind the scenes there? That's what I'd like to know! Moreover, how much money is changing hands at the top? How many favours are being done for this oil? How many blind eyes are being turned?

Then you've got Haliburton and all the millions changing hands there.

These guys are not looking out for Western civilization; rather, they're looking out for themselves.

Too many people lining their own pockets for my liking!

 
At 2/07/2006 3:33 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

...and Gingrich is going to clean up the mess? That's too freakin' hilarious.

Too much money being skimmed. Nobody is going to change anything.

 
At 2/07/2006 4:20 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I was impressed by Newt’s comments on Iran (comparing the situation to Nazi Germany in the 1930s) and the cartoon brouhaha. On the latter he was uncompromising: he condemned that barbaric outburst and defended the right of a free press. He was against the administration’s apologetics. So far, Newt is the only politician that has moral backbone.

 
At 2/07/2006 4:35 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Yeah, he'll condemn them and keep taking the envelopes from the Saudis.

Wow, he condemned the rioters. Big friggin' deal.

Wheel keeps spinning. Bore me later.

 
At 2/07/2006 4:55 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

I know this isn't exactly the thread topic, but I just have to answer Mr Ducky.

The field looks bleaker than a Montana prairie in 20 degree weather and 40mph winds.

Jeb Bush - ain't gonna happen
McCain - one of the biggest whores in the senate
Giuliani - not bad, but take away our guns? Pfff
Allen - possible, but not inspiring
Condi* - not running
Newt - sounds good, but ain't gonna happen
Frist - are you kidding?
Romney - too clean and many won't vote for a Mormon
Pataki - get real
Cheney - best man for straight talk and he says HELL NO

My thought on a good candidate? Tancredo - just for saying that Islam is vile. Karl Rove hates him for some reason, which may be a good thing and the State Department idiots really hate him, which sounds really great.

He says he might enter the race. Dunno much else about him, but we need someone that talks straight, not rhetorically or in a partisan manner.

I have an * next to Condi because there is debate about whether she is running or not. A close associate of Rove says that Condi IS going to be a candidate.

I think she could easily be as tough as Tancredo while bringing experience to the presidency. Way back in our traditions, Secretaries of State made good presidents.

About changing the mess in congress... that's a whole whopping pile of poop. I'll be voting for newcomers - libertarians or republicans - whoever offers the most fiscally conservative line.

I just can't trust the socialists, Ducky. They want to continue leading America down the tubes of multi-culti suicide that France and Germany are blazing. No need for us to imitate them.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:15 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Mussolini, samwich and I vehemently disagree on this but I think you get Romney.

Thoroughly corrupt but a great image. Bush with brains. Very dangerous.

 
At 2/07/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...

BUY DANISH!

 
At 2/07/2006 6:16 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Oops, forgot to comment on the Dems.

I used to be a dem, you know. Even rooted for Governor Moonbeam back in... what was that? '92? Yes, I know. Please stop laughing.

Hillary - psychotic with her politics, tring to be center and left and right all at the same time. She's got a lot of work cut out for herself. She's missing the polish needed to be a candidate, but you know? I think she's your ticket and I believe the dems will fall in behind her - unless they're so hysterical at being out of power that they vote independent to spite her.

Richardson - more polish than Hillary but the only thing he has going for him is semi-tough talk on some half-hearted border issues. That and a lot of border photo ops. Not good.

Harry Reid - oh please

Joe Biden - not a chance

Joe Lieberman - a hawk and a generally straight talker. I like this guy but he's such a hard socialist that Castro looks like Newt compared to Lieb.

Kerry - other than Hillary, the dems best bet. He can unite the left with his adroit flip-flops and double-speak. Lotta polish on this guy. He's going to be seen as weak on defense, though, and it won't be good.

Obama - after McCain just got done trashing him for being a worse political whore than McCain himself, Obama's career is over.

Among those, only Lieberman would say no to the UN about the internet. Hillary, Kerry, or any of the others would hand it off so fast you'd think time travel to the past had just been invented.

Then sites like these would disappear.

Like I said, I see little and less, and ultimately, probably a whole lot of nothing. America is in for some tough times. Many more thousands are going to die while our politicians worry about sounding "moderate."

Romney? Is that yours, or Samwich... hmm no that's your opinion since it's your post. Could get worse than Romney, I suppose. Why do you think Romney?

 
At 2/07/2006 6:41 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Just letting everyone know that I'm exhausted after a hard day at work. Also, I have to make a grocery-store run.

I may have to hit the sack early--if coffee doesn't revive me.

Later,
AOW

 
At 2/07/2006 7:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheney for President. Alan Keyes for VP. That way even if Cheney kicks off, we've still got a "Staussian" in the White House.

-FJ

 
At 2/07/2006 10:06 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I'm running for President in 2008 as well. The Hillary political triangulation can never outhawk my promise to use nuclear weapons at least once within my first 100 days.

 
At 2/08/2006 8:11 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

About who will run in the next election...Sometimes, the candidates are a surprise. Think Jimmy Carter here. Had we heard much of anything before he started winning primaries and eventually got the nomination? The same goes, more or less, for Bill Clinton. Typically, the recent Republican candidates have been quite predictable, but maybe not in 2008.

In my own mind, I go back and forth as to whether or not Hillary will run. The promotion of her candidacy is already afoot, but some skeletons in her closet may tank her run; the Internet has a way of exposing the past of any candidate, and the blogosphere will go after her, no holds barred. I've yet to meet anyone, face to face, who likes her much.

I suspect that Mark Warner, who just left the governorship in VA, will be on the Democratic ticket. His looks are reminiscent of the Kennedys, for one thing. And what he did while governor of VA would not hurt his chances in the run.

As to the Republican Party, I recently heard Guiliani on talk radio--Hannity, I think. Guiliani's tone seemed to indicate that he is indeed considering a run. Hannity mentioned Guiliani's teaming up with George Allen, and I don't recall Guiliani saying no.

I also don't discount Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia, and Tancredo, who seems to be positioning himself for a run. The same goes for Romney.

Of course, it is early to speculate, isn't it? Lots can happen between now and summer, 2008.

And Beamish has declared his candidacy. I seem to recall one point of his platform: "Why haven't we nuked Mecca yet?"

 
At 2/08/2006 8:16 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Ouzian,
we need them to be thinking atleast and not bomb all foreign embasies

They are led by firebrands, certainly, but there are also plenty of verses in the Koran to support what they're doing. In fact, Mohammed taught "Terrorize the infidels." For that reason, the bomb-in-the-turban picture depicts a truth about Islam, particularly as presented in the Medinan verses, which supersede the Meccan verses.

bush is trying to calm those raging muslims by clearly defining to them that its their savage behavior that is creating the mess around the world

Not working! What an infidel says doesn't work because the Koran teaches that Muslims should disregard anything infidels have to say, as well as the "infidel way of life."

 
At 2/08/2006 8:23 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mark,
I don't think that Newt Gingrich makes a viable candidate. Too many scandals in his past.

GWB's ties to the Saudis AND his belief that all religions and all people are inherently good and derive from the same God Whom all religions worship in their different ways have blinded him. He learned that second idea at Yale, I'm sure. I went to college a few years later than he did, but here in Virginia, the teachings of Yale are about 10 years later in having major sway in academia, so I heard some of the same catch phrases in college that I now hear from GWB.

Money usually talks louder than patriotism.

 
At 2/08/2006 8:26 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
A close associate of Rove says that Condi IS going to be a candidate.

I keep hearing the Condi should run, particularly from women, who think that Condi is a good option if Hillary runs. However, if Hillary doesn't run, I don't believe that Condi will run, either. The Republican Party won't risk a female candidate if the Dems don't.

 
At 2/08/2006 8:26 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Nobody outhawks you!

 
At 2/08/2006 8:28 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
I missed that portion of O'Reilly, so I didn't hear what Gingrich said. Around the D.C. area, most people have negative associations with the name "Gingrich," but I don't know all the details--other than that many see him as "slick."

 
At 2/08/2006 8:30 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Cubed,
I'm not much on ham, but I do like Danish cookies. Not that I need the extra carbs. LOL.

Seriously, however, those who support freedoms should support Denmark.

 
At 2/08/2006 8:38 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

David,
There always have been and always will be cartoons about religion and politics, get over it.

Have you read this? It speaks of the engineering of all this Muslim violence over cartoons.

I've been reading your articles about demonstrations at funerals. Along similar lines, I'm sure you've heard about the political speeches at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. Disgraceful to do such a thing at the funeral of such a lady!

 
At 2/08/2006 9:31 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Speaking of cartoons and Coretta King.
I wonder if AOW would put up a billboard in Compton with a cartoon of Dr. King and see if that incites violence while mainting her right to "free speech".

As for Mrs. King's funeral...I'm sure George the Chimp felt uncomfortable but I hardly see what your gripe is.

 
At 2/08/2006 9:33 AM, Blogger Ouzian said...

AOW,
imagine if vush said that its Islam that has to be banished... God, I cant imagine the consequences of this since they will be as heinous as neer experienced before by human race... its a strategy, there are grizillion other sources in the world that teach violence, and there will ALWAYS be... so acheiving perfection is unrealistic...

again, its a strategy...

 
At 2/08/2006 9:34 AM, Blogger Ouzian said...

I meant bush..... :)

 
At 2/08/2006 5:41 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I've rethought nuking Mecca. A couple of conventional Tomahawk missiles dead center through the top of the Kaaba would make a dust of the holy black meteoric phallus of Allah.

It wouldn't even have to kill anybody.

It beats pretending we're not mad at 'em.

 
At 2/08/2006 6:14 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Mr Beamish - I thought the same thing. No deaths.

Even better would be to heist the damn thing and parade porn stars around it here in the states.

Holy hell.

 
At 2/08/2006 6:28 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Do you self-censor your videography because your message MIGHT incite violence or MIGHT offend someone?

At what point does fear of the reaction become the guideline and, thereby, censorship? Of course, what offends one group of people may not offend another group.

The furor and reaction to a bunch of drawings gives more credence to the idea that Islam has serious problems with the freedoms which Westerners hold dear. Certainly these cartoons are insolent, but primarily because MTP is so revered, to the point of cultism. And certainly the Muslim reaction is WAY out of line. I didn't see any Christians burning down art museums over Piss Christ. Outcry and boycotts, but no violence.

Part of being a member of a free society is the responsibility to be offended without making an ass of oneself.

As to Coretta Scott King's funeral, I find it very distasteful to politicize such a time.

 
At 2/08/2006 6:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

So, how did the cartoon jihad get started?

From this source:

February 02, 2006

Fabricated cartoons worsened Danish controversy


The controversy over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed is expanding, as more Muslims join the boycott and protests against Denmark and various European newspapers decide to publish the cartoons, mostly out of solidarity with Jyllands Posten and to make a strong political stand. One issue that puzzles many Danes is the timing of this outburst. The cartoons were published in September: Why have the protests erupted from Muslims worldwide only now? The person who knows the answer to this question is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, a man that the Washington Post has recently profiled as “one of Denmark's most prominent imams.”

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya, Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.


The equivalent of an anti-blasphemy law runs contrary to the concept of the separation of established religion and government. But Islam melds religion and government as a geopolitical ideology.

If one doesn't like a depiction of one's God or prophet, don't look at it.

 
At 2/08/2006 7:24 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Hirsi Ali, as quoted from in this source:

"The [Islamists] call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech ... Islamists don't allow their critics the same rights … After the West prostrates itself, the [Islamists] will be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless."

But it's not just the Islamists who consider themselves superior!

 
At 2/08/2006 8:32 PM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Many people have a gut reaction against Newt including members of my family. But I can't tell what it is that they don't like. I wonder what it is ...

 
At 2/08/2006 9:37 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Maybe that the media called Newt a nazi so many times that we think he has no electability?

 
At 2/09/2006 12:46 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

If Newt runs for President I'll withdraw from the race. I relish the thought of bringing Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton to tears on international television. But not as much as watching Newt do it.

 
At 8/24/2006 10:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work
bentley car auto bentley exp speed 8

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home