On Standing Up To Islamofacism

Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no 

Sadly, as the article illustrates, we are not all involved in showing up as absurd those who use Islam as a terror tactic. And, most of the world's leaders refuse to admit that Islam is a problem. Instead, they shield the role of Islam deflecting blame on all manner of other descriptions and excuses for the killings which take place in the name of Allah, in the defense of a non-peaceful religion.

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

 It is one thing for the man on the street to be nervous about how loudly he proclaims Islam's defects, for the man on the street is dependent for security on the leaders of his government and they are more nervous and less likely to call it for what it is than is that man on the street who needs the backing of his own government in order to protect his right to say what he thinks, it is another thing altogether for our leaders to cower when they have chosen a role for which courage is demanded. You may say, well, it isn't so much that the leadership is afraid, they just view the problem differently, and believe that the matter can be resolved if we demonstrate to the murders that we really, really like them, in which case, I say you are so far from facing reality that you are a hindrance on achieving success against this threat. You, most certainly, are not Charlie if you think we can convince these bastards to be nice. You also are not Charlie if you think you have to care what these Islamist bastards think of what we do and say; they are the ones who do not fit in modern times, they need to change to progress into the 21st century.

A carrot to: Instapundit

Message In A Blog Bottle

Time For A National - Draw A Mohammad Cartoon Day?

Consider it an homage to free speech, consider it a memorial to those killed today in Paris by Muslim extremists, but consider it a necessity for the future; the future belongs to the bold. Do not capitulate in the face of death threats, that sends the wrong message to these animals.

Non-Muslims are not bound be Muslim laws. We get to choose when we act with respect, and when we mock someone who is acting in an absurd manner.

Actually, with this publication, the first threat I will likely face is from my own President's misguided administration who will possibly blame me, proactively, for any future attacks from these inhuman creeps. Well, let me be clear, it is not my fault. Do not lock me up like you did that videographer who had nothing to do with Benghazi. Learn from me that we will not win their hearts and we will not get peace from them by giving them what they ask for; they are wrong in thought and action, it is our place in the world to set them right. It is not right for us to change to their whims out of fear.

The Instapundit Offers Yet Another Amazing Idea: A House of Repeal To Weed Out Obsolete Laws

I am sure most have heard that there exist arcane Laws, many having to do with issues now irrelevant. Maybe technology passed by the law, rendering it meaningless in these oh so modern times, maybe societal norms have shifted leaving the law inappropriate to current morals or ethical directions. But, they, these old laws so exist, in perpetuity it seems, and a body whose sole function is ridding us of them seems a good idea.

But nobody in Congress sees repealing laws as job No. 1. Well maybe one does, but he's not doing such a great job getting it done. Last year, House Speaker John Boehner said, "We should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We should be judged on how many laws we repeal."
And for that, at least, I have a proposed solution. It's not really my idea, though I fleshed it out a bit in a law review article and a speech at Harvard Law School a while back. If the problem with Congress is that nobody sees repealing laws as job No. 1, why not create a legislative body that can only repeal laws?

The growth of laws and regulation in America has reached the point that pretty much everyone is a felon, whether they know it or not. But nobody in Congress gets much in the way of votes by repealing laws. All the institutional pressures point the other way.

I think is a brilliant notion, (one which Mr. Reynolds makes clear he did not invent, even though I give him credit above). Right now, if we had a government which sought to make an example of a citizen out of spite, they could have said citizen arrested, tried, and likely convicted based on an out of date law which said citizen was completely unaware existed.....not the we need worry about any such government action in this country.

I do see a down side to this body, and it comes from the knowledge that our existing members of Congress are none too sure of what the right thing is all the time, (hardly ever?), and the same political forces which are so active now would doubtlessly provide equal pressures to this new body. An example. Does anyone doubt that one of the first actions one side of the House would take up would be to abolish an any law which specifies that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Any mention of the coordinating sexes pairing up would have to go; leaving it open for the law making House and the Judiciary to render opposition to same sex marriage useless. The same would happen for when life begins and when we have rights, so long fetal protections now extant.

Am I being too cynical? Sure, one side of the House would be there to vote against repeal, but since when can we count on the loyal opposition acting?

I like the concept of reducing restraint on freedom by repealing old law. And, even with the damage some would attempt from the power of such a body I imagine the net benefit would be there. Maybe it would be best if this House did not meet as regularly as the current House and Senate do, say once a decade they show up and clean out the attic? As they do their work there will, theoretically, be less for them to do anyway.

This idea has merit. There is something to work with there.

Are You The Press?: Revisited

I asked this question on another blog many years ago; good to see that others are taking up the question.

Latest examples are links appearing at Instapundit.

What Ferris Bueller can teach up about who counts as "the media"

Ferris Bueller's day in the Texas Supreme Court

My earlier post on the matter has disintegrated within the archive to a headline (used here) and one partial sentence; so any revelatory points I made back then are lost to wherever lost bits go. However, I doubt this is a great loss as in reading much of my previous work it now often seems passe. I will add that I am troubled that it requires so much legal wrangling, done by people who have been deemed worthy to do legal wrangling, to decide in court if we are entitled to the decide for ourselves that we are behaving as a part of the media and are thus permitted the freedoms guaranteed to the Press.

John McCain, Why Must Thou Continue To Disappoint

So, Diane Feinstein flaunts our nation's best interests and delivers up a report which will actually infuriate our enemies and serve as impetus for further attacks against us, and then Senator McCain takes to the microphone to support her choice. Feinstein seems to mimic the YouTube video which we were supposed to believe caused the Benghazi attack. McCain continues to forget that his Vietnamese captures did elicit information from him which he did not want to reveal, proving that torture works on future politicians who can be fooled into believing it is possible to flush a Koran down a toilet.

I produced a visual response to McCain's folly over those claims about Gitmo, first seen here.He wrote in his book,torture worked.

Use "outback" In A Sentence

The context was Outback Steakhouse was on the list of places Richie and his pal were considering as their next watering hole.

Richie posed the question, I responded, "when Iz wanna pee out of doors Iz goes outback so'z the neighboors don't seez me.

Yeah, your reaction is consistent with their reaction.