drum beats

TIMES SQUARE ATTACK RESPONSE:  NONE DARE CALL IT THINKING

On May 1, 2010, when news of the Times Square terrorist attack first broke, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, on national television, as to who might have done it, “If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody who’s homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something . . . .”  Bloomberg was not alone.  U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that there was no evidence that the attack was “anything other than a one-off,” a British expression for “one of a kind.”  At least the country was spared President Obama telling Americans that they should not “jump to conclusions,” as he did after the Fort Hood Massacre when the media reported that “Major Hasan . . . killed 13 and left 31 injured after he jumped on to a desk screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ – God is Great – and fired on defenseless colleagues.” [Read more...]

cover up

“9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records

DES MOINES, Iowa — Nine people have been indicted in federal court on charges they accessed President Barack Obama’s student loan records while employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.

The U.S. attorney’s office says a grand jury returned the indictments Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Davenport.

The nine individuals are charged with exceeding authorized computer access.

They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville, Iowa, office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama’s student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president.

Arraignments are scheduled for May 24.

The charge is punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.”

“South Park” is hilarious, right?

The veiled threats against the Comedy Central show’s creators should be taken very seriously. Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong.

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

‘South Park” is hilarious, right? Not any more.

Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also “featured” the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.

For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone “will probably end up” like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing “Submission,” a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.

There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here’s Mr. Amrikee’s perspective: “It’s not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome,” he told Foxnews.com. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It’s just the reality.” He’s also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh’s body.

According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their “outrage” merits little attention.

This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.

Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.

The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.

Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn’t include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.

So how worried should the creators of “South Park” be about the “marginal figures” who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee’s posting is an informal fatwa. Here’s how it works:

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the “offense” may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?

The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C., curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.

Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That’s a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.

One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend “South Park,” producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.

Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.

Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the “South Park” episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.

Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.

In “South Park,” this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.

Chinese internet

Social network sites, western google, ability to post to blogs, etc., all available in Kuala Lumpur.  Our last couple hours in Guangzhou, China we had no facebook or twitter, and no ability to post to blogs or upload email.

China Daily opinion of March 20-21, 2010 wrote it this way:

Google in wrong game

Chinese netizens did not expect the Google issue to snowball into a political minefield and become a tool in the hands of vested interests abroad to attack China under the pretext of internet freedom.

China’s regulation to censor the content that Google provides to Chinese Internet users has become interpreted as a breach to freedom in the virtual world.  In some extreme cases, the vested interests have described the legitimate right of the Chinese government to regulate companies and control pornographic and related content as “spying” on its own people.

The magnitude of this absurdity is beyond comprehension and the motivated attacks, intolerable.

The attacks cannot be justified even if seen from Western perspective.  Many countries censor the Internet to protect the interests of innocent users.  Also, it goes without saying that a foreign company should abide by the laws and regulations of the country that it is operating and making a profit in.

The Chinese are enjoying unprecedented freedom in the country’s more than 5,000 years of history.  All the country’s newly found wealth has been created by the hands of the ordinary Chinese. The country would not have been able to perform an economic miracle if its people were unhappy with their administration and the social and political conditions.

So if the vested interests’ accusation that the Chinese government censors the Internet to spy on its own people does not originate from ignorance then it is a white lie and a malicious attack.

It will not do any good to Google either.  And by linking its exit from China with political issues, Google will certainly lose its credibility in a country that has the largest number of netizens.

With the many assorted fallacies in this analysis, I find it not at all persuasive.

game change?

The Obama media blitz to sell government health insurance to the American people, as if “sales” is an appropriate metaphor for coercion at the point of a gun, and as if the sales job ever paused for a moment, only deepens the tragic farce national politics under the left have become.  At the moment you thought it couldn’t get any more ridiculous, the propaganda freight train finds a still lower gear to shift into without a breath of hesitation.  The nightmare that was the American dream keeps devolving as we try to pinch ourselves awake.

The tea partyers had better have their electoral fun now because, come November, if they do anything other than to join a monolithic block to unseat these batty leftists currently in power, all the building anger against the destructive left will shift to them.

9th Annual Essay Contest

Program coverProgram

——————————————————————————-

Sheriff Frangis’ Keynote Speech

The Unsung Patriot

What Is Patriotism?

Pat Tillman – An American Patriot

A Perfect Example Of An American Patriot

God Bless Our Troops – The Loyal Dedicated Soldier

Patriotism In Action

——————————————————————

Middle School WinnersHigh School Winners
——————————————————————
Middle School ContestantsHigh School Contestants
——————————————————————
Scott Wills and Mary FrangisBill Harris and Bill Frangis
——————————————————————
Sheriff FrangisLinda Wyer
——————————————————————

Youngf Republicans Organizational Meeting Announcement

Cheney’s 12/29 statement, etc.

“As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war.

But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

The left clearly owns all of the points Cheney mentions above….not a close call.  As to the inference from those points that Obama thinks we’re not at war, as a private citizen protected by the 1st Am., the former Vice President has every right to his rhetorical flourishes no matter how much they vex demleftys.

Speaking of the 1st Am., I assume everyone now needs to keep a current backup of their computer handy for when the TSA goons show up at your door to seize your equipment.