President Obama undoubtedly saw a shrewd political move in his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Tuesday, where a hundred years ago another progressive president, Theodore Roosevelt, delivered his “New Nationalism” address. It was at a time, like now, of a split in Republican Party ideology or at least in party positions.

In that 1910 speech, Roosevelt declared, “[T]he great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit.

“The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”

Important and disturbing are the political agendas and attitudes toward capitalism that the current president shares with the progressive president of a century ago.

How neatly those words of Roosevelt fit the rat-tat-tat of Obama against the evil millionaires and billionaires he so eagerly wishes would only pay “their fair share” of income taxes.

Obama and Roosevelt share a number of similarities. As with Teddy, one of Barack’s favorite words is “I,” (as revealed in “The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, page 20). Both men went to Harvard. But while there, Roosevelt was an outstanding scholar. No one knows the well-hidden grades Obama made.

Even as a young state assemblyman in the 1880s, Roosevelt’s progressivism embraced an activist government to alleviate social ills, historians have written. Roosevelt’s antipathy toward corporations resembles that of Obama. But Teddy envied the corporate captains who had worked their way up from the bottom. Teddy’s disappointment never to have had the opportunity to succeed in business is a far distance from Obama’s puny aspirations as a community organizer.

By the time he became president, Teddy had prepared himself for the office in every aspect, save one (the same failing of Obama): Namely, “understanding capitalism and the industrial nature of modern America,” as historians Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen write in “A Patriot’s History of the United States.” Also like Obama, Teddy did “more to impede business than any President since Old Hickory” (Andrew Jackson).

Like Obama, Roosevelt sided substantially with labor, and at one point said, “To hell with the Constitution” (Tindall and Shi, “A Narative of America”). Obama regularly skirts the Constitution.

In his speech in Kansas, Obama described Roosevelt not only as a progressive but as a “socialist” and a “communist.” Roosevelt was not a socialist or a communist, although he was called a communist by Eastern political opponents, histories say.

“This is the defining issue of our time,” Obama said in his Kansas speech. “This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home and secure their retirement.”

President Obama’s new defense secretary, Leon Panetta, has bought into the myth that Israeli inflexibility is the source of the Palestinian conflict. He is publicly saying that the ball is in Israel’s court, and it is now the Jewish state’s responsibility to advance the peace process. He warns that it is becoming more isolated, and Israel must be a better partner in the region. In other words, Israel is to blame.

On Sunday, Panetta said, “[T]he question you have to ask: Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you’re isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength.”

In what the Associated Press called an “edgy warning,” he said that Israel must try to rescue its relations with Turkey and Egypt. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan interpreted Panetta’s statement to mean that the U.S. was taking Turkey’s side in its confrontation with Israel. Playing off of Panetta’s words, Erdogan said, “Israel has chosen isolation by losing a friend like Turkey.” Erdogan has reduced Turkey’s ties to Israel because of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s refusal to apologize for the controversial Gaza flotilla raid last year. Panetta also said that the U.S. should not cut the amount of taxpayer money given to the Palestinian Authority to retaliate for its provocative bid for U.N. membership.

“There is a need and an opportunity for bold action on both sides to move towards a negotiated two-state solution,” Panetta said during his press conference with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He urged both sides to restart negotiations, without acknowledging that Israel has always been willing to negotiate. On Sunday, Israel said it wanted to restart direct negotiations, just as Panetta insisted. As a matter of fact, Netanyahu offered to immediately meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during his speech at the U.N. on September 23.

“In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s met here today in the United Nations,” Netanyahu said.

If Abbas had said what Netanyahu did, the international community and world media would have been electrified. Yet, Netanyahu was met with a collective silence. On the same day as his speech, Al-Jazeera interviewed a member of the Fatah Central Committee. The official, Abbas Zaki, unequivocally stated that negotiations based on two states are only an interim, practical step towards destroying Israel. “Everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go,” he said.

“If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall—what will become of Israel? It will come to an end,” Zaki said. He previously said the same thing as the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon in May 2009. And he admitted that the Palestinians were keeping quiet about this strategy.

“If we say that we want to wipe Israel out…C’mon, it’s too difficult. It’s not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don’t say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself,” he said.

Ten students who set out to prevent Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking to students at the University of California Irvine campus have been convicted of a California misdemeanor and sentenced to probation and a fine.  The California statute is designed to protect the First Amendment rights of a speaker and his audience against those who would censor the speaker by deliberately disruptive conduct.  The conduct engaged in by the students, acting on behalf of a University of California Muslim group, was more than merely disruptive in the sense of episodic booing or heckling.  It was calculated to “shut down”, in the words of one of the students, Ambassador Oren.  In such a case, the First Amendment is clearly on the side of the prosecutor who seeks to prevent the censorship of protected speech, rather than on the side of those who have conspired to censor speech with which they disagree.

No reputable constitutional scholar would defend the right of students to conspire to prevent an invited speaker from presenting his speech.  Most universities have rules prohibiting the “heckler’s veto” from silencing an invited speaker.  Yet, because the students in this case were Muslims who were trying to prevent an Israeli diplomat from speaking, many on the hard left are making heroes of these ten censors, and villains of prosecutors who did their duty in protecting the First Amendment.  Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which is supposed to protect the First Amendment right of speakers, came down on the wrong side of this issue.

The Dean of the University of California at Irvine Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, has tried to split the difference by arguing that the conviction was constitutional, that the “jury which found them guilty faithfully applied [the] law to the facts of this case,” but that the prosecutor who brought the case against these students “failed in his most important duty: to do justice.”  While I understand why a dean might take this somewhat convoluted position on prudential grounds, Chemerinsky’s argument simply doesn’t hold water.

Chemerinsky “strongly disagree[s] with those who try to defend the students as engaging in free speech.”  He acknowledges that “the First amendment does not protect the right of people to go into an auditorium and try to shout down a speaker.”  He is right in concluding that “no court would find that the students were engaged in protected speech.”  So far, we agree.  But he goes onto argue that the prosecutor should have employed his discretion to decline prosecution against these students, because they had already been disciplined by the university.  But the university discipline has been worn by the students as a red badge of courage.  They have been treated as heroes and the slap on the wrist discipline has certainly not deterred them or other students from conspiring to silence other controversial speakers, especially those who try to make the case for Israel.

Every speaker knows there will be critics.  Perhaps you’ve heard of the guy who gave his first speech in a public speaking class.  His teacher said, “The speech has three major problems.  1. You read your speech.  2. You didn’t read it well.  And number 3: It wasn’t worth reading.”

That teacher’s critique is probably similar to what most conservatives would say about President Obama’s deficit speech he gave on Wednesday afternoon.  But what about the Left?  Last week the Left came unglued when Obama made the 2011 budget deal with congressional Republicans that cut spending $38 billion.  They feared Obama was moving to the middle like Clinton did before his reelection campaign in 1996.

Obama’s speech relieved some of the fears of so-called liberals, but there was still a lot they weren’t happy about.

Before we hit the things the Left hated about the speech we should first admit there is one big thing in it that the tax and spenders loved:  Massive tax increases.

Rachel Maddow spoke for some on the Left when she kicked off her Wednesday show with gushing joy over Obama’s tax hikes on the wealthy.  Maddow’s past worrisome whining about Obama going moderate melted away into celebration that Obama will stay on the wealth redistribution course.  She ended her comments with guarded optimism by saying:

Today…if this is how Obama is gonna run for reelection…then, as a liberal, I am less worried then I was.

But aside from the tax increases, the angry Left did find many other problems with Obama’s speech.  Here are the five biggest ones that keep them worrying about Obama.

5. The debt fail-safe trigger is dumb.

One of the odder parts of Obama’s plan was his push for some unexplained fail-safe debt trigger.

Just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail-safe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.

Basically Obama is saying I promise that if we don’t do what we promise now, we’ll make sure we do it in the future. Of course that means he’s kind of promising to do nothing.  The president has given himself an out.  Moreover, he can’t possibly hold future congresses accountable in 2014.  Hopefully he won’t even be president in 2014.

Some on the Left caught how empty and clueless this part of Obama’s plan was.

This debt failsafe is pretty silly…You can’t bind future Congresses. But the idea that you should is pretty stupid. You can’t talk about 2014 and forced spending cuts unless you know what the economy looks like in 2014. – David Dayden, firedoglake

Another blogger simply pointed out: “It’s all just so ridiculous.”

The Washington Post editorial staff found the debt-fail idea “intriguing” but then said,

the president threatens to undermine the effectiveness of his own trigger by exempting Medicare and Social Security from any cuts. The history of such enterprises suggests that the more holes are carved out, the less effective the trigger becomes.

Basically Obama threw out an idea only the uninformed believes has any real value.  It gives the facade that the President is holding himself accountable, which of course, he really isn’t.  At least a few on the Left were smart enough to call him out on it.

Number Four: Evil is going unchecked…

Can Islamic jihad be resisted simply on the basis of Western secular values? Some readers of my posts on the role of Christianity in resisting Islam have objected that bringing Christianity into the debate only muddies the water. As one reader wrote, “the anti-jihad movement can better be served if blatant theocons stay away.”

A number of important individuals in what might loosely be called the resistance movement do seem to believe that secular values are sufficient to rally citizens to a defense of Western civilization. A good example of this belief is the 2006 manifesto, “Together, facing the new totalitarianism,” which was signed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, and others. The manifesto calls for “resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity, and secular values for all.” The document also speaks of “universal values,” “universal rights,” and “Enlightenment” with a capital “E.”

But how sturdy are Enlightenment values once they are cut off from their Christian roots? Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s own experience provides some perspective. In her autobiography, Infidel, she tells how, after escaping Somalia to the Netherlands, she fell in love with the thinkers of the Enlightenment. At the same time she became an atheist—rejecting not just Islam, but all religions (although she willingly admits that Jews and Christians have a more humane concept of God). Of Holland she wrote, “Society worked without reference to God, and it seemed to function perfectly.”

But the problem with substituting Enlightenment humanism for religion jumps out, if not from every page of Infidel, at least from many pages. On the one hand, Holland is “the peak of civilization,” and “no nation in the world is more deeply attached to freedom of expression than the Dutch.” On the other hand, her colleagues keep warning her to keep her thoughts to herself, and in the end, enlightened Holland forces her out of the Netherlands precisely for freely expressing her opinions about Muslim treatment of women. Ironically, Hirsi Ali’s next port of refuge was the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank which numbers quite a few traditionalist Christians among its scholars.

Others, such as Oriana Fallaci, Geert Wilders, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff have discovered that “enlightened” but post-Christian Europe is not nearly as friendly to freedom of expression as one might expect to be the case in the birthplace of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an important civilizational advance, but of late it seems to have gone a bit wobbly. Why is that?

One possible answer is that the core Enlightenment values are inextricably tied to Christian values. This view has been put forward most forcefully on the Continent in recent years by Marcello Pera (former President of the Italian Senate, and an agnostic) and by Benedict XVI (not an agnostic). They have argued that the Enlightenment grew out of Christianity organically, as a tree grows from its roots. Cut off from its roots the tree dies.

In this view the rights of man are based on a belief in the importance of man. The belief that ordinary individuals have a value and dignity of their own apart from their membership in a tribe or a society has its origin in the Judeo-Christian declaration that man is made in the image of God. Thus, if you take away God, you take away the foundation of human importance. As Thomas Jefferson undoubtedly discovered while composing the Declaration of Independence, it’s a bit difficult to establish the case for human rights without reference to the Creator.  Purely secular societies can only assume human dignity and human rights as a given. We tend to forget that these concepts are now a given because they were given to the world by Christians. Before Christianity, the idea that all human beings are endowed with intrinsic value was not considered “self-evident,” it was considered ludicrous. Espousing human equality was a good way to get yourself laughed out of polite pagan society. Human dignity may seem self-evident to us now, but that is because the Christian moral view became internalized over the centuries. Gladiatorial combats and slavery didn’t go out of fashion because societies evolved but because people began to see one another in the light of the Christian revelation.

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. Some seem to think that Enlightenment humanism came out of nowhere, thanks to spontaneous advances in science, reason, and ethics. In this view, Enlightenment values can get along fine on their own without reference to God. But then you’re still faced with explaining how it is that these values have fallen on hard times precisely in those places that might legitimately be called post-Christian. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion are defended much more vigorously in still-Christian America than in post-Christian France or Holland. For that matter, there’s more freedom of speech in Bible-belt America than in your average American university. With their speech codes and “hate speech” rules and their habit of disinviting “controversial” speakers, universities are among the least free institutions in society. And it’s no coincidence that most of them can be described as post-Christian, and in some cases, anti-Christian. There is also, of course, an increasingly anti-Semitic climate on American campuses.

What happened in the universities is essentially what happened in Europe. Both suffered a loss of faith (recall that many prestigious universities began as seminaries or denominational colleges), and in the process of losing their religion both became increasingly uninterested in cultivating or protecting genuine freedoms. Moreover, like post-Christian Europe, the post-Christian university has shown little ability to resist Islamization. Thanks to Saudi money and well-organized Muslim student associations, many universities are beginning to act like apologists for the Wahabbi faith.

Judging by the sorry records of the highly secularized European state and the highly secularized American university, it might not be a good idea to place all your bets on “secular values for all” as the main point of resistance to totalitarian Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves the gratitude of all for calling attention to the abuse of Muslim women, but she’s wrong to think that a rootless Enlightenment is going to bring them liberation. Likewise, we owe a lot to Ibn Warraq for his penetrating critique of Islam, but he’s mistaken to think that the universal values enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would survive in the thoroughly secularized type of society he seems to favor. If these values are universal and self-evident, why is it that half the world doesn’t subscribe to them? Warraq seems not to have noticed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was composed for the most part by individuals who had grown up in Christian cultures, and had inherited a social conscience that had been formed by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Two of the chief framers, Rene Cassin and Dr. Charles Malik, made no secret of the influence Christian and Jewish beliefs had on their thinking.  In a 1969 speech to the Decalogue Lawyer’s Society, Cassin, a Jew, outlined in detail how Jewish and Christian thought had paved the way for the Declaration.  It’s also telling that while drafting the final version of the Declaration he received advice and encouragement from Cardinal Roncalli (later Pope John XXIII), then the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris. Malik, who later served as President of the UN General Assembly, was a Greek Orthodox philosopher and theologian from Lebanon and the author of numerous commentaries on the Bible and on the early Church Fathers. While making his arguments to the drafting committee he was in the habit of quoting from Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian. Jacques Maritain, the eminent Catholic philosopher was also actively involved in the work of the committee, as well as the UNESCO committee which laid the groundwork for the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt, the Chairperson of the drafting committee later observed that the Declaration reflected “the true spirit of Christianity.” In short, although the Declaration of Human Rights makes no mention of God, the fingerprints of a certain religious tradition are all over it.

Western culture—indeed the whole world—owes a lot to the Enlightenment, but it’s important to remember that at crucial historical junctures it was Christian activists working on Christian principles who did most of the heavy lifting. Christian Evangelicals were at the forefront of the movement to abolish the slave trade; the Civil Rights movement was galvanized by the Reverend Martin Luther King and other Christian leaders; the end of Communism in Eastern Europe was brought about in large part by the work of the Catholic Solidarity Movement, of Pope John Paul II, and of numerous priests and pastors in Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and other countries who kept alive the spirit of resistance.

At the risk of oversimplifying things, it might be useful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment which remained nourished by the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Enlightenment which cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the Civil Rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, to the Reign of Terror, to the suppression of church by state, to Marx and Nietzsche, to Socialism, and Communism, and more recently to the Alice-in-Wonderland world of cultural relativism where human rights are looked upon as relative rather than universal.

It’s unlikely that a pure secularism—even a humanistic, enlightened secularism—can be the foundation for resisting an aggressive Islam. It’s precisely “enlightened” secularism that produced the spiritual and population vacuum in Europe which is now being filled by Islam. John Lennon invited us to imagine “no religion”… “nothing to kill or die for.” In Europe they don’t have to imagine anymore. Having lost their religion, many are discovering that post-Christian values may not, after all, be worth fighting and dying for—all the more so for those who are getting on in years, and are hoping the really bad things won’t happen in their lifetimes. The new motto for many middle –aged Europeans seems to be “Apres moi le dhimmitude.”

Which culture is more likely to protect human rights and freedoms against totalitarian movements? A thoroughly secular culture which has cut itself off from a transcendent reference point? Or a culture imbued with the Judeo-Christian belief that human beings possess an inalienable, God-given dignity? It’s one of those non-academic questions to which the wrong answer might prove fatal. And final exam time is fast approaching.

William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in Front Page Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, the National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.

Facebook kowtows to violent intimidation and threats, and accepts Islamic restrictions on free speech. And Iran's Press TV is dead chuffed. Free Speech Death Watch Update: "Facebook apologizes over blasphemy," from PressTV, May 31:

Pakistan says Facebook has apologized to the country and has removed the blasphemous content that had prompted Islamabad to ban the social networking website.

"In response to our protest, Facebook has tendered their apology and informed us that all the sacrilegious material has been removed from the URL," Najibullah Malik, secretary of Pakistan's information technology ministry, was quoted by AP as saying on Monday.

Islamabad, in turn, lifted a ban it had imposed on the social networking website, after Facebook assured the Pakistani government that "nothing of this sort will happen in the future," Malik said....

Memorial Day is a great and wonderful way to remember our patriotic heroes who sacrificed their lives to help us breathe the air of freedom. This day is observed with families and friends visiting cemeteries and memorials to pay homage to their loved and forgotten ones.

“Your silent tents of green
We deck with fragrant flowers;
Yours has the suffering been,
The memory shall be ours.”
–Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Memorial Day was first celebrated on May 30, 1868. It was observed by placing flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers during the first national celebration. Gen. James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, after which around 5,000 participants helped to decorate the graves of the more than 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers who were buried there.

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. This date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The alternative name of “Memorial Day” was first used in 1882. It did not become more common until after World War II, and was not declared the official name by Federal law until 1967. On June 28, 1968, the United States Congress passed the Uniform Holidays Bill, which moved three holidays from their traditional dates to a specified Monday in order to create a convenient three-day weekend. The holidays included Washington’s Birthday, now celebrated as Presidents’ Day; Veterans Day and Memorial Day. The change moved Memorial Day from its traditional May 30 date to the last Monday in May. The law took effect at the federal level in 1971.

Red Poppies are a tradition inspired by a poem in 1915, “In Flanders Fields,” Moina Michael replied with her own poem:

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

Memorial Day is a day of remembrance of those who have died serving our country. I tear at the sound of “Taps” played at ceremonies on Memorial Day. “We come, not to mourn our dead soldiers, but to praise them.” –Francis A. Walker.

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote.

I will tear up as well. We will be with our son, Scott, at his gravesite in Bigfork, Montana in memory of his service to our country.

Have a fun, safe, and memorable Memorial Day.

God Bless America and our great United States.

Note that AP's headline again refers to Muhammad as a "prophet" without qualification, as if we're all Muslims now -- and as is common mainstream media practice these days -- but the article itself is (unusually) a bit better, referring to him as "Islam's prophet."

"Bangladesh blocks Facebook over prophet drawings," from AP, May 30 (thanks to JCB):

DHAKA, Bangladesh - Bangladesh says it has blocked the popular social networking website Facebook over a page that urges people to draw images of Islam's prophet Muhammad.

Chief telecommunication regulator Zia Ahmed said Sunday that access to the site has been temporarily blocked because it was publishing caricatures that may hurt the religious sentiments of people in the Muslim-majority nation....

Thousands of Muslims protested in Dhaka last week against what they called the website's "blasphemous content" because of a page called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" that encouraged users to post images of the prophet....

"So it is made out, George Bush-style, that you are either for freedom of expression or against it!" Yep.

"Zapiro: Drawing the Line: Zubair Bayat," from Dispatch Online, May 29:

[...] Two things are wrong with Zapiro's cartoon. Firstly, any attempt to depict him in illustration is an attempt to depict the sacrosanct, which is not allowed. Secondly, the nature of cartoons is to satirise and trivialise. This is clearly not acceptable in the case of a personality who is held in the highest esteem by over a billion people globally.

In this particular cartoon, the insinuation is that the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is in need of psychiatric help, an idea which prejudiced and hostile Orientalists have always attempted to project in their works. This dimension of the cartoon adds insult to injury and serves to rub the proverbial salt deeper into the wound.

When Muslims object, the stock response is that they do not appreciate freedom of expression. The media and others view this as an infringement of the right of freedom of speech. So it is made out, George Bush-style, that you are either for freedom of expression or against it! However, one aspect often overlooked is that no right is absolute; there are inherent limitations. Every right is counterbalanced against other rights. Every right comes with responsibility. And responsibility was certainly not displayed by the publishers of this cartoon.

But who decides what is "responsible" free speech and what isn't? That person is the one who holds all the power that matters. To set up such an arbiter is to embark upon the road to tyranny.

Irrespective of the motive for publishing the cartoon - whether it was a cheap publicity stunt, a gimmick to boost waning sales, deliberate provocation, or sheer ignorance - it was grossly offensive and highly insensitive. The worldwide anger and protests following the publication of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet (pbuh) made it amply clear that Muslims would not accept his depiction as a caricature or a cartoon figure.

Note the veiled threat: he is saying that Motoons should not be published because Muslims will react with the violent irrationality that greeted the publication of the first Motoons (after the OIC stirred the pot, that is).

The media have a duty to act responsibly in respect of sensitive issues and not to push the right to freedom of expression to ridiculous levels, where the lines of distinction between the profound and the profane are virtually obliterated. Sensible leaders around the world, including the Pope, issued strong statements condemning the inflammatory Danish cartoons when they appeared.

A spokesman for the US state department, Kurtis Cooper, was equally strong in his condemnation: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims. We all fully recognise and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

It is important to remember that when Kurtis Cooper talks about "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds," he is talking about cartoons. In a world with an ounce of sanity left, he would be explaining how the freedom of speech is an essential safeguard against authoritarian government, and calling upon the Islamic world to show some maturity and restraint, and not kill innocents or issue violent threats, or, for that matter, attempt to impose its laws and mores upon the free West, over some drawings.

Muslims, for their part, accept the principle of wholesome and constructive freedom of expression, but not the freedom to wantonly insult, which is sometimes deviously and deceptively masqueraded as freedom of expression. True freedom of expression is freedom from insult, not freedom to insult. Freedom to insult has ultimately resulted in hatred, bigotry and even destruction. Studies indicate that reckless use (or rather abuse) of freedom of expression contributed to a great extent to the genocide in Rwanda, as an example, leaving over a million dead.

Who decides what is insulting and what isn't? I'm insulted by Islamic supremacist attempts to restrict free speech. Why is my feeling of insult worth less than a Muslim's?

Muslim outrage is often simplistically misconstrued as a lack of humour and over- sensitivity....

Yep.

President Obama’s so proud of his new National Security Strategy that the White House released it on the eve of a holiday weekend — when everybody in Washington’s racing for the beach, the ‘burbs or a bunker.

With good reason.  This isn’t a strategy.  It’s a stump speech.

If you want to know what details of a document really matter to any administration, don’t obsess on the text itself.  Listen to the roll-out speeches by the White House sales reps.

Remarks by terror czar John Brennan and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it painfully clear that it isn’t only our Gulf Coast shoreline that’s threatened by this administration’s ineptitude and genius for self-delusion.

But Hillary only offered the standard boilerplate about the primacy of diplomacy and development in solving security problems.  (Terrific!  Let’s bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and let the State Department and NGOs sort things out…).

But Brennan, in full tin-foil-hat mode, was downright scary.  Speaking on Wednesday, he even praised the administration’s response to the BP oil disaster.  Jeez…sycophancy should have legal limits.

Brennan was prepping the pundits on the terrorism side of the NSS.  Except that it’s not really terrorism, you see.  And it’s certainly not Islamist terrorism or a jihad.  Brennan spent an alarming amount of time on indirect apologies to Muslims.  As in:

“Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

What? Does this administration really believe that it gets to re-define jihad?  Sounds like one of its pet Muslim “experts” worked on the speech.  But trust me: When Osama says al-Qaeda’s waging jihad, Muslims believe him, not White-Bread John Brennan.

And by the way: Jihad in Islam usually means aggressive holy war to kill and subjugate infidels.  Check the Islamic texts (you know, the ones Muslims read).  And there’s no pope in Islam who gets to give claims of jihad a thumbs up or down.  If the local yokels declare a jihad, it’s a jihad, boys and girls.

Don’t facts matter at all to this administration?  I guess the 9/11 terrorists were just purifying themselves and their community.

The speech got worse.  Speaking of the Israel-Palestine situation, Brennan employed coded left-wing language when he said that “legitimate grievances can be resolved peacefully through…dialogue.”

In case you missed it, only the Palestinians have “legitimate grievances.”  Then Brennan invoked Obama’s blame-America Cairo speech as at least the equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount.  Okay, Big John: Where are the results?  Iran?  Hezbollah?  Hamas?  Al-Qaeda?  The Taliban?  Syria?

Of course, he called for “collective action,” another left-wing buzz-phrase.  Well, how’s all that collective action been going for this White House?  Got tough sanctions on Iran yet?  Or on North Korea?  Anybody notice that the Bush administration (boo, hiss, shame!) had more allies fighting beside us in Iraq than Obama has in Afghanistan?

Of course, Brennan, who’s turned into a shameless bootlicker, didn’t miss a chance to hammer Bush-Cheney, the true axis of evil.  As in his claim that his team is “responsibly ending the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.”

Well, the first point’s doubtful, while the last point depends on whether you’re a little-picture or big-picture thinker.  What’s indisputable is that the invasion did lead to the most catastrophic defeat al-Qaeda has yet suffered, when millions of Sunni Muslims turned on the terrorists.  No mention of that, of course.

Things grew even shabbier when Brennan—our top terrorism guy—spoke of “the senseless slaughter of 13 innocent Americans at Ft. Hood” as if they had been killed by space invaders.  No mention of Major Hasan, Anwar al-Alaqi, shouts of “Allah is great!” or jihad.

Tireless—at least behind a microphone–Brennan went back to stressing the importance of “international partnerships.”  Great.  We’re all with you, Big John.  But with who?  The allies Obama has stiffed?  Or was our terror czar speaking of Obama’s unprecedented success in engaging Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and his Venezuelan hug-buddy, Hugo Chavez?

Of course, Breanna didn’t say one word about the terror on our border with Mexico or in our illegal-immigrant-gang-plagued cities.  Nope, our problem’s just with al-Qaeda.  None of whose members are Islamists or jihadists.

Guess I ought to check out the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais and others in line down at the al-Qaeda recruiting office volunteering to purify their neighborhoods.

Our new National Security Strategy isn’t about security for our nation.  It’s about making our enemies feel good about themselves.  Sure, Brennan said we were going to get al-Qaeda.  But he made it clear that neither he nor our president is willing to recognize what al-Qaeda is.

Of course, that probably depends on what your definition of “is” is.

Ralph Peters’ latest book is “Endless War.”

Noam Chomsky was one of the organizers and promoters of the MIT-Harvard campaign to boycott and “divest” Israel a few years back.  Well, last week Israel decided to boycott one of its own boycotters. Chomsky was refused entry into the country when he tried to cross over from Jordan, for purposes of giving an anti-Israel speech at a Palestinian “university” in Ramallah.  As such, Chomsky joined the very select club of people who have been prevented from entering Israel because of their blatant anti-Israel activities and their open collaboration with terrorists.

Chomsky was on his way to give an anti-Israel speech at Birzeit University.  (Instead he gave the speech by videoconference from Jordan.)   Now, Chomsky had been in Israel for visits before, and was even hosted at Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheba.  In fact the entire “ban” was evidently nothing more than some bureaucratic glitch in the instructions to Israeli border passport checkers.  Chomsky was invited at the Jordan River Crossing to enter the country instead through the Tel Aviv airport.  Ironically, the Israeli bureaucratic glitch resulted in Israel accidentally doing the right thing.

But this did not prevent a worldwide campaign of anti-Israel vilification by the usual crowd, denouncing Israel for the “banning” of Chomsky, complete with denunciations of “Israeli fascism.”   Led by the Daily Kos, the leftist blogs declared, “Chomsky was banned by the occupation army,” even though the Israeli army had nothing to do with it. Far leftists inside Israel joined in the brouhaha. Chomsky groupies accused Israel of suppressing freedom of speech.  Never mind that there are sufficient reasons to keep Chomsky out of Israel that have nothing to do with his anti-Israel opinions, such as his friendly ties and meetings with the Hezb’Allah terrorist group or his long track record of celebrating and promoting Holocaust deniers.  In fact, no sooner was Chomsky denied entry into Israel than he popped over to Lebanon, and there met with the Hezb’Allah terrorists and attended a salute to Hezb’Allah chief murderer Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, as reported in the Ya Libnan, a Lebanese news service.

Chomsky himself denounced the Israeli decision to block his entry as “Stalinism.”  To tell the truth, when I first heard that Chomsky accused Israel of Stalinism I assumed he meant it as a compliment.  Chomsky has gone out of his way to defend Stalin and he publishes his own articles in all the prominent Stalinist websites.  But like most Stalinists these days, Chomsky prefers to label himself an “anarchist.” This, of course, is the very same individual who spent much of his career as the academic spokesman for the Khmer Rouge regime, the ultra-communists who can only be described as Stalinists on steroids.  Chomsky defended Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as they annihilated the Cambodian population and he still doubletalks his way out when asked about the genocide that the Khmer Rouge conducted. He once claimed the Khmer Rouge actually SAVED millions of Cambodian lives.  Even far-leftist The Nation demolished Chomsky for his toadying up to Pol Pot.

There have only been a few other cases of people being prevented from entering Israel because of their ties to terrorists or their involvement in anti-Semitic or anti-Israel campaigns.  Norman Finkelstein, the unemployed hate-monger fired by DePaul University, was banned from entering Israel a couple of years back because of his intimate collaboration with Hezb’Allah terrorists. Others banned from Israel include  Richard Falk, the retired Princeton propagandist who has made a career out of denouncing Israelis as Nazis. He was denied entry into Israel as a UN “investigator,” because that UN “investigation” was nothing more than a campaign of lies and smears about Israeli “war crimes.” Falk earlier had been allowed to enter Israel as a private citizen.

Chomsky has, in the past, been welcomed to enter Israel even though he proclaims that he considers both the US and Israel to be far worse than Nazi Germany.  When not dealing with linguistics, Chomsky may be best known for his obsessive cheering on of terrorists and occasionally holding meetings with them.  Chomsky has pow-wowed with Hezb’Allah terrorists.  He has also long been a major promoter of Holocaust deniers. Like Falk and Finkelstein, Chomsky has long led the campaign to boycott and “divest” Israel.  Even a free speech absolutist must concede that there is some logic to a victim of a boycott boycotting that boycotter.  Chomsky has led the jihad against Israel’s existence for as long as he has been a public figure.  He is also a pathological serial liar.

Now, whether or not one agrees with them doing so, democratic countries, in fact, often deny entrance to people whose opinions or politics they find repulsive.  The very same people now whining about Israel refusing Chomsky access to the country to engage in anti-Israel agitation were strangely silent when Britain prohibited 16 people from entering the country on grounds that they held politically incorrect opinions.  These included US radio host Michael Savage.  Before that, the UK banned Rev. Fred Phelps from entering the country because he is anti-gay.  Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a candidate for the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, was barred from entering the UK because of his opinions.  The UK has banned a whole host of Israelis from entering their country, including activist Moshe Feiglin.

The United States has banned all sorts of people from entering, not limited to those suspected of having ties to terror groups.  In some cases it was because of their political views.  Journalist Robert Fisk was banned for this reason.  Professor John Milios from Greece was banned.  Curiously, few in the world denounced the US for being a fascist country on that basis.  Tariq Ramadan, the darling of the pro-jihad Left, was barred until recently from both the US and France.  Liberian President Charles Taylor and other leading Liberians were banned from entering the US because of their support for rebels in Sierra Leone.  Canada has also banned people because of their views or behavior, most famously the case of George Galloway, the British Member of Parliament because of his intimate ties to Saddam Hussein.

Germany, Austria and some other European countries routinely ban Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers from entering their territories and sometimes jail them when they enter.  Germany banned the Reverend Moon from entering.  And so on.

In the late 1970s, a professor of literature at the University of Lyon named Robert Faurisson wrote two letters to Le Monde claiming that the gas chambers in concentration camps used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews did not exist and were a Jewish hoax.  Faurisson was convicted of Holocaust denial and hate speech in two trials in France, in 1983 and 1990.

Noam Chomsky has long been the most prominent defender of Faurisson.  Chomsky’s father had been a Hebrew teacher at Gratz College in Philadelphia (which I attended in the 1960s).  Chomsky the younger may be the most academically distinguished Jewish anti-Semite on the planet, even though his theories about linguistics have evidently lost much of their favor among researchers in recent years.

In the 1980s Chomsky signed a petition denying that Faurisson was an anti-Semite and saluting Faurisson as a “respected professor.”  Chomsky not only defended Faurisson’s “academic freedom” but endorsed the content of Faurisson’s anti-Semitic diatribes.

Chomsky also wrote the foreword to one of Faurisson’s Holocaust denial books. There Chomsky wrote: “Is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”

In defending Faurisson, Chomsky wrote: “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.”

Now if anyone is looking for another reason why Israel should legitimately prevent Chomsky from setting his paws on the Holy Land, how was that?  Add it to Chomsky’s role in the Israeli boycott movement and his associations with terrorists.

Should Israel have prevented Chomsky from entering?  It was clearly justified in doing so. But was that the right choice?   Personally – I would have let him in and then immediately had him arrested him for Holocaust denial (if not of Jews then surely regarding the genocide of Cambodians) and anti-Semitism.  Like many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal in Israel, although the law is never enforced against anyone, even Arab politicians.  And Israel has an “anti-racism” law on the books, albeit one only used against rightwing Jews, and Chomsky is clearly in violation of it.

Indicting Chomsky under that would have made such a wonderful legal precedent.

Michael Moore eats a lot, but he clearly needs to add an irony supplement to his daily 5000 calories.

Presumably with a straight face — Moore made the accusation on Twitter, after all; plus, there’s those jowls, so who can tell? — the renowned documentarian serial liar (whose Steenbeck has assassinated more people than Lee Harvey Oswald) told followers that Fox News had edited footage of the President’s speech at “the enemy camp” West Point, to make Obama look bad.

Oh, please: from what I heard, the speech couldn’t possibly have been made any worse…

Anyway, actual industry professionals at TVNewser and Inside Cable News think Moore’s barking up the wrong Movieola:

Obama had two lines, about pulling out of Iraq and the war on terror, that drew applause from the cadets. The sound of applause looks to have been edited out of the Fox News clips, leaving the president standing in silence.

So what happened? (…)

These two clips were meant to be used separately on the air and not spliced together. But someone decided to put the two together for the web but did it quick and sloppy and didn’t trim off the “dead air” parts. So Michael Moore is right that FNC cut out the audio. But he’s wrong that it was done deliberately to make Obama look bad. The only thing FNC is guilty of is having a lazy video editor and a not at all alert web staff that allowed the clip to go online in that form.

BEIRUT -- Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said on Tuesday that his militants would bomb military, civilian and commercial ships heading to Israel in the event of a new war with the Jewish state

It wouldn't really be a new war, technically.

"If you (Israel) launch a new war on Lebanon, if you blockade our coastline, all military, civilian or commercial ships heading through the Mediterranean to occupied Palestine will be targetted by the Islamic resistance," said Nasrallah in a speech transmitted via video link to thousands of supporters massed in Hezbollah's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs.

Civilian ships -- from any country that happens to be heading to Israel. What say you, Genocidal Jumanah?

"Whether along the northern or southern Israeli shore, we can target ships, bomb them and hit them God willing," he added, speaking on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after a 22-year occupation.

"When the world sees how these ships are destroyed, no one will dare go there (Israel)," he added. "You will forgive me if one ship manages to slip through."

Nasrallah also reiterated past threats of bombing Israeli airports and other strategic targets if a new war erupts.

His speech came against a backdrop of tension in the region following allegations that the Shiite party, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006, was stockpiling sophisticated new weapons in anticipation of a new conflict.

Nasrallah said in his hour-long speech that he would not comment on his party's military capacity so as to reserve a "surprise" for Israel in the event of a new conflict.

"The enemy is scared and we will keep him scared," he said, referring to Israel. "But you (the Lebanese) should feel assured because the equation has changed.

"In the next war, we will resist, come out victorious and change the face of the region God willing," he added to applause.

Nasrallah accused Israeli leaders of spreading allegations that Syria was transferring Scud missiles to Hezbollah in order to garner further US financial assistance.

"The whole brouhaha over the Scuds was so that Israel could get 200 or 250 million dollars in aid from the US Congress," he claimed.

"Despite its economic crisis, the US finds money to assist Israel."

He said his party was not seeking a new conflict and would neither confirm nor deny Israel's allegations concerning the Scuds.

Sounding like an insecure schoolyard bully:

"If you are strong, the world respects you and talks to you and takes you into account," he said. "And as such we can impose our conditions.

"If you are weak, you will be eaten."

His speech came as Prime Minister Saad Hariri was on his first official visit to the United States, where he met on Monday with President Barack Obama, who raised the issue of illegal arms smuggled into Lebanon.

On Wednesday, Hariri was to address the UN Security Council, chaired this month by Lebanon.

Hezbollah, blacklisted as a terrorist organisation by Washington, has two ministers in the Lebanese government.

It is the only faction that refused to disarm following the country's 1975-1990 civil war, claiming its arsenal was needed to defend Lebanon against any Israeli aggression.

Translation: Its arsenal was needed to "defend" Hizballah against Israel's right to defend herself.

With last Thursday's "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day," which began on Facebook but spread to anti-jihad sites all over the Internet, Muhammad cartoons are now everywhere -- and Muslims are outraged. The government of Pakistan shut down Facebook and YouTube, but that didn't pacify the thousands of Pakistanis who took to the streets to protest against drawings of Muhammad that they could not have seen even if they had wanted to.

One protester held a sign bearing a threat: "Facebook, do not try our patience/STOP your coward activity." Others shared a large banner reading: "We are ready to sacrifice on [sic] our beloved holy prophet."

So far there have been no new riots or killings to rival the immediate aftermath of the publication of the original cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in September 2005. After the Organization of the Islamic Conference decided at its meeting in Mecca in December 2005 to use the cartoons as an object lesson in the perils of Western secularism, Islamic rage against the cartoons began to boil over all around the world. At least 139 people were killed and 823 were injured over the next few months in Muslim riots against the cartoons.

Another, perhaps even more ominous response to those cartoons was the beginning of the OIC's anti-free speech campaign -- an attempt to compel the West to criminalize criticism of Islam and accept Sharia restrictions on non-Muslims speaking about Islam. In 2008, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a peremptory threat of his own: "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about Islam and jihad terrorism.

Yet while the government and media elites in America and Europe have generally rushed to show how willing, even eager, they are to show that they will not cross those red lines, their supine response to this assault on free speech has created a backlash among free people. It is worth bearing in mind the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" would never have aroused much interest among anyone if cartoons of Muhammad didn't arouse Muslims worldwide to homicidal rage and attempts to restrict the freedom of speech.

While it may in other circumstances simply be obnoxious, or legitimately (not to say to an extent justifying murder) offensive to lampoon someone else's cherished religious leader, the Muslim reaction to Infidel cartoons of Muhammad is entirely itself responsible for the interest Infidels have in lampooning the Islamic prophet in the first place. If Christians had reacted to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ or Chris Ofili's dung-encrusted portrait of the Virgin Mary with the same murderous outrage with which Muslims greeted the cartoons of Muhammad, the West would be experiencing a glut of pictures blaspheming Christ and Christianity....

Read it all.

With last Thursday’s “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” which began on Facebook but spread to anti-jihad sites all over the Internet, Muhammad cartoons are now everywhere — and Muslims are outraged. The government of Pakistan shut down Facebook and YouTube, but that didn’t pacify the thousands of Pakistanis who took to the streets to protest against drawings of Muhammad that they could not have seen even if they had wanted to.

One protester held a sign bearing a threat: “Facebook, do not try our patience/STOP your coward activity.” Others shared a large banner reading: “We are ready to sacrifice on [sic] our beloved holy prophet.”

So far there have been no new riots or killings to rival the immediate aftermath of the publication of the original cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in September 2005. After the Organization of the Islamic Conference decided at its meeting in Mecca in December 2005 to use the cartoons as an object lesson in the perils of Western secularism, Islamic rage against the cartoons began to boil over all around the world. At least 139 people were killed and 823 were injured over the next few months in Muslim riots against the cartoons.

Another, perhaps even more ominous response to those cartoons was the beginning of the OIC’s anti-free speech campaign — an attempt to compel the West to criminalize criticism of Islam and accept Sharia restrictions on non-Muslims speaking about Islam. In 2008, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a peremptory threat of his own: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and jihad terrorism.

Yet while the government and media elites in America and Europe have generally rushed to show how willing, even eager, they are to show that they will not cross those red lines, their supine response to this assault on free speech has created a backlash among free people. It is worth bearing in mind the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” would never have aroused much interest among anyone if cartoons of Muhammad didn’t arouse Muslims worldwide to homicidal rage and attempts to restrict the freedom of speech.

While it may in other circumstances simply be obnoxious, or legitimately (not to say to an extent justifying murder) offensive to lampoon someone else’s cherished religious leader, the Muslim reaction to Infidel cartoons of Muhammad is entirely itself responsible for the interest Infidels have in lampooning the Islamic prophet in the first place. If Christians had reacted to Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ or Chris Ofili’s dung-encrusted portrait of the Virgin Mary with the same murderous outrage with which Muslims greeted the cartoons of Muhammad, the West would be experiencing a glut of pictures blaspheming Christ and Christianity.

It is, in the first place, an irresistible human impulse to tweak the humorless and self-important; it can in many cases also be a healthy safeguard against tyranny. The figure that cannot be mocked or ridiculed is the one that holds all the cards, all the power. Opposition, dissent, free exchange of ideas depend upon the ability to cause offense without taking one’s life in one’s hands. That’s why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech.

It is useful to recall some of the earliest reactions to Cartoon Rage: Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the original Muhammad cartoons, refused to apologize for publishing them: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn’t set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn’t mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.” Cultural editor Flemming Rose concurred: “Religious feelings,” he declared, “cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.”

And so now with “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” the prophet of Islam has indeed become a laughingstock – albeit those who mocked him last week did so with what was ultimately a very serious purpose. The Muslims who fulminated against the cartoons have only themselves to thank – or curse.

I spent a half hour or so with Craig Rivera, talking over numerous aspects of the 9/11 mosque initiative, and this is all that avoided the cutting room floor (starting at 3:19). Of course I spoke about how Sharia denied many basic human rights, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of women with men and of non-Muslims with Muslims, but that kind of talk doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative of poor victimized Islamic multiculturalists versus a gang of racist bigots.

It could have been worse. Pamela Geller spent 15 minutes with ABC's World News Tonight, of which only eight seconds aired.

Thanks to The Right Scoop for the video.

And if you missed me on Hannity last week, also about the 9/11 Mosque, here it is:

"Coptic Christians Voicing Frustration With White House As Persecution Widens in Egypt," by Youssef Ibrahim for the New York Sun, May 22 (thanks to George):

The leaders of Coptic Christians, whose community is facing growing persecution in Egypt, say they have been unsuccessful in efforts to gain a hearing from the White House or other parts of the Obama administration.

Heightened persecution of Egypt's 12 million Christians coupled with growing power and prestige of their Coptic Diaspora in America and Australia is leading to new political efforts here. Educated and skilled Egyptian Copts who migrated in large numbers in recent decades are talking to Congress, organizing lobbies, and making other efforts to be heard.

They say they are frustrated by the current administration in Washington, particularly after President Obama's overture to the Muslim world via a speech at Cairo. In the speech Mr. Obama President apologized for America's misdeeds to Muslims, stating that he came "to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." Coptic leaders say that even while reaching out to Muslims the administration has turned a deaf ear to the pleas Arab Christian minority in the very country where he delivered his apology to Muslims.

"The Obama administration's benign neglect of Arab Christians, is putting freedoms and human rights in the whole Middle East at risk," is the way it was put in an interview with the Sun by the president of the U.S. Copts Association, Michael Meunier, who is headquartered in Washington "Friendships with Muslims has been the Obama Administration's opening theme from his first day in office and in that famed Cairo speech in which he extended a hand to all Muslims in partnership."

Mr. Meunier added that that the president's failure to speak as extensively about the persecution of Arab Christians was a departure from American policy and a grave error. "We have no problems with American friendships with Islam and Muslims, but it cannot be accomplished at the expense of our rights as Egyptian Christians and Arab Christians, and as the very lives of our people there are endangered," Mr. Meunier told the Sun.

One area of complaint by the Copt community is a law banning the repair or construction of churches without a "presidential decree." The measure, known as the Hamayuni Law, is based on an 1856 Ottoman decree but was rarely enforced in Egypt under the monarchial dynasty overthrown by army officers in 1952....

Read it all.

Of course, the issue is complicated by the propensity among Muslim communities for Holocaust denial. So, drawing that same equivalence, if they think the Holocaust is trivial or didn't happen, does that mean the Muhammad cartoons don't matter, either?

In any event, one page (there are others) can currently be found here.

But here's why their argument ultimately falls flat: Death threats and actual attempts at murder have been in plentiful supply for Muhammad cartoons. No matter how Muslims attempt to mock the Holocaust as a sacred but unfounded "belief" in the West, there will be no reciprocal response for this event. In a society that values free speech, they are free to make fools of themselves for all to see. The only reaction needed is to publicize it, and to respond -- with more free speech.

(And if you're not sure how to find me, I look like the cartoon above. Maybe I myself am an image of Muhammad, and thus haram.)

Did the U.S. State Department ever condemn "Piss Christ" or Chris Ofili's dung-encrusted portrait of the Virgin Mary? Of course not. They're only condemning the Motoons because of the anti-free speech campaign of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which kicked into high gear in response to the original Danish cartoons of Muhammad. So the U.S. State Department is demonstrating that violence and intimidation work -- which only ensures that we will see more of it.

And with its fig-leaf defense of the freedom of speech below, issued in the context of deploring and denouncing the Motoons, amounts to a call for self-censorship. Now, self-censorship is something we all do all the time, in innumerable contexts: if everyone always said what he thought, there would be a lot more broken relationships and lost jobs, etc. But politeness and respect are not what are at issue here, and the point of publishing the Motoons is not to cause offense, although they will certainly do that. The key fact is that the cartoons arouse in Muslims not only murderous rage but attempts to restrict the freedom of speech through legal avenues. As such, self-censorship amounts only to self-imposed dhimmitude, and to acquiescence to the supremacy and rule of Sharia.

That's why the Motoons are not a stunt, not a joke, not a raspberry to anyone, not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. The Motoons are rather the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech. The State Department should be explaining what I am explaining now. Instead, this.

"US slams blasphemous Facebook images," from the Daily Times, May 22 (thanks to Neil):

WASHINGTON: The US has deplored blasphemous images of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) on Facebook as "deeply offensive to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike", saying America does not condone expressions that lead to violence or hatred. The US State Department also expressed respect for any actions that need to be taken under Pakistani law to protect their citizens from offensive speech, but expected a balance between restricting offensive material and ensuring flow of information for the Internet users. "Obviously, this is a difficult and challenging issue. Many of the images that appear today on Facebook were deeply offensive to Muslims and non-Muslims alike," Philip J Crowley, assistant secretary of state, said.