The Cartoon Says it All

From AFP: Islam permits killing of 'infidel’ civilians: Zarqawi tape (via Jihad Watch).
DUBAI -- Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has said Islam permits the killing of "infidel" civilians, according to an audiotape broadcast on the Internet early Saturday.
"In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels," said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a 25-million-dollar price on his head.
"The Muslim's blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy," said the tape, whose veracity could not be determined.
The recording comes a day after US officials claimed to have seized a letter allegedly sent to Zarqawi by Al Qaeda number two Ayman Zawahiri, in which he raised concerns over the impact on Arab opinion of videotaped executions.
Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Islamist extremist, is Iraq's most wanted man.
His Al Qaeda Group of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers has claimed responsibility for some of the most gruesome attacks in Iraq, including the beheadings of foreign hostages and Iraqis.
Posted by Forkum at 05:19 PM / Permalink

Great clip

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/zombies.mov

Great Site I was directed to by Mikes America

The Peoples Cube

Tell Me Somthing I Didn't Know

You are a Social Moderate (55% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (76% permissive) You are best described as a: Capitalist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Another Good One from Cox & Forkum

This cartoon was originally posted on Feb. 8 when the story first broke.
Here's the latest from The New York Sun: Senate Will Probe Saudi Distribution Of Hate Materials.
The American government is demanding that Saudi Arabia account for its distribution of hate material to American mosques, as the State Department pressed Saudi officials for answers last week and as the Senate later this month plans to investigate the propagation of radical Wahhabism on American shores.
The flurry of activity comes months after a report from the Center for Religious Freedom discovered that dozens of mosques in major cities across the country, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, were distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.
Via Charles Johnson who has more information in this post.
Posted by Forkum at 10:12 PM / Permalink

An Interesting Case

I dont agree with what the Blogger was saying or his use of the medium, but I agree with the higher courts ruling


Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous BloggerOct 06 1:02 PM US/Eastern

By RANDALL CHASEAssociated Press Writer
DOVER, Del.
In a decision hailed by free-speech advocates, the Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court decision requiring an Internet service provider to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger who targeted a local elected official.
In a 34-page opinion, the justices said a Superior Court judge should have required Smyrna town councilman Patrick Cahill to make a stronger case that he and his wife, Julia, had been defamed before ordering Comcast Cable Communications to disclose the identities of four anonymous posters to a blog site operated by Independent Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Delaware State News.
In a series of obscenity-laced tirades, the bloggers, among other things, pointed to Cahill's "obvious mental deterioration," and made several sexual references about him and his wife, including using the name "Gahill" to suggest that Cahill, who has publicly feuded with Smyrna Mayor Mark Schaeffer, is homosexual.
In June, the lower court judge ruled that the Cahills had established a "good faith basis" for contending that they were victims of defamation and affirmed a previous order for Comcast to disclose the bloggers' identities.
One of the bloggers, referred to in court papers only as John Doe No. 1 and his blog name, "Proud Citizen," challenged the ruling, arguing that the Cahills should have been required to establish a prima facie case of defamation before seeking disclosure of the defendants' identities.
The Supreme Court agreed, reversing and remanding the case to Superior Court with an order to dismiss the Cahills' claims.
"Because the trial judge applied a standard insufficiently protective of Doe's First Amendment right to speak anonymously, we reverse that judgment," Chief Justice Myron Steele wrote.
Steele described the Internet as a "unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before," and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. Accordingly, a plaintiff claiming defamation should be required to provide sufficient evidence to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment before a court orders the disclosure of a blogger's identity.
"We are concerned that setting the standard too low will chill potential posters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak anonymously," Steele wrote. "The possibility of losing anonymity in a future lawsuit could intimidate anonymous posters into self-censoring their comments or simply not commenting at all."
The standard adopted by the court, the first state Supreme Court in the country to consider the issue, is based on a 2000 New Jersey court ruling.
Under the standard adopted by the Supreme Court, a plaintiff must first try to notify the anonymous poster that he is the subject of subpoena or request for a court to disclose his identity, allowing the poster time to oppose the request. The plaintiff would then have to provide prima facie evidence of defamation strong enough to overcome a summary judgment motion.
"The decision of the Supreme Court helps provide protection for anonymous bloggers and anonymous speakers in general from lawsuits which have little or no merit and are filed solely to intimidate the speaker or suppress the speech," said David Finger, a Wilmington attorney representing John Doe No. 1.
"Delaware cases are generally respected in other states, and we'll have to see if this trend continues with these types of lawsuits, but I expect the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court to be influential," Finger added.
Robert Katzenstein, a lawyer representing the Cahills, did not immediately return a telephone message left at his home.
"This is the first state Supreme Court to squarely decide the standards to govern John Doe subpoena cases," said Paul Alan Levy, an attorney for Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, who helped argue the case for John Doe No. 1. "The court's determination to require sufficient evidence before a critic is outed will go a long way toward reassuring citizens that they remain free to anonymously criticize public officials."
Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and "generally set the record straight," and that, as in Cahill's case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.
"Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. ... The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning," he wrote.

Great Article by David Vance of A Tangled Web

The Blair Doctrine

By David Vance
Published
10/04/2005
"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." -- Lord Palmerston, 19th century British politician.
It's hard to imagine that the British government, a stalwart friend of the United States in the war on terror, could actually be conspiring with Europe's largest terrorist organization to subvert democracy in a part of the United Kingdom. It's even more bizarre to contemplate that a terror group which has killed thousands of innocent people is now being presented to the world as harbingers of peace.

Yet that is exactly what is happening as British Prime Minister Tony Blair helps sell the idea that the Irish Republican Army (IRA) has abandoned violence in pursuance of democratic politics. In fact, the IRA has clearly stated it will not disband its terror infrastructure and instead will continue to expand its lucrative criminal empire. The funds from these illicit activities will assist it in growing its political wing, Sinn Fein, which in turn seeks to seize control of the government of both Ireland and Northern Ireland. In essence this is a terrorist driven insurrection which Blair is patently not only appeasing but arguably colluding with.

It is useful to understand why Blair behaves in this fashion, as it seems so at odds with his stance over Afghanistan and Iraq. The answer is summarized in the expression that "Britain does not have friends, only interests." Over the decades an IRA campaign of terror waged on the British citizens of Northern Ireland. This cost was considered tolerable when directed against the loyal British citizens of Northern Ireland but when the IRA hit upon the idea of bombing the commercial centers of major cities like London and Manchester, instead of confronting the terrorists the government resorted to type and embarked on a comprehensive policy of appeasing them. The name given to this despicable cowardice was "the Irish peace process" and it was championed by the likes of the EU, UN and of course US President Bill Clinton.

The deal was simple. The IRA promised to stop attacking UK cities, to stop slaughtering British soldiers. It was permitted to retain its weapons and was allowed to kill and maim at will within the Roman Catholic community, whilst its political apologists in Sinn Fein gained maximum political leverage. It was peace, but not as we knew it.

But then, at 8:45 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the IRA was effectively decommissioned as a result of Al Qaida attacking the United States. Suddenly all terrorist groups of global outreach around the world were faced with the sudden reality that they either ceased their bombings and shootings or faced the wrath of the energized American administration. In effect, the IRA has spent the time since that dreadful day developing a strategy of wringing endless concessions from the craven UK government in exchange for publicly acknowledging the obvious -- namely that its illegal armaments were as redundant as the reasons for using them.

Now, four years on, the IRA has decided to admit that it cannot use its own weapons. It has agreed to this on the basis that the British government allows it to retain its toxic criminal empire, that it can police its own areas, and that it will have its proxies placed in the government of Northern Ireland. It's accepted a make over for a British political roll-over. Plus ça change.

What is worse is that the British government and the MSM is now doing the propagandizing for this terrorist group. They present the false impression that the IRA has chosen the path of peace and has finally decided to commit itself to democratic politics. They are mute about the fact that the IRA seeks to retain its entire paramilitary structure, they obfuscate the fact that the IRA has dramatically expanded its criminal empire culminating in the UK's biggest bank robbery in December of 2004. They ignore the fact that the IRA terrorists swagger around Northern Ireland considering themselves beyond the reach of the law. In fact, these hooded thugs believe that they are the law. That's how degraded society becomes when government adopts the philosophy of seeing, hearing and speaking no evil as a policy directive.

In Northern Ireland, the British government is now demanding that democratic politicians sit down and share power with the delegates of unreconstructed terrorism. This is conveyed as reasonableness incarnate. But if Blair considers this to be so very reasonable today how we can be sure that tomorrow he will not also consider it reasonable to bring the representatives of Jihad terrorism into the British government? How can a politician who makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" terrorists offer any form of effective leadership in the war against terror?

The Bush doctrine has been about putting terrorists on notice that we will hunt them down and bring them to justice, wherever they may be found. The Blair doctrine appears to be telling selected terrorists that justice can be set aside and means found to appease them.

The author is a Belfast based freelance writer. Find more of his writing here.

Happy Anniversary NASA

October 1 Marks NASA's 47th Anniversary
09.27.05
Since its founding on October 1, 1958, NASA has pushed the boundaries of human exploration. We've put footprints on the moon and tire tracks on Mars. We've given the world breathtaking images of our home planet, our solar system and the galaxies beyond. We invented the first re-usable spacecraft and, with our international partners, established a permanent human presence in space. Along the way, we've pioneered new technologies that have improved people's lives. Now, we're blazing a new trail into the cosmos. Before the end of the next decade, NASA astronauts will again explore the surface of the moon, traveling in a new spaceship that builds on the best of Apollo and shuttle technology. And this time, we're going to stay, building outposts and paving the way for eventual journeys to Mars and beyond. Related Links:+ Administrator's Anniversary Message+ NASA's New Spaceship+ 2003 Flash Feature: 45 Years of Exploration+ NASA History OfficeImage Details:First row, from left: A 1931 photo shows the original hangar at NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The first American satellite in orbit, Explorer 1, launches in January 1958. The "Original Seven" Mercury astronauts were selected in 1959. The experimental Echo project used large metallic balloons to bounce signals from one point on Earth to another. Second row, from left: The X-15 hypersonic research aircraft flew for nearly 10 years, from June 1959 to October 1968. Apollo 11 astronauts left the first bootprints on the moon in July 1969. Jupiter's Great Red Spot, seen from one of the twin Voyager spacecraft that launched in 1977. NASA satellites helped create the "blue marble," a detailed image of Earth.Third row, from left:Columbia launches on the first shuttle mission in April 1981. Image of the Eagle Nebula from the Hubble Space Telescope. The Mars rover Opportunity looks back at its tracks on the red planet. The international space station is humanity's first permanent orbital outpost. Fourth row, from left: The Cassini spacecraft has been sending back images of Saturn, it's rings and moons since July 2004. Discovery returns the space shuttle fleet to flight in July 2005. NASA satellites help scientists and forecasters watch powerful hurricanes. Artist's concept of NASA's next spaceship, the crew exploration vehicle, docked with a lander in lunar orbit. Photo credit: NASA

Cofusion In Iraq

IRAQ THE MODEL
Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The Iraqi National Assembly took a very worrisome step by abolishing the value of Iraqis’ votes in the upcoming referendum through giving two different interpretations of the word “voter” in the law that will govern the referendum and decide whether the draft constitution is ratified or not.In response, the UN has refused this change in the referendum laws and asked the Assembly to take fast action to correct this contradiction:
We have expressed our position to the national assembly and to the leadership of the government and told them that the decision that was taken was not acceptable and would not meet international standards," Jose Aranaz, a legal adviser to the U.N. electoral team in Iraq...The change that was introduced lately by the Assembly would call the draft constitution ratified if more than 50% of actual voters voted with “yes” but in another sentence in the same rule which states that the draft constitution would be considered rejected if two thirds of the voters in three provinces voted with “no” the word “voters” was interpreted as registered voters not actual voters.
Iraq's parliament made a ruling on Sunday determining that for the Oct. 15 referendum to pass only half of those who turn out to vote across the country would have to say "Yes". But a clause setting a two-thirds "No" vote in at least three of 18 provinces as a veto on the charter would be interpreted to mean two thirds of all registered, rather than actual, voters. In other words, the word "voter" in the interim constitution was being interpreted in two different ways in the same article.The above means that the government is far more interested in approving the draft constitution than it is in having the people freely decide for their future and I frankly do not know how people are supposed to trust a government that is literally playing with words and planning to deny them their right to decide on a super-important issue like their nation's constitution.I wasn't worried at all when the final draft came with several articles I didn't agree with since I thought my voice would count and could change things in either direction but now? Now I feel like I'm facing a challenge of having my voice ignored and hijacked again and that is something I cannot accept.
- posted by Omar @ 18:24

Hell will Freeze Over First

EU Wants Shared Control of InternetSep 30 10:00 AM US/Eastern

By AOIFE WHITEAP Business Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium
The European Union insisted Friday that governments and the private sector must share the responsibility of overseeing the Internet, setting the stage for a showdown with the United States on the future of Internet governance.
A senior U.S. official reiterated Thursday that the country wants to remain the Internet's ultimate authority, rejecting calls in a United Nations meeting in Geneva for a U.N. body to take over.
EU spokesman Martin Selmayr said a new cooperation model was important "because the Internet is a global resource."
"The EU ... is very firm on this position," he added.
The Geneva talks were the last preparatory meeting before November's World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.
At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.
That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.
Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable. Other decisions could affect the availability of domain names in non-English characters or ones dedicated to special interests such as pornography.