Robert Spencer corrects Marc Lamont Hill

Educational Video about Islamic Jihad and Sharia

Hat-tip to the Clarion Project for this succinct and accurate video about the threat of civilizational jihad and sharia as the motives behind terrorist acts. This is the sort of thing people in the west need to know. So what did YouTube do. They banned the video. read more about that at the Counter Jihad link.

This video was produced by the Center for Security Policy, an excellent organization started by very knowledgeable people in the world of fighting Islamic terrorism.

Mark Steyn: "If you say we're crazy and violent, we'll go nuts and kill you."

George W. Bush to Mark Steyn on Muslims' lack of proportion: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons."



Mark Steyn. An International Treasure.

Better commentary on the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Since I often have offered the opinions of William Donohue as my own on a wide range of topics, I've been planning to post for some time with regard to how much I disagreed with his press release two weeks ago in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Donohue mentions how important it is to be "unequivocal", then he coughs this up:

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

This is pure victim-blaming, and the only explanation I'll offer cannot be an excuse for a man as bright as Donohue. He had waged battles against Charlie Hebdo and other publications which insulted religion in the past and he seems to have felt a certain justice had been served by their murders. This is not unlike the phenomenon of Jodi Arias supporters who go too far in their empathy for someone suffering at the hands of a sex-abusing reprobate. But Arias didn't get a restraining order against Travis Alexander, she murdered him. If a sensible man educates himself on what we know about the type of person Alexander was, he wouldn't want him near any of his female friends or relatives. But he was murdered; it's not about him anymore. It's about a crime which is worse.

What troubles me even more is that this characterization of an anger which is supposedly righteous and yet leads to murder misses out entirely on the nature of Islamic jihad and the threat it poses. The men who perpetrated this violence were soldiers. If there was a miraculous religious conversion at Charlie Hebdo two months ago and everyone repented and disbanded the paper, is it sensible to think that these jihadists would not have perpetrated any terrorist attack ever? They would have just waited until another target was acquired; that's what soldiers do. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing — jihadists didn't need an insult to their religion to target a foot race. Is it insulting to Muhammad to watch a soccer game? Should kids who watch a soccer game be publicly executed? Some Islamists think that's a wonderful idea, obviously, and so in a country without any "satirical" magazines that's as good a target as any for the jihad. And we could list more.

So once again, I think that William Donohue has done a very poor job of picking the bad guy here, and I'm wondering if it might be a good time for good old Bill to take a senior advisory role at the Catholic League. You don't have to hang a Je suis Charlie sign around your neck to get your priorities straight in a response. A better Catholic response was offered yesterday by George Weigel who wisely waited a few weeks before pointing out the vulnerabilities of Europe's secularism which are epitomized by Charlie Hebdo. Excerpt:

If all that Europe can say in condemning the despicable murders of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists and editors is “We are all Charlie Hebdo,” then what Europe is saying is, in effect, “We are all nihilists.” And how, pray, is nihilism—nothingness raised to a first principle, skepticism taken to the last extreme—supposed to defeat conviction, however warped that conviction is? If all that Europe can say to murderous jihadism is “Why can’t we all just get along?” its fecklessness will make it an even softer target for the kind of lethal fanaticism that recently turned Paris into a war zone.

There’s another aspect to this tangled and bloody business that’s worth noting, and that is the high price that Europe, and France in particular, is paying for culturally engrained (and sometimes legally enforced) political correctness. Virtually proscribing public discussion of the threat to European civility and order posed by Islamist maniacs has made dealing with that threat far more difficult: for citizens, for the security services, and for the public authorities. In the years since 9/11, the French public square has been dominated by the jihadists and the xenophobes; and in that volatile social environment, something very bad was going to happen. Now that it has, perhaps steps can be taken to bring the adults—and the real issues—back into the discussion.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that William Donohue is one of the "adults" on this topic any more than those infected with nihilism and/or political correctness. One of the secondary effects of the murders is to send the popularity of Charlie Hebdo soaring and selling more copies than ever before. So if the true purpose of these jihadists was to silence those who attach their religion, they are miserable failures. But if their purpose is to "[C]ast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve... (Qur'an 8:12)" then they are a success. Yes, many Muslims have already voiced this opinion; the them what these jihadists did in the name of Islam was fully justified.

What did ever happen to Bowe Bergdahl?

Richard Benedetto asks the question. Then he explains why we don't know: modern journalism sucks. Excerpt:

There was a time not so long ago when news editors kept what was known as a “tickler” file.  In it were reminders of certain issues, stories or personalities that needed to be updated and re-examined. In those days, Bergdahl’s name would have been high on the list.  With him out of the news since July, an editor might have said to a reporter, “Let’s find out what Bergdahl’s been doing down there in Texas for the past four months. What is his job? What does he do all day?  How do his fellow soldiers treat him?  Does he have friends?  Does he date?  Does he get any leave? Has he been home to visit his parents?”

The American public, and not just conservatives, would jump at a chance to read a story like that.
How does a reporter go about getting that story?  It’s not easy, but it is doable. It takes time, patience and a lot of shoe leather trying to find people who will talk and provide the information. That kind of reporting seems to be in dwindling supply in this New Media era where talking heads, bloggers and social media tweeters take precedence over the work of on-the-ground reporters. And the American public is all the poorer for it.

What did ever happen to Bowe Bergdahl?

There has got to be more to this story. The guy is a troublemaker and a coward by all accounts, and if he takes after his father, he's n weirdo as well. So why has he gotten such special treatment? My theory is that it has something to do with the fact that he and his father, Robert Bergdahl, are basically weak-willed numbskulls who are allowing themselves to be used as pawns by Islamists. Read this and tell me if you come to a different conclusion.

Email from Act for America

Here is the contents of an email which I received from Act! for America, an organization which I support wholeheartedly. They are dedicated to getting the truth out about the violent nature of Islam and the current Jihad going on.

How much has our world changed?

It seems that not a week goes by without some news report of Jihadist activity here in the U.S. What was once a very rare occurrence is now all too common. In the past few weeks alone we have seen:

• A Muslim convert behead a co-worker in Oklahoma after performing “dawah” in an attempt to invite his co-workers to Islam;

• Three teen-age Muslim girls from Denver, Colorado, were arrested in Germany while en route to joining the Islamic State jihad in Iraq and Syria;

• Our neighbors and allies to the north have suffered two Jihadi attacks in which three Canadian soldiers were killed—two were run over by a Jihadi in a car and one was shot while standing guard at the country’s war memorial monument in Ottawa, Canada.

• A Jihadi wielding a hatchet launched an unprovoked attack on a group of New York police officers on a busy sidewalk in broad daylight in Queens.

Despite the repeated acts of Jihad and reports of support for Jihad that have become frequent in America and the West, the public is almost constantly bombarded with absurd admonitions that these are not acts of terrorism carried out by Jihadists in the name of Islam and this activity has “nothing to do with Islam.”

Just as happened in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre and the Little Rock, Arkansas, shooting on June 1, 2009, the Obama administration insists that these are simple cases of “workplace violence” and “isolated” incidents.

Is it any wonder why the Obama administration lied and covered up the Benghazi terrorist attack? After all, they won’t even tell the truth about Jihad inside our own country.

The promoters of the poison known as “political correctness” insist that we actively ignore all of the clear evidence of Shariah and Jihad in our midst: pro-ISIS graffiti in our streets; pro-ISIS protest signs in Ferguson, Missouri; violent Facebook postings from right here in America; and the fact that the Islamic State’s social media guru grew up in Boston.

We now have a rendezvous with destiny.

Either we bow down to the lords of political correctness and deny the reality of the threat of Jihad and efforts to promote Shariah inside the US, or we rise up in large numbers and scream the truth across the fruited plain, from sea to shining sea.

This is an urgent appeal to all patriotic Americans to stand up and be counted.

ACT for America’s 290,000 members are fighting back educating elected officials and warning our fellow citizens about the threat we face from Islamic jihad. We need your urgent support with a tax-deductible donation of $10, $25, $50, or $100—any amount you can afford to give—today.

The time to act is now.

It is abundantly clear that the Obama administration has no desire to do what is necessary to defend America from Jihad, either here at home or overseas.

President Obama himself has been completely dishonest about the threat from Jihad, first participating in a cover up of the Benghazi terrorist attack and more recently uttering the biggest lie of all, namely that “ISIS is not Islamic.”

Meanwhile, he has continually embraced American Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as ISNA, that have a pro-Shariah agenda, despite their status as un-indicted co-conspirators in the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the US v. the Holy Land Foundation.

To say the least, it leaves patriotic Americans scratching their heads and wondering if our elected leaders are crazy, stupid, dishonest or all three!

At ACT for America we refuse to submit to the conventional wisdom and ignore the clear evidence of violent Jihad and the just as dangerous civilizational Jihad currently being waged inside America. We throw political correctness into the garbage where it belongs and call a spade a spade.

We will continue to warn America every day—and we will continue to hold our elected officials accountable.

We need your urgent help.

The lifeblood that keeps ACT for America operating is the generous support from you and other American patriots. ACT for America is growing rapidly and we continue to work daily in the media, in the halls of Congress and in state capitols across the U.S. to educate and inform our policymakers and elected officials and provide them with solutions to defend America and defeat Jihad. As a result of our education and your support 35 bills in 17 states have passed to protect our country.

Can I count on your support to help us grow faster, pass more bills, secure our country and communities? Your tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50 or $100 today will make a huge difference.

You can be a one-time donor or stand with us as a monthly contributor. By becoming a monthly donor, you will help us plan our growth and plan events into the future, knowing that the support is there. We are grateful for your help in any way you choose.

Thank you very much for your help. When everyone does a little, together we can accomplish a lot. Together we can save our nation.

Sincerely,


Brigitte Gabriel

P.S. It’s hard to believe that 13 years after 9/11 we still have to debate the nature of the threat from Islamic jihad. It’s long past time for America to wake up. Please help me wake America from its slumber, and hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire with your tax-deductible donation today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is a 501(c)(4) issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. Donations to ACT for America are not tax deductible.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

---

HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Send a personalized version of this message to your friends.

---

HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION?
Click here to give an online donation.

Nolen's Mosque Teaches "Jihad for the Sake of Allah"

From an eyewitness to Islam. You can't trump this.



You can deny the authenticity of it, of course. But it all rings true and fits everything else we know about the inherent violence of Islamic teaching.

Smite at their necks (47:4).

"So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds."

"Because we believe in human dignity . . . "

Last week, Keith suggested that the comment "We ought to defend the ME Christians from persecution not because they are Christians, but because we are Christians" was worthy of a post in lieu of commenting on the latest hi-jinks of TAC and Dreher.  In that spirit, a great man spoke on this topic ten years ago yesterday at the UN, saying it much better than I can say it myself: 

... Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance. That dignity is dishonored by oppression, corruption, tyranny, bigotry, terrorism and all violence against the innocent. And both of our founding documents affirm that this bright line between justice and injustice, between right and wrong, is the same in every age and every culture and every nation…

…These rights are advancing across the world. And across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights and every charter of liberty ever written are lies to be burned and destroyed and forgotten ...

… All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers. ... 

... And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say serious consequences, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world. Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time. . .

… Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have established a global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. …

… Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection life from exploitation under any pretext. …

… Because we believe in human dignity, America and many nations have changed the way we fight poverty, curb corruption and provide aid. …

… Because we believe in human dignity, the world must have more effective means to stabilize regions in turmoil and to halt religious violence and ethnic cleansing…

… Because we believe in human dignity, peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy. No other system of government has done more to protect minorities, to secure the rights of labor, to raise the status of women or to channel human energy to the pursuits of peace. We've witnessed the rise of democratic governments in predominantly Hindu and Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian cultures. …

… When it comes to the desire for liberty and justice, there is no clash of civilizations. People everywhere are capable of freedom and worthy of freedom. … The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls or martial laws or secret police; over time and across the Earth, freedom will find a way. Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we must continue show our commitment to democracies in those nations. The liberty that many have won at a cost must be secured. …

President Bush gave this speech only ten years ago. But in comparison with the recent statements of his successor, this affirmation of belief in human dignity sadly seems like ancient history. 

It Takes One

It's painful for me to read hand-wringing like this article about how military action is problematic for the image people have of President Obama and his poor, wittle wegacy. Excerpt:

But make no mistake: Obama’s escalation of airstrikes and the use of U.S. personnel to help “degrade and destroy” the extremist Sunni group represents a major setback for a commander in chief whose early international appeal was built on a pledge to remove the United States from “permanent war footing.”

“How did this group that came in determined to remedy the Bush administration’s overreach . . . end up embroiled in a far more open-ended conflict that has just as far-reaching consequences?” said Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration official who served at the Pentagon from 2009 to 2011. “This is a legacy issue for him.”

Trying to be "not like Bush"—or not like anybody else for that matter—is not a successful strategy for leadership. Unfortunately that was a successful campaign strategy for getting Obama elected, and it's hard for Democrats to see the difference.

There is actually a great deal more hubris in thinking you can quit fighting a war somewhere and that will suddenly bring peace, love and a big legacy prize as an added bonus than in thinking that you better start fighting when your enemies attack you like President Bush did. That's how all this started, lest we forget. We had war declared on us.

An illustration comes to mind. I took my four oldest kids to see Indians when we got stomped by Detroit 12-1 on Labor Day. I was explaining to my 10-year-old son that the pitcher, Corey Kluber, would get credit for the loss. He responded, "I think it's the Detroit Tigers' fault that the Indians lost." He had a point. Osama Bin Laden declared war when he attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, not George W. Bush. This is not a "tango"; it only takes one to instigate a war.

Instead of responding to polls showing "war weariness" on the part of the public, I would like to see our leaders confronting the real issue. That issue is that the war against Islamic Jihad is going to require that the populace increase their fortitude and their resilience to defeat these enemies however long it takes. Wars are won or lost. If you leave, if you take your ball and go home, well, that's a loss.

An excellent succinct explanation

In his analysis of the Kenyan Shopping Mall attack, Tom Rogan provides an excellent succinct explanation of the justification for Islamic Jihad. It's a "blend of theocratic absolutism and perverse consequentialism".

Of course, this raises a key question: How do the jihadists excuse their atrocities?

In the blend of theocratic absolutism and perverse consequentialism. From the jihadist perspective, their violence is justified in the service of God’s intrinsic will.

Grappling with this notion of ordained will is crucial. It affords us insight into the existential rigidity with which these terrorists regard the world. In short, Salafi Jihadists claim that the price of peace is our non-interference — they hint that our acquiescence will buy us our safety. They’re lying. Theirs is an ideology with a supra-national (and, as they see it, divine) pursuit — a global caliphate of absolute power. Take al-Shabab. As Beifuss and Bellini note in their study of terrorist iconography, Branding Terror, al-Shabab’s logo, a rifle-sheltered Koran sitting upon a green globe, is unmistakably clear in its prevailing message: This group will never find satisfaction in local politics.

Emphasis on "they're lying" is mine. Because if you are willing to murder in the name of God, you are willing to tell lies for sure. As well as to ignore those cute, little "no guns allowed" stickers.

Why don't they ask the Imams to declare Islam a "religion of peace"?

Jihadwatch has the scoop. Let me paraphrase it for you. Here's what Al-Azhar—the foremost, most prestigious and influential Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims—is saying: "Hey, Pope Francis, we like you so far. Please declare Islam a religion of peace and we won't get violent. But please don't ask us to meet and talk with Jews and Israelis; we hate them."



Here's a better idea. Why don't that request that all the Muslim Imams—both Sunni and Shia—declare that Islam is a religion of peace and decry all religious violence? The Pope is just a kafir anyway, an idolater who believes in the Trinity.

WaPo gives Obama Four Pinocchios on Benghazi

This fact check piece on whether or not the President called the 9/11/12 attacks on Benghazi an "act of terrorism" is worth reading. Excerpt:

During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate. But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now. Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that he was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time--and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

Michael Medved pointed out on his show that Obama contradicted himself within his own statements on Monday, May 13, since he claimed at other points that they weren't "clear" (his word) about the nature of the attacks. I think the word he meant to use was sure, not clear, and perhaps that was a Freudian slip. So they didn't know if it was an act of terror, but they said it was right away.... which is it, Mr. President?

Thank you, Mehdi.

Areeba Kamal writes this pouty "don't blame Muslims" piece in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. A Muslim commenter named Mehdi provides her with these wise observations and partial corrections:

I would highly advise you not to display Pakistani flag in your dorm room. I do understand your sense of patriotism, I used to do that with Bangkadeshi flag, once I came to US as a college freshman. Please try to reign in your slip of tongue for inshallah, mashallah as these words have no prevalence in Western discourse. If Americans look at us Muslims with suspicion, then it is our fault. I have been living in US for 18 years and never for a minute felt discriminated because of my faith.

Please don’t be so quick to jump to conclusion about who the perpetrator is. Investigation is underway, if the bombing is associated with Islamic extremists, I hope they get punished.

In Pakistan, blaming the US for everything is a Pakistani national past time. Society in general in Pakistan lacks the concept of introspection.

Yes, many of my friends asked me why I speak so fluent English at the par with native speaker, I had to explain to them that my parents sent me to British private school and they could afford it. Not everybody is poor and illiterate, we do have cities with skyscrapers and 10 million plus population. You just have to answer their curiosities. Anyway a good read. Please do a follow-up once the investigation is complete. Your thoughts would be much appreciated around that time.

The emphases are mine. I can say a hearty amen to these, or aameen if you like. "If Americans look at us Muslims with suspicion, then it is our fault." Well said, Mr. Mehdi. Isn't it ironic that a Muslim admitting this actually makes you look at him with less suspicion? This seems like a great example of "The Truth will set you free."

I also loved his statement "You just have to answer their curiosities." Don't take such offense to Americans not knowing facts about your own country. There are plenty of Americans that barely know about their own country and I'm sure that's true in Pakistan as well.

Muslim Beheads Coptic Christians in New Jersey

More news for the This is your brain on Islam file. At least he shot them before cutting their heads off. Allah is merciful, right?



Just for the sake of any low information types out there, New Jersey is one of the 50 states which make up the country called the United States of America. So Jihad followed these Egyptian Copts to our shores.

Clare Lopez on the Syria / Al Qaeda Connection to the Benghazi Coverup

Clare Lopez connects the dots. Excerpt:

During the 2011 Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi, reckless U.S. policy flung American forces and money into the conflict on the side of the rebels, who were known at the time to include Al Qaeda elements. Previously the number two official at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Christopher Stevens was named as the official U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition in March, 2011.

Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). That means that Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid and abet individuals and groups that were, at a minimum, allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization that attacked the homeland on the first 9/11, the one that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.

Although Belhadj reportedly now has moved on to Syria to help lead the fight against the Assad regime being waged by the Syrian Free Army (SFA), other Libyan fighters, who were formerly members of his LIFG and other Al Qaeda affiliates formed a new terror militia in Libya (and elsewhere) called Ansar al-Shariah (Supporters of Sharia/Islamic Law).

Here's the conclusion, but you should really read the whole thing.

“[F]alse information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons,” says Bill Gertz, citing intelligence officials. Some of those alleged “political reasons” may have had to do with ridiculous claims about the demise of Al Qaeda and the false promises of an “Arab Spring,” but others may be more deeply buried in an Al Qaeda-linked weapons supply line that was never supposed to become public.

There are a lot of points the ponder here, but the most amazing one is this: Obama is helping to arm Al Qaeda in the name of a ridiculous idea called "the Arab Spring". Here's Ms. Lopez with Glenn Beck:

 

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America

Stealth jihad is happening, especially at universities. Georgetown is mentioned; big surprise.

Dershowitz: Release the Dead OBL Photos

Over at HuffPo, Alan Dershowitz really rips the operation which took out Osama bin Laden for basically everything done after he was taken down. Here are the bits where he argues for releasing the photos:

The president's decision to suppress the remaining photographic evidence is disturbing on many levels. First, it is wrong on its merits. The public is used to seeing visual portrayals of dead bodies. They are routinely shown on television and in movies. Anyone who has served as a juror or a courtroom observer in a homicide cases has seen bodies riddled with bullets or afflicted with stab wounds. We are mature enough to endure viewing such visual evidence if we choose to. Nor is there any real risk that these photographs will inflame Muslim or Arab sensibilities, any more than the photographs of Saddam Hussein did.

On a more fundamental level, I have serious doubts whether the president has the legal or constitutional authority to suppress these photographs. As Commander in Chief, he had the authority to order the kill operation, but in a country governed by the First Amendment, the president may lack the authority to decide what is published and what is suppressed. It would establish a terrible precedent for the Commander in Chief to be given the sole authority to determine what the public has the right to see and know, especially when the sole justification for suppression is a matter of judgment regarding the possible offensiveness of the photographs.

In a democracy, doubts must always be resolved in favor of disclosure, particularly in a matter of such great public interest and controversy. Surely Congress has at least equal authority to decide what to do with the photographs. Moreover, the press may have the right to obtain and publish these highly relevant items of evidence as part of its duty to inform the public. Some media will surely challenge the president's decision, and if they do I hope they win....

The photos are going to come out at some point. It's amazing to me that we are publicizing all kinds of things that are counterproductive or at least unhelpful to the war effort, e.g., "we found lots of hard drives, everybody", "he wasn't armed when we found him, everybody", etc., but they don't want to release the photos.

Death of a Great Islamic Leader, Osama Bin Laden

One down, many more to go.

"It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honor, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their color, sex, or language." -- Osama Bin Laden, "Letter to America", 2002

"Don't blow sunshine up my butt."

More military people (i.e., realists) in government, please.

H/T Jihadwatch.

Yeah, 'bout sums it up unfortunately

The conclusion of Mark Steyn's weekend summary:

Amidst all this flowering of democracy, you'll notice that it's only the pro-American dictatorships on the ropes: In Libya and Syria, Gaddafy and Assad sleep soundly in their beds. On the other hand, if you were either of the two King Abdullahs, in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and you looked at the Obama Administration's very public abandonment of their Cairo strongman, what would you conclude about the value of being an American ally? For the last three weeks, the superpower has sent the consistent message to the world that (as Bernard Lewis feared some years ago) America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.