Scrappleface has the scoop -- errrrrr .... the inside info on the latest Osaami-Been-Laid2rest rumors. 

And then some.

  Jeeeze, Louise.  How many times is this human-slug gonna die? 

I had in mind a "thousand deaths" for him -- but I didn't want the bugger to kick the bucket and miss all the pain.

The French are reporting his death this time.  Nevermind.

  Move the United Nations?

No -- move the members and wanna-be's.   Lebanon would a good place.   Room service might not be as good, but ....

We'll keep the name and the building in NY, thank you. 

Nations who want to remain "united" may remain under a renewed charter, of course.  Those who want to continue to re-write their own version of "unity" are welcome to leave.

Let dictators and vengeful 3rd world nations who want to bite the hands that feed them have their own arena.   Their new "unity" could be renamed the International Non-Aligned Nations Enclave. 

I.N.A.N.E. for short. 

First require all current U. N. delegates to pay their bills and turn in their visas.  They must re-apply for membership.  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Load all their personal possessions on an empty 9-11 debris barge and send them to Venezuela or Tehran or Lebanon or wherever they want to go. 

Offer to foot the bill.  (It will be less expensive than refurbishing the current U. N. building.)

Re-issue invitations to nations who actually WANT to be united in effecting change and freedom and peace, etc.  Require that renewed-members pay applicable dues before admission.  REPEAT:  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Oh yeah.  Save Kofi Annan a seat on that barge.

And be certain that before leaving the Harbor --  ever damn barge circles the Statue of Liberty.   At night. 

And turn on the WTC memorial lights.

  Update:  Guess who supposedly left the U.S. in the dark of night????  Last night, even. 

Seems the "good will" tour Chavez had planned in Harlem was canceled when Joe Kennedy et al suddenly developed "family obligations." 

Too bad.  

A few thousand REAL Americans were planning to greet el presidente Chavez in the streets of NY .....  

Update #2433718:  Huey didn't leave after all.  His bro' Danny Glover took him to a church down in Charlie's district.  Then he left town.  Thank God.

A Venezuelan parrot named Pedro (pictured below) and his life-like mannequin "Hugo" won a United Nations comedy award this afternoon, though playing to a sparse house. 

Observers were amazed that the parrot's beak hardly moved during a 22-minute ventriloquist routine.

Pedro the Parrot and his dummy Hugo
react to the attention given
to a man in a green helmet with cue cards.

Although prepared to grease judges with free oil, Pedro and his dummy "Hugo" actually had no competition after Kofi Annan fell off his pony in front of the podium. 

Observers were frequently distracted by a man in a green helmet who tittered about with laugh-cards in 28 non-aligned languages.  

 Cue the man in the green helmet. 

He'll be whisking around the Middle East, orchestrating photo ops for Friday's  Islamic "Day of Rage." 

To be done with civility and dignity, we're told.

That'll be a first:  dignified and civil rage. 

Please don't delay our disappointment.

  http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Thomas Sowell on

Suicidal hand-wringing

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

If this was just a case of a handful of headstrong senators, who want us to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while we are being kicked in the groin and slashed with knives, that would be bad enough. But the issue of applying the Geneva convention to people who were never covered by the Geneva convention originated in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, and Congress has specifically taken away the jurisdiction of the courts in cases involving the detention of illegal combatants, such as terrorists, who are not — repeat, not — prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.

The Supreme Court ignored that law. Apparently everyone must obey the law except judges. Congress has the power to impeach judges, including Supreme Court justices, but apparently not the guts. Runaway judges are not going to stop until they get stopped.

In short, the clash between Senator McCain, et al., and the President of the United States is more than just another political clash. It is part of a far more general, and ultimately suicidal, confusion and hand-wringing in the face of mortal dangers.

The argument is made that we must respect the Geneva convention because, otherwise, our own soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment when they become prisoners of war.

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?

No one has suggested that we disregard the Geneva convention for people covered by the Geneva convention. The question is whether a lawless court shall seize the power to commit this nation to rules never agreed to by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the power to make international treaties.

The much larger question — the question of survival — is whether we have the clarity and the courage to go all-out in self-defense against those who are going all-out to destroy us, even at the cost of their own lives.

There are too many signs that we do not and those signs are visible not only in our political and judicial institutions but throughout American society and western civilization.

Sheltered for years from terrorist dangers that we so much feared after the September 11th attacks, many have come to act as if those dangers do not exist and that we now have the luxury of dismantling the means by which they have been held at bay this long.

In a country where all sorts of individuals and organizations tap into our personal computers and our computerized medical, financial and other records, some have gone ballistic over the fact that the federal government tries to keep track of who is being phoned by international terrorist organizations.

No amount of security precautions can protect us from all the thousands of ways in which terrorists can strike at times and places of their own choosing — and eventually strike with nuclear weapons. Our only hope is to get advance information from those we capture as to where other terrorists are and how they operate.

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

A must-read from The Anchoress ....

Any intelligent human being understands that one does not - in the 21st century - publicly touch on the subject of Islamic jihad and religious compulsion, no matter how delicately or distinctively, unless one wants to deal with a reaction that is both primitive and intimidating, by a group demonstrably closed to dialogue.

And yet Benedict, clearly an intelligent man, has done so. He has, in essence, dared to say to Islam, “Is this really what you want to be doing, in this century? The rest of the world’s religions have put away the swords…how about we talk?”

Up to now, no one has come out and said that to Islam. The Pope is the first.

While violence and Islam have gone together hand-to-glove since, perhaps, the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, politicians have repeatedly used the phrase “Islam means peace.” As befits our mania to “celebrate diversity”, a great deal of “due deference” has been accorded the followers of the prophet. They have been invited to the White House. They are upstanding members of the United Nations. They are offered a place at every economic summit, every national day of prayer. Good heavens, the US Post Office has created stamps for their religious holiday of Eid, and yet it has never been enough.

The world has more than amply demonstrated that it would like to see Islam put away its swords and get on with the business of simply living life - which is difficult enough without having to worry about jihad - and yet Islam will not comply. With Benedict’s words, the world is finally free to come out and ask, “Okay, short of our surrender and our conversions, what is it going to take to get you folks to settle down?”

That is the quintessential question of the age, for without the answer we will continue to pussy-foot and dance around the whole issue of Islamic violence for another few decades. A clear question and a clear answer will finally and fully tell the West what it needs to know in order to either defend itself seriously, or simply capitulate.                -- The Anchoress

(Bold text added.)

~~~~~~~

And the Islamic response thus far may best be summarized by this image:

So, intellectual discourse IS probably out of the question then, eh?

 Not me said it. 

Somebody named Jamat. E. Islami obviously did.  His name is on both signs .... HUH?  That's not a name????  Looks like a name to me.  Makes me think of Alfred E. Newman, yanno?

But what do I know. 

I'm only proficient in English. 

The image could have been photoshopped (unlikely, but stranger things have happened). 

OK.  I have at least two questions:

1.  Who writes all these protest signs?  Do they not have anything comparable to spell-check?  How about syntax review?  Do they buy their magic markers from China?  Tiwan?  South America?  Is that poster-board recycled?  From what, pray tell?  Do Islamic protesters collect these signs and pass them on to the next rally?  What about signs (such as the one above) that don't exacccccctly convey what protesters mean to convey????  Do they stuff them inside all those effigies they burn?

Is there a cleric in charge of protest posters?  Is he one of those proverbial poster-boys????  

Is he likely to be stoned to death for writing inaccurate posters? 

2.  Will the man holding the questionable sign be stoned to death for promoting .... errrrr .... the humping of Islam?  How about for describing the holy war (Jihad) as a "hump of Islam?" 

In his defense -- could he be referring to Jihad as the camel (i.e., a common carrier of humpers) or as an Arabic symbol of conveyance -- equivalent to the American Pony Express?

Just asking.  Dang -- don't get fluster your fleas, Fahwah.

How do you say "hump" in Arabic?  Are you even permitted to say "hump" in Arabic?  How about as a slang word?  Come onnnnnnnnn -- what's the Arabic locker-room word for humping? 

Oh?  They don't have locker rooms in the jihad to hump Islam?  So where do these guys shower and change?

Oh? 

Ewwwww ........ Whatcha mean, "Camels drink all the water?"  

So instead of flashing their smelly armpits at the world, why can't protesters wear those shoulder board signs?  One on the front; one on the back, connected by camel hair braids across the shoulder .... Oh yeah -- I forgot about camera angles .... They gotta give the "man in the green helmet" his camera angle.

But white?  Why do the majority of protesters wear white?  Ahhhhhh ... to provide a background for all those signs!!!  I get it!

3.  So why aren't these signs written in French or German or Italian or Spanish?  You're kidding!  Like, when these photographs are sent to Venezuela or France, subtitles are provided?   Are the photos ever "photoshopped" by national language?  How about slang words?  Just how do you say "hump" in all those languages? 

Never mind. 

If a picture says a thousand words and one of those words is misspelled -- it doesn't really matter how you say "hump," does it? 

Image Credit:  Confederate Yankee

 Hat tip to Austin Bay et al who are blogging about the group that vacationed in Cuba this weekend:

 "What do Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran have in common, besides sociopathic leaders? Leaders with megalo-maniacal egos."

Not every (non-aligned U.N. member) nation among the 100-or-so  who attended are anti-US, but take notes and take names ..... 

We need to do one of two things: 

1.  Be prepared to cut ALL financial aid to any nation that signs or joins any anti-US coalition.  Dammit.

2.  Wonder what happened to this year's hurricane season and why Mother Nature didn't intervene ....  

Nahhhhhhh.  On second thought ...... delete #2. 

POST NOTE on one high-point:  India and Pakistan agreed to renew peace talks ....

This is the Vatican flag.  If "flying" it on my blog is offensive to the Pope or to Catholics-in-general, I'm sorry that anyone mis-understands why I  "fly" it. 

[The previous statement is not an apology.  Such statements of "regret" shall hereafter refer to a catholic, i.e., universal, disclaimer for excusing others for their own narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy.]

I fly this flag in support of the Pope.

I'm just an irreverent Episcopalian of Jewish heritage who will likely find eternal peace (anyway) when I die.  I have no idea where or how or when, of course.  It's just something I know by faith because I'm a fundamentally good and caring  person who believes in a Power much greater than mine or anyone else's. 

Plus, I'm a woman.  Women know of such things.  God gives us hints so we can console and reassure our children.  Believe it.  And beware. 

But back to this eternal peace stuff. 

I don't expect my passage into the realm of eternal peace to be paved with either a multitude of sex-starved young hotties nor the words of a dark-aged extremist.  In particular -- ain't nooo bearded Islamic zealot with a sword under his burketta gonna cow-tao (no offense to Taoism -- it's a suther'n 'spression) me (or the Pope, it appears -- who wears his OWN line of robes) down some subservient path to (self) destruction -- OR ELSE!

Furthermore, oh-fickle-blowhard (featured here in this cartoon) --

As do you in your violent and hate-filled perspective -- the Pope can certainly speak for himself and his followers.  He did not criticize the prophet.  [Lower case "p" is intentional.  So sue me. Or hack my blog again, you scumbags.]  In an appeal for intellectual discourse, (a foreign concept for most fanatics), the Pope quoted a 600-year-old source (how soon they forget) who critiqued the profit ... ooops --- prophet's motives .....  

Since when is only a politically-appointed cleric allowed to expound upon the historical relevance of the Koran? 

And on that thought -- why is it "ok" to tear the heck out of the Bible without fear of reprisal or the threat of death???? 

So much for fanaticism.  Or do you prefer the label fascism?  Whatever. 

In the event you fail to appreciate my brazenness, ole-bearded-wonder, let me draw you a picture in the sand.  Take that bomb from your turban, stick it betwixt thine legs and hand me the fuse. 

Uhhhh -- use your right hand, please.  No, the other right hand.  You know ... the one you eat with -- not the one you wipe with ....

Oh, rats. 

I forgot you ain't the begetting-type.  For this reason and this reason alone -- we should thank Allah.