I don’t know what’s more shocking; that Iran’s president again vowed to destroy Israel, soon, in “one storm”,or CNN’s coverage of the story in which they omit reference to these horrific statements, and then characterize the speech as more moderate than previous speeches.

I guess the whole prospect of the Jewish state being wiped off the map is too much for us common folk to handle. Might as well give us the watered down, less scary version. The last thing we’d want is us little people going and supporting some sort of aggressive stance against the misunderstood mullahs.

I’ve been reading about increasing calls for a “creative solution” to the Iran crisis in editorials. Today the USA Today cites the Cuban missile crisis solution as an example. Earlier in the week the Washington Post also cited Kennedy’s actions towards Cuba as the type of “creative” conduct that the U.S. should be engaged in.

The problem is that the Iran crisis is the diametric opposite of the Cuban missile crisis.
With the Cuban crisis, the U.S. was faced with the prospect of dangerous rogue regime acquiring nuclear capabilities. What brought the world to the brink of WWIII was the fact that the missiles were being sent from the Soviets. Stopping a gathering threat had to be weighed against the possibility of the complete annihilation of the U.S. via a Soviet first strike. Consider that for a moment: the U.S. was seriously contemplating taking out the Cuban missiles, even in the face of a nuclear attack.

In order to draw an honest comparison with the Iran crisis, we need to imagine a Cuban missile crisis absent the prospect of the immediate annihilation of the U.S. Imagine Castro, as the leader of a rogue state, was not directly backed by the Soviets, but simply developed the missiles on his own. Is there any doubt the U.S. would have taken out the sites, and/or taken over Cuba entirely? In that scenario there would have been no “crisis” at all.

Here we are, five decades later, and a rogue regime which has repeatedly declared hostile intentions towards the U.S., actively supports terrorism, and has called for the destruction of Israel, is openly pursuing nuclear capabilities. In the 1960’s would this have been a “crisis”?

The paradigm pertaining to the use of the military in the face of gathering threats certainly has changed over the last half century. Are the risks of not taking military action are any different today?

Freedom of speech is at stake here, don’t you all see? If anything, we should all make cartoons of Mohammed and show the terrorists and the extremists that we are all united in the belief that every person has a right to say what they want. Look people, it’s been really easy for us to stand up for free speech lately. For the past few decades, we haven’t had to risk anything to defend it. One of those times is right now. And if we aren’t willing to risk what we have now, then we just believe in free speech, but won’t defend it.

That was from Part I.

In Part II the image of Mohammed was censored out by [tag]Comedy Central[/tag] (Spruiell, NRO Media Blog)

In Part II, what was not censored was an “Al-Qaeda” video showing two “Americans”, President Bush, and Jesus pooping over each other and the American Flag.

That was okay in Comedy Central’s books – but an image of Mohammed handing a football helmet with a salmon on top to Peter from Family Guy was not.

Vaughn Ververs over at Public Eye has more.

The Anchoress says this

I thought the Al Qaeda “retaliation” cartoon was effectively dumb but meaningful. In a perfect world, terrorists and extremists would respond to offensive cartoons with offensive cartoons. The point was made to America by SP putting up a cartoon bound to offend various Americans – and any American who would rather not see “pooping” on the flag. Once again, they put the question out there – “what will you allow and what will you ban? And are you willing to fight for the First Amendment or just pay lip service to it until one of your sacred cows-or-icons are insulted?”

I agree with her.

As usual Michelle Malkin is all over it. She also has another post with new Comedy Central Logos. This is Allah Pundit’s submission. I agree with Michelle that it is indeed the frontrunner.

Welcome Betsy’s Page readers! Please have a look around. (home)

[tags]cartoon wars[/tags]

We listen to Queen in the car all the time so I TiVo’d Idol last night so we could watch the Idol Kids do Queen.

Bucky was okay with Fat Bottomed Girls, but as Simon said, the song was a little too big for him.

Ace doing We Will Rock You – I wasn’t really awed – I didn’t like the way he did it, but the little guy liked it.

Kellie did Bohemian Rhapsody truncating the song as they do really didn’t do it justice. The song is 5 minutes and 54 seconds long and they cut it down to like 140 seconds. She did okay though. She can belt.

Chris doing Innuendo. I wasn’t really familiar with this song, but he did a really good job. That voice is something else.

Katherine Who Wants to Live Forever she was good. I liked it.

Elliott does Somebody to Love – he said he’d never heard the song before. His voice didn’t seem right for this song. Anne Hathaway did it wonderfully in Ella Enchanted.

Taylor does Crazy Little Thing Love I think his register was a little high for me. Simon said he thought “it was ridiculous”.

Paris. Brian May said “She’s damn good.” The Show Must Go On. I’m impressed. She has a very good voice and she can really belt.

This was the first time I’ve watched Idol. I’ve heard a lot about it and my Mom watches all the time. I was interested because of the Queen songs. Of course, Freddy’s shoes are really big ones to fill, and very hard to fill as well. If I was voting it would have been for either Paris or Chris.

One of the daffodils:

and some little blue and white flowers, I don’t know what they are but they are pretty.

This is one of Duncan’s favorite places to rest

Linked to the Friday Ark and Cat Lovers

Ace of Trump points us to a story from the Chicago Chronicle. Sun Times story here.

The Chicago City council has passed an ordinance that turns a 1989 Daley executive order into law. The executive order says:

No agent or agency shall request information about or otherwise investigate or assist in the investigation of citizenship or residency status of any person unless such an inquiry or investigation is required by statute, ordinance, federal regulation or court decision.

The Sun Times adds,

It further orders that city services, benefits and opportunities should not be “conditioned” on “matters related to citizenship or residency status” unless otherwise required by law.

The ordinance passed Wednesday “would say, ‘Look, when we provide city services, be it by police or any other city agency, our focus is not immigration status,'” said Ricardo Meza, regional counsel for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who testified in support of the law.

So the “sanctuary city” designation is now law, not just an executive order.

The last two paragraphs of the story read:

Ald. Billy Ocasio (26th), chairman of the City Council’s Human Relations Committee, noted that Wednesday’s vote could set the stage for a court challenge if the final federal law is close to the tough immigration bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). He said Sensenbrenner wants to supersede home rule.

“It gives us leverage if they pass the Sensenbrenner bill. … We need to send a clear message that we are not going to do this,” Ocasio said.

I don’t know if this gives you any leverage Mr. Ocasio – If you refuse to comply the feds can take all your federal funding away from you. Chicago gets a lot of federal funding…

That we’ve been in Iraq longer than in WWII.

Film at Expose the Left

As Ian says:

WRONG! The US has been in Iraq for a little over three years. Germany and Japan declared war on the United States in December 1941. The war ended on September 2, 1945 with the surrender of Japan.

And this guy is my senator…

Dick Durbin was on the Big Story today to discuss the protests and immigration reform.

Gibson: Hundreds of thousands of protesters have put pressure on Congress over the issue of immigration reform. Bipartisan leaders in the Senate say they’ve made a huge breakthrough and are closing in on a legislative compromise. We asked some of you in a new Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll, “Which party do you think would do a better job at handling immigration issues. The winner: the Democrats.
{graphic}

Illegal Immigration Would Handle Issue Better
Democrats	34%
Republicans	24
Both	6
Neither	20
Don’t Know	15

Gibson: The Senate’s Democratic Whip joins us now, Dick Durbin of Illinois. Senator Durbin, next week there’s going to be another round of these immigration protests around the country. Sixty cities, there in Washington on the Mall, maybe as many as 100,000 people. Are these demonstrations putting pressure on you and your colleagues to go one way or another on immigration reform law?

Durbin: I wouldn’t say pressure but I will tell you that the group that gathered in Chicago a few weeks ago was the most amazing public gathering I’ve ever been in. Over 110,000 people packed into downtown Chicago, virtually no arrests. A peaceful group asking that they might have an opportunity to find legal status in this country. I think the fact that so many came forward was a reminder that they were a critical part of our economy in Chicago and they’re a critical part in many cities.

Gibson: Senator, you describe them as asking to be a part of our economy and our country. Some people are seeing these demonstrations as a demand that we make laws that they would approve of. Is that an unfair characterization?

Durbin: I think it is. I think is, was clear to me as they were chanting USA, USA that most of the people who gathered there just wanted the same chance that my mother had when she immigrated to this country. They were outraged, I’ll be honest with you, by the Sensenbrenner bill, the House Republican bill which branded them, not just as criminals, but as aggravated felons (ed: Wasn’t it the Democrats that insisted on that language Mr. Durbin? that’s a category crime that we reserve for rapists in America. The Sensenbrenner bill charged those not only who were in undocumented status, but those nurses and volunteers and people of faith who provided humanitarian assistance with the same crime.

Gibson: Senator, there’s been a few schools around the country that have been forced to ban flags, including the American flag over conflicts back and forth between one group waving Mexican flags and another group waving American flags. Do these demonstrators, are these demonstrations making a mistake in these open displays of the Mexican flag over the American flag?

Dubin: Which schools have banned the American flag?

Gibson: There’s one in particular in Oceanside California the home of the US Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton.

Durbin: Well, I’ve never heard of that. And I don’t know a single school in America that can’t display the American flag. I’d like to look into that story. That’s pretty {unbelievable}.

Gibson: Well please do check it out. We’ve been talking about it for a couple of days. It’s made a lot of people angry. Where are you on the compromise bill that’s come out of the Senate on immigration reform, and do you think that can pass the House?

Durbin: I think it’s a good bill. And I think it’s a bipartisan compromise and I want salute the Republican Senators who stepped up to make sure that it happened. I know Senator Frist had a press conference today announcing that he would support it. My understanding the White House is also in support. And the thing is, of course, it’s comprehensive immigration reform. Not only strong enforcement, more border agents, more efforts with technology, barriers and fences where appropriate to make sure we cut down on the flow of illegal immigration, more enforcement when it comes to employers, but also making certain that people can step out of the shadows with the understanding that it’s better for America’s security that we know who they are and where they live and where they work. So I think this bill is a move in the right direction, consistent with American values, and consistent with our goal to make America safer.

Gibson: As you know, some of your colleagues in the House have been, well, have opposed this. Do you think it can get through the House now in it’s compromise form coming out of the Senate?

Durbin: Well I can tell you there is a world of difference between the Sensenbrenner bill, the Tancredo bill which criminalized humanitarian workers and those who are here undocumented, a world of difference between that and the bipartisan approach in the Senate. I hope I’m a member of that conference committee, but I can tell you that if the idea is to go in and compromise with Mr. Sensenbrenner and decide that we won’t charge them with an aggravated felony, just a felony, then that’s unacceptable. We’re going to have a bill that consistent with American values or no bill at all.

Gibson: Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Senator, thanks very much.

This is what they came up with (MSNBC):

Republican officials said the GOP plan would divide illegal immigrants into three categories:

* Those who had been in the country the longest, more than five years, would not be required to return to their home country before gaining legal status. They would be subject to several tests, including the payment of fines and back taxes, and be required to submit to a background check, according to these officials.
* Illegal immigrants in the United States less than five years but more than two would be required to go to a border point of entry, briefly leave and then be readmitted to the United States. As with the longer-term illegal immigrants, other steps would be required for re-entry, after which they could begin seeking citizenship, these officials said.
* Illegal immigrants in the United States less than two years would be required to leave the country and join any other foreign residents seeking legal entry.

The officials who described the proposal did so on condition of anonymity, saying the had not been authorized to pre-empt senators.

How will this work? How will the illegals prove they’ve been here for however long? I guess some could point to a child born here who is more than five years old, but how do they prove they’ve never been home for a visit? To show off that new grandchild to the grandparents back home?

What types of proof will be accepted? Proof like they use for voting in some areas – someone, anyone, just has to say that they know you and you’ve been here however long?

What about the illegal who has been here for four-and-a-half years? Do you think they’ll say, “Oh well, haven’t been here long enough. Guess we’ll just pack up and leave.”????

And those that have been here under two years… How many of those do you think will be found?

The current laws have to be enforced. The border has to be tightened. Businesses that hire illegals need to be penalized. If you can’t run your business by paying the prevailing wages, then maybe you should rethink your business plan.

Sanctuary cities also need to have all their federal monies cut off until they comply with federal law.

Michelle has more.

Sensible Mom also has a good post on this.

Senator Dubin was just on The Big Story about all this. Transcript to comehere.