Again, I apologize, I seem to have been missing for another week or so.  Life is like that, sometimes.  Chalk it up to some needed down time and a family reunion.

So one of the 'big' stories on my return to the blog world was the whole Rachel Ray kerfluffle over her scarf?

So initially I assumed there was some dark sinister message hidden in her headgear, but then I saw the picture you see to the right.

And I don't get it.

Oh, I get the fact that it is somewhat similar to a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress worn by our enemies in the middle east.

But at the same time, it is a scarf, around the neck of a woman who hosts a TV cook show, and who has never to my knowledge made a single political stance on the war or on Islamfacism.

So the accusations that this was something nefarious fell on deaf ears here.

With due respect to the people who have taken a solid offended stance on this, I have to solidly disagree.  This was a much ado over nothing.

What concerns me is that this outcry has only served to once again make conservatives appear weak and shrill, and gives the impression that they will overreact to the slightest provocation.

While I agree that appeasement and Dhimmitide is a problem that needs to be watched,the conservatives appear to have taken it to a level that begins to become a witch hunt.

When we start jumping at shadows and shooting at phantoms, we set ourselves up for ridicule and derision, and like the boy who cried wolf, when the time comes to demand action for a more serious threat to our freedoms, we will not be listened to, and incidents like this will come front and center as the rationale.

Put simply, there are far more obvious and odious things to get worked up over.  This is what it looks like:  A scarf.  Nothing more.

Props to the Dutch Court for not folding under Islamofacist pressure.

Dutch court: Geert Wilders has free-speech right to criticize Islam

Amazing, the things that are litigable these days. This wasn’t the public prosecution hinted at by the Dutch government last week but “merely” a private suit filed by the Netherlands Islamic Foundation to have criticism of Islam deemed an “incitement” under Dutch law and thereby worthy of being censored. Note the rationale:

The NIF wanted to know if Wilders had broken the law with his public declaration in August last year that the Koran is a fascist book and comments that Mohammed was a barbarian.

According to the judge, the term fascism must be seen in a broader context. The NIF associated it with the Holocaust and ‘other evil practices from Nazi Germany’. But fascism should, said the judge, be seen as ‘a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas’.

When it came to Mohammed, the NIF was unable during the hearing to deny that he was a barbarian, reports ANP. Furthermore, the organisation was not able to disprove the fact that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles, the judge said.

Exit question via Sugiero: Will the judge be fatwa’d next week?

Well that is a no brainer...

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, WayWard Fundamentalist Christian, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Chuck's Place, D equals S, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One- Don't miss this show!, Rant it Up, Right Voices, Stageleft, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, The Christian Nationalist, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Oblogatory Anecdotes - Photoshop Montage/Open Trackbacks, Wolf Pangloss, Beagle Scout, Tilting At Windmill Farms, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Via Hot Air:

Amazing, the things that are litigable these days. This wasn’t the public prosecution hinted at by the Dutch government last week but “merely” a private suit filed by the Netherlands Islamic Foundation to have criticism of Islam deemed an “incitement” under Dutch law and thereby worthy of being censored. Note the rationale:

The NIF wanted to know if Wilders had broken the law with his public declaration in August last year that the Koran is a fascist book and comments that Mohammed was a barbarian.

According to the judge, the term fascism must be seen in a broader context. The NIF associated it with the Holocaust and ‘other evil practices from Nazi Germany’. But fascism should, said the judge, be seen as ‘a collective term for ideologies which fundamentally embrace a totalitarian political system which leaves no room for people with other ideas’.

When it came to Mohammed, the NIF was unable during the hearing to deny that he was a barbarian, reports ANP. Furthermore, the organisation was not able to disprove the fact that Islam consists of beliefs that are in contradiction to democratic principles, the judge said.

Exit question via Sugiero: Will the judge be fatwa’d next week?

A serious No Brainer....

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, WayWard Fundamentalist Christian, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Chuck's Place, D equals S, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One- Don't miss this show!, Rant it Up, Right Voices, Stageleft, A Blog For All, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, Adam's Blog, The Christian Nationalist, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Oblogatory Anecdotes - Photoshop Montage/Open Trackbacks, Wolf Pangloss, Beagle Scout, Tilting At Windmill Farms, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I never understood the original brouhaha over the danish cartoons, but then again I have never understood both the Muslim intolerance to them, nor the liberal hypocrisy surrounding them.  Liberals, it seems, will defend the Muslims, and portray these cartoons as racist and intolerant, yet they will offer no such outrage when Christians are likewise targeted.  I admit I find that irritating, but not unexpected.

One reason is that Christians generally have a sense of humour and don't express the same level of outrage.  Catholics rarely take to the streets, swords in hand, and demand death to the infidels.  Might be part of the reason.

The cartoons that were at the center were a mixed bag of boring to biting.  Some I thought were pointless, but others were wickedly on target, showcasing the reality of radical Islam, not the peaceful Islam so many others practice. 

When the original outrage surfaced, I did not take a position.  I felt that no newspaper had an obligation to print anything, even if their decision to do or not to do so was hypocritical.

Private enterprise.  The freedom of the press includes the freedom of the editor to not print.  And if enough readers object, the media's circulation (or ratings) will reflect that, and they will either fold, or rethink such policies.  The free market works.

When many bloggers took to the web posting the cartoons by publishing them ad naseum, I chose not to because I felt I had no dog in the fight.

Now, 2 years later, a group of Islamic extremists have been indicted of plotting to kill one of the cartoonists in Denmark.  What utter stupidity.

And quite frankly, this is a tired old story that I am frankly sick of.  Muslims threatening to kill a teacher for naming a teddy bear after Muhammad?  Seriously?  Taking to the streets and rioting for a teddy bear?  And that is one minor example of a pattern of stupidity that I am wholeheartedly sick of.

Let's state early, I don't listen to him very often and i don't like the brand of show he runs, the demagoguing incite the masses kind of talk show.

I prefer intellectual discussions to his "psychological nudity".

But I am impressed at his gumption, his chutzpah, as he sues CAIR and labels them for what they are.

Savage lawsuit calls CAIR 'vehicle of international terrorism': Accuses group of seeking 'harm to those who speak against violent agenda'

Trend-setting radio talk show host Michael Savage has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council on Islamic-American Relations, and has accused the organization of being a "political vehicle of international terrorism" that seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage's show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims, including:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

But the lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage's verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

...while others defend the Islamofascists.  In the wake of the Islamofascist Awareness Week protests two articles caught my eye.

One defends the use of the word itself, which the New Oxford American Dictionary, defines  as "a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century".  

Defending Islamofascism:  It's a valid term. Here's why.

The attempt by David Horowitz and his allies to launch "Islamofascism Awareness Week" on American campuses has been met with a variety of responses. One of these is a challenge to the validity of the term itself. It's quite the done thing, in liberal academic circles, to sneer at any comparison between fascist and jihadist ideology. People like Tony Judt write to me to say, in effect, that it's a historical and simplistic to do so. And in some media circles, another kind of reluctance applies: Alan Colmes thinks that one shouldn't use the word Islamic even to designate jihad, because to do so is to risk incriminating an entire religion.

Which ignores the obvious fact that the term is not meant to be applied as an all inclusive property, it is a specific label assigned to a particularly virulent subset is Islam, and all attempts by the liberals and Islam defenders is disingenuous. 

Oddly enough my 17 year old daughter immediate grasped this distinction, yet most liberals will not.

He and others don't want to tag Islam even in its most extreme form with a word as hideous as fascism. Finally, I have seen and heard it argued that the term is unfair or prejudiced because it isn't applied to any other religion.

Well, that last claim is certainly not true. It was once very common, especially on the left, to prefix the word fascism with the word clerical. This was to recognize the undeniable fact that, from Spain to Croatia to Slovakia, there was a very direct link between fascism and the Roman Catholic Church. More recently, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, editor of the Encyclopaedia Hebraica, coined the term Judeo-Nazi to describe the Messianic settlers who moved onto the occupied West Bank after 1967. So, there need be no self-pity among Muslims about being "singled out" on this point.

This was a subject on two of my daily radio shows, so it bears some attention.

The idea is to take a week at colleges nationwide, and remind people about this wacky little bunch of fanatics who want to kill Americans, and why they are a threat.

You would think that the issue of them being a threat is a no brainer.

I start at Michelle Malkin:

The irrepressible David Horowitz is the man behind Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which kicks off today. The Left and the jihadi apologists are in a snit, of course, and you already know what the grievance hoaxers at GWU attempted to do in their effort to deflect attention away from our true enemies and smear the organizers and supporters of IFAW.

Horowitz told the WashTimes:

Provoking protest is nothing new to Mr. Horowitz, an ex-Marxist and a leader of the 1960s New Left who has been the target of pie-throwing incidents during his campus appearances as a conservative speaker. He doesn’t mince words when describing his former ideological comrades.

“The left has only one strategy when dealing with its opponents, and that’s to smear them,” Mr. Horowitz, 68, says in a telephone interview. “They learned from Stalin.”

…Mr. Horowitz says conservatives should not tolerate accusations of “hate” from left-wing activists.

“We’re not just going to sit and take it,” he says. “We’re going to fight fire with fire. They are the haters, and we’re going to stick them with that.”

So assuming that it is a bad thing when people want to strap on a bomb and blow themselves to heaven and kill innocents, why is there any debate?

The MSA at the University of Washington wants people on campus to wear green to protest IFAW:

Hala Dillsi, a member of the UW Muslim Student Association, believes Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week promotes fear and intolerance. She is distributing green armbands and encouraging people to wear T-shirts that are green — traditionally the color associated with Islam — on Wednesday in solidarity with local Arabs and Muslims.