And if you even think about touching our sheep...

Osama bin Laden released an audiotape yesterday that may have been the most brilliant summary of how things rank in the scale of Islamic "Oh no you didn't!"

Here's his quote:

"Although our tragedy in your killing of our women and children is a very great one, it paled when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings," he said. "This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe."

Ok, so let's make sure everyone understands.

In Islam, it's bad to kill women and children.

But to give you some perspective on HOW bad it is, killing women and children "pales" in comparison to reprinting cartoons.

Now, as far as I can tell, printing cartoons, even offensive ones, is pretty much at the bottom of the list of things you shouldn't do for most other cultures.

So either Islam has virtually no concern for women and children or Islam knows something about cartoons that we don't know.

I wonder what reaction they'd have to a cartoon of Mohammed flying a jetliner into a kindergarten? Would it matter if it was a Jewish kindergarten?

Heckuva sense of priority in Islam...

You Have The Right To Remain Silent.

From CNN's coverage of the Supreme Court arguments on the Heller case:

But Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, said before the hearing that the government had the right to limit gun ownership.

"There should be reasonable control for access to guns and particularly handguns," he said. "Even if [the Supreme Court finds] that people have the right to bear arms, governments have a right to reasonable controls on firearms -- where and under what circumstances people have a right to have them."

The emphasis is mine.

Does anyone else see the problem with Fattah's statement? He says that if the Supreme Court finds that gun ownership is a right, the government should still have the power to dictate who can have a gun and under what circumstances.

WHAT KIND OF RIGHT IS THAT?

It's like saying "you have a right to free speech, so long as the government can dictate who says what and under what circumstances they speak."

I am never surprised by how clueless Democrats are. What surprises me is that people actually listen to what they say.

Speaking of which, I read the text of Obama's speech today. I have to say that the speech definitely changed my mind. The problem for Obama is that it changed whatever positive feelings I had about him into negative ones.

Obama's speech starts out with the right approach, but instead of absolutely distancing himself from Reverend Wright, he first wags his finger at the reverend and then says, in essence, that he's not going to abandon the reverend any more than he'd abandon the black community and spells out all the wonderful things the reverend and church have done. In many ways, he seems to have engaged in a backdoor defense of what the reverend said (and also doesn't even address the most shocking thing that the pastor said with regard to 9/11 being a time when America's chickens came home to roost).

If this is Obama's way of providing comfort, it has backfired. I now think that this man supports black radicalism and is so arrogant that he thinks he can tell us "I am what I appear to be" and we have to accept it.

Worse, though, was the pandering to the white community. I have never before seen Obama bring up the white side of his family so much. It's pretty clear that in trying to prove that he isn't a black radical, like his pastor, Obama will hold up the side of the family that he has so conveniently ignored throughout the campaign.

I am left with the impression that Obama is a man who will excuse the most heinous and inflammatory statements of a certain segment (either radical black or leftist, I'm not really sure which) and tell us that we're not seeing what we think we're seeing.

Overall, a very disingenuous, and very frightening, speech.

McNerney for Congress?

I know that Jerry McNerney's staff reads this blog, so I am going to give Jerry one final chance to convince me and the rest of the moderate/conservative voters in his district that he is worth re-electing.

At this point I am inclined to not vote for McNerney, for the reasons that are discussed in this post. Jerry took a hard turn to the left after he was put in office by the San Francisco leftists and he has done nothing to show us that he is anything other than Nancy Pelosi's liberal lap dog.

As I've pointed out before, McNerney is the worst kind of liberal, as he supports the distasteful policies of the left but he refuses to do anything to protect the environment in his district. He has sold out to developers.

So we have a perfect test to see whether Jerry is really willing to protect the interests of the people in his district. The City of San Ramon recently launched an attack on rural Tassajara Valley. Read the article at the link, as it's a very good overview of the situation

Jerry now has a chance to rescue his reputation. Come on, Jerry, speak out on this issue. Tell San Ramon to back off and respect the urban limit line. If you again remain silent, we have no choice but to go with Dean Andal.

Maybe Andal will be just as bad for the environment as you are, Jerry, but at least he isn't Nancy Pelosi's puppet.

Jerry's staff can send me an outline of his plan to stop San Ramon's attempt to destroy the Tassajra Valley via email at vengefulzhid@yahoo.com.

No, I'm not surprised, but it still pisses me off.

So a Palestinian Arab terrorist goes into a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem and slaughters 8 or more Jewish boys and wounds at least that many and what are the mainstream media sources saying?

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. The attack was greeted with celebrations in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip after a recent Israeli offensive there that killed more than 120 Palestinians, about half of them civilians.

or how about this

The seminary is the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in the Kiryat Moshe quarter at the entrance to Jerusalem, a prestigious center of Jewish studies identified with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank.

It was founded by the late Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Hacohen Kook, the movement's spiritual founder, and serves some 400 high school students and young Israeli soldiers, and many of them carry arms.

It's pretty clear that there will be no reporting on this story unless the readers are forcefed the ideas that the terrorist attacks are actually justifiable revenge and that every Jew in Israel is either a settler or a soldier or both, so there are no innocent civilians.

Fucking media, I swear...

UPDATE

Several of the Zhid's dense readers didn't quite understand the point. Let the Zhid give an example...

Had the AP covered the Israeli strikes in Gaza in the same manner as they covered the Palestinian Arab terrorist attack in Jerusalem, it would have read something like this...

"Israeli military forces launched raids in Gaza today against Palestinian targets in response to the slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians, killing nearly 120 Palestinians. Approximately half of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas' armed units while the other half of the Palestinian casualties were civilians, all of whom attend mosques and schools that support and provide training for terror attacks against Jews."