New Years Resolutions

- Cut back on my blogging ... no more than five posts per day

- Refuse to perform at Trump's inauguration

- Avoid publicly blaspheming Mohammad

- Don't buy any more My Pillows

- Oust Obummer and Hellary from squatting in my head

- Try to be more objective about Trump ... no more love tweets

- Order a 'Diplorable' tee shirt

- Learn how to drive a monster truck

- Swear off of Pop Tarts and Fruit Loops

- Exercise at least once a month

- Reduce my carbon and molybdenum footprints

- Time to stop break dancing

First Amendment Debate

Pamela Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog (which I often read and sometimes cite), engaged in a very lively and edifying debate with a CNN news anchor, Alisyn Camerota, today about the attack that took place in Garland, Texas yesterday at a free-speech event Geller sponsored in which cartoons of Mohammad were displayed ... and where two attacking gunmen were killed ... see: CNN Video. The back and forth in this video I think is well worth watching through to the end since it draws a sharp contrast between the current liberal notion of free speech and that which was expressed by our founding fathers in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In her comments, Ms. Geller repeatedly makes the clear point that she is not anti-Muslim, but she is very much anti-jihadist ... and to assume that all Muslims are jihadists is the true anti-Muslim stance. Not only did Ms. Camerota find this distinction difficult to adsorb, but following this interview, CNN then had on a spokeswoman from the uber-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center who, without blinking, said that Pamela Geller was an "extremist" and does NOT make the distinction between ordinary Muslims and radical Muslims. Apparently she either was not privy to the debate that took place immediately preceding hers. Or, if she did, her ears were so full of "progressive" wax, that she would not acknowledge Ms. Geller's claim.

As a side note, one second-amendment wag has pointed out the difference between the Jihadist attack in Paris were guns are taboo and a similar attack in Texas ... which arms its constabulary.

Afterward: Here is a video of the SPLC spox attacking Ms. Geller ... see: Breitbart Video.

After Afterward: Here is Greg Gutfeld's always-insightful take on this controversy ... see: Breitbart Piece.

What

does this mean? All is forgiven ... by whom ... Muslims ... Mohammad ... rather presumptuous, no? What is the "all" that is forgiven ... the Paris butchery ... the original slight against Islam ... the fact that President Obama stayed home to watch football? The magazine/newspaper Charlie Hebdo is printing three million copies of this assumedly defiant issue when it normally sells 60,000 copies. Suddenly the slaughter of those 12 innocents has increased its circulation 50-fold and it's first run of 500,000 is already sold-out .. see: ABC News Story or Wall Street Journal Story or Fox News Story or CNN Story. (It is interesting to note that in none of these links is the actual full cover shown ... is that what is to be forgiven?)

This kerfuffle reminds me a bit of the "Bring Back Our Girls" Twitter hashtag campaign over those African kidnappings by Boko Haram ... a victory of symbolism over substance.

And the Obama administration can't even bring itself to utter the words "Islamic extremism" ...