A celebration of the anniversary?

It would appear that a devoted but amateurish fan of ISIS has been united with his 72 virgins in Paris, courtesy of the Paris police:

PARIS — A knife-wielding man shot dead by Paris police on Thursday was carrying paper with an ISIS flag on it as well as a claim of responsibility, according to the Paris prosecutor.

And yeah, this is the one year anniversary of the murderous attack by Islamist terrorists on Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo that killed 12 journalists for daring to poke fun at Islam as if it were just one of all the other religious and institutions Charlie Hebdo poked fun at. Not seeing a lot of media coverage on that anniversary, so I'll do my part:

Don't care if the Islamists don't like it. Fuck 'em.

Charlie caves, terrorists win. Not here.

Charlie Hebdo editor Laurent Sourisseau, in an interview with Germany's Stern magazine, said that the French satirical weekly will no longer be publishing images of Mohammed, Islam's primary prophet. Charlie, as you may recall, was attacked by Islamist terrorists in January. Twelve of Charlie's staffers were killed, including the editor and cartoonist primarily responsible for drawing and publishing the cartoons of Mohammed. Well, the Islamists won't have to make a return visit:

During an interview with the Hamburg-based news magazine "Stern," editor of the French weekly "Charlie Hebdo" said he would no longer draw comics of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
"We have drawn Muhammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever they want. It is a bit strange though: we are expected to exercise a freedom of expression that no one dares to," Sourisseau told "Stern."

I get it. They see no point in inviting another attack. Sourisseau argues that Charlie made its point. Well, the terrorists made theirs, too. Charlie quit publishing images of Mohammed, and you can bet after that January attack no other media outlet will have the nuts to publish them. Charlies made its statement -- "We can publish images of Mohammed" -- and the Islamists made their statement -- "No, you can't." And the rest of the media made their statement -- "OK, we won't." Now, Charlie agrees.

Well, fuck the media:

Fuck the Islamists:

Sorry, Charlie, fuck you too:

Fuck the Obama monarchy for refusing to acknowledge that Islamist terrorists really are our enemies:

And fuck everybody who said they stand with Charlie, but did nothing to show that support. At least I published the damn cartoons:

Great. Well, don't kick in the door, jihadis. I rarely lock it. Just come on in and meet your virgins. By the way, if images of their prophet are blasphemous and forbidden, I wonder how they feel about this:

Actually, I don't care how they feel about it. I saw Warren Zevon on the same tour in 1980 when this was recorded. It remains the best concert I ever saw.

Well, I guess I should acknowledge the Danish newspaper that published Mohammed cartoons back in 2006. The cartoonist is still in hiding. Well, fuck you, jihadis:

Not my prophet, bitches. Live with it.

I'm sure France appreciated the gesture

Some things have to be seen to be believed, and even then they are impossible to accept as real. Allahpundit of Hot Air is having just such a moment with this tweet from MSNBC air personality (can't call her a journalist or reporter, and I'm not even sure using the word "personality" to describe her really fits) Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell reports with a straight face that Secretary of State John Kerry, in Paris to apologize for the U.S. not sending an appropriate representative to last week's march against Islamic terrorism, brought 1970s folk singer James Taylor with him to sing "You've got a friend." Mitchell calls it "message to France after U.S. no shows last week." Most other people call it a story from The Onion. Nope:

The visit was organised after the White House admitted it had made a mistake in not dispatching a senior figure to Paris where 40 other world leaders took to the streets in solidarity with a million protesters after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket.
Kerry will deliver some of his speech at the Paris city hall in French and then introduce the veteran American singer, James Taylor, most famous for the song You’ve Got a Friend.
“My visit to France is basically to share a big hug for Paris and express the affection of the American people for France and for our friends there who have been through a terrible time,” the secretary of state said in Bulgaria, before taking off for Paris.

"Veteran American singer" is Guardian-speak for "hasn't had a hit in 40 years and most people are surprised he's still alive." Seriously, was Barney the Dinosaur not available? His hey-day is a lot more recent than Taylor's, and his "I love you, you love me, we're a great big family" theme song is just as "appropriate," as in not at all. This is what passes for "smart power"? Shoulda stuck with those dumbass hashtags:

Charlie unimpressed by how many suddenly say "Je suis Charlie"

Because the answer is, no, you're not. Laura W. over at Ace spells it out for those who didn't understand the new Charlie cover (like me, yesterday):

It is also a big F*** YOU to the entire 'je suis charlie' movement, to the extent that it is a transient fad to most people.
All you have to do now to be one of the cool kids who REALLY CARES about a catastrophe is to post a picture of yourself making a super-sad face and holding a sign that says, 'bring back our girls,' or 'je suis charlie.' And hold the pose for one day.

The overwhelming outpouring of "support" for Charlie (tempered, of course by scolding Charlie for "going too far" and such) from people who couldn't be bothered to attend the rally in Paris Sunday against Islamist terrorism (looking at you, Barry) apparently sounds just a tad insincere to the Charlie survivors. The caption -- "all is forgiven" -- led me to the wrong conclusion, that Charlie was being big-hearted. They aren't saying they forgive the Islamist terrorists. Obviously, they find their johnny-come-lately supporters as believable as their cartoon Mohammed and his "je suis Charlie" sign:

So maybe the Obama administration's statement of support for Charlie following the terrorist attack was a little less convincing in light of the administration's statement on Sept. 19, 2012, questioning the "judgment" Charlie Hebdo editors for publishing the kind of cartoon that makes those Islamist terrorists so gosh-darn mad. (Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for that.) It's OK -- there's a lot of folks out there targeted by Charlie's latest cover, like all those press outlets that are 100 percent behind Charlie, but won't publish the cartoons in reporting on them, and all the previous targets of Charlie cartoons who condemned Charlie before but now claim to be besties. Lest there be any doubt, there's this:

A Charlie Hebdo cartoonist is speaking out against many of the people who he says are “suddenly” standing with the satirical magazine — the same people who are routinely “vomited” on by their controversial caricatures and cartoons.
“We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,” Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Bernard Holtrop told Volkskrant, speaking particularly about Pope Francis, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin. “It really makes me laugh. A few years ago, thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan to demonstrate against Charlie Hebdo. They didn’t know what it was. Now it’s the opposite.”

I confess, I was not really aware of Charlie's existence prior to the attack last week. I knew that "a French satire magazine" was involved in controversies in recent years involving publishing cartoons mocking Islam. On the other hand, I feel like I've shown more support for Charlie by republishing some of the "offending" cartoons. That's more than most media outlets can say.

Charlie Hebdo comes back

They have a new edition out. The cover? It says "All is forgiven:"

Better men than I am. My cover would have said something along the lines of "Refer to the title of the blog." Of course, I'm an Eff You kind of guy.

It's Like Emperor Barry doesn't give a shit about much anymore

Emperor Barry declined to go to the huge Paris march against terrorism in the wake of the deadly terrorist strike on the offices of French satirical weekly that left 12 dead last week. Not only did he decline to attend, he didn't bother to send anyone else. He stayed home and watched the NFL playoffs. While I can fully understand that, I think the president probably should sent someone to a march against something our country has been battling for years, especially when that march comes in the wake of a terrorist attack that kills 12, the march draws more than a million people, and more than 40 other world leaders attend:

More than 40 heads of state came together in Paris to denounce a wave of terrorism that defiled the City of Light last week — yet there was one glaring exception: The U.S. sent only a low-level official.
French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and dozens of other world leaders all took part in the powerful denunciation of last week’s terror attacks that left 17 innocents dead.
Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas set aside their differences to march together on Boulevard Voltaire.

Barry? Nah. He was watching football, and Vice President Joe Biden was either washing the Camaro or hitting on young girls:

While Secretary of State John Kerry was in India on a long-scheduled trip, Attorney General Eric Holden was actually in Paris and couldn't find the time to attend the march, although he did manage to find the time to do satellite appearances as several U.S. Sunday morning news shows.

Even the White House admitted it was stupid not to send someone to the march:

Amid criticism, the White House admitted fault by not sending President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden or other top-ranking official to the unity rally in Paris on Sunday where more than 40 heads of state marched through Paris.
"It is fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. The only noted American official in attendance was the U.S ambassador to France.

The question is, why would the administration ignore such a central event? This isn't some far-removed dust-up that we have no interest in -- the U.S. has been a central figure in the fight against Islamist terror since Sept. 11, 2001. Sure, that was too late, but we're in it now. How can you ignore something like this, when so many nations did not?

The answer is more specific than the Obama administration’s general inattention to national security and foreign policy–though there is something to that: after all, this is the man who learned about the Benghazi terror attacks as they began, did little to respond, and flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser the next day. The answer also goes beyond Obama’s odd desire to be seen as a mediator between the West and the Islamic world, rather than the leader of the free world against radicalism.
No -- the answer almost certainly has to do with the fact that Obama–and Holder–have avoided all of the major so-called “civil rights” marches of the past several months. And they have taken heat for it from their political base: rapper Puff Daddy drew attention in August when he scolded Obama for his absence from Ferguson, Missouri, where black teenager Michael Brown was killed: “Obama, get on a plane–it’s serious. These are your people, baby. These are your people.” Holder did go to Ferguson–not to march but to speak with activists and officials behind the scenes, and try to broker an uneasy peace.

I really don't know what other explanation there is. Emperor Barry really only cared about foreign policy to the extent is was a political plus for him. It hasn't been for a while, so he just doesn't care. Is that it? I don't know. All I know is the administration blew off something you would have to consider important in the war on Islamist terror. Is it a reluctance to call Islamist terror what it is? I don't know. But the disconnect makes me nervous.

Eugene Robinson is an idiot

Unfortunately, Eugene is typical of anti-gun liberals. He seems to think the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, which has draconian gun-control laws, would have been worse here, because the U.S. protects the right to keep and bear arms. Tell me if you see any logic here:

“Just to keep it in perspective, I don’t think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the United States as they are in France,” he said. “They are different.”
“In fact, one thing that is different here is weapons are universally available and so, uh, it is actually a very good thing that…that…that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more of that sort of carnage here.”

What was different in France was that the bad guys had fully automatic weapons (illegal here and in France, but apparently available in France to people willing to break the law) while the victims were completely unarmed, as were the police who initially responded.

Eugene's right, there might have been a lot more carnage had the attack happened in this country. Some of the victims might have been armed themselves and been able to shoot back, killing some of the attackers. Seriously, how the FUCK does ensuring that the victims have no weapons because they are law-abiding reduce the carnage inflicted by terrorists who are unconcerned with the nation's gun laws? Eugene Robinson is an idiot.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

Is this all that's left?

Charlie Hebdo's website no longer has much in the way of content. No archives, no current edition, just this:

There also is a link to a .pdf file that says "I am Charlie" in a whole bunch of languages. Freedom of the press doesn't mean much if they kill the press. I hope Charlie comes back swinging, with the courage and freedom to publish more of this:

Please note, Charlie has always been an equal-opportunity offender. Religions, politicians and all kinds of public figures have felt the magazine's barbs. It's not like the publication exists just to offend Muslims. It's simply that it is one of the few satirical publications that considers Islam a target every bit as legitimate as any other for ridicule.

Naturally, we already have liberal apologists who dasn't say anything done by any Muslim might be wrong. Ace collects some of these gems, including a tweet by liberal commentator Sally Kohn saying, "It is not inconsistent to believe in free speech AND be against insulting other people’s faith traditions." Ace also put up a tweet from an Ace reader that re-posted this gem, also from Kohn, showing exactly how against "insulting other people's faith traditions" she actually is:

Fuck her, fuck anybody who thinks its OK to kill people to suppress speech they don't like, and fuck anybody who even implies that people killed for their speech were somehow asking for it. Well, fuck the religion of peace if they can't take a little criticism.

The religion of peace strikes again

The religion of peace is at it again, this time slaughtering staffers at a French satire magazine that offended the prophet:

Twelve people have been shot dead at the headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, say police.
Three masked gunmen stormed the offices of the controversial publication, which has previously been attacked over its portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed.
They were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and are also believed to have had a rocket-propelled grenade.

Sorry, folks, I'm not going to capitalize "prophet" in this post. These people are animals and I decline to show any respect for anything they value. The gunmen, who calmly fled the scene in their getaway car, apparently succeeded in killing the editor and the cartoonist primarily responsible for the magazine's Mohammed cartoons:

A spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor says the editor and a cartoonist for the satirical newspaper, who went by the pen names Charb and Cabu, were among the 12 people killed in the attack.
. . .
Shocking footage has emerged of a wounded police officer being shot in the head at point-blank range as he lies on the ground, holding his hands up.

I guess executing a wounded policeman was just a bonus. In the footage, you can see the gunmen actually come back about 25 yards from their car as they were preparing to leave so that they can kill the wounded officer. They then trot back to their car and drive off. Just like those radical Lutherans did in their attack last week against -- oh, wait, that never happened. Because the only people in the world waging war against any  other people for religious reasons are Muslims. Don't like it? Suck it. The truth hurts.

Twitchy notes that @bethanyshondark has issued a challenge to the lamestream media, members of which are all outrageously outraged on Twitter. She tweeted, "If you work for a newspaper and you're tweeting your outrage, walk into your editor's office and ask to publish the cartoons tomorrow."

Done.

(The caption on the right, by the way, says "Love stronger than hate." The one on the left says "100 lashes if you're not laughing you don't die of laughter.") The magazine ran a whole bunch of similar cartoons over recent years. I'm guessing you won't see Charlie Hebdo cartoons in any of the major publications. They will say it's because it's insensitive to mock another religion, but it's because they don't want to get killed. They don't worry about radical Catholics storming their offices -- or any other Christians, for that matter -- and so they have no problem with editorial cartoons that poke fun at Western religions. Seriously, Google it:

Interestingly, unlike in the U.S. when there is a mass shooting, I'm not hearing the knee-jerk liberal calls for more gun-control laws. Mostly, that's because France, like most European nations, already has strict gun control laws and this incident just shows that criminals and terrorists who want to get guns, will get guns. The only unarmed people there were the victims. Twitchy notes that Piers Morgan routinely tweets out his cries for more gun control after any shooting in the U.S., but is really quiet on the topic this time around. What a dick.

Also at Twitchy is a collection of tweets by what I assume is some Muslim cleric, who goes on an on about how these killings are justified because these oh-so-devout followers of the religion of peace had to avenge the prophet and that freedom of expression does not include the right to insult the prophet. Author Brad Thor rebuts him succintly: Up yours, he tweeted.

I don't envy the French at this point. They have to do something, and no matter what course they choose -- criminal prosecutions on the perpetrators, or severe anti-terrorism measures against their organization -- it won't be easy. I just hope Charlie Hebdo has the courage to stay the course. But I'm not betting on it.