What Charlie Hebdo put out after Paris attack

A Charlie Hebdo cartoonist put out this edgy cartoon on Instagram after the attacks.

View this post on Instagram

8

A post shared by Joann Sfar (@joannsfar) on

See entire series on it at:

Here’s what a Charlie Hebdo posted in response to the Paris Attacks. (i100.independent.co.uk)

Obama stands with Muslims

On the heels of the Charlie Hebdo executions, leaders show their solidarity in Paris and Obama is conveniently MIA. Sure he made a few statements but as all the leaders show support, no Obama. Let the criticism and excuses fly.

Pandering to College kids or his political agenda takes priority. How dare they upstage that. After seeing his sinking poll/approvals among youth, he is scrambling to stop the hemorrhaging any way he can. (promising more aid or free tuition)

I’m just guessing that Valerie Jarret made the decision: ‘you don’t have to go to Paris…we’re still working on the SOTU speech. Get those college kids back on board.’ Obama’s legacy is much more important.

Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised, speaking of Arab and Pakistani immigrants in his Audacity of Hope: [p-261]

“I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.“

It’s clear he was referring to Muslims since he was talking about post 9/11 attacks.

And at the UN, Obama said:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Remember he was saying that after the terrorist attack in Benghazi killing an ambassador and 3 Americans. If he could lecture us then on Islam criticism, what would he have told people at rally in France anyway? — “Buck up?” So maybe he just spared them a lecture on the finer points of Islam.

He carefully added in that UN speech,

“But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn he hate we see in images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or the churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Apparently he is telling us that he has no credibility on the matter. He suggests the offended people and Muslims must also criticize those who slander Christians or, gasp, deny the Holocaust. Of course, we know he just threw that in for an illusion of fairness.

With his penchant for defending Islam — as if it needs another defender — when was the last time he came to the defense of Christians, or Holocaust victims? We’ve seen a genocide across the Middle East by his Muslim victims, and he cannot be moved to reaction to speak up for Christians. Yet he is moved to defend Islam at almost every opportunity.

When has he said “the future does not belong to those who slander Christ?” So the train left the station. At every opportunity, Obama was right there sympathizing with Islam, Muslims. The Audacity of hypocrisy and bias — any synonym for ‘biased’ fits Obama.

Here’s a good chronicle of his Islam bias in 2013 at “Now the end begins.”

Now Kerry calls the criticism “quibbling” and the White House says security logistics were a concern. But if he had gone, his own words could have been used against him anyway. Besides, it is not only his words but his actions that are the problem.

RightRing | Bullright

If Charlie Hebdo killings anger you….

At the very same time Saudi Arabia was condemning the Charlie Hebdo terrorism, this took place.

Meanwhile, Saudis Lash Blogger for “Insult” to Islam

by IPT News • Jan 9, 2015

For sheer brutality, it pales in comparison to the massacre of journalists and cartoonists Wednesday at the Paris office of Charlie Hebdo, but Saudi Arabia’s flogging of a liberal blogger Friday further shows how rooted the concept of violence is in response to any insult of Islam.

Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes – he received the first 50 in a public square in Jeddah Friday – along with 10 years in prison and a fine equal to $266,666, Reuters reports. His crime? Creating a website called “Free Saudi Liberals,” which advocated greater religious freedom. Saudi Arabia found this “insulting to Islam.”

In a statement, the International Humanist and Ethical Union called Badawi’s punishment “savage, and an absolute violation of human rights and dignity” intended to cow other potential free thinkers into silence.

“Only yesterday it was reported that Saudi Arabia condemned the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and yet the authorities choose this week to brutalize a young man because he had the audacity to stand up and say that his countrymen should have greater liberty,” Union spokesman Bob Churchill said. “The Saudi state’s condemnation of terror in Paris is hypocrisy of the highest order.”

Amnesty International also condemned Badawi’s treatment as “a vicious act of cruelty which is prohibited under international law” showing Saudi Arabia’s “abhorrent disregard for the most basic human rights principles.”

The Paris jihadists acted on their own belief that Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were a crime against Islam warranting mass slaughter in response. Badawi was flogged at the demand of a national government, one which was invited to join the United Nations Security Council just two years ago and turned it down.

This has been a horrible week for violence waged in defense of Islam. It’s not a great week for those who insist this violence is rooted in anything but theology.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4725/meanwhile-saudis-lash-blogger-for-insult-to-islam

Hardly a choice for the NYT

NYT faced a tough choice on Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Twitchy has this entertaining back and forth between NYT editor and a professor. (I say entertaining for lack of adjectives)

The guy, Marc Cooper, calls out the Times for not showing the cartoon culprits from Charlie Hebdo that caused 11 people to be executed. Fumbling around, the editor finally mentions being “open minded”, calls him an A-hole and storms off. The irony of lecturing him on open mindedness when being so close-minded about showing cartoons.

Then there was a rationale piece in NYT about its decision. As usual the explanation sounded as bad as their decision. The title was appropriately called:

A Close Call on Publication of Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

Mr. Baquet [editor] told me that he started out the day Wednesday convinced that The Times should publish the images, both because of their newsworthiness and out of a sense of solidarity with the slain journalists and the right of free expression.

He said he had spent “about half of my day” on the question, seeking out the views of senior editors and reaching out to reporters and editors in some of The Times’s international bureaus. They told him they would not feel endangered if The Times reproduced the images, he told me, but he remained concerned about staff safety.

“I sought out a lot of views, and I changed my mind twice,” he said. “It had to be my decision alone.”

Ultimately, he decided against it, he said, because he had to consider foremost the sensibilities of Times readers, especially its Muslim readers.

See Public Editor’s Journal

Okay, so the NYT was actually on the fence about publishing but then decided no it wouldn’t. So did that count for a ‘we almost did publish it, but decided not to? We were very close, and seriously considered it.’ Two points to NYT, for almost publishing it. It is the thought that counts, right? So he did it to protect….

But Twitchy captured the back and forth PC theatrics of the editor trying to rationalize it. Now maybe the NYT should have first consulted with their gal Hillary Clinton, who wrote a book on the topic called “Hard Choices”? Then again, maybe not. Scratch that…lol

Ref: Facebook page Marc Cooper