Woman Charged With Hate-Crime in Queens Subway-Push Murder

She hadn't been charged at the time of my earlier report, "Thirty-One Year Old Homeless Woman in Custody in Queens Subway-Push Death."

But now the New York Times reports, "Woman Accused of Hate-Crime Murder in Subway Push."

Robert Stacy McCain relates this story to the left's depraved gun control exploitation, "New York City Needs Subway Control."

And the sickening ghouls of the radical left fever swamps bubbled up to blame Pamela Geller for the murder, "WOMAN CHARGED WITH MURDER IN NY SUBWAY SHOVE DEATH, CLAIMS 9/11/01 WAS HER MOTIVE." (Via Memeorandum.)

It never ends with these scumbags.

Blazing Cat Fur Fighting at Least Three Lawsuits in 2013

I wrote on this previously: "Please Contribute to Blazing Cat Fur Defense Fund."

Now Kathy Shaidle has an update: "Lawfare: Canadian Muslims planning to shut down my husband’s blog."

And at BCF, "Doing It Right: My Support For Israel Has Pissed Off All the Right Radical Muslims":

The Islamist lawfare jihad against me has begun but I will not quit, we battled and defeated Section 13 because we knew that it would be used against anyone who dared speak out against the threat of radical Islam. Muslims from Canada's Radical Shia community are now raising funds for my current lawfare opponent, Canada's leading proponent of Section 13....

I am proud that my work continues to expose the hatred being spread among the Muslim community in Canada.

More at the link.

I'll tell you what: If you're not for Blazing's right to speak out on Islam you're not for freedom of speech. How many progressives are standing up for BCF? I don't know of any, and the lawsuits against him aren't new.

Be sure to hit Blazing's tip jar. I sent some help the other day. He could use it.

U.S. Policy is Making Syria Into an Anti-Western, Antisemitic Islamist State

From Barry Rubin, at PJ Media, "Proof of a Scandal":

In his article “The Revolt of Islam in Syria” (Jerusalem Post, December 12), Jonathan Spyer — senior fellow at the GLORIA Center — points out compelling information about the new Western-backed leadership in Syria.

The bottom line: if this is Syria’s new government, then Syria now has an Islamist regime.

This is happening with the knowledge and collaboration of the Obama administration and a number of European governments. It is a catastrophe, and one that’s taking place due to the deliberate decisions of President Barack Obama and other Western leaders. Even if one rationalizes the Islamist takeover in Egypt as due to internal events, this one is U.S.-made.

As Spyer points out, U.S. and European policy can be summarized as follows:

To align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments — much of which comes from raw wire service reports, for which praise is due to Reuters in this case — is undeniable. And if we know about these things, there is no doubt that the highest level of the U.S. government does as well.

Why is this happening? Because Obama and others believe that they can moderate the Muslim Brotherhood and this will tame the Salafists, despite massive evidence to the contrary. This is going to be the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last century, and the cost for it will be high. It should be stressed: such a strategy is totally unnecessary; the alternatives have been ignored; and the real moderates are being betrayed...

Continue reading.

Well, they don't call him President Clusterf-k for nothing.

Draft Army Handbook Wades Into Divisive Afghan Issue

Both fascinating and troubling, at the Wall Street Journal:

* * *

Cultural Awareness:

Flashpoints/Grievances Some U.S. Troops Have Reported Regarding Afghanistan National Security Forces:

To better prepare [coalition forces] for the psychologically challenging conditions in Afghanistan, familiarize yourself with the following stressors some U.S. troops have reported concerning [Afghan security forces] behavior during previous deployments. Bear in mind that not all [coalition] troops have reported such experiences or beliefs.

Some ANSF are profoundly dishonest and have no personal integrity
ANSF do not buy-into war effort; far too many are gutless in combat
Incompetent, ignorant and basically stupid

Bottom line: Troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with [Afghan security forces]. Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [coalition forces] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead towards green-on-blue violence.

* * *

*****

WASHINGTON—American soldiers should brace for a "social-cultural shock" when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women's rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

"Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member," according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.

The 75-page manual, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is part of a continuing effort by the U.S. military to combat a rise in attacks by Afghan security forces aimed at coalition troops.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."

Gen. Allen hadn't seen the proposed foreword until a portion of the handbook was called to his attention by the Journal, Col. Collins said. Military officials wouldn't spell out his precise objections. But the handbook's conclusion that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks goes beyond the view most commonly expressed by U.S. officials.

The version reviewed by the Journal—marked "final coordinating draft" and sent out for review in November—was going through more revisions, said Lt. Gen. David Perkins, commander of the Army's Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., whose Center for Army Lessons Learned wrote the manual.

The proposed foreword was prepared by Army staff for Gen. Allen's eventual consideration, and the general's concerns will be taken into account as the military moves ahead with more revisions, he added.

The proposed handbook embraces a hotly debated theory that American cultural ignorance has sparked many so-called insider attacks—more than three dozen of which have claimed the lives of some 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year. The rise in insider attacks has created one of the biggest threats to American plans to end its major combat missions in Afghanistan next year and transfer full security control to Afghan forces in 2014.

Afghan leaders say Taliban infiltrators are responsible for most insider attacks. U.S. officials say the attacks are largely rooted in personal feuds between Afghan and coalition troops, though not necessarily the result of cultural insensitivity.

Last year, the U.S.-led coalition rejected an internal military study that concluded that cultural insensitivity was in part to blame for insider killings, which it called a growing threat that represented "a severe and rapidly metastasizing malignancy" for the coalition in Afghanistan.

The study was reported last year by The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. military at the time said the study was flawed by "unprofessional rhetoric and sensationalism."

The 2011 report—"A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility"—is now a centerpiece of the draft handbook's advice to soldiers heading to Afghanistan, and it is listed under the draft's references and recommended reading. The report's findings also informed the current manual for troops in Afghanistan, which was released in February, according to Gen. Perkins.

U.S. Army officials didn't make the current version of the manual available for review.

No doubt there is a cultural disconnect, which is why many conservatives have been calling for withdrawal for some time.

The full piece is also at Current.Mil-Tech.News.

And see Atlas Shrugs, "NEW ARMY MANUAL ORDERS SOLDIERS NOT TO CRITICIZE TALIBAN, PEDOPHILIA, 'ANYTHING RELATED TO ISLAM' OR 'ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS'."

Epic Loser Walter James Casper III 'Isn't a Very Effective User' of Twitter

Via Robert Stacy McCain:

@ampowerblog The troll to whom you refer isn't a very effective user anyway: 10,000+ messages, < 300 followers.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 10, 2012

Alas, "troll rights" harassment stalker Repsac3 is only "effective" in his own mind, the f-king narcissistic #p2 asshole.

PREVIOUSLY: "Cyber-Stalking Harassment Troll Bill Schmalfeldt," and "Obama Administration Pushing for Implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 Prohibiting Criticism of Islam."

Morsi Imposes Martial Law in Egypt

At Weasel Zippers, "Egypt: Morsi Imposes Martial Law In Run Up To Constitutional Referendum…"

This RT video has the developments from over the weekend. And see Barry Rubin, "A Turning Point in Egypt: Not on Direction But on the Speed of Islamist Transformation."

Obama Administration Pushing for Implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 Prohibiting Criticism of Islam

Of course, if you're a deranged progressive denialist like "troll rights" hate-blogger Walter James Casper III, this could never happen in the United States.

From Nathaniel Sugarman, at American Thinker, "Fatal Attraction: U.S. Flirts with International Speech Codes."

Guard free speech, but accurately identify what is and is not a threat to it: In the USA, this isn't: youtu.be/Zhp32UYp2UI via @youtube
— J. Casper (@repsac3) November 26, 2012

This week, the United States meets with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in London to discuss whether speaking about religion can violate international law. The meeting represents round three of the "Istanbul Process," an effort Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched in July 2011 in the eponymous Turkish city. The initiative's goal is to implement non-binding UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which itself calls for the criminalization of various forms of speech concerning religion. The OIC, an association of 56 Islamic member states and the Palestinian Authority, represents the largest voting bloc in the United Nations.

The renewed Istanbul Process talks come just a month after a UN official urged the United States to combat racism by adopting a "solid legal framework" for regulating internet speech. In a November 5, 2012 address to the General Assembly, UN Special Rapporteur Mutama Ruteere recommended that countries take steps to combat "racial hatred," which include adopting "legislative measures" to address the problem. These measures, according the rapporteur, should be in compliance with "international human rights standards." Special Rapporteurs are UN-appointed officials assigned to research a particular issue and report back to the organization with their findings. In his report, Mr. Ruteere specifically identified the United States as a country that should consider new legislation targeting internet hate speech.

Why should the United States be concerned with the rapporteur's recommendations regarding internet speech regulation? After all, "freedom of expression and opinion," according to the report, should not be impeded by any of the new proposed "measures." And why be concerned about the Istanbul Process? It seems to merely condemn incitement, which the United States does not protect in any case.

An answer requires closer examination of the terms of art used by the respective parties.

Resolution 16/18 calls for criminalization of "incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief," and it "condemns... any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." At first glance, this language does not seem restrictive; even in the U.S., incitement is not a protected form of speech. The issue is the respective ways in which the U.S. and the OIC define "incitement." U.S. Courts use a content-based test to determine whether speech is incitement (See: Brandenburg v. Ohio). Brandenburg, which is still the law, ruled that in order for speech to be unprotected as incitement, the speech must (1) intend to produce imminent lawless action, and must be (2) likely to produce such action. In other words, there is both a subjective and objective prong, both concerning the speech itself. By contrast, the OIC endorses a "test of consequences," which punishes speech based not on its content, but based on the result. This is a completely subjective test, and fails to consider the words uttered by the speaker, focusing only on the reaction of others. How would this play out in practice? Violence claimed to be in response to cartoons of Muhammad, could, under the OIC's definition, retroactively define the cartoons as incitement. Surely, this framework is in direct conflict with U.S. law.

The rapporteur's suggestions regarding internet hate speech regulation also conflict with U.S. law upon closer examination....

The Istanbul Process and the move to regulate internet speech, in addition to creating conflicts between U.S. and international law, also represent a departure from the policies of past U.S. administrations.

Well, of course this administration's seeking a fundamental transformation of the United States, and that includes its relationship to the Muslim world, so who should be surprised? Not Abigail Esman, it turns out, last December at Forbes, "Could You Be a Criminal? U.S. Supports U.N. Anti-Free Speech Measure":

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

Well, we won't have lost the heart of what progressives are. They're the ones pushing for these kinds of speech restrictions, despite what pathological liars and "troll rights" stalkers might say otherwise.

PREVIOUSLY: "The End of Freedom of Expression in the West."

Morsi Backs Down — For Now

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt's Morsi backs off decree that expanded his power":

CAIRO — In a political reversal to calm weeks of unrest, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi early Sunday rescinded much of last month’s decree that expanded his powers and exposed a dangerous divide between the nation’s Islamists and the mainly secular opposition.

The announcement reverses most of the declaration the Islamist president issued Nov. 22, including putting his office beyond judicial oversight. The peeling away of that power was a major demand of protesters. But Morsi continued to defy the opposition by refusing to cancel a Dec. 15 referendum on a proposed constitution drafted by an Islamist-dominated assembly.

The turnaround by Morsi, who in a national address Thursday had refused to budge on his decree, was a signal that he wanted to ease tension that has resulted in clashes between his supporters and opposition groups that have left at least six people dead and hundreds injured.

It was unlikely, however, that reversing the decree but sticking to the referendum vote would appease the tens of thousands of protesters who have marched on his palace in the capital and in cities across Egypt.

“This is not a compromise; the president got all that he wanted,” said Bassem Sabry, an activist and writer. “What the Muslim Brotherhood wants [is to] get the constitution rammed through in a quick referendum before anyone gets a chance to properly discuss it.”

Morsi’s concessions came as news reports indicated that he was preparing to reimpose emergency law to allow soldiers to arrest civilians in response to the latest unrest.

More at the link.

It won't last. Morsi will come up with something else, some other extra-constitutional measures to consolidate the Muslim Brotherhood's choke hold on the state. See Eric Trager's piece from a couple weeks back, at TNR, "Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate."

New SIOA Ads Going Up December 17th

Pamela reports on the latest dhimmi backlash, "NY OBSERVER: QURAN ADS DEBUT IN NY 'PAMELA GELLER IS AT IT AGAIN'." The ads will run with a disclaimer, as noted at the Observer (via Memeorandum):

The MTA’s new disclaimer policy came in September of this year following an incident in which protestor Mona Eltahawy, 45, was filmed spray-painting another AFDI advertisement, which equated Muslims with savages.

The ad stated: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It added, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” in between two Stars of David.

Ms. Eltahawy was arrested, and every single advertisement in the series was defaced by the end of the day—a fact that did not go unnoticed. The MTA addressed the issue of salacious advertising at its monthly board meeting. The MTA had previously tried to amend its advertising guidelines so it could refuse “demeaning” ads, a rule that would prohibit “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation,” but that modification was deemed unconstitutional. With its hands tied, it opted to include a disclaimer on ads that expressed a particular viewpoint on “political, religious or moral issues or related matters.”

“A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages,” the MTA’s statement at the time read. “The answer to distasteful and uncivil speech is more, and more civilized, speech.”

Following the September incident, Ms. Geller has been busy crafting new advertisements for her campaign beginning December 17. The new ads will be plastered across at least 50 different locations, the MTA confirmed, the result of an ad buy worth more than $10,000.

“I refuse to abridge my free speech so as to appease savages,” Ms. Geller told The Observer. “Thousands of anti-Israel ads have run across the city and not one has been defaced. My ads, 10 went up in New York City, and they were destroyed in hours. You don’t agree with me, fine, run an ad. I have no problem with other people’s ideas.”

She is prepared, however, for the people who disagree with her to take out their frustration on her ads. This time around, she printed twice as many.

That's quite the comment section Pamela's got going over there. I just find it too perfect that we've got all this controversy over a simple message like Pamela's, but when anti-Israel ads run, there's never a problem. One more anecdotal piece of evidence on the left's free speech jihad. Indeed, "The Animal" attacks Pamela as an "extremist," then exhorts its readers, "you know what to do." That is progressivism for you, perfectly.

Egypt Sees Largest Clash Since Revolution

At WSJ:

CAIRO—Tens of thousands of supporters and opponents of Egypt's president clashed Wednesday, hurling rocks and Molotov cocktails and brawling in Cairo's streets, in the largest violent battle between Islamists and their foes since the country's revolution early last year.

The confrontation started in the evening after Islamist protesters marching in support of President Mohammed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, moved to break up a demonstration by the president's non-Islamist opponents outside the presidential palace in Cairo, where Mr. Morsi has his offices.

Supporters of the rival camps, spurred by public defiance by influential figures on each side, waged back-and-forth battles in side streets outside the palace walls as night fell, shutting down major thoroughfares. Around midnight, police formed a barrier between the camps, with thousands of demonstrators on each side, as gunshots rang out and each side accused the other of firing live rounds.

Those allegations couldn't be confirmed. The Muslim Brotherhood said at least one of its supporters had been killed, while opposition officials said two of their supporters had died. An early Thursday report by state television quoted the Health Ministry as saying five people were killed and 446 people were injured, according to the Associated Press.

The Obama administration exhorted the sides to respect each other and refrain from bloodshed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Brussels, called for a two-way dialogue. She also expressed dismay at the constitutional process, saying Egyptians "deserve a constitutional process that is open, transparent and fair and does not unduly favor one group over any other."

Also in Cairo, crowds besieged the Brotherhood headquarters in the al Moqatam neighborhood, ONTV said. Protesters also burned down a Brotherhood headquarters in the Suez Canal town of Ismailiya, Egyptian media reported.

The conflict between Islamists and their opponents has been behind some of the Middle East's bloodiest civil wars. Those who battled in the shadow of Cairo's presidential palace mirrored Egypt's secular-Islamist divide—with a crowd of mixed-gender and mainly young Egyptians, many in tight jeans and hipster haircuts, facing off against men in conservative dress shirts or robes and skullcaps.

Egypt's opposition was galvanized last month when Mr. Morsi issued a decree granting him nearly unrestricted powers and placing him above the judiciary. The decree paved the way for hurried approval of a constitution that was drafted by an Islamist-dominated body that the opposition says was working illegitimately and produced a charter weighted with Islamic law. The government has set a referendum on the draft for Dec. 15.

Anti-Morsi Egyptians took to the streets. On Tuesday, they marched on the presidential palace to denounce Mr. Morsi, the first time in recent memory that protesters made it to the palace walls. On Wednesday, Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam El-Eryan, speaking on al-Jazeera, called on millions of Egyptians to go to the presidential palace to "defend the state and its legitimacy."

And see Telegraph UK, "Hundreds call on President Morsi to step down." And Instapundit, "JUST LIKE OBAMA AND THE “FISCAL CLIFF:” CBS News: Egypt’s president offers nothing to defuse crisis."

'Nothing better illustrates the argument that the “left” hates Israel far more than they care about the Palestinians...'

At Augean Stables, "The “how would you like it if we said that about you?” meme: Reflections on Rudoren’s FB Page."

The strong empirical evidence from many independent sources (cited by a number of commenters at Rudoren’s page in this thread) including Gazan, is that Hamas uses their own people as human shields and tries to benefit from the misery they inflict on their own people by blaming Israel. They even brag about it.

'The ideology of Islamism has been on the rise for generations and now aims to expropriate the Arab Spring...'

From Charles Hill, at The Caravan, "World Order in the Age of Obama" (via WSJ):

The ideology of Islamism has been on the rise for generations and now aims to expropriate the Arab Spring. The ambitions of the1979 Iranian Revolution and Sunni fanaticism are transmogrifying into the kind of major religious war that the Treaty of Westphalia sought to forestall.

Thucydides traced the war that ruined ancient Greece to Sparta’s fear that Athens’ growing power was crossing the line where it would be impossible to contain. Israel faces that threat from Iran, as today’s international structures for the maintenance of international security have failed to halt Iran’s drive, propelled by religious ideology, to possess nuclear weapons. Israel, bereft of its traditional sense of American support, is making ready to act against Iran’s menace to its existence. President Obama’s priority must repair relations with Israel by visiting the Jewish state and convincing its leaders that the U.S. understands Israel’s uniquely dangerous position.

And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained.

Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem. Without this the prediction of a Kepler for today must be grim. As the biographer of Augustus Caesar wrote in the years just before the Second World War, “Once again the crust of civilization has worn thin, and beneath can be heard the muttering of primeval fires. Once again many accepted principles of government have been overthrown, and the world has become a laboratory where immature and feverish minds experiment with unknown forces. Once again problems cannot be comfortably limited, for science has brought the nations into an uneasy bondage to each other.”

In this maelstrom lie opportunities not for idealism but for the cold, austere use of power, soft and hard, in order to, as Augustus was advised, teach the arts of peace to all. The old platforms for the region, including the “peace process,” are gone. New structures must be built and only the US can lead the construction job. Peace is not at hand, but statesmen can see the possibility of laying foundations for a new Middle East in Syria-Lebanon, Egypt-Gaza, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, and even, should we finally get serious, in Iran.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula Has No Regrets

You might think what happened to this guy would only be possible in a fascist state.

Well think again. Times have changed. It can happen here.

At the New York Times, "From Man Who Insulted Muhammad, No Regret":

LOS ANGELES — Fuming for two months in a jail cell here, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has had plenty of time to reconsider the wisdom of making “Innocence of Muslims,” his crude YouTube movie trailer depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.

Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction.

Not at all. In his first public comments since his incarceration soon after the video gained international attention in September, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he would go to great lengths to convey what he called “the actual truth” about Muhammad. “I thought, before I wrote this script,” he said, “that I should burn myself in a public square to let the American people and the people of the world know this message that I believe in.”

In explaining his reasons for the film, Mr. Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt, cited the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Tex., as a prime example of the violence committed “under the sign of Allah.” His anger seemed so intense over the years that even from a federal prison in 2010, he followed the protests against the building of an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York as he continued to work on his movie script.

Until now, only the barest details were known about the making of the film that inspired international outrage. Initial reports made it seem as if the film had been thrown together in about a year.

But a longer, more intricate and somewhat surreal story emerges from interviews with Mr. Nakoula, church and law enforcement officials and more than a dozen people who worked on the movie — those who knew its real subject and those who were tricked into believing it was to be a sword-and-sandal epic called “Desert Warriors.” Together, they paint a picture of a financially desperate man with a penchant for fiction who was looking to give meaning and means to a life in shambles.

A troubled man. Now a prison scapegoat for this administration's national security clusterf-k.

Continue reading.

RELATED: At the Wall Street Journal, "First Amendment Affront":

In his address to the United Nations earlier this week, President Obama condemned "the crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world." Some 48 hours later, police in California arrested the man behind the film "Innocence of Muslims," and a federal judge on Thursday night ordered Nakoula Basseley Nakoula held in jail without bond.

Mr. Nakoula allegedly used the alias Sam Bacile to produce and post an amateurish clip of the film, which may not exist in full, on YouTube. The government has charged him with eight counts of violating parole. In 2010, he was convicted of bank fraud and served a year of a 21-month sentence. His use of the Internet is restricted.

We're not privy to the specific parole terms to be able to pass judgment on the technical merits of the government's case. A judge will sort it out. But the decision to pursue him in the first place was a discretionary call by the government.

We doubt that every Web surfer on similar probation gets hauled back to prison. Or gets denied bail by a judge who called Mr. Nakoula "a flight risk," though it's hard to imagine he'd want to return to his native Egypt, the scene of the first violent protests on September 11, or go anywhere else. A minister in the Pakistani government has put a $100,000 bounty on his head....

In that same speech on Tuesday, President Obama rightly noted that, "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views—even views that we disagree with."

The government's actions send a different message. The Obama Administration asked YouTube to yank the video off the site. (YouTube didn't.) And now the filmmaker sits behind bars—whether on legally justifiable grounds is besides the point. The First Amendment also protects speech that causes the White House headaches abroad.

Progressives value freedom of speech, but only speech that furthers their agenda of socialist statism and the destruction of Judeo-Christian cultural hegemony.

PREVIOUSLY: "The End of Freedom of Expression in the West."

The End of Freedom of Expression in the West

"Silent Conquest," via Blazing Cat Fur:

Egypt's Islamist Coup

At WSJ:

The Egyptian revolution took another bad turn Thursday, as President Mohamed Morsi gave himself dictatorial powers over the legislature and courts. The world has feared that the Muslim Brotherhood would favor one-man, one-vote, once, and the Morsi coup is an ominous sign.

"The people wanted me to be the guardian of these steps in this phase," Reuters quoted Mr. Morsi as saying on Friday. "I don't like and don't want—and there is no need—to use exceptional measures. But those who are trying to gnaw the bones of the nation" must be "held accountable."

Mr. Morsi says his diktat will merely last as long as it takes the country to adopt a new constitution, which is what authoritarians always say. They claim to be a necessary step on the way to democracy, but democracy never arrives. Mr. Morsi's rationalization is that he must have this power to "protect the revolution," as if the demonstrators who deposed Hosni Mubarak in 2011 merely wanted another Mubarak with a beard and prayer rug. Mr. Morsi is claiming more power than Mr. Mubarak ever had.

Egyptians took to the street on Friday in protest, sometimes violently, and nearly every other major political leader denounced the putsch. That includes Abdel Monheim Aboul Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader and presidential candidate. The violence is regrettable, but the protests may be the only way Egyptians can prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from becoming their new dictators.

The Brotherhood doesn't control the military or Ministry of Interior, yet neither one is going to rush to defend a more liberal Egyptian state. The military's main goal is to protect its role in government and its economic interests, and the Brotherhood's draft constitution puts the military outside of civilian control.

As long as Mr. Morsi doesn't challenge those interests, the military and police may let him control the courts, the media and the legislature. This is a recipe for rule a la Pakistan, with an increasingly Islamist state but the military and intelligence services as an independent power. The immediate losers will be Egypt's liberals and the Western journalists who inhaled the vapors of Tahrir Square. But whatever Mr. Morsi intends, the Pakistan model is not a recipe for a more stable Egypt.

Mr. Morsi's coup is also awkward for the Obama Administration, which had been praising the Egyptian in media backgrounders for his role in brokering the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Mr. Morsi was hailed as a moderate statesman. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had barely left Cairo before Mr. Morsi made his move. He may have figured that all the praise made it easier for him to grab more power.

It's awkward alright.

The administration basically installed the Muslim Brotherhood and now Morsi's making a bid for the region's pan-Islamist leader to rival even Iran's influence. You get what you bargain for, I guess. And boy, did Obama ever bargain for his Muslim Brothers!

RELATED: From David Goldman, "Obama Legitimizes Morsi’s Protection Racket."

Protesters Storm Muslim Brotherhood Headquarters in Alexandria

The opposition to the Morsi coup is pretty widespread.

See, "Protests rock Egypt after Morsi seizes new powers."

More: "Morsy reassures Egyptians as protests grow."

Protests Against Mohammed Morsi

AT Telegraph UK, "Violence breaks out across Egypt as protesters decry Mohammed Morsi's constitutional 'coup'":

Violence broke out in cities across Egypt yesterday (Friday) as demonstrators took to the streets and besieged Muslim Brotherhood offices in anger at authoritarian new powers seized by President Mohammed Morsi.

Headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political front, the Freedom and Justice Party, were ransacked and burned in Alexandria, Port Said and Ismailiya. Protesters described Mr Morsi as “Egypt’s new pharaoh” and said his declaration on Thursday night was a “constitutional coup”.

In Cairo, the biggest demonstrations for months filled Tahrir Square, reviving the spirit and chants of last year’s revolution against the country’s former leader, ex-President Hosni Mubarak. “Out, out,” the crowd chanted. The people want the downfall of the regime.”

Mr Morsi publicly defended his decision to make his decrees unchallengeable by law as necessary to complete Egypt’s transformation. He told a crowd of supporters gathered in front of the presidential palace that he was trying to stop a “minority” trying to “block the revolution”.

He also alleged that money stolen under the old regime was being used to fund new protests, including by "thugs" - a politically loaded term suggesting that the pro-democracy protesters were the same as Mr Mubarak's hired henchmen.

"There are weevils eating away at the nation of Egypt," he told them, insisting that he by contrast, was trying to assure "political stability, social stability and economic stability".

"I have always been, and still am, and will always be, God willing, with the pulse of the people, what the people want, with clear legitimacy," he said.

Mr Morsi, fresh from his success in negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on Wednesday night, made the unexpected announcement of his new powers on Thursday.

As noted earlier, developments in Egypt are of huge, structural significance and will have deep impact on U.S. foreign policy. I'll have more later, but meanwhile check out Barry Rubin, "News Flash: Egypt’s Islamist President Assumes Dictatorial Powers." (Via Memeorandum.)

Mohammed Morsi Appoints Himself 'Egypt's New Pharaoh'

This is not a joke.

At Telegraph UK, "Mohammed Morsi grants himself sweeping new powers in wake of Gaza."

And Twitchy, "President of Egypt grants himself dictatorial powers."

There's a longer clip here.

And check the Los Angeles Times, "Mideast shifts may weaken Iran's pull with Palestinians":

CAIRO — Iran for years has supplied Hamas with weapons as part of its own struggle against Israel, but the conflict in the Gaza Strip reveals a shift in regional dynamics that may diminish Tehran's influence with Palestinian militant groups and strengthen the hand of Egypt.

The longer-range missiles fired by Hamas over the last week — believed to be modifications of Iran's Fajr 5 missiles — startled Israel by landing near Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A front-page story in Iran's conservative daily, Kayhan, boasted: "The missiles of resistance worked." Tehran would not confirm the weapons' origin, except to say it sent rocket "technology" to Hamas.

Instead, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters: "What is important is that the people of Palestine must be equipped to defend themselves, and it is the responsibility of all countries to defend the rights of the people of Palestine."

But the Gaza fighting erupted during a new era in the Middle East brought about by the rise of Islamist governments, notably in Egypt, that have replaced pro-Western autocrats. The political catharsis has spurred anti-Americanism, which Iran relishes, but it also has upset Tehran's regional designs.

In Syria — which along with the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah has been Iran's proxy opposing Israel — a revolt inspired by the "Arab Spring" could force President Bashar Assad from power and bring in a government less friendly to Tehran. Hamas angered Iran by opposing Tehran's continued support of Assad and siding with the Syrian rebels, who are mostly fellow Sunni Muslims.

Iran's immediate concern in Gaza is keeping Hamas from strengthening its ties to Arab capitals. This may be difficult, as evidenced by the fact that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which inspired the founding of Hamas and now is in charge of the Egyptian government, played a key role in brokering the cease-fire announced Wednesday.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is likely to press the militant group not to further agitate the region — and Egypt's many domestic problems — with sustained violence against Israel. But Egypt has been criticized for tacitly arming Hamas by not tightening its border with Gaza to stop weapons smugglers from Libya and Sudan.

"The Iranians [had] better understand the paradigm is shifting in the Middle East," said Nabil Fahmy, former Egyptian ambassador to the U.S. and founding dean of the School of Public Affairs at the American University in Cairo. "Hamas needs Cairo tremendously. It really has no other interlocutor to deal with Israel."

But he added that the region is so fluid and unsettled that it is too early to predict winners and losers: "If there are peaceful resolutions, this will lead to a reduced Iranian role. If, on the other hand, you have an increased use of violence," he said, "then ultimately any player that has been supportive of a more aggressive posture will gain ground."

This reminds me of Henry Kissinger in early 2011: "Kissinger on Egypt: 'Classic Pattern of Revolution'."

The Times of Israel is also reporting that Israel ruled out a ground invasion to prevent the possibility of a collapse of regional peace agreements and the emergence of a three-front war. See: "TV report: Warnings that peace deals with Egypt, Jordan could collapse led Israel to end Hamas assault with no ground offensive."

Big changes. All while President Obama's busy pardoning turkeys. He's so insignificant in the global sweep of things, and so wrong. So deeply wrong. Americans will be choking on some of the biggest buyers remorse ever.

More on all of this later ...

Hamas Rocket Fire Continues After Cease-Fire Announced

JTA reports, "Israel-Hamas cease-fire goes into effect, rockets launched at Israel shortly after."

And at Astute Bloggers, "EVEN AFTER THE CEASEFIRE, MORE MISSILES."

Cease fire between Israel and #GAZA holding perfectly...well, except for 12 rockets fired at 1 million people#IsraelUnderFire
— ASoldiersMother (@ASoldiersMother) November 21, 2012

And Hamas backers are celebrating their "victory" over Israel.

Those celebrating in the street in #Gazafeel that this is a victory 4 them, that they withstood #Israel aggression
— Arwa Damon (@arwaCNN) November 21, 2012

And here's Melanie Phillips, "A Most Uneasy Truce" (via Memeorandum):

The way this cease-fire was reached sounded alarm bells from the get-go. It was brokered by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the driving actor apparently being her protégé the President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi.

But Egypt is hardly a neutral actor in this drama. Morsi owes allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood -- the parent body of the very Hamas that Israel has been fighting. The Brotherhood is pledged to wage both cultural and military jihad upon the west in order to Islamise it.

It is the mortal enemy of both Israel and the west. Yet the Obama administration, along with the UK and France, actually helped put the Brotherhood into power in Egypt by helping get rid of President Mubarak. Under Morsi, Sinai has been allowed to become a real threat to Israel; in the past week, there were reports that Egypt was doing nothing to prevent jihadis from all over the region from going through Sinai into Gaza to join the war against Israel. In addition, Morsi is cosying up to Iran. Indeed, even Obama himself blurted out recently that

‘the U.S. would no longer consider the Egyptian government an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.”’

Hillary Clinton, moreover, has astoundingly expressed her enthusiasm for the Brotherhood as ‘moderates’. There are also claims (which have been denied in a furious row) that her long time adviser Huma Abedin comes from a family with Brotherhood ties; and also that the State Department has been cosying up to the Brothers in a most alarming fashion.

In other words, this ceasefire seems to be some kind of nightmarish joke.

The left's hyenas are circling.

I'll have updates throughout the night...

Not Impressed

Via The Looking Spoon: "A Brief History of the Terrorist Attack In Benghazi."

RELATED: From Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "CBS: “Office of the DNI” cut al-Qaeda and terrorism references from Benghazi talking points." And especially, The Blaze, "KRAUTHAMMER DOUBTS INTELLIGENCE HEAD JAMES CLAPPER REALLY EDITED BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS — HERE’S WHY."

Not impressed with that Benghazi cover-up, you know?