Saudi King: There oughta be a Law!

Saudi king urges UN action against religious insults

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, seen here in August 2012, demanded a UN resolution condemning insults on monotheistic religions after a low-budget film produced in the US sparked deadly protests last month.

AFP - Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz on Saturday demanded a UN resolution condemning insults on monotheistic religions after a low-budget film produced in the US sparked deadly protests last month.
"I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets," he said during a meeting at his palace with religious figures and heads of hajj delegations in the Mina valley where pilgrims were performing final rituals of hajj.
"It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets."

http://www.france24.com/en/20121027-saudi-king-urges-un-action-against-religious-insults

 REALLY?

The UN should resolve to condemn ANY COUNTRY OR GROUP?  Those who officially promote Holocaust denial?  Those who promote "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?  Those who bash Jews and the existence of Jewish Israel as official policy? Those whose school textbooks officially promote anti-Semitism?  Those who do not allow a person to enter the country based solely on the fact that the person is Jewish?  The UN should be a whole lot lighter and have a whole lot fewer anti-Israel resolutions and votes without Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, (oh yeah, and) SAUDI ARABIA, the Emirates, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia etc. x 75.  And now the NGO's.  How about the entire Human Rights Council and every NGO involved in the UN sanctioned Durban Conference?

Is this the new world tactic?  Whine about religious insults when you, yourself are among its biggest offenders?  What is Arabic for Chutzpah????

President gets kerplunked

The last of the three debates is on foreign policy.  I would start here because no one with any sort of sense would believe that the community rabble-rouser and academic would know more about improving the economy than the CEO of a business management corporation.  But foreign policy is another matter.

First there was the President's concept that if we treated our enemies more nicely, then they would be nice in reciprocal fashion.  Gee, why didn't the police try this with gangs?  Then, there was the uber offensive statement that "the future must not belong to those who insult the prophet of Islam."  Not that it is bad in itself.  It would be nice everyone were nice.  But they are not.  In fact, the future of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Tunisia, and every other country in the Arab Spring parade publishes official, government sponsored tirades against Jews and Israel that we are supposed to just accept.  Heck, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other allied places, Jews are not even allowed to set foot in the country.  That is their LAW!  But the future not only belongs to them, but Jews must fund their hatred as well.  I find that incredibly offensive.

Now we have the idiotic tag team comment in the second debate.  It is not idiotic in the Biden "you voted for the Afghan and Iraq wars and I didn't" way, where it was absurdly easy to check and see that Biden did indeed vote for the wars.  This was the President's contention that he indeed called the Benghazi attack a terrorist act, because he used the word "terrorism" (referring to 9/11) in speech that day.  When he was kerplunked in the debate by his opponent, the moderator BACKED UP THE FALSE CLAIM, using her former credibility as a journalist.  Doesn't anyone listen to Susan Rice, or the aptly named Jim Carney (as in carnival huckster)?  Doesn't anyone watch President BHO on The View?  Doesn't anyone listen to the Sec of State.  All of them, within the first 9 days, referred to the spontaneous riots sparked by the video, not to terrorism as the cause.  And yet, President Obama had the nerve to get up there and say that he had contended that all along.  The President needs to hang his head in shame and apologize. If his foreign policy creds are as credible as that comment, if that is all he has to defend his policy, i.e. a bald-faced LIE, then he should not even show up next week.