Charlie Hebdo Massacre

Charlie Hebdo Massacre Victims Were Innocent. Full Stop.

Coverage of the atrocities lacking

|

Words can hardly convey the grief and disgust felt at Wednesday's executions of the editor, cartoonists, and others — 10 people in all — at France's satirical weekly newspaper, Charlie Hebdo. Two policemen also were killed, and 11 other people were wounded by the three fanatics who reportedly declared they were avenging the Prophet Muhammad, founder of Islam.

Nothing can justify attacks on people whose only offense lay in their use of words and drawings to mock religion and politics. Charlie Hebdo freely satirized all three Abrahamic religions, as well as politicians of various stripes. No source of power was immune from the cartoonists' and writers' pens — which is not to imply that had Islam been the magazine's only target, the murders would have been less monstrous. And neither were the powerless, such as France's Muslims, immune. (Freedom is not only for those with good taste. Its editorial policy, by the way, was not libertarian in its approach to foreign intervention.)

The satirists' profession should not be dangerous, no matter how much its practitioners offend other people's feelings. While the old saying "words can never hurt me" may be an overstatement, no physical reprisals for mere words and pictures can be tolerated. All is fair game. There should be no "fighting words" doctrine.

Bluntly stated, the staff of Charlie Hebdo is in no way responsible for what happened on Wednesday, as Anthony Fisher points out. (Amazingly, some commentators suggest that these lives could have been saved had the magazine abstained from satirizing Islam or had the French government censored it.) These people were innocent victims, full stop.

The coverage of the atrocities is another story. Most mainstream commentary has implied that violence against media figures is in a class by itself, incommensurable with any other kind of violence. No doubt part of the reason for this attitude is that many commentators see themselves as colleagues of the deceased. "Je suis Charlie! That could have been me," they may think, though Reason's Matt Welch reminds us that this certainly is not the case.

American journalists may also have an easier time identifying with Western middle-class victims of violence — the kind of people they are likely to know — than with, say, the faceless masses of poor people in the Muslim world who are daily subjected to violence from the U.S. and allied governments. Moreover, the victims of freelance violence often seem to count more than the victims of governments supposedly representing the "free world," especially the U.S. government.

Thus the lamentations about violence that we hear in response to the Charlie Hebdo murders are conspicuously absent from the coverage of U.S. bombings, drone killings, and other violence inflicted on the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and who knows where else. Indeed, the violence in Paris, while inexcusable, cannot be fully comprehended if ripped from this context. We need to bear in mind that Islam was not left to make peace with modernity on its own terms as the other major religions managed to do — imperialist intervention prevented that. Cartoons alone may not have had the power to "radicalize" young Muslims in the West.

It's not surprising that government officials engage in such selectivity. One has to laugh when President Obama or Secretary of State Kerry denounce violence whenever the perpetrators are not in the employ of the U.S. government. Where is the public and media indignation about the violence Obama and Kerry can directly do something about? The mass media are little better than cheerleaders for that mayhem, as they uncritically accept the government's line that its aggression is both necessary and proper.

Another form of selectivity plagues the reactions to the Paris killings. Countless American officials and commentators have denounced these crimes as an attack on freedom of the press and speech, which they surely were. But the Obama administration hasn't exactly been respectful of those freedoms, as its pursuit of a record number of whistleblowers and harassment of reporters demonstrate. According to Reporters Without Borders, the United States now ranks 46th in press freedom, a fall from 33rd. (The United Kingdom is 33rd andFrance is 39th.) RWB says:

Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example, far from it. Freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.

This has been the case in the United States (46th), which fell 13 places, one of the most significant declines, amid increased efforts to track down whistleblowers and the sources of leaks. The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.

US journalists were stunned by the Department of Justice's seizure ofAssociated Press phone records without warning in order to identify the source of a CIA leak. It served as a reminder of the urgent need for a "shield law" to protect the confidentiality of journalists' sources at the federal level. The revival of the legislative process is little consolation for James Risen of The New York Times, who is subject to a court order to testify against a former CIA employee accused of leaking classified information. And less still for Barrett Brown, a young freelance journalist facing 105 years in prison in connection with the posting of information that hackers obtained from Stratfor, a private intelligence company with close ties to the federal government.

And let's not forget campus speech codes and hate-speech laws, which are supported by many of the same people who today say, "Je suis Charlie."

So yes, we should mourn the deaths of Stephane Charbonnier (Charb), Jean Cabut (Cabu), Georges Wolinski, Bernard Verlhac (Tignous), Bernard Maris, Philippe Honoré, Michel Renaud (a former journalist who happened to be visiting the office), Mustapha Ourrad, Elsa Cayat, Frederic Boisseau, and police officers Franck Brinsolaro and Ahmed Merabet (a Muslim, incidentally). And we should rise in opposition to these attacks on freedom of the press and speech. But we should mourn the victims of all aggression and oppose all infringements on freedom, including the aggression and infringements committed by the most powerful government on earth.

Finally, it ought to go without saying that the victims would be dishonored if their murders became an excuse to further restrict civil liberties, subject Muslims to bigotry and harassment, or justify more war against Muslim societies.

If any of those things happen, the fanatics will have won.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

NEXT: Saturday Night: Standing Up to a Radical Islamist Who Would Silence Criticism in the Media If He Could, Plus Anti-ISIS Satire

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. This is a sad day.

    2. Ah. She and Mastroianni were wonderful in ‘La Dolce Vita’.

  1. If any of those things happen, the fanatics will have won.

    They won a long time ago. All that’s up for debate is the degree of victory. Think Super Bowl 24.

  2. OT: The recount for to amend a spending cap in Nashua, NH shows the amendment passed (sorry, it’s behind a paywall and bugmenot didn’t work for me). I found the facebook page for the amenment’s supporters, and it’s the usual suspects.

    1. An article about the recount which includes this quote from the spending cap author about why the amendment is a bad idea:

      “It is important that it stays in place because the (existing) calculation is based on what the taxpayers pay, not on what the government spends,” said Teeboom. “The government always spends more than the taxpayers can pay.”

    2. Why do you hate the children?

      1. I like them, when they’re seen and not heard as they earn their keep.

      2. I’ll have you know that I once purchased orphan slaves from him, and they were the best treated orphan slaves I’ve ever seen. He even gave them real food. REAL FOOD!

        1. I thought he gave them Soylent Green from the orphans that died.

          1. People are real food.

  3. OT: Five to ten years in jail for a straw purchase. Holy shit that’s outrageous.

    1. And yet there are people who will tell you their 2nd amendment rights aren’t being infringed.

      Every day, in every way, the government takes another piece of our freedom.

      1. If you miss your freedoms, thank a liberal.

    2. She bought a gun for a felon. Is it that outrageous?

      1. It’s a mandatory minimum sentence, of course it’s outrageous. Mand. Mins. should be abolished.

  4. I saw a little too many ‘yeah buts’ for my taste in the aftermath of the shooting.

    1. Yeah but, they wrote controversial things about muslims!

      They deserved to die! It’s all their own fault!

      What are you, Rufus? Against the children? And muslims? What about he muslim children?

      Racist bigot!

      1. You poke the bear you get what you deserve. Thing is, a bear is a mindless animal. That’s what the “yeah, but” people are putting on the Islamists. Mindlessness.

      2. Well. They had it coming. I don’t condone murder but I understand their desperateness because occupied and cartoons.

        1. And I understand your comment because it’s obvious you are a moron.

          1. And I understand that your sarcasm detector needs calibration.

    2. My favourite is “I support free speech, but…”

      No, you don’t, motherfucker.

  5. We should all be bigoted towards Islamists. Islamists only come from one community in the world and that is the wider Muslim community. Lets not be stupid Sheldon and pretend this isn’t so.

    Violent Islamists will also have to be killed and mutilated, if they refuse to put down the gun.

    1. Seems to me Islam needs more gun control.

      1. Yep. Why don’t we just make it illegal to be a radical islamist?

        Laws make these things magically go away, right?

        1. Who said anything about making Islamism illegal? If white supremacy isn’t illegal, how can Islamism be illegal.

          Islamists should be stood up to daily and publically, and the violent should be dealt with accordingly. It is not even just Islamist, but Islamist led nations we have to deal with like, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

          1. ‘Twas a joke, Sir Lyle.

            Adjust the sarc meter, it’s getting screwy.

            1. apologies, sir

              1. +1 No Big Deal

          2. You’re a little slow aren’t you?

  6. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 hourly on the internet . She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $14825 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read More Here……
    —- http://www.work-reviews.com/

  7. Finally, it ought to go without saying that the victims would be dishonored if their murders became an excuse to further restrict civil liberties, subject Muslims to bigotry and harassment, or justify more war against Muslim societies.

    We can’t dishonor the victims by actually fighting back or anything.

    But we should mourn the victims of all aggression and oppose all infringements on freedom, including the aggression and infringements committed by the most powerful government on earth.

    Sure we should, but what do those other victims have to do with this? We should mourn the victims of communism too. Yet, somehow mentioning that in an article about people who were murdered by Muslim fanatics would be oddly out of place. We mourn these victims today and we talk about this attack today. You know what every victim deserves in addition to mourning? People talking about their fate and the crime the people who murdered them without debasing the nature of the tragedy by mentioning some other unrelated tragedy. How about that? We should mourn victims of aggression, why does Sheldon feel the need to mention that here other than as a mealy mouthed way of degrading this tragedy?

    1. I don’t see where you are going with this. Richman writes a lot of disjointed articles, I get it.

      But you seem to be taking issue with the assertion that we shouldn’t just blow up things to retaliate. Are you suggesting that the U.S. government should just attack “Islam”? Are you suggesting that Muslims are all bad and we should see that too?

      Or am I just mis-interpreting here?

      1. No we shouldn’t just go blow things up. And if Richman were being honest in this article, I would take that statement at its face value and agree with it. He is not being honest however. You can tell that because he never suggest what should be done. Instead, he just says “we shouldn’t use this as an excuse to…” Well okay, but pretty clearly these people were Muslims and there are more just like them. We certainly need to be doing something about those Muslims and any other Muslims who support them right?

        Perhaps I am just cynical, but I think Richman would classify any action short of a victim shooting in self defense as being “just going after Muslims in general”.

    2. Yeah, I’m used to Richman’s writing being all over the place, but this is wildly unfocused and disjointed. Yes, bombing shit all over the place is bad. Yes, people should be vocally upset when a country (ANY country) enacts a foreign policy that results in the deaths of innocents. That’s a separate issue, though, and non sequiturs like that distract and dilute the main point, which is that Muslim fanatics murdering people because of hurt feelings is inexcusable for any reason.

  8. We need to bear in mind that Islam was not left to make peace with modernity on its own terms as the other major religions managed to do ? imperialist intervention prevented that. Cartoons alone may not have had the power to “radicalize” young Muslims in the West.

    That may be the dumbest sentence Reason has ever published. Were Hindus left to meet modernism on their own terms? Last I looked Britain ruled India for over a hundred years and forcibly brought it into the modern world. Confucianism? No, China was carved up by the Western Powers in the 19th Century. Shintoism? It made terms with the modern world thanks in large part to fire bombings and the atomic bomb.

    How can someone be this offensively ignorant and be allowed to publish in any serious publication? And moreover, how can anyone, published or not, allow themselves to think such stupid things?

    1. Be gentle, John. He’s retarded.

    2. How can someone be this offensively ignorant and be allowed to publish in any serious publication? And moreover, how can anyone, published or not, allow themselves to think such stupid things?

      +1 Napolitano.

      I’ve asked many times why Reason publishes him. There are actual thinkers about foreign policy out there, why not run some of their stuff instead of the same wash-rinse-repeat “it’s all the fault of imperialists, and let’s talk about the Shah in 1953” that is Richman?

      1. They might as well hire Tony to comment on economic issues.

        1. Jesus John, that’s SugarFree levels of perverted.

      2. “There are actual thinkers about foreign policy out there, why not run some of their stuff”

        I’m guessing they get Sheldon for free.

        Or maybe they think his ‘Non-Intervention Pablum for Dummies’ appeals to some demographic that is too lazy to read Cato Institute policy discussion, and needs something more warm-and-fuzzy than Justin Raimondo.

        i.e. something a cut above 9/11 trutherism without actually scaring off those kind of people. a ‘more respectable anti-imperial hysteria‘.

    3. Imperialism by the Ottoman Turks prevented the Ottoman Turks from…wait, what? I can’t wrap my head around how dumb Richman is being here. And I was all prepared for it to be dumb because it’s Richman!

    4. The Aztecs came to terms with Cortez when he killed most of them.

      1. Of course, don’t forget that the Aztecs were themselves imperialists. They had just (relatively) recently conquered that part of Mexico when Cortez showed.

        That’s part of the reason he was able to, a lot of the tribes in the area hated the Aztecs

    5. Last I looked Britain ruled India for over a hundred years and forcibly brought it into the modern world.

      Well…sorta.

      1. What do you mean? According to what’s her name, India is far more friendly to women than the US.

    6. Luckily, the Catholic church had the inquisition so that Jews and Cathars could come to terms with it.

    7. Seems to me that there are a lot of ignorant people writing for Reason.

  9. And one more thing, to compare the murder of 12 people over a set of cartoons to Bradly Manning going to prison for releasing classified information, information he knew was classified and he took an oath not to reveal is frankly disgusting. It is not stupid, it is disgusting. Whatever you think of the secrecy laws and the prosecution of Manning, he didn’t just express and opinion and no one showed up and shot him in the head for doing it. To compare that to this is to essentially piss on the graves of the people who died. These people had the misfortune of being murdered by fanatics that people like Richman hate less than everyone else. So as a result, they get the additional indignity of Richman and those like him pissing on their graves and pretending being shot in the head over some cartoons is just like going to prison for revealing classified information.

  10. This entire article is one giant non sequitur. Does the US have too many secrecy laws and treat whistle blowers unjustly? Sure. Did Europe stomp all over the Middle East at various times in history? Sure.

    None of that has anything to do with what happened here. It doesn’t make the murder of these people any more or less right. It doesn’t prevent people who supported those things from saying this was wrong. Most importantly, this tragedy is not an opportunity to talk about those things anymore than if the US decided to carpet bomb some Muslim country for no apparent reason it would be an opportunity to talk about the crimes of Islamic extremism. If some nut goes into a Mosque in France tomorrow and murders 12 people, would Sheldon be on here talking about how the various Muslims who would be rightly horrified and outraged, have their own issues? Hell no he wouldn’t. But he is now because telling the truth in this context seems to be something he can’t face.

  11. OT: “Crocodile Bile” – bad name for a beer.

    52 people die after drinking poisoned beer
    http://wtop.com/africa/2015/01…..ozambique/

    1. They need to check the emails at Anheuser Busch. They’re probably behind it — trying to give micro-brews a bad name.

    2. Crocodile bile?

      Is that anything like Hobbit Vomit?

  12. Attaching arbitrary labels like “journalists”, “middle class”, or “Muslim” to the individuals involved in this is stupid; they are in now way representative of these groups (nobody is ever representative of a group like that). Equally stupid is to pretend that either the drawing of cartoons or the religion is unrelated to the violence. And then there is the typical confusion between morality, ethics, and legality that pervades the article.

    The article is just brimming with the meaningless self-aggrandizing “I’m such a moral person” platitudes that is characteristic of what he pretends to criticize. Richman is a hypocrite, and a dumb one at that. His comments have nothing to do with libertarianism or freedom.

    From a libertarian perspective, the real point here is that the French government monopoly on violence and personal protection failed these people. All the rest is just a smokescreen put up by the left or the right.

    1. You’re right, they aren’t representative of all Muslims. We shouldn’t let a few hundred million bad apples spoil the bunch, after all.

      1. Every time I read that some politician says “Islam is a religion of peace” I want to throw up. They have apparently never read the Koran and don’t know the history of these savages.

    2. The first thing I thought of when I heard about this was that if the French had reasonable gun laws (i.e., allowing people to carry them with minimal restriction) the victims could’ve defended themselves. I also note with great interest that French gun restrictions failed to prevent these murders.

      1. Incredibly restrictive gun laws got innocent people killed?

        I’m shocked, I tell you!

  13. i would like for Mr. Richman to cite how “most mainstream commentary has implied that violence against media figures is in a class by itself.” As far as I can tell the outrage and commentary has been about the violence against free speech, and the notion that it was violence against people who did no physical harm to anyone. That the victims were in the media was tangential, at most.

  14. I didn’t see Obama at the march in Paris today. Will he be there?

    Or does he have a conflicting fund raiser or tee time or somethin’?

    Fore!

    1. Cameron, Merkel, …even freakin’ Netanyahu showed up.

      It’s on CNN, so I assume Obama knows about it.

    2. Kudos to the French for putting (an estimated) 1 million people in the streets. I doubt the US could muster that many people.

      1. I’d like to think we could–although I suspect someone like Barack Obama (or George W Bush) would use the post-unity tragedy for something unrelated…

        “You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste, and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”

        —-Rahm Emanuel, President Elect Obama’s Chief of Staff

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

        We were unified as a country like that after 9/11. Hell, the whole country practically turned into a demonstration for American values–seemed like every house on every street was flying an American flag, and every car seemed to have an American flag on it, too, for good measure.

        1. “I’d like to think we could–although I suspect someone like Barack Obama (or George W Bush) would use the [post-tragedy unity] for something unrelated…”

          Fixed!

          1. It was a slip, I guess. Iraq was a post-unity tragedy–to my mind! But I meant to say “post-tragedy unity”.

        2. We were unified as a country like that after 9/11. Hell, the whole country practically turned into a demonstration for American values–seemed like every house on every street was flying an American flag, and every car seemed to have an American flag on it, too, for good measure.

          And from it. We got the Patriot act. AWESOME! Patriotism, yay!

          1. It unified us under American values.

            1. It unified us under American values.

              Which got us…

              …the Patriot act.

              American Values…subverting the Constitution because we’re scared. Yay!

              1. We hate us for our freedoms!

          2. Yeah, that was another post-unity tragedy.

            1. There’s a lot to be said for disunity.

              “The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!” – Agent K, Men in Black

              Not where you’d expect to find insights into the nature of humanity, but there it is.

    3. A US president would be insane to march in the middle of that huge crowd.

      1. I’d point out that Netanyahu did it–but Abbas–the leader of the Palestinian Authority–did it as well!

        Look at this photo:

        http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandl…..=758&h=530

        http://www.jpost.com/Internati…..cks-387357

        That’s Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud “Fucking” Abbas.

      2. Then send Joe Biden. He’s got to be good for something besides being an object of ridicule.

      3. Well then, we should DEFINITELY get Obama to go.

        It would be a damn shame if a crowd of angry people did to him what his federal goons are doing to us. A damn shame indeed.

    4. He probably has sense enough to keep a low profile after that “The future most not belong to those who mock the prophet of Islam” shit.

  15. “Thus the lamentations about violence that we hear in response to the Charlie Hebdo murders are conspicuously absent from the coverage of U.S. bombings, drone killings, and other violence inflicted on the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and who knows where else.”

    There is something to this, and if we react to those many tragedies differently than the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, it’s for a number of reasons.

    For one, the terrorist tragedies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and elsewhere, have been used at various times to try to rally the American people to support American military action in those countries. However, the tragedies perpetrated on civilians because of American led invasions and occupations have been used to discredit American military action, as well. Those tragedies are, thus, weighed within the context of a justification for wars and occupations–in other countries.

    The Charlie Hebdo tragedy, on the other hand, happened within different contexts–it’s about immigration, assimilation, and free speech–within the Western world. In other words, with Charlie Hebdo, we’re talking more about domestic policy rather than foreign policy. Whether we should invade some foreign country or whether we should withdraw is simply a different kind of question than whether we should tolerate people’s religion or put legal limits on free speech.

    1. No doubt, all tragic deaths are tragic, even when they happen in foreign countries, but the immigration and First Amendment implications of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy are on domestic policy, and that’s different.

  16. I’m curious how you plan to stop such violence (including the murders at a Kosher market) without using violence against the jihadists who perpetrate them. Or are you saying that our violence in the Muslim world (which is far less than their own against each other) justifies the murders of people who had nothing to do with any such violence?

    1. I’m curious how you plan to stop such violence (including the murders at a Kosher market) without using violence against the jihadists who perpetrate them.

      I don’t plan to stop the violence. I plan to punish the perpetrators for their crimes by bringing them to justice and then continue on with my life of liberty, realizing one can’t prevent crazy from happening without sacrificing the liberty I hold dear.

      That would be my plan…but I’m sure politician’s will see it differently.

      1. What would you have done about Pearl Harbor?

        1. Attacked Japan. IOW, those responsible for the attack.

          Who’s responsible for these attacks? Oh, the people who committed them. Dead. Well done.

          What do you do when Christians bomb abortion clinics? Go to war with Christians?

          1. “The infidels bombed my clit-cutting-clinic! Get them!”

            /Islamic abortion doctor

          2. Would you have only attacked the military involved in the attacks, gone after the whole country (as was done), or something in between?

            As far as the abortion clinic bombings,I would have done pretty much what was done at the time. The murderers were quite easily caught by police, there being very few supporters of the bombers among their coreligionists. The body count was a considerably smaller than that run up by the Islamists. Laws were passed to keep demonstrators at a specified distance from such clinics, but I didn’t approve of that on First amendment grounds.

            Those measures seem to have contained the problem, for now anyway.

            1. I would have fought a total war with Japan, as was done.

              So you just want to punish the Christians responsible, but you want to go to war with all Muslims.

              I rest my case.

      2. So you’re prepared to spend trillions of dollars of your children’s money to “bring people to justice” in a war against 1.6 billion people you can’t possibly win?

        The only winning move is not to play.

        1. Me thinks you misinterpreted my post. The people responsible have already been brought to justice.

          1. He’s talking about Japan, and the Pearl Harbor question.

            He’s giving a stupid answer, though.

    2. It’s not a justification, it’s a reason why it happened. If you punch a robber in the face but he pulls out a gun and shoots you, he’s not justified in shooting you. But you punching him in the face was one of the reasons he did so.

  17. Looks like the sleeper cells are already being called to action…….

    http://www.timesrecordnews.com…..s_44069621

    1. We could just petition our rulers to order the authorities to keep the “sleeper cells” sleeping, but unfortunately cops being cops they’d interpret that as full license to bust my door down to kill me and and my dogs in the process of confiscating my vast circus clown porno collection.

    2. HOLY!
      SHIT!

      That happened about 600 yards from the house I used to rent when I lived in Wichita Falls.

      1. Assumed it was just a link to the Kosher store slayings. Holy crap! Sounds like a case of a jealous dude camel gone berserk.

      2. “Camel Kisses Ranch”

      3. For some reason when someone says camel usually kisses isn’t a word that comes to mind. ‘Spit’ and ‘nasty’ are two that do. Having read that article ‘mauling’ and ‘murder’ are two more.

  18. Holy cow! I just watched the video of the supermarket raid. Dozens of cops at the metal door, all in riot gear. The door rolls up to the top, and JUST ONE OF THE COPS runs in!!!!!!!! All the others stand at the opening, apparently telling each other, “hey, looks like Maurice has it under control — let’s guard the door and make sure none of the terrorists escape.”

    1. To me it looked like he was being shot in the back as he went it.

      Also, I’m surprised none of the cops seemed to shoot each other as the terrorist went out in his blaze of glory.

      1. How could they shoot each other without firearms? Are French cops packing again?

        1. Haw haw haw! Looks like Maurice is at it again!

          *takes drag from long cigarette holder*

  19. My friend makes $84 /hr on the computer . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13167 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    site here ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. You call 157 hours a *few*?!

      1. The fools must be from some prison sweat shop country if they think Americans want to work the long hours they’re peddling. Oy!

  20. No Friday Funnies last Friday. Is Reason bowing to terror? Or am I missing something…

      1. Ha ha. That’s actually pretty funny.

      1. What’s missing?

        1. Tits.

  21. Mr. Richman, if you had actually read the Wikipedia piece you would know that the “fighting words” doctrine, like “incitement”, applies only to words spoken in person and intended to provoke a fight. I see no reason to modify the doctrine; if anything, I would expand it to make aggressive panhandling “fighting words.”

    None of which has anything to do with the “Charlie Hebdo” tragedy, and it’s good that both the French government and other papers all over Europe are now standing with the victims and against radical Islamism.

  22. “Thus the peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned, while they neglect the means of self defence. The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.”
    Thomas Paine

    Get guns.
    Get good.
    Get ready.
    The experiment in disarmament is over.

  23. Seriously, can people stop refering to the terrorist ellement of Islam as “radical” Islam?

    There is no “radical” Islam, there is only Islam.

    This misinterpretation of Islam gives the false impression that there is a “moderate” mainstream Islam and a “radical” Islam.

    Islam by it’s very nature is both radical and extreme, there is NO moderate Islam.

    There is only one Islam.

    1. Well, if you say so, then 1.49 billion Muslims are wrong.

      And that’s the bottom line–because you say so.

      Obviously, 1.49 billion people are not moderate based on what they believe, how they interpret something, or how they act.

      People are only moderate because you’re David_B–and David_B says so.

      1. Try being a non-muslim in the places where most those 1.49 billion Muslims live and see how “moderate” they are.

        (Only exception being India, where they aren’t a majority, and that’s a pretty unpleasant place to live as well)

  24. There is only one effective response to ‘Charlie Hebdo’…and that is Charlie Martel.
    History is a willing teacher, if we’ll just pay attention.

    1. That’s where I’m at too.

      If you say something is a savage animal, don’t provoke it and get surprised when it hurts you.

      The corollary is that if something is a savage animal you slay it or drive it from your land.

      If you think islam is a savage animal, its your own fault for provoking it, as well as your duty to aggress against it. Either it has agency and is responsible for its behavior, or it doesn’t and has no rights. Then YOU are responsible for its behavior.

      The ‘what did you expect’ defense is a claim that islam is subhuman. I’m not disagreeing, just saying charles martel is the next step if that is correct. Somebody is responsible for its behavior. If not the animals, then those who allow animals in their land.

  25. my buddy’s sister-in-law makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her paycheck was $12455 just working on the internet for a few hours. website link……….
    ????? http://www.work-reviews.com

  26. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  27. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.