The Bigsibling Blog

Some people just don’t like us ordinary folks. Those of use who, according to Barack Hussein Obama cling to our guns and our religion out of bitterness. Use people in fly-over country, who hold good, strong beliefs about our faith, and our country.

People like the Joseph L. Conn who wrote this editorial about the how stupid and ignorant of the U.S. Constitution the majority of Americans are. see, the "State of the First Amendment" study came out recently. And this guy picked and focused on two questions on which to base his disgust of use normal people. Two questions, out of more than 40, in which the answers did not skew to his preference, and uses that to tell the rest of us regular folks how dolts we are.

Here’s the questions, and the answers:

The U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation.

The nation’s founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation.

Now, Ol’ Joey there is appalled, and it seems rather worried that a whopping 63% of Americans responded that they mildly or strongly agree that our founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation. Also, that 55% responded they mildly or strongly agree the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Note, please, that it does NOT say a theocracy.

Here is the rub in these questions. What are the people saying when they answered these questions. There are no qualifying explanations of what they mean by a ‘Christian Nation’. If the respondent asked "what do you mean a Christian nation?" What did the questioner respond with? We don’t know this. If asked for clarification, did the interviewer assure the respondent they did not mean a theocracy, but merely a nation based on Christian principles? If that is the case (and somehow, I suspect it is), these answers are dead-on, and as they should be.

Joe spews his stuff about how the religious right has brain-washed the bunch of us. Because, you know, according to him (it would seem) we’re all a bunch of idiots who don’t know any better. I’m certain, under all that disgust, he really feels sorry for us poor saps.

What he fails to mention in his "shame on you" article is the following question:

So, this guy, who appears to be in fear of people wanting a theocracy, and wanting to stifle and squash the religious freedom of others, completely neglects the fact that a whopping 54% of the people believe the US Constitution applies to all religious groups regardless of their extremism. Granted, since 2000 that ideal has lost a bit of traction, but then, who would not have expected that.

Dealing with these three questions alone, I’m personally encouraged by the response people have given. Especially if you look at it objectively, without trying to read things into that may or may not be there.

I’m going to post some more on this study here in the near future – there are some fascinating responses in there, things I would not have guess, and some things which almost seem to directly contradict other answers, so stay tuned. This guy’s article just caught my attention, and my ire. It irks me when people skew the numbers just to try a make something out of nothing at all.

Stumble it!

I find this such and incredible story. It boggles the mind. Like that bill that was proposed in Mississippi that would have made it illegal for a restaurant to serve fat people, there is currently a bill before the state legislature in Arizona that would hold businesses liable for civil damage if they distribute obscene or dangerous stuff.

Bookstores, news organizations, cable companies and other businesses are strongly opposed to legislation that would make an individual or a company liable for civil damages if they produce, publish or distribute any dangerous or obscene materials that causes someone to commit an act of terrorism or a felony.

Are these guys for real? So a bookseller sells a book, and someone buys it, and they go and kill some poor schmuck, and then claim that reading the book made them do it. So the bookseller is now on the hook, civilly, for the crime? Well, I suppose it worked for the tobacco industry. People smoke, don’t like that they made poor choices, and therefore sue the tobacco company for their poor decisions.

It works for bars. If a bartender serves an already drunk person more, then he goes out and runs over some little old lady, killing her and mangling her walker, the bartender can be held liable for that. It sucks I know. But it’s just one more way to remove responsibility from the offender, to make the offender the victim. It’s not Johnny’s fault he took a rifle and shot up the mall, he just listened to Helter Skelter 500 times in the last two days. That’s why we killed all those people, it wasn’t Johnny’s fault, it was that evil, evil music.

Although…thinking about this just a little more…that would mean that booksellers could no longer sell the Koran. That can even go so far as to make so that Koran’s can’t even be given away. I wonder if that is possibly the true reason for this stupid bill? It would be interesting to see if any religious groups will express outrage or opposition to this bill.

source

###

Stumble it!

This week’s award goes to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UNHRC has taken a 180 degree change in charter from being the watchdog of governments and protecting the human rights of individuals, to limiting the free speech and becoming what Orwell called the "Ministry of Thought".

Egypt and Pakistan proposed a measure to the 47 nation member council (heavily populated – need I add? – by Arab and Muslim countries) that directs the councils expert on free speech to investigate individuals and new organizations for negative comments on Islam.

Western countries have criticized the reversal for the expert – Ambeyi Ligabo of Kenya – who used to make reports to the UNHRC on what governments and tyrants did to curtail and otherwise restrict free speech. His job now, is to report to the UNHRC when regular folks (like you and I) and the media (like CNN and FOXNews) make disparaging remarks about the beloved "Religion of Peace".

The measure passed 32-0 because the wussie western countries on the UNHRC abstained instead of voting against it – the US is not on the UNHRC – but those freedom of speech hating loving Canadians are. I’ve discussed what a dire state free speech is in for our beloved friends up north, so their abstaining doesn’t really surprise me. They couldn’t vote for it and still pretend to be true believers in free speech, but they couldn’t vote against it, since they are trying to do the same damn thing back home. The UNHRC has also adopted a separate resolution urging countries to enact laws that would specifically protect Muslims and Islam from criticism. I guess Jews are still fair game with their lot though.

It looks like the only folks who actually like this crappy measure are those freedom loving, woman hating, child raping, beheading, peacenicks from the "Religion of Peace." I have to say, I have seen more hatred and filth and vilification spew from the mouths of Muslims, than I have every heard from any other group of people. I wonder if the UNHRC will sanction the "president" of Iran for his remarks against the Jews? Nah, because the Jews are fair game. The only religion that cannot be criticized is Islam.

I have never thought the UN was anything but bad. I have never felt they could do anything at all. Their peacekeepers don’t, their humanitarian workers are corrupt criminals, they were neck need in the Iraqi oil thieving scandal, all the way up to the frakcing top! And yet nothing happens. They have no teeth. They have no jurisdiction anywhere really. It’s a giant farce and humongous waste of money.

Frakcing UN.

source

###

Stumble it!

Geert Wilders’ movie FITNA, which is critical of Islamic Supremacists, was being streamed at LiveLeak.com. It seemed there was at least one last bastion of freedom on the Internet. But they have pulled the movie due to threats of a "very serious nature."

Unfortunately, I didn’t get the change to view it last night, so when I went to look at it to day, this is what is playing:

It is indeed a sad day when the followers of the "Religion of Peace" are so kind and peace loving they will threaten bodily injury and death to anyone who speaks against them.

UPDATE: I found a version of the movie on the YouTube. I don’t know how long it will last. I’ll try to keep the video link below current, but you just never know.

UPDATE UPDATE: If there are problems with the below vids from the YouTube, FITNA can viewed at "1389Blog – Antijihadist Tech" – where they are hosting it themselves. And I’m pretty damned certain the team at 1389Blog won’t be caving into the Islamic Supremacists and their murdering cohorts any time soon. Oh, and BTW, one my also see the film that got Theo Van Gogh murdered by those "religion of peace" followers.

Part One:

Part Two:

###

Stumble it!

I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, ‘Woe to you folks up in Canada who believe you have a modicum of free speech’. This week there was a hearing regarding the practices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This is the governmental body in Canada which is charged with investigating and punishing thought crimes hate speech.

I’ve stated here before that Canadians are being fooled into thinking they have freedom of speech. But that they really don’t. They can’t say or write anything that might "bring ridicule or contempt" upon a person or group of people. The CHRC have been jackbooting their way through people’s lives. Scouring the Internet for anything they could find that would enable them to drag people before "The Commission". Oh, and like the Mounties, "The Commission" always gets their man. They have a 100% guilty rate for people who have been judged by them.

For those not in the know, the CHRC is not a judicial body. They are not law enforcement. They don’t require search warrants or wire taps. And on slow days, they log onto Internet sites, using fictitious names trying to goad and bait people into saying something the commission can then charge them with.

I know, I know…all of this seems like some strange movie akin to Orwell’s 1984, or "V for Vendetta" but it is real. The CHRC agents have even gone so far as to illegally hijack some private citizens’ wireless Internet connection in order to anonymously log onto the web sites they are investigating in order to mask their IP addresses. I guess these thugs have never heard of anonymous proxies. There are plenty around.

At one point in the hearings, the CHRC’s Dean Steacy was asked "What value to do you give to freedom of speech?" to which Steacy replied:

"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value … It’s not my job to give value to an American concept."

Exactly what I have been trying to say. The Canadian government, by way of the CHRC places absolutely no value on free speech for your poor Canucks. It is frightening really.

source

###

Stumble it!

 

Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan has an excellent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about Islam and Free Speech. Something I have been trying to say for a while, but he says it so much better than I could ever hope to. Please give it a read, it is well worth the time.

Islam and Free Speech – WSJ.com

 

###

Stumble it!

Linda S. Heard wrote in the Gulf News web-site – which I believe when they say "gulf" they mean Persian Gulf, not down Mississippi way because when one clicks "Nation" for national news, they get news about the UAE – in which she calls freedom of speech an "Admirable Concept" and explains how the West doesn’t really have free speech.

The main point of her misguided, but very well written rant, is that while we may think we have free speech, we really don’t. She cites some hate-speech examples in Europe. She believes that some US states have laws against blasphemy which, I have to see to believe. The whole wall between church and state that the left is just so nuts about would seem to impede any laws regarding blasphemy. I could be wrong (but I’m not).

She spends a bit of her time with Geert Wilders’ movie "FITNA" which is causing quite a ruckus with those peace loving followers of Mohamed. So peace loving in fact, that Wilders is under state protection in the Netherlands, and the Dutch are preparing for the worst when the film is finally released.

She states if the Dutch government really wanted to stop the film from being shown, they could. Which is completely false. All Wilders has to do is release the film in the USA, from US servers. See, as much as Heard wants to believe that our first amendment is an "Admiral Concept", what she doesn’t, and probably will never understand, is that it is so much more than that. It is sacred. Freedom of speech…religion…to peaceably assemble…these are not concepts. These are not some high ideals that we only strive for. These are not the edicts of ayatollahs and imams that will get us into heaven, but which are nigh impossible to attain.

Jesus said that if we only had the faith to fill a mustard seed, we could command a mountain to move, and it would move. But in reality, that kind of faith is simply unattainable in the human realm, with our limited mind and inability to fully comprehend God in all his glory. Something similar to Heard I think. She simply cannot (or more probably will not) comprehend 1) what this freedom is; and 2) what it actually and truly means to us, as Americans.

There is a reason the framers of our country placed that amendment first. It is the most important of all the freedoms they have guaranteed for us. That document was drafted with copious debate, and nothing is in there, or placed, by accident. Every letter, every piece of punctuation, is intentional. It is where it is supposed to be.

She claims that Wilders’ film will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups:

Furthermore, it will serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups calling for a jihad against the new Crusaders.

Shame on him and shame on those who would prioritise the so-called rights of this imbecile over the heartfelt pleas of Muslims in the Netherlands and around the world!

Shame on us? Shame on the freedom loving people? What about the please of the non-Muslims in the Spain and England who didn’t want their trains bombed? What about the please of the Israelis in settlements constantly being bombed by the Muslims. Are the bombs they send in heartfelt? Probably not.

Heard will never understand what it means to be free. She will never understand what freedom of speech is really about.

As for Wilders’s film, given his known detestation of Islam, one can only wonder about his motives for making it. Rather than exemplifying his freedom to express his views, it is likely to be 15 minutes of pure, unadulterated hate probably designed to cause an even greater rift between Muslims and non-Muslims than already exists.

The question which Heard does not ask. And will never explore, is why does that right exists in the here and now? Why is there such a great divide between Muslim and non-Muslim? Could it be that the non-Muslim is horrified at the Muslim treatment of women? That non-Muslims can’t understand why converting from Islam to a different religion is punishable by death? Could it be that the non-Muslim simply can’t fathom that the victim of a gang-rape is punished, then pardoned by the Muslim government? I’m certain Heard will discount any of these things for helping to create, and keep the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. I’m certain Heard has some other far-reaching reason, and all fault will be placed squarely on the shoulders of us Westerners. Oh and the Israelis, can’t forget them, it’s their fault too.

Let’s not forget, the reason for the riots last year, the burnings of buildings, and the deaths were not the Muslims. Sure, they perpetrated the atrocities, but who could blame them? Newspapers in the Netherlands and Denmark published the Mo’ Toons. I mean seriously, if that isn’t a reason for wholesale lawlessness, what is?

###

Stumble it!

This, I wasn’t expecting. Sure, Google removes from their news-feeds nearly anything critical of the ‘do no evil’ company, and sure they remove from their news-feeds most things that are overtly, and blatantly critical of Islam and/or Muslims in general, but I didn’t expect the company that is, for many, the de-facto registrar of domains in the world to begin a political correctness campaign.

For those that have been in and around the Internet business for more than 6 or 7 years, they’ll remember ‘way back when’ domain names cost upwards of $70 a year, and there was only one place to get them. That place was Network Solutions. Now, in a bold move of appeasement and a grandiose gesture of dhimmitudeness, the great NetSol has suspended the web-site for Geert Wilder’s 15 minute movie. They claim it may violate their terms of service (I am assuming regarding hate speech or incitement to violence or some other such nonsense). Seems many people have complained about the site. I can’t really figure out why. The site consisted of the following:

The site formerly showed the film’s title, "Fitna" ("Coming Soon"), and an image of a gilded Koran.

Now, I fail to see how a site with a movie title and a picture of a Koran could, by any sane and marginally reasonable person, possibly violate the NetSol TOS. Perhaps it does. Perhaps NetSol has a clause in there about not showing a picture of the Koran, or not using foreign language to depict the words "Coming Soon". More realistically, I think, is that the NetSol blue-suits are scared, scared for their lives, and the reactions from the "Religion of Peace" followers if they left it up. It was these self-same, diversity spouting peaceful Muslims after all, that caused so much chaos and mayhem last year with the publishing of the now infamous Mo’ Toons.

It is a sad day when an old (by Internet standards anyway), well established and nearly house-hold name company like Network Solutions sells out in this way. If they were looking to not offend people, they have failed. I know I, or one, am greatly offended at this action. I am hoping and praying that Wilder finds another host for his site, and that 1) his movie does get distributed, and 2) it is translated into English (or at least sub-titled) so I can view it and understand it.

For their kow-towing and obvious subservience to the Islamic Supremacists, I am awarding Network Solutions the honorable "Dhimmi Of The Week" award. Congrats guys! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your groin, and you’re business go down the tubes faster than Spitzer’s career.

sources:
Daily Tech
International Herald Tribune

###

Stumble it!

On 23 June, 2007 four people were silently praying in a park in Elmira, NY. The people were arrested and charged with disturbing the peace. Of course, they wouldn’t ever be convicted of such a thing. Surely a jury of their peers would realize that praying in a park is protected speech under the First Amendment…right?

No. On 29 February, 2008 they were found guilty of disturbing the peace and ordered to each pay a $100 fine and court costs. As you can probably guess there is just a little more to this story than just four folks praying in a park. Did I mention the folks are Christians? Of course, how could they not be. Would the police arrest four Muslims silently praying in public? Would they arrest four Muslims loudly praying in public? No, that would be discrimination, after all, the Muslims have a right to pray (more so apparently than Christians do).

In addition, in the park that day, and the time they were silently praying, was occurring a gay pride event. The notorious four were laying on the ground, praying silently. They were not passing out Christian literature. They were not talking to anyone. They were not evangelizing, they were not proselytizing. They were laying prostrate in silent prayer, asking God to shine His mercy on the souls of sinners.

Granted, they were told by the police they were not allowed to cross the street and enter the park. The police told them there were unwelcome at an event that was advertised as "open to the public" where "all are welcome."

While the ACLU won’t step in a protect he civil rights of the Elmira Four, the Alliance Defense Fund is. They have filed an appeal in the case. I’m hoping beyond hope that the appellate court will see the folly and reverse the decision. Somewhere in the justice system there just has to be some sanity and common sense remaining.

source

###

Stumble it!

I can see it now. The bankers of Bank of America in downtown Boston, sitting around the conference table, smoking their big cigars and drinking their fine brandy from snifters. White haired men in dark pin-striped suits discussing who they are going to foreclose on next in this whole giant fiasco with sub-prime mortgage rates. One looks out the window, down at all the little people.
“Say, Whithers, come here, look at this one.”
“What, what is it old man?”
“That one there, on the sidewalk, what is he doing?”
“By jove, I believe he is aligning nooses in front of our building.”
“Wait, what is that, is he putting up a sign?”
“By jove, I believe he is, but we are too high to read it. Quick, Durnst, call my secretary and have her run down to the street and tell us what it is this chap is up to.”

A few minutes later the secretary reports that the man has arranged several nooses on the sidewalk with a sign that reads “Nooses for sale”.

“Well, that simply won’t do! Get Tommy on the phone. We donate quite a bit of money to his campaign fund. We’ll put a stop to this!”

Phones ring and orders are delivered, and finally a couple of beat cops get the  command “get rid of the guy in front of the Bank of America building.”

The cops arrive…

“What’s he doing? Putting out nooses? What is he some kind of racist bastard?”
“I don’t know, looks like a protest of some type. You see, the nooses could represent the Bank of America being the hangman for all the sub-prime mortgage holders that are being forced from their homes.”
“Well, we have orders to get rid of him. How we gonna do that?”
“Let’s see, his sign says ‘Nooses on sale’, I wonder if he has a license to sell stuff on the street…”
“Good thinking, let’s arrest him for being an unlicensed transient vendor!”

I know, it almost sounds like a skit from Monty Python’s Flying Circus – except without the humor. Thankfully for Milan Kohout, and for the First Amendment, this case was tossed by the District Attorney quicker than a madam can change bed sheets. Maybe next time the BoA bankers will give more campaign money to the DA and not just he mayor.

Don’t get me wrong. This whole sub-prime mortgage thing is a gigantic fiasco. But I can’t lay the blame solely on the banks. The people who signed these deals knew exactly what they were getting into. They knew their rates were ultra-low for a fixed amount of time, and that they would then rise. These people bought houses they couldn’t afford – but were able to make their payments on as long as the interest rate was so low. But they knew, well before they signed the papers, that the interest rate was below what it natural, and that it would be temporary. I feel most of the blame should be laid on the people who signed the contracts. I’m all about people taking responsibility for their own doings. And this would fall right into that. They were hoodwinked into signing the papers. They weren’t told their 1% interest rate was permanent or even long term. The banks don’t stand to make any money of this catastrophe. Especially now that the bottom has fallen out of the housing market. People can’t sell their homes for what they owe on them. So they are stuck, and the banks are stuck with homes they can’t sell to recoup their costs.

But still, arresting the guy for selling stuff on the street without a license, especially since it was quite obvious to anyone with a 2nd grade education that Kohout was not selling anything at all? Puhleeeze.

source

Technorati Tags: Banlk of America, Subprime Mortgages, Milan Kohout, First Amendment

Stumble it!

« Previous entries