Who Burned the Koran That Resulted in These Muslims Firing RPGs into Church?

In 2007, no less. Who did it?

Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza’s Latin church,told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip’s small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.


Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on.

Who burned the Koran that resulted in the murder of ten Christian missionaries last month?

Or the murder of CIA agents earlier this year?

Or the USS Cole?

Or the countless airplane hijackings, discotheque bombings, etc., etc., etc.

No, instead, the focus is on some Yosemite Sam-looking pastor from Florida. No, he wasn’t being what the Scripture tells us is a good ambassador of faith, which is probably why only 50 people comprise his congregation. However, this is America, and in America you can burn whatever you want because free speech wasn’t designed to protect only the speech and expressions with which we are comfortable. It’s easy to claim tolerance and acceptance of the things with which you agree; the true test comes when you’re faced with speech (no defamation, not libel, but SPEECH) that you don’t like. Denying such is wholly inconsistent. And it’s no place for any member of government to butt in and instruct private citizens on how they can conduct their private activities. If you want to not put a target on our soldiers’ backs (which countless veterans who’ve called into my show tell me is already there) maybe stop the Wikileaks crap, stop broadcasting to terrorists when we’re leaving Afghanistan, stop getting in front of the cameras and drumming up attention to what one dude in Florida wants to do. And these people run our government? Facepalm.

Obama says that “As Americans, we will not or ever be at war with Islam.”

How many thousands of people must be murdered by Islam before he stops saying such?

Where did this nation’s balls go?


Why Elena Kagan is Unqualified for SCOTUS

Well, I’m glad she believes it’s OK to pass laws infringing upon our rights because the law she’s to rule under won’t enforce them. I’m not so convinced.

I’m also amazed at the people who say they’re for free speech, free this, free that, but are perfectly willing to submit themselves to a government simply because they’ve been led to believe, by wonderful marketing, that they’re on the same team. Supporting tyranny simply because your side is in power yet decrying it when your side is not in power? That’s not even political. It’s petty, except that word is too suggestively small to accurately convey the enormity of how egregious this infringement really is.


Interview with the NRA on the DISCLOSE Act

“We had to put the Second Amendment over the First Amendment.” (7:21)

Yes, it’s common sense to credit the NRA for its involvement with the McDonald vs Chicago case and its fight for the Second Amendment, which, I think, would have been infringed upon even greater longer ago without the NRA.


I don’t like what I’m seeing with the NRA on this – and their wish to protect the Second Amendment by way of seeking exemption under DISCLOSE is nullified if they traded exemption for silence on the hearing of an anti-gun Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as part of of the deal.

You can’t be non-partisan because the Second Amendment, in current society, is not a non-partisan issue.

By silencing yourself, ironically, on an issue for exemption so that you don’t have to be silenced later on is playing with the First Amendment whether you realize it or not.

I laid out the rest of my and your concerns in the interview. Whole show podcast available here, 6/28 first hour.

ACTION ALERT: Melt the Phones for DISCLOSE Act

Vote likely tomorrow. Those who screeched over the Patriot Act and are silent over this? That shows how much you truly care about freedom. Regulated speech is NOT free speech. This, the government abridgment of free speech, is the true definition of censorship.

Even though Pelosi took it off the floor last week, it’s baa-ack. Vote tomorrow. Little by little until there’s nothing else free left. Democrats can’t be bothered to help jobs, pass a budget, clean up the Gulf, but they have time to trump up reports and make unConstitutional policy abridging free speech.

From The Hill:

The House Rules Committee on Wednesday is expected to consider the Disclose Act, legislation authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that requires greater disclosure on campaign funding.

The chamber could vote on the bill as early as Thursday and leadership is confident they will have the votes to pass it, according to a House aide.

Earlier on Tuesday, Van Hollen’s office released poll results showing the bill has overwhelming bipartisan support with 87 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of Independents supporting the bill.  Over 90 percent of Democrats also support the measure.

Who the hell are the Republicans supporting this legislation?

Don’t you love this Randian little title?

The DISCLOSE Act – Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election

Douchebags Ignore Supreme Constitutional Lawful Speech Edict.

Free speech while I can get it.

What don’t you understand about this, congress?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech …

On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (McCain- Feingold) – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year. Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United.

Why this bill blows:

  • It would expand the window for “electioneering communications,” which was 30 to 60 days under McCain-Feingold, to 90 days before a primary or caucus. During that period, corporations and nonprofits would face stringent procedures for any corporate advertising. The electioneering window, once opened, would continue through to the general election. So because presidential primaries fall well before the election, the restrictions could conceivably be in place for over a year.
  • The bill requires a mountain of paperwork, because companies must submit a list to the FEC of all donors who contributed more than $600. “In the 1950s, the NAACP went to court to say it should not have to disclose its membership list,” Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans Von Spakovsky says. He contends the provision to disclose members’ names poses constitutional problems “because it interferes with their right to associate.”
  • […]
  • In a precedent-setting exemption, the Disclose Act for the first time would restrict the activities of nonprofits and companies, but not unions in some cases. Opponents point out that unions recently spent over $10 million in an unsuccessful bid to defeat Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary. “This is the empower-labor-unions-over-everybody-else act,” says Norquist. “It’s making it illegal for Americans to participate in politics.”
  • It bans any advertising from foreign companies, including domestic companies that have 20 percent or more foreign control.
  • The names of all donors who give $1,000 or more to an organization must be disclosed to the FEC, if the organization spends more than $10,000 on political advertising. Labor unions are included in this provision.
  • It requires CEOs to appear on camera stating they “approve this message.” Those familiar with how political fundraising work say this alone would scare away political speech by the vast majority of companies and associations. Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, one of the groups that signed the anti-Disclose Act letter, tells Newsmax: “I see this as a threat especially to conservative nonprofits, but really to nonprofits in general, because that’s ultimately where the corporate spending that is being attacked here is coming from. Donors very often ask about anonymity. That’s important to them. I could see the groups losing a lot of donations. It’s meant to have a chilling effect, and it will have a chilling effect. I think it’s going to have a horrible effect on nonprofits groups.”
  • The top donor to the organization, who might not have donated any money for that particular ad, would be required to appear in the commercial to provide the public with information on those funding the commercial. Also, a TV ad would have to list the top five funders to the organization, and radio ads would have to disclose the top two funders. Disclose Act opponents point out the additional time required for the burdensome disclosures would make the ads prohibitively expensive.


Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration 202-225-2801 202-225-5823
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy 202-225-5315 202-226-6866
Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-02), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications 202-225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 202-225-2565 202-226-2274
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 202-225-6161 202-225-8671
Barrow, John (GA-12) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 202-225-4076 202-225-5602
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 202-225-3631 202-225-2203
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 202-225-2701 202-225-3038
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 202-225-5235 202-225-5615
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) 202-225-2901 202-225-8913
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 202-225-6131
Carney, Christopher (PA-10) 202-225-3731
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 202-225-4306 202-225-3549
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 202-225-4311 202-226-1035
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 202-225-3341 202-225-9308
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 202-225-1640 202-225-1641
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) 202-225-5406 202-225-3103
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 202-225-6831 202-226-5172
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 202-225-3915 202-225-6798
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) (202) 225-4231
Holden, Tim (PA-17) (202) 225-5546 (202) 226-0996
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) (202) 225-5311 (202) 225-0254
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) (202) 225-2731 (202) 225-5773
Markey, Betsy (CO-04) 202.225.4676 202-225-5870
Marshall, Jim (GA-08) 202-225-6531 202-225-3013
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) (202) 225-3011 (202) 225-5638
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) (202) 225-4031 (202) 226-3944
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 202-225-6306 202-225-2943
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) (202) 225-6611 202)225-3029
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) (202) 225-2190 N/A
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) (202) 225-2865 (202) 225-2807
Murphy, Scott (NY-20) (202) 225-5614 (202) 225-1168
Nye, Glenn (VA-02) (202) 225-4215 202225-4218
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) (202) 225-2165 202)225-1593
Salazar, John (CO-03) 202-225-4761 202-226-9669
Scott, David (GA-13) (202) 225-2939 202225-4628
Space, Zack (OH-18) (202) 225-6265 (202) 225-3394
Tanner, John (TN-08) (202) 225-4714 (202) 225-1765
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 202-225-5772 202.225.7074

(h/t Bill)

I will cut up my NRA membership card if this act passes congress.

Yep, Liberals Still Freaking Out Over Erick Erickson

The state is hard up to get RedState’s Erick Erickson on SOMETHING, so angered are they that CNN dared to employ the conservative blogger as a commentator. I thought the left liked diversity? Huh. From Big Government:

The other day on his local radio program, RedState.com blogger and CNN Contributor Erick Erickson delivered a 13 minute segment on the census and the lengthier, American Community Survey (ACS).  It was a solid bit of talk-radio monologue, including extensive recitation of an excellent article at The Weekly Standard by Daniel Freedman.  Freedman’s piece details his personal experience with the ACS, the highly personal and intrusive questions and most vividly, the dogged “follow-up” by an ACS bureaucrat who visited his house unannounced, demanded entry and threatened punishment.

He also spent some time mocking the members of extreme groups who fear giving information like this to the Government will lead to a New World Order.  He even mocked the paranoia of these conspiracy fringe groups by pretending to hear black helicopters.

He then went on to distinguish between the constitutionally mandated census and the extensive and over-reaching ACS.  Over nine minutes into his monologue, Erickson expressed his incredulity over the harassment from the Commerce Department employee who was so dogged in her pursuit of the valuable information about Mr. Freedman’s toilets:

What gives the Commerce Department the right to ask me how often I flush my toilet? Or about going to work? I’m not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife’s shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They’re not going on my property. They can’t do that. They don’t have the legal right, and yet they’re trying.

So, of course, over the past few days the headlines have not been “Erick Erickson Admonishes Listeners to Obey the Law and Fill Out Census”.

The left has balls for attempting to lie and mush Erickson’s words up so that it makes him seem crazy and if the messenger seems crazy then SURELY the message is crazy, too. At least, that’s what the state media wants people believe, it’s what the state media thinks people are stupid enough to believe. They can’t have the threat of an informed electorate!

Oh noes! They’re getting informed! This Erickson guy is bad news!

Quick! Let’s use the old tactic of race wars!

Sir, that tactic is already in play against the tea party!

Crap! Wait – he told a story about guns right? On the same day he discussed the census?

Yes …

Then call it crazy! String it together and make it a headline about Erick Erickson threatening census workers! Boom! Pow!

The inability of the White House or many on the left to adequately counter substantive points and valid concerns which is the reason why they employ ridiculous tactics meant to discredit the messenger instead of the message. Unfortunately for them, the tactics used to neuter the scope of the messenger do nothing to the message.

FTC meddles in blogger content, free speech

More big government. The FTC says basically anyone receiving anything (due to broad, poorly-written regulations) must pay an $11,000 fine.

The Federal Trade Commission will require bloggers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

It is the first time since 1980 that the commission has revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials, and the first time the rules have covered bloggers.

But the commission stopped short today of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest.

The FTC said its commissioners voted, 4-0, to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation.

The rules take effect Dec. 1.

Because Uncle Sam think the public is too stupid to make decisions alone or to recognize endorsements verses common reviews. So if a company sends you a dollar-store toy, you will be scrutinized by the government, regardless whether you were asked to post a review or not. The FTC was very clear in their repeated use of “case by case basis” in their report.

Decisions about violations will be made on a case-by-case basis, but if someone receives cash or an in-kind payment to review a product, it’s considered an endorsement.

The government is attempting to put all website, both personal and professional, under its thumb under the guise of protecting consumers from dishonest bloggers and bloggers from dishonest companies. It shows a lack of faith in both the public and the blogging community which has been doing just fine and doesn’t welcome the bureaucracy. This is all about the Benjamins in the name of regulation. Uncle Sam saw a way to make money while controlling speech.

Finally, the Commission disagrees with those who suggest that including in the Guides
examples based on these new media would interfere with the vibrancy of these new forms of
communication, or that the Commission should, instead, defer to industry self-regulation.
Whether or not the Guides include examples based on these new media does not affect the
potential liability of those who use these media to market their products and services. The
Guides merely elucidate the Commission’s interpretation of Section 5, but do not expand (or
limit) its application to various forms of marketing.
And although industry self-regulation certainly can play an important role in protecting consumers as these new forms of marketing continue to evolve and new ones are developed, self-regulation works best when it is backed up by a strong law enforcement presence. [my emphasis]

Sadly, in terms of social media, their argument is wholly unsupported by facts. The blogosphere polices itself rather well and those who lack transparency in marketing lose their audiences and the community isn’t above cannibalizing one of their own for the sake of keeping the practice pure. We don’t need bureaucrats dictating our own content policies. Granted, there are some who aren’t as transparent as others, but they’re usually not skilled enough to disguise it. I myself receive free items regularly and it’s always been my own personal policy to disclose this, which I have. I’ve refused offers from companies who’ve suggested that I act otherwise. I created this self-policing policy because I, like most other bloggers, realize that our reputations are virtual currency.

The Commission recognizes that many other hypotheticals could be posited that would be far more difficult to answer; those will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I wonder who will determine each case and how much extra that will cost taxpayers?