Author Archives: BZ

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Posted on by

Freedom Go To HellThere is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via 10news.dk, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course.  We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase.  And one that must be kicked to the curb.  There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations.  The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West.  The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.”  There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark?  You’re about to LOSE your country.  Get prepared.

BZ

 

 Share

Lies Al Gore told me

Posted on by

LIES BY Josef GoebbelsAnd it is upon these lies that various heads of state (think: Barack Hussein Obama) wish to predicate state and nation-busting economic and societal change.  Change that would affect the American Taxpayer directly and — once again — make the American Taxpayer responsible not just for the US but other nations as well.

Here is an article from the UK Telegraph, emphasize my belief once again that if you wish to know what is happening around the world and in our own country, you can kick the American Media Maggots primarily to the curb.

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

by Christopher Booker

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Please note: “the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.”

I ask, take the time to carefully read the rest of the article and click on the indicated notations.

Because Global Warming as a general meme had difficulty to the point that it became the very generic “Climate Change,” so is this meme having difficulty in standing up to the light of day.  And the largest launcher of the so-called “Global Warming” craze taken up by the Religious Left: the poor white bear on the itty-bitty ice shard:

Polar Bear Ice ChunkPoor polar bear.  Brutalized and reduced to riding an ice cube due to that Evil Man.  And thusly anthropogenic Global Warming was born.

Leftists don’t believe in religion because they don’t believe in God.  The only god they bow to is that of Global Warming, which requires every bit of faith or more to believe in than an overarching deity.  Hence the Religious Left dutifully believe in GW because other Leftists say so and it’s emphasized by those who likewise buy into the meme, as in teachers, major networks, Alphonse Gore, Demorats and other on the GW Bandwagon.  A bandwagon that requires only faith, not consistent and true facts.

BZ

P.S.

On that notion, the US Supreme Court — just today — placed limits on the EPA’s ability to decry “Global Warming” and kill coal.

From the WashingtonPost.com:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday placed limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

The justices said that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority in some cases to force companies to evaluate ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This rule applies when a company needs a permit to expand facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution. Carbon dioxide is the chief gas linked to global warming.

Imperial power, being used with regal impunity, courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama — who says: why go through Congress?  I can do anything I wish, myself.

Besides, if you really wanted to stop “Global Warming,” which Leftists believe is solely due to the rise of carbon dioxide emissions — the byproduct of human beings — then kill all the people.  Because the Religious Left say people are therefore responsible, I say: you first.

 

 Share

The US flag: a “threat to Muslims” in America

Posted on by

American Flag Threat To MuslimsFrom KHOU.com:

Man says apartment complex called his US flag a ‘threat to Muslim community’

by Alice Barr

WEBSTER, Texas — A Webster man says his apartment complex manager told him his American flag was a “threat to the Muslim community,” and that he has to take it down. But he’s not giving up without a fight.

Stepping onto Duy Tran’s balcony in Webster, one thing is clear: “It means a lot to me,” he said.

He’s talking about his American flag that he proudly put up when he moved in just a few days ago. But then an apartment manager at the Lodge on El Dorado told him he had to take it down.

“What really stunned me is that she said it’s a threat towards the Muslim community,” said Tran. “I’m not a threat toward anybody.”

There you go.  The American flag is a threat to the Muslim community.  Not in the Middle East, mind you.  No.  In the United States of America.

This occurred in Webster, Texas, at the Lodge on El Dorado apartment homes.  Their mealy-mouthed pablum-smeared PC response:

“While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident’s patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country’s flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community.”  

A “safe and appropriate manner.”  Just what would that be, pray tell?  And how does one display the American flag in an unsafe and inappropriate manner?

However, Mr Tran has said:

“I’m gonna leave my flag there, as an American, until she shows me proof that I don’t have the right to leave my flag there,” said Tran.

To Tran it’s about so much more than stars and stripes.

“I have friends that died for this country,” he said.

First: good for Mr Tran.  This is a man who plans to persevere in his efforts to honor the American flag.

Second: how is is that we as a nation have become so incredibly cowardly in the face of the Politically Correct Gestapo?  It is fear that drives this Leftist movement.  And apparently the administration in this Webster complex is comprised of the craven.

BZ

 

 Share

Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio: “The White House is incompetent and the dumping of illegals is intentional.”

Posted on by

I completely concur with Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

This is an anthropogenic crisis.  Much as the Religious Left believe.

And, at age 82, there is a reason the people of Maricopa County continue to elect him as Sheriff.

It is because of his core competencies and his foundational philosophies.  Plain and simple.  He believes in the Rule of Law, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  He believes in our sovereignty as a nation.

I would be proud to serve as a deputy, as a Sergeant, under Sheriff Arpaio.  I would consider it an honor and a privilege.  In my opinion he is twice the man of my current sheriff or any other sheriff I have served under, save Duane Lowe.  Duane and Joe are Old School.  Both were simple, plain-spoken, courageous and possessed of, now, uncommon sense.  They didn’t stick their fingers up in order to determine the direction of the Political Prairie Winds minute by minute.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio states the obvious — that I have written here prior.  My posts about Arpaio are here and here and here and here and here.

With that in mind, the Washington Times then stuck out its chin in order to write this current column about Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

HUMPHRIES: Exclusive inteview with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio

by Rusty Humphries

“The White House is incompetent and the dumping of illegals is intentional.”

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio takes the dumping of illegal aliens in his Maricopa County as an “affront” because Arizona has been a high-profile critic of federal immigration policy, and Arpaio has been “like the poster boy” for slamming the Justice Department and the White House.

He doubts the massive wave of illegals, many of them unaccompanied minors, is a result of mere administration ineptitude.“I got my own theory,” he said. “I think the White House sometimes is incompetent, but I can’t imagine them doing this without realizing that there was going to be controversy.”

Arpaio thinks President Obama is deliberately courting that controversy because the current crisis on the border gives him a chance to issue more executive orders, or prod Congress into passing immigration reforms that suit the president’s taste.

Having worked extensively on both sides of the southern border, Arpaio doubts that most politicians have a proper understanding of conditions in Mexico or the southern United States. He thinks the drug and gang problems are frequently underestimated, noting that when criminals are deported, it doesn’t seem to take long before they reappear in the United States — sometimes 10 or 15 times.

As I have written, I believe the crisis on our borders is anthropogenic –that is, it is MAN MADE.  And specifically artificially manufactured by Barack Hussein Obama.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio merely confirms my beliefs.  He is there and I am not.  Imagine that.

BZ

 

 Share

Clinton: we can’t be tethered to that inconvenient 2nd Amendment

Posted on by

From the HuffingtonPost.com:

Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority

by Paige Lavender

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.

Translation: we cannot let those who cling to God and guns to stand in the way of the various Leftist goals of a completely defenseless society subject to — well — being nothing more than Subjects.  Proles.  Serfs.  Groundlings.

For one thing, that’s working so well for Mexico — a country controlled by a corrupt government and drug cartels armed to the teeth and willing to set your children on fire.

It’s also working so well for the civilians in Africa.  Name a nation.  Any nation.

And the civilians in Iraq.  Working really well there.  Yes?

This is a shocking statement to me, frankly.  This is Hillary Clinton kicking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights aside.  Which indicates to me that she has no concept whatsoever of the purpose and reasons for the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place.  This is the most disturbing point of all.

As I wrote here back in May of 2010, the issue is that of positive vs negative rights.  I said:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures
– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

Meaning: the conscription of bank accounts, and the redistribution of wealth.  Not just of the so-called “wealthy,” but of you and of me.

In other words, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights purposely constricts the government; it seeks not to expand the role of government.

But back to the present: Hillary Clinton cannot stand that the US Constitution is not a so-called “living document” that is subject to change but upon a whim.  And in her mind, your First and Second Amendments are nothing but fairy dust subject to the temper of the times, as dictated by Leftists.

And that is so incredibly frustrating to her and fellow LeftProgs.

Just clinging to our God and our guns. As the barbarians we are. We: who believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Plus this from TheNewAmerican.com:

Obama, Media Mislead on Gun Crime Statistics in U.S., Australia

by Bob Adelmann

The Troutdale, Oregon, shooting on June 10 gave both the president and the liberal media another opportunity to rehash old arguments and repeat old lies about the need for more gun control in the United States. When Jared Padgett entered a boys’ locker room at Reynolds High School on June 10, he murdered a classmate before being confronted by armed officers. Following that confrontation, Padgett took his own life.

The fact that he stole the weapons from his family home, defeating various security measures, meant that he also defeated any background check measures that were in place to prevent such a shooting from occurring.

That simple fact escaped the attention of the president who, taking advantage of the tragedy, pushed his ongoing agenda for more gun control measures.

He (Obama) then reiterated the myth that gun confiscation measures implemented nearly 20 years ago in Australia had significantly reduced such mass shootings there and that, by implication, the United States should go and do likewise:

A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, “Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,” and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.

But here’s the rub: statistics are statistics.

Neither the president nor Washington Post referred to the latest report from Pew Research which showed that the gun homicide rate in the United States has declined by half since 1993. Said Pew:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew.

The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.

Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

This startling downward trend was taking place at the same time that the number of firearms, and their owners, have been increasing. In just one year, for example, the percentage of American households owning at least one firearm has increased by five percent from 2012 to 2013.

Neither the president nor the Post noted that according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.” When using four deaths per incident, as a recent Congressional Research report did, there were a total of just 547 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in the 30 years from 1983 through 2012, far less than the “one per week” quoted by the president.

And yes.  When gun crime is actually down, gun crime reporting is actually up and purposely so.  For obvious reasons.

Again, more truth that no one wants to have exposed — but I shall do so now and here at Bloviating Zeppelin:

As far as Australia is concerned, the president also failed the Pinocchio test by suggesting that violent crime and gun homicides had declined there since that country confiscated long guns and bought back more than 70,000 handguns following passage of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in 1996. In August, 2008 the University of Melbourne published the results of its study of the matter (“The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”) and concluded that “the results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” But it most certainly did have an effect on relegating its citizens to second-class status. As Australian member of parliament David Leyonhjelm wrote in an email to Guns.com:

The gun laws have made no difference [in] the level of homicides, up or down….

The bottom line is [that] we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost.

If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime … he is seriously misinformed.

Obama.

Seriously misinformed.

Imagine that.

BZ

 

 Share