Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010


Dutch politician Geert Wilders is on trial for speaking out against Islam and inciting hatred. Part of his defense is that he is only speaking the truth. The prosecution took the absurd step of actually arguing that Wilders should not be allowed to defend himself by arguing that his claims are true and based in facts. That's right. Prosecutors are arguing that the truth should not be tolerated. It's now becoming painfully obvious why Geert Wilders is actually on trial - the powers that be don't want to hear the truth. What else can it be?

Via the Canadian Press:
AMSTERDAM — Populist politician Geert Wilders' negative views of Islam — he has called it "retarded" and "inherently violent" — are his opinions, not irrefutable facts, Dutch prosecutors argued Tuesday at his criminal trial for inciting hatred.

Wilders has argued that his views of Islam are supported by expert and academic analysis, and speaking the truth cannot be a crime. He says the charges against him are an attack on the freedom of speech.

But at the second hearing of his closely watched trial, prosecutors countered that there is no general agreement about the nature of Islam, and Wilders' statements are opinions that cross the legal threshold.
Hopefully, this will become a moment similar to what happened in the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United vs. FEC. That trial was about campaign finance and whether corporate dollars could be used to produce political films either for or against candidates. There was a moment of clarity in which the argument of the FEC came down to an advocacy for banning books.

It was an eye-opener and hopefully a man being told he cannot argue his case based on truth and facts is another one.

h/t to Jihad Watch


We are continuing to see the failings of the Alinsky philosophy as strategy for governance. It's great if you want to rabblerouse and gin up public agitation for the purpose of intimidating authority figures to give you what you want but when you're the one in authority, rabblerousing doesn't make much sense. Yet, the Obama administration has decided that such tactics are the best course of action.

This all seemed to start with an email from Organizing for America's Mitch Stewart on October 9th, calling on the Obamautomatons to demand the Chamber of Commerce release its donor lists. In addition to demanding names, the White House accused the Chamber of accepting foreign contributions to run political ads. Even the leftwing media outlets were struck with a touch of apoplexy over that strategy. Even CBS' Bob "I didn't report on the Black Panther story because I was on vacation" Schieffer nearly scoffed at David Axelrod's claims on Sunday.

Obama's love for Alinsky would also explain why Robert Gibbs traipsed out to the podium on Tuesday, despite very strong signs that the decision to attack the Chamber was failing badly, and doubled down, saying that if the Chamber won't release its donors, it must have something to hide. Alinsky insisted that it's all about the fight. Keep the pressure on - it's one of the rules for radicals. As an aside, does anyone remember those phone banks being run by Palestinians in Gaza during the 2008 campaign for Obama?

Click HERE to watch Gibbs double down.

At issue here is that the Chamber isn't required to release any names. While it's illegal for them to accept foreign contributions to run political ads, there's no proof that they've done so. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Bruce Josten appeared on Megyn Kelly's show to explain why the Chamber doesn't release donor names and insists that the Chamber has been 100% falsely accused. Adding credibility to Josten's claim is the fact that there's no evidence to back up the administration's charge.

h/t Hot Air


This time, South Carolina Democrat Senatorial candidate Alvin Greene is interviewed by liberal whack job and easily unhinged MSNBC show host Lawrence O'Donnell. Normally, O'Donnell comes across as completely off his rocker but when doing this Alvin Greene interview, he looks quite mainstream. That is until the end when he actually admits he prefers Greene to DeMint after listening to the man make absolutely no sense for five straight minutes. Someone needs to teach Alvin about nuance and segues. As the interview starts out, O'Donnell playfully asks Greene if he's a witch. Greene was so focused on his talking points, he couldn't even see the intended humor of the question.

Greene did the same thing when O'Donnell prodded him about the origin of a nickname the Democrat nominee received in high school. My curiosity is definitely piqued. After watching this, you're guaranteed to have an almost morbid curiosity about why Alvin used to be called, "Turtle."

It just goes downhill from there.

Via The Blaze

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive