After all the blah-blah the mainstream media windbags have gassed out, I’m left pondering this whole thing. I remember the Waco Massacre and how our government burned alive 76 people, including 21 children and two pregnant women. Now, if you think I’m going to condone any of those Waco nuts, or any of the recent polygamy and child-marriage, you can rest easy – I’m not. However, bigger issues and ethical dilemmas arise.

For instance, what exactly justifies the government removing confiscating kidnapping over 400 children based on one anonymous call from a purported young girl at this ranch? I mean, shouldn’t they first investigate, find this girl, and THEN legally deal with HER parents only (at least initially)? Can you imagine if someone in your church had abused their children, and because of it all the children in your church – including YOUR children – were taken away by the government and prepped for foster care? Where’s the due process?

Another thing that bugs me is that this would NEVER have happened if it were a Muslim ranch… not in today’s politically correct mire where politicians are stumbling over each other to kiss any large potential voting block’s collective arse.

Perhaps the biggest incongruity I struggle with here is the illogical, irrational, and imbalanced “shock” and “outrage”. I’m talking about “outrage” over a 50-yr-old man marrying a 14-yr-old girl – yet if a 50-yr-old man had instead carved out the girl’s brain at birth, then that’s okay. I’m talking about “shock” that a man would have two wives, but two gay men existing as co-husbands is okay. Polygamy is just an organized and religious “marriage” version of what’s already going on in our inner-cities in a very non-marriage and non-religious context.

Quite frankly, America’s (and Britain’s) inner-cities have sorta become an urban underage-illegitimacy farm where poorly-raised girls of single mothers copulate with multiple poorly-raised boys of single mothers and produce multiple babies by multiple fathers (that we foot the bill for, of course). These children would be better off with polygamist parentssss who are more stable, more nurturing, and wait at least until puberty to whore out wed their daughters… yet it’s the Texas ranch folks who got their kids taken away. [Two great books to read more about inner-city "nurturing" and illegitimacy are Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, and Marriage and Caste In America by Kay Hymowitz]

So I’m troubled a bit. I’m troubled that we’re on a slippery slope and nobody cares enough about some pioneer-dress wearing simple folk to at least raise an eyebrow. I’m raising my eyebrow… and curious to see how this turns out in the next few weeks.

So the Dutch politician Geert Wilders demonstrates some sac – and a little thing called free speech – by releasing a short-film titled Fitna, which means “division among peoples”. The film is a montage. It includes verses from the Qur’an (Koran, Currahn, Cor-anne, Quho’ron, Koh-ron’n???) that could be taken out of context to incite violence against non-Muslims. Interspersed with these verses are scenes from the media that you’d have to be a cave troll to have missed… cowardly acts of Islamist terrorism (September 11 attacks, Madrid train bombings, etc.)… Muslim children calling Jews “pigs”… Muslim clerics calling for death to Jews and Westerners… you get the idea – just the usual. [please don't confuse the clerics with Barack Obama's pastor... although they're close]

So I watched the film. The premise – that the Qur’an is being used (to some extent) in fueling hatred and violence in the name of Islam – seemed to be well demonstrated (proven?). Indeed, the point seems grossly obvious to anyone with a television. Sadly the point is in dispute. Violently in dispute. Violently in dispute?! Isn’t that a double-negative or a oxy-contradiction? Fortunately I didn’t need the film to see that Islam isn’t always very… umm… “peaceful”? And where would I get that idea?

Remember the cartoons? Remember the Pope’s remarks? This recent brouhaha over Fitna has firmly established a grave pattern… that the very right to free speech can be removed – under threat from an extremist mob – when you have pansies in leadership.

From a Reuters article:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

Ban acknowledged efforts by the government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of the film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, and appealed for calm to those “understandably offended by it.”

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Did you read that? The UN Figurehead says that “The right of free expression is not at stake here”!? That there is no justification for this? How about no justification for answering an insult with violence? How about no justification for responding to a cartoon with killings? You see… the UN Figurehead knows that there are a small number of Muslims who are wild extremist animals – unfortunately a small percentage of a billion people is still A LOT OF PEOPLE! So instead of acknowledging the problem he jumps down the throat of the guy revealing the problem. Isn’t that just like today’s world leadership?

From a Breitbart article:

An Internet site said Saturday it had removed anti-Islam film “Fitna” by far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders after receiving threats to its staff amid protests by Muslim nations and the UN chief.

The Britain-based Liveleak.com said it pulled down the video, which can still be seen on other websites, including youtube.com. The film was posted to the Internet on Thursday.

“Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove ‘Fitna’ from our servers,” the site said in a statement.

“This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else,” the online statement said.

Wilders said it was “terrible that these threats deal a serious blow to freedom of expression,” but he told Dutch news agency ANP that he understood the decision to withdraw the short film.

So here’s the ploy… threaten the providers of the medium, and scare them into silence. Fortunately, in this case, LiveLeak.com ended up putting the video back up – I give them points for that. And really, this is what it takes. It takes standing up to the threats and the violence. It takes standing strong and saying that being offended is okay… you’ll survive.

I would be remiss here not to mention that although there are a small percentage of Muslims who are Satan incarnate, there are also a small percentage who are disgusted by the sickening and irrational animal displays of the former group. These are the Free Muslims, and you should read more about them.

And actually, another Muslim group that watches extremists – Islam Watch – recently uncovered some extremism that was just covered here in this FoxNews article:

A report posted on Islam Watch, a site run by Muslims who oppose intolerant teachings and hatred for unbelievers, exposes a prominent Islamic cleric and lawyer who support extreme punishment for non-Muslims — including killing and rape.

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

“Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet,” the Imam says, according to the report. “If you don’t believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain.”

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam’s position, saying that all Muslims are innocent.

Click here to watch the interview with Islamic lawyer Anjem Choudary.

“You are innocent if you are a Muslim,” Choudary tells the BBC. “Then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are not a Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.”

Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

Anyways… without further prattle… here’s the Fitna short-film (courtesy of LiveLink courtesy of Google Video):

Anyways… I hope all my fellow Americans are having a great July 4th, and I just want to leave you with this Independence Day speech from July 4, 1946, given by a young John F. Kennedy (excerpted from his full speech as found in the JFK Presidential Library).

The informing spirit of the American character has always been a deep religious sense.

Throughout the years, down to the present, a devotion to fundamental religious principles has characterized American thought and action.

Our government was founded on the essential religious idea of integrity of the individual. It was this religious sense which inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Our earliest legislation was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

Our first leader, Washington, was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Lincoln was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Our late, lamented President was inspired by this deep religious sense:
“We shall win this war, and in victory we shall seek not vengeance, but the establishment of an international order in which the spirit of Christ shall rule the hearts of men and nations.”

Thus we see that this nation has ever been inspired by essential religious ideas. The doctrine of slavery which challenged these ideas within our own country was destroyed.

Recently, the philosophy of racism, which threatened to overwhelm them by attacks from abroad, was also met and destroyed.

Today these basic religious ideas are challenged by atheism and materialism: at home in the cynical philosophy of many of our intellectuals, abroad in the doctrine of collectivism, which sets up the twin pillars of atheism and materialism as the official philosophical establishment of the State.

Inspired by a deeply religious sense, this country, which has ever been devoted to the dignity of man, which has ever fostered the growth of the human spirit, has always met and hurled back the challenge of those deathly philosophies of hate and despair. We have defeated them in the past; we will always defeat them.

How well, then, has DeTocqueville said: “You may talk of the people and their majesty, but where there is no respect for God can there be much for man? You may talk of the supremacy of the ballot, respect for order, denounce riot, secession–unless religion is the first link, all is vain.”