Where does he come up with this stuff?

BRILLIANT! Absolutely BRILLIANT!

This guy, the "Rev" Jim Sutter, he comes up with the greatest tales. I wait with great anticipation to see what he will come up with next! Much of it is so priceless!

In a recent article "You'd Be Amazed Who's Reading this Blog" Sutter eludes to the possibility that people he is investigating (i.e. Foehammer, Robert Spencer, Lady Predator and Cristy Li) are going to be extradited to The Hague and charged with either "war crimes", "crimes against humanity" or both. Yeah, I know, this guy is a laugh riot! He could write for NBC and bring back "Must See TV" on Thursdays if he would put his imagination and talent into making stories for TV instead of trying to pass them off as fact for those that are gullible enough to fall for his fiction.

If you don't want to waste time reading his post, here is the Cliff Notes version:
Sutter is notified (by whom is a complete mystery) to expect contact from an investigator from the United Nations' International Criminal Court.
He spends two hours being interviewed by the ICC investigators.
He will not say who is being investigated or for what.
He gives all kinds of links which he says show that ordinary American citizens are subject to the ICC.

The implication is that if an American exercises their right to free speech (as the folks listed above do on a regular basis), then they can be extradited to The Hague and tried.

This is completely false. The only things Americans can be tried in the ICC for are war crimes and crimes against humanity. And only if those are 1) committed on foreign soil (i.e. not committed in the USA) and 2) the country in which the crimes were committed choose not to prosecute the individual.

Let us amuse ourselves a little and pretend that expressing one's First Amendment right is considered a "war crime" or a "crime against humanity" in some other country. It isn't, and we all know it isn't, but let's travel to Sutter's little land of Make Believe, and pretend it is. The ICC would still not have jurisdiction because they are doing their dastardly deeds in the USA. They reside in the USA, they have blogs on servers in the USA. And we have seen where Canadian bloggers are flocking to servers hosted in the USA to avoid Canadian restrictions on their so-called right to free speech.

We have also seen where the US Court of Appeals has held that an American's rights, as far as publishing goes, does not stop at the border.

I am completely certain that Mr. Sutter would like nothing more than for his fantasies of being interviewed by ICC investigators targeting American citizens, and that there is a grand clandestine cabal of people who are fervently working behind the scenes to take him down, to be true. But sadly, it is just isn't. None of it.

=Bigsibling


Technorati Tags: Rev. Jim Sutter, ICC, UN, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Foehammer, Robert Spencer, Cristy Li, Lady Predator

Sutter's rants are not getting any more intelligent...

In this latest post, the 'Rev.' Jim Sutter makes some humongous leaps of logic, and many glaring mis-conclusions.

First off is his use of the word 'racism'. Dictionary.com defines racism as:

rac·ism (ra'siz'?m)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
   
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Now Sutter states in his article:

However, CAIR was far from the first to complain about his racism, and his racism encompasses at least four religions.

How can one be racist against a religion ( or religions ) that encompass many different races? By this statement, Sutter is saying that Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists or Muslims are only of one race. That is by far a more bigoted stereotypical statement than I have seen or heard in quite awhile. I am certain that the black, Asian, et al. members of the aforementioned religions would be greatly offended by his assumption, and outright declaration, that these religions allow only one race to participate.

He takes what the TV station that canceled Keller says as gospel. I mean, why wouldn't a television station just come right out and say "yeah, we cow-towed to the Muslims (or other special interests), and we'll do it again." No, the television station would do everything it can to keep people from knowing that if the minority flavor of the month (it is Muslims at this point) complain, they will give in.

Furthermore, he draws all the wrong conclusions from the story. But I can't ask him about it on his site, because he doesn't allow my comments to get through, that is why I'm here. Maybe he can read this, and answer some of my question. While I'm certain he will read this, I'm almost equally certain, he will remain silent because his bigotry and hate cannot survive in the light of truth and facts.

He closes with this remark:

A miscellaneous question - why is it that bigots scream that they are protected by Free Speech, yet no one else is? Whenever anyone tries to object to their bigotry, it’s "jihad", "terror tactics", "censorship" or something similar.

Since you can't seem to figure it out Jimmy, I'll tell you why people scream "censorship" in a case like this, and in all of your cases. Because you and CAIR and the others in your corner are not simply objecting to the speech of others. You are not simply saying "what you are saying is wrong and here is why." No, what you and CAIR and the others in your corner are doing is one of the most Un-American things I can think of to do. That is you are trying to completely shut down those who speak up in opposition to your viewpoint. You would like nothing better than for all speech that you deem wrong to be shut down and silenced...forever. You and CAIR and those in your corner would like only acceptable speech - that which you people deem acceptable, to be uttered. And it is terror tactics, and you are completely and unabashedly guilty of this, calling someone a racist when they, in fact, are not and are only espousing differing viewpoints. You hope that by pulling out the ad-hominem attack of calling someone a racist, it will frighten (terrorize) them into submission. That by (completely) misusing the term to attack your detractors, they will back down for fear (terror) of being labeled a racist. So, yes, it is terror tactics you use, and it is called so justly.

In addition, when CAIR demands the silencing of those who point out that Islamofacists exist, and they are a danger not only to the American way of life, but the free world as a whole, that is jihadist in nature. They declare war on anyone who doesn't say that Islam is a perfect religion of peace. That, Jimmy, is why people say what they do, and respond as they respond. Not because they disagree with what you say, it is your actions, specifically, the actions of attempting to shut down any detractors, that cause them to cry foul.

Sutter shoots himself in the foot

In a post decrying ad-hominem attacks on character, our dear friend and (not-so) Reverend Jim Sutter posts a message he received from Cristy Li (I don't know who she is) and comments about it as such:

On 8/9/07, Cristy Li wrote:
Dear Rev. Sutter:

As a courtesy and follow up to you, we have been making some inquiries and have likewise reviewed the information contained in Jihad Watch about you.

It has been brought to our attention this afternoon from persons that know you in Bluffton & Pandora, Ohio they have in-fact confirmed that you have been misrepresenting yourself .

As Jihad Watch has done today, we will be following up with additional information as to "Who is Rev. Jim Sutter?" (The title may change)

Res ipsa loquitur.

Very truly yours,

Cristy Li

Jimmy defines ad-hominem attacks as such in his post:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Now, let us look at what Jimmy says about Ms. Li:

Ms. Li says she was "Born in Ohio and attended Ohio State University, former Law Clerk, I was married in 2002 to a native from China and have no children" (which is not quite true.)

This statement, in essence, calls Ms. Li a liar. He offers no explanation or even attempts to offer any type of proof for his attack on her character. By the definition of ad-hominem attacks he posts in this self-same post, his response to Ms. Li is, in fact, an ad-hominem attack.

This, from the guy who claims to be against all hate, and provide only verifiable facts, yet he constantly lashes out with these personal attacks at those who dare to challenge his status the the ultimate and final authority on what is and what isn't hate speech, and who have the gall to tell him he is wrong when he claims it is illegal for one person to say something that offends another.

=Bigsibling



Technorati Tags: Ad-Hominem, Rev. Jim Sutter, Cristy Li, Bully