The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “Freedom of Speech”

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady Part 3 – Playing Chicken With Homosexuality

Since Chick-fil-A founder and president Dan Cathy “came out” and publicly opposed gay marriage, liberals, predictably, have been denouncing him and every conservative under the sun for what is unfairly, but routinely, referred to as bigotry, homophobia and hatred of an entire people.  Nancy Pelosi, our own Iron-ing Lady has clucked into the conversation as well.  And in case you ever wondered where she acquired her greasy fingers, she has provided us with that answer in her paltry attempt at sneering her nose at Chick-fl-A, and conservatives, while endearing herself to those gays and lesbians who are just weak-minded enough to overlook her condescension towards them.  Pelosi has stated she prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken over Chick-fil-A.

We know that in real life Pelosi could care less about KFC or Chick-fil-A.  But our Iron-ing Lady needed to make some type of statement to her homosexual and liberal base to acknowledge her “disgust” with Cathy for his stance on tradition marriage, no matter how blatantly irrational and obviously false.  This is what liberals do, after-all.  They merely blow with the wind, in whatever direction that wind happens to be blowing on that particular day.  Pelosi thought she could use a “controversy” (which what Cathy stated is not) and make conservatives look weak and foolish, hateful and bigoted, while at the same time propping herself up as a model of endearing tolerance and acceptance.  Pelosi has merely shown herself to be the fool.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 1940’s  and 50’s when there was virtually universal agreement among conservatives that homosexuality was an absolute abomination, and that included going so far as to regulate what gays and lesbians did in the privacy of their own homes.  That type of mentality no longer exists in modern conservatism.  Most conservatives, today, while they may oppose gay marriage, and may oppose homosexuality itself, have absolutely no desire to regulate or control or punish the act of homosexuality.  Certainly not to the extent of our parents and grandparents generation.  And we neither are interested in regulating what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes any more than we desire to regulate what they do in public – within the realm of reasonable and polite conduct, which also goes for heterosexuals.

While tolerance for homosexuality has dramatically increased within conservative circles, that doesn’t mean we regard homosexuality as either a civil or Constitutional right.  And we certainly do not support judges making up laws based on their own personal opinions.  We, conservatives, (most conservatives at any rate) are not interested in punishing someone for being gay or lesbian.  We certainly do not want laws on the books that ban homosexuals from participating in, and alongside of, society.  Nor do we desire to push them out of society.  In fact, most conservatives today openly welcome gays and lesbians into society, as we do with anyone who acts in a responsible, dignified and proper manner in public.

Most homosexuals who are liberal (for we know there are many conservative gays and lesbians as well) are hell-bent on pushing themselves and their marriage equality agenda on our entire nation, with total and absolute disregard for what the will of the people want.  That is sheer arrogance and a recipe for a devastating set-back for homosexuals in America.  And as America moves back to its conservative roots, while it accepts homosexuality to a greater degree than in decades past, if gays and lesbians agitate and aggravate conservatives too much, that support will begin to diminish and homosexuals will be back to pre-Stonewall times.  This ought to frustrate the hell out of conservative gays and lesbians who know the games that liberals are playing with them, at their expensive.  And conservative gays and lesbians ought to know that liberals who play these games with their sexual orientation only do so because they feel it will score them political points, not because they, like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, really cares about you or whether your rights, and your entire lifestyle, are being trampled on by a restaurant owner.

If gay marriage is ever going to come to fruition in America, it can only do so when a majority of American people favor such a redefining of marriage, and show that support in the voting booths.  Gay marriage, indeed, homosexuality itself, will make no inroads so long as it continues to force itself on the America people and make absurd and improper demands on us such as to either accept them or be labeled and branded as bigots and homophobes.

We, conservatives, are much stronger, and more resolved, than weak-minded buffoons like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Not only is she playing chicken with homosexuality, she is chicken.  So are all liberals who have come out in opposition to Cathy and his American right to have and to voice his opinion.  Freedom of speech is not only for liberals.  But every time a conservative speaks up on behalf of an issue liberals reject, said liberals try to silence conservatives.  Cathy said nothing improper, nothing bigoted, nothing hateful.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is far more hateful, far more bigoted, and far more a hypocrite for her pathetic response to Cathy than is Cathy towards gays and lesbians.  Why?  Cathy is sincere in his stance against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with homosexuality in of itself.  How sincere is Pelosi, really, towards homosexuality, or any issue that she supports, which she only supports because she has been told by strategists such support will equate into more votes for her?  Try as Pelosi might, this Iron-ing Lady cannot smooth out the wrinkles of her convoluted absurdity.

In fact, the fabric of liberalism, on which these wrinkles reside, have so distorted, and so faded, the original facade of this outfit that at this point it is best to just throw it out and buy something new.  (Some might consider this to be an insult against Pelosi herself.  It is more of an insult against liberalism, than any one liberal.  But, and although Pelosi is old and is showing her age, and as a politician is indeed worn, faded and wrinkled, it could also be taken to mean it is time to replace Pelosi with a fresh face in congress that is not so set, as stone, in their ways.)

It’s up to all gays and lesbians to decide how far they want to take the issue of gay marriage, and in which direction they wish to take it.  America is in fact becoming more conservative, little by little.  Either they can reject liberals like Pelosi, who only pander to them, and embrace conservative who, although may not support gay marriage, certainly do not support outlawing and punishing homosexuality or homosexual behavior – and would accept, in principle, homosexual marriage if that is what a majority of Americans also supported.  Or – gays and lesbians can fall and collapse back into themselves and lose everything they have fought so hard to attain for so many decades.  It is all a matter of priority, and what is most important to gays and lesbians.  Fighting a losing battle, or accepting that gay marriage is not realistic right now, but may be, and would have a better chance of being real, in the future if they were more patient.

Nancy Pelosi, the Iron-ing Lady, is willing to push back the gains made by gays and lesbians for her own personal agenda.  How is that working for homosexuals, and improving upon the homosexual cause, in America?

After Brett Kimberlin blogburst, RedState blogger/CNN contributor Erick Erickson and family victims of SWATting; will CNN cover the story?

Neosecularist:

Brett Kimberlin’s reign of terror continues. Whether or not this was Kimberlin himself, or one of his associates is not yet known. However, it was to be expected. And, likely it will occur again. Every single one of us must remain vigilant, strong and united. Kimberlin will go after the big fish; those bloggers who are well known, established and have an enormous reach. What that means for the rest of us is – keep on this story. Those of us with more leg room, more freedom of movement because we are under Kimberlin’s, and his associates, radar, ought to use that to our advantage. This dirty, illegal tactic of “swatting” must be dealt with. It is incumbent upon us to relate and reblog these stories as they occur. What is being done to those bloggers who have been “swatted” is revenge by Kimberlin and his associates for their daring to speak the truth about Kimberlin. Kimberlin is a coward, hiding behind frivilous lawsuits and criminal “swatting” activities. Law enforcement will catch up to him. They at least, by now, ought to be on to him. We can’t be the only ones. But right now – we are the only ones. It is up to each and every one of us to change that. We can, we will, make that difference that is essential and imperative to ending Kimberlin’s reign of terror. Our voices will not be silenced. Not by Kimberlin, not by anyone. The only person that can silence your voice is – you. This is political theater, not a movie theater. Silence on this matter is not “golden”. It’s dangerous, and it could be deadly, literally, for those bloggers Kimberlin or his associates specifically goes after. We must stand behind them, and with them. We must stand and fight. What say you?

Originally posted on Twitchy:

Earlier today, Georgia police were called to RedState blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson’s house by a person claiming that there had been an accidental shooting at his residence. Erickson’s unsuspecting kids were outside when the cop cars showed up with flashing lights. The tactic is known as SWATting because of its intended purpose to provoke a…

View original 706 more words

Who Is Brett Kimberlin? Conservatives Need To Know! (Inform The MSM Too)

Apparently Brett Kimberlin is an American terrorist who stops at nothing to silence his critics, including intimidation and murder.  He is also a liberal activist (surprised?) who has been funded by George Soros’ Tides Foundation, Barbara Streisand and Teresa Heinz Kerry.  And, one more thing – we are all supposed to be deftly afraid of him coming after us if we speak about him, literally.

Kimberlin seems intent on silencing everyone, any way he can, who speaks about him.  But isn’t that an act, a form, of cowardice in of itself, from someone who does not want to put on a defense?  Isn’t it the coward who uses verbal threats and intimidation tactics from a far distance so as not to actually have to confront the person they are attacking?  And isn’t that the epitome of liberalism?

Kimberlin spend time in prison for his terrorist activities and while there he began suing everyone, including the victims of his attacks.  Despite his lifelong criminal activity, he is, or has been, supported by liberal foundations.  We might understand why Soros would support him.  Do we understand why “Unfunny Girl” Barbara Streisand and Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry gave him money?  Who else is contributing to him, and has any of this money been used in his intimidation of all the bloggers who have written about him?  What is their connect to Kimberlin?  How closely related to Kimberlin’s activities are they?  And – why haven’t they been questioned by the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc. for their involvement?  What, and who, is protecting and sheltering these liberal elites from prosecution?

There is a very suspicious, evil and criminal element loose in America that is helping Kimberlin evade further prosecution.  That same criminal element is aiding the likes of Soros, Streisand, Heinz-Kerry and anyone who is, or has, funded Kimberlin.  Their intent is to silence not free speech, but conservative speech and those conservatives who have courageously written about Kimberlin and exposed his criminal past and his current dealings.

Our silence is what Kimberlin is counting on.  Our silence provides Kimberlin, and all his assorted associates, the cover they need to freely operate, to freely attack, harass, intimidate.  Kimberlin is apparently able to do this shielded within his Justice Through Music Project, which brings together popular bands and musicians who in turn help get young people involved in politics (the Democrat Party) and to protest on behalf of the Democrat and liberal agenda and to get out the vote.

We still have not answered the question – do any of these musicians know of Kimberlin’s past?  And if they do, is that why they associate with him?  What about the young people who are being sucked into this “Music Project”?  Do they know they are getting involved in, and committed to, a “Project” run by a terrorist?  And exactly what kind of “justice” is being called into action?  Well, anything that supports liberalism and helps defeat conservatism.  That’s how they define “justice”, and that undoubtedly attracts young people who have been inundated with anti-American rhetoric their whole public-school lives.

We must not be afraid to demand to know exactly what Kimberlin is up to.  We must not be afraid to demand to know how involved Soros is in funding Kimberlin and sheltering him.  We must not be afraid of the retribution he apparently wages against his critics, and for some reason is not arrested or prosecuted for.  We must not be afraid to take a stand.  Whatever Kimberlin is allegedly capable of doing, we must stand up to it.  Whatever proof of intimidation and harassment Kimberlin has conducted against his adversaries must be published and republished, and spread wide and far throughout the blogosphere.  We must press the MSM to become more actively involved in this as well.  We must press for more disclosure from Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Teresa Heinz-Kerry and anyone else known to be, or to have been, involved with Kimberlin.  We must continue to find and expose all others involved with Kimberlin.

Who is Brett Kimberlin?  And who is Brett Kimberlin to think he can intimidate us?

Controversial Art By Student Disgusts, Nauseates Rhode Islanders (Worse Than Porn And Piss Christ Combined)

Sometimes art is not art.  And sometimes art for the sake of art is simply pornography in disguise.  That is the case with one piece of, shall we say “art”, drawn by one public school student and displayed on her school wall.  Only there is no disguising the message of, or behind, this mural.  Its vivid starkness glares down at us, as we look up at it.  Its candid gratuitousness mocks our everyday norms and standards, belittles and ridicules us in horrible, torturous ways, and makes us as uncomfortable as a bug caught in a glass of formaldehyde.  How can we possibly get a wrong impression of what this “art” represents?

It was one thing to have the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.  It was also one thing to have Christ submerged in urine.  These works of ‘art” were meant to be and represent the powerful anti-Christian, anti-religious message sweeping across America at the time; the bold new artistic form millions of Americans fell in love with and still defend to this day.

But sometimes, some people take things too far.  Sometimes an artist comes along and interjects a message so controversial, so obscene, so blatantly pornographic and devoid of any value, artistic or otherwise, the people are obliged to throw up their hands in utter and absolute disgust and vomit in rage.  That has happened in Rhode Island, and with just and moral cause.

Liz Bierendy, a 17-year-old artist who attends Pilgrim High School in Warwick, R.I., has had to defend her artistic vision for a mural to cover a wall of the high school.

“Defend” is putting it mildly.  What this child has done to her school, her community, her state has set real art back hundreds of years.  What is worse is that, although her school originally covered up the mural, (the controversial part anyway) it has since been uncovered and Liz has been allowed to finish it as she saw fit.  This final product, this vision of hers has cast a dark shadow over her school and until the good people of Rhode Island stand up and demand it be permanently trashed, anyone viewing it will get extraordinarily peculiar ideas in their heads, foreign ideas, outdated and antiquated ideas of Rhode Island and which the good people of Rhode Island thought they had finally put behind them once and for all.  The past is coming back to haunt Rhode Islanders, and it is all the fault of one very deranged girl who should have had sense enough to know how much damage her “art’ would cause.  Where were this child’s parents?  View this “art” for yourself and see what “choice” words you might have for her parents.

What are any parents supposed to do, now that this mural is on full display for their impressionable children to see as they walk down the school hall from one class to the next?  These students will see this “art” every day, and somehow have to live with themselves.  How are parents supposed to explain to their children the meaning behind the mural without throwing up?  How do teachers, administrators and staff explain why this “art” was allowed to remain, knowing that students will be compelled to look at it, talk about it – and perhaps even admire it, and copy it?

That is the worst part.  Students who look at this “art” might just copy it.  Rhode Island has worked hard, for decades, to instill certain values in their students, and to remove other, old-fashioned values that are relics of America’s historical past.  If only Liz had defecated on a Bible or a picture of the Pope in protest of the priest pedophile scandal, or over the Catholic Church’s stance on contraception and birth control and submitted that as art.  Liz would have been a national hero and icon.  She didn’t do that.  She took a more extreme measure that has the “art” world turned upside down.  Recover?  Good luck!

Judge for yourself, but be warned – it’s not for the squeamish.

What kind of message does this instill in our children?  This repulsive, inhumane drawing depicts the life of a boy as he grows into a man, eventually marrying a woman and having a child.  (Both wife and child are at his side in the last image)  Can you understand, now, why this mural is so controversial in the State of Rhode Island?  Can you understand, now, why school officials originally wanted it removed?  Can you see the controversy staring down at you?

Profanity, Ad Hominem Attacks, Tim Minchin and Reason

Tim Minchin made a fool of himself and of secularism at the Reason Rally last week, and showed himself to be the real bigot, by interjecting vulgar and coarse profanity aimed at the Pope.  If that statement bothers secularists, atheists and other non-believers – why?

Either secularists are above such emotional and disturbed displays or we are no better than those who spew ad hominem attacks at us for not being religious.  One cannot be a person of “reason” and rationality, and then turn around and become exactly the kind of depraved non-religious fundamentalist we, who are reasonable secularists, decry as being narrow-minded and bigoted.

How are we ever supposed to debate religious people, and win debates based on sound reason and rationality, if all we do is let our own emotions take over our intellectual prowess?  If the reality is that people are drawn to religion more because it is of great comfort to believe in something, rather than nothing, how does what Tim Minchin did, how does what any non-believer does, by mocking, ridiculing, debasing religion with mere ad hominem attacks, as opposed to sound logic and sagacity, bring those people still teetering on the edge of either accepting religion or secularism closer to secularism?  How do we engage with non-believers so as to enlighten them with provocative insight, instead of lighting them up with anger, fury and outrage?  What can we, as secularists, give to those people who want to believe in something, but don’t necessarily want to believe in the supernatural?  Or is there some idea being fostered that ad hominem attacks are a way of breaking the ice, so to speak?

We all agree – secularists and believers alike – that the decades of child abuse at the hands of priests was an abomination, and what the Catholic Church did by covering it up, how they covered it up and that they denied it for so long is also an atrocity.  Well, there are still over one billion Catholics in the world, and tens of millions right here in America.  They did not abandon their faith because of this scandal – what makes anyone think they would abandon their faith when atheists like Tim Minchin sling insults at them?  Or, does anyone really believe insults hold a curious and awesome power – more so than rational and reasonable thought?  If it is true that some religious people lose a portion or all of their faith from catastrophes, religious or otherwise, and from internal schisms – isn’t it true that Catholics, and all religious people, are strengthened in their faith when they witness secularists behaving badly, and in ways that mock their religious faith?

What exactly is “funny” about Minchin’s anti-Pope song, what precisely is the justification for it, how does it benefit us or secularism and how does it move secularism from out the shadows, and us from out of the “closets” which many non-believers still fear we are being trapped in, and portray us in a more positive light and a more attractive alternative to religion?  After-all, wasn’t the Reason Rally intended to be as a “coming out” party?

Will religious people, who listen to Tim’s song, have an “immaculate” inspiration and abandon their faith?  Are you, as secularists, driven to religion, and to be religious, when someone tells you, you are going to Hell for not being a believer?  If you said no, if you said that is ridiculous – why would anyone expect any religious person to drop their faith for secularism over Tim Minchin’s anti-Pope song?

There is a time and a place to vent ones anger, however intense, however obscure, with regards to religion, religious practices and whatever perceived dominance and control, and hold, people may think religion has.  A gathering of “intellectual” minds in a public square in order to showcase secularism, to demonstrate how and why secularism is more advanced and evolved than religion is not that place.  And yes, it is wrong to subject children to such language and such bigotry.  Imagine an anti-Islam rally.  Imagine a Tim Minchin like character singing not an anti-Pope song but an anti-Prophet Mohammad song.  Is there any doubt the MSM, you, perhaps, (those of you who support Tim Minchin’s song) would call that Islamophobia, bigotry, hate speech, etc.?  Somehow, when it is directed at Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, and anything non-Islamic, such bigotry and hate speech gets a pass.  We know why that is, don’t we?

Tim Minchin hates religion.  Fine.  But – why hate religion in the first place?  In other words, if you think you have a better and stronger position and alternative to religion, rather than focusing in on ad hominem attacks, take a particular religious issue and debate it rationally, challenge it and defend your position through logic and facts, rather than through the same emotional hysteria secularists accuse the religious of engaging in.  But if you still feel ad hominem attacks win debates – with myriad of juvenile attacks coming from the religious, directed at us, over the years and decades, are you willing to admit your own defeat and join a religion?  If not, do you really expect the religious to be, to feel, to act any differently when Tim Minchin insults them?

And, if you are more inspired to be secular through Tim Minchin’s song, his ad hominem attacks, just imagine all the cumulative waste of knowledge, foresight and provocative insight spoken, written and covered by secularists throughout the ages.  Isn’t it sad and pathetic to think about the time and energy of thousands of authors misspent looking for practical answers through reason and rationality, and critical thinking, when all they had to do to win their arguments every time was direct ad hominem attacks at their adversaries and their opponents?

Rush Limbaugh Was Wrong To Apologize

Sandra Fluke started something that deserved a response, even if that response was in some ways hostile, insulting and derogatory.  Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for having the audacity and the arrogance to air her grievance over Barack Obama’s contraception mandate, and the push by some members of that congress to overturn it.  Sandra Fluke argued that the mandate was necessary because she could not afford to keep buying birth control and contraception for herself, and as a result she had to cut back on the amount of sex she was engaging in.  She also mentioned some other women whom she had spoken with were in the same situation.  Sandra Fluke is the one who introduced her sex life to congress, and de facto the entire nation.

For that, Rush called Sandra a slut and a prostitute, which he has since apologized for.  Stinging words, perhaps.  But, what else do you call someone who goes around having sex all the time with many different people?  And what do you call someone who wants us, the taxpayers, to pay for her birth control and contraception so she can continue engaging in sex without worrying about the consequences of her actions?  If Sandra is not a slut, what is she?  A demon?  A vixen?  A tramp?  A vamp?  What?  Fifty years ago women who did what Sandra does were called sluts, and a lot worse by virtually everyone in the nation.  We have changed, as a nation, in that we have come to accept this type of behavior as normal.  Liberal feminists have done much to corrupt morality in America, especially that morality which men used to respect women for having, and women used to attract respectful men.

From a business point, It is understandable that Rush might have been feeling the heat from his sponsors who advertise on his radio program.  That is one of the disadvantages of being on the radio.  He may have been receiving messages from his station that he either apologize for his remarks or a large number of those sponsors would drop him.  At least one sponsor already has, regardless of the apology.  There certainly was no other reason to apologize except for the backlash he was receiving from his sponsors.  Rush was certainly not saying anything that wasn’t true about Sandra.  Maybe you have to be in radio, and on the radio, to fully understand it.

And let’s not forget what the Left says about conservative women, black conservatives and conservatives in general.  Bill Maher regularly calls Sarah Palin a c**t.  He justifies that by saying he is on HBO.  Still, that is what he calls her.  The Left can get away with any derogatory remark or speech they want.  At least when we call someone on the Left a particular name, there is a logical reason behind it.  The Left just thrown out words as if they were, well – free contraception and birth control.  There is a method to our madness.  On the Left there is only madness.

On the one hand, Rush was wrong to apologize for calling Sandra what she is, a slut.  At least this soon.  He should have waited the weekend out.  He should have spoken with his loyal sponsors – those who were uneasy with his remarks – how he should have reacted to Sandra’s testimony in a way that would not have made them uncomfortable.  After-all, his sponsors came to him, not the other way around.  Rush’s sponsors came to him because he is the number one broadcast radio host in America, drawing millions of listeners a day.  His sponsors came to him, because Rush makes them money.  How many listeners has Rush lost because he called Sandra a slut?  How many sponsors has Bill Maher lost because he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?

On the other hand, sponsors aside, we are at war with the Left, and the prize claimed, for whoever wins, is the future of America, and the reclaiming of America’s past, which the Left has all but rewrote to paint our founders as bigoted, sexist, racist, ignorant Bible thumping hypocrites.  Conservatives don’t need to fight dirty because we have logic and reason on our side.  The Left is the side fighting dirty all the time because they can’t debate the Right without using tricks and lies.  If we are afraid to call Sandra a slut, or any other “offensive” name because we are afraid to lose sponsors or financial support, then we had better damn well think up a proper and fitting name for someone who does what Sandra Fluke does, without invoking “slut” in the definition.  As conservatives, we are eloquent enough in our speech, and proficient enough in our language, to do that.  In any event, this is all an attempt by the Left to silence us on anything we say that might reflect negatively on the Left and cause people to open their eyes and realize how immoral the Left is.

It would have been better for conservatism had Rush not apologized; if he had demanded a better reason to apologize than losing a few sponsors.  Granted sponsors are a radio station’s bread and butter, but this is freedom of speech we are talking about.   Rush never uses the kind of language on his radio program we hear all the time from Bill Maher and others on cable.  Rush is above their childish buffoonery.  So why does Bill Maher still have sponsors?  And who the hell sponsors someone like Bill Maher who calls Sarah Palin a c**t.  Who the hell pays to have a commercial broadcast in-between Bill Maher’s program, after he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  Who are these sponsors that have absolutely no problem with paying Bill Maher to remain on HBO after he calls Sarah Palin a c**t?  We might like to know so that we can lobby them to end their affiliation with Bill Maher, or make Bill Maher apologize for all the times he has called Sarah Palin a c**t.  Isn’t that reasonable?

Either Sandra Fluke is what is wrong with America, or there is nothing wrong with her kind of sexual promiscuity and depravity in America any longer.  But it is having to apologize for calling someone what they really are that is what is demeaning and insulting.  Sandra Fluke got called what she deserved to be called.  Rush Limbaugh got called on it.  He has apologized.  We shall see where that leads him, where it leads conservatism, and where it leads others within conservatism who might want to use specific names to refer to people acting stupidly, or in ways that are destructive to themselves and America.

The Left is fearless in its language usage and telling people on the Right what they really think about us.  Talking about a “fairness doctrine”, why should we not have the same equal rights as the Left has when it comes to name calling?  Why does the Left get special rights while all we seem to get is made to apologize?

More “Sharia Of The Mouth” From Muslims

If an America Muslim kills an American citizen who happens to, in that Muslim’s view, criticize or offend Islam, under Sharia law that killing would then be justified.  This is what some Muslims are pushing for in America as they attempt to incorporate Sharia law into American law.  When they say, for example, the importance of having Sharia law in America is because:

Sharia law guides Islamic life, from praying five times a day to fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and abstaining from pork, alcohol and sex outside of marriage…

This is merely a cover story, a ploy, a sham and a willful canard meant to sway and detract from the real ambitions of those Muslims who are trying to force the Islamification of America onto American citizens; to prevent, through law, any negative critique of Islam by legally protecting Islam from “insult” and “injury” with fines, imprisonment and possibly death.  The idea of executing an American citizen who offends Islam is not hyperbole.  Under sharia law, anyone who offends Islam can be put to death.

Remember the atheist who donned the zombie Mohammad costume?  He was attacked by a Muslim who had become offended by what he perceived to be an insult against Islam.  And although the Muslim was the aggressor, and the atheist was the victim of a horrendous crime, the liberal activist judge nonetheless threw out the case against the Muslim – and keep in mind that was without the aid of Sharia law.

American Muslims (who have devious and ulterior motives for America) don’t want Sharia law recognized in America, and in America law, as a means to “guide Islamic life”.  Nor does this insane, unconstitutional push by loony Muslims have anything to do with being able to “pray five times a day”, or “fast during the holy month of Ramadan”.  American Muslims can do that now.  They don’t need Sharia law for that.  What they do need Sharia law for is to punish, and severely, anyone who would “offend” Islam.  That is what this irrational and dangerous campaign is really all about.

One group of American Muslims is spending millions of dollars on billboard ads in cities across America to promote Sharia law in America, and to portray Islam as “peaceful” and “innocent”, and Sharia law a necessary part of their freedom of religion.

The campaign is a response to efforts to ban Sharia law over the last two years in state legislatures and on ballot initiatives, said Naeem Baig, vice president of public affairs for Islamic Circle of North America.

If this were Christians doing exactly what Muslims were doing, how far would they get in their campaign before the multitudes of anti-Christian zealots came out of the wood-works and hammered the organizers for trying to force their religion on Americans?  How long would it be before someone would invoke “separation of church and state”.  But when we do that with Islam, and Sharia law, we are somehow “Islamophobes.”

Says Baig:

“It’s a small minority of Islamophobes that are pushing the anti-Sharia bills, but it’s becoming mainstream. Now, even presidential hopefuls like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are talking about Sharia.  We see it not only an issue of Sharia but an issue of broader religious freedom.”

Baig is another one of these dangerous, radical Muslims who uses words like “Islamophobes” to describe a real fear that America is under assault from within by people who wish to undermine our culture and out society, and are trying to use the law in order to do it.  Sharia law consists of very strict, and non-negotiable, (that means no wiggle room) tenets and instructions for how to deal with anyone who commits an act which “harms” or brings “disgrace” to Islam.

Sharia law is the only law Muslims adhere to.  That is why, even in America, honor killings occur, and why American Muslims have no remorse for their actions.  They are merely following Sharia law – and Sharia law allows for, and protects, those Muslims who kill for the “honor” of their family and their faith.  They are, at least, protected from legal retribution in nations and states which are controlled by Islamic religious dictators and where Islam has a firm grip on its people.

Interestingly, those Muslims who demand Sharia law in America, themselves have no respect for American law, and even less for America itself.  Yet, they nonetheless would attempt to force their draconian view of law, and of crime and punishment, on us, demand we accept and respect Sharia law – and damn us for being “Islamophobic if and when we don’t.  There is something altogether disturbing about this.

Sharia law attacks come mostly from those fearing radical Muslims are introducing extreme interpretations of Islamic law, such as those practiced in Afghanistan under the Taliban, into American society.

Since it is not just the Taliban or Al-Qaeda that uses Sharia law to enforce its will on its people, that is a non-sequitor.  Or is the Taliban running Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and every other Islamic run nation and state in the world outside of Afghanistan?

America is governed by its Constitution, a unique document which, for over two hundred years, billions of people around the world have come to admire.  Still, and despite its powerful content, there are, and have been, any number of attempts to circumvent, to water down, to erode and to reinterpret this, one of the great achievements in human history; this bold statement which stands for freedom, liberty, prosperity and protections from governments and religions which, at various points in human history, have subjugated, enslaved, dehumanized and murdered its populations for having the audacity to want to live life with dignity and respect.

Sharia law does not allow anyone to live as, or to even be, a human being.  Not so long as it allows for the killing of human beings who might have an alternate view of Islam, or an opinion on any subject matter, Islam or otherwise.  Sharia law is there, and it exists, solely to enforce Islam on people anywhere Sharia law is the law.  And anywhere Sharia law is the law, radical, fundamental Islam will not be far behind.

And if that is untrue, then why else would those American Muslims who demand Sharia law be accepted in America as a separate law for them, care if Sharia law never does become accepted, and what other interest or need could they have in pushing Sharia law on America?  If Sharia is not merely a backdoor effort by American Muslims to let in radical, fundamental Islamic Jihadists whose motivations are to destroy America – why do those American Muslims feel they are hindered by American law and our Constitution in living their lives?

In other words – where in America can a Muslim not live their life, practice their faith – five times a day if they want – in peace, in freedom, in privacy?  What do we need Sharia law for?  Our Constitution already guarantees them freedom of religion.  Obviously that is not good enough for some devious American Muslims, and is not enough to satisfy them.  Because, ladies and gentleman, some American Muslims really want the legal ability and authority to literally get away with murder.  That is the only thing Sharia law provides for, protects and sanctions.  Well, that and the raping of women and little girls, and selling them to pay off debts or satisfy a dishonorable action one family member may have committed against another family.  “Little” things like that.

We are freer, and safer, in America without Sharia law.  We are freer, and safer, living under our current Constitution, which, among other rights, includes the right to criticize, even “offend” and “insult” other religions and religious values.  Or, do you beg to differ?  Do you dare?  Would you dare under Sharia law?

Of “Sam Brownback Sucks” And Sucking Freedom Out Of Speech

It’s not only Barack Obama and the economy that “sucks” right now.  Occupy Wall Street protesters “suck” too.  So does the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party.  And, according to one high school teenager, Emma Sullivan, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sucks.

When Emma made the comment “Sam Brownback Sucks” on her Twitter account during a Youth in Government program where she actually saw Sam Brownback in person, it immediately sent a firestorm of controversy flying through the internet at lightning speed.  In no time Brownback’s staff, which continuously monitors Twitter for any remarks about Sam Brownback, were reading Emma’s tweet.  It must have knocked them off their chairs.  And after they were reseated, composed, and having taken a few deep breaths, they contacted the Youth in Government program, which set into motion what otherwise should have remained irrelevant.

Emma’s wrath has caused great upheaval, turmoil and disruption both to Sam Brownback’s staff and to Emma’s high school principal, Karl R. Krawitz.  He has attempted to force Emma into writing an apology letter to Sam Brownback.  (Doesn’t it “suck” when a high school principal uses their authority to intimidate students?)

Very suspicious was Krawitz’s demand that Emily include “talking points” in her apology letter to Brownback, and it ought to be investigated by the school board.  Demanding an apology letter may be forgiven.  However, what Emma writes ought to be for her benefit, not her principal’s.

Call Karl’s abuse of authority “sucking up” to Sam Brownback or “brown-nosing” Brownback, perhaps vying to score political points or political favor down the road.  “Remember me, Governer,” we can hear Karl saying.  “I was the principal that stood up for you.  Now, what’s in it for me?”  Emma has, as of now, steadfast refused to write such an apology.

Principals do have a right to enforce certain rules within the school itself.  And if Emma had come to school wearing a shirt that said “Sam Brownback sucks”, there may have been grounds to have Emma cover it up or be sent home.  However, because Emma made the comment “Sam Brownback sucks” on her own Twitter account, and because it was a mild, non threatening insult, and because, presumably, Brownback is an adult, the “Sam Brownback sucks” comment should have been left to absorb and disappear into the millions of other tweets coming in to Twitter on a daily bases.

American citizens still have freedom of speech.  We understand there are some limits; and those of us with moral stamina respect those limits.  However, tweeting “Sam Brownback sucks”, while it may be disrespectful, threatens no one.  Politicians have been called worse – much worse in the past, and in the distance past.  Remember the Sedition Act?  Those politicians with a backbone can brush aside insults hurled at them, as more self conscious politicians will easily crumble and fall apart.  We don’t yet know which one Sam Brownback is.

This has become another example of politicians making too much of an issue they ought to have left alone.  This tweet ought to have been left to float away into Twitter oblivion.  That is too late.  Sam Brownback needs to respond publicly with his take on Emma’s tweet.  Emma’s principal needs to respond publicly with why he feels he is right to coerce Emily into apologizing.  Emma needs to respond publicly, aside from her refusal to write an apology to Brownback, and explain what she meant by her “Sam Brownback sucks” Twitter comment.

Indeed, if Sam Brownback has any courage, (which, as a Republican, he damn well ought to) he ought to acknowledge Emma’s right, and the right of all of us, to confront our politicians and denounce them in a non threatening manner.  Then, he ought to challenge Emily to explain her remark.  In particular,  what she feels he is guilty of saying or doing.  This might be, after-all, nothing more than a teenager acting without thinking; a teenager tweeting something to her friends in an attempt to impress them.  This might very well be an opportunity for Sam Brownback to educate Emma.  Without such responses we will never know.

That is a problem.  As Americans, we take freedom of speech for granted.  We assume we can say anything we want, and often we do.  Most of the time what we say leaves not an echo of an imprint.  Often, however, remarks cross the line.  Whether they do or don’t, there is always someone, some group or organization, looking to take away our freedom, including freedom of speech.  Because of Emma’s innocent “Sam Brownback sucks” comment; because a principal has already demanded she apologize; because Sam Brownback has not yet waved it off – anyone seeking to tear apart our freedom of speech will use this incident as another example of why our freedom of speech needs to be more heavily regulated.

Sam Brownback – do the right thing.  Publicly wave off  the “Sam Brownback sucks” comment or challenge it.  Emma – do the right thing.  Publicly respond to why you feel your governor “sucks” or admit it was nothing more than a childish attempt to impress your friends.  Sam Brownback’s staff – do the right thing.  In the future, don’t waste taxpayers money by escalating what is essentially nothing into something more than it was ever meant to be.  Principal Karl – do the right thing.  Stop abusing your authority as a high school principal and use better judgement to solve problems rather than trying to score political points.  And – leave the “talking points” to politicians and political pundits.

And to every politician – leave freedom of speech alone.  Unless it is meant to seriously harm or threaten someone, it is still our Constitutional right to say anything we want.  Including “Sam Brownback sucks”.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: