The Cowardly Left and Islam: Take 1,000,001

Once again the Left fails another test, namely will they defend their values against an aggressor. Once again we see the story of an "army" focusing on an earlier "enemy" and ignoring a new and upcoming threat.

What does the term "controversial" mean?

Once again the media is stirring up trouble, focusing more on promoting a particular point of view than in giving their readers a greater understanding of the issues at hand, yellow journalism at its best. A law is going through the Arizona Legislature that allows: police to make a citizenship/residency check of people already detained for another unrelated offense. The media is calling this a controversial bill and fanning division by falsely saying that the bill allows police to stop people on the grounds of race or accent or accent. This is an outright lie.

What is the first thing a peace officer asks when making contact: "Do you have ID?" If you do, you're on your way (assuming you're not under arrest for the reason he stopped you). If you don't have an ID you're asked to provide your name, date of birth, and Social Security number. What are things most illegal immigrants don't have: Social Security numbers, Driver's Licenses or State IDs. At this point, and only at this point, police officers can determine if the stopped individual is a citizen or a legal immigrant.

One may or may not agree with the bill. One may see problems with this. I do. But simply calling it controvesial every time one mentions the bill is a clear example of media bias.  What exactly does it mean to be controvestial when, according to a Rasmussen Report,  70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration including over 50% of Democrats.

So what does controversial mean? It means that the writers and editors involved in publishing the article are trying to sway public opinion. They don't like the bill and are trying to delegitimize the bill by implying that it's support it limited to a fringe element.

The irony of it all: that Che supporters would find something wrong with wanting something out of the mainstream.

On Religion and the US Army

Here's a quote from Richard Dawkins.net

Actually, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, we certainly should have a "secular goddam military" -- but we don't. Not as long as we have military preachers/priests/imams/reverends/etc., who are on the military payroll -- with all salaries coming from US tax monies. Until these military chaplains are forced to turn in their uniforms, we cannot claim a secular military.

One compromise (and I don't really whole-heartedly support compromises on religion, but -- you know -- baby steps) which may solve the Constitutionality issue would be to require that each religion with a desire to minister to (i.e., "lie to") our troops must provide its own shaman and have all expenses covered by that religion. The Southern Baptist Convention would have to pay salaries and all living expenses for preachers they want to "imbed" with our troops, the Vatican would pay all costs associated with building its chapels near (not on) Army bases, etc. Not one penny would come out of the US Treasury, and NONE of these religulous (thanks to Bill Maher for this word) people would be allowed to wear a US Military uniform.

...... just a little food for thought.

I wouldn't push this. It's not important to me. But I see where he is coming from. On the other hand if our troops want a chaplain shouldn't they be made available to them? If so then the chaplains should stay.

Are we citizens or are we subjects?

Last year Paul Begal wrote that April 15th is Patriots Day.

Begala seems to have the idea that patriotism means that the individual serves the state. How wrong he is and how far we have fallen. The purpose of the state is to protect individual rights; to protect the social contract namely: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take my stuff."

Now we have people who want to flip this ideal on its head: that the government is not here to secure your individual rights but is instead here to protect you from yourself.

Government should be as big as it needs to be to do what it has to do. If there are no limits then there are no individual rights, no individual liberty. Therefore the questions of the day are: "what is the purpose of government?" and "what are the limits placed on what government can do?"

It seems to me, Paul Begala, that these questions were answered over 200 years ago with the writting of the US Constitution. It is you, and those like you, who have forgotten this and are trying to, slowly but surely, subvert the founding ideals and the US Constitution.

This is what people are protesting.

We must all ask ourselves: are we citizens or are we subjects?

Tea Party, First they ignore you

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.

"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."

I hope fair minded people out there see the difference between infiltrating a movement with the expressed purpose of acting in ways to make it look bad and counter-protesting.

These are sad people. If you truly believed in what you were saying and if you believed in free speach you would debate the issues.

Gods of Government

The above video was done by Joe Dan Gorman at joedanmedia.com

I can't say I agree with everything he says but I like this video.

Banning the Niqab

Is it appropriate for the US, France, Belgium and other countries to ban the niqab (the face vail)? YES it is. Behavior in public spaces is not left up to the individual. Even I, a rabid supporter of individual rights, do not claim that. (How interesting though that some leftists / progressives claim differently. We'll leave that contradiction for another post.)

Public property is property held in common. Therefore the public, either through referendums or through the legislature, can - AND DO - determine what is and what is not acceptable behavior and attire.

Furthermore the claim of religious liberty is not applicable. Religious liberty is not an absolute which allows any and all behavior -- especially on public lands.

The burqa and niquab are displays of public behavior. Women need not wear them in private spaces. As such they are legitimate targets of legislation. The only question now is should we? I answer yes to the niqab and no to the burka. Wearing a burka has aspects of political statement as well as religious but that is not a reason to prohibit is. I, after all, consider wearing swastikas, sickle and hammers, che guevara t-shirts to be political statements that are legally, if not morally, acceptable.

The niqab is not acceptable because it covers the face and hides the identity of the individual. Would we accept this behavior for any other reason? No. Therefore should we allow the niqab? No.

To those who make the argument that the niuab is worn solely for religious purposes and for that reason alone we ought to allow women to wear the niqab, I respectfully disagree. One the dispute over whether the niqab is fard (religiously required) or not has been going on among Islamic scholars since the earliest centuries of Islam. Second, as mentioned earlier, religious / cultural norms, while important to take under consideration, are not mandates upon society as a large.

See the article It Makes No Sense To Ban the Burqa

And Republican's are stupid?

His fear is that Guam may tip over. Mine is that he is in the US Congress.

If Sarah Palin had said this it would have been all over the airwaves, played again and again and again and again.

Do Not Turn Your Civil Servants into Your Rulers

In 1992 New Jersey health officials ordered restaurants not to serve raw or runny eggs, to prevent the spread of salmonella bacteria.

Others, such as Mayor Bloomberg of NY, are trying to get you to quit cigarettes and to make it more difficult to eat at fast food restaurants. They know better, they're educated public officials and it is, they say, in the public's interest that such activities are prevented. In such ways are men turned from citizens into subjects.

Michigan' governor, the other day proclaimed:

That I, Jennifer M. Granholm, governor of the state of Michigan, do hereby proclaim March 20, 2010, Michigan Meatout Day in Michigan. In observance of this day, I encourage the residents of this state to choose not to eat meat. Eating a healthy diet can be fun. Explore the different recipes that can be created by using fresh ingredients and by having a sense of adventure.
Granhom Declares Meatout

At least hers is but a suggestion. (For now).

In the 1980s and 1990s gay activists from ACT-UP demanded that AIDS sufferers should be allowed access to drugs even if they hadn't yet been approved by the FDA. Good for them. We need more of that sort of behavior.

The FDA should exist to say "these drugs are approved" and "those are not." But it is up to you to choose whether or not to heed the suggestions.

Do Not Turn Your Civil Servants into Your Rulers

Meet the Militias

Do you think Ali Velshi of CNN wanted these answers from Amy Cooter, or was he trying to steer her to the standard narrative regarding Militias?