Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

How to Politically Motivate the Moderate Majority

The following graphics are slides from a presentation on how to focus efforts to motivate and harness the majority of moderate Americans who are currently divided between the increasingly partisan Democratic and Republican parties. The presentation may be used royalty free for non-commercial uses as long as the entire presentation is unedited and unabridged. PowerPoint, PDF, OpenDocument

Politically Motivating The Moderate Majority:

The Art of The Possible

Motivating The Moderate Majority in partisan republican democrat politics

Are you a Democrat or a Republican or a member of a powerless Independent Party?

Is it possible to have an effective political voice not bound by group-think?

In this era of partisan domination of virtually all media how can moderate voices be heard above the din of the self-serving, power hungry wolves-in-sheep‘s-clothing on all “sides” of every debate?

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

Partisans, Left and Right, seem far more concerned with securing and maintaining power than with serving any public duty.

Their interests are not in problems solved, or compromises reached; a polarized and hostile populace is their goal; indeed, a full-blown “Culture War” is their promised land.

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

The partisans of the Left and Right profit from a black and white worldview; they prefer the public, especially moderates, to see the political world like this:

 

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

This polarized viewpoint causes a distortion in the efforts of the various moderate pundits and politicians; mis-aiming their marketing efforts thusly:

Moderate Marketing Slide  (5)

Reality however does not conform to partisan convenience; this graphic more accurately reflects the spectrum nature of the body politic.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (6)

The problem with moderate marketing is that most of the effort is spent on a politically mushy middle; too uncommitted, too uncaring or just too eager to see all sides to ever take any side.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (7)

This graphic displays a more effective allocation for moderates; Citizens of BOTH parties who are on the independent side of the mainstreams are more likely to vote and seek a more potent political voice; most not being satisfied with the “party-Line”.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (8)

Sometimes a simple paradigm shift can make the difference between a slow defeat and a driving victory.

The question is, will moderates squander their efforts on an ineffectual “middle” or spend their bucks where the bang is, at the middle edge of BOTH parties.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (9)

Moderate Marketing Slide  (10)

 

A Guy DeWhitney/Heretics Crusade Production

Copyright 2011

Blogger Labels: Americans,Democratic,Republican,Moderate,Democrat,Independent,domination,sheep,Left,Culture,spectrum,Citizens,paradigm,DeWhitney,Heretics,Crusade,pundits

Deoband fatwa: It’s illegal for women to work, support family

 
theocracy
LUCKNOW:

Darul Uloom Deoband, the self-appointed guardian for Indian Muslims, in a Talibanesque fatwa that reeked of tribal patriarchy, has decreed that it is "haram" and illegal according to the Sharia for a family to accept a woman’s earnings. Clerics at the largest Sunni Muslim seminary after Cairo’s Al-Azhar said the decree flowed from the fact that the Sharia prohibited proximity of men and women in the workplace.

"It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in the government or private sector where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil," said the fatwa issued by a bench of three clerics. The decree was issued over the weekend, but became public late on Monday, seminary sources said.

At a time when there is a rising clamour for job quotas for Muslims in India and a yearning for progress in the community that sees itself as neglected, the fatwa, although unlikely to be heeded, is clearly detrimental.

Even the most conservative Islamic countries, which restrict activities of women, including preventing them from driving, do not bar women from working. At the peak of its power, the Taliban only barred women in professions like medicine from treating men and vice versa. But there was a never a blanket ban on working, although the mullahs made it amply clear that they would like to see the women confined to homes.

The fatwa, however, drew flak among other clerics.

"Men and women in Sharia are entitled to equal rights. If men follow the Sharia, there is no reason why women can’t work with them," said Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow’s main Eidgah Mosque in Aishbagh.

Mufti Maulana Khalid Rasheed of Darul Ifta Firangi Meheli — another radical Islamic body which also issues fatwas — criticized the Deoband fatwa as a retrograde restriction on Muslim women.

The fatwa was in response to a question whether Muslim women can take up government or private jobs and whether their salary should be termed as `halal’ (permissible under the Sharia) or `haram’ (forbidden).

Well-known Shia cleric Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, however, justified the fatwa. "Women in Islam are not supposed to go out and earn a living. It’s the responsibility of the males in the family," he said. "If a woman has to go for a job, she must make sure that the Sharia restrictions are not compromised," he added, citing the example of Iran, where Muslim women work in offices but have separate seating areas, away from their male counterparts.

In Lucknow, a city with strong secular and progressive traditions, where Muslim families train their daughters to be doctors, engineers and executives, there was a sense of shocked disbelief even in conservative quarters that such a decree could come from those who consider themselves to be advocates of the community.

"I am also a working woman and also ensure that my Sharia is not compromised," said Rukhsana, a lecturer at a girl’s college in Lucknow and a member of the executive committee of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). "It’s not necessary that one would have to go against the Sharia when going to work."

"Name one Islamic country which does not have a national airline and does not hire airhostesses? If I know correctly, even the Saudi Airlines has hostesses and they don’t wear a veil," said Shabeena Parveen, a computer professional in the city.

Source: The times of India

UN Ignores Islam-based FGM, Honor Killings and Under-Aged Marriage

blurb200

Ever wonder why the UN Human Rights Commission doesn’t do much about violence against women?  This video of the commission’s meeting with a concerned NGO will explain it is painful detail: Simple explanation; Islam may not be linked with ANY bad “traditions”, period, end of statement.

Littman UN video rev 4 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

Watch it all, it is worth it!  Get ready to applaud the “point of Order” by the German delegate!!!

LimBamian Politics 101: 2010 The Limbaugh-Obama Mentality Takes Hold

idylls king 0013

In 2010 we have fully entered a new era of politics that I call the Limbaugh-Obama, or LimBama period.

This era’s new mentality is neither Left nor Right wing. Instead it applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum,indeed all sides.  It is the ability to purport to believe in republican democracy and the Constitution, while firmly believing that political perfection is only prevented by the “Opposition” being allowed to participate in the legislative process.

The Constitution is replaced (ideologically at least, for the WORDs “The Constitution” will still ring out when freedom is but a memory) by the simple rule:

WE do not HAVE to play “fair” because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!

The because part of this unwritten commandment comes in many forms in the minds of partisans:

We defend the downtrodden and repressed

We have God (Allah) in our hearts and you are fooled by Satan

We serve the long-term interest of Human Survival

We serve Mother Earth

Yada, yada, yada… it is all a bunch of self serving baloney from minds so lost in group think that they can’t SEE the surface of the swamp let alone know their common sense had drowned!

It all only has ONE ‘because’:

Because WE WANT THE POWER, though we prove by our methods that we do not deserve it, and will surely abuse it for our selfish personal goals.

If You are Not Playing Fair, God is Not on Your Side; Clergy are Not Excused from Honesty

hypocrite_fish

Today we have two examples, one from the Left and one from the Right, of people making blatantly self-serving attacks on their political opponents while attempting to cloak themselves in the sanctity of God.  This is partisanship at its most nauseating.

buddy_jesus

First let us examine the Leftist “religious” viewpoint:

Liberal Christians Give LESS to the Poor; Naturally We Must Expose The Conservative Reasons for Not Giving Enough! …HUNH?

I have often said that partisanship can make people believe anything about ANYTHING.  Here is a good example of someone so needy for rotten fruit to huck at his opponents that he “condemns” them for… what amounts to being BETTER at something than his own side!!!  To make matters worse he all but lies to do so, distorting basic facts and mixing and matching demographics at will to support his demonization of a group that has shown itself well able to expose its own demons; Conservative Christianity)  I just want to ask him one thing, who gored YOUR ox?

Richard T. Hughes

Why Conservative Christians So Often Fail the Common Good (Part 2)

In part 1 of this article, we posed this riddle: why do so many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians — people who clearly honor the Bible — so often disregard the two requirements that are central to the biblical vision of the kingdom of God, namely peacemaking and justice for the poor?”

From the start this piece is off track, as Jesus preached to individuals and taught PEOPLE how He wanted them to live. He did not preach to nations or governments, He never left precepts for RULING a society.  The author actually seems to have bought into the heresy of the far-Right, Christian Identity folks; “Godly” society must be established BEFORE Jesus can return.

“Why Focus on “Conservative Christians”?

Some readers quite correctly pointed out that conservatives tend to be more generous toward the poor than liberals, but to frame the issue like that only muddles it. The Bible never suggests that we adequately fulfill our responsibilities through “generosity” toward the poor. Rather, the Bible summons Christians to radical solidarity with the poor and radical opposition to those demonic, systemic structures — what the Bible calls “the principalities and powers — that sustain the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the dispossessed.”

Really? In my reality Jesus called for individuals to turn away from political structures and just GET ON WITH IT and feed the poor and live THEIR lives as their conscience commanded.   In fact He had harsh words for those who felt they could legislate morality into their “flock”!  He further advised in no uncertain terms that civil rebellion was NOT his way.

I also love the way the author dismisses out of hand the notion that actual ACTION to help REAL poor people, as opposed to working to create a government to force everyone to care for them, is somehow a lesser expression of Christian charity and Love.  You just Gotta love group-think Virginia!

“…Further, to claim (GDeW: You said before that it was correct, but now you call it a claim?) that conservatives are more generous than liberals sidesteps the fact that neither group is all that generous toward the poor to begin with.”

Are you following this Virginia? Conservative Christian give more to the poor but since neither Leftist nor Conservative Christians do enough in the author’s eyes, it is the CONSERVATIVES that must be brought to task…umm, yes, it is a bit silly. Lets see if our dear Mr. Hughes can pull it out at the end.

“It also sidesteps the fact that neither conservative Christians nor liberal Christians are called to compare themselves with one another.”

I was unaware of the fact that it called for them to ignore their own faults and attack the other! You seem to be of a different opinion Mr. Hughes.

“Instead, if Christians are serious about following Jesus, the only meaningful comparison is with Jesus’ picture of the kingdom of God, and when measured by that standard, American Christians across the board — liberals and conservatives alike — fall woefully short.”

As a student of history I am well aware that pretty much all Christians of this day and age fall short of what the fist generation of “Chrestians” recognized as their own brethren.  That said, I do not know of any major branch, original or modern, that promotes the idea of Jesus’ preaching that you must work for a GOVERNMENT to be formed in the image of the Jewish vision of a Messiah Ruled Society before a person could be considered a follower of His.

“Why, then, would I write a two-part article that singles out conservative rather than liberal Christians for a comparison with that biblical vision.”

Given that your vision is one that you made up instead of finding it in the words of Jesus, I would say that it is just so you can use God as a weapon in your ongoing partisan attacks against your fellow Christians.

“First, conservative Christians are typically far more adamant than liberals in their claims that they are “Bible-believing Christians” who take the Bible seriously at every point.”

The passage above is a great example of a man so eager to demonize the opposition he does not even realize he is insulting his own side!  He is trying to hard not to “look mean” by calling Biblical Literalists byname that he implies that Liberal Christians do not believe the Bible seriously AT ALL.  Kinda makes you wonder why they would BE Christians if Hughes has them pegged rightly, doesn’t it?  Somehow I think that the average “Liberal” Christian deserves a bit more respect than that!

“ It is therefore fair to ask how successfully they live out a theme that stands at the center of the biblical text — the biblical vision of the kingdom.”

First off,it is a central Biblical theme that you do not stand hypocritically on the Temple steps and denounce the sins of others before you have examined your own!  And you certainly do not do it by putting words in the mouth of the central figure of your supposed religion that support your political goals!

“The second consideration is perhaps even more important. For almost forty years, the most visible representatives of the Christian religion in the United States have been conservatives, not liberals. I have in mind the electronic evangelists — those leaders of the Christian Right like Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, and a host of others — who have been extraordinarily vocal about their vision of the United States as a Christian nation. Not once have I heard any of those preachers define the Christian religion in terms of either (1) peacemaking or (2) justice for the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized, and those who suffer at the hands of the world’s elites — themes that are central to the biblical vision of the kingdom of God.”

One wonders why Hughes doesn’t just do a piece on how televangelism corrupts preachers, given that he only lists the most controversial if not heretical of a class that polls have revealed to have about the same level of trustworthiness in the public eye as lawyers!  And even with that vetting for nuttiness I would bet that if you actually read their sermons you would find examples of these things; if you ignore Mr. Hughes’ fantasy about Jesus requiring His followers to build Socialist government institutions.

“To the contrary, these preachers have often gone out of their way to support the principalities and powers that oppress marginalized people. Various televangelists at various times, for example, have told the American people that God has chosen the United States for a destiny of dominance in the world, that Jesus’ followers should prosper and never be poor, and that Christians should rally to support America’s wars against the enemies of God. In a word, most televangelists of the Christian Right have preached a gospel that is radically antithetical to the biblical text, and by proclaiming this pseudo-gospel, they have discredited the Christian religion almost beyond belief. It is surely time to measure their preaching by the biblical vision of the kingdom of God!”

Am I confused Virginia, or did we start off this piece talking about how Conservative Christians giving more to poor folks really meant Liberal Christian were the cool ones? How did we get onto Televangelists? Many Televangelists are bad preachers = All Conservative Christians are failing their duty to God? Somehow, I do not think Mr. Hughes passed Logic 101.

“The Kingdom of God and the Common Good

… The kingdom of God is universal and those who promote that kingdom care deeply for every human being in every corner of the globe, regardless of race or nationality. But earthly nations — even so-called “Christian” nations — embrace values that are inevitably nationalistic and tribal, caring especially for the welfare of those within their borders. And while the kingdom of God exalts the poor, the disenfranchised, and the dispossessed, earthly nations inevitably exalt the rich and powerful and hold them up as models to be emulated. In fact, in the context of earthly nations — even so-called “Christian” nations — the poor seldom count for much at all.”

Which is probably why Jesus preached to people and not governments!!!  So intent on his political goal is he that even while describing it, Hughes misses the point of Not Of This World!

“In light of that comparison, it must be obvious that when I speak of the common good, I don’t have in mind the American dream of a chicken in every pot or three cars in every garage or the American notion that freedom ultimately means freedom to shop. In fact, I don’t have in mind anything uniquely American at all. Instead, when I speak of the common good, I have in mind what the Bible envisions for all humankind — life and not death. But when the principalities and powers define the common good, they typically mean the good life for some, and the good life for some invariably means poverty, hunger, nakedness, and finally death for all the others.”

And this is probably why the Bible envisions this perfect society needing DIRECT INTERVENTION by God to come about AFTER we have messed it all up for the last time (not MY view, but the Bible’s), not Mr. Hughes and his buddies legislating their version of “morality” upon everyone.

“One final introductory comment: several who commented on the first article also questioned the accuracy of my claim that the biblical vision of the kingdom of God is really all that central to the biblical text or, for that matter, to what Christians call “the gospel.” But the Christian gospel always has two central components — the unmerited grace that God extends to us and, in response, the unmerited grace that we should extend to others. I John makes this point as well as any other biblical text: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” (I Jn. 3:16) That is as clear a picture of the kingdom of God as one is likely to find.”

It is simply astonishing to see someone hold up a black book and declare it to obviously be white!  It is just sad when that person does it for personal glorification and to put down their opponents. It is simply disgusting when that person does it using God.

Where, Mr. Hughes, does the Bible tell us to legislate that grace so our neighbor is forced to dispense it in exactly the measure WE define as acceptable?  Pardon me while I go get reacquainted with my breakfast.  The fact that all that poison was just “introductory” to your “point” put my stomach over the top.

beat1 

Now let us move on to the Right-Wing side of the Pew and see how a “conservative Christian” shows his love by lying and distorting everything he can in order to “Save” his sheep:

Traditional Values Coalition Opinion Editorial For publication on or after Wednesday, October 31, 2001

New FBI Hate Crime Statistics Expose Homosexual Lies

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

… This legislation begins with this somber comment: “The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”

This introduction to S. 625 is filled with lies and half-truths about the nature of hate crimes in America-yet this bill is being seriously debated-despite the facts. The recently released FBI hate crime statistics for 2000 shed new light on what Ted Kennedy alleges is a “serious national problem.””

And now Rev. Sheldon will put his own lies and half-truths on the table as a counter-balance!

“Most Americans are tolerant and compassionate individuals who do not wish anyone to be harmed. Unfortunately, homosexual activists have exploited this compassion in the promotion of the idea of “hate crime” legislation. A “hate crime” law typically includes enhanced penalties against an individual for his negative thoughts when he committed a crime against a person who is part of a protected class. For example, a common thug who mugs a lesbian for her purse will receive a higher penalty for his anti-homosexual thoughts or motivations than if he had mugged a woman simply for her money.”

I have my doubts about many, if not most, hate crime laws, however lying about them does not help! Claiming the label Reverend and then proceeding to lie is “just not done”!

A hate crime law does not criminalize the thoughts of the thug who HAPPENS to mug someone who is a lesbian, they only apply if the lesbian is attacked BECAUSE she is a lesbian. If a person mugs two women, one of whom is openly lesbian, and then verbally insults that woman for being gay and kicks her in the face, all the while not harming the “straight” lady, they HAVE committed a hate crime in addition to the “regular” crime.  I fail to see that the basic idea of making crimes that are committed ONLY because of prejudice a special class is wrong.

“Homosexuals have been successful in getting many states and communities to add “sexual orientation” as a protected category under hate crime laws. This creates what amounts to “thought crimes” and unequal justice under the law for those not given protected class status.”

I can’t see why, if you are gong to have a hate crime law, why ANY definable grouping should not be included.  The whole idea of “hate crime”is of a crime that WOULD NOT HAPPEN if the criminal did not see the victim as “acceptable to attack” because of their race,religion, politics, sexuality or WHATEVER. IF someone attacked and beat someone for being a street mime it should be classed a hate crime.  “Normal” crime is impersonal,it is about transferring money or property from one who has it to one who wants it but, hasn’t earned it.  Committing a crime not for financial gain, but solely to satisfy an inner need to dehumanize ANYONE, is what the hate crime ideology is all about at its core.

“The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics should be welcomed news to homosexuals. The latest hate crime numbers have been posted on the FBI’s web site. …The FBI hate crime statistics show the following: In 2000, there were a total of 8,152 hate crimes reported involving a total of 9,524 distinct incidents. Out of a total of 8,144 single-bias incidents, for example, 5,206 were racially motivated and 1,568 were bias crimes against a person’s religion.

The FBI says the most common hate crime was that of “intimidation” with a total of 3,294 cases. A person who was “intimidated” was a victim of profanity, racial slurs, or verbal threats by another individual. In short, a third of these hate crimes were non-violent and amounted to name-calling.”

One wonders  if the good reverend has ever been seriously harassed or taunted or threatened in his life! He blithely dismisses as mere name calling things as serious as multiple, physically aggressive and verbally hateful people trailing someone down the street telling them in graphic terms just what they plan to do to that person, their family and anyone who is close to them…Remember, these statistics only refer to those verbal acts that were considered by the FBI to be CRIMES!

Virginia, what do you think of a reverend who thinks that a truck load of rednecks trailing a black schoolgirl and taunting her with rape and assault on her family is “name calling”? Good girl, I can’t fault your instincts. But, you should not use language like that in public. Ladies have better use of their vocabulary than that!  To be fair it should be noted that he also probably considers 15 Muslim youths chasing and screaming threats at a Jewish kid half their size to also be “name calling.” The Rev. only promotes Equal Opportunity Callousness I am sure!

“…Overall, there were only 1,517 hate crimes of bias committed because of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation in 2000. It is likely that at least a third of these were intimidation or name-calling. The FBI gathered these statistics from 11,691 law enforcement agencies encompassing a total of 237 million Americans-or 84.2% of the entire population.”

Here is a good example of how partisans use statistics dishonestly.  The number 1,517 is called “only’ and then several much larger,but irrelevant, numbers are listed to further diminish it in the reader’s mind. The good Rev obviously does not expect his audience to stop and THINK about the numbers he has revealed to be a veritable gospel for American homosexuals.

1,517 out of 8,144 means that more or less one out of every five incidents of ”single bias” against ANYONE was about that person’s sexual orientation!  Almost TWENTY PERCENT!  And this is measured against all the bias incidents against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, women, men, old folks, young folks, Republicans, Democrats and whatever other groups you care to name!!!  TWENTY PERCENT of this type of crime is committed against gays?  And the Rev feels that gays should rejoice in this “Good News”?

“No compassionate American is in favor of someone being verbally or physically assaulted because of his sexual preferences, but neither should we be subjected to thought crime legislation that provides special legal protections to homosexuals not accorded other Americans. Criminalizing a person’s views on sexual behavior should not be a matter of federal law.”

I agree that EVERYONE should have protection against bias motivated crime. But, this does not give the morally-ambiguous Reverend the right to lie and say that criminalizing bias-based ACTIONS (that in themselves are criminal) is criminalizing a person’s VIEWS!!!

“Out of 11.6 million crimes committed against persons and property in 2000, only 1,517 were hate crimes directed at homosexuals-and a third of these were undoubtedly name-calling. This should be good news to homosexual activists, but it undercuts one of their primary objectives: The passage of federal hate crime legislation that will add homosexual behavior as a protected class status under federal civil rights laws.”

I guess that it is possible to admire the economy or language in the above passage, it is impossible to find morality in it. First the Rev pulls the TOTAL person and property crime number out (not the much smaller, but RELEVENT, single-bias number) and compares it to 1,517, next he applies his “name calling” dismissal to further reduce the importance of that number. Finally, he slaps homosexuals in the face by calling this number good news and uses the sum of his hypocrisy to “prove” that the numbers “undermine” the need for hate crime laws, ESPECIALLY regarding homosexuals!  Tums anyone?

“…The FBI’s recent statistics showing how few hate crimes were committed against homosexuals in 2000 are irritations that will undoubtedly be ignored by activists. The truth has undercut their claims of an epidemic of hate crimes against homosexuals, but that won’t stop them from attempting to gain special rights under federal law for their preferred sexual behavior.”

I guess the Rev follows the old “Big Lie” theory; tell it with a straight enough face and tell it often enough, and people will believe ANY nonsense!  Notice how he tosses in the gibe implying that gays CHOOSE to be as they are!

Left or Right, it does not really matter. Those who seek power for power’s sake will show themselves as morally empty,no matter what “God” they claim to follow.

 

There Are No “Good” or “Moderate” Supremacists

By Jeffrey Immon February 27, 2009

There are no “good” or “moderate” supremacists. Supremacists may employ more or less destructive tactics, but their adherence to a supremacist ideology itself is never “good” or “moderate.” History has shown that supremacists consistently reject the idea that humanity has an inalienable right to equality and liberty. By definition and as shown by history, every identity-based supremacist group rejects such human rights — including such supremacists as white supremacists, Aryan Nazi supremacists, and Islamic supremacists. Therefore, American government leaders who are responsible for equality and liberty should categorically reject such supremacist groups, nations, and adherents, right?

Yet, in the case of Islamic supremacism, our governmental leaders continue to fail in this responsibility. Moreover, it is not only just American government leaders in denial about such supremacism, but also American mainstream media, foreign policy groups, and other aspects of society have joined an army of appeasement on Islamic supremacism which threatens the very foundation of equality and liberty on which our nation exists.

In the past several weeks, we have seen American government officials calling for “reconciliation” with Islamic supremacists in Afghanistan, and listening to the counsel of those who state that America must negotiate with “reconcilable” aspects of the Islamic supremacist Taliban. We have seen American government officials alternately ignore and defend Pakistan’s surrender to the Islamic supremacist Taliban in the northwest portion of Pakistan, where Pakistan has agreed to the Taliban’s demand to implement Islamic supremacist Sharia law. We have heard the deafening silence by such American leaders as Pakistan Islamic supremacists denounce democracy and advocate global Islamic supremacist rule, with such Pakistani “peace” negotiators echoing the very sentiments of Al-Qaeda itself — as Osama Bin Laden seeks “the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting.”

But the larger crisis point that continues to build is the growing gap between American government leaders and mainstream media leaders who are willing to appease supremacism and surrender on equality and liberty — versus a growing number in the American public that are willing to defy supremacism and be responsible for equality and liberty.

With every new embarrassment, with every new outrage by such appeaser government leaders and mainstream media, those responsible for equality and liberty are becoming more determined to prove that the appeaser crowd will not represent America.

1. The Evil of Supremacism is Never “Good” or “Moderate”

Could you imagine being led in World War II by those who wanted us to believe that there were “Good Nazis” versus “Bad Nazis”? Or to try to distinguish between “Extremist Nazis” versus “Moderate Nazis”? Or seeking the evolution of Aryan Supremacist Nazism into becoming a “mainstream” political ideology for “reconciliation” of “moderate Nazis”?

Similarly, where would we be in America’s civil rights today, if our national confrontation against white supremacists was led by those whose idea of defending equality and liberty was to try to distinguish between the “Good KKK” versus the “Bad KKK”? Or to try to suggest that our national strategy should be based on recognizing the difference between “extremist white supremacists” versus “moderate white supremacists”? Or seeking the continued tolerance of white supremacism as a “mainstream” political ideology for the vague goals of national “reconciliation”?

Imagine further if appeasers rationalized that such “reconciliation” with supremacists could be achieved by addressing “historical grievances” by such groups. Such as, perhaps entertaining the Nazi “grievances” regarding Czechoslovakia and Europe, or their “grievances” with Jews? Or entertaining white supremacist “grievances” calling for “separate but equal” segregation, concerns about federal government “meddling” in local white supremacist-based laws, or their “grievances” with blacks? What if our answer to Nazis and white supremacists had simply been to provide them with more “economic development opportunities” in the absurd belief that this would make them abandon their supremacist ideologies?

Such ideas are obviously absurd. The very term “moderate supremacist” is an oxymoron. A “mainstream” political ideology of Aryan supremacist Nazism or white supremacism would still be inimical to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. History showed the determination of the allied nations to crush Aryan supremacist Nazism throughout Germany after the war. History shows the determination of Americans to crush white supremacism in this nation in the 1960s, a war of ideas that continues against the fringe remnants even today.

Can you imagine the euphemism masters defining Nazi supremacists as “German nationalists” or defining white supremacists as “racial purity defenders”? In dealing with Islamic supremacism, it is worse than that. Such appeasers refuse to even acknowledge that the ideology of Islamic supremacism exists at all.

They start disavowing that Islamic supremacism exists by seeking to re-label Islamic supremacism as something more palatable to public, so that their argument to appease and ignore supremacism doesn’t sound quite so absurd. Instead of a war of ideas that would defend the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, the appeasers pursue a war of euphemisms, to confuse the public and obfuscate on the threat of Islamic supremacism. Instead of challenging the supremacists, such appeasers have chosen to attack those who would defend human rights instead, with the inane argument that defending inalienable human rights is not “culturally sensitive” to supremacists.

To be more “culturally sensitive,” such appeasers prefer to use such terms as “extremists,” “fundamentalists,” etc. They attempt to argue that Islamic supremacist activities are actually “anti-Islamic” activities, …

If the appeasers are challenged on this, they seek to prove that they are the only “experts” on such issues, and that anyone without a Ph.D. in Islamic studies working for a Saudi-funded program can’t possible grasp the endless “nuances” involved in fighting “extremism – fundamentalism – whatever euphemism they choose today.”

But what exactly do you negotiate with supremacists about? Certainly not ideology, because supremacists are non-negotiable on their anti-freedom ideologies. So you are only left with negotiating about tactics, which is a particularly dangerous route when you are in denial and unwilling to define the threat and its ideology and unwilling to develop a strategy that addresses the overall ideological threat and enemy.

A “war of euphemisms” forbids discussion on the “why” or the ideology behind such actions, focusing only on the tactics of the day, and the endless parade of details on “who, what, where, when” — always ignoring “why.” Such a desperate position of weakness devolves into a mere “whack-a-mole” approach of throwing whatever tactics sound good that day at the latest “crisis.”

Can you imagine if America’s federal government had decided to choose to negotiate with political “white supremacists” on tactics to stop white supremacist terrorism? Would it have been acceptable if America’s federal government negotiated with white supremacists to maintain segregated schools, public activities, and businesses, if “political” white supremacist leaders agreed to ask the KKK to stop blowing up black churches and stopped killing civil rights workers? Would such “peace negotiations” with supremacists have been morally acceptable to a nation committed to equality and liberty? And is there anyone so unschooled in American history to believe that such negotiations to institutionalize supremacism would have not led to even more supremacists and eventually more terrorism?

Is that commitment and sacrifice for sale now by those who would negotiate with Islamic supremacists?

Do they, like the infamous Neville Chamberlain, believe that they can trade away land, human rights, hope for oppressed people, by letting supremacists grow in power and influence with the pleading hope that it will mean less terrorist threats for America?

Their house of cards built on appeasing supremacism and “newthink” words such as “good” or “moderate” supremacism is going to fall. While the stewing outrage of the American public has not yet hit the boiling point, a movement to restore our national responsibility for equality and liberty is on the horizon. What the appeasers have not yet realized is that there is a growing number of Americans who have had enough, and are working tirelessly in their efforts to regain the leadership of America’s government and restore America’s image to the world as a people responsible for equality and liberty.

The endless series of outrageous activities and comments by those who appease Islamic supremacism are frustrating to those who are responsible for equality and liberty. But like Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks on America, the appeasers are also overreaching.

Ultimately, this is why supremacists and their appeasers will always fail, and this is why those in support of the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty will always succeed. … Free people recognize that supremacist ideologies — by opposing equality and liberty — also oppose humanity itself. These truths are indeed self-evident, and all supremacist ideologies are dependent on the lie that denies these self-evident truths.

The ever-controlling supremacist ideologies are also dependent on one other factor that will always destroy them… they must always have MORE. As an ideology that seeks to control every aspect of human life and thought, supremacists must always have MORE. So in the surrender of Pakistan in implementing strict Sharia law in its northwest, Islamic supremacist Sufi Mohammad was not content – he had to denounce democracy, he was compelled to call for Islamic supremacist rule over all of the Earth. This example of the endless demands of Islamic supremacists can be seen also in the history of other supremacists. The Aryan Nazi supremacists were not just content in controlling all of Germany, then part of Europe, but were compelled to seek nothing less than to dominate the world.

Their sick lie of supremacism perverts their humanity — making them nothing more than soulless creatures that live only by the endless destruction, control, and dehumanization of others. They are truly the dark side of the human experience. But in their endless demand for MORE, supremacists always sow the seeds of their own destruction, and the disgrace of those who appeased them.

The world is not enough for supremacists – they must own your heart, your mind, your very soul.

We know how this will ultimately end. History has shown the answer over and over again. Supremacists always overreach and destroy themselves. The words and actions of cowardly supremacist appeasers live on in infamy in history. Those who defy supremacism are remembered as champions of equality and liberty.

It is not enough to wait for supremacism to ultimately fall.

Those responsible for equality and liberty must demand an end it to it. This is a responsibility that all free men and women must bravely undertake and carry on the battle for freedom that our forefathers started before us. It is our turn to carry the torch of truth about humanity’s right to equality and liberty against those who seek to cloak the world in a fog of appeasement and against those who seek to darken the earth with the evil of supremacism.

Will you join those who are responsible for equality and liberty?

Fear No Evil.

(HH here: Wow and I say again wow! This piece could easily be the manifesto for the Heretics Crusade blog!! Read it all! Lots more! Click on post title!