The fact that the remains of 9/11 victims wound up in a landfill is shocking and disgusting. But we throw the mutilated corpses of over 3,200 babies in landfills every day. Where is the outrage about that? Why does the abortion industry get a pass?
The whole “controversy” over Korans that were burned by American troops in Afghanistan is political theater for the weak-minded. It is a manufactured outrage created by enemies of America to whip up crowds against U.S. troops and blame America, while ignoring the facts of the case.
Let’s deal with some reality here. The Korans would never have been disposed of if the Islamic terrorists in our custody had not desecrated the Koran themselves (a blasphemy in Islam) by writing notes in the pages. The Korans were confiscated from the detainees and accidentally included with items for incineration by U.S. troops. (See articles from National Review and Fox News.)
The response has been telling. Rioting and mass murder is simply not an appropriate response to burning a book. That is the act of a savage barbarian, not a devout person of any faith. But the Islamic terrorists are not rioting and murdering over fellow Islamic terrorists intentionally desecrating the Koran, or demanding that the detainees be executed. They are rioting and murdering because Americans unintentionally desecrated the Koran.
Does any of this mean we should not treat the Koran with respect? No. Does any of this mean that we should not respect the faith and religious practices of Muslims? Again, the answer is no.
But the fact of the matter is this was a mistake, not an intentional desecration of Islam’s holy book. Furthermore, rioting and murdering over the unintentional destruction of a book is a wildly disproportionate response – especially when it was the detainees who intentionally desecrated it.
Burning the Koran was a mistake, and mistakes happen. It is a mistake that should have been avoided, and care needs to be taken so that this mistake does not happen again. Just out of respect for the people of Afghanistan, we should respect their culture and religion. But it was a mistake nonetheless, not an act of malice or aggression. Rioting and murdering in response is wildly disproportionate and barbaric.
It could be argued that nuclear weapons were the world’s greatest force for peace in the 20th Century.
Because nuclear weapons are so terrible, the fear of using them prevented a third World War between the USA and USSR. Imagine how destructive that would have been had each side not feared the other’s nuclear arsenal.
“It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it.” — Robert E. Lee
“Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. But there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.” – from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet distributed at a panel conducted by the Girl Scouts, after “all non-Scout adults were kicked out of the room, which was packed with adolescent girls.”
Does that sound shocking? It should. Nancy Pelosi, minority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, said that Planned Parenthood’s relationship with the Girl Scouts was “very valuable” at a reception to honor the Girl Scouts, yet when a Republican state representative from Fort Wayne criticizes the Girl Scouts’ relationship with Planned Parenthood, he is labeled a wacko and accused of lying. Was Pelosi lying?
But it doesn’t end there. Girl Scouts’ CEO Cathy Cloninger admitted that the Girl Scouts works with many organizations, including Planned Parenthood, “to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.” The connections between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood were in the news back in 2004, when LifeNews.com reported that of 315 councils surveyed, “17 councils reported having a relationship with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and 49 reported they do not. The other 249 refused to disclose any relationship.”
State Representative Bob Morris of Fort Wayne was exactly right to raise serious concerns about the partnership between Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood, and the efforts by Planned Parenthood to sexualize young girls.
The relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood becomes more ominous when you consider that Planned Parenthood used tax money given to them by the Bloomington City Council and Monroe County Council to distribute birth control to girls as young as 13 years old. It is a felony in the state of Indiana for anyone to have sexual contact with someone 13 or younger, and pregnancy is prima facie evidence that a felony has taken place. Planned Parenthood and the Monroe County Democratic Party, then, are helping cover up felony sexual abuse.
It isn’t surprising that Leftists have jumped on the controversy. Senator Vi Simpson (D-Bloomington) whined in a fundraising email last week that Morris’ criticism will not create a single job for Hoosiers. Let’s not forget that Morris was reacting to a meaningless resolution, and that resolution will not create a single job either. Why not criticize spending time on a resolution that could be spent on efforts to stimulate the economy?
Attacks from the Left should be expected. Morris should not expect to be betrayed by his own caucus, including House Speaker Brian Bosma, who passed out Girl Scout cookies and mocked Morris. This is simply unacceptable. Bosma could have privately rebuked Morris if he disagreed, or Bosma could have publicly expressed disagreement in a rational manner. The Republican Speaker of the House should not be openly mocking and ridiculing a Republican legislator to curry favor with Democrats. Bosma should apologize for his behavior.
Morris took a courageous and unpopular stand that drew a cascade of attacks from the news media, Democrats, Planned Parenthood and even his fellow “Republicans” in the legislature. He should be praised for taking this stand and bringing the Girl Scouts’ disturbing alliance with Planned Parenthood to the attention of Hoosiers.
I addressed this foolishness last Monday, but given the absurd comments made in the Herald-Times comments section this past week, it is useful to repeat what I said three years ago:
By not engaging in terrorism to stop abortion, an abortion opponent is immoral for allowing murder to take place. However, the second someone actually does commit an act of terrorism to stop abortion, the exact same people harshly condemn the terrorist and the people who supposedly “incited” the violence. This is an incredibly dishonest argument that deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule.
Full editorial: Pro-abortion fantasy: pro-lifers cannot possibly be moral.
This woman is pure evil:
CLEVELAND (Reuters) – An Ohio woman who likened freeing lab animals to liberating Holocaust survivors was being held in custody Wednesday on charges she used Facebook to try to hire a hit man to kill a person at random for wearing fur, prosecutors said.
Meredith Marie Lowell, 27, of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, was arrested Tuesday at her home by federal agents and has been charged with solicitation to commit murder for offering to pay someone who turned out to be an FBI agent $850 for the killing.
Lowell said the person should die in less than two minutes and needed to be, “older than 12 — preferably older than 14 years old,” FBI documents said. The person also “should not be anyone I currently know and definitely should not be anyone my family knows,” Lowell wrote in one exchange.
Source: Chicago Tribune
Have this year’s negative political ads really “taken dirty to a whole new level,” as CNN’s Anderson Cooper frets?
A woman records police officers in an attempt to strengthen her claim of sexual harassment. Most people would see this as a smart way to protect herself and ensure justice is done. In the state of Illinois, she is committing a felony that could cause her to spend 15 years in prison for this action, which harmed no one.
This law protects corrupt government officials in addition to being unconstitutional, immoral and anti-democratic.
The violation of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech is obvious. Government simply does not have the legal authority to criminalize the action of documenting abuse of power by agents of the state.
This law also violates the 14th amendment’s requirement of equal protection under the law, because of the exception for radio and television recordings. The “logic” here is an outdated perception of what the press is. In an age where someone can post a video on YouTube and get a million hits, distinguishing between the traditional news media and an average citizen is increasingly meaningless. Furthermore, carving out an exception for radio and television broadcasts grants special rights to the media that average citizens do not have, which is anathema to our constitutional republic.
The best way to ensure government operates in a legal and ethical manner, to say nothing of being efficient and reliable, is by exposing government to the disinfectant of sunshine. By making it illegal to record agents of the state in the context of their employment, Illinois is protecting bad actors and denying citizens the opportunity to seek justice when wronged.
Think about the case of Rodney King, who was beaten by Los Angeles police officers while another citizen captured the beating on film. Had George Holliday not recorded the beating, would the officers have ever been charged and tried for the beating? Would the officers have been convicted in federal court of violating King’s civil rights? Or would this have been swept under the rug? It is certainly possible that nothing would have ever come of this case of not for Holliday’s video camera.
There should not be a court battle over this law. It is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to litigate the constitutionality of this law. Instead, the Illinois state legislature should unanimously vote to reform it, at least providing an exception for recording government employees in the context of doing their jobs. Any legislator who votes against reform should be thrown out of office in a landslide.
Leftists were furious with the Citizens United decision two years ago, and Barack Obama disgraced himself and his office with his political attack on the Supreme Court during the State of the Union shortly after the case was decided. Now, Leftists are working to amend the Constitution to deny free speech rights to corporations.
Here’s the problem: They don’t get it.
The First Amendment was never intended to grant the five freedoms it protects. The Declaration of Independence made it clear that the founders believed that men are “endowed by their Creator” with inalienable rights. Those rights exist independent of government and cannot be granted or taken away by government. That’s why when you read the text of the First Amendment, it is a limitation on government, not a guarantee of rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The reason why government may not restrict the free speech rights of corporations is not because corporations are people. (Corporations are made up of people, though. This is not Skynet, folks.) The reason why government may not restrict the free speech rights of corporations is because the First Amendment is a limitation on government. There are no exceptions in the First Amendment for unions or corporations – it is a protection for all free speech.
The reason “Move to Amend” is so dangerous is because it seeks to take away the right to free speech for some Americans. Once you write into the Constitution that certain groups of people do not have the protection of the First Amendment, you set a dangerous precedent that empowers government at the expense of individual liberty.
I would point out that most churches are technically 501(c)3 corporations, so this could be incredibly destructive for religious freedom. After all, since “corporations are not people” and do not have free speech rights, what legal justification is there to stop the government from regulating the content of sermons?
The First Amendment has served America well for over 235 years, and there is no need to tinker with it. Furthermore, we live in a time where the power of individual people to impact public discourse has never been greater. The internet in general and social media in particular has leveled the playing field in a way the founders could have never imagined. We should not abandon the wisdom of the men who created the greatest system of government in human history.
The Obama regime’s efforts to force Christian organizations (including hospitals and charities) to provide birth control illustrates this President’s hostility toward both Christians and individual liberty.
Obama and his allies have couched this debate in terms of “women’s rights” – that women should not lose the “right” to birth control simply because of who their employer happens to be. But this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding with what rights actually are.
In order for something to be a right, it must exist without anyone else needing to sacrifice. For example, I have the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to be secure in my person and papers from unreasonable searches by government. No one has to sacrifice in order for me to have those rights. No one has to give up any liberty in order for me to have those rights.
In order for someone to have the “right” to have any drug covered by their insurance plan, that “right” must be imposed on someone else. Either the Christian groups will need to pay for it directly or their insurance company will have to cover it. (This means that the Christian groups will pay indirectly through their premiums. Insurance companies don’t have a money tree.) The government is using force to mandate that one entity pay for the drugs of someone else. That is not a representation of “rights.” That is redistribution of wealth.
The reality is that there is not one single woman who has had her “right” to birth control denied. The women who want birth control are free to pay for it themselves. What this represents is an entitlement mentality – that people expect someone else to pay for what they want.
It is inconceivable that this nation’s founding fathers would have ever agreed to force any Christian charity, university, or hospital to violate their religious beliefs or face action against them by government. Obama’s ruling is a direct violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on government interference with the free exercise of religion. Obama’s arrogant power grab and lawless behavior is another reason why he must be fired from his job in November.