Religious Intolerance

This article from the Christian Science Monitor explains how the U.N. is making another effort to rip our already tenuous and rapidly disappearing liberty away from us:

"Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091027/ts_csm/edefamation

According to the article, the 57-nation OIC (Organization of the Islamic Council), under the leadership of Pakistan, intends to take the non-binding resolutions to limit offensive religious speech, and turn them into a legally binding treaty.

This means that every government that signs on to the treaty would have to prosecute every incident of religious "hate speech" that was reported.

Tell me where the slippery slope will end?
What if a Christian, Hindu or Jew disagreed with Sharia Law?

Suprisingly, Hillary Clinton, came out for freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree," said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week.
She went on to argue that the best antidote to religious intolerance is enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, government "outreach" to minority religious groups, and "the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression".

Though I'm too conservative to agree with "government outreach"...whatever that may be, I applaud the former first lady and current Secretary of State for making this statement.

I'm also too much of an optimist to believe America would agree to sign such a treaty, though I think President "57-states" Obama would sign (it's just my opinion, but what I've seen so far in the presidency makes me believe this with every fiber of my being).
However our Constitution says the majority of congress must also sign international treaties for them to become the law of the land.
That means Americans would really have to love this treaty...and I don't think we will.
And if congress tries to sell it to the public, they would only wind up looking foolish.

No, I really don't think this attempt to squelch religious freedom will gain much traction.
And now we know it's out there; now we know who wants it and who is the most religiously intolerant.
...but do we know why?
There will always be something or someone in this world who wants control, and of course they will either take it by force, by law, or with persuasion that our loss of liberty is in our best interest.

So, as a red-blooded Conservative, I'm passing on my humble opinion that in here in America, we need to be aware of the fragility of true freedom. It is certainly not free and bears constant vigiliance.
Freedom is messy and imperfect...but beautiful and filled with hope.
I'll fight for it.

redink

http://img2.allposters.com/images/LPIPOD/lpi13645_5-FB.jpg

Gutenberg and the Internet

This just in from CNET News:
"Bill would give president emergency control of Internet"
by Declan McCullagh
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The U.S. Senate proposed this bill in the spring and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democrat from West Virginia, spent the past few months revising it.

But the revisions still give the President authority to shut down private internet access if he so much as sticks his wet finger in the air and declares "a cybersecurity threat".

From the Article:
"The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license."

When Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in the early fifteenth century, the first full length book he printed was the Gutenberg Bible.
With biblical truth made available directly to the masses, the people broke the religious stranglehold the church had placed upon them.

They knew the truth.
And they were set free.

Science, art, inventions, politics, geography, and the list goes on...all these subjects spread knowledge with the advent of the printing press.
Adult literacy exploded and the simple farmer as well as the lofty monarch could read about the world around them.
The spread of knowledge brought communities together in shared passions and interests instead of fear of the unknown.

And of course the powers that be did not like it.
They did not like the masses having access to knowledge...it weakened their power.

Power is the same drug today that it was then, and has always been.

If you don't think our President wants that kind of power, I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention to his reactions lately.
This is what he's done with the debacle of Obamacare:
He refuses to address the fears and concerns of ordinary Americans across the country.
He refuses to admit he's read it, or knows what's in it.
He calls seniors and vets who protest it, right-wing liars and organized mobs.
He is telling lies about the bill in the hopes that most Americans are too apathetic to find out what's in it.

But he can't stop the truth from filtering out through conservative news sites, social networking sites, and the like.
The jig is up on Obamacare, because of the internet.

Unconstitutional, liberty-killing laws cannot be pushed onto the masses if the masses know what's coming down the pike.
So Obama has to stop the information at its source.
...the internet.
He knows what a powerful tool it is...he used it to his great advantage during his campaign.
Now the pesky thing has turned on him.
Because the internet is neutral and beyond his control.
It can be used to spread lies or the truth.
And the truth has a way of coming out on top.

But, I have hope this internet power grab will take some time.
And time is not on Obama's side.
It takes time to lull people into believing it's for their own good.
That is why we've seen an unprecedented push of unread bills, and hidden amendments...these bills cannot see the light or the exposure will kill them.
That is why we didn't get to see the stimulus bill, or debate it before it passed.

So, I'm not willing to let this internet power grab alarm me...yet.

But, I'm open to the possibility.

redink
http://www.martinsville.k12.va.us/mhs/gdean/test1/printpress%5B1%5D.jpg

A Dangerous Man

"There is a danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with the power to endanger the public liberty."

John Adams

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security is titled:

"Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

From Michelle Malkin's blog the incredible facts unfold.

http://http//michellemalkin.com/

For all the Bush-bashers out there who thought they had lost their freedom when the DHS actually did its job smoking out terrorists...er, the bad guys...sorry, I don't know the current Orwellian newsspeak for terrorists.

CAIR Bears, perhaps?

(HT: Ldotter)

Does that mean this blog is in the DHS file?

According to the report:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

So, let me see...

If I'm a Christian speaking out against gay marriage and terrorism--I'm a hate-oriented extremist.

If I support the Constitution and its premise of a government run by the people; and I'm opposed to federal power-grabs and taxation without representation--I'm an anti-government extremist.

If I speak out against abortion or illegal immigration--I'm a rightwing extremist

According to this report: I'm extreme.

Funny, I've been all those things since 1994.

They weren't extreme then.

But, in the Spring of 2009, I am considered a threat to America.

Who is more dangerous:

The man who wants to keep his freedom, or the man who wants to keep freedom silent?

redink