skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Well, we didn't have to wait very long for this - did we?
Today's lesson comes from Comrade the Honorable Deval Patrick, General Secretary Governor of The People's Republic of Taxachusetts.
Radio host Jim Braude asked our benighted governor what his thoughts were on the rally in Washington organized by Glenn Beck.
“It’s a free country. I wish it weren’t, but . . . it’s a free country,” Patrick said on the “Jim & Margery Show” on WTKK-FM. “You know, you got to, you got to respect that freedom.”
In the time-honored fashion of liberal Democrats from Taxachusetts (e.g. J. F. "it-was-a-botched-joke" Kerry or Barney "Hot Bottom" Fwank), Deval attempted to explain it all away: “I wish they hadn’t chose that place and that day to have that event,” Patrick said. “But it’s a free country. That was my point, and it has to be respected.”
Oh, I see, nothing to worry about, right? I'm sure that Deval will be out in front defending the next conservative who misspeaks, right?
BTW, did I mention what Deval's stance is on the "Ground Zero Mosque" - and those who dare question the means and motives of it's backers? After all, there's "SACRED GROUND!" (once trod by Dr. M.L. King) and "sacred ground?" (where over 2,000 Americans died in a terrorist attack motivated by adherence to militant Islam - so what?)
The scary part is that this carpetbagging socialist, whose approval ratings after four years as Governor are between 19-22% depending upon which poll you believe, has a better-than-even chance of being re-elected if he can get 34-40% of the vote in a 3-way race. That anyone would vote for him at all, especially in the current political climate, is a measure of how thoroughly brainwashed the typical Taxachusetts liberal voter is.
OK boys and girls, today's lesson is about the First Amendment to our Constitution. The 1st Amendment, the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights, protects our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Let's look at some real-life examples of how it applies, courtesy of our friends on the left side of the policital spectrum:
A Moslem group wants to build a mosque in the shadow of "ground zero", the site of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks by terrorists acting in the name of... Islam. Not surprisingly a significant percentage of the population thinks this is a plain bad idea. Some lost loved ones in the attacks and resent the incursion upon what they regard as "sacred ground", others see it as a deliberate provocation, a monument of sorts to a "victory" for militant Islam, still others think it could potentially be used for purposes inimical to the national security of the United States, and some believe it will further damage the image of American Moslems. As with any avidly contested issue there are hotheads who inflame the debate.
Of course under the 1st Amendment the Moslems are free to build their house of worship anywhere, zoning and other laws notwithstanding. Whether it is a good idea to do so, or whether other legitimate interests may come into play here, are reasonable questions to ask - again, under the 1st Amendment guarante of the right to free speech. But to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (among others) anyone who dares question the means or motives of those behind the project ought to be "investigated".
By whom, Madame Speaker? Under what authority? As Winston Churchill noted in 1945, no socialist "utopia" can function without some sort of Gestapo:
"No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.
"And where would the ordinary simple folk—the common people, as they like to call them in America—where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip? I stand for the sovereign freedom of the individual within the laws which freely elected Parliaments have freely passed."
More recently, as you may have heard, talkmeister Glenn Beck held a rally this weekend on The Mall in Washington, D.C. The theme was "Restoring Honor" and it was focused on re-dedicating oneself and America to the Christian ideals of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, in many ways it was closer to a "revival meeting" than a political rally. Intentionally or not it was on the same date and in the same location as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's. famous "I have a Dream" speech in 1963. This did not sit well with the left.
Al Sharpton, for one, was incensed, accusing Beck of "Distort[ing]...Dr. King's dream" and referred to the site as "sacred ground". "Rev." Walter Fauntroy, D.C.'s non-votring delegate to the Congress went considerably further, claiming that Beck and the rally attendees "seized the hallowed ground of the 47th anniversary ... to promote their universal vision of exclusion."
"It would be wrong for us to allow those who espouse the universal value of exclusion to hijack the site and the message of that marvelous day and to use it against the very vision that Martin Luther King Jr. articulated so magnificently," he said (in less-than-articulate or magnificent fashion!)
(Incidentally, Beck's rally was supported - and attended - by Dr. King's niece Alveda Scott King...)
There's a couple of lessons here. Consider the two uses of the word "sacred ground". And consider who's making wild accusations against their political opponents as well. The left takes full advantage of their 1st Amendment rights to free speech even as they use it to attempt to intimidate the right into yielding their own rights. Beware when a liberal Democrat talks about "rights", usually he means "for me, not for thee"...
