I Have A Dream

Those on the left love to talk about the free exchange of ideas. Hillary complains about the politics of personal destruction, and why can't we just debate the issues. Universities brag about the fact that they are shaping young minds to question the world, to see truth. Newspapers label themselves as one of the last bastions of free speech.

Yet are they really?

It seems most every day there are stories of free speech being stifled, and of lop-sided opinions being masqueraded as "news".

Chris Simcock, of the minuteman project, attempts to speack at MSU, and has to wait 20 minutes for the police to clear the room. Being such strong advocates of the 1st amendment, they wouldn't even allow him to speak.

In 2002 former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to cancel a speech at Concordia University because of Islamic protesters. So great is their hatred of him, that he wasn't allowed to speak to a Jewish organization on campus without enraging the protesters.

The same holds true when our Vice President attempts to speak. Or when a scientist offers an opinion that global warming is something other than settled science. Or when the President's surge appears to be working, and Democrats rush to find microphones to pronounce our surrender.

Leftists will not tolerate an opinion other than their own to be heard in this country. We have become a country of hate crimes and thought control. Don't you dare say something that may offend someone. We just won't stand for it.

In Tennessee they want to prosecute someone for putting bacon in a Koran as a hate crime. The same with middle schoolers who left a bag containing a ham steak on a table full of Somali Muslims.

Don Imus was fired for using the phrase "nappy headed ho's" about the Rutgers Women's basketball team. Jimmy the Greek was fired in 1988 for saying that blacks were bred to be better athletes.

What do all these have in common? We're attempting to legislate thoughts. If I shoot you because I don't like you, I'm prosecuted for murder. If I shoot you because you happen to belong to some protected group, it becomes a hate crime, and I'm really prosecuted.

Newscasters, being slaves to their own white guilt, completely ignored the murders of Channon Christian and Cristopher Newsome in January of this year, largely because they were a white couple who were murdered by 5 black men and women. Since this doesn't fit neatly into the image the news wants to portray, they quietly bury it while still running stories of the rape that never happened at Duke.

Newspapers in America and Europe refuse to run the Danish Mohammad cartoons, for fear of offending Muslims. However, they had no problem at all showing Piss Christ, the Madonna covered in dung and the Chocolate Jesus.

When I wear my GOP baseball cap, I see the way some people stare at me. I know that in their minds, they are wondering if I'm secretly a nazi, or if I want to take away the medicine from their grandparents.

How did we get to this place as a country? How is it that it has become acceptable to attack some people (white men, Christians, anyone in the Republican party), but you can't even have a debate with or about certain people or groups without being accused of wanted to destroy that group? (Al Sharpton, immigration, Islam)

I happen to support the idea of securing our borders. It has nothing to do with hating Mexicans, or wanting to restrict immigration. It has everything to do with wanting to know who is coming in to our country, and keeping us safe. I think Al Sharpton should be sent to prison for the things he has done over the past 20 years, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he is black. It has everything to do with the fact that he is an opportunistic race baiter, who throws accusations at everyone else in the world, but won't even apologize for being wrong after he was convicted and forced to pay a hefty fine. And these are just a few examples.

You may disagree with me on every single point I have ever brought up on this site, but I'm not going to ban you from visiting, or erase your comments, because I believe in the free exchange of ideas. We can debate an issue until we are both tired of hearing the sound of our voice, or one of us persuades the other to their side. But if you disagree with me, I'm not going to try to make it illegal for you to think it.

If you'll pardon me borrowing the phrase, but I have a dream. A dream where ideas are debated on their merit, and decided on facts. I have a dream where knee-jerk, emotional responses to situations don't receive national attention just because they fit into that particular newscaster's politics. I have a dream where a man or woman is not judged by the (D) or (R) after their name, but by the content of their character. I have a dream that we will return to the rugged individualism of our forefathers, where someone can be bullied or called names and their response isn't to plan a mass murder, but to rise above it and go on to succeed in life. I have a dream where the Western way of life is held up as an example of all that is good in the human race. That people are encouraged to pursue their dreams, start businesses, and succeed without the fear of being called greedy, or being accused of destroying the planet because they wish to make life better for their fellow man. I have a dream where politicians actually want to serve the greater good, rather than their over-inflated egos.

I may not live long enough to see these dreams come to fruition, but I hope that my children, and my children's children will be able to walk down the street, hand-in-hand with someone of another ideology.

Labels: mediots, moonbats, race relations

I agree that all of these people should be allowed to speak, regardless of their political affiliation. I wonder though, if you would think the same way if the person wanting to share their views was someone whose political ideology you strongly opposed? What if someone wanted to give a speech at a university that supported Al Qaeda... or the Taliban... or Hussein? Would you still call those people moonbats that protested?

It is easy to rail against a group who seemingly opposes a true exercise of the freedom of speech. I would imagine not many people truly believe that EVERYONE has a right to speak freely on the topics they are passionate about.

Now, before some of the clear thinking, high IQ netizens who frequent you blog start to question my ability to understand the consitution, I of course am advocating all speech regardless of political ideology or agenda PROVIDED that it does not overtly instigate hate or violence.

I see that you want sharpton jailed. Has he ever killed anyone? Or commanded anyone to kill? I know he has spoken in such a way that a mob attacked and killed someone, but that isn't the same thing as "inciting to riot" which is not a protected act under the freedom of speech umbrella. Now, I wonder if you would jail anyone for speaking that way? I can't find the source right now, but a few years ago, after your beloved Minute Men spoke at a rally, a group of upstanding citizens took it upon themselves to attack and beat an illegal immigrant senseless... should the speaker that day be arrested and jailed as well? I know that until i find the source, I can't prove it... so I will keep looking, and then you can help me begin a campaign to arrest and jail both sharpton and the Minute Man responsible for that death.

Posted by Anonymous | 4:51 AM

I got goosebumps at the end there, Frank. :-)

Posted by Anonymous | 7:19 AM

Anyone has the right to peaceably assemble, and protest anything or anyone they don't agree with. The problem with the moonbats in question is that they don't just protest, they refuse to allow anyone of differing ideology the opportunity to speak at all. If someone of a differeing ideology than me wishes to speak, they can take the podium and speak all they want. I'll stand outside, and protest to my little heart's content. What I won't do is burst into the hall, making a fool of myself and those I support, by acting like a spoiled three year old, stomping my feet and refusing to allow him/her to speak.

As to whether I would want Al Aqaeda or the Taliban to speak, that's slightly different. You see, we're at war with them, and they are known terrorist organizations. It's one thing for the moonbats to throw around words like "racist" and "nazi" when a right winger tries to speak, it's a little different when the organization you are supporting regularly publishes videos of beheadings on the internet. So, short answer, yes, they have the right to speak. Long answer, we have the right to lock them up for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Point 2, Inciting a mob to violence, regardless of the speaker or the mob, should be punished accordingly. If a member of the minutemen or any organization incites a mob to break the law, then yes, they should be punished.

And they are far from beloved by me, but I understand the sentiment behind what they are doing. A nation that has no control over who crosses its borders will eventually cease to be a nation. The problem I have with most people who oppose the minutemen or any law or organization that is trying to control the borders is that they frame the argument as being "anti-immigration", which is completely false. The argument is about illegal immigration, which is completely different. But I think I'm going to have to post on that instead of dragging it out here in the comments.

Posted by Frank | 9:37 AM