Kerry: We Must ‘Put Real Islam Out There'

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that to counter ISIS, we must support “real Islam.”

“It has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.”

Firstly, I’d like to remind the good secretary of the first ten words of the First Amendment;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]”
-- First Amendment, US Constitution

Is the secretary not aware that Islam is a religion, not a social club? Or, perhaps given Obama’s love of his phone and pen being used to usurp the powers of Congress, that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the acts of the Executive? After all, the Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law,” not “The Executive shall make no Executive Order.”

Secondly, I’d like to ask the secretary about his credentials qualifying him to decide what, exactly, “real Islam” is. Are they recognized by the balance of the followers of Islam in the world?

One wonders what the response of the left might have been, had Secretary Rice said something about “real Christianity.” At least she has some claim to relevant knowledge of Christianity; more so than Kerry’s knowledge of Islam, I’d wager.

As part of Secretary Kerry’s foray into his “expert” knowledge of Islam, he goes on to speak about;

“...real Islam and how important the Friday sermons are and where they need to go.”

Well, the Divine Kerry is prepared to instruct others on aspects of Islam as well as tell its adherents their own direction.

I suppose, had Jefferson written, “separation of mosque and state,” Kerry would have a different opinion on the matter and might, even now, be telling the Pope how to run Catholicism.

We Are The Government

I see all these posts about the government is out of control, the government is taking over, the government etc...

Thing is, we have EXACTLY what we voted for and it's been building since FDR.

WE are the government. The problem is, too few of us take our responsibilities seriously.

Voting is a pain, so we don't vote - or, we let it be done early, so we can make sure we get our naps in. As a result, we end up with a government that is amenable to the activists, not the People.

Jury duty is so inconvenient that we take great pains to get out of it. So, we end up with ignorant jurors who lacked the imagination to get out of serving. Also, too few realize that when they are on a jury, it is not only the defendant who's on trial; the LAW is, too.

When asked what the Constitutional Convention gave to the nation, Ben Franklin is said to have replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Well, maybe we can't. Maybe no one can. As Rome did, the US keeps its citizens in line with Bread and Circuses. Rome fell, we are probably falling. We could stop the fall, but that takes effort and - well, there's American Idol to watch or something neat is on YouTube.

In school, kids are taught that the Constitution is malleable, a "living" document, changing at the whim of society. I know; I was a teacher. They are not taught that it is the LAW.

But, even if they were, so what?

We have too many laws and far too many of what we have address piddling issues. As a result, we go ahead and justify breaking those little laws. By doing so, we train ourselves that the law is something to be broken and we find it far easier to ignore the bigger laws - like the Constitution.

Does anyone think that the laws we have in place today would have passed even a cursory review by the Founding Fathers? I don't think so. I think they would be offended and distressed by what we have done to their gift to us. Although, they had a far different attitude back then. People were, in general, nobler, I believe. The Founding Fathers had no idea what dregs their prodigy would be.

Democracy lasts until the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasuries. Then the slide to failure becomes almost unstoppable.

Bread and Circuses. The bane of societies.

Let Them Compete Or Sink

Newspapers are finding themselves faltering in a world where electronic news is far preferable; where headlines can be read within minutes of a newsworthy event, rather than being forced to wait until the next morning.

Some newspapers are adapting by dropping their print editions and going 100% online. They see what they need to do to compete and do it.

So, what does the US government do, instead of letting the market dictate their fate?

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

Tue Mar 24, 20093:05pm EDT

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax
breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

Well, Senator Cardin, you're not doing enough! Where's your bill to rescue Town Criers? When will you address the plight of the buggy whip industry? The daguerreotype companies need your help, Senator; why don't you aid them?

Duh - It's Private Property

There is no "right" to free speech in online forums. They are not public venues; the are private. Privately paid for and privately maintained.

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

Jul 6, 2:17 PM (ET)
By ANICK JESDANUN

NEW YORK (AP) - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer
generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or
provocative.

Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other
constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

For example, in this forum, I can delete, modify or allow anything I please and no one has any recourse - except to not participate. I can not be forced to allow content I do not want.

Others believe companies shouldn't police content at all, and if they do,
they should at least make clearer the rules and the mechanisms for appeal.

"Vagueness does not inspire the confidence of people and leaves room for
gaming the system by outside groups," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer
scientist and Internet activist.

When the rules are clear and the grievance procedures are clear, then people
know what they are working with and they at least have a starting point in
urging changes in those rules."

Companies can police their webspace to any extent they wish and their rules can be as painfully bureaucratic or insipidly vague as they like. They can be, if so desired, totally non-existent. They pay for the space, they can do with it as they please.

The cause of freedom is not served by forcing one group to bow to the rules of another.

No One Is Listening To Us!!

Waaaaahhhh!!

So, we gotta stamp out feet and demand that the government control what everyone hears! Who cares about that First Amendment! Since no one wants to listen to us, we'll have to force them to and make sure that they don't hear what they actualy want!

==========================
REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.
==========================

See, this unbiased report explains it all;

==========================
The new report — entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.
==========================

Never mind that this is a thinkprogress report, heck, they have no bias at all!

As an aside, does anyone else find it odd that the Center for American Progress and Free Press is demanding to restrict the free press? Even sadly laughable?