Comments

What was that again about gay marriage and religious freedom? — 70 Comments

1. These incidents and lawsuits are not accidental. It’s called lawfare.

2. If these “rights” activists think that bullying will improve the way the public looks on homosexuals, they are wrong. Of course, if they just get a kick out of bullying, they may be on to something. This kind of cr*p goes way beyond any microaggression that today’s poor little things complain of.

3. Gee, wonder if they also called (and taped) a mosque requesting their premises for the wedding service.

4. Lizzy:

   They go after private venues like that of the Giffords because I think that, at least so far, religious institutions are explicitly protected.

   I get your point, though.

5. There will be a backlash to this kind of intimidation. I’m not sure what it will be, though. (Declaring LGBTQ rooms on college campuses to be illegal?)

   I had this argument recently with someone on Facebook. Someone was arguing that, just as we can pass a law forbidding discrimination based on race and gender, we can do the same regarding sexual orientation. I responded: okay, let’s try a thought experiment. Here I am trying to make an authentic movie about pre-Columbus Native Americans… and a well-known African-American actor shows up to audition. I don’t want him in my movie, because then it won’t be authentic. Can he sue me for not being an equal-opportunity employer? Or are you claiming that movies of this sort must not be made?

   There was no answer.

6. What in the world is “one party consent”? I think any rational person would say that it is not consent at all. This seems to be a useful yard stick for measuring just how bizarre our laws, and regulations that carry the force of law, have become.

   I hope there is a back lash; a very broad and serious one.

7. I’ll say it again: this only ends with civil disobedience.

8. There is always the same progression. “Abortion is a right of a woman and her doctor to make a private decision.” Now, they demand that we pay for the operations. “Marriage is a private matter” Then, soon enough, participation in this “private matter” is compulsory. Some churchmen, called “useful idiots” by Lenin, allow same-sex “weddings.” Now, the push is on to take the tax exemption of churches that do not participate. The very reason that churches are tax-exempt lies in the legal principle that churches can not be regulated, and taxation is the quickest rout to regulation. They are after all of us, and every increment leads inexorably to the next.

9. Oldflyer – I disagree. One party consent simply means that you can record your own conversation without the permission of the person you are talking to. It does not allow a third party to tap and record your conversation. Why shouldn’t you be allowed to record your own conversation?

10. This sort of bully-facism will only stop when decent people decide to stop it.

    Dare I say that until then we get what we deserve?

11. Yet again the tail wags the dog. The only defense to such bullying is to leave states like New York and California that encourage such crap via legislation.

12. Another example of trying to legislate motivation–guaranteed to fail.

13. Only 11 states require that all parties consent to the recording: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

    That’s surprising to me. I really thought it would have been just the opposite, that is, that most states required the consent of all parties involved.

14. LondonTrader:

    You ask, “Why shouldn’t you be allowed to record your own conversation?”

    Well, if you happen to be talking to yourself, I can’t think of a single reason.

    However, if you’re having an actual conversation—as in, “talking to another human being”—I can think of a simple reason: because you would be recording that person without his/her knowledge or consent.

    States have very different laws on this matter. As Ann writes above, some states require the consent of all parties.

15. Neo, I’m aware of the law in NY and also knew that the majority of states where 1 party permission states. Almost all customer service lines record conversations although they usually announce this first (I guess in case the caller is from a two party state). In some cases a periodic beep on the line with no other announcement is all that is required even in a two party state and this is what many investment banks do.

    I guess I just don’t see the problem. If we have a conversation via email then both sides are recorded (although I guess there is implied consent by sending the email), and there is nothing to stop me making a full written transcript of a conversation on the phone. This doesn’t allow access to the call to anyone not a party to the call but why shouldn’t I be allowed perfect recall of our conversation.

    By the way I’m only arguing this specific point and am fully in agreement regarding the abuse of the Gifford’s rights.

16. This sort of thing hasn’t been limited to private organizations. There has been at least one instance (early on, in MA, iirc) in which a church was successfully sued for refusing to allow a same sex marriage. The important bit for the courts in that case was that the location was not at the church itself, but was a church-owned property that was frequently used for weddings.

    “That’s surprising to me. I really thought it would have been just the opposite, that is, that most states required the consent of all parties involved.”

    Both single-party and dual-party consent laws have their pluses and minuses. Dual-party allows you to avoid “gotcha” moments like this one. On the other hand, single-party consent recordings are useful for things like legitimate investigative journalism. If someone doesn’t realize that they’re being recorded, then they might say more than they would otherwise.

    Now having said that, intentionally recording a conversation without notifying the other party is considered extremely poor etiquette. Journalists who do that sort of thing are likely to quickly run out of willing interview subjects.

17. I remember signs in business establishments that read: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Yes, some of that was aimed at blacks. There are still businesses that require shirts and shoes for service as well as clubs that require coat and tie. I guess that’s okay, as I haven’t heard of any actions at law to force businesses to quit enforcing dress codes. Taking that freedom away from the Giffords is a step on the road to serfdom. Which is the preferred road of the Progs. Fight it we must.

18. LondonTrader:

    Everyone knows that emails that are sent to a person become the property of that person, and there is no guarantee of privacy. It is already on record, and recorded. It was on record the moment it was sent.

    A telephone conversation or other oral conversation is different. It is an oral interaction that is not on record. Any party to it can describe it, quote the other person, etc., but an actual recording of that person’s actual words is not something the other person intends or knows about when he makes the communication (unlike an email, where the person always knows there is a record of it). The person’s privacy is being violated, because the conversation is private and the person’s expectation and perception would be one of privacy. The conversation is not in a public place, where the expectation is not of privacy.

19. The problem with one party consent is that a recording can be altered and especially if someone doesn’t know they’re being recorded, they have no way to later prove that the conversation didn’t occur the way it is presented by the suing party.

    The Giffords were sued for refusing to participate in a same-sex marriage. There is far more involvement in a wedding for the venue provider than just providing a venue.

20. The days when townie hooligans would drive through the campus to beat up a few queers are behind us. I am surprised that some people are striving so earnestly to bring them back.

21. Nolanimrod: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain

22. Have a look at Philip Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful”. I notice the penalties in this case were issued by an administrative agency and an appeal, if any, would likely be to a real judge acting only in an appellate role. Never can these people get an actual trial before a fair tribunal.

    In effect, this is the same as having the governor declare that you owe money and must pay it without ever having the issue litigated. I think Hamburger is right in asserting that this procedure, looked at deeply, is fundamentally lawless.

23. I think I’ve told this story before. I work in a printing shop, and several months ago after gay marriage was legalized in Pennsylvania, we got a call from a lesbian couple wanting to order wedding invitations.

    Of course, there is a big difference between printing invitations and being forced to host the ceremony, or photograph it. And business has been so bad that we don’t have the luxury of turning away customers. So we basically said, “Yeah, whatever.”

    The women came in and looked through the catalogs for a while, then left. The next day one of them called and said that the wedding had been postponed due to an illness in the family.

    We never heard from them again. I have a strong suspicion that they were testing us for a possible lawsuit.

24. I support the right of private businesses to discriminate how they may choose. If you, the owner of a business, do not want to serve someone for whatever reason it is fine by me. Just announce who you do not want to do business with and I will decide if want to do business with you. If a business does not want to interact with gun owners that is fine by me because I do not want to spend my money in your business. I do not support businesses that post no concealed carry signs and I let them know why I am walking back out the door.

25. parker,

    That is exactly the right way for businesses and a potential customer to handle it. But of course this isn’t about working out a reasonable compromise between distasteful discrimination and religious freedom, this is about coercion in order to coerce de facto societal approval.

26. The civil rights law was appropriate for the public sector but it’s effect on the private sector turned the first amendment on it’s head. Goldwater was correct. People have the right to be free and that includes being an asshole.
    Libtards often give examples of the only hotel or restaurant in a town as a justification for the public accommodation laws. However those examples have no applicability for scheduled events. Moreover there is a difference between a baker selling an off the shelf cake ( who’s the only baker in town) and a baker going to and participating in a ceremony.
    What’s happening now I’m s liberal fascism

27. Is liberal fascism

28. The leftists know they must destroy Christians before they can turn this country into an Islamic/leftist utopia. The same judges who attack Christians at every possible opportunity turn around and block constitutional amendments which outlaw the use of Sharia law in US courts.

29. Barry Goldwater is one of my heroes, he understood freedom of the individual was the basis of liberty for all, and in particular, freedom of association. Each and every human discriminates every day. We know who we want or don’t wish to associate with, it is instinctual. We sense this almost immediately when we encounter a stranger.

30. parker Says:
    November 10th, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    I support the right of private businesses to discriminate how they may choose. If you, the owner of a business, do not want to serve someone for whatever reason it is fine by me. Just announce who you do not want to do business with and I will decide if want to do business with you.

    That’s the way I look at it.

    My thought experiment involves a street that has a white-owned restaurant that serves whites only on one end, and a black-owned restaurant that serves blacks only on the other end.

    Then suppose someone opens a restaurant in the middle of the street that serves anybody. Great! Now everybody has a choice. If I’m a racist that doesn’t like to associate with black people, but the mixed-race restaurant has better food or lower prices than the white-only restaurant, then I have a decision to make, don’t I?

    Now factor in smoking policies. Each restaurant owner can set his own. Pretty soon there will be a variety of restaurants catering to different clientele, and everybody will have several to choose from. There’ll be white smoking, white non-smoking, black smoking, black non-smoking, mixed smoking, and mixed non-smoking. Suppose a lesbian opens a restaurant that serves only women. Fine, no skin off my nose. There are plenty of other restaurants where I can go, and why would I insist on going to a place where I’m not wanted?

    The free market will satisfy pretty much everybody if it’s left alone to work its magic. Places that are too restrictive will be unpopular and go out of business. But no, the government has to create one-size-fits-all laws for everybody.

31. $13 thou is chump change. THIS is how it’s done:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/twilight_room_annex_will_close.html

32. @ Illuminati: “The leftists know they must destroy Christians before they can turn this country into an Islamic/leftist utopia.”

    Ding ding ding sing ding! We have a winner!

33. G Joubert Says:
    November 10th, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    $13 thou is chump change. THIS is how it’s done:

    Geez, some of the comments at that link: “Justice has been served. He violated the law.”

    Straight-up fascism.

34. “The leftists know they must destroy Christians before they can turn this country into an Islamic/leftist utopia.”

    Leftists certainly are out to thoroughly repress Christians but anyone who mistakes the Islamist-Leftist marriage of convenience for anything other than a temporary truce between two fundamentally opposed totalitarian ideologies hasn’t fully thought through the issue.

    That ‘marriage’ will only last until their common enemy the Western right is defeated.

35. No London Trader, that is fallacious.

    The scenario you present would be ok, if you were having a conversation with your self. It is meaningless if you are recording a conversation with another party and recording it without their knowledge. It does not take a great deal of imagination to project scenarios in which the person who knows of the recording leads the person who does not know into a trap.

    You must be aware that in almost every state there must be–as a minimum– a warning that the conversation is being recorded.

    Your response is worthy of Eric Holder.

36. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    “That ‘marriage’ will only last until their common enemy the Western right is defeated.”

    I’m not a prophet, so I can’t argue about the future. Time will tell how things work out.

    I’m not certain that the left sees their alliance with Islam as a “temporary truce.” There are so many synergies between the left and Islam that the left seem to consider them true soul mates. The left might see Islam as the new state religion in their One World Government.

    Obviously, Islam will be the senior partner in any Islamic/leftist paradise. From the Muslims’ perspective the left has a great deal to offer. Muslims believe that all infidels owe them jizya. The left has already set up a system of jizya for Muslim colonists called Welfare. Muslims would probably allow present day leftists to remain in power if they were willing to say the Shahada. Muslims don’t even have a problem with feminism. They have redefined feminism as the right of Muslim woman to wear burkas and hifabs. Muslims also have no quarrel with the left’s war on Christianity since they also hate Christians. Muslims love the growing anti-Semitism on the left.

    On the surface the Islamic/leftist utopia wouldn’t appear to fit the stated agenda of the left. However, the left are hypocrites with an intellectually hollow ideology. While leftists love to express moral outrage, their morality is based on group think without any sound philosophical foundation. Perhaps some individuals on the left who will wake up before Islam engulfs them but most leftists will probably willingly submit to Islam. Saying the shahada will come easily.

37. The leftists in the west and the jihadists each see the other as useful idiots. Each dreams of hegemony, but the differences between them are wide and deep. The left believes they can ride the tiger and then slay it once their agenda is achieved. The jihadists know that when it all comes down to dust they can cower the leftists into submission by beheading 10,000 elitists in NYC, DC, and LA.

38. parker Says:
    “The leftists in the west and the jihadists each see the other as useful idiots.”

    Obviously no group is completely homogeneous. There may be a few cynical leftists who recognize the evils in Islam but who are so arrogant that they think they can “ride the tiger.” A few more leftists like Bill Maher are even speaking up. The majority of leftists identify with Islam whom they view as innocent victims of American aggression.

    The article titled “Moore explains why he thinks liberals are so offended when Maher disses Islam” does not support the argument that liberals view Muslims as “useful idiots.” Rather they view Muslims as innocent victims of American prejudice and bigotry.

    Here’s how Moore expresses it:
    “We have witnessed, since 9/11, Arabs and Muslins in this country undergoing huge amounts of prejudice, bigotry and sometimes outright violence. This sickens us (as I know it does Bill). So we are extra sensitive to what sounds like, as it goes through the liberal filter in our ears, any “anti-Arab” comments. We don’t want to hear anything even remotely anti-Muslim”

    Moore does go on to state that liberals shouldn’t put Islam entirely beyond criticism but he then says that our government has no moral authority to do that criticizing. Since Maher has earned his cred by criticizing Christians and since comedy is dangerous, liberals should cut Maher some slack when he crosses the line and jokes about Islam.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/11/10/michael_moore_defends_bill_maher_comedy_is_and_should_be_a_dangerous_business/

39. The same judges who attack Christians at every possible opportunity turn around and block constitutional amendments which outlaw the use of Sharia law in US courts.

    Word.

    This doesn’t have diddly-squat to do with homosexual empowerment: it’s about attacking, always and only, Christians and Christianity.

    I note that they’ve left the moslems and the orthodox Jews alone. (Tho they may have the orthodox Jews slated for “dessert.”)

40. It’s not intimidation, it’s extortion. It’s no different from paying the mafia for “protection”.

    As for the counter, make sure that you raise the expense up for certain people. Trying to get people for charging too high a price is very very difficult, and it weeds out the gold diggers that are extorting money, since the up front cost is too large for them to sink without lawyers.

41. That ‘marriage’ will only last until their common enemy the Western right is defeated.

    That isn’t really a concern for dead Westerners. Since they’ll be dead then.

42. One party consent laws are very useful guerilla weapons for various special operations like O’Keefe’s investigations when undercover.

    The Left funds their own special operations in this way, via extortion of various groups like this one.

    American patriots only have less than a handful of special operation teams conducting guerilla warfare and propaganda ops. The Left has as many as they can fund using extortion. Which can be quite a lot, if you think about it the way criminal syndicates do.

43. No brainer of the day….the Giffords were set up. The matter brought to light via the courts, the venue the left is using more and more. The “lesbian couple” were easily married elsewhere. The Giffords paid for their wedding.

    I wouldn’t have wanted to have their marriage on my farm because they would have scared the animals. Did you see the picture of those two? Wowzers!

    The left is never going to stop. Ever. As has been said by many, they have to be defeated, not just controlled. They have no morals, no boundaries. They can go in whatever direction they want to create whatever scenario necessary to hold what those on the right believe – against them. To use it like a weapon on them. And rather than go to countries, cities, etc., where there are those who think like them, their objective is to ram their agenda down the throats of those who do not believe as they do. Sorry for repeating the obvious.

44. “I’m not a prophet, so I can’t argue about the future. Time will tell how things work out.”

    Nor am I, fortunately prophesy isn’t needed. Their strategic imperatives and behavior make the motivations for both Islam and the Left very clear. They are both quite upfront about the totalitarian system they each desire and while parallels necessarily exist, Islam’s and the secular/atheist Left’s tenets are as fundamentally opposed, as they each are to the Western right’s tenets.

    A failure to distinguish between the disparate elements of the left can easily lead to erroneous assumptions about its nature. It is “useful idiots” like Ben Afflect and Michael Moore who typify liberal’s deep denial as to Islam’s nature and the motivations of moderate Muslims, who are also in denial as to Islam’s inherent nature. The hard left; the George Soros, Rahm Emanuels and Bill Ayers are under no such illusions.

    At the most basic strategic and logistical level Islam can never dominate the world, as they lack the logistical resources to do so.

    “The difference between the amateur and the professional soldier is that the professional focuses on logistics, while the amateur focuses on tactics.” Winston Churchill

    Focusing on Islam’s tactic of beheading in order to intimidate and extort submission is to fail to appreciate that Islam’s lack of logistical resources makes worldwide dominance unachievable. It is the West’s lack of resolve that allows Islam to continue to threaten the West.

    Neither Russia nor the Chinese suffer from a lack of ruthlessness and arguably, both are using Islamic terrorism to destabilize America’s regional presence around the world.

    Islam can severely hurt and disrupt the world but its dreams of hegemony are just that, fanciful dreams.

    “It’s not intimidation, it’s extortion.” @ 4:03

    Intimidation is the means extortionists use to achieve their ends. Extortion extends from intimidation.

    “That isn’t really a concern for dead Westerners. Since they’ll be dead then.” @ 4:07

    In its 1400 year existence, Islam has only rarely committed genocide, while conquering it does indeed engage in an orgy of violence. But once the infidel surrenders, it has need for slaves and dhimmis, as its nature is parasitical.

    Atheists, and the LGBT crowd do not qualify for dhimmitude, Islam views them as a cancer, to be, at a future date, ruthlessly cut out of the body. But Islam does currently deem them of strategic and tactical value in its fight with the Western right.

45. Freedom to associate – Gone
    Freedom to worship as one wants – Gone
    Freedom to assemble – Gone
    Freedom to not be searched – Gone
    Freedom to own firearm without lots-o-bs – Gone
    Freedom to ones own choices in food, tobacco, etc – Gone
    Freedom to attend a college of your chocie – Gone
    Freedom to know your accuser – Gone

    shall i keep going?

46. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    “It is “useful idiots” like Ben Afflect and Michael Moore who typify liberal’s deep denial as to Islam’s nature and the motivations of moderate Muslims, who are also in denial as to Islam’s inherent nature. The hard left; the George Soros, Rahm Emanuels and Bill Ayers are under no such illusions.”

    The three individuals you mentioned are indeed very cynical evil people. Michael Moore is probably a more accurate barometer to measure the dominant leftist state of mind since he has been so successful in producing attractive propaganda for the left. If his beliefs differed much from the beliefs held by the majority of the left, including the top leftist insiders, he would be vilified by the left, not honored.

    “Focusing on Islam’s tactic of beheading in order to intimidate and extort submission is to fail to appreciate that Islam’s lack of logistical resources makes worldwide dominance unachievable. It is the West’s lack of resolve that allows Islam to continue to threaten the West.”

    Wordwide dominance by Islam may not happen any time soon, but their success so far is stunning. They are in the fight for the long haul spanning centuries while their enemies soon forget Islam’s atrocities. If any country can resist Islam it is probably China. The Muslim’s primary target has always been Christendom. Unless something changes drastically, Islam may well take over much of Europe. Vladimir Putin is the only Western leader who gets it and is preparing Russia for the long battle. Israel also gets it, although they are so small it only takes one successful strike by nuclear empowered Islamists to destroy Israel.

47. Freedom is too valuable not to be regulated…

48. Wordwide dominance by Islam may not happen any time soon, but their success so far is stunning.

    You would do well too if the soviets were kibbitzing on your side… no?

    ie. if your fed information from a huge spy network (and i mean huge – over 100,000 per year are created between china and russia), fed military equipment, expertise, and planning… how would you do?

49. Being a public venue, it seems that any group would have the right to book a party. Perhaps, the farm should book another party/ celebration to run concurrent with this “wedding” reception. How about an NRA “concealed-carry” summer festival?

50. “Michael Moore is probably a more accurate barometer to measure the dominant leftist state of mind … If his beliefs differed much from the beliefs held by the majority of the left, including the top leftist insiders, he would be vilified by the left, not honored.”

    Moore is indeed an accurate barometer of the idealist faction on the left. Stalin and Mao are ‘accurate barometers’ of what socialist regimes ‘evolve’ into as ultimately, tyranny is the only means capable of sustaining socialist economies. The hard left is using “useful idiot” leftist idealists like Moore, etc. to garner political power. They are the ‘Trotskyites’ of today. Their ‘useful idiocy’ is why they are not vilified by the hard left.

    “Professional liberals are too arrogant to compromise. In my experience, they were also very unpleasant people on a personal level. Behind their slogans about saving the world and sharing the wealth with the common man lurked a nasty hunger for power. They’d double-cross their own mothers to get it or keep it.” – Harry S Truman, from a 1970 interview

    “their [Islam’s] success so far is stunning. They are in the fight for the long haul spanning centuries’ Illuminati

    “Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.” George Orwell

    Islam’s ‘stunning’ success is illusive, it is the West’s refusal to identify Islam’s ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism that is responsible for our lack of resistance and thus, Islam’s ‘stunning’ success. Future ‘successes’ by Islam’s agents will continue to dissipate Western denial. That process started with 9/11 and continues with ISIS. Count on it, courtesy of Islam, more ‘success’ is in store for us and denial will be increasingly harder to sustain in the face of reality.

    However, Islam cannot sustain another century of conflict with the West, it must win within the next few decades or collapse. That is because Islamic terrorism is essentially reactive to the cultural intrusion of the modern world. It is my position that 7th century Islam cannot survive another century of cultural intrusion.

    Islam is taking over Europe. Rotherdam…

51. ‘if your fed information from a huge spy network (and i mean huge — over 100,000 per year are created between china and russia), fed military equipment, expertise, and planning…”

    ALL of which can be withdrawn when the time is judged right. Islam has NO industrial base worth mentioning and its technological resources are very thin with little depth. In war, it is logistics, logistics, logistics that determine the winner. Fanaticism only takes you so far and nothing creates more resistance and resolve in an enemy than ruthless fanaticism. Cutting the heads off babies makes very clear the nature of an enemy… and in the face of undeniable evil, denial and appeasement become obvious.

52. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    “Islam’s ‘stunning’ success is illusive”

    If Islam’s success is an illusion, it is certainly a grand illusion. In the war to dominate the World demographics is destiny:
    “There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world’s population, making Islam the second-largest religion.”

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

    Islam is like a boa constrictor gradually squeezing the life out of it’s prey. Europe and Africa are the primary targets right now.

53. Europe has plenty of industry for Islam to take over. Why do you think people always call it Arabic numerals? With a large enough slave caste, think about it.

54. “They were devastated when they heard that Liberty Ridge Farm would not take their business because of who they are,’’
    Yea, right!
    That is why they recorded the whole thing.
    I think the only thing they were devastated by was the small $3k profit they made. Let’s hope the scummy lawyer got 60% of the settlement.

    “Being a public venue, it seems that any group would have the right to book a party. Perhaps, the farm should book another party/ celebration to run concurrent with this “wedding” reception. How about an NRA “concealed-carry” summer festival?”

    Unfortunatly it is after the fact. Their problem was that they were simply “honest” in their conversation. Something the lesbian couple, the East German Stasi and the gestapo have no appreciation for. The end will always justify any means necessary.

55. ” may have known” Neo?!
    Read Mark Levin’s, Men in Black it is astonishing how the Left uses the law to cram their hideous agenda down the throats of man.

    Is is this arrogance they have which makes them so dangerous and destructive.

56. Illuminati,
    Demographics certainly do spell doom for some European country’s, if they continue in their denial as to Islam’s inherent nature. An example of one of the European countries that will not succumb to Islam is Switzerland. But of the ones that do succumb, they will NOT remain productive societies. As to why, see below:

    Ymarsakar,
    Europe does indeed have plenty of industry for Islam to take over. Fortunately, Islam does not culturally embrace either a strong work ethic or education for that matter. They hire foreigners to build and run their technological infrastructure. What noble prize winners and inventors has Islam produced? What modern works of art? Take away Islamic society’s oil income and what remains? Egypt…

    Their ‘golden age’ was the result of their ‘appropriating’ the fruit of other cultures… their most notable innovation, ‘Arabic’ numerals… were originally Hindu.

    In addition, look at Europe’s Muslim ghettos. They are NOT the result of European ‘racism’. They are the result of a ‘lazy’, self-indulgent culture that does the minimum possible to get by. And a slave caste, can never match the industrial output and technological innovation of even a semi-capitalist society with a strong work ethic. Again, logistics and culture make unachievable worldwide dominance by Islam.

57. Geoffrey Britain: Islam has NO industrial base worth mentioning and its technological resources are very thin with little depth. In war, it is logistics, logistics, logistics that determine the winner. Fanaticism only takes you so far and nothing creates more resistance and resolve in an enemy than ruthless fanaticism. Cutting the heads off babies makes very clear the nature of an enemy… and in the face of undeniable evil, denial and appeasement become obvious.

    Islam has a larger industrial base than you would want to give credit to. the Bin Laden family does worldwide large scale construction projects. Do not confuse the extreme countries abilities with other countries. the extremes are in soviet hands and so are dished out things, and their own people dont necessarily step up to the plate to help. so they are not a measure of much. they would be even more dangerous if they were not following orders.

    on the point of fanatacism, and logistics, i assume your talking about classic war. but what of the death of a thousand cuts over 500 year period? a westerner would not call that war, but the far east is waging war that way right now. with most of what they do outside the classical definitions of war because they do things that are below a standard in which the west would respond and stop them.

    such stuff is laid out in the PLA war books…

    On Bin Laden’s youngest wife
    http://neoneocon.com/2011/05/05/on-bin-ladens-youngest-wife/

    Unrestricted Warfare
    Literally “warfare beyond bounds”, written in 1999 by two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui

    Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one’s opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.

    so outside the idea of classical fighting, logistics is not really the key any more.

    or in war parlance, thats the idea of the last war, and we are in the new war.

    under unrestricted warfare, getting the enemy to fund CFL lights, which you make, and then ship to them to dot the landscape of the environment of the enemies children with mercury, causing developmental disorders, is a form of long slow war

    so is breaking into the computers and files of the enemy… no logistics needed

    so is counterfeiting parts so that their equipment fails in critical times

    so is taking the money you earn from the enemy, and putting it back in funding wacko politics and hedonism and college teachings. where is the needed logistics of cultural warfare?

    as long as the western peoples have the idea of war that you have and is common, then the way war is being fought between nuclear powers today, wont hit the gong and signal war.

    if japan lost because Isoroku Yamamoto’s sleeping giant woke up..
    why not act over time in a way in which you dont wake it up?

    this is the kind of conversation i have been trying to have for years as the whole of it has changed. given nuclear weapons, and so on, you cant fight toe to toe, and so, logistics is no longer the thing that wins wars.

    the way that islam is fighting is in a way in which you cant tell enemy from friend, and so, without the cold hard ability to just kill them all and let god sort them out, your in a bind under classical engagements. even worse, with the world funded leftists in the country, your ability to win and wage a winnning thing is negated by their internal fights and struggles using your own people. even worse than worse, they are self fundd by the system your attacking itself. as long as the system your attacking is functional, it will fund its own death.

    todays war is fought by injecting bad ideas into the minds of the people your up against… and they are so distracted by the wars points, they never see that they are in a war.

    The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them…

    i will give you one of thousands of things that are happening that all converge on losing over time.

    Women in the military…

    kill every man but one, society can continue
    kill women, society collapses.

    so they get us to accept self suicide (planned parenthood), and think policis that amount to suicide over time as good ideas.

    when the american soldiers came back from WWII, they had a baby boom.
    now, if you imagine the same war, but half the soldiers were women, when that ended would their be a baby boom? if so, would it be anywhere near as much as it would be if women didnt fight?

    how about college and feminism? take the smartest women, put them in college, let them self exterminate their families, while denying that intelligence is inheritable and that we are unequal, so none are special so its ok they die out. take their money, so they have fewer kids, and give them to the people with low IQ in the population. fragment the language of the population so that they cant operate military equipment, lower their ability so that very few can fight at all (while leaving those who cant to repopulate). the smart self exterminate and self limit due to taxes, while the stupid procreate in higher quantities than they could if they were not gifted the resources of the exterminated targets.

    get us to waste money on things like global warming, get us to believe things like nuclear winter so we make agreements which are not kept instead of stand strong, and so on and so on.

    there isnt enough room to go over all the ideas and things fomented by external forces over the past 100 years of the CPUSA running schools, from the design created by communist dewey, to the teachers union run by bella dodd head of the CPUSA, to the normalization of socialism as good, freedom bad… to the debasement of the women who are liberated to desease, low birth rates, no husbands, and on and on.

    of course, if you have not read the early papers which discussed things in terms i am using, rather than the ad copy you hear today, you would think that such evil and nasty things were not possible.

    but all one has to do is know the detail history and not make stuff up to fill in gaps and pretend to be smarter than one is or more knowlegeable. then one would be led to know that naomi goldstein wrote for the communist party before writing the feminine mystique. franz boas a communist anthorpologist, tagged margaret meade to redefine sexuality for women by lying in her book… and add to it that the most quoted researcher in law is the defunct kinsey, who used prisoners, and prostitutes as his normal base to write books to get us to accept homosexuality and so on culturally, but more importantly legally… (This from a man who got off shoving a toothbrush up his urethra and who paid pedophiles to masturbate babies to prove they were “sexual”)

    the war is near 100 years old now… we have lost…
    we have not any means of combatting or ejecting it..

    and logistics are not even needed, as no one is moving material
    they are moving ideas and education, and funding things…
    which is the only way to bring down a nuclear power with superior military equipment…

    islam is just an expendible force…
    the enemy of islam protects it.
    but once its gone, a few nuclear weapons can clear the area
    spetznatz can exterminate the rest, and thats that.

    this makes the fanatic a great weapon, in that they will act, self fund, are expendible, and easily defeated by a set of morals that will not protect them.

    have to go..
    hopefully this will stimulate more thought, and not a lot of denial
    as i can cite the stuff that would lay it out more… but thats verboten
    and you cant convince anyone in a tiny space…
    especially when what your proposing goes against their natural thinking

    🙂

58. read it fast before neo cuts it down!!!!

    Weaknesses of the United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

    The book argues that the primary weakness of the United States in military matters is that the US views revolution in military thought solely in terms of technology. The book further argues that to the US, military doctrine evolves because new technology allows new capabilities. As such, the book argues that the United States does not consider the wider picture of military strategy, which includes legal and economic factors. The book proceeds to argue that the United States is vulnerable to attack along these lines

    Alternative methods of attack
    Reducing one’s opponent, the book notes, can be accomplished in a number of ways other than direct military confrontation. The book notes that these alternative methods “have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare, and they have already produced serious threats different from the past and in many directions for…national security.”

    Lawfare

    Lawfare, or political action through transnational or non-governmental organizations can effect a policy change that would be impossible otherwise. Because of the international nature of the modern world and activism, it is much easier for nation-states to affect policy in other nation-states through a proxy.
    Economic warfare

    Owing to the interconnected nature of global economics, nations can inflict grievous harm on the economies of other nations without taking any offensive action.
    Network warfare

    see iWar

    One of the better-known alternatives in this book is the idea of attacking networks. Networks are increasingly important in not only data exchange but also transportation, financial institutions, and communication. Attacks that disable networks can easily hamstring large areas of life that are dependent on them for coordination. One example of network warfare would be shutting down a network that supplies power. If there is a significant failure in the power grid caused by the attack, massive power outages could result, crippling industry, defense, medicine, and all other areas of life.
    Terrorism

    Another famous instance of Unrestricted Warfare policy is terrorism. Terrorism is used by a group to gain satisfaction for certain demands. Even if these demands are not satisfied, a terrorist attack can have vastly disproportionate effects on national welfare. One only has to look at the economic crisis that followed the terrorist attacks against the United States, or the extensive security measures put in place after those same attacks. Terrorism erodes a nation’s sense of security and well being, even if the direct effects of the attacks only concern a minute percentage of the population.

59. Beth:

    The conditional “may have known” is in there because they didn’t absolutely know what the Giffords would do. I have little doubt, though, that they strongly suspected the Giffords would refuse (because of their religious beliefs), and that’s why they chose the Giffords and recorded the phone call from the outset.

60. br549:

    Yes, I was thinking that the award would go quite a ways towards paying for their wedding. Of course, nowadays, a lot of weddings cost a LOT more than that.

61. Weirdly enough, we’re getting similar cases in the UK at the moment, despite the different religious and legal environment:

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gay-marriage-cake-row-christian-bakery-ashers-told-to-pay-compensation-or-face-legal-action-30723562.html

62. It seems likely that the lesbian couple contacted more than the Giffords, that they were engaged in a fishing expedition and that far more than this individual couple are involved in what I suspect is a coordinated ‘lawfare’ campaign.

63. Artfldgr,
    You’ve moved beyond Islam to the totality of attacks and threats to America. I’ve limited my remarks to just the threat of Islam. I fully agree that Russia and China are intimately involved in the Islamic threat and have commented upon it for years on this blog. Nevertheless, Islam by itself has nowhere near the logistical resources of the British Commonwealth, must less the US.

    ISIS and al Qaeda are Islam’s cannon fodder. Islam is effectively, Russia and China’s cannon fodder. China is by far, the greatest and most serious long term existential threat we face.

64. These are the same people who cheered Susana Martinez’s hairdresser when he refused her as a customer after she spoke out against gay marriage.

65. Geoffrey Britain:

    I totally agree.

66. “ISIS and al Qaeda are Islam’s cannon fodder. Islam is effectively, Russia and China’s cannon fodder. ”

    Both Russia and China are victims of jihad just like the rest of us infidels in Europe, Africa, Israel, and the USA. Unlike Europe and the USA which have leftists leaders who welcome the Islamization of their countries, China and Russia are gearing up for the long fight.

    Many of the charges that Islam is cannon fodder for the Russia and China can be easily flipped against the USA. More often than not it is the USA which has used Islam against China and Russia. For instance, the United states has taken a keen interest in the welfare of the Muslim Uighurs. Against Russia the USA has often publicly sided with the Chechens against the Russians. In Kosovo the USA openly fought on the side of the Muslims against the Russian’s allies, the Serbians. Of course no one should forget that we armed and funded the Taliban in their war against Russia.

67. The facts do not support your suppositions Illuminati. When you try to covertly and loosely direct a tiger there’s going to be blowback, such is the case with Russia and China in regard to ‘using’ Islamic terrorism. The Islamic terrorism directed at Russia was strictly in regard to Chechnya seeking its independence and with atheistic China there has been much less terrorism directed at it.

    Russia is and has been the main facilitator of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability both in providing actual technology, advisory expertise and protection against effective sanctions in the UN. China has also repeatedly protected Iran in the UN. Those are NOT the actions of nations concerned with Islamic terrorism or nations preparing to seriously fight it either.

    U.S. ‘use’ of Islamic countries (the Taliban and support for dictators) was the result of having a much greater threat confronting us, i.e. the Soviet Union and Communist China and the need to keep Middle Eastern oil supplies stable.

    While in the case of the Chechens and Muslim Uighurs it was liberal outrage at human rights violations by Russia and China fueled our support for them. And with the Serbians, it was a case of their genocidal actions.

    We’ve certainly pursued our national interests in the ME but the charge that the US has supported Islamic terrorism against Russia and China is simply unsupported by the facts.

68. What am I missing here?

    The USA armed and trained the Taliban to fight the Soviets. On 9-11 the Islamists repaid us for our help. Perhaps we thought we were arming the Taliban against a “greater threat to us” but that doesn’t change the fact that we used the Taliban as “cannon fodder” against the Soviets. Later we went to war against Russia’s ally, Serbia, in that case we were not using Muslims as cannon fodder for ourselves but instead we were using our own soldiers as cannon fodder in the service of the Muslims. When has Russia done that against us?

    Fortunately, we haven’t directly armed the Uhigars probably because our leaders know the Chinese will retaliate. So we probably have not used the Uhigars as cannon fodder but we have championed their side. Exactly where is China’s proxy Islamic army fighting us? Both China and Russia have business relations with Iran but the US and Iran are not at war so no Iranians are being used as Chinese or Russian cannon fodder.

    No matter what justification the USA and Europe might give for helping Muslim jihadists it doesn’t change the facts that we are arming and training Muslim armies on a massive scale. The price we must pay for arming jihadist armies is that we are facing the rapid Islamization of our societies.

69. Libertarians who support homosexual marriage, as well as polyamorous, bisexual, Moslem (also called pedophile or temporary or contract marriage), xenophile marriages, Democrats, and Socialists agree: when the state can compel the church, separation of church and state must yield.

70. Neo, point made, the “may have known” was conditional on your part. You were right to call me on it.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>