The quickest way to find out what liberals have next on their to-do list is usually to pay close attention to what they tell you that they most certainly don’t want to do, and to what they assure you no one is actually proposing.
Normally, you don’t have to look very far to find someone who is proposing, or has proposed, what liberals tell you cannot and never will happen. MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, for example, has assured the public that the second amendment is safe. “No one, anywhere, is talking about doing away with the second amendment, and no one, anywhere, is advocating stripping away gun ownership.”
So quit being hysterical, conservatives. Commentators generally don’t openly advocate for the repeal of the second amendment because that makes it sound as if they oppose fundamental rights spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. What they advocate is violating those rights while pretending that they are not. Rather than repealing the amendment, they just ignore the spirit and the letter thereof.
Yet I can think of one person who has actually declared her support for repealing the second amendment. It’s the very same Alex Wagner. When Bill Maher asked her what changes she would make to the Constitution, she replied: “I think get rid of the second amendment, the right to bear arms.”
So her assurances that “no one, anywhere” wants to take our guns was a calculated lie intended to pacify the bitter clingers. Why must liberals always employ this form of subterfuge? The answer is that whenever they tell us where this train is heading, people invariably demand to get off. So it’s in their best interest to keep mum and to name-call anyone who has enough prescience to see further down the tracks. They call us paranoid, they call us wingnuts, they call us racists.
But we’re right.
Sharia law will never come to America, liberals say. It’s such a remote possibility that we shouldn’t even be on guard against it. Oklahomans weren’t so sure that Sharia would not begin to infiltrate American jurisprudence so they put the issue on the 2010 ballot. Question 755 prohibited Oklahoma judges from citing foreign law, including Sharia law, in their decisions.
The ballot question followed closely on the heels of a notorious case in which a New Jersey judge refused to grant a restraining order against a Muslim man accused by his ex-wife of raping her. The judge did not dispute that he had forced himself on her but maintained that the man believed that he had the authority under the Qur’an to do so. Thankfully, the decision was later overturned. But is it so outrageous to take action to prevent the next soft-headed judge from handing down a similar ruling?
Richard L. Fricker thinks so. Fricker, a regular contributor to the Oklahoma Observer, summed up the liberal position quite well. He wrote: “The problem is that this question smacks of a phobic reaction to a non-threat.”
Fricker’s position, distilled to two sentences: It can’t happen here. So stop trying to stop it.
Bloggers at Loonwatch agree. Loonwatch appears to be a single issue blog dedicated to fighting “Islamaphobia” whenever and wherever it may rear its ugly head. Of Question 755, one blogger huffed: “It was a manufactured problem; the issue has never come up in the state’s courts.”
But is that really their objection? Or are they simply leaving the door open for the possibility at a later date? Liberals, after all, love redundant laws that punish people for things which are already disallowed, such as bullying and hazing. More importantly, the importation of foreign law is not uncommon at the highest levels of the judiciary and, as already mentioned, a judge in another state has already granted a Muslim man a Sharia pass for raping his wife. Perhaps New Jersey was too close for Oklahomans’ comfort. They decided to nip Sharia in the bud.
Even though “no one” actually wanted to import Sharia law, it didn’t take long to find someone who did. Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR, sued the state, claiming that it was a violation of his civil rights. Apparently, it’s a violation of a Muslim’s civil rights whenever he isn’t allowed to claim supremacy for a separate, foreign, and religious law over the laws of Oklahoma.
The judge who first issued an injunction against the law wrote that Awad “made a strong showing that State Question 755′s amendment’s primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion.”
Except the law did the opposite. It said that Islamic law would have to stay out of the courtroom.
Mr. Awad later won the lawsuit and Oklahoma’s 755 died an unseemly death. Rest assured though, no one—and I mean no one—actually wants to bring Sharia to America, least of all the Muslim bloggers at Loonwatch. Although they like to pretend that they oppose importing Sharia law just as much as the next guy, they cheered the demise of 755. They called it “a victory for the Constitution.”
These are but two examples. They told you, of course, that Obamacare would not cover abortions because it was not specifically provided for in the bill, and yet they adamantly refused to include a provision that would have explicitly forbade it. “No one” was suggesting that government fund abortion and yet that is exactly what happened. “No one” was suggesting that anti-bullying laws be used to censor speech that homosexuals find offensive, and yet it’s happening. “No one” is suggesting giving illegal aliens welfare and yet they keep getting it.
My advice to conservatives is to keep up your guard. You’re going to be called a nut for sounding the alarm bells. But you’re not a nut. You just have enough foresight to see the endgame that they so desperately want to keep hidden.