FREE SPEECH -- ASSAULT ON TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES

 
That traditional American values are being assaulted in many ways today cannot be legitimately doubted or debated. As readers know, protection of these traditional values is a focus of mine in much of what I write. I am pleased to post this piece by Mr. Michael Wilson who knows about traditional America and her values. He nearly lost his life in combat protecting the rights of all Americans as well as others. He is a man of many talents, many accomplishments, a "thinking person" as I often speak of since many are not so, erudite and more. I am pleased to post this piece with Mr. Wilson's approval.
 
Assault On Traditional American Values
By Michael Wilson
 
I have observed American society and politics for more than sixty years. During that time I have seen almost every group, of almost all philosophical and political persuasion, allowed to express itself freely. Some, such as Neo-Nazis, communists, militant anti-war types, militant pro-war types, pro-civil rights or white or black supremacists, and every era of music popular with the young from Johnny Ray to Justin Bieber, were not happily received by many, but they got their say. We even allow such vile and contemptible scum as the representatives of NAMBLA to have their say, and the sadistic pit dog fighter Michael Vick was forgiven and given a multi-million dollar professional football contract.
I lived through McCarthy and the reaction to him, but I have seen nothing in my entire life in this country to compare to the assaults on traditional American values, traditional Christianity and Judaism in particular, by those extremists who try to portray themselves as 'liberals'. Free speech, it would seem, must be vetted by the left. Only what the progressive groups deem acceptable can be spoken, and this most assuredly does not include traditional religious values!

The recent hoo-haw concerning the remarks by Phil Robertson are an example of how no one is supposed to voice a personal opinion if it runs counter to current leftist orthodoxy. I can relate to his feelings about the appeal of the sexual aspect of male homosexuality, but I think that it is none of my business. There...I said it. My homosexual friends have known for years that I wasn't interested in physical relationships with them. They have accepted this. I accept their right to do as they wish if they are consenting adults. Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are NOT consenting adults, and I do not feel that the BSA or GSA should have homosexual adults or sexually conflicted youth forced on them. I don't think that this makes me a bigot, and I don't give a damn who agrees with my position or dislikes my saying it. THE FIRST AMENDMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT MY RIGHT TO SAY THIS, PHIL ROBERTSON'S RIGHT TO VOICE HIS OPINION, AND THE RIGHT OF GAYS TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS WHETHER THE EVANGELICALS LIKE IT OR NOT. The Founders did not place this Right at the head of the Bill of Rights to protect popular speech, as popular speech does not need protection. They enacted the First Amendment to protect UNpopular speech. 

Unfortunately, the courts have been loaded with supporters of 'progressive', the media with progressivism's mouth pieces, and our schools at every level with those who seem to reject all traditional values. I support the right of atheists to oppose creches or minorahs on municipal property if they wish. I emphatically reject the right of a miniscule minority to proscribe the rights of hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews to enjoy these manifestations of their belief. I totally oppose the abuse of the very mechanisms that protect the rights of this extremist, but well organized, funded and vocal tiny minority, to deny the harmless rights of the majority. Only a 'willing suspension of disbelief' would enable any intelligent and educated person to see any intention to preclude public expression of faith in the Separation Clause. The playing field has for too long been woefully out of whack. It is not level because devious operators have connived and contrived to skew it to the advantage of extremist minorities, and to the detriment of the law abiding majority who are doing no one any harm. This nation is not some politically correct soccer league, in which the good team must be handicapped in order to create a spurious 'equality' which is in reality the antithesis of true equality or good order.

I don't have to like what you say, and you don't have to like what I say. Absent real harm to others, however, we must both be allowed to say it without someone else trying to destroy our lives or livelihood at their whim and at our expense.
ED/JAM

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w...
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif...
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own exp...
Read more