An Open Challenge To Liberals!!

I know I have been primarily "preaching to the choir" in my blogs, as I am most certainly not getting any liberals to comment, at least not intelligently. The comments I have gotten from the left are usually so profane and obscene that I delete them, nor do they usually make any sense, or answer the questions asked. They present no real, hard facts, links to any facts, or much of anything but the "party line" or comments bashing Bush II or blaming him for the actions taken by Congress. And they refuse to accept that it was the Congress controlled by Democrats that were at the root of many of the problems we currently face in this country. So, I am going to present a series of facts, including press statements and videos, and challenge any Democrat, liberal, or "centrist" to answer with their side of the issues, as long as they are American citizens, and can do so WITHOUT cursing, bashing Bush II, or changing the subject to something totally unrelated to any of the items posted here.

First, let's discuss the UN Resolution passed by the UN's Human Rights Council last March. The headlines from Reuters was, "U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation", and dealt with a vote taken by that Council in Geneva. Excerpts from the body of that news report are as follows: "A United Nations summit on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries."

"The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions."

"Western governments and a broad alliance of activist groups have voiced dismay about the religious defamation text, which adds to recent efforts to broaden the concept of human rights to protect communities of believers rather than individuals."

"The resolution said Muslim minorities had faced intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, including laws and administrative procedures that stigmatize religious followers."

"'Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence,' the adopted text read, adding that 'Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.'"

"It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws 'to deny impunity' for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and 'to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.'"

I know that most liberals consider personal rights to be utmost, that anyone should be able to think and feel as they wish, and there are many examples of their speaking out against "gay-bashing", etc., etc., even as there are as many examples of some from the left criticizing Christianity and Judaism for not being "tolerant".  Personally, I believe that we should be somewhat tolerant of other beliefs, but not to the extent that we allow that belief to take precedence over another, as this UN Resolution does in favoring Islam, or that we should allow a body comprised primarily by OIS (Organization of Islamic States) member nations to attempt to dictate what we can and cannot say about any religion. So what say you? Is Islam off limits, while all other religions are "fair game"?

Next, let's look at the Guantanamo Bay issue, and the release of "enemy combatants" on our soil. And we might as well address "torture" while we're at it, as what is and is not seems to be the crux of the problem with Gitmo. There is an excellent blog regarding "torture" at The Real Issue Behind Torture, which defines many things about what are being called torture today. It is a well written piece, well thought out, well researched, and, in my mind, spot on about the issue.

The president has stated that he intends to close down Gitmo, and release "enemy combatants" held there into our country with the exception of a very few. He has even set the wheels in motion to give them support via food stamps, housing, etc. But now the Democrats of both houses of Congress are speaking out against it, as their constituents don't want them living in their neighborhoods. So where is the tolerance? Do you disagree with the man you elected and what he originally wanted? Or do you support his "change" of mind on the issue now that it has become apparent that the majority of people don't want them here? Take into consideration that Gitmo has been well established for many years, and it would cost a greater amount to build a facility to house and try these "enemy combatants" at Ft. Leavenworth than to erect a special courtroom in which to try them, let alone the fact that they will be officially on our soil at that point. And should they be subject to our laws even though they, for the most part, are not US citizens? Or would a military tribunal be more appropriate?

It would seem to me that you would welcome all who are released into the areas where you live so you could show both your tolerance and your support for the president. Especially since you believe they have been mistreated and denied their rights, I would think you'd want to personally get involved in helping them. How about having them housed only in areas that voted in total for Obama, and that they wear ankle monitors and be prevented from leaving those areas, or even going within 50 miles of an area that voted in total for McCain? Obama has "reached out" to other nations to take them in as well, but no takers. Could the reason be that many of those who were already released have returned to al Qaida and are now fighting against our troops again?

One comment I have seen stated that, after a comment reflecting the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the difference was between torture and murder. Do you not believe that the threat of being beheaded was "torture", which resulted in murder as the threat was carried out? So what say you?

Other sets of issues, again regarding personal rights, deal with gay and women's rights, population control and pro-choice, as well as free practice of religions, long stalwart stances supported by the left. All of these issues are in direct conflict with Islam and the teachings of the Qur'an, well known facts that I won't belabor. There are many links available, such as this one that demonstrate that opinion, and the following video showing how women and gays are really treated in Islamic society. I warn you that it could be considered very graphic. And suffice it to say there is no separation of church and state in Islam once Shariah Law is in effect.

The following video IS very graphic, beyond any doubt.

As an added note about the previous video, the young man was eventually beheaded.

Now you can argue that many Islamic nations oppose the way the Taliban goes about enforcing their Shariah Law, but the truth of it is they all do pretty much the same thing, but use their government as the shield with which to carry out that law. A law we consider to be barbaric and inhumane at best, invoking slavery, and unacceptable behavior in any sense of the word. Yet our own Treasury Department is holding training conferences on Shariah Banking laws, and Obama has added Harold Hongju Koh to the Secretary of State staff as its top legal advisor. Koh has stated that, "Judges should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal 'norms.' Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an 'axis of disobedience' along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq." Additionally, he has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well ordered international legal system. Arguing that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movements." Critics of this approach include Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty. Other have commented that the "use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process." The basis of that belief is that international law does not apply to any sovereign nation, nor should it. And as those international laws are not enforceable, even if we are signed and committed to an agreement, then why would we then be forced to yield to them? Thus, the question here would seem to be, do we follow our laws, or the laws of other countries, and abandon our Constitution? Do we allow the laws of a religion (Shariah Law is the basis of Islamic Law) to take precedence over our own? Doesn't this undermine the stance taken by those on the left of "separation of church and state"? What say you?

Conservatives have long spoken out in favor of personal rights, but in a slightly different form that that of liberals. Most conservatives feel that everyone should be treated equally, but not in violation of our laws or with the rewriting of those laws simply to favor minority groups. On the whole, most also believe that a woman deserves to be treated fairly and equally, but that a fetus has the rights of the unborn person and deserves the right to life, all while practicing population control via birth control, abstinence, etc. We believe that an unborn has all the same rights that are normally considered for the mother who carries that child, and, according to the latest polls, and an article from AP posted on Yahoo, so do the majority of Americans. And no group is more outspoken about it than those who have been through an abortion.

Additionally, many of us are worried about the loss of our very form of civilization, not just in the Untied States, but in the European Union as well. The following video will explain why we feel the way we do.

Considering that those statistics from the video are factual, which the ones I've personally checked are extremely accurate, do we Americans attempt to maintain our civilization, or abandon it now by allowing more and more Muslims to gain entry via any means? I refer to the Muslim "refugees" imported from Somalia and given support, jobs, housing, medical and special consideration of their religion in breaks and "prayer" allowances, while Americans and others are prohibited from their religious practices at the same plant? And how about the $20.3 million to bring more Muslim refugees from Gaza (Presidential Order), and support them once they arrive, all while more Americans are losing their jobs? And how about the incidents that have already occurred as a result of our government bringing in refugees? No, they don't seem to get past the local stage of the media, but there have been several incidents, in Greeley, Colorado, Grand Island, Nebraska, and a dozen other cities across "fly over country". There are articles from The Omaha Herald, the NY Times (but not front page there), and Fox News from last year to support these facts. I, for one, would really like a plausible explanation for this Presidential Order, and for the continuing of money expenditures by our government to relocate and support refugees to our soil, no matter where they're from, all while Americans are suffering, losing jobs, and industries are shutting down. So what say you?

Those of you who read my blogs regularly know what's coming next, and how I feel about it. I'll say again,

WAKE UP, AMERICA!!

WE'RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!!

And I certainly would like to have someone from the left explain to me how the aforementioned attitudes and actions of Congress, the current administration and liberal agendas are going to save us! And I know there are other conservatives who have questions they'd like honest, reasonable answers to, so I encourage them to ask those questions here, and hope for an intelligent answer.

Get This - Survey Results - GlowDay.com

ALL PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CLIPART AND LOGOS USED ON THIS SITE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR SPECIFIC OWNERS AND ARE USED WITH FULL PERMISSION OF THOSE OWNERS. A NUMBER OF PHOTOS USED AS BACKGROUNDS AND CLIPART BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE CHEROKEE PARKS SITE AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION. PLEASE CLICK THE EMAIL BUTTON ON THE HOME PAGE TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR USAGE OF PHOTOS, GRAPHICS AND CLIPART DISPLAYED ON THIS SITE, OR GO TO THE LINKS PAGE FOR USAGE REQUESTS REGARDING LOGOS, CLIPART, PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.

Copyright © 2009