Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Slaves to Political Incorrectness

Why are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio afraid to use the term "radical homophobic terrorism"? Are they slaves to political incorrectness?


Nasreen Iqbal said...

To quote Trump, "There's something going on there. I don't know. Something going on there."

Shane Skekel said...

I have another way to combat Islamic Violence that doesn't involve war: Make the doubt themselves, their culture, and their faith.

Tamara said...

In what other religion besides Islam do a significant number of its adherents institute the death penalty for homosexuality in their indigenous nations? In the U.K. alone, a majority of Muslims believe gay sex should be outlawed and a significant minority support instituting Sharia law.


Sheldon Richman said...

Have a look at "In America, Muslims Are More Likely to Support Gay Marriage Than Evangelical Christians".

Sheldon Richman said...

And this.

Anonymous said...

Spinoza wrote: "Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand."

underway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
underway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
underway said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
underway said...

Orlando gunman said he carried out attack to get 'Americans to stop bombing his country,' witness says

Mateen himself is gay because he frequented gay nightclubs for a decade and had a relationship with a male, and used hookup apps to meet men.

Mateen may not have done this because he hated gays. Mateen took surveillance trips to Disney World and shopping centers so he could have easily committed the shooting at those other places rather than the nightclub. The reason that he did the shooting at the nightclub instead was probably because he thought that the security levels at Disney World and shopping centers were too high and because he was already very familiar with the security of the nightclub. So the motive of this shooting should not be considered a "hate crime against gays" since he considered the attack at Disney World and other places.

Also, he took hostages, he didn't shoot everyone on the spot, so the motive may be more political rather than "hating gays".

Mateen was offended when someone at the knightclub made a joke about his religion.

Both Callen and Smith, who are married, tell the Canadian Press they stopped speaking to Mateen after he threatened them with a knife, apparently after someone made a joke about religion.

“He ended up pulling a knife,” Callen said. “He said if he ever messed with him again, you know how it’ll turn out.”

He was offended probably because they are joking about a repressed group (i.e. Muslims). So this sounds like a case of a lone wolf radicalization by the media where he saw Muslims being killed by the wars. I mentioned that he chose the nightclub because he was familiar with the location (which allowed for him to kill so many people), but another reason why he choose the nightclub might have been that he hated some people there because some of them mock his religion. This is similar to the San Bernardino shooting. Syed Farook choose the Inland Regional Center for the shooting because that's why one of his coworkers work (Nicholas Thalasinos) and he was upset with him insulting his religion.

Anonymous said...

I've been watching videos of the father of the murderer. Now it seems quite obvious to me that the murderer had no fear or hate of gays or Americans or Allah, but of his own father. He wanted to "satisfy" his father. He was terrified by him. Not terrorism, not politics, not religion. This is just a huge explosion of rage and violence created by fear and shame.

That is the simplest and most obvious explanation. Why add more categories than necessary? Oh, right, political gain. I forgot for a moment that people do not search truth but comfort and power and feeble pleasures.

3D Face Analysis (aka underway) said...

Mateen specifically mentioned that he was angry about the innocent women and children killed by American airstrikes...he also called America and Russia to stop bombing the Islamic State

Plus the evidence that a hostage heard Mateen saying "stop bombing our country"... Plus the evidence that he got angry at other people at the nightclub making fun of Muslims (who already are a repressed group)

Mateen pledged allegiance to Hezbollah, the Taliban and the Islamic State, which are competing groups. People use this as evidence to discredit the fact that the shooting was politically motivated. But still, the fact that Mateen pledged allegiance to competing groups does not matter. He still sees all of them as Muslims being mudered by Americans and Russians. This alone is enough for him to "radicalize".