Thursday, May 04, 2006

"Wetbacks"

Susana De Leon, an immigration activist and part-time instructor of Mexican-American studies at the University of Minnesota, on Monday referred to Americans of European origin as "wetbacks". "Wetback" is of course considered an abusive term when applied to illegals and would normally be reported in the media only to condemn it. Perhaps Ms De Leon thinks the term should be more widely used! She appears to have literally gushed hate speech on the occasion but full details of what she said appear to have been hushed up. Once again Michelle Malkin has more.




Aaron's Rantblog under Attack

Aaron's Rantblog has been under heavy attack all day by cyberjihadis, apparently because of a cartoon he posted there. Hits were still being diverted to an Islamic message when I checked just now. Michelle Malkin has some background information. Aaron has been targeted rather a lot lately.




ACLU Wants Military Funerals to be Disrupted

We read:

"The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a Kentucky law aimed at preventing protests from disrupting funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq. Members of a Kansas Baptist church have protested at military funerals, claiming soldiers' deaths are a sign that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality."

Source


The ACLU seems to think that free speech means freedom to disrupt other people's private lives.




Wrong Thoughts not Allowed in Washington State

The Washington state prisons department decided in its wisdom to email to all its employess a "calendar" whereon was noted which famous person was born on each date. It's the sort of thing that you might expect to list the birthdays of filmstars etc. But this one was different. It listed the birthday of the Japanese Admiral who led the bombing of Pearl Harbour and other characters who might be expected to be wildly popular in America. I am sure that if Satan had a birthday, they would have listed him too.

Why? Just the usual America-hatred that is so common among intellectuals and bureaucrats who depend on the American taxpayer for a living, I guess.

A patriotic war-veteran in the department was mightily unimpressed by this political grandstanding, however, and said so in an emailed reply. And he hit "Reply All" so that all who got the calendar would also get his protest against it. Fair enough? You might think so but the wonderful people in charge of the operation did not see that as fair at all:

We read: "He got a visit from a supervisor who chastised him for improper use of official e-mail"

So our vet called for backup and got it in the form of a rocket to the department: "State Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, wrote DOC director Harold Clarke asking for an explanation". And what was the defence of their actions given by the department? "The purpose of the calendar was to provoke thought, not to celebrate the birthdays of the individuals".

But that is exactly what our vet did. It sure provoked thought in him and he expressed what he thought. But he got chastised for doing exactly what the department claims it wanted him to do! The obvious concusion is that only SOME (America-hating) thoughts are allowed.




Public Employee Christianity Muzzled

Faith helps a lot of people in a lot of ways but, according to the good old 9th. circuit, under no circumstances can any reference be made to it in California social services:

"A county social services department cannot be required to accommodate the belief of an evangelical Christian employee that he must share his faith with clients and others on the job, a federal appeals court ruled Monday....

It was a rebuff to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had authorized Berry to sue. The federal agency said Berry should be allowed to discuss religion with "receptive" clients and display a Spanish-language Bible and "Happy Birthday Jesus" sign in the cubicle where he counsels them".

Source


But displaying a Koran would have been OK, I am sure. After all, under the First Amendment, government agencies are not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion, are they?

No comments: