Spitzer: Let’s tolerate gay-hating Islamists, but not traditional marriage backers at @ChickfilA

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Here’s disgraced former Governor of NY Eliot Spitzer on the idiotic calls by the “tolerant” left to boycott the Chick-fil-A fast food chain over their Biblically-based support for traditional marriage (bolded emphasis added by me):

Chick-fil-A makes a great chicken sandwich, and I used to like getting one—with a cup of their amazing lemonade—whenever I was in the South. In fact, before I knew more about Chick-fil-A, I used to joke about helping to open one in New York.

Then I found out the company, according to the LGBT group Equality Matters, has donated millions of dollars to groups that oppose gay rights, and Chick-fil-A’s president, Dan Cathy, told a Baptist newspaper that he supported the “biblical” definition of family. That’s why former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has asked that folks who share the company’s principles stop by a Chick-fil-A on Aug. 1 to show support for the company’s conservative values.

And that’s fair enough.

If you really don’t think gays and lesbians should have the same rights as everyone else, and you oppose same-sex marriage, stop by Chick-fil-A. If you truly believe gays and lesbians should be second-class citizens, and if you sincerely don’t want them to marry the people they love, stop by Chick-fil-A.

But the same goes for those of us who support same-sex marriage and have what we consider to be a broader view of civil rights. We should boycott Chick-fil-A. These are our consumer dollars—and they’re part of our voice. We should use them for products we like—to support companies we like and to back causes we like.

Spitzer is right on the issue of the consumer having the right to spend their hard-earned money where they so choose (the money they have left after the government confiscates an obscene amount from their checks, anyway), but the stench of religious intolerance towards Christians who believe differently than him and other leftists on the issue of alternative forms of marriage is pretty strong, isn’t it?  What Spitzer is saying here is that if, as a Christian, you’ve correctly interpreted the Bible to understand that God promotes  man/woman couples and disapproves of homosexuality, then you deserve to lose business.  He’s also stated categorically that any Christian who believes this also thinks gays are “second class citizens” who “don’t deserve the same rights” as straights.

While it’s true that some misguided Christians do indeed, unfortunately, “hate gays” rather than taking the correct attitude that you are to “love the sinner and hate the sin” (as we are supposed to do with ALL sinners, since we are all sinners ourselves), there are many more who don’t “hate gays” at all but who DO believe that the definition of marriage should be that it consists of one man and won woman only. Some Christians base their beliefs solely on Biblical scripture (while God is not tolerant of any sin at all, the Bible makes it clear that He is the judge when it comes to sin, not anyone here on Earth).  Others use secular arguments to justify their position.  And others base it on a mixture of both.    But the important thing to note here is that it is a non-violent religious belief grounded in scripture and for the Cathy family of Chick-fil-A to change their stance on the issue in order to become sufficiently “tolerant” to Spitzer and the liberal Gay Gestapo (and to avoid further political blackmail, which I’ll get into in a minute) would mean violating their religious principles.

Ironically enough, it was Spitzer himself who said two years ago that religious intolerance had no place in a modern American society …. but in this instance he was talking about the controversial “Ground Zero mosque” in a broad-based discussion on so-called “Islamophobia” in general.  Matthew Balan at Newsbusters transcribed Spitzer’s remarks at the time (bolded emphasis added by me):

[ANDERSON] COOPER: There’s- you know, we’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that?

SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said.

COOPER: This is just the newest group?

SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)-

COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the-

SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, ‘wait a minute, let us not’-

COOPER: But that’s not what our political life is about now.

[KATHLEEN] PARKER: But we keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’

COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)-

PARKER: You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can’t not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it’s still raw. But I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.’

OTOH, when it comes to Christian conservatives, that “tolerance” rule Spitzer promoted just a couple of years ago doesn’t apply.   This is especially interesting, considering the high degree of INTOLERANCE promoted by the Koran itself – as noted by my co-blogger at the time the Ground Zero mosque debate was raging:

[…] Muslims have the right to practice their faith in over 30 mosques in New York City, alone, and can build more. And it is not about private property rights (which is funny coming from you, given your treatment of property rights in the GM and Chrysler bailouts), for no serious critic says property owners do not have the right to do what they wish with their property within zoning laws.

It is, however, about the location chosen and the inappropriateness of exercising those rights at that place. Ground Zero is where a Muslim jihadist organization launched a razzia (“raid”) against the kuffar(“infidels”) for the sake of Allah (jihad fi sabil Allah) and in accordance with the Qur’an, chapter nine, verse five:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And, at the same link, verse 111:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

That act of war, done in the name of Islam and in accordance with Islamic law, killed 3,000 of our people and foreign guests. And you think it’s a good thing to build a mosque there? Muslim spokesmen and their liberal and libertarian apologists demand we be tolerant and sensitive. Tell me, sir, why shouldn’t they (and you) be tolerant and sensitive toward the nearly 70% of Americans who opposebuilding that mosque on that spot?

Bingo.

And, oh – here’s another irony alert: How interesting is it that the “pro-gay rights” Spitzer promoted “religious tolerance” of the Ground Zero mosque and Islam when Islam is decidedly anti-gay to the point that it mandates the public judgment, stoning, and murder of gays by fellow Islamists?  In other words, whereas the Bible teaches that the ultimate judgement for all sin, including the sin of homosexuality, will come when you die and have to answer to God, Islam directs its followers to be the judge, jury, and executioners of those who do not strictly adhere to Mohammed’s teachings.   Gays (and women and “infidels”) are not merely “second class citizens”  in the Islamic community, they are the lowest of the low who “deserve”  the violent persecution and punishment meted out to them by “true” Islamists.   This, friends, is factual in nature and is what Eliot Spitzer, in effect, told us to “tolerate” in the name of “religious freedom.”

But the privately-owned Chick-Fil-A’s announced and financial (and very much non-violent) support of traditional marriage as based on Biblical scripture?  Forget “religious tolerance.” Not only should you not “tolerate” Chick-fil-A’s stance on marriage, but you should avoid their stores at all costs – even if it means putting them out of business.  According to the Spitzers of America, we should “tolerate” a religion that promotes savagery towards women, gays, and non-believers, but NOT tolerate in any way shape or form a PRIVATE business due to their Biblically-based non-violent beliefs on traditional marriage.

Then again, hypocrisy has become Spitzer’s stock-in-trade these last few years, so should we really be surprised at this latest instance?

Sadly, some liberal politicians are taking their hypocritical “religious tolerance” stances even further, and chillingly so – actively encouraging the blocking of Chick-fil-A’s from opening in their cities and states.   Michelle Malkin has much more.  Where’s Mr. “Religious Tolerance”  himself President Obama when you need him?   Don’t expect him to make any big statements on this anytime soon – if ever.  Right now, he’s too busy kissing the a**ses of liberal gays during an election  year. Not only that, but promoting private business aka capitalism has never been in his political playbook (hello?). Thirdly, “religious tolerance” in his view is only for those expressing religious viewpoints that are politically correct – like the ones he espouses.

Never, ever, ever, ever EVER let the left convince you they are in any way, shape, form or fashion “honest purveyors” of tolerance, religious or otherwise.   In reality, liberals are some of the most bigoted people you will ever meet in your life. They’ll tell you that they simply do not “tolerate” hate, but as this post has clearly demonstrated, that  is another one of their infamous -and easily debunked – lies.

Good news! Another Islamist government wants ICBMs! Huzzah!

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Via Claire Berlinski, in case you were sleeping too easy at night:

The Turkish Armed Forces have begun working on a project to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), broadcaster NTV reported on its website today.

A decision to launch the project was made in a July 17 meeting of the Defense Industry Executive Board, headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chief of General Staff Gen. Necdet Özel. Erdo?an had previously requested that the military develop missiles with a 2,500-kilometer range.

The board decided to form a satellite launch center that would have a two-fold effect on Turkey’s aerospace and military endeavors. First, the center will enable Turkey to place its own satellites in orbit, and second, the center will allow the Turkish military to launch missiles that can navigate outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. Attaining an ICBM launch capability is reportedly the chief aim of the satellite launch center.

Far from being the moderate Muslim leader the Obama administration fools itself into believing he is, Prime Minister Erdogan, head of an openly Islamist party, is Antisemitic, anti-American, anti-democratic, and an Islamic supremacist.

And he wants ICBMs. If anyone wants to bet that he and his supporters will refrain from trying to tip those with nuclear warheads, you’re on.

The Turkish sultan was for centuries also the Islamic caliph, spiritual leader of the world’s Muslims, and the revival of the caliphate is the dream of Islamists, everywhere. A Turkish leader with nuclear missiles would have a strong claim on the leadership of a new caliphate, one that would have a hard time resisting the call to jihad.

There are regional geopolitical issues to worry about, too. Iran has its own nuclear and missile program and, while Iran and Turkey currently enjoy cordial relations as fellow Islamic supremacists, they have been rivals for hundred of years, fighting several wars with each other over influence in the Middle East and Central Asia. Those rivalries are buried, not dead, and Turkey has reason to want nukes if Iran gets them, too. And with its former province of Syria falling into chaos, Turkey is in a position to extend its influence over its ancient dominions in the Fertile Crescent. Possession of nuclear missiles would give it an edge over Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The same can be said with regard to Russia and the belt of Turkic language speakers ranging from Europe to China, over which Turkey has long dreamed of exerting influence and leadership. Much of this area used to be part of the Russian Empire and the USSR, and Moscow still thinks of it as its “sphere of influence.” Who wouldn’t want to see a nuclear-armed and angry Russia squared off against a newly-nuclear, inspired-by-jihad Turkey?

It’s been said that, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, other nations in the region will rush to get their own. That goes double if both Tehran and Ankara get the Big Firecrackers.

Sleep well, and hope that the next administration revives our missile defense program.

UPDATE: Think I’m exaggerating about Erdogan’s Islamism? Check out who’s visiting him at home.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Raleigh TV station @WRAL continues to face heat over publishing of CCW database

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via the Raleigh News and Observer: (bolded emphasis added by me):

The debate over guns often sparks raw emotion and lays down a sharp dividing line, but for a Raleigh TV station, it has become personal and financial.

In response to a WRAL report on concealed-weapons permits that included a searchable database, a North Carolina gun-rights organization has launched a campaign against the reporter and his supervisors and applied pressure to the station’s advertisers.

The incident demonstrates the prickliness of examining gun-related issues even before the shooting in Colorado stirred fresh debate. It also exposes tensions that can arise between advocates of the First Amendment and its protections of free speech and supporters of the Second Amendment with its right to bear arms.

Grass Roots North Carolina, described on its website as “North Carolina’s only ‘no compromise’ gun rights organization,” has not quieted its campaign against WRAL in the wake of the killings at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater.

Paul Valone, the organization’s president, said the group has a long-standing policy that it will take economic action against any media outlet that divulges information about gun owners that group members think should remain private.

Valone first urged WRAL to take down the database that allows users to find out if people who live nearby have gun permits. A searcher looking at a particular town or city will see the streets where gun-permit holders live but won’t see the name or specific address of the permit holder.

When their effort to have the site taken down failed, Valone turned to his organization’s email alert network, urging more than 50,000 people on the list to deliver a message to Mark Binker, the multimedia investigative reporter who posted the information, his bosses and the station’s advertisers.

What has WRAL’s response been?

Steve Hammel, WRAL-TV vice president and general manager, said his news outlet published no information that was not already available to the public when it posted its July 12 report on concealed-weapons permit holders.

“We’ve released public records that anyone out there can easily obtain,” Hammel said.

Hammel used the incident as an opportunity to opine on the First Amendment and Second Amendment, saying they carried equal weight.

“Both are vital,” Hammel said in a July 20 post. “Both make this a great country.”

Hammel batted back accusations that the news organization was trying to take away guns, change gun laws, attack the Second Amendment or render judgment on the lawfulness of those who carry concealed guns.

The targeted complaints, Hammel said, were unlikely to make the organization back away from an issue.

“As far as we’re concerned, it creates the opposite effect,” Hammel said. “We have the resolve to report news.”

In other words, WRAL doesn’t give a d*mn about their irresponsibility in making readily available to any criminal out there a “searchable” database of neighborhoods where CCW permit holders reside. To WRAL, this is all about defiantly pushing back against people – mostly conservatives, I’m sure – who don’t like having their privacy rights violated by an anti-2nd Amendment agenda-driven mainstream media news outlet that is invoking the First Amendment in defense of their actions. Some might think, “Hey, this is great – they can’t see the names of people in the neighborhoods but a criminal searching this database will know where they shouldn’t go.” Problem is it makes it easy for criminals to find soft target neighborhoods where they are less likely to be confronted by a gun owner. I’m sure this wasn’t the intent of WRAL but nevertheless that’s a potentially dangerous & devastating consequence of their attempt at scaring the public both with their article and their searchable database.

As far as Hammel’s assertion that this database was “easily obtainable” – if so, why didn’t the article link directly to the state database itself rather than creating their own? I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’ve heard you have to get permission from the SBI to access those records in the first place, but even if you didn’t, a mere Google search does not automatically connect you to a CCW permit holder database for NC – outside of the one posted on the WRAL website.

If you’re upset that WRAL would make this information readily available to its viewers and readers, please contact them using this information. I know this issue has angered a lot of people, but please remember to be respectful but firm in your communications. If you have a Twitter account, let them know there as well using @WRAL and @Binker. Even if they continue to thumb their noses at concerned citizens by still refusing to pull the database from their website, they still need to know how upset North Carolinians are that they would find it acceptable to publish this information in the first place.