Tag: College of Political Knowledge

Are You Conservative Enough?

College of Political Knowledge

First of all, I am not here to condemn anyone from being a conservative….I just want to point out a few things that may not be known……in this world of political correctness we tend to be damn right ignorant when it comes to true philosophy……take conservatism for one….

But what is conservatism…….in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. By 1850 the term conservatism, probably first used by Chateaubriand, generally meant the politics of the right.
The original tenets of European conservatism had already been formulated by Edmund Burke , Joseph de Maistre , and others. They emphasized preserving the power of king and aristocracy, maintaining the influence of landholders against the rising industrial bourgeoisie, limiting suffrage, and continuing ties between church and state . The conservative view that social welfare was the responsibility of the privileged inspired passage of much humanitarian legislation, in which English conservatives usually led the way. In the late 19th cent. great conservative statesmen, notably Benjamin Disraeli , exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the established order. By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved many of their political aims and had become more concerned with preserving them from attack by groups not so favored. Conservatism lost its predominantly agrarian and semifeudal bias, and accepted democratic suffrage, advocated economic laissez-faire , and opposed extension of the welfare state. This form of conservatism, which is best seen in highly industrialized nations, was exemplified by President Reagan  in the United States and Prime Minister Thatcher
in Great Britain. It has been flexible and receptive to moderate change, favors the maintenance of order on social issues, and actively supports deregulation and privatization in the economic sphere. Conservatism should be distinguished both from a reactionary desire for the past and the radical right-wing ideology of fascism  and National Socialism.  (Thanx to the Free Dictionary for the definition)…….

In today’s political world, at least in the good ole US of A, when one calls themselves a conservative they are not completely accurate….they are more something else than a classical conservative….in the US of today we have several types of conservatives………

hard-hat A working-class conservative, so called from the protective metal or plastic helmet worn by construction workers.

A “Hard Hat” is a construction worker, but his helmet symbolizes all those beefy blue-collar workers who have suddenly become the knuckleduster on the strong right arm of President Nixon’s silent majority.

redneck An ultraconservative. This disparaging term usually refers to the poor white farmers of the Southern backwoods who are notorious for their purported intolerance of liberals, intellectuals, Blacks, and hippies. Redneck, originating as an allusion to a farmer’s perennially sunburned neck, is now an epithet for any person who shares similar prejudices.

right-wing Reactionary, conservative; averse to change, die-hard. The term reputedly arose from the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, in which conservatives sat on the right side, or wing, of the chamber. As used today, right-wing, like left-wing, has pejorative connotations of extremism—in this case, of bigotry, prejudice, moneyed interests, anti-humanitarianism, etc. Both terms are used primarily to denigrate and stigmatize one’s opponents; a political conservative would not call himself a right-winger, just as a liberal would not call himself a left-winger; yet each might well label the other with the appropriate epithet.

But what is a classical conservative?

mixed view of human nature
self-interest eventually harmful
society is organic whole
equality is not important
society is hierarchy of layers
elites have right to rule but responsibilities for welfare of others: “noblesse oblige”
stability of society paramount
law & order
customs & traditions are important
responsibilities & civil liberties of citizens, plus privileges for elites
limited electorate
mixed views on economy

Some of the traits of the classical branch are common in today’s political world but it all comes down to interruption…….and the mouthpiece spouting the perceived “truth”….in today’s world those calling themselves conservatives are more like neo-conservs……meaning?

limited government involvement in the economy
very limited range of social welfare programs
increased government protection of morality
emphasis on populism
maintain traditional social values
distrust of trade unionism

Once again let me emphasize that I am NOT condemning or demeaning conservative thought…..My only thing is trying to point out the differences in the beliefs and that NO one ideology is worse or better than another….only that there are different ways of approaching a political problem and that common ground should be found if there is to ever be a continuing of the political success of the country.

(For further explanation please check out next week’s  post on neo-liberalism)

Media And ‘Moral Panic’

College of Political Knowledge

A Side Note:  This post is my 5000th post…..I guess that would explain the restless nights, headaches and my fingers becoming more tired and a lot more stubby…..I would like to thank my friends, followers and readers for making my blog a joy.

Anyone that reads this blog will know that I do not care for the MSM so much……I will NEVER be a popular blog because I refuse to pile on the crap and sink to the level of  insulting the opposition with every opportunity (I have had occasion when I thought someone was speaking out their butt and call them on it and sometimes very uncomplimentary)  to me they are just another problem that has NO solution…….take for instance in the recent weeks….we have had a woman that testifies and becomes a story…..we have a teenager that is shot and killed…..and most recently we have a comment about stay at home Moms…..all three and not the only ones just the most recent have become reports that have driven the political debate….all three have turned into media gold.

These types of situations are what is known as a “moral panic”.

Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension and in which disagreement is difficult because the matter at its center is taboo.   The media have long operated as agents of moral indignation, even when they are not self-consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic.  (Thanx to Wikipedia)

Moral panics can be identified by these characteristics:

Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:

  • Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
  • Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become “folk devils”.   A clear division forms between “them” and “us”.
  • Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society.   It is important at this stage that the “moral entrepreneurs” are vocal and the “folk devils” appear weak and disorganised.
  • Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
  • Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.

Moral panics occur when the media concentrates on any given problem which is then exaggerated and blown out of all proportion.  The perceived problem is depicted as being typical of a wider social disease which if unchecked will threaten our social tranquility.  Normally it involves groups that are being targeted and scapegoated and blamed for all the ills in our society.

Now think back for the last couple of weeks…..we have had a woman being called a slut and women being ostracized as a group….we have had a teenager shot and the case was already tried in the media with the help of the media….and finally, a comment made by a pundit about work and women and it has turned into a major story as well as a campaign pitch by a candidate…..these three are examples of a moral panic generated by the media….I am speaking about all the media one ideology does not have a high ground in this situation.

Let’s look at a recent situation, the most recent moral panic….a comment was made that a woman has never worked a day in her life……the story became that a stay at home Mom does not work…..this is a false but effective attack…..everyone who heard that comment knew what the pundit was saying……the media took semantics and ran with it……(please before the insults begin…I am NOT saying that being a Mother is not hard work…it is) I am only illustrating how one simple word can be turned into an effective “moral panic”.

Another illustration is the dog stories from the last week or so……the media was fixated on this instead of doing reports on the 6th anniversary of Romneycare in Mass….since the repeal of Obamacare is a priority for the GOP you would think that the model used would be a little more important than an old dog story or what breed was on the menu……

………Again a “moral panic”!

The Third Way

College of Political Knowledge

Yesterday was the Super Tuesday…….and all the rhetoric that has been flowing from the lips of candidates made me think of something from my college days…….

The Third Way…..I recently heard this used to describe centrism…..there is even a think tank called the third way…..what it is is a cope out to principles it is NOT a third way but rather a way for big business to further insert its political penis into the process……Clinton and his worthless bunch of Dems, the Democratic Leadership Council, that help give use the crap with NAFTA and the repeal of Glass/Steagall and now they want to play it as if they represent some silent bunch of mindless automatons…..(maybe they do)…..

But when I heard the term I thought of the days of FASCISM….yes I am old…….that political process was called the third way….not capitalism and not communism…..but an alternative…..with the following precepts…..

1-a single mass party

2-police used against real and imagined enemies

3-monoplistic control of the mass media

4-central control of the economy

5-an ideology that covers all aspects of a person life

Now sports fans….does any of that sound remotely familiar?

It was called the third way because it lied to the people that it was an alternative….capitalism was preserved while the mass actions were taunted as it was in socialism……but it was nothing by an authoritarian form of government where the people were solely tools of the state with NO input and NO power…….(does any of that sound familiar?)

Use of the term third way is nothing but a ploy to keep the extension of total control over the lives of the people…..even if some well known politicos like Kerry and others are member of this so-called movement….they seem to want us top believe that Americans are somehow not a political animal when in reality it is all just a game….Americans are either conservative or liberal (the American definition not the philosophical one)……these people are trying to reorganize society using a political blueprint that the reps only care about…..

So these people in this “third way” are doing just what the fascists of old were doing…..they are claiming to be drawing from both sides of the political spectrum…..

Radical centrists also can be divisive, as opposed to the non-partisan approach of traditional centrism. Radical centrists are quick to dissociate themselves from traditional moderates, whom they often contrast as the “sensible center” or deride as the “squishy center.”  (Does that sound familiar?)

I regret that I see more on the lines of Germany after WW1 than I see real answers to real problems our country is now facing……I also see a danger forming in the minds of politicians and their handlers……the idea that the people are in control of the process is GONE….we have been replaced by CASH!  And that can lead to a way of life that is not good for the country.

On The Social Contract

College of Political Knowledge

Note:  This post was to be posted yesterday, 08Feb12, and I chose the wrong draft….NEVER post before caffeine!

During the campaigns on the GOP side we keep hearing about  “smaller government” and so far I have NOT heard a good definition of what they mean….other than less spending and tax cuts for the wealthy…..is that all there is to the smaller government concept?  Maybe they are still grasping at the disproved “trickle down” concept.

To explain maybe we should start with the “social contract”…….answers.com

Simply,  it is an agreement or covenant by which men are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” to form the society in which they now live. The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. Locke made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, found the general will a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a basis of the state. Similar ideas were used as a justification for both the American and the French revolutions in the 18th cent. Thomas Jefferson held that the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract, and that “consent of the governed” was fundamental to any exercise of governmental power.

While some say that it is an antiquated theory for today’s political world.  I disagree…..we pay taxes which is our cost for the protection of the state….from crime, enemies and the preservation of the idea of equality.  The state protects us and in doing so we have certain obligations to that state….some of these obligations are voting, taxes…….

When conservs say they are for a smaller government, what do they mean?  Libertarians think the only thing government should be involved in is the defense from the boogey man, but what the the Tea Party……..they think that a large government is unconstitutional….but few can elucidate why…….and then there is the GOP which basically is a small government party, but never seem to reduce the size of government when in power.  Small government conservatives seem to be all talk with absolutely NO action once they are at the rudder of the ship of state.

So far it appears to be a slogan to win elections and that is as far as it goes…..and it seems that small government means benefits for the wealthy and the wealthy only…….all this means that a vast majority are the ones that the social contract is paid for and a very minor amount of people are allowed to participate on the benefits of the social contract…..and this brings a new economic dynamic……plutonomy!

Just What Is Socialism?

College of Political Knowledge

I am glad you asked!  I apologize for the redundancy, but as long as people keep using the term to describe Obama, I will be here to dispute their claim…..

As promised, I will once again teach you what socialism is and what you could expect from a government….

First, if you learn nothing else from our time together….learn this one fact….the statement, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was NOT uttered by Marx, but rather a Frenchman, Louis Blanc…….

I have been fighting the insult of socialism for many years…..too many people throw it around and yet have NO idea what it is they are saying……I try to help people understand the political theory known as socialism.

The newest red meat thrown at Repubs is Newt…well not so new but rather the next right winger to get his day in the light….and Newt does not disappoint…..he has thrown the term “socialism” around more in the last couple of weeks than in most of his career…..sorry my GOP fans….Newt is an arrogant sociopathic little toad…you know this from past dealings with the man….but yet hatred for a prez will allow this person another look see…..

And then there is Rick Perry using the insult…….“We have a president who is a socialist,” Perry said in response to a question at the early morning GOPdebate in Concord, N.H.

And now the GOP’s front runner, Mitt, is using the insult but at least he tries to disguise the fact…..”He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society.  We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.”  (The ever present “WE”….whoever they are)……

Like I have said…..Many use the term….few understand it…….Let me try to make in simple so that there is NO confusion….

  • Socialism guarantees everyone a decent life with food, shelter, health care, and education.
  • Socialism will work to eradicate poverty and great disparities of wealth.
  • Socialism works to uproot racism, sexism, and homophobia. It aims to dismantle the hierarchies of gender and race.
  • Socialism focuses on the common good as the way for individuals to excel and explore their talents and desires.
  • Socialism puts working people—the working class—in charge of their destiny through workers’ ownership and active participation and management of production, land, public services, assets, and utilities.
  • Socialism works to end the brutal cycle of policing and mass incarceration, and seeks to build a justice system that values human life and community empowerment.
  • Socialism puts the global ecological system at the center of all economic activity.
  • Socialism is about expanding individual rights (including the freedom to criticize), deepening and widening democracy and democratic institutions (like government, schools, unions, community groups), and ensuring dignity.

In other words….it is democracy at work……a political theory that involves and includes all people in the process of governing…….with that said…I do NOT see Obama fitting into that category at all.

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part.  It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Socialism is where we all put our resources together and work for the common good of us all and not just for our own benefit.  In this sense, we are sharing the wealth within society.

Of course when people hear that term, “Share the wealth” they start screaming, “OMG you want to rob from the rich and give it all to the poor!”  But that is NOT what Democratic Socialism means.

To a Democratic Socialist, sharing the wealth means pooling tax money together to design social programs that benefit ALL citizens of that country, city, state, etc.

And there are many forms of socialism……..but the basic tenets are the same……it is a truer form of democracy than most others……the people are in control….and is that not what we think the Founding Fathers had in mind?

Now ask yourself….do we, as Americans, have a social contract….that is a contract between the governed and governing?  (A future post coming to a blog near you)….

On State Capitalism

College of Political Knowledge

My readers know that I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to explain and make complex theories more palatable to the average working stiff…..and I hope that I succeed in some small way so that we all can make more informed decisions in our political thinking……

State Capitalism?  Now there is a subject that would make a person’s eyes bleed or the head explode….we can either look at it as some secret code word for socialism (not necessarily so) or we could talk about the government programs…….it conjurers up some many images for people….but what is it really?  State capitalism, that is.  I am sure that most people already have a preconceived idea of what socialism is and that is the subject for yet another post….

State capitalism simply put is….the idea of combining state funded projects and state regulation of the market with private ownership and profit taking…..if you think about it it sounds a lot like what we have now only on a limited basis…..

Now with that under our belt….state capitalism can impose regulations on labor and generate a bunch of it, especially when capitalists are reluctant to invest  (sound familiar?)…….it can encompass private financial gain with an overview of the needs of the country as a whole….(still sounding familiar?)…..In really bad economic times…it can motivate and stimulate local investment when other markets look more inviting to the private investors…..(once again, familiar?)…..

Let’s be real……state capitalism can be a far more effective way of dealing with a bad recession or depression than traditional liberal capitalism……

And yes, we can associate state capitalism most often with some form of dictatorship….however in dire economic times it may just be the best way to fight a recession or a deep depression….you want an example?  Then look no further than Germany after WW1…here we are talking about economics and not the political theory that we all detest……because of direct government spending in infrastructure and industry….Germany was the first country out of the Great Depression…..

You may not like the idea….but think about it hard….how else will we pull ourselves out of the economic funk we live in today?  Sorry to pee on their parade….but spending cuts and tax breaks will NOT bring the US out of this making of our demise……and is it not government’s purpose to insure the country has a strong economy?

Road To Dystopia

College of Political Knowledge

Votes are counted in Iowa and most likely mean absolutely nothing…..and now on to New Hampshire.

While you suffer through the endless interviews and sound bites I would like to give you something to think about….before you return to the reality of the political circus.

I know the title sounds like one of those zany movies with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby….but that is not what I am writing about….though the movie might be more interesting to some…..

When you study political philosophy you will inevitably study the works of Sir Thomas More, especially his writings on the perfect idyllic world of the island paradise of “Utopia”……..his writing was about the perfect society for man….his ideas were forward thinking for the day, which was 1516 and included such as ideas as the abolition of private property, universal obligation to work, right to an equal share of society’s wealth, the concept of equal rights under the law and state management and control of production……..

Of course he made these observations during the reign of bonnie King Henry VIII and all these proposals were very risky and More paid for them with his life…..and for a hundred years maybe a little longer the world forgot about the writings and the concepts put forth bu Sir Thomas More….but then in 1656 or there about, the concept of “Utopia” was re-visited by another Englishman, James Harrington.

Harrington, once King Charles I was executed spent time in the countryside writing about a proper government for the people of England….during this time he acquainted himself with More’s “Utopia” and expanding onto it a bit……to include a strict division of power between an executive and a legislative branch….he called for two houses an upper called the senate that could debate issues but had little to no power, a lower house that voted on the policies that were proposed…the upper house would draw from the aristocracy and the lower were from the people that were voted into office and served a fixed term on a rotating basis….those for the lower house were open to all adult males with the exception of bachelors and attorneys…they could vote but not hold office…..(an idea that has some merit when it comes to attorneys)…..Harrington also had the idea of a separation of powers and indirect election of a president….all this was an expansion on More’s Utopia but Harrington called his idyllic society as the “Commonwealth Of Oceana”…….(BTW, if you bother to read More and Harrington then the founding father that is credited with so many accomplished ideas, Jefferson, does not look as genius as the historians would have us believe)……..

I bet about now, my reader is going…..Get to the point, Professor!  What is “Dystopia”?

I am coming to the point…just gimme a couple minutes to set it up……

The year now is 1868 and enter…… (stage right)……. a political philosopher named John Stuart Mill…..he read and understood More’s Utopia and as this was a place that was good and honest to exist, Mill came up with the antagonist he called “Dystopia”, meaning a place that was too bad to exist…….and now we are to the point of this post!

Dystopia is the idea of a society in a repressive and controlled state, often under the guise of being utopian, as characterized in books like Brave New World and 1984.  Dystopian societies feature different kinds of repressive social control systems, various forms of active and passive coercion.  Ideas and works about dystopian societies often explore the concept of humans abusing technology and humans individually and collectively coping, or not being able to properly cope with technology that has progressed far more rapidly than humanity’s spiritual evolution.  Dystopian societies are often imagined as police states, with unlimited power over the citizens.

What are the characteristics of this society?

Propaganda used to control society, concept is worshiped by citizens of the society, citizens are under constant surveillance, citizens are taught fear of outside world, citizens live in a De-humanized state,  the natural world is distrusted, citizens are encouraged to conform to a prescribed conduct and society is an illusion of a perfect world.

Stop and think…does the internet bill or the detention bill or the way some people treat others or ……I could keep putting in the “or”s but you get the point….just look around…take a solid objective look at our country today…..now what did you see?

Now that paragraph is the meat of the post…In my opinion, the US is moving rather rapidly toward becoming Dystopian country…Americans need to sit down and take stock of what this country is becoming….all the hyper-partisanship, all the fear tactics used to insist on compliance, all the false idols that were are told to worship, like capitalist, heroes, etc……

Utopia does NOT exist….but Dystopia is rapidly approaching by Americans lack of concern for the country as a whole….their mini concerns will guarantee a country that NO one will want to live in…it will be too bad to exist….a DYSTOPIA!

I now return you to your news source for updates on the circus I call the 2012 Circus of Stars!

Anarchists Everywhere!

College of Political Knowledge

OWS has been going on for a month and until recently they could not buy media coverage but all that has changed….there are too many people protesting in NYC and across the nation and globe for the media to ignore any longer…..I have watched and listen to conservative shows and one term seems to be very popular with them…..Anarchism or Anarchists.  I detest the use of a derogatory term because you have nothing else to say.      Let me say, if a person is dressed on black or wears clothing with a circle and an “A”…..does NOT make them an anarchist!  If you take nothing else away from this…take that!

They report that these people, at least some of them, are issue less or not knowing or that they are just seconds away from violence or…..anarchy!  According to them…they are everywhere!

Sorry, this is one of those subjects that I cannot overlook……every protest that turns ugly is because of the damn anarchist…they are everywhere!

Anarchy does NOT mean violence….it is a form of socialism…basically it means the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.  It became associated with violence thanks to the media.  In 1886, May 1 to be exact,Chicago was one of the world’s leading centers of labor activism. The burning issue of the time was the fight for the 8-hour work day. On May Day, the workers of Chicago went out on a one-day general strike.  The next day, thousands gathered in Haymarket Square to protest the police violence at the McCormick plant. At the end of the rally, the police moved in. Suddenly, a bomb exploded.  And from that moment on, any violence at a protest has been because of the anarchists.  I am NOT saying that anarchists are not violent just that all violence is not the fault of anarchists.

Why would I say all this?  There are many forms of anarchy…there is council communism, syndicalism, and even a form known as anarcho-capitalism……I mention the last form of anarchism because it is it that has given us the economic problems that we now face and that we now need to eliminate….

Basically, the anarcho-capitalist wants to eliminate all government regulations and the government programs such as welfare in essence, Libertarian thought……they do not like being called an “anarcho-capitalist”……..the regulation part was achieved by Clinton and his gang of bandits when they with the assistance of Repubs repealed the Glass/Steagall Act…..which in effect serious limited the regulations on the financial sector and we know where that has lead us……I wish people would stop holding Clinton up as some sort of hero…..him and his buds at the DLC put the final nail in the economy……give blame where blame is due…..

Anarchists crashed the economy…….anarchists created the atmosphere that has lead to the protests, OWS………..my point is that not all anarchists are the bomb throwing stereotypes that the media would have you believe…..I realize it is difficult for the media to be unbiased….but at least they could get it right once and awhile…..

The Ghost In The Machine

College of Political Knowledge

Today is Halloween, so I decided to inject a little “supernatural” into my post….something appropriate for the day…….

The machine is economics………and the ghost is….Marx.

For 3+ years we have been inundated with the visions of Marx…Obama is a Marxist….Dems are closet Marxists…….and as I have always pointed out the people making such accusations have NO idea what Marx was about other than their limited knowledge of some history from the days of the “Red Scare”…….to them, Marx was the founder of communism….which is true….but they do not know that Marx also wrote and economic study called Das Kapital with his friend and colleague, Engels…….

In 1867 the first volume of Das Kapital was published…….of course the whole volume was looked at from the economic theory of the day…..Labor theory…….

To make a long winded dissertation easier to understand….I will simplify some of the points that I think are pertinent……Marx made several predictions about capitalism….first, capitalism would spread worldwide and devour all other forms of economic processes…remember back in the 1860’s capitalism was not the all encompassing economic system….second, that it would bring about a techno revolution and finally, capitalism would eventually devour itself and bring its own demise….

Marx was very astute and his predictions have been spot on…..says the Professor Niall Ferguson, professor of political and financial history and no friend of Marxism, by the way,  “Marx’s insights into capitalism can still illuminate…Marx got one thing right. Behind the bubbles and busts of the capitalist system there is a class struggle; and that class struggle is the key to modern politics.”

For Marx, the defining characteristics of capitalism in his own time included “the centralisation of capital”, “the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers” and “the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime”. In other words, says Ferguson, “widening inequality and globalisation”.  In Marx’s time looks a lot like our time, right?

Marx also said that capitalism would soon start concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and that the middle class would disappear and with all wealth in the hands of a few poverty increases.

Too bad that modern economists could not be as forward thinking as Marx had been,,,,So no matter the criticism, Marx is still the ghost in the machine….

Who’s Afraid Of Sharia Law?

College of Political Knowledge

Please tell me why we are afraid of Islamic law.  Some say that we are not afraid….and then I have to ask why 13 states maybe more have waiting legislation about prohibiting sharia law in US courts?  My state of Mississippi is one of those scared people……their bill reads like this…..MISSISSIPPI: House bill 301 was introduced to ban “Mississippi courts from using foreign laws, including sharia law, which is a guide to Islamic religious practice.”

First of all, I have NO one that I have talked to that can tell me just what Sharia law is….other than some vague reference to terrorists and such…….all you quivering Americans this is what the law is all about……

The word sharia means “the path to a watering hole”. It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.

It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.

Now what makes these quivering lumps of crap think that it would every be adopted in the good old US?  First, it would be unconstitutional and that is the most important reason why all this bovine fecal matter about sharia law is just a smoke screen and a waste of valuable time and resources…..the cowards do this to avoid tackling the real problems of unemployment, state revenues and education……

I hate to be critical (now that is just a lie…I love it!)…..if you are afraid of sharia law then you are a moron!  The chances of it every being the rule of the land is about as good as you being struck by lightening on a clear day…….

Let me sum up this post and this notion…..with one of my favorite quotes….”Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance”…..and the American people are buying the fertilizer……