July 29, 2012

The difference is coercion

What's the difference between so-called "progressives" and people who really believe in freedom of thought/expression/speech? The former believe they have the right to use government coercion to get their way -- and subsequently make you bow down to their will.

As noted earlier this week, Chick-fil-A came under fire because its owner is against gay "marriage." Several Democrat politicians -- like former Boss Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago -- believe that it is their job to enforce what they deem "American values" on the rest of us. Chicago alderman Proco Moreno said “Because of this man’s (Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy's) ignorance,” said Alderman Moreno, “I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the First Ward.”

Got that? Because Cathy is "ignorant" -- and doesn't agree with Moreno -- he'll be denied a permit to open up another store. Boston Mayor Tom Menino made similar threats.

Backtrack to the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. Two years ago I wrote

I happen to believe that Imam Rauf has the RIGHT to build his community center/mosque near Ground Zero. I also believe that people can protest his decision peacefully, in an attempt to persuade him otherwise.

I also expressed similar sentiments here.

I cannot think of any prominent conservative who advocated using government to thwart the imam and the mosque. (This isn't to say there weren't any, just that I do not recall them.) What they did was claim people peacefully protesting was a legitimate means to express their disagreement. And it was bad enough to witness to the media reaction to that. Just imagine if a few Republican mayors and other pols came out and said that "Muslims and their mosques weren't welcome in their communities." But hey -- come to think of it, religious Muslims have [much] stronger anti-gay beliefs than Cathy and most other Americans. Using logic (never a very strong "progressive" attribute), Emanuel and Menino should be even more outspoken against them. But to be so would cause all sorts of politically correct mental feedback and confusion. Or, is it fear? Remember, being outspoken against [American] Christians is safe. Being outspoken against religious Muslims can be dangerous. Don't believe me? Just ask admitted socialist and MSNBC pundit Lawrence O'Donnell.

Meanwhile, our local idiots not only lie about Chick-fil-A, they also show their legendary faux "tolerance" and "empathy."

Posted by Hube at July 29, 2012 02:53 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I had to unfriend several people on Facebook over the past week since I've been posting statuses and links supporting Chick-Fil-A and they've accused me of being "homophobic," "xenophobic" and all the "phobias" the left accuses you of having when you don't support their causes. All this controversy just makes me WANT to eat there. It also makes me wonder if idiot Mark Dayton will try to block further restaraunts from being built in the state.

Posted by: Carl at July 29, 2012 11:38 PM

I try to stay away from politics on FB, but have been unfriended (and unfriended others) b/c of political disagreements. Best bet: Just hide all their statuses instead of unfriending.

Posted by: Hube at July 30, 2012 10:09 AM

Good call. I have hid some statuses in the past. Admtitedly some of the stuff the people said this year weren't as bad as last year, I was harassed on Facebook by people I knew from high school (I talked about it in my third-ever post from May) and in that case I had to do something drastic or else I knew it would continue, so I removed and blocked those people.

Posted by: Carl at July 31, 2012 04:52 PM