President Obama’s EPA has long sought to use the Clean Water Act, originally conceived forty years ago to prevent water pollution, to empower the federal government to directly control any land it designates as “wetlands” – with the owner of the land having no recourse to challenge the finding. Under such a rule the government could designate any land anywhere in the U.S. as “wetlands”, thus requiring the owner of the land to obtain special permits to do anything with that land. Who determines whether these special permits are granted to the owner? Why the federal government, of course.
The following article, submitted by a former Muslim and published at “the Muslim Issue” blog on WordPress, was written nearly three years ago. Many in Europe and a few isolated places in America have been seeing this for years, but for most Americans this picture is only really starting to come into focus in 2016. An excerpt:
The territory of Utah applied numerous times in the late 19th century to become a state of the Union, but its applications were repeatedly denied by the U.S. government. When Utah finally disavowed polygamy, they were admitted as the 45th state in 1896. Polygamy was never considered fair or appropriate by the American nation, and it was a good thing that Utah was able to get over it.
Any government, organization, or people group that can’t be freely criticized is an ideal place for corruption to thrive unchecked, particularly over the long term. To determine if wrongdoing or corruption exists in any place, you have to “check” that place. If the place is uncheckable (for any number of reasons), it will inevitably become a soft landing place for crime.
Free Speech and counter-jihad activist Pamela Geller took a lot of criticism from all sides when she organized the “Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest” in Garland, Texas in May of last year. Like many others, I thought Ms. Geller’s “stunt” was, while technically legal, needlessly provocative and offensive to Muslims. In a country where some Muslims already felt the discomfort of being associated with horrific terrorism being perpetrated in the name of their religion, I asked myself what need there was to manufacture offense and possibly violence?
An essay in today’s issue of Daniel Greenfield’s blog, The Point, makes an excellent case for taking the “high road” against Political Correctness. If Donald Trump represents the low road, what is the high road?