Civil War – when the Left/Democrats can’t even support our own Law?

by Skip

The Left screams about “cultural appropriation” all the time – but why do they throw OUR culture away any time it collides with another?

Shades of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg writ small and sideways. All over the Right side of the blogosphere I keep hearing whispers “are we heading towards a civil war”? It is quite obvious that this nation is split and I would agree that the crevice is becoming a chasm.  The Right is going back to our American roots (e.g., the Constitution and the philosophy underpinning it) and the Left is insistent on adhering on latching on to foreign political ideas (again, what IS the difference between Democrats and Socialists).  Our moralities are different (Judeo-Christian vs “if it feels good / anything BUT Judeo-Christian), our sense of independence / dependency is incompatible, our outlook on The Proper Role of Government are in different galaxies, and now – our Law (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Montana Democrats Vote Against Bill Banning Sharia Law, Call It ‘Repugnant’

Democrats in Montana have opposed a bill banning the use of foreign law in its state courts on the grounds that such legislation would target Muslims. Senate Bill 97, introduced by Keith Regier (R-Kalispell) bans the application of foreign law in Montana’s courts, with the debate particularly focused on Sharia Law, a form of Islamic law typically used in the Middle East.

Although the bill passed on party lines by 56-44, Democrats claimed it was designed to target Muslim communities.

“I think it sends a dangerous message to minority groups both here living in our state and wanting to come visit our state, just merely on the fact that you may be different,” said Rep. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula, while debating the bill. “I truly believe this law is repugnant. I believe this is not who we are as Montanans.”

WHAT is so dangerous about American system adhering to American ideals and law?

Well, it isn’t who we are as Americans, either.  My stand is that American courts should ONLY consider what is lawful under American Law. If a “minority” wishes to come to and be an American, then integrate and assimilate and that means acceptance of our culture, our way of life, our forms of governance, our societal norms – and our Law.  If you wish to live under another judicial system, go ahead and leave to live in countries where Sharia Law IS the law of the land. Pretty much any Muslim majority nation is highly structured around Shariah Law – if that’s what toasts your cookies, go with my blessings.

However, this is another area that has fallen into the chasm.  Integrate into our melting pot or just be that 3-D tossed salad in which multiculturalism demands that other cultures be held in higher esteem than our own?

Once again, we have a bright shiny distinction between those of us that live American ideals and those that are rather anti-American ideals.

And this was just petty:

Meanwhile, Rep. Ellie Hill Smith (D-Missoula) proposed a failed amendment to the bill to include a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses, in order to “show the state of Montana that it is not just about Islamic Law.”

“The courts have said that laws that single out certain religions violate the First Amendment,” Smith said, claiming that it was “peppered with anti-Muslim bigotry.” Another Democrat, Rep. Laurie Bishop (D-Livingston) urged legislators “not to forget the roots of this bill,” adding that “our children are watching.”

Yeah, telling them that ours is not worth a dang – surrender to that other culture. Sharia Law is not a “religion” per se.  It IS, however, a legal framework of behavior and punishment that is a part of a political system.  We’ve often said that, unlike Christianity, Islam is a political ideology wrapped up in religious trappings.  Doubt me?  Go do your homework and study how Muslim majority nations govern themselves  (hey, here’s two easy ones – Iran and Saudi Arabia). And no, Christianity and Islam are not compatible no matter how many COEXIST bumper stickers you have on your car.

Meanwhile, Rep. Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) said the bill was an attempt to push back against a “constitution [that] is constantly under assault.”

Bills specifically targeting Sharia Law have passed in states such as North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The bill will now be passed on to Gov. Steve Bullock (D) for signature or veto.

Funny, Democrats are the FIRST to scream from the roof tops of “Separation of church and State!!!”.  Here, seemingly, Democrats are all too willing to embrace one that is incompatible with our basic principles.

BTW, what’s the over under that Bullock will veto it?

(H/T: Big Government)

Leave a Comment

  • sb

    I’m not aware of any elected Democrats who are willing to go against party line in matters such as this so I’m going to bet he will veto it. And this is a biggy.

  • Radical Moderate

    The answer to the question that runs like a current under your post Skip is; Yes, it is inevitable….we are eventually going to have to figure out how to divide this country. Peacefully if possible. However, if the Left blocks our way then all bets are off.
    I have said it before and I will say it again…the United States is tantamount to a ‘marriage’ between individual States and our Constitution is like a marriage license.
    We have now entered the stage where it has become apparent that we are in an abusive marriage. The Left will not acquiesce and accept the results of a lawful election and are using threats of violence and actual violence against Conservatives. We must summon the courage to grab our children and leave the house for our own safety.
    No matter what we have to do….we must get through that door to safety…..if not for ourselves..then for the sake of our children.
    There will be no peace for us otherwise…if we are lucky.
    If we are unlucky…if the Left ever regains power again they will finish Conservatives off for sure.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/socialisms-death-count/

    • A Mormon marriage? 50 partners?

      • Radical Moderate

        LoL! Good 1 Mike.

      • Bryan W

        As the resident member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would remind you that the Mormon church has not practiced polygamy in over 100 years. Attempting to practice it today will get you excommunicated. So please, if you are going to joke about someone’s religion, please make it about another. Israeli Jews or Muslim Arabs would work.

        • Don

          Two words, Sister Wives.

          • Bryan W

            Yeah, no.
            “Polygamous groups and individuals in and around Utah often cause confusion for casual observers and for visiting news media. The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term “Mormon” — widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints — is sometimes incorrectly applied to them.”

    • Don

      It won’t be peaceful I can assure you of that. There are lots of combat arms veterans who won’t stand to let it happen.

  • Assimilate or die, because eventually, a lawless cult with no respect for our laws, and more importantly, our constitution, will come into existential conflict with Citizens who wish to be left alone by it.

    • Radical Moderate

      “Assimilate or die, because eventually, a lawless cult with no respect for our laws, and more importantly, our constitution, will come into existential conflict with Citizens who wish to be left alone by it.”
      Bingo! And this is exactly the mindset the South had that laid the groundwork for the Civil War. Not that I am comparing the Confederacy to the Constitutional Conservatives of today, but what I am saying is that history repeats itself and those that refuse to learn from it are destined to repeat it.
      The fight always comes down to this….people that wish to be left alone and those that wish to exert their will on others.
      This time…there are no ‘other people (slaves)’ that are being affected by Conservatives wanting to be on their own unlike the Confederacy.
      The Left should understand that this time..the might of the US Government may be on the side of Conservatives and not on the side of the antagonistic Left.

      • Don

        You might want to consider that constitutional conservatives are running out of places to move to. Eventually you have to fight back or go the way of the dodo.

  • Ed Naile

    Missoula is a college town. Two Reps mentioned hail from there (And possibly NY before that.)
    Children led by Leftists.
    Just like any other college town. It supplies a certain type of juvenile/socialist representative to a legislature.

  • OldNHMan

    Interesting. I wonder how those oh so Progressive lawmakers would like to be tried under a foreign law that allows them to be hanged or beheaded for their treachery?

  • G. David Daley

    Dear Granite Grok:

    What is the difference between Democrats and socialists? Marxian analysis proceeds on the identification of three social classes based on their respective relations to production. The bourgeoisie [top 1%] and petty bourgeoisie [next 9%] form a hostile but necessary alliance. Each despises the other yet craves what the other has. They must cooperate because the 1% lacks the sheer numbers to rule, and the next 9% lacks the social affluence and economic power to rule.

    Together, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie form the ruling class and purposefully preclude the 90% from civic life. This is the proletariat, or the working class. The proletariat is dependent on the political options of the ruling class, both factions of which masquerade as working class heroes while despising working people as much as they despise each other.

    Democrats claim the working class for the petty bourgeoisie program. Republicans claim the working class for the bourgeoisie program. Socialists call for independent, working class action by entering directly into political affairs with the demands of its own class program, guided by Marxist principles.

    You may not agree with Marxian analysis, but what I’ve presented is the basis of socialist political action. And Democrats disagree with it as much as you do.

    As a socialist with strong Trotskyist leanings, I believe that this contributes to the understanding of why working class fortunes never improve whichever party runs the White House.

    Trust that helps!

    • Ed Naile

      Finally, someone who can explain Marxist thought that people are divided into classes – as opposed to being individuals.
      My question:
      What class do generational welfare collectors belong in? That would be the people with no discernable inability to work or contribute to society but who live on welfare and can be counted on to vote to stay in that position.
      Are they part of the proletariat?

      • G. David Daley

        Dear Ed Naile:

        I enjoyed this question; for the beguilingly simplicity, it is more complex than many suppose and merits a nuanced reply. Ex: multi-generational welfare collectors are often considered proletarian drop-outs. And I’ll return to that momentarily.

        I enjoyed this question; for the beguilingly simplicity, it is more complex than many suppose and merits a nuanced reply.

        Ex: multi-generational welfare collectors are often considered proletarian drop-outs. And I’ll return to that momentarily.

        As for collecting from/contributing naught to society whilst using political clout to perpetuate their situation – of whom is this more true than the indolent wealthy? Practices as unbounded speculation, quantitative easing, fictitious capital and more strip the land to the bone. The wealthy do not work; their wealth works for them. Inheritance law revisions now underway make way for a permanent caste based on of wealth. In a Marxist reading of things, the bourgeoisie [1%] is the quintessential social parasitic class. This class does not work; it owns and it commands.

        Now back to the proletarian version. There are indeed those who belong neither to the ownership class [bourgeoisie] or the investment/banking/finance class [petty bourgeoisie] who are multi-generational welfare users. But this is possible only when the economy is expanding. In those times, some tidbits are available to throw to the working class. Essentially it is a bribe not to revolt and overthrow the ruling class. But in times of economic contraction, there is no money for those ‘bribes’ [social assistance, welfare, etc.], and so pre-revolutionary conditions emerge.

        Marx said that Capitalism must retain an army of workers who must present to work, and who are sufficiently desperate to accept labor on any terms offered. He said that Capitalism MUST have social assistance to prevent revolt; but neither can the Capitalist system AFFORD to feed this army. This is one of Capitalism’s many integral ‘contradictions’ Marx identified. Marx also added that under these conditions, the police became the first line of defense of the propertied interests of the privileged class.

        I believe Marx’ insight is good. That’s why police are increasingly militarized, why domestic surveillance is ubiquitous, why ‘fake news’ [i.e., anything the ruling class doesn’t want] is increasingly censored, and why dissent is viewed with an increasingly jaundiced eye. I believe it’s why the petty bourgeoisie/Democrat party/next 9% faction of the ruling class is dusting off Senator Joseph McCarthy’s playbook, substituting sexual misconduct in the place of Marxian convictions; the intent is to create an environment in which careers can be trashed on the basis of anonymous allegations. A milieu is being created that will easily ‘morph’ into accusations made to destroy working class defenders. Watch what happens when this ‘guilt by allegation’ is blended with the ‘foreign influence’ and ‘agents’ who sew domestic discord!

        As if we’re so stupid we’d never know we’re being plundered unless we had Putin to tell us. Oh Pleeease, Hillary!

        The thing is – neither the 1% nor the next 9% strategies offer any solution to Capitalism’s crisis. And as Capitalism comes under increasing pressure, the 1% and next 9% will have to set aside differences temporarily to deal with the 90%.

        There – I got distracted again. But hopefully, you felt that your intriguing question received at least some justice!

        Take care!

      • G. David Daley

        Dear Ed Naile:

        [Posted yesterday but it doesn’t show; so I’m trying again].

        I enjoyed this question; for its beguilingly simplicity, it is more complex than many suppose and merits a nuanced reply.

        Ex: multi-generational welfare collectors are often considered proletarian drop-outs. And I’ll return to that momentarily.

        As for collecting from yet contributing naught to society whilst using political clout to perpetuate their position– of whom is this more true than the indolent wealthy? Practices as unbounded speculation, quantitative easing, fictitious capital and more strip the land to the bone. The wealthy do not work; their wealth works for them. Inheritance law revisions now underway make way for a permanent caste based on of wealth. In a Marxist reading of things, the bourgeoisie [1%] is the quintessential social parasite
        class. It does not work; it owns, commands and rules.

        Now back to the proletarian version. There are indeed those who belong neither to the ownership class [bourgeoisie] or the investment/banking/finance class [petty bourgeoisie] who are multi-generational welfare users.

        Marx explained that Capitalism must have an army of workers to present on the market daily for labor. It must also be desperate enough to accept work on any terms offered. Capitalism must also feed desperate workers to prevent revolt.

        Social assistance is a bribe offered to forestall working class insurrection. The whole Republican/Democrat ploy reflects a ruling class ‘inside debate’ as to whether or how much of a ‘bribe’ [welfare, social assistance, etc.] can be offered.

        So long as the economy is expanding, some tidbits can be thrown at the working class. But if the economy is contracting, there is no money to bribe worker subjugation. So a pre-revolutionary condition emerges. Marx continued that under these conditions, police become the first line of defense of the propertied interests of the privileged class. This is one of Capitalism’s many integral ‘contradictions’ Marx identified.

        I believe Marx’ insight is good. That’s why police are increasingly militarized, why domestic surveillance is ubiquitous, why ‘fake news’ [what the ruling class doesn’t want heard] is increasingly censored, and why dissent is viewed with an increasingly jaundiced eye. I believe it’s why the petty bourgeoisie/Democrat party/next 9% faction of the ruling class is dusting off Senator Joseph McCarthy’s playbook, substituting sexual misconduct in the place of Marxian convictions. The intent is to create an environment in which careers can be trashed on the basis of anonymous allegations. A milieu is being created that will easily ‘morph’ into accusations made to destroy working class defenders. Watch what happens when this ‘guilt by allegation’ blends with the ‘foreign influence’ and ‘agents’ who sew domestic discord!

        As if we’re so stupid, we’d never know we’re being plundered unless we had Putin to tell us. Not buying it, Hillary!

        Neither the 1% nor the next 9% strategies have any solution to Capitalism’s systemic crisis. As Capitalism comes under increasing pressure, the 1% and next 9% must set aside differences temporarily to crush the 90%.

        There – I got distracted again. But hopefully, you felt that your intriguing question received at least some justice!

        Take care!

        • Ed Naile

          GDD:
          “So long as the economy is expanding, some tidbits can be thrown at the working class. But if the economy is contracting, there is no money to bribe worker subjugation. So a pre-revolutionary condition emerges. Marx continued that under these conditions, police become the first line of defense of the propertied interests of the privileged class. This is one of Capitalism’s many integral ‘contradictions’ Marx identified.”
          My take on tidbits thrown at the working class in a capitalist society:
          When not enough workers can support those who refuse to work but survive generation after generation on Government welfare – not private, of which any capitalist country worth its salt should have for the truly needy, a “re-revolution” condition emerged – notice the past sense I have tried to Trump your argument with?
          I know you want to label the rich as not working as opposed to welfare recipients, which is what socialism has a problem with.
          The rich need not produce if they can fend for themselves – but in either political system someone has to either pay or “share” with those to will not produce.
          Human nature and economics collide every time.

          • G. David Daley

            Dear Ed Naile:

            Thanks for the reply! I found the sentence construction a bit difficult to follow; so I’ve revised it and will reply to it. I hope I capture the sense you intend. If not, please correct me.

            When there are too few workers to support government welfare [as opposed to ‘private,’ etc.] as successive generations refuse to work, a “re-revolution” condition emerged – notice the past sense I have tried to Trump your argument with?

            Followed by:

            ‘The rich need not produce if they can fend for themselves – but in either political system someone has to either pay or “share” with those to will not produce.’

            I think Marx’ point was that under Capitalist political economy, the unemployed are wielded into a knife held to the throats of those who do work.

            On the ‘rich [who] need not produce,’ I think several words are in order. One is that healthy societies value work over wealth, not the reverse. In unhealthy societies, wealth invariably becomes the measure of political influence. Next is the concern as to HOW wealth is accumulated. If unjust means such as extortion, withholding wages, etc. were involved, that must be remedied.

            Third, multi-generational reliance on welfare is a serious issue and must also be addressed. To that end, Marx’ explanation of Capitalism’s need of an army of desperate workers suggests a start. Socialism on the other hand calls for full employment [work for all who want it]. This must be supported by education, training for work and opportunity to work. And those who refuse to work on any terms? Marx recommended that they refuse also to eat. Of course Saint Paul said the same much earlier. From Marx’ many axioms: ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need.’

            I’ve no idea what a ‘re-revolutionary’ situation entails.
            Does it mean reactionary measures or class struggle?

            Trump little factors into my thought. I think he is a symptom rather than a cause. And if the Democrat Party/Intelligence
            Community/Media campaign does oust him, it [i.e., the next 9%] will have no alternative to our unfolding social crises.

            Remember Ed, history doesn’t follow an ‘8-year’ cycle. If we think that way, we’ll be suckers for every political campaign, attack, narrative bit and slogan we meet.

            Take care!

          • Ed Naile

            GDD:
            I will stick with my familiar, choppy way of writing so as to avoid confusion.
            Here goes:
            When a capitalist society has too many takers and not enough givers there is a natural, human reaction. You mentioned a “pre-revolution” starts when there are not enough “tidbits” to “bribe worker subjugation.” (Marx.)
            My take:
            We are, at this point in time in America, not in a “pre-revolution” – but we are in a “re-revolution.” Trump is a natural reaction to our capitalist working chumps being overtaxed, unappreciated, ignored and insulted by elites in a media/Hollywood/DC ruling class.
            High taxes to support too many social programs and illegal immigration/occupation, fake news, activist court rulings posing as law, and the open sewer of Hollywood creeping into homes have all combined to elect a candidate who can name these issues as serious problems.
            Americans are not a jealous, greedy, lot. They, as a whole, are not driven to take from others – even though many are content to accept “entitlements.” This why Marx has trouble selling his ideas here in the US. Marx’s philosophy seems stuck in colleges. But, as with most people, students enamored with Marxism opt for capitalism when they accumulate wealth.(Get or earn a paycheck.)
            You ask if my term “re-revolutionary” is “reactionary or class struggle.” It is neither. I am referring to the 2017 General Election being a peaceful attempt at the taxpaying class in America trying to re-establish the country they were born in and the rights that came with citizenship.
            Remember:
            The US does not follow 5 year plans established by ruling elites.
            And the US has not fallen prey to the inevitability of communism in Marx’s hopes and dreams.

        • granitegrok

          SOrry G. David – let me go check DISQUS (our commenting system) for you.

          • granitegrok

            Hmm, you did get caught up in the DISQUS black hole – I yanked out both your comments and you should see them shortly

          • G. David Daley

            Dear granitegrok:

            LOL! Not to worry! Anyone who has worked with DISQUS understands this!

            The best to you, GG!

Previous post:

Next post: