First let me state for  the record, that I  do not believe in absolute freedom
of religion, or absolute freedom speech, or absolue freedom of
anything .

The U.S Supreme Court apparently felt the same way when it ruled
that Mormons (in the Smith Case) could not practice polygamy even
though it was a part of their religion at the time.

And the court has also ruled that free speech doesn’t allow for slander, libel, revealing
government secrets, uttering threats, blackmail, extortion, pornograhic
communications, and so on. Thus, freedom of religion or  speech is not
an absolute unfettered right under our constitution. If it were,
I would be lobbying hard for a constitutional ammendment to change that.

In my opinion, Islam is a blight on human civilization.
Christians and Jews stopped doing the barbaric things Muslims do today
200 years ago.

I for one, don’t think Islam should be permitted to be practiced or preached in the USA. 
But, our  constitution as currently interpreted allows for even the vilest and most socially destructive religions to be practiced with few if any restrictions.
.  
And to make matters  worse, many good people who are patriotic and well meaning, but
also gullible and naive, seem to think that all religion is equally good, and that all religions are equally valid.

That of course is nonsense! Not all religions are "good"; and not all religions are equally legitimate or valid. And if a religion condones or teaches "Jihad" or "honor killing" or female genital mutilation, or advocates stoning, whippings or beheadings for petty sexual sins and vices, then that "religion" must be monitored carefully to be certain that no violations of our laws  are advocated, suggested, condoned, encouraged, or actually comitted or covered up after the fact. And if such violations do occur, the guilty should be imprisoned and upon release deported. 

But, punishment for law violations and punishment is only retrospective. We need to also act prospectively to nip the growing Islamic menace in the bud by placing stricter immigration quotas on Muslims seeking to immigrate to America. Muslims immigrants who are virtually unassimable, present a far greater threat to our culture and our national security than the hard working and economically exploited, undocumented Mexicans.  They are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, harmless and also imminently assimable. 

So maybe we should not wax so hysterical over the undocumented Mexicans. The real fifth column in America are the practitioners of Islam. And they need to be reined in, restricted,  monitored and managed-now before it is too late, and we become like France and The UK cowering  in our country.

If there is one single common tactic that all politically active people seem to employ regardless
of their political beliefs, it is declaring their victimhood in order to silence their opponents or
at least place them on the defensive.

So, marvel not when Hillary Clinton plays the gender card: "The other candidates are piling on the only woman in the race."  And why shouldn't she play the game? She's smart enough to realize that victimhood, like negative advertising, is a powerful tool -and it all too often works. But Hillary is hardly alone. We all use the "You Hate me" defense.

("we" meaning the particular religious or political group we tend most to identify with)

Blacks predictably charge racism if someone opposes affirmative action, or
criticizes the hip hop culture's deplorable sexism, or it's condonation of criminality and sexual debauchery. They are likewise "hurt" and deeply offended when some tasteless comedian makes fun of the stupid ebonics movement that exalts ignorance, or the equally tasteless gold teeth and jailhouse pants hanging low and exposing bright  colored underwear. And they now whine that  their "culture" is under attack by those who oppose animal cruelty and dogfighting.

In Atlanta, Georgia some years ago local black leaders were particulary indignant when Atlanta based talk show host, Neal Boortz, heaped  ridicule and scorn on the practice of giving "African sounding" names to many African American children. These names which are presumably chosen to give the child a sense of his roots and ethnicity,  often simply focus negative attention to their child's race, and "otherness" thus singling them out for immediate and unnecessary racial indentification on school and job applications. 

One such "victim" of Boortz' scorn was DeHundra Caldwell, an Atlanta high school student, who was in trouble with the law for some school related misdemeanor.

Instead of simply discussing  the local African American community's defense of DeHundra's bad behavior, Boortz instead immediately zeroed in on, and began demagoging the boy's given name: "DeHundra", which was ostensibly given to him because it sounded "African". 

Whether or not it really sounded all that "African",  or simply just exotic is besides the point. Blacks in Atlanta felt "persecuted"  after setting themselves up perfectly for someone like Boortz to easily and effortlessly exploit and ridicule for ratings.

As in the instant case, we often bring the "persecution" on ourselves (or our group) by using bad and  sometimes  extremely bad judgement. Then, when the going predictably gets tough, we whip out  the "you hate me" card because it shifts the focus away from us to our critics'  preceived "hatred" of us.

Sometimes, we nurture and cherish very real persecutions from long ago  
to demand and emotionally extort from the larger society special protections and kid glove treatment that others are not afforded. 

Jewish pundits and  victims of anti semitism, like Abe Foxman, and even many non-Jewish  neo-conservatives routinely accuse any and all critics of Israeli foreign policy such as
 conservative columnists Joe Sobran andPat Buchanan  
of being  cryptic "anti-semites".

In fact , one has only to use the term "neo-conservative" to be labeled "Anti-Semitic"
(see Suzanne Fields TH column of November 1, 2007 entitled "The Kosher Conspiracy".

And sadly, these high priests and priestesses of anti-semitism usually get away with the
"You hate us" strategy.  Their critics are immediately pounced upon by a media 
hungry for a gaffe or "scandal". Thus, the critic is forced to backpedal, deny, and attempt to "explain" repeatedly, over and over what they "really" meant to say-and then for penance, to grovel obsequiously and apologize to all those who chose to deliberately "misunderstand".

The alternative is to resist and refuse to back down, but the risk is high that one may be  permanently marginalized and turned into a suspected anti-semite who is henceforth under a cloud of suspicion and hence not to be trusted. 

Lately, the persecution Sanhedrin are coming after former President Jimmy Carter, mediator of the Camp David accords, and an unlikely anti-semite if ever there was one.

Note: As a personal dislcosure, I am from Georgia, but I voted for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford first against  *candidate* Carter, , and then later agaunst President Carter.  But, I have to say despite his bungled and failed presidency and the mismanaged Iran hostage crisis, and his rather ironoic tendency in his old age to speak less than diplomatically, Jimmy Carter deserves better than to be falsely accused of "antisemitism".

Sadly, this anti-semite charge is unlikely to continue to be  deadly effectivefor a long time, because the holocaust was so incredibly horrid that nobody wants to tell American Jewry that it's time to stop playing the perpetual victim.

But all too many Jews reply thusly: "we have suffered like no other people on earth." And who can top the holocaust for victimhood credentials? 

But, we evangelical Christians sometimes rty it ourslves however clumsily. We too also cry lugubriuously about being "persecuted"-often for such trivial "persecutions" as when some sophomoric TV comedy host or liberal news paper columnist ridicules some of our more frivolous causes, like purging "witchcraft" (Harry Potter?) from the local school library. Or, when some uniformed TV talking head (invited to the studio to stir controversy and ratings) ridicules intelligent design and conflates it with "creation science", we point to media/hollywood "hostility" and "persecution" of Christians.

Mormons too are now calling labeling as "bigots" many critics of Mitt Romney, who question his judgment, based on the many strange beliefs of his Mormon faith

But, Chritstians Jews and Mormions  are far from alone in wallowing in self pity: it's now pandemic.

Hispanics, Mormons, Muslims in America, and just about everyone else is likewise beginning to catch on: victimhood is powerful!  Everyone, that is, except the American Indians, who were ridiculed to scorn and told to "get a life" when they once complained  that "Indians" should not be used as mascots for professional, college,or local high school football and baseball teams.

But, then the Native Americans are virtually unique among all the "victims" in that they alone have no political power, or sympathizers among syndicated pundits, blogs, or other vehicles of mass communication, and so they must endure their victimhood alone and in silence.

Rest assured, there will never be an NBA franchise in New York called the "New York Negroes", or an NFL team  called the "Jacksonville Jews".

Can you imagine the outrage if there were? Why even Don Imus would come out to tell us just how "offended", "shocked",  and "saddened" he is by this "despicable" racist nickname. But, hey, the "Cleveland Indians" and the "Washington Redskins" are just fine.

But, enough. Rather than endlessly cataloging, documenting and archiving all of
our favorite group's sufferings caused by unjust persecutions, what say we all stop pretending to be victims of hate when our critics fairly (or unfairly) stick it to us? (often in retaliation for something they think we previously said about, or did to them)

Maybe we should all try to learn how to take it at least as well as we routinely dish it out?
Or better yet, not dish it out at all, but instead just ignore those who persist in "persecuting" us.