During the current debate over the Muslim mosque being proposed near ground zero in New York City, liberals have repeatedly chanted the mantra about freedom of religion and how the mosque supporters had the First Amendment right to build so close to the hallowed grounds of the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out by followers of Islam.

When opponents of the mosque suggested that it should be moved to another location in respect to the sensitivities of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, the liberals responded by saying how far away is far enough? Their reasoning has been that once we bend our First Amendment rights of religious freedom simply on the basis of not offending others, the door is opened for further erosion of those rights.

Now a right-wing preacher in Florida wants to exercise his First Amendment right of free speech by burning the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11, and the liberals are howling about how it will insult the sensitivities of Muslims. Liberals want the preacher to restrain his freedom of expression so as not to offend the Muslim world. In other words, liberals want the preacher to give in to those who are offended by his First Amendment right to burn the Koran and begin the slide down the slippery slope of rights erosion that they claimed would happen if the mosque proponents acted in a similar fashion.

Well you can't have it both ways. The rights contained in the First Amendment are either protected for everybody or else they are protected for nobody. It appears that liberals want the preacher to abridge his First Amendment rights so as not to offend the sensitivities of Muslims, even as they support the Muslim's First Amendment rights that will undoubtedly offend millions of Americans.

You are hypocrites!

Petraeus is a traitor to the cause of liberty and has raised a white flag of surrender to the Islamic jihadists. The Muslims have the mighty American military machine running scared over threats of violence because some preacher in Florida decided his congregation wants to burn the Koran. It's not a matter of whether or not one agrees with the preacher's actions. What the preacher is doing is within his protected rights as an American.

A post on Jihad Watch makes some good points about Petraeus' cowardice:

I oppose the Qur'an-burning. I don't like the burning of books. I'd rather that the contents of the Qur'an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known. However, these people are free to do what they want to do. Petraeus would do better to tell the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker. He would do better to tell them that their likely murderous rage over this event is an outrageous overreaction, and that any bloodshed over this would be a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they think the people in Florida are committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy's worldview and perspective, and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts, not just the military one, to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would respond, Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur'an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation. This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression -- and ignores also the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur'an to justify violence and make recruits. Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should be defending the Florida church's right to do as they please, and using it as a teaching moment in Afghanistan to say, We are going to defend our vision of society, no matter what you bring against us.

TEHRAN, Iran - The lawyer for an Iranian woman sentenced to be stoned on an adultery conviction said Monday that he and her children are worried the delayed execution could be carried out soon with the end of a moratorium on death sentences for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

In an unusual turn in the case, the lawyer also confirmed that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was lashed 99 times last week in a separate punishment meted out because a British newspaper ran a picture of an unveiled woman mistakenly identified as her. Under Iran's clerical rule, women must cover their hair in public.

With the end of Ramadan this week, the mother of two could be executed "any moment," said her lawyer, Javid Houtan Kian.

Now, go and Google "Moderate Muslims condemn stoning of Iranian woman," or "American Muslims condemn stoning of Iranian woman" and see what you find. I didn't find one so-called moderate Muslim voice (or any Muslin group, for that matter) opposing this barbaric act. Not one. I even went to the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission website and searched through 47 pages of press releases and didn't find one thing in opposition to this. What I did find on their website is a perverted vision of human rights that is mainly concerned with denouncing Western countries that ban oppressive Islamic practices towards women. You can draw your own conclusions from their silence, I've already come to mine--ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION! And it is most violent towards women.

Muslims in the United States demand their religious freedom, while their brethren around the world violently repress other people's religious freedoms. It should also be clear that religious freedom does not trump individual liberty. Whenever someone in the secular world writes, speaks, or acts in opposition to Islam or the prophet Muhammad, Muslims around the world react with violence.

In the United States, we enjoy many individual freedoms that are violently opposed by Muslims. One of these freedoms is the freedom of expression. In America you can burn the American flag, the Koran, or the Bible as an expression of free speech. Just because you don't agree with that expression, doesn't mean you have a right to violently attack the person you disagree with.

Whether it's a cartoon caricature of Muhammad, comments made by the Pope, or a Florida pastor's call to burn the Koran, Muslims always react with violence. But where are the so-called "moderate Muslims" when their brethren lash out against the individual liberties charished by others? When Muslims kill non-Muslims, where is the outrage from the alleged moderates? They dare not speak up too loudly for fear that such retributions will be visited upon them as well.

In 2001, the monumental sixth century Buddhas of Bamiyan were dynamited on orders from Afghanistan's Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. In 2010, Al-Kifl, the tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel, near Baghdad, is being desecrated. On the tomb are inscriptions in Hebrew and an ark in which a Torah was displayed centuries ago. Iraq’s Antiquities and Heritage Authority, under pressure from Islamists, is erasing the Hebrew words, removing the Hebrew ornaments and planning to build a mosque on top of the grave.

In Pakistan, Christian churches were bombed over Christmas. In Turkey, authorities have been closing Christian churches, monasteries and schools. Recently, churches in Malaysia have been attacked, too. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have been suffering increased persecution including a drive-by shooting outside a church in which seven people were murdered. Any Muslim openly opposing the Islamists risks being branded an apostate. And under the Islamist interpretation of Sharia, Islamic law, apostates deserve death.

The list of historically recent atrocities committed by Muslims against non-Muslims could go on and on. You will find that when Muslims are the ones doing the persecuting, there is nary a wimper of condemnation from other Muslims. At the end of the day, Islam is intolerant of all other religions and is especially intolerant of secular human rights. Islam is a violent religion and it will resort to violence to destroy the individual liberties of all people.

The Go Levelland blog makes no mention of Obama or Democrats in a post put on the website last June announcing the grant money. Instead it praises Republican U.S. Senator John Cornyn, who announced the grant to the city. Funny thing is, Cornyn voted against the stimulus package but doesn't mind taking the credit for its success in helping stimulate Levelland's economy.

While Cornyn and the Republicans continue to assail the stimulus package as a failure and not creating a single job, that's not what he told Levelland officials last year. According to a quote from Go Levelland:

"This is good news for the City of Levelland," Sen. Cornyn said. "This proposal will create new jobs and business opportunities which will strengthen the region's economy. I applaud the local leaders who worked to secure this funding."

Such hypocrisy is standard operating procedure for Levelland's conservative leaders. They shake one fist at Obama and the Democrats for passing the stimulus plan, while they grasp millions of dollars of stimulus money in the other fist. Not only that, but the local newspaper then disingenuously gives credit to Cornyn and congressman Randy Neugebauer.

The reality is that if Cornyn and Neugebauer had prevailed, the good folks of Levelland would still be looking for money to start the rail port project. Unfortunately, that won't dissuade the locals from supporting conservative candidates. They're content with perpetuating lies and ignoring reality--something that conservatives are really good at.

Anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of Mormonism knows that this is like the pot calling the kettle black. It's absolutely laughable that a Mormon would dare call someone else's religion a perversion of the gospel. I guess it takes one to know one.

Glenn Beck is a shining example of why lunatics should be locked up in insane asylums. He should be kept far away from sharp or pointed objects.

Differences in conservative theological ideology is the fault line that the left should exploit to its advantage. Any time we can get the wingnuts fighting each other over religious doctrine we should do it with zeal.

The federal government said engineers will start work Monday to remove the temporary cap that stopped oil from gushing out of BP's blown-out Gulf well so that crews can raise a key piece of equipment from the seabed.

Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the spill response, told reporters Friday that engineers must remove the cap so they can raise the failed blowout preventer. The blowout preventer is considered a key piece of evidence in determining what caused the April rig explosion that unleashed the gushing oil.

Apparently retired Coast Guard admirals also have shit for brains. What's the hurry? Why don't they wait until the relief well is completed and the blown-out well permanently sealed? Thad Allen is an idiot and should have been kicked to the curb two months ago.