Category: - Conservative Voice
 
PicturePhoto Credit: duckcommander.com
It is interesting watching, reading and listening to all the fervor surrounding Phil Robertson and A&E.  The aged redneck said something less than flattering about gays and the GLAAD community went high and to the right… or left shall we say.  A&E, an extreme leftist, over the top, pro-gay network, then indefinitely suspended the Robertson family patriarch for openly expressing his opinion that homosexuality was a sin.  This, perceived as a gross constitutional violation of 1st Amendment rights, caused conservatives to circle their wagons in defense of Robertson. Think Progress, a progressive website, published an article further stating that Robertson not only hates gays but also, is an avid racist who feels Blacks were better off before Jim Crowe Laws.  Interesting.

Okay, before we get too deeply into this, I must confess that I am partial to rednecks – to say that, “some of my best friends are rednecks,” would be a gross understatement.  Of course growing up as a youth in the poor, Black, northern inner city, I was taught that rednecks were almost a different species altogether.  They were a bizarre and racist people that hated all things beyond that of their own.  It is the way this new Modern Liberalism works – it preys upon ignorance.  Chances were that I would never evolve beyond that of the street life I was born into, let alone run into a redneck in order to be able to make any self-determinations.  And so, it was to be.


A few novella sized chapters of my life ago I joined the Navy and was shell shocked by the types of different people I met during training, but the true awakening came when I was sent to Millington, TN.  There is where I had my first true redneck encounter with a young man named Allan Stuart from Tyler, TX. (If memory serves me correctly.)  You must remember that at this time Allan and I both were only months removed from our homes.  I still had far more Philly street in me than I did military bearing and Allan was far more country than he was a Sailor.  Shortly after check-in, which was befouled by my own “misconduct,” I was assigned to watch on the Naval Hospital’s Information Desk.  There, I was teamed with a young, skinny kid whose accent was so strong I thought he was speaking a different language.  (For those of you who know him, yes, Allan was skinny once upon a time). 

Allan’s personality is larger than life and he was quick to share stories of his youth in a colloquial dialogue of idioms that could rival that of Samuel Clemens himself.  Conversations at first were difficult, not only was his accent thick, I had yet to be exposed to true southern lingo.  I could barely understand a word he said often interrupting with untimely, “huhs?” and “whats?” Of the first stories he shared was when he once took his father’s bullwhip and was heading off to play with it.  My liberal oriented mind quickly made a predetermination of where he was going with this story.  As it turned out, I was wrong.  His father caught him running off with the bullwhip and stopped him.  “Give that too me Allan.”  His father said before directing him to run across the yard.  No sooner than Allan hit full speed, a lesson teaching lightning bolt and thunderous crack ripped into his back.  His father, to teach him a firsthand a lesson about what the bullwhip actually represented, gave him a little taste.  And so, the stories continued to flow between the two of us for years to come.  Though worlds apart, and perhaps in the minds of most, an unlikely duo, especially in the Memphis area of TN, we found more similarities than differences in not only how we were raised, but also who we were as individuals and a true unbreakable friendship was born.  We would both leave Millington and go our separate ways to pursue different military opportunities. When I arrived in Yuma, what was to be my final duty station, I was recognized by Allan’s wife; even though I had never met her… or knew she even existed for that matter.  A friendship forced apart by military needs had endured a career’s worth of separation.  Allan had not changed.  Still bigger than life, deceivingly smart, rudely determined, hyper opinionated, highly driven, brutally honest and still his own person in spite of a liberal world that was determined to prejudge him and his type of people – Allan was still the same Allan I had met so many years earlier.  Now adult sized, but still enjoying a bizarre sense of individuality that allowed him to drive up to morning PT in a canary yellow Mustang GT blasting old school Chaka Khan and talking in Stu’s unmistakable southern drawl.  You cannot help but to love him once you meet him.  Allan, though a redneck in his own definition, yields but one accurate marker of what most think a redneck is; his accent - that while being most obvious, was least defining.

Nothing about Allen was or is how a redneck was described to be in the uber-liberal Philadelphian inner city.  Liberalism and its soft racisms of predetermination feed and perpetuate themselves vested largely on the stubborn ignorance of devout followers.  Chances were that I would have never made it off the streets and come to know the likes of Allan and so many others like him.  Had this been the case and I remained confined to the self-limiting liberal la la land, today I would likely take the words of Phil Robertson and based them on the misconceptions that liberalism deliberately ascribed to me.  What was omitted from those early conversations was the sometimes brutal honesty, loyalty and sense of faith driven integrity many people possess – some of which happen to be rednecks.


 Little different, I would later learn, than southern Blacks whose faith derived influences live on in even the most secular on northern inner city families were these so called rednecks.  While Allan I were quite different demographically, we were far more similar in terms of value systems.  Separated again by the changing tides of life, if I were to stumble across Allan today and he were down and out – without question he would be taken in and my home would be his.  As unlikely as we were said to be back in the day has little to do with who we, and people in general, actually are.  It is this loss of personal understanding coupled with a greater loss of our sense of humanity that contrives such predetermined and prejudicial disdain being levied against Robertson by GLAAD.

This is why I detest not the GLAAD agenda, but GLAAD’s methodologies.  What GLAAD now demands through such protests against the individual right to disagree, is that everyone embrace homosexuality.  Those who do not are now being attacked as GLAAD seeks to aggressively force their agenda of homosexual acceptance upon all people over the individual right to uphold their own personal beliefs.  The crime, to GLAAD, is simply to not support the homosexual community.  This overly aggressive position by GLAAD has forced them to continually misstep when seeking to persecute solely because someone within, or the gay community in general is not held in the highest of regard.   

In the “Stop the Hate, Free Kate” campaign, GLAAD sought to demonize all those who stood against Kate Hunt, a 17 year old high school teenager who was having sexual relations with a 14 year girl.  What GLAAD and the LGBT community advocates saw was a young gay person facing charges for “being gay,” but willfully overlooked her continued violations of court placed restraining orders and even tried to use politicians to legalize same sex relationships involving minors to circumvent statutory rape laws in the state of Florida. 

Continually we are told by GLAAD, its advocates and its moronic spokes people like Wilsin Cruz that conservatives “hate” and fail to possess constitutional understanding in ill-fated attempts to advance their own, and now clearly biased and even prejudicial, agenda.  Their recent attack on Chik-Fil-A not only resulted in record sales for the Christian oriented fast food chain, but GLAAD again tried to use leftist political entities to block Chik-Fil-A businesses from opening in areas that were controlled by liberals.  Yet, their insistence is that they, as liberals, support American freedoms and concepts of constitutionality – until someone disagrees with them that is.

The fact of the matter is gays wish to be accepted for being gay, which is fine.  The trouble arises when the community chooses to force their acceptance on all others and refusing to respect differing opinions even when those who choose to not support homosexuality wish no harm, nor act in a discriminatory manner against gays. 

Here is an interesting piece of trivia.  We as a nation, demand that immigrants seeking citizenship bear the responsibility to “Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.” It is a concept deeply vetted by the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and religious freedom.  Unfortunately, the most enshrouded Americans, American communities and American subcultures demand that their rights, beliefs and opinions be respected, but too often now, they refuse to bear the responsibility of respecting the same of others.  It is a dichotomy that the American progressive and liberal factions embrace to the highest and most absurd proportions.  Inasmuch, through their perverse sense of entitlement, GLAAD and many members of the otherwise rational LGBT community have taken giant steps backwards while only advancing the right to refute their belief system among those who tend to be impartial to their way of life, which is actually the majority of Americans.

When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everybody will respect you.
Lao Tzu
 
Picture
James Madison
Perhaps it is best to open with a bit of history (which is now relegated to the archives of American trivia) to shed some light on an ever fleeting aspect of Americanism.

On June 8th, 1789, James Madison introduced to the House of Representatives a draft of the First Amendment: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''  The special committee to some extent rewrote the proposed Amendment: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.” In this form it went to the Senate and in due process it was once again rewritten: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

When we think about the First Amendment, we must first think of why it exists, especially when it comes to the freedom of speech.  If certain forms of speech were not offensive to some, speech would not need protections under the Constitution.  Speech and the freedom thereof, are a right to protect the expression of that which some may deem controversial or offensive.

In doing so, the burden of responsibility has been placed on the receiver of a given message, not the sender!  Today, this point is being grossly overlooked by those most protected by the Amendment; the media.  Case in point; CNN Radio’s Lisa Desjardins who is currently working on a three part series addressing the “anger” and “hateful” nature of politics.  This of course brought into the limelight after Saturday’s slaying of the innocent in Tucson, AZ.   

Desjardins started her series by singling out friend and fellow Examiner writer Jesse Mathewson.  To make her point, Desjardins took exception to Jesse’s active and very open position against immigration enforcement measures in the state of Arizona while questioning his direct approach in his articles attacking strategies below the formal levels of the law to tighten immigration in a region economically stricken by illegal immigration.  This of course was exploited as she passively assaulted Jesse’s right to speak freely in her defense of those who may be offended by such speech.

Largely this has been the tone of America.  Are we saying things too tersely that leads to an atmosphere in which violence may be a secondary by-product?  What is missing is the intent of the First Amendment from its initial form, to the final Amendment right of all Americans.  The tragedy in Tucson, though horrid, has lent itself to a debate aiming to protect the receiver of messages and away from what the right actually protects.  This is a passive aggressive attack on the U.S. Constitution, its Amendments and the rights granted to the people under it.  The problem is that Americans see interviews such as this as being benign and not for the malignancy of anti-Americanism they actually represent.

The issue that lies before the American people is not in what is being stated, it is the lack of the enforcement of the responsibility of respecting freedom even when we do not fully agree with the controversies it brings forth.  When speech is expressed in a manner that is not desirable to some, and they in turn go forth and act violently against it; it is they whom have failed freedom – it is not the sender, but the receiver who is wrong.  Like it or not, this how America was formed to be. 

As the nation moves forward in trying to understand the acts of Saturday, January 8th, 2011, we struggle to make sense of that which will simply never make sense.  It is out of desperation that our struggle inappropriately extends itself to defend the lowest common sensibility and in doing so we move further and further away from freedom.

Immigration is an area in which Jesse and I have never seen eye to eye and probably never will.  This however, does not define our relationship; it accentuates our relationship.  This is due to the simple fact that we not only respect each other, but we respect each other’s rights as Americans.  Respect for the rights of fellow Americans is what the mainstream media is thwarting through its irresponsible reporting and representations of “angry” and “hurtful.”  Spirited debate is demonized because it suggests that an opposing view has been offended into defending itself.  America is moving away from the burden of freedom out of a gross lack of respect for and ignorance of freedom itself.