There are days I wonder why I have Gordon Howie’s blog in the feed on the right, as I read his latest manifesto advocating discrimination and bigotry?

Should Muslims be allowed to occupy public office in America?

The very question itself will bring accusations of racism, bigotry and prejudice.  I can handle that.

and…

At a time when radical Islam openly screams “death to America”, and most Muslims are noticeably silent when it comes to condemning that agenda, can our country really afford to trust Muslim-Americans with the sacred responsibility of preserving and protecting our freedom and Christian heritage?

I, for one, need to have some reassurance.

Read it here.

Clearly, he recognizes that his question might “bring accusations of racism, bigotry and prejudice.” Well, no kidding. Because the very question is IS UTTERLY RACIST, BIGOTED and PREJUDICIAL.

Why is Gordon Howie utterly full of s**t past his shoes this morning?

There are a few pieces of paper kept in a vault across the country that would disagree quite strongly with him. Collectively, they’re called the US Constitution, and in particular I point you to a couple of passages contained within the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Fourteenth Amendment, providing equal protection under the law: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What those passages mean are that there is no “one” religion that is held above any other, and conversely, no law prohibiting the practice of a particular religion. And when it comes to the free exercise of that religion, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Meaning you can’t be punished for exercising your religion, even Islam, as Howie is directly advocating for.

When Howie asks “Should Muslims be allowed to occupy public office in America?” and claims he needs “some reassurance” to consider that notion, he is directly expressing the same mentality that gave rise to literacy tests to discourage black voting, and other “jim crow” laws to discourage civil participation.

Gordon might be starting with Muslims, but how long until he extends that to Jews, Catholics, and other religions he disagrees with?

You know what they say about the road to hell, which he seems to be heading down. Once you start down that slippery path, we’re all in a lot of trouble.

If you recall last week’s Robocall from that one guy asking that we all pray for Annette Bosworth, I had noted that the unsolicited call could run afoul of South Dakota’s Do Not Call List, based on the PUC’s complaint material.

However, as you can see in the response I received, they’re now claiming that it isn’t so:

Good Morning, Mr. Powers.

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the unwanted phone call you received from Peter Waldron, representing a group in Sioux Falls encouraging those they contact to pray for Annette Bosworth. While receiving the call on your home phone may be frustrating and an unwanted interruption, the call itself is not a violation of the Do Not Call rules. Because the person calling was not attempting to sell you a product or service, the call itself does not fall under the protection of the law. The definition of a Telephone Solicitation Call is as follows:

SDCL 49-31-1. (30) “Telephone solicitation call,” any call made to a South Dakota consumer by a telephone solicitor, originating from South Dakota or elsewhere, for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services to the person called, for the purpose of soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services to the person called, or for the purpose of obtaining information that may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services to the person called or an extension of credit for such purposes;

I appreciate you contacting the commission and making us aware of your concerns.

Deb Gregg, Consumer Affairs Manager
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

And in looking, while the definition of an Unsolicited telephone call under 49-31-1.5 doesn’t require a sale be offered, they are correct in that 49-31-1 (30) does.

You’ve got to love South Dakota’s contradictory laws!

Although when the PUC claims that the Pro-Bosworth Robocalls were legal because they weren’t selling anything, I still might disagree.

Because if you listen to them, it sure sounded like they were selling a steaming pile of BS!