I happen to love the assignment of commenting on personal opinionated blogs. It gives a better reason to figure out where conservatives get their ideas and thoughts. Which I learned today apparently comes out of their asses. When I saw this assignment I already knew that I wanted to go for a right winged conservative blog. It's just no fun only hearing from a certain group of like minded individuals. So when I clicked on The TexasFred Blog and immediately saw the quote "God, Guns, and Guts" accompanied by a very fierce picture of the American Eagle, I instantly knew that I had found the one. I literally smiled at the newly found ignorance. It took me just a few scrolls down the page to find an entry that oozed ignorance and stubbornness. So I enthusiastically read his post about "The Truth about Islam." I had no idea that I could be so blessed to find the truth about one of the oldest religions from a white Christian Texan! Talk about being above the stereotype. All this time I assumed that conservative religious Texans had a convoluted and incredibly inaccurate idea on the Islamic religion. But here I was presented with an obvious multicultural scholar. Someone who understood that the quote "God, Guns, Guts" spoke parallel with Christian's views and obviously epitomized Jesus's ideology. I couldn't wait to be educated on who this Historian was.
Fred Witzel is the author and host of this blog and is a self proclaimed "highly opinionated conservative." When asked to describe himself he uses words like "blunt, bold, and brash." He repeatedly notifies his readers that he is an angry gun owner and that he hates Libtards (a classy play on the merge of the word Liberals and the offensive use of the word Retard), Socialist, and of course Obama.
"I detest Libtards and old Hippies that support Barack Hussein Obama. I detest Obama too, but it’s NOT a racial thing, regardless of what Liberals tell you. I detest Obama because he is a Liberal/Socialist, America hating dope head and he is trying to destroy America. "
Fred's audience is obviously geared towards other right wing conservatives and gun toting extremist as his cheerleaders. However, he also welcomes those who don't agree with his views or might get offended by his ideas, while simultaneously telling them to leave if they don't like him. Like an onion, he seems to have many layers to him that will only make you cry the deeper you deal with him.
So he decided to repost an earlier subject on his new found "truth" on Islam. He starts by advocating the idea that the president of the country that he loves with so much anger is indeed a "brother" of the terrorist group ISIS. He does this by purposely writing Obamas full name, that obviously has some Muslim origin to it, and stating reasons why the president doesn't say "radical Islam." He does this in an incredibly formed run on sentence. He then makes this statement.
I am not surprised by it but I find it amazing that supposedly *peaceful* Muslims can stand idly by as a herd of Islamic TERRORISTS do what they do in the name of their religion.
Surprisingly, (not surprisingly), this wise Christian has never heard of radical Christian terror groups like the KKK, or the raping and pillaging of the Native Americans, or the Aryan Brotherhood, or slavery. All done in the name of the Christian religion. After babbling he then makes this comment.
Don’t even try to deny it happens; Muslims MURDER other Muslims for belonging to a different sect of Islam, it happens all the time.
So is it all Muslims? Or just some that we should hate?
Witzel then list passages from the Quran that show violence towards anyone that isn't heavily devout to the Muslim religion. Passages that I, as a person who once read the Quran, do not recognize. He then makes this statement-"I try to be a fair man, I strive to present TRUTH on my blog." After already making this statement-"What? I’m wrong you say? Maybe I am."
Which one is it sir? Are you all knowing or not? Have you read the Quaran? Have you actually had an intellectual conversation with a person affiliated in this faith? Or have you just copy and pasted ideas from other Radical Americans? As you can see, my faith in Witzel has started to wilt. I assumed that someone whom makes such offensive and strong statements as Islam is a cult that rapes and murders would have all of the facts straight.
After reading this mans blog I don't feel depressed or stunned as many might feel when brought such hatred, hypocrisy, and misinformation. I know this is how many feel and think. But if I have to make one final critique on Witzel's work, I would say this. You cant call the post "The Truth about Islam" when it is statements that we have all already heard many times, and more importantly, statements that have not been proven to be TRUE but instead opinionated.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
So I Read This Edditorial Article......
The online website for the "My Statesman" newspaper has an editorial article written by Glenn W. Smith about the moral compass on the idea of "sanctuary cities." Smith is a longtime political journalist for the Texas Newspaper, and a Democratic consultant. His article covers the controversial term "sanctuary cities" and its affect on Texans. "Sanctuary cities" is apparently a term used to describe cities where the local law enforcement doesn't go out of their way to stop and profile citizens to check if they are legally in the country. This has been a hot topic since many politicians have used this term as well as immigration reform and plans as a way to exploit a problem for their political gain. This has been seen in many republican and conservative campaigns, and is even greater known in presidential hopeful Donald Trumps campaign. Donald Trump declares he will build a border wall and that cracking down on immigration laws is a must. Texas formally does not have any "sanctuary cities" since the legislature agrees to follow the guidelines put in place by the federal government when it comes to immigration policy. However, most law enforcements do not go out of their way to pull over random citizens and ask for proof of citizenship. Yet.
My only problem with Smith's article is completely in his writing. It is hard for me to critique the writing of a man who has had what I would assume years of critical writing on political topics. But I just really hate his style of writing. It isn't very attractive to the eye or brain the way he jumps from one point to another almost mid description. I found myself having to re-read whole paragraphs that I just finished because I couldn't at first understand what he was trying to convey. Its like reading the words of someone who is high on caffeine. It seems all over the place to me.
He then goes on to make this wonderful argument that the idea of 'sanctuary cities' in this country is ridiculous since it shouldn't be a privilege to not be harassed and profiled for your immigration status. As if it should be a blessing to be in a city where you don't get pulled over just because you look a certain race, and asked every day to prove your citizenship. He totally has my vote on that topic. This thinking that local law enforcement should all of a sudden also become immigration police is ridiculous. As if there aren't already enough problems between law enforcement and racial profiling. This is also unconstitutional. It is the same as the racially provoked and recently banned 'Stop and Frisk" that Mayor Giuliani so passionately enforced and supported. Its unconstitutional and only adheres to a certain "look" and "type" of people.
Smith ends the article with last objections to use of law enforcement striving to be immigration police, yet says that "local law enforcement should do what is best." This rubs me the wrong way because Smith just made an entire article on how police should stick to being its communities protectors and that participating in immigration searches will lead to a riff in the community's relationship with them. He just made a stand to then end it with, well you officers do whatever you think is best? doesn't make sense. Smith seems to have a sound moral compass and I relate to his views better because I as a reader have many of the same political and liberal stands as he does. However, this article could have been written with a much more precise style, because reading his work gives me a headache.
My only problem with Smith's article is completely in his writing. It is hard for me to critique the writing of a man who has had what I would assume years of critical writing on political topics. But I just really hate his style of writing. It isn't very attractive to the eye or brain the way he jumps from one point to another almost mid description. I found myself having to re-read whole paragraphs that I just finished because I couldn't at first understand what he was trying to convey. Its like reading the words of someone who is high on caffeine. It seems all over the place to me.
He then goes on to make this wonderful argument that the idea of 'sanctuary cities' in this country is ridiculous since it shouldn't be a privilege to not be harassed and profiled for your immigration status. As if it should be a blessing to be in a city where you don't get pulled over just because you look a certain race, and asked every day to prove your citizenship. He totally has my vote on that topic. This thinking that local law enforcement should all of a sudden also become immigration police is ridiculous. As if there aren't already enough problems between law enforcement and racial profiling. This is also unconstitutional. It is the same as the racially provoked and recently banned 'Stop and Frisk" that Mayor Giuliani so passionately enforced and supported. Its unconstitutional and only adheres to a certain "look" and "type" of people.
Smith ends the article with last objections to use of law enforcement striving to be immigration police, yet says that "local law enforcement should do what is best." This rubs me the wrong way because Smith just made an entire article on how police should stick to being its communities protectors and that participating in immigration searches will lead to a riff in the community's relationship with them. He just made a stand to then end it with, well you officers do whatever you think is best? doesn't make sense. Smith seems to have a sound moral compass and I relate to his views better because I as a reader have many of the same political and liberal stands as he does. However, this article could have been written with a much more precise style, because reading his work gives me a headache.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)