Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

About 15 years ago when the first talk of civil unions came up when people were talking about a constitutional amendment to enshrine actual marriage explicitly in the constitution the media and the pols pooh poohed the entire idea saying that nobody is talking about Gay Marriage and the idea it was going to come up was nonsense.

People who had more sense on the state level decided not to take chances and passed constitutional amendments to their own state constitutions.

Interestingly enough we are seeing this phenom again in Oklahoma:

Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.

The ban is a cornerstone of a “Save our State” amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that was recently approved by the Legislature.

The amendment — which also would forbid judges from using international laws as a basis for decisions — will now be put before Oklahoma’s voters in November. Approval is expected.

Well this is a victory for liberals surely, Sharia law being so oppressive to women and gays and restrictive on sex etc etc I’m sure that our friends on the left will be cheering the chance for the voters to reject such a set of misogynistic rules right? Apparently not:

Reps. Duncan and Moore’s “us vs. them” mentality exemplifies the mainstreaming of extreme right-wing Islamophobia. Once hawked by fringe figures, the “creeping Sharia” delusion is finding champions among staunch conservative leaders like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose crusade against all-things-Islamic culminated in his call for “a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States” at the Value Voters Summit this month.

Ah it’s all about Islamophobia, there is actually no reason why Sharia is something to be worried about, it can’t happen here. Next thing you will be telling me is that honor killings are taking place in America or something.

Jay Nordlinger identified these people long ago:

During the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-anti-Communists. These were people (on the left) who were not exactly pro-Communist. But they so hated the anti-Communists, they were . . . well, anti-anti-Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-anti-Islamofascists. They are not on the Islamofascist side in the War on Terror. But they hate those who are fighting, or attempting to fight, the Islamofascists more than they could ever hate the Islamofascists. They are anti-anti-Islamofascists.

The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz. Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists — I mean, the same people, in the flesh.

The day these people hate actual oppressors as much as they hate their pseudo oppressors will be a marvelous day for this country, and for themselves.