Over time, I’ve noticed that liberals have four common tactics they use again and again and again. I’ve labeled these tactics as Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll. They don’t have to be tried in any particular order, but they do seem to pop up regularly. So let’s look at each one.

Demonstrate. This is the liberal cry of “I (don’t) want” as expressed by the masses of sign-holders or Occupy Wall Street squatters. In the first case, the union didn’t want non-union workers at the port, and in the second case the Occupy crowd wanted other people’s money. The tactic is pretty simple: browbeat verbally (or physically beat) your opposition into doing whatever you want.

Legislate. Liberals love democracy — as long as the vote goes their way. When the vote doesn’t go their way, they will bring the issue up again and again, but once it passes, however narrowly, the liberals will declare that the people have spoken and there should never be another vote on the matter ever again. To be fair, conservatives will bring an issue up for a vote multiple times, too. But conservatives usually understand that an issue voted on and passed one year can be voted on and repealed another. Once passed, laws are not set in stone for conservatives the way they are for liberals. Well, assuming that the liberal was pushing for the law in the first place.

Adjudicate. A common next step for liberals, after failing to get an issue passed by the people or representatives, is to go to the courts and force it through there. Since proponents of gay marriage were having problems getting the majority of voters to agree with them, their alternative tactic was to make it legal through judicial fiat. That’s how it worked in California, Connecticut, and Iowa. So if you can’t get 50% + 1 vote from the people or the legislature to pass what you want, then there’s always the option of having someone in black robes do the heavy lifting for you.

Steamroll. If all else fails, Liberals simply try doing what they want anyway, ignoring both votes and courts to proceed in their desired direction. Recently, Pres. Obama appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), doing so by exercising his ability to appoint people to positions that require Senate ratification when the Senate isn’t in session. But the Senate considered itself to still be meeting in “pro forma” meetings. Senator Harry Reid started the process in 2007 of holding “pro forma” sessions to prevent then-President Bush from making these recess appointments. In January 2012, Pres. Obama used the “steamroll” tactic to recess-appoint four nominees, as the New York Times put it, “effectively calling the pro forma Senate session illegitimate.” A year later, the D.C. court of appeals ruled that Pres. Obama was wrong to do so. In response to this ruling, the NLRB chairman, Mark Pearce said that the NLRB “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld.” That’s a classic “steamroll” response. “Courts? Pfft. I’m gonna roll on. After all, who’s gonna stop me?”

Liberals seem to believe they should use any tactic necessary to get what they want. As Nancy Pelosi put it, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in, but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” And if they can’t get it to work with Demonstrate, Legislate, Adjudicate, and Steamroll, liberals will just pick one of the four tactics and try again.

Cross-posted at Rotten Chestnuts.

This is an article in the series A Look Into Islam.

If you haven’t considered it already, it is well worth looking at how Islam promotes the treatment of women. There is a theme of modesty that runs through Islam, and you can see it in the way Muslim women dress. There is nothing wrong with the concept of modesty, and I’m a believer in modesty for both men and women, but there is a darker aspect of female modesty as it is practiced in Islam that is not often explained. Here is something recently spoken by Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali in Australia:

But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65 years.

But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn’t left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn’t have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn’t have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That’s why Satan says about the woman, “You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon.”

I’ve heard of the dating scene referred as “the meat market,” but I’ve never before heard anyone seriously compare women to meat. This attitude about women as expressed by Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is offensive to women because it demeans them as so much meat and as Satan’s servants just because they have female bodies, and it is offensive to men because it assumes that we are impulse-driven animals with no control.

I am of the opinion that a woman’s dress or undress does not grant permission to the cats men around to rape her, no more than leaving your keys in your car gives people permission to steal it. Both acts may put ideas into people’s heads, but rape and theft are wrong. Period. I don’t accept the excuse of “she asked for it by the way she was dressed.” That only applies if people have no self-control. If men are merely cats or other dumb animals, then we can expect mindless instinct, and we put animals like that on leashes or in cages. But I am not a mindless beast with undisciplined appetites, and I resent that anyone would view me that way.

What happens when the “uncovered meat” is pounced on by the “cats” in Islam? Why, it’s time to punish the meat. (Hat tip, Captain Ed) After all, as al-Hilali said, she’s 90% responsible:

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes.

The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

Notice that one of the rapists only gets 80 lashes for his act, while she gets 90 for the crime of being alone in a car with someone to whom she’s not married. Oh, and that guy gets 90 lashes for the crime of sitting in the car with her. There is nothing she could do that would have justified the gang rape by the others, even if they saw her give a naked lap lambada to the other guy in the car.

The end of the article talks about the woman’s husband and family appealing the punishments. I fear for her life because of the common practice of “honor killings” in Islam. Honor killing typically is when a male relative kills a woman or girl for bringing shame to the family. This can happen if the female is raped, dates someone the family doesn’t like, or marries outside of the faith. Here are a few reported instances of honor killing as posted on Little Green Footballs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

Rape is difficult to prove in Sharia law since it requires multiple witnesses, and a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s testimony. And the idea that a woman is not equal to a man carries over in inheritance laws as well. If a man dies childless, his sister inherits only half of his estate. But if she dies childless, then the brother inherits all of her estate. And in the case of siblings, a son’s share is equal to that of two daughters’. [Qur'an, 4:11]

I guess it sucks to be a Muslim woman. Legally, you are half a man. Financially, you inherit less than a man. And morally, you are a tool of Satan, and rape is 90% your fault just for being female. But at least you can expect to find love in marriage.

Well, maybe.

A Muslim man may be married to four wives at the same time. But the fun doesn’t stop there. The Ornithophobe catalogued some other acceptable forms of marriage in Islam. I quote from her article:

Nikah Misyar, the Traveller’s Marriage, is an option practiced under Sharia law in Muslim countries. In this arrangement, a man and woman are legally ‘married’ but the man has no responsibilities to this wife. He may visit her, in her parents’ home, at any time he wishes. But he owes her no financial responsibility, no home of her own. He may contract such a marriage irrespective of other, traditional marriages he has made. The first, second, third, and fourth wives do not have to approve of the Misyar bride; they do not even have to be informed that the misyar marriage has occurred.

My search of the web has turned up numerous people looking to contract such ‘marriages’ all over the globe. It has also turned up something more interesting: the opinions of Muslims the world over. It seems that ‘no respectable woman would consent to such a marriage.’ Most often, Misyar marriages are a last, desperate hope for widows, spinsters, and girls living in abject poverty. Often they are hoping the misyar marriage will somehow become a real one.

But wait! It gets better!

Nikah Mut’ah is a temporary marriage! In this arrangement, a couple agrees to marry, but with a fixed termination point. The husband has no obligations to provide for the wife, or live with her. A maximum of four temporary wives can be taken, in addition to the maximum four true wives under Islamic law.

The apparent purpose of both these forms of “marriage” is to allow men to copulate with women, without responsibility (beyond the financial support of offspring, that is) and without the sin of Zina, fornication.

All in all, why would women remain in Islam when they are treated as they are? Oh, that’s right — leaving Islam is punishable by death.

It sucks to be treated like a slab of meat, uncovered or not.