A young second-generation Egyptian-American recently demanded that a blogger-friend of mine apologize to him, and to his father, because of something she’d written on her blog. She had re-published (from public records) a partial list of just the “Letter A” section of the donors to the Obama campaign with Muslim names and his father was on the list, along with a very large number of others disproportional to the Muslim-American demographics. He said he and his father were proud Obama supporters, so he was proud to be included on the list, but went on to explain that he was outraged and offended by what he assumed were her reasons for publishing such a list.

During the course of my online conversation with him as he simultaneously espoused the virtues and superiority of the religion of peace and demanded apologies from my friend and me for our apparent lack of sensitivity, I realized something. On one hand, this young Egyptian-American enjoyed the clout that being indirectly associated with such a powerful group as Islamic jihad gave him, but on the other hand, he wore that clout like a chip on his shoulder, daring anyone to knock it off. I also realized I’d seen this type of doublespeak before.

Many years ago, I had an Italian sister-in-law. She was one of my favorite in-laws, actually, as we had a lot in common, and normally got along very well, but I recalled a very strange and awkward conversation we’d had in the beginning of our relationship, in which this woman had misinterpreted something I’d said (I never did quite figure out what it was I’d said), but she apparently thought I had insinuated that she was “connected” to the Italian mafia, and had become very offended.

Well, at the time, we were living in upstate New York, no where near any large cities. I had lived in Las Vegas during the 1970’s, when the Italian mafia was very active there, so I was familiar with who they were, but this was the late ‘90’s, and I hadn’t really thought about them in years. I discretely inquired of my other in-laws as to why my sister-in-law was so sensitive about this…Was the mob active in our area? Did she have relatives that were active in the mafia? They just rolled their eyes, and explained no, they didn’t think so, and that they didn’t know why she acted like that from time to time. After I’d met more of her family and friends, I began to realize that a few of them, like the Egyptian-American I met recently, liked the social “power” that it gave them to make people think that they just might be “connected,” yet it gave them a different kind of social power to, at the same time, feign offense, and effectively play the “race card,” when anyone brought the subject up (even by accident).

We are seeing this same doublespeak phenomenon, right now, in the political arena, as the Obama-Biden campaign is enjoying the benefits of touting the socialist ideals of social justice and wealth redistribution to garner votes from the poorer members of our society, and financial support from international leftists. Yet, they are also enjoying the social power that being able to call anyone a “racist,” who dares to use the “S” word gives them in the media.

Regardless of who wins this election, and becomes our President in January (or whenever they get through with all the re-counts), we are going to be fighting a war of words. To win this war, we are going to need to be able to accurately identify and describe the various “ministries of truth” that have made great advancements online, in our government, in international government, and in commerce.

Corporate employees have been fighting this war of words for a long time in the United States. The word “diversity,” used to pertain to financial assets and to agriculture, but now it’s applied to human beings, and has come to mean giving preferential treatment to designated minority groups. Our Founding Fathers struggled with the idea of “religious tolerance,” but generally applied it when refraining from killing someone regardless of how warped you thought his ideas were. Now, religious tolerance has come to mean that you will “embrace” the diversity doctrine and the values of every minority group, or you will be unemployed and ostracized.

Christians have also been fighting this war of words for a long time. Our adversaries have tried to use misinterpretations of our scriptures to try to control us. For example, they’ll mockingly ask “Isn’t it a sin to ‘judge’ people?” as they try to play on our fear of hell – and of disappointing our Creator – for the advancement of their own Marxist, political-correctness agendas.

In this war of words, and in this world of doublespeak, those of us who love individual freedom are going to have to summon the courage to resist. We have reached the time that the apostle Paul talked about when he wrote to the Church at Ephesus, “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” It won’t be easy, and there is no doubt that some of us will face persecution.

At times, it will seem like it would be easier to just give in, and go with the flow. But folks, I’ve taken a look at what the enemies of liberty have to offer. The so-called “heaven” promised to the jihadis does not entice me. The soulless, lifeless void of communism has nothing to offer me. I have news for them. Yes, I’m a Christian, and yes, I love God, and I’m planning to spend eternity with Him, but frankly I’d be better off in my hell than in the so-called “heaven” that any of them are offering.

Those of us who have known and loved freedom know what we’re fighting for, and we know it’s worth it. Freedom is worth it. America is worth it. And we can win – Together, and with God on our side, we can win.

I believe, as King David said in the Psalms, that God will confound and put to shame those that seek to kill the soul of America, and He will cause them to be tangled in the very traps that they laid for the destruction of our nation. Our Founders, who were preparing for a battle that was different in nature, but just as serious wrote, “…With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

So, as Todd Beamer, before he sacrificed his life in helping stop terrorists from most likely destroying our nation’s capitol, said, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!”

(The above speech was given during the first 20 minutes of the second half of the Rally for the Conservative Cause on Blog Talk Radio - The link is below). For the first half of the Rally, click here.

Let’s say you find yourself needing to save money, and find someone to share living expenses. I’ll get a roommate, you think. This is a sensitive matter. This is the person you will be sharing at least a kitchen and living quarters, perhaps a bathroom, a garage, and definitely your set of house keys with for months, maybe years. This person is going to have access to your personal belongings, your family, your friends, your phone calls, and your computer. Trust and compatibililty are paramount.

But the government, via the Fair Housing Act, says it is not okay for you to choose this person based on basis of “race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin.”

This is simply not practical, or sensible. People choose their living companions based largely on compatibility and convenience.

Take weekends, for example. Let’s say like to have your friends over on Friday nights, to do your household chores on Saturdays, and then attend church on Sundays. You might want to think seriously about whether you are going to be compatible with someone who considers Friday or Saturday to be a sabbath or a day of rest. Or holidays. Things can get a little awkward when one person is celebrating Christmas and Easter while the other is committed to weeks of mourning. Meals? Maybe you have a fettish for pickled pigs feet, and like to keep them in the fridge at all times. This is likely to totally gross-out someone who either doesn’t eat pork, or doesn’t eat meat at all. It isn’t that it is impossible to find solutions to these problems, but maybe this is just more “diversity” than either of you is going to want to deal with on a 24/7 basis.

And seriously. While gender and sexual orientation can be none of anyone’s business in public or the work place - it’s pretty hard to ignore these personal matters when someone is in your home. Traditionally, roommates have often chosen to live with someone of the same gender, specifically to avoid the uncomfortable situation in which one roommate becomes sexually attracted to the other. Is that no longer possible? Familial status…Wouldn’t it be nice to know if your potential roommate has a spouse and children that are going to be in your home every weekend?

Online, roommate matching services have operated largely in the same way that dating services have operated, in which a series of questions is answered by each applicant, and then possible matches are made by the computer. Until now, websites have been protected from lawsuits by the law. As Wired.com explains:

Apartment hunting site Roommates.com cannot shield itself from an housing discrimination lawsuit by claiming it is just an internet forum, because the site requires users to answer questions about their gender, marital status and sexual orientation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The ruling is an important one because it sets a limit on a federal law protecting internet forums from lawsuits. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act largely frees websites, online forums and ISPs from responsibility for what users say on their sites. Online freedom advocates describe that law as the best thing Congress has ever done for freedom of expression on the internet, since it allows social networking sites, hosted blogging services and news sites with commenting features — like this one — to let users be responsible for their words.

That legal immunity doesn’t apply to Roommates.com, the court ruled, because the check boxes on the site actively solicit discriminatory content, making the service much more than a simple forum….(more)

The larger story here is that the advocates for the political-correctness agenda onine have just won a major victory while advocates for personal liberty and freedom of speech online have sustained a loss. Watch for more lawsuits like this, in which things like “discrimination” and “hate speech” become not only frowned upon by the online community, but actually illegal.

What about dating sites? Well, for now, they’re safe. At this time you can at least still use sexual orientation as part of your screening process is choosing a date. For now.

Also see: .pdf of the ruling

(hat-tip, Mashable)