Sunday, April 26, 2009

"Non-judgemental"? "Open-minded"? "Accepting"? Humbug!

For many years, those of us of the more Republican, Conservative, or even the simply "non-mainstream" thought processes have been deemed to be "judgmental," "cold-hearted," and "uncaring" because of our opinions.  (No contraction there, right? It appears to always have been completely acceptable to be judged by those self-proclaimed non-judgemental.  After all, the left simply expresses an "opinion!")

Since the taking of control by the left, the "opinions" have reached depths of ugliness and hatred not seen so overtly in this country since the height of the Viet Nam war, in my opinion.  The source of all this, strangely enough, comes from those who always scream the loudest in their demands for "acceptance," "open-mindedness" and that much touted "tolerance" of the liberal ideal.

Is this truly "strange," however?  I think not.  The intolerance of the so-called "most tolerant" has always been clear, has always been one of the most easily perceived aspects of their "truths."  Any who may have wanted to try to maintain a sense of fairnness toward those so-called "non-judgemental" groups need only look at the reactions spewing from that quarter to understand their meaning of "acceptance."

Can it be made more clear that those much aclaimed virtues are only to be applied to those who not only accept the liberal perspective, fully and unquestioningly, but also only to those who do not dare to attempt to express any opinion of their own?

Thanks to those whose blindness voted in November 2008, We the People are watching the death of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights, of the United States of America herself, and, ultimately, of the Individual.

~~ MCzwz
April 2009, All rights reserved.


Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist, expresses this issue much more cogently than I . . .

They told us if Barack Obama were elected, the nation would come together. Souls would be fixed. Spirits would be healed. Public discourse would be elevated. Welcome to civility and tolerance in the Age of Obama:

Celebrity leech/trash blogger Perez Hilton took to the Internet and TV airwaves to humiliate a beauty pageant contestant who gave what he considered an "offensive" answer about gay marriage. Hilton, inexplicably serving as a judge for the Miss USA contest, asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she supported the legalization of gay marriage. Prejean respectfully answered: "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." President Obama, by the way, defines marriage the same way Prejean does. (See related article)

No matter. Hilton immediately lambasted Prejean as a "dumb b****" in a viral YouTube video he taped after the pageant Sunday night. He apologized the next morning for the attack, then retracted his apology, then escalated his divisive rhetoric. On Tuesday afternoon, Hilton told an MSNBC female anchor that he was thinking of an even more vulgar epithet -- the "c-word" -- as he listened to Prejean's answer. The female anchor said nothing. Basking in his new role as thought and speech enforcer, Hilton told CNN's Larry King that beauty pageant contestants must bow to the tolerance mob: "Yes. I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct."

And apparently, the Miss USA organizers agree. Instead of apologizing for Hilton's vile behavior, the pageant director of the Miss California contest, Keith Lewis, sent a note to Hilton throwing Prejean under the bus: "I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss CA USA 2009 believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman....Religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."

But gutter profanity and misogyny do?

At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last week, former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo came to speak against legislative proposals to provide illegal alien students in-state tuition discounts not available to law-abiding Americans and legal immigrant students. Protesters at the institution of higher learning responded by blocking Tancredo with massive banners and screaming, "No dialogue with hate!" Adults in the room stood by while students smashed a window a few feet from where Tancredo stood. Physically threatened, Tancredo was forced to leave without delivering his remarks. (See related article)

According to campus reports, for a week leftists had prepared to mount a speech-squelching demonstration. The same thuggish tactics have been used at Columbia University, Georgetown University, and Michigan State University to shut down speakers who support strict immigration enforcement. The UNC administration apologized for the students' tantrum, but took no steps to examine its own culpability for fostering a climate of intellectual vandalism and intolerance.

The nightly airwaves turned into a soft-porn cesspool last week as liberal journalists derided and slimed hundreds of thousands of TEA Party protesters across the country who oppose reckless taxing and spending by both major political parties. Award-winning CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, mimicking his bottom-of-the-barrel competitors at MSNBC, smugly indulged in sexual puns about "teabagging." MSNBC devoted the entire week to sophomoric sexual slang and innuendo with references to "nuts," Dick Armey, and "full-throated" protesters. (See related article)

And White House adviser David Axelrod calls the TEA Party folks "unhealthy"?

Speaking of unhealthy, angry white liberal actress Janeane Garofalo venomously played the race card: "It's about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks." The theme was echoed by Jeffrey Kimball, a professor emeritus of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, who castigated the "extreme right" for organizing against Obama because "he's black and he's liberal."

Tell that to the thousands of activists in South Carolina who practically booed and heckled white Republican Rep. Gresham Barrett off the stage at a TEA Party in Greenville last Friday night for supporting the trillion-dollar TARP and embracing the pork-laden stimulus law after voting against it. "Go home!" they shouted. The only color that mattered to protesters: the red ink of government debts.

But in the Age of Obama, there's no room for such nuance and inconvenient truths. A decent young woman is a "dumb b****" for holding the same view of marriage as the Obamessiah. A conservative campus speaker is bullied as a hatemonger by wild-eyed hatemongers. A grassroots movement is debased as a bunch of racist vulgarians by a media mob of racists and vulgarians. Civility and tolerance have taken a left-hand turn down a one-way street. So much for changing course.

- 4/22/2009 10:00:00 AM

School choice for me...but not for you

More Liberal "Fairness?" 

Is this how the liberals show their vaunted concern and caring about children and education .  . or .  . is this an expert political group (the Teachers' Unions, NEA, et al. in action, being "repaid" for being one of the most vocal supporters, one of the strongest union groups who, in essence, gave the liberals the White House?

Since Mr. Obama is beholden to them, (as he is to ACORN, the Hollywood elite, the gay activist crowd, and so many other "special groups,") we should not be -- and some of us are not -- surprised that Mr. Obama is so quickly sending off the "Thank you" cards.

Not only is the irony so excruciatingly painful when one considers the utter hypocrisy of this issue, it merely becomes more grossly overwhelming when one remembers the double-talk by Mr. Obama about the school his children were to attend once in DC.  During the campaign, the "man of the people" would enroll his children in public school, of course ... as one of "the people."

The truth?   His children attend Sidwell Friends, one of the most exclusive schools in DC.  He can afford it; never mind those who can't.  (Also, let's all nevermind what Mr. Obama was supposedly to represent via his "change" mantra . . .)

~~  MCzwz

When it comes to school choice, one organization says Capitol Hill lawmakers are "do as I say, not as I do."

Lindsey Burke, a research assistant with The Heritage Foundation, explains that every other [year] her organization releases a report on Congress and school choice.

"This year's survey revealed that many members of Congress are, in fact, exercising private school choice for their children," says Burke -- and it is not just a few who are doing so. "Forty-four percent of senators and 36 percent of representatives have at some point sent a child to private school," she continues. "So overall it's about 38 percent total members of Congress had exercised private school choice."

Burke, who is a former public school teacher, says she has no problem with school choice, but finds it ironic that so many members of Congress exercise that option while at the same time squashing a school-choice program in their own backyard -- the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

"This has been a great program that has allowed 1,700 low-income children in [the District of Columbia] to escape the failing and often unsafe public schools in the district and go to a private school," Burke states.

Congress voted to allow the funding for the program to expire at the end of this school year. But Burke says the program has strong bipartisan support in the DC area, and she remains hopeful it can be revived.

-- Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 4/23/2009 5:00:00 AM

Access to Education is Only for Some?

One has to wonder . . . why is it "fair," in the lexicon of some, that children who have not had the opportunities to attend "good" schools before, but were able to do so through the school voucher program are suddenly precluded from doing so?

Under the auspices of the very ones who claim to care so much about "children," "education," and "our future" a large group of children are now prohibited from attending "better" schools through the destruction of the very program that was to have helped.

Is this really the "change" people who voted for Mr. Obama last year thought they were getting? I do not believe anyone who voted for Mr. Obama really thought he would go this far . . . though it was clear in his words, his expressed philosophies, and his own history that this was his (and his cohorts') ultimate goal.

I am sure many of you will agree that education and helping young people get ready, through acquiring knowledge and education, to face the future and to better themselves is not a political issue -- at least, it should not be.

It has, however, become exactly that, more than ever before: a thoroughly political issue.

The destruction of the voucher program is just that: destroying the opportunity for a group of folks who were to be the very ones helped, supported, and ultimately built up through access to greater educational options.

Those who are sincere in wanting to keep our country true to its founding principles and intent must work to stop such insidious "change."

This type of "change" is not good for our country now or in the future.

Copyuright MCzwz, 2009.  All Rights Reserved.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Resurgence of Self-Sufficiency?

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy go over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'
~~ Source Unknown

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Republicans have shown themselves to be disappointly malleable and insubstantial, much to the disgust and fear of those of us who are Conservative.

There are, in spite of (hopeful) claims to the contrary, plenty of Conservatives and Republicans left -- thank God.

All we have to do is get ourselves back on our feet and start to fend of the wild liberalism that has been voted into our government.

The GOP response budget was cobbled together pretty much at the last minute to show there was a GOP "alternative" in response to liberals' accusations of presenting no ideas.

That is not the way to go about presenting alternative ideas.

We the People who fear what this is bringing on must pull ourselves together, fight down our fears and fight for the good and the future of our country.

We must work hard to field strong candidates locally, statewide, and nationally to put the reins on this unbridled liberalism threatening out country.

Do we really want our entire country to replicate Calififornia, Washington State, and Oregon at best and San Francisco at worst?

If the answer to that is the resounding "NO!" I hope it is throughout the Conservative and Republican core of our Country, then we must stop feeling sorry for ourselves, stop blaming President Bush (because there was a Congress passing laws then, too) and start taking responsibility for ourselves as We the People and make the necessary changes in our leadership the next opportunity we have: 2010.