Archive for January, 2009
Driver’s licenses Let Applicants Pick Gender
Once again I find myself living in CRAZYLAND!!!! When did America go so completely berserk???? People can now just choose what gender they are?? It doesn’t matter if I’m born female, I can just say I’m a male and that’s good enough??? When did up become down and down become up?? I’ll tell you when. When Christians and conservatives decided to no longer fight for anything!!! We decided we would be nice and not ruffle any feathers. Well, this is what we get for it – a nation gone nuts!!! Hey crazy nut jobs, do us a favor and have yourselves committed. And while you’re at it, take that crazy Jimmy Carter with you. He’s doing nothing but hurting this country.
I wonder if the DMV would be fine with me identifying myself as a cat??? Suppose I feel like a cat that day…Hmmm…maybe I’ll try it next time.
Driver’s licenses let applicants pick gender
State allows men to identify themselves as women
Posted: January 31, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The state of Massachusetts, which has been at the forefront of normalizing homosexual relationships in law, has taken a bold new step to allow applicants for drivers licenses to select their gender on officials documents.
The decision by Rachel Kaprielian became public when an organization promoting family values obtained a copy of a letter she dispatched to a homosexual lobbying organization.
The letter to Marc Solomon of MassEquality said the state Registry of Motor Vehicles “has amended its policy to enable transgendered individuals to more easily change the gender designation on their licenses and identity cards.”
(Story continues below)
Kaprielian said the new provisions no longer will require applicants to submit medical proof of sex reassignment surgery.
“Under the new policy, the letter said, “an individual who wishes to change the gender marker will submit an updated application together with a Gender Designation Change Form, signed by him or her and a medical provider attesting to the gender that the individual considers himself or herself to be.”
The organization that obtained the letter, MassResistance.com, said the decision has “huge implications” for society.
“Essentially, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has decided that for legal purposes of identification, a person’s actual sex is meaningless. The gender ‘you consider yourself to be’ is now officially used. This is madness. But it’s now the state policy,” the organization said.
“A man using a women’s restroom or women’s locker room would now show police a legal, official Massachusetts identification that he ‘is a woman.’ He could get this on the basis of ‘the gender he considers himself to be’ with the agreement of a ‘medical provider,'” the organization said on its website.
“A male elementary school teacher can start coming to school wearing women’s clothes and using the girls’ rest rooms or locker rooms. And this will extend everywhere throughout society, in businesses, public accommodations, schools, and everywhere else,” the group warned.
MassResistance said Kaprielian quit her state House seat last year to run the state agency. She had been a “reliable pro-abortion, pro-homosexual vote,” the group said, but “no one thought that she would go this far.”
Homosexual newspapers documented how Kaprielian worked “behind the scenes with various extremely radical homosexual/transgender activist groups” on the plan, MassResistance said.
The state already had what MassResistance described as a “radical” policy on the issue. It allowed people getting their drivers licenses renewed to use a check-off box for “change of gender.” It let people change their gender designation but required medical documentation.
Commenting on the policy, the pro-Catholic blog LesFemmes-TheTruth referred to homosexuals “playing wedding and house.”
“It’s bad enough when individuals do this, but when the government starts playing the game as well, the people are literally living in the STATE of insanity. Massachusetts is a perfect example,” the blogger wrote.
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87422
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Excerpts from “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media
Right now I am reading Bernard Goldberg’s new book, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True and Pathetic Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.” It is fantastic and I highly recommend it. Therefore, periodically I will post some of the more interesting things he says in the book – starting today.
EXCERPT FROM BERNARD GOLDBERG’S NEW BOOK
In chapter 7, “Hey, I’m Just Asking…”, Goldberg asks some questions that seem so obvious to us, but that the liberals just don’t want to address. They are:
Do you think the media would have paid more attention if it were the National Rifle Association, instead of ACORN, that signed Mickey Mouse up to vote?
Do you think the mainstream media would have shown more interest if it were John McCain, and not Barack Obama, who had a realtionship, no matter how flimsy, with an unrepentant terrorist?
Would the media think it was old news if this terrorist had helped kick off McCain’s political career?
What if the terrorist had bombed not the Capitol and Pentagon but a black church or an abortion clinic – no matter how long ago it was?
What would the media say if on September 11, 2001, of all days, a story came out in the NY Times in which this bomber said his only regret from those days was that he didn’t do more?
How would the media play the story had it been John McCain who spent twenty years in a church with a right-wing minister who said racist things about black people?
What if it were Sara Palin, and not Joe Biden, who stood before a cheering crowd of conservatives and said the solution to our economic woes could be summd up in “three-letter word: J-O-B-S” – and then went on to spell the word out loud: “J-O-B-S.”
What if it were Sara Palin, and not Joe Biden, who said that in 1929 Franklin Roosevelt “got on the television” to reassure the American people “when the stock market crashed” – even though FDR didn’t take office until 1933 and television wasn’t introduced to the general public until 1939?
He then goes on to say:
“The questions, of course, require no answers. Because we all know that the same mainstream media that slavishly tried to make the Democratic ticket look good would have been all over each of these stories – since they all would have made Republicans look bad.
But what many of us call bias, journalists simply call news judgment. They weren’t shilling or covering for Obama, they say. They wre merely making editorial decisions. And they decided that Wright, and Ayers, and ACORN, and Biden’s gaffes were not worty of a lot of coverage.
Take the Reverend Wright story. On May 5, 2008, John Roberts on CNN summed up the feeling of a lot of mainstream journalists when he told Obama, “I want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview wer are declaring a Reverend Wright free zone today. So, no questions about Reverend Wright… Is that okay with you? Obama obligingly responded, ‘Fair enough. That sounds just fine.”
Or how about the Bill Ayers story?
On October 31, 2008, just four days before the election, I tried an experiment. I ran a check to see how many stories the NY Times – the newspaper of record – had recently run on Ayers, and how many the paper ran on Palin’s wardrobe, which some commentators argued was a waste of a lot of money for the McCain campaign.
It turns out that during the previous TEN DAYS, the Times ran eleven news storied on Palin’s wardrobe and three additional op-ed columns. But in the previous TWO MONTHS, those impartial folks at the Times ran only two stories examining the raltionship between Ayers and Obama. Perhaps two was enough – but eleven news stories on Palin’s clothing?”
Bernard Goldberg on Jeremiah Wright
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The first big national story about Jeremiah Wright and his radical ideas didn’t come from the NY Times or any other major American newspaper. It came from Rolling Stone, a publication devoted more to music than to politics. In a thoughtful profile of Obama that appeard in the February 22, 2007, issue…Rolling Stone reported on some of the inflammatory statements Wright had been making from the pulpit of his Chicago church:
“And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial instituion, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here on Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. “Fact number one: we’ve got more black men in prison thatn there are in college,” he intones. “Fact number two: racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!” There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the Reverend begins to preach. “We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of preofessional KILLERS… We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God…We conducted radiation experiments on our own people…We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!” The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: “And. And. And! GAWD! Has got! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!”
Okay. Now try to imagine the impact those words would have had if they appeared not ina music magazine, but in the most influential newspaper in the country, the NY Times, the newspaper that producers at ABC, NBC, and CBS News read first thing in the morning so they’ll know what to cover that day. Trust me, if the Times went on strike one morning, they wouldn’t know what to put on the CBS Evening News that night. Such is the influence the Times has on other media, especially network television news.
The Rolling Stone piece, entitled “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama,” was smart and perceptive. “This is as openly radical a background as any significatn American political figure has ever emerged from,” the magaine reported, “as much Malcom X as Martin Luther King, Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator ‘affirmed’ his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a ‘sounding board’ to ‘make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.’ Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand were Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
That night, after the Rolling Stone article hit the newstands, Kati, Brian, and Charlie should have run lead stories on Obama’s longtime friend, the raving minster Jeremiah Wright. The next morning, every major newspaper in the US should have jumped on it too, and run page one storied under headlines that announced, “Obama Tied to Anti-White, Anti-American Minister.” And the only digging reporters would have had to do -to find out all the racist, anti-American things Wright was preaching- was into their wallets, to come up with a few bucks to buy the DVD’s of his sermons that were on sale – right there in the church!!
As Rolling Stone pointed out, Wright’s influence on Obama was right there in plain view for anyone to see. All you had to do was to ready Obama’s book. “When yuou read (Obama’s) autobiography,” Rolling Stone noted, “the surprising thing – for such a measured politician – is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there.”
Top Ten Questions for Barack Obama: As Asked by Bernard Goldberg
These are excellent questions that need to be asked of our President, but that the mainstream media will not ask. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually get the answers to these questions??
Ten Questions for Barack Obama
By Bernard Goldberg
From his book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media
1. How do you define “post-partisan politics” – because it seems to me that what you really mean is “folks on the right, come over to the left?”
2. Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central to your “post-partisan” political philosophy?
3. Is it fair to say if Jeremiah Wright’s sermons had not been made public you would still be worshipping at his church?
4. What did your wife really mean when she said, referring to your candidacy, that it ws the first time she was proud to be an American?
5. Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is NOT because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year-ol girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spok forcefully and eloquently on Father’s Day about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kdis if you had made ita recurring theme of your campaign. Why didn’t you?
6. Regardless of your age at the time of Bill Ayers’ bombing, why would you have anything – anything – to do with a man like Ayers, who not only planted bombs at the Pentagon and the Capitol, but who said his only regret was that he didn’t do more to stop the war in Vietnam?
7. According to news reports, you have a half brother living in a hut in Kenya. Is that true? Have you ever sent him money? If not, why not – since you’ve professed compassion for the poor?
8. You won’t release your college records. That makes me wonder why not. Was it something you wrote while in college that you don’t want voters to know about? Was it your grades? I’m puzzled, help me out.
9. How willing are you to disappoint liberals?
10. As you know, some critics have suggested the media went easy on you. Agree or disagree? What do you say to those who believe that journalists wanted to help shape history by doing what thye could to get the first African-American elected president of the United States?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Liberal Media Bias Acknowledged and Shrugged Off By 2 Well-Respected Journalists
Below is a great excerpt from Bernard Goldberg’s new book. This is very disturbing, but it seems to now be just a given that the media is biased and that there’s nothing we can do about it. We no longer have a fair, unbiased press that just reports the news. We have people with an agenda and we need to put a stop to it!!
Liberal Media Bias Acknowledged and Shrugged Off by 2 Well-Respected Journalists
By Bernard Goldberg
From his book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media
Chapter 17 – It Is What It Is
A few days after the election, on November 7, two big players in the world of political journalism shared their veiws on the campaign at a seminar in Washington. I listened on C-SPAN, and what struck me was how cavalier they were about the media bais – how readily they accepted it as a simple fact of life.
Charlie Cook, a well-respected, long-time journalist who specialized in election forecasts and politcal trends, told the audience, “I think a lot of people in the news media were too young to cover Camelot and John Kennedy, they were too young in most cases to cover Bobby Kennedy and so I think they were star struck by this Obama phenomenon.”
And how did their fascination with the celebrity in chief play out during the campaign?
“Let’s face it,” Cook said, “is there a Democratic and a liberal bias in the media? Of course there is. But they also love a good story. And the first African-American serious contender for the presidency was a great story.. And a lot of people in themedia absolutely loved it. I think you can say that the media had a finger, more than a finger, on the scale on the Democratic side.”
The other journalist was Stuart Rothenberg who, like Charlie Cook, is an inside the Beltway politcal junki. “I agree completely,” Rothen berg affirmed. “I’m sure they (journalists) preferred Obama. They liked Obama. They’re Democrats. Obama got better treatment.”
Yes, Rothenberg and Cook were only stating the obvious – that the mainstrea media wanted Obama to win. But then Rothn berg uttered a few more words that psoke to just how CORRUPT journalism had become.
“But, you know,”: he said, “it is what it is. It’s the nature of the political environment…Republicans ought to know that.”
Then Cook chimed in, “As Stu said, it is what is is.”
It is what it is? Five little words that constitute the grouwnup version of one little word that kids say when they don’t give a crap: “Whatever.”
But were these two guys really so jaded that they were willing to write off this bias so dismissively? Were they really saying that Republicans have to understand how corrupt journalism is in the real world, and they just have to suck it up?
I couldn’t get those words ouf of my head. It is what it is. Rothenberg and Cook, I fugured, are the kind of guys who are always thinking about politics…And yet these politcal mavens didn’t unterstand what nay middle school social studies teacher grasps: that in a country like ours we really do depend not just on a free press, but on a fair press.
But what really got m was how they just shurgged if off. It is what it is. Conscientious people don’t say that about any other kind of bias. Conscientious people never said, “Sure, blacks have to sit in the back of the bus, but hey, it is what it is.”
No, nothing is quite the same as race in America, so my analgoy goes just so far. But I trust you get the point. It simply is not good enough to acknowledge bias then wave it oaway with an indifferent, “It is what it is.”
This is why the bias problem persists. Because journalists haven’t had the guts to stand up and say “It is what it is just won’t cut it anymore.”
But I’m not holding my breath that anything will change anytime soon. After all, they are who they are.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Pledge of Allegiance Becomes Pledge to Obama
Oh GAG!!!! The Obama worship has GOT to stop!!!!!
Can you imagine if a teacher had tried to do this with Bush’s picture?? This is just the beginning of the ‘Obama Youth’ movement.
Pledge of Allegiance Becomes Pledge to Obama
January 27,2009
By Alan Gray
News BlazeExcerpt:
A parent in the Clark County School District of Las Vegas, Henderson area reported today that his son, who is in 1st grade, came home yesterday saying that he didn’t want to go back to school anymore.
When asked why, the boy said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag.
Thinking that the boy might be exaggerating, the man asked his son if he was sure, and suggested that by “large” he might mean an 8×10 photo of the president. The boy apparently said “No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done, the teacher turns off the image.”
The same thing was not done for President Bush last year.
After investigating this morning, the other parent reported that what the boy said was true.
At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five feet by six feet.
<snip
LINK: http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Obama Mistakes Window for Door
Don’t you find it interesting that when Bush tried to open a door that happened to be locked, the MSM couldn’t play it enough and used it over and over again to mock him. Yet, Obama mistakes a window for a door and it’s not a big deal?? Honestly, it’s not a big deal, but it would be nice if the MSM would give equal and fair treatment to Bush and Obama. If they try to portray Bush as ‘stupid’ because of that, then what does that make Obama? Stupid, as well!!
But alas, we have a MSM that doesn’t report news, they decide what they want us to know and what they want us to think and they put out whatever may support their agenda. Hence, they wanted us to think Bush was an idiot, so they reported anything that might support that. They want us to think Obama is “THE ONE” so they WILL NOT report that he makes mistakes just like Bush. I hate the MSM!!! They are liars whom the American people can no longer trust!!
Hey Bam, that’s not the door!
By LIISA O’NEILL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, January 28th 2009, 3:07 PM
It looks like President Obama hasn’t gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door — located a few feet to his right.
LINK: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_hey_bam_thats_not_the_door.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )Two Ex-Guantanamo Inmates Appear in Al-Qaeda Video
Hey Obama, these ‘poor’ folks that you want to give constitutional rights to and that you want to bring to the US so that they can get treated as citizens, are going back to re-join the war against us and they want us DEAD!!! What don’t you get about that??? They are enemy combatants – NOT prisoners of war, and certainly NOT citizens who get our constitutional rights!!!!! Keep these enemy combatants at Gitmo!!
Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
12 hours agoWASHINGTON (AFP) – Two men released from the US “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.
One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.
Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333.
A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, on Saturday declined to confirm the SITE information.
“We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure,” said Gordon.
“We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose,” he said.
On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
“By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for,” al-Shihri was quoted as saying.
Al-Shiri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, the US counter-terrorism official said.
The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana’ani).
The Defense Department has said as many as 61 former Guantanamo detainees — about 11 percent of 520 detainees transferred from the detention center and released — are believed to have returned to the fight.
The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year.
LINK: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Obama’s Evangelicals: The Liberals’ New Useful Idiots
BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!!! Once again Doug Giles hits it out of the ballpark. I couldn’t agree more. As you may have seen in my earlier posts I could not fathom how a Christian could vote for Obama, and this article proves my point even more. Unless you throw Scripture out the window, a Christian cannot, in good conscience, vote for Obama.
Obama’s Evangelicals: The Liberals’ New Useful Idiots
by Doug GilesIn less than a week after Obama’s swearing in, our nuevo POTUS unfurled his radically liberal abortion and family plans together with his juicy pro-homosexual agenda.
Good job, all evangelicals who voted for Obama, as these aforementioned ditties-from a biblical perspective-are about as sanctified as the Antichrist French kissing a crack whore in Bret Michaels’ hot tub.
Yep, I wanna give a special shout out to all the “major” ministers who fawned and swooned over Barack and swayed their congregations to vote for him in spite of his anti-scriptural stances on life, marriage and sexuality.
Let’s take a look at Obama’s homosexual agenda for our nation:
My colleague and co-belligerent compadre right here on TownHall.com, Matt Barber, pointed out to me during an interview on my show last week that literally within minutes after President Obama took the oath of office Tuesday, the official White House webpage was updated-under the heading of “Civil Rights”-to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.” His stated plans include the following:
• Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage;
• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton-the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
• Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy;
• Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights-denied other Americans-based on changeable sexual behaviors;
• Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law; and,
• Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”
Barber went on to say, “While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’
“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies. The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It’s a zero-sum game. When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority. People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats-it’s going to be a bumpy four years,” concluded Barber.
And that’s just the tip of the pink iceberg, folks.
If it’s change you wanted, “Christian,” it’s change you’re about to get, as in more unborn babies are going to get offed, more Brad and Chad, and if things go Obama’s way, chunks of Scripture will officially get tagged as hate speech, your church will have to hire RuPaul or face punishment, and our military will have to make room for Chippendale dancers on the base partly because of you, the Obama evangelical, who voted for such a change.
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/01/25/obama%e2%80%99s_evangelicals_the_liberals%e2%80%99_new_useful_idiots
Fight Back Against the Tolerant Fascists
Totally agree!!!
Fight Back Against the Tolerance Fascists
by John HawkinsDespite America’s inspirational legacy, this has not always been an exceptionally tolerant nation and there are few Americans who would deny that. That being said, we’ve now gone so far in the opposite direction that it has become problematic as well. Tolerance taken to an extreme has actually impeded our ability to rationally discuss vitally important issues that will determine whether our country continues to be successful and prosperous over the long haul.
For example, the debate over gay marriage consists largely of one side talking about thousands of years of human experience and a potential devaluing of marriage that could lead to more society-damaging out-of-wedlock births in the future — while the opponents of traditional marriage throw tantrums, try to get people fired for disagreeing with them, and shriek “homophobe” at the top of their lungs. This is highly ironic given that twenty years ago, most gay activists denied, publicly at least, that gay marriage was even on their radar at all.
A related issue is single mothers. Although we all know single mothers who work hard and are fantastic parents, if you look at statistics, it is absolutely undeniable that two parent households, on the whole, do a much, much better job of raising children. That’s why it’s desirable for our society to discourage single motherhood as much as possible — but, if you point that out, you get howling feminists complaining that you must be a misogynist who hates women.
Then there’s immigration. The whole point of allowing people to immigrate to this country is to benefit the people who are already here. Yet, if you try to have any sort of substantive conversation about how many people we are allowing into the country each year, where they should be coming from, or how we should choose them, the screaming starts again. “Why do you hate immigrants?”
It has gotten so bad that we can’t even have a real discussion about how we should handle illegal immigrants any more. We have a coalition of business groups that benefit from hiring illegal aliens, Republicans who think they can pull in more Hispanic voters, and liberals who think illegals will become citizens and vote for them — all essentially crying “You hate Hispanics!” any time someone opposes allowing an unlimited flow of illegal immigrants to enter our country and become American citizens. In other words, the only way to avoid being labeled a bigot is to oppose increased security measures any time they come up while always supporting the legalization of more illegals.
Then there’s the dilemma posed to us by the war on terror. Most Muslims are moderate and are not hostile to our country. However, there is no reliable way to tell the moderate Muslims from the Islamic radicals who want to see us dead. Moreover, the moderate Muslims are usually very silent about the actions of the radicals and even tend to quietly support them when they engage in objectionable practices that have been previously held in contempt by Western civilization. In European nations, we’ve seen unconscionable restrictions imposed on free speech, Sharia tacitly accepted as the law of the land in certain areas, significant Islam related increases in rape and violence, and in some cases, non-Muslim women forced to take up the veil for their own protection. Shouldn’t we be having a real back-and-forth exchange, free of shouts of “Islamophobia” — about how to avoid importing the problems we’re seeing in France, Britain, and the Netherlands into our country?
If you’ll notice, these are all extraordinarily important issues that will ultimately have a great deal to do with whether our children live in a nation as great as the one we grew up in. Can we continue to be the pre-eminent nation in the world if we give the short-shrift to these momentous topics just because a few people claim to be offended?
Here’s the reality: 95% of the time, if not more, when people yowl about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, hatred of the poor, the environment, old people, etc., it’s not true. Worse yet, most of the people doing the shouting KNOW IT’S NOT TRUE. They’re merely crying wolf for political gain because they believe they may benefit personally from it — or in the case of organizations like the NAACP, La Raza, GLAAD, CAIR, NOW and the alphabet soup of other groups that make a living off of having grievances, because it keeps them rolling in money and publicity.
Unfortunately, since the people benefiting from continually playing the tolerance card are unlikely to give it up any time soon, those of us who put our country first are going to have to be bolder about confronting them, drawing attention to the real issues, and sticking up for people who have the courage not to be cowed by political correctness. Whether our country remains a shining city on a hill or becomes just another unremarkable slum basking in its faded glory will depend on how successful we are at that task.
LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/01/27/fight_back_against_the_tolerance_fascists
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )The Day America Lost the War on Terror
AMEN!!! Obama sickens me when he apologizes for America!!! Isn’t he supposed to be OUR president, not theirs??? He needs to be concerned with OUR best interest, not the Muslim world’s feelings. What a socialist pansy we have for a president!!
The Day America Lost the War on Terror
by Ben ShapiroOn Nov. 4, 2008, America lost the war on terror. President Barack Obama’s feckless, pathetically apologetic perspective on foreign policy spells the end of the quest for liberty in the Middle East. It spells the end of America’s moral leadership in the global war for freedom. And it spells the end of a hard-fought campaign to protect America. Our enemies must be happily celebrating their great good fortune in America’s election of this platitudinous, morally relativistic, Jimmy Carter carbon copy in the midst of battle.
On Jan. 26, 2009, Obama granted his first television interview as president of the United States to Al Arabiya, the Dubai-based television network part-owned by the Saudi government. In the interview, he demonstrated with the utmost clarity that his understanding is inversely proportional to his arrogance.
He started by humbling America before the world. “(A)ll too often the United States starts by dictating,” Obama said, shame for his country dripping from his lips. “So let’s listen.” There was no call for the Muslim world, which has sponsored genocide after genocide, terrorist group upon terrorist group, to listen.
Obama apologized for President Bush’s “Islamic fascism” terminology, equating Muslim terrorism with nonexistent terrorism by Jews and Christians: “the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.” There was no call for the Muslim world to actively fight terrorism — honesty is not the Obama administration’s policy.
Obama repeated the Clintonian line that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict could be solved by pressing Israel into negotiations with terrorists — a foolish conceit that has cost Israeli and Palestinian lives. He talked about getting rid of “preconceptions” regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict — code for embracing negotiations with Hamas. He pledged to talk with Iran — on the same day that Iran’s government spokesman branded the Holocaust “a big lie.” He bought into the Muslim-sponsored notion that the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of all trouble in the Middle East. He praised the one-sided Saudi peace plan as an act of “great courage.”
Most sickeningly, Obama openly jettisoned his constitutional role as the caretaker for America’s national interest. Instead, Obama posed himself as an honest broker between America and the Muslim world. “(T)he United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect,” he said. “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.” Obama didn’t stop there. He stated that his job is to speak for the Muslim world, defending them from Americans’ negative perceptions: “And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.”
No, Mr. President. Your job is not to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world harbors us no ill will. That is their job. The Muslim world must demonstrate with its words and actions that they do not wish America replaced with an Islamic state. They must demonstrate that they do not support terrorism against America and our allies.
Your job is to protect and defend the United States of America. That is your sworn duty.
And you abrogate your sworn duty every time you go on Arab television stations and apologize for America’s foreign policy. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you force American allies to negotiate with terrorists. You abrogate your sworn duty every time you pledge to protect the interests “not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity” — the same ordinary people who elect Hamas, prop up the Ayatollahs, supported the Taliban, recruit for al-Qaida, and live off of the beneficence of Hezbollah. Not all Muslims are “extraordinary people,” and the interests of suffering Muslims do not always align with American interests.
On Nov. 4, 2008, Americans elected their first international president. They elected a man who does not seek to preserve American values. Leftists perceived George W. Bush as an imperialist for American interests; by the same token, Obama is an imperialist for “global interests.” In a war to save America from implacable foes, Obama’s Global Interest Imperialism dooms American exceptionalism to the ash heap of history. With it may go the last, best hope of Earth.
LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2009/01/28/the_day_america_lost_the_war_on_terror
« Previous Entries
Don't Get Me Started... 