Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant – and oh, yeah, misandrist – liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

Why Don’t Democrats Who Demonize Chick-Fil-A Over Gay Marriage Not Demonize Black People? Look Right Here, It’s EASY!

Chick-Fil-A has received more hatred this past week than most businesses get in a lifetime.  Why?  Because its CEO expressed his constitutionally-protected opinion and because he took the same position that Liar-in-Chief Obama cynically and deceitfully took for most of his first term before betraying the American people who believed him when Obama said:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

It is very difficult to believe now that Rahm Emanuel became this incredibly hateful man’s chief of staff given that Obama “tastes like hate.”

It was only three months ago that Barack Obama tasted like hate.

Why don’t Democrats demonize anyone who ISN’T Christian for believing that marriage is the union between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is a sin?

Why won’t they demonize black people when black people more than ANY other race agree with Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s viewpoint?

Homophobia, to be sure, is a sadly universal phenomenon. But it is one with especially deep roots among blacks. Polling numbers bear this out. In a recent Pew poll, 65 percent of American blacks reported thinking of homosexuality as wrong, while only 48 percent of whites did; in other words, most blacks harbored this prejudice, while fewer than half of whites did. Also, black voters played a disproportionate role in getting the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008.

Why did Rahm Emanuel demonize Chick-Fil-A and then welcome the Nation of Islam and Loius Farrakhan with open arms when the latter is more intolerant of homosexuality than Chick-Fil-A EVER was?

Why don’t Democrats demonize “homophobic” Islamic mosques and point out that those people who largely have different skin color than white people are all evil intolerant haters?

What about Boston Mayor Menino who supported with municipal licenses and even with the gift of $1.8 million in land a mosque whose founders said that gay people should be burned or thrown off a cliff? 

If memory serves, the people in thirty-five states out of thirty-five states have voted.  And in every single case the people have supported Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A’s view of marriage.  Shouldn’t the Democrat Party’s official platform position be that the American people are clearly evil?

Look, Democrats: it’s EASY to demonize a black man.  Watch here to see how your ilk does it:

Boy, are those liberals “brave” for surrounding an old black man and dumping their hate on him.  But at least these white liberals are being slightly consistent unlike the real “99 percent” of their party who would never DREAM of being consistent and viciously attacking black people for their views about a subject they just LOVE to demonize old white men for.

Aside from the fact that to be a Democrat is to be a gutless hypocrite who “stands for everything” and therefore stands for NOTHING, I can tell you the real reason why Democrats have somehow only ever shown the moral “courage” to demonize Christians.  It’s in the Bible.  Jesus Himself taught it:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.  Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.  They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.”  John 15-18-21

That’s why.

That’s why Democrats hate on Christians and are so “tolerant” to everyone else even when everyone else agrees with the Christian and even when those who agree with the Christian have a long-documented tradition of hatred and bigotry like Louis Farrakhan.

Democrats don’t hate Obama. Even though for three years he “tasted like hate.” Democrats don’t hate black people even though on their own view black people are far and away the most intolerant and evil people in America. Democrats don’t hate Muslims even though they want to see gay people burned alive or thrown off cliffs. Democrats don’t hate Louis Farrakhan or his Nation of Islam in spite of their numerous hateful and racist and bigoted views that of course include homosexuality. Nope.

Democrats hate Christians.

And Jesus told us exactly why Democrats would hate Christians.

Ultimately, to be a Democrat is to be a hater of Jesus Christ.  They hated Him first.  And they hate us because they hate Him.

You go ahead, Democrat.  You hate me as much as you want.  I know why and I’ve chosen my side just like you’ve chosen yours.

See also here for why God ordained marrige the way He did and why the Democrat Party in officially making homosexuality part of their party platform have finally reached rock bottom.

Christopher Hitchens And Billy Graham (Or Bill Maher Vs. Tim Tebow) As Missionaries For Their Religions. And Which One Was ‘The Intolerant Hater.’

Yes, for the record, atheism IS a religious view. Atheists have actually demonstrated this themselves in demanding to be included in the number of religious traditions, and atheism has been declared a religion in the courts. So please don’t post trying to argue that Christopher Hitchens wasn’t a missionary for his atheism.

I don’t write this with the intent of attacking the recently deceased, but rather to underscore a point that occurred to me as I scanned through an LA Times op-ed by liberal Meghan Daum.  Her piece began:

As fans of the late Christopher Hitchens cycle through the five stages of grief, it’s interesting to see which of his opinions can still inspire the kind of anger that is unlikely to ever fade into acceptance. There are, of course, the obvious candidates: his characterization of Bill Clinton as “a rapist” or his vilification of Mother Teresa as “a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.” There is also his oh so chivalrous shout-out to the Dixie Chicks, whom he called “fat slugs” (or “slags” or “sluts” depending on your source) despite later admitting “having not the least idea of what any of them looked like.”

I actually hadn’t realized that Christopher Hitchens was such an equal-opportunity hater.  I mean, I thought he just hated religious or Christian people like me.

You could go on and on for quite a while, actually.  Here’s Christopher Hitchens pouring hate on the Republican Party and particularly on Sarah Palin:

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

And I was thinking, “So it wasn’t just Christians and religion in general he dumped hate on.

I’ve cited Christopher Hitchens in a couple of articles:

Atheists Get The MOST Angry At The God They Claim Not To Even Believe Exists

Tolerant Leftist Academia Tries To Impose ‘Thought Reform’ On Christian Student

And a frankly irrational anger and a determination to impose an agenda by force rather than by consent were the scope of both pieces.

In the immediately above piece, Hitchens is quoted:

“How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith? Religion … has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young… If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.”

Ah, if we could just forcibly remove the children of those Christians and those religious nutjobs and allow the state to indoctrinate them instead, you know, like the Soviet Union or North Korea, imagine what a “different world” we could have.

It occurred to me to wonder how many hateful and vicious quotes came from the mouth or pen of Christopher Hitchens’ most obvious counterpart, Billy Graham?

I found Billy Graham saying the following despicable thing about Bill Clinton:

[audio here]

Oops, I’m sorry.  Billy didn’t actually say anything hateful about Bill Clinton.  I’m sure it was only because they were both “Bills” rather than that Billy Graham isn’t hateful, though.

Oops, Billy Graham didn’t say anything hateful about ANY Democrat candidate for president, let descriptions such as “fanatic,” “boastful,” “ignoramus,”  as “those who despise science and learning,” as “morally and intellectually slothful people,” “who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured,” as “theocratic bullies,” and as “wickedness and stupidity.”

I mean, the sheer tolerance of Christopher Hitchens as compared to Billy Graham is really something.

I mean, maybe I’ve been wrong about which side is so really intolerant.

I did find an article from an atheist entitled, “Dear Billy Graham: You’re A Hateful Bigot,” but if you click on that hoping for ammo against Rev. Billy, you won’t get very much.  Billy’s most hateful quote, the pièce de résistance, was:

Only God can give us the moral and spiritual foundation we need for our lives. This is why the most important step you can take is to turn to Jesus Christ and commit your life to him. When you do, God will forgive your sins and make you his child forever. He also promises to be with you in the future. By a simple prayer of faith ask him to come into your life today.

Jesus, that hater!  Forgiving sins and being a child of a loving God!  Just vile!  Atheists like Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il were the lovers of humanity!

Yes, Joseph Stalin was a famously tolerant and loving atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist who was rather famous for his care for the poor and the little people:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

You gotta love the comparison between these great leaders of their respective movements.  I mean, Jesus said ugly things like:

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” — Matthew 5:39

“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” — Mathew 5:44-45

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” — Matthew 26:52

Just naked hate from that Jesus Bigot, I know.  I can only apologize for having repeated His dark and evil teachings.

Stalin and Mao, on the other hand, offered a far more glorious perspective for the world:

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude –

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Ah, well.  What can you say?  War is peace!  Freedom is slavery!  Ignorance is strength!  Jesus is hateful!  Christianity is intolerant!

There is only one name under heaven by which we can find true love and true peace, and that is the name Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

And how about that tolerant lover of those who disagree with him, Bill Maher?

Here’s Bill Maher viciously ripping on Christian quarterback Tim Tebow:

Comedian Bill Maher drew the ire of Tim Tebow fans and Christians over the weekend after a profane tweet reveling in the Broncos’ blowout loss to the Buffalo Bills.

“Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere … Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,” Maher tweeted.

Tebow, whose team suffered its second straight loss after a six-game winning streak, did not respond to Maher’s tweet.

After the disappointing 40-14 road loss, Tebow tweeted, “Tough game today but what’s most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB2.”

GB2 is a phrase Tebow has made popular that means “God Bless + Go Broncos,” according to his official website.

The tweet prompted some to call for a boycott of Maher’s HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Maher, an atheist, made a 2008 documentary called “Religulous” that mocked organized religion, and he routinely jokes about religion on his show.

More of the same from the same sort of people.

Want Rabid Intolerance? Go To A Liberal Arts University: U of I Professor Tells College Republicans to ‘F’ Off

You can come out as anything you want at college: a sexual “explorer” who pulls long sexual trains for frat boys (or for sorority sisters, for that matter); a militant homosexual activist; a private-property-destroying anarchist; a jihadist who shouts down Jewish speakers.  And, of course, in the case of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, an unashamed terrorist whose only regret is not planting even more bombs.

Just don’t you dare come out as a Republican, a conservative, a pro-lifer or a Christian, or else these “tolerant” “intellectuals” will bare their vampire fangs and leap at your throat like animals rather than the elitists they so arrogantly presume themselves to be.

To the extent that there is anything whatsoever that is funny about professors like Ellen Lewin, it is that academics such as herself actually pride themselves for their “tolerance,” on the one hand, while simultaneously priding themselves for rabidly attacking anyone who even remotely disagrees with their views.

University of Iowa Professor Tells College Republicans to “F” Off
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 0:01
By Craig Robinson

A University of Iowa professor felt the need to reply to a blast email by the College Republicans on Monday morning. Ellen Lewin, a professor of Anthropology and Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, sent a vulgar response to a College Republican email about the group’s, “Conservative Coming Out Week.”

The College Republican email, which was sent to the entire University of Iowa Community, had been approved by a number of university officials before being sent out.

Lewin responded to email by writing, “#*@% [F-Word] YOU, REPUBLICANS” from her official university email account.

Natalie Ginty, a University of Iowa Student and Chairwoman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, demanded an apology from Lewin’s supervisors.  “We understand that as a faculty member she has the right to express her political opinion, but by leaving her credentials at the bottom of the email she was representing the University of Iowa, not herself alone,” Ginty wrote to James Enloe, the head of the Department of Anthropology.

“Vile responses like Ellen’s need to end. Demonizing the other party through name-calling only further entrenches feelings of disdain for the other side. I am sure you understand that nothing is ever accomplished by aimless screams of attack,” Ginty concluded.

In an email to the College Republicans, Professor Lewin wrote, “This is a time when political passions are inflamed, and when I received your unsolicited email, I had just finished reading some newspaper accounts of fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government.  I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone’s delicate sensibilities.  I would really appreciate your not sending blanket emails to everyone on campus, especially in these difficult times.”

Lewin sent that email at 10:51 a.m.

Lewin’s response is as inappropriate than her choice of language in her first email. At the bottom of the original mass email, a University of Iowa disclaimer reads, “Distribution of this message was approved by the VP for Student Services. Neither your name nor e-mail address was released to the sender. The policy and guidelines for the UI Mass Mail service, including information on how to filter messages, are available at: http://cs.its.uiowa.edu/email/massmail.”  The College Republicans didn’t even know who all would be receiving the message.

At 11:06 a.m. on Tuesday, Professor Lewin sent another email saying:

I should note that several things in the original message were extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity.  Despite the Republicans’ general disdain for LGBT rights you called your upcoming event “conservative coming out day,” appropriating the language of the LGBT right movement.   Your reference to the Wisconsin protests suggested that they were frivolous attempts to avoid work.  And the “Animal Rights BBQ” is extremely insensitive to those who consider animal rights an important cause.  Then, in the email that Ms. Ginty sent complaining about my language, she referred to me as Ellen, not Professor Lewin, which is the correct way for a student to address a faculty member, or indeed, for anyone to refer to an adult with whom they are not acquainted.  I do apologize for my intemperate language, but the message you all sent out was extremely disturbing and offensive.

It’s strange that Professor Lewin is upset with a student for calling her by her first name AFTER she told them to “$%@& [F Word] OFF.”  Quite honestly, Lewin’s continued attacks make it seem like more serious punishment of the professor is called for rather just than the public apology that the College Republicans are demanding.

Professor Tim Hagel, the faculty advisor for the University of Iowa College Republicans, also interjected on behalf of the group.

The issue isn’t whether you found something in the message sent by the College Republicans to have been offensive, but how you chose to express yourself.  Although some would disagree with the reasons in the message immediately below, there would have been a more appropriate way for you to have expressed yourself.  Your initial apology, though qualified, was at least a step in the right direction.  The “additional note” only served to retract the apology and was an apparent attempt to justify your initial response.

It’s not my place at this point to debate the merits of whether the CR message was offense, but let me remind you that they have First Amendment rights as much as you do and that their message was approved for mass distribution by the VP for Student Services, as was indicated at the bottom of the original message.

Let me also note that I found your complaint about Ms. Ginty’s use of your first name to be rather ironic.  As much as I agree with you that it would have been better for her to have shown the respect for your position by referring to you as “Professor,” respect is a two way street and you clearly did not show respect for the College Republicans in your initial response.

-TH

Tim Hagle

Associate Professor

UICR Faculty Advisor

Update :University of Iowa President Sally Mason has responded to the incident by sending out a blast email.  Mason’s response was “spurred” by TheIowaRepublican.com’s story about the incident.

Dear Members of the University Community:

The University of Iowa encourages freedom of expression, opposing viewpoints, and civil debate about those opposing viewpoints.  This is clearly articulated in our core values of Diversity and Respect.  Because diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural, national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation.

The University also strongly encourages student engagement in such discussions and supports students acting on their viewpoints.  Student organizations are sometimes formed along political lines and act on their political beliefs.  Even if we personally disagree with those viewpoints, we must be respectful of those viewpoints in every way.  Intolerant and disrespectful discord is not acceptable behavior.

Sally Mason
President

Below is the original email that includes Lewin’s response.

In 2010, Lewin’s salary from the University of Iowa was $94,800.00 plus benefits.  In her spare time, Professor Lewin was written books entitled, Inventing Lesbian Cultures in America, and Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

Professor Ellen Lewis made sure to add her credentials and make the University of Iowa a part of her “views.”

I’m reminded of a paragraph from an article I wrote on postmodernism and the  fascism that invariably accompanies it:

Today, in universities across the country, we are seeing honored faculty fired for no better reason than that they disagree with one or another tenet of “political correctness.” Lawrence Summers was essentially fired from his position as president of Harvard University for raising the possibility that many factors apart from discrimination or bias could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. Guillermo Gonzalez, as assistant professor at Iowa State, was denied tenure and fired for having written articles arguing that a purposive cause is the best explanation for certain features of our cosmic habitat. David Eaton said, “As alumni at ISU, we are appalled that the current Iowa State administration would stoop to expelling a brilliant young scientist and gifted instructor from the classroom, not for teaching about intelligent design or even mentioning it in his classroom, but for simply committing the thought crime of advocating it [in a research paper] as science.” The documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed presents scientist after scientist who were fired merely for advocating the possibility of an intelligent cause to the universe. Ben Stein calls attention to the terrifying process of such a stifling of academic and scientific freedom. Fascists and Marxists had no qualms persecuting and stifling unwanted thought among their intellectuals; Western universities should have great qualms over such persecution, but increasingly do not

Will Professor Lewis be fired for harboring unacceptable views the way more so-called “conservative” faculty like Lawrence Summers and Guillermo Gonzalez?  If intellectual hypocrisy wasn’t the quintessential defining essence of modern universities, she certainly would be.

As it is, if you want to see true intolerance today, if you want to see true Marxism, if you want to see the most vile views defended and the most decent ones viciously attacked, just go to your nearest liberal arts university.

This is a state university.  The tax dollars of Reopublicans and other conservatives go to fund both this university and the salary and benefits of this professor whe turns around and denounces their ability to even have a voice.  How dare these damn liberals demand that we pay for their despicable attitudes?

Disgusted Top Gay Blogger Says ‘Obama Campaign Asked Me to Do ‘Dirty Work’ in 2008, and I Did’

When Obama wants dirty work done, he turns to someone he can later discard like just another used condom after the nastiest of nasty acts of gay sex.

Top Gay Blogger John Aravosis: Obama Campaign Asked Me to Do ‘Dirty Work’ in 2008, and I Did
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 | Kristinn

Leading gay blogger John Aravosis, writing today at his Americablog about White House spokesman Robert Gibbs attacking inside the beltway progressive critics of Barack Obama, like Aravosis, let slip that he performed surreptitious “dirty work” for Obama at the behest of his 2008 presidential campaign:

Joe and I are upset with Obama, and we, for example, raised nearly $43,000 for the man, According to the White House, our money now doesn’t count. Great, would they like to give it back? I for one, would love the $1000 back that I personally donated to the Obama campaign. Joe gave even more. I suspect a lot of our readers wouldn’t mind their contributions back too, since apparently they’re not appreciated.

Then there’s all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do – and we did it, gladly, and quietly – none of that counted either, apparently.

Presumably, the “Joe” who Aravosis mentions his Americablog’s deputy editor Joe Sudbay.

Aravosis does not detail the “dirty work” he and “Joe” did for the Obama campaign, however he has earned a reputation for despicable, life destroying behavior against political opponents.

Aravosis gained prominence earlier this decade for outing closeted homosexuals who did not follow the liberal homosexual agenda.

Act like a tool, get used like a fool.

Here’s the story that is posted on the last link above that might exemplify the “dirty work” Aravosis performed at Obama’s request:

March 29, 2005
The Gay-Outing Terrorists of the Left: The ‘Gayjahidiin’

Thanks to the terrorist tactics of the gay-outing left, The Gay Patriot has been silenced. Darleen calls this Leftist jihadism. I think the term gayjahidin is apt.

The tactics used by John Aravosis (Americablog) and Michael Rogers (BlogActive-Raw Story) have become more and more disgusting with time. Recently, we noted in a series of posts that the two have teamed up to ‘out’ Republican National Committee Chair, Ken Mehlman.

Now, the pair have sunk to an even lower low–if that is possible to imagine. Gay Patriot likened the two to ‘terrorists’. What did it get the anonymous gay-blogger? According to Outlet Radio:

According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot’s place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot’s secretary and boss. GayPatriot had no idea Rogers would go to such measures and shared with me that both he and his secretary were very upset by the calls but that his boss was understanding.

Rogers excuse for calling Gay Patriot’s boss?

Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them.

That is how threatening people behave, not those that feel threatened.

Rogers later instigated a police investigation and demanded from Gay Patriot’s webhost that his site be taken down (check the update).

As Rob at Say Anything puts it:

They’re telling us, with their actions, that if you’re gay in this country you can not support the Republican party or any aspect of the political right and if you do support that sort of thing you will be persecuted.

He also points me to Lime Sherbert who was appparently also a victim of the gayjahidin

Jay Tea over at Wizbang adds:

So, let’s sum things up: the attitude of conservatives towards gays is “do whatever the hell you want, just keep it in private. And no, you aren’t getting married, so forget about that.” The liberals say “we’re all for you, we’ll give you whatever you want, just so long as you do exactly as we say. Otherwise, we’ll fry your faggot asses — and not in a way you’ll like.”

The left keeps using that word tolerance. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Update: Emperor Misha barks in and points me to Lime Sherbert’s banner. You can check it out here.

A couple of things.  One: I’m not out to defend homosexuality.  Two: I’m not out to personally destroy them as human beings, either.  Even the ones with whom I most disagree.

The activities of these liberal homosexuals to personally destroy conservative (or at least Republican) homosexuals is similar to an earlier effort that slimebag liberal gay activists unleashed against Prop 8 donors.

This kind of crap goes right to the heart of why the phrase “liberal fascism” is so legitimate.  And the term “Gayjahidiin” is accurate.

Apparently liberal gay activist John Aravosis screwed and hurt fellow gays to advance the Obamafuhrer agenda, and now he’s upset that they won’t give him the correct time of day.  Poor, poor thug.

Aravosis and the many liberal gay activists like him are more than thugs; they are hard-core fascists who routinely shout-down those with whom they disagree even as they themselves demand that they be heard.

I’m kind of reminded of this happening once before: In the events previous to and during “The Night of the Long Knives” during Hitler’s Nazi’s regime.

Ernst Rohm and his homosexual-dominated SA were purged in the most brutal and homicidal way after their usefulness to Hitler was at an end.

Many homosexuals have pointed out that Hitler persecuted homosexuals, and that they were actually victims of Nazism.  And this is true.  But they didn’t start out as victims; they started out as tools of Nazism.  Nazis themselves, who oppressed and persecuted others.  And then when their usefulness was over, Hitler eliminated them.

This was the same as Hitler’s use of avant-garde art prior to his persecution of avant-garde artists.  While Nazism was rising to power, it was revolutionary, and it permitted and even encouraged other revolutionists to serve the cause of Nazism.  But after taking total control, Nazism – revolutionary as it had been during its rise – became the new regime.  And the totalitarian regime would tolerate no rivals, and no other voices.  Thus the once revolutionary Nazis became profoundly anti-revolutionary.

And it was exactly the same with the communists.  They were very encouraging of expressions against the established order when they were trying to bring down the established order.  But once they were in power, they persecuted every voice that wasn’t exactly the same as their own.

The problem with Ernst Rohm and the SA weren’t that they weren’t “Nazi” enough; the problem was that they were too radical for Hitler’s political position as he tried to consolidate his power.  They were TOO Nazi, too unwilling to yield to Hitler’s toned-down rhetoric as he tried to reach other groups during his rise to power.  As an example, they wanted to kill all the Jews before Hitler was ready to kill all the Jews.

This is why we have the phrase “Useful idiots.”  And why it was a Stalin who coined it for us.

Like Hitler and like Stalin, Barack Obama was willing to use and encourage homosexuals to slavishly work for him and assist him in his rise to power.  But now it’s HIS regime, and he doesn’t want to do anything that will in any way undercut his regime.

Homosexuals were instrumental to Hitler’s rise to power.  Hitler NEVER would have made it without them.  Ernst Rohm brought Hitler into the Nazi Party and then protected him with his SA Brownshirts as he captivated audiences with his rabid speeches about the wonders of socialism.  Homosexuals love to whine about what victims they were during the Holocaust, but they got just what they deserved; not merely because homosexuality is wicked and perverted, but because there never would have BEEN a Holocaust that consumed the lives of six million Jews and sixty million worldwide in the war Hitler started without homosexuals.  Homsexuals complaining they were victims of Hitler’s Holocaust are like vicious children who slaughtered their parents and then demanded leniency because for God’s sake, they’re orphans, aren’t they?

And thus we have our own version of the SA today, and our own version of Ernst Rohm in John Aravosis.  Obama found homosexual thugs like John Aravosis to persecute and oppress others.  Eventually he will find other thugs to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate marginalizing actions upon the John Aravosises of the world.  Only Obama is too big to fail, on Obama’s view of the world.

One way or another, these slime who deliberately hunt down and harm others to advance their radical political agenda will ultimately get theirs.

Homosexuality Not Dangerous To America?

I’ll bet you didn’t know this.  And if you do know it, you didn’t hear it from the mainstream media.  Because we have the kind of media that doesn’t bother to report that the drunken scumbag who ran over an aged nun also happened to be an illegal alien who had been busted, handed over to the federal government, and then released.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the guy who leaked so many thousands of documents that it’s positively unreal (it was 90,000 documents before the number exploded)?  He’s an open homosexual who says, “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” And the consequences are a gigantic, naked act of treason.

Now America, the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of Afghani civilians who were unfortunate enough to cooperate with the United States, are “facing the consequences.”

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page
Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and “society at large” on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner
Published: 10:00PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”.

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron.

Mr Manning, 22, who is currently awaiting court martial, is suspected of leaking more than 90,000 secret military documents to the Wikileaks website in a security breach which US officials claim has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan informers.

Supporters claim the war logs leak exposed civilian deaths in Afghanistan which had been covered up by the military, and Mr Manning’s family, who live in Pembrokeshire, said he had “done the right thing”.

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!”

Mr Manning was arrested at the end of May on suspicion of leaking a video of a US helicopter attack, and quickly became the main suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked earlier this week.

You want another oxymoron, Mr. Manning?  How about “normal homosexuality”?

And now Bradley Manning has done to military secrecy what Judge – and fellow homosexual – Vaughn Walker has done to the institution of marriage.

Ah, these pesky homosexual relationships that gays want to normalize.

Only, they aren’t anything even CLOSE to “normal.”

[Updated March 3, 2011]: Take domestic violence:

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of “men who have sex with men” (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is “substantially higher than among heterosexual men” and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.) […]

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships “is a very serious public health problem.”

That’s not normal.  That’s a 406.5% increase in violence.

Maybe you’d rather consider married women, versus lesbian women in domestic partnerships:

• The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” ^[14]

• A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”^[15]

• A study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

And what you actually find is that these statistics – as terrible as they are – are actually dramatically UNDERREPORTED:

“But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently…” (New York Times, November 6, 2000)

“Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community…” (Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403)

Why would any morally intelligent person want this? [end update]

When you compare drug use, suicides, rape, promiscuity/infidelity, psychiatric problems, child molestation, and sexually transmitted disease, the rates between heterosexuals in marriages and homosexuals in committed relationships are likewise so through the roof that it’s positively unreal.

And you can add treason to that list as well.

We’re not talking about normal, healthy people in normal, healthy relationships that should be encouraged in society.  We’re talking about broken, fractured people in broken, fractured relationships that are a lot more like cancer and a lot less like healthy.

But in order to be “tolerant,” I have to drill a giant hole in my head, scoop out all my brains, slam then on the floor, and then repeatedly stomp on them.

I have to accept whatever lame answer I’m spoon-fed regarding the massive issue with homosexuality in our prison system.  We’re assured that if we were thrown in jail for a weekend, we’d surely all turn gay for the duration of our sentences.  Baloney.  These violent felons are homosexuals with massive identity issues.  I’m forced to accept whatever answer I’m handed regarding the massive problem with homosexual Catholic priests and the fact that most of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys.  80% of priests who sexually abuse do so with adolescent boys rather than prepubescent minors.  The “Pedophile Priests” are mainly homosexuals, and not so-called “pedophiles.”  And the cancer they have inflicted upon the once-respected Catholic Church, and upon the larger society, cannot be underestimated.

Homosexuality IS dangerous to America.  And a California homosexual judge just said that he frankly doesn’t care; he’s going to usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose his own twisted morality on a state that already has more than enough problems.

Obama Calls For Tolerance And Civility While His Rabid Rodents Throw Hate Bombs

I hate Obama’s Marxist policies, certainly enough.  But the thing I despise most about Barack Obama is his galling personal hypocrisy.

He is a man who makes a false promise that he never keeps, and then continually congratulates himself about those very same promises.  He promised transparency that he never delivered, but keeps talking it up as though he really DIDN’T have  his meetings on “transparency” closed to the public and the media; and as though he really DID put the health care negotiations on C-SPAN like he promised at least 8 times on video; as though his ObamaCare WEREN’T so secretive that even senior Democrats admitted they were completely in the dark; and as though Obama really WEREN’T denying the media of access far worse than his predecessors had ever done.  He patted himself on the back for getting lobbyists out of Washington as if his administration DIDN’T have at least30 of them on the payroll; and attacked lobbyists at his state of the union as if he DIDN’T have a schmoochy meeting scheduled with them for the very next day.  He promised to end earmarks, then signed a bill that had nearly 9,000 of them – and just instructed Democrats to submit their earmark requests for the upcoming budget even as he told the country that he was “calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”  And all I can say when Obama talks about reforming earmarks now is that it is too damn bad we didn’t elect John McCain.

The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well.  Obama promised to close Gitmo.  He lied.  Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now.  He lied.  Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence.  And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.

Is it any wonder that he is the most polarizing president we have ever seen?

But Obama’s signature lie was his cynical promise from the most radically leftist Senator in Congress to transcend the political divide and bring the parties together.  Democrats, of course, blame Republicans; but it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to do it, was it?  The president who mockingly told Republicans “I won” when they tried to talk to him, and who repeatedly demonized Republicans for their “failed policies of the past,” is now actually upset that Republicans would take anything approaching the same attitude with him that he took with them.

We’re not supposed to be able to talk about HIS failed policies after he attacked us about a hundred million times with the very same claim?

Is it any wonder that his polls are now even LOWER than they were before he gave that deceitful state of the union?

Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them.  Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.

Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):

Obama at “national prayer breakfast”: The President calls for tolerance and civility

At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.

The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.

“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”

He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.

Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.

In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?

There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.”  It’s not far from the truth.

Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)?  Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad?  Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?

Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.

It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes.  Just for once in their lives.

Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:

New York Slimes I mean Times columnist Frank Rich:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.

It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result.  To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.

Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:

Chris Matthews: Far Right Republicans Like Cambodian Regime (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM   |   Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM

Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.

“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”

Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.

“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”

Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.

So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.

And speaking of bigoted turds….

Rachel Maddog I mean Maddow:

Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
By Noel Sheppard
Sat, 02/06/2010

Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.

Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”

From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).

What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel.  But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.

And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.

Cited from a recently written article:

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.

Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing.  And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.

The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.

And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.

Let’s Keep The White House Nativity Scene And Dump The President

It’s another day in Barack Obama’s “God damn America.”

[A] New York Times profile of Desirée Rogers, the currently embattled White House social secretary, suggests there was at least some discussion about backing away from Christmas tradition this year — not as it involved the tree, but a Nativity scene.

When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a “non-religious Christmas” — hardly a surprising idea for an administration making a special effort to reach out to other faiths.The lunch conversation inevitably turned to whether the White House would display its crèche, customarily placed in a prominent spot in the East Room. Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)

Yet in the end, tradition won out; the executive mansion is now decorated for the Christmas holiday, and the crèche is in its usual East Room spot.

According to surveys, 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.  But the most unChristian president we’ve ever had occupy the White House thinks that that overwhelming majority should have their religious symbols and holy days purged to make room for anybody who doesn’t like it.

How about asking people who DON’T like Christmas to practice a little damned tolerance?

Or maybe they can create their own holiday, and get the overwhelming majority of the planet to celebrate it.

No, that’s not the way these secular humanists work.  They say it has to be THEIR way and ONLY their way, or else it’s “intolerant” – because they are the most militantly intolerant people on the planet, with the probable exception of al-Qaeda (i.e., al-Qaeda wouldn’t have backed down just because they found out public opinion was against them imposing their agenda).

Which is to say that this story isn’t about tolerance; it is about Barry Hussein’s blatant INTOLERANCE of Christians and of Christianity.  The day that Obama asks the Islamic world not to celebrate their holiest day; the day he asks every other country representing every other faith not to celebrate their holiest day, it won’t be about a fundamental intolerance of Christianity any more.

The reasons these secular humanist cowards attack Christians is because we’re not like Muslims, who would kill them just for publishing a cartoon.  They attack us because of our tolerance, not because of our lack of it.

Maybe Obama hates Christmas because he fears that Christmas wishes come true – and most Americans now want him living anywhere but the White House.

Demonization And Other Examples Of Liberal Hypocrisy

I recall a bit from a Seinfeld episode that involved a bedroom technique known only as “the move.” It was apparently a very potent and successful “move,” indeed:

Elaine: I was with David *Putty* last night.

Jerry: Yeah, so.

Elaine: He did the move.

Jerry: What move?

Elaine: You know…*the* move.

Jerry: Wait a second. *My* move?

[Elaine nods].

Jerry: David Putty used *my* move?

Elaine: Yes, yes.

Jerry: Are you sure?

Elaine: Jerry! There is no confusing *that* move with any other move.

Jerry: I can’t believe it. He *stole* my move.

Elaine: What else did you tell [reaches over to slap Jerry] him. [does it

again] The two of you must have had *quite* a little chat!

Jerry: Oh, it wasn’t like that! I didn’t even mention you. You know, we

were in the garage. You know how garages are. They’re conducive to sex

talk. It’s a high-testosterone area.

Elaine: Because of all the pistons and the lube jobs?

Jerry: Well, I’m going down to that garage and telling him to stop doing it.

Elaine: Well, wait—wait a second.

Jerry: What?

Elaine: Isn’t that a little…rash?

Jerry: No! He stole my move!

Elaine: Yeah, but…*I* like the move.

Jerry: Yeah, but it’s like another comedian stealing my material.

Elaine: Well, he doesn’t even do it exactly the same. He–he–he uses a

pinch at the end instead of the *swirl*!

Jerry: Oh, yeah. The pinch. *I’ve* done the pinch. That’s not new.

Well, with that that long bit of introduction, the Democrats have their very own “move,” – an extremely potent and successful “move” – and they are clearly angry that Republicans are beginning to steal their move.

The Democrat’s “move” – by the way – is demonization.  It’s their move, they’ve used it to great effect for the last twenty years or so, and they don’t want their rivals using it.

Here’s a little story to illustrate the Democrat’s and their “move”:

It Takes One to Know One
“Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon, one of the most prominent Catholic conservative intellectuals in the United States, announced yesterday that she would refuse a prestigious award from the University of Notre Dame rather than appear on the same platform on which President Obama is being awarded an honorary degree,” the Boston Globe reports.

The Globe notes that not all Catholics are unhappy with Notre Dame’s plan to give the president an honorary degree:

“There are some well-meaning people who think Notre Dame has given away its Catholic identity, because they have been caught up in the gamesmanship of American higher education, bringing in a star commencement speaker even if that means sacrificing their values, and that accounts for some of this,” said the Rev. Kenneth Himes, chairman of theology department at Boston College. “But one also has to say that there is a political game going on here, and part of that is that you demonize the people who disagree with you, you question their integrity, you challenge their character, and you brand these people as moral poison. Some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue, and, consequently, they have simply launched a crusade to bar anything from Catholic institutions that smacks of any sort of open conversation.”

Now read this 2006 Associated Press dispatch:

Nearly 100 faculty members at Boston College have signed a letter objecting to the college’s decision to award Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice an honorary degree.

The letter entitled “Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree,” was written by the Rev. Kenneth Himes. . . .

“On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice’s approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College’s commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university’s work,” the letter said.

Himes, it seems, is an expert on demonization.

Kenneth Himes lectures us: How DARE you do what I did to you!  There must be something morally WRONG with you!!!  Demonization is “OUR” move, and you can’t steal it!

Well, as Obama folk like to say, “YES, WE CAN!”

Being a liberal means being a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy defines liberals; their shriveled little souls swim in it.  And part of being a total hypocrite means having the pathological ability to be perfectly at home with their own massive contradictions.

For instance, liberals are “tolerant,” which means they lash out and demonize anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them – in the name of “tolerance.”

A few other examples of liberal hypocrisy:

Liberals support high taxes on the rich.  As long as it is understood that they have no expectation to pay such taxes themselves.  Ask pretty much anyone on Barack Obama’s cabinet.  Liberals like “Turbo Tax” Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Ron Kirk, Hilda Solis, Nancy Kelleher, and Kathleen Sebelius.  And that doesn’t include Congressional Democrats such as Charles Rangel – who is writing YOUR tax laws even as he cheats on HIS taxes.  And don’t forget the mantra from Rangel’s former fellow member of the House Ways and Means Committee William Jefferson: “FBI sting money hidden in freezers is NOT taxable.”

Liberals claim that it is the rich’s “patriotic duty” to pay a shockingly high percentage of total income taxes while simultaneously pandering to the clearly unpatriotic – by their own standard – 42% of Americans who pay NO federal income taxes at all.

Liberals claim that they are generous and conservatives are stingy; yet the facts demand the exact OPPOSITE conclusion.  The fact of the matter is that conservatives are FAR more “liberal” givers than liberals.  Conservatives give 30% more than liberals even though liberals earn slightly more.  And religious conservatives give THREE AND A HALF TIMES more of their income to charities than secular liberals.  If you’d like some particular cases, consider the loathsome lack of personal generosity displayed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden relative to the extremely generous conservatives like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and John McCain.

Liberals love racial diversity – as long as they can continue demonizing black conservatives such as Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimahs” or “race traitors.”  Janeane Garafalo is completely free to be a hard-core racist, just as long as the minorities she viciously attacks are conservatives.  Newsweek Magazine –  in wholehearted agreement with Garafalo – literally argued that whites who don’t vote for Obama are racist.

In the same vein, liberals are pro-woman – just as long as “women” are defined as “liberal feminist”; otherwise, they hand out the Sarah Palin treatment (e.g., “Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman”).  Ultimately, of course, Sarah Palin is a “bad mother” for allowing her baby born with Down Syndrome to live.

Liberals stand for the helpless and oppressed victim: as long as that helpless and oppressed victim isn’t a baby having his brains sucked out.  Meanwhile liberals attack conservatives as not caring about the poor, even though – as has already been pointed out – conservatives are in fact FAR more generous than liberals (example 1, example 2).

Liberals continually decry the “rightwing smear machine” even as they have hard-core hate sites such as Moveon.org, Media Matters, and the Daily Kos – which DWARF anything even remotely compatible on the right.   The primary funding comes from documented Nazi collaborator George Soros, an American-sovereignty-undermining trans-nationalist who has made his billions undermining currencies all over the world – including America’s.  And his friends have been just as bad.  And Soros and friends such as Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler have used their massive fortunes to ensure that NOBODY smears like the left: think “General Betray Us.”

Liberals “interpret” the Constitution to find “penumbras and emanations” that they allege mandate a constitutional and sacred right to abortion on demand, but twist and contort the English language until the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the people the right to bear arms.

Liberals demand socialized medicine.  Michael Moore made a ton of money demonizing America’s privatized system and claiming that Cuba’s socialized medicine was better; yet when that fat SOB needed heart surgery, he elected to go to Cleveland rather than Cuba.  Even more glaring, Belinda Stronach of the Canadian Parliament opposed even allowing private medicine in Canada; but when she was diagnosed with breast cancer she came to the United States to obtain the very thing she denied her fellow citizens from having.

As to the death penalty for convicted murderers, liberals argue that inserting a hypodermic needle into the vein of a death row inmate constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, yet insist that sucking the  brains out of a viable baby whose head is sticking out of a birth canal is compassionate.

They also say that a 13 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, then tell parents that they face jail if they don’t ensure that that same 13 year old girl doesn’t miss school (with attendance being the barometer for public school funding).

Liberals demand that they be able to teach issues such as homosexuality in the guise of open-mindedness and diversity, but come absolutely unglued if any school board so much as suggest that evolution is only a theory rather than a law, let alone present any alternative to evolution whatsoever.

On the subject of evolution as it relates to morality, liberals denounce any dependence on the natural law (grounded in a transcendent Creator God) as the only basis for objective morality, and then impose one utterly subjective moral norm after another.  In so doing, they literally subjective natural law and objectivize their own highly subjective moral preferences.

Liberals demand that all children go to government schools and fight any effort to provide vouchers to parents, and then send their own children to private schools.  For all of liberals’ indignant outrage concerning “the children,” the fact is that the teachers’ unions are far more important than the education of children.   Barack Obama ensured that children like Marquis Greene couldn’t go to his daughters’ Sidwell Friends School.

Liberals take private jets to denounce people for being polluters.

Liberals claim that whether the Antarctic ice sheet grows or whether it shrinks, it still proves global warming.

Liberals lampooned President Bush for his verbal gaffes, and yet idolize the “sublime speaking ability” of a man who can’t so much as say, “Good morning” without reading from a teleprompter screen.  Barack Obama has already used his teleprompter FAR more in just his first 100 days than George Bush did in his entire 8 year term.

Liberals repeatedly (falsely) claimed that Jefferson said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” when conservatives attacked their lack of patriotism.  They were terribly upset with any insinuation that they might be unpatriotic – because when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed defeat in Iraq (QUOTE: “I believe that this war is lost” UNQUOTE) even as our troops were in the field fighting to prevail, he was surrendering as a “patriot.”  And when John Murtha proclaimed Marines who turned out to be innocent of murderous war crimes in Haditha, his demonization of our Marines was “patriotic.” Now, of course, Democrats are all over themselves labeling Republican opposition to their socialist agenda as “unpatriotic.”

As for liberals’ view on patriotism, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words – when that picture is a cartoon drawn by Ted Rall:

Let’s see: racial hatred directed at white males.  Check.  Cynicism of the patriotism that would make a young man fight for his country.  Check.  Mockery of religion.  Check.  Contempt for America as a country of suicide bombers.  Check.

Or another liberal cartoon.  America as viewed through the warped lenses of the liberal New York Times: the Statue of Liberty swinging a whip at the poor, tired, huddled masses.

As liberals now demand that conservatives stop using “their move,” realize that they will NEVER stop using it themselves.  It is simply who they are.  So we might as well sick their own dog on them – and let us make sure that dog is foaming at the mouth when it bites them back.

The Vicious Intolerance Of ‘Liberal Tolerance’ (Updated)

The heroes of the modern day liberal mindset: Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, and Perez Hilton. In the name of tolerance, they are as intolerant as the universe is big.

Remember how liberals fallaciously attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to provide themselves a slick teflon media cover for attacking our troops and the war they were trying to win? Mark Steyn revealed the liberal deception and the media propaganda on that issue in his piece, “America’s hardboiled newsmen can’t get enough of the Thomas Jefferbunk.” Somehow all those “wise seekers of truth” that ostensibly fill the ranks of the media weren’t able to uncover the blatant historical falsehood that one liberal after another cited. “Truth” only matters when it hurts Republicans.

Democrats got us into World War I, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into World War II, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Korea, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Vietnam, and Republicans supported them. It is long-standing tradition to support a nation and its leaders in time of war. And, so, yeah, Republicans were rather bitter when Democrats – given that 29 of 50 Democrat Senators voted FOR the Iraq War; and given the many statements they had made in support of the need to confront and remove Saddam Hussein (see also here and here) – literally proclaimed defeat, pronounced our innocent soldiers as war criminals and cold-blooded murderers, and labeled Bush a liar and a war criminal.

“Highest form of patriotism”? Is THAT what the “highest form of patriotism” looks like? Do ya think? If Abraham Lincoln (a Republican, by the way) had been president instead of Bush, he would have thrown these rat bastards in jail for their vile undermining of a war while our troops were fighting and dying to win it.

Republicans expected bi-partisanship and support in dealing with a threat that both Republicans and Democrats had repeatedly recognized after the worst terrorist attack in history; what they got was unrelenting political backstabbing and demonization. And all in the name of “patriotism.” And how DARE we question them?

Well, liberals NEW butchery of history and truth is, “Dissent WAS the highest form of patriotism.” Now it’s suddenly become the lowest form of treason.

Rather than going to the lowest low of attempting to undermine a commander-in-chief and a military in time of war – a war which they had demonstrably supported when it suited them – conservatives today are decrying the fact that we are spending ourselves into a future financial catastrophe that will dwarf anything we’ve ever seen unless we STOP.

WASHINGTON – The federal government and the Federal Reserve have committed $12.8 trillion in spending so far to bailouts and “stimulus” packages – an amount nearly equal to the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2008.

That’s the report from Bloomberg News about efforts to reduce the economic drag of a debt-based recession – the worst financial crisis to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The numbers are growing so fast, it’s tough for most Americans to grasp.

Were the Tea Parties a politically-motivated hatchet job, as liberals and their lackeys in the media kept reporting? In a word, no. The liberals making this claim offered two contradictory straw men. They claimed that 1) the Tea Parties were a Republican- and Fox News-organized event even as 2) they refused to listen to the statements of those whom they claimed were behind the event.

As an example, when demonstrators confronted CNN’s Susan Roesgen for her biased reporting and presentation of the Chicago Tea Party event as an attempt to attack Barack Obama, a woman pointed just a couple of feet away and asked, “Did you look at his sign?”

You can see the woman’s finger pointing at the sign (at 4:02 into the video), and the head in the bottom right of the frame is Susan Roesgen’s. And even when she was FORCED to look at the sign, Roesgen didn’t acknowledge it; it simply didn’t conform to the liberal narrative, and therefore had to be ignored.

Another video from the Greenville Tea Party shows Tea Party protestors roundly booing Republican Congressman Gresham Barrett, who had voted for the first stimulus under George Bush. A comment left on the video by “Liberty4Ever” summed it up:

I guess Barrett didn’t get the message that the TEA Parties are non-partisan events, and weasels who vote for wasteful Big Government “stimulus” and socialist bailouts. He probably knows not to speak at another of these events. There will probably be tar and feathers waiting for him!

So the unrelenting portrayal by the liberal media machine that these were “rightwing” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Fox News” events is simply propaganda and demagoguery out to marginalize a massive outpouring of popular – and bipartisan – sentiment.

And they weren’t merely mischaracterizing the Tea Parties and disingenuously creating a straw man in an attempt to marginalize them. They were downright hateful and evil.

Failed AirAmerica radio host Janeane Garofalo was allowed to appear on MSNBC‘s Countdown and say:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

It would have been bad enough if Garofalo were just some blogger spewing her hate; but she is high-profile member of the liberal establishment in good standing appearing on a major news program to offer her commentary. And just what could she have said about the Tea Party participants that could have been any more hateful?

Keith Olbermann was merely one among many “journalists” who repeatedly characterized the Tea Party participants with the crudest sexual innuendo and insults. He said, “Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment.” But then – vicious liar that he is – Olbermann couldn’t help himself, and said, “Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be.”

After all the crude, vicious, and hateful sexual innuendo, Olbermann actually had the gall to say of the Tea Party protesters, “And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate.”

“Seething with hate” means no riots. “Seething with hate” means no violence. “Seething with hate” means one or two demonstrators got tickets for jaywalking. Gregg Gutfeld had a humorous piece featuring hateful video from LEFTIST protesters, and said, “Oh, sorry. Wrong tape.” He pointed out:

Yep, those look like real extremists. Actually, they look like people who own riding mowers.

Fact is, I could find only one arrest among the hundreds of demonstrations that took place across the country. Sure, I didn’t look too hard — but still: Why is that not the story of the day?

I mean, not one person threw a chair through a store window. But that’s probably because that person owns the chair or the store or it could be a chair store.

I’ll tell you why the nonviolence wasn’t the story of the day: because it doesn’t conform to the liberal narrative. “Seething with hate” works better for them. Whether it’s true or not frankly doesn’t matter in this “brave new journalism.”

The hatred, anger, fear, and paranoia on the left is obvious: How DARE these people exercise their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest the bloated government socialism that we liberals love so much. Why aren’t our SS troops not doing something to STOP them!?!? You have to wonder how their heads don’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions: On the one hand they trivialize the Tea Parties as being no big deal, while on the other hand they use the most over-the-top and hateful language imaginable to describe them; on the one hand they call conservatives the haters, while on the other hand they can’t help but reveal that it is THEY who are the real haters.

The only people truly “seething with hate” are liberals like Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There’s your hate. And all offered from the perspective of “tolerant” liberals loathing the “intolerance” of conservatives.

And, of course, liberals like Perez Hilton. Let’s watch the videos of Hilton and Miss California and decide who is tolerant, and who is a vicious hater.

Poor girl. She might as well have been a Jew with Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the panel.

Miss California presented herself well, and gave voice to a position on gay marriage that was proven to be the one held by the majority of voters in her state. But the left could care less about the will of the people or tolerance or anything but their agenda; which is why they embarked on a hateful campaign to punish the people who didn’t agree with them in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote.

“Tolerance” for a liberal means crushing, punishing, or intimidating all opposition by any means available. When every voice but their own are silenced, there is “tolerance.”

Let’s just be clear on which side is truly “seething with hate.”

If you really want to find out what “seething with hate” really looks like, why not reflect on the words of Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for 23 years?

Update April 22:

It occurred to me to wonder how – for all of her racist invective against conservatives – Janeane Garofalo felt about conservative blacks.  It didn’t take long to find out:

Youtube link (accessed here).

Garofalo attacks Michael Steele as a black man for being a conservative.  It is a racist attack if there ever was one.  Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a powerful and prestigious position – but as far as Garofalo is concerned, she needs to put that negro in his place.  And as this psychotic gargoyle is spewing this poison, who’s sitting with her but Keith Olbermann?

If Condoleezza Rice were president, does anyone seriously think this unhinged witch would have supported her?  And precisly how does Janeane Garofalo feel toward our only black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas?  Oh, yeah, that’s right: he’s a stupid negro with Stockholm Syndrome, kissing the feet of his massahs.

How dare this racist bigot call me or anyone else a “racist”?

And let me also say a little more about Carrie Prejean, Miss California and the hate that she encountered.

On yesterday’s “Bill O’Reilly” program, Wayne Besen, a founder of a gay rights group and author of a book entitled, “Anything but Straight,” was on the program, and said of Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

WAYNE BESEN, FOUNDER OF GAY RIGHTS GROUP, TRUTH WINS OUT: I think it is fair. When she made those comments, she entered the political arena. And she’s entitled to make those comments. and I applaud her for having the courage to do so. However, when you do that, people are going to be offended. She said no offense, I was offended. Millions of other people were offended.

No!  NOT, you bigot!

Gay activist Perez Hilton asked the following question, which as a contestant Miss California had absolutely no choice but to answer:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

And Carrie Prejean’s answer was as tolerant as one could ever hope for:

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, 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 and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

States have a right to choose, and Prejean is grateful for that.  But since she was asked, “Do you think every state should follow suit?  Why or why not?”  Prejean answered the QUESTION.

And homosexual activists such as Perez Hilton and Wayne Besen, who are Big Brother Stalinists, then proceed to punish and attack her for giving her thoughts on a question that they themselves had demanded she answer, and then attack her for having “entered the political arena” when the only thing she had entered was a beauty pageant.  THEY WERE THE ONES WHO DRAGGED THE POLITICAL ARENA INTO THE EVENT, AND THEN ATTACKED HER MERELY FOR EXPRESSING HER PERSONAL VIEW.

Perez Hilton went all over the internet spewing the message:

PEREZ HILTON, MISS USA JUDGE: Let me explain to you, she lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb bitch, okay?

These people would punish the majority of Americans (and the majority of the Californians Miss California was representing) merely for having a viewpoint even as they try to use the courts to impose their lifestyle by the judicial fiat of black robed masters.

These people are the haters.  And we need to expose them for what they truly are.