The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal
A popular misconception created by liberals, is that those dastardly conservatives are mean, nasty, and intolerant. The truth is precisely the opposite.
Little surprises me about liberal insensitivity and intolerance anymore even though some things they say, write, and do shock the conscience of anyone with a modicum of decency.
They have exhibited their true colors over the years, among other exhibitions castigating Sarah Palin for bearing in lieu of aborting her youngest child, calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” ceaseless fat jokes about Chris Christie, and on and on and on.
However, nothing has better exposed liberals-leftists-Democrats for what they are than more recent examples of crude, insensitive intolerance toward Rick Santorum.
Following in the footsteps of such libs as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher et al., political commentator Alan Colmes feels free to launch viciously outrageous ad hominem salvos at conservatives and, like his fellow bomb-throwers, gets away with it.
Last Monday, Colmes’ hurled his latest insult at GOP presidential contender Santorum during a Fox News segment when he predicted the former Pennsylvania senator’s Iowa surge wouldn’t last.
That evaluation was reasonable though incorrect, the basis for his view was unreasonable and downright nasty.
Colmes speculated that voters would turn on Santorum as soon as they “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”
Rich Lowry rightly and promptly jumped all over Colmes for his “cheap shot” in disgracefully impugning both Santorum and his family and misinterpreting Santorum’s actions after the premature birth and sadly-abbreviated two-hour lifespan of baby Gabriel Santorum in 1996.
As John Hayward opined on HumanEvents.com, Colmes’ comment “wasn’t a random slip of the tongue” and was planned to demonstrate how proudly astute he is. Hayward observed that, “For an ostensibly ‘tolerant liberal,’ Colmes is deeply, disturbingly obsessed with cultivating intolerance for this unusual act of devotion.”
“Ostensibly” is the key word. For liberals, sensitivity and tolerance are reserved for people who would have aborted Gabriel instead of attempting to save his life.
That same twisted, restricted sense of “tolerance” extends to how liberals in the mainstream media in America and abroad react to expressions of Muslim faith as opposed to comparable Christian observances.
Basically in the liberal nutshell: Christians bad, Muslims good.
Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, has been lambasted, ridiculed, and abused for what is termed, Tebowing, i.e. kneeling to thank God for his good fortune. Tebow, a committed Christian, pro-life, decent guy–all of which characteristics rankle liberals–feels it is his right and duty to publicly demonstrate his faith . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12002.)
Showing posts with label intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intolerance. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Violence of Intolerant Polarization
The Violence of Intolerant Polarization
Mohandas Gandhi said, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” He was right on the mark with that observation, although he was only addressing transparent intolerance and physical violence, not the subtle intolerance and invitations to violence favored by the Obama administration.
It’s just too bad Gandhi isn’t around today advising America’s president.
Intolerance and violence have become hallmarks of life in Barack Hussein Obama’s America, our America, fueled by systematic administration policies of polarizing and dividing the nation for political-ideological purposes. What we are witnessing is a far cry from the civility and unity he preaches but in perfect harmony with what he and his Democrat Party have intentionally fostered.
Obama has repeatedly speechified on the need for civil discourse and actions, which, like so much of what he says, is contradicted by what he does. It boils down to all talk, talk, talk. This administration has talked the civil, tolerance talk and walked the walk of the most uncivil and intolerant administration in American history.
At the same time Obama mouths conciliatory words, his union minions–think Teamsters’ President Hoffa–his mainstream media lackeys–think MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow–his congressional cohorts–think Maxine Waters–have have intensified their vile, personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with him.
If anyone seriously believes that that gross, intolerant incivilty isn’t tacitly approved by Obama’s DNC, explanations of why such invective goes unchallenged and un-rebuked by the White House are invited. Objections to the contention that failure to censure scurrilous leftist vituperation has contributed to a pervasive violent atmosphere in the United States are invited as well.
Some of the most devious machinations of the Obamians have been their collective winks extended to rioters, insurrectionists, and to those who would reject constitutional mandates, our national law, in the name of expediency and ideology.
The marked increase in street violence and borderline chaos may be controllable by local authorities, assuming they are given permission to enforce laws in P.C. America. However, another, more sinister, force is in play in America, the manipulated polarization of the populace and the undermining of the very foundations of our Republic.
What really constitutes incivility? What really breeds violence? What really leads to polarization and divisiveness? Is it not a failure of political leadership, a refusal to rein in the uncivil and the criminal elements in a society, a tacit, or worse, an overt approval of incivility and criminality?
In a democratic republic, exceeding in gravity even the absence of a lack of moral leadership and condoning of wrongdoing, a blatant disregard for the law of the land, for the legal authority under which any people live, naturally results in the commission of every conceivable evil by malcontents and nihilists who interpret that disregard as a blank check issued by their leaders to do as they please.
In the United States of America, the guiding force and most basic principles which delineate the rights, privileges, and responsibities of Americans are contained in our Constitution, the same 224 year old document which President Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and his supporters have repeatedly and consistently ignored, abused, and trashed.
Obama knows full well his constituency base will remain, if not rock-solid, reasonably supportive and must hope they will still carry him on to re-election while his opponents are intimidated into submission and defeat. Meanwhile, his henchmen and henchwomen labor on as his surrogates to conceal his leadership-challenged, intolerance-based administration.
We are witnessing the consequences of that disgrace . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5588.)
Mohandas Gandhi said, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” He was right on the mark with that observation, although he was only addressing transparent intolerance and physical violence, not the subtle intolerance and invitations to violence favored by the Obama administration.
It’s just too bad Gandhi isn’t around today advising America’s president.
Intolerance and violence have become hallmarks of life in Barack Hussein Obama’s America, our America, fueled by systematic administration policies of polarizing and dividing the nation for political-ideological purposes. What we are witnessing is a far cry from the civility and unity he preaches but in perfect harmony with what he and his Democrat Party have intentionally fostered.
Obama has repeatedly speechified on the need for civil discourse and actions, which, like so much of what he says, is contradicted by what he does. It boils down to all talk, talk, talk. This administration has talked the civil, tolerance talk and walked the walk of the most uncivil and intolerant administration in American history.
At the same time Obama mouths conciliatory words, his union minions–think Teamsters’ President Hoffa–his mainstream media lackeys–think MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow–his congressional cohorts–think Maxine Waters–have have intensified their vile, personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with him.
If anyone seriously believes that that gross, intolerant incivilty isn’t tacitly approved by Obama’s DNC, explanations of why such invective goes unchallenged and un-rebuked by the White House are invited. Objections to the contention that failure to censure scurrilous leftist vituperation has contributed to a pervasive violent atmosphere in the United States are invited as well.
Some of the most devious machinations of the Obamians have been their collective winks extended to rioters, insurrectionists, and to those who would reject constitutional mandates, our national law, in the name of expediency and ideology.
The marked increase in street violence and borderline chaos may be controllable by local authorities, assuming they are given permission to enforce laws in P.C. America. However, another, more sinister, force is in play in America, the manipulated polarization of the populace and the undermining of the very foundations of our Republic.
What really constitutes incivility? What really breeds violence? What really leads to polarization and divisiveness? Is it not a failure of political leadership, a refusal to rein in the uncivil and the criminal elements in a society, a tacit, or worse, an overt approval of incivility and criminality?
In a democratic republic, exceeding in gravity even the absence of a lack of moral leadership and condoning of wrongdoing, a blatant disregard for the law of the land, for the legal authority under which any people live, naturally results in the commission of every conceivable evil by malcontents and nihilists who interpret that disregard as a blank check issued by their leaders to do as they please.
In the United States of America, the guiding force and most basic principles which delineate the rights, privileges, and responsibities of Americans are contained in our Constitution, the same 224 year old document which President Barack Hussein Obama, his administration, and his supporters have repeatedly and consistently ignored, abused, and trashed.
Obama knows full well his constituency base will remain, if not rock-solid, reasonably supportive and must hope they will still carry him on to re-election while his opponents are intimidated into submission and defeat. Meanwhile, his henchmen and henchwomen labor on as his surrogates to conceal his leadership-challenged, intolerance-based administration.
We are witnessing the consequences of that disgrace . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5588.)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Chick-fil-A and Homosexual Intolerance
Chick-fil-A and Homosexual Intolerance
When is a chicken not just a food? When it’s sold by a homophobic, hateful, discriminatory, vile (Christian) vendor, of course!
I’ve only had the gastronomical delight of indulging in Chick-fil-A chicken once or twice during a brief sojourn in North Carolina some years ago. Had I known then the philosophy of the owner of that fast-but-excellent-food chain, I would have indulged more often. Chick-fil-A, unfortunately, has no outlets in my Long Island, New York vicinity although it does currently have some 1501 restaurants nationwide in 39 states plus D.C.
Unfortunate, too, is the current campaign being staged by homosexuals against the privately-held chain because one of its Pennsylvania stores had the unmitigated gall to feed a group of individuals who oppose gay marriage. Apparently, in PA it’s fine to scarf down all the Chick-fil-A chicken you wish, but if an outlet dares to serve people who disagree with you and believe in the sanctity of marriage, as most Americans do, you run afoul, or afowl, of homosexuals.
The immediate cause of that most recent gay uproar may have been one Pennsylvania store, which story the New York Times oddly and gaily headlined as, “If you’re eating Chick-fil-A, you’re eating anti-gay,” but the story goes far beyond PA. Pennsylvania was just a skirmish in a long gay war against true diversity and against Chick-fil-A.
As one observer noted, “If they [gays] don’t like Chick-fil-A and what it stands for, they are not required to eat there. Chick-fil-A has done nothing wrong here, and yet they want to damage them. I believe some people want to damage the company simply because it is a Christian based corporation,” http://tiny.cc/2d9hf. Therein lies the homosexual intent.
Chick-fil-A has done something wrong here; it dared to depart from the homosexual agenda of universal agreement on gay marriage and is a Christian enterprise to boot, even though the chain welcomes any customers who enjoy chicken whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or practitioners of voodoo. Gays are nevertheless committed to damaging Chick-fil-A because the chain isn’t PC, adheres to Christian principles, and doesn’t conform to the minority American view on same-sex marriage.
The founder of Chick-fil-A, Sunday school teacher S. Truett Cathy, and its current president, his son Dan Cathy, are devout Christians who conduct their 67 year old business on the bases of those Christian principles. Not only do both franchised and company-owned stores close on Sundays but the chain endeavors to treat its employees well and fairly and is widely-known for supporting the communities it serves by providing local scholarships, contributing to charities, etc.
That service and support go for nought with gays. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3526)
When is a chicken not just a food? When it’s sold by a homophobic, hateful, discriminatory, vile (Christian) vendor, of course!
I’ve only had the gastronomical delight of indulging in Chick-fil-A chicken once or twice during a brief sojourn in North Carolina some years ago. Had I known then the philosophy of the owner of that fast-but-excellent-food chain, I would have indulged more often. Chick-fil-A, unfortunately, has no outlets in my Long Island, New York vicinity although it does currently have some 1501 restaurants nationwide in 39 states plus D.C.
Unfortunate, too, is the current campaign being staged by homosexuals against the privately-held chain because one of its Pennsylvania stores had the unmitigated gall to feed a group of individuals who oppose gay marriage. Apparently, in PA it’s fine to scarf down all the Chick-fil-A chicken you wish, but if an outlet dares to serve people who disagree with you and believe in the sanctity of marriage, as most Americans do, you run afoul, or afowl, of homosexuals.
The immediate cause of that most recent gay uproar may have been one Pennsylvania store, which story the New York Times oddly and gaily headlined as, “If you’re eating Chick-fil-A, you’re eating anti-gay,” but the story goes far beyond PA. Pennsylvania was just a skirmish in a long gay war against true diversity and against Chick-fil-A.
As one observer noted, “If they [gays] don’t like Chick-fil-A and what it stands for, they are not required to eat there. Chick-fil-A has done nothing wrong here, and yet they want to damage them. I believe some people want to damage the company simply because it is a Christian based corporation,” http://tiny.cc/2d9hf. Therein lies the homosexual intent.
Chick-fil-A has done something wrong here; it dared to depart from the homosexual agenda of universal agreement on gay marriage and is a Christian enterprise to boot, even though the chain welcomes any customers who enjoy chicken whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or practitioners of voodoo. Gays are nevertheless committed to damaging Chick-fil-A because the chain isn’t PC, adheres to Christian principles, and doesn’t conform to the minority American view on same-sex marriage.
The founder of Chick-fil-A, Sunday school teacher S. Truett Cathy, and its current president, his son Dan Cathy, are devout Christians who conduct their 67 year old business on the bases of those Christian principles. Not only do both franchised and company-owned stores close on Sundays but the chain endeavors to treat its employees well and fairly and is widely-known for supporting the communities it serves by providing local scholarships, contributing to charities, etc.
That service and support go for nought with gays. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3526)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)