In his (or her) wisdom, when God created right and wrong, thus the concepts of good and evil, there needed to be a method of defining those concepts in a way that could ultimately define a winner and loser.
With that, the concept of “hypocrisy” was created. When it rears it’s ugly head, it becomes easier to detect motives and tactics, and it can be both quite humorous and potentially deadly to reveal hypocrites for whom they may be.
Let me count some of the ways…
New York City-based PLAYGIRL magazine editor-in-chief Michelle Zipp recently (and rather quickly) got canned when she revealed to her readers and co-workers that she was a Republican. Now while liberals demand what they refer to as “tolerance” from others, their own actions run contrary to those beliefs more often than not, thus a blatant example of hypocrisy.
“Siding with the GOP when you live in the bluest state around is almost like wearing a Boston Red Sox jersey at a New York Yankees’ home game. I cannot tell you how many times a person assumed I voted for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the time, I don’t have the heart to tell them, or the energy to discuss my reasons for going red this election year. But this is PLAYGIRL magazine so it’s about time I was the one who bared what’s underneath.”
- Michelle Zipp
Personally I sympathize. It’s amazing how many people who don’t know me or my politics just assume I’m a Democrat simply because I’m black. That would be considered a racial stereotype if performed by a conservative, yet when those actions come from a liberal it’s rather standard operating procedure.
“Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed — two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they’ll do anything to get it. And I’m not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I’m talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all.”
I’m not sure how many have ever looked at conservative characteristics as sexy. Chris Rock once challenged that and cited Orrin Hatch as an example. But if one thinks it through, an indecisive man, a man ready to run from his enemies sometimes using new-found and suddenly convenient religious convictions, could hardly be the type to ramp up a female heartbeat. Moochers and cry babies are not the kind of man sought by alot of women, at least those who know better.
“The Democrats of the Sixties were all about making love and not war, while a war-loving Republican is a man who would fight, bleed, sacrifice, and die for his country. Could you imagine what that very same man would do for his wife in the bedroom?”
Wow. Never thought about it that way.
Zipp was even told she initially wouldn’t have been hired had it been known she was a Republican. Again, can you imagine the ear-splitting screech that would be heard if a conservative had made such a statement? We conservatives work with liberals everyday and, as irritating as they can sometimes be, I would never consider any course of action that would purge them from a workplace.
One of the most insidious of liberal characteristics is their mission to go behind your back and program your kids as to their ways of the world. It would be one thing if all sides of a debate were presented and thought was provoked. However, liberals seemingly so paranoid that a touch of logic can obliterate their positions, indoctrinate our kids and turn them into women’s studies loving, tree-hugging, Jew hating, minority pitying, secular, kids who demand the freedoms this nation has to offer but would flee to Canada before defending them.
Liberals are the first to say that campuses are places that embrace the free and open debate of ideas. Now it would appear there is more ammo to back up the old assertion that this is false. According to a recent study cited by Howard Kurtz, “72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.”
Now while liberals don’t see anything wrong with one-sided presentations and debate, it does seem to be part of an overall plan. In order to deprogram kids from the ignorant and unenlightened views passed down from imbecilic parents, kids must be told that their experience-limited opinions has merit equal in weight to their elders.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field. There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.”
- Robert Lichter, George Mason University professor and co-author of the study
According to Kurtz’ piece, “The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.”
As someone who has personally experienced the intolerance of some Hollywood liberals, I would agree with any claim that like Ms. Zipp of PLAYGIRL, your being hired and/or later fired could depend on your keeping your mouth shut about your conservatism, while liberals skillfully recite their hateful and mean talking points against all things right. They do so with no sense of perspective or consideration of anyone else’s beliefs. Some liberals believe they are intellectually and morally superior to anyone who is dumb enough not to think as they do.
Now while the study may be ambiguous as to provable liberal indoctrination, some propaganda must be getting through when students are willing to storm and take over school buildings, protest resulting in police confrontations, lay down in the middle of the street and block traffic, and get arrested for their left-wing causes.
Kurtz on the study’s conclusion, “The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection “even if it raises prices or costs jobs” (88 percent). What’s more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.”
I would have more respect for liberals if adults would debate adults, but using their influence over students, kindergarten through college, is a gross abuse of their power. But then again, since when has liberals not abused what power they have in the name of their “superiority”?
Quote Of The Month
During an open microphone poetry presentation on the University of New Hampshire campus, the following monologue was reportedly read:
Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun. I am 23 years old, and I am what a feminist looks like. Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men’s lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy’s death. I hate men because they are men, because I see them for what they are: misogynistic, sexist, oppressive and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with war, abuse, oppression and rape.
With this attitude, I’d be willing to bet she ain’t gettin’ any, thus her anger towards men. One would think good sex in a meaningful relationship tends to deflower feminist fanaticism. That’s probably why they consider sex “rape” as a means of discouraging such traitorous behavior.
Of course Mary (member of the Feminist Action League, UNH) would be screaming to hoarseness should any man describe himself as having found joy in threatening women’s lives, flicking off frat sisters and plotting the matriarchy’s death. Mary would be ready to faint in her Birkenstocks if a man said he hated women because they are women, because he sees them for what they are: selfish, weak, cowardly and absurdly pathetic beings who only serve to pollute and contaminate this world with whining, programmable tear ducts, self-absorption, PMS and false rape allegations.
But Mary can get away with that foolishness because liberal campus hate speech is protected. What’s really sad is that in some way, shape, or form, we all pay for that….
Hillary’s Fake Right
It’s no surprise to any of us on the right that a Clinton would attempt to deceive an electorate. Despite her recent self-portrayal as middle-of-the-road moderate, the angry, superior-minded, ultra-liberal senator Hillary Rodham Clinton always manages to rise to the top.
“Our opponents will do anything rather than talk about the issues. They don’t want to talk about their plans to destroy Social Security, to roll back our civil and constitutional rights, to undermine American security by reducing the number of allies who will work with us around the world.”
- Democrat fund-raising letter signed by Hillary
Let’s see now; President Bush had tossed out his Social Security plan way before last November’s election, made that point during his State of the Union address and has taken it to the streets almost every other day since. Besides whining and complaining, can anyone tell us what the Democrats’ plan is? What does Hillary have in store for us should she ever be elected president? Do any of us really expect her to honestly tell us now?
What civil and constitutional rights are Republicans seeking to roll back, Hillary? Obviously conservatives are going to make blacks slaves and ban federally subsidized abortion. Unlike Bill Clinton’s almost all-lawyer cabinet, Bush’s included a Powell, and now is led by a Rice, a Gonzales, a Gutierrez, a Chao, a Mineta, and a Jackson.
And how many Third World nations would Hillary have us suck up in order to protect ourselves and our allies?
Fear… the Democrat’s weapon of choice.
Because We CAIR
Last time out I wrote a rather lengthy piece on CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and how they tend to strong-arm anyone who doesn’t turn their head when Islamic groups commit terror, while calling any group who criticizes them or violent interpretations of Islam as racist or “Islamophobic.”
Recently, National Review Online seems to have caved into the demands of CAIR and removed an advertisement for a book that criticizes their prophet Muhammad. Now while Ted Turner can insult Christians en masse (the beauty of our First Amendment), groups like CAIR lose their minds when criticism of anything Islamic is offered. It turns out the ad for book in question is circulated by a service and is run on several websites, but National Review was singled out.
The line from the book’s press release that probably irks CAIR was, “Mohammed posed as the apostle of God… while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God’s holy name to sanction his evil deeds.”
I admit to knowing little about Islam and have no desire to. However, maybe I should since some who belong to that religion wish to take over the world and convert or kill us.
“This anti-Muslim screed is the literary equivalent of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ and should not be promoted by a publication that has any sense of decency. The National Review must clarify its position on Islamophobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world’s population.”
- Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR Communications Director
When the CAIR spokeswoman on talk radio called me a racist who wouldn’t have supported civil rights legislation for blacks and was told I was black, she didn’t offer an apology and I didn’t demand one. When CAIR demands apologies, it seems like a Third World brand of humiliation is sought.
According to US Newswire, “Hooper said anti-Muslim rhetoric often leads to discrimination and even violence.”
No shit. However it would seem more times than not, Islamic fanatics are the ones perpetrating the discrimination and violence while mouthpieces like CAIR call anyone who reports the connection as racists simply to provide cover. I invite any of you, including you big shots in the “media” to do some simple research on CAIR personnel. I sincerely hope most are under some kind of federal surveillance.
Saying negative things about Christians might prompt them to pray for you. I don’t recall intimidation and violence being part of their code. However with eerie frequency, stories are coming out around the world about people who’ve spoken out or produced films questioning Islamic fanatics. Religious contracts (fatwas) have been taken out on them, and some people have been killed.
I would love to hear an explanation from CAIR, without their tendency to dodge the issue, why it’s bad to say anything negative about Islamic fanatics based on their actions, but it’s okay for them to threaten people simply for the act of such criticism.
Here’s an example…
From: “THE JEALOUS MUSLIM GROUP “
Subject: To Craig Directly
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:12:10 +0000
from: **THE JEALOUS MUSLIM GROUP**
Craig Winn you ignorant & lier authour…how dare you write that false book??? you will regret for all what u said about Islam & the last messenger of god the master of the mankind… So you have to choose one from two options:
1. To take your book (Prophet of Doom: Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words) out of circulation & to close your website & to apologize officialy for the prophet Muhammad peace upon him & for islam..
2. Or you will be killed suddenly & in an unexpected way (we know where do you live)
You have only 6 days (from 4.jan to 10.jan 2005) to choose the first option or we will consider you chosen the second option & then you just have to get ready for a kill at every moment. If you choose the first option you must send us an email to inform us about the details of stopping the book & your apologize.
*You may send us any email during the 6 days.
**THE JEALOUS MUSLIM GROUP**
I would hope National Review didn’t cave in to CAIR’s form of silencing speech they disagree with. But then again, there’s not much one can do about a death threat. Not that I’m saying it happened in this case but if it did, based on CAIR’s past performance, they would not condemn it.
I’m not sure what I’ll do when my “email” comes, but it’s hard to accept any group that is systematically attempting to destroy our freedom of speech through name calling, threats, intimidation, and violence.
Then again, nothing is surprising anymore in America.
Leave a Reply