Sunday, October 15, 2006

Mama's don't let your children grow up and be students at Columbia University

Minuteman Project under attack at Columbia University

It's bad enough that the leftist liberal socialist democratic party is full of rageful intolerance of anybody that disagrees with it, and it is even worse that the leftist army of doom and gloomers are also posing as teachers in our fine academic institutions, but it is unacceptable beyond imagination when the students that have been indoctrinated by this socialistic political ideology that constantly contradicts itself mindlessly copycats their activities of liberal idiocy.

Let's go back. I recently wrote a post about liberal hypocrisy. As you read this post, keep the double-standard, contradictory hypocrisy of the liberal left in mind.

Correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, the primary reason that people of the left have a problem with the Minuteman Project is because they think that it is a racist organization designed to interfere with the immigration of opportunity seeking illegal aliens, sorry, undocumented immigrants. The left believes that the Minuteman project is a racist group. Anyone is racist against Hispanics if they are against illegal immigration. Do I have that right?

Now, the people that supports the leftist idea of allowing illegals to cross the borders without anything to stop, or even hinder, them are not racists, then. Correct? They are nice people who want nothing more than for those poor immigrants to have a place to work and live. And of course these people on the left, along with supporting illegal immigration tend to be against the war in Iraq (ready to cut and run at the earliest opportunity - oh, sorry, that's called an exit strategy - such a nice term for such a cowardly act) because of the violence that the United States is spreading across the globe. Do I still have it right?

So why is it that our tolerant, non-racist, non-violent friends of the left attacked free speech in America by physically assaulting, in mob style, a black man (Marvin Stewart, Director of Community Affairs for the National Minuteman Project) while calling him the N-word?

N-word? Wait, these people are mad at the Minutemen for being racist against Hispanics, right? But they use the N-word? And these anti-war people also did it in a violent, mob-like manner!

What did the protestors have to say afterward? "The minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. . . no human being is illegal." During the attack they also unfurled a banner in Arabic and English. Afterward one protester said, "I don't feel we need to apologize for anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech."

These are the same people that called Mister Stewart the N-word, and attacked the man on stage.

So the left's right to free speech includes the right to take away the right to speak from the right?

And why is it so wrong for the Minuteman Project to exist? Does the left have sole possession of the right to dissent?

The idea of what's going on in our schools, and what is becoming of free speech was explained well on October 2, 2006 on Katie Couric's "CBS Evening News" when the father of a boy killed at Columbine shared his views on the deeper causes of the recent shootings in Amish Country. He said, "Violence entered our schools when we threw God out of them. This country is in a moral freefall. . . We teach there are no moral absolutes, no right or wrong, and I assure you the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children."

Airing his views, of course, was followed by a storm of criticism. One blogger said, "Grief makes people say stupid things."

Free speech from a conservative is wrong, according to the left, and must be silenced.

Rose O'Donnell banged away on gun control, and Elizabeth was not bowing to Rosie's leftwing views. Rosie threw a fit, to the point that Elizabeth recoiled as if ready to defend herself from a physical attack. Rosie was enraged, wanting to silence her, educate her of her leftist views. How dare someone not think like the left.

And more than a week after the Columbia stage-rush affair, disciplinary procedures for the protestors are still undecided.


How about throwing their butts in jail for physically (and verbally) assaulting Jim Gilchrist (founder of the Minuteman Project) and Marvin Stewart!

The University president said, "It's too early to make any judgment whether there are disciplinary actions that should be taken."

Excuse me?

How long before they decide? After the election?

This was not a peaceful protest. The students rushed the stage and physically and verbally (you know, the N-word! That would be a hate crime in any other scenario) assaulted these men. End of conversation. If it was my school, disciplinary actions would be swift and meaningful!

Apparently free speech is fine for the left, but conservatives no longer have that right. And being racist against blacks is a hate crime, unless he's a member of the right. Then it is expected and accepted.

And the liberals preach that they are the kings of tolerance, and that the Conservative Right is intolerant. You know, from my angle, it seems like the liberal left is intolerant, racist, and exclusionary elitists that believe that they own the sole rights to having rights.

Need proof? Look at the left's record, starting with the Columbia University riot.

How about using the Dixie Chicks as an example as well? They bashed the president, were proud of their entitlement to practice their right to free speech, but when fans reacted they whined saying that their freedom of expression was being squashed.

Unfortunately, the liberals seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from others disagreeing with them. Freedom of speech, according to the left, is not to be shared with those who disagree with them.

Had a liberal been speaking at Columbia University do you think that a bunch of young Republicans would have jumped the stage? Of course not. They would have waited to debate their points. They would have acted like adults, rather than violent thugs bent on intimidating their opponents into silence and submission.

And if conservatives ever did rush a liberal speaker in a manner similar to Columbia, not that it would ever happen, the liberal media would have been all over it. "How brutally intolerant of those bigots," the newscaster would be saying. The New York Times would have had it plastered all over the front page for a week!

So, why do the liberals act so violently when the right disagrees with them? Or, for that matter, responding hatefully, using inappropriate language, and then changing the debate into an anti-Bush, anti-God attack? Immaturity perhaps?

The liberal left bases everything on emotions rather than specifics. Rage rather than principles. Intolerance rather than common sense. Feelings rather than facts. Then, as a result, they find it hard to control themselves. Perhaps their lack of a belief in God, or any belief in any reasonable moral code for that matter, allows for such behavior. Either that, or it could be a fear that if the other side is heard, people may actually recognize how wrong the leftwing ideology truly is.

Besides, the left would never want anyone to realize that their ideals are fueled by a hidden desire for a Marxist utopia, and that they are willing to crush the freedom the claim to hold so dear to reach that socialistic society.

Above: Watch the whole video - because the statement at the end of it by a Conservative Columbia University student is well worth it.

Below: O'Reilly's position on what happened as well as an interview with Minutman Marvin Stewart.


Gunny John said...

I get ticked off every time I read or hear about those bunch of lefty loons at Columbia. I bet their parents must be proud that they're being properly indoctrinated into the socialist caste. Free speech? Nah, no need for that here...

Unknown said...

"leftist liberal socialist democratic party"

Mr. Gibbs, I'm sorry to have to correct you, but the correct terminology would be "the lefty scum sucking botton feeding communist party". I'm sorry you didn't get the memo.

Been by my blog lately? Read the "mission statement" at the top. Pretty much sums up the whole thing.

Was it just me, or did anyone else want to reach into that video and slap those punks.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

How about leftist scum sucking liberal socialist bottom feeding democratic communist idiot party?

I didn't want to slap those punks. I wanted them arrested, and then somebody in prison to slap them in ways they never expected. Okay, okay, I wanted to slap them up the head. The statement at the end of the first video was great though, wasn't it?

Joubert said...

"...the left would never want anyone to realize that their ideals are fueled by a hidden desire for a Marxist utopia..."

Yep, that's why I'm never surprised by anything they do. They're commies and to them the end justifies the means as Lenin said.

I see that you're moving up to God's own country - the Oregon coast. I'm in Coos county on the south coast.

atheling2 said...

Infantile. These people haven't the self control of an adult. They haven't the reasoning abilities of a 13 year old.

Liberalism IS a mental disorder. And American universities are where they are bred.

They were throwing pies at Ann Coulter and David Horowitz when they appeared at a college venue.

Disgusting, juvenile behavior. They ought to be locked up for it.

Gary said...

Man, I watched that brother, and was very disturbed. Where are all the liberals advocating Free speech now?!

I'm affraid I'd loose just a little bit of my witness if I witnessed that.

Anonymous said...

I echo Jarheads sentiments on the matter. The craziest thing IMO is that I'm not really sure the youngest of 'moonbats' like those at Columbia University completely understand the ramifications of having such a 'Marxist' like midset, and what it is doing to this country. There will dues to pay in the end for everyone. They will one day understand they screwed up [maybe] and their 's-t and giggle' escapades had severe reprocutions for everyone of the 'former' United States of America ( at least the one we used to know and love. )It'll be much too late by then, I'm afraid, and the damage will be beyond repair.

Colin Morris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Colin Morris said...

You had the humility to describe your benefit from critique in your post about La Jolla. Here's some more:

Your namecalling is so pervasive in this post that I could hardly sift through to the base story beneath it. I could practically see your red cheeks and the spittle collecting in the corners of your mouth as you overused purely emotional taunts like "leftist liberal socialist democratic party." I promise you that, every time you overdress a sentence like that, a lot of people will have to read it twice. And, knowing you're a writer, I know you can do a better job of telling a story.

That covers the technical response. For the rest:

It may be true that the students' misconduct was immoral and unnecessary. In fact, I agree with that rather certainly. But to baldly generalize about the left wing and say that every member acts this way just sounds desperate. If that were true, none of them would be able to hold office for long; they would surely all be arrested for their rioting.

Essentially, Mr. Gibbs, I feel you have lowered yourself to namecalling. It's almost childish, and that's not what I expect from a seasoned writer and a military man. It's dishonerable. Believe me, we are all emotional about these issues. They stir powerful reactions in several directions from all of us. But to villify the entire other end of the political spectrum because a bunch of overzealous, college-age protestors isn't just unproductive, it's impractical.

I am one of those liberal, undergraduate college students, Mr. Gibbs, and I hope that by now you know me better than to discredit me for it. But I read republican and conservative blogs and I take them seriously. I watch CNN, but I also watch Fox. I watch Keith Olberman, but I've read Ann Coulter. And even when it's most difficult, I find a way to consider their words on opposite sides of a level scale. And I rarely end up finding all the truth on one side.

I believe that's the only way to isolate the few true and/or fair messages we receive from the media, and I wish that in the interest of progress, everyone else, especially you, would do the same.

Respectfully yours,

about said...

Strangely, none of you guys talk about how New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges was booed off state off stage at Rockford College's 2003 commencement. His crime: Denouncing the US war and occupation in Iraq -- you know, something that might have a real-life impact on the people he was addressing.

The treatment he received:

Hedges began his abbreviated 18-minute speech comparing United States’ policy in Iraq to pariahs and a tyranny over the weak. His microphone was unplugged within three minutes.

Voices of protest and the sound of foghorns grew.

Some graduates and audience members turned their backs to the speaker in silent protest. Others rushed up the aisle to vocally protest the remarks, and one student tossed his cap and gown to the stage before leaving.

Man, those conservatives are uncivil!

Did the right deplore this behavior? One rule for the right and one for the left. Feel free to check out my blog if you want to some of this made clear ... I'm open to criticism.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Holy cow, a real comment from the left with meat other than name calling. Good for you. Honestly, I was not aware of that incident, and I am sure that such incidents happen on both sides - however, the left does tend to be more violent, call more names, and hateful. Just an observation. Be aware, the left is welcome to leave comments on my site - as long as you remember that number one most of my readers are conservative and will criticize your comments strongly, I will not allow name calling of specific people that goes over the line (mild may be acceptable, just don't teeter over that line), I will not tolerate any (and I mean any) blasphemous comments - and the left loves to attack God - which brings up a point: Who is more irrational? A person who believes in a God unseen? Or a person offended by a God they don't believe in? Liberal left members are welcome to comment with well thought out, specifics because I do believe in freedom of speech, but don't forget that it is my site, and I do have the right to refuse service if I think that the commenter is irresponsibly stomping on the rights of other commenters.

about said...

Douglas ... thank you. This could be the basis for an ongoing interesting debate! hope so. I am an Aussie but since we get a lot of CNN etc here I am trying to kep up with the whole issue particularly following the Democrats winning control of Senate. Has world repercussions I think.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Absolutely - I refuse to watch CNN because of their liberal bias - so I watch FoxNews because I believe that they are (as they say) fair and balanced (such as the Hannity and Colmes Show). I am not aware of whether or not FoxNews is available in Australia, but if it is, give it a chance. Also, please understand, I am a military Vet and I in no way like that fact that my military brothers and sisters are needed to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever, but I believe that it is a necessary evil - otherwise we run a risk of being overrun, just as we did in WWII by an ideology bent on killing us, you, and anybody else that does not agree with their violent ideology. Politics are of course hard to control, and arguments fly often, but I am a Christian and usually agree with the Republican Party (though not everything - such as Bush's week stance regarding the illegal immigrant issue which affects me greatly since I live in Southern California.