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."
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.