I remember when the untrue rumor arose that Sarah Palin was a proponent of banning certain books from school libraries. Remember the uproar by the Left? Do you remember how dangerous that made her, according to those that opposed her?
In one of my favorite movies of all time, "Field of Dreams," a woman arguing at a PTA meeting for the banning of a book called "The Boat Rocker" by fictional character Terence Mann (James Earl Jones) declares the book to be smut, using "filthy" language, and has no place in their school. Kevin Costner's movie wife (played by actress Amy Madigan) turns to Kevin Costner's ear and tells him the woman is a "fascist."
A school board member in the movie explains to the woman that the book is not "smut," but is considered by most to be a classic novel about the 1960s. A man jumps up and calls the book "pornography," and the board member replies, "No, no, the Supreme Court says it's not."
Then, of course, the cat is let out of the bag. These wannabe book burners are Christians, upset about the Godlessness of the book their children are being exposed to during school hours. The book promotes, according to the actress in the movie, "Promiscuity, Godlessness, the mongrelization of the races, and disrespect to high ranking officers in the United States Army." She then adds that is why "right-thinking" school boards across America have been banning Terence Mann's books since 1969. She then adds a personal attack about Terrence's personal sexual activities to drive the message home.
Finally, Amy Madigan's character has had enough, rises up, and tries to approach the manner in a fairly civil manner, explaining how Mann was a voice of reason during a time of madness, coining the phrase "Make Love, Not War," and while rage filled society he was promoting peace and understanding.
The potential book banner's response was confrontational, and then the battle really begins. After verbally attacking Costner's character regarding how he plowed under his corn to build a baseball field, Amy's character responds: "At least he's not a book burner you Nazi cow."
Then, after referring to the "book banner" as Eva Braun, she turns to the crowd. She goes into a speech asking them who is for burning books? Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States? Who's for the Bill of Rights? Who thinks freedom is a pretty darn good thing? Who thinks we need to stand up to the kind of censorship they had under Stalin?
Then after the characters played by Costner and Madigan leaves the meeting she exclaims with excitement, "It was just like the 60s again. I just helped stop the spread of neo-fascism in America."
Now, I imagine that is how the liberal left felt when Sarah Palin emerged on the scene. They tried to beat her back with numerous attacks to her character and integrity. I am sure they felt especially giddy when they realized that Palin could possibly be a "book burner." After all, if they firmly believe, as is (it seems) to be the prevalent worldview opinion among that side of the political spectrum, that Conservatism and Christianity is out to force them to fit into some small box of morality, and let go of all of the "freedoms" they hold near and dear, then that anger may be understandable.
One must remember that with freedom comes responsibility. So the question would be, is it responsible to expose children to experimental theories of "reason" and "psychology" against the will of parents?
I understand that the "Field of Dreams" is only a movie, and that it turned out the accusation that Sarah Palin wanted to ban books was unfounded. Regarding Palin, the Left's excitement that she might be some "First Amendment killing radical" was nothing more than a pipe dream. But, using those two examples, and the words of support by the Left of the anti-war protesters of the 1960s, and during the War in Iraq, it becomes clear that the Left considers the voice of dissent to be patriotic - or at least as long as that voice of dissent isn't at Tea Parties, or voices opposition to what the Left believes (such as at Town Hall meetings). If the voice of dissent dares to disagree with them, it is no longer patriotic dissent, it becomes manufactured, radical, extremist mob-style tactics by a bunch of yokels that don't know reasonable government policy from a hole in the ground.
When I first became a blogger a liberal reader, though she disagreed with me on pretty much everything I had to say, used to tell me that despite our disagreement, she would defend my right to say what I believe by shouting from the mountain tops, if need be. I wonder, now that there is heavy disagreement with Obama's policies by the Right, if she still feels the same?
So this is how I understand the Left's position of freedom of speech based on my observations, and what I have heard them say on blogs, and through the mouths of Democrat Politicians:
- Banning any kind of book makes one a "book burner," and such activity is neo-fascism, and in the style of Nazism.
- Not allowing Americans to protest in the streets, especially if it is against the U.S. Government during a time of war, is a violation of those people's right to exercise their First Amendment Rights.
- Disallowing the full freedom to talk about any topic in the schools, such as the gay lifestyle, abortion, Darwinism, atheism (as in the writings of Richard Dawkins), racial issues, and so forth, would be insensitive, and fosters hate among our children.
- To disagree with any speech, regardless of its nature, in schools, television, on the radio, et cetera, or to do anything to impede the distribution of materials that could be deemed by some as inappropriate, such as pornography, is censorship, and fascist.
I know there are more, but that is the basic gist of it all, right Leftists?
Using the rules given to us by the Left that book banning is fascist, censoring language is Nazi-like, and disallowing any belief system (like the normalization of homosexuality) is breeding hate, I have a few questions to ask.
1. If banning books is wrong, then why is banning the Bible from Public Schools, attempting to ban the Gideons from placing Bibles in Hotel Rooms as they have for generations, and banning Biblical teachings and principles from the public square acceptable?
2. If it is wrong to challenge belief systems like Darwinism, Atheism, and the Gay Lifestyle, then why is the slightest portrayal of the Christian Faith not allowed, and in some cases, a criminal action? Why is that not considered breeding hate against Christians?
3. If dissent is patriotic, as told to us by Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton during the anti-war protests over the Iraq War, then why are Tea Party and Town Hall protesters being labeled as radicals and extremists, and why is it okay with you that the government is taking actions to silence those people?
4. If censoring language is un-American, especially if it were to be done by the governmental system, then why is it okay to ban words from the textbooks given to our children that identify gender?
To expound upon that last point: Gender Identity is being banned from school textbooks. It is another example of the invasion of America, and the changing of the American Culture, through language.
For example, in textbooks the words "Founding Fathers" is now banned from public school textbooks because it signifies that the "Framers" were men. Therefore, "Framers," and "Founders" are now the only acceptable words in school textbooks for the purpose of referring to the men, er, uhh, genderless people that founded this nation.
Doesn't the banning of words that identify gender, or a person's portrayal of their faith, the banning of biblical text, and the banning of anything else by the leftists make them fascists? Wouldn't it be accurate to consider their attempts to silence protesters against the health care bill akin to the censorship the downtrodden had under Stalin? Doesn't the criminalization of prayer, as we saw in an example of two school officials being threatened with jail time for offering prayer at a luncheon, make the Left a bunch of Nazi cows? And I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about the government unconstitutionally providing a "public option" for health care, unconstitutionally creating an atmosphere of dependence with entitlement programs, unconstitutionally inciting violence by proclaiming the Obama supporters need to "push back," unconstitutionally taking the reins of private industry as in the case of the auto industry and the banking industry, unconstitutionally controlling the media through the Federal Communications Commission, unconstitutionally forcing advertisers away from a voice of dissent (Glen Beck) through threats, unconstitutionally making plans to post the U.S. Military throughout the U.S. for the purpose of controlling the populace, unconstitutionally fostering the hysteria surrounding mythical man-made Global Warming (a.k.a. Climate Change), unconstitutionally attempting to take away parental rights, and unconstitutionally infringing on the free exercise of religion by banning God from the public square, public schools, and federal properties?
What would the Founding Fathers think of the invasion of America, and the attempt to subvert liberty and contain certain "conservative" segments of the population through the control of the school system, and language?
Would they approve? Or would they see it as the spreading of neo-fascism in America?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Guess Which Words Are Banned from Your Kids' Textbooks? - Fox Nation
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say? - World Net Daily, Chelsea Schilling
Is Obamacare Consistent With Our First Principles? - The Heritage Foundation
Global warming battle: Thar she blows! - World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi
Obamacare a 'rotten fish,' says Broun at town hall - Online Athens, Blake Aued
The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S. - The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild
Obama Behind Beck Boycott - Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller
GLENN BECK ADVERTISERS IN THE CROSSHAIRS - The Radio Patriot, Andrea Shea King
New FCC official: 'Fairness Doctrine never repealed' - World Net Daily
Obama considers real America "the enemy" - Renew America, Chris Adamo
The White House Mob – The True Gangsters At Work In America - Gribbit's Word
No comments:
Post a Comment