Posts
There's that little thing called the US Constitution that seems to bother liberals so much these days. Of course, there was a time that conservatives weren't too keen on people being able to wear a swastika or burn the flag, but nowadays it's liberals who have difficulty with the right telling it like they see it.
One case in point is that of Samantha Bailey-Loomis, 17, and a senior at Branford High School, in Connecticut. Samantha is the founder of Students for Life club at the school, and when she requested permission to put up a lunch display table that showed images and doll models of fetuses, with one model depicting what a 9 month old fetus looks like in the womb, the principal of the school refused the request.
Bailey-Loomis told station WWLP that the principal said the topic was too controversial to be discussed in a public school, but it seems that liberal points of view are just fine at the school.
A Branford parent, Melissa Walkley, has no problem with it. "There's nothing wrong with it," she said. "I mean, I would let my kid see it. This is what a baby looks like as it's growing in a mommy's belly."
The trouble is, the left doesn't want us seeing a fetus as a human being. It's just a gelatinous lump, they would like us to believe. The idea that kids Samantha's age would actually see what a fetus looks like might put them off to having an abortion, and that's just unfair to people who "need" one, they would say. Case closed. End of discussion.
Then we have Harvard senior, Sandra Korn, a writer for the Harvard Crimson school magazine. Sandra would like to eliminate all free speech that threatens her liberal beliefs. That sounds to me, very much like that religion that kills you if you speak negatively about their prophet, (peas be up in him), and kills you if you try to leave the fold. I'll let you figure out which religion I'm referring to but I slam it from time to time because of its anti-Semitism and need to dominate the world.
Basically, Sandra believes the freedom to express views contrary to hers--should be set aside for "justice." In fact, the article suggests that the school stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to express views that don't coincide with liberal views. "If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?
"Instead," she added, "I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice.' When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue."
So much for the scientific method. I imagine she believes in global warming based on her belief in global warming. Facts be damned along with absence of facts.
Now it should go without saying that Sandra is anti-Zionist. Why not? It's all the rage on the left. Being Jewish absolutely does not exclude people from this category--it provides them with a sense of moral superiority.
Sandra even got Subramanian Swamy, a lecturer, dismissed from Harvard for his anti-Islamic views. So it's "go Islam, screw Israel." Why doesn't Sandra go and live in an orthodox Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or somewhere in Palestine and get a dose of reality? It's always easier to pontificate from the safety of academia, bought for people like Sandra by loving parents who worked hard for the money they've spent on her education, only to have her complain about how unfair capitalism is, and how we need equal distribution of wealth, so that we can all be equally poor.
Then we have Erin Ching, a Swarthmore College sophomore, who criticized the school for allowing Robert George, a conservative Christian intellect, to speak on campus. Ching said, "What really bothered me is, the whole idea that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don't think we should be tolerating [George's] views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society."
Wouldn't it have been decent and totally liberal for Erin to have chosen a less expensive school than Swarthmore and used the money not spent to help put a less fortunate person through college? How come that never happens? How come it turns out that conservatives donate significantly more money to charity than liberals? The answer is simple: liberals are willing to share the wealth as long as it comes from elsewhere.
This is how the left operates when it comes to free speech. But any political philosophy that cannot tolerate diverse opinion or criticism is weak, and tends to resort to ad hominem attacks, much like that religion that will go unnamed (for the sake of safety and the retention of my head upon my shoulders).
Tweet
One case in point is that of Samantha Bailey-Loomis, 17, and a senior at Branford High School, in Connecticut. Samantha is the founder of Students for Life club at the school, and when she requested permission to put up a lunch display table that showed images and doll models of fetuses, with one model depicting what a 9 month old fetus looks like in the womb, the principal of the school refused the request.
Bailey-Loomis told station WWLP that the principal said the topic was too controversial to be discussed in a public school, but it seems that liberal points of view are just fine at the school.
A Branford parent, Melissa Walkley, has no problem with it. "There's nothing wrong with it," she said. "I mean, I would let my kid see it. This is what a baby looks like as it's growing in a mommy's belly."
The trouble is, the left doesn't want us seeing a fetus as a human being. It's just a gelatinous lump, they would like us to believe. The idea that kids Samantha's age would actually see what a fetus looks like might put them off to having an abortion, and that's just unfair to people who "need" one, they would say. Case closed. End of discussion.
Then we have Harvard senior, Sandra Korn, a writer for the Harvard Crimson school magazine. Sandra would like to eliminate all free speech that threatens her liberal beliefs. That sounds to me, very much like that religion that kills you if you speak negatively about their prophet, (peas be up in him), and kills you if you try to leave the fold. I'll let you figure out which religion I'm referring to but I slam it from time to time because of its anti-Semitism and need to dominate the world.
Basically, Sandra believes the freedom to express views contrary to hers--should be set aside for "justice." In fact, the article suggests that the school stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to express views that don't coincide with liberal views. "If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?
"Instead," she added, "I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice.' When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue."
So much for the scientific method. I imagine she believes in global warming based on her belief in global warming. Facts be damned along with absence of facts.
 |
| Wonder how she'd look in a burqa |
Now it should go without saying that Sandra is anti-Zionist. Why not? It's all the rage on the left. Being Jewish absolutely does not exclude people from this category--it provides them with a sense of moral superiority.
Sandra even got Subramanian Swamy, a lecturer, dismissed from Harvard for his anti-Islamic views. So it's "go Islam, screw Israel." Why doesn't Sandra go and live in an orthodox Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or somewhere in Palestine and get a dose of reality? It's always easier to pontificate from the safety of academia, bought for people like Sandra by loving parents who worked hard for the money they've spent on her education, only to have her complain about how unfair capitalism is, and how we need equal distribution of wealth, so that we can all be equally poor.
Then we have Erin Ching, a Swarthmore College sophomore, who criticized the school for allowing Robert George, a conservative Christian intellect, to speak on campus. Ching said, "What really bothered me is, the whole idea that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don't think we should be tolerating [George's] views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society."
Wouldn't it have been decent and totally liberal for Erin to have chosen a less expensive school than Swarthmore and used the money not spent to help put a less fortunate person through college? How come that never happens? How come it turns out that conservatives donate significantly more money to charity than liberals? The answer is simple: liberals are willing to share the wealth as long as it comes from elsewhere.
This is how the left operates when it comes to free speech. But any political philosophy that cannot tolerate diverse opinion or criticism is weak, and tends to resort to ad hominem attacks, much like that religion that will go unnamed (for the sake of safety and the retention of my head upon my shoulders).
In my latest novel, a New York
reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo
jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it
on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .
Jihad
Joe: a Novel Create Space soft cover book edition
Jihad
Joe see it here ebook version
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment