Posted by Tina
The following is outrageous but it illustrates the insanity that pervaides leftist thought in today’s world. Douglas Ernst of The Washington Times reports:
U.S. Army officer from Rochester, Michigan, was denied entry into his daughter’s high school by four members of its security staff, told that his uniform might “offend” some students.
“Before he was allowed in, the security guard stopped him and said sorry you’re not allowed in the school. Security told him men and women in uniform weren’t allowed because it may offend another student,” Lt. Col. Sherwood Baker’s wife, Rachel, told a local Fox affiliate.
Col Baker was at the school to meet with his child’s councelor about her class schedule. The school district says there is no policy to prevent military persons from enterring schools in the district. If true, the security people were acting on their own warped PC values.
When I saw this I had two thoughts. The first was would they make a postal worker go home and change, because we all know what a threat they’ve been to others. And the second was how far we’ve come to end up back in the 1960s where we are once again “spitting” on those who put their lives on the line to protect us and then we reject them for what they did when they come home.
Can their be any more proof of just how much damage Obama and this administration has done to this country? When will people wake up!!
Here is a young man who expresses how he sees the world he’s living in and what he recommends for the future.
Why I Think This World Should End:
By Prince Ea
“Sorry if This Offends You.”
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152704415384769
This is clearly insane, and I don’t know of any liberal/leftist who would disagree.
How can a person use this as evidence of the Obama administration’s damage to the country? Do you honestly believe Obama would support this man being denied entry because of his uniform? This was the result of individual idiots. Perhaps they were acting on a warped notion of political correctness, but it was their own interpretation of being sensitive and inclusive, not what any truly tolerant person would do.
“The first was would they make a postal worker go home and change, because we all know what a threat they’ve been to others.”
LOL! 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9FCxuVSkT7k
‘This is clearly insane, and I don’t know of any liberal/leftist who would disagree.’
Don’t get around much ,do you!
Common Sense at #3…words are not enough. What a great kid.
Common Sense, I am pretty firmly enmeshed in the Grand Liberal Conspiracy to take over America and socialize your babies into homosexuality (if we haven’t aborted them yet). The general consensus on the left is that while we don’t support most wars, we do believe soldiers should be respected and treated well when they come back from them. I’ve never seen anything that would indicate most liberals would support kicking a uniformed parent off campus because his uniform might offend some delicate anti-military flower. If you’ve seen liberals supporting this, you can show me where.
Johnny Cash – Ragged Old Flag:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5xsc2_johnny-cash-ragged-old-flag_music
Chris, have you seen the letters lately from chico liberals who were opposed to banners for military veterans? There seemed to be a open dislike for the military on the left. I’m sure it can be explained away just like this, but eventually the bias becomes fairly obvious dont you think?
Steve, I am absolutely convinced that our liberals have an aversion to anything military. This has been a Chico tradition that dates back decades to anti-war days of Berkeley. I remember when the Military Vehicle Preservation Association tried to take part in Pioneer Days and their restored military vehicles were egged along the parade route. Not much has changed since those bad old days, except the faces of the liberals. Their legacy of anti-war, anti-military attitudes remains with us to this day. It is frequently exposed by the liberals that get elected to our city council. They’re not a very nice bunch and I hope some day Chico will get rid of these irresponsible bomb tossers and fiscal morons and give us some decent representation from conservative leaders. We can do it if we can muster enough voters and that means we need at least a piddly little 50% turnout, which has been a challenge in past election years. But, maybe voters are angry enough this time and will turn out? One can only hope.
-Jack
Chris: “This was the result of individual idiots. Perhaps they were acting on a warped notion of political correctness…”
Oxymoron!
Hatred of the military is pervasive, particularly in the radical leadership of the Democrat Party, whether you are aware of it or not. ROTC was kicked from campuses for decades…who do you think did that?
The left military haters went underground when the Gulf War, and then later the response to 911, showed the people were not impressed by anti-military voices. In fact there was a lot of resentment about it.
I don’t think everyone on the left hates the military but there is no disputing that hatred of the military was pervasive in the lefties of our generation. Bill Clinton once wrote of how he “loathed the military”:
There is a big divide and clash within this boomer generation and as you have witnessed on this blog it is serious and probably irreconcilable. The left abandoned everything that we were raised to believe was good about America in favor of Marx, Mao, Che and the activism of Alinsky. From my perspective this band of traitors have reshaped and damaged our educational system, our legal system, our political system and social structure and made fighting enemies of American values and our freedom nearly impossible. They spit on and condemned our vets in the Vietnam war to years of feeling ostracized and “loathed”…a lie that the majority had no way to express with power (media was all in lefty).
So please don’t presume to speak for “most” on the left…you have no idea!
Steve, I don’t live near Chico, so I haven’t seen those letters. Maybe you could show me some.
We’re a long time removed from the hippies of the Vietnam war, whose treatment of military vets was particularly reprehensible. (At the same time, it was a particularly reprehensible war.) I remember quite a bit of outrage from both the left and right about the recent VA delays.
Tina: Chris: “This was the result of individual idiots. Perhaps they were acting on a warped notion of political correctness…”
Oxymoron!”
I would have gone with “redundancy,” but I think I see your point; political correctness already *is* warped, because it is based more on walking a party like than any universal moral standards.
I’ve said before that I think the term “political correctness” is overused, and often applied in such a way that it’s nearly a synonym for “not being a jerk to entire groups of people.” But in this case, if the school really did refuse to allow the uniformed parent in because it might “offend” someone, it is perfectly appropriate to describe their decision as driven by political correctness; in trying not to offend certain groups of people, they completely marginalized another group of people (soldiers and veterans), for no reasonable purpose.
“Hatred of the military is pervasive, particularly in the radical leadership of the Democrat Party, whether you are aware of it or not. ROTC was kicked from campuses for decades…who do you think did that?”
It’s my understanding that the ROTC was kicked off certain college campuses due to their discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Unless I’m mistaken, once this was finally repealed, colleges started letting ROTC back in. This doesn’t indicate a hatred of the military, so much as an opposition to hatred of gay and lesbian soldiers.
“I don’t think everyone on the left hates the military but there is no disputing that hatred of the military was pervasive in the lefties of our generation. Bill Clinton once wrote of how he “loathed the military””
He actually doesn’t say that he personally loathes the military. He says that he can understand why “so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military…”
I also think if you take that letter in context, his views about the military and war are quite a bit more nuanced than radical anti-military hostility:
“No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.
The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above…”
He goes on to describe several friends who were draft resisters (not “dodgers,” but actual political protesters). His argument for the immorality of the draft is quite persuasive; I honestly didn’t think Clinton was this articulate. (Never been much of a fan.)
Chris: “It’s my understanding that the ROTC was kicked off certain college campuses due to their discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.”
It happened long before there was such a thing.
April 15, 2014, NJ.com, “Princeton U. welcomes back Navy ROTC for first time since Vietnam War,” by Kelly Heyboer
“He says that he can understand why “so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military…”
Fair enough, but understanding can cover a multitude of emotions and positions…loath is a pretty strong word for him to have chosen don’t you think?
His position on the draft is a separate issue.
clinton is more able to articulate his positions than is President Obama who, without a teleprompter does a pretty poor job. My reading of the letter is that it is typical Clinton who was often described as an Eddie Haskell character from leave it To Beaver. I don’t know if you are familiar with the sitcom but Haskell was a devious kid, out for himself, who always sucked up and put on the face of innocence around the grown ups.
Bill Clinton was in the headlines today for remarks he made about Netanyahu:
They are either playing tag team so she gets to have it both ways or the possible future first gentleman did what i imagine he won’t be able to stop himself from doing…stealing the stage…speaking as if he were still president.
Ugh, the thought of either the Clinton’s or more Bush’s back in office gives me a headache. More so the Clinton’s because its the same family unit.
I wasn’t aware of Princeton’s long-held rejection of the ROTC, but the fact that it’s coming back now–at the behest of President Obama, no less–would seem to indicate that things have changed, no?
“They are either playing tag team so she gets to have it both ways or the possible future first gentleman did what i imagine he won’t be able to stop himself from doing…stealing the stage…speaking as if he were still president.”
…Or they just have different opinions, because they are two different people. If anyone wants Bill to “steal the stage” it is conservatives who don’t see Hilary as a person who can speak for herself, and seem to view the idea that a woman might think differently than her husband on some issues as a disqualifier for a female presidential candidate. (Echoes of Michele Bachman, who stated with pride that her entire career is based on her submitting to her husband’s wishes over her own.)
The necessary motions will be gone through but at least for the old guard radical Democrats the military is not their thang. The Democrat leadership and their supporters in academe knew they would need to seem military friendly when as worked to get Obama elected in the middle of a war that will go on for a long time. They have tried, unsuccessfully, to appear competent in this area for that reason.
No I meant Bill just can’t help himself.He loves the spotlight and would be on stage every chance he got.
“If anyone wants Bill to “steal the stage” it is conservatives who don’t see Hilary as a person who can speak for herself…”
Are you kidding…Hillary has no problem speaking for herself…she even seems to be learning how not to shriek!
“… and seem to view the idea that a woman might think differently than her husband on some issues as a disqualifier”
This based on your imagination I’m sure since you think not being feminist means total compliance and rigid deference.
(Echoes of Michele Bachman, who stated with pride that her entire career is based on her submitting to her husband’s wishes over her own.)
As if you had even the slightest understanding of what that means.
Also, this: “clinton is more able to articulate his positions than is President Obama who, without a teleprompter does a pretty poor job.”
Is mindless garbage.
“I refer to Teleprompter Derangement Syndrome, or Prompterphobia. It is the most consistent and mystifying attack the right levels against Obama. It has induced Newt Gingrich to vow to let Obama have a teleprompter in the Lincoln-Douglas debates the former speaker wants. It’s why Santorum has referred to the president as the “reader in chief.” It has spurred a cottage industry of gag websites and led Arkansas GOP Rep. Steve Womack last year to propose eliminating funding for Obama’s teleprompter as a budget-cutting measure.
It’s a strange obsession because it’s inane. Teleprompters are tools. Sure they’re high tech if you’ve just emerged from the 1950s (which might explain the GOP’s fascination with them), but ultimately they’re just a medium for prepared remarks, substantively no different from a sheet of paper on a lectern. A teleprompter can’t magically imbue a poor speech with additional spellbinding qualities. Criticizing someone for using a teleprompter is like berating him for using a microphone, or arguing that there’s something wrong with writing on a word processor rather than with a quill and ink.
[Read Robert Schlesinger, Mary Kate Cary, and other U.S. News columnists in U.S. News Weekly, available on iPad.]
Teleprompters are tools that every president since Dwight Eisenhower has used, some with greater comfort than others. Richard Nixon preferred to memorize outlines and then speak without prepared remarks on hand; Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush liked to work off note cards; Obama seems most comfortable in front of a teleprompter. In all cases, the medium is not the message—the message is the message.
Ultimately the teleprompter criticism boils down to people having a problem with the idea that a president or candidate has prepared remarks in advance and, perhaps, done so with assistance. When we’re talking about the presidency and the bully pulpit, care and skill in selecting the right words are admirable and necessary qualities. And preparing remarks ahead of time allows the president’s staff to make sure he’s got the facts on his side.
But using speechwriters and preparing speeches ahead of time doesn’t make Obama (or any of his dozen immediate predecessors) a cipher regurgitating “somebody else’s words.” When a president delivers a speech, putting the authority of his office behind those words, he takes ownership of them. And no president (or competent candidate) is a passive recipient of a script foisted on them by speechwriters or other aides. Good speechwriters help their boss elevate his or her voice, not reinvent it.
[Washington Whispers: If Days Were Twice as Long, Obama’d Write His Own Speeches]
Conservatives who deride Obama’s teleprompter as a crutch, without which he would be helpless, seem unaware that virtually all modern presidential remarks are prepared in advance. The main difference with Obama involves stagecraft: A teleprompter is a visible reminder of this preparation as opposed to a typed speech sitting on the lectern.”
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/03/20/obamas-teleprompter-the-gops-dumbest-attack
Tina: “This based on your imagination I’m sure since you think not being feminist means total compliance and rigid deference.”
No, it’s based on a long-standing campaign by conservatives to hold Hilary Clinton accountable for everything her husband says, and to express complete mystification any time there appears to be even a sliver of daylight between them on any issue.
“As if you had even the slightest understanding of what that means.”
I understand Bachmann’s philosophy of marriage as much as I can given how warped it is.
Quote with relevant context:
“In 2006, Bachmann told a story about her career path. “My husband said, ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law,’” Bachmann said. “Tax law! I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says, ‘Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’” (Actually, she was mistaken—Paul and Peter said that, not the Lord.)”
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/19/understanding-michele-bachmanns-submission/
Chris: ” a long-standing campaign by conservatives to hold Hilary Clinton accountable for everything her husband says, and to express complete mystification any time there appears to be even a sliver of daylight between them on any issue.”
Examples please. I’ve always thought of them as separate and quite different, although leftist. Hillary. To the degree that they present themselves as a couple I view them as such. for instance they bragged before being elected that a vote for Bill was a tofer vote:
Washington Post:
Chris: “I understand Bachmann’s philosophy of marriage as much as I can given how warped it is.”
Which makes your opinion warped and therefore useless.
Thanks for the quote.