Political Correctness Run Amok

    The progressives have always been in the business of promoting "equality" by avoiding racism, sexism, and discrimination through their obsession with being politically correct. However, I can't remember a time where they have been as obsessed with it as they are right now. Several recent stories come to mind: the associated press will no longer refer to illegal immigrants and will be calling them "undocumented immigrants", the words "gay marriage" have been replaced with "marriage equality", and in the state of Washington "master bedrooms" will now be called "owner bedrooms". Oh, and we can't blame the Boston terrorist attacks on Muslim extremists. That would be discriminating against the entire religion of Islam and unfairly blaming millions of innocent people. Let's ignore this hypersensitive liberalism for a moment and take a look at the facts. An immigrant that came here without proper documentation IS an illegal immigrant. Gay marriage is a marriage between two members of the same sex, just as heterosexual marriage is marriage between two members of the opposite sex. Master bedroom? Are you kidding me? Has anyone ever associated a master bedroom with slavery and male dominance over women? Probably not since the 1800's. But all of this nonsense shows what progressives are all about. They aren't about equality, fairness, or ending discrimination. They're about gaining power for their political elites and getting people to join in with their radical agenda. They want to create conflict and make uninformed people angry at Conservatives and label us as evil, racist, homophobic, and bigots. Here's the link to a story regarding the abolition of the term "master bedroom" in Washington http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/04/22/the-politically-incorrect-master-bedroom/

The Real Reasons Liberals Want Immigration Reform

     If you've kept up with the news lately, you're likely aware that there will soon be changes in our immigration system. The term thrown around often is "amnesty", which basically means that immigrants that came here illegally will be granted a free pass. They'll be granted temporary legal status and be given the same path to citizenship as any other potential immigrant, whether already in our country or not. If progressives wanted to secure the border and  provide immigrants with an opportunity to work hard and fight for a better life, I wouldn't have a problem with their ideology. But we know that's not why they want immigration reform. No, what they want is more people voting Democratic and more people that are dependent upon government programs. This is the exact opposite of what our country needs. We need skilled, in-demand immigrants that are determined to provide for themselves and maintain a lifestyle independent of government help. They would help lower the unemployment rate and provide more revenue for our government through taxes. We don't need more people on welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what the liberals do want. Think about it this way: If people are receiving aid from the government, are they going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican? The only thing liberals intend to gain from immigration reform is more power. Recent research shows that the potential immigration reform could add billions, if not trillions of dollars to our national debt. I'm not sure if any reform that costs that much is in the best interests of our country. I'm also not sure if I want to deal with progressive leadership in our government for an entire generation, as is suggested in the following article http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html

Progressivism in our education systems

     It is widely known that public school systems have always been tilted towards the left. However, in recent years it seems as if the problem has gotten worse. The teachers and administrators have made it a goal to make sure that no one graduates high school without being convinced that man-made global warming is an undeniable fact. They are taught that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" that proves that it is a problem. While there is plenty of evidence to refute man-made global warming, it is for the most part kept out of the classroom. Also, any attempts by informed students to debate the issue with a progressive instructor will only lead to a condescending response or that teacher holding an unfavorable attitude towards that student.
   Another common topic that liberals like to put a spin on is the use of atomic bombs towards the end of the second World War. I remember teachers telling me that we had killed hundreds of thousands of "innocent" civilians in Japan and shouldn't have used the bombs. Just last year, my sister was told the exact same thing. For teachers that make such uninformed proclamations, I have a few questions: Did you know that nearly every man, woman, and child in Japan was trained in using spears and basic rifles? Did you know that if we had chosen to engage in a land invasion of Japan that approximately 1 million Japanese would be killed, in addition to hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers? Do you realize that if we had not bombed Japan, they were unlikely to surrender anytime soon? Countless more lives would have been lost. I know that if I had been an 18 year old in the army back then, I sure as hell wouldn't want to invade Japan. However, progressive teachers probably haven't thought of any of these questions. They are only capable of thinking about things from their very limited, naive point of view.
   A modern topic being twisted around by liberals is that of radical Islamist terrorism. Students are told repeatedly that Islam is not a violent religion, and that the people that commit acts of terrorism are only a fraction of a percent of the religion. I would think that by the time students are in high school, reminding them of a detail such as this is a waste of time. The teachers are quick to condemn the behavior of Nazis, the KKK, and right-wing extremists. However, teachers rarely condemn the behavior of radical Muslims. Why is this? Because they have to make sure that no one is insulted! We've become so hellbent on being politically correct that we can't even discuss topics such as radical Islamists. Not only are we afraid to condemn these people, but we are also beginning to sympathize with them. Schools are now encouraging students to think about things from these people's point of view. They'll ask students questions like: Do you think its possible that Muslims hate the United States because we kill innocent people in their country while hunting terrorists? Do you think its fair that the Palestinians are facing oppression from the Israelis? The fact that questions such as these are being asked in public schools disturbs me, and should disturb every American. The indoctrination of our youth is going to result in an overwhelmingly liberal, progressive society. We can only hope that some students are able to go through the system and come out the other side with their common sense intact.

We get it...not all Muslims are terroists

     As a person who has several good friends that are Muslims, I find it offensive that the liberal media feels the need to tell us not to discriminate entire groups of people for the acts of a few individuals. I'd hope that anyone with at least below-average intelligence would be capable of realizing that the problem doesn't lie in the religion of Islam, but in the small fraction of Muslims that are radical extremists. I realize that the religion of Islam doesn't promote violence and would never blame an entire religion (regardless of which one it is) for the actions of a few sick, pathetic people. However, I've come to the conclusion that many liberals in the media don't even have below-average intelligence. Here's a prime example of a progressive making sure that no mean, horrible, racist conservatives blame all Muslims for the recent terrorist attacks: David Sirota (a fool mentioned in one of my previous posts) wrote in one of his stories "Could it be that some Americans actually want to see the kind of bigoted, violent, civil-liberties-trampling reaction we tend to see when terrorism suspects end up being Muslim?". Considering David Sirota was hoping that the terrorists responsible for the attack would be a white conservative, I find his accusation to be hypocritical. In his mind, its OK for liberals to hope for a specific ethnicity of the terrorist, but its not OK for conservatives to do the same thing. And for the record, I can't think of a single conservative commentator or journalist that was hoping that the terrorist was a Muslim. To be honest, I find it sad that we have reached the point where the partisanship in our country has lead people to be hoping that terrorists are a specific race. And why would any American citizen hope  that a fellow American was responsible for murdering several people and maiming several others? Shouldn't we be focused on the victims at this time? Oh, and how about we punish the surviving bomber to the fullest extent of the law? The liberals need to wake up and realize that the majority of terrorist attacks in recent history have been at the hands of Muslim extremists. This is not racist, conservative hate speech, this is fact. We need to focus on stopping these groups before they get the chance to commit more atrocities. What we don't need is pathetic "journalists" like Mr. Sirota promoting a politically correct agenda where anyone who acknowledges that most terrorist attacks have been at the hands of Muslims is considered a "racist".

Remember when ESPN stuck to sports?

     It seems as if there are no media outlets that are without bias these days. Even ESPN has become overwhelmingly liberal over the past several years. A day doesn't go by where there isn't a story about an athlete that's considering coming out as gay, or an athlete that has recently come out gay. Which leads me to this question: Who cares? An athlete's sexual orientation should have nothing to do with his or her performance on the field. Will people watch a football team more if they have an openly gay player on their team? I doubt it. Will they watch that team less? Unlikely. However, ESPN has many journalists who feel compelled to write stories painting gay athletes in a glorified light. LZ Granderson, a progressive journalist for ESPN, states that the first openly gay NFL player won't "come at the right time" but will "be the right person". He goes on to say that Jackie Robinson didn't integrate baseball at the right time, but that he was the right person. Again, a liberal is comparing the gay rights movement to the hardships faced by blacks in the middle of the last century. This comparison is absurd. One last question for ESPN: if a journalist decided to write an article describing the potential reasons why current NFL players may be uncomfortable having an openly gay player in the locker room, would they be allowed to publish it? The answer to this question is a resounding NO. Here's the link to the story mentioned previously http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9169413/no-perfect-gay-nfl-player-come-out

Thoughts on gay marriage

     If you know a progressive, you know how enthusiastic they are about gay rights. I personally hold the opinion that if two consenting adults want to be married, then the government shouldn't prevent them from doing so. However, I find it repulsive that those that consider themselves activists for gay marriage are comparing the movement to the Civil Rights Movement that took place in the 60's under Martin Luther King. To compare the discrimination against homosexuals to the discrimination perpetrated against African-Americans is insulting to the people who took part in the original civil rights movement. When was the last time anyone saw a "gays only" bathroom? How about a "gays only" school? Do gays have to sit in the back of the bus? Have police ever engaged in reprehensible violence against gays in the streets of our major cities? The answer to all of these questions is obvious. Gays are in no way facing the same discrimination that blacks faced during the 50's and 60's. The progressives are comparing the two movements in order to gain momentum and convince uninformed people to join their cause. They are taking an issue that is relatively unimportant to the majority of Americans and trying to turn it into a "civil rights issue". They attack anyone who holds opinions other than their own and consider opponents of gay marriage to be hateful and discriminatory. Which proves something I mentioned in one of my earlier posts: constitutional rights only apply to you if you're on their side. In this case, the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech is only allowed if you are in support of gay marriage. Also, why is it that anytime anyone says the word "fag" its considered "hate speech" and a "homophobic slur". Anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence is capable of understanding that the use of that word is rarely indicative of a person hating homosexuals. The liberal media makes a big deal every time a public figure uses the word and essentially forces that person to apologize. Rather than promoting a society in which we get upset every time somebody uses a word that might be viewed as insulting, why don't we teach people to treat words as what they really are: simply words.

Suspect not read Miranda rights

      As to be expected, the liberals have been doing everything than can to sympathize with this disgrace of a human being. They've taken the fact that he wasn't read his Miranda rights and are rushing to his defense. They question the legitimacy of calling him an "enemy combatant" and think he is not being afforded his constitutional rights. While I believe it would have been in our best interests to read him his rights to avoid any roadblocks in getting this guy on death row, I have no problem with the way he has been treated. The progressives are claiming that he isn't getting his "due process" and are even going as far as to say he is "just a suspect at this point". For those people I have several questions. Did this bomber give the 8 year old boy due process when he placed a bomb right next to him? How about the other two who lost their lives? This man and his brother committed a heinous crime and should be treated as prisoners of war and not citizens of the United States. They intentionally planted these bombs in areas that would cause maximum casualties and debilitating injuries that will haunt the victims for the rest of their lives. They engaged in shootouts with our law enforcement and killed an MIT police officer. In my opinion, to say that these men did anything less than declare war on the city of Boston would be a travesty. Whether this man gets executed or gets life in prison, it won't be enough. Nothing will bring the four murdered victims back to life or give hundreds of people new legs. Anyone who feels compelled to defend this man should be ashamed of themselves.