Archive for the ‘Compassion and Political Correctness’ Category

David and Goliath…not that our president would know the story.

Most of the below article is from an article by Joseph Klein:

Ladies, get out your burkas, don’t bother about your sun tans.

I find it astounding that our president, who continues to preach his “Christianity” no matter the fact he’s attended what, two church services since taking office, and the fact he was born and raised a Muslim, and has a Muslim father and brother, and bows to the king of Saudi, presses his attorney general to sue an Illinois school district.  It’s David and Goliath all over again…not that our president would know the story.  You’d think he’d stay away from “Muslim” issues if he wants to proclaim his Christianity.

From Joseph Klein:

The ‘Is it Legal?’ segment of The O’Reilly Factor recently dealt with a disturbing decision by the Obama Justice Department that has received very little publicity. It is yet another example of the Obama administration’s policy of accommodation to Islamic sharia law, irrespective of its impact on our own society.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to sue a suburban Chicago school district for denying a Muslim middle school female teacher three weeks of unpaid leave to abandon her students and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. The teacher wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if he or she is able to do so.

Ironically, the Obama administration is suing over a practice that discriminates against women. Under Islamic law, a woman is not allowed to perform Hajj alone and must be accompanied by an adult Muslim Mahram (father, husband, son or brother etc.). And for an administration that claims it regards a quality education for our public school students to be one of its highest priorities, it is willing to fight for the “right” of a Muslim teacher to abandon the students in her charge so that she can trek to Mecca for a few weeks.

In any case, note that the religious requirement for a Muslim to perform Hajj is once in a lifetime if financially and physically able to do so. This teacher, Safoorah Khan, had no more than two years of service under her belt at the suburban Chicago school when, in 2008, she decided that she could not wait any longer to make her pilgrimage. After the school district twice denied her request, the teacher wrote the board that “based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj.” She resigned shortly thereafter. In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which punted the case over to the Justice Department after finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred.

This week, Eric Holder’s team in the Justice Department’s civil rights division decided to bring the school district to federal court on Khan’s behalf. The relief that the Obama administration is seeking is a court order requiring the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees’ religious practices and beliefs, to reinstate Khan with back pay and pay her compensatory damages.

End

Had this not been a Muslim issue our attorney general, and president, would never have stuck their noses into it.  I presume there’s lots of precident for this woman to sue…let’s see, another teacher took a three month leave to go to her KKK meeting, or to go to a Scientology camp out, or, or, or…it’s totally rediculous.  Tell her to take a year off so her students won’t be affected by her decision.  I have no problem with that.

My God…opps, I shouldn’t have said that, I’m going to jail….

From Newt:

Anti-Religious Speech Police in America

by Newt Gingrich

Can you imagine high school administrators being threatened with jail if their students said any of the following words? “Prayer,” “stand,” “bow your heads,” or “amen”?

Can you imagine a graduation ceremony in which the word “invocation” was replaced with “opening remarks” and “benediction” was replaced with “closing remarks”—by order of a federal judge? Or a judge declaring that such an order would be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed?”

This sounds like a scenario that might occur under a dictatorship, but it happened earlier this month in the Medina Valley Independent School District near San Antonio, Texas. It is just one recent example of how anti-religious many on the Left have become.

It is bad enough that NBC revealed its anti-religious bias by editing out “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance last weekend.

It is bad enough that President Obama has skipped the phrase “our Creator” at least four times when citing the Declaration of Independence, even when the teleprompter read that we are “endowed by our Creator.”

At least neither NBC nor President Obama threatened to put anyone in jail.

Federal District Judge Fred Biery issued the order to stop the school’s valedictorian from saying a prayer as part of her graduation speech. He did so in the name of the First Amendment, which is supposed to prevent government prohibitions of the free exercise of religion and protect the freedom of speech.

Judge Biery’s decision clearly is not about defending the Constitution. It is the anti-religious judicial speech police at work here in America.

It is time for Americans who are fed up with this kind of repression by an anti-religious judiciary to act decisively. Judge Biery’s decision is so outrageous that the American people should not accept his continued employment on the federal bench.

 

A good liberal…who’s never held a job!

I’ve seen this before on the net, but it came to me again and is worth sharing:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.  Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a Liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was in favour of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.  Based on the Lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.  The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.  He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew.  She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’  She replied, ‘Audrey is barely getting by.  All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA.  She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast.  She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0.  That way, you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’   The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, ‘That’s a crazy idea; how would that be fair?  I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!  Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.  She played while I worked my tail off!’

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party.’

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Republican and Democrat, I’m all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for

everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Well, I forwarded it to you.

Oh, my, oh, my bears and lions and…thank God, rights.

This is great history.  I often quote the plight of the Irish when I hear or read of blacks bemoaning their past in America.  I’m not particularly sympathetic as they were enslaved and sold mostly by blacks to white traders, then brought in, yes, horrible conditions, against their will.  However, it was whites who freed them, whites, for the most part, who gave them equal opportunity.  As much as I bemoan the condition of our borders and the fact the Mexicans are flooding us, most of them come here to work, and are self-reliant.  My bitch is about the ones who don’t, and open borders don’t give us the opportunity to determine who comes and who doesn’t.

Many of us, myself included, use our tough backgrounds as a badge of honor, and I’m not hesitant to brag about the fact that I was raised in county housing, that I had a single mom who worked hard, that I was a “latch-key” kid, that my brother and I had to put ourselves through school, that no one left us a dime, etc., etc.  But I use it, as I said, as a badge of honor, not a complaint about my condition nor as something to blame on someone else.  I do blame our forefathers and particularly those who drafted the bill of rights and the Constitution for the fact I was blessed to be able to change my circumstance.  That blame is the most shining of the badges of honor I wear.

The Irish were utilized in the south, particularly in Louisiana, to work the swamps, for $1.00 a day, when it was thought to risky to send a $3,000 slave to do the work.  And the Irish, as did the blacks, faced signs in the old west that said “Irish need not apply.”  Maybe the fact so many blacks have done so well in this country is because self-reliance was forced upon them, as it was on Irish and as you’ll read below, upon children.  What would breed self-reliance in a person more than being cast away from family and country to a new land, where love was not necessarily part of the equation where you lived and were raised?  It’s a new time.

Today, thank the good Lord and the founding fathers, there are more Irish in America than it Ireland, and I would speculate their standard of living is much higher here, although I’ve visited Ireland and wonder now why one would want to leave, and there are certainly more successful blacks in America than in those African countries from which they came.  It’s a new time, and a better one for many.

Let’s pray we keep it that way, and continue to strive to make it better and better.  God Bless America.

This from delanceyplace.com:

In today’s encore excerpt – the very early British colonizers of America in the 1600s and 1700s needed laborers for their new colonies, and so turned in many cases to convicts, children and other forced migrants:

“[Early British colonizers] needed a compliant, subservient, preferably free labour force, and since the indigenous peoples of America were difficult to enslave they turned to their own homeland to provide. They imported Britons deemed to be ‘surplus’ people – the rootless, the unemployed, the criminal and the dissident – and held them in the Americas in various forms of bondage for anything from three years to life. … In the early decades, half of them died in bondage.

“Among the first to be sent were children. Some were dispatched by impoverished parents seeking a better life for them. But others were forcibly deported. In 1618, the authorities in London began to sweep up hundreds of troublesome urchins from the slums, and ignoring protests from the children and their families, shipped them to Virginia. … It was presented as an act of charity: the ‘starving children’ were to be given a new start as apprentices in America. In fact, they were sold to planters to work in the fields, and half of them were dead within a year. Shipments of children continued from England and then from Ireland for decades. Many of these migrants were little more than toddlers. In 1661, the wife of a man who imported four ‘Irish boys’ into Maryland as servants wondered why her husband had not brought ‘some cradles to have rocked them in’ as they were ‘so little.’

“A second group of forced migrants from the mother country were those such as vagrants and petty criminals whom England’s rulers wished to be rid of. The legal ground was prepared for their relocation by a highwayman turned Lord Chief Justice who argued for England’s jails to be emptied in America. Thanks to men like him, 50,000 to 70,000 convicts (or maybe more) were transported to Virginia, Maryland, Barbados, and England’s other American possessions before 1776. …

“A third group were the Irish. … Under Oliver Cromwell’s ethnic-cleansing policy in Ireland, unknown numbers of Catholic men women and children were forcibly transported to the colonies. And it did not end with Cromwell; for at least another hundred years, forced transportation continued as a fact of life in Ireland. …

“The other unwilling participants in the colonial labour force were the kidnapped. Astounding numbers are reported to have been snatched from the streets and countryside by gangs of kidnappers or ‘spirits’ working to satisfy the colonial hunger for labour. Based at every sizeable port in the British Isles, spirits conned or coerced the unwary onto ships bound for America. … According to a contemporary who campaigned against the black slave trade, kidnappers were snatching an average of around 10,000 whites a year – doubtless an exaggeration, but one that indicates a problem serious enough to create its own grip on the popular mind.’ ”

Author: Don Jordan and Michael Walsh

Title: White Cargo

Publisher: New York University Press

Date: Copyright 2007 by Don Jordan and Michael Walsh

Pages: 12-14

The Federal Reserve, our new moral compass? What a joke that is.

The badge above was “banned” by the Federal Reserve.  I’m so fed up with the Federal Government sticking their nose in where it’s not welcome I’m about to upchuck.

I can’t remember when it was that our Congress passed a law that the Federal Reserve (a private company that controls our banks from a financial aspect) became the moral compass of the country, the judge and jury of a privately owned company’s religious opinions and preferences, the arbiter of what we want to communicate to our customers, of our very most innermost thoughts and beliefs.  It’s gone TOO FAR.

 

This from the U. S. Justice Foundation:

 

Just when we thought that life in America had reached its “lack-of-credibility limit,” this happens. And, even for the politically-correct, this is absurd.

The Federal Reserve has reached a new low. If there was ever any doubt about it, it’s clear now. The “top hat” bankers of America are just as determined as the “top hat” politicians to control every facet of your life. Are you ready for this? The Federal Reserve has become Grinch. They want to control CHRISTMAS! Or, rather, because they think Christmas discriminates against the “Bah, Humbug,” crowd, they want you to put your Christmas in a closet.

The Federal Reserve, or rather, their auditors, banned a small Oklahoma bank from displaying crosses, Bible verses and Christmas buttons!

Federal Reserve inspectors came to the small town of Perkins, Oklahoma (population of 2,272), and told local bank tellers that they may not wear overtly Christian Christmas buttons, or display crosses or other “religious symbols.” The Fed auditors, who visit the bank every four years for an audit, told the employees of a private bank NOT OWNED BY THEM, that they may not have crosses, Bible verses, or Christmas buttons for the Christmas season…and, most ridiculous of all, they could not wear a simple tin button on their clothing to wish their customers a Merry Christmas.

Just when we thought that life in America had reached its “lack-of-credibility limit,” this happens. And, even for the politically-correct, this is absurd.

The Federal Reserve has reached a new low. If there was ever any doubt about it, it’s clear now. The “top hat” bankers of America are just as determined as the “top hat” politicians to control every facet of your life. Are you ready for this? The Federal Reserve has become Grinch. They want to control CHRISTMAS! Or, rather, because they think Christmas discriminates against the “Bah, Humbug,” crowd, they want you to put your Christmas in a closet.

The Federal Reserve, or rather, their auditors, banned a small Oklahoma bank from displaying crosses, Bible verses and Christmas buttons!

Federal Reserve inspectors came to the small town of Perkins, Oklahoma (population of 2,272), and told local bank tellers that they may not wear overtly Christian Christmas buttons, or display crosses or other “religious symbols.” The Fed auditors, who visit the bank every four years for an audit, told the employees of a private bank NOT OWNED BY THEM, that they may not have crosses, Bible verses, or Christmas buttons for the Christmas season…and, most ridiculous of all, they could not wear a simple tin button on their clothing to wish their customers a Merry Christmas.

Thanking God is a fifteen yard penalty?

Gesture to God earns 15 yard penalty….  This ref is getting a gesture from me, involving a single finger!

Want your daughter to go to college? Screw you, Pedro is first in line!

Okay, your college age children want to attend, but so do the children of illegal aliens (up to 35 years old, by the way).  So who do you think will get preference?  Not yours, just because you’ve worked hard as an honest LEGAL American taxpayer all your life.  Not your daughter, just because she’s worked hard to get the requisite grades, and saved her money.  No, the illegals will have preference under the so-called Dream Act that the lame ducks are trying to force through congress—they hate your guts because they were voted out, and want to pass the very legislation that made it happen.  They want to SHOVE IT TO YOU, and this act will do so.  And now that the democrats are on a “cut spending” kick, this new act will only cost upwards of $44 BILLION A YEAR.  That’s cutting spending in the eyes of the liberals.  But don’t oppose it, or you’re a racist.  I think I’ll let the good Lord judge me, and to hell with the compassionista democrats and yes, to hell with the illegals and their kids who want to take advantage of what we’ve all worked for.  Your kids go first!  When all legal Americans who qualify and want to be educated, get educated, then we can take on the rest of the world.  Not before.

Write your congressmen and tell them you’re watching, and the ones who didn’t get voted out in 2010 sure as hell will in 2012 if they vote for this great liberal, vote buying, give-away.

This from the Patriot Update:

Want to know how the lame ducks in Congress plan to “cut” federal spending – which seemed to be a dominating theme of the 2010 elections? They’re proposing a plan to take upwards of $44 billion a year from taxpayers and hand it over to illegal aliens who are in the United States so they can go to college. The plan is called the Dream Act, for Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors, and its critics know it as an amnesty program for illegal aliens. Its supporters say anyone who doesn’t want to spend the money on college subsidies for illegal aliens is “racist.” But policy experts are warning the act is truly transformative and in the end, among other things, would authorize federal loans to literally millions of newly qualified applicants and provide a preference for the children of illegal aliens in state college admissions.