It should be obvious to anyone with an intelligence quotient in excess of their shoe size that the "tolerance terrorists" are waging an all out war on the essence of American culture. The radical left have succeeded in: controlling the agenda, co-opting the mass media as a propaganda tool, intimidating politicians, inculcating their bastardized political correctness and controlling language.
Last week I wrote about the efforts of Rabbi Daniel Lapin's "Toward Tradition" to stem the tide of political correctness run amok. Lapin and Co. have drawn their line in the sand with a refusal to be terrorized by tolerance.
When I finally had the opportunity to interview Rabbi Lapin I learned a great deal. However, he made an almost passing observation about something that is significant. He tells me, "There are a number of words that you would have thought any living language needs to have and yet they do not exist in ancient Hebrew ... the Lord's language."
He went on to explain that one of them is "retirement," and the other word that has no application in Hebrew and doesn't exist is "tolerance." When he researched it, he found there is no word for tolerance in the Lord's language because things are either good (in which case they ought to be embraced) or they are evil (in which case they should be rejected and denounced).
Metcalf's bromide of "Some people don't want to be confused with facts that contradict their preconceived opinion" is validated routinely and consistently with the increasing frequency of pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square.
Three particularly egregious events recently underscore the obvious.
First, the Honolulu ACLU has proved itself to be so arrogant and so bigoted that its refusal to even listen to views and opinions contrary to their mantra has even alienated its own national president, Nadine Strossen. The Hawaii ACLU Board of Directors has reportedly determined that Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court, because he holds unpopular and right-wing views, ought not to be invited to Hawaii for a debate with Strossen.
The Hawaiian defenders of "free speech" went ballistic. Eric Ferrer, one of the three original objectors, claimed that Justice Thomas is "an anti-Christ, a Hitler, and it's like having a serial murderer debate the value of life." But the most telling comment was when this hyperbole for hypocrisy warned, "There's a chance, even a likelihood, that a lot of people might like his views." And that, of course, would be unthinkable. ...
Second, in an act of unbridled bureaucratic arrogance, hubris and brass, the Washington, D.C., Commission on Human Rights has ruled that the Boy Scouts of America violated the city's anti-discrimination law by expelling two adult Eagle Scouts in 1992 for being gay.
Huh? You may, no doubt, ask the same thing I did when I first read this. Hell-o? What about that Supreme Court ruling last year?
Legal experts note it was the first time such a judgment has been rendered against the Boy Scouts since the Supreme Court ruled last year that the organization -- now pay attention here -- has a First Amendment right to "expressive association" that would be violated if it were forced to admit a gay man.
The D.C. panel working in whole cloth claimed that several distinctions made the Supreme Court ruling inapplicable in the cases of Geller and Pool. Oh yeah? Not! Meanwhile the two sides in the dispute not surprisingly disagree about the 73-page D.C. ruling, as to whether it was a potential precedent for future cases (no doubt an erotic dream that will never reach completion) or an instance of legal chutzpah that will soon be overturned (which is more likely). The commission made a nod to the Boy Scouts' rights but said they "did not have a firm exclusionary policy [against gays] based on a long historical philosophy." Oh really? Not according to the Supreme Court of the land.
The commission also contended that the object of the court's case, Dale, was a public gay activist, unlike Geller and Pool, "who would not send messages about homosexuality or its lifestyle." Finally, the commission argued that because Geller and Pool "are not advocating any particular message," the district's interest in eradicating discrimination outweighs the Boy Scouts' right of expression. What? And just exactly when did the tolerance terrorists gain supremacy over the First Amendment? Did these tolerance Nazis hold a constitutional convention to amend the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the country -- including the Supreme Court -- just didn't get the memo? I don't think so!
Third, and last, a recent Wall Street Journal item "Politicians v. Boy Scouts" observed that "Four out of five Democratic senators vote against the First Amendment."
Think about it. The preeminent phony left wing cabal claiming to defend civil liberties and free speech is either dumb enough or sufficiently arrogant to specifically prohibit the words of a conservative black Supreme Court Justice from even being heard? The "why?" is illustrative of the left's tunnel vision and sufficient to even spark a rebuke from their own national president. And talking about hubris -- those three bureaucratic boobs on the D.C. Human Rights Commission have the stones to "try" to overrule the United States Supreme Court. Again, the "why" is classic -- they just don't like the Supremes' ruling. Remember Maxine "The Mouth" Waters ranting on the floor of Congress during the post-election turmoil. "I don't care about the rules!" Then notwithstanding their oath of office, to "preserve and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," 49 U.S. senators actually voted to specifically discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America and to deny them what the Supreme Court had already validated -- their First Amendment Rights.
The Wall Street Journal in writing about Sen. Jesse Helms' amendment made several salient points. However, two specific items should be highlighted.
The hypocrisy of the would-be controllers of the debate is axiomatic. The left, political correctness and the whole tolerance terrorist brigades are anything but tolerant.
are an abomination founded on a word that didn't even exist in ancient