I love civility; wish there were more of it (yeah, here's the "but"): but I don't like the falseness of saying, "I respect your point of view," or, "I respect everyone's point of view" when it is so far from the truth, it is stretched beyond the molecular limits!Not all points of view or opinions are worthy of respect. I don't respect the point of view that babies can be sucked out of their mother's wombs into a sink, simply because the woman's boyfriend isn't interested; I don't respect the point of view of folks who think America should have no borders and no sovereignty; I don't respect the point of view of those who think any retreat from their religion earns a death penalty; I don't respect the point of view of people who believe that bio-parents who are addicted and abusive should be given chance after chance to straighten out, while their children are left to languish in foster care instead of being adopted by a healthy loving family; I don't respect the point of view of single women, by choice, thinking they are equivalent to a mom and a dad, married and in love. Those are just a few of my favorite "no respect" things. A few weeks back I got into a bit of a row with an acquaintance who had attended the same charity function as I, during which a recipient of an award behaved in a graceless and rude manner because she was at political odds with the host. I mentioned the event in passing and he seemed to be apologetic to her. That revved my engines and we...mostly I...got into it. He is the executor of a large company that makes huge charitable donations. He said that he gives to Pro-Life and Planned Parenthood. He doesn't take sides. Oh, oh - that lit my fire.I told him I thought that was immoral - that he had a responsibility to give financial support to those institutions he valued. He said, "I respect your point of view." I said, "No, you don't and I don't respect yours."Needless to say, he looked surprised. I continued, "You can't possibly respect my position and continue with yours. You don't like confrontation or controversy and therefore you won't take a moral stand. Your goal is to 'feel good' by 'making everyone happy and having them all like you.' I think you're mostly motivated by that, and I see it as a kind of cowardice. I don't respect that. But, I do understand it and you have the right to it."Yeah, I know - that was pretty strong. I did keep my voice low and demeanor as pleasant as possible. And, I hugged him at the end of it and said something about still being "colleagues."I believe, frankly, that our culture and country are at risk because people standing for values are labeled "phobic," and those who believe that America is special are called intolerant.This issue came up on air during a recent call where the caller, like too many folks, was hesitant and intimidated out of stating and standing for her beliefs by her own need to be "nicey nice." Average, decent folk are being scared out of fighting back when confronted by bad or evil.In response to that call, and my comments, Karen Ahmadi emailed: "Your comment today about not having to 'respect' others' views, but to be courteous and polite, was right on. It perfectly fit with the outstanding article I read at Townhall.com by Greg Koukl on ' The Intolerance of Tolerance .' Greg phrases it that we should be 'egalitarian towards people,' but 'elitist toward ideas.' The article does a great job at pointing out the logical and philosophical fallacies of the 'tolerance' position and agenda."I will never say that I respect a person's incorrect viewpoint, but will always seek to be polite and respectful towards the person expressing it."Thanks for speaking truth about the 'Tolerance Emperor' having no clothes!!!"Friends, we've got people coming to America, flying airplanes into our buildings, and planning dirty bomb attacks to kill all Infidels (non-Muslims) and our form of government. When caught, they use the very institutions they're trying to destroy (democracy and our justice system which presumes innocence) to get away with it.A little salt in soup is good, too much is bad. Be careful what you say you respect and what you tolerate. More >>

%%wpcontactform%% More >>

Good grief!' Do you mean that three hours per day, five days per week on radio AND ten or so books AND a website AND a NewsMax monthly column AND guest columns AND interviews on radio and television AND a twice-weekly column for the Santa Barbara News-Press aren't enough opportunities for one 5'3' 110 pound woman to express her opinions?!' Yikes!' How much more could I possibly have to talk about? '''' Lots!' I've decided to begin a blog so that I can give my opinions and perspectives on issues that might not come up in any or all of the above!' I'd like to invite you to send me local news pieces which make your eyelids twitch or just ask me for my knee-jerk opinion about some issue you're curious or confused about.' Just send them to me by clicking 'the 'Remarks' tab at the top of this blog page. You can ask a question, recommend an issue for commentary, or respond to my commentary.' Keep it clear, tight,' and be civil' or your contribution will likely never see the light of day on this blog!'''' Since this first blog is in the middle of holiday shopping, I thought it would be interesting to pass on to you this interesting information from John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 program.' A few weeks ago he presented the facts about Americans and charitable generosity.' He set up a 'test' to verify the statistics that point to political/social conservatives being more financially giving than liberals by having the Salvation Army set up their Christmas Kettle outside the most populous shopping areas in San Francisco and Sioux Falls, S.D.'''' The results?' The folks in Sioux Falls, which is largely Republican, religious and conservative, and of modest income, gave twice as much as the folks in the largely Democratic, secular, wealthy and liberal San Francisco.'''' According to Stossel, 'religion' is the biggest factor in charitable donations.' Evidently, the religious folks, compelled by theology, not only give to their churches, but to other cases as well.'''' During Stossel's appearance on Bill O'Reilly's television program on FOX, the point was made that 'without religious people, most charities would go out of business.''''' When O'Reilly questioned Stossel for the explanation of why liberals give less, while promoting culture wars claiming liberals and Democrats are more compassionate toward the poor and middle class than conservatives and Republicans, the answer was that 'liberals relied on the government to take care of these things.''''' Clever "out," don't you think? More >>

More >>

Read the Terms Of Use here Read the Privacy Statement here Read the Copyright and Trademark Notice here. More >>

More >>

null More >>