Tolerance & Diversity mean Intolerant & Undiverse

The term "tolerance" is being used to advocate intolerance of those who disagree with the advocates. The word "diversity" actually means conformity to someone else' standards.

How is it that these high-sounding ideas don't mean what the plain meaning of the words imply? Especially on college campuses?  I recently wrote to a young friend headed off to college that the advocates of diversity are really involved in a three-step strategy to change generally accepted values, not broaden what is accepted:

Step 1: My values are different from yours, and you need to open your mind to accept values that are different from yours. (After all, you surely don't think you are 100% right about everything!)
Step 2. Once my values (think homosexual behavior then marriage; abortion on demand,  sex-outside of marriage, pornography, easy divorce [because marriage is about making me happy], marijuana use, etc.) are accepted as normal, then conflicting values (like your Christian values) become socially unacceptable.
Step 3. The values that are socially unacceptable need to be outlawed, because no one should be able to "judge" others' acceptable values as "wrong" or bad! So let's make them--the actual practice of biblical Christianity, for instance--illegal.

The end of the line is not a more diverse society, but one that conforms to a new, licentious, vulgar, un-disciplined, anti-Christian set of rules.

As my readers know, I am always interested in the political implications of these things. Liberal politicians embrace these theories of "tolerance" and "diversity" because it furthers their ends of centralized control, i.e. socialism. People who live this way (in bondage to their own flesh, as the apostle Paul described it) become less able to support themselves and more dependent on government. (read "Brave New World")

Eric Metaxes writes HERE about how this is playing out in real life on American college campuses:
.

Proponents say that, in the name of anti-discrimination, colleges must discriminate against Christian groups that seek to maintain their identity and mission—even though these groups welcome anyone to join. Such is the ironic state of “tolerance” in 21st-century America.

I urge you to read his complete Break Point commentary HERE.

Amazing Disappearing Act! All evidence of IRS corruption...

From Tuesday's Patriot Post. How naive can we be?

The Dog Ate Lois Lerner's Homework

The latest twist in the investigation of former IRS official Lois Lerner and the IRS's persecution of tax-exempt Tea Party groups took another troubling turn Friday when the agency claimed Lerner's emails went missing. We're supposed to believe a mysterious computer crash wiped out the vast majority of Lerner's emails covering the period in question -- January 2009 to April 2011 -- while not affecting stored communications for any other time frame, or for any other member of her division, or in the agency as a whole. The odds of such a misfortune taking place without the aid of corrupt individuals looking to obstruct justice are virtually impossible.
Remember when Richard Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, accidently deleted 18 minutes of Oval Office tapes related to the Watergate scandal? Nobody believe that was accidental, either. And as Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer reminds us, "[T]he second article of impeachment for Richard Nixon was the abuse of the IRS to pursue political enemies. This is a high crime. This is not a triviality."
IT professionals repeat the mantra "email is forever." That's particularly the case in any large organization like a corporation or a government agency. Norman Cillo, a former program manager for Microsoft, told The Blaze that government email servers have built-in redundancies, and there is always more than one server in operation. Each server has swappable disk drives that can be removed if they fail, and all email servers use tape backups that can be referred to if the server and the disk drives crash all at once.
Even if Lerner's own computer crashed, it would have no effect on the emails she has sent or received because the emails would be stored on the server, not on her computer. And if it was the server that crashed, why were only Lerner's emails affected, and not any of those sent or received by thousands of other IRS employees? Even then, Cillo explained, the emails could be retrieved because there are backup systems that prevent them from being lost forever, unless someone deliberately flushed them out of the system.
Darrell Issa, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman and head of the IRS tax-exempt investigation, was incredulous. "Do they really expect the American people to believe that, after having withheld these emails for a year, they're just now realizing the most critical time period is missing?" No wonder the announcement was buried in an unrelated letter from the IRS to two senators.
The loss of Lerner's emails further complicates an investigation already stymied by lack of cooperation from the IRS and foot dragging by the Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder has done nothing to move the investigation forward, and under questioning from the House committee, acting deputy U.S. AG David O'Neil admitted having no idea how many prosecutors were working on the case. Now the case moves along a tangent, because investigators have to deal with "missing" emails.
This new level of the investigation should focus on the procedures the IRS uses to secure its data. What was the timeline for the supposed crash, its discovery, and the handling of the data that was lost? Who is in charge of the servers and the data recovery? Why did the required redundancies fail to restore lost data?
This is textbook obfuscation by the IRS, and by the Obama White House in general. The media sycophants who run interference for the president are quick to point out that rogue elements in the IRS are responsible, not Obama. When we look at the long list of this administration's scandals, according to this logic, we are left to assume rogue elements exist in the IRS, the ATF, the State Department, the NSA, Veterans Affairs, the EPA, the Justice Department and so on. With so many corrupt individuals in all these executive-level agencies, at what point does Obama ultimately become responsible? Or when does he admit maybe big government isn't always the answer?
Andrew McCarthy of National Review points out presidential accountability was a very specific element written into the Constitution. One leader of the executive branch, a president, rather than a committee, is vested with a lot of power. "The president is responsible for all the officials and agencies delegated to wield the power the Constitution vests only in him," McCarthy writes. Our president seems to think he remains above responsibility and, even more laughably, above reproach.
In his 2009 Arizona State University commencement address, Obama noted that the university had denied him an honorary degree and "joked" that "President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS." His joke is less funny than ever.

Sex Change Trumps Veteran Care

While his VA administrators devoid of integrity make true American heroes wait months for critical care so they can claim handsome bonuses based on their fraud, our current administration has decided that taxpayers must cover the cost of sex change surgery. It seems too far-fetched to be true, but really, you can't make up bizarre enough stories about the direction President Obama is leading.
The generous freedom we have in this country permits Americans to disfigure their bodies if they wish. You see it every day in public! But this is another example of a law that says they are not merely free to do it, but now are free to force you and me to do it for them by paying the bill. Tony Perkins  wrote about it today. Here is his column, with a few highlights I have added.
Curt
 **********************

(Sex) Change We Can Believe In?

Taxpayer-funded sex changes: They aren’t just for traitors and illegal immigrants anymore! While the rest of the media was racing from story to story over the weekend, HHS quietly tried to disguise the reversal of a 33-year-old coverage ban on gender reassignment surgery. In a 48-hour span that saw the resignation of the VA chief and the potentially illegal release of five top Taliban terrorists, taxpayer-sponsored genital reconstruction almost seems tame by comparison. Every week, the competition for most scandalous decision gets stiffer, as evidenced by this story – which, under any other circumstances, would be front-page news. Instead, it’s just another sign of an administration wildly out of control – and out of excuses – for its taxpayer-funded extremism.
After Friday, HHS has ruled that it’s “no longer reasonable” to expect older Americans to pay for their own sexual reassignments. Instead, it now recognizes the surgery as a “medically necessary” and “effective” treatment for people who can’t come to grips with their own biological gender. Like Denee Mallon. The 74-year-old Army veteran was the driving force behind the change, even going so far as to sue HHS for the benefit – which, according to some estimates, could run as much as $50,000 a procedure. (And we wonder why America is more than $17 trillion in debt?)
The policy, which private insurers are certain to imitate, gives patients the right to petition Medicare to cover their operations. Despite the sky-high costs and an even higher controversy quotient, the Obama administration believes it’s the taxpayers' responsibility to cover an elective body enhancement that may only elevate the mental and physical risks for people suffering from gender confusion. If the government will pay for this, why not plastic surgery for people who don’t feel as old as their age? As if people couldn’t be more disgusted, the double standard remains.
While President Obama is busy financing senior sex changes, wounded veterans are dying for lack of medical care. If you want a snapshot of this administration’s priorities, that’s it. Making matters worse, the move only paves the way for gender reassignment surgeries to be a routinely covered benefit – like abortion. This is exactly what FRC warned about when ObamaCare was passed. In the 2,000-plus pages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there are literally 4,156 issues left to the administration’s discretion. (Or indiscretion, as this case would imply.) People everywhere are realizing – too late – that those issues include outrages like contraception mandates and politically correct surgeries that no Congress would have approved.
That’s why the health care law is so dangerous. It empowers the government to practice politics – instead of empowering others to practice medicine. Americans are free to disfigure their bodies – but they aren’t free to ask taxpayers to foot the bill.