Story of an amazing young girl who was bullied in middle school for being told she's 'not acting her skin color', to becoming Miss Teen USA. Logan West sits down with FNC's Gretchen Carlson, to discuss her story of overcoming the struggles of being bullied and turning it into a positive state-wide program, now being utilized by many of the schools throughout Connecticut.
Showing posts with label Bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bullying. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
Gretchen Carlson - Logan West - From Being Bullied to Miss Teen USA
Story of an amazing young girl who was bullied in middle school for being told she's 'not acting her skin color', to becoming Miss Teen USA. Logan West sits down with FNC's Gretchen Carlson, to discuss her story of overcoming the struggles of being bullied and turning it into a positive state-wide program, now being utilized by many of the schools throughout Connecticut.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Kevin McCullough - The Bully Administration
Last week a North Carolina teacher was put on paid suspension because she got caught bullying her own classroom on the topic of which candidate had been the worse bully years previous.
Bullies--we are told--are the cause of everything from eating disorders to teen suicide.
The Trayvon Martin case had originally been sold through the media as a case in which an older vigilante wanted to bully a young child.
Bullying as a subject itself has even been bullied a great deal. Specifically, the man who started an all out effort to encourage people not to bully sexually confused children, then himself bullied children who shared a different view of faith than he did.
Yet no one seems to be noticing that those who claim to be against the worst forms of bullying are the very ones now exploiting their role in the federal government to bully others.
Hence is the battle before the University of Arkansas Fort Smith.
To be specific, the Department of Justice issued an "advisement" to the university earlier this month. And after having their attorneys review it the university acted on the "advice of counsel" and are following the advisement.
What was the great injustice that the University of Arkansas Fort Smith was committing?
They had refused to allow a 38-year-old male student to use any and all female facilities on campus. So per the communication from the administration, Eric Holder, Barack Obama and company, and acting on the hopes the DOJ would play nice, they caved.
And now the 38-year-old anatomically male student, who goes by the name Jennifer Braly, and refers to himself as a "transgender" (instead of transvestite) has been given campus wide permission to enter any and all female facilities.
Since the university had initially denied the access, I'm sure you're pondering how the DOJ got mixed up in this to begin with. According to Mark Horn, the Vice President of university relations it was pretty simple.
"Because of the stance we took, the individual (Braly) filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the DOJ. We tried to make reasonable accommodation to find 'common' ground, converting a number of bathrooms on campus to gender neutral (single user). But in the eyes of the law (DOJ) (Braly) is entitled to use the bathrooms that she identifies with."So let me understand properly…
Under threat of legal action, point of gun, or whatever authority the executive branch cites, a state-run university must force the visible discomfort of the female students on campus, so that a 38-year-old male, with his male parts intact, can feel "ok" about himself, while putting on women's clothing? (Or in the case of the female locker rooms on campus--taking it off?)
Please also note the undercurrent of this action taken by the Department of Justice. The implication is that if the university doesn't comply the action they take will be based on the withholding of "civil" rights.
Practical question here: what's to keep any number of other men from donning female duds, claiming they feel feminine that day, and hang in locker rooms for say non-"identity"-related rationale?
Understand that this case doesn't involve any claim to sex change. Which from a medical standpoint shouldn't matter either. The human genome and DNA footprint of someone who undergoes a sex change operation still registers as their original gender for the rest of history regardless of what parts they had taken off or put on.
But Braly prefers to live--pretending to be female--while keeping his male parts.
Is it honestly the responsibility of the University of Arkansas to look into whatever dysfunction is being played out in Braly's mind, emotions, and heart and to attempt to re-order their universe to pander to it?
Does the Department of Justice--by turning this into a question of civil rights--and bullying the university into conformity--have any concern in their hearts for the women on campus who are already expressing their discomfort at the idea of a 38 year old member suddenly appearing before them in the locker rooms or bathrooms across campus?
Or would the Department of Justice label those women "unreasonable, hateful, or transgenderphobic?" Worse yet would DOJ seek to punish the women on campus for the natural shock and displeasure that the majority of them will feel at such a revelation?
Certainly the university could dare the DOJ to take them to the judicial branch to attempt objective voices to be heard in the matter. But depending on which circuit, and how long it takes, the university might have to pour millions of dollars to marshal a defense of something that only a generation ago was commonly understood to be ludicrous.
People like Braly are deeply injured and need a vast amount of empathy and compassion. But neither the university campus, nor the public dime should be used as resources to put innocent people at risk at best, or at worst further the dysfunction by allowing the behavior to be encouraged and duplicated.
And people… if they can force the University of Arkansas Fort Smith into conformity, what's to stop them from trying it on Ohio State, the University of Texas, or say you're local parochial private school?
At the end of the day, some of the best people to end bullying were parents who said "Stop… Because I said so!"
In this case, since "We The People" sit in authority over the DOJ, Eric Holder and even President Obama, perhaps it's time we serve as their parent and put an end to the true foolishness of such folly.
Especially since most bullies will only respond to an even stronger authority, an articulate instruction, and a firmer will.
Kevin McCullough
Monday, May 7, 2012
Matt Barber - Dan Savage: 'Tolerant' Bully
They used to arrest middle-aged perverts who get their jollies from talking dirty to children. Today, they get a television show, a nationally syndicated column, a lecture circuit and multiple visits to the Obama White House.You know: “Forward.”
The irony is palpable. Dan Savage, sex columnist and founder of the LGBT anti-bullying “It Gets Better” campaign, has been outed. Not as a homosexual. He’s out and proud in that regard. In fact, Savage pushes his “anything goes” brand of sexual anarchy on kids worldwide. MTV has even given the sex-obsessed radical his own show, “Savage U” – a moral-relativist platform from which to corrupt the kiddos.
Creepy stuff.
No, Savage has finally managed to publicly discredit himself as the anti-Christian bigot and bully he’s always been. Never again will this guy be taken seriously as an anti-bullying crusader.
Savage lectures teens in high schools and colleges around the country on the benefits of “non-monogamy,” the occasional “three-way” tryst and any other disease-spreading sexual impulse that might cross their impressionable, hormone-charged young minds (and many they can’t yet imagine).
Well, recently, rather than just shocking his teenaged audience with vulgar, sophomoric psychobabble as usual, Savage apparently thought it’d be fun to bully the kids with whom he disagreed.
While addressing a crowd of hundreds of high schoolers at the National High School Journalism Convention, Savage launched into an unhinged anti-Christian diatribe. He advised the teens to “ignore the bulls–t in the Bible” about sexual morality. “We ignore bulls–t in the Bible about all sorts of things,” he barked.
He then walked through a list of the same tired left-wing talking points about the Bible – long ago discredited – covering shellfish, virginity, etc. “The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document,” he said (anti-Christian trash we’ve come to expect from the secular left).
But when a hundred or more kids got up and began to walk out on Savage’s anti-Christian rant, the 47-year-old tough guy turned his hostility toward them. “It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansya–ed people react when you push back,” he mocked. Some of the young girls were seen leaving in tears.
“It took a real dark, hostile turn, certainly, as I saw it,” teacher Rick Tuttle told CNN. “It became very hostile toward Christianity, to the point that many students did walk out, including some of my students.
“They felt that they were attacked … a very pointed, direct attack on one particular group of students. It’s amazing that we go to an anti-bullying speech and one group of students is picked on in particular, with harsh, profane language.”
But the only thing surprising is that anyone is surprised. Dan Savage is known in Christian circles as “the gay Fred Phelps.” Phelps, of course, is the similarly cartoonish Westboro Baptist “preacher” who gained notoriety by protesting military funerals with his incestuous brood of pseudo-Christian haters. Savage is Phelps’ photo negative. Whereas Phelps’ hateful mantra is “God hates fags,” Savage’s central message is “I hate God and anyone who loves Him.”
Savage’s primary claim to fame is that he formed the website “Santorum.com,” to create a “Google bomb” that would smear the good name of former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum. On the site he redefined the senator’s last name, Santorum, using language so vile and repulsive that I won’t repeat it. When Christian advocate and Americans for Truth founder Peter LaBarbera asked Savage to take down the website, Savage responded, “I’m asking Peter LaBarbera to go f–k himself.”
Savage also once bragged that he licked the doorknobs at former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer’s campaign office in hopes of giving Mr. Bauer the flu.
Savage told the Daily Pennsylvanian in 2006 that Carl Romanelli, a U.S. senate candidate he didn’t like, “should be dragged behind a pickup truck until there’s nothing left but the rope.” In the same interview, he opined: “Mr. Romanelli should go f–k himself.” He also once said on HBO that he “wished all Republicans were f–king dead.”
Yep, this deviant troglodyte is the face of the left’s anti-bullying efforts. I’ve often said that those wonderfully “tolerant” liberals – the self-styled opponents of “hate” and “bigotry” – are the most intolerant, hateful bigots among us.
Thanks for proving my point, Dan.
Matt Barber
Monday, January 30, 2012
Jeannie DeAngelis - 'Menacing' Barack Bullies Jan Brewer
Apparently, sexist "menacing" behavior is only sexist and menacing if the accusation involves a Republican male and a Democratic female. Who can forget back in 2007 when Rick Lazio was accused of aggression against Hillary Rodham Clinton when, during a New York Senate debate, in a display of staged showmanship, Rick Lazio came out from behind his podium waving a piece of paper demanding Hillary concur in the form of a signature.
Liberals went absolutely wild after Mrs. Clinton complained that Lazio "invaded her personal space." The media used the opportunity to reduce the woman in the perpetual pantsuit to a blithering damsel in distress. Despite Hillary making light of the incident and shaking Lazio's hand in agreement, after the fact her spokesman, Howard Wolfson, exploited the situation and called Lazio's behavior "menacing."
Never once mentioning Mrs. Clinton's assertive demeanor during the debate, the New York Times reported that "[m]any supporters of Mrs. Clinton said they found Mr. Lazio to be pushy and disrespectful during the debate in Buffalo -- bullying her in a way that he would not have bullied a male opponent."
Lazio responded by saying, "The idea that somehow that there's a double standard because you're a man or a woman, and you can't make a point forcefully if you're a man, and the person you're making the point with is a woman, I just think that's sexist."
Lazio added, "I don't think people in the Senate worry about whether you're a man or a woman," which is usually true, unless of course a Democratic woman being tied to the tracks by a villainous conservative male stands to gain liberal carpet-bagging political points.
New York voters were manipulated into believing that fearless Hillary recoiled in fear because her opponent, on a stage in Buffalo in front of hundreds of people, walked a few feet from his podium over to hers. In an attempt to depict the always-smiling Rick as a threat to women, the left milked the incident by portraying Hillary as a powerless victim, which ultimately cost Lazio the election.
Fast forward five years and a male liberal president is peeved over a book written by a conservative female Arizona governor. Stepping off Air Force One onto the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona, rather than being handed a contract similar to the one Lazio attempted to get Hillary to sign in Buffalo, Barack was given a handwritten letter by Governor Jan Brewer inviting him to lunch and a visit to the beleaguered border.
Instead of accepting the invitation, "It's All About Me" Obama felt it was imperative to let Governor Brewer know, right there on the tarmac, that he didn't appreciate her not treating him cordially in her book "Scorpions for Breakfast," where she said that during her tense 2010 meeting at the White House, Obama made her feel "like a little kid."
Six-foot-plus Obama voiced his disapproval of Brewer's account in the book as he towered over the tiny woman. And although when Obama later spoke to Diane Sawyer he shrugged off the incident as inconsequential, Brewer shared that during the confrontation "she felt a little threatened by the exchange."
Ms. Brewer said that in a tense one-on-one interaction, the President "indicated at that point in time that he was a little uncomfortable, a little unappreciative, if you will, of my book in the way that he was portrayed in it. And I felt a little unnerved by the way that he spoke to me about it."
In other words, in this case it was a Democratic male who, according to Brewer's interpretation of what happened, was indeed "menacing." Under other circumstances, even without corroborative proof, a similar accusation by a female would be instantly met with righteous indignation and vocal concern by the defenders of feminine sensibility residing on the left.
Hypocritical liberals who, if a conservative man is involved, will always defend a liberal woman, are now saying that Barack Obama was put upon by a disrespectful, finger-wagging "racist" named Jan Brewer. What does it say about Democrats when a conservative woman accuses a man of intimidating behavior and the duplicitous left, quite out of character, is willing to disregard the allegation of male hostility and give the benefit of the doubt to a menacing bully?
The difference is obvious when compared to the way the left reacted to Hillary Clinton being approached on a fully-lit stage in front of hundreds of people who heard every word Rick Lazio said. Now, rather than defend a pint-sized woman's claim that she was verbally smacked down by a powerful man historically known to be "thin-skinned," the left is more than willing to abandon their usual condemnation of perceived sexist aggression toward women and side with a hypersensitive bully merely because he's a liberal.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Mike Adams - The Bullied Gene
My most memorable experience with bullying came during the 1972-73 school year when I was a student at Whitcomb Elementary School in Clear Lake City, Texas. The highlight of the year was Mrs. Ogden who was a total babe (sorry for the antiquated language but I’m telling a story about the 1970s). The lowlight of the year was dealing with some punk named Brian who sat next to me during the last part of the spring semester. Brian was constantly bragging about how tough he was – probably because he was short and had a Napoleon complex.
Eventually, Brian’s bragging about his fighting ability got old – even for Brian. So, one day, he challenged me to a fight on a specific day at a specific time in the schoolyard. Like a wimp, I faked being sick that day so I could stay home and avoid the confrontation. That strategy backfired. After wimping out on my scheduled confrontation with Brian he issued another challenge. And that led to another absence from school, which was excused by another fake illness. My mother was beginning to catch on.
Fortunately, the end of the year was near and I got to spend the summer at home and away from the bully in my second grade class. My parents even sent me to a baseball camp at nearby San Jacinto College where I would be instructed by real college baseball players. I wasn’t aware that Brian’s best friend Mike would be attending the same baseball camp.
I wasn’t really expecting it when Mike came up behind me and shoved me in front of a bunch of the other little league players – many of whom were also my schoolmates. But the second I turned around and saw him I knew that he had shoved me for one reason and one reason only: His best friend Brian had told him I was a wimp who wouldn’t stand up to a bully. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances. I punched him in the mouth.
After Mike put his hand to his mouth and realized he was bleeding there was a real look of horror on his face. So I punched him again – this time in the nose. And after Mike sunk to his knees and started waving his hands in surrender I began to hit him with a barrage of uppercuts until he was lying on his back in the middle of the outfield crying like a little girl.
The next spring when I was standing in line for a snow cone after a game in Bay Area Park I saw Mike and Brian in the line ahead of me. Mike acknowledged me and asked if everything was “cool” between us. After I told him it was “cool” Mike turned to Brian and said “He really beat the crap out of me last summer.” So we all became friends and no one bullied anyone after that.
That’s how we dealt with bullying when I was a kid. Someone picked on someone until he got fed up and learned that he had to defend himself. It was all a part of learning to be a man. When the inevitable fight was over the bully and the bullied became friends. And no one really contemplated shooting up the school in retaliation.
But today things are different. The state is increasingly seeing itself as the agent responsible for stopping bullying. And they are increasingly interested in monitoring bullying throughout all levels of the educational process. At my university, there is actually a guide that directs students to various government resources that can help students who are experiencing bullying.
Interestingly, the guide defines bullying as “the act of intimidating a weaker person to make them [sic] do something.” Since other campus programs focus on the disproportionate bullying of homosexuals this seems to be a tacit admission that homosexuals are indeed “weaker person(s).” In other words, the implications of their approach to this topic have not been well-thought-out. Few things are “thought” through in higher education today. People generally “feel” their way through problems.
Speaking of educators, they are the ones most likely to jump on the anti-bullying bandwagon. And when they do there is always a plethora of recommendations and strategies focusing on government intervention – all organized within the framework of our public schools and funded by the over-burdened taxpayer.
Some people believe the government should stop bullying because we have so many defenseless effeminate young men in the public school system. But I believe we have so many defenseless effeminate young men in the public school system because people believe the government should protect them from bullying. That’s the difference between the liberals and me. And I’m pleased to offer my advice at no expense to the taxpayer.
Put simply, the question of whether one will or will not be bullied is largely a matter of choice. You can either remain the boy who is bullied or you can become the man who fights back. I don’t think the former are restricted by what is in their genes. More likely, it’s just what’s missing in their jeans.
Mike Adams
Mike AdamsRelated Post: Why Do Some Need Special Rights?
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)