Letter: Personal liberty sustained after Tucson ‘crisis,’ for now, he saysTO THE EDITOR: Moments after the evil in Tucson, the Progressives were fueled by another “crisis” which demanded we citizens yield our rights.
By: Scott Thomson, Maiden Rock, Pierce County Herald
TO THE EDITOR: Moments after the evil in Tucson, the Progressives were fueled by another “crisis” which demanded we citizens yield our rights.
The second amendment needed limits placed on ammunition clips and the first amendment needed to stop the “vitriolic rhetoric.” These feeble attempts to dictate were soon quelled and personal liberty sustained, for now.
These ideas won’t go away as long as there are groups of people that think they know better than you, what is good for you and “feel” the need to impose their will on you. I have referred to the paradigm they use with phrases like “political correctness,” “subjective speech,” “dialectic process” and “post modern thinking.” All are designed to change meaning, replace understanding and produce the desired collective behavior. They all share common characteristics that elevate feelings over fact in the decision making process. For example, they are willing to sacrifice truth by making you “responsible” to speak only that which will be received as emotionally comfortable.
During sales training, I was instructed to use the phrase “I feel” in place of “I think” because the customer can debate your thoughts, but not your feelings. Over time, I have witnessed new ideas and methods being introduced, mostly by academia, in an exponentially larger and destructive context, to introduce fundamental transformation.
In a report entitled “Study: Many college students not learning to think critically,” dated 01/18/2011 on www.mcclatchydc.com, I found support for my arguments. The study followed thousands of students, from 24 U.S. colleges and universities, over a four year period. They found that “Many students graduated without knowing how to sift fact from opinion, make a clear written argument or objectively review conflicting reports of a situation or event…”, “…or how best to respond without being swayed by emotional testimony and political spin”.
This is “Progressivism.”