Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

On May 21, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the counter-shariah and counter-jihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been cataloged by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”

Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death

All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda

It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001.

Vatican Canonizes Two Dead White Guys, Ignores Obama

While some undoubtedly ignorant people today made much ado about the nothing engendered in the Vatican’s redundant elevation of two dead old white males into so-called “sainthood”, reasonable people are asking a more important question: “Why was Barack Obama ignored?”

“It is obviously blatant racism,” said a non-white Hispanic writer for the famous and intellectually impressive New York Times. “After all,” he added with less outrage than we had expected, “Obama won a NOBEL PRIZE FOR CHRISSAKES! If THAT doesn’t qualify him for sainthood, what the hell does?”

“And by the way,” he continued with more outrage than we had expected, “why the hell are you asking a MALE writer? Why don’t you talk to some WOMYN, you sexist neanderthal?”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated for the record, “This proves what I’ve been saying since I thought of it a couple of minutes ago,” Reid said. “The Catholic Church is nothing but another front for the Koch Brothers. ‘Koch’ and ‘Pope’ are both spelled with 4 letters with an ‘o’ as the second letter. Do I have to draw you a picture?”

Surprised by the controversy, apologists for the Catholic Church were quick to proffer the weak excuse that candidates must have miracles attributed to them, somehow implying that this requirement would rule Obama out.

But even these non-believers have to concede that Obama’s mere election to the presidency in mean, racist America was a divine event in itself, a supernatural occurrence only overshadowed by Saint Barack’s greatest wonder of all, the Miracle of Free Healthcare for Everyone (aka the Affordable Care Act.)

According to MSNBC’s resident expert on religion, “The ACA beats that loaves and fishes thing Jesus did by a mile.”

In midtown San Francisco, a grassroots religious activist whom we inadvertently awakened from midday meditation induced by medicinal marihuana, offered this blunt assessment: “What did these John Pope guys that the Catholics are all worked up about do? Fix a couple of broken fingers? Barack Obama raised a whole car company from the dead! Yeah, GM is alive and Osama is dead! In your face, John Pope!”

But while distressing in the short term, the anger and outrage Americans are feeling at today’s slight by the Vatican may ultimately be a blessing in disguise. Analysts think it may finally bring about a much needed reassessment of the role played by some of the traditional so-called religions in our daily lives.

Perhaps it is time that the country dispenses with the practice of archaic, superstitious religious practices funded by right-wing billionaires and institutes a state-administered people’s religious tradition where saints can be democratically elected instead of chosen by a racist, homophobic oligarchy. Not only will this bring about more diversity in the ranks of those declared to be saints but will allow non-religious people, long excluded from taking part in canonical activities, a greater voice in the way in these affairs are governed.

After all, why fool around with a sort-of-god when you can have the real thing?

This Black Does Not Think Bundy is Racist

Pick a card, any card. Racist. Sexist. Homophobic. We all knew it was only a matter of time before Democrats/Liberals played one or more of their Big Three Cards to silence, intimidate and crush opposition to their latest power grab/tyrannical attack on our freedom.

With a majority of Americans taking rancher Cliven Bundy’s side against Obama’s BLM thugs, Democrat Harry Reid concluded that it was time to play their old faithful, tried and true race card. As Gomer Pyle use to say, “Surprise. Surprise.” We knew it was coming.

This is how the Left rolls. When America rallied around Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after being targeted for destruction by the Left, the Left played a twofer on Robertson; accusing him of being homophobic and a racist.

Thank God it did not work. Coming to Robertson’s defense, conservatives played their ultimate trump card which overruled all the Left’s lies, distortions and evil intent. Our ultimate weapon is the Truth & Righteousness Card. I believe boldly and confidently standing up for truth and righteousness always defeats evil. And make no mistake about it, the Democrat, liberal, progressive and socialist agenda is evil.

The Left’s vision for America is counter to the Will of God and the human spirit. Their anti-God agenda places man on the throne as the ultimate power, able to fix everything – the environment, income inequality, equal outcomes and everything under the sun via legislation. The Bible says, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God.”

Not to wander too far off topic, back to the Left’s nonsensical allegation that Bundy is a racist.

Any decent fair-minded human being would understand that Bundy was condemning the slavery of government dependency in his comments regarding Negros. The elderly gentleman is a rancher who is not media savvy, nor is he schooled in the nuances of political correctness.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/R6UWy9wolLg[/youtube]

The Left are not decent human beings. Their bully minions went on high alert viciously in pursuit of a “gotcha” comment to squelch Bundy’s proven leadership and ability to inspire millions to push back against the Obama regime.

Prominent conservatives running for the tall grass to get away from or running to microphones to denounce Bundy is testimony to their fear of the Left’s high tech lynching machine. It truly sickens me.

I hate allowing jive turkey Leftist bullies to push us around. Rather than conservatives fighting back, far too many cower in fear and allow the Left to proclaim what is considered racist. It reminds me of the school yard when I was a kid. The only way to defeat bullies or at least gain their respect was to punch them in the face.

Before a Leftist’s hack accuses me of advocating violence, I am talking about “politically” delivering a hard left hook to the Left’s jaw by standing up for Bundy.

Mr. Bundy spoke the truth about cradle-to-grave government dependency wrecking havoc in the black community. We all know this. But any white person who dares to acknowledge the huge elephant in the black community’s living room is vilified and branded a racist; Bill O’Reilly, Congressman Paul Ryan and now Cliven Bundy. Meanwhile, black families continue to suffer and vote monolithic for Democrats who vow to fix their problems, but never do.

Black relatives of mine (several died young) lived wasted lives because they were addicted to government dependency. They were Democrat party slaves, enslaved with chains far more powerful than steel; mental and emotional slavery. My relatives were robbed of the self-esteem, pride and joy of individual achievement and earning ones way.

Democrats and liberal media I trump your race card against Bundy with my Truth and Righteousness card. You lose! Go peddle your despicable crap elsewhere.

I am a black conservative whose admiration and respect for Cliven Bundy remains unwavering. Mr. Bundy, myself along with millions of good decent Americans have your back. Hang in there my patriot brother. God bless.

RELATED STORIES: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics: In 20% of American Families, No One Works
Chicago Public Schools Now Phoning Home to Make Sure Kids Are Signed Up for Welfare
Ownership of Federal Land – Answers Suggested by the Bundy Standoff

Why the United States should adopt Mexico’s Immigration Laws

Members of Congress are harming our society by overwhelming us with legal and illegal aliens. Perhaps they should consider adopting Mexico’s immigration laws? Since the majority here are Mexicans they should understand and appreciate being judged under Mexican rules.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”

Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.”

The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.”

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

  1. Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
  2. A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity.
  3. A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number.
  4. Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be Imprisoned. Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.
  5. Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different is subject to fine and imprisonment.
  6. Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as Felons. Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.
  7. Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
  8. Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison . Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population States…”A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.”

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. Foreigners who have contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported.

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals .Under the law, A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.

A Lesson in Democratic Party Hypocrisy

What do Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Michele Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson and T.W. Shannon all have in common?

Calm down Joseph. I see your hand, but I want someone else to answer for a change. No takers? OK Joseph.

You are correct. They are hated by liberals and Democrats. Tell us why? Correct again Joseph. They are women and minorities who honor God, family and country. They are self-reliant, extremely successful and do not view themselves as victims.

Liberals and Democrats will not tolerate such liberated independent thinking by women and minorities. It threatens the foundation of the Democratic Party which is built on insidious evil lies, class envy and victim-hood-ism.

Very good Joseph, please continue.

For decades, liberals and Democrats have been indoctrinating women and minorities; filling their heads with lies such as America is eternally racist and sexist. They claim the only way for women and minorities to succeed is through Democrat led government mandated lowered standards, entitlements and special concessions.

Women and minorities who succeed via education, right choices and hard work, without Democratic Party intervention, upset the Democrats’ apple-cart. These uppity women and minorities must be silenced at any and all cost.

But wait a minute Joseph. Are you saying that these self-proclaimed heroes of women and minorities would actually seek to punish and destroy them? Oh, I get it. You are saying their faux-compassion is nothing more than a PR campaign promoted by their buddies who dominate the mainstream media.

Liberals and Democrats do not give a hoot about women and minorities other than their usefulness in furthering the socialist/progressive agenda. Their mantra is continue your monolithic voting for us and we will continue upping the entitlements and keep rich white racist conservative Republicans at bay. Despicable.

Excellent points Joseph.

Because they thrive on perceived victimized voting blocs, that explains why liberals and Democrats will not seriously address epidemic levels of black out-of-wedlock births, school dropouts, unemployment, urban poverty, black on black crime and genocidal abortion rates.

They became hysterically outraged when Bill O’Reilly and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan compassionately dared to address issues which are devastating the black community.

National race relations and the lives of women and blacks are considered acceptable collateral damage in the liberal’s and Democrats’ implementation of their socialist/progressive agenda.

Joesph, please define “socialist/progressive agenda”.

Their agenda includes banning God from the public square to install a secular society, homosexual marriage, illegal immigration which means new Democrat voters, late term abortions and continuously increasing the size and overreach of government. Their goal is to have as many Americans as possible dependent on government (unprecedented 48 million on food stamps, over 90 million unemployed and Obamacare) which equals government having total power and control over every aspect of our lives.

Anyone, particularly women and minorities, who promote traditional family values and Christian faith is problematic for their PR campaign of indoctrinating the American people, particularly women and minorities.

This also explains liberal’s and Democrats’ high tech raping of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Condoleeza Rice and others. Liberal celeb Cher called Sarah Palin a “dumb C-word”.

Rabid liberal Bill Maher called Michele Bachmann a “bimbo”. He also called Sarah Palin the C-word and a “dumb twat” with no rebuke from the liberal infected mainstream media. Can you imagine the media feeding frenzy had a conservative used the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Glaring hypocrisy.

Would anyone else like to chime in? OK Joseph, the floor is yours.

Democrats claiming that Republicans have launched a “war on women” is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black and a media supported PR game. Democrats are obsessed with women killing their babies via abortion which is the leading cause of death in America annually.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is attempting to silence the movie, “Honor Diaries” which exposes violence against women. Only conservative leaning Fox News is the lone media outlet informing the public. Due to political correctness, liberals and Democrats remain mute.

But wait Joseph. Please forgive me for interrupting. It has been my understanding over the years that liberals and Democrats are the great saviors of women.

Say what? OK, now I understand. Political correctness and furthering their fundamental transformation of America always trumps our God given freedom, liberty, human suffering and lives. This is cruel, evil and glaring shameless hypocrisy.

Well done Joseph. Very well done.

Unlike liberal teachers, I will not give every student a gold star simply for showing up. I am giving you Joseph a gold star because you earned it. You did the work. Congratulations!

RELATED STORY: Media + Academic Bias

Voter’s Remorse Over Obama

I don’t recall when I first wrote about Obama telling lies, but it surely must have been early in his first term, if not even earlier in the 2008 campaign. So much of the information about his life was subject to question that it raised my concern.

The way Obamacare was reamed through a Congress that hadn’t even read the bill put me on full alert. No Republican voted for it.

When you have spent your early years as a journalist as I did you tend to develop a healthy skepticism regarding politicians. There are some very good people who go into politics, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who see it as an easy way to line their pockets. They are the “Eddie Haskell’s” if you are old enough to remember the unctuous character from “Leave It To Beaver.” Glad-handers, back-slappers, and generally smooth talkers.

I was not surprised to read a February 19 article in the Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard. “Poll: Only 79% of Obama voters would vote for him again” was the title and my first response was surprise that that many would still vote for him. Only???

In the poll 71% of the Obama voters now inclined to vote for someone else if they had the chance said they ‘regret’ their vote to reelect the President. So a majority of those taking The Economist/YouGov.com poll would vote for him again, but nearly all regret having done so.

This is a definition of stupidity. I think Obama and his cohorts counted on this high level of indifference to the facts about his first term.

Among the sample of those who would vote for someone else if they could, 100% of the Hispanics said they would and 80% of the whites said they would. However 61% of the blacks said they would still vote for Obama. It strikes me that many in the African-American community are quick to speak out against any perceived prejudice, but when it comes to electing Obama, skin color was a major factor. I suspect that many are unaware of how Obama’s policies have left the black community with soaring numbers of unemployed, far in excess of other racial groups.

Among women 84% said they would vote for someone else, but just 61% men agreed. The most surprising element of the poll was that 55% of Democrats—yes Democrats—wished they had not pulled the lever for Obama and 71% of independents agreed.

All second term Presidents achieve lame duck status at some point when their power to influence the Congress to support their programs kicks in. Arguably, Obama achieved that in 2010 when voters returned power in the House of Representatives to Republicans. The Senate’s response—mostly Majority Leader Harry Reid’s—was to deny any but a few of the many bills generated in the House an opportunity to be debated and voted upon.

The gridlock that resulted and which Obama endlessly decries was created by the Democrats in the Senate.

Efforts by Republicans were rebuffed along with all manner of charges that they were anti-women and anti-immigrant, among other absurdities. When the Republicans tried to get the insane borrowing and spending under control by shutting down the federal government as a response to raising the credit limits, they were portrayed as political cavemen.

AA - Obamacare DisasterObama is a President who has made it clear that he considers the Congress as an obstacle to his transformation of the nation from a capitalist to a socialist economy in which Big Government functions as the re-distributor of taxpayer funding with an emphasis on programs that, like food stamps, added millions to that handout.

It took the launch of Obamacare to make it abundantly clear how incompetent the Obama administration was and is. The impact on the stagnant job market saw jobs disappear or be turned into part-time, lower-wage positions. People discovered they could not keep their family physician or specialist. Even access to nearby hospitals was denied for some.

We are now being told that being unable to find work is an opportunity to pursue one’s hobbies. Denigrating working for a living is so un-American it is mind-boggling.

The media coverage of Obama’s first term and now the first years of his second protected him against the failure to revive the economy after the 2008 financial crisis. The scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi were shunted aside so that the passage of time would diminish their impact. Those who reelected him were not paying attention! Or they just didn’t care.

One can only hope voters are paying attention now and, in the November 2014 midterm elections, they will elect Republican candidates who will have an opportunity—particularly in the Senate—to limit the damage that Obama continues to inflict on the economy and in the area of foreign affairs.

Based on the poll, it took Obama voters over five years, going on six, to conclude they had made a bad choice—but 79% would still vote for him!

That members of Congress, pundits, and others now routinely call Obama a liar is a good sign because he is. But he is also still President of the United States of America and I suspect he doesn’t care what people say about him anymore.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Peoples Cube.

Humor When Discussing Islam

Mohammed cartoonist Kurt Westergaard

Like many Americans I enjoy a bit of humor throughout my day. If we can’t laugh then we should deport ourselves to North Korea and look like 10 million cloned zombies.

I can’t count the number of times I visited a mosque around one of our holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving or Easter. The Muslims had no problem talking about our Christmas as being nothing but a big joke, and how children around the world believe in a fat man with a red suit. Many, many Muslims openly disgrace Jesus by calling him just another man. They say Jesus was actually Muslim (even before Islam came about).

When I visit mosqes around Thanksgiving I have heard the members talk about how silly it is for Americans to give thanks to a country that is not based around Allah and Mohammed.

During my visits to mosques around Easter I hear the jokes of how Christians worldwide believe in a yellow Easter bunny and how they love a simple man like Jesus who popped out of a grave after he had been dead three days. Oh how the loving, caring, and peaceful Muslims enjoy the dehuminization of Christians and Jews, but cringe and cry when a Christian or Jew pokes fun at anything Islamic.

The sad part about how Muslim men and women joke about Christian and Jewish beliefs, is that they do it in front of their children. Our government then wonders why we have Muslim teenagers murder people at the Boston Marathon. Our government calls the murders of our troops at Fort Hood by a very practicing Muslim as work place violence, but fools like Harry Reid call ‘Rancher Bundy and his supporters Domestic terrorists!

For many years I have been studying Islam and counter-terrorism. To win any war you must know the weakest areas of your enemy. In regards to Islam the weakest point centers around the ‘Blasphemy of anything Islam’. In war you want to hit them anywhere that makes the enemy act irrationally. If you can make them become stressed, tired, and so full of rage that they can’t think logically, then you have a chnce of winning.

There are thousands of Islamic leaders and their supporters who follow my Newsletters. I want this. I am pleased to say there are thousands of American Patriots who keep up with my work, but I am thrilled to have supporters of Islam read my points of view. When I had undercover researchers inside CAIR National I had blogs directed toward CAIR Executives such as Nihad Awad, Corey Saylor, and good old lying Dougie Hooper. The first thing these placebos did was to turn on their computers and see what Dave Gaubatz had written about them the night before. Then they became extremely mad, were stressing out, and spent their days whining and crying about what I was writing. This is when they would make mistakes. My interns were able to watch their every move.

I searched the internet for some of the funniest cartoons pertaining to Old Yeller Prophet Mohammed. Read, look, and share with thousands. This will cause Islamic leaders to focus on suing and murdering Dave Gaubatz and distract them from planning future terrorist attacks like 9-11. Laugh my friends!

faces of mohamed gallery

Photography, drawings, depictions of the human face of Mohammed is haram (unlawful) in Islam. This montage is courtesy of Face-of-Muhammed.blogspot.com.

In closing: Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old, sexually abused her until she was nine years old, then raped an innocent child. This is not humorous or funny in any way. This is why we have to destroy the Islamic ideology. If it takes putting out cartoons about Mohammed, then that is what should be done.

RELATED STORY: 1 In 4 Swedish Women Will Be Raped By Muslims As Sexual Assaults Increase 500%

Atheism, Evolution and Secular Humanism Masquerading as Science Against the Bible and Creation

God-Architect

God as The Architect. From: The Frontispiece of Bible Moralisee, Circa 13th Century.

Science and the Bible are not in conflict, because they have the same Author. The issue is how one’s belief can shape the interpretation of our findings. There are thousands of scientists who are also Christian or Jewish and who find it unlikely if not impossible that everything we see in the universe, including life on earth, came from a Big Bang in contrast to what the Bible says.

Science depends on research. Consider our limited opportunities–our lives are brief; our vision is limited; and we can make huge mistakes, when it comes to events we think were before Bible history. Here are a few examples:

  • How often the supposed deductions from some scientists are revised or cast aside;
  • With what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years;
  • How the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another.

Considering all this, do we prefer to trace our descent from germs and mollusks and apes when we could have an infinitely better genealogy: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27.

We will look at some scientific evidence, but first we see Bible history is supported by the science of archeology back to Genesis 11. a chapter with the Towel of Babel that is the basis of the European Union poster, “Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice.”

There is archeological support for Noah’s ark in addition Christ’s reference to Noah in Matthew 24:37. It is intesting that the Bible says eight people were in the ark and the Chinese character for flood is a boat with eight people.

But culture goes even further back than Genesis 5 to support the creation week of Genesis 1, 2 because cultures worldwide have observed a 7-day week from antiquity, and their word for the 7th-day is a derivative of Sabbath, Shabbat, Sabado, in most languages.

Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, visited hundreds of college campuses and talked with many professors, some of whom could not bring themselves to believe in such a book of myths as the Bible. But on closer questioning, most them were embarrassed about the simplest questions about it and confessed that they were not ready to accept the moral obligation that belief in Scripture meant.

On the other hand, Wayne Carlson, an atheist was dying of cancer and told his brother, a chaplain, that in the end, life doesn’t make much sense if there is no God. He had a change of mind, which is what the Bible calls repentance.

Dr. Antony Flew, famed atheist, when he came to appreciate the complexity of the DNA molecule, surrendered his view of atheism and accepted God as the the best alternative.

There are numerous systems in the body requiring complex interaction, like a cascade of eight reactions in sequence for the clotting of blood. If we needed millions of years for these to have evolved, the Neanderthal man would have bled to death when he cut himself. The development of the eye is infinitely more complex. Intelligent Design implies a Designer.

Dr. Robert Gentry, a nuclear physicist who believed in evolution until his discovery of pleochroic halos in granite offered irrefutable evidence against the evolutionary theory that this world exploded off the sun and cooled over eons.

Etched within Earth’s foundation rocks – the granites – are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the split-second radioactive decay of primordial polonium..

The following analogy shows how polonium microspheres – or halos – contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. But the halos support both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock is like an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have been preserved only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles in ice would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy systems of the universe tend to run down and tend to disorder unless acted upon by some outside force. This is seen when our desk needs organizing, the kitchen sink needs cleaning or the garage is chaos. Things don’t get organized by themselves.

A scientist cited in TIME Magazine said, that to believe everything came from a “Big Bang” is like thinking a jumbo jet came from an explosion in a junk yard. We might wonder how our planets all came to orbit around the sun at such a huge variation in distance, not drawn back to the sun by gravitation, nor flying off into space. And how did the planets get moons? Saturn has 62 moons so far.

Scientist Bill Nye in a recent debate seen by 5+ million, wished for predictability, but science is about observing facts, not about predicting them. By contrast, in his parable of Matthew 22:7, Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred less than 40 years later in 70 AD. He also gave a head’s up sign for his followers so that not a Christian lost their life in that holocaust. The point is that those signs could reapply this spring if a 3rd Intifada develops.

Amnesty for Illegals Cannot be Defended

I am totally perplexed by Republicans who advocate amnesty for those who entered the U.S. illegally. We Republicans are supposed to be the party of law and order, a party that stands on clearly defined principles. Let’s cut through the pompous rhetoric: The issue of amnesty is only about cheap labor. All the other arguments are merely background noise. With the national unemployment rate just under 8 percent, how can you argue that illegals are doing jobs that Americans refuse to do?

With all the unemployed engineers (partly because of the shutdown of NASA’s Space Shuttle program), how do you justify increasing the number of H-1B visas? The special visa allows companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations for up to six years. How can six years still be considered temporary?

How do you explain to a kid in Virginia that he or she has to pay out-of-state tuition to attend the University of Maryland while but a student in the country illegally is allowed to pay in-state tuition? Why should someone in the country illegally be able to obtain a benefit that even an American citizen can’t have? Aren’t these Republicans supporting discrimination against American citizens in their lust of the Hispanic voter?
Linking amnesty to winning the Hispanic vote is not a winning or sensible strategy. One has nothing to do with the other. There is no unanimity within the Hispanic community on the issue of amnesty, therefore why are some operatives linking this issue to the future of the Republican Party? One can be against amnesty without being mean and nasty. But to equate supporting amnesty as a prerequisite to proving that you are not mean and hateful is an insult to our intelligence. As if this weren’t bad enough, can someone please explain to me the logic of any Black person supporting amnesty when the Black unemployment rate is in double digits?

We can have honest disagreements on the issue of amnesty; but please don’t give me the perverted reasoning supporters of amnesty have been using: “it’s an act of love,” “they are only looking for a better life,” “it’s not their fault.”

But these same proponents who want to justify ignoring the law based on some irrational, emotional tick refuse to apply the same empathy towards “Pookie” and “LaQueesha,” who represent inner city America.

When “Pookie” gets arrested for carrying a recreational amount of crack and get sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years for a first time, non-violent offense, where are these Republican thespians advocating for an empathetic approach to law enforcement? When a Black woman in Florida fires a warning shot in the air to stop an abusive former husband from beating her and gets 20 years mandatory minimum, where are the Republican voices of empathy?

If we are going to claim to be a nation of laws, then we can’t allow emotion to cause the unequal distribution of justice to continue. If your basis for giving amnesty to illegals is “their intent”—they only want to make a better life; then how can you not apply the same logic to “Pookie” and “LaQueesha?” Can you not make the same argument that they only want to make a better life for themselves and their families?

Pro-amnesty Republicans sound like a bunch of liberals when they refuse to advocate for the enforcement of current immigration law because they claim to know the “intent” of the law breaker. These same pro amnesty members of the House and Senate have been relentless in accusing President Obama for not being trustworthy on health care (“you can keep your own doctor”), but are willing to work with and trust him on the enforcement side of the immigration debate.

If you can’t trust Obama on healthcare, how can you trust him on immigration?

RELATED STORY: Illegal Aliens, Non-Citizens Caught Voting In Florida In Vast Numbers

The Snowden and Putin Show

When Edward Snowden’s leaks about alleged NSA and GCHQ were first released, the rogue contractor found a wide range of defenders.  From sections of the left and right, the revelations were seized upon as a demonstration that security surveillance had become a dark force of oppression.  ‘The national security apparatus is a cover for reading our private emails’, ran the general line.

Yet, like Julian Assange before him, as time has gone on and as Snowden’s supporters have learnt more about him, some of that initial support has begun to slip away.  His strange migration from Hong Kong to Moscow airport, and then to temporary asylum in Russia, certainly caused some questions to surface.  Meanwhile, some of us continued to maintain that whatever the occasional overreaches of the various intelligence agencies, and doubtless though it was that there are aspects of every government department that could do with reform, the answer to the challenges was never full-scale sabotage of the UK-US worldwide lead in communications intelligence.  Snowden set back the US-UK advantage, and massively enabled challengers of the West in one fell hack.

And now Snowden himself has cropped up again.  The timing could hardly be worse for him, or better for his new protectors, for Vladimir Putin’s hunger for further portions of other peoples’ territory continues apace.  Not content with Crimea, there is now a potentially catastrophic stand-off occurring as Russian troops amass and skirmish on Ukraine’s borders.  With the world starting to realise what type of man Vladimir Putin is, what a strange time for Edward Snowden to crop back up and offer the President support via a soft underarm lob.

Earlier this week on the Kremlin’s worldwide propaganda channel, Russia Today, Putin performed a Questions and Answers session.  And one of the questioners, by video-link, was from none other than Edward Snowden.  “Does Russia intercept, store, or analyze in any way the communications of millions of individuals?” Snowden asked his protector, “and do you believe that simply increasing the effectiveness of intelligence or law enforcement investigations can justify placing societies, rather than subjects, under surveillance?”

This question was handled deftly by Mr. Putin; “Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent, a spy, I used to be working for an intelligence service; we are going to talk one professional language”, Putin replied through a translator, to laughter and clapping from his live audience. “Our intelligence efforts are strictly regulated by our law. You have to get court permission to stalk a particular person. We don’t have mass system of such interception. And according to our law it cannot exist… Our special services, thank God, are strictly controlled by the society and the law, and are regulated by the law.”  And so he went, on and on.

Although plenty of people in the West seem not to realise this, we are in an information war and a values war at the moment – one in which Crimea and Ukraine are, simply, one front.  Showing a continual ability to shoot ourselves in the foot, it is a war in which the Putins of this era might yet win.  Ordinarily you would have thought that in a battle between the democracies and the KGB thug, the latter would never stand a chance in the court of public opinion.  Wrong.  Assisted by the latest manifestation of the useful idiot, and with the public unaware of who protects their way of life or why, totalitarians like Putin probably have a better shot at a decent hearing today than at any time in decades.

RELATED STORIES:

Putin’s Empire of the Mind: How Russia’s president morphed from realist to ideologue — and what he’ll do next.
Biden’s solution for Ukraine: American taxpayer money
Is Vladimir Putin the New Reagan?

The Book of Daniel: The Russian Bear taking Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus foretold?

In the only book recommended by Christ when asked about the end of the world, we see nations represented by fierce beasts of prey. There is a double application for Daniel; once in history and again in the end-time. The lion with eagle’s wings fits the emblems of the UK/US; the bear fits Russia; the leopard with four heads could be China, Japan, Korea, and Thailand and the dragon with 10 horns can again represent the European nations (EU).

The book of Daniel begins with Daniel in captivity. Could this mean martial law is impending?

Was Sarah Palin reading Daniel when she predicted Russia would invade the Ukraine?

In Daniel 2, the king had a dream. He was impressed with its importance, but he couldn’t remember it. He was about to execute his wisemen who claimed to know the gods, because they couldn’t tell him the dream. Daniel was included, but appealed for time because he said the God of heaven (Creator) could make known the dream and its meaning.

God revealed to Daniel the dream of the king of Babylon and its meaning that’s expanded in Daniel 7 where four kingdoms are represented by a lion, bear, leopard and dragon. Daniel’s dream near the end of Babylon’s supremacy (606-538 BC).

The instruction given to Daniel was, “These great beasts which are four, are four kings [kingdoms] which shall arise out of the earth.” Daniel 7:17 is in the context of the end-time judgment, verses 9-18. At the time of Daniel’s dream, Babylon was declining, so the vision of “four kings [kingdoms] which shall arise” again supports an end-time application.

The bear had three ribs in it’s mouth. Could they be the Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus? “Arise and devour much flesh” seems ominous. Arise, because Russia has been down, but clearly a world power.

In the historical application, the four beasts represented Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia and Rome. Out of the fourth beast grew a little horn that became great, spoke words of blasphemy against God, persecuted the saints and changed times and laws.

The Protestant Reformers were united in their belief that the imagery fit the papacy which grew out of the Roman Empire like the little horn grew out of the beast. They considered one of the pope’s titles, “Lord God the Pope” to be blasphemous. Conservative historians says 50-100 million Christians died in protest during those “Dark Ages,” and there is no denying the change in times (Gregorian Calendar) and laws (catechism deletes the 2nd Commandment against image worship and divides the 10th to maintain ten.) Daniel 7:25.

It’s in the context of the little horn’s great words that the judgment begins and the kingdom is given to “the Son of man,” verses 9-14. This article is an appeal to consider Christ’s words that could refer to martial law when He said, “when you see an abomination standing where it ought not, flee…Let him that reads [Daniel] understand…” Mark 13:14.

I wrote, “Not one in a hundred ministers sees America in prophecy, yet once understood, we can appreciate that God “declares the end from the beginning.” I offer a dozen reasons why Christians who count on a rapture should consider a better alternative.

Christianity in Troubled Times

The vast ignorance of American history by far too many Americans is perhaps demonstrated in the failure to understand that it was the free practice of their interpretation of Christianity by the pilgrims that led to the creation of America. Plymouth colony, established in 1620, put the Atlantic Ocean between them and hostilities they had encountered in England.

To understand the role of religion in America, the First Amendment begins with a prohibition that the states shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion…” The Founders wanted to make sure that neither the federal, nor state governments designated a particular religion as the only one. We can thank James Madison for that and the other enumerated freedoms.

Religious tolerance, which took some time to become fully established in the colonies and the new nation, has been a significant part of life in America—a nation that has always been predominantly Christian. Easter should remind us of that.

As 2012 came to a close, the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project offered the following numbers regarding the global population of Christians. They were determined to be approximately 2.2 billion worldwide. That’s about one-in-three (32%).

About half of all Christians are Catholic (50%) while an estimated 37% belong to the Protestant tradition. The Orthodox Communion, including the Greek and Russian Orthodox, make up 12% of Christians while those who belong to other branches such as Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah Witnesses, make up about 1% of the global population.

Though Christianity took root in the Middle East, less than 1% of Christians are found these days either there or in North Africa. The largest concentration is in Europe (26%), followed closely by Latin American and the Caribbean (24%), and sub-Saharan Africa (24%). Most Christians (87%) live in countries where Christians are in the majority. Of the 232 countries and territories in the Pew study, 157 had majorities, but most had relatively small populations.

What surely has to be a cause for concern in America are the results of a Harris poll released in December 2013. While a strong majority (74%) of U.S. adults said they believe in God, the figure was down from 82% in earlier years. Belief in miracles, heaven, and other religious teachings were all in decline.

For Christians, 68% expressed a belief that Jesus is God or the Son of God, down from 72%. Belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (65%) was down from 72% ten years earlier.

Ranging across various faith groups and other demographics, absolute certainty that there is a God was expressed by 54%, a decline from 66%.

Only 19% described themselves as “very” religious, while 40% described themselves as “somewhat” religious, a decline from 49% in 2007. Nearly one-fourth of Americans (23%) said they were “not at all” religious, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2007 when it was only 12%.

A campaign against the free practice of religion and respect for individual religious values has been in place since the election of President Obama in 2008. It has been particularly evident in the U.S. military, affecting its chaplains and those to whom they minister. There are nearly a hundred cases in U.S. courts resisting the demands of Obamacare and other actions by the administration and those in various states and cities that affect religious beliefs and values.

The introduction and support of same-sex marriage in the United States is a direct attack on a tradition that pre-dates Christianity, Judaism and other faiths. It is fundamentally anti-religious.

Beyond our shores the slaughter of Christians by Muslims in Middle Eastern and nations like Nigeria continues to pose a threat to them and those of other faiths. Islam is the greatest threat to civilization that has existed since its rise began in 632 A.D.

All Americans owe a debt of gratitude to those early pilgrims and to the Founders who understood the value of religion and its free expression. Those who demand that crosses be removed from public lands or that Christmas carols not be sung in our schools do not understand what America is all about. Christians, in particular, must vocally resist such demands and should be joined by those of other faiths.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED STORIES:

Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics – Washington Times
China on course to become ‘world’s most Christian nation’ within 15 years – Telegraph

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken by Andrew A. Shenouda from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Gloria Steinem’s successful war against women and the traditional family

President Barack Obama and feminist Gloria Steinem before Steinem received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013. Photo: Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom

There is a pattern of thinking that goes something like this: I demand equality for some at the expense of the many. I grew up during the “feminist movement” in America led by Gloria Steinem. The worthy goal was equal rights for women but it came at the expense of the traditional family. I did not see the eventual outcomes of Steinem and her efforts upon that most important institution – the traditional family, which is the building block of all societies and civilization itself.

Steinem remains committed to destroying women, motherhood and thereby the traditional family. Steinem has succeeded beyond even her own expectations.

Twelve years ago Jacqueline Kirby, M.S. in Single-parent Families in Poverty wrote:

One of the most striking changes in family structure over the last twenty years has been the increase in single-parent families. In 1970, the number of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 was 3.8 million. By 1990, the number had more than doubled to 9.7 million. For the first time in history, children are more likely to reside in a single-parent family for reasons other than the death of a parent. One in four children are born to an unmarried mother, many of whom are teenagers. Another 40 percent of children under 18 will experience parental breakup.

Ninety percent of single-parent families are headed by females. Not surprisingly, single mothers with dependent children have the highest rate of poverty across all demographic groups (Olson & Banyard, 1993). Approximately 60 percent of U.S. children living in mother-only families are impoverished, compared with only 11 percent of two-parent families. The rate of poverty is even higher in African-American single-parent families, in which two out of every three children are poor.

On March 25th, 2014, Steinem’s 80th birthday,  wrote, “The liberal sisterhood railed against a society they said encouraged women to stay at home and raise children. They demanded the marketplace open up more opportunities for women and pay them the same as men. Fine. But what about women who choose differently? Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women.”

Wood provided the following quotes:

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Wood notes that Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

“So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves,” concludes Wood.

Dr. Larry Reed, President of FEE wrote, “Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.” American women today are less free because of Steinem. Traditional families are increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Illiberal Arts: Cataloguing systematic suppression of speech on campus by ALLEN MENDENHALL

A diversity of thought and a variety of perspectives are necessary to facilitate competition among ideas. Such competition selectively eliminates the bad from the good, the true from the false, and the practical from the impractical. Opposing viewpoints must enter into this more constructive contest so that the struggle does not move into the arena of physical violence. Thus, toleration of dissenting and controversial opinions is fundamental to peaceful discourse, intellectual progress, and human liberty.

These ideas about freedom of speech and expression have been passed down in different forms from Milton to Mill to Locke and made their way into the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They are now under threat in the most unlikely of places: university campuses.

First published in 2012 by Encounter Books, Unlearning Liberty was re-released this year in a paperback version with a new afterword by Greg Lukianoff. Lukianoff opens his book with the curious case of Ronald Zaccari, the former president of Valdosta State University who single-handedly facilitated the “administrative withdrawal” of a student who publicly challenged the university’s plans to construct two parking garages on campus. Lukianoff suggests that this case may seem extreme, “but it isn’t all that exceptional.”

Each chapter documents several strange and excessive punitive measures implemented by universities. For instance, the disciplining of a Jewish student for using a benign Hebrew colloquialism to tell another group of students to pipe down while he tried to study; the student found guilty of “racial harassment” for reading a history book criticizing the Klan, while passersby saw only the cover of the book that displayed a photograph of a Klan rally; the student newspaper threatened with penalties for poking fun at the administration of a prominent business school.

Lukianoff’s long, big-picture catalogue of university abuses might seem like an absurd or purely fictional parade of horribles, but every alarming incident detailed here is all too real. Unlearning Liberty is more surprising than enjoyable to read because its message is so disconcerting: In Lukianoff’s words, “the world of higher education today is harming American discourse and increasing polarization.”

This book should leave you outraged and indignant at the illiberal, systemic, systematic, and bewildering suppressions of speech and association taking place on campuses across America. But its target is broader than that. It also criticizes the astronomical costs of higher education, the inflated salaries of university presidents and administrators, the bloated education bureaucracy, and the flagrant disregard by universities for legal processes and protocols that have developed out of centuries of trial-and-error: due process, fair hearings, trial by jury, and the opportunity of the accused to confront his accusers.

Lukianoff is a self-proclaimed Democrat, environmentalist, atheist, activist, lawyer, and the president of the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). His work cuts across simple labels like “conservative” or “liberal” as he champions freedom of speech, individual rights, religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and equal protection under the law. Lukianoff himself is a trailblazing defender of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights against universities that seek to train students and faculty into silent acceptance of bad policies, frightened acquiescence to abuses of authority, and docile submission to rampant corruption and discrimination. He and FIRE are famous—and, in some circles, infamous—for drawing attention to the arbitrary, selective enforcement of administrative policies against particular groups or individuals for political or retaliatory purposes.

I personally have fought against concerted attempts by faculty and administrators to silence criticisms of bad university policies. As one example, when a certain university ordered one of its students to remove a Ron Paul banner from his dorm room window, although other dorm room windows displayed an array of banners, I wrote an op-ed for the local newspaper challenging the university’s selective enforcement of its policy. As a doctoral candidate at the university, where I had a long family history, I was concerned as much for the university as I was for the student. In response, one renowned faculty member with an endowed chair dashed off the following email to me:

I saw your letter in the Montgomery paper, and it sounds as if you are unaware of the contribution to the deaths and injuries of students because of banners and posters over windows at the university in New Jersey a few years back. As I learned in my own youth, “Ready, Fire, Aim” is not a good mode of conduct, and you are now in a program that, we hope, produces research-oriented people.

The irony here is the implication that I had failed to do my research while this professor had not failed to do hers: I wasn’t criticizing the university policy per se, but the application of the policy to only one student, apparently for his political beliefs. As someone who had earned two law degrees and was currently practicing law (even though I was also a doctoral student in her program), I was not demonstrating a “Ready, Fire, Aim” mode of conduct, but she was. Reading Unlearning Liberty reminds me that I was never alone.

Universities ought to place a premium on free inquiry and the kind of unfettered intellectual exchange promoted and represented by the republicanism of America’s Founders. Instead, universities have begun to discourage healthy disagreement and have become echo chambers in which certain members seek to enforce a rigid orthodoxy and to promote complacent groupthink. Even worse is the bullying “political correctness” that crushes ideological diversity and the discursive competition necessary for intellectual progress.

Speech codes are a form of censorship. Rather than accomplishing their stated goal of reducing offensive language and behavior, they more often protect the power of administrators and prevent the exposure of embarrassing but true facts about university blunders and the application of stringent legalisms. As universities have brazenly abdicated their traditional role as guardians of communicative liberties and civilized debate, no new institutions have filled the void.

Without some special differentiation among rivaling opinions that are articulated freely within a community of thinkers, ideas and the society based on them cannot advance. It’s time for universities to expand rather than compress the range of discursive options, and to multiply rather than decrease the chances for open dialogue. Doing so would aid in restoring universities to their proper role: searching for knowledge. Lukianoff’s excellent book compiles a list of abuses. Now it’s time for us to do something about them.

ABOUT ALLEN MENDENHALL

Allen Mendenhall is the author of Literature and Liberty: Essays in Libertarian Literary Criticism(Rowman & Littlefield / Lexington Books, 2014). Visit his website at AllenMendenhall.com.

RELATED STORY: Democratic Party always finds a way to stifle speech – Honolulu Star Advertiser.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Florida high school teacher fakes orgasm in class — and keeps her job by Allen West

Parents today have so many factors and variables working against them when it comes to a quality education for their children. As we all know, America has unfortunately fallen behind other countries in the world when it comes to academic achievement.

As a result, my wife Angela and I decided to invest in our daughters’ future by sending them to private parochial schooling. Aubrey graduated from a Catholic high school and Austen attends a Christian high school — not only is a quality education important but a moral one as well.

Hence the backdrop for another sad story coming out of Florida. Hat tip to LTC (Ret.) Dr. Rich Swier who reports that a language arts teacher at a Miami-Dade public high school actually simulated an orgasm in front of her students.

According to a recent Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida report, Christine Kirchner, who teaches at Coral Reef Senior High, regularly discussed sex, virginity and masturbation, simulated orgasm and gave massages to students in her language arts class during the 2012-13 school year.

Kirchner is no weird outlier. In 2008 she was appointed by the Miami-Dade School Board to the Lesson Plan Development Task Group. Kirchner was elected Vice President At-Large and sits on the Executive Board of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD).

For her actions, Kirchner was found guilty of “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude” and in violation of “the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession.” Gee, ya think?

Her punishment? The Florida Department of Education accepted a “Settlement Agreement” which consists of a letter of reprimand and placing Kirchner on two years probation. Kirchner accepted the Settlement Agreement and will return to her classroom at Coral Reef High School and retain her position on the Executive Board of the UTD.

I’m quite sure the teacher’s union had a play in this case. Now, you can understand why parents are seeking out charter schools and homeschooling is on the rise. As well, you can understand why our public schools are failing our children and not preparing them with quality instruction promoting critical thinking skills.

So what’s your assessment? Should Ms. Kirchner return to the classroom, and is this just another case of dismissing and rewarding abhorrent behavior?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.