4 Things You Should Know About Mass Incarceration by Daniel J. D’Amico

It’s now common knowledge: The United States is the world’s leading nation when it comes to imprisonment. With an estimated 1,570,400 inmates by the end of 2012—and an incarceration rate of 716 prisoners per 100,000 citizens—the United States holds more human beings inside cages, on net and per capita, than any other country around the globe (and throughout history). In general, we build more prisons, we spend more money on prisons, we employ more prison workers, and we utilize imprisonment for a wider variety of behaviors than anyone else.

Nations like China and Russia likely use more corporal punishment and execute more people. Removing that context from their incarceration rates might make them look less punitive than they really are. Still, it is revealing that only totalitarian regimes, past and present, are serious contenders with the “land of the free” when it comes to the business of incarceration.

Today’s total American prison population exceeds the estimated amount of citizens detained within the Gulag system under the former Soviet Union. If we include those sentenced but not yet incarcerated, as well as those released upon probation and parole, there are more young black men embroiled in the American criminal justice system than were estimated to be enslaved in America circa 1850. These statistics are not to say that the United States is totalitarian, or based on chattel labor. Instead, these numbers emphasize that, insofar as despotism requires enforcement, our own government is more than capable of imposing serious and pervasive social control.

The terms “mass imprisonment” and “mass incarceration” typically refer to the uniquely modern characteristics of the contemporary prison system, including its rapid growth and racial disparities. The United States is the archetypical case. While the recent media attention given to mass imprisonment is a step in the right direction, facets of mass incarceration still remain relatively misunderstood and unrecognized.

Here are four things those interested in free market economics and the classical liberal tradition should keep in mind when thinking critically about modern global prison trends.

1. Private prisons did not cause mass imprisonment.

Private prisons are derided for profiting off of high crime and for creating corporate incentives to foster tough punishment policies. These statements are both true and disconcerting. But private prisons don’t, by themselves, explain the origins, extent, or long-term effects of America’s mass incarceration.

For starters, there just aren’t that many private prisons as a proportion of the American total. Of the over 1.5 million inmates recorded in 2012, only 128,300 (approximately 8 percent) were held in private facilities, 96,800 of them federally as opposed to state-contracted facilities. Several other nations with significantly lower total incarceration rates utilize private contractors at higher percentages: for example, England and Wales 14 percent, Scotland at 17 percent, and Australia at 19 percent.

Private prisons do stand out, though, because the most pronounced area of prison growth has occurred at the federal level—which is where most of the privatization is concentrated.

At both the state and federal levels private prisons represent a sort of budgetary coping mechanism. With high rates of sentenced inmates, but thin budgets incapable of supporting new prisons or their labor forces, states turn to contractors as cost-saving alternatives without significant quality degradations. “Private” (read: state-contracted) prisons tend to hold specialized populations such as juvenile offenders, aging inmates with more extensive medical needs, illegal immigrants, and organized crime leaders because these groups have unique logistical needs that regular facilities can’t always accommodate. When objectively compared on a variety of performance margins, there’s almost no quality difference between public and private prisons. What matters is the quality of monitoring, accountability, and liability processes. For private firms, running afoul of those constraints often means losing contracts to alternative agencies. For public workers placed by appointment and sometimes election, though, necessary feedback can be vague and ineffective.

While for-profit prison models do appear conspicuous for creating incentives to lobby for tougher penalty regimes, the incentives that public employees face throughout the criminal justice system are not systematically different. There’s no group larger, more concentrated, or more vested in tougher penalties than the employees of service industries surrounding publicly financed and managed criminal justice institutions and penitentiaries.

2. Marijuana legalization is not a panacea.

Drug sentencing has accounted for about a third of the new American prison growth since the late 1970s. Marijuana charges produced a significant proportion of those sentences. But it does not follow that marijuana legalization or clemency would alleviate the problems associated with mass imprisonment. First, even if nonviolent marijuana violators were released, America would still be a world leader in incarceration rates and expenditures. Second, simply put, people adapt.

Marijuana legalization, without broader judicial, legislative, and or penal reform, may create new opportunities for drug production, consumption, and enforcement, thus shaping outcomes in unforeseeable ways. From the perspective of drug sellers and users, the risks of arrest and incarceration are obviously costs; but complying with formal regulations and licensure under a more legalized regime may also be costly. Higher costs means less of a behavior and visa versa. But the relevant question is whether a new, legalized regime would be perceived as a higher or lower cost for buyers and sellers than status quo prohibition. It’s difficult to predict the outcome with precision. But such a regime would differ structurally from the current one. It wouldn’t simply cut marijuana arrests out of the total number.

Take medical marijuana. People with ailments that marijuana can alleviate will benefit from a regime that allows for prescriptions rather than across-the-board prohibition. But a decriminalization regime for just marijuana will shift supply and demand in other markets. For example, current users who are underage under the new regime may end up facing more difficulty accessing weed relative to the status quo. That could lead to decreased consumption, or it could lead them to substitute other drugs. Similarly, current black-market sellers will likely face lower prices and smaller profit streams for producing and selling pot with competition from legal sellers, making other drug markets more appealing. Just as pot becomes harder for some people to get, other drugs—such as prescription painkillers or mood-altering drugs (such as Xanax)—could become more readily available.

This last point seems also bolstered by the fact that a new network of legal and regulated marijuana sellers will represent a newly concentrated and vested interest group in favor of suppressing the illegal production and distribution of marijuana. I doubt current illegal pot growers and sellers will be the same individuals awarded the privilege of growing and selling weed under legalization. If legitimate production is to be regulated, regulation will require enforcement. It could be the case that enforcement costs and complexity will grow amid marginal decriminalization.

Last, targeted legalization to individual substances without matching fiscal, legislative, and or penal constraints may simply free up enforcement resources for tougher enforcement of the remaining prohibitions. The potheads freed from prison might simply be replaced by more junkies and cokeheads and their suppliers. Hence the associated inefficiencies and social consequences of prohibition in those drug markets will likely grow, adapt, and tend toward unique and unforeseeable equilibriums.

Prohibition against the pot trade is riddled with bad incentives and inefficiency and should be addressed as such; but many of the most challenging aspects of the criminal justice system—especially mass imprisonment—seem to transcend the relatively smaller issue of illegal weed. Simply legalizing marijuana does not untangle the myriad, complex incentives that allowed for prohibitions initially or the ballooning of the War on Drugs. This tangle of incentives explains the lag between policy reform and the advent of significant public approval for legalization and decriminalization. As long as those incentives and opportunities persist, we should expect political entrepreneurs to manipulate policies and resources for private gain.

3. The problems of prison growth transcend drug prohibition.

Again, at first glance much of America’s prison growth appears to have come in lockstep with the War on Drugs. But other trends suggest drug prohibition is neither the only, nor the essential, cause of mass imprisonment. Repealing prohibition across substance types would eliminate many of the adaptive problems at play with piecemeal legalization, but that doesn’t have enough public-opinion support to make it politically viable. After all, drug prohibition came into being in part because enough of the public wanted it.

Assuming political opinion away for the moment, drug legalization still does not fully resolve the challenges of mass imprisonment. After releasing all nonviolent drug offenders, the United States would retain an extremely large and expensive prison-industrial complex, a bloated and inefficient criminal justice system, and a political process that systematically leverages the tendencies of a largely vengeful public. Instead, some theory and evidence suggests that both drug prohibition and prison growth are likely similar symptoms of broader trends surrounding governments’ power to administer violence and regulate social behaviors.

Everyone around the world criminalizes drugs. Only the United States literally fights a war on drugs, and fights it at the federal level both financially and managerially. The production, distribution, and usage of the standard list of illegal drugs (marijuana, heroine, cocaine, methamphetamines) is generally illegal everywhere on Earth (save for Portugal and Amsterdam). What sets the United States’ relationship with drugs and drug enforcement apart, however, is how we organize our legal and enforcement processes surrounding prohibition.

Crime has been a relatively local issue in most nations throughout time. Neighborhoods, counties, and other smaller jurisdictions generally finance and manage police forces, criminal court systems, and even prison construction and operation. In the United States, the war on drugs is one of several federally managed criminal enforcement strategies, along with immigration controls, homeland security, and tax enforcement. The federal government incarcerates more inmates in federal facilities than does any individual state, and its activities represent one of the largest sectors of prison expansions in recent decades. Second, if one looks at which states are most plagued by mass incarceration, it is easy to notice they are most often border states like Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and California. Those states must enforce their own laws as well as federal sanctions pertaining to drug importation and immigration.

In short, imprisonment patterns and trends lag behind policy and strategic changes. At the same time, central financing and management of the criminal justice system produces harsher prohibition regimes and sets the trend for drug policy.

4. Mass imprisonment transcends the American experience.

Contemporary prison growth has been a relatively global phenomenon. From 1997 through 2007, prison populations grew in 68 percent of nations researched around the world. Developed, Western nations have led this growth in incarceration rate. So what does this mean?

Maybe there’s something about American society that just requires more prisons. Or, given similarities in crime trends across countries, maybe the United States is simply overpaying somehow.

Or maybe the United States isn’t all that unique, considering just the countries that have experienced a proportionally similar increase in prison populations. Maybe this group of countries shares a characteristic feature that relates to imprisonment.

Recent scholarship on crime, punishment, and mass incarceration has converged upon a mild conclusion familiar to modern macroeconomists: Institutions matter. Nations with similar institutions tend to foster similar cultures, similar criminal justice regimes, and similarly sized prison populations. But the question remains: What particular institutional arrangements have contributed to the prison status quo and associated problems? And how can they be reformed?

Conclusions

Mass incarceration is not an isolated social problem to be understood devoid of context. The fiscal and quantitative trends surrounding mass imprisonment are paralleled by similar growth trends in drug enforcement, the length and complexity of the criminal code, military interventionism abroad, the adoption of militarized police equipment and tactics domestically, the governmental gathering and storage of information about citizens without warrant or consent, and several other similar trends.

The financing and administration of violent power, measured by all of these trends, has pointed to increased governmental authority. This was true throughout the twentieth century, and became especially true in recent decades. Since the beginning of the 21st century, such centralization has been mirrored throughout the size and scope of government. Hence measured estimates of economic freedom have sharply declined in recent years, particularly in America.

Various research and theories regarding the causes of crime and punishment imply that they’re predominantly shaped by unplanned and complex social factors. Adam Smith and other early writers in the classical liberal tradition believed simple prosperity was the factor most responsible for maintaining low crime rates. Broken-window theories and eyes-on-the-street models suggest these early liberals were correct. When streets are clean, well lit, and filled with commercial and civic activity, there is little opportunity for crime to occur and strong incentives for citizens to participate in the justice process. Steven Levitt infamously demonstrated a statistical correlation between abortion policies and lower violent crime rates. John Lott and Bruce Benson tend to emphasize private activity, like growing gun ownership and increased investment in the security industry.

All imply similarly that punishment policies are probably very difficult to plan strategically, effectively, or optimally. Again, such pervasive trends in the growth of government are not unique to the American context. So changes in particular policies and/or changes in partisan power are likely limited in their abilities to bring full or effective reform. For example, a candidate taking office who is opposed to marijuana prohibition is not likely to change the very real and vested incentives that have allowed the War on Drugs to escalate as it has. Mass imprisonment seems more an endemic feature of how governmental institutions are arranged and have changed throughout the modern era. To promote reform and social change regarding imprisonment will first require a sound and thorough understanding of how institutions, individual behaviors, and social processes relate.

ABOUT DANIEL J. D’AMICO

Daniel J. D’Amico is William Barnett Professor of Free Enterprise Studies and an Associate Professor of Economics at Loyola University. He writes about the intersection of Austrian Economics, Public Choice Theory and New Institutional Economics, as well as current trends in incarceration.

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

Common Core Assignment is Virulent anti-Semitic Propaganda

Photo: While on an inspection tour of the newly liberated Ohrdruf concentration camp, General Dwight Eisenhower and a party of high ranking U.S. Army officers, including Generals Bradley, Patton, and Eddy, view the charred remains of prisoners that were burned upon a section of railroad track during the evacuation of the camp. Also pictured is Jules Grad (third from the left taking notes), correspondent for the “Stars and Stripes” U.S. Army newspaper.

In April of 2014, two thousand eighth graders in a California Common Core school system were given an 18-page group project assignment requiring them to “read and discuss multiple, credible articles” on the issue of whether or not the Holocaust “was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”   The project, consuming seven full days of class time, included a multi-page required-reading “credible source” article from a website containing hundreds of pages of anti-Semitic propaganda, that begins with the declaration, “Within five minutes, any intelligent, open-minded person can be convinced that the Holocaust gassings of World War II are a profitable hoax.”

Ohrdruf_Eisenhower_04650The “credible” article, which the thousands of students were mandated to read, next cites the findings of Fred A. Leuchter, described in the article as America’s leading specialist on execution equipment, finding no evidence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz and other death camps.  In fact, Mr. Leuchter, named “Mr. Death” in a documentary film about his life, had no formal training or education in methods of execution.  He claimed that he was asked by the defense team in a foreign Holocaust denial trial to take residue samples from gas chambers and that he found no evidence of the gassings.

Eerily, Mr. Death spent his honeymoon in Auschwitz; yet he is the scholarly, scientific source of “credible” evidence presented to a captive audience of students required, in order to pass a course, to read an article that touts a man who proudly honeymooned at the Auschwitz Hotel, which had served as the German officers’ quarters during the Holocaust.

In order to testify in favor of a Holocaust denier, Mr. Leuchter surreptitiously sneaked into crematoria in various death camps and illegally chiseled chunks of their walls as “samples” for chemical testing, using his bride as his “look-out.”  Needless to say, she divorced this man, who testified in a courtroom on Hitler’s birthday that the Holocaust gassings were a hoax, based upon his report which was later translated into dozens of languages and featured in a special edition of the Aryan Nations Newsletter.

As a popular speaker at Neo-Nazi rallies, Mr. Leuchter denied the mass gas murders of Jews, saying:

It’s a tough job to execute several hundred people at once ….  I think it would be easier to shoot them or hang them ….  Why didn’t they just shoot them [the Jews]?  Bullets would have been cheaper than doing this.

The Rialto group project’s “credible article” citing Mr. Leuchter’s scientific evidence of the Holocaust as a hoax also purveys every conceivable anti-Semitic claim – that the “Diary of Anne Frank is a hoax” and that Israel receives $35 billion per year from the United States, such that “every family in America could afford a brand new Mercedes Benz” were it not for “the irrepressible Zionist influence and control of our country.”

Mohammad Z Islam

Mohammad Z. Islam, Superintendent Rialto School District

While the Rialto School District, with a city population that is 68% Hispanic and 16% Black, admitted under pressure that the assignment was “a mistake,” the evidence shows that the group project had been reviewed at multiple levels for at least many months and distributed to middle schools in February, when teachers were asked for comments prior to compelling students to read the insidious hate materials against Jews.  Importantly, according to the Superintendent, Mohammad Z. Islam, who initially defended the lengthy and weighty Common Core group project, there were never any complaints received from parents, teachers, or administrators about the project, until it was widely exposed by the media.  Thus, the virulent anti-Semitic theme of and materials included in the project were not “a mistake” until the public outcry forced an apology under duress. [You may reach Superintendent Islam at mislam@rialto.k12.ca.us]

Since when is it educationally sound or morally decent to subject captive students to hate propaganda, repeatedly described by their school as “credible”?  As an educator for 36 years, with a doctorate in education and child psychology, I consider the assignment to be abusive to students and a gross violation of their inherent right to receive school materials that uplift their minds rather than thrust them into the depths of delusional hatred.

The actual question before the thousands of students infected with the pernicious materials they were required to read should be simply, “Is this assignment a hoax?”  Assuredly, of the 2,000 children directly affected by the forced reading of hate literature and thousands more indirectly impacted, many have been irreparably poisoned against Jews.  Forced resignations of the Superintendent and other defenders of the project should follow from the forced readings.  The core of the project within Common Core should be thoroughly cleansed from the curriculum, although the young affected minds can never be cleansed of the filthy, fallacious thoughts planted in them by well-educated educators.

What is the cost of a hoax?  This hoax has cost human minds.  Sadly, the mind damage was done before the hoax was exposed, and the great-grandchildren of the Greatest Generation are left to question not only the Holocaust but also the enormous loss of American lives and limbs in defeating “a hoax.”

Did our veterans fight for “a hoax”?  That part of the curriculum materials was “mistakenly” omitted – the testimonies, written records, films, and photographs of death camp liberators and Holocaust Survivors, the real eyewitnesses to history’s most hideous acts of human inhumanity.

RELATED STORY: Less than half under age 35 are aware of Holocaust: International Poll

Iraqi Jewish Archive Stay Extended

Jewish Immigrants from Iraq leaving Lod Airport in 1951

When we interviewed Dr. Harold Rhode, the savior of the Iraqi Jewish archives, he told the story of how he had found them in the water-logged basement of the late Saddam Hussein Mukhabarat in Baghdad in 2003 and arranged for recovery and restoration by the National Archives and Records Agency (NARA) in Washington, DC. In July 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority reached an agreement under international law with the Iraq interim government for return of the restored Jewish archives. We noted:

1815 copy of mystical Zohar source Drew Angere for New York Times

1815 copy of mystical Zohar. Source: Drew Angere for New York Times

An agreement that is controversial as Rhode and others contend that the Hussein’s Mukhabarat stole the property from the Jewish community and that it rightfully should be returned to the Babylonian Jewish Heritage Center in Israel. The Iraqi government contends that the archives may contain important historical information of the origins of the country.

A report by JNS,org today brought a reprieve by the government of Iraq for exhibit of these Iraqi Jewish archives,  “Iraqi Jewish Archive’s U.S. exhibition extended”.

The JNS.org article cited an exchange of letters by the Iraq Ambassador in Washington saying:

Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Lukman Faily said in a statement Wednesday that Iraq “has authorized me to extend the period which the exhibit may remain in the United States.” The exhibit “has led to an increase of understanding between Iraq and United States and a greater recognition of the diverse heritage of Iraq,” he said.

“We look forward to completing the technical aspects of this extension with the Government of the United States within the coming days. Items which were among the material brought to the United States that are not part of the exhibit will return to Iraq in the very near future, as originally agreed,” said Faily.

Following the close of the exhibit in early January 2014, of the archives at the NARA Lawrence F. O’Brien gallery in Washington, DC, it was sent to New York’s Museum of Jewish Heritage for an exhibit.

The JNS.org  report noted the comments of representatives of both the Orthodox Union and the American Jewish Committee regarding the ultimate status of the Iraqi Jewish Archives:

The Orthodox Union (OU) welcomed Faily’s announcement of the exhibit’s extension, but said its work on the issue of the archive’s final destination isn’t done.

“The historical and religious value of the Iraqi Jewish Archive materials compel us to ensure that the archive should remain in the United States where it will be easily accessible to all, particularly the Iraqi Jewish community now living in diaspora around the world,” said Nathan Diament, OU’s executive director for public policy. “We will continue to advocate for an appropriate long-term solution for these materials.”

Rabbi Andrew Baker, the American Jewish Committee’s director of international Jewish affairs, said, “Extending the exhibit’s schedule and making it available to other American communities will benefit all who have interest in the history of Iraq’s Jews.”

Dr. Rhode in our NER interview expressed his views as to the ultimate disposition of these restored archives:

The American government considered the archives as property which belonged to Iraq and therefore the International law it has to be returned. However, this was really property stolen by the previous Iraqi governments from the Jews who fled the country, mostly in 1950-51.

The problem is most of this is private property. These were holy books that belonged to individuals. They never belonged to the Iraqi government. When, for example, Iraqi Jews had a Torah made, if you moved to another synagogue, the Torah moved with you. In 1950/51 when most of the Jews left they were not allowed to take this material with them. They were only allowed to take basically a suitcase of clothes, if that, and so the Jews were forced against their wishes to leave the material behind.

If this is private property it belongs to the Jews.  If it can’t be identified then it becomes the property of the exiled Iraqi Jewish community. 85% of the exiled Iraqi Jews and their descendants live in Israel.  As exiled Jews from the Muslim world they property was expropriated.  They have no access to their material.

We had suggested that the Iraqi Jewish Archives should instead be transferred to the Babylonian Jewish Heritage Museum in Israel to be placed on permanent exhibit there.  A significant portion of Iraqi Jews had settled in Israel after their expulsion from Iran in the early 1950’s.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

An Open Letter to the Anti-Defamation League

Robert Tanen, Associate Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League, Florida

Dear Mr. Tanen:

adl director with imam

Robert Tanen (right) with Imam

Your alert about the peril of the Nazis on April 20 was brought to my attention in good time, but I was so busy alerting friends about the Muslims that I forgot. As it turned out, I was more correct than you, which is a shame, since you’re an associate regional director of the ADL, Florida, and one would expect that you would be far more informed than I.

I’ve been busy reading about all the Muslim activity against Jewish kids throughout the country, particularly on the west coast, but also in your state. (Do you know about Florida Atlantic University – FAU?) Jewish students are in danger at most colleges and universities these days, from Muslims and sympathizers, and I find the lack of reference to be unnerving.

I’m reminded of an outreach event I attended at the Maltz Museum of Jewish Heritage in my state, Ohio, where one of the two guest speakers was an imam – and not just “any imam,” but the director of ISNA – that’s the Islamic Society of North America. In case, you haven’t heard, ISNA is the largest Muslim organization in the US (and Canada), and it has been around since 1963. The attacks against the Jewish kids are perpetrated by the Muslim Student Association, which is under the ISNA umbrella. ISNA was one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist-financing case, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood with ties to the terrorist Islamic Association of Palestine and Hamas. In fact, Sami Al-Arian, an assistant professor at University of South Florida, who was called a “master manipulator” by a federal judge, pleaded guilty to one count of “Conspiracy to make or receive contribution of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist.” (I believe he served no time but agreed to being deported.)

ISNA and this Imam, Mohamed Magid, have been providing the US Bureau of Prisons with extreme orthodox Wahhabist clerics who promote their radical political, ideological, and theological agenda; and he provides as much as 79 percent of the imam clerics for North American mosques. Aren’t you wondering why the Maltz Museum hosted this fiasco? I did.

Everything this imam said was a lie, but Islam (not Nazism) is at war with the Jews, Christians, and all non-believers of Islam, and Islamists far outnumber the Nazis. I knew to expect his rhetoric, lies and propaganda, because these are Islam’s weapons of war, at least for now. However, there’s plenty of proof that once the Muslims hit a certain percentage of the population, then they can start their riots, threats, rapes, and all-out bloodshed. The evidence is obvious in France, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Nigeria, and … Actually, proof abounds that Islam is at war with five religions in about 40 countries.

What really bothered me most, Mr. Tanen, was the rabbi, Robert Nosanchuk of Anshe Chesed Fairmount Temple. He must be getting his information from your sources. No matter what the imam said, the rabbi sat there, quietly. It appeared that he agreed that Islam and Judaism have the same God. He also sat quietly while the Imam said that Sharia law (the harshest legal system on the planet – that controls everyone’s life, torture and death) is like Kashruth – an extremely compassionate method of preparing animals for food. Jews don’t even slaughter animals the way Muslims slaughter their own citizens – their own children, in fact!

And anyone with half a brain should know that the Qur’an demands Muslims not befriend Jews or Christians, except as a method of conquest, and the rabbi just sat there, both of them discussing their 10-year-friendship. Of all the social justice issues that interest him, not once did the rabbi mention the situation of Jewish students. His compassion also didn’t reach out to women, as this was just shortly after Ayaan Hirsi Alli was disinvited from Brandeis University. I raised this question during the Q and A, and was dismissed – the rabbi looked completely in the dark. In fact, they both had a very practiced method of ignoring questions they didn’t want to answer, or they answered in such a convoluted way, that baffled everyone and foiled challenge. Believe it or not, there was a charge for this mess; I’d rather the money had been directed to victims of Islamic programming and terrorism.

Are you and Nosanchuk naive? Hoodwinked by the dishonesty in the media? I even suggest that the rabbi is at war with the Jewish people – since he does nothing of value for our people. The temple over which he presides is Reform… so he may well be affiliated with J Street. J for Jihad, I figure.

What is the ADL doing these days? Is this organization protecting anyone at all? Are you contacting the learning institutions to advise them of Islam, or remaining focused on Nazism? Have you tried speaking out against the Common Core books that are so Islamized and sexualized that our kids don’t have a chance of getting a decent education? I have reviewed several current history textbooks and they are so distorted and whitewashed, that this generation will be the least intellectually capable of dealing with the subversive threat to our country, coming from the Muslim Brotherhood, its American Islamic supporters, and the Bill Gates Progressives. But they’ll be very non-thinking, compliant workers for an increasingly tyrannical regime.

I’d welcome your comments, Mr. Tanen, if indeed the ADL is doing something of value for our people.

Department of State Must Demand Release of Sudanese Christian Woman and Her American Citizen Child

The Center for Security Policy strongly urges the Department of State to demand that the government of Sudan immediately release Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, a 27-year old Sudanese Christian woman married to a naturalized American citizen and their 20-month old American citizen child from prison, where she and the toddler are being held after she was sentenced to flogging and death on charges of “apostasy” and “adultery” under Sudan’s Islamic legal code.

Ibrahim is the daughter of a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Christian mother who was raised by her mother as an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian from the age of 6, when her father abandoned the family. She is a graduate of the School of Medicine in Khartoum and married her naturalized American citizen husband, Daniel Wani, in 2011. Their toddler child, Martin, is an American citizen, but is being held in jail together with his mother, who is pregnant with the couple’s second child. Ibrahim’s husband is accused of proselytizing Ibrahim to abandon Islam and she herself was arrested on 17 February 2014 for alleged “apostasy” and “adultery,” as under shariah her marriage to a Christian is considered null and void.

Despite severe psychological pressure to recant her Christian faith, Ibrahim remains steadfast in refusing to do so, even under threat of a death sentence (the prescribed penalty for ‘forsaking Islam’ under Sudan’s Penal Code, which conforms to Islamic Law). Today, 15 May 2014, Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa pronounced her sentence: to be lashed 100 times for adultery and then hanged.

The Center for Security Policy finds such penalties for the so-called hadd offenses under shariah abhorrent and in violation of all civilized concepts of human rights. That American citizens are being subjected to such treatment requires an urgent response from Secretary of State John Kerry. We therefore urge Secretary Kerry to demand the immediate release of Meriam and Martin and then expedite them and Ibrahim’s naturalized American citizen husband Daniel to safety and the protection of their religious freedom, in the U.S.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of © Amnesty International.

RELATED STORIES:

Pregnant Christian Woman in Sudan Sentenced to Death for Apostasy
Sudan: Woman facing death sentence on grounds of her religion must be released

Brief Filed Supporting Traditional Marriage on Behalf of Black Pastor

Yesterday, with the battle cry “the fight is on,” a coalition of over 100 Black pastors from Detroit, Outstate Michigan, and Ohio representing several hundred additional pastors,celebrated the amicus brief which was filed by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) on their behalf challenging the recent Federal District Court decision overturning Michigan’s 2004 constitutional amendment.  Michigan’s Marriage Amendment (MMA) preserves traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, filed the amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Attorney General Schuette’s appeal of the District Court’s decision.

Shortly after the decision overturning the Michigan Marriage Amendment, Minister Stacy Swimp contacted TMLC on behalf of the Coalition of Black Pastors asking whether the Law Center would be willing to file a brief on their behalf.  Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, replied that it would be their privilege.  A subsequent meeting with several Pastors, Thompson and Erin Mersino of the Law Center, was held to discuss the ruling and the Pastors’ specific objections so that the brief would reflect their objections within a legal context in order to aid the appellate judges.

Erin Mersino, the principal drafter of the amicus brief, assisted by Lansing attorneys William Wagner and John S. Kane, captured the Pastors’ objections: the comparison drawn by courts and by society that the homosexual push to legalize their marriages is on par with the civil right movement of Black Americans is false; marriage between one man and one women is Biblically based and a part of America’s Judeo-Christian moralityand tradition, and the legal precedent used to overturn the MMA, which was approved by over 2.7 million voters, was unsound.

Said Mersino: “It has been an honor working with the coalition of pastors closely to ensure that their unique voice is heard.  The coalition was upset with the notion that the voice of 2.7 million Michigan voters could be silenced by the opinion of one federal court judge.  The court drew upon legal precedent which rightfully allowed interracial couples to marry, inherently raising similarities between racial equality and same-sex marriage.  The coalition has made clear that they believe this comparison is offensive. ”

Minister Swimp stated:  “We want to make a statement to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that the people of the state of Michigan, particularly Black Pastorsand Christians, continue to stand by the Marriage Protection Act.”

According to Minister Swimp,the comparison of the push for the redefinition of marriage to the Black Civil Rights struggles is “intellectually empty, dishonest, and manufactured.”

Excerpts from the Law Center’s Brief:

  • “Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural and legal history. The disgraces and unspeakable privations in our nation’s history pertaining to the civil rights of Black Americans are unmatched. No other class of individuals, including individuals who are same-sex attracted, have ever been enslaved, or lawfully viewed not as human, but as property. Same-sex attracted individuals have never lawfully been forced to attend different schools, walk on separate public sidewalks, sit at the back of the bus, drink out of separate drinking fountains, denied their right to assemble, or denied their voting rights. Id. The legal history of these disparate classifications,i.e., immutable racial discrimination and same-sex attraction, is incongruent.”
  • When the lower court said it was rejecting morality as a basis for Michigan’s codification of its traditional marriage rule, it was not being entirely forthright. . . .What it actually did was to supplant the tried and true morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which our country was founded with the trendy, relativist morality of political correctness.”
  • “There is no surer way to destroy an institution like marriage than to destroy its meaning.  If “marriage” means whatever one judge wants it to mean, it means nothing. If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a judge’s will. It is used as a subterfuge for judicial legislation.”
  • Pastor James Crowder, president of the Westside Minister Alliance, said, “Judge Friedman is sanctioning the staging of a false story. On stage are many actors who pretend that redefining traditional marriage is as valid as Blacks fighting against the carnage of chattel slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow. Never have I been so insulted. The curtain must be pulled down on this play of disinformation.”

Click here for entire Brief Filed by TMLC

same sex marriage map

The Cold Hard Facts about Wealth Redistribution

The Democrat sales pitch goes something like this… People should not have the freedom to earn unlimited wealth while others are struggling just to survive. Government should take from those who earn too much and redistribute to people in need. This is the right and duty of government.

Despite being a Marxist philosophy which flies in the face of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention the concepts of freedom and liberty, the pitch is designed to appeal to the hearts and minds of decent people honorably concerned about the welfare of others less fortunate. In America circa 2014, the message seems to be widely accepted despite the obvious assault on freedom and liberty which quite naturally follows.

For decades, Democrats have claimed to care about the poor, the black community and the under-achiever. They have been redistributing billions in other people’s earnings, allegedly to these and many other disadvantaged groups, not only in America but all over the world, and they have been handsomely rewarded in every election since.

However, the cold hard facts on what democratic wealth redistribution is really all about are entirely inescapable. The facts do not support the sales pitch and the people who should be most angry about that are those who were the alleged beneficiaries, those who voted for this mess.

  • According to the World Bank the U.S. average per capita income as of 2012 was $53,101, placing 6th in the world for the highest personal income per capita.
  • According to IRS data, 97.8% of all Federal Income taxes are collected from the top 50% of income earners in America. The other 50% are obviously Democrats.

Keep these numbers in mind as we look at how the federal government is redistributing those earnings via current tax code and welfare systems…

If you are fortunate enough to live in one of the top ten welfare states in the nation today, here are estimated the average annual collective welfare benefits packages for each state, per recipient… showing annual benefits per recipient, voting trends and percentage of increase in benefits since 1995. (Data was taken from a recent audited CATO Institute Report)

clip_image002

(Provided by CATO Institute Report)

Now, let’s not only compare these numbers to the U.S. average per capita income stated above, but also the bottom ten welfare states in the country as of today, based on the same criteria.

clip_image004

(Note the anomalies in Illinois and Maine…Why has Illinois and Maine been targeted?)

Depending upon where you live, it may not pay to work anymore. But how you vote certainly can have personal financial benefits for those who wish to not work.

As demonstrated in the above charts, there is indeed a massive redistribution of wealth taking place in America today. Clearly, a massive shift in welfare benefits has been taking place over the past several years, reducing welfare benefits in right-leaning states and paid out in heavily democrat voting states.

Is race really a factor?

Heavily black populated areas like Illinois and the Deep South have all experienced huge cuts in welfare benefits over the last few years. Welfare funds are being taken from black communities and sent only to heavily democratic voting areas of the country, as seen in the charts above. So no, race is not a determining factor in wealth redistribution, or at least not as it is presented by those redistributing the wealth of American taxpayers.

Is unemployment rate a factor?

Of the top ten highest unemployment states in the country, only four are in the top welfare states and four are in the bottom welfare states. So again, the answer is no.

Is poverty the determining factor?

No… of the top twenty states with the highest poverty rates today, six are in the bottom ten welfare states which have seen their welfare benefits taken away over the last several years. Only one of the states in the top ten welfare states is in the top twenty poverty states.

How about labor union influence?

Eight of the ten states at the bottom for wealth redistribution benefits are Right to Work states… the exceptions being Illinois and Maine, both unionized labor states. All of the top ten wealth redistribution states are forced unionization states. So it appears that the influence of labor unions may be a factor.

What is the overwhelming determining factor though?

With a couple isolated cases, ALL states receiving increases in welfare benefits at the top of the wealth redistribution food chain are heavily democrat voting states.

All but two of the bottom ten welfare states are heavily republican voting states.

Quite clearly, states with heavy democrat voting populations are the biggest recipients of wealth redistribution and it has nothing to do with poverty, race or unemployment.

It has everything to do with politics, wealth being taken from right-leaning states, even those with heavy black, poor and/or unemployed populations – and given to left-leaning beneficiaries, all at the expense of the top taxpayers in the country, most of whom vote Republican.

So, which are the wealthiest states in America?

The answer is, the same ten states also receiving the lion’s share of wealth redistribution from Uncle Sam, taken directly from republican states and given directly to democrat states. The numbers are verified and the numbers don’t lie.

Are democrats taking from white people and giving to black people? NO…

Are they taking from the rich and giving to the poor? NO…

Are they collecting from the employed to give to the unemployed? NO…

Are they taking from anti-union states and giving to pro-union states? YES…

But most of all, they are taking earned wealth from republican leaning states and giving it to democrat leaning states.

That’s how democratic socialist wealth redistribution works in the real world. The money is taken from political foes and given to friends. END OF STORY!

Sources

[1] Per Capita Income by State

[2] Per Capita Income by Country

[3] Annual Welfare Benefits by State

The Problem with the ADL Global 100 Index of Antisemitism

Global100-feature-logo-380-blue-bgAs a last hurrah for long term National  Director Abe Foxman, the ADL released findings yesterday from its Global 100 Index of Antisemitism.  The overall finding was that 26% of the more than 53,100 respondents evinced the “deep infection” of Antisemitism.  Extrapolating that figure translates to over 1.09 billion of the World’s Population.  The polling was done by a survey contractor over the period from June 2013 to February 2014 via phone and personal interviews in more than 96 languages of the respondents.  An interactive website of the Global Index 100 results by country can be found, here. The ADL news release noted the high prevalence of Antisemitism among Muslim majority countries:

Among Muslims, which comprise 22.7 percent of the world population, 49 percent harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the number of Muslims holding anti-Semitic attitudes is 75 percent.

The ADL’s survey contractor used a battery of 11 questions to ascertain responses regarding perceptions of Jews and their influence locally and globally.  The ADL News release noted the basis for the Global 100 Index and Foxman’s cherished hope for an enduring legacy:

The overall ADL Global 100 Index score represents the percentage of respondents who answered “probably true” to six or more of 11 negative stereotypes about Jews. An 11-question index has been used by ADL as a key metric in measuring anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States for the last 50 years.

“For the first time we have a real sense of how pervasive and persistent anti-Semitism is today around the world,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  “The data from the Global 100 Index enables us to look beyond anti-Semitic incidents and rhetoric and quantify the prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes across the globe. We can now identify hotspots, as well as countries and regions of the world where hatred of Jews is essentially non-existent.”

However, because of the low average  sample  per country,  approximately 521,  there is a serious question of whether the data base that Foxman hoped for from the ADL Global Index results would  have enough  detail  upon which to base an  enduring legacy to aid in developing prescriptive strategies in ameliorating  Antisemitism.  Antisemitism has existed because of nativist, religious and racial strains that have persisted for more than two millennia.  This despit anniversary , as a bastion and refuge for world Jewry in the heartland of the hate filled Middle East.

The country findings confirm other independent surveys, such as those conducted by the Pew Trust in Muslim countries of persistently high presence of Antisemitism; the highest occurring in the Palestine Authority and Gaza at 93%, and more than 15 other countries in the Muslim nations of MENA.

The Pew Trust Attitude Survey  in 2005 noted the extent of virulent Antisemitism across the Muslim Ummah. It interviewed more than 330,000 respondents in more than 60 countries. Antisemitism which many believe is a product of doctrinal Islamic  hatred towards Jews:

According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project released on August 14, 2005, high percentages of the populations of six Muslim-majority countries have negative views of Jews. To a questionnaire asking respondents to give their views of members of various religions along a spectrum from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable”, 60% of Turks, 74% of Pakistanis, 76% of Indonesians, 88% of Moroccans, 99% of Lebanese Muslims and 100% of Jordanians checked either “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” for Jews.[3]

The top Antisemitic countries/territories ranked by the ADL 100 Global Index are:

  • West Bank and Gaza – 93 percent of the adult population holds anti-Semitic views
  • Iraq – 92 percent
  • Yemen – 88 percent
  • Algeria – 87 percent
  • Libya – 87 percent
  • Tunisia – 86 percent
  • Kuwait – 82 percent
  • Bahrain – 81 percent
  • Jordan – 81 percent
  • Morocco – 80 percent

The lowest-ranked countries in terms of Antisemitism  in the ADL Global Index are:

  • Laos – 0.2 percent of the adult population holds anti-Semitic views
  • Philippines — 3 percent
  • Sweden – 4 percent
  • Netherlands – 5 percent
  • Vietnam – 6 percent
  • United Kingdom – 8 percent
  • United States – 9 percent
  • Denmark – 9 percent
  • Tanzania – 12 percent
  • Thailand – 13 percent

However,   there is a problem. The ADL Global 100 Index didn’t address the matter of hatred of Israel, other than the dual loyalty question.   19th and 20thCentury Antisemitism was  evident  in  the Czarist Forgery , The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and earlier the anti-Dreyfusard  French Anti-Semitic political  Publication, La Libre Parole .  They  portrayed Jews as a controlling octopus of influence in international finance, culture and   governments. This, plus racial strains characterizing  Jews as sub-human,  paved the way for Hitler’s Final Solution that resulted in the murder of Six Million Jewish Men, Women and Children in the Holocaust.  The ADL Global 100 Index found that slightly more than half (54 percent) of survey respondents had heard of the Holocaust.  A fore telling that when the last survivors are gone, so will the World’s institutional memory of this genocide committed by the Nazis against European Jews.

The missing question(s) in the ADL Global 100 might have changed the results for respondents in Europe who ironically now consider Israel as the moral equivalent of Nazis for “oppression, and occupation” of the people in the disputed territories, the Palestinians.

What this ADL Index lacks are questions on anti-Israelism that the former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, used to derive the extent of European Antisemitism.   His estimate was that fully 150 million Europeans in the EU countries harbor such anti-Israelism/ Anti-Semitic opinions. Opinions that verge on moral inversion: i.e., buying into the Palestinian meta narrative that Israel is the new Nazi state.   Where Israel was once David, it is now perceived as Goliath fighting the Palestinian David.  If the ADL Global 100 Index had posed the anti-Israel questions used by Gerstenfeld in developing his estimate the results for European counties may have been dramatically different. See our NER review of  Demonizing Israel and the Jews by Gerstenfeld.

When we interviewed Gerstenfeld in the  September 2013 NER, Anti-Israelism is Anti-Semitism,  he responded:

Gordon:  How did you arrive at the number 150 million?

Gerstenfeld:  I culled data from four surveys in which people were asked in nine European countries as to whether they agreed with the statement, “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” or alternatively, that Israel was behaving toward the Palestinians like the Nazis did toward the Jews.

Those who answered in the affirmative have deeply anti-Semitic views. In seven EU countries, the lowest responses to the first question were in Italy and the Netherlands – around 38% to 39%. Poland’s response was the highest at 63%. In the U.K, Hungary, Germany and Portugal, responses ranged from 40 to 49%. I then did a simple calculation based on the percentage of people 16 years and older in the European Union.  Broadly speaking 80% of about 500 million citizens in the EU are 16 years old or over. There are thus an estimated 400 million ‘adult’ Europeans. I applied a conservative estimate based on the lowest country response to the question about Israel exterminating the Palestinians which was 38%, to the 400 million adult Europeans. That is how I arrived at an estimate of 150 million.

When we noticed single digit responses in the ADL Global 100 survey results for some of the problematic European countries cited by Gerstenfeld, we had in mind his further response in our interview:

Gordon:  Why is anti-Israelism equated with anti-Semitism?

Gerstenfeld:  Hate-mongering by Muslims and others employs the same motifs that Medieval Christians and Nazi hate mongers used. The claim that Israel is exterminating the Palestinians is slanderous because the Palestinian population has only increased in past decades. Palestinian children and babies are cared for in Israeli hospitals. Palestinian patients are treated in Israeli hospitals and so on.

The anti-Israel hate mongers who claim that Israel harvests the organs of Palestinians are promoting a modern mutation of the anti-Semitic blood libel which was invented in England in the 12th century. There are demonizing anti-Semitic statements emanating from the Muslim world claiming that Jews are “descendents of apes and pigs.” This animalization of the Jewish people comes out of the Quran. One problem is that there are so few anti-Semitism scholars in the world that these things have not been properly exposed in great detail. There is no doubt that anti-Israelism is a third major type of anti-Semitism, like religious and ethnic/nationalistic anti-Semitisms were major types. This anti-Israelism has permeated the mainstream in several European countries. We find it for instance in many Socialist or Labor parties, including those in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands and Belgium.

Gerstenfield’s assessment is confirmed in independent surveys in European countries. Note the results of this Belgian survey of high school students reported in June 2013:

A major survey among Belgian teenagers indicated anti-Semitism was seven times more prevalent among Muslim youths than in non-Muslim teenagers.

Conducted in recent months by three universities for the Flemish government, the survey was published last month based on questionnaires filled out by 3,867 high school students in Antwerp and Ghent, including 1,068 Muslims.

Among Muslims, 50.9 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “Jews foment war and blame others for it” compared to only 7.1 percent among non-Muslims. Among Muslims, 24.5 percent said they partially agreed with the statement, as did 20.6 percent of non-Muslims.

The statement “Jews seek to control everything” received a 45.1 approval rating among Muslims compared to 10.8 approval among non-Muslims. Of Muslims, 27.9 percent said they partially agreed, as did 29.2 percent of non-Muslims.

About 35 percent of Muslims agreed with the statement that “Jews have too much clout in Belgium” compared to 11.8 percent of non-Muslimswho participated in the “Young in Antwerp and Ghent” survey. The results were part of a 360-page report which was produced for the Flemish government’s Youth Research Platform by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

The problem with the ADL Global 100 survey is compounded by translation and differential responses to questions about Jews in countries where there is little presence or exposure, e.g., Laos.  Then there are the responses in Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Greece and the Ukraine to survey questions regarding a Jewish population virtually destroyed during the Shoah.  Lingering historical  Antisemitism persists in these Eastern European  countries and Greece driving  their responses.

The Global ADL 100 index results masks the independent European responses from both the Gerstenfeld  and independent  analysis that found that Muslim émigrés had upwards of 8 times the Antisemitic responses  of  non-Muslim residents .  Responses from the PA, Gaza and Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa uniformly reflect the hateful Islamic doctrine of Majority muslim MENA countries who  over 60 years ago drove out their “Saturday people”  Mizrahi and Megrabi  Jews. The MENA countries are presently forcing the expulsion of the indigenous “Sunday people”, the original Christian residents before the onslaught of Jihad 14 centuries ago.  There is the except in MENA. The stunning response in the ADL Global 100 Index that Iranians appear not to be inclined to follow the theocratic Antisemitism hatred of the Shiite Mullahs.  Having spoken with Iranian émigrés here in the US, they had 2,700 years of living in comity with Jews.  This despite the horrible period from the 16th to the 20th Century under the Safayid Empire and the Shiite mullahs. It was only in the 20th Century under the Pahlavi dynasty that indigenous Jews and Persian women flourished as did trade with Israel. That ended with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that ended liberty for all Iranians. The largest listener audience for Israel’s Farsi language service today is Iranians.

Finally, there is the famous assessment about surveys and polls by that great fictional sociologist, Humpty Dumpty who had this famous exchange with Alice inThrough the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Thus in the context of the ADL Global  100  Index, contrast the questions about perceptions of Jews  based on  the current US  Index versus those chosen by Gerstenfeld for analysis of Anti-Israelism as Anti-Semitism.  What is the careworn expression about polls and surveys?  You only get responses to the questions you choose to ask. Even then, because of differential negative perceptions of Jews, real or fantasized, you end up with the results reported by Abe Foxman and his team of pollsters.  The ADL Global 100 Index results may not comprehensively identify the roiling problems of Muslim and nativist Antisemitism globally and in the West.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review. The featured photo is of graffito in a restroom at the University of Chicago courtesy of The Coffee Shop Rabbi.

Injustice in the name of Justice!

Harvey  Ruvin

Harvey Ruvin, Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts.

MIAMI, FL – Today, the Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF), Florida’s premier human rights and social justice advocacy organization, denounced Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts, Harvey Ruvin, for deliberately going behind voters backs and secretly withdrawing a motion to abate on the discriminatory anti-voter rights lawsuit seeking to overthrow Florida’s constitutional respect for marriage as one man, one woman.

“Harvey Ruvin has made a grave mistake by failing to discharge his duties as Clerk of the County, under his signed Candidate Oath, he is obligated to support the Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of Florida. His actions are unethical and deplorable.”

View Harvey Ruvin’s Candidate Oath here. (See page 2)

Motion to Intervene:

Simultaneously, Liberty Counsel, an international pro-constitutional rights law firm argued for a motion to intervene, that is allowing human rights organizations like People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality (PULSE) and the Florida Democratic League (FDL), to be parties to the case and argue in defense of the eight million voters who cast their ballot in the historic 2008 election which enacted Florida’s constitutional respect for marriage as one man, one woman.

Amazingly, in a brazen display of hypocrisy, homosexual extremists have asked Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel to DENY marriage advocates their day in court. “We fully expected extremists to try to deny marriage advocates their Constitutional right to equal protection and due process rights to intervene in this discriminatory anti-voter rights lawsuit. You cannot on the one hand, play victim, and claim that your Constitutional rights being denied, then turn right around and ask the very same court, to deny others their Constitutional rights.”

ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY COALITION (CFC)

The Christian Family Coalition (CFC) is a widely acclaimed human rights and social justice advocacy organization serving Florida’s children and families for over 10 years. Through its daily community outreach, political education programs, and voter registration, CFC effectively mobilizes thousands of fair-minded voters across the state and actively works with municipal, county, state, and federal elected officials to advance common sense, family-friendly, non-discriminatory values and public policies. The CFC is highly respected for its sought-after, educational voter guides consulted by thousands of houses of worship and their voters all across Florida.

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld: For every Jewish person in the world, there are 700 anti-Semites

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld is the former Chairman of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs. He is noted author and commentator on European and World anti-Semitism, most recently of  Demonizing Israel and the Jews.  See  our NER  review of Demonizing  and interview with Dr. Gerstenfeld, “Anti-Israelism is Anti-Semitism”.

For every Jewish person in the world, there are 700 anti-Semites. If we put all the anti-Semites together into one country, it would become the third largest nation after China and India. That is the essence of the findings of the new survey of worldwide anti-Semitism just published by the ADL.

The report provides much new information and the ADL should be praised for having undertaken it. The eleven questions asked however only deal with classic anti-Semitism. The newest mutation of anti-Semitism — anti-Israelism – is not included in these polls. This is likely to lead to inaccurate conclusions by the many people not familiar with the fact that anti-Israelism has the same core hate motifs as religious and nationalistic anti-Semitism. The questionnaire used is 50 years old and has been employed for that period by the ADL in the United States. Therefore it does not encompass any necessary questions concerning anti-Israeli attitudes some of which are extreme.

The one question asked which does touch upon Israel is whether people surveyed believe the anti-Semitic stereotype “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries they live in.” With 41%, it has the highest amount of answers that “this is probably true,” of any question asked.

The exclusion of the essential questions about anti-Israelism leads to a very misleading positive view of Europe. The 2011 survey by the University of Bielefeld asked whether people surveyed agree with the statement that Israel “is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.” It was undertaken in 7 countries, of which its population accounts for more than half of the European Union’s citizens. Forty-three percent of those surveyed answered in the affirmative expressing an extreme anti-Semitic attitude concerning Israel.

In the near future, more detailed analyses of the ADL survey will be made. One finding which stands out is that in Middle Eastern and North African countries, 74% of people polled agree with a majority of the anti-Semitic stereotypes. This further confirms that the massive, non-selective immigration of Muslims into the European Union was the most negative post-war event for the Jewish communities there. I have described this phenomenon in the past as state anti-Semitism. European governments knowingly let in, in a non-selective way, a huge number of people who were raised in racist, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic Muslim countries.

Click here to read the ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-Semitism.

RELATED STORIES:

Turkey’s FM at UN conference: “No one can act to destroy Jerusalem’s Islamic identity”
AFDI “Islamic Jew-Hatred” bus ads hit DC streets!

RELATED VIDEO: Israel can be strong without the United States

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Bq4BZ4sHWq8[/youtube]

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review. The featured photo is by Hans Arne Vedlog of Dagbladet Nyheter.

All Home Intruders are White Men, Alarm Companies Say

Just when we thought the rash of Scandinavian youths knocking out poor minorities couldn’t get any worse, it turns out that white men are now knocking off innocent homeowners. How do we know this? Commercials.

Commercials tend to reflect the state of affairs in customers’ lives. That’s why it’s noteworthy that alarm companies are using the marketing angle of “White man breaks in home to scare family.”

Here is a list of the villains from some of the top alarm company commercials on Youtube:

1. Broadview Security Commercial: “Backyard”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/syjM1dPriBA[/youtube]

 

2. Brink’s Home Security: “Wrong Door”

A scene from Home Alone? No, this sad-looking white home intruder is about to terrorize you.

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

 

3. Broadview Security: “The Ex”

A romantic scene from The Notebook? No, this is a white home intruder.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Wkr0-nVwmQY[/youtube]

 

4. Adt Home Security: “In my mind’s eye | Burglary”

A trio of white intruders.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/wijubVvn-Gs[/youtube]

 

5. Brinks Home Security: Spot #2

[youtube]http://youtu.be/7ku1YOrxXeQ[/youtube]

 

6. Broadview Security: “The House Party”

clone of James van der Beek breaks into a woman’s home.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/DKI4t5MFG1E[/youtube]

 

7. Brinks Home Security – 3 spots

This Edward Burns-look alike is an angry white home intruder.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/gMIYVDuyX1Q[/youtube]

 

8. Slomin’s Home Security: Scary Van

Another trio of white home intruders. There are obviously a lot of white home intruders.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/U1JmC6xWUX8[/youtube]

 

9. Brink’s Home Security: “Treadmill”

Jason Statham, is that you?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/1K8DKH7tCRU[/youtube]

 

10. Brink’s Home Security: “Just To Be Sure”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/94-j_EnD8M8[/youtube]

 

11. ADT Home Security – Monitored Alarm Systems

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Oye9xqEhbSA[/youtube]

 

12. GEICO Commercial: Affordable Home Security

Breaking with the trend, this GEICO commercial features a non-white home intruder.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/DmmbAO3hWdI[/youtube]

Does Warren Buffet’s Billion Dollar Support For Pro-Abortion Organizations make him a Eugenicist?

A study by the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute (CMI) has revealed that Warren Buffett is a billion dollar donor to pro-abortion causes! Between the years 2001 and 2012, Buffett gave over 1.2 billion dollars to various pro-abortion organizations including Planned Parenthood.

That’s enough to fund 2.7 million abortions! For comparison that’s around the same number of people who live in the city of Chicago. 

There are two ways to create a super race. The first is to eliminate those who are genetically inferior. The second is to create more of those who are genetically superior. The first was originally called negative Eugenics, the second labeled positive Eugenics.Today the word “genetics” has replaced the word “Eugenics.” The goals are the same.

The United States was the birthplace of the modern Eugenics movement. The American Eugenics Society was founded in 1922, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) was founded in 1931. Modern genetics evolved from and was created by the American Eugenicists. The purpose of GSA and its members is to, “[W]ork to advance knowledge in the basic mechanisms of inheritance, from the molecular to the population level.”

Genetics has two branches – negative genetics and positive genetics. It is important to understand how both are creating a “racially hygienic” society in America today.

NEGATIVE GENETICS

Edwin Black in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race writes, “On January 19, 1904, the Carnegie Institution formally inaugurated what it called the Station for Experimental Evolution of the Carnegie Institution at bucolic Cold Springs Harbor, [New Jersey].” “The undertaking was not merely funded by Carnegie, it was an integral part of the Carnegie Institution itself,” notes Black, “[Carnegie Institute Chairman John] Billings and the Carnegie Institution would now mobilize their prestige and the fortune they controlled to help [Professor Charles] Davenport usher America into an age of a new form of hygiene: racial hygiene. The goal was clear: to eliminate the inadequate and unfit.”

No war, pestilence, genocide or government policy has done more to limit the numbers of defectives, feebleminded, poor and unwanted than the Eugenics (genetics) movement.

Edwin Black, author of War Against The Weak, writes, “The global effort to help women make independent choices about their own pregnancies was dominated by one woman: Margaret Sanger… Motherhood was to most civilizations a sacred role. Sanger, however, wanted women to have a choice in that sacred role, specifically if, when and how often to become pregnant.”

Black notes, “… Sanger vigorously opposed charitable efforts to uplift the downtrodden and deprived, and argued extensively that it was better that the cold and hungry be left without help, so that the eugenically superior strains could multiply without competition from ‘the unfit.’ She repeatedly referred to the lower classes and the unfit as ‘human waste’ not worthy of assistance, and proudly quoted the extreme eugenic view that  human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’ Moreover, for both political and genuine ideological reasons, Sanger associated closely with some of some of America’s most fanatical eugenic racists.” Sanger stated, “My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”

“The feminist movement, of which Sanger was a major exponent, always identified with eugenics,” wrote Black.

Today we see that negative genetics has led to more black abortions than births in New York City and a 73% black abortion rate in Mississippi. Some have labeled this national birth control effort “Black Genocide. ”Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black,” noted Erma Clardy Craven (deceased) Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader.

POSITIVE GENETICS

Positive genetics focuses on creating a racially pure and superior race to “improve the human stock”. It is not unlike creating a superior ear of corn or breed of cattle. The genetics movement finds its roots in the American Breeders Association. It is not enough to stop the breeding of inferiors, it is just as important to breed the right human. German biologist Johann Gregor Mendel (1882-1884) was the father of genetics.

Recent news has focused on the ultimate achievement of the geneticists – the racially hygienic baby, a.k.a. “designer baby.” The Washington Post reports:

The provocative notion of genetically modified babies met the very real world of federal regulation Tuesday, as a government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases.

The two-day meeting of the Food and Drug Administration panel is focused on a procedure that scientists think could help women who carry DNA mutations for conditions such as blindness and epilepsy. The process would let them have children without passing on those defects.

“The technology involves taking defective mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouses, from a mother’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from another woman. After being fertilized by the father’s sperm in a lab, the egg would be implanted in the mother, and the pregnancy could progress normally,” notes WaPo.

As CH Waddington, a British developmental biologist and geneticist, wrote in 1957, “It is of course a truism which has long been recognized that the development of any individual is affected both by the hereditary determinants which come into the fertilised egg from the two parents and also by the nature of the environment in which the development takes place.” It now appears that American geneticists, under the guidance and with the approval of the FDA, may create a new “racially hygienic” baby.

It appears that Warren Buffett has come down on the side of negative Eugenics. His contributions indicate that he is firmly in the Eugenicist camp much like Carnegie and Rockefeller.

RELATED STORIES:

Dr. Alveda King Tells Students of Modern Day Black Genocide
Hillary Clinton: Abortion Needed for Equality —and Human Development…
‘Death test’ predicts chance of healthy person dying within five years – Telegraph
Rev. Bill Owens: Administration ‘Is Promoting Murder’ by Promoting Abortion (+video)
Planned Parenthood President: When Life Begins Not ‘Really Relevant’ in Abortion Debate | National Review Online
In Georgia, 53.6% of the Babies Aborted Are Black | CNS News
Scientists create first ‘designer chromosome’
Genetics accounts for more than half of variation in exam results
Craig Venter’s DNA Company Is Planning to Make 100-Years-Old ‘The New 60′ – Bloomberg

‘Gay’ teachers conference reveals latest plans for school children

“GLBT” teachers conference in Boston reveals latest plans to push homosexuality even further into schools. Well organized, fueled with taxpayer dollars.

Exclusive report from MassResistance. Coming to your school soon.

What are the latest homosexual and transgender tactics targeting your schools? In the school “culture wars” nothing happens by accident. It is usually the result of careful planning and execution. Here is a look behind the scenes.

Homosexual teachers, school officials, and education activists (and their “allies”) — along with children as young as fifth grade — converged at GLSEN’s 2014 Annual Conference in Boston last month. At this “hands-on” event they to introduced and discussed their latest strategies for thoroughly pushing homosexuality and transgender issues and behaviors into the minds of kids.

The conference program.

Powerful national group heavily connected to state education system

GLSEN (Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network) is the nation’s largest homosexual and transgender activist organization working inside schools in all 50 states. It has set up “gay straight alliance” student clubs (GSAs) inside thousands of high schools (and even some middle schools) across the country. GLSEN pushes a wide range of psychologically penetrating homosexual and transgender programs activities into the schools, such as the controversial “Day of Silence”. It also directly organizes and trains teachers to integrate their techniques throughout the curriculum. Founded in the early 1990s by super-activist Kevin Jennings, it has a multi-million dollar budget, lavishly funded by corporate America and private foundations. The conference program.

This just one of the things GLSEN is implementing in high schools and middle schools across America.

In 2000, the Boston-area GLSEN Conference gained national outrage when MassResistance (then known as Parents’ Rights Coalition) exposed the sickening “Fistgate” workshop which involved adults teaching young kids explicit sex acts. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Legislature (and corporate America) has continued to support GLSEN.

In Massachusetts, much of GLSEN’s activities in the schools are funded with taxpayer dollars though the Massachusetts Commission for GLBT Youth. They are also closely coordinated through the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

All-day conference in Boston

The all-day conference was held on Saturday, April 5, 2014, at Madison Park Vocational High School in Boston. It included keynote addresses outlining their overall plans and direction, and 21 workshops dedicated to specific topics and strategies, by both national and local experts.

Madison Park Vocational High School in Boston.

It was attended by approximately 325 people. About two-thirds were students who were brought in from across the state — from middle schools, high schools, and (according to the conference organizers) some from elementary schools.

MassResistance was also there that day. We attended the keynote sessions, workshop sessions, and just about everything else.

The other objective: Using kids as the vanguard in schools

The GLSEN Conference is run by adults and is meant to train adults. But they go to great lengths to bring in as many students as possible, no matter how young. They come from schools across the state, and usually seem part of a “gay club” or affiliated with a homosexual activist on the school’s staff, such as a teacher or guidance counselor.

That’s because there are big roles for kids in the GLSEN strategies. Part of that is to be the “hands on” teaching of the new techniques. In the workshops, there is a fair amount of role-playing, for instance.

But even more important, the students are seen as the vanguard within the schools, to bring these ideas into the schools and interact with other kids and with authority figures in a way that other staff members can’t. For example, kids are trained to help form the gay clubs and other activities, how to talk about “coming out” to their friends, and how to deal with stubborn school administrators who resist these programs.

Students at the conference taking in the latest propaganda and marching orders.

The Conference’s keynote speeches: Setting the tone for the kids

The opening session that morning included two keynote speeches, both directed at the students. In many ways, these set the tone for the rest of the day. A general message we got from both speeches was that there is no sense of truth, or reality, or of right and wrong. Any way you want to express yourself in life is fine.

The first keynote speaker was Eliza Byard, Executive Director of GLSEN, from their New York office. She told the kids about the necessity of being “out and proud.” She goes to a lot of schools, both here and overseas, and makes it a point to counsel kids and teachers to publicly “come out of the closet” and declare their homosexuality. And GLSEN will support you, she said. She’s also pushing the radical “pronoun” issue — taken from so-called Queer Theory and coming into schools — that people can decide for themselves whether they’re “he” or “she” or something else, and everyone else needs to adjust to that.

Eliza Byard, Executive Director of GLSEN, from New York, giving her keynote speech to the attendees.

The second speaker was a student from western Massachusetts. who talked about her experiences as a GLSEN activist in her high school. She talked about “creating change” in the school, and how she does that, working with both students and adults. Small groups can make change, she said. But she said that “space must be available” for that to happen – i.e., accommodating teachers and school officials and “guidance by adults who allow youth to express themselves and not stifle themselves.”

Then, a middle school student spoke about how she helped organize the “Day of Silence” in her school. One teacher balked at having posters put up because of parent conferences that evening, saying that parents might not be comfortable that. The girl labeled the teacher “ignorant” and “no longer working at the school” (which caused a cheer). She said she’s a bisexual (in middle school!) and that her sister is a lesbian.

These stickers were given out.

The workshops

Below are some of the workshops from this year’s conference. This is what they’re training teachers and administrators to do, as well as the activist students. In one way or another, this is what you can expect to see coming up in your schools. A few of the topics had been introduced in past GLSEN conferences and are being refined. But all of them are about changing the schools and the minds of children in some way.

1.1 The Trevor Project: Empowering Youth to Save Lives!

Wondering how you can make an impact? Learn about The Trevor Project! We’ll discuss language, stereotypes and how to respond to signs of suicide. [Note: The “Trevor Project” steers kids to books portraying “gay” sex. See our MassResistance report.]

Presenter(s): Kate McGravey, Manchester Essex Regional School District; Jaclyn Kinsman, North Reading Public Schools

1.5 When a Teacher Makes a Gender Transition

We will share the successful experience of a faculty member’s gender transition at Milton Academy, K-12, as well as communications strategies, documents and lessons learned.

Presenter(s): Marshall Carter & Sam Landau, Milton Academy

1.6 Strengthening Youth/Adult Collaboration

This workshop will provide participants with helpful tips for achieving healthy, successful collaborations between youth and adults in school and community based settings. [Note: The “youth and adult” connection in the homosexual movement is particularly disturbing.]

Presenter(s): Jessica Flaherty & Giftson Joseph, BAGLY, Inc.

1. 7 Teaching “Out”

This workshop is a space for LGBTQ people to discuss the personal, professional, and political impact of being an LGBTQ teacher, particularly in a K-12 setting.[Note that this starts in Kindergarten!]

Presenter(s): Ryan Ambuter, Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School

2.1 Supporting Transgender Youth in Schools

This workshop will serve as both a Trans* 101 and a resource for those looking for more knowledge about the rights of transgender students in schools.

Presenter(s): Ryan Ambuter, Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School

2.2 When They Jump to Conclusions: Education on LGBTQ Topics

LGBTQ youth are often approached as “experts” on LGBTQ topics, by their parents and peers. Join QSA students in this engaging discussion on this multi-layered issue.

Presenter(s): Boston Area Homeschoolers’ QSA

2.5 Reversing the Erasure of LGBT History

Using Los Angeles Unified School District and Lowell School District as case studies, this workshop examines strategies for introducing vital LGBT inclusive history curriculum into schools. [Note: The concept of “LGBT History” is an important psychological tool for legitimizing it to kids. It also introduces deviant figures such as Harvey Milk and NAMBLA activist Harry Hay as worthy of admiration.]

Presenter(s): Debra Fowler, Debbie Costello & Erin Kehoe, Lowell High School

3.1 Starting a Middle School GSA: A Sustainable, Grassroots Approach

Practical advice and encouragement for students, staff, parents and community members who would like to establish a sustainable GSA in their local middle school.

Presenter(s): Anna Watson, Friends of the Ottoson Middle School GSA

3.2 Queering the Classroom: Providing a Safe Learning Environment for All

Providing a safe environment for GLBTQ youth promotes a more comfortable, creative environment for all students. Resources and discussion will address your classroom needs.

Presenter(s): Marie Caradonna, WAGLY (West Suburban Alliance of GLBTQ Youth)

3.3 Coming out to Parents

Coming out to parents as LGBTQ is a big decision. Learn what to expect and get support. Interactive workshop and resources for participants.

Presenter(s): Pam Garramone, Greater Boston PFLAG

3.4 Responding to LGBTQ Partner Abuse In Black & Latin@ Communities

This workshop will define partner abuse, the tactics of abuse, and discuss overcoming challenges for seeking support. The workshop will focus on Black/Latin@ LGBTQ communities. [Note: Abuse and violence in homosexual relationships has become such a problem in Massachusetts that it’s even discussed in “gay club” settings for kids and at “Youth Pride” activities.]

Presenter(s): Ricky Granderson & Corey Yarbrough, Hispanic Black Gay Coalition

3.6 Changing the Game: The GLSEN Sports Project

Participation in sports and Physical Education has positive effects health, self-esteem, sense of school belonging and academics. Unfortunately, some research suggests that LGBT students may not have access to these and they may be less likely than their non-LGBT peers to attend Physical Education classes or play sports teams. This session focuses on developing strategies to create inclusive conditions where all students can benefit from participation and learning. Note: This is the national homosexual movement introducing strategies for “queering” high school sports.]

Presenter(s): Jenny Betz, GLSEN National

Coming up

Unfortunately, most people – and especially most parents – have no idea the extent of the radical homosexual and transgender psychological propaganda being pushed at children in their schools, much less what’s going on behind the scenes. We hope to begin to remedy that.

We’ve just scratched the surface on this Conference. In upcoming emails, we will be reporting in greater detail what took place in some of the workshops, as well as posting some of the handouts.

Pamphlet handed out to kids at the Conference reveals the new “upgraded” name for state-funded radical group:Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer/Questioning (not well defined yet) Youth. They keep adding letters.

RELATED STORIES:

Hundreds contact FBI about pedophile teacher case – New York News
Janesville superintendent issues apology for ‘Kids React to Gay Marriage’ video : WSJ
State Department Sacrifices Children for ‘Gay’ Imperialism
Chuck Hagel: Transgender ban in military should be reviewed

Salon Publishes Libelous Hit Piece on Peter LaBarbera by Gina Miller

Spring has sprung with a vengeance on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera, although it’s not Spring’s fault, nor is it Mr. LaBarbera’s.  The vengeance comes from anti-Christian activists and purveyors of “tolerance” and lies who have caused Mr. LaBarbera quite a bit of trouble since April.  After being invited to Canada to speak to a pro-life group, and overcoming efforts to block his entry into the country, he was then arrested there for “trespassing” while he was standing for free speech on a public college campus, a charge which was later changed to “mischief” and is still pending.  You see, our neighbor Canada has laws against “hate speech,” and they consider telling the truth about homosexual behavior to be “hate speech,” and that’s why they targeted Mr. LaBarbera.

On April 9th, just before he left for Canada, he was invited by the Traditional Values Club to give a speech at Sinclair Community College (SCC) in Dayton, Ohio on the topic of the radical homosexual movement.  A couple of intolerant, pro-homosexual teachers, who are apparently obsessed with hatred for the Traditional Values Club, organized a large walk-out of his speech, which he handled with an abundance of grace.  One of the teachers, Kate Geiselman, subsequently decided to write a column, published on April 16th by Salon.com, which calls him an “anti-gay bigot” in the headline.  In it, she claims he was “angry” at the walk-out, and as the teachers and students filed out of the room, she declares that he said, “You’re leaving?  Are you effing kidding?”

One small, but important detail, however:  Peter LaBarbera never said that, which makes her column pure, actionable libel.  He did say “effing,” but it was in response to a heckler who flung the actual F-word at him during the walk-out, and Mr. LaBarbera was repeating to the audience what he heard the guy say (replacing the guy’s F-word with the euphemistic “effing”) in illustration of the “tolerance” of those walking out.

Another of the teacher collaborators, Rebecca Morean, posted a comment at the Salon column, stating in part:

LaBarbera certainly said “Effing.” I, and many others heard it, as we were the first to eject ourselves. I’d rather be accused of saying that btw than being a bigot.  Odd sense of outrage.  There are other tapes, and the fact that the one posted means he didn’t say it is silly.  The mic wasn’t by his face.

Another small, but large, detail:  a two-minute clip of the walk-out reveals that Mr. LaBarbera was holding the mic and speaking into it the entire time, so the mic was indeed “by his face.”  It would appear that Ms. Morean is not concerned with telling the truth, because videos of it also reveal what Mr. LaBarbera said, which does not include, “You’re leaving?  Are you effing kidding?”

Here is what he said, as transcribed from video recordings:

“I suppose this is a walk-out.  Well, this is, this is what I say, not, not even people willing to hear from the other side.  I think this is, this is regretful. [heckler interjects F-word]  ‘Your message is ‘effing’ garbage,’ that guy just said.  Yeah, yeah this is a shame, but, well, those of you who remained are exhibiting true tolerance…  I mean this is—this is the Left in action; I’m sorry.  You know, tolerance for me but not for you.  Don’t even want to hear a viewpoint.  That’s their right, and I just think it’s immature…”

So, a heckler flings the real “F-word” at Mr. LaBarbera, and he responds to the heckler by saying, “‘Your message is ‘effing’ garbage,’ that guy just said.”  This is quite a different story than what Ms. Geiselman claims, as does Salon in publishing her column.

I also obtained statements from witnesses who were in the audience and testified that Mr. LaBarbera did not say what the two teachers claim.

Al Giambrone, a co-founder of the Traditional Values Club, wrote:

I was present for the entire event…  I was sitting in the third or fourth row on the end seat next to the center aisle directly behind one of the instructors who lead the walkout.  I had a perfect view and was well within earshot of Mr. LaBarbera (even if he hadn’t had a mike) when the walkout occurred.  I paid careful attention to his reaction and what he said when they walked out because I was curious to see how he would handle it. I knew it was coming.  I was quite impressed by the way in which he responded, by his presence of mind and by his effective but respectful demeanor, not only during the walkout but through the entire event.  At no time did I hear him use any inappropriate language nor did I see him display any contentious reaction even when hostile members in the audience gave him what many would consider good reason to do so.

Traditional Values Club President Bonnie Borel-Donohue also concurred with Mr. Giambrone.

SCC Prof. Rebecca Morean leads the "walkout" of Peter LaBarbera's speech at the college. Morean was obsessed in her contempt of the Traditional Values Club and later gave credence to fellow SCC professor Kate Geiselman's lie.

LEFTIST INTOLERAnCE: SCC Prof. Rebecca Morean leads the “walkout” of Peter LaBarbera’s speech at the college. Here she stands up as LaBarbera is talking, followed by dozens of students. Morean was obsessed in her disdain for the Traditional Values Club at SCC and later gave credence to fellow SCC professor Kate Geiselman’s “effing” lie about AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera.

The teacher-led walk-out is one thing, and it could’ve ended there, but Ms. Geiselman decided to pen a libelous column on top of it, claiming she heard him say something he didn’t say.  There are two possibilities.  Either she genuinely misheard what he said, or she took his quoting of the heckler and maliciously turned it into a fabricated statement to defame him.

The story gets stranger when we read what she said in another Salon column from two years ago (which is, incidentally, about a different time she was involved in protest-targeting a speech presented by the Traditional Values Club at Sinclair):

The acoustics were poor.  Students nearby were whispering to each other.  My hearing is bad and I was far away, so I admit that I had trouble getting every word he was saying.

Interesting!  Ms. Geiselman admits she is hard of hearing, and yet she goes on record asserting she “heard” Mr. LaBarbera say something in a noisy room as she was walking out, most likely with her back to him—certainly not the most optimal conditions for hearing, even with the keenest of ears.

By the way, I sent an e-mail to two of Ms. Geiselman’s accounts (one at Sinclair and one listed on her website) requesting a comment on this event, but she did not reply.

Regardless of how she came up with the story, Ms. Geiselman and Salon’s editor, Cindy Jeffers, are now the recipients of a demand letter presented to them on Friday by Attorney Charles LiMandri.  It gives them ten days to issue an apology and a retraction of the defamatory statements made by Ms. Geiselman in her column and on Twitter.  In part, the letter states:

The audio on the two minute video makes it perfectly clear that Mr. LaBarbera did not utter the unprofessional and defamatory words that you attribute to him. This has been confirmed by multiple witnesses who were in immediate proximity to Mr. LaBarbera during his entire presentation. You further falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of being “a person who makes his living telling lies” in the internet posting attached above. You did so even though you did not even have the decency to listen to his remarks before publicly excoriating him.

… By your false and defamatory statements you have maliciously sought to injure Mr. LaBarbera in his reputation and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace. You have also sought to injure him in his trade or profession. We hereby demand that you issue a public retraction of, and a public apology for, your false and defamatory statements made against Mr. LaBarbera.

This entire story is yet another in the myriad examples of how those on the Left lie to further their agenda.  The fact is that truth is not on their side, so in their self-deception, all they have are lies and defamation with which to wage their battles.

I requested a statement from Mr. LaBarbera, and he wrote:

What happened at Sinclair Community College is just another example of the Left’s penchant for using dirty tactics, half-truths and cheap stunts to discredit and demonize their opponents.

Kate Geiselman and Salon must be held accountable for creating and promoting a lie to advance their intolerant, conservative-bashing agenda.  I absolutely did not say the “effing” line reported by SCC prof Kate Geiselman. It is simply absurd to say that I would say that in front of a bunch of students and pro-family advocates whom I had just met!

This is a bad and implausible lie that this ‘writing’ instructor came up with. Geiselman was writing fiction, and it’s bad fiction at that.

Another thing that strikes me about the Left’s “anti-hate” myth directed at mostly Christian conservatives—and stoked by the SPLC—is that it pretty much gives them carte blanche to engage in all kinds of vicious and deceitful attacks against their foes.

After all, if the Left is really battling HATERS on a moral par with the KKK (the SPLC claim), then do details and facts matter as much as ASSAILING THE HATERS?  And is being fair to, and truthful about, the target that important—since in their minds they are dealing with despicable extremists?

This is a dangerous game by the Left: in their arrogance and pride, they have decided for everyone that there is no legitimate opposition to the LGBT agenda—and then they distort reality according to that model. If the liberal media doesn’t hold them accountable, conservatives must step up and expose the Left’s systematic campaign of misinformation.

Not only are these people vicious liars, but they’re also intellectually dishonest.  They always claim to support “diversity,” yet they bust their rears to shut down those with views that are diverse from theirs.  They  demand “tolerance,” but they are the most intolerant people among us, plugging their ears as they shout, “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!  I CAN’T HEAR YOU, ‘HATER’!”  If they had a shred of intellectual honesty, if they truly believed their ideas on homosexuality were solid, right and true, then why would they be threatened by someone presenting the other side of the debate?

The real losers here are those college kids who were led by the nose by the conniving, lying teachers—those kids who did not get to hear Mr. LaBarbera tell the truth about the dangers of homosexual behavior and the lies the activists tell to push their freedom-robbing agenda.  The kids are the real losers, because they’re learning the same, age-old fascistic techniques of socialist-communist regimes throughout history that have worked to silence the voices of those who tell the truth about the tyranny of their evil schemes.

Behind the Scenes on the Chicago Teachers Union Anti-Common Core Resolution

On May 7, 2014, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) passed a resolution against the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

That evening, I wrote this post and included my own experience and conversations on Lewis’ position on CCSS. In the post, I figuratively note that this is now a battle between Lewis and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten, who has stated that if it comes down to AFT constituency rejection of CCSS and keeping CCSS at the AFT convention in July 2014, she plans to keep CCSS.

Though I metaphorically describe the battle as being between Weingarten and Lewis, I know from my interactions with Lewis that she is a union president who serves her constituency. Unlike Weingarten’s dealings with AFT members, Lewis does not try to force CTU membership into the mold of her top down choice.

On May 10, 2014, fellow blogger Anthony Cody posted a guest article by CTU member Michelle Gunderson. In it, Gunderson describes the process by which CTU arrived at and crafted CTU’s anti-CCSS resolution.

Include below is Gunderson’s post in part:

By Michelle Gunderson.

Wednesday evening I stood before my brothers and sisters at the Chicago Teachers Union to speak in favor of our resolution opposing the Common Core State Standards. When I finished speaking, there was a call for the vote. It was unanimous. It was resounding – not a single voice raised in opposition.

There are times when the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) seems like an engine; that we are able to accomplish great and difficult work seemingly overnight. I would like to pull back the curtain for a moment, and help others understand the purposeful and deliberate process we take in order to form our decisions and actions at CTU.

There are those in the media who contend we are being reckless and blindly following Karen Lewis, the president of our local. Nothing could be further from the actual case.Michelle.jpg

As much as we admire Karen Lewis and are grateful for her talents, this work was not generated from her. In fact, characterizing this event in such simplistic terms denigrates the social justice transformation of the Chicago Teachers Union, a long and hard-won struggle that involves many. We do not act on Karen Lewis’ behalf or her wishes. She acts on ours, with our guidance, and we love her for it.

It is hard to imagine a union in existence where a full democratic process is expected by everyone involved – leadership, rank and file, and union staff. Yet, in Chicago, we hold this ideal in such high regard we cannot imagine a union working any other way.

Several months prior to the passing of the resolution, the Caucus of Rank and File Educators began discussing and debating the Common Core in our open meetings. We read Diane Ravitch’s bookThe Reign of Error in small study groups. And many of us followed Anthony Cody’s work on this blog. Through conversations and study we came to a strong conclusion. The authors of the Common Core view the purpose of education as college and career readiness. We view the purpose of public education as a means for educating a populace of critical thinkers who are capable of shaping a just and equitable society in order to lead good and purpose-filled lives.

With our philosophical underpinning so drastically divergent from that of the Common Core we did not see any room for common ground.

That is why we say no to Common Core.

My hat is off to CTU.

To read the rest of Gunderson’s piece on Anthony Cody’s blog, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken by firedoglakedotcom. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.