Posts

Nancy Pelosi, High Priestess of the Left’s Cult, Gives Thanks to Floyd Her Savior

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Smirnoff) has been getting a lot of heat, as Matt Margolis detailed, for thanking George Floyd for being good enough to die “for justice.” But amid all the scorn and ridicule Pelosi is justly receiving, a key point is being overlooked: While her words may have sounded mawkish, maudlin, and incomparably tone-deaf to outsiders, to true believers in the left’s new secular religion, everything she said was entirely appropriate. In her capacity as high priestess of this religion, Pelosi was performing a hieratic role and giving thanks to the new savior.

The priestess began by giving thanks to the deity for his salvific sacrifice: “Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice.” Then she recounted a bit of sacred history for the edification of the believers: “For being there to call out to your mom — how heartbreaking was that — to call out for your mom, ‘I can’t breathe.’” She concluded by explaining to the faithful how much they owed to the savior: “Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice.”

Pelosi is ostensibly a Catholic, and this statement closely follows the pattern of the Catholic Mass, which contains texts giving thanks to the Lord, recounting the institution of the Holy Eucharist, and explaining how Jesus gave his life for the salvation of the world.

In the left’s new religion, racism, or whiteness, is the original sin. This sin manifests itself in all sorts of “systemic” ways, most notably in the alleged police double standard for blacks and whites. George Floyd, in Pelosi’s clouded vision, sacrificed himself just as Jesus did. In Christian thought, Jesus submitted to death in order to destroy it and enable human beings to enjoy eternal life; now George Floyd submitted to racism and police brutality in order to destroy them and enable Americans to enjoy racial justice.

Pelosi’s statement thanking Floyd is thus not only a religious one, but it’s a Christian heresy, a twisting of Christian doctrine for nefarious ends, in this case substituting Floyd for Christ in an effort to sanctify the left’s race-baiting and dangerously irresponsible ratcheting-up of societal tensions by means of hysterical false charges.

While Pelosi is a high priestess of the Floyd cult, she is not its founding prophet. That honor goes to some anonymous spiritual seer in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where last June, according to Dr. Reza Parchizadeh, a political theorist and analyst, “the Iranian regime has turned the late #George_Floyd into Saint George, Shiite-style!” Parchizadeh posted a painting of Floyd depicting him in the way Shi’ite Muslims often depict their holy figures: in a green robe and surrounded by an aura of holy light. As incongruous as the image was, it was perfectly fitting: Floyd, whose murder touched off the rage for destruction that is still afflicting America today despite the conviction of Derek Chauvin, is the perfect symbol for the Iranian Islamic regime’s oft-repeated aspiration: “Death to America.”

Now that Pelosi has endorsed this cult, expect it to grow further, even exponentially. The inconvenient details of Floyd’s life have already been glossed over for months. Never mind the fentanyl, never mind the convictions for robbery, theft, and drug dealing, never mind the pistol he held to a woman’s stomach while robbing her – none of that matters or besmirches Floyd’s salvific mission in any way. Basketball great Magic Johnson tweeted Tuesday: “Great speech by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison describing George Floyd as a father, family man, and beloved member of his community. It was beautiful and sent chills down my body! If you didn’t see it, I encourage you all to watch it.”

That’s a big miss for me, Earvin, but you’ll have to pardon me, you see, I am not an adherent of your religious faith. Don’t be concerned, however; many people are, and their numbers are growing every day. Now that Derek Chauvin (aka Satan) has been driven out, a new messianic era of racial justice will dawn, in which the faithful will gather together joyfully to sing their praises to the savior, the one who died to give them life. In this glorious year of Our Floyd, our racial redemption is finally at hand.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Algeria: Islamic scholar criticizes child marriage, gets three years in prison for ‘offending Islam’

Biden’s handlers recognize Armenian Genocide

Austria: Police find ‘enemies list’ in raids on members of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas

Czechia: Muslim cleric gets prison for financing jihad terror, says he is not a terrorist and what he did was right

UK prison chaplain admits he may have been ‘conned’ by jihadi who showed remorse and then killed two people

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Meghan and Harry’s soap Oprah

Have the Sussexes set fire to the house they fled from?


Adding to the 56 million articles already published about Prince Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview may seem a fool’s errand: another scribbler has already noted that of 31 stories on the website of the British tabloid, The Mirror, at some point in the last 48 hours, 30 were about the Sussexes and the 31st was about something similar.

For a moment it seemed like just another Royals frenzy, but an accusation of racism at the Palace have turned the Sussexes’ Royal woes into something much more serious. In the uproar, Meghan’s other problems with the Royal household have been eclipsed.

Royalty has always presented itself as glamorous and powerful, but on the inside life is tough and individuals relatively powerless. Think of the first five wives of Henry VIII. Though execution for failing to live up to expectations has fallen out of fashion, being a British Royal is still very demanding. Not everyone is cut out for a life of relentless ribbon-cutting and speeches, or tours to culturally diverse parts of the Commonwealth.

It’s easier if you are born to it.

Coming into the British Royal family from the free, it’s all-about-me world is very, very hard. So Meghan Markle has discovered by marrying into the Mountbatten-Windsor clan, apparently without doing any homework whatsoever. In the famous tell-all interview she revealed that, five minutes before she met the Queen for the first time, she did not know how and when to curtsey. She could not even sing the British national anthem (which is “God Save the Queen”).

Much less was she prepared for the loss of freedom and privacy that joining an institution like the British monarchy entails, in particular its delicately-balanced relationship with the nation’s tabloid press.

Though her friends warned her, the savagery of that institution seems to have hit her like a ton of bricks. As an exotic newcomer with a past, Meghan was bound to attract a lot of attention, but the press and social media seemed to really have it in for her.

The last straw was the Daily Mail’s publication in February 2019 of a plaintive letter to her estranged father Thomas Markle that she had written after her wedding the previous May — which he had sold to the paper. Last month the Sussexes won a lawsuit against the Mail’s owners for breach of privacy and copyright. (The paper’s campaign against them continues: “Back to Basics at their $14.5 Million Mansion!” runs a recent headline.)

What they have not won, according to the Oprah interview, is any protection by the Royal household from ongoing media harassment, or rebuttals of fake news about her and Harry. Meghan was pregnant with their son Archie when the Thomas Markle letter was published and says she became suicidal when she failed to get any support from the institution other than from Harry, who was equally “trapped”. When she asked for inpatient care for her mental health, she was told that would not be good for the institution.

Harry insists in the interview that Meghan is great for the institution, “one of the greatest assets to the Commonwealth that the family could have ever wished for.” He points to the success of their tour of the South Pacific in October 2018, during which she revealed her pregnancy, but hints that her popularity in the former colonies raised the ghost of Diana in a similar setting and evoked jealously back in the Palace.

A year later, on their visit to South Africa, Meghan would admit to a television reporter that life at home had been “um, hard.” Indeed, “unfair”. That did not go down well with The Firm.

Her most sensational claim, however, is about racism. Before little Archie came into the world looking nice and white, someone in the Royal household, she says, told Harry of “concerns” about the colour he might be. This is, of course, very damning, especially in the current climate of hysteria about racism. Harry refuses to say who made this blunder, though we are assured it was not the Queen, whom the couple insist they are on good terms with. In addition, Meghan learned that as a minor Royal, Archie would not have a title or security details.

On this showing – and we only have their story to go on – the Sussexes decision to “step back” from Royal duties and seek their fortune in Canada, then the United States, seems reasonable. If the Palace is as unfeeling and racist as they say, then good riddance.

Yet they seem to want reconciliation; after all, it is Harry’s family.

So why on earth rake over resentments in front of a global audience? Can it make the Palace repent? Not likely. Can it get the US media, at least, on their side. Perhaps. But, judging by commentaries on the interview so far, for every person who is sympathetic, there is at least one other who thinks it wrong to complain about your family in public. It did not help poor Diana.

In fact, the British Royal Family with its divorces and its major and minor scandals, like others, has been disintegrating before our eyes for decades, and the institution itself seems less and less relevant in a democratic age. Possibly the only reason the whole edifice hasn’t already collapsed is Queen Elizabeth herself, who embodies a moral sense and spirit of service that is simply disappearing from public life.

Anti-racism is the new morality, however, and one serves humanity by denouncing it wherever it is even suspected. Reactions over the past two days to the allegation that it is alive and well among the British Royals may be a fatal blow to their institution. In polls, young Brits have given it the thumbs down and the Commonwealth is showing its colours.

A monarchy riddled with divorce and adultery is just like the rest of us, but one harbouring racists is beyond the pale. It’s looking more and more like Harry and Meghan have set fire to the house they deserted.

COLUMN BY

Carolyn Moynihan is the former deputy editor of MercatorNet More by Carolyn Moynihan.

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

Institutional Racism in Higher Ed

Institutional racism and systemic racism are terms bandied about these days without much clarity. Being 84 years of age, I have seen and lived through what might be called institutional racism or systemic racism. Both operate under the assumption that one race is superior to another. It involves the practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race.

“Negros,” as we proudly called ourselves back then, were denied entry to hotels, restaurants, and other establishments all over the nation, including the North. Certain jobs were entirely off-limits to Negros. What school a child attended was determined by his race.

In motion pictures, Negros were portrayed as being unintelligent, such as the roles played by Stepin Fetchit and Mantan Moreland in the Charlie Chan movies. Fortunately, those aspects of racism are a part of our history.

By the way, Fetchit, whose real name was Lincoln Perry, was the first black actor to become a millionaire, and he has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and, in 1976, the Hollywood chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People awarded Perry a Special NAACP Image Award.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Despite the nation’s great achievements in race relations, there remains institutional racism, namely the widespread practice of treating a person or group of people differently based on their race. Most institutional racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning.

Eric Dreiband, an assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, recently wrote that Yale University “grants substantial, and often determinative, preferences based on race.”

The four-page letter said, “Yale’s race discrimination imposes undue and unlawful penalties on racially-disfavored applicants, including in particular Asian American and White applicants.”

Yale University is by no means alone in the practice of institutional racism. Last year, Asian students brought a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University and lost. The judge held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the lower personal ratings assigned to Asian applicants are the result of “animus” or ill-motivated racial hostility toward Asian Americans by Harvard admissions officials.

However, no one offered an explanation as to why Asian American applicants were deemed to have, on average, poorer personal qualities than white applicants. An explanation may be that Asian students party less, study more, and get higher test scores than white students.

In court filings, Students for Fair Admissions argued that the University of North Carolina’s admissions practices are unconstitutional. Its brief stated: “UNC’s use of race is the opposite of individualized; UNC uses race mechanically to ensure the admission of the vast majority of underrepresented minorities.”

Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, said in a news release that the court filing “exposes the startling magnitude of the University of North Carolina’s racial preferences.”

Blum said that their filing contains statistical evidence that shows that an Asian American male applicant from North Carolina with a 25% chance of getting into UNC would see his acceptance probability increase to about 67% if he were Latino and to more than 90% if he were African American.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative) that read: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

California legislators voted earlier this summer to put the question to voters to repeal the state’s ban on the use of race as a criterion in the hiring, awarding public contracts and admissions to public universities and restore the practice of institutional racism under the euphemistic title “affirmative action.”

When social justice warriors use the terms “institutional racism” or “systemic racism,” I suspect it means that they cannot identify the actual person or entities engaged in the practice.

However, most of what might be called institutional or systemic racism is practiced by the nation’s institutions of higher learning. And it is seen by many, particularly the intellectual elite, as a desirable form of determining who gets what.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams, a columnist for The Daily Signal, is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Black Patriots Who Helped Keep America Free


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Let’s Talk About Racism In America Featuring Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington and More

The Freedom Forum posted the below comments and video on YouTube.

This is the conversation about racism in America that the Mainstream Is hiding from you. Honest moments from interviews featuring people like Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Lil Wayne, Larry Elder, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, and others give their take on racism in America right now.

WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

A Few of the Democrats Biden Missed When He Called Trump Our First Racist President

My latest in PJ Media:

If President Trump is really a “racist,” as Joe Biden claims, he is one of the strangest racists who ever lived: before the coronavirus hit, black and Hispanic unemployment was at record low levels, the president has repeatedly hailed the achievements of black Americans, and Trump himself, before he entered politics as an unapologetic, non-establishment Republican, was widely respected even by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for his work for the black community. But none of that matters to Joe Biden or whomever is putting words in his mouth: they want us to believe that Trump is a racist, indeed, the first racist president, because for years they’ve been destroying Republicans with this charge, however false it may be. Why stop now? But Biden has missed a few Democrats.

Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster recounts that progressive hero Woodrow Wilson, for example, was born in Virginia a bit more than four years before the Civil War broke out. Throughout his life, he retained the racist attitudes he learned in his youth, and when he became president, he made them U.S. government policy. In 1915, the notorious film The Birth of a Nation became the first motion picture to get a screening in the White House; the film portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroes, denigrated blacks in numerous ways, and quoted Wilson as a respected authority.

Wilson was also quoted decrying the supposed “policy of congressional leaders” to “put the white South under the heel of the black South.” In response, Wilson went on, as quoted in the film: “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation… until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”

The showing of The Birth of a Nation was indicative of Wilson’s attitudes: during his administration, government departments in Washington were segregated.

Rating America’s Presidents also shows how another Democrat, James Buchanan, presided over the dissolution of the Union in the years leading up to the Civil War, appealing to the South not to secede by adopting a full-hearted, enthusiastic endorsement of slavery and all it represented. On March 6, 1857, two days after Buchanan took office, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, published its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a case that had been brought by Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken into free territory and argued that, as a result, he was now free. The court voted 7–2 against Scott. In his opinion, Taney wrote that blacks were a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” who “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Muslims purposefully hit 23-year-old woman with car, drag her 800 meters to her death

Turkey: By opposing Hagia Sophia conversion, ‘Greece showed once again its enmity towards Islam’

Metropolitan Museum of Art labels Jewish tefillin as Egyptian amulet, keeps it in Islamic Art department

Islamic Republic of Iran: Morality agent spits at girls not wearing hijab, asks them “where’s your dirty owner?”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rashida Tlaib Comes Out for Jim Crow-Style Laws, Arrests of Her Political Foes

My latest in PJ Media:

Wait long enough, and everything comes around again. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), one of the wokest womyn in the world, has this week blazed bold new trails by calling for the revival of not one, but two tried-and-true practices that have inexplicably fallen into neglect in American politics: Jim Crow segregation laws and the arrest of one’s political opponents.

This brave leader said in a Detroit speech that if Trump Cabinet members failed to comply with congressional subpoenas, “they’re trying to figure out, no joke, is it the D.C. police that goes and gets them? We don’t know. Where do we hold them?” Tlaib added: “This is the first time we’ve ever had a situation like this,” and that consequently, she and other Democrat leaders were “trying to tread carefully” into this “uncharted territory.” She volunteered her own district for this noble undertaking: “I will tell them they can hold all those people right here in Detroit.”

Oh, but this territory is amply charted. Tlaib’s vision for America’s future apparently looks a great deal like the past – and present – of authoritarian regimes the world over. The new diverse, inclusive America of Tlaib and her colleagues apparently includes the 2 a.m. pounding on the door and the hustling of a bewildered, pajama-clad conservative by jackbooted stormtroopers into a waiting police van. Then they get hustled off to Detroit, the name of which will take on an air of menace and foreboding, like “Treblinka” and “Kolyma.” And why not? We already have telescreens all over airports and other public spaces pumping CNN propaganda into an unwitting populace 24/7 now; arrests and, presumably, camps for dissenters is the logical next step. After all, that’s what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and still happens in North Korea and Communist China. The wise Tlaib knows that our future is their past.

Nor is that all. Tlaib Tuesday toured Detroit’s Public Safety Headquarters and told Detroit police Chief James Craig that facial recognition analysts “need to be African Americans, not people that are not. I think non-African Americans think African Americans all look the same.”

That meant, of course, that Tlaib herself, since she is not African American, thinks all African Americans look the same, but she can be forgiven for being so overwhelmed by her passion for justice that she got a bit confused. Here again, the visionary Tlaib knows that William Faulkner, despite being a white male Southerner and hence obviously racist and manifestly evil, was actually right when he said, “The past isn’t dead. It is not even past.” The old Jim Crow laws of the South in Faulkner’s time are Tlaib’s new vision for America: if she gets her way, you won’t be judged by the content of your character, but by the color of your skin.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

They Won’t Stand Up to Rep. Omar, But They’ll Call Trump an Anti-Semite

Michigan: All meat in Dearborn public schools is now halal

Bloomberg Calls Islamic Terrorists Who Chant “Death to America, Death to Israel” “Ragtag Rebels”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

White Drexel University professor wants ‘white genocide’ — you first!

On Christmas Day Drexel NOW in an article titled “Response to Professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s Tweet” stated:

Drexel became aware today of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s inflammatory tweet, which was posted on his personal Twitter account on Dec. 24, 2016. While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University.

The University is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail. 

Here is Ciccariello-Maher’s Tweet:

So what exactly is there to discuss?

ciccariello_maher

George Ciccariello-Maher. Photo: Drexel University.

White professor George Ciccariello-Maher’s biography states:

I am very excited to have joined the Drexel community after having taught political theory at U.C. Berkeley, San Quentin State Prison, and the Venezuelan School of Planning in Caracas. Everywhere that I have lived, from Caracas to Oakland, has impacted my approach to teaching, research, and how I understand the world more generally, and I expect Drexel and Philadelphia to do the same.

My research and teaching center on what could be called the “decolonial turn” in political thought, the moment of epistemic and political interrogation that emerges in response to colonialism and global social inequality.

Read more…

Ciccariello-Maher’s specialization includes, “Colonialism, social movements, political theory, Latin America, and race and racism.” He “contribute[s] journalistic writing to such publications as Counterpunch, MRZine, and Venezuela Analysis, ZNet, and Alternet among others, and I have written op-eds for the Philadelphia Inquirer and Fox News Latino. I appear regularly in media outlets ranging from community radio to NPR, from Al-Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, and Fox News.”

Perhaps Ciccariello-Maher should take the lead and be the first to commit “white genocide”? Or maybe he already has?!

RELATED ARTICLES:

White Communist Professor Advocates White Genocide

Racist White Professor Calls For “White Genocide,” Then Blames Everyone Else For Misinterpreting His Racist Tweets

Jeffery B. Sessions: The Man Who Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for a KKK Murderer

Democrats, supported by the media, have taken a stand against Senator and U.S. Attorney General nominee Jeffrey B. Sessions, calling him a racist. Is that true or hyperbolic?

Actions speak louder than words. Democrats are focusing on words and ignoring Senator Sessions actions while a U.S. Attorney and as the Alabama Attorney General.

In a Weekly Standard column In Alabama, Jeff Sessions Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for KKK Murderer Mark Hemingway reports:

Sessions’s actual track record certainly doesn’t suggest he’s a racist. Quite the opposite, in fact. As a U.S. Attorney he filed several cases to desegregate schools in Alabama. And he also prosecuted Klansman Henry Francis Hays, son of Alabama Klan leader Bennie Hays, for abducting and killing Michael Donald, a black teenager selected at random. Sessions insisted on the death penalty for Hays. When he was later elected the state Attorney General, Sessions followed through and made sure Hays was executed. The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan, effectively breaking the back of the KKK in Alabama.

As a U.S. attorney, he also prosecuted a group of civil rights activists, which included a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., for voter fraud in Perry County, Alabama. The case fell apart, and Sessions bluntly told me he “failed to make the case.” This incident has also been used to claim that Sessions is racist—but it shouldn’t be. The county has been dogged with accusations of voter fraud for decades. In 2008, state and federal officials investigated voter fraud in Perry County after “a local citizens group gathered affidavits detailing several cases in which at least one Democratic county official paid citizens for their votes, or encouraged them to vote multiple times.” A detailed story in the Tuscaloosa News reported that voting patterns in one Perry County town were also mighty suspicious in 2012: “Uniontown has a population of 1,775, according to the 2010 census but, according to the Perry County board of registrars, has 2,587 registered voters. The total votes cast there Tuesday—1,431—represented a turnout of 55 percent of the number of registered voters and a whopping 80.6 percent of the town’s population.”

Perhaps there are a lot of ideological reasons for liberals to be upset about Sessions becoming attorney general. But I don’t think the character attacks on the man can be taken seriously.

Read more…

In The Daily Signal column Why Jeff Sessions, ‘an Advocate for the Constitution,’ Has Conservatives So Excited Fred Lucas notes:

As attorney general, Jeff Sessions could go a long way toward reversing the politicization of the Justice Department that occurred under the Obama administration, Republican senators and conservative activists said Friday, after President-elect Donald Trump announced he is nominating the Alabama Republican senator for the nation’s top law enforcement job.

“Sen. Sessions’ solid understanding of the Constitution and firm commitment to the rule of law is exactly what the Justice Department needs,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “I have worked closely with Sen. Sessions on the Judiciary Committee over these past six years and I have every confidence that he will make a great attorney general for all Americans.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, commended the Sessions nomination and excoriated the Justice Department under the controversial leadership of Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Read more…

Americans are tired of vitriol, they voted for change and got it with Donald J. Trump. 

President-elect Trump will get his U.S. Attorney General nominee. As Whitcomb Riley in his 1894 poem When Lide Married Him wrote, “‘Katy (or Katie) bar the door.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump’s Pick for Attorney General Prosecuted These Civil Rights Cases

Left-Wing Bigotry And Hatred Is On Full Display After Trump Win / IBD

AR-15 Speaks! A New — and Real — Anti-black Bigotry by AR-15

Hi, my name is AR-15. Some of you know me, but many more of you know of me — through the media. But you may not know the real me.

I’m that cool, sleek-looking black gun you’ve seen profiled by the press. They put me in newspapers and on TV, showing my picture as if it’s a mug shot, even though I’ve never committed a crime. Oh, bad people have at times used (and abused) me to do bad things, but not really that often; as even The New York Times admitted in 2014, firearms such as me — which that paper and others call “assault weapons” — are only used in two percent of gun crimes (most are perpetrated with handguns).

And that’s another thing. For a long time I didn’t mind the misnomer; it massaged my ego and made me feel like the big man on the block when I was called an “assault weapon.” But Mr. Duke convinced me that “pride goeth before a fall,” as the Good Book says. He pointed out that the term “assault weapon” was popularized by anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarmann, whose goal was to besmirch my reputation and get me banned. In fact, Sugarmann, not at all a sweet man, actually once said, “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

And it’s true, especially in my case. The public knows my appearance well; people have seen my cousin and dead ringer, M-16, fired machine-gun style in war movies for decades. But, alas, I, AR-15 — the weapon available to the public — can only be fired semi-automatic. This means that every time you pull my trigger, one shot, and only one shot, is released.

So even if we accept the term “assault weapon,” that’s not me. To qualify, a gun must be capable of fully automatic fire (machine-gun style), and no such weapons are readily available to the public. So unlike cousin M-16, who originally had a select-fire feature allowing him to be shot in various ways, I’m just a one-trick pony. And, by the way, “AR” in my name doesn’t stand for “assault rifle” but “Armalite Rifle,” referencing the company that first produced me.

Despite this, I’ve become a media whipping boy. Even when those rare crimes are committed in which a gun of my class is used, but which don’t involve me personally — such as the horrific Orlando incident, where Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX — my face is front and center. In fact, that’s what finally inspired me to speak out, articles such as this outrageous one from Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman. Reporting on how he tried me at a Philly gun range, he actually wrote:

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

None of the above is true; I know because I was there. Oh, in my younger and more impetuous days I would’ve gotten a thrill out of being portrayed as such a macho guy. But the Truth will set you free (something the propagandizing Mr. Kuntzman should ponder).

And the truth is that I never bruised Mr. Kuntzman. One thing I can rightly puff up my chest over is that I have very little recoil because I’m high-tech — my mechanism is designed to absorb much of the energy of the blast. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Mr. Duke had the opportunity years ago to fire me on multiple occasions, and he says that I have by far the least kick of any firearm he ever used. And if you don’t believe him, trust your own eyes. Below is a video of a seven-year-old girl trying me for the first time (forward to the 25-second mark if you want to see just the actual firing).

Did the little lass say “Ow!” or register discomfort in any way? Did she rub her shoulder? A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot could have knocked that little tyke on her keister, but me? Also know that Kuntzman fired me only three times before bowing out, grousing that I was a “dangerous weapon.” And that fact, my friends, comes from Frank Stelmach, who was quoted by Kuntzman and who owns the gun range the journalist visited. You see, Mr. Duke actually called Stelmach, and one of the first things the man said to Duke — as he complained of how Kuntzman misrepresented his words and the experience at the range — was “It would be nice if journalists would write what you actually say!”

And by the by, Stelmach said that Kuntzman never mentioned anything about his shoulder or expressed that he was experiencing any kind of discomfort. Stelmach also called the notion that an ultra-low-recoil weapon such as me could bruise a grown man’s shoulder “nonsense.”

As for my “explosions” being “loud like a bomb,” well, I can belt out a song, but not like some other firearms. And no wonder. I fire the .223 cartridge, a small-caliber round the same diameter as a .22 (yes, .22s are those cute little rounds you put in your Marlin as a kid). Of course, my round is a lot more powerful than a .22 (in your face, Marlin!), but just take a look at these “killing power” rankings of rifle rounds. It’s hard to admit, but the .223 round listed — which is still more powerful than my .223 round and which I can’t fire — has the second least power of the 41 cartridges ranked. This is why many states have outlawed my use for hunting big game, such as deer. Imagine, they won’t even let me go after Bambi! In the same vein, when a lady friend of Mr. Duke’s tried me years ago, she remarked that, owing to my almost non-existent recoil, I was “like a toy.” It’s all quite emasculating.

Of course, then there are my magazines; for the Kuntzmans of the world, no, those aren’t things you read that usually contain liberal propaganda. They’re objects loaded with cartridges that, assuming they’re removable, you then insert into firearms. It’s true that high-capacity magazines are available for me. But criminals would always get them on the black market; moreover, with just a bit of effort, any gun’s removable magazine can be modified to hold a large number of rounds. So why am I singled out?

The answer is simple: my looks — and others’ prejudices. Take a gander at me below:

ar15

Am I not a sharp-lookin’ guy? Black is beautiful!

But it’s also seen as “menacing,” especially by liberals in the media. Face it, since I’m functionally no different from other legal firearms — semi-automatic just as most guns sold in America are — I can only conclude that I’m profiled as dangerous because of my sleek military-like appearance and my color. If I looked like those much more powerful hunting rifles, would you really be troubling over me?

As Mr. Duke likes to put it, this is standard liberal style over substance. Never sparing my ego, he points out that assuming I’m a machine gun because I look like cousin M-16 is akin to putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and expecting to go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds. Of course, my self-image will survive, but being misunderstood, mischaracterized and discriminated against is a bit depressing.

It’s enough to make me want to shoot myself.

This piece was written by AR and edited by Selwyn Duke for grammar, punctuation and style

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com. To contact the author, email the above and write “Attn: AR”.

Florida man could get life in prison for mosque bacon attack

There is no excuse for what Michael Wolfe did. He is guilty of being hateful and stupid, and committing armed burglary and criminal mischief. He should be sentenced accordingly.

In Portland, Mohamed Mohamud attempted to commit jihad mass murder at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony. He got thirty years in prison, and his lawyers are claiming that sentence was draconian and should be reduced. Michael Wolfe should get life in prison for bacon while Mohamed Mohamud gets thirty years for attempted mass murder?

This indicates yet again that Muslims in the U.S. are rapidly becoming a protected class, of whom authorities are particularly solicitous. Michael Wolfe deserves punishment. The punishment should fit the crime.

Michael Wolfe

Michael Wolfe

“Mosque bacon attack could get Titusville suspect life in prison,” by J.D. Gallop, Florida Today, February 25, 2016:

An attack on a mosque using raw bacon and a machete could potentially garner a Brevard County man up to life in prison as a result of a recently added hate crime enhancement, authorities say.

An attack on a mosque using raw bacon and a machete could potentially garner a Brevard County man up to life in prison as a result of a recently added hate crime enhancement, authorities say.

Michael Wolfe, 35, was charged with armed burglary of a structure and criminal mischief of a place of worship in connection with the New Year’s Eve break-in and desecration of the Islamic Society of Central Florida Masjid Al-Munin Mosque in Titusville.

Police said the convicted felon acted alone, broke into the empty mosque with a machete at night, slashing at windows and other property before leaving behind a slab of raw bacon in and around the front door. A surveillance video shows Wolfe, dressed in camouflage pants and carrying a backpack as he stepped into the carport at the mosque.

The attack – one of a several acts of vandalism reported at Islamic centers across the country – drew national attention from advocacy groups like the [Hamas-linked — Ed.] Council on American-Islamic Relations. The incident left many in fear at the small, 50-member congregation.

Wolfe remains held at the Brevard County Jail Complex without bond and is awaiting trial.

“Our charging decisions confirm how seriously we take crimes of this nature. When further investigation shows a crime is clearly hate motivated, it will not be tolerated,” said State Attorney Phil Archer, who could not comment directly on the case.

The state attorney’s office reviewed the case and brought formal charges against Wolf earlier this month. Both charges now carry hate crime enhancements, which means the potential sanctions in the event of a conviction are increased. In the case of the armed burglary charge, Wolfe could now face up to life in prison if found guilty of the charge, although the case and any sentencing still hinges on whether a plea deal is reached, Wolfe’s prior record and the discretion of the judge.

Imam Muhammad Mursi, who oversees a network of mosques in Central Florida. lauded the state attorney’s office’s effort to pursue the case as a hate crime. “We have been hoping for that to happen. It was clearly a hate crime,” Mursi said. “Obviously, we were lucky that no one was there that night. He had a a machete, someone could have been killed.”

“Right now we are trying to recover and reassure people,” Mursi said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Rotherham, city that covered up Muslim rape gang activity, steps up police patrols against “Islamophobia”

UK journalist decides not to report Islamic State sympathizer to police because he was so nice

The Rampant Racists of Tinsel Town by Ivan Betinov

37270-Whats-black-and-never-works---Racist-meme

Graphic by Navigator.

It’s official, movie fans: all of the cinema celebrities, heretofore the paragons of Progressive thought, are actually a sinister conspiracy of racists.

For the SECOND year in a row, not a single actress actor performer of color was nominated for ANY of the top slots in the Oscars. This can obviously be due to ONLY one thing: RACISM!

Of the some 2,900 films released in 2015, only eight were nominated. And not one of those eight were primarily about Black topics or starred black actors in the lead. This means that some TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY-TWO films were denied nomination. And the ONLY cause a film can be denied nomination is RACISM!

There are over 7,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Twenty performers were nominated, total, for best actor or actress, or supporting actor or actress. Not ONE of them is an actor or actress of color. That means that THOUSANDS of actors and actresses DID NOT RECEIVE A NOMINATION for these awards. And the only reason an actor or actress can be denied a nomination is RACISM!

The only possible way to remedy this situation is to mandate that at least one out of every three nominations goes to a person of color, and that at least one award in each category go to one of the nominees of color.

This mandated win will affirm that black actors, actresses, and film makers will know that their peers truly respect their talent on the basis solely of their race, as that is the important thing.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Samuel L. Jackson’s America-Bashing, a Huge Disservice

Okay, I will say it out loud. Far too many Hollywood celebs are self-aggrandizing idiots when it comes to politics and culture. Their worldview makes them feel superior to the rest us. Neither facts nor common sense will change their minds. Ronald Reagan nailed it when he said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

Here’s a prime example of a liberal making void-of-reality statements while thinking himself superior. Black superstar actor Samuel L. Jackson said he wished the San Bernardino shooters “was another crazy white dude” rather than Muslims. Jackson said such attacks gives people “legitimate reason” to look at their Muslim neighbors and friends the way they look at young black men. 

Mr Jackson, I am black. I resent your assumption that Americans are racists looking for reasons to look cross-eyed at Muslims and young black men. Frankly, members of both groups (Muslims and blacks) have declared war on Americans.

So tell me Mr Jackson. How are we suppose to deal with the fact that practically every terrorist attack resulting in the maiming and murder of Americans has been by Muslims? Also, though under reported, black youth flash mob attacks, the knock-out game and polar bear hunting attacks on innocent whites are frequent.

The Black Lives Matter hate group which Mr Jackson and his Hollywood homeys hold in high regard have declared it open season on killing cops and “crackas” (white people). How are Americans suppose to process that?

A white friend was mugged on a Baltimore street. My friend admitted he was preoccupied. Had he been paying attention, upon seeing the group of thuggish young black males approaching, his street-smarts would have kicked in causing him to cross over to the opposite side of the street. Mr Jackson would deem my friend a racist guilty of profiling. In the minds of liberals, politically correctness trumps everything; even self-preservation instincts and life-experiences.

What I find so scary about the Muslim thing is we have no way of knowing who is for us or “a-gin” us. All the successful terrorist attacks maiming and murdering Americans were by Muslims who presented themselves as harmless neighbors, friends and co-workers.

The Boston Marathon was bombed by the seemingly Americanized Tsarnaev brothers. They killed 3 and wounded over 260, many maimed for life.

For crying out loud, the Muslim terrorist at Ft Hood was a major in the U.S. Army. Major Nidal Hasan, shot and killed 13 and injured over 30 while yelling, “Allahu akbar! (God is great)”

The San Bernardino shooters were undercover Muslim terrorists. They left their company’s Christmas party, returned later wearing combat gear and killed 14 co-workers.

Again I ask Mr Jackson, how should we as responsible reasonable Americans respond?

And another thing. What is up with Jackson and other mega-rich black celebs constantly trashing white Americans whose patronage made them ga-zillionaires.

While promoting her movie, “Selma”, Oprah made the absurd claim that the 1950s persecution of blacks featured in her film still happens daily in America. With all due respect Oprah, your accusation is irresponsible, divisive and insulting.

Oprah Winfrey and I were co-workers at WJZ-TV in Baltimore before she became nationally renowned “Oprah.” Oprah co-hosted our local morning talk show. Blacks were a bit suspicious of her for being comfortable with whites. Black viewers did not make Oprah a mega star. White viewers made Oprah.

Sameul L. Jackson, Oprah and other black celebs relentlessly bashing America is a huge disservice to all Americans, particularly black youths. Rather than saying their success is “because” of America, most black celebs promote the liberal spin; saying their success is “in spite of” America. The truth is America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. The Left is relentless in its efforts to insidiously hide the blessing of America from minorities.

Proverbs says, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” In other words, belief is a powerful thing. So when black superstars tell black youths that America is forever racist and white cops shoot them on sight, they believe it. The lies become truth in their minds. Angry young blacks respond accordingly. WARNING: Video has explicit language:

Mr Jackson and other black celebs, your insistence on portraying America as a hellhole of racism towards minorities is irresponsible, divisive and hate-generating. Your supportive public deserves much, much better.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Samuel L. Jackson is courtesy of Marvel Studios.

On the ‘White Privilege’ movement

We close out the year with more protests and demands than ever, as our intellectuals engage in more and more “conversations” about race.

The protests spilled over to restaurants and shopping venues, even as Americans celebrated Christmas.  The incubators are the schools and college campuses, where students are taught about injustices invisible to the common man.  Textbooks offering lessons for deep classroom discussion include the sociology textbook, Color Lines and Racial Angles, published by Norton.  It includes such thought-provoking gems as “Asian American Exceptionalism and ‘Stereotype Promise,'” “The Fascination and Frustration with Native American Mascots,” “White Trash: The Social Origins of a Stigmatype,” and “Thinking about Trayvon [Martin, of course]: Privileged Responses and Media Discourse.”

Another gem from the once esteemed textbook publisher is Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Centurywith offerings from professors in various fields, such as biology, history, anthropology, sociology…and education, with a contribution by Bill Ayers’ choice for Obama’s Secretary of Education, Linda Darling-Hammond.  The Obama education transition team leader and developer of one of the two national Common Core tests offers her thoughts on education in an essay titled, “Structured for Failure: Race, Resources, and Student Achievement.”

At the K-12 level, materials for sensitizing students to oppression abound.  There is  (Re)Teaching Trayvon: Education for Racial Justice.  Curriculum materials on “teaching the ongoing murders of black men” are also readily available at Rethinking Schools.The George Soros-funded Teaching for Change also has some incendiary curriculum materials for the tykes.

White Privilege: All these materials are intended to instill an understanding of “white privilege,” which arose as more obvious methods such as slurs and discrimination disappeared.  White privilege is a kind of unconscious superiority that must be reviewed constantly–replacing the Puritan scouring for sin.  To gain an understanding, students can read “Beyond the Big, Bad Racist: Shared Meanings of White Identity and Supremacy” in theirColor Lines textbook.

The common wisdom in academe is that all white people are racist because they have white privilege.  An exponent of this theory, George Yancy, was recently hired by Emory University to teach philosophy.  His letter to “White America” appeared on Christmas Eve in the New York Times. Following in the footsteps of Ta-Nehisi Coates, a MacArthur Genius Grant winner and National Book Award winner for his stream-of-consciousness racial complaint in the style of James Baldwin, Yancy invoked James Baldwin.

“Dear White America,” wrote Yancy, as he set out to berate her,

I have a weighty request. As you read this letter, I want you to listen with love, a sort of love that demands that you look at parts of yourself that might cause pain and terror, as James Baldwin would say. Did you hear that? You may have missed it. I repeat: I want you to listen with love. Well, at least try.

Yancy, here, managed to combine demand and insult.  No doubt, millions of white masochistic Americans did just that: they tried very, very, very hard to listen, with love (as difficult as it is for them to grasp the concept).

This man who occupies an office once occupied by a real philosopher, continued,

We don’t talk much about the urgency of love these days, especially within the public sphere. Much of our discourse these days is about revenge, name calling, hate, and divisiveness. I have yet to hear it from our presidential hopefuls, or our political pundits. I don’t mean the Hollywood type of love, but the scary kind, the kind that risks not being reciprocated, the kind that refuses to flee in the face of danger. To make it a bit easier for you, I’ve decided to model, as best as I can, what I’m asking of you. Let me demonstrate the vulnerability that I wish you to show. As a child of Socrates, James Baldwin and Audre Lorde, let me speak the truth, refuse to err on the side of caution.

Now, the Dissident Prof has taken some classes in philosophy, but never has she heard a professor declare himself a “child of” any historical figure, much less of such a disparate triad as Socrates, James Baldwin, and Audre Lorde.  Furthermore, they told their students that philosophy is the love of wisdom and that according to Socrates, the beginning of wisdom comes with the admission of ignorance.

Professor Yancy, however, declares that he speaks the truth, or at least a truth that does not hold back, has no doubt.

Lest anyone get the impression that Professor Yancy feels himself in any way superior to White America, or to anyone else, he confesses his own sin of sexism, or male privilege.  But then again that must mean he is superior because he confessed his privilege.  So unless you, White America, confess the privilege that Professor Yancy says you enjoy (because he knows), you are guilty.

Richard WrightRichard Wright I will not claim to be a child of Richard Wright, just someone who, in spite of her white privilege, read and taught (at Emory) his autobiographical account of a show trial put on by the American Communists in the 1930s.  Wright got entangled with them in his efforts to break into writing.  The poor soul who is the target, his friend Ross, is NOT a privileged white American, but a black American, one of many targeted and exploited by the communists.

Wright is asked to come to the trial so that he might “learn what happened to ‘enemies of the working class.'”

The following day, a Sunday, Ross is confronted by his accusers.  Over the course of three hours, the accusers describe “Fascism’s aggression in Germany, Italy, and Japan,” “the role of the Soviet Union as the world’s lone workers’ state,” and the “suffering and handicaps” of the Negro population on Chicago’s South Side and the relation to “world struggle.” The direct charges against Ross are made, with dates, conversations, and scenes.

Then it is time for Ross to defend himself:

He stood trembling; he tried to talk and his words would not come.  The hall was as still as death.  Guilt was written in every pore of his black skin.  His hands shook.  He held on to the edge of the table to keep on his feet. . . .

“Comrades,” he said in a low, charged voice.  “I’m guilty of all the charges, all of them.”

"TheGodThatFailed" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia“TheGodThatFailed” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via WikipediaIn a similar manner, those of us benefiting from “privilege,” must confess as we are blamed for such things as the “school to prison pipeline” and the deplorable conditions on the South Side of Chicago.  Those who wish to be in the good graces of those like Professor Yancy must confess these over and over and over.

Fortunately, there are still a few legitimate philosophy professors around, such as Jack Kerwick, one of the contributors to the Dissident Prof collection, Exiled.  Kerwick, who keeps a very busy schedule teaching, also is a frequent contributor to such sites as Townhall and American Thinker.  Those who have enjoyed his application of logic to the issues of the day can now enjoy his razor sharp analyses in a new collection, The American Offensive: Dispatches from the Front, where he tackles such topics as Immigration, Academia, Religion, and Race.  As a matter of fact, I think George Yancy should read it.  I cannot think of anyone who would benefit more.

A couple reminders: The deadline for public comment on the U.S. Dept. of Education’s “family engagement” plan is Jan.4.  The deadline for 2015 charitable contributions is Dec. 31.

Best wishes for a Happy New Year!

Ideas in Exile: The Bullies Win at Yale by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

The student speech bullies have won at Yale. Erika Christakis, Assistant Master of Yale’s Silliman College, who had the temerity to suggest that college students should choose their own Halloween costumes, has resigned from teaching. Her husband, sociology professor Nicholas Christakis, Master of Silliman College, will take a sabbatical next semester.

One of the bullies’ demands to Yale President Salovey was that the couple be dismissed, and a resignation and sabbatical are a close second.

As had been widely reported, Erika Christakis said,

Is there no room any more for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.

At issue are costumes such as wearing a sombrero, which might be offensive to Mexicans; wearing a feathered headdress, which might offend Native Americans, previously termed Red Indians; and wearing blackface to dress up as an African American.

Dr. Christakis’s comment is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said. Students who are admitted to Yale are some of the brightest in the country, and it should not be the role of the University to tell them how, or whether, to dress up at Halloween.

The speech bullies want mandatory diversity training, rules against hate speech, the dismissal of Nicholas and Erika Christakis, and the renaming of Calhoun College because its namesake, John Calhoun, defended slavery.

If America is to be whitewashed of the names of individuals from prior centuries who fall short of the political standards of the 21st century, we will be a nation not only without names but also without a past. The names of our states, our municipalities, and even our universities would disappear. Elihu Yale was a governor of the East India Company, which may have occasionally engaged in the slavery trade. It is easy to condemn the dead who cannot defend themselves. But if we curse the past, what fate awaits us from our progeny?

Not all Yale students agree with the tactics employed by the bullies. Freshman Connor Wood said,

The acceptance or rejection of coercive tactics is a choice that will literally decide the fate of our democracy. Our republic will not survive without a culture of robust public debate. And the far more immediate threat is to academia: how can we expect to learn when people are afraid to speak out?

The Committee for the Defense of Freedom at Yale has organized a petition in the form of a letter to President to express concern with the bullies’ demands. Over 800 members of the Yale community have signed. Zachary Young, a junior at Yale and one of the organizers of the petition, told me in an email, “We want to promote free speech and free minds at Yale, and don’t think the loudest voices should set the agenda.”

Nevertheless, it appears that the loudest voices are indeed influencing President Salovey. He has given in to protesters by announcing a new center for the study of race, ethnicity, and social identity; creating four new faculty positions to study “unrepresented and under-represented communities;” launching “a five-year series of conferences on issues of race, gender, inequality, and inclusion;” spending $50 million over the next five years to enhance faculty diversity; doubling the budgets of cultural centers (Western culture not included); and increasing financial aid for low-income students.

In addition, President Salovey volunteered, along with other members of the faculty and administration, to “receive training on recognizing and combating racism and other forms of discrimination.”

With an endowment of $24 billion, these expenses are a proverbial drop in the bucket for Yale. But it doesn’t mean that the administration should cave. Isaac Cohen, a Yale senior, wrote in the student newspaper,

Our administrators, who ought to act with prudence and foresight, appear helpless in the face of these indictments. Consider President Salovey’s email to the Yale community this week. Without any fight or pushback — indeed, with no thoughts as to burdens versus benefits — he capitulated in most respects to the demands of a small faction of theatrically aggrieved students.

Yale’s protests, and others around the country, including Claremont-McKenna, the University of Missouri, and Princeton, stem from the efforts of a small group of students to shield themselves from difficult situations. Students want to get rid of speech that might be offensive to someone that they term a “micro-aggressions.” This limits what can be said because everything can be interpreted as offensive if looked at in a particular context.

For instance, when I write (as I have done) that the wage gap between men and women is due to the sexes choosing different university majors, different hours of work, and different professions, this potentially represents a micro-aggression, even though it is true. Even the term “the sexes” is potentially offensive, because it implies two sexes, male and female, and leaves out gays, lesbians, and transgenders. The term “gender” is preferred to “sex.”

What about a discussion of the contribution of affirmative action to the alienation of some groups on campuses today? Under affirmative action, students are admitted who otherwise might not qualify. In Supreme Court hearings on Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to — to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well.”

The majority of students at Yale want an open discussion of all subjects, but the attack on the Christakises have frightened them into silence. Zach Young told me,

If the accusers’ intent was to enlighten and persuade, their result was to silence and instill fear. I worry that because of this backlash, fewer students or faculty — including people of color and those of liberal persuasions — will feel comfortable expressing views that dissent from the campus norms. Why risk getting so much hate, disgust, calls against your firing, just for the sake of expressing an opinion?

Why indeed? The answer is that arguing about opinions is the only way to get a real education. Let’s hope that another university stands up for freedom of speech and offers the Christakises teaching positions next semester.

This article first appeared at CapX.

Diana Furchtgott-RothDiana Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is director of Economics21 and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.