Posts

Hamas-linked CAIR demands apology from Scott Walker for “enabling ISIS”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, is in full outrage mode at Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker, trying to intimidate him into speaking less accurately about the nature of the jihad threat. It’s their usual tactic: charging anyone who dares to note the Islamic character of Islamic terrorism with “hatred” and “bigotry.” Usually this works, in our cowed and confused culture, and Hamas-linked CAIR seems to have won at least a partial victory over Walker — we’ll know for sure who won when we see if he ever uses the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” again.

Aside from Hamas-linked CAIR, that is a stupid phrase anyway. Is there “moderate Islamic terrorism”? If not, then why use the word “radical” at all? Because even Walker, for all his courage in standing up to the forces of politically correct authoritarianism in other contexts, can’t bring himself to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” straight, without a modifier — he knows the firestorm that would ensue, and so draws back. Now he will probably draw back even farther. And yes, I am well aware that however watery and weaselly the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” may be, Walker has already distinguished himself as more forthright, honest and courageous than most of his rivals just by using it. Most of them won’t even go that far toward the truth about the jihad threat.

More below. “Muslim advocate: Scott Walker is ‘enabling ISIS’ with ‘radical Islam’ rhetoric,” by Jesse Opoien, The Capital Times, August 29, 2015:

A representative for America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization said Gov. Scott Walker is “enabling ISIS” by allowing the terrorist group to co-opt the Islamic religion.

“With this, Scott Walker is actually enabling ISIS by characterizing their acts as being Islamic terrorism,” said Robert McCaw, government affairs manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “He is taking a peaceful religion of 1.6 billion people and misappropriating it to ISIS, allowing them to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it.”

Here again we see the familiar sleight-of-hand. Hamas-linked CAIR would have us believe that Scott Walker is responsible for allowing the Islamic State “to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it,” as if no one ever associated ISIS with Islam until Walker started talking about “radical Islamic terrorism.” In reality, people associate the Islamic State with Islam because the Islamic State associates itself with Islam, and nothing Scott Walker says or doesn’t say is going to change that. No young Muslim is going to decide to join the Islamic State because a non-Muslim politician referred to jihadis as “Islamic extremists,” thereby validating them as Islamic. No Muslim looks to non-Muslim authorities to validate what is or isn’t Islamic and who is or isn’t a Muslim. Hamas-linked CAIR’s real objective here is obvious: to intimidate Walker (and everyone else) into never speaking of Islamic terrorists as Muslims. Why? So that American Muslim advocacy groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR will not be called to account for not doing anything to stop jihadist recruitment in mosques in the U.S., and instead opposing counter-terror programs all over the country — after all, those terrorists aren’t Muslims, so the true, peaceful Muslims can’t be expected to do anything about them.

McCaw was referring to Walker’s first foreign policy address as a presidential candidate, delivered on Friday at The Citadel military college in South Carolina, during which he referenced Islamic extremists or radical Islamic terrorism 11 times.

As a presidential candidate, there are plenty of things Walker has pledged to do differently than President Barack Obama. Chief among them is to use the words, “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The Wisconsin governor isn’t the only Republican presidential contender to highlight this difference. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have also made frequent calls for a commander-in-chief who will declare the problem with forces like ISIS to be radical Islamic terrorism.

Obama has generally refrained from attaching a religious affiliation to terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, referring to them as “violent extremists” and “terrorists.”

Addressing a group of foreign ministers in February at the State Department, the president made clear that it’s an intentional choice. He said those groups are “desperate for legitimacy” and should not be granted it.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam” — great. Where are the Muslim refutations of the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? (There are some, but they’re mostly just exercises in detour and deception). Where are the programs in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. to teach young Muslims why they should reject the Islamic State’s view of Islam? There aren’t any. Now, why is that?

The president added that the U.S. is “not at war with Islam, we are at war with those who have perverted Islam.”

Walker’s tone was significantly different in his hawkish foreign policy address, which called for the U.S. to stop being “passive spectators while the world descends into chaos.”

The governor pledged to secure U.S. borders “at any cost,” fight terrorists abroad leaving “all options” on the table, restore the U.S. alliance with Israel and strengthen the defense budget.

He called for increased investment in counterterrorism and surveillance programs, implementing a no-fly zone over Syria, imposing harsh sanctions against Iran and restoring a strong alliance with Israel. He promised once again to terminate the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal on “day one” in the White House.

All of this was tied to an overarching theme of the need to “defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”

“The policy of a Walker administration will be to confront radical Islamic terrorism using the full range of statecraft options. We must give our intelligence professionals the legal and constitutional tools they need to keep us safe,” Walker said.

Jenni Dye, research director for the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, suggested Walker’s message was driven by the conservative Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, whose president and CEO Michael Grebe is Walker’s presidential campaign chairman. Grebe also served as chairman for Walker’s two gubernatorial bids and his recall campaign.

The Bradley Foundation was deemed one of the “top eight funders of Islamophobia” based on IRS filings from 2001-2012 in a report by the liberal Center for American Progress. Recipients of Bradley funds noted in the report include the Middle East Forum, David Horowitz Freedom Center and Center for Security Policy.

“The virulent Islamophobia promoted and funded by the Bradley Foundation, run by Scott Walker’s campaign chair, is filling the void that is his foreign policy experience,” Dye said. “Even their millions can’t paper over the fact this guy is dangerously unprepared. His simplistic saber rattling reveals an ignorance of history and a shockingly cavalier attitude about sending the brave men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way.”…

While retailing all this far-Left propaganda, “journalist” Jesse Opoien doesn’t bother to inform his readers that Hamas-linked CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI; a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets advising the same thing. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Detroit: Iraqi Christian refugees from Muslim persecution protest proposed mosque

UNC’s “Literature of 9/11” course indoctrinates students to love jihad terror, hate America

Hearst Television to Carry August 3rd New Hampshire Presidential Forum

LogoHearstTINEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States.  The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.

The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3.  Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott WalkerJack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.

Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast.  The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website.  This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.

Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.

“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television.   “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”

C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org.  In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.

About Hearst Television

Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households.  The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs.  The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences.  Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service.  Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation.  The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.

Will You Play Your Trump Card in 2016?

This political season has started with a big bang. So far, we do not even have to pay that much attention to the boring Democratic side of this process. What we have at this writing is more than 16 serious candidates for the GOP nomination for President of the United States of America.

I cannot recall a time when we had so many candidates to choose from. We, of course have the typical white male candidates. But we also have many minority candidates representing the Hispanic community and the Indian (from India) community as well as a strong female candidate. The diversity of this field of candidates is staggering, indeed.

But so far, there seems to be one candidate in particular that seems to be garnering the attention of the media and the nation. That candidate is Donald Trump, of course The reason? Well, the reason is very simple. Donald Trump is telling it like he sees it. He is saying what is on his mind and what he believes the problems are. And he doesn’t care if some folks don’t like what he says or how he says it. He is sticking to his guns and the people of this country seem to be liking that.

Now some say that Donald should bow out of the competition. Make no mistake about it this fight for the GOP nomination for president of the United States of America is a competition. It’s a take no prisoners competition where the winner takes it all and he or she just might take the The White House. So there is a lot at stake and the professional politician knows there is a lot at stake because what they cannot have is an unpolished, non-politician ruining their chances of being the next President.

The professionals will say how raw Donald is and they will say how UN-presidential Donald is. They state that as President you have to be more diplomatic. They say that nobody takes him seriously. They say that Donald has no real chance at getting elected. They say that Donald Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 election. In short they all will say anything to discredit and to get rid of The Donald because they know that Donald Trump cannot be bought. He cannot be bribed and he cannot be persuaded because he is an honest man with a true American heart and that scares professional politicians’ on both sides of the political aisle.

After all, how can you control a man who is used to calling all the shots? How do you control a man who is self-made and doesn’t need nor want any insider money? How do you control a man who already wields tremendous influence and power around the world in business and political circles? You can’t. They can’t. Let me suggest something for the professionals out there running for high office. Take note of Donald Trump and take note of how the voters seem to be supporting him. Take note that the American people are following him in growing numbers because the American people like the fact that he is not polished.

They know he is brash and bombastic and they know he is a little arrogant. They know he will do his best to clean house in Washington, D.C. if he is elected. They know that many world leaders would not want to negotiate with Donald because he would do what is best for this country and her people. I would suggest that the professionals begin to sound more like Donald and tell us the truth, not what they think we want to hear. Talk to us from the heart not what some poll data thinks we want to hear.

Be bold and bombastic and even a little arrogant in your presence and make the people believe that you are a strong leader that cannot be bought. Make the people believe that you are strong leader that cannot be persuaded and a strong leader that will look after the interest of the people of the United States of America and not their own selfish interest.

In return the American people will then follow you and the American people will reward you with higher office. The American people will back you and support you while in office and all it takes is for you to be more like Donald and less like, well less like you. After all, this nation was started and built by amateur statesmen and they built the most prosperous and most powerful nation this world has ever known. We have had professional politicians in charge for about 150 years or so now and look at the mess those professionals have made. Maybe it’s time we pick the men and women who are not so polished. and not so politically trained.

Maybe its time we choose a candidate with a little tarnish on them because they cannot do any more damage than what the professionals have already done.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is President Kennedy Now a Conservative Republican?

Presidential Candidates, Members of Congress, and Governors Call for Military Right-to-Carry

Following the murder of four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy sailor by a terrorist in Chattanooga, presidential candidates, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), businessman Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker (R), and former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), have called for a change in federal law to allow stateside military personnel to carry firearms for protection. In addition, the governors of Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas have directed the adjutants general of their National Guards to authorize Guardsmen to be armed in their states.

Before the attack in Chattanooga, congressional Armed Services Committee Chairmen Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) had been planning to include legislation in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act to clarify an Army post commander’s authority to allow the carrying of personal firearms for protection. Now, numerous other senators and representatives have stated their support for legislation to allow military personnel to be armed for protection of themselves and their fellow troops here at home.

The outpouring of support for allowing military personnel to protect themselves is more than justified by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which included an attack upon the Pentagon, and events related to other military facilities thereafter.  In 2009, a terrorist killed 12 military personnel and one civilian, and wounded 30 others on Fort Hood, Texas. That same year, another attack occurred upon a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, resulting in the death of one soldier and the wounding of another. Over the next two years, law enforcement authorities foiled planned attacks upon military facilities in Baltimore and Seattle. In 2013, 12 people were killed and four were wounded in an attack upon the Washington, D.C., Navy Yard. And only eight months ago, the FBI issued a warning that ISIS was recruiting extremists to attack our military personnel here at home.

Military personnel are effectively prohibited from carrying personal firearms for protection by a Department of Defense Directive of 2011, which states:

Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed…

That directive traces back to another Directive from the early 1990s, which contains similar language.

EDITORS NOTE: We encourage readers to contact their U.S. senators and representatives, to voice their strong support for legislation to allow our military personnel to carry firearms for their protection.

Donald Trump and Other GOP Nominees Neck and Neck

NEW YORK /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has definitely ingested the race for the 2016 Republican nomination with a sense of, well, I guess the right adjective depends on where you stand on the political spectrum. But, especially after the criticism of POWs this past weekend, the path to the nomination is not an easy one for him. The talk has been that he might use some of his considerable fortune, a la Ross Perot in 1992, and run as an Independent. If so, what does that mean for the race with some of the leading Republican contenders right now and Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic contender?

These are the results of an online survey conducted by Regina Corso Consulting among 2,012 U.S. adults 18 and older between July 20 and 22, 2015.

Clinton/Bush/Trump

If the election was a three way race, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, while almost one in five would each vote for Jeb Bush (19%) or Donald Trump (18%); one-quarter (25%) are not at all sure. As expected, strong majorities of Democrats (74%) and Liberals (68%) would vote for Clinton, but among Republicans and Conservatives there is a divide. Two in five Republicans (41%) and one-third of Conservatives (33%) would vote for Jeb Bush while three in ten Republicans (30%) and Conservatives (29%) would vote for Trump. Among Independents, three in ten (31%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, one in five (21%) would vote forDonald Trump and less than one in five (17%) would vote for Jeb Bush.

Clinton/Walker/Trump

Changing the Republican nominee, two in five Americans (40%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (18%) would vote for Donald Trump and 15% would vote for Scott Walker while over one-quarter (27%) are not at all sure. Strong majorities of Democrats (75%) and Liberals (72%) would vote for Hillary Clinton while those on the other side of the aisle are even more divided. Three in ten Republicans would each vote for Scott Walker(31%) and Donald Trump (30%) and three in ten Conservatives would each vote for Scott Walker (29%) and Donald Trump (29%). Among Independents, almost three in ten (28%) would vote for Clinton, one in five (20%) would vote for Trump and 16% would vote for Walker.

Clinton/Paul/Trump

Looking at still a different possible Republican nominee, if the election were to be held today, almost two in five Americans (39%) would vote for Hillary Clinton, almost one in five (19%) would vote for Donald Trump and 17% would vote for Rand Paul. Over seven in ten Democrats (76%) and Liberals (71%) would vote for Clinton; at least one-third of Republicans (36%) and Conservatives (33%) would vote for Trump; and over one-quarter of Republicans (31%) and Conservatives (27%) would vote for Paul. Among Independents, over one-quarter (28%) would vote for Clinton while just over one in five would each vote for Trump (22%) and Walker (21%).

Musings

At this stage of an election, these polls should be looked at with a great deal of caution. Is this what will happen in November? Most assuredly it isn’t. But, these do give us an important takeaway – there is a desire for something different out there. One thing about Donald Trump that can’t be denied is he tells it exactly as he thinks and feels it. Many of those who have catapulted him to the top of a number of Republican primary polls probably aren’t saying they want him to be President or even the GOP nominee. They are saying they don’t want more of the status quo. A candidate who dares to be a little different can go a long way.

ABOUT REGINA CORSO CONSULTING:

Regina Corso Consulting is a full service research firm specializing on research for public release. They provide research for agencies and companies to help them drive their PR. For more information, please visit ReginaCorsoConsulting.com.

For full methodology/data, please click here.

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit www.oann.com/poll

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visitwww.OANN.com.

A Behind the Scenes Look at the Republican Candidates

Join The United West team as they show an excellent analysis of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates presented by Orlando attorney, John Stemberger.

Stemberger evaluates each Republican Presidential hopeful by examining their pros & cons and then reveals the rich benefactors behind each candidate and how that money may help or hurt them.

This is very interesting and necessary information to know in order to intelligently vote on November 8, 2016.

Poll Finds No Clear GOP Front-runner Yet

PITTSBURGH, PRNewswire/ — Republican voters remain divided over which candidate they prefer in the 2016 presidential race, with three polling over 10 percent and four others close behind, according to a nationwide poll by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute Powered by Trib Total Media.

The poll showed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (15.4 percent), Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (14.6 percent) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (13.8 percent) contending to lead a crowded field. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (7.5 percent), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (7.5 percent), Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (7.1 percent) and Dr. Ben Carson (6.7 percent) — polled within 10 points of the leader.

“The big loser in this poll is Rand Paul, who only received 2.0 percent of the Republicans surveyed,” said RMU political scientist Philip Harold.

Among Democrats polled, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (55.8 percent) held what would seem to be an insurmountable lead over Vice President Joe Biden (8.0 percent), Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (4.8 percent) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (2.9 percent). The poll was completed before former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley announced he would seek the Democratic nomination, but he nonetheless registered support at 0.6 percent.

METHODOLOGY: The poll sampled opinions of 1,003 adults approximately proportional to state population contribution nationwide. The survey was conducted May 8-16, 2015 using an online survey instrument. The poll has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis.

ABOUT ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY: 

Through 60 undergraduate and 20 graduate degree programs across five academic schools, Robert Morris University (RMU) in Pittsburgh, Pa., works to change its students’ lives so that they can go out and change the lives of others for the better. More than 5,000 undergraduate and graduate, nontraditional and online students from 47 states and 39 nations are enrolled at RMU, just 20 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh. Learn more at rmu.edu.

ABOUT TRIB TOTAL MEDIA

Trib Total Media is a multimedia network of daily and weekly newspapers, weekly shoppers, and websites delivering news, information and advertising to over 1.2 million readers across Western Pennsylvania every week. Trib Total Media also provides targeted direct mail, commercial printing and promotional item services. Visit us online at tribtotalmedia.com.

2016 GOP Hopefuls Set To Speak At Salem Media Group’s RedState Gathering In August

CAMARILLO, Calif./PRNewswire/ — Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief of Salem Media Group’s (NASDAQ: SALM) RedState.com, announced on Tuesday the first speaker lineup for the 2015 RedState Gathering. Governor Scott Walker, Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Perry, Governor Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and Senator Marco Rubio have all confirmed they will speak at the event.

In a slight change of tradition, this year’s RedState Gathering will be themed “Vision 2020.”

“Though I am loathe to ever suggest a topic for speakers, I have asked each of the 2016 candidates to focus on one thing: I’d like them to present their 2020 vision for what the nation should look like after their first four years,” Erickson said. “We need to know what they see as the areas that need fixing and how their fixes will reshape the country.

Jonathan Garthwaite, Salem Vice President and General Manager of Townhall Media (under which RedState operates) said, “RedState Gathering attendees are some of the hardest working conservative activists online and door-to-door who have pushed hundreds of conservative candidates to the top. There is no better place than the Gathering for the presidential candidates to come to and give their vision for America.”

The RedState Gathering will take place at the Intercontinental Buckhead Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, August 6-9, 2015. In addition to a majority of the GOP presidential field, invitations have also been extended to members of Congress and other local and state elected officials. The weekend will kick-off on Thursday with a discussion between Erick Ericksonr and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and wind down with a new event on Saturday evening called the RedState Tailgate, featuring a surprise guest speaker.

Registrations to attend the RedState Gathering are currently open. To register or for additional information, please visit RedStateGathering.com. The early bird registration fee of $249 expires May 23rd.

ABOUT SALEM MEDIA GROUP:

Salem Media Group is America’s leading Christian and conservative multi-media corporation, with media properties comprising radio, digital media and book, magazine and newsletter publishing.  Each day Salem serves a loyal and dedicated audience of listeners and readers numbering in the millions nationally.  With its unique programming focus, Salem provides compelling content, fresh commentary and relevant information from some of the most respected figures across the media landscape.

The company, through its Salem Radio Group, is the largest commercial U.S. radio broadcasting company providing Christian and conservative programming.  Salem owns and operates 110 local radio stations, with 65 stations in the top 25 media markets.  Salem Radio Network (“SRN”) is a full-service national radio network, with nationally syndicated programs comprising Christian teaching and talk, conservative talk, news, and music.  SRN is home to many industry-leading hosts including: Bill BennettMike GallagherHugh HewittMichael MedvedDennis Prager and Eric Metaxas.

Salem New Media is a powerful source of Christian and conservative themed news, analysis, and commentary.  Salem’s Christian sites include: Christianity.com®, BibleStudyTools.comGodTube.comGodVine.com,WorshipHouseMedia.com and OnePlace.com. Considered by many to be a consolidation of the conservative news and opinion sector’s most influential brands, Salem’s conservative sites include Red State.comTownhall.com®, HotAir.comTwitchy.com,  BearingArms.com and Human Events.com .

Salem’s Regnery Publishing unit, with a 65-year history, remains the nation’s leading publisher of conservative books.  Having published many of the seminal works of the early conservative movement, Regnery today continues as the dominant publisher in the conservative space, with leading authors including: Ann Coulter, Dinesh D’Souza, Newt Gingrich, David Limbaugh, Ed Klein and Mark Steyn. Salem’s book publishing business also includes Xulon Press™, a leading provider of self-publishing services for Christian and conservative authors.

Salem Publishing™ publishes Christian and conservative magazines including Homecoming®, YouthWorker Journal™, The Singing News, and Preaching.

Salem Media Group also owns Eagle Financial Publications and Eagle Wellness. Eagle Financial Publications provide market analysis and specific investment advice for individual investors from financial commentators Mark SkousenNicholas VardyChris VersaceBryan Perry and Doug Fabian. Eagle Wellness provides practical health advice and is a trusted source for nutritional supplements from one of the country’s leading complementary health physicians.

RELATED VIDEO: A new poll in New Hampshire puts Rand Paul and Scott Walker in first place among GOP candidates in the Granite State. Hillary Clinton still leads among Democrats, but she is showing some weakness. Hear why.

Watch out Scott Walker: You carry the burden of Ronald Reagan’s ‘Legacy’ in ‘Liberal Learning’

Now that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is ascending as a presidential candidate, expect to see quasi-scholarly attacks about the devastating legacy of Republicans on higher education.  As James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley noted recently, Walker’s problems with the University of Wisconsin arising over budget cuts and altering the words of the school’s mission “are those almost everyone in the Republican field could soon have.”

Yes, and expect attacks to come from places like the Chronicle of Higher Education, which recently published Dan Berrett’s article, “The Day the Purpose of College Changed.”  The day is February 28, 1967, when newly elected California Governor Ronald Reagan claimed that taxpayers shouldn’t be “subsidizing intellectual curiosity” at universities.  As an example, Reagan described a four-credit course at the University of California at Davis on organizing demonstrations.  He said, “I figure that carrying a picket sign is sort of like, oh, a lot of things you pick up naturally, like learning how to swim by falling off the end of a dock.”

Reagan found “whole academic programs in California and across the country” “similarly suspect.”  The Los Angeles Times’ response, “If a university is not a place where intellectual curiosity is to be encouraged, and subsidized, then it is nothing,” is applauded by Berrett as “giving voice to the ideal of liberal education, in which college is a vehicle for intellectual development, for cultivating a flexible mind, and, no matter the focus of study, for fostering a broad set of knowledge and skills whose value is not always immediately apparent.”

The decline in liberal arts enrollments in the 1980s, when business administration became the most popular college major, is traced back: “On that day in 1967, the balance started to tip toward utility in ways not even Reagan may have anticipated.”

Republican governors continue to degrade the popular opinion of liberal education, Berrett maintains, as he quotes Pat McCrory: “If you want to take gender studies, that’s fine, go to a private school,’ the Republican governor of North Carolina, said on a radio show a couple of years ago. ‘I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.’ In other words, it’s an intellectual luxury” – and “private goods.”

McCrory presumably follows the lead of Reagan, who in the same year he announced budget cuts, hypocritically dedicated a library at his alma mater, Eureka College, a small Disciples of Christ school, while citing the greats of liberal learning: Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Maimonides.

In contrast, “plenty of governors through the years have understood that a liberal education also has a public benefit.” At one time, “A farmer reading the classics or an industrial worker quoting Shakespeare was . . . an honorable character.”

Real “Liberal learning”?

As an alternative to the small-minded trend of utilitarianism, Berrett presents the efforts of the 100-year-old, 1,300-member Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), which promises to “devote the entire Centennial Year to a far-reaching exploration of the connections between high-quality liberal learning and Americans’ global future and of the changes needed to drive equitable access to high-quality learning for the millions of students who remain underserved. .  . .”

Berrett praises the projects on “educational quality, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and civic learning, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education.”  One of these projects, the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) program, encourages students “to learn by tackling society’s ‘big questions’” through Signature Work.

Although Signature Work’s goal is presented as overcoming the disparity of “providing liberal education to some students and narrow training to others,” the projects are described as either career related, or related to “significant societal challenges such as health, literacy, sustainability, or human dignity.”

Nothing references Shakespeare or the classics, the kind of “liberal learning” that Berrett claims Republican governors are threatening.

In reality, the AAC&U promotes the kind of activism that one finds in the “gender studies” departments that Governor McCrory denounced.

Such politicization has entered the required subjects, such as freshman composition, that recall “liberal learning,” if only by name.  The activity that Reagan mocked in 1967, a four-credit course on picketing and protest, has become institutionalized.  Last year I wrote about a University of South Florida freshman composition instructor sharing tips in a professional journal on requiring student participation in “Slut Walk” and “Take Back the Night” demonstrations.  Other composition courses focus on such topics as “sustainability” and “composing gender.”  This is the legacy of the 1960s protests.

Real History?

In addition to twisting the definition of “liberal learning,” Berrett misrepresents the facts –facts readily available in the biography Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power by journalist Lou Cannon.

Cannon is a liberal.  Yet, he presents Reagan’s actions in full context. It’s a context that Berrett ignores.

Cannon recognizes that Reagan’s predecessor, Governor Pat Brown, did some creative accounting, leaving Reagan to begin his term with a deficit.  Berrett makes no mention of this.

Berrett also perpetuates old charges of anti-intellectualism already refuted by Cannon: “Reagan’s academic critics accused him of anti-intellectualism.  He gave them ammunition by saying, or so it was reported, that the University of California ‘subsidized intellectual curiosity.’  But while Reagan in the long tradition of populism certainly exploited the anti-intellectual biases of his constituencies, he was in awe of people with advanced degrees.  One of the reasons that Reagan was offended by the [campus] demonstrations was that he took higher education seriously.”

Reagan is known for his firm stance against protestors who violently took over California’s public campuses in the 1960s.  He explained to Cannon decades later his belief in outlawing activism that interfered with the rights of others, namely other students.

Although Reagan as a college student was “more concerned with dramatics and athletics than with his studies,” he was proud of being the first in his family to graduate from college (paid for with a partial scholarship and a job washing dishes) and interrupted his 1980 presidential campaign for a trip to his alma mater.

The Real Legacy

Berrett himself illustrates the politicization of liberal learning.  At the Chronicle of Higher Education critics of the degraded form of “liberal learning” are ousted.  Naomi Schaeffer Riley became a casualty when she dared to attack politicized Black Studies.

Such courses do not deserve any public funding.

But the liberal arts, rightly understood, are of value to students.  They produce knowledgeable, civic-minded, clear-thinking, and articulate citizens.  As evidenced by employers’ complaints, our liberal arts departments are failing to teach even basic skills, such as writing clearly, correctly, and convincingly. Shouting, marching, and sign-carrying are no substitute for studying Aristotle’s Rhetoric, reading classical works, and writing essays.

Conservatives do support privately funded independent institutions, such as the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, where I am a fellow, because they offer liberal learning, in its true meaning.

Scott Walker, and other Republican candidates, should make that distinction—and often.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research website. The featured image is of newly elected Governor Ronald Reagan confronting student protestors in Sacremento/Bettmann, Corbis, AP image.