American Federation of the Totally Clueless

American Federation of the Totally Clueless
By Malcolm A. Kline
CampusReportOnline.net | October 31, 2006

Recently, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) took sideswipes at two friends of mine—Candace de Russy and David Horowitz. What AFT editor Barbara McKenna did was to set up a quote from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and then ask whether it was said by Candace, David or Mahmoud. “A) is a good guess, since conservative reformer de Russy has been on a two-year tear to implement an academic bill of rights at [the State University of New York] SUNY, as Free Exchange on Campus has reported” McKenna writes. She should have checked this with a more primary source. “And remember,” Candace wrote in an e-mail to me, “my final and repeated public stand on the issue has been that SUNY and other institutions adopt the rights statement put out in summer ‘05 (I believe) by the Council on American Education and 29 other higher education organizations, so she didn’t even get that right but keeps saying I’m backing ABOR per se.”

As to McKenna’s other target, she does not fare much better in the accuracy of her assault on him either. “An answer of B) is not far off the mark, since Horowitz, a well-known right-wing instigator, routinely urges his followers to challenge their ‘dangerous’ professors,” McKenna writes. “On Sept. 11, the lead story of his Web-based magazine, FrontPagemag.com, was ‘Revolution: A Back to School Guide.’”

“It begins: ‘Conservatives, welcome back to campus, that bastion of hostility toward your faith, politics and lifestyle, where Marx is revered, common sense eschewed, and multiculturalism matters more than mathematics.’” The problem is, Horowitz never wrote this.

“Revolution” is a book review by Julia A. Seymour, then a staff writer with Accuracy in Academia. The editors at Frontpage.com posted the review on their site.

Note to Barbara: Since, like me, she is a web editor, she should know that the middle column of the home page is usually where lead stories go. The margins, where Julia’s piece appeared on Frontpage.com, are normally reserved for links and logos.

At any rate, a couple of clicks of the old mouse would have clued Barbara in. If she cannot do such rudimentary fact-checking, perhaps she is not ready to tackle more complicated research.

As to the Ahmadinejad quote itself, it reads, “Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities.” I pointed out to Ms. McKenna that in all my years of reading and listening to de Russy and Horowitz, I never ran across a quote that even vaguely resembled the one that she showcased.

“It was the gist of what they said,” she explained to me. “It was the bulk of what they said. It was the spirit of what they said.” It turns out that McKenna never actually heard or read anything either of them said. This fresh approach to exposition turns out to be a hallmark of McKenna’s work.

She also refuses to believe there is a problem of left-wing dominance on campus, demanding evidence of same even when it is summarized for her. I challenged her to name one liberal professor fired for his or her political views, the danger her group claims is implicit in the academic bill of rights.

“I don’t think that any professor, liberal or conservative, has been fired for their political views,” she said. I then gave her about a half a dozen examples of conservative professors who were fired or otherwise punished for their views and noted that those perspectives were expressed outside of the classroom as opposed to the in-house liberal homilies that AIA documents.

She went on to talk about how her organization supports a marketplace of ideas and does not want pedagogues punished for their political stances and wants students to have access to all philosophies. I told her that she sounded like she was quoting from the academic bill of rights.

That’s when I discovered that she hadn’t read it either. Maybe it’s an institutional thing. Here at Accuracy in Academia, before we write about something that someone has written, we read it first.

Apparently, this is a novel approach in McKenna’s world. I noticed another divergence as well; where I rely heavily on the words “know” and “show,” Ms. McKenna favors “think,” “believe,” and, most frequently, “feel.”

The former is useful in setting up information to be transmitted. The latter set of verbs, most often these days, presage interpretations and speculation, increasingly, without supporting documentation.

Pretty clearly, mistakes were made over at the AFT. When we err, we post corrections. Is it to much to ask to expect the nation’s second largest teachers’ union to do the same?

And with that admission, could the powers-that-be at the brotherhood and sisterhood of the AFT apologize to Ms. McKenna’s American targets, at least until they have read their work?

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Hillary Clinton and socialism’s “common good” path to communism in America

  Hillary Clinton and socialism’s “common good” path to communism in America

Jan Ireland
July 6, 2004

The Bush tax cuts enabled America to climb out of the Clinton recession despite the financial devastations of 9/11 and stock market downturns. Ten straight months of economic progress and job creation have made the economy robust.So it is incongruous that Hillary Clinton would tell a San Francisco audience recently that Democrats will rescind the Bush tax cuts for the “common good.”

Mrs. Clinton’s plan is not only wrong, it’s socialist.

Ronald Reagan defeated communism, but we are still being leeched by creeping socialism. The 45 communist goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 linger, and they were supposed to be for the “common good” also.

The phrase itself a few decades ago was anathema. It does not appear in the 1945 United Nations charter, though that institution is about nothing if not socialism. Mrs. Clinton’s rarely-mentioned very radical mentor, Saul Alinsky, revered it. “The radical is that unique person to whom the common good is the greatest personal value.”

The inscription on the Liberty Bell exhorts “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” And Ronald Reagan reminded “…the guiding hand of Providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause: the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty.”

In the coming presidential election America has a clear choice: Mrs. Clinton and universal socialism versus Ronald Reagan and universal freedom. George Bush has Ronald Reagan’s fire of freedom. John Kerry must bow to the Clintons, though his personal record certainly is socialist.

The rapacious Mrs. Clinton wants to empower the government to take what it wants. We see her proclivities in the monstrous HillaryCare attempt (“It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals”), in the idea that the “village” (state) should raise the child, in the greedy timing of the eight million dollar book advance, in the shrill escalating rant similar to Dean’s and Gore’s. (Socialists always exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on others.)

Founder James Wilson wrote “Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression.” It is irrefutable. Government taking from one group to give to another approved group is socialism, Marxism, and/or communism.

The words “common good” are not of themselves evil of course. A group called Common Good works to reform the lawsuit culture in America. Bayer relaxed its Cipro patent during the anthrax scare for the “common good.”

But a religious group wants “…to develop religiously and politically informed advocates for the common good.” Another has a vote litany. Libertarian Socialist Noam Chomsky wrote about The Common Good. The European Union demands to manage markets for the “common good” despite the incomparable success of America’s capitalism and the obvious decline of socialist and communist systems in recent decades. Right under our noses in Congress is the Progressive Caucus, a group of about 50 legislators who are openly socialist.

Libertarian Ilana Mercer writes “The common good piety should raise as much suspicion as Hillary Clinton’s reference to ‘our children’ ought to. What is paraded by government and its lapdogs as the common good very often conceals an intention to override individual rights and interests.”

Objectivist Ayn Rand said “America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices for ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men …”

Socialism reaches into our pocketbooks and lives incrementally, always cloaked in some “common good” guise exhorting us to make America better, fairer, more equal. Life is not fair and equal. Socialism takes from producers what it cannot and will not produce itself.

George Washington warned “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

Mrs. Clinton courts socialism. We’ve defeated communism once in our lifetime, but “common good” socialism could revive the scourge. Patriotic Americans must actively reject the shill — at the ballot box this November. For the real common good.

Suggested Further Reading:

  • Albert Herlong, Jr., 45 Communist Goals read in to Congressional Record, 1963
  • Protestants for the Common Good
  • Baptist Editorial, “Support Common Good, but Keep State Out of Church”
  • BFW, “A Litany for an Election”
  • Noam Chomsky, “The Common Good”
  • Eliot Van Buskirk, “MP3 Insider: Preserving the common good to accelerate progress”
  • John Blundell, “Friend or Foe? What Americans should know about European Union”
  • Thomas Lenz, “Building a Force for the Common Good”
  • Ronald Reagan, 1991
  • Rush Limbaugh, June 29
  • Saul Alinsky, “Reveille for Radicals”
  • Barbara Olson, “Hell to Pay”
  • Common Good
  • Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead”
  • Ilana Mercer, “Business Has its Hand out to Government, Too”
  • www.newswithviews.com
  • www.conservativeforum.org
  • www.stophillarypac.com
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • www.un.org

The Defeatocrat Agenda

The Defeatocrat Agenda
By Peter Brookes
New York Post | October 31, 2006

If the “Defeatocrats,” er, Democrats, triumph next week, taking the majority in Congress, expect U.S. foreign and defense policy to veer sharply left, with little guiding philosophy beyond ABB – Anything But Bush. For many Democrats and liberals, this vengeful approach may provide much-needed therapy after 12 bitter years in the minority. But it’s no basis for a defense or foreign policy.

Other than attacking what the Bush administration is doing, Democrats have done little to articulate foreign and national-security policies of their own. But here are some of the possible outcomes if the majority changes hands on Capitol Hill:

On Iraq, many Democrats – led by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) – have said they’d push for an immediate “redeployment” (i.e., withdrawal) of U.S. troops, leaving who-knows-what kind of nightmare behind.

A premature withdrawal would cause unimaginable instability in the Middle East. And there’s no doubt that jihadists would chalk up Iraq as proof positive that terrorism works – adding it to other “successes” in Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993).

Worse, an ignominious U.S. retreat would prove to countless other troublemakers that America is nothing more than a paper tiger.

A liberal majority would also drastically change course on North Korea, pushing for direct U.S. talks with dictator Kim Jong Il – despite his recent missile tests and nuclear blast. Caving in to Pyongyang’s demands for one-on-one negotiations would reward its nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail. The lesson wouldn’t be lost on its nuclear kindred spirit, Iran.

Speaking of Iran, it’s not clear what a liberal congressional leadership would do. They don’t seem to say much about it – other than carp about the White House’s multilateral efforts to curb the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions.

But you could clearly forget about missile defenses to protect the homeland and troops deployed overseas. Liberals see such defenses as provocative. (In fact, leaving ourselves deliberately vulnerable to ballistic missiles is truly provocative – and foolhardy.)

What would a liberal Congress propose regarding the terrorists/terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay? Some of these prisoners are so dangerous even their own countries won’t take them back. What of the Patriot Act, Terrorist Surveillance Program or the terrorism-financing surveillance efforts that have been so successful in preventing another attack on the homeland for more than five years?

Here’s a clue: 90 percent of House Democrats voted against the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program; 80 percent voted against the terrorist interrogation bill. All these counterterror programs are at risk if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the speaker’s gavel next year . . .

OK, some will say: Don’t worry about Congress. The president holds the real power in foreign affairs and national security. Sure, the prez controls the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence community – the key tools of national security. But don’t constitutional checks and balances give Congress the almighty “power of the purse?”

Through the appropriation process, Congress can fund – or defund – our foreign-policy and national-security efforts, including wars, law enforcement, intelligence, defense and other counterterrorism programs.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), who’d become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, gave us a sneak preview of what the Dems might do: “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” You get the picture: No money – no war.

Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman hit the nail on the head: “America faces a critical question, will it elect leaders who recognize we’re at war and want to use every tool to win it, or politicians who would surrender important tools we need to win?”

The Liberals’ plan for our foreign affairs and national security has been to have no real plan at all, other than categorically opposing whatever the administration is doing to protect us. But having no strategy or policy for conducting our international affairs is certainly no way to keep us safe at home – or advance and protect our interests abroad.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Sen. John Kerry: ‘I Apologize to No One’

 Sen. John Kerry: ‘I Apologize to No One’

NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006 4:08 p.m. EST

Sen. John Kerry has refused to apologize for his remarks suggesting that U.S. troops in Iraq are uneducated and not “smart,” instead charging that the White House has deliberately misconstrued his comments.

At a Tuesday afternoon press conference in Seattle, Kerry said “I apologize to no one” for what he categorized as criticism of the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy.

Kerry touched off a storm of protest when he told a college audience on Monday that “if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

The comments drew demands for an apology from Sen. John McCain, the National Commander of The American Legion, and others. White House press secretary Tony Snow called Kerry’s statement “an absolute insult.”

But at his press conference, Kerry tried to give his remarks a tortuous spin, saying in effect that what he meant was if you’re like President Bush and you don’t do your homework – listen to advice from others – before committing American troops, “you end up in Iraq.”

He also claimed that the White House understood what he was trying to say yet sought to “distort” his comments.

As NewsMax reported earlier, 99.9 percent of the enlisted forces have at least a high school education, and 73.3 percent have been to college.

Among commanders:

  • Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, has an MBA from George Washington University and has taken courses at Harvard.
  • Gen. John Abizaid, Commander of U.S. Central Command, has a master’s degree from Harvard.
  • Gen. George Casey, Vice Chief of Staff in the U.S. Army, has a master’s degree from the University of Denver.
  • Brigadier Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, U.S. Central Command’s deputy director for strategy and plans, has earned degrees from the United States Military Academy, Harvard, the National Defense University, and the United States Army Command and General Staff College.It bears noting that our commander in chief, President George W. Bush, who has earned degrees from Yale University and Harvard University, is the only U.S. president to have earned an MBA. He’s also proved himself “smart enough” to defeat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
  • Did imam’s sermon incite Theo Van Gogh murder?

    Did imam’s sermon incite Van Gogh murder?

    The mosques have to be monitored. What is being preached in the sermons has to be known. The alternative? Many, many more murders and terror attacks. A provocative story by Barry Thorne and Claire Cavanagh for Radio Netherlands (thanks to Ana):

    Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh almost exactly two years ago is serving a life prison sentence, but now questions are being asked about whether the sermon of a Muslim cleric played a role in the crime.During the ongoing trial of another Dutch terrorism suspect, Samir Azzouz, it’s emerged that Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah mosque in The Hague gave a sermon condemning Theo van Gogh just a few weeks before his murder. A recording of the sermon exists and in it the imam is heard uttering a curse against the Dutch director for his film Submission, which is critical of Islam. The film had been shown on television shortly before the sermon.

    Criminal bastard

    In the recording of the sermon, Imam Fawaz calls Theo van Gogh a ‘criminal bastard’ and beseeches Allah to visit an incurable disease upon the filmmaker. He also condemns former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was involved in writing the script for Submission. The imam asks Allah to make Ms Hirsi Ali go blind and give her cancer of the tongue and brain.

    What inspiring, moving, loving prayers. Nevertheless, they aren’t enough in themselves:

    Despite the claims in the recording, Ruud Peters, a professor of Islamic Law doesn’t believe the imam’s words are incitement to commit murder:”I have a couple of arguments for that – the most important is that he [Imam Fawaz] says, ‘the people who have insulted the Prophet Muhammad should die through the hands of God’ – he was very specific in that… he says, ‘leave it to God’.”

    Key witness

    Professor Peters was a key expert witness at the trial of Mohammed Bouyeri and was asked to study Bouyeri’s writing up until he carried out the murder of Theo van Gogh on 2 November 2004 in Amsterdam.

    “I found no clue that [Imam] Fawaz had had any impact on him. On the contrary, we know that already more than a year before he killed Van Gogh, that he… deliberately turned away from the mosques, the […] mosques which are considered to be radical.”

    The wise, knowledgeable and perceptive Hans Jansen, however, disagrees:

    RhetoricHowever, another writer and academic on Islam from Utrecht University, Hans Jansen, believes the sermon went much further than the usual rhetoric heard in Dutch mosques,

    It is simply incitement to violence. I can’t judge the legal angles, but somebody who hears this sermon would get very excited and would want to do anything in the cause of Islam.”

    “I’ve heard fire and brimstone sermons before, one long speech which builds up tension and when you leave the mosque after having heard such a sermon, especially when you’re young, you’ll be very excited, almost ready to do anything.”

    “This sermon is much worse than anything in mosques, certainly worse than anything presented in mosques in the Middle East.”

    Well, that’s debatable. But it is bad.

    Young Muslims’ Secret Camp — read this in detail – follow the links – Frightening

    Young Muslims’ Secret Camp
    By Joe Kaufman
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 1, 2006

    The Young Muslims are in hiding.  They are hiding the location of their August 2nd youth camp, and the public has a right to know why.The Young Muslims (YM) was founded well over a decade ago, as a subsidiary of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an organization that was created specifically to emulate the violent Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami.  Through ICNA, YM holds events that feature as speakers some of the most radical individuals in the Islamic community.  These events include youth camps, which, prior to the attacks on 9/11, were referred to as “jihad camps.”

    The latest YM camp, themed ‘Deen and Dunya: Finding the Balance,’ will be held tomorrow, August 2nd through August 6th.  The organization has worked hard to keep the location of the destination under wraps.  On the YM website, people are explicitly told not to discuss the matter.

    Originally, the event was to be held in
    Villanova, Pennsylvania, at the 23-acre Foundation for Islamic Education (FIE), where many YM events are held throughout the year.  [This includes one last April featuring
    UK Imam Sheik Riyadh ul-Haq, who, just two months later, was banned from entering
    Canada, “because his views could incite terror and hatred.”]  However, the camp was to be a five-day affair – a violation of local zoning regulations – and  after years of infractions perpetrated by FIE, the residents complained and got the Township of Lower Merion, where FIE is located, to threaten an injunction against the group.
     

    YM had previously held its August 2004 camp at FIE, the theme of which was ‘A Few Good Men.’  Controversy erupted over it, when, shortly before the camp was to begin, one of the invited speakers, Mazen Mokhtar, had his house raided and his computers confiscated by the FBI.  Mokhtar, currently the Youth Director for the
    New Jersey chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS), prior to 9/11, created a mirror (replica) website of a site that raised funds and recruited terror fighters for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.  The site was also used as a portal to the official website of Hamas, a group that Mokhtar has called “heroic.”  He has also said he supports suicide bombings.

    Mokhtar was an invitee to lecture at this year’s camp, as well.  The “confirmed” list of speakers are as follows: 

    • Siraj Wahhaj, the Imam of the Masjid At-Taqwa mosque in
      Brooklyn and an individual listed as a potential co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World
      Trade
      Center, who has stated about the
      United States in a taped sermon, “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing.  And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
    • Abdul Malik, the chaplain of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority and former Office Manager of CAIR-New York, who likened President George W. Bush to a “slave master” and, in a speech entitled ‘Service to Society: The Key to Reformation,’ stated, “Assalam alaikum [crowd responds: ‘wa alaikum assalam’].  I look forward to hearing that one day in the White House, and then paint it black.”  And “…we don’t want to democratize Islam, we want to Islamize democracy.”
    • Faisal Hamouda, who is a leading volunteer for Islamic Relief, a charity that
      Israel has named a front for Hamas.
    • Nouman Ali Khan, a former representative of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), who, in February of 2005, gave a speech sponsored by the MSA of Hofstra University, entitled ‘Preparation for Death.’
    • Shamsi Ali, the Deputy Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York and Director of the Jamaica Muslim Center, who was the moderator at a February 2006 demonstration against Danish cartoons of Muhammad held outside the Danish Consulate in Manhattan, where a poster was seen being waived which read, “Insult the Prophet, you will pay, Allah’s wrath is on the way.
    • Amin Abdul Latif, the President (Ameer) of Majlis Ashura of NYC in
      Brooklyn, who signed his name to an open letter to President Bush in support of
      Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), the Islamist organization responsible for the creation of the terror group, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA).

    The speakers are not the only problem with the YM camp.  There is also a problem with the campers.  Numerous pictures from previous camps depict the children fighting each other, as their fellow camp-mates stand around watching.  It is not apparent whether or not there is any supervision while this is occurring, but given who their guest speakers are, that probably doesn’t make much of a difference.

    One reason why the members of Young Muslims don’t want the location of tomorrow’s camp divulged is because there may be more impediments – zoning or otherwise – with the new locale, which could cause a cancellation.  A further explanation could be because they don’t want what is being said by their guest speakers known to the public.  Yet another reason could be far far worse.  But we won’t know, because they’re not telling.

    Law enforcement needs to find out — now.

    Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

    The MSM is AWOL — The main stream media shows its democratic bias once again

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 55 other followers