Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Bashing Arizona Immigration Law Supporters

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On May 3, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | No Comments

The Religious Left has discerned that Christianity and Judaism demand virtually open borders by the United States, if not by other nations.  So naturally, many liberal church elites have quickly and angrily lashed out at Arizona’s new immigration law, ascribing to its backers the contempt that much of the Religious Left seems itself to have for many average Americans.

Arizona’s Episcopal Bishop Kirk Smith huffily declared:  “Today is a sad day in the struggle to see all God’s people treated in a humane and compassionate manner.”  And he tut-tutted:  “It seems that for now the advocates of fear and hatred have won over those of charity and love. Arizona claims to be a Golden Rule State. We have not lived up to that claim.”

It’s doubtful that the Episcopal Church in Arizona has been very successful in broadening it’s WASPy flock to include many immigrants.  Still, Bishop Kirk presumes to be their spokesman and moral leader on behalf of the Golden Rule:  “We will continue to work as hard as we can to defeat this law and to work toward just and fair laws that protect the rights of all human beings. We all know that our immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed by scape-goating the most vulnerable of those among us.”

Not content to defer to the local bishop, the Episcopal Church’s lobby office in Washington, D.C. also irritably chimed in against the Arizona law, bemoaning that the “lack of fair and humane immigration reform opens the door to misguided and divisive state and local attempts to address immigration enforcement.”  Of course, the Episcopal lobbyists want a national amnesty that would override state attempts at immigration enforcement:   “We urge Congress to provide a solution to a broken immigration system that separates families, spreads fear and keeps millions living in the shadows. Every day, members of our congregations see the unacceptable consequences of our broken immigration system.  We urge the Senate and House to enact bipartisan immigration reform that reunites families, protects the rights of all workers, and provides an opportunity for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status.”

Of course, like the rest of the Religious Left, the Episcopal lobbyists simplistically portray their open borders policy as “Christians…[who] are called to embrace the stranger and to find Christ in all who come to us in need.”  And like the Religious Left, they assume that solutions to vast social problems can be solved by sweeping legislation.  “With strong leadership in Congress, we are confident we can solve the broken immigration system.  We encourage members of Congress to join faith leaders to stand up for immigration policies that renew the dignity and human rights of everyone.”

But what if the open borders and amnesty that the Religious Left typically advocates in fact do not “renew the dignity and human rights of everyone” and instead only create more social disruption whose chief victims are ultimately low income native born and immigrants who lack the economic privileges of most Religious Left elites, especially Episcopalians?  In typical fashion, the Religious Left does not ponder unintended consequences and instead assumes that good intentions and political correctness are sufficient.

Evangelical Left Sojourners chief Jim Wallis wants evangelicals to follow the old Religious Left in distilling the Gospel down to the Left’s latest political demands and prejudices. “The law … is a social and racial sin, and should be denounced as such by people of faith and conscience across the nation,” Wallis intoned. “It is not just about Arizona, but about all of us, and about what kind of country we want to be. It is not only mean-spirited — it will be ineffective and will only serve to further divide communities in Arizona, making everyone more fearful and less safe.”

Arizona’s new crack down on illegal immigration may or may not have faults, but will it make lawful Arizonans “less safe?  Security and effective law enforcement are not typical strong emphases for Wallis or the Religious Left generally.  Instead, they often prefer name calling and charges of bigotry. “This legislation feels reactionary and hateful,” claims Church World Service chief John McCullough, who heads the National Council of Churches’ relief arm.  “It is a clear representation of the politics of division and exclusion.”

Even more hyperbolic was National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference chief Samuel Rodriguez, who has also successfully pressed the National Association of Evangelicals to adopt a liberalized immigration agenda.  “Today, Arizona stands as the state with the most xenophobic and nativist laws in the country,” he pronounced, almost as a curse.  “We need a multi-ethnic firewall against the extremists in our nation who desire to separate us rather than bring us together. Shame on you Arizona Republicans and shame on you Senator John McCain for endorsing the legislation.”

Rodriguez claims to represent virtually all Hispanic evangelicals, and naïve Anglo evangelical churchmen obligingly accept his claims, not considering that many Hispanic and other legal immigrants also have concerns about law enforcement, security, and open borders’ impact on their own ability to advance economically.  Instead, the Religious and Evangelical Left idealize immigration as merely a bumper sticker social justice issue dividing forces of light from bigoted forces of darkness.   Contrary to their claims, the Almighty has not directly revealed His preferences for U.S. immigration policy.  But traditional Christian and Jewish moral teachings about human nature and statecraft offer better guidance than the slapdash pseudo-thinking of the Arizona law’s seething religious critics.

Left Wing Filth and Hatred

Left Wing Filth and Hatred

Left-wing hate
Alan Colmes says the Right is “struggling to draw equivalency with Obama-bashing.”
There’s no struggle. It’s quite easy to find evidence of vile left-wing hatred and violence…it’s abundant, and it’s tolerated and accepted by mainstream lefties:
(Warning: totally NSFW)
Don’t miss the misogynistic hate filth from this left-wing sex pig:
(Warning: totally NSFW)
No, the left-wing hatred that I’ve seen is NOT equivalent to the peaceful and mild mannered dissent that I’ve witnessed at the tea parties over the past year. The left-wing hate is truly disgusting.
Left-wing outrage over uncivil discourse was conspicuously absent two short years ago. Alan Colmes: During the Bush years, where was YOUR concern for incivility?
More
Extensive documentation of Left Wing hatred and filth from ZombieTime (NSFW)
Breitbart: If the LEFT stops eating our fingers, beating up black men, throwing eggs at our buses, threatening violence, perhaps we can work together!

Liberal Narcissism and Anti-Christian Phobia

Liberal Narcissism and Anti-Christian Phobia

By Deborah C. Tyler

Americans have always expected national television broadcasters to steer clear of degrading epithets. On April 14, 2009, CNN’s Anderson Cooper established a new low in television journalism when he labeled millions of Americans in the Tea Party movement with a vulgar sexual term. Other mainstream media journalists and personalities gleefully followed suit. There was no outcry from the “anti-hate community.” Many liberals do not merely tolerate contumelies against conservatives, but they delight in them.
In the years after World War II, psychologists (many of whom were European Jews who had escaped Nazism) intensively studied how fascist and authoritarian states could bring ordinary people to commit extraordinary crimes against minorities. The two dominant personality theories of the twentieth century, the Freudian and Adlerian psychoanalytic models, provided theoretical frameworks for understanding bigotry and fascism as forms of individual and collective neurotic delusions. The Freudian model attributed these neuroses to a frustrated “will to pleasure,” while Adler pointed to an unhealthy expression of the “will to power” over others.
For the most part, psychologists today deny or ignore anti-Christian prejudice in the American conversation. This is because psychologists are overwhelming politically liberal and spiritually humanist. In social science, bias in is bias out. In addition, America’s dominant psychological model, behaviorism, has always been anti-theoretical and has not produced an integrated theory of personality equal in influence to either Freud or Adler.
Although Freud and Adler agreed on the existence of unconscious fear as the core of neurotic anxiety, they had different explanations for it. Freud posited that bigotry arises when a child internalizes the prejudices of the father in order to resolve unconscious sexual conflicts in the process of superego formation. This thwarted “will to pleasure” is projected as hatred onto a scapegoat minority. Culturally, fear becomes fascistic, involving rigid group conformity against a common enemy. Freud’s model is obsolete. Anderson Cooper, and the Manhattan micro-niche he typifies, is not anxiously reacting to an overbearing father-figure. It is the extreme opposite. Mr. Cooper is the son of a fantastically permissive brand of humanism. The only thing he has to feel guilty about is guilt itself.
But the Freudian model does have utility in one dimension. The aggression resulting from thwarted narcissism is gratified when projected onto a devalued minority — e.g., Tea Party participants. The core phobia is that non-approving conservatives are thwarting the “will to pleasure.” The need for perfect admiration and approval is the hallmark of narcissism, which is by definition insatiable. Narcissistic pleasure is the precursor to inevitable narcissistic rage. In the narcissistic liberal imagination, Christian conservatives stand in the way of a human heaven of sexual freedom.
Alfred Adler coined the term “inferiority complex.” He held that the neurotic complex arises from harm inherent in the “will to power” over others. His model explains liberal prejudice as an overreaction against unconscious self-doubt that projects intellectual, moral, and cultural inferiority onto others. Uppity and unmanageable conservatives, who, oblivious to their own stupidity, doggedly stand up for their inferior beliefs anger the narcissistic liberal.
Applying either Freudian or Adlerian analysis to liberal phobic structure requires updating the concept of individual anxiety, or neurosis, to the contemporary concept of group-based social phobia. Both Freud and Adler were middle-class Jewish men who assumed that neurosis developed in reaction to imbalances in the paternalistic nuclear family — the only normative child-rearing form either had ever seen.
In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders III dropped neurosis as a diagnosis and replaced it with culturally based phobias. The father-led nuclear family was no longer the social structure for incorporating values, morals, and role expectations. “Inadequacy adjustment” in relation to that family system was no longer the source of mental imbalance. Values, norms, and the power of social conditioning were moving outside the home and into the hands of “experts,” government schools, universities, and mass media — in other words, liberals.
Liberal phobic structure is a fascinating innovation in the history of prejudice and cultural fascism. It is a dread of specific forms of sin-cognizant religious belief.
Both anti-Christian phobia and narcissism result from the humanist denial of sin, heaven, and hell. Liberals believe the narcissogenic idea that they create their own heaven or hell on earth. The denial of God-defined sin leads to self-deification and the anxious business of high-stakes, self-directed life-styling. Liberals live with their eyes glued to mass media to learn what is and isn’t sin this season. People who believe that such behavior can lead to a nasty outcome beyond this life are detested. Although liberals accuse Christians of being homophobic, true Christians are hellphobic. Regardless of religious self-identification, people who are betting their immortal souls on a denial of sin and its effects beyond this life have to be crazy not to be phobic.
Every permanent theistic religion of the last seven thousand years — Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam — provides an understanding that spiritual wastefulness is sin. These religions seek to protect people from the consequences of sin beyond this life. Traditions that assume reincarnation, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, teach that sinfulness in one life leads to suffering in the next. Religions that do not incorporate reincarnation, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, explain life as a fleeting preparation before divine judgment.
The pathognomic sign that the liberal reaction to sin-cognizant belief systems is a symptom of phobic complex is that it selectively rejects the teachings of its own traditions — Judaism and especially Christianity. These cultural heritages pose a threat to the liberal wills to pleasure and power. Liberal phobia includes a complex delusional system that exempts some sin-cognizant religions. For example, liberals adore their own version of a morally permissive, designer Buddhism. Nor are they phobic toward Islam, which is based on fiercely sin-cognizant scripture. Liberals maintain mechanisms of denial regarding Islam that rise to the level of psychotic dissociation.
G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Bigots are people who have no convictions at all.” Screaming-meemies like Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Janeane Garofalo, and all the porn-thumping preachers railing against the sin of sin-cognizance are the voices of the new cultural fascists, spittle-flinging celebrities unconsciously raging against their own fear.
I recently evaluated a 53-year-old man who has been unable to recover psychologically or physically from what appeared to be a minor accident. He was born into a devout Christian family in a small Midwestern town. He was also born gay. At about 30, he adopted a gay mode of life. His family continued to love him, but they did not alter their religious beliefs. When he discovered in 1990 that both he and his partner had contracted HIV, his family took this as a sign of the sinfulness of his lifestyle. This man’s friends, counselors, therapists, and humanistic-Christian pastors have for twenty years encouraged him to believe that his family is bigoted. His family has visited him through the years. They sit in the front room and do not stay the night. He acquired a settled resentment toward his people and never went home again. By the grace of God, he and his partner have survived for twenty years, while all of their friends have died. Ironically, he believes that this is because his family back home is praying for him. This man moved from an unyielding belief system based in divine forgiveness to a man-made culture that does not seem to value it.
Dr. Tyler can be reached at deborahtyler@intylergence.com.

Poison Ivy (League)

Liberalism v Islamism

Liberalism v Islamism

By Melanie Phillips

First of all, let me define my terms and say what I mean by Islamism and liberalism. Islamism is the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam. I�m well aware of the argument that there�s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that�s a theological argument for others to have.

By liberalism I mean the commitment to a free society, founded above all on the separation of secular government from religious worship � from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law.

These two concepts, Islamism and liberalism, are currently engaged in a fight to the death. My argument is that liberalism is in danger of losing this fight because it has so badly undermined itself and departed from its own core concepts that it is now paralysed by moral and intellectual muddle.

The Big and Little Satans themselves, America and Israel, are proxies for liberalism and modernity. That�s why Islamism says they must be destroyed. Qutb famously went to America and concluded from seeing men and women dancing at a church hop that America was one giant brothel. And much of the bitter hostility to the Jews who started returning to Palestine in the 1920s was because the women wore shorts and were sexually free.

The Islamist goal is to destroy the virus of freedom and modernity before it infects the Islamic world, and to replace it with Islam. That is the core of the profound threat it poses to the west, a threat mounted through the pincer movement of both terrorism and cultural takeover.

This cultural takeover, or the aim to Islamise the west, was explicitly laid out in a programme of subversion for Europe by the Wahabbi Muslim Brotherhood almost 30 years ago. In 1978, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference sponsored a seminar in London which said Muslim communities in western countries must establish autonomous institutions with help from Muslim states, and lobby the host country to grant Muslims recognition as a separate religious community as a step towards eventual political domination. CONTINUE
Liberalism is the creed of modernity. The driving force behind the Islamic jihad is the fight against liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts � Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan �are secondary to the fundamental aim of the jihad to prevent liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam.

The founding ideologue of modern Islamism, Syed Qutb, made clear in his writings that at the core of the salafi interpretation of Islam was opposition to the separation of religion and temporal power that resulted in liberalism and democracy. His governing impulse was the fear that the instinct for liberty was so powerful it would spread to and infiltrate the Muslim mind unless it was checked by the most repressive possible form of Islam.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 2:21 pm |

Indoctrinate U — analyzes political correctness on college campuses

Indoctrinate U
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 19, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Evan Coyne Maloney, an early pioneer of video blogging. He is currently working on a project – Indoctrinate U – that analyzes political correctness on college campuses. His website is Brain-Terminal.com.

Preview Image

FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

 

Maloney: Thanks a lot for the opportunity. 

FP: Tell us a little bit about how your first short video, “Protesting the Protestors,” and how it helped get you started.  

Maloney: In the run-up to the
Iraq war, there were a lot of peace protests getting a fair amount of media attention. But what I noticed was, none of the reporters bothered to look at the extremist organizations organizing these protests. The Workers World Party, the International Socialist Organization and International ANSWER are rather extreme groups, yet I didn’t see anyone in the media looking into their involvement with the protest movement.

If the K.K.K. sponsored rallies in
Washington, and tens of thousands of people showed up, media coverage would undoubtedly include some mention of the extremism of the people who set it up. Yet these organizations are every bit as extreme as the K.K.K., and their involvement was being ignored.

I also noticed that the media refused to cover the radical element that did show up. There were people who were openly supporting suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. There were people comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, and nobody was questioning it. You don’t have to like President Bush, but if you think he and Hitler are one and the same, then I think you’re pretty ignorant of history.

So I decided to pick up a video camera and cover the element of the protesters that the media was ignoring, and the result was Protesting the Protesters.

It got e-mailed around so much that it became one of those Internet phenomena. Within a day of posting that video, my relatively obscure website, Brain-Terminal.com, was getting mentioned by Rush Limbaugh and national television newscasters like Brit Hume. 

FP: You mention the protestors who openly support suicide bombings against Jewish civilians. The Left thinks of itself as being a progressive force that cares about justice and humanitarianism etc. Yet in this terror war, the Left has ended up being on the side of an ugly totalitarian ideology – an ideology that is based on hatred of pluralism, hatred of women, hatred of minorities, hatred of homosexuals and hatred of almost everything else on earth.  What is the psychology of the Left in this context do you think? 

Maloney: That’s what boggles my mind. Women are second-class citizens in a large part of the world, treated as property, and it is not only acceptable for their husbands to beat them, but it is expected. Rape victims are stoned to death in “honor” killings while gang-rapists face no punishment. And yet the West’s feminists are silent. In a large part of the world, gays can be jailed and subject to chemical treatments in an attempt to change their gender preference. They are hanged and beheaded simply for being gay. And yet the gay rights activists in the West are silent.

I really don’t get it. There are very severe offenses against humanity occurring all over the world, and yet the left ignores them. It seems they are constitutionally incapable of recognizing any injustice unless they can somehow blame it on the West, on white males, on Christians or Jews, or on the
United States.

FP: Zilla Huma Usman, a Pakistani minister and woman’s activist, was, as you know, recently shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil. There wasn’t one peep about this from the Left in general and from the feminist left in particular. Just a deafening silence. I think this serves as a hint of what the Left really cares about and what it doesn’t care about at all.  

So what short videos have you produced since “Protesting the Protestors”?

 

Maloney: I’ve produced a total 14 short videos that are all freely available on Brain-Terminal.com. 

FP: Your interview with Michael Moore set you on the path of being a full-time documentarian, correct? Can you share the experience with us and how it set you on the road you are on?

 

Maloney: It was after McCain-Feingold became law, and it occurred to me that the campaign finance laws had a huge loophole in them, what I call the Michael Moore loophole. Whereas private citizens like you or me could not buy airtime to express our views within 90 days of a general election–it would be illegal–
Hollywood was exempt. So people in
Hollywood would have a huge megaphone with which to promote their views, while people like us–people who didn’t have access to the
Hollywood distribution machine–are shut up and shut out of the process.

I didn’t think it was fair that Michael Moore could put out a two-hour political ad in the form of movie, but I as a private citizen could not buy airtime to express my own views (not like I could afford it anyway, but it was the principle of the thing).

So I decided I would try to find Michael Moore to ask him what he thought about that. I staked him out for four days, and ultimately, I got him on camera. The discussion was a little contentious at first, but he did admit that
Hollywood should be more inclusive of different views. He encouraged me to continue working in documentary film. And he even admitted that there’s a market for documentary films other than what
Hollywood typically puts out. Now all I need to do is convince all the folks who put out films like his that he is indeed correct.

They don’t see a market for documentaries unless they hew to the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. But I’m going to prove them wrong.

 

FP: What is the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview?

 

Maloney: To me, it’s a worldview that believes that the solution to all human problems is for more government and for greater subservience to government. That the world would be utopia if only we willingly handed over control to a group of hand-picked experts who would be responsible for running things. And that this utopia can be brought about through social engineering if only the will of the individual could be suppressed enough to allow this to happen. 

FP: And it’s a worldview that spawned hell on earth every time it achieved earthly incarnation. 

Tell us about “Brainwashing 101″ and its sequel. What responses were there to these films?

 

Maloney: It’s funny. We had a great response from the audiences who saw the short films “Brainwashing 101″ and “Brainwashing 201.” Both films won awards at film festivals, and we got a great reception from the students who got a chance to see them. Even a number of professors were supportive.

But school administrators were another story. It is in their best interests to limit the flow of information leaving campus to glossy admissions brochures and warm-and-fuzzy alumni newsletters designed to encourage graduates to open their wallets. Anything beyond that is a problem for them, especially a film that exposes the dirty little secrets of higher education.

In producing “Indoctrinate U”, we had the police called on us about a half-dozen times. And when we were screening the short film “Brainwashing 101″ at

Bucknell
University–my alma mater–the head of security was brought in to threaten me with arrest in front of an audience assembled to watch my film.

I never thought my own alma mater would try to shut down the career of one of its own alumni. It was pretty eye-opening.

 

FP: So share with us your current project: “

Indoctrinate
U.” When will it be released?

 

Maloney: We’re going to have a media screening for the film at the end of April, at the

Tribeca
Film
Center here in
New York. (For more information, see
the film’s website.

 

Unfortunately, it’s a little difficult to predict when the film will be released. You see, films are like new cars. The minute you drive them off the lot–or in the case of a film, hold public screenings–they lose significant value. Distributors like to “own the premiere”; they want virgin films. So we’re holding off on any timetables until we’ve exhausted all our options with distributors. And if we still can’t find a distributor, we’ll put it out ourselves. But we’re still trying to give
Hollywood a chance to prove that they’re not the same one-party state that campuses have become.
 

FP: Why do you think that
Hollywood and the academic campus are one-Party states?
 

Maloney: If the question is why do I perceive them that way, the answer is pretty simple: ample evidence demonstrates them to be that way.

When you see
Hollywood celebrities expressing their political opinions, very rarely do you see anyone express anything other than a left-wing worldview; it almost never happens. Similarly, when you take a look at the documentaries put out by
Hollywood, to whatever extent they contain a political perspective, it is also invariably left-of-center. Quite simply, that is the default position in
Hollywood.

As far as higher education, there have been several studies showing that academics are much further to the left than the rest of society. The fact is, when political speech is suppressed on campus, it is almost always (not always, but most of the time) right-of-center speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-partisan civil rights organization that defends the free speech and free thought rights of students and professors in academia, states that most of the cases they receive are of conservatives who’ve had their rights trampled on campus. And FIRE is an organization that defends all comers. So the slant of the cases they receive is a symptom of the overwhelming slant in academia.

Now, if the question is why Hollywood and academia are that way–i.e., how did they get that way–that is a question that I could probably spend decades studying and only begin to approximate an answer.

In a general sense, I think that communities tend to be self-reinforcing, and that when any community passes a certain threshold of uniformity, the self-reinforcing nature of the community becomes exaggerated and more extreme. People who, as individuals, would never think of trying to punish someone simply for their political perspective become much more willing to stand by and let that happen if it appears that such a thing is what the community desires. And as the community becomes increasingly extreme in how it treats dissidents, people who simply stood by when it happened in less extreme cases become afraid to speak out against the increasing extremism, lest they be punished or cast out of the community themselves.

It’s simple group dynamics, and I don’t think any particular part of the ideological spectrum has a monopoly on groupthink and the negative consequences to which it leads. It is a human frailty, not a liberal or conservative thing. 

FP: Share with us some of the innovative things you are doing to make yourself a force that 
Hollywood can’t ignore.

Maloney: I don’t really care whether I’m a force in
Hollywood, and a lot of  things in
Hollywood would have to change before someone like me could  be considered a force there.

But we are doing a few innovative things to prove that there are lots of people interested in the topics we’re covering in “

Indoctrinate 
U.” On our website, we’ve got
a Google Map where people can type in their zip codes to express an interest in seeing the film near them. And when they plug in their zip codes, it puts a pin in the map, showing graphically that there’s interest all over the country in seeing this film. Already, without spending a single dime promoting the film, we’ve had nearly 150,000 page views on our website, and we’ve got thousands and thousands of towns with pins in them. And we haven’t even spent a dime promoting the website yet.

 

Preview Image

So, while we have far to go before this grassroots campaign is noticed in
Hollywood, the fact that we’ve gotten this far this fast is very encouraging.

Of course, we need the help of everyone who cares about free thought in higher education, and we need the help of everyone who wishes Hollywood would every once in a while put out a documentary that speaks to them. If people get involved, I think we can help them bring about a lot of positive change.

 

FP: So what are some ways people can get involved and help?

 

Maloney: Right now, our biggest hurdle is convincing
Hollywood that there is a market for a different kind of documentary film, one that doesn’t necessarily have the same old perspective that the industry routinely churns out. And that’s where people can help.

If people visit our website and plug in their zip codes, we can prove that a market exists for this film. If they watch the trailer and forward a link to all of their contacts, I think we can get over 100,000 people to punch in their zip codes. And if we do, I think we can get mainstream distribution for this film.

That’s what is needed to help open
America’s eyes. I think many people suspect that these problems exist within academia, but I don’t think they have any idea just how pervasive or severe the problem is. No level of academia is immune, nor is any particular geographic region. Most colleges and universities in
America seem to be this way, and it is important that Americans begin to question the environment on campus and address the problem.

FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview and we wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

 

Maloney: Thank you very much.

 

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Jihad & Hostages: Jimmy Carter & Liberalism’s Gifts To The World

Jihad & Hostages: Jimmy Carter & Liberalism’s Gifts To The World

carterdither

I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but the safe return of the hostages should not be the primary goal of the English Government. The primary goal of the English Government should be the protection of it’s people by meting out consequences to iran in order to discourage anyone else from committing such grievous offences in the future.

The only appropriate immediate response to such a kidnapping is to threaten. If and when threatening doesn’t work, then it is time to attack, with escalation and cessation ultimately determined by the Government and Military.

Placing the value of the lives of the few hostages over the greater good and lives of the many people, is a facile, child-like approach to things that results in the abdication of all real governmental responsibility. It is a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

There is only one reason this grotesque debacle is unfolding as is. It is because the poisonous thread of Modern Liberalism has blinded and handcuffed the English People and their Government. They need to wipe the Liberals scales from their eyes.

Jimmy Carter is responsible for the current hostage situation in Iran. Modern Liberalism is responsible for the current hostage situation in Iran. Because both Jimmy Carter and liberalism value “don’t hit” over protecting their people by meting out consequences to those who threaten them, Jimmy Carter and Modern Liberalsim sent a clear message to Iran that hostage taking can be done in a void of consequence. Along with waging the Jihad that began, unchecked, under Carter’s watch. Strengthened and emboldened, it is the greatest threat we face today.

Just minutes ago, MSM outlets began reporting that Iran would be airing fresh “confessions” by the tortured and humiliated hostages. The Iranian government is following a focused course of action. The British Government is, I believe, talking

Teaching Law-Breaking at UC-Berkeley

Teaching Law-Breaking at UC-Berkeley
By Lee Kaplan
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 19, 2007

The purpose of a law school is to teach law, not to provide a forum for political propaganda and illegal activity. That would likely come as news to the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While the school is touted as one of the premier educational institutions in the country, it is affiliated with a law student association on the UC campus, Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP), whose anti-Israel campaign actually advocates lawbreaking. It is a measure of its prominence on campus that LSJP boasts its own website within the university’s official Boalt Hall website. The site states that the group was founded in 2001 with university approval for the purposes of promoting the Palestinian cause. Specifically, LSJP seeks to “infuse the current discourse with a legal analysis of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and the illegality of the state of Israel and its policies in their current form” and to “provide legal support to her sister organization on the main UC Berkeley campus, Students for Justice in Palestine, which has been participating in an ongoing campaign to demand that the UC system divest from Israel since February 6, 2001.”

This platform reflects poorly on the group’s commitment to jurisprudence. In the first place, the state of Israel was legally created by the United Nations in 1948, and the Jews who settled the state purchased their land in accordance with the law. Israeli law, moreover, has always required equal civil rights for all citizens of Israel, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews or others. So the pointed purpose of the LSJP is to ignore the legal justifications for the Jewish state by having aspiring lawyers declare the Jewish state “illegal.”

More troubling is the other reason given for the existence of the LSJP: providing support for Students for Justice (SJP) in Palestine at UC Berkeley and its divestment campaign against Israel. SJP is one of the founding organizations of the anti-Israel propaganda group known as the International Solidarity Movement. The SJP website outlines the group’s demand for “the full decolonization of all illegally held Palestinian lands.” It also calls for the “end of the Israeli occupation of the Gaza, Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

A closer examination of these positions shows how extreme they really are. Currently, U.S. foreign policy envisions two democratic states, side by side and living in peace. However, since the SJP calls for an end to any Israeli influence in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the first paragraph clearly implies that all of the land of Israel is a “colony” and “illegally” held. In other words, the SJP seems to deny Israel’s right to exist within secure borders—anywhere in the Middle East.

Reinforcing this suspicion is the fact the SJP calls for an unconditional “right of return.” If implemented, this would give any Arab who claims to have had a dead ancestor who resided within Israel’s borders in 1948 the right to live in Israel. As many critics have noted, this leaves open the door for five million Arabs to flood Israel, outnumber her Jewish residents, and create another Arab-Muslim state. There is no legal precedent for succeeding generations of refugees after a war to claim refugee status, but that seems not to deter the legal eagles at UC Berkeley.

Nor are they put off by the fact that the SJP expressly endorses lawbreaking in the service of its anti-Israel agenda. On its website, the SJP clearly states that it encourages “civil disobedience” and divestment from the state of Israel, both of which are illegal acts. It should come as no surprise, then, that in 2002 radicals from SJP unlawfully stormed a building on campus where Jewish students were memorializing the Holocaust. SJP’s divestment campaign is likewise of dubious legality. Divesting from Israel is actually part of the Arab League boycott of Israel and, it might be argued, is a violation of the Logan Act. One might think that a respectable law school would be keen to distance itself from student groups more committed to radical political agendas than to legal precedent. UC Berkley’s continued association with Law Students for Justice in Palestine speaks volumes about its inverted priorities.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Students facing charges of ‘desecration of Allah’ –College Republicans at San Francisco State University desecrated the name of Allah by stepping on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, charged school officials who brought the students before a hearing yesterday.

Students facing charges of ‘desecration of Allah’
Hamas, Hezbollah flags used in college Republicans protest


Posted: March 10, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54634

College Republicans at San Francisco State University desecrated the name of Allah by stepping on makeshift Hezbollah and Hamas flags, charged school officials who brought the students before a hearing yesterday.

The trouble began at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in which the students stepped on butcher paper painted to resemble the flags of the Middle East terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The College Republicans say they simply copied the script from an image on the Internet and didn’t know it bore the name of Allah in Arabic script.

University spokeswoman Ellen Griffin, however, told San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders the university “stands behind this process” of investigating the students for possible punishment.

“I don’t believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag,” Griffin said. “I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah.”

The university has 10 days from the time of the hearing to decide whether to sanction the students.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which represents the students, insisted the school has no basis for punishing them.

“The College Republicans engaged in unequivocally protected political expression, and it strains all credibility to think the SFSU administration does not know this,” he said. “There is nothing to try or investigate here other than protected expression.”

Ten days after the incident, a student filed a formal complaint with the university against the campus group, alleging “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “actions of incivility.”

FIRE argues the university’s Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development could have settled the matter informally or dismissed the charges instead of pressing forward today with a hearing.

The legal advocacy group sent a letter to SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan Jan. 23 arguing no American public institution can lawfully prosecute students for engaging in political protest or for desecrating religious symbols.

FIRE asserted “incitement” and creating a “hostile environment” are legal terms not applicable to the College Republicans’ actions of stepping on flags.

“SFSU has a duty to uphold the First Amendment rights of all of its students, even if their expressive activity offends the religious sensibilities of some,” the letter stated.

University officials wrote back Jan. 29, saying the school would continue to investigate the complaint “to give all parties the confidence that they will be heard and fairly treated by a panel that includes representatives of all the university’s key constituencies.”

A follow-up letter by FIRE urged Corrigan to call off the hearing, warning “if you continue to ignore your constitutional obligations, you risk personal liability for depriving your students of their rights.”

“This is not even a close call, legally speaking,” FIRE Vice President Robert L. Shibley contended. “The First Amendment protects using or destroying flags in political protest, and even SFSU administrators must realize that they cannot prosecute students for failing to respect a religious symbol.”

LET’S BE SPECIFIC

Well worth the read!


LET’S BE SPECIFIC

by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again.

We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight some where other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)
349 Jib Lane Lakeside, Montana

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers