Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

Sheriff Dupnik Must Resign

By E.W. Jackson
Sr.

 

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, an elected leader entrusted with preserving the
rights of the innocent regardless of party affiliation, has made it clear he is
unable to carry out his duties in an unbiased manner.  Nor is this the first
time he has shown himself unable to set politics aside in the performance of his
duty.  When Arizona passed the bill dealing with illegal immigration, he refused
to enforce the law.
Now he has claimed that the vitriol of political discourse from
conservatives on radio and television and from the Tea Party led to nineteen
people being shot and six of them murdered.  He called his own home state of
Arizona a “Mecca of bigotry and hatred.”  Other Democrats are echoing the
slander, claiming that the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
and all conservatives are responsible for the deaths of our fellow Americans in
Tucson.
Dupnik should apologize and resign for his incendiary and biased comments.
Given the spotlight, he could not bring himself to behave like a professional
law enforcement officer and stick with the facts.  He used his fifteen minutes
of fame to lash out at political opponents by calling them bigots, racists, and
inciters of violence, lumping in the entire state of Arizona.  He failed to
acknowledge that the only violence at a Tea Party event was perpetrated by
Democrat Teamster thugs against a black Tea Party activist.  As a black
American, I think those who throw around the labels of “bigot,” “racist,” and
“hater” are guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others, and they do
our country a great disservice.
Dupnik and those on the left have used this as an opportunity to smear
law-abiding citizens across the country while overlooking the calling cards of a
disturbed man.  It is clear that Jared Loughner, in his demented condition,
rejected God and all moral absolutes.  There was the discovery of his backyard
shrine — containing a skull with burnt oranges — and reports that his favorite
books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  This
is all anti-Christian behavior.  Should we blame liberals and the ACLU for
creating an atmosphere of hostility to Christianity, Judeo-Christian, values and
the God of the Bible?
If there is a lesson to be learned from this mass murder, it is that we
must stop romanticizing and minimizing the risks of mental illness.  We need to
get help for people who are a danger to themselves and others, not shut down
vigorous political discourse in our country.  Liberals can make the process of
debate much less bitter by sticking to the issues rather than calling people
names.  A good start would be for Democrats to ask Sheriff Dupnik to resign and
go home to take a long look in the mirror.  Then maybe his Democrat colleagues
will do the same.
My prayers go out to the families and friends of Federal Judge John Roll,
Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and all those involved in the senseless
shooting at her event.  There is no place in our society for violent attacks of
any kind, especially against those who selflessly choose to serve in public
office.  Our nation prides itself on civility.  May God bring strength to them
and their families, and to our entire nation.
God bless the heroic Americans who intervened in this tragic event.  No one
stopped to ask, “Are you conservative, liberal, heterosexual, homosexual, black,
or white?”  Americans stepped in and helped each other.  That is who we are.
The actions of one deranged individual should not be exploited to advance the
liberals’ political obsession with silencing their opponents.
We should view the aftermath of this horrific event as another
demonstration of the greatness of our country.  Real Americans do not ask how a
crisis can be used for political gain.  We act in unity and common concern for
each other without regard to race, gender, or politics.  We respond to crisis by
rising to the occasion, not lowering ourselves to using innocent victims as
pawns in a political game.  The attack on conservatives and the Tea Party, or
the attempt to associate this unbalanced individual with them, is irresponsible
and beneath contempt.
The double standard of the left is despicable and intolerable.  While the
entertainment industry makes billions selling violent movies, lyrics, and video
games, liberals consistently argue that these expressions are not to blame for
any crimes or self-destructive behavior.  “Leave these ‘artists’ alone,” they
cry.  However, because they think they can further their political agenda, they
enthusiastically claim that an act by one deranged individual was caused by the
“tone” of conservative rhetoric heard in the media.  No reasonable person would
conclude that free speech should be illegal because some deranged person might
be incited to violence.
E.W. Jackson is
President of STAND
Staying True to America’s National Destiny — a national organization dedicated
to restoring America’s Judeo-Christian history and values and bringing people
together across racial and cultural lines as one nation under
God.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/sheriff_dupnik_must_resign.html
at
January 14, 2011 – 12:49:21 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Was that a memorial service a or a pep rally?

Was that a memorial service a or a pep rally?

Doug Lucas

 

Well, the cult members were out in full force tonight in
Arizona. I was ashamed and disgusted by the spectacle that was called a memorial
service.

President Obama’s speech was fine, as always. He read the
teleprompter with eloquence and did a fine chin in the air impersonation of Che
Guevara, as usual. His words were appropriate for the most part and he rose
above the political fray by making a point of chiding people that were playing
the blame game.

My beef is not with Obama this time. It is his mindless
minions in the crowd that draws my ire. Apparently the crowd was mainly composed
of university students and from what I could gather they had already started
tapping kegs for the wake.

This was more like an Arsenio Hall show than a
memorial service. Catcalls, standing ovations, whistling and the whoop, whoop,
whoop of the crowd dominated the night. What should have been a somber occasion
for reflection turned into another Obama pep rally. It was as if these students
had their guy up on stage and by God they weren’t about to let a national
tragedy get in the way of them having a good time and cheering on their
messiah.

If these kids are our future then we are well and truly
screwed.

Contributor Patricia McCarthy adds:

I’ve just watched the
“memorial” service for those killed and wounded in Tucson. How are we to explain
the lack of decorum and reverence displayed by that audience? Did those students
forget that the families of the dead and wounded were in the room? Do they not
understand the meaning of the word “murdered”? Is not everyone who watched
horrified by the whistling, hooting cheerfulness of that crowd?

The
audience turned what was to be a memorial into something between a campaign
rally and a rock concert. They should all be ashamed of themselves. The event
called for honor and quiet respect, not hooting and hollering for a celebrity.
Perhaps it was the free t-shirts that set the tone.

Authors Credit:
Doug can be reached at hammer2141@yahoo.com

Page
Printed from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/was_that_a_memorial_service_a.html

at January 13, 2011 – 09:22:51 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Teacher Deems Student’s American Flag Drawing ‘Offensive’–but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama

Fox News Radio: The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.

http://www.breitbart.tv/teacher-deems-students-american-flag-drawing-offensive/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

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!

Dressing Up Standards, Dumbing Down Schools

Dressing Up Standards, Dumbing Down Schools

Posted By Terrence Moore On April 4, 2010 @ 12:23 pm In Culture, Education | 87 Comments

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, Homer teaches us, something every school child used to know. Beware of politicians and expert educators bearing standards, the last seventy years or more of Progressive education should have taught us. But we are slow to learn.

Dunce-Cap

We have been given almost a month to digest the hundreds of pages of the new National Governors Association’s Common Core State Standards that could well become national standards pressed in some way upon every child who attends a public school in America. So we had better read, write, and think fast. Pundits and educationists, even some stalwarts of education reform, are beginning to praise these new standards as being more comprehensive than any before, far better than what the diverse and unreliable states are providing. Schools will now be held accountable to “higher standards”; teachers will know what they are responsible for teaching; students will be swept up in “the vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century,” which, we must surmise, is very different from what it meant to be literate in, say, the eighteenth century, when the likes of Thomas Jefferson read Latin and Greek for fun. It all sounds wonderful. At least it does until sensible people realize that these standards, which are only the best of the worst of the existing state standards, have absolutely nothing to do with sound education. It will be a mistake to get bogged down in a discussion of whether these standards are better than the various state standards since the whole enterprise is just a diversion hiding what truly ails public schools. The reason is obvious to anyone who has ever listened to some of these so-called experts drone on about standards without ever making a literary reference or drawing a lesson from history or even talking about a book.

Let us imagine an author at his craft, say, Herman Melville while writing Moby Dick, or Jane Austen working on Pride and Prejudice. Now assuredly what these literary artists hoped above all else was that a century or two from their own time students in high schools would be using their great works not better to understand love or honor or revenge or nobility or happiness, but to “analyze how multiple themes or central ideas in a text interact, build on, and, in some cases, conflict with one another”; as well as to “analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is set, how the action is ordered, how the characters are introduced and developed).” We know that this sort of innocuous thing is what the authors had in mind because that is what our teachers told us in school. We remember the drill: the plot graphs—rising action, climax, falling action (or denouement)—the cast lists of main characters and outlines of “main ideas,” the possible literary techniques—foreshadowing, alliteration, onomatopoeia. What we do not remember is one dad-gum thing about these stories: what insight they gave us into the human condition, what they portray as heroism, villainy, love, or self-deception. We do not remember any of these life-ennobling themes because those matters never came up in our English (what are now called our “Language Arts”) classes.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

“Compassion” and the Decline of America

“Compassion” and the Decline of America
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 20, 2007

This past weekend, a friend of mine attended his 13-year-old son’s baseball game. What he saw encapsulates a major reason many of us fear for the future of America and the West.

His son’s team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened — was the scoreboard perhaps broken? — and was told that the winning team’s coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

In order to ensure that the boys losing by a lopsided score would not feel too bad, the score was changed.

As is happening throughout America, compassion trumped all other values.

Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.

Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.

They learned that someone will bail them out when they feel bad.

They learned that they do not have to deal with disappointment in life. Instead, someone in authority will take care of them. (This is how reliance on the state for personal problems — the worldview of the Left — is formed early in life.)

They learned that their feelings, not objective standards, are what society deems most important.

They learned that they are not responsible for their behavior. No matter how poorly they perform, there will be no consequences — sort of like tenure for university professors.

They also learned to think in the feminine — with an emphasis on feelings — rather than to cultivate their innate masculine sense that winners win and losers learn to deal with it and move on to the next game.

At the same time, the boys on the winning team learned not to try their best. Why bother?

Building character was the third value trumped by compassion. People build character far more through handling defeat than through winning. The human being grows up only when forced to deal with disappointment. We remain children until the day we take full responsibility for our lives. Our increasingly feelings-based society has created a pandemic of immaturity in our society. And there are fewer and fewer maturity-creating institutions in our society. Indeed, the opposite is more often the case. Schools, for example, keep young people immature, none more so than college, which serves primarily to postpone adulthood.

The fourth value that compassion denied here was fairness. It is remarkable how often compassion-based liberals speak of “fairness” in formulating social policy given how unfair so many of their policies are. It was entirely unfair to the winning team to have their score expunged, all their work denied. But for the compassion-first crowd, the winning team is like “the rich” who earn “too much” and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored “too many” runs to be allowed to keep them all.

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers