Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘racial discrimination’ Category

mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ismOf or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.

The above is a definition that has transformed from mere idea to veritable philosophy to near religion for millions of people in this country and around the world. Those who espouse the multiculturalist viewpoint generally believe the cultural dominance of any particular nation or region should be discarded in favor of a social standing that is indistinguishable from any other. That is not to say there would exist only one cultural utopia where everyone lived in kinship with everyone else. Assimilation plays no part in this concept. All peoples would fully retain their culture of origin–language, customs, religion, beliefs–regardless of the country or region wherein one chooses to reside.

While this smacks of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” many of those who view multiculturalism as a beneficent outlook on societal improvement are more than likely those who would eagerly nudge aside socialism in favor of communism anyway. Additionally, acceptance of a unified cultural society is nascent recognition of the need for a political system that is, or is very much like communism, even if those who support multiculturalistic ideals do so only out of misguided politically correct dogma. In essence, everyone is equal; no one should excel.

Industrialized western society is no better than barbaric tribalism (or even vicious tyrannies) and if the annihilation of industrialization is necessary in order to meet the cultural needs of tribalists, then so be it. Does it matter that modern, industrialized society offers a better quality of life, with far less disease than any third world nation could hope to achieve? Of course not. The third world will become the first world and vice versa. Cultural values for one will mix equally with the other.

Yet the standard meaning of the word multiculturalism itself has been bogged down in histrionics, disguised as a concept too important and necessarily urgent to achieve global order and world harmony–opposition to the supposition of ecumenical multiculturalism is often perceived as bigoted, racist, and even remarkably, anarchistic (I say “remarkably” because those who sup from the cup of multiculturalism are more than likely those who would easily embrace a nihilistic approach to life regardless of the dominant political and/or social climate in which they reside.) This is what helps those who champion multiculturalism browbeat their adversaries in silenced submission–threat of being labeled a racist.

What most multiculturalists fail to take into account is their own latent racist dispositions through adoption of this philosophy, implying that ones’ character is primarily defined by ones’ ethnic background as opposed to ones’ individualistic achievements. Take for example affirmative action or quotas as they are often referred. In the unfortunate situations where affirmative action is instituted as a means to diversify the workplace or the college campus for instance, race, not competence, is rewarded. While this will always produce greater heterogeneity, it does not necessarily follow that increased and improved productivity (for the workplace) or boosts in academia amongst students (on campus) will inevitably occur. To believe so is inherently racist.

This is no longer an issue of discrimination. Instead, it is simply an aspect of the multiculturalist quagmire and slippery slope that will lead modern, industrialized society down a racist and degenerate mountain of ill-conceived politically correct agendas championed most vociferously by the far left who believe communism, or the destruction of individuality and achievement, is far better than advanced, democratic societies and the benefits that flow from them. Is it any wonder why they don’t address such divisive issues as to how religion and politics will fit into this monstrous melting pot. Simply, religion and politics don’t fit (unless sharia becomes the law of the land.)

Below are some fantastic pieces that explain in far greater detail and clarity what the concept of multiculturalism entails and the inadequacies and dangers bearing such a detrimental philosophy harbors.

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.uni.ca/kamloops/Multiculturalism.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Via The Gates of Vienna
The Fjordman Report
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.


The Greek blogger Phanari has expanded upon my essays about 21st century Communism. According to American writer John Fonte, “Transnationalism is the next stage of the multicultural ideology.” It is implemented at a snail’s pace as a long-term project, to minimize opposition to it.

Karita BekkemellemAs always, Norway and Sweden are at the forefront of enlightened Socialism. According to Karita Bekkemellem, government Minister from the Norwegian Labor Party, female directors must make up at least 40 percent of all new shareholder-owned companies’ boards of directors: “This is all about sharing power and influence and it is intervention in private ownership, but it was overdue.” Violation of the rules will be penalized with forced dissolution of the company. Magdalena Andersson, who chairs the women’s group in Sweden’s “conservative” Moderate Party, demands that female members should have 40 percent of the top positions in the party by 2010.

Quotas and employment based on sex, religion, race or any criteria other than meritocracy, the rule of merit, where individuals are chosen through competition on the basis of demonstrated ability and competence, interfere with private property rights. This violates basic human rights of the employer. Historical experience indicates that respect for private property, along with respect for freedom of speech, are the hallmarks of true liberty. Abandoning these principles inhibits the creation of wealth.

Perhaps the new frontier of liberty in the 21st century consists of battling for national sovereignty in legislation, for a nation’s right to decide how much immigration it wants to accept, if any, and the fight against the imposition of quotas, hate speech laws, hate crime legislation and other threats to the individual’s right to free speech and to defense of his own property, the yardstick against which liberty should always be measured.

I’ve heard Multiculturalists state specifically that our societies should be based on the principle of Multiculturalism and various ethnic groups only tied together by “human rights.” But human rights are a weak glue for a society, to say the least. What’s more: Once you decide that your society should be founded upon human rights and nothing but human rights, you give away power to those defining human rights to decide the future of your society and your country, for instance in managing your immigration policies. This is no doubt why so many hardened Leftists support “international law.” They hope to become the self-appointed and unelected vanguard to run this transnational, Multicultural Utopia, just as they wanted to become a part of the vanguard in the Communist Utopia.

In Denmark, observers Jacob Mchangama and Christopher Arzrouni warn against the excessive use and misuse of human rights. Originally envisioned as a core of rights ensuring political and individual liberty, today human rights are increasingly used for the opposite purpose: To claim other people’s resources, property etc. The very notion of human rights suffers from a kind of schizophrenia. The concept can be traced back to classical antiquity, at least to Solon in the 6th century B.C. The English charter the Magna Carta from 1215 asserted the rights of the individual vis-à-vis the state. This was later expanded by Enlightenment philosophers and inspired the creation of the United States.

The Universal Declaration of Human RightsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is a crucial document. The first 21 Articles of the Declaration all profess classical Western rights, also called liberty rights or “negative rights,” including the right to private property, freedom of speech and equality before the law. However, the Declaration also contains other concepts about rights. Articles 22-27 assert the right to a good standard of living, the right to a job, to limitations on work hours etc. These are “positive rights,” which can only be achieved if other people make an effort to achieve them for you.

Negative rights imply the right to freedom from tyranny and oppression. They imply limitations on state power, and will thus help prevent totalitarian regimes. Positive rights, however, imply that the state has to increase its power to transform society and direct the activities of its citizens in order to achieve the desired result. Sadly, according to Mchangama and Arzrouni, at the UN and at Human Rights Institutes, as well as in NGOs and among many academics, even governments, there is a consensus that economic and social positive rights should be considered equal to negative political rights.

The Norwegian medical doctor Ståle Fredriksen thinks that giving homework to school children violates their human rights. He refers to article 24 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating that: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours.” Dr. Fredriksen believes school children don’t have this right.

Alain FinkielkrautThe French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Europe has made human rights its new gospel. Has human rights fundamentalism approached the status of quasi-religion? Have we acquired a new class of scribes, who claim the exclusive right to interpret their Holy Texts in order to reveal Absolute Truth, and scream “blasphemy” at the few heretics who dare question their authority? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it is written by humans, and may thus contain human flaws. We shouldn’t treat as if it were a revelation from God, carved into stone. Far less should we deem as infallible the veritable maze of regulations and well-meaning human rights resolutions that have rendered democratic nations virtually unable to defend themselves.

Moreover, who decides which “human rights” should take precedence? If you say that free migration should be a universal human right, you trample on the right of the peoples at the receiving end of mass immigration to preserve their cultural heritage. More explicitly, should Muslim nations be allowed to dump their unsustainable population growth in the West? Since they tend not to respect human rights because they frequently conflict with sharia, allowing them to undermine countries that do respect individual rights means that human rights will become a tool for undermining democratic nations in favor or authoritarian ones, precisely the opposite of what was originally intended.

OxfamOxfam, an international of confederation non-governmental organizations, has stated that Western nations “must” pay tens of billions of dollars every year to combat global warming. First of all: Who died and made Oxfam God? Being a Westerner myself, I don’t recall electing Oxfam to speak for me nor granting them the right to administer my money on my behalf. Why should unaccountable NGOs be allowed to dictate what a sovereign state such as, say, Canada, should or shouldn’t do? And second of all: Even if we assume that global warming is real and man-made, the most intelligent way to combat it would be to institute a Manhattan Project for renewable energy. By freeing ourselves from the dependency of oil from Arab countries, we could fight both global warming and global Jihad at the same time.

When reading Oxfam’s website, I find that the organization is dedicated to “achieving lasting change” and an end to poverty by fighting injustice and addressing the structural causes of poverty. To me, that sounds suspiciously like a code word for global redistribution of wealth — in other words: Socialism.
– – – – – – – – – –
I suspect that for some NGOs, fighting global warming isn’t nearly as important as using it as an excuse for bleeding the West financially and implementing global taxes through the back door. Many NGO’s tend to be run by heavily left-leaning individuals who champion good causes, in fact so good that they should bypass the electoral process to implement them. It’s the blueprint for 21st century Communism. The same groups that wanted to abolish private property rights in the 20th century now want to abolish sovereign nation states in the 21st century, starting with the West, of course. There clearly is some kind of connection here. Maybe they’ve decided that the most efficient way to abolish private property, according to Karl Marx the stated goal of Socialism, is to destroy the instrument for enforcing and protecting property rights: The sovereign state.

These people always claim to be champions of some Great Cause. They claim to fight for women’s rights, but barbaric practices of forced marriages, honor killings and gang rapes are now spreading in the West because of the immigration policies they support. They claim to fight for homosexual rights while gays are being physically attacked by Muslims across Europe. They claim to fight for tolerance, yet frequently end up in bed with the most intolerant forces on earth. They claim to fight for diversity, yet cheer for Islam, which is destroying cultural diversity across the world, replacing it with universal sharia. They are also extremely intolerant of diversity of opinion, if these opinions happen to run contrary to their Cause. They claim to fight for “human rights,” but deprive their opponents of one of the most basic human rights of all: The right to free speech.

So why are they doing it? Maybe it’s due to hatred of the West, or maybe it’s just because of the intoxicating rush of feeling that your Cause is just and that you are therefore allowed to do whatever you want to with your political opponents.

Gunnar HeinsohnThe German professor of sociology Gunnar Heinsohn worries about what he calls the “demographic capitulation” of European nations. He fears that the imploding birth rates will lead to the collapse of the welfare state, and that immigration cannot solve this problem. He does not believe that material aid to countries with large youth populations will prevent wars and terror. On the contrary, it may in fact increase unrest and violence, since starving people do not fight, they just suffer. In order to create unrest, they have to be both physically and mentally fit, but lack the positions and the respect they think they deserve. This is consistent with the fact that Islamic terrorists tend to have above average education and at least average income.

This supports the view of Eric Hoffer in his classic book The True Believer: “The poor on the borderline of starvation live purposeful lives. To be engaged in a desperate struggle for food and shelter is to be wholly free from a sense of futility. The goals are concrete and immediate. Every meal is a fulfillment; to go to sleep on a full stomach is a triumph; and every windfall a miracle. What need could they have for ‘an inspiring super individual goal which could give meaning and dignity to their lives?’ They are immune to the appeal of a mass movement.”

A crowd in PeshawarOver the course of five generations (1900-2000), the population in predominantly Muslim countries has grown from 150 million to 1200 million — an increase of 800 per cent. Heinsohn notes that Western countries are funding the Palestinian population explosion, for instance, and thinks that we must cease this support, so that the Palestinians pay for the children they bring into the world. He also believes that the West should stay out of the affairs of Muslim countries with expanding populations as much as possible, and only interfere briefly if they threaten us directly:

“If you have to go in because you have been attacked, then you must do it, but as soon as the danger has been defeated, it is necessary to withdraw. It is up to the Iraqis and the Afghans themselves to ensure that there is a balance between the size of the population and the number of positions society can offer. And as far back in history we look, we can see that this balance has been maintained by young men killing each other. We have done it in Europe, and it has happened elsewhere. We cannot allow them to send their young men over the borders to kill others. (…) We should stay away. If we interfere, we cannot avoid siding with one party and help killing that party’s opponents. Then the population will see us as doing the dirty work for one side or another.”

In June 2007, British PM Tony Blair, along with Chancellor Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a major conference organized by The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme (CIP). In his final days as prime minister, Blair opened the conference by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity” as he announced a £1M government fund to aid teaching of the religion and train imams, and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest.

The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme
Timothy Winter, lecturer in Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge, said: “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.” In other words: Britain, and Canada, Germany and other Western countries, are no longer to be nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map with a “collage of different cultures.”

According to Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch, Western nations should not be allowed “to take a special interest in, or have a special affection and tenderness for, their own countries and histories. They are not allowed to worry about cultural continuity, and cultural continuity as being connected, possibly, to other kinds of continuity, including that of ethnic makeup. These are impermissible for that ‘white, Western world’ — even if perfectly permissible for everyone else. (Compare, for example, the policies toward immigration and immigrants in Japan, Korea, China, or the same policies toward non-Arabs, directed especially at black Africans, in Egypt, Libya, Chad, and Morocco). The rest of the world is entitled to preserve itself. We, on the other hand, in North America and Western Europe and the outposts of the former British Empire, such as Australia and New Zealand, are required to give up whatever ‘local’ patriotism, interest and pride in our national histories and cultures, and open ourselves permanently to the world. Other countries can remain countries. (…) The United States is not to remain a country. The United States is, rather, to be transformed, in the determined if unstated view of so many of the ideologues at NGOs. It is to be turned, by slow degrees, into one great big… NGO.”

The Danish writer Carsten Ringsmose was a speaker at a conference at the University of Odense on the immigration-related topic of “Recognition and integration.” He outlined the projected population growth for the Islamic world, and stated that if recent prognoses are correct, the Islamic world will witness a population growth more than the equivalent of all EU member countries combined within just a few decades. One of the other speakers suggested that this population boom could be solved through migration to the West, which would mean that Denmark, with a present population of 5.4 million inhabitants, would have to accept perhaps 9.5 million predominantly Muslim immigrants within the coming two generations. The man who suggested this, accompanied by segments of the audience, laughed when Mr. Ringsmose suggested that this simply wasn’t doable.

Marie SimonsenFollowing the release of the UN population report discussed by Mr. Ringsmose, Marie Simonsen, political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. She thus endorsed the eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her own tolerance.

In 2000, the then president of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the country was going to feed, clothe, house and employ the expected doubling of its population by 2050. She replied: “We’ll send them to America. Globalisation will take that problem away, as you free up all factors of production, also labour. There’ll be free movement, country to country. Globalisation in its purest form should not have any boundaries, so small countries with big populations should be able to send population to countries with big boundaries and small populations.”

Westerners are the suckers of the 21st century. We don’t have interests or cultures of our own. We exist solely as a vehicle for funding other nations, and as the obedient dumping ground for their excess population growth. If we assert the right to defend our borders, the representatives of NGOistan, frequently aided by our so-called leaders, will come down upon us like a ton of bricks. Westerners are fueling the unsustainable growth rates in the Islamic world through material aid and medical advances. Later we are told to let them into our countries, where we will continue feeding them and fund our own colonization through welfare payments. We are thus paying hostile nations to multiply and take over our nations. This is a betrayal of the legacy of our ancestors, and an even greater betrayal of our children and grandchildren. This policy is insane and evil, and it has to stop. Now!

We live in a world demographically — and perhaps soon economically — dominated by Asia. Russians look after Russian interests, Chinese after Chinese interests, Indians after Indian interests, etc. Only Westerners are still supposed to worry about global interests. We should stop trying to save others and start saving ourselves, while we still can. Only by letting go of illusions of hegemony can we regain our sanity. The sooner we realize that, the better are our chances. We should use this situation as an opportunity to regenerate and define a new civilizational mission dedicated to our own survival. If cultural confusion and a lack of hope for the future is a primary cause of our low birth rates, it is likely that a new sense of cultural confidence will lead to a significant rise in the same birth rates. The battle for Western hegemony is already over. The battle for Western survival is about to begin.

https://i1.wp.com/iraq.billhobbs.com/archives/05.07.20.RealSuicideBomb-X.gif

Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism

The “diversity” movement is not imparting knowledge to students, but promoting racism.

Is ethnic diversity an “absolute essential” of a college education? UCLA’s Chancellor Charles Young thinks so. Ethnic diversity is clearly the purpose of affirmative action, which Young is defending against a long-overdue assault. But far from being essential to a college education, such diversity is a sure road to its destruction. “Ethnic diversity” is merely racism in a politically correct disguise.

Many people have a very superficial view of racism. They see it as merely the belief that one race is superior to another. It is much more than that. It is a fundamental (and fundamentally wrong) view of human nature. Racism is the notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is the belief that one’s convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one’s mind but by one’s anatomy or “blood.”

This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements, not from inherited characteristics.

The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual’s confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels “himself” only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends–and enemies–based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.

The diversity movement claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham. One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings. One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty which makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts–for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: colorblindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true–if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods–there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Advocates of “diversity” claim that because the real world is diverse, the campus should reflect that fact. But why should a campus population “reflect” the general population (particularly the ethnic population)? No answer. In fact, the purpose of a university is to impart knowledge and develop reasoning, not to be a demographic mirror of society.

Racism, not any meaningful sense of diversity, guides today’s intellectuals. The educationally significant diversity that exists in “the real world” is intellectual diversity, i.e., the diversity of ideas. But such diversity–far from being sought after–is virtually forbidden on campus. The existence of “political correctness” blasts the academics’ pretense at valuing real diversity. What they want is abject conformity.

The only way to eradicate racism on campus is to scrap racist programs and the philosophic ideas that feed racism. Racism will become an ugly memory only when universities teach a valid concept of human nature: one based on the tenets that the individual’s mind is competent, that the human intellect is efficacious, that we possess free will, that individuals are to be judged as individuals–and that deriving one’s identity from one’s race is a corruption–a corruption appropriate to Nazi Germany, not to a nation based on freedom and independence.

https://i2.wp.com/www.codiekitty.com/File/Covers/Lemmings.jpg

And finally, this succinct but striking footnote to the excellent Fjordman piece above…

Freedom is Slavery

by Baron Bodissey

1984In his essay yesterday, “Resisting 21st Century Communism”, Fjordman examined the emergence of transnational politically correct Multiculturalism, and the parallels between this noxious ideology and Communism, and its origins in 20th-century socialism.

In the comments, Ypp left a series of thesis/antithesis pairs that highlight the fundamental contradictions inherent in Multiculturalism and political correctness.

I’ve reworded and reorganized them a bit, but the list below is still Ypp’s handiwork.

The Ten Antitheses of Political Correctness

1.   Materialism is not about matter, but about suppressing ideas.
2.   Communism is not about common wealth, but about depriving people of any personal possessions.
3.   Socialism is not about society, but about depriving people of the means of production.
4.   Human rights are not personal rights, but collective obligations.
5.   Tolerance is not about mutual respect, but about the prohibition of opinions.
6.   Multiculturalism is not about cultures, but about the repudiation of nationhood.
7.   Energy policy is not about the distribution of energy, but about cutting off energy supplies.
8.   Health care is not about health, but about control of our consumption.
9.   Family planning is not about families, but about abortions.
10.   Self-loathing is not about repentance, but about depriving others of their moral foundation.

Whenever they start by improving something, they finish by depriving people of it.

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/015020/f1/nlc008277-v6.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

https://i0.wp.com/snsi-j.jp/picture/img-box/img20050424144948.jpg

 

 

Much praise and accolades of judicious common sense goes out to Republican Representative Steve Pearce from New Mexico, ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee Representative Peter King, Republican from New York, and all those on the House floor who voted to include protections for diligent citizens who speak out against suspicious behaviors concerning matters of national security. Largely a Democrat sponsored bill, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 (pdf) was sent back to committee for further modification and justifiable improvements, despite some seriously shameful resistance from Mississippi Democrat, Bennie Thompson (who happens to be the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.)

Concerning CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and the flying imams… “Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.

Obviously Mr. Thompson doesn’t have any notion what-so-ever as to what the hell he’s talking about, and I would even posit the man is a bigot for making such a proposition as the one he made above. Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a race. Mr. Thompson, not everyone who is a Muslim is of Arab descent, and not everyone who is of Arab descent is a Muslim. To suggest otherwise, as you did here, is inherently racist.

Thompson may be a bit flummoxed as to what CAIR actually is, who they represent, and the motives behind their plainly dubious activities–motives that are perpetually glossed over and consistently ignored by the media out of an ongoing and misguided, politically correct obfuscating masquerade designed to push their “moderate” Muslim agenda of misinformation. This misinformation is presented in a way that advances CAIR as a civil rights organization designed to protect decent, honest Muslims from persecution at the hands of “ignorant” Americans who want to harm the good name of Islam in general, and Muslims specifically, despite the fact Muslims around the world tend to do a fairly admirable job of that themselves (you don’t hear much damage control from Christian organizations when one of their pastors or priests asserts women who don’t wear a hijab deserves to be raped.)

If CAIR is the mouthpiece for Muslims in the United States, why do they, in conjunction with the current liberal leaning media, misrepresent and apologize for abhorrent comments and/or actions committed by Muslims throughout the world (including here in America) in the name of Islam, rather than do the honorable thing and out rightly condemn those statements or acts? Perhaps because those acts we as a civilized society consider shocking and horrific are actually an accepted aspect of Islamic faith. Not only are they accepted as mandated by the Qur’an and the Hadith, they are encouraged even today as they have been since Muhammad returned to Mecca in the 6th century.

Sura (2:191)And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]

Sura (3:151)“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority.” This speaks directly of killing Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Sura (8:12)I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them

Sura (47:4)So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners (source)

These are only a few verses that speak of violent jihad against unbelievers (while the Christian Bible, specifically The Old Testament, is a descriptive work, the Qur’an is normative, applicable to today as it was centuries ago.) There are many more such verses, and all of them have abrogated any peaceful passages that arose originally due to Muhammed’s relative weak standing when he initially began the religion of Islam while exiled in Medina. Once he commenced attracting followers and subsequently his army, gaining the power necessary to crush those who once opposed him, Muhammed showed his true colors as a brutal warlord, evidenced by the sampling of verses above. Kill the unbelievers where ever you find them. It is not Christians or Buddhists or Jews who are intolerant of Muslims. It is Muslims who are intolerant of everyone else (not all Muslims are intolerant or violent by nature as most are simply individuals who want to lead peaceful lives, but this is generally in contrast to what the Qur’an teaches.)

This was most recently evidenced via the lawsuit filed a couple of weeks ago by CAIR and the flying imams stemming from the stunt on US Airways Flight 300 perpetrated by the Muslim clerics last November. As I previously pointed out, CAIR not only filed suit against US Airways and the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission, they additionally implicated several “John Does” on that same flight–civilian passengers who’s diligence helped with the imams’ understandable removal from the airplane.

This was a bold and dangerous attempt to silence any dissent from any non-Muslim persons who might witness Muslims (or anyone for that matter, regardless of religious beliefs or ethnicity) eliciting suspicious behavior, such as the performance by the flying imams. Praying is one thing. Denouncing America and shouting Allahu Akbar while standing in line to get on a passenger plane, then ignoring your assigned seating, choosing to seat yourself in the positions of the 9/11 hijackers, and finally asking for seatbelt extenders despite the fact you obviously don’t need them, placing them next to you on the floor and within easy reach–this behavior is beyond suspicious, obviously deserving of scrutiny and subsequent ejection from the flight. Anyone who believes otherwise must take a serious step back and honestly examine the reality in which we live post 9/11.

Know this CAIR, and anyone who wishes to spread sharia throughout the United States: I will be watching you. I will be everywhere you are and I will be watching you. Islam is not the authority. If you do anything suspicious, I will be there to report you to the proper authority, and I will rest easy with the knowledge that you have no power to prevent it.

 

The image “https://i1.wp.com/www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/cartoon-protest1.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

House votes to protect ‘John Does’ on flights

By Audrey Hudson
Published March 27, 2007

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity — the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.
After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats’ Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.
Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and “John Does,” passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a “chilling effect” on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans — airline passengers included — must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.
“All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something,” said Mr. King.
“We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity,” he said. “I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this.”
Mr. King called it a “disgrace” that the suit seeks to identify “people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.
“Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.
“This might be well-intended, but it has unintended consequences,” Mr. Thompson said, before he accepted the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was based on a bill introduced last week by Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, to protect “John Does” or passengers targeted in a lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams earlier this month in Minneapolis.
Mr. Pearce said the imams are “using courts to terrorize Americans.”
“If we allow this lawsuit to go forward it will have a chilling effect,” Mr. Pearce said.
A Republican memo issued prior to the vote cites the November incident when the men were removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix for suspicious behavior, the details of which were first reported by The Washington Times.
The men prayed loudly before boarding, did not take their assigned seats and formed patterns officials said mirrored the September 11 hijackers, asked for seat-belt extenders not needed, and criticized President Bush and the war in Iraq.
“Earlier this month, the six imams filed suit against the airlines. Shockingly, the imams also filed suit against the passengers who reported the suspicious behavior,” the memo said.
“The Republican motion to recommit will ensure that any person that voluntarily reports suspicious activity — anything that could be a threat to transportation security — will be granted immunity from civil liability for the disclosure,” the memo said.
The amendment is retroactive to activities that took place on or after Nov. 20, 2006 — the date of the Minneapolis incident, and authorizes courts to award attorneys’ fees to defendants with immunity.
“By passing a specific grant of immunity that covers passengers reporting suspicious activity in good faith, we will prevent special-interest lawyers from using ‘creative’ legal theories to attack the well-meaning passengers who make reports,” the memo said.
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that “the only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them.”
The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the “John Does” be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.
“The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the ‘suspicious’ behavior included the imams’ constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation,” Mr. Awad said.
However, Mr. Awad said that “when a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith.”

 

https://i1.wp.com/utah.indymedia.org/uploads/khadeeja.jpg

Read Full Post »

https://i2.wp.com/www.ringverse.f2s.com/pics/blears.jpg

CAIR Press Release – BLOGGER ARRESTED FOR CRITICIZING ISLAM!

Well, that’s a bit of a lie. I don’t think any bloggers, journalists, writers, etc. have been arrested at this time simply for criticizing Islam (though several have certainly received death threats resulting from their stance concerning Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an.) Of course, I’m referring to arrests only in the United States, and there have been none at this point (just don’t plan on doing any blogging in Egypt.) However, if CAIR continues to construct the slippery slope they have been fervently building, especially since 9/11, while more and more U.S. politicians arise who are either radical Islamic supporters or dhimmi politicians (legion) who, through their apologia and capitulating tendencies, contribute to that fallacious waterslide, I do not doubt that America may one day soon be witness to Islamic persecution of free speech and those who defy the CAIR mandate by exercising their right to speak out in defiance of politically correct appeasement in all things Muslim.

For now though, The Council on American-Islamic Relations must be content to simply punish the vigilant citizens who by random coincidence happened to have purchased a seat on the same plane with six imams who recklessly acted out intentionally (and I will even say maliciously) in order illicit the response they were obviously hoping for from the other passengers on flight 300–circumspectly uneasy. As a result not only has CAIR pronounced their intentions against US Airways and the Minnesota Metropolitan Airports Commission, but their apparent veridical scheme lies buried deep within the verbiage of the lawsuit itself. They are suing several of the November 20 US Airways flight passengers whose diligence assisted in escorting the Islamic clerics off of the plane.

Yet the suspicions and subsequent actions taken by those passengers and the flight crew were more than appropriate, and I doubt there are many who would react differently if presented a similar situation. Of course, the understandable passenger relfex is exactly the reaction CAIR was most likely hoping for so they could then proceed with a lawsuit that will attempt to annihilate racial/religious profiling for Muslims in airports, et al.

So were the flying imams really racially or religiously discriminated against? Of course not. If those six, presumably mature adult men would have simply boarded the aircraft and taken their assigned seats (they took up positions mirroring the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks), without causing the accompanying choreographed ruckus they ended up perpetrating, then nothing would have happened.

It was not the staff of US Airways or the other passengers who racially and religiously profiled and persecuted the imams; it was the imams themselves who flew their own bigoted colors by purposefully discriminating against themselves with their bizarre and contemptible stunt.

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.cair.com/content_images/nr1294-forarticle.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The Real Target of the 6 Imams’ Discrimination Suit

Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 The “flying imams’ ” federal lawsuit, filed this week in Minneapolis, has made headlines around the country. The imams are demanding unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, both with deep pockets. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams’ most vulnerable targets.

Recall the November 2006 incident that gave rise to the suit. The imams engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors while boarding a US Airways flight, according to the airport police report. Some prayed loudly in the gate area, spoke angrily about the United States and Saddam, switched seats and sat in the 9/11 hijackers’ configuration, and unnecessarily requested seatbelt extenders that could be used as weapons, according to witness reports and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

After extensive consultations, the pilot asked authorities to remove the imams for questioning, which they did, releasing them later that day.

“The pilot did what he had to do,” passenger Rita Snelson of Maplewood told the Star Tribune. “I told the airline afterward, ‘Thank you for watching over us.’ ”

The imams’ lawsuit, however, asserts that US Airways and the MAC acted solely out of religious and ethnic discrimination. It includes 17 separate counts.

It also rehearses a catalogue of harms allegedly suffered by the imams, including fear, depression, mental pain and financial injury. They have not only endured exhaustion, humiliation and ridicule, but also have lost sleep and developed anxiety about flying.

Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to “end racial profiling” in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions.

But the most alarming aspect of the imams’ suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams’ attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants ‘John Does’ were passengers … who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged ’suspicious’ behavior of Plaintiffs’ performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”

Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants’] liability … at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”

In plain English, the imams plan to sue the “John Does,” too.

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (’John Doe’) in the couple … picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, “John Does” like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams’ suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our “first responders” against terrorism. But the imams’ suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

Ironically, on the day the imams filed their suit, a troubling internal memo came to light at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The memo revealed that our airport is at particular risk of terrorist attack because of its proximity to the Mall of America, its employment of relatively few security officers and other factors. The memo advised heightened vigilance to counter “this very real and deliberate threat.”

The imams may not be the only ones losing sleep and growing more afraid of flying.

The image “https://i2.wp.com/static.howstuffworks.com/gif/airport-security-xray2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Read Full Post »

https://i1.wp.com/www2.noticiasdot.com/publicaciones/2004/1004/1610/noticias161004/images/team-america.jpg

The inevitable has come to pass, and most of us who have been following this epic in the making are none too surprised to witness the imminent and much expected lawsuit arise as a result of obviously justifiable actions taken by US Airways regarding purposely inflammatory and choreographed maneuvers perpetrated by six imams on flight 300 last November, 2006.

I have covered this fairly extensively here and here and here and finally, here.

Commensurate to their modus operandi, the suit has been filed by The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the perpetually enigmatic organization whose dubious past and equivocal ties to known terrorists finds them conducting damage control on a fairly regular basis. Unfortunately, the resident climate of political correctness and all-encompassing multiculturistic acceptance fogs the minds of most western citizens preventing any sincere investigative spotlight from shining too directly and thoroughly on CAIR’s operations and business practices.

The November 30th spectacle was an effectively practiced performance designed to provoke a response by CAIR in order to concoct an Islamic civil liberties lawsuit designed to gift even more freedoms to Muslims and Muslim communities within the U.S. Due to the aforementioned state of the politically correct quagmire in which we now reside in the United States, I think it very likely the imams and CAIR will come out with a victory in this particular case, despite the cadre of undeniable evidence (and a plane full of defense witnesses who were on flight 300) as to the imam’s play-acting shenanigans before boarding the plane and during their short time on the aircraft itself.

Even in the justice-is-supposedly-blind courtrooms of the United States, no one wants to be labeled a bigot, or god-forbid, an “Islamophobe.”

The image “https://i1.wp.com/www.israelnewsradio.net/images/evil-islamC.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Press Release Source: Council on American-Islamic Relations

Imams File Civil Rights Suit Against US Airways
Tuesday March 13, 12:45 pm ET

 

Muslim Leaders Says Removal From Flight was Based on Race, Religion

WASHINGTON, March 13 /PRNewswire-USNewsire/ — The Council on American- Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last November have filed a lawsuit against the airline and Minnesota’s Metropolitan Airports Commission alleging that their civil rights were violated.The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claims US Airways’ alleged discriminatory actions were based on the imams’ “perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin.” It goes on to state: “Because of Defendants’ discriminatory acts, Plaintiffs were denied the right to make and enforce a contract, subjected to unlawful discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance, denied equal treatment in a place of public accommodation, and falsely arrested and detained by law enforcement officers.”

CAIR said the imams’ legal complaint, which cites federal statutes, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also alleges: “Defendants, with the intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs’ reputation, maliciously, recklessly and without regard to their privacy and integrity, defamed and made false reports against Plaintiffs to justify their illegal action.”

In documents filed with the court by the Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, the six imams refute many of the allegations repeated in the media about the incident.

For example, in response to claims the imams made political statements before boarding the plane, the complaint states: “At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush.”

According to the complaint: “This civil rights lawsuit is brought to ensure that the promise of equal treatment embodied in federal and state anti- discrimination laws does not become a meaningless guarantee for persons perceived to be Muslim and/or Arab and/or Middle Eastern.”

The imams are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and a legal injunction to prevent future unlawful discrimination by US Airways.

    To read the full complaint, go to:
http://www.cair.com/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf

“The decades-long movement to advance civil rights in this nation must not be sent into retreat because of post-9/11 fear and stereotyping,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “When anyone’s rights are diminished, the rights of all Americans are threatened.”

CAIR, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

https://i0.wp.com/www.digitaljournal.com/images/photo/muslim.jpg

Imams sue over removal from plane

The six Muslims were barred from a flight after passengers became alarmed.

Last update: March 12, 2007 – 11:59 PM

Six Muslim imams ordered off a US Airways flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport last November have filed a discrimination lawsuit against the airline and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, claiming they were removed from the plane because of their race and religion.

In a 38-page document filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, the plaintiffs said they were “horrified and humiliated” after police removed them, under pilot’s orders, from the plane in front of dozens of other passengers Nov. 20 “as if they were criminals.”

Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways, based in Tempe, Ariz., said Monday that the company hadn’t seen the suit and couldn’t comment on it. Nevertheless, she defended the actions the airline took that day after several passengers and flight attendants became alarmed by the imams’ behavior.

“This was an unfortunate incident,” Rader said. “But we do not discriminate against our customers or anyone else. The actions we took and the police took and the FBI took, they took based on behaviors that were observed. And they believed that was in the best interests of the safety of that flight. And we absolutely back those judgments.”

Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Airports Commission, also hadn’t seen the lawsuit, but said, “We believe airport police officers acted appropriately in responding to US Airways’ call for assistance.”

Airline officials have said the men were removed from the plane because of concerns about their loud praying, repeated use of the word “Allah,” seat switching, and several requests for seat belt extenders.

Over the next five hours the men were detained and questioned by federal law enforcement officials. The imams denied that they did or said anything that could be considered threatening, and were later released without charges.

Within days, however, the incident set off a nationwide uproar.

Bloggers and talk-radio hosts buzzed about the need to be vigilant against potential terrorists while civil-rights advocates and Muslim leaders saw the incident as racial profiling or discrimination.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also called for a congressional hearing about ethnic and religious profiling at airports.

Omar Shahin , one of the six plaintiffs named in the suit and president of the North American Imams Federation, declined to comment Monday. Other plaintiffs identified in the suit are Ahmed Shqeirat, Mohamed Ibrahim, Didmar Faja, Mahmoud Sulaiman and Marwan Sadeddin. All but Ibrahim, who lives in California, are Arizona residents.

Omar T. Mohammedi, an attorney from New York City representing the imams, could not be reached for comment.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for CAIR, said CAIR will discuss the suit at a news conference today in Washington, D.C.

Removed and handcuffed

In their suit, the imams seek unspecified compensatory damages from the airline and the MAC, claiming they incurred emotional and economic distress from the incident, which occurred after they boarded the plane the afternoon of Nov. 20.

The men were returning to Phoenix following a three-day North American Imams Federation conference in Bloomington.

The imams — prayer leaders — contend that the airline violated their civil rights by detaining them without probable cause, placing them under false arrest, and then refusing to sell them another ticket when they returned to the airport the next day.

They also contend that the airline failed to train its employees adequately to make them aware of religious practices, and unlawfully handcuffed them when no law enforcement agency requested such action.

The suit said they were told to face a wall and put their hands up so they could be searched and handcuffed. It also said the men were not told why they were removed from the plane.

When one of the imams asked a police officer what was happening, the officer said “I do not know. This is the airline’s call and not our call.”

The men allege that they were humiliated when police used dogs to help sniff out and search their belongings.

The imams were later taken to the Airport Police Precinct, where they allege they were questioned by federal agents — including members of the Secret Service — for five hours without food or drink.

They later flew back to Arizona on another airline without incident.

Passenger accounts differ

Pauline Klemmer, a passenger on the flight that day, said Monday that the imams’ account of what happened is “a total untruth.”

Klemmer said she believes the men deliberately acted out as part of a “repeated attempt” to weaken security and intimidate airline employees.

“They weren’t the victim,” Klemmer said. “If we had been afraid of them because of their race, or them loudly praying prior to them getting on the plane, we would not have gotten on the plane, and we did. They chose to make an obvious big scene.”

Rita Snelson, of Maplewood, who also was on the flight and sitting near several of the imams, agreed.

“I can’t explain it, but it was like they were definitely trying to raise suspicion,” she said. “The pilot did what he had to do, and we’re very honored by that. I told the airline afterward, ‘Thank you for watching over us.’ ”

 

The image “https://i2.wp.com/mccoy.lib.siu.edu/jmccall/otherafricas/img/sharia.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Read Full Post »

The image “https://i0.wp.com/baldilocks.typepad.com/baldilocks/images/al_gore.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying we are all hypocrites in our own special ways. He’s a hypocrite. She’s a hypocrite. You’re a hypocrite, and I’m a hypocrite. We’re all grand dissemblers to one degree or another, and it becomes a constant struggle not just to simply abstain from hypocrisy altogether, but rather to conceive new machinations that we might better obfuscate and conceal our various hypocrisies from all the other hypocrites out there in order to dodge the inevitable cries of “hypocrite” directed against our persons.

For someone like me, the process of avoiding the aforementioned stigma of “hypocrite” is relatively simple, and for good reason–no one knows or cares about me or what I think, nor should they. I’m just a blogger marooned out here in the desolate wasteland of politically centered blogs of which there are legion covering the same subjects I discuss here and with greater reasoning ability, writing skills, and all around knowledge of whatever subject I happen to be raising my ire against on any particular day.

If you’re in the public eye however, religious figures (Ted Haggard, you naughty, naughty boy) and politicians (Mark Foley, you naughty, naughty boy) in particular, it is incumbent upon you to remain as hypocritically free as possible, particularly if you’re proselytizing on a particular hot-button topic such as affirmative action, gay marriage, defense contracting, or global warming for example. While there exists an inordinate amount of hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle in Washington, exactly the place that should be bereft of any form of dissimulation particularly when it comes to serving political constituents, I am continually amazed at the magnitude of certain hypocrisies and those who flaunt them.

Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore–these are only a few of the major self-aggrandizing, modern evangelists who do nothing but shout at the general populace, “live your lives the way we tell you” which would be all fine and good if they would at least practice what they preached (and if I agreed with their sermon.) Unfortunately, many of the concepts these ideologues are attempting to push off on the public are not practiced by those who exhort them most strongly–Pelosi has forsaken environmental regulations in favor of an elitist golf course; Franken champions affirmative action but fails to hire any significant amount of minorities on his staff; Chomsky demonizes the American military yet makes large amounts of cash from Pentagon defense contracts; Michael Moore says he’s never once played the stock market, despite the fact he owned stock in Halliburton. And of course we all know about the aforementioned hypocritical blunders of Foley and Haggard.

Now I’ve always liked Al Gore, and his people have attempted to explain away this latest debacle in his own personal hypocrisy, but the fact the ex-Vice President (and the should-have-been President) just won an Academy Award for the runaway success that is his documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, makes this particular hypocrisy that much more entertaining.

The image “https://i0.wp.com/www.thegully.com/essays/cuba/elian/imgs/gore_big_mouth.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Gore home’s energy use: 20 times average
Tennessee think tank presents former veep’s own ‘inconvenient truth’

Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee. The former vice president’s mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth, a 95-minute film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made “global warming,” won the award for best documentary feature and best song.

“My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis,” Gore said after taking the stage. “It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let’s renew it.”

Standing with Gore on the stage last night, actor Leonardo DiCaprio said, to applause, “The American film industry has always taken its obligations to society very seriously and it’s now stepping up once again. Tonight, we’re proud to announce that for the first time in the history of the Oscars, this show has officially gone green.

Gore then followed with, “Which means that environmentally intelligent practices have been integrated fully into every aspect of the planning and production of these Academy Awards. And you know what: It is not as hard as you might think. We have a long way to go. But all of us can do something in our own lives to make a difference.”

But according to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.

Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson said that “as the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use.”

Last August alone, according to Johnson’ group, Gore burned through 22,619 kilowatt-hours of electricity, more than twice the amount in one month that an average American family uses in an entire year.

Gore’s average monthly electric bill, the think tank says, is $1,359.

Since the release of Gore’s film, the former vice president and presidential candidate’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

The Tennessee group also points out natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

Gore paid a total of nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Responding to critics, Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as “carbon neutral,” meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by “purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere.”

The image “https://i2.wp.com/www.newsamericanow.com/profiles/img/al-gore.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006

High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month

2005

High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month

Bill amounts

2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)

Nashville Gas Company

Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)

Guest House/Pool House

2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

The image “https://i1.wp.com/laurentlafite.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/gore_al.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

headline

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. Some other examples:

gore4.JPG

headline

These are the lengths that climate skeptics must go to suppress action on global warming. There is no meaningful debate within the scientific community, so the right-wing busies itself with talk about how much electricity Al Gore’s house uses — and even then they distort the truth.

The image “https://i1.wp.com/content.clearchannel.com/Photos/gov_photos/Political_people/al_gore_GI.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Read Full Post »

The image “https://i1.wp.com/www.igniq.com/images/black_and_white_2_300805.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The following story, commencing this past October of 2006 in the city of Long Beach, California (about 30 miles south of where I live in Los Angeles), with a brutal, racially motivated beating and culminating with the severe travesty of justice that is the sentencing doled out to the perpetrators, is nothing short of shocking for a hate crime of this severity.

Last October 31, three black young women were viciously assaulted by nine trick-or-treating white teenage boys and girls. Prior to the ferocious onslaught, the nine assailants ridiculed the three black teenaged victims by hurling racial epithets, pumpkins, and various fruits at their prey. One white teen even was heard to yell, “I hate blacks!” After the aggressors could find no other vegetables to chuck at the targets, they then proceeded to beat the three black girls into another state of mind. The antagonists used their fists, their feet, and their skateboards during the attack, all while continuing their barrage of racist slurs and aspersions at their black female victims. One girl, with dozens of broken facial bones, nearly lost an eye in the attack. Now she must remain in an upright position for three months, not even allowed to recline in order to sleep at night.

While the trial ended in guilty verdicts for all nine villains, the sentences handed out by Judge Gibson Lee stupefied the victims, their families, the community and the cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles–simple probation. The first conviction constituted a gross injustice as the young boy was handed a laughable sentence of 60 days, house arrest. For the remaining eight pugilists, much of the same–probationary house arrest. To call this an outrage is to put too light a word to it. This is an atrocity.

In the politically correct age in which we live, one might be stunned into wondered astonishment as to how such a travesty as this could come to pass–three young black women nearly beat to death by nine savage white teens.

How? Well, it did and it didn’t. Read the above story again, only this time, replace nine white teens with nine black teens, and three black girls with three white girls. Do you have more clarity now? Do you know why the judge gave such lenient sentences to the offenders? If you do, explain it to me because I still do not understand.

 

Photo

Halloween beating victims, left to right, Lura Schneider, Michelle Smith and Loren Hyman speak to media outside a Long Beach, Calif., courthouse Wednesday Jan. 31, 2007. The three young women were in court Wednesday to give ‘victim impact statements’ to the judge who last week convicted their attackers. (AP Photo/Nick Ut) ,

 

4 Halloween defendants given house arrest, probation

Victim’s attorney disagrees with sentence

By Tracy Manzer, Staff writer

 

LONG BEACH – Four teens were sentenced to probation and house arrest for 60 days for their roles in the Halloween beatings of three young white women attacked by a mob of black youths in Bixby Knolls on Halloween.

An 18-year-old male, his twin sister, 14-year-old sister, and 16-year-old friend have been in custody since their arrest after the beating.

They faced sentences ranging from probation to time in the California Youth Authority, although most involved in juvenile law agree the disposition will be geared more toward rehabilitation than punishment.

Doug Otto, attorney for the three victims, said he disagreed with Judge Gibson Lee’s verdict.

“The judge said he felt bound by case law and statutes to impose the least restrictive sentence,” Otto said after coming out of the courthouse. Otto said Laura, the woman who said she was knocked unconscious by the boy, was particularly upset by the sentencing.

“We disagree strongly, but we respect the law,” Otto said. “This doesn’t feel like justice.”

All nine defendants, eight girls and one boy ages 13 to 18, were convicted of felony assault last week. A girl, 12, was acquitted.

Lee had scheduled the nine convicted teens’ sentencing, or disposition as it is called in juvenile court, over three days, with four Friday, another four on Tuesday and the final youth on Wednesday.

A hate-crime allegation was found to be true in eight of the cases, and an allegation that gross bodily injury was personally inflicted by the accused was found to be true for six of the convicted teens.

In the attack, a group of 20 to 40 black youngsters surrounded and beat the women to the ground as trick-or-treaters gathered in a Bixby Knolls neighborhood.

The hate-crime allegations stemmed from witness reports that several in the group yelled racial slurs during the assault, which occurred at about 9 p.m. Halloween in the 3800 block of Linden Avenue.

The youngest minor, a 12-year-old girl, was acquitted of the charge.

The Press-Telegram has chosen not to identify by name the victims, accused minors or witnesses in the case out of concern for their safety.

 

Cherrale, the mother of three teens convicted in the Bixby Knolls beating, smiles as she leaves the Long Beach Courthouse on Friday. The Press-Telegram has withheld the names of the convicted teens and their family members because the case has been heard in juvenile court. (Jeff Gritchen / Press-Telegram)

 

 

Four more get probation in beating

Youths’ sentences similar to those handed down to others last week.

By Greg Mellen, Staff writer

LONG BEACH – Four black female minors were sentenced to house arrest, probation and community service on Monday in the beatings of three white women on Halloween.One female defendant, a Cal State Long Beach student and the last of 10 tried in the case, will be sentenced today. Four others received similar sentences Jan. 26, while one, a 12-year-old girl, was acquitted.

A representative of several of the defendants’ families said they will comment after the final sentence is handed down by Long Beach Superior Court Judge Gibson Lee.

District Attorney Andrea Bouas argued for stronger penalties in three of the four sentences on Monday.

The four were convicted Jan. 26 of felony assault on the three victims. A hate-crime enhancement was found true on all four sentenced Monday.

However, Lee handed out the same sentences he had on Friday to four other teens: probation, 60 days of house arrest, 250 hours of community service and classes on anger management and racial tolerance.

Before Lee handed down his sentences to a 13-year-old, two 14-year-olds and a 17-year-old, Bouas recommended that three of the defendants be sentenced to time in California Youth Authority camps.

Bouas said about two defendants, a 17-year-old and her younger sister, that the older had a history of “acting out” and the other may have gang affiliations and a propensity for violence.

Bouas said the 17-year-old, an internationally ranked track athlete, had “a gift” athletically but apparently didn’t appreciate it.

“Why would she risk her gift?” Bouas asked. “Maybe she didn’t value what she has. Sometimes when you have success you don’t recognize the value. Maybe this is the best thing that could have happened to her.”

Bouas also noted the older sister had been struggling academically with a 1.92 grade point average, not including athletics.

“The last chance for her is camp, to get her on track,” Bouas said. “She needs intervention.”

The deputy district attorney also asked the 17-year-old be barred from receiving a driver’s license until she is 21, noting a history of citations for driving without a license, including on the night of the assault.

Bouas said the younger sister showed a “frightening propensity for violence.” Bouas said even when a Good Samaritan intervened, it was the younger sister who continued to kick and seemed prepared to attack the physically imposing Good Samaritan.

Bouas also talked about a MySpace Web page that showed the girl and her 7-year-old brother flashing what she said were gang signs.

Attorney Marc Rothenberg quickly contested the assertion that the hand signals were gang-related, insisting it was merely a “thumbs up.”

“I hope I don’t get shot for giving someone a thumbs up,” Rothenberg said, eliciting laughter from the court audience.

Bouas said the younger sister “has a gift but flirts with danger” and worried the younger brother would be “contaminated” by his older sibling.

Lee, addressing gang affiliations, warned the teens: “A word to the wise. Gang activity while on probation is a straight ticket to CYA.”

Much of the information Bouas related was disallowed from the court case, but was permissible during sentencing.

Lee ruled that the court lacked power to impose the license restriction but said that the Department of Motor Vehicles would be advised.

Like the four teens sentenced Friday – an 18-year-old male, his twin sister, 16-year-old younger sister and his 16-year-old girlfriend – the defendants Monday were ordered to pay restitution.

The Press-Telegram does not identify the victims and their families out of concern for their safety and has withheld the names of the convicted teens because the case has been heard in juvenile court.

The nine defendants were convicted Jan. 26 of felony assault on the three victims, who were taunted with racial slurs and pelted with fruit and pumpkins before being beaten to the ground by a mob of youths trick-or-treating on the 3800 block of Linden Avenue.

The 18-year-old twins and their 16-year-old friend sentenced Friday were also found guilty of the special circumstances of hate crime and the personal infliction of gross bodily injury.

While on probation, the teens cannot leave their homes between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. During house arrest, they cannot leave for anything other than school, not even track practice. All four are competitive athletes.

They cannot contact the victims or associate with known gang members and are barred from socializing with their fellow convicted friends – although Lee noted the teens who are related obviously will have contact.

Probation can be until a minor is 21, authorities said, although it rarely lasts that long if the youths abide by the court’s restrictions and stay out of trouble.

After Lee handed down his rulings, parents of the defendants quietly gathered in a hallway outside the courtroom and signed papers to secure the release of their children. One hopeful adult had two paper lunch sacks with the names of two of the girls scribbled on the sides.

While a contingent of media waited for the families of the defendants at the front of the courthouse, the families left via a side door.

Photo

Halloween beating victim Laura Schneider reacts while speaking to media outside a Long Beach, Calif., courthouse Wednesday Jan. 31, 2007. Schneider, Michelle Smith and Loren Hyman were in court Wednesday to give ‘victim impact statements’ to the judge who last week convicted their attackers. Behind Schneider are unidentified family members. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

Read Full Post »

The image “https://i2.wp.com/images.art.com/images/products/large/10204000/10204521.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one – if he had the power – would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 – 1873)

While mostly arising from conservative circles, the multitude of concerns being expressed regarding the hyper-liberalization of colleges and universities seems to rise exponentially on a daily basis.

While I do believe the university should be an institution of free thought, encouraged via the professors and teaching staff, evidence abounds that anything other than politically correct authoritarianism is being discouraged and squelched with extreme prejudice by the very leaders of these institutions who are taxed with ensuring the minds of students remain open and flexible to many ideas and ideals whether those leaders agree with them or not. Pushing one’s own singular vendetta on impressionable minds, while not offering alternatives to one’s personal beliefs is deservingly ignominious.

A tenet such as (x+5)(x-3) = x2+2x-15 isn’t really debatable. It just is. But the free exchange of ideas is being threatened on the campus and in the classroom. According to recent study conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), more than 70 percent of universities and colleges ban protected First Amendment speech. Some go even further.

Michigan State University has been under fire for the creation of their Student Accountability in Community Seminar (SAC) program. SAC exhibits an overtly Orwellian approach to “unacceptable” speech and/or actions by forcing students who participate in such conduct into an “early intervention” or thought reform designed to strip them of their distasteful morals. Students can even have their university account frozen if they refuse to attend a required SAC seminar. Of course, what might be considered worthy of a timeout in the SAC chair is rather abstruse as presented by the MSU program. Needless to say, if it isn’t politically correct, it isn’t protected by the freedom of speech provision in the First Amendment. With SAC, Michigan State University has in essence, and without any reservation what-so-ever, entirely disregarded the First Amendment. This is a particularly heinous policy to support for any higher education institution in the United States.

The Gates of Vienna blog has posted a particularly potent and well-written piece concerning the subject of free speech in the west–on university campuses and in general. The writers’ intent to offend the reader is obvious. This does not in any way overshadow the importance of the message. In fact, the message is stronger in its timeliness because of the offense.

The image “https://i1.wp.com/img47.exs.cx/img47/4619/HAL9000_eye.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Free to Say What?

by Baron Bodissey

We have freedom of speech in this country, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We’re free to say anything we like, with notable exceptions carved out after 220 years of jurisprudence — direct incitement to violence and shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

Free speech must be punishedAnd we are about to add another exception: “hate speech”. A generation of college students has come to maturity under a regime in which free speech most emphatically does not include the right to say anything that might be construed as hateful towards minorities, women, gays, disabled people, animals, trees, etc.

These students are in the revolutionary vanguard of the softened-up, so that by the time Congress slips through a law that actually criminalizes “hate speech”, the constant repetition of the mantra “hate speech is not free speech” will have taken its toll. Everybody will already be used to the idea, will accept it as a given, and, after the required Supreme Court decision, the new, leaner version of the First Amendment will become the law of the land.

If you think I’m being paranoid or overreacting, then you haven’t seen Rep. John Conyers’ proposed kid-gloves-for-the-Koran resolution, H. Res. 288 (the full text is here):

Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

1.   condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;
2.   declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;
3.   recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and
4.   calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

This is pernicious on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to start. It asserts that one person’s right to be respected overrides another person’s right to speak freely. It singles out a single religion, Islam, for special treatment. It accords the holy book of the Muslims more respect than is owed the flag of the United States.

This is a CAIR-sponsored Trojan horse, ready to be rolled through the gates into the First Amendment. And its sponsor is about to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
When I defend the right to free speech, what am I defending?

The Founders weren’t thinking about the right to print gay porn. When they crafted the First Amendment, they most emphatically intended to protect political speech. A lot of what passed for political speech in those days was insulting, libelous, vicious, and mendacious, but the framers of the Constitution were determined to leave it unrestrained.

But what about today? What words are so dangerous, so foul, so beyond the pale, that the force of law is required to protect them?
– – – – – – – – – –
The example I am about to give is so offensive that I will be in hot water for posting it here, even though I don’t subscribe to it myself, even though I find its appalling and repugnant, even though I would not willingly share the room with someone who uttered it. The amount of trouble I bring down upon myself will illustrate my point.

I’m displaying it here as an image, so as not to be indexed for the obnoxious phrase by the search engines:

READ FURTHER…

The image “https://i1.wp.com/www.mtv.com/news/photos/h/harry_potter_chamber_021031/images/flip7.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Also, here’s more information on SAC at Michigan State University.

Michigan State University Engaged in Thought Reform

December 14, 2006

FIRE Press Release

EAST LANSING, Mich., December 14, 2006—It may be almost 2007, but it feels more like “1984” at Michigan State University. The university’s Student Accountability in Community Seminar (SAC) forces students whose speech or behavior is deemed unacceptable to undergo ideological reeducation at their own expense. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is challenging Michigan State to dismantle this unconstitutional program, which presents a profound threat to both freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

“Michigan State’s SAC program is simply one of the most invasive attempts at reeducation that FIRE has ever seen, yet it has been allowed to exist at the university for years,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “As bad as it is to tell citizens in a free society what they can’t say, it is even worse to tell them what they must say. Michigan State’s program is an immoral and unconstitutional program of compelled speech, blatant thought reform, and pseudo-psychology.”

According to the program’s materials, SAC is an “early intervention” for students who use such “power-and-control tactics” as “male/white privilege” and “obfuscation,” which the university cryptically defines as “any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people’s perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another’s disadvantage.” Students can be required to attend SAC if they demonstrate what a judicial administrator arbitrarily deems aggressive behavior, past examples of which have included slamming a door during an argument or playing a practical joke. Students can also be required to attend SAC for engaging in various types of constitutionally protected speech, including “insulting instructors” or “making sexist, homophobic, or racist remarks at a meeting.” When participation in SAC is required, “non-compliance typically results in a hold being placed on the student’s account,” an action that leaves the student unable to register for classes and thus effectively expelled from the university. Students are required to pay the cost of the SAC sessions.

Once in the program, students are instructed to answer a series of written questionnaires. In their answers, students must specifically describe how they are taking “full responsibility” for their offensive behavior and must do so using language that the director of the session deems acceptable. Most students will be asked to fill out this questionnaire multiple times, slowly inching closer to what administrators deem to be “correct” responses.

In a letter on November 20, 2006 to Michigan State President Lou Anna K. Simon, FIRE pointed out the stark contradiction between the SAC program and the values of a free society: “[A]t the heart of all concepts relating to freedom of the mind is a recognition of our own limitations—like us, those in power are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore have no right to dictate to others what their deepest personal beliefs must be. Concern for free speech and freedom of conscience is rooted in the wisdom of humility and restraint. The SAC program, which presumes to show students the specific ideological assumptions they need to be better people, crosses the boundary from punishment into invasive and immoral thought reform. We can think of no way in which the SAC program can be maintained consistent with the ideals of a free society.”

FIRE’s letter to President Simon also underscored Michigan State’s legal obligation to abide by the First Amendment. FIRE reminded her of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), a case decided in the midst of World War II that remains the law of the land. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, declared, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Michigan State has informed FIRE that it will be reviewing the SAC program, but FIRE is calling for nothing less than its total dismantling.

“Michigan State’s SAC program shows a breathtaking lack of respect for individual dignity and autonomy. I urge anyone who cares about the rights of students and the sanctity of private conscience to take a long, hard look at the SAC program’s materials,” Lukianoff said.

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at Michigan State University and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »