Andrew Klavan - Are You A Racist? A Frank Conversation

For many years, there's been one group in the American melting pot that has consistently underperformed in terms of productivity, intelligence and moral behavior.
We're speaking, of course, about celebrities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - The Left Thinks Chris Dorner is a Superhero

Liberals are such hypocrites about violence. When one of their own, Chris Dorner, recently went on a killing spree, many of the left thought he was a rock star. Professor Marc Lamont Hill even went so far as to say he was a kind of superhero. Find out what AlfonZo Rachel thinks about all this on this Zo Nation.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Austin Hill - Self-Interest 1, Dogma 0: Al Gore Is Out Of The Closet Again

Our former U.S. Vice President Al Gore just sold one of his business holdings and earned a bit profit – and he contradicted himself while doing it.

Gosh, I am shocked! Aren’t you?

The headlines tell us that Gore is being pummeled with criticism from his fellow liberal-progressives because he sold Current TV, a television network that he co-founded, to Al Jazeera, a television network based in Qatar. In the liberal-progressive worldview, this transaction is problematic on two accounts.

For one, Gore did business in an oil-producing country (Qatar), and for liberal-progressives, this is an un-forgivable sin. In their view, it simply doesn’t matter that the civilized world (the United States included) runs on oil, and needs a lot of it every day. It also doesn’t matter that everyone who is reading this right now (liberal-progressives included) is likely using a computer that is made, in part, with oil-based plastics, and may even be consuming electricity that was generated by – gasp! – oil.

These realities generally don’t matter for liberal-progressives. On the contrary, it is simply accepted as an un-examined “truism” that oil companies are evil, and the production and consumption of petroleum-based products violates the orthodoxy of environmentalism. This is the first reason Mr. Gore’s transaction is being criticized.

But Gore’s business dealings in Qatar are regarded as bad for yet another reason: they appear to have been extremely profitable for him. Worse still, Gore appears to have intentionally violated his own dogmatic hostility towards the oil industry in pursuit of his profit-making.

For liberal-progressives, businesses exist to serve the “collective interests” of “everybody” – however one might define those things. And if an individual business owner or company makes “too much profit” (again, the definition of “too much” is ambiguous), yet another un-forgivable sin has been committed.

Common Western thought on economics, shaped largely by about five thousand years of pre-American civilization and Adam Smith’s ground-breaking philosophical work “The Wealth of Nations,” teaches that every human being naturally pursues their own self interest. This becomes obvious when we take an honest look at how most of us live today.

For example, most of us who work, quite rationally seek to earn as much as we can in exchange for our labor. Likewise, when we acquire products and services provided to us by others, we generally try to get the best product or service at the best (read “lowest”) possible price. This is not a matter of being greedy – it’s a matter of being a good steward with one’s money, time and talents.

Similarly, when we take money that we have earned and invest it in a business venture – such choices generally entail the risk that the venture might fail and we might lose all our investment money – we quite rationally hope to produce a “return,” or a profit, from that investment. When viewed this way, there is seemingly nothing immoral, certainly nothing illegal so far as we can see, with Mr. Gore’s business deal.

The most problematic point in all of this is that so many American liberal-progressives seem to not understand these most basic, natural realities of self-interest and economics. Perhaps equally as disturbing is the fact that, apparently, many liberal-progressives have never before noticed the serious inconsistencies between Al Gore’s words and behavior.

For well over a decade Mr. Gore has preached the gospel of hostility towards oil companies and predicted cataclysmic disasters because of its consumption, while flying around the world on energy-inefficient private jets and being shuttled across town in fuel-guzzling limousines. He commands that the world practice energy conservation, while for many years he sold so-called “carbon credits” from his own for-profit corporation. And in 2007 an investigation conducted by the Nashville Tennessean newspaper revealed that the home that Gore and his then-wife Tipper shared at that time consumed approximately twenty times the amount of energy consumed by most comparably-sized households.

The travesty of Al Gore is not that he’s done business in an oil producing country, or that his business dealings have produced profits. It is that his public life has largely been a charade for the past many years, and he has perpetuated a culture of false assumptions which has now become a culture that is turning against him.

Will liberal-progressives learn from this, before they crown their next iconic “leader?”

Austin Hill

Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".

He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio.  He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM,  and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.

Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

DHS - Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video

Options for Consideration demonstrates possible actions to take if confronted with a active shooter scenario. The instructive video reviews the choices of evacuating, hiding, or, as an option of last resort, challenging the shooter. The video also shows how to assist authorities once law enforcement enters the scene.

The DHS suggests that if a 'Madman' armed with an AR-15 Weapon enters your workplace and begins killing people - you might consider stopping the 'Mass' Murderer with a pair of scissors.

A law abiding Armed Citizen is NOT even considered or mentioned, instead the DHS recommends a suicide mission.

DHS’s recommended responses to such shootings, demonstrated in a generic office setting, include the obvious instructions to try to either evacuate the area, or hide someplace the shooter won’t think to look, while also warning innocent bystanders in such situations that it is necessary to follow the instructions of police officers and other law enforcement personnel who appear on the scene.

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."
Thomas Jefferson

Celia Bigelow vs. Zerlina Maxwell Debate DHS Video Lesson

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Steve Green - NBC's David Gregory, Armed and Dangerous?

NBC's David Gregory used a high-capacity magazine as a prop on his television show "Meet the Press". While this was a clear violation of D.C.'s gun control laws, there will be no prosecution. Why not? Find out as Tammy Bruce sits with the Trifecta gang to discuss the unequal application of Second Amendment rights.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Imperial Barack Obama and His Elitist Cohorts

Why is President Obama so skeptical about putting armed security in our schools? It's okay for his kids, but not ours? We want our fair share of security, too. NRA Stand And Fight.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Project Veritas exposes Liberal Hypocrites

Posing as "Citizens Against Senseless Violence," we visit the homes of journalists working for Westchester Journal News, MSNBC, and the Star-Ledger. We also visited the home of Eric Holder. None will take our signs that say "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE."

Since these reporters and editors did not consider it a violation of the privacy and safety of others to reveal which homes have guns and which homes don't, we went to see which of them would be willing to put a sign up publicly declaring their homes to be gun-free zones. While we didn't find any members of the media with the strength of their convictions, we did find quite a few guns, and some good explanations for why they might be necessary..... Guns for Me, but not for Thee.

Click HERE to support Project Veritas

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Malkin - Sean Hannity - Height of Progressive Hypocrisy

"This has been a culture of corruption, a culture of darkness, and a culture of feted willful disregard for the rule of law and deliberative process" says Syndicated Columnist, Best Selling Author, and President of 'Twitchy.com', Michelle Malkin as she defines in detail the total hypocrisy of President Obama and this administration.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - ‘Savage Love’ and the Anti-Bullying Bully

Prior to hearing anti-bullying ‘It Gets Better’ founder/“Savage Love” sex advice columnist/gay activist/guest of Barack Obama Dan Savage ridicule Christian students and demean the Bible, I had no idea that bullying is perfectly acceptable as long as you’re bullying Christian kids.

Guest speaker Dan Savage was supposed to be sharing an anti-bullying message at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and the National Scholastic Press Association. Instead, he used the opportunity to exercise his civic duty and bully the kids who came to the conference from Christian schools in the area.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School, said “I thought this would be about anti-bullying.” Well, that it was! In this case harassment fits the criteria for “anti-bullying,” because according to Mr. Savage, the God of the Bible is one big bully and He and His ignorant followers need to be exposed. Therefore, it was only natural and fitting that a high school journalism conference would turn “into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.

After Savage, Bible scholar and “Evolve Already” promoter of marriage equality for gays, attempted to savage Leviticus, Romans and the Apostle Paul, 100 offended high school students stood up and slowly filed out of the conference.

As a result, feeling bullied by students turning their back on him and refusing to listen to his biased tirade, the anti-bullying speaker “began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy assed.”

In other words, for lack of a coliseum filled with hungry lions, the sensitive, accepting, anti-bullying advocate Dan the savage all but attempted to drag100 kids out onto the schoolyard, clobber them with a baseball bat and then, when they raised their hands to thwart the attack, to further the cause of acceptance and love he called them “pansy asses.”

Rick Tuttle described the incident this way: “It became hostile. It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.” According to the journalism advisor, the ‘anti-bullying’ speech was “laced with vulgarities and ‘sexual innuendo not appropriate for this age group.’”

At one point, Tuttle said, Savage described for the teenagers about how “good his male partner looked in a Speedo.” No problem! Every anti-bullying advocate is well aware that shocking and making kids squirm awkwardly in their seats is key when addressing the issue of bullying.

Moreover, one can’t help but wonder if Savage shared with others his appreciation for his ‘husband’s’ physique in swimming attire when he and his spouse Terry Miller were part of the festivities at President Obama’s 2011 LGBT Pride Month reception.

According to one 17-year-old girl in attendance, some of “Savage Love’s” journalism advice included telling the kiddies that “I hope you’re all using birth control…[that]… there are people using the Bible as an excuse for gay bullying, because it says in Leviticus and Romans that being gay is wrong,” and that they can “ignore all the (expletive deleted) in the Bible.”

Without personally knowing any of the children who excused themselves, apparently Savage felt justified berating them as non-bullying students in attendance “hollered and cheered” in approval. Smarmily and sarcastically, after he was done “beating up the Bible” and beating up Bible-believing kids, he said:

"You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny as someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back."

Reverting back to compassionate liberalism as most liberals do, Savage did eventually say he was sorry “if [he] hurt anyone’s feelings.” Obviously feeling threatened in a room full of teenagers, after apologizing Savage did justify his actions by pointing out that “I have a right to defend myself and to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.”

What was the National Scholastic Press Association’s (NSPA) response to Savage singling out Christianity, the Bible, and Christian children who thought they were going to a journalism conference?

"We appreciate the level of thoughtfulness and deliberation regarding Dan Savage’s keynote address. Some audience members who felt hurt by his words and tone decided to leave in the middle of his speech, and to this, we want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear."

How open-minded of the NSPA. Maybe next year, in the interest of fairness, they can have a Christian journalist come to the conference and single out a few gay students. With strict instructions to rebuke them freely but only to increase “their tolerance for what they are willing to hear,” he or she can then seat them in the front of the auditorium and force them to have Scripture “thoughtfully and deliberately” read to them from the book of Leviticus and Paul’s letter to the Romans.

In the end, this was yet just another example of liberal hypocrisy and bias, and above all a perfect illustration of jugular-vein justice by those who deem themselves accepting and intelligent.

Nonetheless, one question does come to mind here: Will Mr. Obama be phoning the children who were called “pansy-asses” by his White House guest a la Sandra Fluke, and then mention later at a press conference how terribly his Christian daughters Sasha and Malia would feel being singled out and insulted in such a public way?

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mike Adams - The Old Rubber Cross

The Old Rubber Cross

Dear President Ransdell:

As a supporter of Hilltoppers for Life, I am deeply concerned at the way its pro-life display was vandalized on April 20, 2012. I am perhaps more concerned with the way Western Kentucky University (WKU) officials have responded to this criminal action. As this story continues to unfold, the facts suggest that several WKU officials knew in advance this vandalism would occur. But they did nothing to stop it. This is simply inexcusable in a climate of higher learning.

As you already know, Hilltoppers for Life erected approximately 3,700 crosses in order to commemorate the number of babies aborted every day in the United States. On the morning of April 20th, Elaina Smith, an art student at your university, began placing condoms on each of the crosses. Members of Hilltoppers for Life confronted her peacefully and asked her to stop. She simply refused to do so. This young feminist did not seem to understand that no really means no.

When campus security officers arrived, they did nothing. That bears repeating: The police simply sat there and watched her break the law. That kind of laziness is appalling. It makes me wonder whether your police have tenure. Unbelievably, Ms. Smith told them she was completing an approved art assignment by desecrating the crosses. And the cops actually bought her “my professor made me do it” defense!

Your April 24th statement claims that Ms. Smith’s professor, Kristina Arnold, did not really intend to target the pro-life display. Unfortunately, Dr. Arnold contradicted that when she told WBKO that she did not disapprove of Ms. Smith’s proposed vandalism. She admitted that she knew of it in advance and did nothing whatsoever to stop it. So who is lying? Is it you or Dr. Arnold?

Other comments indicate that Arnold actually condoned Ms. Smith’s acts. For example, she smugly stated, “Learning and debating are not always pretty or polite processes. Critical engagement with ideas can get messy.” But nowhere in her statements did she indicate that “critical engagement” also involves respecting the free speech rights of fellow students. Professors should also know that no means no.

While it is encouraging to hear you say that you and your fellow administrators value free speech, so far WKU’s actions have not demonstrated that it really understands the First Amendment. When student freedoms have been criminally violated, issuing private assurances and holding secret meetings falls short of the mark. You preside over a public university, not a secret society.

I have already seen some of the internal emails in connection with this unfortunate event. The most notable comes from Ms. Smith and contains the following admission: “During the week of April 16th, the Hilltoppers for Life’s pro-life display remained un-interrupted. The student body tolerated this intrusion without major incident. The voice of the pro-life community was heard. On the last day of this event, I attempted to add to the visual dialogue with my own voice and was met with strong resistance.”

The very idea that one of your university students deems others’ speech as an “intrusion” and the desecration of other people’s property as an attempt “to add to the visual dialogue” is simply dumbfounding. This makes perfectly clear the need for immediate action in order to correct her fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between vandalism and free speech.

Accordingly, I suggest that Dr. Arnold’s art students be sent on a series of assignments – for full academic credit – that will help them better appreciate the difference between protected speech and unprotected violations of the Kentucky criminal code. The following assignments should teach them that their actions are not always protected – even when they are in possession of 3700 condoms:

Go find Elaina Smith’s Prius in the WKU parking lot. Adorn it with 3700 “Abortion is Murder” bumper stickers. Then ask whether she thinks the stickers “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

Go find Dr. Arnold’s office on the campus of WKU. Adorn her door with 3700 pictures of aborted babies. Then ask whether she thinks the pictures “add to the visual dialogue” on the abortion debate.

Photo-shop a picture of Jessie Jackson holding a condom saying “Don’t be like me. Suit up and avoid an unexpected love child.” Tape the picture on the door of the African American Center. See whether this visual creates a better dialogue.

Next, photo shop a picture of the prophet Mohammad with a condom over his head. Tape the picture on the door of the Muslim Student Association office. See whether you can get the NEA to defer your costs.

Next, go to the campus Gay and Lesbian Center. Burn a rainbow flag just like the hippies who burn the American flag. And make sure it’s their rainbow flag. Remember to tell them you are just trying to expand the visual dialogue – even after the room is filled with smoke!

I can imagine no better way to promote equality and learn about the First Amendment all at once. Just have your students insult everyone while trespassing on their personal property. If people get angry, that’s their problem. Learning is not always pretty and polite. And critical engagement can sometimes get messy.

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - The Tipper Point: Liberals Are the Agents of Censorship, Not Conservatives

Rush Limbaugh was attacked for attacking Sandra Fluke, and now Democrats are calling for the radio host to be censored. Yes, Rush used an ugly word, but so do plenty of rock bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So why do bands like RHCP stand behind Democrats? Zo reminds people that it was Tipper Gore who tried to censor popular music. Could it be that Democrats just want to censor those who disagree with them? Hear more on this ZoNation.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - Double Standard: Black Men Named Trayvon Get Killed all the Time, But The Left Doesn't Care

Black men named Trayvon get killed all of the time in America, so why does the left fail to express consistent outrage? Is there something different about the slaying of Trayvon Martin's death, or is the real problem that the left tolerates extraordinary violence against black men in America?

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wild Bill for America - Democrats vs The Marines

Liberal disrespect for our troops is more common than racism.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - 'Street-Walkin' For Obama

Since President Obama attributed his reasons for calling Sandra Fluke last week as pertaining to his desire to see his own daughters Sasha and Malia follow in her footsteps, you have to wonder if he hates his daughters.

Honestly!

Sandra Fluke researched Georgetown's policies, targeted them for attendance, ignored the three Planned Parenthood clinics within walking distance of the campus, and boldy lied before Congress about the financial burden her sex life had become. If that's what he wishes for his daughters, heaven help them.

Of course he also has hoped they would never know the "burden" of pregnancy too. Wow... no kids for life, just angry dishonest activism before the people's body, while talking up your sex life. Some dream for your kids huh?

All sarcasm aside, I don't believe that's what he wants for his daughters, but when it has to do with getting elected saying things that might imply as much is within the field of play huh?

Evidently it is.

You know what else is in play? Sending your campaign manager (who at one point was your White House Senior Advisor) to be on a television show that degrades women. Who'd a thought it?

Nevertheless that's the plan...

David Axelrod, one of the President's most trusted advisors, will be going on the show hosted by million-dollar-donor to the Obama SuperPAC Bill Maher sometime within the next few weeks.

Of course the left will somehow attempt to argue that while the icon of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, had earned every ounce of scorn the left could pronounce, Maher doesn't deserve the same merit because he's... (**shrugs**) While the left argues that Rush's advertisers (who are now flocking back to the largest media platform in America) were dropping him for trumped up non-sense about being disrespectful to women, Obama's advisor going on a show that has in recent months referred to women as dumb "tw*ts," and "c*nts" is just fine by him and everyone on Obama's team.

Evidently an advertiser supporting Rush Limbaugh is to be held accountable (and ruin their stock prices in the process), and disassociate themselves, but people who go on Maher's hate-fest can gain access to the ear of the leader of the free world without so much as a "should we think about the optics of this first" crossing somebody's brain.

Perhaps the former MSNBC washout Keith Olbermann was supposed to settle the matter only a couple of evenings back on his Countdown broadcast on CurrentTV (no, it's a real network, look it up), as he explained that misogyny only occurs when conservative men go on offense against liberal women. Strangely Olbermann then attempted to apologize to Michelle Malkin and S.E. Cupp--both delightful human beings--while simultaneously claiming he wasn't misogynistic.

From Hot Air's Tina Korbe (who know doubt will be on Olbermann's list soon.):

In October 2009, Olbermann called Hot Air founder Michelle Malkin, “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Then, in April of last year, Olbermann tweeted about conservative commentator S.E. Cupp, “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does.”

His odd insult which was to be disguised as an apology was roundly unaccepted by both ladies. (Hmmm when was that word last used in connection to any of these topics?)

Long story short, Olbermann is still spewing bile and venom all over the names of women he merely politically disagrees with, Maher is still referring to women as insulting synonyms of genitalia, and President Obama wants his daughters to grow up emulating Sandra Fluke, the woman who needed $3000 to be reimbursed for contraception that cost normal people about $180 for the same time period. (Not drawing any judgement but... Man that's a lot of sex!)

Add to that the willingness to send his political surrogates, voices, campaign spokespersons, and senior advisors to go beg for the airtime of such types is... to be honest... making me sick as I type this.

Additionally, David Axelrod, the pillar of purity himself, publicly called for Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (the only two viable candidates the Republicans have left) to publicly denounce Rush Limbaugh and be unwavering in their criticism of his comments. (Comments that my own Lovely Bride, her best friend, and several of their other friends--who all happen to be 20-30 somethings in the prime of life, and a wee bit more informed about what real female role models look like than President Obama does--seemed to agree with. In fact that entire cadre of ladies--wow twice in one column--were more than a bit irritated when Rush apologized.)

All in all President Obama, the Shrews...er the females(<--note usage) on The View, Bill Maher, David Axelrod, and even Gloria Steinem (who is rumored to have been present on at least one occasion when Maher dropped a vaginal reference to a woman) may all be willing to denounce references to loose women who pretend to have their virtue still intact as "street walkers." This is true however only if the reference originates from someone who holds a politically opposing position. Not dissimilar to use of the "N" word in certain ethnic circles. So set the DVR friends, because those who seek to demean women in most every imaginable way are coming to an HBO late night near you. In the mean time, I'd like to see if I could use the word "lady" three times in a column. Oh wait, I just did!

Kevin McCullough

---

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Zonation - Hey MSNBC, Democrats Were the Defenders of Slavery and Hateful Policies, Not the GOP

AlfonZo Rachel looks at the recent allegations of MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell regarding Republicans. Zo thinks that O'Donnell is just playing a shell game with words, and that he ignores the fact that Democrats were the defenders of slavery and segregation. Think the Democrats were the leaders of the Suffragette movement? Think again.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Mike Adams - Eloquence in Defense of Liberty

On January 27, 2012, the 6th Circuit issued a landmark opinion in Ward v. Wilbanks. It is the biggest federal court victory for campus First Amendment rights since my own victory before the 4th Circuit last April. What is striking about the Ward opinion is the thread of common sense running through every aspect of its analysis. Even more striking is the eloquence of the 6th Circuit as it defends fundamental religious freedom against a full-frontal assault from the LGBT community.

Julea Ward was one of many counseling students being coerced into affirming homosexuality by a state-run institution. She did not seek to force homosexuals to change their conduct through religious-based corrective therapy. She simply sought to refer homosexual clients to other counselors when those clients demanded affirmation of their conduct. Eastern Michigan University sought to force Julea into a cruel trilemma by accepting one of the following options:

1. Lie to clients by telling them she approved of their conduct, or
2. Abandon her religious beliefs regarding sexuality, or
3. Leave the counseling profession altogether.

Julea’s preference was pretty simple: refer homosexual (and some heterosexual) clients to others more willing to affirm their conduct. For this she was expelled from the counseling program. Then the trial court granted summary judgment preventing Julea from having her day in court.

Julea Ward appealed to the 6th Circuit and won a unanimous reversal. The judges concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that Ward’s professors ejected her from the counseling program because of their own personal hostility toward her speech and faith, rather than a policy against referrals. In other words, that was simply a pretext to punish her for her beliefs.

The 6th Circuit judges wondered out loud just what Julea Ward did wrong. She was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in the process. That is precisely why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) – but only if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. After noting her compliance with the rule, the 6th Circuit raised interesting hypothetical questions. For example, would the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct? Would it require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God?

After suggesting that the answer to both of those hypotheticals would be “no,” the 6th Circuit delivered a line certain to irreparably damage the self-esteem of the Eastern Michigan diversity crowd: “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” In other words, the 6th Circuit accused the institution of promoting intolerance – the very thing it said it was committed to eradicating. Ouch.

The 6th Circuit also noted that many of the faculty members’ statements to Ward raise a similar concern about religious discrimination. They noted that a reasonable jury could find that the university dismissed Ward from its counseling program because of her faith-based speech, not because of any legitimate professional or educational objective. They added, “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree.” Government taxation and regulation of religious beliefs is a serious accusation. Now, the issue will go to a jury.

One interesting aspect of the case is that the university did not even argue that its actions could withstand strict scrutiny. The 6th Circuit agreed adding “Whatever interest the university served by expelling Ward, it falls short of compelling. Allowing a referral would be in the best interest of Ward (who could counsel someone she is better able to assist) and the client (who would receive treatment from a counselor better suited to discuss his relationship issues).”

This is all just plain common sense. Everyone was fine except for a handful of professors with too much time on their hands and too little tolerance for the idea that someone, somewhere, somehow did not share their claimed commitment to moral relativism. Or course, Julea Ward’s professors really do not believe in moral relativism. They believe they are morally superior to Julea and have the authority to levy taxes on her “inferior” belief system.

For years, homosexuals have opposed the idea that they are sick, in need of change, and somehow capable of being cured by the counseling profession. Today, homosexuals promote the idea that Christians are sick, in need of change, and somehow capable of being cured by the counseling profession. Fortunately, the 6th Circuit is warding off their sanctimonious hypocrisy and narrow-minded assault on intellectual diversity.

Mike Adams

---

Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Doug Giles - Obama Calls It Fairness. Who Would Jesus Tax?

This past Thursday (2/2/2012) at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said that his Christian faith crafts his domestic policies—particularly his desire to rob from the rich and give to the poor. In my humble opinion, I think the president is getting Jesus and His disciples confused with Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

I don’t know which White House wizard crafted that speech for him, but the verse he or she gave to our Spender in Chief to back his socialism was more twisted out of joint than a Gumby doll being worked over by a frustrated Gary Busey.

I can’t believe that hot coffee didn’t spew from hundreds of Christians’ mouths when Obama took a text that refers directly to believers’ judgment and contorted it to be interpreted as a ratcheted-up government imposed higher tax rate upon those who already bear the brunt of the tax burden.

From a theological standpoint it appears as if the president takes more of an eisegetical approach to Luke 12:48 than and exegetical one—which is convenient. But who are we to judge? Judge not.

Now … before I plow on with the topic of Obama’s Christian faith influencing his policies, I thought that in our current culture of sassy secularism elected officials, especially the president, are forbidden to merge biblical beliefs and public policy. Hell, GW couldn’t even tell Cheney “God bless ya” after Dick phlegmed his tie without Media Matters, Maddow and Matthews calling him a theocratic dominionist Nazi who was violating the Establishment Clause and who, left to his own devices, would be hanging homosexuals and burning Harry Potter books. Does Obama get a pass when he parlays his faith-based policies? Shucks … that ain’t fair, is it MSNBC?

I wish Christianity did influence Obama’s politics; if it truly did then there would be an end to abortion, bearing false witness, and obtrusive government and would allow for more liberty than ever before. In addition:

• The entitlement mentality would be history;
• We’d yield up a solid Protestant work ethic;
• We’d enforce a tougher immigration policy;
• Our military would be stronger;
• We’d have a balanced budget;
• We’d see a decrease in national debt and an end to prodigal spending;
• We’d have a defense of traditional marriage;
• And we’d revisit worshipping God rather than feckless humans and their stilted and stymied worldviews.

Lastly, with just a cursory glance at the gospels, the honest reader will note that Christ Jesus never commanded Caesar or Herod to collect taxes in order to take care of the poor. He told his disciples to give to the needy, of their own volition, as worship to God and in service to mankind, and only—only—when it’s done by these means and motivations is it deemed virtuous and Christian.

Oh, and by the way, the Scripture has a lot to say about taxes. Progressives might want to put on a cup before they click this hyperlink to see what “God” thinks about Obama’s tax plan.

Amen.

Doug Giles

---

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Bill Whittle - Render Unto Obama? Are the President's Polices Really Guided by the Gospels?

Barack Obama claimed at a recent prayer breakfast that the teachings of Jesus Christ guided policies like health care and Dodd-Frank. Citing the Bible, Obama argued that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." Can we take Obama's word at face value? Is he guided by scripture, or by old fashioned liberal politics? Find out.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Bill Whittle - The Coin of the Realm

What is the coin of the realm in a country filled with sanctimonious liberals like Michael Moore, Matt Damon and Jay Z? Find out as Bill Whittle talks about the unearned moral superiority of American liberals, and their demands to redistribute American wealth.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---

Lurita Doan - Democrats Decry the Hatch Act --Oh My!

Election season is upon us and political opponents seem willing to do anything to get the upper hand. The Hatch Act recently resurfaced as a tool in this battle when Carolyn Lerner, the newest head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), sent a letter to Congress claiming that the Hatch Act is flawed, ineffective and unfairly penalizes political appointees. She wants the statute to be changed.

Even more interesting is that the New York Times and the Washington Post have taken valuable space on editorial pages to support Democrats' new push to reform the Hatch Act, calling reform a "no brainer". A central theme to this sudden concern is that the Hatch Act is an all too easy, political, “gothcha” weapon to be wielded by partisan opponents to score puny political victories in advance of the next election.

Yep. Been there. Experienced that.

Democrats and mainstream media folks once held far different views about the Hatch Act and routinely went to great lengths to justify any assault to score political points during the Bush Administration. Then, the Washington Post seemed to think the Hatch Act was one of the most important statutes and made room on page 1 for any tidbit related to the Bush Administration. The NY Times also fell in line to champion kangaroo court investigations that they thought would help their candidates in future elections.

Well, well, well. Now the wheel has come full circle. With Democrats holding the White House and holding only a very slim majority in the Senate, they have become concerned about the Hatch Act's overly broad interpretation of "political" activity. And even though the Post and Lerner focus on recommendations for changes at the State and Local level, the OSC has also proposed changes at the federal level.

No doubt with the full knowledge of just how much damage an unscrupulous investigator can manufacture with a skillful use of false or exaggerated accusations, Democrats are anxious to change the laws so that the very tactics they invented and used with such great skill cannot be turned against them in a similar manner. Hence, leading Democrats now are voicing their fears that the Hatch Act may be misused and that political opponents may take it to extremes.

It also seems clear that these changes are a result of Democrats' fear of the damage a rogue Office of Special Counsel can do to election ambitions. This is a wise fear. Members of the Bush Administration can affirm--it is possible for the Special Counsel and the opposing political party's pursuit of Hatch Act violations to go too far. The last guy to hold the job at OSC, Scott Bloch, did just that.

During the Bush Administration Scott Bloch falsified investigation data, engaged in cover-ups, purged government computers to hide his actions, and conducted a propaganda campaign on blogs against his targets (of which I was one). Leading Democrats and the main stream media, meanwhile, were willing accomplices in these shenanigans for it supported their broader goal of discrediting political opponents.

The Hatch Act, essentially, allowed a rogue Special Counsel, such as Bloch, to commandeer the vast investigatory powers of the OSC while running roughshod over the justice system, for political and personal gain.

Unfortunately, these efforts were not only supported, but egged on, by Democrat political operatives, such as Congress Waxman, who skillfully exploited the Hatch Act as a way to attack the Bush Administration and help Democrats gain an edge over Republicans in the upcoming election. Moreover, even after multiple indictments by a Grand Jury and an admission of guilt, Mr. Bloch has escaped any punishment for his crimes.

So Democrats are worried that the precedents, set by Waxman and Bloch, might be repeated, only this time directed at members of the Obama Administration. This, too, is a justifiable fear, so now the Obama Administration is arguing that the Hatch Act is "overly restrictive", while the Washington Post expresses worry that the statute "sweeps too broadly" and worries about "the unduly draconian penalty structure".

As all of these folks well understand, oversight, whether federal, state or local in its pursuit, isn't always consistent, unbiased, competent, or free of taint. Having participated in the past in making political hay with the Hatch Act, they understand better than anyone that in the hands of unscrupulous zealots, the Hatch Act can be used as an effective tool to beat up one's opponents.

One question that Republicans might ask is: Does the recent Washington Post editorial calling for changes in Hatch Act investigations serve as the proverbial canary in the coal mine? Is this sudden conversion of the mainstream media timed to help rationalize possible future transgressions within the Obama Administration--and if so, how bad are they?

Another question: Why has there been such a dramatic flip-flop in the media's position concerning the potential for misuse of the Hatch Act? Or, is this just another example of the mainstream media's bias favoring Democrats?

Or, hold on to your hat here, is it possible that, at long last, Democrats and the enablers in the media have finally understood the damage they unleashed and the unfairness of their endeavors? One can only hope.

Americans can hope too, that, should a Republican president be elected come November, the Washington Post won't flop back to the flip (or is it flipping back the flop?) and insist that the "draconian" Hatch Act is needed after all and find space, once again, on page 1 to abuse a new crop of Republican political appointees.

Lurita Doan

---

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---