PJTV Trifecta - Simple Gesture Costs School Track Team Chance at Championship

A Texas high school track athlete raised his hand in the air as a show of thanks to God, only to learn that this simple prayer eliminated his entire team from statewide competition. The athletic competition banned excessive celebration, but is a prayer unsporting conduct? Hear more on this Trifecta.

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

Andrew Klavan - Political Correctness Kills

Dr. Klavan has his diagnosis: political correctness kills and America might have a terminal case of this deadly disease.

She is not an Air Head; she is REALITY IMPAIRED.
She does not Nag You; she becomes ORALLY REPETITIVE.
He is not Quiet; he is a CONVERSATIONAL MINIMALIST.
He is not Stupid; he suffers from MINIMAL CRANIAL DEVELOPMENT.

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

Dr. Ben Carson - The People Want to Hear Truth and Common Sense

Dr. Benjamin Carson sits down with FBN's Lou Dobbs, to discuss the heated issue behind possible drone attacks on US Citizens, as well as the near future and long term effects of Obamacare.

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

PJTV Trifecta - The Pope Who Walked Away: What World Leaders Can Learn from Pope

For the first time in almost six hundred years, a sitting Pope resigned his papacy. Did Pope Benedict make the right decision, and if so, what can we learn from Pope Benedict XVI? Find out on this Trifecta.

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

William Sullivan - A perfect Contrast

Originally posted at American Thinker.

---

Contrast can bring clarity. And I do not think that the two warring political ideologies in America have never been personified, juxtaposed, and as clearly defined as the contrast we witnessed at this week's National Prayer Breakfast.

Dr. Benjamin Carson, the famed director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, was given the unique opportunity to share his beliefs before a distinguished audience, including President Barack Obama. He did not waste the opportunity, and courageously expressed his beliefs with conviction, contrary though they are to those of the president.

Much has been made of Dr. Carson's alternative solution to make healthcare more efficient:

Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed - pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA every month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some huge bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own healthcare.

We must admit -- there is something amazing about this. In two paragraphs, Ben Carson has offered a free market solution to create competition and reduce healthcare costs that is feasible, understandable, and compassionate. (And one that has already been tested -- it is very similar to the system used in Singapore. ) Its relative simplicity alone stands in stark contrast to Obama's healthcare solution pitch, the mechanics of which were so confusing that after two years of explaining it, Democrats entreated Americans to not even try to understand it. Just accept it and see what happens, as Nancy Pelosi suggested.

But to focus on the contrast between their healthcare approaches alone is to miss the deeper contrast on display. That is, the contrast between Dr. Ben Carson and Barack Obama, the ideologies that have driven their life's work, and the results of that work.

Years ago, I remember my mother asking if I had ever heard of Dr. Ben Carson. She explained that he was a pioneer in neurological medicine, and that he had an amazing and inspiring story. She had a copy of Dr. Carson's book, Gifted Hands, and began to read passages that she had selected. I was captivated, committed to reading more about him, and later watched the film of the same title starring Cuba Gooding, Jr. Indeed, his story is one of the most amazing and inspiring I'd ever heard, from his unique upbringing to his design of a groundbreaking procedure in 1987 which successfully separated two cranially conjoined twin babies. His life, his work, is nothing short of miraculous.

Dr. Ben Carson was one of two sons born to Sonya Carson, a single mother who had married Ben's father at thirteen years of age. Ben's father was a bigamist, and after learning of his other family, Sonya resolved to raise her two sons alone. Though in poverty, and though she herself had no formal education beyond third grade, she insisted that her sons devote diligent efforts to their education. She required that the boys read books from the public library each week and write lengthy reports for her (which she would review for them to support their effort, despite being unable to read). She worked hard to support them financially, in staunch determination that she would not be a victim, and neither would her children. In short, the Carson family is a testament to personal perseverance and the success that follows.

One story of Dr. Carson's childhood that particularly stood out to me is an instance where he, an admittedly angry child, attempted to stab his friend in the stomach, only to have the blade of the knife blocked and broken by the other child's belt buckle. This was a moment that shaped his worldview thereafter, and he has expressed a belief that it was divine intervention. And I could not help but agree. Could it be anything but Providence that this good fortune, without which he may have been incarcerated and set on a different path, became the good fortune of the world, allowing Dr. Carson to touch and save so many lives?

Knowing of his background, it came as no surprise when I reviewed the entire speech at the National Prayer Breakfast that nearly everything Ben Carson said was a perfect contradiction of the values expressed by Barack Obama.

Dr. Carson began his speech, even as he shared the stage with the world's most renowned spokesman for political correctness, by decrying political correctness as a "dangerous" concept. He argued that political correctness acts as a "muzzle," keeping people from "discussing important issues while the fabric of their society is being changed," even as the architect of that "change" sat just a few feet to his right.

He related the admirable tale of his mother's unwillingness to be a victim, as he was in the presence of our president who unequivocally demands that women in such circumstances be viewed and treated as such. Dr. Carson told the audience about his revelation that poverty is a "temporary" condition, one which people could personally alter. And he said this in the presence of a man whose political ideology is founded upon the notion that poverty is an institutionally applied condition, and that it is the responsibility of society, not the individual, to alter that condition.

Dr. Carson went on to destroy the notion of the progressive income tax, arguing that "God has given us a system" that would work. He argued that because God requires tithing regardless of outcome:

There must be something inherently fair in proportionality. If you make ten billion dollars, you put in one billion. If you make ten dollars, you put in one. Of course you gotta get rid of the loopholes. [Laughter] But, now some people say, "Well that's not fair, because it doesn't hurt the guy who made ten billion dollars as much as the guy who made ten." Where does it say you have to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot!

Is it possible to say anything more contrary to Barack Obama's insistence on the moral imperative to take disproportionately more from the wealthy to redistribute among the collective?

And this is where the contrast between the two men becomes most apparent. Barack Obama rejects the notion of fairness presented by God, because his devotion to God, if it was ever a driving motivation in his life, has become supplanted by his devotion to the government administration of fairness. That much is abundantly clear. Consider that Dr. Carson carries himself with a pious humility, crediting God and family for giving him the strength of will to succeed. President Obama, whose name would rarely collide with humility in a sentence, insists that the government is responsible for people's success.

The revelation here is not that Barack Obama is a PC thug who intends to transform the fabric of America, or that he makes victims of women rather than empowering them, or that he subscribes to a Marxist's notion of fairness by coercion, or that his healthcare solution is a muddled, hopeless mess sold on Utopian dreams. We already knew all that.

No, the real revelation is that at this year's prayer breakfast, so often only a pious ritual, his exact opposite stood and spoke in sharp contrast to our president. And Dr. Ben Carson owns a legacy as an innovative pioneer of his field and philanthropist whose life and work have personally touched, and even saved, countless others. Barack Obama, on the other hand, despite all his celebrity, owns a legacy that amounts to little more than stirring fear and outrage on the premise that others are not doing enough to help people.

Which ideology has produced the more effective, positive outcome?

William Sullivan

Political Palaver is a blog created by William Sullivan and Calvin Parker and is intended to be an outlet for thoughts and ideas about current events and politics.

William Sullivan blogs at http://politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com/ and can be followed on Twitter.

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

Jonah Goldberg - The Great Liberal Lie - The Left's War on Words

Jonah Goldberg discusses his books, including his latest, "The Tyranny of Cliches." How does the left twist words to fit their political agenda? Find out.

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

Mike Adams - Extremism in Defense of Equality

The more often liberals speak on the topic of same-sex marriage, the more illogical their arguments become. Of course, the worst arguments come from liberal professors because they talk about the subject to the point of obsession. And the worst of the worst come from English professors steeped in postmodern orthodoxy. A recent letter to the editor by North Carolina English professor Dick Veit is illustrative. Dick writes the following (in italics). I respond intermittently. Students considering a major in English at a secular university should read his words carefully:

If you can’t claim that your own marriage would be hurt by a gay couple getting married (and you can’t), and if you can’t point to anyone at all whose marriage would be harmed (and you can’t), then you can’t claim that marriage would be harmed.

Dick Veit shows the narrow-mindedness of same-sex marriage proponents in three ways. First, he falsely asserts that there are only two arguments against same-sex marriage. Next, he asserts that the burden of proof is on his opponents. Finally, he asserts that the arguments he selects cannot possibly be proved. He omits the best arguments against same-sex marriage. Fortunately, in the next line of his letter, he opens the door for one of those arguments:

If you would deny a right to others that you claim for yourself, you cannot say that you believe in liberty.

I hope this means that Dick will now support a man’s right to determine whether his child will be aborted. But that is not what he means. He means that proponents of traditional marriage must extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or, alternately, forfeit their right to say they believe in liberty. The argument is problematic because it knows no limitations. It falsely equates liberty with absolute liberty. Consider some extensions of Veit’s argument:

*If you support marriage between a man and another man, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and a woman or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.

*If you support marriage between a man and another man and a woman, you must also support marriage between a man and another man and two women or, alternately, forfeit the right to say you believe in liberty.

The possibilities are endless. Eventually, one ends up supporting a marital union between two twin sisters, a dog, and a four-year old – just so he can say “I believe in liberty!”

The trouble all begins with Veit making the obvious error of asking “Is it free?” without asking the follow-up question “Is it good?” That is precisely how he winds up in the untenable position of promoting equality among unequal entities. In the final analysis, Veit is left with the dubious honor of joining a very small club I call the We Can Say We Believe in Equality So We Must Be Morally Superior Society.

Unfortunately, Dick has left the rest of society with an all-encompassing definition of family that simply does not work. For example, there can be no workable body of family law if there are no restrictions on what we call “family.” That it is unworkable is not an issue for Dick. He lives in a world of ideas, not in a world of reality. All ideas have consequences. But the worst ideas usually have consequences for someone else. That is why the worst ideas usually come from tenured professors who are shielded from consequences altogether. Keep reading:

If you would insist that others must be bound by the precepts of your religion, then you do not believe in religious freedom.

Christianity does not mandate marriage among its own adherents. It certainly does not mandate the practice among non-Christians. Of course, under the current definition of marriage, no one is forced to follow a religious practice. But some are choosing to follow a secular practice and call it a religious practice. They are also trying to force followers of a religious practice to call a secular practice a religious practice against their will.

The government seizure and redefinition of a religious practice – one that actually predates the government - cannot be seen as a step towards religious freedom. But that is Dick’s position. He thinks the government – by judicial fiat - can redefine a religious institution that predates its existence. If you disagree, “then you do not believe in religious freedom.” Does any of this make sense? Read on:

If you say that you oppose Sharia law because it forces religious rules on nonbelievers, then why are you doing the very same thing?

Translation: If you think the voters of North Carolina can retain the traditional definition of marriage by a vote you are wrong. This would block the judiciary from imposing same-sex marriage on the general population against its will. And that would destroy religious freedom.

Marriage is an institution that predates every constitution, every judicial body, and every legislative body in the world. Nonetheless, Veit thinks the government has a right to seize and redefine religious institutions such as marriage at will. If you disagree with Dick then he claims that you are just like Muslim extremists who want to set up a theocracy in America.

That is how the tenured Dick thinks. That is why the people of North Carolina must vote to preserve traditional marriage via constitutional amendment. Otherwise, we really will start looking like a Muslim theocracy. And prophets will be marrying six year olds in the name of sexual equality.

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.

---

Lurita Doan - American Values - F Words

Americans seem to have become accustomed to the casual use of the “F” word, with celebrities tracking, proudly, the number of times they “drop the “f” bomb” in public.

The frequent use of the “f” word has coarsened our public discourse. But, many of our most emblematic American values, the very characteristics that shape our national character and contribute to American exceptionalism, have been given a bad rep by liberals because they, too, are “F” words.

Freedom from an overly intrusive government that thinks that only government knows what is best for Americans. Democrats prefer to support over-expansive government intrusiveness in the lives of all Americans, and over-regulation of our industries that is stifling American competitiveness.

Faith, the belief that something exists that is greater than we. The acknowledgement that, regardless of the religious diversity that currently exists in our country, we were founded as an essentially Judeo-Christian society, so much so, that we have no qualms about putting “In God we Trust” on our nation’s money is a concept which Democrats seem to abhor and Republicans embrace.

Free Enterprise and the belief in a capitalist society, in which a man can change his stars through innovation, hard work and perseverance. Democrats seek to change that emphasis and shift the country’s job creation power base from one of individual initiative to one of government granted entitlement.

Family and the importance of the family unit as a stabilizing and creative force in our society is a system which has served this country well for over 200 years, but which, now, Democrats have put under attack. A growing dependency on government support, the sad increase in the number of divorces and the dramatic increase in the number of children born to single mothers has destroyed the primacy of the traditional family at great expense to the nation.

Frugality, in all matters economic, epitomized the early years of this nation. Sadly, we have come a long way from the days of Alexander Hamilton, who with painstaking care set the foundations for our current Treasury system and the handling of national debt. In just the last three years, Obama and Democrat spendthrifts in congress have caused the national debt to balloon to over $15 trillion dollars, more than our Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Four trillion of that debt has been incurred in the past three years, when Democrats expanded entitlements, subsidies, pork projects and crony capitalism.

Founding Fathers have been revered for their vision, their dedication and their sacrifices in creating what has arguably become the greatest nation on earth. Democrats regularly demagogue TeaParty activists because they argue the need to return to our roots and rely on the Constitution to guide our legislative decisions.

Fearlessness has characterized Americans whether battling tyranny abroad or tackling gnarly issues at home. But, in today’s “gotta do whatever I gotta do to get re-elected” mentality, we see Obama saying and promising whatever he thinks will garner him a second four years, regardless of practicality and regardless of fairness.

Friendly has always been one of the main American characteristics, whether characterized by Ambassador Ben Franklin, or Mark Twain or the jovial Will Rogers. But Democrat demagoguery of Republicans with whom they have an honest disagreement on policy has risen to new, vitriolic heights. President Obama, who speaks often of lowering the volume, is one of the main ringleaders egging on hostilities through accusations of racisim, elitism and fanning the flames of class warfare because he simply can’t run on his record of the past three years.

There are many other “F” words that could describe the best of Americans: forceful, fortitude, frank, fruitful, future-focused, fixers of problems. But, all these words share one thing in common: they characterize what is best and brightest about our country and its citizens.

Some politicians, desperate to stay in power, are perhaps, recently best described by “D” words as they descend to disputatious, divisive disagreements designed at damaging, deceiving and dissembling.

Returning our country to our Founding Fathers’ vision of individual responsibility, civility and comity in our legislative dialogue will take hard work from both parties. Only time will tell if they are capable of meeting the challenge.

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.

---

Mike Adams - Postmodern Political Correctness and Christianity II

Author’s Note: Mike Adams will be speaking outside the Capitol Building in Denver at noon on January 21st for Colorado Right to Life (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/). The speech will kick off the 2012 March for Life. The event is open to the public.

In January 2009, a pro-life group at Spokane Falls Community College (SFCC) decided to publicize and protest the disproportionate abortion rate among black Americans. They argued that the racist roots of Planned Parenthood were reflected in the organization’s activities in our nation’s inner cities. But before they could hold their event, they had to have their posters approved by the college administration. They were denied approval ostensibly because they presented only one side of the issue. In other words, the administration tried to force them to argue the side of the debate with which they disagreed.

The administration claimed that “biased” speech could lead to hate speech, which, in turn, could lead to genocide. Think about that for a second: if the pro-life group protested Planned Parenthood’s genocide, then genocide could result unless they also argued in favor of abortion.

Common sense alone should have reigned in the SFCC administration. But it required the intervention of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Washington Attorney General. In the end, the student pro-life group prevailed.

Later that semester, a student at Los Angeles Community College (LACC) was given a chance to speak on a topic of his own choosing. He chose to speak about the role God has played in his life. During the speech, he mentioned a Bible verse affirming the traditional definition of marriage. His professor was incensed. He abruptly ended the class and refused to grade the student’s speech.

After the ADF intervened, there was a successful federal injunction against the speech code that was used to punish the LACC student for uttering “offensive” speech. The matter should have ended there but it did not. The school appealed to the 9th Circuit, which ruled that the student did not have standing to challenge the speech code. It was a bizarre ruling, given that the student was, in fact, punished with public humiliation and withholding of credit for work he did in a class he paid to take. Then again, this was in the 9th Circuit.

Last year at Vanderbilt University, a homosexual student knowingly joined a student group espousing beliefs which he actively opposed. After he was predictably removed from the group, he complained to the university administration. This resulted in an investigation of several hundred student groups. In the wake of the investigation, Vanderbilt administrators began threatening to derecognize student groups that required members to adhere to specific beliefs. This bizarre belief-ban went even further. Vanderbilt began to threaten de-recognition of Christian groups that required leaders to lead Bible studies. It was so intrusive that it resulted in a letter of condemnation from 23 members of the United States Congress to the administration.

All of these cases show how identity politics, rooted in postmodernism, is destroying the marketplace of ideas at our nation’s colleges and universities. The lack of principle is seen in cases like Georgia Tech (see part one of this series) where feminists pretended to be offended by words they often use themselves. Their assault on “offensiveness” was shown to be contrived when their allies invoked racially offensive language to attack the opponents of the Georgia Tech speech code. Defenders of the speech code even superimposed swastikas on pictures of one of the Jewish plaintiffs.

The postmodern roots of identity politics show through in the cases I mentioned. In none of them was there any attempt to assert that the offending beliefs were untrue. They were simply determined (usually by white liberals) to be offensive to various disenfranchised groups said to lack the power to establish their own beliefs as “true.” At Georgia Tech it was women (feminist women). At SFCC it was blacks. At LACC and Vanderbilt it was homosexuals. In each case, postmodernism fueled a vicious assault on free speech in the name of group-based identity politics. In each case, there was a significant chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas, which no institution of higher learning can long withstand.

Public universities can be sued in federal court whenever they try to enforce overly broad speech codes. They may also be sued when their zeal to control student groups encroaches upon freedom of association. Private schools, on the other hand, are not bound by the First Amendment. But they are bound by moral considerations. If they tell students they promote a diversity of opinion, they should behave as if the First Amendment does, in fact, apply at their university. They should not use false promises of diversity to lure students into paying tens of thousands of dollars tuition per year.

But what are the requirements of a Christian university? I believe they are twofold: First, the Christian university must remain Christian. That means certain core beliefs are taken off the table as un-debatable. Belief in the deity of Christ and His resurrection are among those beliefs.

Second, the Christian university must remain a university. And that requires the maintenance of robust debate on the vast majority of the controversial issues of the day. It also means that student groups must be given wide latitude in writing their own constitutions, selecting their own leaders, and sponsoring their own events.

In John 14:6, Christ claimed that there is but one path to heaven. No greater affirmation of objective truth is needed. Christianity is and will always be a religion predicated upon individual, not group, salvation. In Galatians 3:28, Paul affirms what Christ was saying: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Christianity has no room for postmodernists. They should be left to enjoy their speech code-enforced dominance within the shallow halls of the secular university.

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.

---

Mike Adams - Postmodern Political Correctness and Christianity

Author’s Note: A student-led apologetics ministry at Lenoir-Rhyne University called Ratio Christi will be hosting a convocation on Spiritual and Intellectual development titled "Postmodernism, Political Correctness, and Christianity" on Thursday, January 19th from 7:00-9:00 PM in the Belk Centrum. I am honored to be the featured speaker. A Q&A will follow the presentation. The event is open to the public. I hope to see you there.

I’m often asked how Marxism took root in the American university system. I’ve never been fully satisfied with my standard answer to the question. Given my background in psychology, I sometimes seek psychological explanations to the exclusion of broader historical explanations. But I do believe there is something different about the mind of the man to whom Marxism appeals.

The Marxist is less willing to compete with others. He is content living in a world where everyone is similarly situated. He relinquishes the prospect of success for the assurance that he cannot fail. The same mentality is often found among those who seek refuge in the academy. There is little chance that the academic will find fame or fortune. But a few years of hard work will be rewarded with promotion and tenure and all of the security that comes with it.

Marxism was once the dominant philosophy in higher education – at least within the social sciences and humanities. But one would be hard pressed to make the case that Marxism remains the dominant philosophy on college campuses today. That title now belongs to postmodernism - although the two philosophies cannot be divorced from one another. Marxism is an economic and political philosophy. Postmodernism is a broader worldview. But postmodernism could not have achieved its rapid ascent without Marxism.

The Marxist emphasis on class struggle has fueled the postmodern assault on objective truth. It has led to the idea that truth is simply a byproduct of power struggles between warring factions. That idea has dangerous moral ramifications.

Postmodernism poses a threat to college students and to the very existence higher learning itself. For many students, postmodern education lights a well-paved path that leads directly to moral relativism. The two are not the same thing. But postmodernism eventually compels moral relativism. If there is no objective truth then moral positions cannot be objectively true. When morals become private or subjective, they tend to be built around personal conduct – simply to accommodate personal conduct. That is why many college students find themselves trapped in a downward moral spiral in the wake of abandoning the idea of objective truth. I am speaking from personal experience as well as years of observation.

Sixteen years ago, I had an experience for which I am most grateful. I was in a prison in South America interviewing prisoners and prison guards. I witnessed firsthand a very brutal clubbing of a young prisoner. I heard prison guards admit that they shot prisoners in the back on their way out of the prison. This was just after they tricked them into believing they were free to go. The same prison officials told stories of suspects shocked into giving false confessions. This was after police officers wired the suspects’ testicles to car batteries as they sat locked in police vans undergoing coercive questioning.

I needed to witness that beating and hear those stories in order to be shocked out of my own childish belief system. The day I walked out of that prison, I left behind my faith in moral and cultural relativism. I realized that forced confessions, brutal beatings, and staged escape executions were all objectively wrong. The time and place of such atrocities is irrelevant. They are examples of purely objective evil. But there is good news accompanying this realization. As C.S. Lewis often said, the shadow proves the sunshine. Therefore, the heart is sometimes awakened to a greater appreciation of the truth after witnessing its collision with falsity.

When I returned to my position in the secular university, I realized we were doing something more than simply promoting a worldview that made it easy for students to spiral downward morally. We were also clinging to a philosophy that was threatening the very existence of higher education as we know it. That philosophy was being encoded into campus rules that threatened permanent entrenchment of the very ideas which gave them birth.

I’ve written of many conflicts involving such policies – the most notable cases involving campus speech codes. But I often wonder how many times the reader has taken the time to examine the common themes that run through the many cases. It is worth taking a moment to reflect back upon some of the worst.

In 2006, two young conservative women contacted me for help. They had protested The Vagina Monologues because the play encouraged use of the c-word as a way of describing women. After posting a sign saying “We are not (c-words)” feminists invoked the university speech code. They claimed that they, as feminists, could use the c-word as a term of endearment. They then claimed that their detractors could not use the same word if they did so in a derisive way. In other words, the constitutionality of the c-word hinged upon the thought behind the word at the time of its utterance. This was more than simple thought control. It was state-enforced though control undertaken for the ostensible purpose of protecting fragile feminists from being offended.

These speech code supporters are the same people who advocate abortion. They are also the same people who hurled abusive racial epithets at those two plaintiffs I brought to the Alliance Defense Fund. But we won this case in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. Those will be familiar themes when we dissect the next case in part two of this series.

To be continued …

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.

---

Mike Adams - My New Diversity Merger Proposal

Diversity never held anyone together because people usually bond over their commonalities, not their differences. At one little state-run university, diversity is starting to cause a great campus divide. It all started when the university decided to merge the Physics and Physical Oceanography Department with the Geography and Geology Department. The move will undoubtedly hurt the prestige of the university. But that isn’t the only thing that has people angry. They are also mad because the merger occurred on the heels of an expansion of diversity initiatives and right during the middle of an expansion of the campus recreation center.

This is a touchy topic for me to write about in the midst of a budget crisis. But everyone knows I’m a uniter, not a divider. So, I’ll try to offer some positive solutions free of sarcasm and ridicule. I hate sarcasm and ridicule. I really mean that.

Currently, UNC-Wally World (pseudonym, hereafter: UNCW), has the following offices, which are overseen by the Associate Provost of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion:

1. The Upperman African American Cultural Center;
2. El Centro Hispano;
3. The Women’s Studies and Resource Center;
4. The Multicultural Affairs Office; and
5. The LGBTQIA Office.

My simple plan to save the tax payers money, without ruining the academic reputation of the university, begins with four simple steps:

1. I would merge the Upperman Center with El Centro Hispano and call it El Centro for Racial Unity. There is no need for blacks and Hispanics to be segregated.
2. I would rename the LGBTQIA Office the LGBTQIAX Office. The “X” would stand for ex-gays – a group currently excluded from the list of gender and sexuality minorities.
3. I would merge the LGBTQIAX Office with the Women’s Studies and Resource Center. It would then be called the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center.
4. I would then merge the three existing centers a) El Centro for Racial Unity b) the Gender and Sexuality Studies and Resource Center and c) the Multicultural Affairs Office. The new office would simply be called The Diversity Office, or El Diversity Office, whichever sounds more welcoming.

Since one office is more manageable than five, we could fire Jose Hernandez, our current Diversity czar, and save his salary. We could replace him with the most competent leader among the departments just eliminated. There would be no need for a high-level administrator to oversee my leaner, but not meaner, El Diversity Office. We could get rid of the six-digit salary Hernandez pulls in – not to mention those of the other four directors we would let go. That would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in savings to the taxpayer. That is more than the paltry $80,000 UNCW plans to save with the controversial Physics, Oceanography, Geography, Geology merger.

Having eliminated four departments, we may now cancel the planned academic merger and expand by making the two existing departments (Physics and Physical Oceanography Department, Geography and Geology Department) into these four departments:

1. Physics Department;
2. Physical Oceanography Department;
3. Geography Department; and
4. Geology Department.

Creating two departments and eliminating four is a net savings for taxpayers. Best of all, it would actually enhance our academic prestige by creating new academic departments where people study real problems instead of “celebrating” imaginary differences.

During the current budget crisis, we have shut the library down for four hours per night in order to save money on lighting and to cut employee payroll. I would end that practice and make the savings up by shutting down El Diversity Office for four hours a day. Some may not like it but that is El Tough Lucko. Our state is in a budget crisis and we need money so we can feed and educate our illegal aliens.

Of course, the remaining issue is where to put the two academic departments formed under my new proposal. I say we make the student recreation center the new home for both. After all, this is a university, not an amusement park.

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.

---

Andrew Klavan - Political Correctness Kills

Dr. Klavan has his diagnosis: political correctness kills and America might have a terminal case of this deadly disease.

---

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

---

Mike Adams - The Cisco Delusion of Diversity

June 23, 2011 Mr. John Chambers Office of the President Cisco Systems, Inc. Mail Stop SJC10/5/4 300 East Tasman Drive San Jose, California 95134

Dear Mr. Chambers:

I am deeply disappointed that I have not yet heard back from you in reference to your company’s firing of Dr. Frank Turek. I know that many of my readers are interested in hearing a direct response from you. I also regret that I must write to you with additional concerns about possible systematic religious and political discrimination at Cisco.

Those additional concerns stem from statements made by Ms. Marilyn Nagel, your Senior Director of Inclusion and Diversity. Dr. Turek spoke with her recently by phone regarding his firing—a firing that was not based on his work but on his religious and political beliefs.

To her credit, Ms. Nagel apologized for the firing of Dr. Turek. Dr. Turek was told that he could apply for another job with Cisco, but that there are “no guarantees.” (Translation: he can always buy a lottery ticket). Of course, there are no guarantees winning the lottery. And I think Frank’s chances of winning the lottery are better than getting hired back by a company that is trying to cover its backside while appeasing the Gaystapo.

But to her greater discredit, Ms. Nagel not only refused to do anything to address the cultural factors that contributed to the firing, she refused to even consider the possibility that the Cisco culture was decidedly tilted toward intolerant political correctness—the soil from which the firing sprouted.

Ms. Nagel was made aware of the fact that I was present on that call to make a record of what I heard over the speakerphone. Below I have reprinted portions of that conversation. The portions in italics are the unaltered words of Ms. Nagel. My un-italicized comments are interspersed between hers.

Our culture is very welcoming of all points of view. We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.

I was encouraged to hear this from Ms. Nagel. But if that’s true, as Dr. Turek asked, “How could a Cisco leader and a seasoned HR professional possibly think its right to fire someone for his conservative political or religious beliefs on same sex marriage unless the Cisco culture has become drastically tilted toward political correctness?”

Ms. Nagel refused to answer the question directly and denied the culture was tilted. Instead, she offered an endless stream of platitudes about how inclusive and diverse the Cisco culture is.

Because we believe that it has to be an employee environment where everyone is welcome, we do discourage discussions around strongly held political beliefs or religious beliefs in group settings within Cisco other than certain forums, and so we’re very sensitive about protecting our culture of acceptance of everyone, we don’t want anyone to ever feel excluded and that means all opinions, and I really believe that’s what inclusion is all about.

She also said:

There is a reason that we don’t have political discussions on our campus, and that is because we find that they can be divisive and so we choose to allow people to have those conversations informally or off campus.

So, according to Ms. Nagel, discussions of important political or religious beliefs are so divisive that they must be confined to certain forums at Cisco. I am sure that you would agree that the word “forum” suggests equal representation of different perspectives, especially since Ms. Nagel asserts that “all opinions” are welcome and that “We don’t have any particular political perspective on the issues of same-sex marriage or any of the other issues.“

Then how does Ms. Nagel explain this one-sided Cisco-sponsored “forum” in favor of same-sex marriage, led by a Cisco Vice President just last week on the Cisco campus?

This forum raises the question of how you can “make progress on issues that are divisive and controversial.” What does Cisco mean by “progress?” Does it mean firing people like Dr. Turek in order to advance the cause of same sex-marriage? Is the firing of those opposed to same-sex marriage deemed an acceptable way to reduce divisiveness within Cisco? I’m not trying to be divisive. I’m just asking.

Forgive me for raising another potentially divisive issue, but I could not help but notice that the Honorable Boris Dittrich was one the panelists at this one-sided “forum.” He helped lead the Netherlands to be the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage. He did this as a Member of Parliament. In other words, he is a gay activist and politician.

I’ll let this sink in before I write back to discuss Cisco’s further commitment to advancing the cause of same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, the evidence included in my next letter will also show Cisco’s lack of commitment to the cause of religious and political diversity.

...To be continued.

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.

---

Klavan - Whittle: Tolerating Intolerance and the Death of Mankind

---

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

---

Mike Adams - A History Month for Every Leftist

When I was a little boy I knew I was different than most of the other little boys. My parents started to notice when I was just a toddler. Sometimes it was the way I would reach out and grab things that didn’t belong to me. Sometimes it was as subtle as the way I would reach out to pet my dog Poncho. I didn’t know it at the time but I was becoming a left-handed boy in a world that is 90% right-handed.

I was born that way. It was not my choice. Who would willingly choose to face the oppression that attaches to left-handedness? In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes left-handedness is “chosen” should be subjected to government-run sensitivity training sessions. Either that or be expelled from our public universities. I’m sure Neal Boortz would agree. It would be a queer thing if he did not.

The oppression associated with my left-handedness did not hit me all at once. I began to notice it at age ten when I started playing baseball. I wanted to play third base but they would not let me. So I had to play first base – a position generally reserved for those born with my tendencies. I also pitched but they would rarely let me start. Instead, I only came in for short relief when the opposition was sending other left handers like me to the plate. For some reason, they only wanted me pitching to others born with my affliction.

Things got worse when my parents signed me up for guitar lessons at age twelve, which meant I had to buy my first guitar. Best Products sold left-handed guitars but they were priced at $150. I was not able to afford one. Instead, I bought a $35 right-handed guitar and learned to overcome my natural inclinations. It was inconvenient, to say the least.

I overcame my early disadvantages and eventually became a professional guitarist. I even managed to finance four years of graduate school playing in a little band. I think people make too much of the fact that I was able to overcome my genetic predisposition and succeed. They forget that I was subjected to inconvenience. To me, that’s all that really matters.

When I think back on all we’ve been through I am amazed that left-handers have been so successful. In our last presidential election we were destined to choose a left-handed president (both McCain and Obama are southpaws). In fact, three of our last four presidents – Obama, Clinton, and George H.W. Bush – have been southpaws.

But few people know our history – both what we’ve been through and how we’ve overcome adversity. That is why I found this segment on MSNBC to be so inspiring. In it, I learned that the California Senate has passed a resolution to teach gay history in the public school system. And I think that’s just fabulous!

So I propose starting every year off by declaring January “Left Handed History Month.” From there, we can move into a February celebration of “African American History Month.” Then, those who have not been aborted by feminist progress can enjoy a March celebration of “Women’s History Month.” In April, we can celebrate “Jewish History Month” before finishing the spring semester in May with “Asian History Month.”

When students return in the fall they can get ready for “Hispanic History Month” in September. This will be followed by an October celebration of “Gay History Month.” November will be designated “Native American History Month” so it can coincide with Thanksgiving. Finally, “Muslim History Month” will be moved to December. Presently, Canada celebrates Muslim History Month in October but some Muslims might not be comfortable being grouped together with homosexuals for an entire month. That would require even more humility and sacrifice than Ramadan.

Of course, we will not want to confine our segregated study of history to the months when public schools are actually in session. As a gesture of kindness, we will want to assign each month to a different group claiming a unique contribution to history. But we won’t stop there. After we have filled our calendar with twelve fill-in-the-blank history months we can begin to develop special history weeks for 52 deserving yet under-appreciated groups.

Eventually, I envision an America in which every year is divided into 8766 different history hours. Not an hour should go by without reminding American children of our long history of victimhood and oppression. There are so many victims and so little time to study the things that make Americans grate.

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.

---