Mike Adams - Hoosier Daddy

Over the course of the last twenty years, I have taught hundreds of cases highlighting constitutional violations in criminal investigations and adjudications. Some of the cases are so outrageous that it is hard to believe they actually happened in America. Until recently, I considered the 1964 juvenile adjudication of Gerald Gault to be unparalleled as a mockery of due process.

Gault was accused by a neighbor, Ora Cook, of making a lewd phone call that would have been punishable by a maximum of two months in jail and a fifty dollar fine had Gault been an adult. But he was only fifteen. So the state of Arizona set up a kangaroo court that initially sentenced Gault to reform school until the age of twenty one.

Things got off on the wrong foot when Gault was taken in for questioning without his parents' knowledge and without the assistance of counsel. A judge released him after a preliminary hearing left him confused about what was actually said to Mrs. Cook and whether Gault was the one who actually said it. There was cause to believe that Gault's friend Ronald Lewis might have actually made the lewd phone call.

When the judge finally decided to bring Gault back in for an adjudication hearing, other important players were absent. The victim was absent. Gault's friend, who may have made the call, was also absent. Even the court reporter was absent making it impossible for Gault to preserve an accurate record for appeal. All of this resulted in a teenager losing years of his freedom for one phone call he may or may not have actually made. It all could have been avoided if Gault had a chance to confront his accuser and to have her cross-examined by effective counsel.

Those who have been following the Indiana prosecution of Dan Brewington cannot fail to see the similarities between his case and the juvenile prosecution of Gerald Gault. In my last column, Abusing Due Process, I talked about the criminal case that began after Brewington lost a child custody battle with his wife. Because of the testimony of an unlicensed psychologist, Brewington was denied visitation rights altogether.

By now, many are aware of the fact that Brewington's online criticism of the judge who denied him visitation has resulted in a felony conviction. But few people are aware that the bulk of the evidence used to convict Brewington of the felony was actually gathered by the same unlicensed psychologist who testified in the custody case. It wasn't enough for him to deprive Brewington of his kids. Stung by the criticism of his lack of qualifications, he had to help the state take away Brewington's liberty, too.

After Brewington's online speech was gathered and used to charge him with the felony of "striking fear" into a judge, he got a public defender to represent him. The prosecution, in stark violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, refused to allow Brewington's attorney to see the hundreds of pages of blog posts gathered by the unlicensed psychologist and produced as evidence against his client.

To make matters worse, the still unlicensed psychologist got up and testified at the criminal trial. Brewington's lawyer was not able to effectively cross-examine him because he had not seen the blog posts. So when the prosecutor got up to give his closing arguments, he was able to get away with lying to the jury about the content of those crucial blog posts.

And lie he did. Big time.

After Brewington called the judge a "child abuser" in one post, the prosecution changed the wording to "child molester" in his closing argument before the jury. Brewington's attorney could have defended the abuser remark because the judge had arguably hurt the children by tearing them away from their father. But there was no defending the molester remark, which, of course, Brewington never actually made.

And so the stacked jury of five women and one man convicted Brewington and sentenced him to five years in prison. Note the major similarities between the cases of Gault and Brewington:

1. Both were convicted under statutes so vague that they violated the due process clause. Blog posts that "strike fear" into the reader are about as hard to define as phone calls deemed "lewd" by the listener. No one can really be sure when he is or is not violating such a law.
2. Both were denied an opportunity to confront and cross examine crucial evidence. If Brewington could have confronted the psychologist, and Gault could have confronted Mrs. Cook, we could have identified what words were actually spoken by each defendant. And we could have learned what words were actually spoken by someone else and falsely attributed to the accused.
3. Both were given long term incarceration for what amounted to poor taste. People should never be sentenced to long terms of imprisonment because they used words that were in poor taste but did not contain threats of violence. Neither Brewington nor Gault ever threatened anyone.

Since I am not a citizen of Indiana, I am free to state the obvious fact that Judge Hill, who presided over the Brewington criminal matter, is an abuser of his authority. In fact, he is a molester of the United States constitution. His conduct in convening kangaroo courts designed to imprison those who criticize judges strikes fear into the hearts of freedom loving people everywhere.

In fairness, there ought to be a law that criminalizes the publication of judicial rulings that "strike fear" into the hearts of Indiana citizens. Such a law is needed to take Judge Hill out of his black robe and put him in an orange jumpsuit. Clearly, we need to protect our constitution from dangerous predators.

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.

Belinda Stutzman - A 3-minute guide to the Bill of Rights

Daily, Americans exercise their rights secured by the Constitution. The most widely discussed and debated part of the Constitution is known as the Bill of Rights. Belinda Stutzman provides a refresher course on exactly what the first ten amendments grant each and every American citizen.

How to remember the Bill of Rights

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

Wild Bill for America - Confrontation 101

American patriots being pushed around by the cops? Wild Bill sets them straight.

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

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

Mike Adams - Every Idea Is an Incitement

Dear CRM 495 Students:

Welcome back! It's hard to believe that Christmas break is over and that it's time to start a new semester. It's almost as hard as believing that one of your professors is actually sending you an email using the word "Christmas." But even the liberals agree that I am no ordinary professor. Please allow me to explain.

After I got tenure, I left the political Left and became a conservative Republican. I know you've never had a conservative professor before and you are probably wondering what to expect. In a nutshell, you can expect to hear the truth about a number of things for the very first time in your college career. And that means you can probably expect to be offended from time to time.

Just in case you are wondering whether you are getting in over your head, let me give you a few examples of beliefs I hold, which you may well deem to be offensive. Based on the following revelations, you can make an informed decision as to whether this class is really for you.

• African-Americanism. I think the term African-American is ridiculous. If you insist on being called this then you aren't American and you've probably never been to Africa. If you demand to be a hyphenated American then you're just un-American. Get over yourself or get out of the country. Sorry if you're offended but you offend me with your ethnocentrism.
• Coke. I cannot stand that four letter word that begins with "c" and refers to female genitalia. Repeating it at The Vagina Monologues does not make women empowered. It makes them unrefined idiots. If you c*** c*** a feminist play without using feminists who say the word c*** then you simply c*** be taken seriously. Sorry if you're offended, but women who curse like sailors offend me.
• Daddy issues. Every semester, I get at least one female student who comes into class late and hyperventilating. She makes a scene in order to get sympathy. Then, she apologizes after class while dumping all her personal problems on me. Let me be blunt: women like this have daddy issues. Put simply, daddy didn't give them enough attention and now they are seeking it from me because I remind them of daddy. Sorry that offends you. Go tell your daddy.
• Guns. I have more guns than I need but fewer than I want. In fact, as I sit in my home office writing this email I am positioned between two packed gun safes. There are enough guns in this room to issue a 21 gun salute in the event you don’t make it through the semester. There are also about 12,000 rounds of ammunition in this room. And there is more elsewhere in the house. Some people are afraid of guns but I am afraid of gunlessness. Most of your professors say that homophobia is a social disease. I say that hoplophobia is a social disease. If you don't like abortion - oops! I mean guns - you don't have to have one.
• Momma's boys. Every semester, I get at least three male students who cannot run their lives. They constantly ask me questions that I have already answered on the syllabus. When is the first test? What kind of questions are on it? How many tests are there? These are the kinds of young males who still could not wipe their bottoms when they were 12 (and probably still can't do their own laundry). If you are one of them, you have no chance of passing my class and no chance of succeeding in life. Please drop out now and join the army. Sorry if that offends you but you need to be a man. If that's too much to ask, just complain to momma next time you're home dropping off your laundry.
• Pepsi. I cannot stand that five letter word that begins with "p" and refers to female genitalia. Every year at The Vagina Monologues, they sell p***** pops, which are little candied vaginas on a stick. The feminists walk around licking them in a display of feminist empowerment. I hate to be p**** but why don't they sell p**** pops, too. Maybe that would offend them. That's too bad because their sexism offends me.
• Queer Centers. When I was a kid, we played "smear the queer" (dodge ball). Later, they said we could not call it that. Now, the word "queer" has made a queer re-entry into the realm of social acceptability. Some colleges are even opening “Queer Resource Centers.” Make up your mind, thought police. And stop acting like women with daddy issues! Sorry if that offends you. Indecisiveness offends me.
• Racial Preferences. If you can't get into college without checking a box that says African-American or Hispanic, you do not need to be here. Sorry but the only reason there are racial differences in SAT scores is because minorities refuse to take off the training wheels. You're just as smart as anyone else so hop off the Big Wheel and join the bike race. Sorry if you're offended but your racism offends me.
• Wolf-crying. People cry racism all the time. In fact, I've been told I'm a racist for opposing affirmative action. That’s funny to me. I don’t think blacks need a crutch because I believe they are equal. Therefore, I'm called a racist - even though I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record. Those people (oops, I said, those people) need to chill. In fact, I should let them borrow my old Flip Wilson record to lighten the mood. Next thing you know, they'll say Flip Wilson offends them because Geraldine made fun of cross dressing. Have I mentioned that cross-dressing offends me?
• XXX. Pornography is more than disgusting. It is evil and I hate it. This is probably not offensive to anyone - unless, of course, you are a porn star. But, once you become a porn star, you pretty much give up the right to be offended. If you're offended anyway just drop my class and sign up for one of Dr. Porco's instead (no I did not make up that last name). Dr. Porco was just hired by the UNCW English Department despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that he published a book of pornographic poems - some of which were written while he was drunk and hanging out in topless bars. He tries to pass them off as academic. And that offends me, which is why I simply choose not to read them.

Now that everything is on the table, you are ready for your first assignment. Since this is a class covering the First Amendment, we are going to focus on important US Supreme Court decisions dealing with free speech. Our first case will be Gitlow v. New York. I want you to read it with two questions in mind:

1. Since the Supreme Court nationalized the First Amendment, speech codes have emerged on most state-run campuses. How have these speech codes survived in light of the nationalization movement?
2. Holmes' dissent in this case has been often quoted. If he is correct in saying that "every idea is an incitement" then how can universities actually enforce speeches codes? As they are actually enforced, do these codes violate other portions of our constitution?

As you can see, we'll be tackling some serious issues this semester. So we need to weed out all of the self-absorbed, hypersensitive products of the era of political correctness in higher education. That was the purpose of this email. If you are still reading then congratulations! You've demonstrated more intellectual integrity and emotional maturity than the majority of your professors.

See you next week in class.

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 - Soaring Toward Totalitarianism

(Some time in the not-too-distant future at a public university near you).

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dean Crawler and I would like to welcome everyone to new staff training here in the Dean of Student's Office at the University of Neo-Communism in Wonderland, or UNCW. I wish to welcome all returning Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans, and Adjunct Deans as well. They say it takes a village to raise a child. One could say that it takes a fiefdom to raise a generation. Of course, we prefer to avoid references to Western civilization here at UNCW. We are soaring to greatness. And that means leaving past traditions behind. Even an Adjunct Dean of Diversity knows that. No offense or disrespect intended.

Our training today will focus on four new programs that will help us gain control over student dissidents in an effort to assure the smooth operation of the university. Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. And sometimes rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. I would appreciate it if everyone would give her, his, its, or undecided's full attention while I explain these new programs:

No administrator left behind. We have decided to add a few new positions to help with our ever increasing workload. We will add a new Dean of Noise Complaints this semester. As you know, students often have parties off campus that result in noise complaints. We have partnered with local police to set up a system whereby all noise complaints received by police are channeled into the university administrative structure. When police answer a noise complaint off campus, we soon find out. Then we will call the student into the Dean's Office and interrogate him, her, it, or undecided concerning the alleged violation. Each violation will be recorded by the Dean's Office and will be placed in the student's permanent record. If the student complains loudly in response to interrogation, the Dean of Noise Complaints will then file a separate noise complaint with the UNCW police. This will result in the student being brought back in for further interrogation by the Dean of Noise Complaints.

Two strikes and you're out. All infractions will require recidivism before students can be expelled from UNCW. However, our previous policy of allowing three strikes has been modified. Now, only two strikes will be needed for expulsion. For example, an off campus noise complaint resulting in interrogation to which a student noisily complains will be sufficient for expulsion. Students will forfeit all tuition and fees paid for the duration of the semester, regardless of whether expulsion occurs before or after the official drop date for regular courses.

The Universal Administrative Trial Program. To date, we have employed a two-tier system for dealing with student non-conformity issues. Criminal hearings have been used as a means of dealing with criminal conduct. Administrative hearings have been used for dealing with non-criminal violations. In the latter type of hearing, students have been stripped of all needlessly cumbersome due process rights. In our collective view, the system has proved to be unworkable. Therefore, we have decided that all hearings will be classified as administrative in nature. All rights will be suspended except for cases involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. In such cases, students bringing charges will be granted a right to counsel and a right to full appellate review. Student plaintiffs will be able to appeal adverse rulings. The accused will receive no corresponding benefit. All attempts on behalf of the accused to either a) retain counsel or b) appeal an adverse ruling will be subject to the noise complaint policy. The Dean of Noise Complaints will preside over all such hearings.

Our New Government Respect Compact. Our Student Respect Compact was originally designed to preserve the rights of students to work in an environment free from the following: incivility, discomfort, disrespect, unwarranted intellectual challenge, and unwanted solicitation of ideas and opinions.

The policy has been modified to include the protection of administrators from all of the same invasions. For example, student complaints concerning "administrative waste" and control over "private" or "non-academic matters" are often distressing to the administration. The complaints are rarely solicited and often result in administrative discomfort. We now consider them to be uniformly disrespectful and uncivil. Any conflict between Our New Government Respect Compact and state "whistleblower" laws or the "constitution" will be resolved in the favor of Our New Government Respect Compact. Any resistance will be referred to the Dean of Noise Complaints and subject to the aforementioned policies.

The Obama administration has done a lot to move us forward. The Obama Department of Education told us that we must reduce the burden of proof in sexual assault cases to a mere preponderance of evidence. They told us we would receive no federal funds if we did not conform. We based all of our other sexual assault and sexual harassment policies on the model in place at Stanford University. We call them our Cardinal rules of sexual conformity. That great institution believes that the new Obama policies were a mere starting point - a minimum list of expectations. We agree with that philosophy.

When it comes to implementing policies that ensure administrative victory over student dissidents, we want to do more than just the minimum required by Washington. We want to stay one step ahead of the federal authorities. Not everything we do may be "constitutional" as they say. But our constitution is a living, breathing document. We are confident that the federal judiciary will share and affirm our grander vision by the time any disagreements reach that level. You all are a part of that grand vision. For those of you who are new, I welcome you into our community. For those returning, I welcome you back. And I welcome you all to move with us. Forward.

In closing, I would remind you that extremism in the defense of conformity is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of civility is no virtue.

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.

Wild Bill for America - Watchmen on the Walls

The warning is sounding, the enemy is in our camp! What will the American people do?

Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog

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

Mike Adams - Facing the Giants

Nearly ten years ago, I helped organize a lawsuit against UNC-Chapel Hill. The university was forcing Christians to allow non-Christians to run their organizations. It took me 18 months to find a plaintiff but I did. In case you were wondering, we took the case to federal court and we won. For a time, freedom of association was preserved at North Carolina's flagship university.

But tyranny is a hungry beast ever in need of replenishing itself at the expense of weaker prey. This semester, the predator was once again a UNC public university campus. But I am pleased to report that with the help of Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) we were able to win another freedom of association case. Working together, we won the case without a lawsuit. And we did it in just twelve days.

I am reproducing the email correspondence from that case in order to help others who are interested in challenging universities that knowingly violate the First Amendment. I have departed from my traditional practice of naming names as a reward to the university for backing down and saving the taxpayers from unnecessary litigation. I hope you find the following exchange as well (as my interspersed remarks) helpful:

Ms. (Administrator), it has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.

I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon their belief requirements.

This matter is urgent and and I expect a prompt written response.

Mike Adams

Thank you for the inquiry. We are in the process of working with these students as they pursue registration as a student organization. As the process is ongoing and in the beginning stages, our office has much work left to do with these students, including the review of Ratio Christi’s constitution, before any final decisions regarding their organizational status are made. We appreciate your concern in this matter and will continue to work with the students to welcome their organization to the campus community.

(Ms. Administrator)

Ms. (Administrator), you have not answered my question. It has come to my attention that you have asked Ratio Christi to remove its requirement that officers be Christians.

I need to know immediately and in writing by what authority you propose to force them to abandon those requirements.

This matter is urgent and I expect a prompt written response. If no response is forthcoming, I will assume the following:

1. You have attempted to interfere with Ratio Christi's First Amendment right to determine the believe requirements of its officers.
2. You have done so on your own and not in accordance with any specific (university) policy, office, or individual administrative directive.

I have copied Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. I have asked his organization to join my investigation into the matter. The chancellor is copied as well.

Mike Adams

Dr. Adams-

Our staff is still working with the students on the constitution for the establishment of the Ratio Christi student organization. Therefore, your inquiries are premature and your assumptions incorrect. I would encourage you to be patient as we work with these students to develop their organizational constitution and assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Since the administrative review and process is not yet complete, your inquiries are premature and inappropriate. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.

Many thanks,

(Mr. Administrator)

Executive Director of Campus Life

(Mr. Administrator was then hit with a pubIic records request seeking the information his office refused to divulge. He wrote back in less than 48 hours).

Dr. Adams-

Yesterday, (Ms. Administrator) and I met with representatives from the Ratio Christi student organization to discuss their organizational constitution and to assist them in becoming a recognized student organization. Unbeknownst to (Ms. Administrator) the (university) Office of Student Life has been reviewing its non-exclusionary membership clause in its student organization constitution template prior to your recent e-mails. During the meeting, I provided Ratio Christi with the following updated language for their inclusion in the constitution:

***

“ Student groups that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the group to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the group and agree with its beliefs …”

***

As I mentioned to you in my previous correspondence, the administrative review and process is not yet complete, but I believe that any issues have been resolved. When the process is complete, I will be happy to respond to any issues you may have with the outcome.

Many thanks,

(Mr. Administrator)

Anyone reading the previous exchange can see what happened here. The university tried to deprive students of their First Amendment freedom of association rights by leveraging the power of their office to control funds through the group recognition process. When they were caught and called out on it, they responded with predictably self-righteous indignation. But one official legal document -a public records request suggesting the prospect of litigation - jolted them back into reality (and civility).

After some reflection on the matter, the university decided to move forward with a quick change in policy in order to avoid litigation. There is little reason to believe they were actually contemplating any sort of policy change "in (their) student organization constitution template prior to (my) recent e-mails." Administrators simply cannot be trusted. But that is not the point of the present column. The point of the column is rather obvious: to teach readers all it takes to change an unconstitutional policy is one maverick professor working in conjunction with one FIRE attorney.

The question is: where are all the maverick professors? And why are they so afraid of their employers despite the protection of tenure?

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.

PJTV Trifecta - Terrorists Winning? Ivy League Professor Calls for Censorship of YouTube

Law professor Tim Wu thinks YouTube should censor videos that could offend people in the Middle East. Is the liberal establishment raising the white flag to Islamic extremists? Are academics willing to sacrifice free speech and the First Amendment to satisfy the demands of radical Muslim terrorists? Find out.

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

Alfonzo Rachel - LBJ's Great Unjust Society - The Tax Code Undermines Churches and the First Amendment

From a tax code that limits the free speech of churches, to a welfare state that destroys families, Zo tells you why the Democrats and the Great Society are agents of oppression.

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

PJTV Trifecta - The End of America As We Know It: Why Barack Obama Should Resign Immediately

The filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film that some blame for the Middle East riots, was taken into custody. Is this the end of the First Amendment as we know it? Find out on this Trifecta.

"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Barack Obama
Cairo Speech

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

Pamela Geller - President Obama Sanctions Blasphemy Laws

Editor of Atlas Shrugs / Author, Pamela Geller joins Fox & Friends to analyze the deeper meaning behind the REAL reasons for the flare ups in the Middle East; and how President Obama's own words and actions can easily be defined as sanctioning blasphemy laws.

September 15, 2012

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

Matt Barber - Christians, Silence is Not an Option

With the exception of one column previously penned, I pray this becomes my most widely read to date.

The secular left has mastered use of the Internet to further its extremist goals. In fact, President Obama’s web-based “Organizing for America” propaganda machine may have given him the 2008 election.

Let’s beat them at their own game.

To that end, I have a strange request. I’m asking each God-fearing, freedom-loving American who reads this column to forward it, post it, tweet it, print it out and give it to every pastor, priest or cleric you know. If you don’t know any, give it to someone who does.

Why? I agree with Barack Obama that November 2012 represents the most important election of our lifetimes – perhaps our history. Of course, that’s where my agreement with Mr. Obama both begins and abruptly ends.

Here’s the operable question: Do we want America “fundamentally transformed” to mirror the secular-socialist ideals of the radical leftist currently “occupying” the White House?

In Barack Obama’s America, individual freedom is trampled beneath jackboots as a matter of course. It’s already happening at an unprecedented rate.

One need only look to the HHS mandate forcing Christian groups – both Catholic and Protestant – to violate, under penalty of law, biblical prohibitions against abortion homicide.

Or consider recent attempts by multiple elected officials, all Democrats, to shutdown Chick-fil-A – a private, Christian-owned business – simply because its leadership holds the biblical view of marriage.

Is this George Washington’s America, or Joseph Stalin’s Russia?

It’s definitely not your father’s USA.

Instead, wouldn’t we prefer the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers? A constitutional republic wherein individual liberty – whether economic, First Amendment or Second Amendment-related – is sacrosanct and off limits?

Pastors, you’re it. You’re our front line of defense. It’s up to you to rally the troops. Now begins the second American Revolution and, as with the first, it’s on you – men of the cloth – to take the lead.

That is, if you hope to remain free to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of chicken: In recent years there’s been an epidemic of cultural inaction exhibited by far too many ministers of the gospel. It’s fear-based. “Oh, I don’t talk about political issues,” they say. “You know, ‘separation of Church and State’ and all that.”

Baloney.

If this is you – and only you and our Lord know for sure – you’ve been deceived by the enemies of God. You’ve chosen the easy way out – the path of least resistance. This is something Christ, whom all Christians are called to emulate, never did – not once.

So, respectfully, man-up, Padre! Be the “salt and light of the world,” as Christ so admonished.

But you don’t have to go it alone. There are detailed, easily digestible tools available. Civil-rights firm Liberty Counsel, for instance, is distributing more than 100,000 copies of “Silence is Not an Option,” a concise, though comprehensive, DVD and printed material collection informing pastors and churches about what is permissible regarding political activity (Please, get it for your church at LC.org or by calling 1-800-671-1776).

“The church must be empowered to confront the assaults on our culture, our faith, and our freedom,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. ”I don’t want any pastor, church leader or lay person to say, ‘What more could I have done to protect life and liberty?’”

“Silencing people of faith in the public square has always been the goal of those who realize the influence that pastors, churches and people of faith have on elections. I want pastors to remove the muzzle and replace it with a megaphone,” he said. “Pastors and churches have a lot of freedom to address biblical and moral issues, to educate people about the candidates, and to encourage people to vote. Not one church has ever lost its tax-exemption for endorsing or opposing candidates or for supporting or opposing local, state or federal laws.”

Did you get that? Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by hard-left groups like the ACLU and Barry Lynn’s Americans United, not a single church has lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

Indeed, if these anti-Christian bullies had been around two-and-a-half centuries ago, and our forefathers had paid them any mind, we may never have had the first American Revolution.

Don’t let them halt the second.

We’re on the precipice of the abyss, and, pastors, I think you know it. But know this too: There’s a whole lot relating to both culture and politics you can both say and do, and very little – if anything – you can’t.

Churches can educate about political, moral and biblical issues. These kinds of issues – whether abortion, marriage, feeding the poor or any community issue – are never off limits from the pastor’s pulpit, even if politicians are also talking about them. “Silence is Not an Option” systematically addresses the misrepresentations used to muzzle America’s pastors and Christian leaders.

Leading up to Ronald Reagan’s landslide presidential victory in 1980, Rev. Jerry Falwell captured the crux of the church’s apathy problem: “What is wrong in America today?” he asked. “We preachers – and there are 340,000 of us who pastor churches – we hold the nation in our hand. And I say this to every preacher: We are going to stand accountable before God if we do not stand up and be counted.”

Dr. Falwell’s words ring no less true today.

Imagine the benefit to our culture if thousands of churches across America registered millions of Christians to vote. How about pledge-drives wherein pastors ask tens-of-millions of Christians to simply commit to voting biblical values?

The possibilities are limitless.

Proverbs 4:18 reminds us: “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day.”

Shine bright, salt and light. Don’t be choked into dark silence.

Because silence is not an option.

It can’t be.

Matt Barber

Matt Barber served as Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America before joining Liberty University School of Law in 2008. In addition to his Juris Doctorate degree, Dean Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University and a Bachelor of Science in Organizational Management from Colorado Christian University.

Matt Barber is a published freelance writer, many newspapers and online publications run his columns, including the Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Insight magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, TownHall.com and many others.

Matt Barber was a law enforcement officer for three years and a corporate fraud investigator for five years.

Matt Barber served twelve years in the Army National Guard, and was an undefeated professional boxer, retiring in 2004. Several times prior to turning pro, he was a state and regional Golden Gloves champion, competing in the 1992 Western Olympic Trials and winning a Gold Medal in the 1993 Police and Fire World Games.

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.

Darrell Issa - 2012 NRA Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) delivers a speech at the 2012 NRA Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum.

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

Mike Adams - My First Amendment Class

Author’s Note: I’ll be speaking at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio on April 19. The event will start in Harrison Hall, room 111, at 6 p.m. The speech is called “Three Liberal Assaults on Free Speech (and Three Conservative Solutions)."Because it is about free speech in public forums, the speech is free and open to the public.

Tyranny is never more than a generation away. Those who wish to impose tyranny prey upon the ignorance of those they wish to subjugate. Knowing that it is easier to deprive people of their rights if they are unaware of their rights, academic elites often forsake their responsibilities in order to further their own political goals. In other words, they seek to preserve ignorance, rather than advance knowledge.

Against this backdrop, last spring I decided to dedicate an entire course to teaching the First Amendment. I’m writing this column to show one way it can be done and to show how it has been received by students. I hope other professors follow a similar path. Our students need to know what they risk losing if they remain indifferent to their God-given rights.

I originally intended (pun originally intended) to call my course “The First Amendment and Original Intent.” I also intended to use David Barton’s book Original Intent as a text. Additionally, I planned on covering 53 U.S. Supreme Court decisions. You can imagine how well that proposal went over. There was a predictable administrative “suggestion” that I change the title of the course. This was followed by a “suggestion” that I use a couple of texts written by avowed Marxists.

I successfully fought both the effort to change the course title and to “suggest” Marxist texts. In the wake of that success, I am left wondering whether a Marxist professor has ever had a capitalist administrator “suggest” that he teach using Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell. These administrators are very predictable. Dripping with hypocritical condescension, they see academic freedom as a one way street.

But I prevailed – at least until a crisis emerged. An error in scheduling resulted in a request for me to cancel the First Amendment class and teach one of our senior seminars, which is required for graduation. The crux of the problem was that only one 25-student seminar was being offered - although there were fifty seniors graduating from our department. (Author’s note: I am not certain why we choose to call a class of 25 a “seminar” but that is beside the point).

The “First Amendment and Original Intent” course could not be used as a senior seminar for criminology graduates because it simply was not sufficiently crime-related. So I created a course called “The First Amendment and Crime” and did so in just a couple of months. That meant spending hours every day reading and re-reading a new set of Supreme Court cases and developing special oral and written requirements for graduating seniors.

The result has been highly satisfactory. It is not difficult to fill an entire semester calendar with courses relating the First Amendment to the issue of crime. Consider the following:

*Our first important free speech cases – Abrams, Whitney, and Gitlow (just to name a few) – began a long struggle to determine the appropriate limitations on the right to advocate illegal conduct, including violent revolution. This struggle would last for fifty years before the Court finally settled on the Brandenberg test.

*Defining obscenity has proved to be a difficult task for the Court. Between the Roth and Miller cases, the Court would battle for 16 years before deciding on one test for defining obscenity. During this struggle, Potter Stewart would famously quip that he could not define hard-core pornography but that he knows it when he sees it! The court has also dealt with zoning issues relating to adult theaters. This is all tied in with the secondary effects (crime) that often flow from the presence of adult books stores and topless bars.

*In recent years, cases like Mitchell v. Wisconsin have tested state penalty enhancement statutes that consider race bias at sentencing hearings following criminal trials. The implication of these laws for hate speech legislation cannot be lost upon even the most casual observer of Supreme jurisprudence.

In addition to teaching those crime-related First Amendment cases, I have also taken the time to teach students about Rosenberger v. Rector, Wisconsin v. Southworth, and NAACP v. Alabama – and other cases dealing directly or indirectly with student rights. Against this backdrop, I also assign the students to a semester-end project dealing with the erosion of free speech rights in America. This is where things have become very interesting.

On the first day of class, students were asked to respond to the same question, which is “Who is responsible for censorship in America and who is being censored?” This question is asked in order for them to contemplate a hypothesis for their semester project. It has produced varied hypotheses, such as the following:

*The religious right is responsible for a disproportionate amount of censorship in America. That censorship is primarily directed towards atheists.

*Atheists are the most censorious people in America. Their censorship is generally directed towards Christians.

*Public universities restrict expression to a greater degree than private universities. First Amendment violations at public universities are usually directed towards religious rather than secular speech and organizations.

*Conservative Catholics are less tolerant of free speech than politically liberal Catholics.

After students form a hypothesis in Part I of their paper, they must get down to business. In Part II, they must turn to scholarly sources in order to explain (theoretically) their proposed hypothesis. In Part III, they must examine empirical evidence in support of (or opposition to) their hypothesis.

Since many of my students have decided to study campus free speech issues, they will soon have to evaluate and critique academic studies of campus censorship. When they do, they will find that the topic has been ignored by scholars at our institutions of higher learning. Imagine that: universities rarely speak about the issue of free speech at universities. (However, they do talk about free speech problems occurring elsewhere).

I’ve gotten the ball rolling by teaching specifically about First Amendment issues. But what we need now is an entire course explaining why censorship is so much worse among academic elites than among normal Americans. We could call it “The Sociology of Censorship.” But that will never happen. The censors of sociology would never allow it.

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 - The Wichita Lineman

The phone lines at Wichita State University (WSU) have apparently been down for well over a decade. At least it appears that way after WSU blatantly violated a twelve-year old Supreme Court ruling in its efforts to curtail religious expression across its state-supported campus. Fortunately, my friend and attorney David French of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has intervened. He re-established contact with WSU and helped usher them into the 21st Century by slowly explaining the First Amendment to bewildered state officials.

The problem began when WSU enacted a rule that prohibited any "non-scholarly religious" student group from receiving student fee funding. This was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to defund virtually all religious groups at WSU. Think about it for a second: how many student religious groups do you know of that have a primary interest in “scholarship”? Student religious groups are largely social in nature and usually meet for purposes of evangelism. These groups know that most church-going kids lose their faith – or nearly lose their faith – while in college. So they seek to counter those negative trends with evangelism.

Of course, universities don’t like that. They are engaged in their own process of evangelism. They seek to increase membership in the official university religion known as secular humanism. And that is why they are constantly devising illegal policies and trying to disguise them under false categorical schemes – the kind the Supreme Court has banned under decisions like Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) and Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000).

The reasoning for the false and illegal scholarly/non-scholarly dichotomy is transparent. Universities rarely stray from restating some form of their ostensible purpose in banning speech that may offend. Here, the idea is that using student fee money to advocate for religion on campus or to engage in worship or other activities might cause others to object (read: to be offended). But so-called scholarly activity, absent evangelism or worship, is unlikely to offend.

But here’s the rub: these rules are confined to religious student groups - as opposed to groups engaged in political, social, and other forms of direct advocacy. And that amounts to the official disfavoring of religion compared to other viewpoints.

If you aren’t convinced then you probably do not know the facts. So here they are: WSU allows the viewpoints of such student groups as "That Gay Group," College Republicans, College Democrats, Young Democratic Socialists, and Wichita Students for Liberty to exist on campus. All of those groups are involved in persuasive advocacy.

Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Right in Education (FIRE) summed it up nicely by saying, “If other student groups continue to receive funding from student fees for ‘non-scholarly’ activities, there is no justification for denying funding to groups whose primary interest is religious.” Nothing more need be said.

Actually, something more does need to be said. WSU officials need to sit down and read FIRE’s Guide to Student Fees, Funding and Legal Equality on Campus. They also need to read two Supreme Court cases, Rosenberger and Southworth (both mentioned previously in this column). I assign those two cases to my undergraduate students so they will know their rights. Administrators also need to read them so they can learn the rules that apply to their jobs. Of course, to do so would place their reliance on qualified immunity in jeopardy. There would be no more pretending they were just doing their jobs and did not understand the law.

Fortunately, a student at WSU did know the law and contacted David French at the ACLJ. Shortly after receiving a First Amendment lesson from French, WSU revoked the discriminatory policy and restored equal funding rights to its religious groups. This area of law is settled; what is surprising is that there are still universities out there that continue to pretend they didn’t "get the memo." They need to watch Office Space before they get sued and wind up with a bad case of the Mondays. (My apologies go out to those who haven’t seen the movie and missed the pop culture reference altogether).

Religious speech on campus must be treated like all other speech on campus. To say that a student group should be disfavored simply because its viewpoint is based on religion - rather than any other belief or “orientation” – is unmitigated bigotry. To permit such a distinction would be to allow the university to silence any speech that does not conform to administrative orthodoxy. Put simply, it would cause the university to cease being a university.

It is good that WSU has chosen to repent and turn from its sinfully censorious ways. Credit belongs to those First Amendment evangelists who spread the good news of religious liberty on our nation’s campuses. Real scholars would be lost without them.

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.

'Firefly' and Common Sense Under Fire: Wisconsin Criminalizes Free Speech

A professor at University of Wisconsin put a picture and a quote on his door from the TV show 'Firefly' but campus police made him take the poster down. Don't think free speech is under fire from the left? Then you might want to watch this episode of Trifecta.

---

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

---

Dr. Mike Adams at CPAC 2011

The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
Visit TheFire.org Website

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.

---