Elizabeth Meinecke - The Mainstream Media Bias on Benghazi Hearings

Elisabeth Meinecke is Managing Editor with Townhall Magazine.

Prior to joining Townhall.com, Meinecke was a member of Hillsdale College's Dow Journalism Program, sports editor and beat reporter for the campus newspaper, and also contributed to Life Times, the newsletter for Southern Indiana Right to Life. She interned at Comcast SportsNet in Washington, D.C. through the National Journalism Center before joining Human Events in August 2008. She was a valued contributor to Human Events before joining Townhall.com in the fall of 2010.

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

Star Parker - The Predictable Liberal Assault on Ben Carson

Dr. Ben Carson stepped into the national spotlight recently when, as speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast, to an audience that included President Obama, he was openly critical of the President’s approach to health care and his overall management of the nation’s economy.

Carson, who is director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is a hero to many. His life story, rising from a Detroit ghetto to a life of accomplishment and distinction, is a story of American ideals on steroids.

Those ideals say that America is about merit not circumstance. Your life, your achievements are the result of what you do and how you live, not where you came from.

The hard history of blacks in America has always made it a challenge for them to accept this credo. Many still carry a sense that those ideals may be true for whites, but they never were true, and still aren’t true, for blacks.

So in this context, Ben Carson’s story is particularly important. It’s making liberals nervous, and the attacks on him are starting.

He’s now pulled out, under pressure, from giving the commencement address at Johns Hopkins University because some are unhappy with how, in an interview on Fox, he expressed his views regarding the importance of maintaining the integrity of traditional marriage.

Blacks have known about Carson for years. I gave his book Gifted Hands to my daughters to read when they were little girls. A highly acclaimed made-for-TV movie about his life aired in 2009, with Dr. Carson played by Oscar-winning actor Cuba Gooding, Jr.

But this story of personal responsibility, hard work and traditional values is becoming a political story. It is becoming political because Ben Carson’s American dream story, according to the liberal script, is not supposed to work for blacks.

Ben Carson is the biggest threat to liberals since Bill Cosby got out of line at an NAACP banquet in Washington, DC in 2004.

Cosby had the temerity to deliver tough, critical talk about what too many blacks are doing with the freedom that civil rights activists of the 1960’s fought to achieve.

He contrasted the sixties generation with the new generation of black youth sitting in jail. “…..these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake.”

Cosby attributed the chaos to breakdown in values, family, and personal responsibility. It’s the last thing the NAACP crowd wanted to hear that night and he paid a price. He was vilified and marginalized until he backed off.

Liberals never take on what black conservatives actually say because they can’t. So the attacks become personal.

Trillions of taxpayers’ dollars have been poured into black communities over the last half-century producing virtually no change in the incidence of black poverty.

Yet, Ben Carson, through diligence and traditional values, achieved on his own what those trillions of dollars of government programs were supposed to deliver.

Liberal black writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put the cards on the table in an article about Cosby which appeared in 2008 in The Atlantic magazine. The typical black conservative votes for Democrats, he notes, “not out of love for abortion rights.... but because he feels…. that the modern day GOP draws on support of people who hate him.”

So stoking paranoia about racism has always been the strategy of liberals to fend off the political threat of conservative values that so many church-going blacks embrace.

Predictably, Coates has produced a New York Times column on Carson, reducing this great man to the usual caricature of a black empty suit manipulated by white conservatives.

Ben Carson is an accomplished and wealthy man. Americans, certainly black Americans, need him in public life more than he needs to be in public life. Let’s hope the left wing and the haters of traditional morality don’t succeed in making him conclude it’s not worth it.

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

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

Politichicks - Klavan - The Left is Using the Arts To Re-Write History

PJ Media's Andrew Klavan talks to PolitiChick Ann-Marie Murrell about Hollywood and the potential upswing in Conservative-principled films from the West Coast David Horowitz Freedom Center event.

Click HERE for Klavan's Blog

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

Bill Whittle - Afterburner - Old School

Hear about Bill Whittle's trip to Oberlin College in Ohio. Oberlin is among the most liberal colleges in America. While Bill Whittle is grateful for the hospitality of his hosts, he was shocked by the campus intolerance. especially the limitations on freedom of speech. Hear what Whittle saw, and why he thinks liberalism is a regressive rather than a progressive ideology.

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

Charles Payne - Michelle Fields - Student Bullied by Teacher for Wearing Romney/Ryan T-Shirt

When Samantha Pawlucy, a local honor student, choose to show her support and wear a Romney/Ryan t-shirt in to her classroom on a casual dress day, she had no idea it would lead to a personal attack by a teacher. According to reports, Samantha's math teacher asked her if she had on a Romney shirt and when she confirmed the teacher ordered her out of the classroom.

Samantha declined to leave the room and stood her ground. As you can imagine this didn't go over well with the teacher who told her "You can't wear a Republican shirt in a Democratic school."

The teacher then tried to deface the shirt with a red marker then ordered Samantha to take the shirt off and she would get her another shirt. Samantha refused and someone contacted her parents. According to the district, the incident is being investigated by the principal and the teacher as been removed from the classroom. The district also released this statement: "The student was exercising her right to freedom of speech and she didn't violate any rules."

There are an estimated 65,000 Illegal Aliens who graduate from high school each year in the United States.

Assuming a drop out rate of 0% (Highly Unlikely), that means there are a minimum of 65,000 Illegal Alien Students in each grade K-12 - or 845,000 Illegal Alien Students.

The NEA (Teachers Union) states the perfect Class size is 17, that means approximately 49,705 Teachers are needed (994 Average per State) just to teach Illegal Alien Students paid for by the American Taxpayer.

The NEA is a strong supporter of Democrats in General and Barack Obama in particular, wonder why Barack Obama doesn't want to enforce Immigration laws when over 49,000 Union Teaching jobs would be lost?

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

Michelle Fields - Lou Dobbs - Left Wing Media Can't Wait to Politicize Aurora Shooting

With bodies still being identified, NYC Mayor Bloomberg Politicizes Aurora Colorado shooting by hitting the air waves with Anti-Gun Radio Rant within hours of the massacre. FBN's Lou Dobbs sits down with "The A-Team" comprised of: Santita Jackson - Fox News Contributor; Michelle Fields - Daily Caller Reporter; and James Taranto - Wall Street Journal to discuss the possible gun law fallout from this tragic event.

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

DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz is "PLEASED" with 8.2% Unemployment

FNC's John Roberts sits down with DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) to discuss the recent unemployment report released last Friday. One has to wonder which planet of reality she is on when she responds to these questions. Simply amazing!

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

Mike Adams - I Hate Mike Adams

I love being hated. And if you don’t think I’m hated then you haven’t read my most recent rating on www.RateMyProfessor.com. For those too lazy to click the link (that means liberals), I’ve reprinted the latest rating below:

“I hate this guy on a personal level. He is a hyper-conservative homophobic a**hole. I disagree with his beliefs in every way and have never in my life had a professor or teacher I disliked more. I have to admit he's a good professor as far as covering course material in a clear manner, but his class policy is also very strict.”

In just four sentences, this student has succinctly summarized at least six major problems with liberalism in America. They follow in no particular order of importance:

1. Hate speech is a one-way street. When conservatives speak, their speech can still be labeled “hate speech” even if it does not contain the word “hate.” But liberals can avoid a charge of hate speech even when using the phrase “I hate” as an opener. Liberal hate is well-intentioned and tends to focus on broader social goals. It isn’t the words that determine whether something is free speech. It’s the sentiment that lies behind them.

2. Everyone else is extreme. The term hyper-conservative is usually applied to people who believe crazy things like “marriage involves one man and one woman” or “it’s wrong to dismember innocent babies.” According to liberals, about 80% of the population is “hyper-conservative” for one reason or another.

3. Every disagreement involves a “phobia.” A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Liberals usually apply this term to people like me who are not afraid to say anything. Absence of fear? Irrational fear? It’s all the same in the mind of the liberal.

4. Disagreement with ideas justifies personal vilification. Note that the above-quoted student links total disagreement with ideas to maximum “dislike” for individuals. Also, note that he does so in the same sentence. The cause/effect connection is inescapable. Because he disagreed with my “beliefs” the liberal student “disliked” me more than any other teacher. The student makes no effort to give any other reason than the ideas themselves. In other words, hatred of ideas = hatred of persons. And the former justifies the latter.

5. Qualifications are of minimal relevance. Eventually, the liberal student admits I cover the material in a “clear manner” - but not until after all the other personal attacks are aired. Personal characteristics are more important than competence. That is why a liberal clings to affirmative action like a conservative clings to guns and religion.

6. Standards are a form of oppression. Maybe he was mad that my ban on laptops in class kept him from getting status updates from the Perez Hilton Facebook fan page while listening to my lectures. Regardless, the insistence that we all follow rules did not mesh with his otherwise stellar commitment to equality. Liberals think standards are fine as long as they are applied to other people. When applied to everyone, the interest in equality is often replaced by an interest in tolerance.

Oddly enough, I feel sorry for this disgruntled student - although I’m glad he helped everyone better understand the liberal mindset. But he should not have had to wait until the end of the semester to express his hatred. So I’m coming to the rescue with a new plan than will help angry liberals (please pardon the redundancy) while earning me money for guns, cigars, guitars, and ammunition.

My plan is pure genius. It’s the new “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt, which will be available in small, medium, large, and extra-large sizes. This new t-shirt will be sold at all of my speeches under the following variable pricing scheme:

$12 for conservatives

$15 for liberals

$20 for feminists

$50 for homosexual rights activists

My reasoning for variable pricing is simply that some groups are angrier than others and will get more benefit from expressing their hatred. So, naturally, they should have to pay more. If you are a liberal, feminist, or homosexual activist who is taking one of my courses then feel free to wear it to class.

The “I Hate Mike Adams” t-shirt will replace the need for anonymous hate speech on RateMyProfessors.com. Everyone can come out of the closet at once and start contributing to my early retirement. And that’s a cause that both Mike Adams and his haters can get behind!

Mike Adams

Mike Adams

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

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

Alfonzo Rachel - Latest Example of Liberal Intolerance - Columnist Calls Black Conservatives 'Animals'

Columnist Robert Smith, Jr. used the word animal when pondering black conservatives. Zo wonders why Smith cannot acknowledge the personhood of black conservatives. Hear more on this ZoNation.

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

Matt Barber - Left’s Orwellian Censorship Campaign

Liberal theologian William Ellery Channing once observed, “The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.”

War has indeed been declared. Channing’s contemporary liberal counterparts have declared a war for our culture. But while Channing presumably held to the oft-bandied supposition that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” today’s secular-progressive has no choice but to endeavor that “all opposition should be hushed.”

Liberals recognize that when arguing on the merits, they cannot prevail. Not only are their morally relative, redistributionist philosophies untenable and utopian, but they read the same polls demonstrating that reasonable people reject their ideas outright. In fact, Americans identify as conservative over liberal by a two-to-one margin. Even those who call themselves “moderate” lean conservative.

It makes sense. The “progressive” movement wars against natural law, pushes perpetually failed secular-socialist policies and places — above constitutionally safeguarded individual liberty — thickheaded tenets of postmodern political correctness. Liberal elites demand tolerance for all things perverse and find intolerable all things righteous.

And so, the final, desperate act of the left-wing, lemon-hocking charlatan is to marginalize, smear and ultimately shut down the competition. As a result, liberals obfuscate, propagandize and strive to silence all dissent. They no longer even try to hide it.

The evidence of this calculated assault on free speech is overwhelming, but the most recent and high-profile examples include carefully orchestrated campaigns by three well-funded, interconnected, George Soros-linked organizations: Media Matters for America (MMFA); the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

After years of trying to censor the conservative voice of Rush Limbaugh, for instance, the George Soros-funded Media Matters recently pulled out all the stops to get him booted from the airwaves.

The pretext was Limbaugh’s unfortunate word choice in describing Georgetown “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke’s attempt to compel the Jesuit university to violate its own Catholic doctrine. Democrats held a mock hearing in the Capitol building wherein Fluke demanded that Georgetown underwrite her admitted fornication practices and fork out free birth control. Limbaugh said this made her sound like a “sl*t” and a “prostitute.”

The hard-left Media Matters pounced, rolling out a pre-packaged campaign against Limbaugh. It has targeted radio stations with ads and continues a floundering crusade to get Limbaugh’s radio sponsors to drop him. Ironically, this has resulted in a revenue increase for Limbaugh, and his already millions-strong listening audience has grown significantly.

Another example of this Orwellian censorship crusade involves the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an outfit that, until recent years, was viewed as a relatively credible civil rights organization. Unfortunately, the SPLC has now cashed in most of its remaining political capital, taking the same cynical path as its fellow travelers over at Media Matters. The SPLC too has become little more than a mouthpiece for left-wing extremism.

In a “too cute by half” attempt to marginalize those who observe the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, or who embrace a constitutionalist view of government, the SPLC has moved from monitoring actual hate groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, to slandering mainstream Christian and tea party organizations with that very same “SPLC-certified hate group” label. Indeed, in its promotional materials and on its website, the SPLC indiscriminately lumps well-respected, highly influential Christian organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association together with domestic terrorist and white supremacist groups.

But the SPLC’s transparent guilt-by-false-association ploy has largely backfired. Whereas the strategy was intended to discourage media outlets from engaging these Christian groups, the scheme has, instead, had the unintended effect of significantly marginalizing the SPLC. You can only cry wolf so many times before people ignore you.

Finally, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has picked up where the SPLC left off. This radical homosexual pressure group recently ramped up its tried-and-true practice of employing the very outrage it purports to oppose: defamation.

One of the left’s favorite pejoratives is “McCarthyism,” yet liberals employ it — as they mean it — masterfully. In an effort to strong-arm mainstream media outlets — already sympathetic to their cause — into blacklisting, once and for all, conservative and Christian professionals who oppose liberal sexual identity politics, GLAAD has issued an enemies list of 36 top pro-family leaders and luminaries (a list upon which yours truly is most honored and humbled to be included).

Engaging a scheme eerily reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, GLAAD’s euphemistically and paradoxically tagged “Commentator Accountability Project” enlists fellow progressives to dutifully report on a designated website anytime a pundit identified on the blacklist appears in media.

Because “hate is not an expert opinion,” GLAAD then takes the reports and browbeats the offending media outlet into disengaging the “inappropriate” conservative pundit.

As feeble justification for its censorship efforts, GLAAD provides a list of out-of-context, cherry-picked quotes — some accurate, some not — the organization finds offensive. This is paint-by-numbers, Saul Alinsky style: Rule 12, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”

In their manuscript, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s” (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard-educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out GLAAD’s approach — something they called “jamming.”

“Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes left-wing sexual identity politics. “Jam homo-hatred [i.e., the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic] by linking it to Nazi horror,” wrote Kirk and Madsen (sound familiar, SPLC?). They go on to suggest that activists should try to associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks” and “Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’”

“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector,” they wrote. “The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable.”

George Orwell famously said: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Today, conservative truth tellers are revolutionaries, fighting a guerilla war against an elitist establishment that blankets free speech with bunker-buster bombs.

Their motives are disgraceful, their tactics are cowardly and their actions are un-American. But these things rank high among the progressive “book of virtues.”

Paraphrasing Voltaire, British author Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

It’s little wonder that today’s progressives reject this noble sentiment. The success of the left-wing socio-political agenda relies upon deliberate suppression of the reality-based conservative alternative.

Such is life for the pamphleteer of bad ideas.

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.

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

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

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

---

Mike Adams - How to Donate to a Dying University

Author’s Note: The present column was inspired by Jim Nelson Black, author of Free-fall of the American University.

From time to time I am asked whether conservative donors should simply boycott leftist universities like my own. The answer is emphatically “no.” If conservative donors all stopped giving, all donations would be liberal donations. That is simply common sense. There is another, better solution born of common sense. It might not have worked a few years ago. But times have changed. The economy has tanked and it really could work today. It is a variation on the idea of directed, or contingent, donations. This involves giving money that is directed towards accomplishing a particular purpose on campus. In other words, it is money given contingent upon the institution’s promise to spend it in a particular manner.

The idea of simple directed donations is a good one. But it does not always work. Some years ago, a Yale University graduate tried to donate 20 million dollars toward launching a curriculum centered on the study of Western civilization. After several years of infighting and turmoil with the Yale Department of History, no progress was made toward getting the curriculum moving. So the donor ended up demanding and getting his 20 million dollars back.

Just a few years ago, a similar effort was made at UNC Chapel Hill. It was a disaster that did not even get as far as the effort at Yale. Progressives organized to successfully prevent a center for the study of Western civilization before the effort really got off the ground. As a result, UNC Chapel Hill lost a lot of money and a lot of potential prestige. It was all because of a few tenured radicals committed to destroying the Western notion of the pursuit of truth through reasoned discourse.

Perhaps some professors and administrators resent these directed donations because they think they are being told what to do. That is both a childish and selfish motivation. But that is why a hybrid between the traditional donation and a directed donation might work better. Let me illustrate with a few hypothetical examples:

An alumnus wants to donate $160,000 to his alma mater in New York. A conservative professor wants to write a book on the history of doomsday prophecies in the natural sciences. Specifically, he wants to write about incompatible predictions used to secure government grants. His book will feature numerous scientists including one who predicted a “coming ice age” to secure federal grant money in the 1970s and then predicted widespread global warming to secure grant federal grant money in the 1990s. The donor offers $80,000 in undirected funds for the university. The other $80,000 sends the conservative professor on sabbatical to write his book. The book is quite successful (extremely successful by academic standards) selling thirty thousand copies in its first year of circulation. Eventually, it sells over 100,000 copies.

An alumnus wants to donate $80,000 to his alma mater in California. A conservative professor teaches First Amendment law there. His area of expertise is campus speech codes and freedom of religious expression and association. The donor offers $40,000 in undirected funds for the university. The other $40,000 is given to the professor as summer research stipend money. It allows the professor to write a series of reports on university policies in place in California that directly violate the First Amendment. The reports are covered in the media. This eventually results in policy changes after the ADF and FIRE become involved.

An Alumnus wants to donate $40,000 to his alma mater in Ohio. The university general fund gets $20,000. The other half is used to fund two prominent pro-life speakers on campus. After the university accepts the money, the speakers become the first and second anti-abortion speakers on campus since Roe v. Wade was decided.

Only a fool would give money to a secular university without any strings attached. That is tantamount to funding an assault on your own time-tested values using your own hard-earned money. Of course, only a foolish university would reject money because it could not control the marketplace of ideas. That is just inviting further weakness in an effort to maintain an illusion of dominance.

Now is the time to get inside enemy gates and begin to effect gradual change. The weakened enemy simply cannot survive without us. They need to realize this. We need to realize it, too.

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.

---