My University, UNC-Wilmington, needs to change its name to The University of No Competition Whatsoever. We could still use the UNCW logo but our full name would more accurately reflect our educational priorities. We already undermine economic competition by promoting Marxism. But now we are considering cutting athletic competition in order to preserve diversity spending in the midst of state budget cuts.
The local Wilmington (North Carolina) McTimes recently reported on a proposal floating through the ranks of the university administration. The following sentence summarizes the gist of the spending cuts, which are expected to save $800,000 annually:
"UNCW would no longer field teams in men's indoor track; men's cross country; men's and women's swimming and diving and softball if the university's Board of Trustees approves the Intercollegiate Athletics Review Committee's recommendations."
Many people are upset at the proposal due to the fact that the men's swimming and diving team has won 12 consecutive CAA titles. They wonder why we would cut the most successful program on campus (athletic or otherwise) while leaving failed programs intact. Their concerns are merited but they miss two other repercussions of the cuts, which will overshadow the loss of our swimming and diving team. I discuss each below:
Blacks and track. We can't cut the men's track programs because most of the black male students at UNCW are on the track team. Maybe there are more black male students than I am aware of - perhaps several more are hiding in the African American Center in order to escape the racial oppression they learn about in African American Studies classes. But most black guys I see at UNCW are running around the track. We need to retain these high visibility black guys. The only other place you usually see black males is on the UNCW website - and I think some of those black guys were imported for PR purposes.
Lesbians and softball. Cutting the women's softball team will kill our efforts to promote homosexual diversity. Our women's softball games attract more lesbians than an Indigo Girls concert. If we get rid of the softball program we will lose over half of our real lesbians. We'll still have a few thousand temporary lesbians but those don't count. They are only lesbians for a few years in college because of the two-to-one campus girl-to-guy ratio.
Since a campus full of white temporary lesbians does little to promote diversity, we need to keep the track and softball teams. But where will the $800,000 in spending cuts come from? Naturally, I have all the answers.
My proposed cuts are listed below in no particular order of importance:
Close the Upperman African American Center. Most of the dozen or so black people we have on campus are too well-hidden. Instead of hiding from white people in a "blacks only" lounge, they should be circulating on campus with everyone else. Closing the Upperman Center will save a couple of hundred thousand a year. Plus, when our black students start to integrate with others we can take pictures of them and post them on the website. No more importing black people for PR purposes.
Close the LGBTQIA Center. These guys spent way too much money last year trying to defeat Amendment One. Now that they have lost, we should shut down this office, which is really nothing more than a lobbying center for gay politics – one that occasionally sponsors a few masturbation seminars to relieve the pressure of high-stress political lobbying. The closure will save us another hundred thousand or so and help us keep the swimming and diving program afloat. After all, we should be rewarding athletic winners instead of rewarding political losers.
Fire Coach Peterson immediately. Finally, we should fire our basketball coach, Buzz Peterson. He can't seem to coach basketball and stay on top of the academic performance of his players. Cutting him would get us halfway to the goal of saving $800,000 per year on our educational budget. Plus, we really don't need a coach named "Buzz" at a school that is notorious for partying.
Many would say that my savings plan has a flaw because we would need to hire another basketball coach to replace Buzz Peterson. But I disagree with that assessment. Under my plan, we would just let the basketball players coach themselves. They couldn't do much worse than they are doing right now. Plus, we'd be able to experiment with utopian society by declaring everyone on the team to be equals.
I'm sure everyone would share the ball equally under my new athletic budget reduction plan. But when your only goal is diversity and inclusion who cares about winning games anyway?
Author's Note: If you don't get this, then you aren't reading enough Walter Williams. Of course, one can never read enough Walter Williams.
I used to be caring and compassionate and liberal. I supported gun control and the “right” of the government to seize a large chunk of my paycheck in order to plan my retirement for me. But, somewhere, somehow, along life's twisted way, I became a greedy capitalist pig. And, truth be known, it's affecting my entire neighborhood.
It all started on New Year's Eve when my friend Adam came by to help me with a small project inside the house. On that Eve, Adam informed me that my property wasn't exactly looking like the Garden of Eden. He suggested that I take the time to paint my front porch, which was beginning to look a little worse for the wear. The winter was mild (and the porch was covered) so I decided to try and knock out the project before classes resumed for the spring semester.
Unfortunately, when I repainted the front porch, I noticed some rot around a leaking gutter. I called Adam to fix the rot and the gutter. Adam focuses on structural repairs and does the very thorough work I can't always do myself given my hectic speaking schedule.
After I finished painting the porch, I decided to go all the way around the house and paint all the trim and windows while I was at it. Truth be known, I was concerned that there might be other rotting areas that had popped up in the five years since I had last painted.
Sure enough, I found two rotted window sills. I had them fixed immediately. While the work was being done, my across-the-street neighbor came over to chat. Realizing he hadn't inspected his upstairs windows and trim in some time, he climbed a ladder and got to work on his house. We both appreciated each other's efforts. In a few short weeks, we both got to look across the street at a freshly painted house instead of a dingy one.
Both of my window rot problems were caused by bushes that had grown against the house and trapped moisture on the window sills. So I decided to have all my flower beds flipped and all the bushes in them trimmed back away from the house. With so much work to do, I enlisted the help of my friend Mark who owns a lawn care business. We managed to shape up the entire property in just a few weekends - just in time for the azaleas to bloom in the month of March. Were it not for my Colorado summers, my North Carolina springs would be my favorite time of year.
The neighbors seemed to appreciate my landscaping efforts. A couple of them stopped by to thank me for motivating them to get to work improving their lawns. I'm not sure why they were thanking me. I wasn't doing it for them. But I'm afraid I'm getting ahead of myself.
When Mark came over, we discovered a problem with a small creek that runs along the line separating my property from my neighbor's. We followed the creek, which dumps into the intercostal waterway about 300 yards from my house. We discovered that some creek obstruction on a contiguous property was causing draining problems on my property. So we solved the problem by planting a grove of four Cyprus trees along the property line. Those trees suck water faster than deficit spending sucks the life out of the economy.
Shortly after planting the trees, I got a call from a neighbor who wished to thank me. It seems that my new row of Cyprus trees was placed perfectly in order to block the line of vision between his back porch and a neighbor's yard that was filled with unused equipment - including four empty boats. He said that my decision to plant those trees would greatly enhance the value of his home and his ease in selling it. Of course, I wasn't doing it for him. Now, I'm not so far ahead of myself.
My decision to start this spring's round of home improvements began with a realization that I needed to give my house a facelift in case I decided to sell it in the near future. I was not motivated by my desire to improve my neighbor's asking price. I was motivated by my desire to improve my asking price. I also realized that my structural rot problems had to be fixed before I closed a sale some time in the future. I could choose between a) having my friend fix it for a reasonable price, or b) operating on the terms of the buyer at a later date.
In other words, all of my decisions were motivated by self-interest. And each of them had a positive effect on other people. But none of the improvements would have been made had I not been personally invested in the outcome. The implications for our current assault on individual ownership and property rights are difficult to miss.
Of course, socialism is a cancer that rots deep inside of structures long before its occupants take notice. The longer we wait to treat it, the more everyone loses in the end.
Students and their parents need to be warned about the latest serious threat to liberty on America's college campuses. They have probably already heard of campus speech codes, anti-discrimination clauses, and sexual harassment tribunals. The latest threat takes the form of "disorderly conduct" hearings. Many readers are wondering what exactly constitutes disorderly conduct. The more appropriate question might be "what does not?"
Of course, it is natural for students to have conflict in college. Many are away from home for the first time and they are just beginning to experience living on a campus together with people to whom they are not related. The transition can be a tough one. It is often compounded when more than two people are living together. This raises the possibility of coalitions, which can cause conflict to escalate.
Sometimes students turn to the administration to resolve conflicts. Other times, the university simply intervenes on its own initiative. Regardless, university involvement generally intensifies the conflict and virtually guarantees that someone will be deprived of due process. Allow me to provide an example.
In a recent case at a UNC campus, a student was embroiled in a conflict with both of her roommates. The roommates did not like her boyfriend and so they filed a complaint about an alleged violation of the visitation policy. Shortly thereafter, the university police arrived at the campus apartment and were invited in by one of the complaining roommates. Police then ordered the student out of the shower to answer questions about the alleged visitation violation.
Naturally, the student was angry about being summoned in a state of total nudity and forced to hurriedly dress in order to submit to a police interrogation. So she raised her voice at the roommates who initiated the complaint. She was then charged with disorderly conduct. And, naturally, the university set up a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Alice's Rules of Evidence - otherwise known as the student handbook.
The student's "disorderly conduct" hearing was characterized by three flagrant abuses of due process that have become routine in student disciplinary proceedings in the UNC system and, in fact, all around the country. They are described below, roughly in order of their importance:
Denial of legal representation. Students are brought into hearings where they face possible expulsion in the middle of the semester. This means they may have paid thousands of dollars in tuition and may receive no credit for their efforts - even if they completed most of the semester's work. University counsel is routinely present at these hearings but students are routinely banned from having their own lawyer present.
Redaction of exculpatory statements. When police gather evidence and conduct interviews, they always turn them over to the Dean of Students Office. There, the evidence is routinely examined by administrators. They quickly make a determination of guilt or innocence. If the accused is guilty in the eyes of the administration, they extract portions of their testimony while leaving the testimony of accusers intact. This virtually assures that there can be no finding of innocence at the "hearing."
Determination of verdict prior to hearing. Normally, the announcement of a guilty or "responsible" verdict is typed up in official document form before the hearing begins. The document also includes an announcement of punishment, which can sometimes mean immediate expulsion. It is simply handed to the student at the end of a "hearing," which is held in order to give the appearance of due process. These kangaroo courts are staged in order to respond to angry inquiries from parents with the following explanation: "We're sorry, but your child did have a hearing before we expelled her."
All three of these routine abuses occurred in the recent UNC case that I mentioned above. The student was expelled in the middle of the semester and also suspended for the fall of 2013. Fortunately, she successfully appealed her case to the Vice Chancellor who reinstated her. But the month-long ordeal disrupted her studies and certainly affected her academic performance for the semester. Too bad the Dean of Students can't be charged with disorderly conduct.
With the help of the Republican legislature, I'm trying to fix these problems that have been ignored for so long by Democrats. Presently, there is a bill moving through the house that will force every public university in the state to allow students the right to counsel in all administrative hearings where they may be expelled or even suspended.
The new bill permitting students to fight back with the assistance of legal counsel will help erode all three of the abuses I have listed above - one directly and the other two indirectly. But we also need to eliminate "disorderly conduct" charges from university handbooks and simply allow the criminal code to function in its place. For example:
If someone is drunk and disorderly, charge him with that.
If someone becomes so disorderly he makes a threat, charge him with that.
If someone becomes so disorderly he throws a punch, charge him with simple assault.
Put simply, there is no need for residual "disorderly conduct" clauses in student handbooks. Like speech codes, they are overly broad and arbitrarily enforced. And they are turning our campuses into modern day fiefdoms.
Don is angry with me. He cannot understand why I support punishing rapists with death while simultaneously defending the rights of the unborn. He accuses me of applying double standards, promoting hypocrisy, and of being "inconsistent." But I am perfectly consistent in my beliefs. And, truth be known, so is Don.
The reason so many people are unfairly labeled as "inconsistent" is because the term "double standard" is applied in such a haphazard fashion. People are actually guilty of applying a double standard when they treat two identical things differently. On the other hand, they are not applying a double standard when they treat two different things differently. They are just applying common sense.
It’s pretty easy to see that I am not applying a double standard in opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. An unborn child is not the same thing as a convicted murderer. In fact, no unborn child has ever committed murder. Forgive me for going out on a limb, here. But we are dealing with different things.
Of course, opposition to abortion and support of capital punishment is perfectly consistent with respect for innocent life. Abortion must be stopped because it takes an innocent life. Murderers must be stopped because they take innocent lives. And nothing deters like capital punishment. No executed man has ever become a recidivist.
Those liberals who claim the lack of a "general deterrence" effect of capital punishment are to be dismissed as smug hypocrites. General deterrence refers to the discouragement of would-be offenders – as opposed to those already convicted of crimes. Of course, general deterrence is not possible when the appellate process extends over a period of decades. The would-be killer is not deterred because he knows that punishment would not swiftly follow his offense. That is due to the almost endless appeals in capital cases. These endless appeals are caused by liberals who block any and all efforts to reform the process. Therefore, they lack the moral authority to protest the condition they have created.
Of course, my desire to extend the death penalty to cover first degree rape does not introduce inconsistency into my worldview. The convicted rapist is not an innocent human being. Additionally, I want to insure that if the victim becomes pregnant, she can kill someone in order to assuage the memory of the rape. Presently, too many people would prefer that she kill the innocent child. I would rather spare the innocent child and kill the guilty rapist. See how I keep coming back to a concern for saving innocent life? You may disagree with me. But at least I’m consistent.
Of course, Don thinks I’m crazy. And there's a reason for that. He likes having sex with a lot of women. In fact, besides smoking pot and bombing my Facebook page, there's nothing he enjoys more than "getting a little strange" - as he likes to say.
Don's sex life is relevant to the discussion because it is the only reason he supports unrestricted abortion. He has an otterbox to protect his iPhone. But he won't wear a condom to protect himself during sex. If the woman won't assume the responsibility he shirks, he must rely on abortion as a back-up plan. Otherwise there would be a lot of little Dons running around - and one less Don Juan hitting the bars looking for some "strange."
Of course, Don consistently employs the rape exception in abortion debates because the issue makes pro-lifers seem calloused towards women. He also uses the rape victims in debates so he can keep using women for sex after the debate is over. I always agree with him when he says a woman has a right to terminate a life in order to help assuage the painful memory of rape. We just disagree on which life should be terminated. Don thinks she should have a doctor kill the baby by dismemberment. I think she should have a prison doctor kill the rapist with a lethal injection - after a fair trial, of course.
Don fights back hard when I say rape should be a capital crime. But he's just being consistent. The more he sleeps around, the greater the likelihood he will be charged with rape. Therefore, it is in his best interest to promote leniency in the law of rape - the kind of leniency he is unwilling to extend to the unborn.
My friend Don says we can’t legislate morality. What he really means is that we shouldn't legislate morality because it would interfere with his sex life. His reasoning is strangely consistent. It is also consistently selfish.
We have problems in America. The most obvious is a busted budget, an overtaxed citizenry (at least for the 53% who pay into the system), another push on gun control, a broken immigration system, a socialist healthcare model and gay marriage rights. The litany of challenges we face goes on. They plague our political discourse with negativity and dissension.
This in a country that can find cures for certain cancers, use technology to discover new galaxies, and perhaps most stunning to this parent, a country that create devices that can hold my children’s attention for more than an hour. And yet why can’t we find a solution to these never ending arguments?
It’s simple, really. Those on the left don’t want America to find a solution! They thrive and survive on the concept of making sure there will always be a victim.
A solution would bring peace. A solution would bring harmony. A solution would also be devastating to the Democratic Party, which thrives on misery and conflict.
Take immigration. The left loves to reignite the immigration debate, if for no other reason than they practically hear the 12 million illegals registering as Democrats every time they hurl around the word “amnesty.” Then they try and invoke sadness by telling stories of families ripped apart by our border, unable to celebrate holidays together because anchor provisions don’t exist. Last, they appeal to our ego by saying American citizens don’t want to do the work these migrant workers perform.
The Republicans play into their trap by offering half-measure solutions and “compromises” which cause major splintering within our own party. Great Tea Party supporters like Sen. Marco Rubio are instantly demonized despite their almost perfect Conservative track record except in this issue.
The truth is the main reason why immigrants aren't going home is because of legislation like this. We are incentivizing people to break the law, just like the 1986 immigration "reform" bill did.
I have sympathy for those who want to become Americans, and those who are here. But I also have sympathy for the hundreds of thousands around the world who want to come here legally. They wait for hours at consulates, go through lotteries, and sometimes that takes years. Why should they go to the back of the line?
Imagine someone breaks into your home and then the police show up and say they can stay because they can't do anything about. Is that going to encourage criminals or discourage them? If we're not a nation of law and order and process than we're not really a nation. It's said the reason we need to pass this law is because we are ineffective at enforcing our existing laws. That's a sad commentary on America.
Gun control is one issue that should unify the Republican base. The other side’s playbook is as tired as it is predictable. There is the constant grandstanding with victim’s family members of mass shootings. What we have yet to see is any press conference held on an inner city street corner with gang members vowing to turn in their handguns.
The playbook also requires trotting out easily punctured myths. Take for example the gun show loophole.” A Bureau of Justice Statistics report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. Gun shows are touted by the left (and right) as a problem- but they’re not.
Pro-gun legislators often will say they’re not looking to ban private sales; they just want background checks to occur. But again, how can a sale be a private sale if it must first be run through a federal agency? But more pressing than any other question, how can ANY of these measures would have or could have stopped Sandy Hook? The gun used was grandfathered in and exempt from an “assault weapons” ban that had been in place in Connecticut since 1994, the mother was allowed to have it. Days before the killing, the shooter went to a Dick’s Sporting Goods to buy a rifle and was denied- the current system worked. He went home, killed his mother and used her gun.
No matter what happens, the left will continue to paint conservatives as bloodthirsty and heartless. The ironic part is that we hear silence from the left when the issue of killing unborn children is raised. Only through the intrepid efforts of a few citizen journalists on the right did Americans ever hear the name Kermit Gosnell.
What would the left do if Republicans proposed a series of bills that gave them everything they have been wishing for yet because the Republicans proposed it, we would get all the credit with the different demographic groups? Would the left fight us as we gave them back a taste of their own medicine, as the Democratic Party would be in certain chaos? I predict we would see that exact same problem occur on the left that is now happening on the right. Infighting, division, demonization, and ultimately implosion would eventually occur, as the Democratic Party would not be able to exist without the concept of a victim. The only problem would be that if we accepted the complete liberal agenda as they propose, America as we know it today would be the ultimate victim.
Author’s Note: I firmly believe that most Americans are not Swift enough to appreciate social satire. I also believe that the best satire is based on real-life events. If you agree, would you prayerfully consider joining my support team? Being a wise acre is a full-time job.
Welcome back students! My name is Biff Latane and I am the campus director of Jesus Crew (or J. Cru for short) here at Denton State University (or DSU for short). Before I tell you more about J. Cru at DSU, I want to take a few minutes to apologize for an episode that occurred during our last meeting at the end of the last quarter.
Abortion is a sensitive issue and I want to assure everyone that it is an issue none of us will have to hear about again during our time together in J. Cru. Regrettably, there was a miscommunication that resulted in a pro-life speaker coming to address us last quarter. One of our officers made the decision to bring the speaker into our meeting. I was not aware abortion was to be discussed until I arrived late for the meeting approximately halfway through the speaker's presentation.
At first, I had no problem with what I heard. The speaker talked for a few minutes about the sanctity of life and the idea that life begins at conception. But then he crossed a line. He stated that RU-486 - even if used early in a pregnancy - results in the killing of an innocent human being. He also suggested that it is the moral equivalent of poisoning an infant. That crossed the line, in my opinion. It was graphic and offensive language that simply will not be tolerated in our meetings. We need to promote tolerance instead. Whether something is true is not as important as preserving an atmosphere of respect as far as I am concerned. I really believe that. And I'm sorry if anyone was offended by the speaker.
Some may have thought it was rude for me to interrupt the meeting and ask our speaker to leave in the middle of his speech. But I used my best judgment in aborting the speech and I have no regrets whatsoever. I can assure you nothing of the sort will ever happen again.
So enough of what we will not be doing this quarter. Let's talk about what we will be doing. First off, we will be distributing copies of Dan Muller's book Pink like Blues on campus. I love Dan's biographies. I've read all five of them. My favorite quote is the one where he says "If I ever leave Christianity, it will not be for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? I mean, like, whatever man." Dan is deep and I can't wait to share his work with students all over our campus. We need to make Christianity accessible by responding to the culture in which we live.
Ok, so that's our first big event on campus. In fact, our book distribution project is our only big event this quarter – aside from my periodic pleas for people to join my support team. So let’s make sure to do a lot of sidewalk chalking to promote it. In fact, that will give us another opportunity to get together again later and clean the sidewalks. There is a time to chalk and a time to de-chalk, I suppose.
As far as the rest of the quarter is concerned, we will be having our weekly meetings all quarter long. But instead of having them on Wednesday they will be moved to Monday. Apparently, the Abstinence Club had to have their meetings moved to Wednesday because they wanted to call it "no hump day." For the reasons I specified earlier, I have no additional comment. The best way to prevent unwanted discussions of abortion is to abstain from having discussions about sex. So let’s move on.
Monday meetings will take the form of pizza parties. We want to avoid Chick-fil-A (for obvious reasons). Clearly, everyone seems to like pizza and no one is offended by it. This brings me to the primary issue I need to discuss with you this evening.
It seems our national headquarters has received a letter from the corporate attorneys at J. Crew. We have been threatened with copyright infringement for printing "Jesus Crew" tee shirts and selling them at some of our campus events. So, for the second time in a few short years, we are forced to change our name in order to avoid conflict.
After much prayer and contemplation, Jesus Crew is changing its name to "The Campus Crusade for Crust." We decided to leave out the name of Jesus, which some consider to be offensive. Besides that, it's really about the pizza anyway. So thanks for coming everyone. Don’t forget to leave your pizza orders on the table before you go. Oh, and before I forget, let me leave you with one more question:
Does anyone feel led to join my support team? Organizing pizza parties is a full-time job
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.
What happens when the U.S. Secretary of Labor visits a church in Charlotte? If an incident earlier this month is any indication, faulty political promises and destructive economic policies continue to spread.
It took place on April 3rd. Acting U.S. Labor Secretary Seth Harris made an appearance at a Baptist Church in North Carolina’s largest city, along with Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx. He was visiting to promote President Obama’s proposal of elevating the federal minimum wage requirement from the current $7.25 to $9.00 an hour.
Harris and Foxx gathered in a large room within a Baptist church building. They sat in a large circle with several “average” (which means “hand-picked, pre-screened, and pre-approved by the Labor Department”) Americans living in Charlotte who work at jobs that pay only minimum wage. As news microphones and cameras caught all the action, Harris facilitated a “discussion” with the minimum wage earning Charlottean’s, and explained how their lives would benefit from the President’s new proposed mandate.
Harris told the group participants that if the minimum wage requirement was raised to $9 an hour, a full-time worker at the current minimum wage would earn an extra $3,500 more per year. A total of 557,000 workers in North Carolina “would directly benefit from that proposal,” he said, noting that President Obama is seeking to “lift people out of poverty” by imposing this new proposed requirement.
It all sounded so good. But in reality, there were problems.
For one, mere laws don’t “lift people out of poverty” – genuine wealth creation does. Using the force of government to mandate that a business owner pays a worker a specific wage does not ensure that wealth is being created. On the contrary, such laws are coercive mechanisms of wealth redistribution, and they only ensure that an increasing amount of existing wealth is taken away from one individual or group and transferred to another.
History, even recent history over the course of our lifetimes, demonstrates this. While roughly half of the world’s population -about 3 billion people - live in measurable poverty today, the other roughly 3 billion are measurably “middle class,” and mostly facing upward mobility.
So what has happened to the more fortunate 3 billion? We have not been “minimum waged” to wealth. We’ve been fortunate to live in countries where we’ve been relatively free to privately own property and advance in the marketplace and amass wealth for ourselves.
The best examples of this have been post-World War II Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, along with the increasingly liberated economies of China and India. Many Americans seem oblivious to this capitalistic, free market transformation that has taken place over the last few decades – surely if we were aware of this we wouldn’t have elected our current crop of politicians who are taking us in the exact opposite direction – but the transformation is nonetheless real.
Another problem with Harris’ promises is that they are based on the false assumptions that government bureaucrats understand the inner-workings of a business than a business owner does, and that government mandates always produce their desired outcomes. Can every small business in Charlotte – or anywhere else in the U.S. – afford to “absorb” the increased labor costs that will ensure with a higher minimum wage mandate? Harris is frequently asked about the un-intended consequences of his policy proposals, and will frequently say “I reject the notion that this kills jobs.”
Did you hear that business owners? He “rejects” it, so it is obviously not a concern. In fact, Harris promised the minimum wage earning Charlotteans that raising the minimum wage requirement will actually improve wages overall, and stimulate job creation.
Harris, by the way, took no time at all in Charlotte to meet with the business owners that would be impacted by the proposed wage mandate. When you have degrees from elite schools, and your work experience is based exclusively in the worlds of academia and law, and you wield the power of government (these characteristics describe both Harris and Barack Obama), it’s easy, apparently, to believe in the infallibility of your ideas. There’s no sense wasting time on the “non-believers.”
For now, Americans have put their collective trust in politicians who have promised to re-distribute us all to a better, “more fair” existence. Let us hope and pray that we see the error of our ways – before the country is irreparably damaged.
President Barack Obama just couldn’t help himself. He saw a pretty woman, channeled his inner Bill Clinton, and swooned over California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris. At a fundraising event, the Commander in Chief described Harris as “by far the best looking attorney general in the country.”
“It’s true! C’mon,” Obama responded, as the crowd roared with laughter in agreement, according to news reports. I wonder what First Lady Michelle Obama thought about her husband’s comment?
Both Harris and Obama were just outside of San Francisco April 4th attending a DNC event to raise money for the 2014 mid-term elections. Obama certainly has his priorities in order. Instead of reducing the country’s mounting debt and deficit, he’s helping Democrats win control of the House.
Not only was the comment sexist but beneath the dignity of the President of the United States. If Obama made such a comment in the private sector about a female co-worker, he likely would have been terminated on the spot and slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit. But American’s can’t terminate our president for behaving badly.
On the flip side, this is a classic example of the liberal media’s double standard for conservatives. If George W. Bush described a female lawmaker as essentially being a hottie, there would have been howls from mainstream press that dominates our news media. But Obama can call CA Attorney General Kamala Harris the "best looking AG in the country" and the media's response to our first black president is, “Go ahead brother,” in so many words.
That’s what Jonathan Capehart thinks. Capehart defended Obama’s loose lips comment about Harris, “a compliment.” You can’t make this stuff up. Capehart wrote:
“President Obama prides himself on telling the truth. And when he reportedly said that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is ‘by far, the best looking attorney general,’ he spoke the God’s honest truth.” You just can’t make this stuff up. In Capehart’s mind-boggling defense of Obama, Capehart reminds us he’s one of “them,” part of elite group of Democrats who’s been in Obama’s presence at the White House.
“And Harris was a guest at the state dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron. (Full disclosure: We were at the same table that night.),” added Capehart.
No matter what this president does, Obama’s loyal flock come to his defense, particularly his black supporters, even if it means overlooking the facts and blatant insults. In 2011, Obama spoke to the Congressional Black Caucus’ Annual Dinner and told blacks they needed to “take off your bedroom slippers, stop complainin, and stop grumblin.” Many conservatives like myself thought the remarks were racist but most blacks didn’t seem bothered and the liberal media was mostly muted on the topic. Former CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver said in 2012 that with the black jobless rate at 14%, almost twice the national average at the time, Cleaver said “if we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House.” But Cleaver said the CBC cut Obama some slack cause he was black.
Back to Capehart, who wrote “judging by some of the comments I’ve seen on Twitter you’d swear the president was guilty of luridly cat-calling a woman he doesn’t know. If I thought for one moment that’s what was going on, you better believe I’d hammer him for it.” That’s exactly what was going on and whether Obama knew Harris or not doesn’t give him a license to reduce a woman of power to her looks.
I guess if Obama kissed Harris on the mouth, Capehart would consider that gesture worthy of “hammering” the president. Instead of lecturing his readers to “lighten up” on Obama, perhaps Capehart should open his eyes and “get serious” in his coverage of the president.
I just had breakfast with the Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg. Well, not the real Peter Muhlenberg, but a preacher friend of mine named Travis Witt. Travis does a powerful impersonation of the Revolutionary War-time pastor-patriot at churches and other venues around the country.
Travis will be in his full Muhlenberg character at The Awakening 2013 on April 19-20 in Orlando, Fla. The Awakening is a life-changing, spiritual-political revival.
But more on that later.
At breakfast, Travis and I were discussing the man Muhlenberg and what he stood for.
One early Sunday morning in January 1776, Rev. Muhlenberg was preaching what seemed his normal weekly sermon. His Scripture for the day focused on Ecclesiastics 3, which observes, in part, “To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.” Muhlenberg continued: “In the language of the holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.”
With his voice reaching a dramatic crescendo and his congregation now captivated, a fiery Pastor Muhlenberg then declared: “There is a time to fight, and that time has now come!” He then tore away his clerical robes, revealing, underneath, the crisply pressed uniform of a Colonial Army officer.
His congregation gasped.
Pastor Muhlenberg then marched to the rear of the church building, turned and shook the walls, declaring, “Who among you is with me?” That very day, 300 brave men from his relatively small church stood with Peter Muhlenberg to become the 8th Virginia Regiment.
Frederick Muhlenberg, the good pastor’s brother, questioned, in a letter, whether it was Peter’s place to fight. Peter wrote back with words as true today as they were then. “I am a Clergyman, it is true,” he wrote, “but I am a member of the Society as well as the poorest Layman, and my Liberty is as dear to me as any man, shall I then sit still and enjoy myself at Home when the best Blood of the Continent is spilling? … so far am I from thinking that I act wrong, I am convinced it is my duty to do so and duty I owe to God and my country.”
I think Peter Muhlenberg set an example for each of us to follow. I think we all owe a duty to God, country and one another to stand up and fight for liberty, regardless of our station in life.
Like then, we find ourselves today in the midst of a revolutionary war. Not a war with guns, but a war of ideals. We battle not against a foreign king, but a man among us who thinks he’s king. We struggle not against a tyrannical foreign government, but a government of our own making – a government that tilts toward tyranny.
We desperately need revival in this country – spiritual, cultural and political revival. It’s time for the next Great Awakening.
While there, you will hear from over 60 of our nation’s top religious and policy leaders, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of the TV show “19 Kids and Counting,” Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and many more.
The early colonialists like Muhlenberg came together in meetings just like The Awakening and looked to God, not government, to guide public affairs. These boldly committed leaders understood that God has given us certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that any government that transgresses against what God gave us has disqualified itself to lead. It has become tyrannical.
Today we face unprecedented threats to our faith and freedom as the government is forcing religious organizations and businesses to provide abortion drugs through the Obamacare mandate. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Our basic liberties and moral foundations are under violent assault.
We have come to a critical crossroads. The future of America will be determined in our lifetime by our actions. What we do now will echo throughout history.
Like Muhlenberg, I ask, “Who among you is with me?” We’re calling for an army of citizen activists – peaceful warriors for Christ, ready to take back America. The Awakening 2013 provides a powerful blend of spiritual, patriotic and grass-roots training that will have a lasting effect on your life and on America. Take a stand for righteousness and justice and join the next American Revolution.
John Adams, our second president, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Indeed, in contrast with the deeply held religious and moral values embraced by our Founding Fathers – men like Peter Muhlenberg – today’s America is governed by an “immoral” and “irreligious” chief executive. Barack Obama is the King George of secular-socialism. He seeks to undermine – if not altogether dismantle – the American exceptionalism that, hitherto, has been fundamentally woven throughout our national fabric. He aspires to the lowest common denominator. He seeks to uproot Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and relocate the “land of the free and the home of the brave” to a much lower altitude, alongside those Euro-Marxist nations he so admires and wistfully desires to emulate.
It was prescience, not paranoia, that prompted some social commentators to predict that gay activism would become the principle threat to religious freedoms in America. A recent incident at George Washington University provides the latest confirmation.
In 2010, the University of Illinois fired a Catholic professor who taught courses on Catholicism in the school’s religion department after a student accused him of hate speech because the professor affirmed what the Catholic Church taught about homosexual practice. After a national outcry and a swift legal response, the professor was reinstated, but the fact that he was initially fired is an absolute outrage.
Now, two gay seniors at George Washington University are seeking to have the Catholic chaplain at the university’s Newman Center removed over his alleged anti-gay stance. (The Newman Center is named after Cardinal Newman and is there to serve the school’s Catholic students who make up roughly 3,000 of the university’s 10,000 students.)
The two students, Damian Legacy and Blake Bergen, have mounted a campaign to get Father Greg Shaffer dismissed, accusing him of being ardently anti-gay and (perish the thought!) anti-abortion as well.
What? A Catholic priest who opposes homosexual practice and abortion? How can this be? What has become of the Catholic Church? (Dripping sarcasm intended.)
According to published reports, “Legacy and Bergen say they are primarily upset about the counseling Shaffer offers. They say he urges students who have homosexual feelings to lead a life of celibacy.”
What else would Shaffer be expected to do when a gay Catholic comes to him for counseling? Encourage promiscuity? Encourage serial, gay monogamy? Encourage redefining marriage so the gay Catholic could “wed” a same-sex partner? And since the priest has committed himself to celibacy and is, hopefully, being faithful to his commitment, is it so outlandish for him to counsel others to be celibate as well? (As a married man, I’m not claiming that I could easily be celibate. I’m simply discussing the situation at hand.)
We are told that Damian Legacy “spent considerable time at the Newman Center during his first two years at George Washington. He was an altar server at mass. He believed that he would become a Catholic priest after graduating.
“All that changed, though, when Legacy told Shaffer that he and Bergen had entered a homosexual relationship. Shaffer allegedly charged Legacy with being immoral and lacking in faith.”
So, the young Mr. Legacy believed that he could be a good, faithful Catholic while being involved in an active homosexual relationship? And he was offended that the priest allegedly told him he was being immoral? Seriously?
Well here’s a newsflash for Damian Legacy: According to the Bible and Catholic teaching, sex outside of marriage (which is only the union of a man and woman) is immoral, be it heterosexual sex or homosexual sex. That’s exactly what a faithful Catholic priest (or Protestant pastor) would tell you, and so, rather than trying to get him fired for telling you the truth, you should be thanking him for caring enough to warn you.
According to Legacy, “To have my faith leader view me that way, just because of one piece of the way that God made me, and to think that one part is responsible for the destruction of my human dignity, it just didn’t…I can’t even begin to describe the mental conflict that it creates.”
Perhaps the priest was trying to help this young man see that he was more than a sexual being and that there was a way to exercise self-control and find a deeper place of satisfaction within his own religious faith? Or is Legacy telling us that God made him in such a way that he was not able to refrain from sex with another man, even while in college? Perhaps the “mental conflict” of which he speaks is caused in part by his actions?
The two students are also upset with Father Shaffer’s statement made after President Obama announced his support for same-sex “marriage” last May, when Shaffer wrote, “As Vatican II states, God is the author of marriage. He has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Every single rational person knows that sexual relationships between persons of the same sex are unnatural and immoral. They know it in their hearts.”
Shaffer may have stated his opinion strongly, but this is hardly over-the-top for a Catholic priest, and overall, he is simply affirming the teaching of Vatican II.
Legacy and Bergen are also distributing “a letter to high-ranking administrators” citing “academic studies connecting homophobic behavior to loss of appetite, insomnia and other detrimental psychological consequences.” (I imagine they will not be citing academic studies connecting homosexual practice with greatly increased risks of contracting deadly STD’s, among other health issues.)
The bottom line is that two students are telling the Catholic chaplain of a university’s Catholic center, “Thou shalt not be Catholic.” George Washington University, what will you do? Will you stand with the right of a Catholic chaplain to be Catholic (and I write this as a non-Catholic myself), or will you will stand with anti-religious bullying?
The good news is that Catholic students are rallying around the chaplain. Perhaps their courage will prove contagious.
I never paid much attention to what Roger Ebert said about movies.
Given that I usually take-in only three or four films a year, Ebert’s analysis of any particular film or actor or “scene” just wasn’t going to be something that would capture my attention.
But the final seven years or so of Ebert’s life offer some seriously thoughtful and thought provoking lessons, for those who still care to learn. Whether you reside on the right or left side of the political and cultural aisle doesn’t much matter. Consider some of the facts of Ebert’s final years, and the implications of his actions.
First, Ebert suffered with multiple bouts of cancer for over a decade, yet he and his wife Chaz Hammelsmith Ebert remained married and supportive of each other. Initially diagnosed with cancer of the thyroid in 2002, Roger would discover cancer in his salivary gland a year later. After being in remission for periods of time, he eventually contracted cancer in his jaw bone (which necessitated the removal of his jaw), and he lost his voice. Through all of this, he and were seemingly inseparable.
The things that the Eberts said and wrote about each other during their roughly twenty years of marriage were sufficiently extraordinary, even for otherwise healthy spouses. Yet despite Roger’s immense health struggles, neither of them seemed to have been deterred. Even in the past few years as a voiceless Roger absolutely needed Chaz to speak on his behalf, both out in public and in television interviews, never once did you see either of them convey anything short of love and respect for the other, and neither of them ever seemed awkward or uncomfortable with Roger’s diminished functioning. In a country where the legal definition of marriage remains a widely contested public policy issue all the while more than half of the nation’s marriages end in divorce, the Eberts, whether they intended to or not, publicly emulated what a marriage should be about -both in sickness and in health.
Secondly, Roger’s determination to remain professionally and publicly active despite his debilitations says some extraordinary things – both about Roger’s character, and about the value of human life itself. Losing your voice and having your face become severely disfigured is undoubtedly awful for anybody, but for someone who makes their living in front of tv cameras, such circumstances could be a career killer.
But not for Roger Ebert. Despite the loss of his voice Roger could still write, and what couldn’t be written Chaz could say for him. That’s how things went for Roger over the last seven years or so. Do an online search and story after story emerges of the Eberts playfully appearing at film festivals and movie premiers, Roger offering his signature “two thumbs up” gestures with Chaz doing the talking.
An extraordinary example of the Eberts’ “grace under fire” appears in a video on Youtube. Roger and Chaz are sitting on the set in a remote studio being interviewed by a CNN Host at the Anchor desk. The Host, noticeably awkward with Roger’s appearance and inaudible gestures, thanks Roger for his courage to continue appearing on TV, noting that Roger had been such a handsome on-camera performer for so many years. Through hand signals, scrawling on a note pad, and some vocal help from Chaz, Roger shoots-back at the host and says “what do you mean I was handsome? I think I’m still looking pretty good!”
The fact is, Roger looked rather odd with his jaw removed, but that apparently didn’t matter to the confident and in-love couple known as Roger and Chaz. The value of one’s life transcends their immediate physical appearance and level of functioning, and Roger’s sustained presence in the public square was a testimony to that ultimate truth. Yet on this point, Roger’s final years were an anathema to those who are quick to advocate for rationed healthcare and euthanasia, believing that people as old and incapacitated as Roger quite naturally have a “duty to die.”
Tragically, during the same week that the courageous Roger Ebert left us, some horrific news broke about Medicare, the federal healthcare program for senior adults. Under the federal Obamacare law, funding for Medicare is being gradually cut to allow for increased expenditures on Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for the poor, and on the Obamacare program itself. As a result, a new trend has emerged: Medicare is increasingly denying treatment to elderly cancer patients (Is this the “change” you were “hoping” for?).
From a raw political standpoint, this makes sense. Sickly senior citizens are a less-viable voter-block than are younger and middle-aged citizens (those who can benefit from Obamacare and Medicaid). But from a moral standpoint this is an abomination. Is the life of every elderly cancer patient as valuable as Roger Ebert’s was? In political terms, the answer is “no.”
Thank you Roger and Chaz for some important lessons. Are Americans willing to learn from them?
As the nation has focused on the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, news from the state of Indiana could prove far more important regarding the nation’s future.
The Indiana Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously, 5-0, that Indiana’s school voucher program, signed into law in 2011, the most expansive school voucher program in the nation, does not violate the state’s constitution.
Those who challenged the law argued that the voucher program is unconstitutional because it allows public funds to be used for religious education.
Not so, said the court. The voucher goes to the families, not the schools. It is the parents who decide how to spend it.
Why do I draw connection between the US Supreme Court’s review of same-sex marriage and this voucher decision in Indiana? And why do I suggest that the Indiana decision may be more important to the nation’s future than whatever the Supreme Court decides on same sex marriage?
Same-sex marriage sits before the Supreme Court today because of the dramatic change in public opinion over recent years regarding the legitimacy and morality of same-sex marriage and homosexual relations. General public opinion is far more accepting today of both than it has been in the past.
What has driven this change?
One obvious place to look is the direct generational correlation regarding acceptance of same-sex marriage. Younger Americans are far more accepting of these values than older Americans.
According to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, approval of same sex marriage among those born between 1928-1945 is 31 percent; 1946-1964, 38 percent; 1965-1980, 49 percent; and after 1980, 70 percent.
So it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the systematic purge over the last half-century of religion and traditional values from our public schools has produced a new generation of Americans with values different from those of their parents and grandparents.
In 1962 the Supreme Court found state-sponsored school prayer unconstitutional. Subsequently, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools (1980), public schools setting aside time for private or voluntary prayer (1985), and “performance of religious activity” at school promotional and graduation ceremonies (1992).
The rationale behind all these decisions was supposedly to preserve and protect religious liberty in our public schools.
But this has not at all what has been happening. The result has not been value free public schools that just teach reading, writing and arithmetic. The result has been to purge traditional religious values from our public schools and replace them with different values – secular humanism.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “all states are somehow involved in sex education for public school children.”
The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, thought it relevant to their mission to issue a press statement about the same-sex marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court. According to their statement:
“Proposition 8 and DOMA (both of which support traditional marriage) aren’t just unconstitutional, they contradict American values of fairness, inclusion, and freedom for all.”
So somehow it is fair and constitutional, in the view of the NEA, that our schools not be permitted to teach right and wrong, as Christians have understood them from the Bible for a few thousand years, while it is fair and free to teach secular humanism in their place.
Thanks to former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who signed into law the Indiana voucher program, and a sane and sober court in Indiana, Indiana helps pave the way for a new birth of education freedom in America in which parents can choose where to send their child to school.
No longer will kids be captive to left-wing brainwashing in Indiana public schools. Hopefully soon this will be the case nationwide.
I, like many Christians, watched in disbelief this past September at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina as the delegates not only voted once, but three times, to deny the reinstatement of God into their platform.
Just minutes later, Mark Alen Siegel, Chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party and nine time State Senator from NY made the hideous statement that, “ The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord.”
Almost immediately, thanks to the power of online media and talk radio, Siegel was asked to turn in his resignation. He also was removed from the campaign program, forty-eight hours later that was put on for Obama’s visit to West Palm Beach Florida. Problem solved with the hope that this was just a solo opinion out of the almost one million residents of Palm Beach County.
However, recently with the exposure of Dr. Deandre Poole, a Professor at Florida Atlantic University, who insisted his students write and stomp on the name of Jesus as a part of a class assignment, one might wonder if there is a pattern of anti-Christian sentiment in Southern Florida? Even more interesting is the fact that Dr. Poole currently serves as the Vice Chairman of the Palm Beach Democratic Party. Yes, the same party that just seven months ago had Mark Allen Siegel as their Chairman.
This could just simply be a coincidence; however, I must question the principles of an organization that puts into leadership people with such radical, anti-Christian attitudes -- especially in light of the national press attention on the Palm Beach Democratic Party following the DNC. Why would they continue to knowingly keep in power individuals with such extreme beliefs? Could it be because the majority of their membership might also embrace that same ideology?
On the flipside, I believe Christians in America are looking for opportunities every day to show our support and stand up for our faith.
How can we forget August 1, 2012 when thousands of people across the country stood in line for hours to support Chick-fil-A when it came under fire for its views on marriage? Or despite Hollywood constantly trying to persuade us that traditional family values have morphed into a Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle, American viewers have overwhelmingly shown their support for shows like the History Channel’s “The Bible” series as well as A&E’s Duck Dynasty, which ends every episode with a prayer.
Christians today have not become more timid as some might like to portray us. Rather, it seems those on the other side have become more bold in trying to desecrate our faith. They have used the vehicle of political correctness to make Christianity look like the religion of hate and used bullying techniques to try and scare away any future followers. They have attacked our religious symbols and celebrations, made children embarrassed to pray in school to Jesus, and removed the Ten Commandments from the hallways of our local governments.
Mathew 27:46 “My God, my God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?’ cried Jesus in his last few moments before he died on the cross at Calvary. Today, almost 2000 years later, considering the pattern of anti- Christian actions, unfortunately not isolated to those Democrat residents of Palm Beach County and the Democratic voters at the DNC, many Christians wonder if there is a line where God will ever forsake us?
My University, UNC-Wilmington, needs to change its name to The University of No Competition Whatsoever. We could still use the UNCW logo but our full name would more accurately reflect our educational priorities. We already undermine economic competition by promoting Marxism. But now we are considering cutting athletic competition in order to preserve diversity spending in the midst of state budget cuts.
